Before the drone footage, they tried to frame this as “old white man drives through a pro-Palestinian protest”
Turns out, a mob blocked off the highway, surrounded his car, chased him, and then tried attacking him.
Here is the full drone footage: pic.twitter.com/75dHls1ZvE
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 23, 2023
Under the ideology of cultural Marxism and the framework of Marxist “Woke” ideologies, power must be taken from a majority population. Firearms, as noted by the Marxist and Chinese mass murderer Mao, are a form of political power. Mao wrote:
Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
What Mao meant was only the Communist Party should be allowed to have guns. For a Marxist revolution to succeed, the people must be disarmed. The left in the United States has long pushed for the disarmament of the population.
Recently, the left has primarily pushed for the banning of those arms that are commonly available and most suitable for militia use. These are modern semi-automatic rifles with standard capacity magazines of 30 rounds. These types of rifles are admirably suited to the defense of homes and neighborhoods, in part because they are understood to be extremely effective and, as such, have great deterrent value.
The American founding fathers understood the political power of firearms as well. They had just won a war with the superpower of the age, England. The English king had repeatedly attempted to disarm first the colonists and then the revolutionaries. The founders wished to make sure no future American government would be able to disarm the American people. Thus, they included the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. The founders understood the right to keep and bear arms included defense against all threats from animals, criminals, other nations, and domestic tyrants.
During the existence of the United States, the vast majority of people could easily purchase a rifle, shotgun, or pistol, with little difficulty in all states. Disfavored minorities, particularly black people, had a difficult time purchasing handguns in many places. Disfavored minorities were seldom prohibited from buying rifles and shotguns. Most of those infringements were in states dominated by the Democratic party.
Even in states that were most hostile to the Second Amendment, rifles and shotguns were easy to get. The greatest push was to ban handguns because handguns were commonly used in crime. Rifles and shotguns are rarely used in crime. Many political commentators made the claim restricting handguns did not affect the Second Amendment because there was easy access to rifles and shotguns.
As Americans perceived the growth of the political bureaucracy and the disfavor with which the Constitution was held by the political class, resistance to disarmament grew. The push to ban handguns failed. As a way to revive the failing fortunes of those pushing for population disarmament, Josh Sugermann advocated for a ban on “Assault Weapons” in 1988. From Reason.com:
Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the Violence Policy Center, laid out this strategy of misdirection and obfuscation in a
1988 report on “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America.” Sugarmann observed that “the weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
He added that because “few people can envision a practical use for these guns,” the public should be more inclined to support a ban on “assault weapons” than a ban on handguns. While handguns are by far the most common kind of firearm used to commit crimes, they are also the most popular choice for self-defense. Proscribing “assault weapons” therefore sounds more reasonable.
Sugarmann’s predictions fell flat. The market for semi-automatic rifles grew and grew. The more the left attempted to ban them, the more popular they became. Much of the popularity came from a growing resistance to the “Deep State” as the people became dissatisfied with the disconnect between what politicians did and what they said.
The Second Amendment gained vocal and organized supporters. A ten-year failed federal “Assault Weapon” ban was not renewed. A super majority of states reformed their gun laws, removing more and more infringements. The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Amendment meant what it said. At present, over half of the United States do not require a permit to carry a loaded handgun, openly or concealed.
A minority of historically repressive states with hard-left governments are resisting this trend. They include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. Vermont, Colorado, and Washington State are recent additions.
They are working to ban the most effective militia weapons commonly available in the United States. Weapons which are seldom used in crime. Their laughable “reason” is semi-automatic rifles with standard capacity magazines are used in the rare mass murder when, in fact, pistols are used more commonly in mass murder. Judge Benitez, in his classic opinion on the California ban on “Assault Weapons,” says it very well:
Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Leftist politicians in a few states insist on banning the most effective militia weapons. Activists openly state they do not trust the people with “military” weapons. The shade of Chairman Mao would approve.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Sixgun has always been another word for revolvers. A catchy, more imaginative description than saying revolving handgun. Elmer Keith didn’t write a book called Revolvers. His most famous work was Sixguns. John Taffin’s newest book isn’t titled Single Action Revolvers; its title is Single Action Sixguns.
Almost all of the world famous revolvers have been sixguns. The Colt “Navy” so often mentioned in fact and fiction was a sixgun. So were the Peacemaker, the Schofield, the “triplelock” and the Model 29.
All sixguns are revolvers. Yet all revolvers are not sixguns, nor have they ever been. One of the very first Colt percussion revolvers was the diminutive .31 caliber Baby Dragoon. It was a five-shooter intended for well dressed gentlemen to carry in their coat pockets. I’ve got a nifty little engraved, ivory-gripped, Merwin & Hulbert .38 caliber revolver from the 1880s laying here on my desk. It’s a five-shooter too. The very first revolver I ever fired at age 6 was a very old, nickel-plated, pearl gripped, Smith & Wesson .22 caliber Ladysmith. It had seven chambers. I remember that distinctly.
Why then did I blow raspberries in disgust when my friend Tony Miele of Smith & Wesson unpacked a S&W Model 620 .357 Magnum and handed it to me? That was when we both attended a Thunder Ranch Revolver Class years back. Because when I opened the cylinder it had seven holes! I fussed and grumbled at Tony demanding, “Why is Smith & Wesson doing this? Revolvers are supposed to be SIXGUNS!”
Tony fought back. “No they’re not,” he said. “Our J-frame .38s have always been five-shooters, and our X-frame .500s are five-shooters, and we’ve made 10-shot .22s and eight-shot whatevers. There’s nothing sacred about six chambers. Besides, you only carry five shots in those antique old single actions you’re always blathering about.”
Finally Clint broke us up. He said, “Duke, shut up. That seventh shot might be the one that saves your life.” I did, but not gracefully and throughout the class I got a few digs in at “Tony and his seven-gun.” Which, incidentally, he shot very well.
Revolvers with cylinder capacities other than six rounds are historical. All of these revolvers were five-shooters.
Just as you can shut up a dog’s yapping by throwing them a bone, Tony set out to loosen up my straitlaced mind. When he got back to Springfield he sent me out a couple of seven-shooters for me to “play with.” They’re Models 619 and 620, 4″, stainless steel, .357 Magnums.
The uninitiated (which I was) might ask, “So what’s a Model 619 and 620: some sort of modernized Model 19?” That’s a definite yes and no. Yes as in these revolvers were introduced to replace the now discontinued Model 19 and its stainless counterpart, the Model 66. Those two were built on Smith & Wesson’s famous K-frame. The Models 619 and 620 are on Smith & Wesson’s newer L-frame, which is a beefed up medium-sized frame on which they will now put all mid-size .357 Magnum revolvers. The K-frame will be reserved for .38 Specials. The Lframe is slightly heavier and has a slightly larger “window,” which is what the factory calls that big space where the cylinder goes. The window has to be slightly larger to accept the larger diameter seven-shot cylinder.
A Model 19’s cylinder measures 1.458″ in diameter. Those on the Models 619 and 620 are 1.564″. The revolver windows correspond in size at 1.471″ and 1.598″ in the same order. Interestingly, the newer cylinders are slightly shorter than a Model 19’s: 1.63″ as opposed to 1.675″. In practical terms what all these numbers mean is the new medium frame S&W .357 Magnums will weigh about 1.5 to two ounces more than the Model 19s and Model 66s they replace.
For that increase, as I was so powerfully told, you get another round in the cylinder. My opinion is S&W was able to keep these weights so close because the older guns were built on a square butt frame and the newer ones have round butts encased under those finger groove rubber grips.
Should it be six or seven? The S&W Model 620 sevenshooter at left and now discontinued Model 66 sixshooter at right.
Sights on the Models 619 and 620. Adjustable Model 620 in rear and fixed Model 619 in front.
Worth mentioning too are the basic differences between a Model 619 and a Model 620. They are simple: the Model 620 wears Smith & Wesson’s standard fully adjustable rear sight along with their ramp front with red insert. The Model 619’s sights are the traditional fixed, groove-in-topstrap with low ramp front. Also the Model 620 has the ejector rod shroud just as the old Model 19s & 66s did, but the Model 619 is without such. Hammer spurs are checkered, but the narrow triggers are smooth, which is a nice feature in my book, after having so many serrated double-action revolver triggers peel hide from my finger.
Barrels on these new .357 Magnum revolvers (not sixguns!) are stout. My samples measure .76″ at the muzzle. A Model 19 with 6″ barrel is .67″. Also it must be noted Smith & Wesson has gone to what they refer to as a “double lug” barrel system. That is the actual barrel is encased inside a shroud. Unless that sounds like it would look funky to you, fear not. You can’t even tell, unless looking in from the muzzle end, which you ought to be careful about doing anyway. Also, there’s that key-lock safety just above the cylinder release. Everybody complains about it. My advice? Since it’s not going to go away simply ignore it if you want to. I’ve developed the ability to pretend just about everything I don’t like doesn’t exist. Hillary who?
Inside the rubber grips on the S&W Models 619 and 620 the revolver’s grip frame is rounded.
The history of the now discontinued K-frame S&W .357 Magnums. Top is M19 with 21⁄2″ barrel, second from top is M19 with 4″
barrel, third from top is stainless M66 with 4″ barrel, bottom is Duke’s new M19 with 6″ barrel.
Since I haven’t fired a NEW Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum in some years, I was also pleased by the basic out-of-the box quality of these guns. Their single-action trigger pulls were crisp, with the Model 619 giving an average of four pounds, five ounces for five tries. The 620 going four pounds, 11 ounces likewise. Double-action pulls were too heavy for the Lyman scale to measure but they were smooth and consistent. Barrel cylinder gaps on both would accept a .006″ feeler gauge but not .007″.
Timing, cylinder lockup and all that other stuff we’re expected to check were just fine, and the finish looked good if that can be said for stainless steel. I’m not crazy about rubber grips either but must admit shooting with them is comfortable. If you don’t like them, give them the heave and buy some wooden ones.
And shooting is what it’s all about. These two did it well. Naturally I shot seven-shot groups. Since I didn’t have round-butt K-frame grip adapters for my Ransom Rest I shot the guns over sandbags. Only two loads were tried, the 125-JHP at 1,376 fps (Model 620) and the 158-lead Black Hills “cowboy” load at 732 fps (Model 619). Both grouped right about 2.5″ or so at 25 yards, which is about as good as I can do from sandbags. Happily, the fixed sight Model 619 shot near point of aim at 50 feet with 158-grain bullets. Perhaps the group center was about an inch low and an inch right. That’s inconsequential in my book.
Alright, I accept that revolvers don’t have to have six chambers, and I’m forced to admit these new sevenshooters are perfectly viable guns. It’s just that the whole concept of revolvers not being “sixguns” is starting to make me feel old!
Duke fired this seven shot group at 25 yards with the Model 620.
Even though I haven’t owned a Smith & Wesson Model 19 for a couple of decades that handgun will forever have a little section of my heart reserved for it. Back in early 1971 I traded into two brand-new Model 19s; one with 4″ and one with 6″ barrel. They traveled all over the West with me; I even called them my “Smith Brothers.”
The 4″ one captured less of my affections but was handier to pack about. The 6″ one was dearer to me because I used it when competing in many rural turkey shoots here in Montana. Sometimes I won as many as four frozen turkeys in a day with that SIXGUN. In those days that Model 19 was responsible for helping me establish a largely undeserved reputation as a pretty good pistol shot.
First introduced in November of 1955 the Model 19 did not actually receive its number designation until the company switched over to that system a couple of years later. In the beginning it was simply known as the COMBAT MAGNUM. The 4″ barrel was on it at introduction and the 6″ length came out in 1963. At the behest of law enforcement officers a 2.5″ with round butt made it into the catalog in 1968. Starting in 1971 S&W began cataloging the Model 66, which was nothing more than a Model 19 made of stainless steel. In my opinion they were all very fine guns.
This little tidbit might interest some of you older readers. Remember back in 1974 when President Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford was sworn in as president? Ford’s son Jack was working in Yellowstone National Park and was an acquaintance. The day his father was sworn in a mess of Secret Service agents swooped into the Park to guard him. I buddied around with a few of them till the end of the summer, and finding I was so firearms interested they showed me their armament. Along with Uzis and Remington .308 sniper rifles, and shotguns of an unremembered make they each carried 2.5″ Model 19s.
S&W made the Model 19 for a half-century. Now they’re gone. I just remembered a gunshop where I saw a 6″ Model 19 the other day. I may just shut this computer down and go buy it.
I like this Old Boys style! Grumpy
One of the U.S. Air Force’s oddest missions was against perhaps its most formidable adversary ever: Mother Nature.
In 1935, lava from the Mauna Loa volcano threatened the nearby seaside town of Hilo, Hawaii. So U.S. bombers, commanded by none other than future Gen. George S. Patton, bombed the lava flow in an attempt to save the town.
Experts were divided on how useful the air strikes ultimately were, but the bombs weren’t the last ones dropped to prevent natural disasters.
Historical//Getty Images
The Hawaiian islands are well known for volcanic activity; the islands themselves were formed by volcanic action over the course of millions of years. The “Big Island” of Hawaii is the home of Mauna Loa, one of the most active volcanoes in the world. It has erupted 33 times since 1843, often adding new territory to America’s 50th state. Indeed, Hawaii is probably the only state in the union that is continuously growing, thanks to volcanoes.
Mauna Loa’s lava flows are closely monitored, but typically harmless. One exception, however, was the 1935 eruption, which unexpectedly flowed north. The eruption started on November 21 and oozed at a rate of a mile a day toward the headwaters of the Wailuku River—the water supply for the town of Hilo. If the volcano cut the supply of fresh water to the town of approximately 20,000 people, the result could be catastrophic.
Wikimedia Commons
Thomas Jagger, the founder of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, appealed to the U.S. Army for help. Jagger wanted the Army Air Service, forerunner of the wartime Army Air Corps and later the U.S. Air Force, to bomb the lava tubes and channels that fed lava in the direction of the river. Nobody thought American bombers could destroy the lava, but they hoped the bombing would divert the flow to another, non-threatening direction.
The mission was assigned to Army Air Service planes based on the island of Oahu and planned by Patton. The commander of the First Provisional Tank Brigade in World War I would of course later go on to command the Third Army in Europe during World War II.
The Hush Kit describes the air strike:
On December 27, 1935, ten Keystone B-3 and B-4 bombers from Luke Field on Ford Island in the middle of Pearl Harbor flew the 200-odd miles to bomb the Humu‘ula lava flow. The bombers dropped 40 bombs, half were high explosive and the rest were WP smoke bombs to mark the impact points. Of the twenty high explosive bombs dropped, sixteen hit the target area and twelve hit the lava tunnel in question.
Here’s video of the planes involved in the air strike:
Jagger observed the air strike from a telescope at the base of Hawaii’s other volcano, Mauna Kea. “The experiment could not have been more successful; the results were exactly as anticipated,” he later told the New York Times. The lava slowed from covering more than 5,000 feet a day to 1,000 feet after the bombing, and the flow stopped entirely on January 2, 1936.
Not everyone shared Jagger’s optimism. Harold Stearns, a U.S. Geologic Survey who flew on the mission, believed the slowing and stopping of the flow was a coincidence. Jagger’s boss, the head of Hawaii National Park, told the Army the day after the attack, “Though we are as yet unable to determine what effect the airplane bombardment achieved … I feel very doubtful that it will succeed in diverting the flow.”
The U.S. Geologic Survey, writing about the incident more than 80 years later, says, “Modern thinking mostly supports Stearns’ conclusion.”
In 2015, the 23rd Bomb Squadron, the unit that flew the mission against Mauna Loa’s lava flow, returned to Hawaii to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the mission. A B-52 bomber assigned to the 23rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron flew from its temporary base on the island of Guam to Hawaii, a 12-hour mission. The squadron insignia, this Air Force Global Strike Command article notes, still depicts bombs tumbling down onto a volcano.
36TH WING PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The 1935 volcano air strike wasn’t the last time mankind trained its weapons of war on nature. Today, Russia and China occasionally send their air forces to bomb frozen rivers, typically to remove dangerously high levels of ice buildup or to allow nearby communities to reconnect with the outside world. And in July 2018, the Swedish Air Force bombed a wildfire on a military training ground, snuffing it out and preventing it from detonating unexploded munitions.
———————————————————————————– I for one did not know this. That and the man did get around did’nt he? All in all I have to say that the US Taxpayer got themselves a real bargain when they commissioned him into the Army.