This is a JPFO video via Full-Scale Tactics:
The JPFO almost always puts out good stuff.
Another violent liberal
Via email from Donald W. we have this report:
A former Democratic political operative has been indicted by federal authorities for allegedly planting a bomb in a Clayton parking garage in 2008. The bomb went off, seriously injuring a Clayton attorney.
…
Milton Ohlsen iii nicknamed “Skip” is well known to law enforcement. He’s also well known in Democratic political circles. The feds now say he’s the one who planted a bomb in a garage at 190 Carondolet plaza in Clayton on October 15, 2008.
…
Starting in 2004 Ohlsen was used as a consultant by the Missouri Democratic party. He even had lunch at the governor’s mansion with then-governor Bob Holden.
Quote of the day—John Lott
This case can almost be viewed as if the Obama administration wanted to increase the number of American guns used in crimes in Mexico.
The timing of the “Gunwalker” case is even more troubling since the program got going at about the same time that the Obama administration was trying to claim (falsely) that American guns were showing up in a significant number of Mexican crime scenes.
Is it possible that the Obama administration pushed this program to help gin up more support for gun control in the United States?
John Lott
July 8, 2011
|he Puzzle of ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ — When Will Team Obama Come Clean About Failed Gun Program?
[Is it possible? Of course. The people in this administration are the most anti-gun set of people in the history of our country. But they could also be classified as some of the most incompetent.
I’m still undecided on whether “Gunwalker” was a method to justify support for more gun control or massive incompetence. If it wasn’t intended to justify more gun control then it was a mighty strange coincidence that we had all the “Mexican gunrunner” noise for years at the same time. Can we determine which came first? If Gunwalker started before the “OMG drug cartels have guns” meme started then I’m convinced it was a deliberate attempt to advance gun control. But if the other way around it’s still possible but less likely.
In any case I fully support the Mexicans request that we extradite the ATF, FBI, DOJ, DEA, and any other (BoomershootWife is hoping Obama was involved) criminals to Mexico for trial there on one condition. That condition is that once they get a fair trail and have served their sentences they must ship the bodies back so we can mount their heads on poles on the Whitehouse lawn as a reminder and a warning for others.—Joe]
I thought he already was sidelined
Brady Campaign President, for another two days, Paul Helmke says:
Despite many successes, our work is not done. I will take some time off after helping Brady make the transition to new leadership, but I will never be on the sidelines.
As near as I can tell he has been on the sidelines for quite some time now and his only success was keeping his $250K/year job until his contract ran out. His organization is the equivalent of a 30 year-old lame nag watching the races from the pasture. They were unable to get a single Federal law passed without the support of the NRA during Helmke’s tenure. During that same time we had the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions go our way in direct opposition to the Brady briefs and now only one state does not allow some sort of concealed carry. Helmke and company have fought concealed carry for decades and now the fate of that battle has been completely sealed. All we have left to do is clean up all the horse manure the likes of Helmke has left for gun owners to step in.
So what will Helmke do now? On the gun control front the only direction he can go is down and out. After riding the Brady Campaign into the ground I can’t imagine MAIG being interested in him. The VPC and CSGV don’t have the money and are so far on the sidelines that they need a deep space telescope to see the action.
I think the only thing Helmke is good for now is to be shipped off to the glue factory.
Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb
Yesterday’s win was a wake-up call to Chicago. Today’s motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state’s total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday’s ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago’s gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today’s motion are key components of SAF’s overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.
Alan Gottlieb
SAF Executive Vice President
July 7, 2011
SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN
[They are winning and winning big. Don’t let money be a bottleneck for SAF. Donate and help them win everywhere and every time.
I’m a Life (Defenders Club) member and donate addition money monthly. And remember that donations to SAF are tax deductible.—Joe]
In the endzone
Sebastian defined what he calls “our opponent’s endzone” in regards to Second Amendment activism as, “Basically, they no longer have any real relevance in the public debate.”
We might be there because if this poll is correct it should mean that we can “score at will”:
A poll unveiled Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports offers a glimpse into the mind of American voters. The poll found a majority of Americans like the National Rifle Association (NRA) but have a harsher view of the National Education Association (NEA).
The poll found that 54 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the NRA — with 29 percent holding a very favorable view of the organization which defends the Second Amendment and promotes gun safety; 41 percent of those surveyed view the NRA as unfavorable. The poll found a partisan divide, with 80 percent of Republicans seeing the NRA in a favorable light, 63 percent of Democrats viewing it as unfavorable. A majority of independents — 53 percent — hold the NRA in favorable regard.
Defenders of the Second Amendment could cheer another part of the poll, which found that 56 percent of those surveyed oppose stricter gun control, while only 36 percent back harsher restrictions on the right to carry arms.
I find it telling that no mention of any anti-gun organization is made. When 54 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the NRA what percentage could possibly have a favorable view of the Brady Campaign? And what percentage has even heard of the Violence Policy Center or Coalition to Stop Gun Violence?
If we can keep their coffers full SAF can run play (today–SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN) after play (yesterday–SAF WINS INJUNCTION V. CHICAGO GUN RANGE BAN) with our undefeated superstar Alan Gura. The more we run up the score with these court victories while the opposition is in disarray the better off we will be in the long run.
Quote of the day—Shootin’ Buddy
Rocks in the Great Smoky Mountains are smarter than Paul Helmke. He is the dumbest man in the history of Indiana politics (and that is quite the accomplishment because of the heavy competition here).
Shootin’ Buddy
July 7, 2011
Comment to the post Clueless.
[I’m sure there is a great deal of truth in this statement but I’m more in alignment with Lyle on this one.—Joe]
Knowledge has limits, ignorance does not
The anti-gun people are sometimes their own worst enemy. Even the title, Gun Control: A Long Over Due Argument Still Unresolved, displays Robert Waddell’s profound ignorance. Here is more:
For all the gun enthusiasts who get the Second Amendment wrong by ignoring “a well regulated militia…” portion of the amendment thinking that all Americans have the right to bear arms and that anyone can get a gun without a waiting period or a back ground check or who can just buy a clip that was intended for hunting, maybe hunting people, which is what Congresswoman Giffords’s assailant was aiming for.
…
Ridiculous, but seriously for the gun enthusiasts, the framers of the Constitution never intended that Americans arm themselves to the teeth. In fact, any group that hides behind the barrel of a gun and the skirts of the Bible must have a deep sense of inadequacy. A gun after all is a powerful phallic symbol.
…
Vehemently up holding the right to bear arms, without thought, rhyme or reason kills Democracy every time someone steps up to defend this particular right. Isn’t it the right of the people to be safe from harm?
The Supreme Court ruled in Heller and McDonald that, essentially, all Americans do have the right to bear arms.
The “clip” used in the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford would not be claimed by the manufacture or any gun owner that I know as being particularly well suited for hunting.
I doubt Waddell has bothered to read any of the framers thoughts on the utility of possessing firearms. Or else it is a deliberate lie when he makes claims about their intent. Waddell also demonstrates the validity of Markley’s Law.
“Without thought, rhyme or reason”? Even if you were to ignore the Supreme Court extremely well thought out and reasoned ruling my bookshelf alone would keep Waddell busy reading full time for several months.
He is apparently ignorant of the fact that we do not live in a democracy and that arms in the hands of the individual defend against our right to vote being taken away.
And finally he exposes his most profound ignorance by asking if there isn’t a right to be safe from harm. The answer is an empathic, “No!”. You, and society, have a right to seek justice from those that inflicted harm. But you don’t have a right to be safe from harm. There are very strict laws and sound reasoning behind prohibitions against prior restraint and it is time ignoramuses such as Waddell, Brady Campaign supporters and others to become familiar with the legal barriers to prior restraint because that’s what is coming down the tracks like a freight train. “Prevention of gun violence” is going to get squished like a bug under this locomotive.
Quote of the day–Ilana Rovner
Stung by the result of McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the City quickly enacted an ordinance that was too clever by half. Recognizing that a complete gun ban would no longer survive Supreme Court review, the City required all gun owners to obtain training that included one hour of live‐range instruction, and then banned all live ranges within City limits. This was not so much a nod to the importance of live‐range training as it was a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court. The effect of the ordinance is another complete ban on gun ownership within City limits.
…
The ordinance admittedly was designed to make gun ownership as difficult as possible. The City has legitimate, indeed overwhelming, concerns about the prevalence of gun violence within City limits. But the Supreme Court has now spoken in Heller and McDonald on the Second Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for self-defense and the City must come to terms with that reality. Any regulation on firearms ownership must respect that right.
Ilana Rovner
July 6, 2011
Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO
[The entire ruling could be summed up as telling the city and the lower court that they reversed, “You suck and we hate you.” It’s pretty brutal. As a hint, Rovner, above, was the more sympathetic of the judges. While concurring that the preliminary injunction should be issued against the city she didn’t go quite as far as Kanne and Sykes did.
It was a pleasure to read. There was agreement with so many things we have been saying for decades. That the anti-gun people have dismissed these arguments almost without discussion and to now have a court rule with us is an extreme pleasure. Most importantly they explicitly and repeatedly use the First Amendment as an analog to the Second Amendment. I will not restrain from saying, “We and many others told you so!”
See also Sebastian’s post on the topic.
As a side note which may have some relevance, while an infant Rovner and her mother immigrated to the U.S. from Latvia to escape Nazism.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Mike Summitt
You’re violent, primitive, procrustean, and mentally ill, for the most part, and I want a psychological test administered before any of you are allowed a deadly weapon, which I predict would disarm over half of you.
Mike Summitt
July 4, 2011 on Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook Wall.
[It’s an attempt to dehumanizing gun owners. It’s a lot like what the white supremacists say about people of color. It’s totally without factual support and more accurately could be described as projection on his part.
It’s one of the prerequisites to genocide but don’t let that bother you. Liberals aren’t all violent all the time.
Via a reTweet by SebastianSH of GunFreeZone about their blog post.—Joe]
Revolvernomics
Where is it written that most single action revolvers have to require chambers to be loaded/unloaded individually whereas a double action usually has a tip-out cylinder? For that matter, where is it written that, if one wants to run a revolver in single action, one can’t buy a double action and run it exclusively as a single action, benefiting from the superior reloading system that is the tip-out cylinder?
If Major Schofield had come up with the moon clip back in the 1800s, and called for a double action, he’d have created what might be regarded as a modern revolver even by today’s standards.
It’s my understanding that the moon clip was created as a stop gap measure after W.W. I, allowing .45 ACP ammunition to be used in revolvers, with a minor alteration to the cylinder, at a time when 1911 pistols were in short supply. Why don’t we see more moon clips, which allow faster reloading, used with rimmed cartridges? Instead of carrying speed loaders, you carry the loaded moon clips and drop the whole business into the cylinder.
Cylinders with an odd number of chambers make it easier to place the lock notches in between chambers instead of at the thin spot right atop a chamber. If I were getting a revolver chambered for a high pressure round I think I’d want a seven shooter or a nine shooter.
An 1858 Remington New Model Army, with its change-out percussion (“cap and ball”) cylinder, can be reloaded faster than the later Colt Peacemaker, so long as you have another loaded cylinder. The consumable envelope cartridge of the 1860s can (if you’re willing to risk igniting the powder from the hot residue in the just-fired cylinders while you’re ramming the balls in) allow a percussion revolver to be reloaded almost as fast as the Peacemaker. One problem was their fragility.
The French had combat caliber (10 and 11 mm) metal (pinfire) cartridges and bored-through cylinder revolvers years before the outbreak of our War Between the States. I did not know that.
I can’t fully explain why, but I want a percussion revolver based on the 1858 Remington but with a lengthened and beefed up frame and cylinder so it can safely handle a 250 grain 45 caliber cast lead bullet and 60 grains of FFF black powder. It’s what the Colt Walker should have been. By comparison, the later .45 Colt metal cartridge used a maximum of about 40 grains black powder. That and I want a matching carbine so they can use the same cylinders. No fooling around with reloading metal cartridges – just cast the bullets. Among the reasons I want these is that the way I read the WA State hunting regs for muzzleloader season (last year’s anyway) they’d be legal on deer. Plus I think it would be cool.
Posit
A coercively funded, government controlled education monopoly verses liberty.
I’ll put it another way. Let’s suppose we put that on a national ballot. You have two selections. You may vote for the coercively funded, government controlled education monopoly on one hand, or liberty on the other. Either/or. That’s your choice.
But wait; do you or anyone else, no matter your numbers, have the right to vote against liberty? Why?
Quote of the day—Kevin Baker
To surrender completely to the control of others – either a secular government or a religious one – control that invades every waking action, requires people unwilling to do for themselves. The first step is and must be the destruction of education. People must be prevented from thinking for themselves, from reasoning. George Orwell explained it with “Newspeak” in his novel 1984:
…
That preparation started in the early years of the 20th Century. Thus today we have “politically correct” speech. With destruction of language skills comes the destruction of logic skills – if you can’t read, you can’t integrate ideas new to you. In fact, new ideas are gibberish – words that have no meaning. “Politically free” is a null value to someone planted in the fields of politicism. It’s a weed.
A free society requires an informed and virtuous citizenry.
“Free,” “informed” and “virtuous” have become null terms.
The 21st Century will be a century of struggle between freedom and politicism. Polticism has two competing versions – Marxist and Muslim. Freedom?
Null term.
Kevin Baker
July 4, 2011
TL;DR
[Kevin has some good points. There are even some points that he doesn’t directly address that support his pessimistic outlook. For example, the title, “TL;DR”, is very telling. Our society changed dramatically with instant entertainment. I’m certain that television and even radio are factors in the transformation of our culture into a more ignorant one. We can be mindlessly entertained rather than improving our minds and/or our bodies or producing something of value. The idiot boxes are such a great temptation that instead of doing something productive we take another hit of the entertainment drug. And there is so many “drugs” to chose from. If one doesn’t grab you in the first 15 seconds you change the “channel” until you find one that does grab you. Instant gratification is critical to success of a “channel”. Who in their right mind would be willing to read and understand, let alone write, books like those of Locke and Hobbs (unless it was Calvin and Hobbs) when you have Grand Theft Auto, Entertainment Tonight, and meth available? Those are so much easier to understand and offer near instant gratification. Who has the time to even read a Kevin Baker post? Understand it? Bah! In the grand scheme, it’s almost no one.
The fraction of the population that is capable of that is so small and the fraction of those that would care even if they could understand it that the blip on the vote tally would be impossible to detect in the statistical noise let alone the voter fraud. And the voter fraud will always be aligned against the likes of Kevin.
I understand all that. But I still have, perhaps perverse, optimism for the outcome. While the upside of our near instant communication isn’t as obvious as the downside I still think the potential exists to ultimately prevail. Because we have the ability to communicate to thousands across vast distances at nearly the speed of light and publish we have a incredible advantage over Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Samuel Adams. They were part of a nation of just three million people and built the foundation of most powerful economic and military force the world has ever seen. We have three million or more like minded people in our country now. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are ten times that many. The problem is that those people’s voices have been drown out by the noise from the parasites clamoring for “social justice”, or “their fair share”.
There have been many great civilizations before us that collapsed and some of the causes may even be common to our own. Internal and/or external enemies, exhaustion of natural resources, over population, or even climate changes (you have heard of the little ice age, right?). But our current crises is mostly due to internal enemies with some added pressure by external enemies. As Kevin points out these are the cults created centuries ago by Marx and Mohammad. I think the Marx cultists is doing most of the damage and is the bigger threat. But I think it is possible that even they have reached the zenith of their power and may soon experience a catastrophic collapse even more rapid than our society as a whole.
What the socialist/communist/progressive masses don’t understand is that they are, as Ayn Rand pointed out, looters. And the life of an unhindered looter is only great as long as there is someone left to loot that doesn’t offer meaningful resistance. And they just looted the last “store” on the planet.
The Marxists always describe people in terms of “class”. I think there is a grain truth to be harvested from a class division of people. But it’s not the class division taught by Marx and his cult. The class division I find useful is of producers and looters. And as the economic realities of discovering the last store on the planet has already been looted the looters will either become producers or they will die off. I suspect there will be lots of dead. Most from starvation and disease and a few from being shot by the producers that finally start doing what should have been done a long time ago—protecting their property from the looters.
The instant communication channels will allow us to find other producers and identify looters. This will give us hope and it will enable our cooperation. This is the upside to our technology and may yet save our species from the great endarkenment looming over us. This is an ace-in-the hole that no civilization before us ever had available.
The looters of the future will not be so well camouflaged as the looters of today. Today they have a few leaders who wear suits and smile as they wave to the camera and ask for your vote. In the not so distant future their leaders are likely to live lives that of the last couple of years of Saddam Hussein and meet similar ends. The looters will be hungry, dirty, and run in wild packs. Without the camouflage producers will recognize them for what they are and appropriate action will be taken.
I don’t know the end result of the coming final class struggle. Maybe the looters will destroy the last of the producers and it will be another ten thousand years before a civilization can rise from the ashes. But at this point I don’t think that is a forgone conclusion. I think the producers may have to look the other way as millions of looters become beggars and then finally corpses. They may be millions of tons of rotting flesh to be cleared but the producers may be able to survive the coming apocalypse and end up with a much stronger society two or three generations from now.
Some lessons are very, very difficult to learn. But sometimes you cannot advance to the next level until you master the current level.
I just hope Gerard Vanderleun is wrong and our society can learn the lesson of this level before we have lost all our lives and it is game over.—Joe]
I wish I could shoot like a girl
On rifle she is a force to be reckoned with but Roxanna usually ends up in the middle of the pack at our USPSA pistol matches. Things were different on one stage today. She doesn’t appear to shoot it particularly fast but everyone else “had problems”. She didn’t have any misses and beat us all.
I tweeted about it here.
She asked for the video so here it is with Adam as the Range Officer:
Quote of the day–Brian Malte
What Ohio wants to do is totally different from what we’re seeing elsewhere. It definitely goes a lot further than other states. I would say it goes further also by including sports stadiums, which is a very radical idea.
Brian Malte
Director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
June 18, 2011
Ohio Set to Allow Concealed Guns in Bars, Restaurants
[It’s only “radical” if they don’t look past the end of their noses. Idaho, and I believe Washington, have not had any laws against it for decades and perhaps “forever”. There isn’t a problem with it. It’s time to stop discriminating against people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
He should, and probably does know better. I have to conclude that this is just another lie from the Brady Campaign.–Joe]
Quote of the day–Barbara Scott
You enjoy this way too much.
Barbara Scott
July 2, 2011
[No. She wasn’t talking about sex but almost.
I was mapping out my game plan with the ATF after they said something stupid. Except I think maybe they aren’t as stupid as they appear at first glance. I asked them one little question in response and instead of getting an answer back they went silent. I suspect they realize no matter what they say next it’s going to be embarrassing for them. More details if I ever get a response from them.–Joe]
Helmke is incoherent
Paul Helmke does not know what he is talking about:
Congress allows dealers to destroy criminal background check records after 24 hours, preventing the ATF from learning how well shops are following the Brady background checks requirements.
Dealers don’t have background check records. The FBI does. The dealers aren’t “allowed” to destroy the records, the FBI is required to. The rest of the sentence becomes nonsensical with the corrections applied.
But that doesn’t matter because I can’t even make even sense of some of the things the Brady Campaign (soon to be ex-) President says when there aren’t any factual corrections to be made:
It is time for Washington’s politicians to look out for average people who do not deserve to have unethical gun dealers – and the gun lobby that shields them — pushing illegal guns into their neighborhoods.
Which guns are illegal? Guns the spontaneously disassemble by the time you fire your 100th round? Guns that go full auto and don’t stop when you release the trigger?
And how does a gun dealer push them into a neighborhood? Does this mean the dealer pulls up in your cul-de-sac and pushes a pallet of guns without serial numbers out of his truck onto the pavement? No gun dealer does that—that’s more like something our government would do.
Liberals are violent
As Donald said in the email he sent me, “For your Why are Liberals so Violent file”. The full story is here.
The gist is that Lindsey Piscitell and her friends had “a happy accident” when they spilled wine on the wife of Glenn Beck (Piscitell described him as “Fucking asshole”). One friend, Marissa Barker, upon hearing Beck and his family were in the park with Piscitell Tweeted:
Ew, can you “accidentlly” spill something on him? Or “accidentlly” kick him in the mouth?
We should not be surprised at this. It’s what liberals do.
Quote of the day—Tommy_G
I think it’s time to take guns out of the hands of the government. They have proved to be far too irresponsible too and should not be allowed to handle them. Time to return guns to the people, who are more responsible and know better how to use them.
Tommy_G
June 30, 2011
Comment to Dems to spin Fast & Furious probe into gun-control rally
[Certainly there is sufficient evidence to support this assertion. But I don’t think we need to go that far just yet.
[sarcasm]We just need some common sense gun regulations for them. Any government employee that is allowed to possess a firearm while on the job should be licensed with strict training requirements. All government guns should be registered. All ammunition use should be documented. All of these records must be put online and be publically available.[/sarcasm]
I’m currently listening to the Audible.com version of Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (not recommended if graphic violence bothers you, some of it brought tears). The millions murdered by the police (with some help by the military) with guns is more than sufficient reason to be nearly serious about making a police officer with a gun a “shoot on sight” offense.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Mark Walsh
Illinois is really important nationally. The country needs one state people can look to and see it’s still doing the right thing.
Mark Walsh
June 29, 2011
Director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Ill. likely to see fierce battle over gun control
[And if they were the last state in the union that still had legalized slavery, Jim Crow laws, or outlawed alcohol what would be the response?
Nationally both Illinois gun laws and anti-gun organizations are a disgrace and nearly irrelevant. It’s time to shame them into the dustbin of history.—Joe]