Raymond Ibrahim.

A 37-year-old Muslim migrant in Rome was recently arrested for homicide after he stabbed a Christian man in the throat for wearing a crucifix around his neck. “Religious hate” is cited as an “aggravating factor” in the crime.

To be sure, this is hardly the first “religious hate” crime to occur in the context of the cross in Italy. Among others,

• A Muslim boy of African origin picked on, insulted, and eventually beat a 12-year-old girl during school because she too was wearing a crucifix.
• A Muslim migrant invaded an old church in Venice and attacked its large, 300-year-old cross, breaking off one of its arms, while shouting, “All that is in a church is false!”
• After a crucifix was destroyed in close proximity to a populated mosque, the area’s mayor said concerning the identity of the culprit(s): “Before we put a show of unity with Muslims, let’s have them begin by respecting our civilization and our culture.”

The fact is, Islamic hostility to the cross is an unwavering phenomenon—one that crosses continents and centuries; one that is very much indicative of Islam’s innate hostility to Christianity.

For starters, not only is the cross the quintessential symbol of Christianity—for all denominations, including most forms of otherwise iconoclastic Protestantism—but it symbolizes the fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims. As Professor Sidney Griffith explains, “The cross and the icons publicly declared those very points of Christian faith which the Koran, in the Muslim view, explicitly denied: that Christ was the Son of God and that he died on the cross.” Accordingly, “the Christian practice of venerating the cross … often aroused the disdain of Muslims,” so that from the start of the Muslim conquests of Christian lands there was an ongoing “campaign to erase the public symbols of Christianity, especially the previously ubiquitous sign of the cross.”

This “campaign” traces back to the Muslim prophet Muhammad. He reportedly “had such a repugnance to the form of the cross that he broke everything brought into his house with its figure upon it,” wrote one historian (Sword and Scimitar, p. 10). Muhammad also claimed that at the end times Jesus (the Muslim ‘Isa) himself would make it a point to “break the cross.”

Modern day Muslim clerics confirm this. When asked about Islam’s ruling on whether any person—in this case, Christians—is permitted to wear or pray before the cross, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi, a Saudi expert on Islamic law, said, “Under no circumstances is a human permitted to wear the cross” nor “is anyone permitted to pray to the cross.” Why? “Because the prophet—peace and blessings on him—commanded the breaking of it [the cross].”

There is much more.  He documents many more recent instances of violence against Christians.

But for most American Christians, believers in the premillennial rapture, they will be swept out before any real persecution begins, directly contrary to the balance of history which shows that Christians always live through the mess around them.  Such belief also underscores the silly notion that the Bible was written for Americans, who believe that if they aren’t being persecuted, then it must not be happening.  Tell that to the Christians raped and beheaded in Mesopotamia by the Muslims there.

But where are the Muslims in America, you ask?  To which I reply, are you alive and looking around you?  Do you know what’s happening in the prisons of America as an incubator for Islam?  Do the folks in South Carolina know there is an Islamic settlement, courtesy of the FedGov, in the Upstate region near Spartanburg?  Do you know that this is duplicated all over America, out to Boise and Twin Falls?

Arm up and train up.  You’re next on their list if you are a “cross worshipper” (by which they mean Christian).  Drop those notions that Jesus was a Bohemian, peacenik, hippie, flower child, pacifist).  Your family is counting on you.

Texas Tribune.

After several of their priority bills failed to gain traction, some gun rights advocates said House and Senate leadership failed them. Now they’re calling on Gov. Greg Abbott to veto a line item in the state budget they say would add insult to an injurious legislative session.

But that same line in the state’s $251 billion budget is being viewed differently by other firearms enthusiasts.

While some smaller, homegrown groups view the item — $1 million for a public awareness campaign to promote responsible gun storage among firearms owners — as an affront to the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association says it is unopposed to, though not thrilled by, the public awareness campaign.

Their attention now turns to what Abbott does during the period when he can veto line items in the budget.

Abbott touted the need to promote safe gun storage as part of his school safety proposals in the aftermath of the May 2018 shooting at Santa Fe High School that left 10 people dead and 13 wounded. And with a June 16 deadline to make vetoes, the governor is in a delicate position of trying not to alienate Texas gun-rights activists, while advancing a net of school safety reforms that the Legislature passed.

Texas budget writers authorized the $1 million for the Department of Public Safety to promote gun storage so long as it does “not convey a message that it is unlawful under state law to keep or store a firearm that is loaded or that is readily accessible for self-defense.” The campaign, unless vetoed by Abbott, could include online and printed materials, public service announcements or other advertising. House lawmakers first proposed the idea in a draft of the two-year budget in March, and it was approved by both chambers in May.

“It’s certainly fine and lawful to have a weapon for your own protection,” state Rep. John Zerwas, R-Richmond, the House’s lead budget writer, told The Texas Tribune. “But I think we also need to be aware that it’s not uncommon for a child to access a loaded weapon and inadvertently and accidentally hurt themselves.”

But as some gun rights groups criticize the state’s Republican leadership for not stopping the public awareness campaign — “Speaker [Dennis] Bonnen slipped a $1 million spending spree for the promotion of “safe” gun storage,” reads a news release from Texas Gun Rights. “The House and Senate failed to stop this budget rider,” says another one from Gun Owners of America — others have stayed neutral and say the line-item is small and noncontroversial.

“No ‘mandatory storage’ bill passed,” NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter said. “What passed was a safe gun storage campaign rider that was just several lines in a nearly 1,000 page budget and NRA didn’t oppose it, not that anyone bothered to ask about our position.”

“We’re not sure why $1 million of taxpayers’ dollars need to be used for such a campaign,” Hunter said. “The state can go ahead and do their thing, while we will continue leading the discussion with our own firearms safety training and accident prevention programs — again, at no cost to taxpayers.”

Well then allow me to explain it to you.  This is the first step.  What appears in education first appears in societal pressure next, and then in financial pressure in the way of things like insurance, and then finally in law.  This is the first of several steps the controllers intend to take.

So readers, is that what the NRA should be working on?  “We will continue leading the discussion with our own firearms safety training and accident prevention programs.”  Do you need them to do that for you?

I Stumbled across this website and thought you might be interested.

I’m always hesitant to argue that the controllers’ arguments aren’t based on real math, because it stipulates exactly what they want, i.e., that my God-given rights are a function of mathematics and votes.

They’re not.  But it’s always helpful to see just how easily the controllers are willing to lie to get their way.  They are bad people all the way to the core.

Gun Facts.  The next time you hear about a “scholarly study” on gun control, drop over there to see if they’ve fisked it.  If not, send it to them.

Shooting Illustrated:

What’s mechanical offset and how do you deal with it? If you have an optic on a firearm, particularly a rifle, the line-of-sight through the scope is higher than the center of the bore, and that difference is what we call offset. In other words, when you take a shot the bullet is going to exit the barrel as much as several inches lower than the line of sight.

[ … ]

To check this out, you’re going to need about 50 rounds of ammunition and a target. I suggest you fire three-shot groups, holding center, from 3, 7, 10, 15 and 25 yards. I think you’ll discover that your rounds are striking somewhere around 2 to 3 inches low at 3, 7 and 10 yards. At 15 yards, the group will still be low, but a little closer to point-of-aim. At 25 yards, point-of-aim and your three-shot group should be pretty close to coinciding.

Next, try shooting those same three-shot groups at 3, 7, 10 and 15 yards again, but this time hold high to account for the offset you observed the first time around (remember, the 25-yard group should be close enough to the center to not warrant significant correction). If you hold correctly, you should end up with centered hits at each of the distances. One quick example might be holding 3 inches high at 3 yards. Continue to practice getting used to the various mechanical offsets by shooting snaps—one shot standing from ready—at each of the various ranges until you thoroughly understand your offset holds.

Travis Haley refers to this as “height over bore” in the Magpul Dynamics “Art of the Tactical Carbine,” which is a very good video series.  I highly recommend it.

If this matters to you in CQB, you should check out your correction on a short range.

You might be interested in this.

New York Times:

During his four years as a war correspondent, Pyle was embraced by enlisted men, officers and a huge civilian public as a voice who spoke for the common infantryman. With his trauma in France, he had become one of them. After sharing so much of their experience, he understood how gravely war can alter the people who have to see it and fight it and live it. He knew that the survivors can come home with damage that is profound, painful and long-lasting. It was a truth that he found hard or even impossible to communicate to the readers back home — and it is a truth that is still difficult and troubling now, 75 years after D-Day.

For a writer to be famous in the states is one thing.  For him to be famous and loved by the troops is quite another – loved by the troops because he told their story.

If you haven’t read his reports, you have missed out on an adventure, sometimes dark, sometimes raucous.  But always an adventure.

No, seriously.  He does.

He asked the president if he would now consider banning silencers on guns after the Virginia Beach outrage in which high-capacity magazine were also used.

Trump replied that he ‘didn’t like the idea of them’ and was would ‘serious look at’ banning the noise suppressors.

He added: ‘I don’t like them [silencers]. No body’s talked about the silencers very much, they did talk about the bump stocks and we had it banned and we’re looking at that, I’m going to seriously look at it [a ban].

‘I don’t like the idea of what’s happening, what’s going on is crazy, with schools.’

[ … ]

On the subject of semi-automatic assault rifles, Trump responded to the use of AR-15 high-powered rifles that they were used for ‘sport’.

He replied: ‘Well a lot of them use it for entertainment. They do. It’s really. For some people it’s entertainment, they go out and they shoot and they go to ranges and they have a tremendous amount of fun.

My God.  Can the man construct a coherent thought for even a moment?  What on earth does schools have to do with suppressors?

At any rate, we already discussed his apparent kingly choice to go around the legislative system and single-handedly declare bump stocks illegal.  He’s apparently looking at doing that with suppressors too as we learned.

But what we didn’t know is how little he can actually craft a coherent argument for the ownership of semiautomatic firearms.  He thinks you only have an AR-15 to “have a tremendous amount of fun at the range.”

Tell that to Stephen Bayezes.  Oh and by the way, take a gander at the comments on these discussion threads on reddit/firearms.  Look here and here.

Trump is being increasingly seen as an enemy of firearms ownership.  I don’t believe the polls that show Trump as far ahead as they do.  Those polls ignore the fact that the same level of excitement for Trump won’t be there in 2020 as it was in 2016.  Gun owners may simply stay home.

Trump has no real political sensibilities except Northeastern progressive, and as I’ve mentioned doesn’t even speak the same language we do we.  But his advisors are idiots as well.

Via Uncle, this report.

Uncle asks, “Does he also drive a model T?”

Just one bit of correction.  The words “Model T” should be replaced with “muscle car.”

Washington Examiner:

Four are dead and one is injured in Australia’s second deadliest mass shooting since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania.

A 45-year-old gunman began opening fire with a pump-action shot gun at a motel in the northern city of Darwin before opening fire at other nearby locations in the city’s central business district around 6 p.m. Monday. Pump-action shotguns are largely prohibited in the country under sweeping legislation passed in the aftermath of the Port Arthur shooting, where 35 people were killed.

“He shot up all the rooms, and he went to every room looking for somebody, and he shot them all up,” John Rose, a witness, told Australia’s public broadcaster. “Then we saw him rush out, jump into his Toyota pickup and rush off.”

But with all of those gun control laws, this isn’t supposed to happen.

It looks like at present there are actually five deceased.  Let’s see.  An illegal firearm, out on parole, with an electronic monitoring bracelet.

Where there’s a will there’s a way.  Gun control laws don’t work to stop this sort of thing and everyone knows it.

Avoid crowds, carry guns, and watch your six.

From a reader, The Firearms Patent Attorney:

Poor Wayne.  No one complained that he earns over a million dollars a year leading the NRA ($5M according to Wikipedia).  No one paid attention to whether or not he flies in private jets to NRA events – I don’t know but I assume so.  Questionable but tolerable.  I try to fly first class to industry events and amortizing a $1000 ticket over a hundred meetings at the SHOT Show or NRA Annual Meeting makes it a good investment in reduced stress when every bit of positive energy helps.  If Dallas-area attendees ever want to link up to share a private jet I’m happy to make arrangements.

Pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered.  Leaked documents show that Wayne received hundreds of thousands of dollars in private overseas jet travel, including the Bahamas and Italy (where I understand there was a brief appearance in an NRA video).  A $4000/month apartment for a stunningly blonde “summer intern.”  But what got me was the clothing.  The Wall Street Journal reported:

“Wayne LaPierre billed the group’s ad agency $39,000 for one day of shopping at a Beverly Hills clothing boutique, $18,300 for a car and driver in Europe, and had the agency cover $13,800 in rent for a summer intern, according to newly revealed NRA internal documents.”

I got curious about the clothing and learned both to my pride and my horror that Wayne and I wear the same brand of suits, the unpronounceable Ermenegildo Zegna (“ZAY-nyah”).  The only difference is that I paid for mine (actually, it was an extravagant Christmas gift from Karmen) for about the cost of a fine custom 1911 from a top maker.  You’ll see me in it essentially every day of SHOT, NRA, and NASGW for the next ten years (and probably for ten more years with patched elbows!)  I can afford to change my shirt and tie every day, but not the suit.

So, I was irritated to think that all the regular “end users” that populate the aisles of the NRA show, and who buy the products that keep our industry alive, are paying for the million-dollar exec’s luxury clothing.  Buy your own clothes, dude!  I don’t care if you have to look good on TV – Buy your own damn clothes from your own salary!

As an aside, I did rather well in my taxation classes in law school and recall vividly that under no circumstances is clothing considered a deductible business expense (safety gear and otherwise unusable uniforms aside).  Which makes me idly wonder if Wayne’s accountants are scurrying to file amended returns including the value of as taxable income as I presume one must – my “Zegna” was paid for with after-tax savings just like all your own clothes.

But it gets worse, much worse.

[ … ]

It turns out that blood is thicker than water.  Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors was founded by William A. Brewer III in 1984 and has just 15 attorneys listed on their website.  Doing the math, a $1.5 million monthly bill averages out to $100,000 per attorney, but of course we know that’s not how things work.

Then I learned from a cranky NRA member on Facebook why this small firm might have had an inside track to land the NRA’s plum case: Brewer’s father-in-law is CEO of Ack-Mack, the NRA’s high-dollar PR agency!  Again, I don’t fault the law firm for taking advantage of family ties, and they might well be the best choice for the case whose issues I haven’t even looked into and don’t yet have an opinion on.

But, I’m more worried if the NRA is making BIG decisions in the right way for the right reasons.  Did Wayne himself make the call to steer the eight-figure plum case to the kin of the company that jets him around the world and fills his closet with the finest suits?  Or did the Board make this call, fully informed of all the relationships and possible personal interests?  I hope the latter – maybe one of the 76 Directors can let me know.  Were other firms considered or was it just a remarkable coincidence that the best law firm in the nation to handle the matter was so closely related to the PR firm that received $40,000,000 from the NRA in 2017?  It may be that the law firm is handling more than the legal dispute – they tout PR capabilities so maybe are handling some of Ack-Mack’s duties – I’m only speculating and have no idea.

Sidebar: When the NRA gets its act together again can we please have it stop with the embarrassing and exploitative marketing tactics?  I have to assume that Carry Guard is a terrible insurance choice that exploits the fears of ignorant consumers, and that no sensible business person would opt for.  Same for the cozy relationship between the gold -hawkers on the NRA Magazine cover and taking up precious display space at the NRA Annual meeting exhibition hall – no investment advisor would dream of suggesting investing in rare gold coins.  Precious metals may have a place in a portfolio, but those guys in gold jackets make my skin crawl when I think of how naïve customers think they are making a good “investment.”

And it goes on, and on, and on, including donations to Hillary, and “last year to Beto O’Rourke in his race against stalwart Second Amendment supporter Ted Cruz (my Senator).   And maximum donations (over $10k) to Hillary in 2008 and before, and even to Al Franken.”

We all knew that it was bad with the NRA becoming so festering that the pimple simply needed to burst its puss before it could ever heal.  This analysis takes a deep dive into the puss.

But I do have one comment.  I’d rather have a good 1911 than a stitch of clothing any day.