Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
For those who DON'T read the works of this fine lady, well, you're
fools for not doing so. Here is this week's contribution, on when (and
when NOT) to shoot in self defense.
[Link]
Remember that you may only use
lethal force if you (or others) are in IMMEDIATE danger of death or
serious bodily harm. The better you plan and the better you can
identify that danger, the better the outcome will be. (From my book:
I Am NOT A Victim!
Click
here to learn how to get it at no cost in email.)
One of the most common... and most serious questions asked in my
self defense classes is something like, "How do you know when to
shoot?"
How can anyone know exactly when they are in "immediate" danger of
death or great harm? How can one plan and practice such a thing?
I've given this a lot of thought, and there are no easy answers.
Many instructors and others have written much about it as well, but
after reading a lot of them, I think most make it far too complicated.
When you are faced with a life threatening experience, you will not
have time to consider the philosophy of various writers, or even the
"law" about it. You will be very fortunate if you have time to react
and manage to avoid harm.
Go to the link, and read the rest of the story.
Last week I promised to rate my new gun once I shot it, and today
I fulfill that promise. While visiting my Pop this week, we went to
the range, and I test fired my new Rock Island Armory "Tactical
Compact 1911" in .45 acp. If you recall, I bought one in 9mm a few
months ago. It functioned flawlessly, was quite accurate, but it was
STILL a 9mm. I traded it in towards the same gun in .45 acp (Why do I
carry a .45? Because they don't make a .46!) So, how did it do? First,
some background on RIA. The guns are made in the Phillipines. They
have a decent finish, decent combat-style drift adjustable rear sight,
and a sturdy front blade sight. The adjustable trigger was set to 4.2
pounds (perfect for a carry gun). The trigger was rough at first, but
an hour of dry-firing with a snap cap in place started to smooth it
out (I NEVER do a trigger job on a personal gun until I shoot at least
500 rounds through it, because a gun ALWAYS shoots in). When buying a
gun from Rock Island, remember one thing—they are shipped dry—field
strip it and lubricate it before shooting. Now, to the range. I ran
over 200 rounds of that cheap Tul Ammo crap, 50 rounds of Speer Lawman
ball ammo, and 30 rounds of PMC SJHP. All three types shot to the same
point, with zero malfunctions. I was easily shooting 7 round groups
averaging 1.5-1.75 inches at 7 yards (standard combat range) freehand
and 1.25 inches benched.
Memorial Day is coming soon, and whether you like the idea of a
strong military or not, I like to remember a few heroes for the
occasion—whether we were fooled into joining the fray, were
complicit in creating the fray, or acting to defend the world from
Hitler and his allies, those who answered the call and performed above
and beyond the call deserve to be recognized. And this old man
deserves that respect.
Remember the guy who wouldn't
take the flag pole down on his Virginia property a while back? You
might remember the news story several months ago about a crotchety
old man in Virginia who defied his local Homeowners Association, and
refused to take down the flag pole on his property along with the
large American flag he flew on it.
On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in Edinburg, Texas. That
probably didn't make news back then. But twenty-five years later, on
May 23, 1944, near Carano , Italy , that same Van T. Barfoot, who had
in 1940 enlisted in the U.S. Army, set out alone to flank German
machine gun positions from which gunfire was raining down on his
fellow soldiers.
His advance took him through a minefield but having
done so, he proceeded to single-handedly take out three enemy machine
gun positions, returning with 17 prisoners of war.
And if that weren't
enough for a day's work, he later took on and destroyed three German
tanks sent to retake the machine gun positions. That probably didn't
make much news either, given the scope of the war, but it did earn
Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a Colonel after also serving in Korea
and Vietnam , a well deserved Congressional Medal of Honor.
What did make news... Was his Neighborhood Association's quibble with how the
90-year-old veteran chose to fly the American flag outside his
suburban Virginia home. Seems the HOA rules said it was OK to fly a
flag on a house-mounted bracket, but, for decorum, items such as
Barfoot's 21-foot flagpole were "unsuitable".
Van Barfoot had been
denied a permit for the pole, but erected it anyway and was facing
court action unless he agreed to take it down.
Then the HOA story
made national TV, and the Neighborhood Association rethought its
position and agreed to indulge this aging hero who dwelt among them.
"In the time I have left", he said to the Associated Press, "I plan
to continue to fly the American flag without interference."
As well he should. And if any of his neighbors had taken a notion
to contest him further, they might have done well to read his Medal
of Honor citation first. Seems it indicates Mr. Van Barfoot wasn't
particularly good at backing down.
Medal
of Honor Citation for Van Barfoot. This man can fly ANY
FUCKING THING HE WANTS wherever he wanted. He didn't back down. Nor
should he have. Van T. Barfoot, June 15, 1919—March 2, 2012.
Another story, with reactions from the parents of dead thieves
similar to the parents in last week's story about the man who murdered
one burglar.
[Link]
In a sad story from California,
two
teen boys were killed after breaking into the home of an elderly
woman in the middle of the night. The elderly homeowner has been the
victim of previous burglaries and has been living in fear for months
because of them.
Burglars hit his home twice before. The area is no stranger to
crime that mostly consists of car and home break-ins.
The woman who lived at the home where the teens were shot asked her
brother to stay with her after thieves targeted her home twice before,
including one of the teen suspects shot dead in her home on Sunday.
"He was not an innocent bystander," said neighbor David Keck. "I'm
sorry the little boys or teenagers were killed, but if it's my family,
my family comes first."
Now the families of the burglars have taken to the media to
complain that their sons "didn't deserve to die."
Sorry, people, but the kids are NOT innocent victims—they were
criminals who terrorized an old lady.
Family and friends of two teenage
boys shot and killed inside a home they had broken into are speaking
out.
"They didn't deserve to get killed," said the sister of 14-year-old
Michael Sambrano.
"They were on their way out the door, and I just think it was wrong
that they were shot," said Christina Sambrano.
While family and friends admit the teens committed a crime, they
wonder if dying for their mistake was the only answer.
"I just don't understand why they were shot multiple times and
killed," said Lisa Sambrano.
They died because you didn't teach your children well. You failed
in their teaching of right and wrong. They died from your failures and
from their choices.
This is coming soon.
[Link] In
Japan, a man has been arrested for "printing" a 3D printed gun.
Philadelphia has already banned printing guns.
It's a first: A man has been
arrested for possession of 3-D printed guns, according to a report
from Japan's
NHK news service. Japanese police apprehended the
27-year-old after he posted video of his firearms online—perhaps
not the wisest move in a country with strict gun control laws.
The alleged culprit, Yoshitomo Imura, works at a college outside
of Tokyo. Investigators found five guns, though only two appeared to
be functioning. No bullets were recovered, however (they can't be
printed). The man reportedly said he thought what he was doing was
not illegal.
Yes, coming soon to a precinct near you....
This is an entertaining bit of fiction... for now.
[Link]
But will it REMAIN fiction for very long?
Someone was pounding on the door,
making a terrible racket. Old Jack made haste to open it up.
"I am here to inventory and collect your guns, according to the
recent National Security Order 2015-142. Apparently you failed to take
them down to a collection depot." The big, overweight stooge flipped a
badge out and flipped it back in a bored manner, putting it into his
pocket before Jack could get a look at it. He pushed his way into the
house and Jack hurriedly got out of the way, protesting feebly. He
followed the man into the living room and sat down on the couch.
"Well, I used to have some guns but..." The agent interrupted him,
"...but you lost them all in a boating accident. I've heard it before,
many times. Do you realize that if we search the house and find one
gun, catching you in a lie, you are already going to be serving time?
At your age you may die in a cage. So don't even start with me. We
don't know exactly what guns you have, but we know you have a fair
number due to the NICS checks, and we have a fair guess what they are,
unless you've been doing some trading. And no, we didn't erase that
background check data as the law prescribed. Only a fool would believe
such a thing. So start getting your guns out and piling them on the
table." The agent started examining Jill's items on the coffee table.
He looked up and said, "Well? Snap to it! And have your wife get me a
fucking cup of coffee."
Jack stopped for a minute; then he said, "Do you have a valid
search warrant?"
"Don't test my patience, idiot. That nonsense is all done for, for
as long as the National Security emergency continues." The fat slob
was clearly enjoying himself.
You have to read the rest to find out what happens next. Paul did
an excellent job, it's not very long, and you'll really enjoy it. I
wonder what berries grow best this way? I have a backhoe....
This is not exactly gun-related (a bald-faced lie :^P) but it is
INCREDIBLY important. A friend of mine (Hi, Ann) recently pointed out
that racism is a right. NO, not to enforce racist programs on people,
or to attack others for the color of their skin, sex, or sexual wiring,
but it IS your right to be a racist. It's stupid, pathetic, and a
waste of energy, but it IS your right to hold racist opinions. And
that ties right in with this
[Link]
"Politically Correct Speech", "micro-aggression", "Hate Speech", ALL
of these are ways of talking around censorship. Violating the 1st
Amendment rights of others. High schools banning the American flag on
T-shirts to "keep from offending Mexican students (aren't THEY
Americans, too? But I digress). Colleges banning people from passing
out literature supporting marriage as one man, one woman (Notre Dame,
of all places). Suspending students for saying they don't like gays.
Where does it stop? Jailing American citizens for saying they like a
foreign leader? Never happen, you say? It did. Under Progressive Icon
Woodrow Wilson.
In 1920, a bond salesman walked
into Joseph Yenowsky's Waterbury, Conn., clothing store. Yenowsky was
a tough sell. During their lengthy conversation, Yenowsky told the
salesman he thought Vladimir Lenin, the Russian Bolshevik leader, was
"the brainiest man" in the world. The bond salesmen turned Yenowsky in
to the police for sedition. Yenowsky got six months in jail under a
Connecticut statute.
This was hardly an isolated incident during the so-called "Red
Scare" of the World War I era. In Syracuse, three activists were
arrested for circulating fliers protesting the conditions of America's
political prisoners. The subversive flier quoted the First Amendment.
They got 18 months in prison. In Washington, D.C., a man refused to
stand for the The Star-Spangled Banner. A furious sailor shot the
"disloyal" man three times in the back. When the man fell, the
Washington Post reported, "the crowd burst into cheering and
handclapping." An Indiana jury deliberated for two minutes before it
acquitted a man of murdering an immigrant who'd said "To Hell with the
United States."
A number of conditions were necessary for this totalitarian fever
that gripped America. The law—state, federal and local—was
arrayed against any free speech deemed "un-American." But so were the
people. There was a broad consensus that there was a real threat posed
to the U.S. from abroad—and from within—in the form of Bolsheviks,
anarchists and disloyal immigrants or "hyphenated Americans" (e.g.
German-Americans or Irish-Americans). Woodrow Wilson's administration
fueled this climate. Wilson himself proclaimed that "Any man who
carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to
plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready."
Today, we have politically correct speech. Don't like homosexuals?
Better not say so, or you might lose a job, or get suspended or
expelled from a school. We actually have congresscritters advocating
jailing people who (wisely, I might add) don't believe in the newest
theology, ACG (speaking out against the theory that mankind is causing
the planet to warm up dangerously). And the latest is "microaggression"
These are allegedly racist,
homophobic or sexist statements made by people with no bigoted intent.
Essentially, if someone can rationalize a reason to take offense
that's all the proof required. Microagressions are the new vectors for
the "disease of evil thinking."
Note that this is NOT advocating burning crosses, or beating up
gays, or any other aggressive act. It is simply saying something that
offends another. Are we not Americans? Do we not celebrate different
thoughts? Don't we have freedom of speech? There is NO freedom of
anything if you have not the freedom to think thoughts others do not
like. There is NO Constitutional protection from feeling offended,
folks. Not in the slightest. Although there is great doubt that
Voltaire actually said it, remember these words nonetheless—
"I care not, Sir, for what you have to say, but I shall defend
to the death your right to say it." maybe by Voltaire, maybe not.
In Washington, Democrats
increasingly resort to charges of racism or sexism whenever they hear
ideas they don't like. Democratic House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Rep.
Steny Hoyer have dubbed critics of Obamacare "simply un-American."
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid insists the libertarian Koch
brothers are "un-American." President Obama himself has a knack for
suggesting that he cares about America while his opponents don't. He
also likes to suggest the time for debate is over on the issues where
he's made up his mind.
Defenders of the thought-crime crackdown will fairly insist today
is different from things in Yenowsky's day. Fighting bigotry is an
obvious good, unlike the crackdown on domestic radicals. Yes and no.
Sure, fighting bigotry is right and good, but so is defending the
United States from those who would do it harm. The test isn't in the
motives but in the methods. Today, it is a kind of evil-thinking not
to be part of the war on evil thinking. And so the cause of tolerance
demands evermore intolerance.
I would, however, point out that Republicans do the exact same
thing to people who oppose Christianity and "traditional" marriage.
Most of Y'all know, by now, my take on Old Glory. For those who
don't—well, I don't do flags. Respectful of the feelings of others,
I remain silent during the Pledge. Because I do not pledge allegiance
to ANYTHING. I have allegiance to a lot, but I make no pledges.
However, this one REALLY pisses me off.
[Link]
REALLY, 9th Circuit Court od Appeals? You find in favor of violating
the rights of students who wear the American flag on their shirts,
because it might incite a bunch of Mexican students to violence? What
the fuck do these people do when they pass the town hall? Burn it
down?
The demonstration stems from an
incident in 2010
when four students at the school were told by
assistant principal Miguel Rodriguez to turn their shirts inside out
or go home because the American flag designs were seen as
"offensive" to Mexican students on Cinco de Mayo, a day on which
Mexicans celebrate their heritage.
The incident led to a lawsuit, Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified
School District, in which students claimed their First Amendment
rights had been violated. However, in February the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals sided with the school, asserting that the threat of racial
violence as a result of the t-shirts trumped the right to free speech.
The case is set to be heard by 11 judges after another appeal was
filed.
"The practice of limiting one group's free speech rights because
that speech might cause another group to react violently is known as
the "heckler's veto." It is understood by free speech enthusiasts to
have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights," writes Robby Soave.
Like I said, I do not, generally speaking, take to flags (other
than my Culpepper DTOM flag), although I DO have the Stars and Stripes
crossed with the Stars and Bars on my hat. But in this case, I'd be
wearing my American Flag T-shirt to school, and fuck the principal
AND the 9th Circuit. First Amendment, baby!!
Rape whistles in Colorado. Clear plastic bags in Pennsylvania.
Feeling safe yet?
[Link]
First, this school banned backpacks several years ago. Now, they have
security guards passing out clear plastic bags to students for
carrying personal effects, like BOOKS, through the halls.
The precaution is intended to
"bring an added sense of safety and security during the school day as
the school community continues to heal," district spokeswoman Mary
Catherine Reljac said in a statement.
The move comes three weeks after Franklin Regional Senior High
School student Alex Hribal allegedly smuggled two 8-inch kitchen
knives into the building and went on a bloody rampage in the hall,
knifing kids at random.
Students have been prohibited from carrying backpacks in the halls
for years at Franklin Regional, but they could use drawstring bags to
carry gym clothes, laptops, and other small items.
"Now, students will be required to carry the clear bags during the
school day for these items," Reljac wrote.
Here's a novel idea—armed teachers to defend the kids. THAT will
make them feel far safer than a clear plastic bag. besides, EVERYONE
knows that plastic bags are dangerous—you can suffocate a person
with one....
Now who does this surprise?
[Link]
Take a bullied teenager. Deny them the right to defend themselves.
Tell them that if they fight back, THEY get suspended. Have them get
beaten up, sometimes robbed, humiliated. And then expect them to NOT
get hold of the means of self defense. How about this—We believe
the bullied, and tell them that if they fight back, they get supported,
not punished.
Extrapolating from a survey of
American high school students by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, researchers found that bullied students who are
threatened or injured by a weapon on school property were eight times
more likely to then choose, themselves, to carry a weapon to campus.
More alarming: Bullying episodes have a cumulative effect, vastly
boosting the likelihood that a chronically harassed student will
choose to pack a weapon before returning to a high school, the study
found.
Specifically, bullied students who have endured four types of
aggressive clashes at school—being verbally tormented, sustaining
a physical assault, suffering personal property theft or damage, and
cutting school due to safety concerns—are nearly 49 times more
likely to have recently carried a weapon to school and 34 times more
likely to have carried a gun within the past 30 days, the study found.
Of course, extrapolating is NOT a very good way to run a
statistical survey, but then, this IS a government study. The study
looks at everything from the wrong perspective—they fear the
bullied student fighting back—they fear the victim. how about
stopping the perpetrator the best way known—encourage the bullied
to fight back. And then, don't punish the victim, punish the bully.
Quote of the Week:
"The right of self-defense is
the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of
rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people
to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever,
prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
destruction."
—Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 Commentaries
on the Laws of England.
Time to fire this one off for publication....
Previous
Contents
Next