Another Adventure in Amateur Radio

Over at the Captain's Journal, Herschel Smith is discussing the current state of the debate on suppressors, otherwise popularly known as "silencers" for guns.  Smith:

“The [sound suppressors] were a victim of the success of his marketing,” said Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association, which is working with the NRA on this issue. Williams referenced Hiram Percy Maxim, who first used the term in the early 1900s when he invented what he referred to as the Maxim Silencer. The term later caught on with legislators and regulators.

“He labeled it as a silent firearm, and people took it for gospel,” Williams said of Maxim.

Now, I have to admit that the suppressor debate is none to interesting to me. I will not use one, perhaps because I have grown used to putting on ear protection. But I am generally in favor of any loosening of restrictions and this seems like a no brainer to me.

What startled me however was the mention of a name that I am very familiar with: Hiram Percy Maxim, aka "The Old Man" of the American Radio Relay League. The American Radio Relay League, or ARRL, is the premier representative of the Amateur Radio community in the United States, and represents our interests before the FCC and the International Radio Union. One of T.O.M rants can be found here. The more things change, the more they stay the same, it seems.

I did not know that Maxim invented the silencer.  You learn something new every day!

Verbruggen: Conservatives Should Be Timid

Mr. Robert Verbruggen writes a screed at the National Review on Concealed Carry 'Reciprocity' vs Federalism. Mr. Verbruggen doesn't like the idea of just anyone carrying who isn't as well trained and responsible as he is. Just ask him:

I took a number of steps before I started carrying a gun. I got training, I read books and articles by self-defense experts, I learned the laws of my state, I started going to the range regularly, and I did “dry fire” exercises at home to keep my shooting skills up.

I also got a concealed-carry permit, which in Virginia required almost none of the above preparation. All I had to do was get a form notarized and send it in — along with $50 and a copy of the hunter’s-safety card I earned in Wisconsin when I was 13 years old, which allegedly proved my “competency with a handgun.” Nothing would have stopped me from getting a permit and carrying a gun legally if I hadn’t touched a firearm since 1997 and had received no training at all that pertained specifically to concealed carry or self-defense, as opposed to shooting deer in the freezing cold.

I have attended concealed carry training in Virginia as well, and had a carry permit there for a number of years. Personally, I thought Virginia's approach to concealed carry training struck the right balance between training on the law and recognizing that those seeking a permit are adults who can decide for themselves if, and what kind of training they may need. It is clear then, that Mr. Verbruggen's unwritten attitude is that only those who have gone to the training classes he has, and have the proper accreditation should be allowed to carry a handgun. All others are just too immature, too uneducated, too...unwashed. At the same time, he seems to recognize that even states with more lax requirements such as Constitutional Carry do not have blood running in the streets as predicted.

It’s perfectly fine, of course, for the state of Virginia to have lax permitting standards and trust that its residents will get the training they need of their own volition and good sense. In fact, a growing number of states don’t require a permit to carry at all — some call it “constitutional carry” — and their streets are not running red with blood.

So, Mr. Verbruggen's sense is, like a lot of anti-gunners, a simple distrust of his fellow men and women, but at least he sees the truth, unlike the hoplophobes who just don't get it. Verbruggen then goes on to claim that the Constitutional claims for interstate reciprocity do not rest on the Second Amendment (but they do partially) or the Commerce Clause (they don't). But then he finds the Full Faith and Credit clause. And he is correct here that the Full Faith and Credit clause does indeed compel states to recognize each other's gun permits just as each state must recognize each other's marriages and each other's drivers licenses. The existence of more stringent requirements in one state does not therefore make the drivers licenses of another state with more lax requirements somehow not recognized. The same reasoning applies. After all, an automobile is capable of delivering even greater loss of life than a handgun.

There is, however, a constitutional defense of concealed-carry reciprocity that works, one recently advanced by a trio of highly respected constitutional scholars. It’s rooted in the much-neglected and much-misunderstood Full Faith and Credit Clause:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

...snip...

So, it’s constitutional for Congress to prescribe the effects that one state’s concealed-carry policies and permits will have in another. But not everything that’s constitutional is wise, and conservatives in particular should be wary of forcing their legislative preferences on unwilling states via federal decree.

So Mr. Verbruggen is squeamish about actually forcing states to do their duty under the Constitution for fear of making them mad. But the Left is already mad, and getting madder. And I don't mean this in the sense colloquial sense, but in its original meaning of being crazy loons. They already accuse us of trying to legislate morality. So let's get on with actually doing some of it. They will, of course, immediately appeal and the Supreme Court will have to get involved. And that will tell us something as well. so yes, let's have a reciprocity bill, and then we'll see where everybody stands.

Conservatives have been too timid for too long.  The Left has no such qualms, Just as I believe the Church should again adopt the idea of the Church Militant in support of Christianity, so should conservatives adopt the idea of Conservatism Militant in support of conservative principles.  One important principle is that of self defense.

While you are at National Review you might as well read David French's article entitled Sad Supreme Court Case Highlights the Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence.

Harvard Law Journal Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights

So. it takes a Law Journal article from a prestigious university to discover what most of us unschooled types already knew: Harvard Law Journal Concludes Unborn Babies Have Constitutional Rights. Maybe there is something to Jeff Foxworthy's question, "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?"

The Absurdity of "Cultural Appopriation

Back in August of 2015 the Washington Pest,,,er,,,Post ran a story about cultural appropriation which claimed that it was once a appropriate critique but it has now run amok.  One Cathy Young wrote the piece entitled To the New Culture Cops, Everything Is Approriation. Except for actual cultural theft, the taking of artifacts that belong to a culture and rightly should be in their museums, the idea of "cultural appropriation" is absurd. I would point out, however, that when some of these artifacts were taken, it was because the culture that produced them no longer could guard them as they should, and so it is appropriate when they again can, to return them. But for the rest of it, the only word I can muster is balderdash.

Frankly, I am more than happy to put my culture up against anyone.  If someone claims that a white person is wearing corn rows for instance, I would counter with something like "Fine, I'll take them out.  When will you turn off the electricity?  Or start walking. because automobiles are a European invention?"  I could go on and on, but those would be enough to start.

The problem, of course, is that students today do not know history as the should, and so they are easy marks for the race hustlers and assorted charlatans that compose the so called academics ..."in the late 1970s and 1980s as part of the scholarly critique of colonialism. By the mid-1990s, it had gained a solid place in academic discourse, particularly in the field of sociology." Men (and I shouldn't have to add Women, but I do) have been learning from other men, and "borrowing" their ideas since men have been men.

Cattle is thought to have first been domesticated in the Near East and also in the Indus Valley from wild Aurochs some 10,000 years ago. Should only the peoples who first domesticated them be allowed to breed and own cattle? More recently, the Chinese invented gun powder, but the idea for using it to power a projectile at another person or animal came from multiple sources in the Middle East and Europe.  Who then can claim to be the only culture to use the firearm?  Most things will turn out to have many fathers and mothers, and claims of cultural appropriation can rightly be made against all sides.  Henry Ford is credited with the idea of the assembly line.  Should only Ford be allowed to use it, and all other manufacturers have to build there automobiles one at a time by hand?  The world would be poorer if that were the case.

If one takes the whole of a culture, and not just cherry pick those things that make the case of appropriation, one begins to see that we have been borrowing...appropriating, if you will...since time immemorial.  The things we have borrowed have often been put to new uses, and have been so fused into our own way of life, that these things have become indistinguishable as cultural borrowings.  Like most things the SJW get wrong, the idea of cultural appropriation is an absurd waste of time and energy designed to keep you upset and allow them to tell you what to think and to do.

For Concealed Carriers, Long Range Shooting Is A Valuable Skill to Have

I have been told many times at the range that there is no reason to practice longer shots than the proverbial 7 yards.  The reason?  If you have to shoot more than 7 yards, you can run, seek cover, or perform some other approach to protecting yourself.  Seems true.  But then one hears of handgun shots at further distances that were necessary to hut down a bad guy who just wouldn't quit.  Indeed, Sam Hoober has an article at the Daily Caller that explains why Why You Should Practice Long Range Handgun Shooting. Hoober is also a Contributing Editor for Alien Gear Holsters.

Hoober first makes the point that most of your shooting practice should be short range, flash sighted or point shooting to targets at as little as 3 feet, and that practicing your draw is vitally important as well. But, and here's the kicker, the long range handgun shot is not a zero percent affair. It represents a small, but not zero percentage of shots taken in self defense, or defense of another.  Naturally, no one who carries wants to shoot another human being, but we are a predatory species, and some of us forget that we are not supposed to prey on each other.

Hoober provides examples from history including Wild Bill Hickock's famous shot at 75 yards against Davis Tutt. But there are less notorious individuals mentioned as well who had to make long range shots against various attackers. Long range shooting is a valuable skill to have in your tool box.

How Much American Blood Will Liberal Courts Have on Their Hands?

Andrew McCarthy has an article over at the National Review Online today that spells out what the courts are attempting to do with regard to Trump's Executive Order (EO) on travel from six Muslim majority nations, and the ultimate goal of Sharia Supremacists.  The article can be found at How Sharia Supremacism and Judicial Imperialism Threaten National Security. McCarthy argues that Trump's focus on an EO as opposed to getting on with the vetting process to determine if a person is a Sharia Supremacist is both short sighted and wrong headed. Speaking about the 4th Circuit's recent ruling in the case:

Three judges filed compelling dissents that will prove quite useful when, as Trump promises, the case proceeds to the Supreme Court. The continuation of the litigation is an unfortunate outcome, even if conservatives and other rule-of-law types, buoyed by Justice Neil Gorsuch’s appointment, may be right that the EO has a better shot in the High Court.

That’s because the EO doesn’t matter. You may not have noticed, but sharia supremacism has already won, regardless of what the Supreme Court does.

See, the EO was never an end in and of itself. It is a means — a fatally flawed one — to a vital end. That end is a vetting system that enables our security services to distinguish pro-Western Muslims from sharia supremacists. That’s the goal. The EO was conceived as a temporary pause while the vetting system took shape.

The problem with Islam has always been that it is a political theory hiding inside of, and disguised as, a religion. Both Christians and Jews hold that to be successful (as they define success) one must surrender one's will to God's will. One must use one's will in the furtherance of God's objectives. We learn about God's objectives by reading sacred Scripture. To the extent that Islam requires the same thing, Christians have no problem. However, their Scripture is not the same as our Scripture. Our Scripture describes a God who loves us and all creation, while theirs describes a god who hates most of his creation, but there is no explanation why that is. He apparently hates dogs, pigs, Jews, Christians, Pagans, Shinto, Hindus, and on and on in a litany of hatred that causes a thinking man to suspect that the two different texts were inspired by to different beings. Furthermore, the god of Islam demands respect and obedience. To enforce these things, there is Sharia. Sharia makes the Pilgrims look like pikers. The Pilgrims sailing to America and setting up a theocracy seem in light of Sharia like liberal hippies.

There is a single battle that must be won. American culture must be convinced that Islam, while it has plenty of diversity, has a mainstream strain — sharia supremacism — that is not a religion but a totalitarian political ideology hiding under a religious veneer.

Intellectually, this should not be a difficult thing to do. Sharia supremacism does not accept the separation of religion from political life (which is why it is lethally hostile to reform Muslims). It requires the imposition of classical, ancient sharia law, which crushes individual liberty (particularly freedom — of conscience, of speech, and in economic affairs). It systematically discriminates against women and non-Muslims. It is cruel in its enforcement. It endorses violent jihad to settle political disputes (since such disputes boil down to whether sharia is being undermined — a capital offense).

...snip...

Nevertheless, what should be easy to establish intellectually is difficult as a practical matter. Sharia supremacists and their progressive allies maintain that Islam may not be parsed into different strains. For legal purposes, they insist it is a monolith that is protected by religious-liberty principles — notwithstanding that a) progressives are generally hostile to religious liberty and b) sharia supremacists themselves would destroy religious liberty. Perversely, then, they argue that the First Amendment is offended by national-security measures against anti-American radicals who would, given the chance, deep-six the First Amendment in favor of sharia.

It is essential to win this debate over the political nature of sharia supremacism. Our law has a long constitutional tradition, rooted in the natural and international law of self-defense, of excluding aliens on the basis of radical, anti-American political ideology. Thus, if sharia supremacism is deemed a political ideology, we can keep out alien adherents of a cause that both inspires the terrorists of today and, wherever it is allowed to take root, produces the terrorists of tomorrow.

And so we see that these judges are out of touch with the American people. They do not live in what Rush Limbaugh might call "Realville."

And the judges’ values tend not to be your values. You value American national security. They value a new, aggressive, and indiscriminate protection of religion — provided that the religion is Islam. Your value is a trifle. Their value is transformed into a right of Muslim immigration, derived from the new, judicially manufactured right of America-based Muslims not to have their self-esteem bruised.

Sharia supremacism and judicial imperialism: a combination that is breaking our will in a way no previous challengers ever could.

Ben Carson Speaks Truth to Power. New York Times Covers Their Ears

In another blog post at the American Thinker, Thomas Lifson takes on the difference between not having stuff, and poverty. I can personally witness the truth of what he and Dr. Ben Carson are saying in this post, entitled Intense Backlash Proves the Truth of Ben Carson: Poverty Is a State of Mind. A man, or woman, is not defeated until he or she surrenders, and a person is not poor unless he believes himself to be poor. Poor is not a lack of stuff, but a lack of vision, of ambition, of the belief that he is down and the system is rigged against him.

Carson is also right in this: that if the wealth of this country could somehow be spread such that everyone got an even split of it, in ten years those who have it now would have it again. Those without would be without again.

The Democrat approach, which is increasingly the Republican approach as well, was to redistribute money to the poor, in the belief that giving them stuff would make them better off.  But if President Johnson (Democrat) had wished to wage a real War on Poverty, he would have undertaken a program to change the spirit of the poor.  It is only by a spiritual change in a man that he can become more than he is.  Once a person realizes that he may not have much, but he has enough, and begins to look for ways to help others, he is already middle class.