Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 770, May 11, 2014

What's my fair share of it all?

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 5-11-2014
by Neale Osborn

Bookmark and Share

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....

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

Big Head Press