To begin with, this is your president. This ought to be one of the most shameful things ever said by a sitting president.
"Do you have any words to the victims of the hurricane?"
BIDEN: "We've given everything that we have."
"Are there any more resources the federal government could be giving them?"
BIDEN: "No." pic.twitter.com/jDMNGhpjOz
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 30, 2024
We must have spent too much money on Ukraine to help Americans in distress. I don't…… [read more]
PARKERSBURG, W.Va. – A disturbing video of a West Virginia state trooper pushing a woman to the ground after she engaged him while he aimed his pistol at a dog is going viral.
In the video, just moments after seeing the trooper draw his gun on the dog, the woman is heard shouting, “You can’t do that,” before confronting the officer. The officer then grabs her by the arm and pushes her to the ground.
It is unclear why the trooper drew his pistol at the dog. Troopers were reportedly there after receiving a call about two neighbors having a dispute.
Here is the video.
I speak doggy, so let me translate for the trooper and any other LEOs who might be reading this and regularly face animals.
Dog: “Hey asshole – yea, I’m talking to you! Who are you and what are you doing in my area of operations? Are you a threat or are you here to play? I like to play, but I want to make sure you aren’t here to hurt someone before I trust you. No one properly introduced us.”
That’s about it. The dog’s tail was still feathering around, without biasing right or left (which can be an indicator of other things). No teeth were shown, no lunging occurred, no aggression other than coming out to meet the new person in his area.
If I had been there and assuming I had five minutes with the dog, I would have had him the back yard playing around and running after sticks while the bullies did the boring work of sorting out human psychology. We would have been buddies. There are certain things you do, and certain things you don’t do. It’s always better to have someone properly introduce you to the dog rather than take the only connection you have with the dog and throw her around. Dumb move. Really boneheaded. This is grammar school level stuff, and school boys know how to do better.
Never put your hands towards the dog’s hindquarters unless he knows you well – that’s threatening (Sort of like you wouldn’t walk behind a horse unless you know the horse well, and the horse is a mare or gelding and you let the horse know you are going to do that. Never walk behind a stud unless you want to die). Patting the dog on the head is a privilege you don’t have unless the dog grants it to you. Rubbing the dog on the back is good, usually, and sometimes if he finds it acceptable, I can rub the side of the dog’s head within seconds of meeting him. This is a good first step, just behind a few minutes of verbal exchange.
Voice commands are critical, and voice inflection, tonality and timbre (or tone color) make or break your communications with the animal. Learn it. Practice it. Do it. Take time with it, and if you live in a dense urban area where you cannot work with farm animals, travel on the weekends to a place where you can, or move permanently. It’s that important.
As for the trooper, you embarrassed yourself and your department. You acted like a little bully boy. Instead, you should have learned to adapt and improvise, since you had the most valuable asset at your disposal you possibly could, i.e., the dog’s owner. You threw away your asset and then had nothing.
Via SWJ, Georgetown University has published a report entitled Lone Wolf Terrorism. In it you’ll find this rich bit of analysis.
… a University of Maryland study found that, while radical Islamic terrorism in the United States has increased since the attacks on September 11, 2001, there has also been a continued, if not greater, increase in individual radicalization from the far right. Overall, homegrown radical Islamic terrorism poses no greater threat to the public than other forms of domestic radicalization, but by unfairly focusing on the Muslim community, the USG risks inciting further divisions.
You learn one thing, and you can suspect another. As for what you can suspect (with a fairly high chance of being right) is that if you are a gun owner or believe in the constitution, you fall into that category they call the “far right.”
What you know with certainty is that the idiots at the “think tanks” still have no clue as to the dangers posed by Islam and Sharia law. Thus they are an irrelevant feature to the national security apparatus, shouting nonsense with no one listening, sound and fury signifying nothing. But we knew that before, didn’t we?
CHARLESTON – A Charleston state senator says he will introduce gun-control legislation in response to recent gun violence in his home city.
Democratic state Sen. Marlon Kimpson said the June 17 shooting at the Emanuel AME Church and more recent gun violence show the need for tightening restrictions on gun ownership.
Reading about gun violence in the newspaper regularly, Kimpson said he hopes the state Senate will give his proposals serious consideration when they return to work in January.
“I don’t think there is any dispute that there is a direct correlation between weak gun laws and violence,” Kimpson told The State Monday. “It is within our power to do something about it.”
Kimpson’s proposals would:
Require background checks to be conducted through the State Law Enforcement Division and the federal system before a gun sale can be completed
Ban assault weapons, defined as semi-automatic firearms designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use
Close a three-day loophole that allows some S.C. gun purchasers to buy and take home a gun before a background check has been completed. That rule, and other errors in the federal background check, allowed alleged Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof to purchase a gun.
Require reporting of lost or stolen guns
Require state registration and permitting of all guns
The gun control proposals likely face an impossible uphill battle.
[ … ]
But Kimpson said the Charleston church shooting that killed nine African Americans including a state senator has “opened people’s minds to doing things in the State House that have never been done before.”
Perhaps Kimpson isn’t thinking what I’m thinking when he talks about people “doing things … they have never done before.” At any rate, this bill stands a snowball’s chance in hell of passing in South Carolina.
But let’s recall collectivist Larry Martin of Pickens. The boys in South Carolina have work to do. You need to handle Larry, and then you need to pass constitutional carry. Kimpson can stand back and watch in irrelevance.
David Codrea on Trump on immigration. So I’ll tell you now what I think. He will do an about-face in order to keep all of that cheap Hispanic and Latino labor because business likes it (given that we are supplying corporations with welfare by allowing them to underpay their workers and send them to hospitals as their primary care physician). What he’s saying is well crafted to fool. At any rate, my prediction is that he will disappoint you if you put yourself in his camp.
“the brothers don’t need to attack them in military bases or secured buildings. they can now turn up in their houses. in their homes. this is war, what did you expect? u think u can bomb the islamic state and we don’t do nothing back? soon, very soon you will see.”
Bring it. I look forward to putting a .45 230 grain fat boy in your stomach. And your buddies too.
Mike Vanderboegh on the new Pew poll concerning gun control so-called “conservatives” support. Yea, I saw this too, and I’m not sure what to make of it. Either the poll was a well crafted lie because of the way the questions were posed, or a majority of Americans really do support universal background checks and registration. Either way, it doesn’t matter, which is why I hadn’t posted on this. I agree with Mike. Come and get ’em. Are you prepared for civil war?
The problem is that Mr. Murthy isn’t a real doctor. He may have passed his boards, but that doesn’t mean anything. I know a few engineers who passed the engineering boards and who are a hazard to the safety and health of the public because they’re incompetent.
Mr. Murthy hasn’t spent his life like my family physician, diagnosing prostate cancer and high blood pressure, dealing with the health issues men and women face, watching the elderly die in his care, and working a full day at the office only to work until midnight at home because of the obscene Obamacare paperwork (like my doctor does) our totalitarian president has heaped upon him.
I’ve explained what I would do with one of these doctors who ask questions with which they have no business, but that sidesteps the real issue here. The issue is that if Mr. Murthy was a real doctor he would treat patients and sit by their bedside as they pass away, find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, or some form of cancer.
Mr. Murthy is just another collectivist who looks exactly like the one who nominated him. We know his stripe, we’ve seen a thousand just like him in this administration. In the end it doesn’t matter what post he holds or doesn’t hold. He will pass from the world having done no good for mankind, in spite of the title “doctor.” He will not weep over patients, he will not cure disease, he will not pray over their suffering. He has sold his soul.
He’s just a little boy. Nothing more.
Via Uncle, switching calibers. Dude. I don’t care what caliber you shoot. Learn to hold the gun the right way and lock those elbows. And just to think, I’m not even a SWAT member and know this!
States should take a closer look at how people with mental health issues are flagged in a federal background check system required for firearms purchases, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Wednesday.
Jindal was speaking during the last stop in a five-day trip to Iowa — his first since a man opened fire in a Louisiana movie theater, killing two women before turning the gun on himself.
“There was a shooting in Lafayette and the shooter in that case, I believe, should’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental health hospital and shouldn’t have been able to buy a gun,” the Republican candidate for president told the Westside Conservative Club at the Machine Shed Restaurant in Urbandale.
In 2013, Jindal signed off on two laws that improved Louisiana’s reporting requirements to ensure the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system was receiving information when a person lost their gun rights due to a mental health issue. He said other states should follow Louisiana’s example.
“I’m not for taking any rights away from law-abiding citizens,” Jindal said. “Those that were involuntarily committed, those records were supposed to be going into the national background check. That wasn’t always happening.”
My goodness he has a lot of faith in the “mental health” profession and system for someone who isn’t trying to take rights away from law abiding citizens (and I like the word “peaceable” better than “law abiding”).
As I’ve said before, “As for those who believe in the so-called mental health “sciences,” you may as well believe in voodoo and bow down and worship totem poles or cut your wrists like the prophets of Baal for a god who isn’t there. The mental health “sciences” is the refuge of collectivists and scoundrels.”
Thanks for outing yourself as a collectivist, Bobby. It’s always easier when y’all self-identify.
A group of Alabama sheriffs said Tuesday that current state gun laws limit their discretion in granting concealed carry permits and proposed legislation could further complicate their ability to confiscate weapons from potentially dangerous people.
Louisiana movie theater shooter John Russell Houser was denied a concealed weapons permit in Russell County in 2006. However, Sheriff Heath Taylor said Houser likely would have been given one under legislation passed in 2013 that says sheriffs “shall issue” concealed carry permits instead of sheriffs “may issue” them in cases involving applicants without felony convictions or other outstanding circumstances.
Taylor told a press conference in Phenix City that current law allows sheriffs to deny applications if they can provide reasons to support the denial in the interest of public safety. But he noted that law enforcement decisions may be overruled if the officials can’t provide strong enough documentation or details despite personal knowledge of an applicant’s past behavior.
Republican State Rep. Ed Henry of Decatur said law enforcement officials must simply provide reasons in writing for denying concealed carry permits.
“There’s nothing in the law that says the sheriff has to issue a permit at 18, there’s nothing in the law that removes their discretion, period,” Henry said. “What they can’t do — and what they loved to do before — is deny a pistol permit and not give a reason.”
A portion of the state’s concealed carry law says a sheriff must consider how much time has passed between a questionable incident and the date an application is made. Sheriffs who deny applications are required to provide written statements and evidence unless disclosing those details would interfere with an ongoing investigation.
I didn’t know this about Alabama law. AL.com makes it sound much like North Carolina where Sheriff’s have a right to deny purchase permits – a throwback to Jim Crow laws that helps the Sheriff’s department raise revenue. There isn’t much one person can do about it, since we are unfortunately controlled by Charlotte and Raleigh, two hotbeds of liberalism. Alabama can do better.
So Alabama Sheriff’s have too much control over gun permits (when there shouldn’t be any such thing as a gun permit at all), and they want even more! Totalitarians don’t just live up North. They ensconce themselves wherever they’re allowed, and Alabama had better nip this in the bud. You don’t need boys like that hanging around causing trouble.
I shoot a S&W 1911 E Series, a Springfield Armory XDm, a suite of revolvers and other things, but this convinces me that my next purchase should not be an FNX. This is just unacceptable.
A legal response filed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claims a Freedom of Information Act-related complaint improperly targets them. “The ATF is not an ‘agency’ within the meaning of the F.O.I.A., 5 U.S.C. § 552 (f) (1), and is, therefore, not a proper party defendant,” the response claims . . .
The complaint, filed June 23 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks an order to compel the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request filed in March and ignored in violation of federal law. The FOIA sought copies of policies and rulings relied on in enforcement and determination actions.
The complaint was filed by Tucson attorney David T. Hardy. Plaintiffs include this correspondent, firearms designer and president of Historic Arms, LLC, Len Savage, and the FFL Defense Research Center. The information, as noted in the announcement of the lawsuit, is being sought to ensure consistency in rulings, policies and compliance enforcement.
This is what happens when Congress enables unaccountable totalitarians to enforce their laws. Congress turns out to be pathetic little pussies, and the totalitarians shove everyone around, including Congress. Do you need any more to convince you that the ATF needs to go? No, not to give their functions to the FBI. Just go away and never come back in any manifestation or form at all. Pink slips for everyone – or option two – pack you bags for the border boys. You’re going to be walking a beat at the line to see if any of those guns you sold to the cartels gets used against you.
Mike Vanderboegh needs to talk to some good reloaders. That list would not include me, but I have looked for a .45 carbine before. Didn’t find anything that interested me. The advantage, of course, is that I shoot a lot of .45 and it’s nice to minimize calibers in your gun safe.
Sanders’ idea of the “middle” would also ban semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles–popularly, if inaccurately, referred to as “assault weapons”–and the “high capacity” (gun ban zealot-speak for “standard capacity”) magazines that feed them. This is the “middle”? Sending people to prison for buying the most popular class of centerfire rifles in America is his idea of respecting the rights of gun owners? Prison time for buying an 11-round magazine is the “compromise” he wants to sell us? Outlawing the most useful arms for defense of one’s home, one’s life, one’s family, and one’s liberty is part of the give-and-take he proposes?
Here’s the key. He is “proposing” it. When hundreds of thousands perished attempting to enforce such a ban, he would have to reverse course. The mistake they make is assuming that we will go quietly into the night and give up our rights. There isn’t the slightest chance of that happening.
It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?
Yea, but it would help even more if Cornyn were to fall off the face of the earth.
The latest on the sex and death cult called Islam. Well, it’ll keep happening until someone puts a .45 230 grain fat boy into their belly and watches them bleed out. And then does it to all his buddies too.
The U.S. Marine Corps is sticking with its Vietnam-era, M40 sniper rifle series, despite complaints from scout snipers who say they need the modern, longer-range weapons used by special-ops snipers.
Marine scout snipers are considered to be among the best snipers in the world, but many are frustrated at the limitations of the current M40A5 sniper rifle. The A5 is based on the Remington M700 short-action design that’s chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO, like the original M40 Marines used in Vietnam.
Seasoned scout snipers are deadly accurate with the A5 out to 1,000 meters.
Elite special operations units use sniper rifles chambered in more potent calibers such as .338 Lapua Magnum, a round that allows snipers to reach out to 1,600 meters.
U.S. Special Operations Command is currently in the final stage of selecting its new Precision Sniper Rifle for all of its sniper teams. USSOCOM awarded contracts to Remington Defense and another company in 2013 to make two different versions of the PSR – a multi-caliber sniper rifle that allows operators to choose .338 Lapua Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum and 7.62mm NATO by simply changing barrels assemblies.
The U.S. Army has watched the PSR program, but for now, it is sticking with its Remington M2010 sniper rifle chambered for .300 Win. Mag., a round that allows snipers to engage enemy targets out to 1,200 meters.
Currently, only the most elite Army and Navy special operations units use the MK21 Precision Sniper Rifle chambered for .338 Lapua Magnum.
The Corps will be upgrading the fifty-year-old M40 to the A6 version, which appears to be little more than a stock upgrade. Don’t get me wrong; the M40A6 will be a fine platform for inside 1,000 meters, against unarmored targets.
But we simply don’t live in a world where that is is “enough gun” for either anti-material or anti-personnel use, now that so many of our opponents are issuing body armor that can stop the 7.62 NATO round at point-blank range, much less at preferred sniping distances.
Why are the Marines being stuck with using the same short-action cartridge in a military sniping landscape now dominated by magnum-class cartridges?
Money.
Factory match-grade ammunition for the 7.62 NATO/.308 Winchester family is cheap to manufacture, and the military already has tons of it contracted. Upgrading the M40A6 to even another short-action cartridge with better range and down performance such as the 6.5 Creedmoor would cost more than the meager Corps budget allows. Upgrading to a .338 Lapua Magnum, where both the gun and the ammunition cost more?
[ … ]
But snipers only destroy enemy soldiers and equipment, wreck their morale, cripple their battlefield leadership, and take out key infrastructure while providing a protective overwatch for our Marines on the ground and vital real-time intelligence for our commanders. They don’t create post-retirement jobs for generals, nor line the pocket of defense contractors, or contribute to the reelections of politicians.
The Marines on the ground will be forced make do, as they always have, with outdated equipment.
Thanks, Congress.
And of course, that’s just how the Marine Corps wants you to think about the issue. Thanks Congress! The problem is that this isn’t the whole story. When the U.S. Marine Corps deployed the 25th MEU to the Persian Gulf in 2008, they deployed several Scout Snipers, one of whom I know. He deployed with a .50 “Sasser.” The Marine Corps armory is full of a broad array of weapons, including not only the .308 rifle for DMs, but the .50 Barrett as well. If a Scout Sniper is qualified to the .50 and chooses to, he can carry it on deployments. Be warned. It has to be taken apart and carried on your back, but you can carry it.
As for the venerable .308, Carlos Hathcock made many of his kills with a .30-06 Winchester Model 70 (albeit not a .308). and only used a .50 (modified M2 for his longest kills). Considering the traditional tactics of stalking, shooting and egress, Hathcock is still the most prolific sniper in U.S. history. The ballistics data shows that there isn’t much difference between the .308 and .30-06, and if I was going to chose a new round to shoot as a Scout Sniper (and it wasn’t going to be the .50), I would probably choose the .300 Win Mag. Of course, none of these compare to the effect of the .50 in range, power or capability against armor. Suffice it to say that if the Marine Scout snipers cannot accomplish kills with their .308 rifles, they can with the .50, and they certainly have access to the large caliber rifle if they want it and are qualified to it. They aren’t left wanting when it comes to firepower.
As for the Marine Corps’s decision to train exclusively with the M4 rather than the M16A2 or M16A4 (via Mike Vanderboegh), it must be remembered that the difference between them in muzzle velocity is negligible. In fact, I cannot imagine having deployed my son to Fallujah, Iraq, in 2007, with anything but his SAW or M4 (he was a SAW gunner who sometimes used an M4 if the specific mission called for it). Again, I cannot imagine him having to swing an M1A or M14 through a doorway clearing rooms. It would have been a reprehensible thing to issue something like M1As or AR-10s for CQB (the .308 being much slower to recover sight picture).
The Marine Corps always makes the decisions they need to make to support the mission. When I deployed my son in 2007, his entire Battalion went with M4s, SAWs, M4s with M203 mounted, or Scout Sniper rifles of some sort. The M16s were nowhere to be found. So what’s all this stuff about the Marine Corps leaving the M16 for M4s?
It’s propaganda. The Marine Corps want everyone to think that they are the poorest of the poor, when in reality they threw billions away on the ridiculous EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle), pretending that we are actually going to perform a land invasion from the sea with full armor capabilities like we did in the South Pacific. They Marine Corps has wasted enough money (every MEU is a waste of money) that you shouldn’t feel too sorry for them when it comes to sniper rifles, Owens and his views notwithstanding.
When it comes to the M1A, you should spend some time watching these M1A torture tests.
Finally, you’ve seen about AR-15s in sand, mud and operating bone dry. For the final twist, see them operate with Twinkies installed inside the moving parts. Yes, Twinkies.
