(from TFB – James Jarrett)
Released to quite a bit of controversy at the NRA show, the NRA’s Carry Guard program is again the focus of controversy. As listed on the NRA’s Carry Guard website, instructions for prospective students of their “Level 1” program are specifically asked not to bring revolvers or 1911s as “primary firearms” to the classes. This instruction is added as a note to bringing a full-size or compact handgun:
*NOTE: NRA Carry Guard Level One is designed for training with a semi-automatic handgun (Glock 19/17, Sig P226/P228 or equivalent). We will not allow revolvers or 1911s as your primary firearm in this class.
I can understand the reasoning to NOT want revolvers in a semi-auto class, but the decision to specifically bar the 1911 is most peculiar and likely to draw some ire of the NRA membership and potential student base.
I mean, the instruction simply does not add up. The NRA specifically asks for a “semi-automatic handgun” but then disallows America’s favorite semi-auto? I can understand if the program wants a minimum capacity, but even that does not make sense as they mention bringing backup guns, etc which then has the 1911 allowed:
You should bring a secondary firearm that you carry concealed, as well as a holster for such. We will run the course with a primary carry weapon and then run a course of fire with a secondary or back-up gun to evaluate the differences. Please bring at least 40 rounds of ammo appropriate for your carry firearm for this portion of the class. Revolvers, 1911s and/or subcompacts can be used for this portion of the class. (emphasis added)
If anything, the NRA should have set a type of handgun and impartial requirements. Instead, they are managing to shoot themselves in the foot with Carry Guard yet again…
I wonder what compelled the NRA to make such as decision? Many CCW/Constitutional Carry folks with whom I am personally acquainted often carry 1911s.
Could it be this politically correct age is creeping over into firearms choices from politics and ‘popular’ culture?
The NRA did ban ‘other’ CCW schools/insurance from their last convention, undoubtedly to limit competition between them.
I’ll bet is Col. Cooper were still with us (as an NRA Board member) this wouldn’t be a thing.
(copied in it’s entirety from Vox Populi)
Once an organization starts celebrating diversity, cucking and convergence are soon to follow:
The full exchange shows McHugh stating the truth that all mainstream media establishments seem to dance around, and then reminding someone who is not English that his opinion is not necessarily on point. In return, the Breitbart kaffeeklatsch erupted:
A number of Breitbart colleagues, who chose to remain anonymous, also attacked Ms McHugh for her Islamophobic comments. Speaking to CNN anonymously on Sunday, one said they found them “appalling” while another branded them “terrible”.
…This is by no means the first time she has made inflammatory remarks about race. She once told her 19,000 Twitter followers: “Mexicans wrecked Mexico and think invading the USA will magically cure them of their retarded dysfunction. Lol.”
It is rare for Breitbart, a publication which has been accused of writing racist and misogynist articles, to dismiss its employees for their controversial views. Although one exception is the case of Milo Yiannopoulos. In February, the alt-right figurehead, who was one of the site’s most high-profile writers, was forced to resign from the publication after his apparently pro-paedophilia remarks resurfaced in an old podcast.
McHugh said nothing that Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan and any conservative before 1965 would have admitted was true, and her comments are especially on point regarding recent Muslim terror attacks in the UK and France. If diversity did not exist, the problems of diversity — including the actions of other groups who want to dominate or destroy us — would not afflict us.
Breitbart has succumbed to DR3, or the tendency by conservatives to attempt to “prove” they are non-racist by accusing others of racism, creating a circular firing squad:
Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.
DR3 afflicts the mainstream Right, which struggles for “respectability” or at least less censorship in a Left-leaning time. Big internet giants like Google and Twitter, major publications and big donors often will drop and ignore any publication which crosses the line on race, which in late Leftism means anything but foaming-at-the-mouth advocacy of diversity or having multiple ethnic and racial groups in the same society.
As an implicit endorsement of diversity, DR3 subscribes to the “Magic Dirt” idea that if we take people from the third world, bring them to our lands and instruct them in propaganda for our system and culture, they will take it up and suddenly become us. This both replaces us and replaces their own culture with ours as a dominant colonial power.
When conservatives take up “magic dirt,” it shows that they have been captured by the very group they claim to oppose, namely the Left, since they have adopted Leftist policies like diversity, equality and indoctrination.
As I said in the Darkstream last night, to prevent convergence, you must resist the urge to excitedly embrace rival identities who happen – or merely claim – to share your values. In most cases, you will learn that identity trumps values, and when they bring in more of their identities, your values, no longer shared, will be rapidly jettisoned in favor of social justice values.
Isn’t this what the Left always does? Consider the Fabian socialists. They play the long game.
WE must remain honest and consistent in our values, lest they be polluted!
Canadian William Shatner REFUSES
To Trash Trump: ‘I Consider Myself a
William Shanter, the ICONIC Star Trek actor himself, refuses to talk ill of President Donald Trump regardless of his feelings for politics. In a recent interview he had with the Daily Beast he spoke all about it, and his new book, ‘Spirit of the Horse’. During this interview, Shatner made it really clear that his name was not to be added to an open letter that was released out of Hollywood last year denouncing Trump’s candidacy.
“I didn’t do that. I would never have done that,” the actor said of the anti-Trump letter posted on the Trek Against Trump Facebook page last September.
There were however, notable personalities of the original star trek series like George Takei (of course) who played Hikaru Sulu, and Star Trek Into Darkness director JJ.Abrams, who was a very avid Clinton supporter did sign that letter.
The Beast reporter did attempt more than once to get Shatner to dish on Trump, and the actor stuck to his guns refusing to do so, making it very clear that he wasn’t willing to speak ill of the president.
“I don’t want to discuss Trump or [George] Takei,” Shatner said, adding: “Listen, I’m Canadian and I’m apolitical. I love America. I consider myself a guest here.”
“I won’t do anything that might get me deported,” the 86-year-old star joked.
The Priceline pitchman, known best for his role as Captain James T. Kirk, commander of the U.S.S. Enterprise, also revealed that while he and Abrams have discussed him having a role in the rebooted Star Trek film franchise, the director hasn’t extended the offer.
“I’ve met with J.J. Abrams, who seems to be running the film franchise now,” Shatner said. “Though I’ve repeatedly expressed my interest in being in one of the Star Trek movies they seem to have no interest in bringing back old Captain James T. Kirk.”
Shatner, who made his small-screen debut as Captain Kirk in 1966, also revealed that he has never seen any of the new films.
A lifelong lover of horses, Shatner’s new book Spirit of the Horse is a love letter to his four-legged friends.
Although he is very liberal in his political beliefs, he knows how to stand for those beliefs without being ridiculous and out of line like his other Hollywood friends.
Yep. I could sit next to him on a plane, introduce myself as a conservative and he’d like me.
That’s how it’s suppose to be.
h/t Facebook, I Have the Truth.com
AMEN, Mr. Shatner and Mr. Wendal!
Now, I’m not an unabashed fan of the current President (although he is certainly a vast improvement over the last one!) Having said that, I tire of the juvenile and sometimes criminal actions taken against the President. Like it or not, he IS the President! And deserves some respect.
(I’d preferred a more libertarian President, stopping this ongoing assault on the Fourth Amendment. One with a better speaking style. Wish in one hand…)
To see and hear (most) Hollywood types continue to attack and beat on him is more than shameful. YES, everyone has a right to an opinion.
But, lets be adult about it, shall we? Disagree on policy choices, not hairstyles!
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced H.R. 2620, the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act.”This bill would remove ATF’s authority to use the “sporting purposes” clauses in federal law in ways that could undermine the core purpose of the Second Amendment. Under Chairman Bishop’s legislation, all lawful purposes – including self-defense – would have to be given due consideration and respect in the administration of federal firearms law.
While the NRA’s announcement above is poorly written, the message is clear. WE (gun civil rights advocates) are becoming the vanguard.
Sporting purpose never had a place in the Second Amendment. Period. Nice we are on the right side, for once.
When I was growing up, most of my friends were named after parents or relatives. A few juniors. Common Anglo Saxon names – Thomas, Susan, George, John.
Names that were from grandparents were thought of as old fashioned. Martha, Edith, etc. Black people had Anglo names, for the most part.
Other ethnic names were just that. Guadalupe (Lupe), Juan. Not to many other options. There was one Jesus (Hey-soos’), which the P.E. teacher consistently mispronounced!
We were a predominantly white bread college town.
As I have often said before – the times, they are a changin’…
My nieces are named Rilyn and Karsyn. A good friend’s grand baby is Sagan Universe!
Now Thomas and Susan are the old-fashioned names!
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all about honoring ethnic and/or family history. I’m named for my maternal and fraternal grandfather. German and Irish stock! (Didn’t know Guffaw was Germanic, did you?) 😛
Don’t even get me started on the ethnic names! My favorite (oft repeated on the Internet) is the woman who named her child La-a. Then was furious when people couldn’t spell or pronounce it correctly! People said Luh-uh, Lay, all manner of wrong pronunciations.
Her name was pronounced LAH DASH UH!!
I miss names like Linda and Mike…
Guess I’m old.
I was recently asked (by a liberal friend) my thoughts on the Sanctuary Cities controversy.
To be honest, I’d not given it much thought.
Initially, my gut response was (as I suspect it is with most conservatives in the Republic) they (the cities and States creating Sanctuary Zones) are in violation of federal law.
But then the libertarian part of my brain became engaged. Have these cities and States (or even those therein who are seeking Sanctuary) received due process for their actions? Or is it just the power of the federal government that is forcing these political entities to bow to their will? And, of course those individuals, too.
I remembered, the Republic antebellum, when the States held much more power. But Lincoln killed that concept.
And the federal government has continued to grow ever since! Have you ever seen a warrant, signed by a judge, used for the searches at the airport? Or DUI checkpoints? Or when ‘they’ spy on your computer?
If the illegal aliens avoiding the feds are in these places, they need due process to be extracted and deported. If they are more than illegal aliens (like criminals) they too need due process.
That pesky Constitution so says.
As a conservative, I say go get ’em. As a libertarian, I say wait for proper paperwork. Just withholding gov’t funds to cities and States may be a great tactic (as ‘they’ ubiquitously do with highway funds!) but blackmail is not proper paperwork.
I am a conservative libertarian.
I am all about legal aliens to be here legally, get their ‘green’ cards, and move toward proper citizenship, if they desire.
Illegal aliens? Should be deported. Except is the most special circumstances.
But the paperwork needs to be in order, first.
Not just federal force.
(from TFB, in part)
Long Gun vs. Handgun in Home Defense – Maneuverability Differences Overblown
It used to be conventional wisdom to have a 12 gauge at the ready for self defense. Then, slowly, the tactical world fell back in love with the handgun under the guides of maneuverability within the home. The thinking was that the handgun, being a smaller package, was better for one to clear their home. Combined with the higher capacity and ease of reloading, the handgun, was per thinking, the easier to use weapon.
This is, of course, before one even brings up the ability to suppress the weapon, which is good for the defender to maintain their hearing.
However, Thunder Ranch posits that this significant maneuverability advantage is overstated. While sure, the shotgun is a longer weapon, when presented to a target its really not significantly longer than the handgun at full arm extension in the proper firing position. They back this up with a quick demonstration of a common Mossberg 500, an over-under and a full-size 1911.
There was one point that the instructor made in the video that I think is poignant (paraphrased): “Would you rather fire one shot from a handgun at a guy running at you with a knife or a shotshell?
I, for one, will take the shotshell.
Unfortunately, I have wee ones floating around so the need to keep the weapon locked up while easily accessible trumps my desire for 00 buck…
Yea, I remember those ‘olden days’, when home defense was defined by having a shotgun. (This was the 70’s). I remember a discussion in some gun store with a proprietor, while drooling over an Ithaca Model 37 Deerslayer Police Special, and making conversation, suggesting it would be a ‘fine, upland bird gun’. (This was before I owned any). And the sales guy responded, “Would be good for turning around in a hallway, as well!” 🙂
Well, my friends, we seem to have gone full circle.
I would take the shotshell, as well, if I were ever fortunate enough to own another DSPS, again.
(from Judicial Watch)
Somali “Community” Given Special Access to Secured Areas of Airports
The Obama administration’s willful failure to recognize the potential threat from radical Islamists here at home continues to place Americans at risk. The latest example of this will shock you and in is found in just 31 pages of records we pried loose from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The records reveal the Department of Homeland Security has given Somalis “community engagement tours,” including security briefings, in secured areas in at least three major U.S. airports – Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Columbus, Ohio.
The briefings provided to the Somali groups were so sensitive that in 14 instances the agency redacted portions of the records under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption (B)(7)(e) the law-enforcement “risk circumvention” exemption, which reads:
Exemption 7(E) of the Freedom of Information Act affords protection to all law enforcement information that would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
In one instance, Customs and Border Protection exempted under (B)(7)(e) a portion of a February 16, 2016, “Minute by Minute Agenda” provided during a tour/briefing of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The material that was withheld from Judicial Watch as too law-enforcement sensitive – but provided in full to the Somali group – included a section entitled: “TSA Overview — Processing [Redacted].” The invitees were provided briefings of the Global Entry system, APC [Automated Passport Control] system, secondary screening procedures, baggage-screening procedures and given tours of the holding cells/interview rooms.
Notes from the February Minneapolis St. Paul Airport tour indicate: “Current CBP and TSA job vacancies” were discussed. Attendees responded with requests for DHS outreach efforts during Somali community events to further advertise these positions to interested individuals.”
The newly released records also reveal:
In addition to the Minneapolis Airport tours/briefings given to Somalis during 2014 and 2015 – and first revealed by Judicial Watch in August 2016 – tours of U.S. airports and security briefings also have been provided to other groups at airports in Los Angeles and Columbus, Ohio: “Once we agree on the dates we will select the time based on prayer schedules. Another idea could be the roundtable to take place at the airport after the tour. We have done that before in LA and Columbus and it worked well both times”.
The timing of the Minneapolis Airport tour given to a group of Somalis in February 2016 was scheduled between 6-8pm because it would “accommodate prayer times well”
During the “annual” tour, federal authorities granted excursions of the facility’s “secure areas.” It is also noted that two parties in the previous year “did not pass vetting.”
The invitation extended to the Somalis for the Minneapolis Airport tour addressed them as “Dear Colleague,” and promised “walking people through CBP’s process, walking people through TSA’s process” and provide “a step-by-step tour of our operations, designed to offer a greater understanding of airport processes and procedures.”
Eight senior ranking Homeland Security and Customs officials were tasked with accompanying and briefing the Somalis on the February 18, 2016, Minneapolis Airport tour, including the Minneapolis Area Port Director, the Assistant Port Director, the Watch Commander, a Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Senior Policy Advisor (flown in from Washington), the TSA Federal Security Director and TSA Deputy Federal Security Director.
The documents show Customs officials reporting that one of the invited individuals had given “CBP Chicago a hard time” following the last tour and noted three of the invitees had had investigations against them, which had since been closed. Another invitee had an active investigation pending.
Logically, information that is too sensitive to provide to Judicial Watch and the public should not have been given to a “community engagement tour.” The U.S. government has been aware for years that Minnesota is a hotbed of Somali terrorist-cell activity. The behind-the-scenes tours and security briefings of the Minneapolis airport very well could have created a threat to public safety.
We’ve been on watch for this issue for some time. In August 2016, the JW Corruption Chronicles blog reported on the Muslim airport tour story: “The Obama administration gave Somali Muslims behind-the-scenes tours at a major U.S. airport after the group complained to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson about feeling harassed and profiled, government records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. The special security tours not offered to any other group occurred at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport after Department of Homeland Security roundtable meetings with local Somali leaders to obtain feedback for ‘modifications to practices that would allow for operations to be more culturally sensitive.’”
I have no problem with law-abiding Muslims who are in the United States legally. I do, however, take issue with those who intend to do us harm, and with unequal protection of the law!
Would we have given the same access to Mexican immigrants? Or former IRA member?
SERIOUSLY?! Political Correctness is killing us, now possibly literally…
Not as many men wear suits as were worn say, in 1956 (The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit). Times and styles change.
However, between business concerns (excluding casual Fridays), and certain social events (weddings, funerals, etc.), it is sometime appropriate to don one.
(I own exactly that – ONE. I’d own more, but just don’t have the needs or funds – Guffaw)
As with so many other social skills, I was not taught HOW to wear a suit! Not how to tie a tie (I was taught that), or polish shoes (I still do that – it relaxes me) but, where does one put stuff, exactly?
The Art of Manliness blog comes again to the rescue!
The whole point of wearing a suit is to create a sleek, smooth look for yourself. So you don’t want to ruin that dapper silhouette by stuffing your pockets with too many accouterments, and in such a way that they create unbecoming bulges in your clothing. Hauling around a bunch of stuff not only distorts the proper shape of your suit, but can also distort its fine fabric, putting unnecessary wear and tear on the material.
Instead, when it comes to carrying your formal/professional EDC in a stylish way, the name of the game is minimalism and balance. You want to pare down the things you carry with you, and distribute them evenly throughout your pockets.
Your wallet should be thin and compact, and placed in one of the inside breast pockets of your suit jacket, rather than in the back pocket of your trousers where it will push your jacket out. If you still find a wallet too bulky to carry, then a slim money clip, with just a few bills and a credit card, can fit in the front pocket of your trousers.
A pen can also go in this inside breast pocket, though some suits have a special slit for it to sit.
Your phone can be put in the other inside breast pocket. If you’re doing a money clip in your trouser pocket instead of a wallet in the jacket, then the phone will lack a counterweight up top. But unless your phone is very heavy and large, it’s not likely to unbalance the way the jacket hangs on you.
A big set of jangling keys will create a significant bulge in your trouser pocket, so when you’re wearing a suit, strip down your keychain to just your house key and car key on a single ring. Or always carry all your keys in a device like this one which minimizes their space and noise.
Your other trouser pocket can hold a plain handkerchief (here’s 6 reasons every man should carry one). While a pocket square can sometimes pull double duty as a functional hankie, you usually want a nicer, fancier one for the outside breast pocket on your suit, and a utilitarian one for blowing your nose.
And that, gents, is pretty much all you need to tote around on your person when you’re suited up. Other things like gum or a pocket knife could go in a briefcase or bag if you’re carrying one. Your phone could easily be put away in a bag too; after all, one’s suave appearance cannot only be ruined by carrying around too much bulge-creating stuff, but also by taking out a particular piece of it and checking it every two minutes.
Okay, just to be clear…
(and this is NOT a bleg!)
I’M NOT POOR
But, it IS a matter of relativity.
I know folks who could go out for expensive steak dinners every night of the week! And doing so would have no serious consequence for them (except perhaps gout!).
I know others who generally ‘get by’ on what they bring in. Going overboard for Christmas perhaps, and playing games with five credit cards in an effort to stay solvent. Maybe playing a little too much at the Indian casinos(?) But they are treading water.
A few of my friends have good jobs, and have for many years. And often help friends and relatives in need. Sometimes even including yours truly.
But, I remain on SSDI (Social Security Disability Income), coupled with a small stipend (17% of the total) from private health insurance I was lucky enough to purchase when I was employed. And even though I was placed on the ‘disabled list’ due to one affliction, I am blessed with additional ones.
This is of no consequence to the bean counters.
I recently applied for supplemental Medicare insurance (I got Medicare with my SSDI). I’ve been on SSDI for five years, but have never applied for a supplement before. Between the complexities of the system and fear a supplement would cost more, I never did it before. Guess what? I will be penalized financially for NOT having applied in the previous five years!
Fortunately, I found an independent insurance agent who researched my options and helped me walk through the Gordian knot of rules and regulations. Sadly, he asked me to apply for assistance in paying for my prescriptions from Social Security, and they declined.
See? I’m NOT poor. The government says so!
Currently, I pay full price for my prescriptions, averaging $85/month. And without a secondary insurance, Medicare is 80/20. Meaning if I go in to see my primary care physician, a specialist or have a ‘procedure’ done (like the recent endoscopy), I owe 20%.
Which I do not have.
To be clear, I get to go out to eat (with my roommate), pay for TV satellite, rent and groceries. (She pays for the other stuff, like mortgage, electric and Wifi.) I suppose if we didn’t ever go out (usually fast food, pizza (etc.), never steak), and we didn’t have satellite TV, Internet, etc., I could afford the 20%.
We are NOT Syrian refugees, to be sure.
My 17-year old Oldsmobile clunker is other evidence. She still runs, albeit poorly. And I cannot afford regular maintenance.
Theoretically, my new plan will cover 80% of my prescriptions! And has some vision and dental coverage, as well. (Of course, the government is tacking on $20-30/month because I had to audacity to not have applied sooner!)
I’ve seen on the Internet, one cannot be fat and poor. I was once 350 pounds. I am now 233 – 50 or so more to go…
Everything is relative.