Articles by Herschel Smith

Via reader Fred Tippens, Yahoo:

And thus I carry a gun all the time, for predators of the four-legged kind and the two-legged kind.  The two-legged concern me more than the four-legged, but it’s best to be prepared.

It may have been a Coyote, but more than likely a mixture such as Coywolf.

JMW:

Privately owned warships are so deeply at the heart of American maritime tradition that a reference to them is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. With their own contract crews who rushed to the fight for independence during the American Revolution and in defense of the nation during the War of 1812, the private warships successfully waged naval guerrilla warfare against the world’s most powerful fleet. Private warships also fought the Barbary pirates in the nation’s first foreign war.

The privateers of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were much different from the private military contractors (PMCs) and private security contractors of today. They operated as independent businesses, chartered by Congress and bonded to ensure observance of the law, but, unlike PMCs, they were free of the military chain of command. They served the national interest not as government contractors, but made their profits by attacking enemy shipping—especially commercial shipping, on which the enemy’s economy depended. Those on the receiving end viewed privateers as glorified pirates. But the U.S. government viewed them as legitimate weapons against the commercial engine that fueled the enemy’s armed forces. Several European powers also used privateers at sea.

By necessity, American naval warfare at the time was asymmetrical against the overwhelmingly superior Royal Navy. From the very beginning, the leaders of what would become the United States of America turned to the private sector to do cost-effectively and efficiently what the government could not do at all. Before independence, in April 1776, the Continental Congress voted to issue commissions for “private ships of war” to attack the British. Borrowing from established French and British practices, the Continental Congress authorized the issuance of “letters of marque and reprisal” for the owners and captains of private warships to attack enemy vessels. In one of the Founding Fathers’ earliest regulations of private business, the Continental Congress legislated how the private naval forces and their commanders and crew would conduct themselves, and required privateer owners to post bond to guarantee compliance.

The “letters of marque and reprisal” language appears in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution.

I ran across this excellent analysis a few days ago and thought it would be good to remind my readers of the American tradition.

So the next time someone says to you, “You don’t really believe that the second amendment protects your right to own military hardware do you, that means you could own a tank?”

You can say to them, “Why yes, yes I do, and yes it does, in the best tradition of the American states and our founders.  For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”

lIJR.com:

In January, the Denver City Council approved a ban on the possession of bump stocks and police have told people they need to turn them in. More than two months later, police have not received a single one.

Denverite reports police told gun owners that if they “are in possession of a bump stock, and would like to turn-in their bump stock to the Denver Police Department, they can do so at any Denver Police Station.”

The council approved the ban by a vote of 11-1. “Congress failed to act. The legislature had not acted. And I saw an opportunity for Denver to lead the charge and create the momentum that we desperately need,” said Alan Kennedy-Shaffer, who introduced the measure.

The measure that was passed also removed the “grandfather clause” that enabled people to have a magazine with a capacity of 15 rounds or more if they bought it before 2013.

Well what the hell did you expect?  Get used to it.  This is good practice for when you expand that magazine ban across America, and for when you ban AR-15s.

Or as they say, “No.  Your move.”

Breitbart:

Their announcement comes after an anti-Second Amendment campaign resulted in over dozen companies cutting ties with the NRA. It also follows a New York Times’ suggestion that Visa and Mastercard could circumvent Congress and restrict “assault weapon” sales by refusing business with “assault weapon” manufacturers and/or dealers.

According to CBS San Francisco, Visa received a petition with 150,000 signatures, asking the credit card company to refuse to process purchases of “assault weapons.”

Visa responded, “We do not believe Visa should be in the position of setting restrictions on the sale of lawful goods and services.”

Well good.  I guess it’s possible to win these skirmishes after all, although I don’t know the decision process they went through.

Via WRSA, John Robb has written an interesting entry on the social network war on guns.

When it comes to politics, it should be of no surprise to anyone that we’re in uncharted, nonlinear territory now.

Weaponized social networks have seized control of the political process from the traditional political parties and their media gatekeepers.  They are in charge now and, more importantly, they are rapidly evolving.  Getting more powerful with each passing day.

Here’s a good example of how that evolution could could quickly (nearly overnight) go non-linear and plunge us into civil turmoil.

One of the weaponized social networks I’m currently covering is a loosely connected network built on a newly emergent consensus morality (#metoo, etc.).  A consensus that it uses to successfully wield social, and increasingly, political power.

This moral network recently expanded with the addition of the #neveragain movement, after the Parkland shootings.  In the past, a movement like #neveragain would be focused on gun control through changes in government legislation.  Now that it’s part of this weaponized moral network, that focus is going to change.

Why?  This weaponized network isn’t interested in just changing legislation.  It’s far more ambitious than that.  It wants to change everyone‘s behavior and it is building the means to do it.

I think in the main, John is right in his assessment.  Usually in more formal philosophical circles, morality is considered personal behavior, and of the formal divisions of philosophy – metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and ethics – the last category of ethics is considered politics.  It pertains more to public behavior and punishment for failure to meet standards.

What this network is doing is combining the two, morality and ethics.  They are coupling both legal pressure and expectations for personal behavioral.  Because the Christian church in America is so weak and won’t teach its congregants about self defense, tyranny and the like, and because America has lost its cultural foundations, their efforts (the anti-gun social networks) are largely being successful.

Consider.

A number of stores have now decided to stop selling AR-15s or ammunition, and did you know that this includes military PXs?

The sign says, “Ammo clips, magazines and accessories policy update: The Exchange and MCX will no longer sell magazines and clips with a capacity of 11 rounds or higher. These items are no longer available in store or online at shopmyexchange.com; this includes marketplace vendors such as Sportsman’s Guide and the RSR website.”

Kroger has decided even to stop its sales of magazines that discuss certain kinds of weapons, including AR-15s.  The children have yawped and yammered, and people are listening.  In fact, as if totally unexpected, republicans in tight races are now embracing gun control.

There is a problem with all of this.  The social networks don’t have the guns – gun owners have the guns, and aren’t willing to give them up.  This all sets America up for a head-on collision in the coming months and years.  Unless the social networks and politicians back down, there will be blood spilled over this, and it has little to do with guns.  It all has to do with control.

Suffice it to say that Sebastian’s take on this – “Gun owners all need to “come out of the closet” and make it clear we are normal people. We do not have blood on our hands from the school shootings” – won’t do anything to placate the controllers because clarity and correction isn’t what they’re after.  Actually, this is Joe Huffman’s take on it that Sebastian cites, but Joe is as confused as Sebastian if he thinks that demanding that the controllers ignore us will do anything but show weakness and encourage more of the same.

On the legal end of things, how would you like to pay an excise tax of 50% on ammunition?

This transcript (which was bot-generated, so it’s not fit for human consumption unless you’re patient and forgiving), is interesting and informative.

So a little research battle kings mountain which you may be familiar with just west of here over in Cleveland county. Was one of the turning ports in the American revolution. And in researching that battle … One of the things I found Is that for people who were in the battle where they knew their ages. Over eighty of the participants were under the age of eighteen.

So don’t bother me with debates about why 18-year olds cannot be trusted with rifles unless you want to live under British rule.

Via Codrea, this from Daily Signal.

1. Harris County, Texas (2013)

A 15-year-old boy saved both his life and the life of his 12-year-old sister by fending off a pair of home invaders with his father’s AR-15.

2. Rochester, New York (2013)

Two armed burglars retreated from a college student’s apartment after coming face-to-face with an unloaded AR-15. The rifle itself instilled enough fear to cause them to flee.

3. Ferguson, Missouri (2014)

During the Ferguson, Missouri, riots, nearly all businesses within a particular 2-square-mile area of the city were looted or destroyed—except for one. African-American men guarded the gas station and convenience store of a white friend from looters and rioters. They did so armed with an AR-15, a MAC-10 “machine pistol,” and a variety of handguns.

4. Houston, Texas (2017)

A target of a drive-by shooting successfully fended off the attack by using his legally owned AR-15 against his three armed attackers. He was able to hit all three men in the moving vehicle.

5. Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (2017)

A homeowner’s 19-year-old son used an AR-15 to defend himself against three would-be burglars who broke into the home in broad daylight. The 19-year-old was later determined to have acted in justifiable self-defense.

6. Sutherland Springs, Texas (2017)

After a gunman opened fire on congregants inside First Baptist Church, a man living near the place of worship grabbed his AR-15 and engaged the shooter. The shooter subsequently dropped his own firearm and fled the scene as the courageous neighbor pursued him.

7. Oswego, Illinois (2018)

A man with an AR-15 intervened to stop a neighbor’s knife attack on a pregnant woman. The rifle’s “intimidation factor” was credited as a reason why the attacker dropped his knife.

8. Catawba County, Illinois (2018)

After his 17-year-old relative successfully used his own firearm to fend off three would-be robbers who attacked him in the driveway of his home, a man used his AR-15 to stop a threat from one of the would-be robber’s upset family members.

Nice list, and thanks to author Amy Swearer for compiling it (most of which I’ve covered, just not compiled).  However, she missed the case of Mr. Stephen Bayezes who defended himself and his wife from home invaders.  There is also the case of Patrick Hale who apprehended two criminals who might have taken life again.

David Codrea quotes:

“The Sheriff says he and Governor Ducey feel it’s not practical to arm teachers because they’d have to become as well trained as deputies.”

Yawn.  Good grief.  It’s just putting rounds on a silhouette.  I’m more interested in the myth-telling the Sheriff wants to do.  They just won’t stop with this notion that the cops are there to protect people.  As we’ve seen, nothing could be further from the truth.

It’s entirely legal for them to watch a shooting go down while eating donuts, only to effect the arrest after it’s all said and done.  Hell, they could probably even neglect to effect the arrest and only get fired for failure to follow procedures.

If you trust the cops with your safety, you’re an idiot.

mySA:

A gruesome scene unfolded Friday night as Bexar County Sheriff’s deputies discovered dead and dismembered animals in a West Bexar County home after receiving calls that animals were being sacrificed.

Deputies responded to an animal cruelty call in the 11400 block of Bronze Sand Road about 7 p.m.

When deputies arrived, they saw more than a dozen people inside the garage of a residence where a woman was cutting up “animal parts,” while another person was draining the blood of a chicken into a container, according to Sgt. Elizabeth Gonzalez.

“It appears that they were having some sort of unknown ritual,” Gonzalez said. “They were speaking a different language the officer did not recognize.” Gonzalez explained the responding deputy is fluent in English and Spanish.

During the investigation deputies found multiple dead and mutilated animals inside the residence as well, including “goat heads” and more chickens, Gonzalez said.

[ … ]

The people arrested were Alexander Gene Campos, 23; Ivan Felipe Gonzalez, 24; Carmen Maria Gonzalez-Trujillo, 41; Cynthia Gabriell Martinez, 29; Liza Mercado, 46; Marie Galan Murcia, 65; Ramon Patino Jr., 65; Luiz Rodriguez Ortiz, 41; Robert Talamantez, 55; Irma Garza Talamantez, 64; and Arteaga Ariel Torres, 39.

Hey, there’s a commonality among the names.  I know there is, but I just can’t put my finger on it.  Also, this seems to be what MS-13 does with people.

But diversity is our strength.

Vox:

Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.

Other countries have done exactly that. Australia, for example, enacted a mandatory gun buyback that achieved that goal, and saw firearm suicides fall as a result. But the reforms those countries enacted are far more dramatic than anything US politicians are calling for — and even they wouldn’t get us to where many other developed countries are.

Always remember that.  The progressives who really understand what’s going on know that in order to disarm the American public would require taking a “huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.”

But here his understanding stops, because he thinks the American people will acquiesce to a buyback.  Either this is a red herring or he’s stupid.

It may be a red herring and he knows there will be untold bloodshed and doesn’t care, or he’s stupid and thinks that something that worked in Australia will work here, where armed resistance is the amelioration for tyranny, always has been, and always will be.  Or said another way, being armed is the amelioration for tyranny if and only if it is exercised, and apparently the Australian people didn’t want to go down that road, being “subjects of the crown” and all of that.

We won’t give up our guns.  If Dylan knows that, then he also knows that the notion that confiscating guns wouldn’t end bloodshed – it would cause it to crescendo into a river of red.  But be careful, Dylan.  If you’re not armed, you won’t fare well in a period of armed resistance.  Fair winds and following seas isn’t the way your life will be described.