Articles by Herschel Smith

It happened in Independence, Missouri when a man saved his wife, daughter and thirty other people from a potential shooting, where the hero dropped his weapon, raised his hands, and the police promptly shot him after saving those people.  Now it’s happened with another potential mass shooting in Texas.

As news of the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida dominated the airwaves this week, a massive hostage situation—which was quickly turning into a mass shooting situation—was foiled by a hero in a church. That hero, however, is now in the hospital after police showed up to the scene and shot him.

The situation was well on its way to becoming one of the deadliest shootings in history as the gunman took over 100 people hostage inside the Faith City Mission church on Wednesday.

“They said there was a gun in the building everyone started running all different ways,” said Clay Murdock, a student at Faith City Mission.

According to WLOX, Murdock said he tried to get as many people inside their sound room as possible.

“We’re standing in there and everyone starts praying,” said Murdock. “I went outside to see what was going on if I could get more people in there and right when as I went outside the guy was standing right in front of me with the pistol.”

Murdock then ran outside.

According to the Amarillo police, the initial call came in around 8:45 a.m. and indicated that there was an armed suspect inside who was holding 100 people hostage.

Sergeant Brent Barbee told reporters that when officers breached the building, they encountered an individual who had a handgun.

“The officers fired shots that struck the man,” said Barbee. “After some additional investigation, they’ve learned that the man that [had] the gun may have taken the firearm away from the original suspect in the call. The man who originally had the gun has been taken into custody.”

Later that day, police clarified that they indeed shot the wrong man.

As I’ve said, stay away from the police.  It’s best not to involve them in anything, ever.  They are the most dangerous people on the roads, in the neighborhoods or anywhere else.  At least with criminals you know what you’ve got, what to expect and how to respond.

With the police, you know they’re going to overreact, ignore their backstop, and put their own safety above that of everyone else.  But if you react to the police in a manner you need in order to protect yourself and your loved ones and neighbors, the courts will hang you.  You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.  Only the police are safe when they invoke their procedures.  That’s by design.

David Codrea:

“If all the sudden you couldn’t buy an AR-15, what would you lose?” Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich asked on CNN, talking about new citizen disarmament edicts he’d favor in the wake of the Stoneman atrocities. “Would you feel your Second Amendment rights would be eroded because you couldn’t buy a God-darned AR-15?”

No Johnny, I wouldn’t feel that my rights to gun ownership – that is, any kind of gun I damn well pleased to own – eroded at all, since they don’t come from you, your opinions, or a piece of parchment.

Yes Johnny, the second amendment would have been infringed even more than it has been, and it is a covenant between the government and the people.  That infringement will have eroded the peace and stability of the nation.  That is what will have changed.  You can count on it.

NYT:

For the past year, chief executives have often talked about the new sense of moral responsibility that corporations have to help their communities and confront social challenges even when Washington won’t.

In the aftermath of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 students and staff members — and at a time when Washington shows little interest in limiting the sales of assault weapons — there’s a real opportunity for the business community to fill the void and prove that all that talk about moral responsibility isn’t hollow.

Here’s an idea.

What if the finance industry — credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard and American Express; credit card processors like First Data; and banks like JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — were to effectively set new rules for the sales of guns in America?

Collectively, they have more leverage over the gun industry than any lawmaker. And it wouldn’t be hard for them to take a stand.

PayPal, Square, Stripe and Apple Pay announced years ago that they would not allow their services to be used for the sale of firearms.

“We do not believe permitting the sale of firearms on our platform is consistent with our values or in the best interests of our customers,” a spokesman for Square told me.

The big financial firms don’t even have to go that far.

For example, Visa, which published a 71-page paper in 2016 espousing its “corporate responsibility,” could easily change its terms of service to say that it won’t do business with retailers that sell assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, which make semiautomatic rifles fire faster. (Even the National Rifle Association has said it would support tighter restrictions on bump stocks.)

The purpose, of course, being not only choking the financial flow of firearms sales, but trying to shame gun owners, just like laws against open carry are an attempt to shame gun owners.

From reader Jack, this is by Dean Weingarten, who writes some of the best stuff on the web.

On the Internet, and in print, many people claim that pistols lack efficacy in defending against bear attacks. Here is an example that occurred on freerepublic.com:

“Actually, there are legions of people who have been badly mauled after using a handgun on a bear. Even some of the vaunted magnums.”

OK, give us a few examples. As you claim “legions”, it should not be too hard.

I never received a response.

[ … ]

I engaged in a search for instances where  pistols were used to defend against bears.  I and my associates have found 37 instances that are fairly easily confirmed. The earliest happened in 1987, the latest mere months ago. The incidents are heavily weighted toward the present, as the ability to publish and search for these incidents has increased, along with increases in bear and human populations, and the carry of pistols.

The 37 cases include one that can fairly be described as a “failure”.

The pistol calibers, when known,  range from 9 mm to .454 Casull. The most common are .44 magnums.  Here are the cases, sorted by caliber …

To summarize, we have found 37 verified cases where pistols were used to defend against bear attacks. Included, for complete data reporting, are two cases where bears were shot at with both rifles and pistols, making it difficult to determine the efficacy of pistols alone.

Of the 35 strictly pistol defense cases, one was a clear failure. That is the use of the .357 against an Alaskan grizzly by a geologist on 20 June, 2010. It is likely the bear was not hit in that incident.

There are four successful defenses with 9 mm pistols. The three grizzly bears were killed, the black bear was wounded and ran off.

Two of the three uses of the .357 were successful. One was against a grizzly that was stopped with one shot, but then escaped. The other grizzly was killed with six shots fired.

There were three uses of .40 caliber pistols, all against black bears, all successful, all of the bears were killed.

There was one use of a 10 mm pistol against a grizzly. 4 or 5 shots were fired.  It was successful and the bear was killed.

There were two uses of .41 magnum revolvers. Both were against grizzly bears, both were successful and the bears were killed.

There were twelve uses of .44 magnum revolvers. All were successful. One was against a black bear, it was mortally wounded but finished off with shotgun slugs. Eleven were against grizzly bears.  Two were driven of with “warning shots”. One was driven off, without evidence of being wounded.  One was wounded and not recovered.  One was wounded and finished off at the scene with a shotgun slug. Six were killed without further assistance.

There were four uses of .45 caliber pistols against bears. All were successful. One was against a black bear, which was killed with additional shots, probably from another handgun. The other three were grizzly bears killed with multiple hits from the .45 caliber pistols.

There was one use of a .45 Super pistol. It was successful. The grizzly bear was killed with one shot.

I covered on of these incidents, the first such incident with a .45 ACP or any handgun at all after carry was legalized in national parks.

You can read the incisive and detailed analysis by Dean for yourself.  I recommend that you do.  Most pistols were effective, especially .44 magnum and .45 ACP (and if you’re shooting 45 SCM in your .45 ACP handgun, you’re approaching .44 magnum muzzle velocity).

So any time you hear that spray is more effective and a handgun doesn’t work, remember that the progs are engaging in myth-making and fairy tales.

Well, the obvious answer is yes, but just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean that pinheaded judges get it.

Teixeira has petitioned the Supreme Court to review his case. In this amicus brief, Cato Institute, the Millennial Policy Center, and the Independence Institute seek to persuade the Supreme Court to take it.

The brief goes deeply into the history of ownership and commerce relating to firearms, back to the colonial era. To support its stance, the Ninth Circuit relied on laws from that time that put restrictions on sales of guns and gunpowder to Indians, but the brief argues that such laws were exceptions to “the general right of firearms commerce.” Early Americans and certainly the Founders understood that, with but a few precise limitations, the people were to be as free to buy and sell arms and ammunition as they were to buy and sell anything else.

The notion that the founders would have wanted government control over who could sell guns or anything else, and to whom they could make the sale, is ridiculous on its face.  Anyone who believes that simply doesn’t believe the complaints the founders proffered: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

But then, perhaps they don’t teach American history in schools of law any more.

Politico:

“The president also surveyed Mar-a-Lago Club members about whether he ought to champion gun control measures in the wake of last week’s school massacre in nearby Parkland, telling them that he was closely monitoring the media appearances by some of the surviving students, according to people who spoke with him there.” http://wapo.st/2HuDHxx

David Codrea also links this Towhall piece and takes a swipe at Fairfax.  Hey, I get it, and I like to take swipes at Fairfax too.  And don’t get me wrong, I get that Trump is way better than the alternative.  Way better.  But when you begin from the platform of believing basically nothing, you can end up virtually anywhere.

Or another way of saying it is this.  If you’re not ideologically and incorrigibly committed to God-given rights to personal defense and the amelioration of tyranny – like I am, then you can be talked into virtually anything regarding the tools used thereto.

NYT:

A prominent Republican political donor demanded on Saturday that the party pass legislation to restrict access to guns, and vowed not to contribute to any candidates or electioneering groups that did not support a ban on the sale of military-style firearms to civilians.

Al Hoffman Jr., a Florida-based real estate developer who was a leading fund-raiser for George W. Bush’s campaigns, said he would seek to marshal support among other Republican political donors for a renewed assault weapons ban.

“For how many years now have we been doing this — having these experiences of terrorism, mass killings — and how many years has it been that nothing’s been done?” Mr. Hoffman said in an interview. “It’s the end of the road for me.”

Mr. Hoffman announced his ultimatum in an email to half a dozen Republican leaders, including Jeb Bush and Gov. Rick Scott of Florida. He wrote in the email that he would not give money to Mr. Scott, who is considering a campaign for the Senate in 2018, or other Florida Republicans he has backed in the past, including Representative Brian Mast, if they did not support new gun legislation.

“I will not write another check unless they all support a ban on assault weapons,” he wrote. “Enough is enough!”

Mr. Hoffman, a former ambassador to Portugal, has donated millions to Republican candidates and causes over the years, including more than $1 million to Right to Rise, a “super PAC” that supported Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign in 2016.

A critic of President Trump, Mr. Hoffman has continued to donate heavily to other Republicans.

[ … ]

Peter S. Rummell, a Jacksonville-based donor who gave $125,000 to Jeb Bush’s “super PAC” in 2016, said he was on board with Mr. Hoffman’s plan and would only contribute to candidates supportive of banning assault weapons. He said the Parkland shooting was a turning point: “It has to start somewhere,” Mr. Rummell said, of controlling guns.

Even on its own, Mr. Hoffman’s money will be missed: He contributed heavily to Republican congressional candidates in 2016 and gave $25,000 last spring to the Senate Leadership Fund, a group backed by Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, that is focused on defending Republicans’ Senate majority.

I couldn’t give a rat’s ass in hell what this guy says or does.  But I have to admit that in a way I do.  I hope he succeeds.  He’s just doing what comes naturally to him, to wit, bullying people with his purse.

It’s not a lot different than, say, calls to repeal the second amendment, or “journalists” who run with that editorial and claim that if suburban moms just get involved, things will change.  As if suburban moms are ready to go door-to-door and confiscate guns, or are ready for the bloody carnage that would follow upon such an edict.

But it’s no accident and actually quite amusing that this prominent donor was significantly behind Jeb Bush’s campaign.  We know where the heart of the GOP is, and the valuable lesson in all of this is that just as it was necessary to divide the sheep from the goats, identifying and ejecting the impostors and traitors from our midst and making sure that the internecine warfare has ended is a necessary exigency in the campaign for liberty.

This is good.  At one time I argued data, endless numbers and definitions and connections and correlations.  I probably will still do that given my profession, but the important thing here is that the opposition doesn’t care any more about that than I care about whether this donor bullies people with his money.  We’re beyond that now.  We’ve gone many miles in our dance together.

You see, you can change the constitution if you wish, and I won’t change a thing about myself or what I do.  My rights come from God, not the constitution.  I’ve oft repeated that the constitution is a covenant, an agreement, just like in marriage or work.  There are blessings for those who honor that covenant, and curses for those who don’t.  Under the second amendment, the government has covenanted and contracted not to infringe.  The constitution isn’t God and cannot issue rights or duties – it’s an agreement before God and men.  As for infringe, they have many times, of course, and if not for the longsuffering nature of the American people, the curses of covenant breakage would have already obtained.

But the American people are not longsuffering forever, and what must happen will eventually happen, for it must.  So if you want to go full orbed, full on, all out covenant breakage, go right ahead and do that.  It may be the last straw.  All the opinionator is arguing for is a civil war, since he must be presupposing that gun owners will go peacefully into the night as long as enough people vote for it.

This is a dangerous presupposition, and the suburban soccer moms aren’t ready for what ensues.  So queue up your best soccer moms, or even your best SWAT teams.  We know where they live, and there aren’t anywhere nearly enough of them.  Come and get them if that’s what you want.  We’re waiting.

David Codrea:

There is one “gun law” that at least had the potential to make a difference, but it was being infringed by “gun free school zone” edicts.  Broward County Public Schools, of which Stoneman Douglas is part, explains on its website …

As I said, if you must pile your children into state schools of indoctrination rather than home school them, run, hide and fight isn’t a plan.  It’s not even hope, and hope is not a plan.

No one will protect your family but you, or someone who functions en loco parentis.  I would rather just trust myself.

Speaking of the family, some Christian parents in Ohio lost custody of the 17-year old girl because they refused her transgender drugs.  Because in the view of the state, “All your children are belong to us.”

Via David Codrea, this news from Florida is most welcome.

The gun store owners who sold confessed Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz the semiautomatic refile he used to kill 17 people on Wednesday said their devastated the weapon came from them.

Michael and Lisa Morrison said that they are so ‘mortified’ over the event, they shuttered their business, Sunrise Tactical Supply, indefinitely on Friday.

The Morrisons lawyer Douglas Rudman said in a statement that the couple are ‘completely shocked and mortified that anything like this would happen,’ according to The New York Daily News.

[ … ]

The couple also said that they will support new legislation designed to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of people with mental health issues.

From the department of pre-crime, anyone who sports a Gadsden flag must be considered mentally unstable and unfit for firearms ownership.  Or so they must now believe because they want to give the power over the definition of mental health issues to the all-consuming, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent state and their band of witchdoctor psychiatrists.

Good riddance to the vermin.  It’s always nice to see impostors cast out and treated like the traitors they are.  It’s best not to have them in our midst and to be found out before they could do any more damage to the cause of liberty.

Newsbusters:

But there is still an awful lot we don’t know about guns in Minnesota.  For example, we don’t know exactly how many gun owners there are.  We don’t know the number of total guns in Minnesota.  And Frank, we also don’t know how much ammunition is bought every year, and how much is kept by gun owners.

The horror!  The elitists and “journalists” don’t know how much ammunition is being kept by gun owners.  Well get used to it, dick head.  You’re never going to know – we’re going to make sure of that.  You don’t have a right to know how much ammunition I have, any more than I have a right to know what your car payment is.