D-DAY Through German Eyes

Posted on by

My brother Doug told me he recently read D DAY Through German Eyes and really enjoyed it. I am almost finished with the second book now. It’s very good. There were a number of things I learned about the weapons the allies had but what I have enjoyed most was what the German soldiers believed they were fighting for.

I didn’t realize the allies had planes and ships that fired rockets. I thought the planes only had guns and bombs. And I thought the only weapons the ships could use against land based targets were their guns and planes from the aircraft carriers.

Some of the rockets had phosphorous warheads. There were also warheads with explosives and ball bearings which were used for anti-personal as well as anti-material. And amphibious tanks! This surprised the Germans too. Some of the tanks also had flame throwers. The Germans really didn’t like the flame throwers. Some refused to go back into battle facing the phosphorous and flamethrowers even though the alternative was an expedited court marshal and execution the same day.

There were Russians who defected on the Eastern Front and joined the Germany army who assigned them to the western front. When the allies took prisoners the Russians were separated from Germans and handed directly over to the Russians. The Russians executed them. There were thousands of them.

One soldier told of the “Browning Assassination Pistol”. From the description it has to be the FP-45 Liberator. What I found most interesting is that the soldier (a military policeman) who mentioned them said thousands of them were distributed in France and probably hundreds of German soldiers were killed by French civilians with them. This is in direct contrast to what Wikipedia says about them.

The MP was guarding a small group of Germany officers the night before D-Day. As the bombing started they went to a private residence set up as a small hotel for the officers. After dinner one of the waitress suggested to one of the officers that he looked tired and perhaps he would like to go to bed (it was implied the waitress went to bed with him). He did. Later the other officers wanted to speak with the “sleeping” officer and the MP went looking for him. He found him in the bedroom, a hole in his head, blood all over, and a “Browning Assassination Pistol” on the floor. All the hotel staff were gone.

Did you know that Germany was actually protecting France? They needed to be protected from the International Socialists to the East, so there was a partnership between the French and Germany governments. The Germans were National Socialists but that wasn’t a threat to the people of western Europe. Germany united Europe. This was good for people of Europe. Why would the Americans and Canadians have a problem with that? Sure, the British hated the French and wanted a piece of France, but the Germany was protecting France from the British and the secret societies (the Free Masons) to the west who were being manipulated by the international bankers.

At least that is what was believed by many of the German soldiers.

Quote of the day—James Comer

Posted on by

Anytime there’s a tragedy like that you hear gun control advocates spin their liberal beliefs, At the end of the day, it’s illegal to carry a gun in a school and it’s illegal to shoot at anybody. And yet this 15-year-old broke those laws. You can’t legislate against evil.

I don’t think there’s a way to pass a bill to prevent something like that. We need better security in our schools. We have a lot of security at our courthouses. How do we increase security at schools? That’s what I’m going to be talking about.

James Comer
U.S. Representative from Kentucky
January 24, 2018
Rep. Comer advocates Goodlatte bill as DACA solution
[A bit of clarification.

You can legislate punishment for evil doers. But you can’t legislate a prevention for evil deeds.

In the case at hand the best solution is probably to legislate the removal of laws. Get rid of the laws that punish teachers and parents who bring guns to school for the purpose of protecting innocent life.—Joe]

Quote of the day—TonyKojima

Posted on by

To hell with your gun “rights”.

TonyKojima
January 24, 2018
[This is typical of what anti-gun people think of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Rights and principles are denied and/or derided.

Be brave and stand up to them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kristin Brown

Posted on by

We’re allowing it to exist.

Kristin Brown
Co-president of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
January 23, 2018
Regarding SHOT Show.
Gun industry converges near site of Las Vegas mass shooting
[Brown has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our government. As I said on Twitter a while back:

I think I see the problem here. You believe the government LETS people do things. It’s the other way around. The U.S. Constitution, written by “We the people”, granted the government certain powers. It didn’t grant them powers to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

And perhaps even more frightening to her is that the government is ignoring the law in allowing her organization to exist. It appears to me they could all be arrested and charged with conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of gun owners. This is a felony.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James A. Garfield

Posted on by

If there be one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire better than another, it is a brave man,—it is the man who dares to look the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil.

James A. Garfield
Found in The book of courage;: A little book of brave thoughts by Edwin Osgood Grover, page 55.
Copyright 1924.
[I was pulling a different book of quotes off a shelf in my library when this little book fell onto the floor. I didn’t recognize it. I don’t remember seeing it before, but I must have. Inside it had my grandmother’s name on it. She died in the early 1980’s.

This quote struck me as applicable to present day politics regarding gun ownership. For decades we have tried to “play nice” and just get them to leave us alone. Read The Gun Rights War (strongly recommended for anyone who considers themselves a gun rights advocate). There are numerous examples such as this, and this. we can conclude Knox is right when he says,

There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.

…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison.

When we are soft and wishy-washy people lose interest and forget that you even said anything. Be firm. Be strong. Have courage and dare to win. Remember that one of President Trump’s most memorable lines from the debates with Hillary Clinton was, “Because you’d be in jail”. And he won. We can win too. —Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

Posted on by

The standard statement by police commissioners and other politicians in high crime cities is “there are too many guns on the street”… I have never heard any of these idiots say “there are too many criminals on the street”.

This is why those are high crime cities.

Paul Koning
January 21, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Adam Smith
[As I have said before:

Problem statements drive the solution. Incorrect and unarticulated problem statements limit the range of solutions.

Defining the problem is sometimes the most difficult. And if you let your enemies define the problem you cannot win. The best you can hope for is that you don’t lose.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adam Smith

Posted on by

There are far, far too many guns in this country.

Adam Smith
U.S. Representative (WA-9)
January 29, 2013
Rep. Smith visits Bellevue High, discusses gun control and I-502
[And if there are “too many guns” what does that suggest needs to be done? Get rid of many of them, of course!

This is my representative in congress.

I have some work to do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan M. Peterson

Posted on by

The national law enforcement organization PoliceOne conducted its Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes. Respondents were asked, “Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds would reduce violent crime?” PoliceOne Survey, Question 6. The results were overwhelming: 95.7% (14,013) of the respondents said “no,” only 2.7% (391) said “yes,” and 1.6% (238) were unsure. This extraordinary consensus by law enforcement professionals that even a nationwide ban on magazines will not reduce violent crime is in stark contrast to the State’s position that banning magazines already possessed by law-abiding citizens is somehow a solution to violent crime.

Dan M. Peterson
January 12, 2018
No. 17-56081
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS AND STATE AND LOCAL FIREARMS RIGHTS GROUPS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
Page 18
An alternate copy of the brief is here.
[The referenced survey is here. An alternate copy of the survey is here.

We have the facts on our side. We have the police on our side. We have the U.S. Constitution on our side. And most importantly we have the moral philosophy on our side.

It’s time we politically crushed those who dare to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms and prosecute the perpetrators.—Joe]

Law enforcement say they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Posted on by

I stumbled across a survey of police officers taken in 2013 on gun policy (back up copy here). Interesting. Very interesting. There were “15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.”

Here are some highlights:

5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?
                                                                                                                                     Response     Response                                                                                                                                       Percent            Count
 

Significant

 

  

   clip_image002[4]                                                                                                    1.6%

 

 227
 

Moderate

 

  

   clip_image004[4]                                                                                               6.0%

 

 885
 

None

 

  

   clip_image006[4]                              71.0%

 

 10,397
 

Negative

 

  

   clip_image008[4]                                                                               20.5%

 

 3,004
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                                     0.9%

 129

                                                                                                                    answered question        14,642

 

6. Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response Response

                                          Percent    Count

Yes

  

   clip_image002[6]                                                                                                2.7%

 

 391

No

  

   clip_image004[6]   95.7%

 

 14,013
 

Unsure

 

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                                1.6%

 238
                                                                                                                        answered question   14,642


7. Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?
                                                                                                                                    Response    Response

                                                                                                                                      Percent         Count
 

Yes

 

  

   clip_image002[8]                                                                                     11.5%

 

  

1,684

 
 

No

 

  

   clip_image004[8]                  79.7%

 

  

11,663

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image006[8]                                                                                          8.8%

 

  

1,295

 

                                                                                                            answered question              14,642

 

11. Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?

  

 

                                                                                                                              Response
                                                                                                                               Percent

Response
  Count
 

Yes

 

  

   clip_image002[10]                                                                   23.0%

 

  

3,334

 
 

No

 

  

   clip_image004[10]                     70.0%

 

  

10,155

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image006[10]                                                                                     7.1%

 

  

1,026

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

   14,515

 

19. Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?

  

 

 

                                                                                                                         Response
Percent

Response
Count
 

Yes, without question and without further
restrictions

 

  

   clip_image002[4]91.3%

 

  

12,968

 
 

No,
only law enforcement officers should carry
firearms

 

  

   clip_image004[4]                                                                    4.1%

 

  

586

 
 

Unsure/Neutral

 

  

   clip_image006[4]                                                                   4.5%

 

  

646

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

14,200


22. Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made? Choose the statement that you feel is most accurate:

                                                                                                            Response  Response

                                                                                                                Percent      Count

Innocent casualties would likely have been avoided altogether

  

   clip_image002[6]                                                                               6.2%

 

 865

Casualties would likely have been reduced

  

   clip_image004[6]     80.0%

 

 11,215

There would have been no difference in outcome

  

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                 4.1%

 

 568

An active gunfight might have resulted in greater loss of innocent  lives

  

   clip_image008[4]                                                                                5.5%

 

 767

Unsure or prefer not to answer

  

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                 4.3%

 

 607

                                                                                                         answered question              14,022

This was what I found most interesting:

14. What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?

                                                                                                          Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count
 

Very Favorable

 

  

   clip_image002                                           48.8%

 

 7,004
 

Favorable

 

  

   clip_image004                                                                      22.2%

 

 3,181
 

Unfavorable

 

  

   clip_image006                                                                                     9.6%

 

  

1,382

 
 

Very unfavorable

 

  

   clip_image008                                                                                        7.2%

 

  

1,029

 
 

Unsure/Neutral

 

  

   clip_image010                                                                                  12.2%

 

 1,753

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

 

15. If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?

                                                                                                           Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count
 

Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort

 

  

   clip_image012                                         44.9%

 

  

6,440

 
 

Not enforce and quietly lead agency in opposite direction

 

  

   clip_image014                                                                    17.2%

 

 2,468
 

Enforce and publicly support the proposed legislation

 

  

   clip_image016                                                                              7.9%

 

 1,132
 

Enforce and quietly lead agency in support of legislation

 

  

   clip_image018                                                                           10.0%

 

  

1,440

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image020                                                                  20.0%

 

  

2,869

 

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

Over 70% have a favorable opinion to law enforcement not enforcing more restrictive gun law!

Over 60% would not enforce more restrictive gun laws if they were Sherriff or Chief! Less that 20% say they would definitely enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Tell this to the politicians who claim to represent you.

Keep this in mind when you consider your response to more restrictive gun laws.

Quote of the day—Mark Walters

Posted on by

His redirection of the story (intentional or not) right back to criminals and guns reinforces to an already uninformed (ignorant) audience that guns and gun owners are evil, period. To completely ignore the real story, that a group of Democrat lawmakers tried unsuccessfully (with taxpayer dollars) to use a covert ATF operation against law-abiding Americans to push a leftist gun-control agenda, undermine our constitutional rights and failed miserably in the process, is precisely why Americans distrust his profession.

Mark Walters
January 17, 2018
Garbage Reporting In, Garbage Reporting Out – Lawful Gun Owners Get the Shaft
[If it doesn’t fit the narrative it doesn’t get coverage.—Joe]

Interesting reaction

Posted on by

I never would have guessed this would have happened, Hawaiians watched a lot of porn after fake incoming missile alert.

The Tweet from Pornhub:

Stress relief? If so, you might say it’s another application of Dr. Joe’s Cure for Everything.

But it could also be a decision to enjoy themselves while they can because they never know if it will be their last chance.

Posted in Sex

Researcher bias

Posted on by

Interesting study:

The mere presence of weapons can increase aggression—called the “weapons effect.” Weapons are theorized to increase aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. This research tested the robustness of the weapons effect using two large representative samples of American adults (total N = 1,097). Participants saw photos of criminals, soldiers, police in military gear, or police in regular gear with guns. Experiment 2 also included a condition with photos of Olympians with guns used to shoot inanimate targets. The control group was police in plainclothes without guns. The accessibility of aggressive thoughts was measured using a word fragment task (e.g., KI_ _ can be completed as KILL or KISS). Photos of individuals with guns used to shoot human targets primed aggressive thoughts, regardless of whether a “good guy” (soldier, police) or “bad guy” (criminal) held the gun. Photos of Olympians with guns used to shoot inanimate targets did not prime aggressive thoughts.

I think the author was “primed” with their own conclusion. When I think of “kill” in the context of a “good guy” with a gun I don’t think of aggression. I think of it as a strong defense.

See also the fairly neutral, Here’s what can happen to your brain and body when you shoot a gun.

Quote of the day—Alex Arabian

Posted on by

A large group in our government and of our citizens still refuse to admit that gun control and gun violence are correlated; it’s an antiquated, backwards viewpoint that needs to be extinguished.

Alex Arabian
January 17, 2018
SHOT: A Gripping, Timely Pro Gun-Control Thriller
[This is what they think of you.

It would appear to be a safe bet that Arabian doesn’t understand that correlation coefficients can be negative or positive and what that would mean. It’s certain, from reading the entire article, they don’t know the facts about dramatically increased number of firearms in this country is simultaneous with dramatic declines in violent crime rates. With such an erroneous base Arabian then concludes that contrary viewpoints need to be extinguished.

What do you have in mind Alex? If the shadow banning doesn’t work will you move on to reeducation camps?

It doesn’t really matter. The answer is no. And long before we run out of ammunition saying no to Arabian’s plans their viewpoint will have grown dim and died.—Joe]

Replacing a fiber optic front sight

Posted on by

I was looking at the latest issue of USPSA FrontSight Magazine last night and found that 93% (IIRC) of the Limited class shooters at nationals this year used guns with fiber optic inserts in their front sights.

Son-in-law John (and USPSA grandmaster) works for Shooters Connection. Here he shows how to replace a fiber optic insert:

Quote of the day—Sheila Stokes-Begley

Posted on by

The government and the liberal leftists with their paid bodyguards think normal little people, us unwashed masses are “dangerous”. I would ask why they think that? What is it they want to do that they think we will resist, and they want to remove the most effective means of resistance we have? The tools that make us dangerous. They haven’t yet figured out it’s what’s in our head, not our hand that makes people dangerous. Dangerous. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend not all that long ago. A person can be dangerous, and they can be good or evil. It’s not that fact that they are dangerous you need to fear. It’s whether they are good or evil. I want to be dangerous. I want to have the ability to protect myself and my family. I want to be dangerous.

Sheila Stokes-Begley
January 3, 2018
New Years Eve or Sylvester Night
[Only evil fears the good. Only evil wants to make the good less dangerous.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Todd Herman

Posted on by

Senate Bill 6146 and its House companion, HB 2666, would allow local governments — cities and counties — to determine their own gun regulation laws. With this passed, Seattle will sprint toward a massive and expensive over-reach for gun control in Washington state by attempting to ban all guns.

This will accomplish several things. The Seattle City Council will enjoy virtue signaling again; they will please their base of genital-hat wearing, business-hating, permanent adolescents. They will spend massive amounts of taxpayer money and they will create record spikes in gun purchases and massive donations to pro self-defense groups. Lastly, City Attorney Pete Holmes, who loves heroin use in Seattle, may get a free trip to Washington D.C. to lose in front of the Supreme Court.

Todd Herman
January 15, 2018
Washington gun control: Dems and Inslee play games
[You might think “ban all guns” is an exaggeration. But remember, Seattle already bans the carrying of slingshots and Airsoft guns. Do you think they will find real guns any more palatable?

Even if they don’t ban the possession of everything except the home possession of the exact model of gun Heller took home in Washington D.C. you can safely bet the result will be an extreme chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. See also this blog post comparing gun ownership in the U.S. to the plight of Jews in 1931 Germany.—Joe]

Anti-gun bills in Washington State

Posted on by

I received an email from Firearms Policy Coalition this morning:

The
State Senate Law and Justice Committee is going
to hear FIVE anti-gun bills THIS MORNING!

The
myriad of anti-2A legislation that this would bring is devastating.

  1. SB 6146 would allow local mayors and city governments
    run ramshod over your 2A rights.

  2. SB 6049 would ban any magazine that holds over 10
    rounds.

  3. SB 5463 would hold gun owners criminally liable for a
    thief breaking into their home.

  4. SB 5992 is the ridiculous “Trigger Activation Device”
    ban that would effectively outlaw most firearms accessories.

  5. SB 5444 which is the crown jewel of gun control:
    Washington’s “Assault Weapons” Ban.

We need to take action on these bills
NOW!

Stop These Anti-Gun
Bills!

There’s
very little time left for us to make our voices heard and block
them!

Send
a message to your legislators and tell them to OPPOSE SB 6146, SB 6049, SB 5463, SB 5992, and SB 5444 today!

If you click on their links it will take you to a web page that allows you to easily send letters to your Washington State legislative creatures.

Quote of the day—Gene Ralno

Posted on by

All gun laws are poor investments. Administration of them costs tens of millions, accomplishes nothing and merely annoys the most lawful, peaceable segment of our population. Bump stocks are the latest of leftist howls heard after every shooting.

Gene Ralno
January 9, 2018
Comment to Letter: Gun control
[And as mere howls should be either ignored or enjoyed as one enjoys listening to the howls of coyotes in the distance while sitting on your porch on a summer evening.—Joe]

Shooter report

Posted on by

Paul and Louise visited us from Canada this weekend. Paul was in the U.K. military and had a fair amount of experience with rifles but very little experience with handguns. Recently they purchased handguns and took some classes. Then Paul decided he would like to get into reloading. I showed them my reloading set up and talked quite a bit about it with them. Why I reload, some tips on reloading he probably won’t find in the YouTube videos, and why I have some of the equipment.

Barb and I took them to the range and Paul had his first experience shooting an AR and Louise shot a rifle for the first time. Among other firsts were shooting a gun with a suppressor.

20180114_113006

I did a little coaching with Louise but Paul was doing very well without much input from me. We probably went through about 400 rounds total of .22LR and .40 S&W. It was a good day and you can see the indicator of that with the new shooter smile on Louise’s face.

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing. If you have been living in a world where outcomes are everything, you may have a very hard time understanding bureaucratic thinking or practices.

Thomas Sowell
November 27, 2003
Random Thoughts
[And so it is with the bureaucracies associated with gun ownership and explosives storage.—Joe]