WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Archive for the ‘“Gunning for success” forum’ Category

Colt’s 1911 Pistol –An Allegory for Our Times?

In "Gunning for success" forum on July 12, 2017 at 4:34 pm

On shooting fish in a barrel….

It is occasionally remarked around the WOOF cave, especially by well-intentioned supporters who would love to see us eclipsing allegedly rival sites in popularity—that we should stick to articles about Black conservatives, and guns. The argument is entirely supportable from a marketing standpoint. For reasons we do not pretend to fathom, our discussions of conservative thinkers and politicians who are–to employ the currently acceptable (if paralogistical) locution–African American, always score huge numbers of “clicks,” while gun articles tend to outperform even Black conservatives. To be ridiculously candid (because, why not?) the largest number of views our humble site ever scored on a single day followed our publication of “Detroit Shoots Back,” in 2014. That article—which, come to think of it, was about guns and a pro-gun Black police chief—almost made it to the one-thousand clicks line on WordPress’s pale blue bar graph, which is what passes for an astronomical one-day tally here in the WOOF cave.

This is us, being obstinate.

But we are an obstinate lot, not at all driven by vainglory, and thus not much disposed to the pursuit of “clicks” obtained by shaping our ramblings to themes most likely to solicit large responses. And because this is so, when one of our team proposes a story that revisits any of these attention-grabbing topics, our first concern involves a kind of monastic self-catechism—in which we ask ourselves: Why are we doing this again? Are we selling out to the false gods of acclamation when we ought rather to be maundering on about underappreciated nuances of the 14th amendment, or decrying Paul Krugman’s latest sophomoric mishandling of Say’s Law…you know, stuff almost nobody wants to read about, let alone at such torturous lengths!

Besides, even “Stars & Stripes” can fall for fake news!

Usually the answer is in the affirmative, and so we cast aside the glittery item and slog ahead with whatever prohibitively recondite subject we deem preferable; but not always. Sometimes a topic seems irresistible despite threatening widespread appeal—and on such occasions we boldly pursue it. One such topic, as attentive readers will have gathered from this screed’s title and the accompanying illustration, is the United States Army’s pursuit of a new pistol for our troops—a story best left, one might suppose, to the pages of Guns and Ammo, or Stars and Stripes, except for the story’s inherent (and, we think, instructive) ironies, lifting it above a simple “gun story” and infusing it with a near-Greco-Hellenic cachet.

Note to the allegorically dense…

Sophocles, by the way, not Hemingway; but you knew that.

Readers who prefer to regard the forthcoming details less complexly are certainly free to do so. Just as no categorical imperative prohibits one from perceiving The Old Man and the Sea as a straightforward account of a frustrating day of deep-sea fishing, some may prefer to regard what follows as a simple chronicling of weapons development and its discontents. Why not? We invite such readers to skip the following discussion of congressional efforts to end Obamacare. It will seem incongruous and time consuming. We simultaneously invite the more philosophically inclined to bear with us—because what really persuaded us to proceed with this story was its allegorical dimension. The seemingly ineradicable nature of suboptimal policies once they are ensconced systemically is aggravating in itself, but when one further considers how often earnest exertions meant to reform these policies result instead in the reinforcement of their most egregious aspects—well—that’s what we mean by Greek! Permit us a single analogy.

Obamacare and the 1911

Just say  ‘arghhh!

Recently, the Republican Party undertook to relieve the nation of the horror that is Obamacare. It is not the business of this screed to detail the onerous, unconstitutional, and impractical characteristics of President Obama’s signature legislation, beyond remarking that its removal from the body politic is urgently required and demands uncompromising legislative surgery. More to our point is the commonly recognized fact that nothing of that nature happened. Rather, a president steeped in the art of negotiated adjustments to pre-existing business models combined forces with a GOP establishment so fearful of negative media coverage that it hadn’t the nerve even to recycle its own legislative efforts at authentic repeal, and produced instead its own version of Obamacare—sporting a handful of tweaks made chiefly in the interest of creating salable appearances.

President Trump wisely refuses to expose his back to applauding GOP House members.

In other words, what emerged from the GOP’s huddle, despite years of available brainstorming time, was simply the Affordable Care Act dropped into a more sedate, respectably Republican chassis. As Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr famously remarked, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” (Which roughly translated from the French means: “The more the government tries to fix something the surer we are to wind up with more of it, working even less satisfactorily than before it was fixed!”)

It sounds a lot smarter when you say it in French.

One part of government that long seemed exempt from this critique was the military. In fact, however, the service-related procurement authorities were often doddering–even perversely Luddite in their opposition to weaponological breakthroughs. It was, after all, the Army Ordnance Corps that refused to equip the Union Army with the .44-caliber Henry Model 1860 rifle at the outbreak of the Civil War. In doing so, the Corps pulled the plug on what amounted to a per saltum leap in infantry firepower, citing the rifle’s weight when loaded to its 15-round capacity and the fact that the .44 Flat Henry cartridge didn’t fit other Army weapons as grounds for rejection. The Chief of Ordinance further declared himself unimpressed by the Henry’s rapid firing lever action, opining that it would waste ammunition and prove a burden logistically.  Resultantly, the Union fielded an army equipped mainly with single-shot muzzle loaders, relinquishing a potentially decisive advantage in firepower in order to avoid logistical headaches.

Prior to World War I the Army rejected the Lewis Machine Gun, mainly because Chief of Ordnance General William Crozier hated Lewis’s guts. The legendary Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was issued to only four American divisions in the last two months of the First World War, while most American Doughboys contended with the wretched French 8×51 mm Chauchat automatic rifle (also legendary, but mainly for jamming and misfiring). The most widely circulated explanation of this idiocy was the War Department’s fear that Germans might obtain a BAR on the battlefield, reverse engineer it, and turn it against us. Obviously, this logic—if generally applied—would prevent any advanced weaponry from reaching the hands of our front-line forces. The BAR became famous only after the armistice, when Bonnie and Clyde adopted it in rather less official circumstances.

Authentic photo of Clyde Barrow displaying his BAR. Bonnie does not appear, as the gang evidently had not yet stolen a delayed exposure camera.

The famous Thompson submachine gun was not accepted by the United states Army until 1938, despite its availability as early as 1918—principally because the First World War ended two days before the earliest Thompsons arrived in Europe, and the War Department sensibly concluded that nothing so devastating as General John T. Thompson’s “tommy gun” would be needed in the Utopian aftermath of what Woodrow Wilson (in his customarily delusional fashion) declared the “war to end all wars.”

General Thompson, and a Thompson.

But to discuss the Thompson is to get rather ahead of ourselves, which rarely happens here at WOOF, where devoted readers know fighting our way beyond the exordial details is our most common challenge. The Thompson is, after all, a weapon famous for its powerful .45 caliber punch; and that punch could not have been delivered without the development of the .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) cartridge.

Come the Moro…

When 800 Marines disembarked in the Philippines following the Spanish American War, they discovered that while Spain had relinquished its hold on the islands, the inhabitants were feeling less generous. The First Philippine Republic pronounced itself dissatisfied with the terms of the Treaty of Paris (the one ending hostilities between Spain and the United states, not the one ending the revolutionary war…and what is it with peace treaties and Paris, anyway?) In any case, the treaty had been signed without consulting the Philippine Republic, and it was a bit late to make adjustments. Attempts to accommodate Filipino demands were partial at best and suffered a series of bollixed translations and misinterpretations into the bargain. The upshot of all this was a declaration of war, perhaps most remarkable for its injudiciousness, by the First Republic against the United States.

TRUE FACT: Excesses were committed by Americans during the war with the Philippines but obscured by the jingoist press and propaganda of that era. Fortunately, today we have Hollywood to harp on such things endlessly.

To their credit, the soldiery of the Philippine Republic battled far longer than had the Spanish armies and navies, but in 1902 the war ended in its third year with an American victory. Readers will be pleased to know that while a staggering complex of diplomatic, political, governmental, and international developments followed fast upon the Republic’s capitulation, we will resist detailing them here—because none of them serves to advance our narrative. What we will discuss instead is the guerilla warfare that sprang up in the wake of the Filipino surrender. This insurgency involved numerous tribal cultures, many of them savage fighters, but none more relentless in battle than the Moros, whose foremost warrior caste featured the Juramentados, (from the Spanish for “one who takes an oath”) who pledged themselves to kill all Christians. Obviously, this left little room for negotiation.

Meet friendly natives, and learn their customs!

The word Amok (yes, as in running amok) is considered to have Malaysian roots, but it was also the name of a Moro band as deadly as the Juramentados, with an even worse reputation for—well—running amok. The simple Amok creed of battle was to go berserk, charge into the largest available assemblage of infidels (meaning us in this case), and kill or maim as many as could possibly be assailed before being killed oneself.

Obama visiting Mindanao? No, this Moro chieftain’s resemblance is purely coincidental.

Worse still, the Moros preferred to attack after heavily drugging themselves with a form of local narcotic, binding their limbs and bodies with leather in ways calculated to delay blood loss if wounded, and participating in religious rituals that whipped them into homicidal frenzies. These attributes, on top of their 400-year history of relentlessly battling any occupier against whom they declared jihad, made the Moro tribesmen the most implacably bloodthirsty opponents the United States had yet faced. And just by way of reinforcing this article’s undergirding theme, which mnemonically gifted readers will recall as, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” allow us to present one additional fact about the Moros: They were Muslim.

Short by 56 virgins, but good to go, nonetheless!

As historian David S. Woolman put the matter in Military History Magazine a few years ago, “Although certain of their own extinction, these fanatics were secure in their belief that they would be whisked to the Muslim paradise for their valorous self-sacrifice, where, among other glories, they would be serviced by 16 virgins.” Sound familiar? Okay, we thought it was supposed to be 72 virgins too, but maybe the Moros were victims of soteriological discrimination and simply had to settle; Woolman doesn’t say.

Readers may also find themselves wondering how on earth swarms of Muslims wound up in the middle of the Philippine jungle in 1902, but we invite them to pursue the question independently given that a thorough explanation will involve us in God knows how many discursive tributaries, and none of us wants that, do we. Suffice it for our immediate purpose that Moros were Muslim, and hell-bent on slaughtering Christians—particularly Christians of the American variety, we being the most proximal irritants.

The Moros were not well equipped, of course, being essentially pre-industrial in outlook and armament. Firearms were scarce. Select fighters were equipped with either single-shot, 1871 Model .43 caliber, rolling block Spanish Remingtons (involuntarily provided by the islands’ previous occupiers) or, more commonly, the .70 caliber, black powder Tower musket originally manufactured in England for use by British forces in the Raj. In design, the Tower was barely superior to the infamous “Brown Bess” which British redcoats carried to defeat in the Revolutionary War.  Americans were far better armed with their bolt action Krag–Jørgensens, but even the M1899 carbine model, built specifically for use in the Philippines, was longish and slow to re-chamber for a jungle weapon. The Moros, meanwhile, turned their muskets’ muzzle-loading impediment to advantage by funneling iron pellets, available metal fragments, sections of light chain, and even pebbles down the barrels. The result was a nasty close-quarters scatter gun capable of inflicting horrifying wounds from ambush in the jungles of the southern Philippines.

The 1899 Krag–Jørgensen, a superb collector’s item but a suboptimal jungle weapon.

More often, however, the Moros attacked with their traditional bladed weapons, including the Kriss, a serpentine thrusting sword, the slashing
Kampilan sword, long Budiak spears, and the infamous Barong—often called a sword, but approximately the size of a large Bowie knife, and no less suitable for stabbing or slashing adversaries.

So what?

But so what, right? We detect the thoughts of many readers, wondering at this point: What does this have to do with anything? We hear them thinking, “it is interesting, we suppose, that fanatical Muslims were a problem for American soldiers and Marines as long ago as 1902, and strange how few Americans realize this nowadays, but what possible pertinence does this have to the supposed topic of this ridiculously turgid screed?” Well, as readers better informed regarding America’s weaponological history already know, that question is about to be answered! (You don’t want to rush us, do you? Okay, don’t answer that.)

Weapons of last resort….

If you liked the Warner Brothers’ TV series, you could also read the Dell comic books.

From the earliest reports of Texas Rangers battling swarms of Comanches along the Pecos, to the headlong clash of cavalries at the height of the Civil War, and the iconic imagery of George Custer’s embattled troopers firing their last rounds into limitless waves of Sioux and Cheyenne at the Little Big Horn, legend (and quite often historic fact) depicted the weapon of last resort as that singularly American innovation—the six gun. Soldiers, Marines, Cowboys and anyone who’d ever read a Penny Dreadful knew without doubt that the implement of choice when confronting an onrushing foe was the revolver. Billy the Kid is theorized to have carried a double-action .41 caliber “Thunderer,.” while Wild Bill Hickok stuck doggedly to his trusty 1851 Navy Colts, and (truth be known) Custer may have died clutching a pair of “Bulldog” self-cocking revolvers imported from England; but the six gun most widely trusted, carried and praised was the 1873 Colt .45 “Peacemaker,” a gun so legendary it even got its own TV show in the ‘50s.

And if you liked the TV show and the comic books, you could check out the movie! We decided the malt liquor doesn’t actually count.

The Colt .38, Model 1892: Progress marches on.

Reaching for that classic American standby—the revolver—became reflexive for American soldiers hard pressed in close-quarters battle, but with its uncanny flair for misestimation, the Army Ordnance Department chose to declare the single-action .45 obsolete, replacing it with the Colt M1892, the Army’s first double-action general issue revolver. The new pistol sported a swing-out cylinder chambered for .38 caliber shells because, as Bruce N. Canfield explained in American Rifleman, “It was felt in some circles that a smaller caliber, higher-velocity cartridge would be better for military use than the heavy .45 round.” This paralogism, usually voiced in tandem with the canard that the .45 cartridge produces too much recoil for accurate shooting, remains as much in circulation today as in the early 20th century. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” not to put too fine a point on it.

Gary Cooper in MGM’s 1939 flick “The Real Glory” opted for an extra gun…but there were also extra Moros.

Ordnance officials further praised the new pistol’s easy-to-load counter-clockwise rotating cylinder and its “star” extractor, which ejected all spent cartridges at once. But over time, the counter-clockwise cylinder rotation had the unintended effect of nudging the cylinder out of alignment. The swift re-loading feature took on a grimly ironic insignificance when U.S. forces couldn’t send a round down the barrel.


But the biggest problem was the .38 caliber bullet. Historian Tim Marr confirms that “Moros struck terror in the American military partly because …Moro jihadis killed soldiers even after soldiers had shot them several times.” Many accounts exist of American fighters being hacked to shreds or losing limbs to slashing barongs, even as troopers fired round after round, point blank, into their attackers. Since Moro attacks typically became close-quarter contests as soon as the tribesmen struck, the effectiveness of the Americans’ bolt-action Krag-Jørgensens was quickly nullified. Reaching for their revolvers as the aggressors poured into their ranks, American soldiers and Marines soon realized they could empty all six chambers into a charging Moro and still get decapitated before the assailant collapsed.

Enter the… Luger?

With signature obtuseness, the Ordnance Department responded to the situation by shipping 2,000 German Lugers to the Philippines. The Luger, although highly touted in European military circles, was in no respect relevant to the situation. In stopping power, its 9mm cartridge was a marginal improvement, if that. In an acerbic report to the War Department, General Samuel S. Sumner, commander of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu, noted that “The Luger automatic pistol as a hunting pistol and for dress occasions is attractive and useful. I have one which I prize highly, but for field service, in the hands of officers and men, it is a failure. It is too complicated, and cartridges often jam, but the main defect is that the bullet will not stop a Moro.”

A stopped Moro…well…you get the idea, right?

Exit the Luger….

The next act of what might be regarded as a comedy of errors, albeit a dark one, entailed the adoption by local constabulary forces of the Colt .45 DA Model 1909. This double action revolver fired the same round as the original Colt model of 1873, but more rapidly, owing to its double action feature. It also reloaded less slowly, since the “Peacemaker’s” hinged gate was replaced by a swing-out chamber and an ejection rod.  That said, the weapon remained solely in the possession of the indigenous constabulary, since the Ordnance Department did not approve its issue to American forces for another 5 years.

Colt’s .45 DA Model 1909

Once the new Colt was in American hands, General Pershing wrote that “The substitution of the caliber .45 Colt revolvers for the caliber .38 is a distinct improvement.“ He might have added, were he inclined to snarkiness, that the new Colt revolver fired the same hard-hitting round as the original Colt model of 1873, which the Ordnance Bureau had seen fit to replace with the deficient .38 caliber pistols; but of course, “Blackjack” Pershing was not inclined to snarkiness.

Of cadavers and cows….

There is all sorts of learned material in print dismissive of the notion that the .45 automatic pistol was tested, in tandem with its specially developed 230 grain 45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) cartridge, on cadavers and charging bulls. Many gun historians rank such tales with the notion that Wyatt Earp favored a “Buntline Special” or that Billy the Kid was left handed—quaint, in other words, but apocryphal. Technically, they are correct, but the Moros did inspire what became known as the Thompson–LaGarde Tests.

It’s for science!

In 1904, before the .45 automatic existed, the Army took a variety of handguns to the Union Stockyards in Chicago and tested  them extensively on cattle, as well as at least two horses. Next, human cadavers were suspended by various means and shot from a variety of ranges. The dangling bodies constituted crude ballistic pendulums, permitting the testers to measure impact.  In the wake of these experiments, Colonel John T. Thompson (later to develop the eponymous submachine gun, remember?) opined that any new pistol “would preferably be semi-automatic in operation,” adding that “a bullet, which will have the shock effect and stopping effect at short ranges necessary for a military pistol or revolver, should have a caliber not less than .45.”

No, that’s NOT why they called it that–but it just seemed too apropos to pass up.

Obviously, soldiers in the Philippines had been making the same point for years, but it was only after the stockyard experiments that the Ordnance Bureau inferred the obvious, and the Secretary of War issued a Special Order to the Army to begin testing handguns which met a specific set of criteria, to wit:

• Caliber not less than .45.
• Magazine holding no less than six rounds.
• Bullet weight not less than 230 grains.

John Browning, please call your office….

Robert Moses Browning, genius.

It was at this juncture that someone thought of John Moses Browning, the brilliant Mormon inventor whose weaponological genius was already deemed a national treasure of sorts. Browning concocted a magazine fed, single-action semi-automatic pistol based on short-recoil operation, featuring both manual and grip safeties and yet so simple in its design as to render it virtually impervious to weather or gritty field conditions.

Savage’s 1907 .45 auto pistol.

Browning next made himself a familiar sight at Colt’s Hartford, Connecticut factory where he supervised the manufacture of his design personally. He also personally carried the gun into the Army’s endurance testing in March, 1911. The test included having each gun fire 6000 rounds. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol could be cleaned and oiled. After firing all 6000 rounds, the pistols were tested with deformed cartridges, rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud. The competition soon narrowed to a runoff between Browning’s Colt and the .45 entered by Savage Arms.

By the end the test, the Savage design suffered over 37 incidents of malfunction or breakage; while the Colt suffered none. On 23 March 1911, the evaluation committee’s report stated, “Of the two pistols, the board was of the opinion that the Colt is superior, because it is more reliable, more enduring, more easily disassembled…and more accurate.” As evidence of durability they cited the fact that when the grueling 6,000 round test left Browning’s pistol so hot it could not be handled, he simply dunked it in a bucket of water and calmly resumed shooting.

Ironically enough…

Doughboys training in France with Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol of 1911.

Nine days after the committee’s report, the Army designated the Colt Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 its official sidearm. The Navy and Marine Corps adopted the 1911 two years later. Ironically, the pistol was adopted too late to resolve the crisis that inspired its development. Myths and pictorial depictions notwithstanding, Moros were not knocked down willy-nilly by the newly issued automatic pistols. That’s because the M1911 was not issued to U.S. Army units until mid-1913, just prior to America’s military drawdown.

True, in 1913, Moro chieftain Datu Amil ensconced himself and 1,500 warriors atop the volcanic crater of Bud Bagsak and challenged Pershing’s troops to “come on and fight.” The use of the 1911 pistol in that battle is often asserted, and the pistol appears as the centerpiece of a memorable poster issued by the U.S. Army; but records indicate the first shipment of new pistols left New York around the time of the battle, so its presence at Bud Bagsak seems unlikely.

Killed by an anachronism? O, the ignominy!

As a crowning irony, the M1911 made its verifiable debut in the Philippines 30 years later when American submarines delivered crates of them (together with Thompson Submachine Guns, which fired the same rimless ammunition) to guerillas–many of whom were Moro tribesmen, eager to battle the invading Japanese.

Alvin’s “Luger”

Sgt. Alvin York

Colt’s .45 automatic first went to war in Europe where World War I doughboys found it a useful accessory. In fact, despite the motion picture portrayal in which Gary Cooper accomplishes the feat entirely with a German Luger, the famous incident at Chatel-Chéhéry in which Sergeant York shot down six out of six charging German soldiers and accepted the surrender of 132 more, was achieved with a .45 Colt automatic. The blasphemous substitution of the Luger occurred because the prop men at Warner Brothers had no blank cartridges powerful enough to allow the Colt’s slide to chamber additional rounds. In actuality, York, who resorted to his Colt after emptying his rifle (which, by the way, was an Enfield, not a Springfield as shown in the film), had one round left in his pistol when he accepted the enemy’s mass surrender. Whenever asked to recall the event, Alvin York (who won the Medal of Honor for his actions that day) was sure to give full credit to God, the men with whom he served, and his Colt pistol.

Second blood….

Following Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into World War II, demand for John Browning’s powerful .45 quickly outpaced production. By VE Day, the government had purchased 2 million 1911 pistols, but since Colt’s legendarily inept business and production formulae were problematic even then, this number was achieved by issuing contracts to Remington Rand (the typewriter company) —the Ithaca Gun Company, and the Union Switch & Signal company. However improbably, the Singer Sewing Machine Company made at least 500 1911 pistols, while Springfield and Savage provided only the slides, which were interchangeable with the other pieces.

John Basilone depicted in a WWII bonds poster–let’s face it, the machine gun was more visual!

Emerging from World War II, mounting calumnies surrounded the Colt 1911, among them the standard canards that it was highly inaccurate and cursed with unmanageable recoil. There was also the widely circulated assertion that no combat kills had ever been recorded by soldiers using the 1911, a notion that found its way even into some reputable firearm histories. Alvin York, obviously, would have disagreed. John Basilone, who wiped out an entire company of charging Japanese during a harrowing night on Guadalcanal in 1942, became legendary for blunting the assault with fire from a red-hot .30 caliber machine gun, cradled in his arms (sans tripod). This is certainly the “money shot” of the event, but closer examination reveals that Basilone also dropped several enemy soldiers with his .45 Colt pistol.

Al Schmid receiving the Navy Cross

Also on Guadalcanal, Marine PFC Al Schmid proved crucial in stopping a nighttime banzai charge, first with his 30 caliber water-cooled machine gun, (which, unlike Basilone, he decorously elected to fire from a fixed position) but also, when his belts of .30 caliber were exhausted, by pulling his Colt pistol, which he was still clutching when medics placed him on a stretcher the next morning. Reportedly, Schmid reached up from his litter, handed his locked-back Colt to his lieutenant, and said, “I guess I won’t need this any more!”

When Lt. Owen Bagget’s B-24 Liberator was shot up and set ablaze by enemy aircraft over the jungles of Burma, Bagget ordered his crew to hit the silk, and did likewise. When the Japanese fighters turned to make a strafing run at the Americans hanging in their parachute harnesses, Bagget was hit, but undaunted. When the offending Japanese pilot made a second pass to finish him off, Bagget (who was a Texan, by the way) angrily drew his .45 Colt and fired four times at the approaching enemy’s cockpit. The Zero spun into the jungle and exploded.

Bagget and a Zero like the one he outdrew.

Readers interested in discovering numerous additional reports of 1911 pistols that proved useful in combat from the trenches of World War I to the jungles of Vietnam will find nuggets galore—and yet traducements against Mr. Browning’s semi-automatic handgun continued unabated, as did the U.S. Army’s irrational urge to retire it.  From 1948 onward, a close examination of the record reveals a desultory yet continuing effort to replace the 1911 pistol.

Our hero: The 1911 A1 Colt Pistol

Partially stripped Walther PPK 7.65mm, showing trigger hinge. Hincty, if you ask us!

Army Ordnance, left too long to its own ruminations, first concluded that new pistols of a more acceptable nature should not exceed seven inches in length, and 25 ounces empty. Blow-back action and a squeeze charger system were mandated, as was a folding trigger guard. This last requirement ostensibly addressed the problem of soldiers wearing thick gloves who might encounter difficulty inserting a finger inside the Colt’s fixed trigger guard. A more cynical assessment might posit that because Walther pistols fielded by Germany during the war featured such gimmicks, Army Ordnance’s longstanding preoccupation with all things très européen was flaring up.

Enter the T3

The T3 series may have failed repeatedly, but its trigger hinge never malfunctioned!

High Standard submitted the prototypical T-3 test pistol. The Army was pleased to note the design’s double-action trigger and its pivoting trigger guard that slid tidily into a recess in the frame. However, to meet the Army’s weight criterion, the gun’s frame was partly aluminum. This, of course, increased recoil, and Army Ordnance was already phobic on the matter. High Standard insisted that annular grooves carved into the T-3’s chamber would diminish recoil by causing cartridge cases to expand, retarding the backlash of the slide.

Of course, at some point, weight undeniably becomes a consideration.

In testing, the T-3’s hammer cracked, evidently owing to poor metallurgy. Before the hammer incident, repeated failures to feed occurred because cartridges “upended” in the breech. High Standard vowed to fix the hammers and insisted that adding a “guide shelf” would remedy the problem. The Ordnance Corps financed these improvements, but let High Standard know that upon further deliberation, the Corps now wanted a 13-round magazine. On the bright side, test pistols could now weigh 29 ounces, empty. Exactly what insight ramified in the Army’s decision that guns formerly believed to exceed the boundaries of practicality at 28 ounces could now weigh 29, remains a mystery. What is known is that in 1950, High Standard submitted the new, improved T-3. on which the hammers still broke, failures to feed were undiminished, and the frame–enlarged to accommodate the 13-round magazine–cracked at stress points.

Exit the T3

Undaunted, the Ordnance Corps financed a third evolution of the T-3. Having seemingly experienced a subsequent revelation that 13-round magazines were no longer necessary, the Corps agreed that third-generation T-3s could revert to single stacked magazines. Tested in November of 1952, the new pistols “suffered numerous failures and malfunctions.” Extraction problems continued, the new magazine releases broke, the slide stops locked the slide back at arbitrary intervals during firing, and the hammers still fractured. At this point, the Ordnance Board recommended cancellation of the T3 program.

Going out of business, High Standard sold cheap handguns made from spare parts of various models. Here’s the rear sight on one such “V” model automatic.

In 1955, the Army sought once again to replace the 1911, this time by inviting foreign manufacturers to enter pistols into the replacement competition, forgetting perhaps that the 1911 had beaten all its foreign competitors in early stages of the trials that led to its adoption. Taxpayers were saved further bother when the Army’s deputy chief of staff for logistics discovered the program, together with Ordnance’s request for $150 thousand in start-up funding, and cancelled the entire business. The logic applied by the deputy chief was that “sidearms are seldom used anymore.” To his credit, he added that existing stocks of M1911A1s were “more than adequate,” although his assessment was probably more actuarial than martial.

Dawn of the “Wonder Nines”

Gun video-queen “Destinee” holds up a 1911 and a 9mm Beretta–prefers the 1911.

It was late in the 1970s that the Defense Department actually succeeded in solving the non-problem of the 1911 .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun. Reciting the traditional slanders in defense of their lurch back to small caliber “poodle shooters” (to borrow Jeff Cooper’s memorably caustic term), the Department of Defense decided to synchronize the weapons of all five branches of the military, and to further synchronize American weapons with those beloved of our western allies. Since it was universally held by strategists of that era that any future conflict would involve a Soviet drive into Europe opposed by the combined forces of NATO, the Defense Department argued that a handgun chambered for 9mm, the ubiquitous European pistol cartridge, was preferable from a multicultural standpoint to the chauvinistically nativist .45 ACP.

Maybe Army budgeters should check out this ad.

Besides, the new “wonder-nines” were being widely touted in America at that time—mainly for their greater magazine capacity. Police departments switched to them in droves. It is a curious fact that the same logistical wizards who denigrated superior “stopping power” as an obsolete concept found greater magazine capacities irresistible. Granted, part of the concern was based on the supposition that panicky soldiers in close quarters battle would miss a lot, but close quarters battle means exactly that, and it might be reasonable to prefer a gun that stops a charging adversary with two or three rounds to one that requires eight or nine. Still, worriment over American soldiers missing with their handguns at point blank ranges conflated with the seemingly imperishable belief that American soldiers would find the recoil of a .45 daunting to the point of mass demoralization—and the decision was made to retire the iconic 1911.

Enter the Beretta

TRUE FACT: Robert Blake never carried a Beretta in the TV show “Baretta,” nor did he leave one behind in the restaurant–that one was a .38 Special S&W.

In 1985, following trials that Undersecretary of the Navy Ambrose called a “game of charades,”’ and from which Smith and Wesson was strangely excluded despite its efforts to place its Model 5946 pistol into competition; and with rumors circulating that backroom deals for bases in Italy made the selection of an Italian gun highly probable, the Beretta 9mm pistol (newly designated the M9) was selected to become the military’s new standard sidearm. Why did an Italian gun based on a German design featuring comparatively little stopping power replace John Browning’s iconic masterpiece? No one ever really managed a persuasive explanation (although, in fairness, many made the attempt). Pistol guru Jeff Cooper, widely deemed the ultimate authority on guns and handgunning, declared that he “would rather have a hatchet than a 9mm at intimate range.”

Colonel Jeff Cooper: Acknowledged expert in matters both weaponological and epigrammatic.

Similarly, the military, which now had an authentic handgun problem acquired while solving its putative handgun problem, took quite a while to admit that caliber was the problem, let alone such additional concerns as the M9’s sexy-looking exposed barrel letting dirt into the action, slides cracking, open slides filling with Middle-Eastern sand, safeties mounted inconveniently high on the slides that also led to accidentally de-cocking the gun when attempting to clear stoppages, locking block plungers’ retaining pins needing replacement every few hundred rounds, trigger return springs breaking, and parkerized magazines that attracted contaminants.

But in battle, the main problem continues to be the Moro problem—in other words, the issue of stopping power. As R.K. Campbell wrote in 2005, “The M 9 is a triumph of the technical over the tactical compared to the 1911. The Beretta is easy to shoot well. It kicks but little and is usually accurate…[but] even when loaded with expanding ammunition, which the military cannot use, the 9mm has not proven to give consistent, reliable results…I have one case in my files in which a female victim took eight rounds before succumbing to a ninth shot through the eye socket. I have a 9mm pucker in my leg and a ragged scar on my face left by an individual who absorbed three 9mm soft point rounds. Adequate for battle? Hardly. (The 9mm man will always say, ‘You used the wrong load. Why, the FILL IN THE BLANK [cartridge] will get the job done.’ They never seem willing to admit the caliber was the problem.)”

Elsewhere, Campbell quotes the redoubtable Jeff Cooper to the effect that the 1911 .45 is “the best fighting pistol of all time,” adding his own view that “the .45 ACP cartridge remains as well balanced and effective a defensive cartridge as we are likely to produce. Those advocating the small bores either have no personal experience in the problem, or they do not understand the problem.”

To stop, or not to stop….

Stopping power–the debate continues!

Of course, nowadays, stopping power is fashionably denounced across the panoply of gun ‘zines and online discussion threads—and yet to the frontline soldier it remains a crucial consideration. Most of the dismissals of stopping power come from writers who adduce anecdotes in defense of their points, but one such argument issues from the scientifically oriented, research-based Greg Ellifritz, who snorts, “I don’t care what you carry for self defense. My research shows that there really isn’t much of a difference at all between the service caliber handguns.” But Ellifritz acknowledges that of 1800 shootings he’s analyzed, his “number of rounds before incapacitation” looks like this:

.45= 2.08
.40= 2.36
9mm= 2.45

Going to war with a 9mm, even if one accepts Ellifritz’s data as gospel, seems the least advisable choice of those available. And we all know about statistics, don’t we–so we won’t bother quoting Disraeli on the matter.

A Cold War relic?

The XF-85 “Goblin.” No joy.

And then, one day in 2014, word came from the website Military.com that the “Army Wants a Harder-Hitting Pistol.” In the article, Matthew Cox explained that “The U.S. Army is moving forward [how’s that for unintended irony?] to replace the Cold War-era M9 9mm pistol with a more powerful handgun that also meets the needs of the other services.” Again, according to Matthews, “Soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have complained that the 9mm round is not powerful enough to be effective in combat.” Brutally, the same military that once heralded the gadgety, fetchingly-configured Beretta as the last word in low-caliber chic, now bemoaned it as hopelessly superannuated—”a Cold War relic,” as obsolete as the XF-85 Goblin, Nike Bases, or the 280-mm “Atomic Annie” artillery piece—although “Annie”certainly had great terminal ballistics.

Inadvertently safe….

Daryl Easlick, a project officer with the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, announced that the “outdated” M9 pistol would be replaced by a handgun featuring “greater accuracy, lethality, reliability and durability.” Suddenly, the military was on the lookout for a “a more potent round than the current 9mm.” “The 9mm doesn’t score high with soldier feedback,” explained Easlick, adding that the Army now sought “a round that will have better terminal effects — or cause more damage — when it hits enemy combatants. We have to do better than our current 9mm.” Among other issues, it transpired (mirabile dictu!) that Berettas had “reliability issues.” Undoubtedly, the decision to replace the M9 sprang from a sincere desire to put a harder hitting pistol in the hands of our military, but it was Lou Reed who warned us that “between thought and expression, lies a lifetime.”

Obviously, what was needed was a contest—a set of trials designed to pick the perfect sidearm for the American military—just like the ones that picked the Beretta 9mm back in 1985. In other words, it was time for another “game of charades!” And needless to say, trials were held, competitions staged, and entrants eliminated, (some of them, like the Glock, prior to even testing).  And inevitably, a winner  emerged from these latest exertions. At no time, so far as WOOF can ascertain, did any ordnance official or Pentagon authority give consideration to simply reinstating the 1911 pistol despite the fact that the Marines had already done so.

Ask a Marine!

The Corps began re-equipping its elite forces with .45 pistols in the 1990s, including the entirety of its Force Reconnaissance units. Gunsmiths at the Weapons Training Battalion Precision Weapons Section kept busy hand-building them from retired 1911s stored at Quantico after the advent of the Beretta.  In 2012 the Marines realized home crafting their pistols was impractical in the long term and contracted Colt Defense in Hartford Connecticut to solve their 9mm problem by making them 10,000 new 1911-style Close Quarter Battle Pistols chambered for 45 ACP.

The Army competition was ostensibly open-caliber, which it claimed would “give handgun makers flexibility to present the most effective handgun,” despite the fact that .357 SIG and .40 S&W were never seriously considered because they are allegedly hard on their frames, thus insufficiently durable. Besides, the Army didn’t want just any old handgun—it wanted “a total system replacement.” The winning sidearm would be designated the Modular Handgun System—which sounds pretty lethal, but comes closer to describing a gun designed by a committee.

And the winner is?

A considerable amount of squid ink surrounds which gun actually emerged victorious from the Army’s trials, yet there seems no real doubt that the military’s new pistol will be the Sig Sauer P320. The Sig’s selection, however, is more nuanced than one might initially assume. As Ammoland’s Tom McHale writes, “the caliber part is a little bit squishy as the finalist guns were all somewhat multi-caliber in nature.” McHale explains, “The ‘gun’ has no caliber, length, height, or weight. All of that depends on the parts you use around the ‘gun.’” Indeed, the military’s new “Modular Handgun System” can be configured to fire a 9mm, .40 S&W, or even a .357 Sig Sub Compact cartridge, or, presumably, just about anything else. Thus it appears –as the Dodo Bird concluded at the end of his race in Alice in Wonderland— “Everybody has won and all must have prizes.”

“…somewhat multi-caliber in nature…”

What this means in practical terms is that the logistical nightmare foreseen as a result of our troops fighting in Europe with handguns demanding .45 ACP ammo, is now replaced by a weapon that may demand any number of logistically impractical calibers in order to remain in action. Unless, of course, one configures it to fire (ahem!) 9mm. Complaints about the Sig include its largely plastic frame, but soldiers also point out that when forward pressure is placed on the magazine base pad, it malfunctions.  Additionally, the bore axis is too high for fast shot placement, and the removable plate on top of the slide, meant to accommodate optical sights, leaves a portal exposed to debris.

Military experts have determined that women cannot master the kick of a .45 caliber pistol.

But the issue, finally, comes down to the cartridge. Any handgun chambered for .45 auto will, after all, deliver a .45 auto round to the target. Sadly, this appears to be an unlikely scenario for the Sig 320, no matter its versatility. One reason is what a less genteel blog than WOOF’s might call “chickification.” “The reason the Army went with Sig Sauer was to get the different-sized polymer frame,” reports Bruin Herr of Axman South. “An Army soldier today might be a 6-foot-5 guy or a 5-foot-2 woman, with really different-sized hands. With one handgun, that’s really difficult to do. So a big requirement was the modular design.” Needless to say, the military’s imperishable belief that nobody other than a veritable titan can discharge a .45 without breaking both wrists and missing the target will also figure into the Army’s choice of caliber.

Some girls just didn’t get the memo!

Thus, as we confront a GOP repair of the Affordable Care Act that effectively reissues the Affordable Care Act, and a predicted “fix” of the tax system that is almost certain to complicate and perpetuate that monstrosity, we are presented with the analogous decision to give American soldiers a “harder hitting pistol” by replacing the military’s 9mm handguns with newer, plastic, 9mm handguns. Mark our words, gentle readers: The Army will issue their vast stores of remaining 9mm ball ammo to troops whose 320s will be configured to accept that round. Nobody will be issued a .45, or a .357, nor even a 40 caliber weapon. Do you doubt us? According to Military.com, two sources confirmed that Sig submitted only .40-caliber and 9mm pistols for the Army’s consideration. An additional source said the Army ultimately selected the 9mm version.” Et viola: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” or as Pogo might have put it: The minor things change, the Moro they are the same!  

Still holding out for complete repeal.

Dylann got his Gun, the Left got its Gunman, and the rest of us just need ‘help!’

In "Gunning for success" forum on June 26, 2015 at 9:22 pm

ladies with pistols

Dalton Trumbo (about whom much could be said, except that it would waste time) wrote his calculatedly demoralizing and relentlessly dismal Johnny Got His Gun, in 1938. At the time, Communist Party members (Trumbo included) were devoted to keeping America out of World War Two (a position that changed diametrically the moment Hitler invaded Russia), and Trumbo was doing his bit for Stalin by reminding everyone who may not have realized it that a) World War One was a wasteful and unnecessary slaughter, and b) soldiers are often wounded in appallingly dehumanizing ways. The novel was duly serialized in the Daily Worker. Hollywood’s New Left would have been derelict had it not reissued Trumbo’s opus as a movie during the Vietnam conflict, and Trumbo supplied the script for the 1971 motion picture. In book and film it may be recalled, the horrendously disfigured Johnny yearns for the army to display him publicly in a glass cage so that everyone can see how awful war is, but the army is so mean they refuse—the rotters!

Mr. Trumbo refused to tell HUAC whether or not he was a communist, which of course he was. Readers will be relieved to learn that he survived blacklisting to win many oscars and make a lot of money.

But emotionalism works well with polarities—and if the Left cannot display mangled American soldiers in glass cases (which seems inadvisable during a presidency that requires our soldiers to fight, be wounded, and die off camera), the appropriate specimen in the glass case is not a warrior, but a punk. And so we have the spectacle of one Dylann Roof. Granted, portraying this smirking, drug-addicted jackanapes as conservative requires some journalistic photoshopping. His manifesto includes the disparagement of American military members. Additionally, he declares, “I hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke.” But filtered through the leftist media, rest assured, the boy in the glass case will emerge as a virtual simulacrum of Chris Kyle.


Just another flag-waving tea bagger? You won’t be seeing much of this photo, we predict!

Poster Boy

If Dylann Roof wanted martyrdom or sympathy, he went about things all wrong. He should have used pressure cooker bombs and struck in the name of Islam, or at least the whales, or perhaps the Abra Acanacu Marsupial Frog. If Roof makes the cover of the Rolling Stone, no leftist writers will call him a tussle-haired youth. He will be featured as a poster child for hate-filled racist maniacs with vacant stares and manure for brains, and justly so!  The Right rightly loathes him. Nobody, for instance, is more willing to see Dylann Roof deprived of his vital signs than we at WOOF, nor more hostile toward his actions and philosophies. Like Charlie Manson, Roof sought to ignite a war over race, but were Roof not a dope-befuddled moron, he might have realized the only war he would actually rekindle would be the Progressive jihad against the second amendment. Predictably, the right to keep and bear arms has come once more under assault by numerous Americans, many of whom are sincere in their naivete. All too many, however, are invidious totalitarians eager to insist that inductive conclusions drawn from a study of Roof’s personality and behavior can usefully inform the gun debate. WOOF contends that they cannot.

rol stoneimagesTrue, the Left has cause, finally, to wax exultant. Shooting after shooting in the United States has been perpetrated by losers who, despite all febrile speculation to the contrary, turn out to be registered Democrats or disgruntled leftists of some stripe—or, at best, “occupy” types with more-or-less anarchical views that reliably include an abhorrence of the political Right. Not so Dylann Roof—alas!–at first glimpse he appears the poster boy for everything the anti-2nd amendment Democrat prefers to believe of conservatism: A slathering apartheidist with a .45 in his hand (okay, an assault rifle would have been ideal), and insolent, insensate hatred in his bleary eyes. Even at that, many liberal agitators took aim at secondary targets in their rush to bloviate–and some of these reactions would be side-splittingly hilarious if the circumstances were not so grave. For example, in the contest to see who could be first to blame FOX news for the killings, South Carolina State House Minority Leader Rep. J. Todd Rutherford (D) narrowly defeated second-place winner Bill Maher:

Minority Leader J. Todd Rutherford: first to blame shootings on FOX News! (Eat your heart out, Bill Maher!)

Minority Leader J. Todd Rutherford: first to blame shootings on FOX News! (Eat your heart out, Bill Maher!)

In an apparent psychic reading of Dylann Roof’s viewing habits, Rutherford insisted that the shootings occurred because Roof “watches the news, and he watches things like Fox News, where they talk about things that they call news, but they’re really not. They use that coded language, they use hate speech, they talk about the president as if he’s not the president. They talk about church-goers as if they’re really not church-goers. And that’s what this young man acted on. That’s why he could walk into a church and treat people like animals when they’re really human beings.” Obviously, Rep. Rutherford has never watched Fox News in his life, and just as obviously, the Left will now spasmodically renew efforts to control the news by eliminating conservative voices—and why not? They were amazingly successful, it may be recalled, in framing Sarah Palin for the wounding of Congresswoman Giffords back in 2011 even though the shooter was described as “”left wing, quite liberal” and the death toll included a Republican judge, not to mention the minor fact that Palin had no conceivable connection to the event.

The ever-more lardaceous Michael Moore--where is Michelle Obama when we need her?

The ever-more lardaceous Michael Moore–where is Michelle Obama when we need her?

On the other hand, Michael Moore led the stampede of those dedicated to the proposition that it was all, more or less, the fault of the confederate flag. Moore tweeted that “the terrorist Confederate flag” still flew proudly over the South Carolina State Capitol “Somebody needs 2 tear that flag down now. Today. TODAY” The filmmaker may be pleased to learn that he can cease inciting to riot. The confederate flag doesn’t fly over the South Carolina Capitol—it has not been flown over the Capitol for fifteen years, although a small version of the “stars and bars” flies adjacent to it on the grounds. Rest assured, it, too, will soon be hauled down by bevies of suddenly indignant politicians struck sanctimonious in the wake of Roof’s homicidal rampage, not so much because they’ve shared a collective epiphany with Michael Moore, but rather because Canadian sociologist Marshall Mcluhan was correct in his observation that “Americans always beat up the peanut vendor when their team loses!”

John Kerry, 2004, shoring up the vote by battling White privilege.

John Kerry, 2004, shoring up the vote by battling White privilege.

Salon, ever the more fashionably proclived race-baiters, blamed the shootings on “White Privilege,” which conveys that gauzy,  intellectual tone befitting cyberspacial sophisticates and simultaneously defies exactitude and, thereby, confutation. But Leftists who revile white racism are wasting their energies. To whatever extent such traducements succeed, what do they accomplish? The solidification of the Black vote as reliably Democratic?  Are they kidding? The Black vote will remain reliably Democratic in the next election anyway, no matter how illogically, even irrationally—and Blacks will get nothing in return—as always—except poorer and angrier. Thus, shoring up the African American base is a fool’s errand for Democrats driven by some Pavlovian urge. They would be better instructed to refocus on the more tactically momentous blatherings of their less distracted peers. Obviously, the optimal means by which this crisis can be used to advantage by the Left is as a promotion for gun control—and it is the revivification of the anti-gun effort that Dylann Roof has bestirred in the bowels of American liberalism. Some liberals get this, whereas their dopier brethren will require some reminding.

Executive action….

maron and rappin' preezy

Rappin’ Preezy poses with “WTF” host Maron, on whose podcast he casually employed the “N” word–but it’s okay, he didn’t display a Confederate flag.

Hours after delivering a statement to the press about the tragic shooting of nine worshippers at an historic Charleston, South Carolina church, President Obama dashed to the Pacific Palisades manse of Two-and-a-Half-Men producer, Chuck Lorre, to palaver with 30 of Hollywood’s liberal elite in what his aides described as a “lengthy discussion about the roots of gun violence.” WOOF knows that any influence associated with the endless procession of carnographic Hollywood movies and TV programs fetishizing gun violence did not come up for discussion. After all, with each glittery show-biz  celebrity shelling out $33,400 for the privilege of hob-knobbing with the First Marxist at this and an even larger subsequent  Hollywood fundraiser at Tyler Perry’s Los Angeles digs, who wanted injured feelings? The president departed from his anti-gun theme only long enough to remark, “We should be reforming our criminal justice system in such a way that we are not incarcerating nonviolent offenders in ways that renders [sic] them incapable of getting a job after they leave office,” but nobody understood that part and the president later admitted that his teleprompter made a Freudian slip.

Obama host Tyler Perry is famous for dressing like old ladies, but apparently enjoys brandishing handguns when threatened by the 2nd amendment.

Obama host Tyler Perry is famous for dressing like an old lady, and  enjoys brandishing his 9mm whenever he feels threatened by the 2nd amendment.

A White House spokesman told reporters that there had been no discussion of calling off the fundraisers in the wake of the shootings. No kidding.Addressing an audience of entertainment industry luminaries that included Kiefer Sutherland (aka Jack Bauer), Matthew Perry, Conan O’Brien, Tennis Channel CEO Ken Solomon, producer James Burrows, January Jones, Ted Sarandos, Jason Collins and Matthew Weiner, the President talked guns—but on this occasion he was not inclined to elaborate on his skeet-shooting exploits. Rather, as the gravity of the day’s events certainly merited, he spoke of the horrors surrounding the deaths in Charleston.

Obama described himself as “an optimist,” (and why shouldn’t he be?) but cautioned that incidents like the South Carolina shootings made it clear that much work remained to be done.  “We don’t have all the facts,” he said, “but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.” No argument there. In what surely qualifies as the year’s most monumental instance of parental misjudgment, killer Dylann Roof’s father apparently gave him the .45 pistol used in the Charleston slayings for his 21st birthday. His mother, who was evidently less benighted, took it away, but Mr. Roof stole it back in order to commit his atrocities. Liberals may take some comfort in realizing that their efforts to repeal the death penalty in South Carolina have not yet succeeded.

Je suis distrait!

charlieObama continued by iterating a favorite argument of his, which is to say, a favorite sophistry. “At some point,” he intoned, “we as a country have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”  But of course it does. Only last January, it may be recalled, gunmen with assault rifles shot down 11 staff members at the Paris offices of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, wounded eleven more, killed a policeman on their way out and proceeded to a marketplace where they killed 5 and wounded 11 more people whom they perceived to be Jewish. Obama may have forgotten this because unlike every other world leader, he chose to skip the commemorative ceremony in Paris.


Norwegian world’s record holder.

Americans don’t even hold the record for worst shooting spree—that goes to Anders Behring Breivik who slaughtered eight people with a car bomb in Oslo, Norway, and proceeded to shoot 69 more people to death, most of them children. It was widely remarked at the time that the massive death toll was partially due to the leisurely pace at which the killer could proceed, knowing that Norwegians do not own firearms. The same may be said regarding the nonchalance with which nine innocents were gunned down last February in the Czech Republic.

In communist China (where citizens are forbidden to own firearms) mass stabbings occur frequently. One assailant stabbed 22 children before he was apprehended. A pair of knife wielding killers murdered 29 people at a railway station in 2014 and wounded 143 more. A mass school shooting in Erfurt, Germany left sixteen dead. In Russia a man armed with an “assault rifle” dropped six innocent victims. In England a gunmen murdered 12 and wounded eleven. On April 7, 2011, an armed man entered an elementary school in Realengo, Brazil, and opened fire, killing twelve kids and wounding a dozen others. Australia offers a prodigious history of mass shootings and stabbings too lengthy to detail here, although interested readers can confirm the point by [clicking here.]


Victims of the 2014 train station stabbings in Communist China

Writing for The Federalist website, David Harsanvi made the additional point that “not that long ago advanced nations in Europe were busy throwing people into ovens or starving millions on purpose. The idea that violence is uniquely American is best left to fringe leftists on college campuses.” To anchor his point, Harsanvi notes that an analysis by the Associated Press (not normally considered an NRA appendage) suggests that mass shootings are waning in the United States. [Click here] They reached a peak in the Roaring Twenties, it seems—and a 2013 study commissioned by the Department of Justice (ironically enough) offered the statistical conclusion that gun violence has been steadily declining since the early‘90s; and this despite Attorney General Holder’s best efforts to stimulate more of it! [See for yourselves, gentle readers.]

A good idea at the time?

wayne's good idea

The NRA’s Wayne Lapierre—is he related to Cher, by the way? …Just wondering.

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time: In the immediate wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association made the point that repealing the second amendment made a lot less sense than examining the mental status of those seeking to own firearms. Speaking at a press conference convened to address the tragedy, LaPierre advocated the establishment of a national registry of the psychologically unstable, opining that mass shootings by homicidal maniacs were otherwise likely to continue “given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill!”

Mel Robbins at CNN sounded equally sensible when she wrote, “Next time there’s a mass shooting, don’t jump to blame the National Rifle Association and lax gun laws. Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn’t get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place. Strengthening gun control won’t stop the next mass shooter, but changing our attitudes, the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might.”

Hopelessly doltish….

This is presumably pretty much what Wayne LaPierre had in mind, too—but are these people dreaming? More than probably it was suggestions of this sort, aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people, that led President Obama to his latest—and most insidious–salient against the right to bear arms. The Left has always been emphatic that guns need to go, (okay, except during those zany periods of insisting that bullets need to go), but until folks like LaPierre and Robbins gave President Obama’s brain trust the inspiration for a newer, more sophisticated approach to gun grabbing, they were hopelessly doltish about it.

joe gives advice

Biden’s committee recommended mental health exams for gun purchasers…and double barreled shotguns  for pretty much everyone.

Whether it was Joe Biden clownishly advising Americans to respond to any hint of trouble by firing double-barreled shotguns out their windows; a nearly-hysterical Governor Cuomo reminding his fellow moonbats that “Nobody needs ten bullets to kill a deer;” Senator Feinstein taking a stance for gun control while pointing an AK-47 at the Senate–finger firmly on the trigger, or Rep. Diana DeGette assuring her voters that high-capacity magazines “are ammunition, they’re bullets,” the Left’s inability to grasp the ethos of the gun invariably (and quite satisfyingly) played them for fools again and again. One need look no further than the immortal image of Barack Obama leveling his trusty three-thousand dollar shotgun at a charging skeet to realize that as soon as Liberalism tackles the 2nd amendment, merriment ensues. Or so it seemed until that awful moment when Mr. LaPierre’s seemingly sensible suggestion treated the Left to an “aha” moment.

Feinstein--locked and loaded on the Senate floor.

Feinstein–locked and loaded on the Senate floor.

Probably, the words “national database” should never pass approvingly from a thinking conservative’s lips—at least not nowadays. But to appreciate that fact, one must first comprehend the progressive mindset, and many defenders of gun rights do not—Mr. LaPierre included, it seems; for although he spoke a sensible truth that few sane Americans would seek to controvert—well, therein lies the rub.  What sane person could possibly object to keeping tabs on the mentally ill, or making certain that mentally diagnosed citizens are carefully scrutinized before they are allowed to purchase guns? In fact, any organization that came out against psychiatric safe-guards aimed at stopping gun violence would be widely dismissed as insufferably reactionary, wouldn’t it? But that’s exactly why WOOF is here, gentle readers– to be dismissed as insufferably reactionary while we recklessly go where our more judicious brethren refuse even to tip toe….to say to you outright, the movement to debar the mentally ill from gun ownership must be opposed!    

Ignorance is no impediment!

GRENADE! Oh, no, it's just Rep. Degette complaining about faulty General Motors ignition switch during a hearing on GM’s recall of the switch in Washington, D.C

GRENADE! Oh, wait, it’s only Rep. Degette complaining about a faulty General Motors ignition switch during a different hearing. THANKS, Obama! 

All right, put in less nonplussing terms, the current efforts by the Obama Administration to enact laws that limit gun ownership on the basis of mental diagnoses must be halted,and the determination of who is debarred from the purchase of firearms on a psychiatric basis left to the several states, where the Kool-Aid is (generally) less intoxicating. Otherwise, the very American who now finds himself thinking, “who in his right mind could oppose keeping guns out of the hands of mental patients?” may eventually discover to his understandable bewilderment that he himself is freshly re-categorized as—a mental patient, a revelation he’ll encounter only in the event that he attempts to legally obtain a gun. How so? Let’s begin by reviewing the A-B-Cs  of collectivism.

Liberal girl has difficulty sighting large gun, (File Copy)

Liberal girl has difficulty sighting large gun, (File Copy)

Viewed loosely, today’s Democrat party is to American progressivism what the Sinn Féin is to the Provisional IRA. It is the above-ground mouthpiece of a movement seeking to eradicate constitutional government in America and substitute a socialist workers’ collective governed, supervised, educated and policed by a predictable assortment of wealthy, self-exceptionalized elitists. To accomplish this requires, among other key factors, that the American citizen be disarmed. To this end, the operative consideration for the Left is that guns in the hands of American civilians are unacceptable and must be removed from the social equation. Once one is unalterably dedicated to this goal, it matters not a whit whether one personally knows what a magazine is, or how to hold a Kalashnikov, or how to shoulder a 12-gauge. Ignorance of weaponry is no impediment to its abolition. It matters only that the goal is pursued tenaciously and by whatever means may come to hand.

Fabian returns!


Fabian–the rock and roll singer, not the other one.

Most readers will be familiar with the story of the boiling frog—a memorable feat of imagery that has been attributed variously and incorrectly to numerous authors and political figures, but which retains a metaphoric significance too valuable to ignore. The idea, of course, is that a frog tossed into boiling water will react immediately and leap to safety, whereas a frog placed in tepid water and brought slowly to a boil will cook. This is apparently untrue in the strict, biological sense—but as a metaphor it precisely depicts the “Fabianist” school of socialist expansion. Fabian (besides recording suboptimal rock-and-roll hits in the late 1950s) was a Roman general (better known to friends as Quintus Fabius Maximus) famous for his tactic of avoiding direct battle in favor of infiltration, subornment, and attrition. His methods inspired a bunch of British socialists to found the Fabian Society in 1884. Fabianism, ever thence, is defined as the advancement of socialist principles through tactical gradualism. And it works, except that it wrecks economies. because, as Margaret Thatcher pointed out, “the problem with socialism is that after a while you run out of other peoples’ money!”

But the Left has no objections whatever to running out of other peoples’ guns—and thanks to the NRA’s perfectly logical but ill-timed suggestion that a central repository listing the nation’s mentally afflicted might prove useful in discouraging nuts from obtaining firearms, the Left has acquired a fresh means of disarming millions of inoffensive, legally rational Americans…and all in the name of mental health, giving objections the appearance of madness.

Can I get me a ‘high powered pistol’ here?

“And then we just walk unobtrusively into the bank with our trusty Pfeifer Zeliska 28mm Revolvers in our jackets, got it, boys?”

“And then we just walk unobtrusively into the bank all casual like, with our trusty Pfeifer Zeliska 28mm Revolvers  hidden in our jackets, got it, boys?”

The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced recently that they are launching a three pronged effort to limit gun ownership in America. The first component seeks new restrictions on “high-powered pistols,” which, like the liberal crusade against the nefarious “Saturday Night Special” and the ongoing struggle to eliminate America’s access to dread “assault rifles,” (debunked here), comes couched in so much ambiguity as to virtually demand the definitional energies of Senatorial committees packed with legally trained liberals. What, after all, is a “high powered pistol?” Are we banning Dirty Harry’s treasured Smith & Wesson .44 Magnum to get even with Clint Eastwood for mocking the Bamster; or has the Left actually discovered the .500 and .600 Magnum revolvers?  And if so, who in the Justice Department is so befuddled as to believe criminals make a fetish of wielding these highly impractical, hugely expensive revolvers?  Like so many liberal idiotisms, the notion would be purely comedic if the comedians weren’t wearing ties and pantsuits and controlling the executive branch and the media.

Even Superman hates wife beaters--he beat up this one back in 1938!

Even Superman hates wife beaters–he clobbered this one back in 1938!

Next on the DOJ’s list is the attempt to deny gun ownership to anyone with a history of domestic violence, and again, the impulse is to see this as entirely reasonable. We don’t want wife beaters evolving into wife shooters, obviously, and it would be disingenuous to deny that such cases occur all too often. But the proposed legislation would make it illegal for all citizens convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to own a gun…so consider the host of violations covered by this blanket terminology, from the lady who threw a glass of wine in her husband’s face because he was berating her over dinner, to the guy who was hauled off because he spanked his kid, to the man who was collared recently in Clawson, Michigan where neighbors heard what they thought was a woman begging for her life. The police dispatcher told responding officers that she heard screams in the background and loud noises. Ultimately, it turned out the man in question was repeatedly passing gas. What about soccer star Hope Solo, charged with pushing and scratching her nephew during a domestic tiff—do we strip her of her Decalogical right to own a gun?  For every horrible account of some contemptible oaf committing violence against a spouse or girlfriend, there is a comparatively frivolous example, besides which, as TIME pointed out during a rare, lucid moment, “Police on the scene may not be able to determine who is the primary aggressor in a violent episode and may feel compelled to arrest both parties…”

Dr. Corry--see? He's really nice.

Dr. Corry–see? He’s really nice.

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D. of the Equal Justice Foundation points out that “Time after time we hear from men who called the police because their wife or lover was assaulting them or the children and, when the police arrived, [the man] was the one arrested.More than 830,000 men become domestic violence targets every year, and it would be unforgivably sexist of us if we neglected to mention that plenty of women are convicted of domestic misdemeanors every year too, often without doing anything that might prove reasonable grounds for quashing their second-amendment freedoms. Despite the seriousness of domestic violence and its statistically lopsided impact on women who are far more likely to be killed or injured in such incidents than their male counterparts, it must be borne in mind that a percentage of these cases results from false allegations that permanently stain the records of the accused because of the tendency to accept plea bargains, deferred sentences, or pleas of  nolo contendere. Given each of these concerns, the NRA’s recommendation that domestic violence cases are best resolved individually when it comes to gun ownership seems the more judicious path.

The New York model


Governor Cuomo, poised to grab  somebody’s ten-round magazine!

The  federal Unified Agenda lists a multitude of new governmental prohibitions amassed by various agencies. [To study WOOF’s explanation of why all cabinet departments are the same department under Obama you could click here, but it’s distracting] In doing so, the Obama Administration has taken its cues in large degree from New York State’s addlepated SAFE Act, a 70 page mish-mash of liberal jabberwocky the immediate result of which was tens of thousands of New York residents waking up suddenly deprived of  the right to keep or bear arms. Besides its mental-health aspects, the act banned “semiautomatic guns with detachable magazines that possess one feature commonly associated with military weapons.” (PUBLIC SERVICE WARNING: Just because the act is atrociously written, don’t go thinking that all you need is a gun that possesses more than one such feature!) And without mining the entire hodge-podge for laughs, it is probably sufficient to report that some of the newly minted strictures forbid such barbarous features as, for example, a mount for a bayonet. If New York’s criminal gangs  are notorious for their signature tactic of mass bayonet charges, it’s news to us.


Not a resident of e of New York state.

Surrender your grenade launchers!

Also, muzzle compensators became illegal overnight—they being devices at the end of a gun barrel designed to reduce vertical movement resulting from recoil. It is difficult to imagine why such devices should excite the particular antipathy of liberals, except that they look kind of cool and military, so they probably had to go. The SAFE act is so vaguely worded that it apparently bans flash hiders and muzzle brakes too, more or less by accident. Heck, they all look pretty much the same.  Oh, and grenade launchers are specifically banned, leaving us to wonder —how many residents owned them previously?

New Yorkers were also expected to eschew any pistol that features “a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned.”  Huh?  On careful and repeated reading this seems a maladroit attempt to describe the perforated cowling that wraps around the barrel of derpy gangsta guns like the Tech 9. (The gun that New York Senator Schumer enjoys taking to the range, by the way…WOOF is not making this up.)  This is properly called a barrel jacket, and is usually reserved for machine guns, but barrel jackets look dangerously military and the Tech 9 features them on certain models. The SAFE Act language is so mushy, however, the ban could be construed as making any semi-automatic pistol with a slide covering the barrel illegal.

schumer and tec-9

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (D) shooting a gun with a shrouded barrel ..Citizens arrest! Citizen’s arrest!

Were the new rules effective? Yes!, if you count the fact that since their issuance, thirty-three New Yorkers have been charged with having more than seven bullets inside a 10-round magazine while an additional twenty citizens were captured while unlawfully possessing “a large capacity ammunition feeding device,” (meaning, we guess, a magazine that houses more than sufficient ammo to kill a deer) and seven citizens have been charged with failing to register an “assault weapon,” even though the assault weapon provision of SAFE is not yet in effect—kind of like The Minority Report, right? Why wait?  In the midst of all this, by the way, the aforementioned NRA president Wayne Lapierre had the temerity to suggest that someone might be trying to take guns away from gun owners, causing Dean Obeidallah (no White Album jokes, please) of the Daily Beast to wonder aloud, “Will Wayne Lapierre ever stop telling lies?” to which was appended the author’s assurance that “No one in the Obama administration or any Democratic administration has ever tried to take law-abiding citizens guns away.”  Unfortunately, Mr. Obeidallah does not come with a laugh track.

The Entirely Indecipherable Acts

Judge Skretny knows indecipherable when he sees it!

Judge Skretny knows indecipherable when he sees it!

With so much good being done, it seems tragic, in a way, that common sense members of the judiciary ultimately caught up with and severely crippled the SAFE act.  Much of it has been overturned as unconstitutional and several other portions dismissed because, as Judge William M. Skretny of the US District Court for the Western District of New York pointed out, they are “entirely indecipherable.”  Besides Skretny, 52 of New York State’s 62 county legislatures oppose Andrew Cuomo’s SAFE Act, and they are joined by the attorney generals of 22 other states who filed a friend-of-the-court brief challenging the entire act’s constitutionality. Meanwhile, citizens arrested after police officers went to the considerable effort of adding up the bullets in their respective magazines and arriving at totals larger than seven have seen their convictions overturned on the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly the liberals of New York State and their dedicated constabularies were up against a bunch of right-wing Neanderthals in the judiciary—never previously considered a breeding ground of reaction! Fortunately, at the national level, there remained one man who never wavered over such trifling concerns as the Bill of Rights or the separation of powers—a man who even now marches confidently toward this nation’s Utopian future. He is our leader, he is our collective will, he is our Lenin! And that man, gentle readers, is Barack Hussein Obama.

Efforts to pinpoint precisely whose head is depicted here between Governor Cuomo and President Obama have not proved conclusive--but whoever he is, we guarantee he's the smartest man in the photo.

Efforts to pinpoint precisely whose head is depicted here between Governor Cuomo and President Obama have not proved conclusive–but whoever he is, we guarantee he’s the smartest man in the photo.

Our young president seems not in the least dismayed by constitutional objections to New York’s “entirely indecipherable” act, nor by its incomprehensible verbiage. As is his habit when devoting himself to the destruction of American principles, Obama spoke first in praise of the principle to be dismantled, and then elided into a cheerful discussion of how we might best annihilate it. “We can respect the Second Amendment,” he insisted, but added, “If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities…. ” And who are those dangerous, irresponsible people? It must be assumed that in this matter, too, Slow Rappin’ Preezy concurs with his friend and ally, Screamin’ Andy Cuomo, who recently bellowed: “Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay…and  if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”  Obama seeks only to apply Governor Cuomo’s dictum to “bitter clingers” on a national level; and toward this end his latest initiative “invests in programs to identify mental health issues early…” often, one suspects, before they have even officially appeared.

One man’s psycho…

hitchcockimagesPsychology, as the lovely lady on Bones likes to remind us, is a soft science; and at times even that stipulation seems charitable. Ask a population sample “should crazy people be allowed to purchase guns?” and the overwhelming majority will answer “no!” No contest. But the same population, asked to define “crazy” would be hard pressed. For the most part, Democrat politicians have no more idea how to diagnose the insane than they have of how to define an assault rifle, and for the reasons already given, they could care less. The mission now before them, especially now that President Obama has rallied them to the pursuit, is not to weed out psychotics, but rather to deprive the maximum number of Americans of the right to keep and bear the most expansive possible list of freshly proscribed arms. After all, one man’s psycho is another man’s moody uncle—so why take chances?  Isn’t it best to err on the side of caution?  Well…?

What is madness?


And… “who killed Sloane in the kitchen?” (Sorry–that was obscure!)

The American Psychiatric Association stated in 2012 that a mental disorder is “a behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual,” so we ask you, gentle readers, does this help you comprehend the term? Put another way, can you think of anyone who, given the above definition, doesn’t have a mental disorder?  It may gratify readers to learn that nobody else liked that definition either, so by the time the APA published the notorious 5th edition of its ever-controversial Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM) the definition had evolved into a bloated paragraph of ambiguous psychoblab located on page 20.  This longer version met with even more criticism, presumably because there was more to criticize. “People are just as confused about the question, what is madness?” remarked Paul McHugh, a former chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins, who also complained that the DSM-5 ignores causation and eschews prognoses, making it, he said, the psychiatric equivalent of “a field guide to the birds.”

just-one-minuteFor that matter, the term “mental illness” is not actually used in the DSM and remains utterly conjecturable. We might expect  something authoritative from the National Alliance on Mental Illness, for example, but they offer merely that “a mental illness is a condition that impacts a person’s thinking, feeling or mood and may affect his or her ability to relate to others and function on a daily basis.” So, gentle readers, are you beginning to grasp our point?  Are you beginning to understand how readily Progressivism may traverse the aether between Wayne Lapierre’s well-intended suggestion and that point at which you will be denied the ownership of a gun because you are perceived to suffer from a condition that impacts your thinking, feeling or mood and may affect your ability to relate to others?  Like, maybe, being alive?

Pausing to condescend….

One of at least three.

One of at least three.

Naturally the skeptical moderate will pause here to smile condescendingly and say half aloud, “Yes, but all this is ridiculous—when they talk about keeping mentally ill people from buying guns, they are talking about the truly insane—not people with Binge Eating Disorder, or Internet Disorder!” (WOOF is not making those up, by the way.)  WOOF understands the moderate’s skepticism—just as we understood his former confidence that if he liked his doctor he could keep his doctor, that Internet neutrality was intended to bring about more equitable Internet availabilities, that the President was post-racial, or for that matter that the federal income tax was just to pay for World War One. The moderate expects situations to evolve the way they did when grownups were running things, but hasn’t yet cognicized that today’s leaders dress similarly to those grownups only because they are in costume.  To our moderate readers (we know there are at least three of you) we say, consider the Left’s own language in this regard.

One can go on line (which presumably one already is) and check out Whitehouse.gov for President Obama’s plan to reign in gun violence in America and one will encounter a carbon copy of the New York SAFE Act. Truly, not a single bone-headed proscription is left unplagiarized! One will also encounter the helpful assurance that:“The background check system is the most efficient and effective way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, but we need to make sure it has access to complete information about these individuals. For example, although the number of mental health records available to the system has increased by 800 percent…a recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that there are still 17 states that have made fewer than 10 mental health records available.”


Whitehouse.gov encourages impossible loudness, which it believes will stop gun violence. There is also an interesting segment on the Whistlestop Tour, whatever that is, and some nice photos of Bo, the First Dog.

Indeed,Some states have cited concerns about restrictions under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) as a reason not to share relevant information…” [duh.] But, undaunted, Whitehouse.gov promises, “The Administration will begin the regulatory process to remove any needless barriers, starting by gathering information about the scope and extent of the problem.” In fact, deep within the murky bowels of the Affordable Care Act, the mechanisms already reside to quash Americans’ HIPAA rights—how else can the IRS oversee our health care?  But we digress.

Say, are you dangerous or untrustworthy?

cartoonUnder New York’s SAFE Act as originally configured, hundreds of Americans lost their 2nd amendment rights (whether in theory or by dint of interdiction) because they were known to have sought counseling for anxiety or depression, or received prescriptions for anti-depressants. It is Barack Obama’s plan to generate a similar list on a nationwide level, and in Obamacare he has exactly the right tool for the job. WOOF knows that as you read this, the ATF is hard at work generating new sets of recommendations potentially prohibiting anyone who has received psychological counseling for any mood or personality disorder or been prescribed any sort of psycho-pharmaceutical medication, from purchasing a gun. This would debar millions upon millions of law abiding American citizens from firearm ownership and the sagacious reader will trust us when we aver: This is only the beginning!


Suspected extreme conservative, possible pro life advocate, may have slipped through the cracks.

Whitehouse.gov cannot seem to emphasize the point too often or too strongly. Again and again it exhorts concerned supporters of the president to “make sure dangerous people are prohibited from having guns…we need to make sure our laws are effective at identifying the dangerous or untrustworthy individuals that should not have access to guns.” And to this end, “the President will direct the Attorney General, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to review the laws governing who is prohibited from having guns and make legislative and executive recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren’t slipping through the cracks.” Can you not see this coming, gentle readers?

Who are these dangerous and untrustworthy people? Besides the president and the Attorney General, that is. We already have the list, thanks (somewhat ironically) to the emotional instability of the labile Governor Cuomo. The list includes“… these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay…” and everyone else to the approximate political right of, say, Bernie Sanders.  In fact, you don’t have to be any of these things to qualify, you only have to be called these things by the government. Consider the precedent!

The craziest psychiatrist!


Comedian David Steinberg used to do a routine about a crazy psychiatrist who romped into treatment sessions wearing a sombrero, babbling incoherently, and hallucinating vividly. The trope was obvious—what’s funnier than a crazy psychiatrist?  But not all crazy psychiatrists are so amusing. Take Andrei Vladimirovich Snezhnevsky, for instance. Snezhnevsky made himself indispensable to the cause of mental health in Soviet Russia by pioneering an entirely new school of diagnostics, widely called “punitive psychiatry.” During the tenure of Leonid Brezhnev, at the behest of the Communist Party and the KGB, crazy old Dr. Snezhnevsky discovered a whole passel of previously undetected mental illnesses including “sluggish schizophrenia,” which transpired to afflict thousands of previously undiagnosed Soviet citizens. The main symptom of sluggish schizophrenia was resistance to Soviet Communism, or any of its officials, or any of its decrees or laws. Snezhnevsky explained that any refusal to adhere to the official Party line, any hint of dissent from the Soviet lifestyle, was a form of insanity, explicable only as a longitudinally accretive schizophrenic condition. Symptoms on this “negative axis” included pessimism about the state of the nation, inability to adapt comfortably to the socialist cause, and conflict with authorities. Handily, no further symptoms of psychosis were necessary to diagnose the new mental disease, which quickly soared to epidemic proportions in Russia.


Smiling Andrei Snezhnevsky–we couldn’t find any photos of him wearing a sombrero.

Needless to say, thousands of Soviet dissidents were hauled off to mental hospitals after Snezhnevsky’s “Moscow School” of psychiatry recognized their symptoms. Once incarcerated, these unfortunates were repeatedly medicated until their “symptoms” were subdued. But while Snezhnevsky’s theories became mandatory teachings in Russia, they raised hackles in the west. Noting that even the slightest tendency to protest Communist policy in the USSR was now interpreted by Soviet psychiatrists as evidence of mental disease and treated with institutional commitment followed by debilitating drug regimens, many professionals took issue. Ukrainian psychiatrist and human-rights activist Semyon Gluzman summarized matters concisely when he observed that the “psychiatric paradigm of a totalitarian state is culpable for its expansion into spheres which are not initially those of psychiatric competence,” resulting in “psychiatric repression of people showing political or ideological dissent.”  Of course, as our three-or-so skeptically moderate readers will wish us to emphasize at this point, that couldn’t happen here.

It’s happening here.

body snatchers

Appearing before Joe Biden’s annoying task force on gun violence in 2013, American Psychiatric Association representative Dr. Paul Appelbaum got the ball rolling by calling for the development of “sensible, nondiscriminatory approaches to keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people.”  How, precisely, Dr. Appelbaum intended to single out dangerous people without being at least a tiny bit discriminatory was not explained.


Dr. Corlin: AMA President, physician, discoverer of gunitis.

Meanwhile, the newly minted president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Richard F. Corlin, devoted not a portion, but rather the entirety of his recent inaugural address to the topic of guns, a manifestly lopsided focus that proved all the more puzzling inasmuch as Corlin was clearly discussing a topic about which he knew absolutely nothing. But as we mentioned earlier in this screed, ignorance is no impediment to liberal activism, and Corlin proves our point. He promised to initiate a study of the “epidemiology” of gun violence, which he called a public health crisis. Think about this. True, it is unhealthy to get shot—but epidemiology? Getting shot is not a disease any more than getting hit by a truck is a disease, gentle readers, it’s an event. But according to the new head of the AMA it is also a “uniquely American epidemic,” which he actually likened to Polio. Corlin may, in fact, be delusional, since he solemnly assured his constituents that he “grew up in a world without guns,” whereas, in reality, he grew up in America. He has now dedicated the American Medical Association to the priority of returning an entire nation to the factitious idyll of his childhood, and he made the first steps clear when he concluded that, “the greatest risk factor…is access to firearms.” So how would he limit that access, do you suppose? Maybe he’s working on a vaccine.


“That should do it for now, Mrs. Baker–and once Jimmy gets his booster, he’ll be completely bulletproof!”

Not to be outdone, the American Psychological Association issued a report demanding that criminal penalties be levied against gun owners who practice “unsafe storage” of firearms and in support of expanding “gun free zones,” because those always work so well. These demands lead a substantial laundry list of recommendations united by their lack of any association with the expertise of psychology.

ee7a4dbf4ee38b2d2eca16dc0b7f40a3Sometimes, these explosions of liberal bombast are irresistibly amusing. Motivational guru Ray Williams, for instance, writes in Psychology Today that mass killings must be seen in the context of America’s “history of…military activity on a large scale.” Before the reader can perform a respectable double take, Williams lurches forward, insisting that the American military, the CIA, and the sale of American military weaponry abroad play a major roll in provoking gun violence on Main Street. “The U.S. has somewhere between 700-800 formal military bases around the world, not counting covert operations,” gasps Williams, who also lists professional football and the film Zero-Dark Thirty as likely contributors to illegal shootings. But then he refocuses and paves the way for generations of gun-grabbers to come, opining “the real root cause is in the minds of Americans who may feel that a gun gives them a feeling of empowerment, and that they are entitled to have the power over life and death as well as the belief that if they want to they can take a life if they have been wronged (or imagined they have) in some way.”  Thanks, Ray Williams. The message is plain enough—if you own a gun, you’re probably Dylann Roof—so you must be nuts. Somewhere in Hell, Andrei Vladimirovich Snezhnevsky is smiling fraternally.

Worse, the language of the new DOJ regulations, first devised during the tenure of gun-running crime lord Eric Holder, would revise the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” to include “persons who are found incompetent ….by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane….regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court.”

If it saves even one life…!

Thus long before a method is formulated (and promulgated by the media) allowing gun ownership itself to be written off as a mental affliction, it becomes an attractive first option to seek out quirks or infirmities that can be ruled (at the state, federal, or local level) to constitute grounds for depriving Americans of their second-amendment protections.  With the abandonment of medical confidentiality inherent in the takeover of our healthcare system by the IRS (which has more than adequately proved itself a militant extension of the DNC), Obama has the pieces on the board necessary to checkmate citizens whose mental-health histories in any respect cause the state to suspect they may be dangerous or untrustworthy. Leftists, including pro-abortion leftists, we can’t resist noting, will take up Obama’s paralogistical chant: “If it saves even one life!”  and demand citizens surrender their arms because they take Lexapro, or Librium–and with one in five Americans on psych meds, we can’t take chances! Or do you want Dylann Roof shooting up your church?

What would Mitt do?

mittUltimately, the Right may wish to get ahead of this curve, more or less in the way that Romney advised getting ahead of the illegal immigration curve, except  that was a really bad idea, and this may be a good one!  It is possible to construct legislation barring authentically psychotic individuals from owning firearms, and phrasing the law so as to impinge on no one’s rights save the genuinely insane. It will be sensibly argued that such a law is unnecessary insofar as federal and state laws already proscribe the sale of firearms to those whose histories include involuntary mental commitment or to persons having been adjudicated insane by a court. So why bother?  Why, to seize the initiative and make a show of passing legislation responsive to the faux-crisis before the Left can concoct something vastly more subversive. Too Machiavellian? We’re just thinking out loud here.

armed women tee

The liberal answer is distressingly simple—you take away everyone’s gun. But as all good Fabianists know, you get there a little bit at a time. and the next step will involve the circumscription of anyone’s rights who so much as confessed to depression or anxiety in the presence of the family physician, lest such persons obtain firearms and suddenly metamorphose into Dylann Roof, like David Banner breaking bad under stress.  The NRA’s solution, on the other hand, is a vigilantly armed citizenry. This suffers the distinct disadvantage of sending chills up the spines of our  (above referenced) moderate readers, and affronting their legendarily tender sensibilities to the breaking point; but it has the advantage of practicality, which has won a lot more gunfights than self-righteousness.

Assertions that the Charleston shootings could have been prevented or abbreviated by an armed parishioner have met with explosions of liberal outrage—but what doesn’t?  Slate’s “The Slatest” blog went into conniptions when NRA member Charles Cotton told the Washington Post “If armed citizens are in there, they have a chance to defend themselves and other citizens.” Cotton went on to lament the slain Reverend/Senator Clementa Pinckney’s anti-gun politics, which virtually guaranteed an unarmed flock. The Slatest cites an FBI report that “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.” Statistically, this is true, of course, and The Slatest  calls this “evidence” that “contradicts” the NRA position, conveniently forgetting that the NRA consistently laments the unpreparedness of average Americans to defend themselves or their loved ones, and the concomitant tendency to depend instead on an overworked, thinly spread constabulary that is rarely on the scene in time to defend anybody. In fact, when an armed citizen is on hand, the statistics improve dramatically.

Jean Assam

Jeanne Assam

Example: On December 9th, 2007, 24-year-old Matthew Murray started shooting at parishioners of the New Life Church of Colorado Springs. Parishioner Jeanne Assam drew her concealed handgun, crouched and waited. As Murray approached her position she revealed herself and fired several times at the killer. After stopping several of Assam’s bullets, Murray was gracious enough to finish the job by committing suicide. At the time of his death, he was carrying an assault rifle, two pistols, and over 1000 rounds of ammo. Major networks ignored the event.

Example: On Sunday, 24, April, 2012, Kiarron Parker rammed his car into the parking lot of Destiny Christian Center in Aurora Colorado, and exited his vehicle gun in hand. He immediately shot and killed Josephine Echols, 67, and then opened fire on multiple church members. “He pulled out the gun and started chasing us,” one member reported, “he pulled the gun…and just began to shoot!” Fortunately, the nephew of the murdered woman held a concealed carry permit. The armed church member drew his handgun and shot Parker, killing him and preventing mass slaughter. “Thank God for him because if it wasn’t for him there’s no telling what would have happened,” one parishioner told reporters. Major networks ignored the event.

The gun-less idyll

peace_love_and_happiness_iiA truly disarmed America—that fairy-tale realm in which the AMA’s newly elected president fantasizes spending his childhood– is unobtainable, of course—no matter what unconstitutional measures are taken against the lawful populace, criminals will always have guns, and keep and bear them despite declining to submit to mental health exams. But criminals do not stand against governmental tyranny nor threaten to resist the tide of socialist expansion in their respective cities or towns—nor will they form a well regulated militia if necessary to oppose the presumptions of a tyrant. But criminals will always enjoy liberal favor. As Solzhenitsyn points out in The Gulag Archipelago, common criminals enjoyed superior treatment in the Soviet labor camps because ideologically they were deemed better prospects for re-education. Political prisoners were tools of the bourgeoisie, and converting them was a chore, whereas Marxism taught that common criminals were the result “anomie” resulting, the communists reasoned, from class struggle against the dehumanizing weight of industrial Capitalism. Criminals could be made into modern Soviet men. This attitude of special dispensation to the criminal caste is constantly on display among American liberals, even though most have never considered its source —surely you’ve noticed!

alexandr On the other extreme, for the liberal elitist there is no perceptual downside to the elimination of an armed American citizenry. The Leftists who seek to disarm us, after all, are invariably surrounded by heavily armed bodyguards, and have no cause to fear for their own persons, nor inclination to fear for anyone else’s. It is only the hope of eliminating the militia referenced in the 2nd amendment that excites their energies, for as George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights, quoth long ago:

“I ask, Sir, what is the
militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and
most effectual way to enslave them.” WOOF PRINT


Detroit Shoots Back: How the Motor City took back its Streets and Outdrew the Left.

In "Gunning for success" forum on August 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm

detroit crime

It is often said that Detroit’s slow spiral into economic and social devastation began with  the riot of 1967, but in truth it began when the first infectious strains of late-20th century liberalism incubated in 1962, the year in which the last Republican mayor in Detroit’s history lost his office to a young Democrat named Jerome (Jerry) Cavanaugh. Cavanaugh was so dumb he once attempted to introduce his children at a campaign stop and forgot their names, but he instinctively anticipated modern liberalism’s descent into manipulative partisanship, and displayed a natural flair for the tactics of “divide and pander.”

Cavanaugh and Mitt's daddy during the Detroit Riot--the Mayor always drove Romney a bit ape!

Cavanaugh and Mitt’s daddy during the Detroit Riot–the Mayor always drove Romney a bit ape!

While his decision to join Martin Luther King’s “Freedom Walk” down Woodward Avenue in 1963 was objectively laudable despite his clearly political motives, Cavanaugh’s next moves were not. Intuiting the enormous political value of federal largesse as a means of imposing mass dependency and solidifying Democratic power, the Mayor welcomed Lyndon Johnson’s “Great-Society” initiatives, and particularly that ambitious experiment in social engineering called “The Model Cities Program.” Johnson’s idealistic plan to transform blighted urban areas into model metropolitan Utopias was, in praxis, a nightmare of increased taxation, exploitation, mismanaged funds, corruption, favoritism, and state and federal intrusions into private enterprise. The impact of these centrally planned, locally devastating projects was an economic body blow that drove more than 22,000 middle-and-upper-class residents from the city long before the violent summer of ’67, while setting the stage for the turbulence to follow.

Can you find Mayor Cavanaugh? Hint: He's the only Irish guy in the photo. His  march with King may have been opportunistic, but his passion for LBJ was all too real!

Can you find Mayor Cavanaugh? Hint: He’s the only Irish guy in the photo. His march with King may have been opportunistic, but his passion for LBJ was all too real!

The 1967 riot killed 40 people and rendered 5,000 more instantly homeless in what was almost exclusively a Black-on-Black tragedy. Countless Black-owned businesses were burned to the ground. Desperate store owners put signs in their windows reading “SOUL BROTHER” to ward off the hordes, but to no avail. Mayor Cavanaugh seemed stupefied by events and took no action, subsequently claiming that a more aggressive police response would have fed the rioters’ hysteria. After 5 days of unrelenting mob violence and citywide arson, President Johnson sent in the 101st Airborne and the riot stopped abruptly. In its aftermath, another 140,000 upper-and-middle-class residents left town.

Can guns prevent crime?  This Airborne trooper guards a grocery on Mack Avenue on Detroit's East Side.

Can guns prevent crime? This Airborne trooper  drove looters from a  Mack Avenue grocery on  Detroit’s East Side during  the ’67 riot.

Faced with such ghastly policy failures, Democrats naturally reasoned that more government controls were in order. They promptly implemented the disastrous Community Development Block Grant Program and Detroit entered the ‘70s poorer, more violent, and less capable of self governance than ever before. To make matters worse, the auto unions picked this moment to become excruciatingly extortive of the American automobile industry, reducing profits and depriving the city of anything resembling an actual tax base given that most large and small businesses had already pulled up stakes.

So what else is new? Between the Japanese and the UAW, the "Big Three" were in for a squeeze.

So what else is new? Between the Japanese and the UAW, the “Big Three” were in for a squeeze.

Even today, Detroit’s liberal administrators maintain the country’s highest property taxes on homes, the largest commercial property tax, and an industrial property tax second only to Columbia, South Carolina—(how’d that happen?)  Of course, nobody in Detroit can pay taxes at this point, so their level is arguably academic.

Many Detroit schools have simply ceased to function as their locations become increasingly dangerous.

Many Detroit  schools simply ceased to function as their locations became increasingly dangerous.

The once-exemplary Detroit Public Schools became a hellbroth of disorganization, drugs, crime and violence, thus only half of the city’s population can read and write. Only half the city’s streetlights work and less than half of the municipal ambulances are running. In the face of mounting crime as the new century matured, 40% of the police were let go. If you needed a cop in Detroit, the average wait was one hour. Predictably, the only growth industry was government since the politicians who presided over the chaos still received their extravagant salaries and lavish perquisites. Why not? Detroit voters largely maintained these incumbents in office; speaking of which, 98% of Detroit’s voters marked their ballots for President Obama in 2012, slightly up from 2008!

The murder capital of the world?

Dead in Detroit-- a gunshot victim awaits removal on day like any other, except, of course, for him.

Dead in Detroit– a gunshot victim awaits removal on a day like any other, except, of course, for him.

Detroit has been called the “murder capital of the world” by its critics (and, with a certain chauvinistic élan, by many of its residents) for decades, but this is nonsense. Internationally, Detroit can’t hold a candle to Caracas, Venezuela; Acapulco Mexico; or Honduras’s Distrito Central, to name only a few competitors, but homicide has always raged out of control in Motown, which frequently qualifies it as the murder capital of America. The year 2012 began with the motor city well out in front of other contenders with a murder and non-negligent homicide rate of 55 per 1000 people despite 2012 being the year Barack Obama announced he had saved Detroit from bankruptcy (and, coincidentally, the same year Detroit went bankrupt). Jonathon S. Tobin, writing in Commentary, opined thatDetroit isn’t just the most spectacular example of urban blight. It’s the poster child for the consequences of liberal governance.”  Liberals, of course, know what to do about a high murder rate. They have policies to deal with such matters.


The city’s administrators favored massive, highly publicized “gun buybacks” on the assumption, familiar to students of liberalism, that guns themselves are the problem, and that melting enough of them would satisfy justice. These buy-back operations have a consistent record of achievement in violence-torn urban communities, which is to say, they never work; but since they are high-profile affairs that make civic leaders look engaged, they are a perennial favorite. Traditionally, homicides continue unabated during buy-backs, while break-ins skyrocket as enterprising criminals set about ransacking homes in search of guns they can fence to the city for cash.

President Obama, (fresh from rescuing Detroit fiscally, as we may have mentioned once or twice), now focused his genius on rescuing it  bodily by emphasizing his support for the Detroit Youth Violence Prevention Initiative, (part of his six-city strategy to contain urban violence). This amounted to city officials, such as Detroit Mayor Dave Bing and Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee Jr. woodenly reciting platitudes to a conference room filled with youthful Detroiters. Annie Ellington, a spokeswoman for the Detroit Initiative, hailed the community’s response as “overwhelming,” which it may or may not have been, depending on how one measures overwhelmingness.  The city’s violent crime rate never wavered despite Miss Ellington’s assurances that “other cities in the national initiative have praised and emulated Detroit’s youth engagement model.” At the same time, polls showed that more than half of all Detroiters, oblivious, seemingly, of their many emulators, wanted out of town but lacked the means to relocate.

Toasted by the media and lauded by local leadership, Obama's Youth Violence Prevention Initiative brought some wonderful young Detroiters together to form bonds of friendship and express their commitment to reducing violence in their city. The photo ops were heart warming and spirits were soaring--  it seems almost churlish to note that   it had no effect whatever on youth violence in Detroit--but we guess no initiative is perfect.

Toasted by the media and lauded by local leadership, Obama’s Youth Violence Prevention Initiative brought some wonderful young Detroiters together to form bonds of friendship and express their commitment to reducing violence in their city. The photo ops were heart warming and spirits were soaring– it seems almost churlish to note that it had no effect whatever on youth violence in Detroit–but we guess no initiative is perfect.

What may prove Detroit’s last-ever marathon buyback of guns began on August 30th, 2011.  It was, as almost everybody except the media knew perfectly well, a politically correct but practically moronic beau geste. First, gun buybacks require something Detroit doesn’t have—money. Thus, only $20,000 was allocated to the cause. The going rates were: non-operational guns, $25 (why?), operational guns, $50, and as much as $100 for an “assault rifle,” which, as loyal readers are already aware, WOOF eliminated in 2013 [read the incredible truth here], but that’s not important now. The distinctions may have been lost in any case on Detroit’s police force given its demonstrable lack of familiarity with its own firearms. Consider that at the height of the buyback effort, police were checking out a suspected “chop shop” on Detroit’s east side when they realized the establishment was guarded by pit bulls and summoned Animal Control in accordance with protocol. When one of the pit bulls unexpectedly bounded from the targeted premises, an alert officer drew her .40 caliber Smith & Wesson and fired at the dog 12 times, hitting one arriving Animal Control officer in the leg, and another in the foot. The pit bull escaped uninjured in the ensuing frenzy, and remains at large.

A typical harvest of guns traded for cash in Detroit--whew, glad those babies are off the street! How much did the BB guns trade for?

A typical harvest of guns traded for cash in Detroit–whew, glad those  bad boys are off the street! 

Meanwhile, back at the gun buyout, Police Chief Ralph Godbee Jr., a passionate proponent of gun control, announced that it was going so well the money was gone, but insisted that the city would issue vouchers tobe honored at a later date. Godbee emphasized that gun buyouts were particularly useful because,”We know that there are too many firearms that end up in the wrong hands [and] every gun turned in helps because that’s one less gun that could potentially be stolen if there is a home invasion,” which last sentiment seemed odd (although true, in a grim sort of way) given that so many of the guns exchanged for municipal vouchers were freshly acquired in precisely that fashion. “The goal,” Godbee assured the media, “is to get guns out of circulation.”

Police Chief godbee in happier days--

Police Chief Godbee in happier days.

In Godbee’s defense, his obtuseness is endemic to the entire species of new-wave police commissioners and chiefs, who, unlike cops on the beat, tend to be political appointees who rose to prominence by osculating the establishment’s fundament. Such men are apparatchiks of the metropolitan Left who resemble TV cops of the old Hill Street Blues variety—the ones who wept in each other’s arms when executions took place and went into paroxysms of sanctimony whenever firearms showed up in civilian hands. But in fairness to Godbee, he was also the Detroit version of this—and so his was a rather advanced case.

Chief Godbee was flying high at the time of the anti-gun campaign. He liked to recall his conversation with Barack Obama during a presidential visit to the city (made, you will recall, in the course of saving it from bankruptcy) during which Obama made a point of seeking Godbee, telling him, “Chief, you have a really tough job,'” to which Godbee, not one to be bested in urbane colloquy, replied,  ‘Mr. President, you have a really tough job.’  Who could have predicted at that moment how much tougher both men’s jobs were soon to become! (Besides WOOF, that is.)

Obama tells cheering auto workers, "I refuse to let Detroit go bankrupt!" For the record, it should be noted that he said that in 2012, and at no time refused to let Detroit go Bankrupt in 2013.

Our Beloved Helmsman famously telling  cheering auto workers, “I refuse to let Detroit go bankrupt!” For the record, it should be noted that the President said that in 2012, and at no time promised to refuse  to let Detroit go Bankrupt in 2013.

Guns, girls, and Twitter pics!

Guns, it should be noted, played a conspicuous role in the sad tale of Chief Godbee’s spiral into ignominy. The first such gun belonged to Officer Joseph Weekley who claimed it discharged of its own volition during a raid on the home of a murder suspect, taking the life of a sleeping seven year old girl. Chief Godbee did his best to portray a silver lining, telling the press “we must use this difficult moment to continue bringing our community and police department together,” but charges of perjury, evidence suppression and a lack of departmental transparency quickly ensued. In other words, it transpired that Weekley, not his gun, was culpable of misconduct.


Adaisha Miller, another victim of an apparently autonomous handgun, suggesting that sometimes, maybe it really is the gun that kills!

A second renegade handgun struck on September 9, 2012, when a 24-year-old Detroit woman named Adaisha Miller embraced off-duty police officer Isaac Parrish from behind while dancing with him at a fish fry on Detroit’s west side. No sooner had Miss Miller effected this gesture than the holstered weapon discharged whereupon Miss Miller fell to the floor mortally wounded. According to Chief Godbee, Parrish’s holstered pistol discharged for no apparent reason, striking Miss Miller in the chest, which in and of itself seemed to defy the laws of physics. Subsequent versions had Miller manipulating the trigger by accident, and finally, manipulating the trigger by accident while performing what was politely described as an ‘exotic dance’ thereby placing herself in the holstered weapon’s trajectory. The story was not held to much scrutiny by local media—the Detroit Free Press, for example, contented itself with asking,” Why was the officer’s gun loaded?” Only Adaisha’s aggrieved mother seemed to make sense, declaring that she had been told so many stories she found it hard to believe any of them.

We hear it's not her best side! Officer Robinson's tweeted selfie went instantly viral, bringing Chief Godbee's San Diego escapade to a premature climax.

We hear it’s not her best side, but Officer Robinson’s tweeted selfie went viral nevertheless.

But Chief Godbee’s bad gun karma was only beginning. He was away at a national chiefs’ meeting in San Diego when his subordinate, Detroit Internal Affairs officer Angelica Robinson, went public with claims she was enmeshed in a steamy affair with Godbee, he having filed for divorce from his wife only two months earlier. But Officer Robinson was convinced Godbee had escorted yet a third woman to San Diego (as in fact he had) and elected to express her disapproval by posting a picture of herself on Twitter with the barrel of her city-issued Glock thrust ominously into her mouth. The depiction went immediately viral causing a national sensation even as it put quite the damper, one supposes, on Chief Godbee’s San Diego rumpus.

Godbee was, at least, in the process of becoming divorced; whereas Officer Robinson turned out to be thoroughly married despite her evident enthusiasm for Internal Affairs (sorry!) and yet Robinson managed to negotiate the incident and its aftermath far better than the unfortunate Godbee, who was unceremoniously cashiered. It is perhaps a tribute to the impact and pervasiveness of feminism in Detroit’s political bureaucracy, (or perhaps simply evidence of unfettered incompetence), that Robinson was not only reinstated at her former rank and pay, but also handed back her Glock.

glock Evidently aware that embattled liberals are often forgiven their excesses once they enfold themselves in the protective embrace of victimhood, Chief Godbee made the timely admission that he had been molested as a child, but when Godbee was found to have promoted a number of attractive young ladies in exchange for sex, Mayor Dave Bing canned him anyway and appointed his replacement, Chester Logan, who lasted only until he was caught misappropriating undercover personnel to spy on Police Commissioner Jerome Warfield, no less, presumably in an effort to sabotage what Logan suspected were the Commissioner’s efforts to locate a more suitable permanent police chief. Thus, in a stunning display of sophoclean irony, Logan became the artificer of his own demise.

The new breed…

How did a nation stamped with the image of Judge Roy Bean, wind up with so many clones of Little Lord Fauntleroy running our police departments?

How did a nation stamped with the image of Judge Roy Bean, wind up with so many clones of Little Lord Fauntleroy running our police departments?

You may be wondering in the course of all this, how America moved from a country of hard-bitten law-and-order types, chafing against the restraints placed upon their policies by bleeding hearts of the jurisprudential left, to the other extreme—an extreme at which the “top cop” in nearly every major city is prepared to shred the 2nd amendment and lock arms with the anti-gun politicians and the liberal media simpletons who cheer them on. Examples?

In Boston, Police Commissioner William B. Evans rants against legislators voting to make it easier for honest citizens to obtain firearm IDs. He predicts a bloodbath if such criteria are softened even as New York City’s police commissioner, Ray Kelly, retires, leaving a career of dedicated opposition to the 2nd amendment. In retirement, Kelly will enjoy the protection of six heavily armed bodyguards to protect him from the City’s dangerous criminal element.

Joe Biden congratulates Chief Ramsey for cracking down on the 2nd Amendment.

Joe Biden congratulates  Commissioner Ramsey for cracking down on the 2nd Amendment.

Charles Ramsey, police commissioner of Philadelphia, teamed up recently with the nation’s top gun-runner, Eric Holder, and “Shotgun” Joe Biden to announce that national gun legislation as stringent as New York’s will be needed “everywhere” to stop urban violence, despite the fact that such legislation has not even stopped urban violence in New York.

…and earlier this August, Missouri voters flocked to the polls and by a majority of 66% approved a ballot measure obligating Missouri to affirm the right to keep and bear arms. True, it’s alarming that only 66% of voting Missourians think the 2nd amendment merits continuance, but even that was too much for St. Louis Police Chief Samuel Dotson who immediately filed a lawsuit attempting to block the amendment affirming the amendment. To hear chief Dotson on the matter one might conclude that reaffirming the right of Missourians to keep and bear arms constitutes an irrational invitation to mass slaughter.

Simple logic: Chief Dotson urges citizens to disarm in order to avoid violence!

Simple logic: Chief Dotson reminds Missourians that the best way to fight violence is to disarm!

We refuse to bore you with case after case in which exemplars of this new breed swear to  uphold the Constitution only to work in blatant opposition to its clear intent. Suffice it that we could fill the remainder of this article with examples. Some gun authors like Mark Chestnut have opined that America’s police chiefs go along with this sort of idiocy to get along, echoing their political masters’ philosophies despite their better angels. This is too kind. These chiefs, almost to a man, want to abolish the 2nd amendment just as badly as do the statist poltroons they serve. Resplendent in blue, braid, and sparkling stars, they customarily explain massive levels of urban violence as the inevitable result of too few progressive programs, too little funding, and, of course, too many guns. But in reality, gun buy-backs, citizen “initiatives,” and frantically constructed community basketball courts have never lowered municipal gun crime a single tick, but who cares? They are the kind of liberal theater that makes for feel-good politics in connivance with “journalists” who gush over the projects without ever bothering to examine the results. Readers, you cannot name a large, crime-ridden American metropolis that is not governed by a liberal democrat backed by a gun-grabbing political flunky in charge of the city’s constabulary! Oh wait, yes you can….because there is now a single, glorious exception to our dictum: Detroit!

Return of the native…

james craig

It may be recalled that immediately after Detroit was bailed out and saved from bankruptcy by the inspired intercession of Our Beloved Helmsman, it tumbled  immediately into receivership and thus a city Emergency Manager, one Kevyn Orr, was appointed to handle the city’s financial mess. It was therefore Orr’s decision to hire a police chief who did not correspond to the normative metropolitan archetype. Oops! The result of Orr’s independent outreach campaign was a game changer. Rather than fill the opening left by Godbee’s and Logan’s discomfitures with another sycophantic hack, Orr seized the moment and commandeered the police chief of Portland, Maine, one James Craig—a Detroiter by birth and a realist by disposition.

At first, Craig’s hiring caused nary a ripple. Craig is satisfactorily Black, so no eyebrows rose on that account. And when Orr explained that “Chief Craig is a decorated law enforcement officer with more than 30 years on the job [and] completely qualified to be chief in Detroit,” nobody thought twice about it, because, of course, nobody really took it seriously. The city’s political class had no cause to suspect that anything useful, or even unusual was in the offing—its denizens sat back to await the next citywide gun buy-back, or the latest call for an outraged citizenry to rid itself of the 2nd amendment at the ballot box the better to feel good about itself while its children were mown down like wheat and police sirens mourned the harvest—is this not the way of American city governance?  Just ask Comrades Emanuel and de Blasio!

Chief' Craig's willingness to make the cover of the NRA's magazine gave some city administrators the willies.

Chief’ Craig’s willingness to adorn the cover of this NRA magazine gave some city administrators the willies.

To be fair, a few alert liberals saw signs of trouble almost as soon as Craig reported for duty. He didn’t want to legalize marijuana, for one thing, insisting it was a major cause of criminal activity in the city quite apart from its simple possession or sale. He was an outspoken critic of imported cars, preferring his Pontiac GTO. True enough, Detroit is a good echo chamber for such preferences, but the upper echelons of liberalism’s oligarchy, even in the Motor City, abide by the broader canons of progressivism—and setting aside the holy precepts of internationalism to tool around in a home-grown muscle car is not cool, comrades—not cool at all.

Say, maybe all city dignitaries should start driving GTOs! But we guess there's nowhere to put the chauffeur.

Say, maybe all city dignitaries should start driving GTOs! But we guess there’s nowhere to put the chauffeur.

It takes a keen eye to pinpoint individualism amid the vast wasteland of conformist orthodoxy on the Left, but progressivism routinely fields paladins whose sensibilities are a match for the task. Labor activist Robert Davis, for instance, was quick to smell the taint of authenticity wafting from Craig and attempted to have him removed from office early on, arguing that because Craig was appointed, rather than elected, his position was illegitimate. This was patently absurd, but Davis might have gained some momentum given his shrillness had he not been caught stealing over $125,000 from the Highland Park school district just then, requiring him to refocus on slithering out of his own mess. Craig, meanwhile, broached the fact that he was “pro life” in an interview, but before the usual consortium of pouty establishmentarians could pounce on that unpardonable enormity, he unleashed his Sunday punch.

The Shootist


Shortly after Craig’s installation as Chief, members of the press felt bound by convention to ask him the usual questions about firearm violence, allowing ample opportunity for any expatiative banalities the new man might choose to insert related to the inherent dangers of widespread gun ownership. Any police official in any municipality in America could have sleep-walked his way through the approved answers to such chestnuts, and nobody expected variations from the prescribed themes, but Craig refused to play. Instead, he made national headlines when he assured the assembled reporters that armed citizens could best deter crime — a pronouncement that might fairly be characterized as the shot heard ‘round the national news cycle. GUN_concealed_campus_signs-231x300

Immediately, torrents of virulent criticism poured forth from all the predictable liberal outlets, designed to alert the poor bumpkin from Maine to his misstep while firmly placing him back on message. Chief Craig, whose obtuseness clearly knew no bounds,  doubled down. He assured his political and media adversaries that he too had once been as benighted as they, admitting that he was as resolute a gun grabber at the outset of his career. He told The Detroit News that “Coming from California [where he served on the Los Angeles force for 28 years], where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of carrying concealed weapon permits, and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.” But Maine provoked a kind of epiphany in its newly arrived police chief. Craig began to drink in the 2nd amendment ethos and, as he told the News, “I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

Not all Americans believe that low rates of violence are any excuse for people being armed!

Of course, not all Americans believe that low rates of violence are any excuse for people being armed!

In keeping with his newly established insights, Craig called on Detroiters to arm themselves against the city’s criminal element.  In so doing he acknowledged simple truths that no other police chief had been willing to address, including the fact that police officers could not arrive at crime scenes fast enough to provide deterrence and insisting that in emergencies, that deterrence must come from an armed and resolute citizenry.

gun-control-is-racistDetroiters who lived through decades of ultra liberal administrators (mostly because they kept voting for them, but that’s not important now) suddenly realized the city’s main law enforcement official was advocating gunfire as the most practical solution to the Motor City’s runaway crime rate. If Joe Arpaio had parachuted into Grand Circus Park with a bullhorn and a case of Mini 14s, the message could not have been any clearer—or driven liberals any crazier: The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun was still a good guy with a gun. This lesson was not lost on the predominantly black citizenry of Detroit, at least in part because Black liberalism is in many respects different from White liberalism. Here’s how:

Surveying the landscape in the summer of 1892, Ida B. Wells advised, that “the Winchester rifle deserves a place of honor in every Black home.”

Surveying the landscape in the summer of 1892, Ida B. Wells advised, that “the Winchester rifle deserves a place of honor in every Black home.”

Forty-three percent of Democrats oppose abortion, but fifty one percent of Blacks view abortion as morally wrong. Sixty-eight percent of America’s Black adults support school vouchers (against which liberals traditionally inveigh demagogically). Seventy percent consider energy taxes too high and oppose a carbon tax. Even a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll acknowledged that 73% of the Black population stands in staunch opposition to illegal immigration and supports stricter border control. A Pew survey found that Black Americans are most likely to report a formal religious affiliation, with fully 87%  affiliated with some religious group, the majority of them Christian. Even 72% of Blacks who do not report a formal religious affiliation say that religion plays “at least a somewhat important role in their lives,” while 52% of all liberals polled by CNN insist that they never or almost never attend church.

Many of the West's greatest gunfighters were Black, a fact not lost on Sammy Davis Jr., who practiced often with twin Colt .45 Peacemakers.

Many of the West’s greatest gunfighters were Black, a fact not lost on Sammy Davis Jr., who practiced often with twin Colt .45 Peacemakers.

Even a cursory examination of the volumes of survey data available on line will quickly  confirm that American Blacks harbor some profoundly conservative views setting them starkly apart from their brie-and-Chablis counterparts on the Caucasian Left. The illogic of Blacks repeatedly voting Democrat by overwhelming percentages has engaged our attention previously [click here]. But one sad fact cannot be denied, and that is that only about 30% of Black Americans firmly support the 2nd amendment. Polls suggest that Blacks are (naturally) sensitive to the role illegal guns play in the murder rates of Black young people and the sky-high prevalence of urban crime while almost no Blacks retain any cognizance of the role legal gun ownership played in fighting the KKK and other racist cadres in their cultural past, nor do they grasp to what extent such groups led the fight against gun ownership among blacks in attempts to disarm them, thus rendering them helpless. The impressive histories of Black defense alliances such as the storied “Deacons of Defense” (read about them here) and other Black groups that armed themselves to confront the likes of the Klan and various American Nazi nutcases go untold for the most part nowadays, but in Detroit, at least, it may be that a healthy rebirth of this spirit is at hand as Detroit’s Blacks relearn the lesson preached by the mid ‘60s anti-Klan activist Charles Sims who declared,  “Let’s back up the Constitution of the United States and say we can bear arms. We have a right to defend ourselves.”

The "Deacons for Defense and Justice," were Blacks who organized in the South in the firm belief that armed self-defense against entrenched hatred and bigotry was their last constitutional; resort! As Willie  This still is from a cable TV movie, but as Willie Dixon might've said, "It's a true story, Baby!"

The “Deacons for Defense and Justice,” were Blacks who organized in the South in the firm belief that armed self-defense against entrenched hatred and bigotry was their last constitutional resort! This still is from a cable TV movie about the group, but as Willie Dixon might’ve said, “It’s a true story, baby!”

And indeed, Detroiters have precisely that right regardless of race or ethnicity, and hold an especially strong card since the 2006 passage of the Michigan’s stand-your-ground-law, which eliminated the necessity of yielding ground or otherwise catering to armed aggressors when acting in self-defense. Detroiters didn’t pay it much attention until 18-year-old Michael Evans walked up to a 36-year-old resident as the latter was getting into his vehicle. The vehicle, incidentally, happened to be parked directly in front of police headquarters but this did nothing to deter Mr. Evans who gamely brandished a pistol in the driver’s face, demanding that he relinquish his keys or meet his Maker. Instead, the driver drew a legally-registered handgun and shot Evans dead. The shooting was ruled a justifiable homicide. Liberals, of course, were beside themselves with outrage. After all, Detroit’s hundreds of carjackings routinely ended with somebody dead, but never the perpetrator!  The city’s predominantly Black inhabitants, on the other hand, could take a hint: Proactive measures stopped crooks better than left wing polemics—every time!


Legendary lawman Bass Reeves is a significant figure in a long and stellar history of  Black Americans who relied on their 2nd amendment rights to enforce law and order in the old west!

Things seemed even more desperate from the liberal standpoint when shortly after the thwarted carjacking, Damontae Moorer was shot to death while attempting to break into a Detroit home. Mr. Moorer was accompanied by a 19-year-old female accomplice, (who chose the better part of valor) but he himself was only 15 when he was detected smashing his way into an armed citizen’s home. The homeowner filled his hand, and Damontae stopped four bullets. And the Left went utterly berserk. Now the city’s youths were being mown down by crazed vigilante citizens—what next? Naturally, the media and the local politicos endeavored to evoke the cult of the angelic youth, as they invariably do when police shootings occur or whenever citizens defend themselves with firearms [see previous WOOF contemplations of this phenomenon here] but Damontae’s mom proved hopelessly out of step with the effort, telling reporters that her son “was easily influenced” and insisting that his female accomplice probably manipulated him into breaking into the home. Meaning no disrespect whatever to Mrs. Moorer, whose candor is refreshing, but a team player would have insisted that her son was Christmas Caroling and produced a photo of him at around age 7, hugging Santa. Some people just can’t get with the program.

Before even a decent candle-light vigil could be arranged, a 50-year-old homeowner dialed 911 at 12:30 AM and informed Detroit police that a truck was parked suspiciously outside her house. She then reported that someone got out and was trying to break into her home. The stranger initially tried to pry the bars from several windows but failing that, broke the glass on the one rear window that lacked bars and climbed through. The homeowner shouted a warning that she was armed, but the intruder was undeterred and proceeded toward her. “He’s coming into my home,” the woman told 911, “I really do not want to shoot him. He’s coming in; I can see him in my house!” The 911 dispatcher, who had obviously gotten Chief Craig’s memo, replied ‘You have the right to protect yourself.” When police arrived, 24-year-old James Roundtree was crumpled in the the front yard with a gunshot wound to the shoulder. He was transported to a local hospital where he was declared stable. His 16-year-old female “wheel man” was also taken into custody.

Ma'am, it's the police--do you have a getaway car in your living room by any chance?"

“Ma’am, it’s the police–do you have a getaway car in your living room by any chance?”

Shortly afterward, two Detroiters were playing video games in their basement when they heard a commotion upstairs. Investigating, they discovered three intruders in the process of robbing their home. Detroit Police Sgt. Michael Woody told reporters the homeowner armed himself and fired a shot, whereupon the intruders toppled over one another trying to flee the scene. This proved difficult because the smashed window by which they’d entered would not accommodate them in simultaneous retreat. Kicking through an emergency door, the three felons fled to their getaway car, but the dauntless homeowner pursued them. Two men escaped on foot, but the third jumped into the car from which he fired several shots of his own before shifting into reverse and backing toward the defenders. The homeowner returned fire, striking the suspect through the rear windshield whereupon he ran over a street sign and crashed into an adjacent house. WOOF cannot help wondering if that constituted two B&Es in one night, but since the driver was pronounced dead at the scene, it probably doesn’t matter.

John Roman:"It's a disaster!"

John Roman:”It’s a disaster!”

Liberalism never quits—and as evidence, the news networks trotted out John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, who shrilled, “I think it’s a disaster. How do you grow a city when you say to people who are thinking about moving there: ‘When you move here, bring a weapon.’ Who’s going to want to move there?” Evidently Mr. Roman believes the likely prospect of being shot, stabbed, raped, robbed, or bludgeoned by unrestrained criminals roaming a city whose motto in Roman’s view should be “and if you move here, we’ll disarm you,” will attract residents like flies to butter.  As we are in the habit of saying from time to time, it is mean-spirited to confront the delusional.

Chief Craig’s opponents next claimed that stand-your-ground laws habitually and unjustly favor Whites, which is conjecturable on a statistical basis but which, in any case, seemed an absurd concern in a city that is 82% Black. Failing this point, the Left produced Mark Fancher, a “racial justice staff attorney” at Michigan’s ACLU, who explained that the very absence of white abuse was also bad—because Black Detroiters shooting Black Detroiters would surely “be fulfilling a stigma of armed Black people, rather than trying to dismantle it.” Mr. Fancher did not say where, other than in his febrile imagination and the bygone culture of the Jim Crow south, such a stigma existed, nor did he explain why no “stigma of armed Black people” was likely to arise so long as only lawless Blacks shot honest Blacks with illegally-obtained firearms —and the press, predictably, did not enquire.

When expert lawman Grant Johnson organized a Black policeman for Eufaula township in 1906, nobody worried about stigma.

When expert lawman Grant Johnson organized a Black police force for Eufaula township in 1906, nobody worried about stigma.

Meanwhile, Detroiters were taking charge of their city to an impressive degree. Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent from 2010 to 2011.  Detroit’s rate of self defense killings has been calculated as 2,200 percent above the national average.  Police response time under Craig has moved from about an hour to about 25 minutes. Still, as Sgt. Erin Stephens points out, “It’s not about police response time because often the act has already taken place by the time the police are called. Police can‘t be on every corner in front of every home. And we know that there are citizens who will do what they have to do to protect themselves.”

Sgt. Erin Stephens

Sgt. Erin Stephens

Especially exasperating for dismayed leftists was the sharp drop in reports of police brutality, attributable first to attitudes like Sergeant Stephens’s which gave Detroiters the sense that the force was with them, so to speak, and also because the increased reliance on self-defense limited the necessity of police interventions of the sort that compulsive race baiters like Al Sharpton or Barack Obama might characterize as “acting stupidly.” As 73-year-old Detroit resident James “Jackrabbit” Jackson put it, “It’s like the militiamen who stepped up way back when. That’s where the neighborhood folks are. They’re ready to fight. We don’t hardly see police anymore.”

While leftist “experts” explained on CNN and MSNBC that Craig’s advocacy of widespread gun ownership would do nothing to curtail crime, robbery fell 37% in Detroit while businesses reported 22% fewer break-ins, and the city recorded a 30% drop in carjackings. Police also reported that nonfatal shootings, aggravated assaults, and sexual assaults were all markedly reduced. The city’s homicide rate peaked as Craig entered the scene but fell 14% by the end of 2013 and is expected to finish 2014 considerably lower.

Space prohibits a thorough account of Detroiters fighting criminals with lawfully obtained firearms, doing so would run longer than our infamous Hillary piece (our longest column ever, as several critics were kind enough to note). But a search of the Detroit papers for 2014 reveals instance after instance. Just one week’s reportage from February should suffice to demonstrate:

■At 2 a.m. Feb. 22, two men broke into a house on the city’s southwest side; the homeowner shot both men. A 21-year-old man died and the other man escaped.

■Earlier on Feb. 22, at 12:30 a.m., a woman who was surprised by a gunman when she pulled her car into the garage was able to reach for her own gun and fatally shot the man.

■A woman on Feb. 17 opened fire on three teens who kicked in her door. The alleged intruders, ages 14, 14 and 15, were caught by police and charged with home invasion.”

Chief Craig likes to insist, “we’re not advocating violence. We’re advocates of not being victims.” But WOOF asks rhetorically, what is the Left to do without victims? Scowling media flaks began to report each new triumph of law and order as “another example of a story becoming all too familiar in the Motor City,” doing their utmost to portray each new act of self defense as another shocking case of indiscriminate bloodletting.

The media drumbeat became relentless, driven by an endless chain of news stories. Two men attempted to crush a citizen’s head with a tire iron and were gunned down in their tracks. A mother warned three alleged home invaders that she was armed and when the threesome kicked her door in anyway, she blasted them with her Hi-Point Carbine—“an assault weapon!” cried the talking heads. And as if this weren’t horrible enough, later that very same week, another woman stopped an alleged invasion of her 8 Mile residence with a 38 special. The media were beside themselves—would this animalistic brutality never cease? They carped and caterwauled until it seemed the abhorrent Craig must surely be on the verge of capitulation, and then…


The Hi-Point Carbine comes in a variety of calibers, none of which excites the media nearly so much as the fact that it looks  really freaking scary to them.

Craig called a press conference. In the face of so much pressure to walk back his call to arms, to declare vigilantism an unacceptable means of policing a major metropolitan community, and to seek a truce with the city’s hard-pressed criminal element, it seemed obvious the moment had come. With the national media huddled in giddy anticipation of what they assumed would amount to an apologetic volte face, Craig began by saying that in his 37-year career he’d never seen so many homeowners defending themselves by shooting intruders. That sounded promising, as though Craig were building up to a call for a cease fire—for renewed tolerance—for a more enlightened means of confronting the city’s gun problem…maybe another nice gun buy-back, or perhaps a photogenic series of candlelight vigils?

pressIt does appear more and more Detroiters are becoming empowered,” he announced. “More and more Detroiters are getting sick of the violence. I know of no other place where I’ve seen this number of justifiable homicides. It’s interesting that these incidents go across gender lines.” The media emitted a collective gasp. This wasn’t going well at all, and on top of that, this crazy fascist Police Chief was playing the gender equality card—one of their cards—and talking empowerment, one of their buzz words! At long last, had James Craig left no sense of decency?

Craig had too much decency, in fact, to reverse course when he knew he was leading his native city to unprecedented victories over violent and invasive crime. His message was unchanged: Detroiters could rely on themselves to battle the bad guys and win. Armed citizens could turn the tide of metropolitan decay, and rely on the support of their police while doing so.

Two intended victims…

The Worldwide Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy that GOverns Us (file photo)

The Worldwide Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy that Governs Us (file photo)

Our concern here is that Craig—an authentic American hero– is fast approaching his limit with the liberal establishment, or with what we here at WOOF persist in calling the Worldwide Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy that Governs Us (even though WSTCGU is a hopelessly uncatchy acronym). The clock is ticking. Vast resources are being committed to his professional–and very possibly to his personal–destruction.We have said before [mainly here] that no one possibility so terrifies the political Left as that of America’s Blacks shifting their allegiance to the right—and while we are not so sanguine as to presume that a single Black voter in Detroit has cast off the bonds of liberalism as a result of Chief Craig’s renaissance, we nevertheless assert that liberty cannot take root without deliverance from servitude—and without masses cast into servitude, there can be no socialism. Chief Craig may have no idea how dangerous his stance is to the Leftist agenda, but the setters of that agenda are emphatically aware. Quite apart from the legions of vassals to whom they preach victimhood, the leftist establishment unhesitatingly strives to victimize any whom it fears, be it Palin, Chambers, Goldwater, O’Donnell, Bachmann, Cruz, Reagan, Limbaugh, McCarthy, Paul, Bork, or Joe the Plumber.  James Craig is now an intended victim. The time will arrive when he will need our support, gentle readers, and it must be unabashedly given!joe plumber use

The second intended victim now in the cross hairs of the establishment is the idea into which Craig quite innocently tapped: the idea of free Americans, each armed, each outspoken, each committed to the commonweal. The closest the Left can come to replicating this idea is the Occupy Movement (forgive us a cruel chuckle). Only the Right can manifest this ethos authentically, and thus all who manifest these ideals are inexorably drawn to the Right. For this very reason, the Left will target Detroit’s newfound freedom from fear with a predictable barrage of calumnies; all cunningly disguised as humanitarian aims, pleas for compassion, and cries for peace. And as always, many will be deceived. But it isn’t likely to work in Detroit where almost 100,000 concealed carry permits are now in circulation in Wayne County alone. Freedom is heady wine, and Detroiters have sampled it in tantalizing measure.

Our favorite Detroiter

Deborah Hughes, Great American

Deborah Hughes, Great American

So here’s one last story. Steve Utash was driving down Morang road in Detroit, when a ten year old boy darted from a line of parked vehicles. Utash slammed on his brakes, but could not avoid contact. The boy caromed off his bumper and toppled to the ground. Sitting by the window of her living room, retired nurse Deborah Hughes observed the accident and hastened to the scene. The driver was beside himself, stammering frantically, “Oh my God, did I do this?” Hughes explained she was a nurse and was there to render assistance. But while she comforted the stunned child, whose injuries proved minor, a crowd of angry passersby gathered. It didn’t help that Utash was White and the young man was Black. Someone shouted “let’s get him!” and the crowd became a mob, throwing Utash to the pavement and assaulting him with fists and lashing feet.

Deborah Hughes now dashed over to the scene of this fresh crisis. She confronted the mob single handedly, shouting, “Don’t kick him anymore, don’t hit him anymore, get back.” The attackers paused to size her up, a single Black woman of retirement age in a hastily tossed on coat. Hughes sensed their momentary incertitude and repeated, “’Don’t nobody hit him anymore, don’t kick him anymore, get back,'” and miraculously, the mob obeyed.


Hughes and her protectee, Steve Utash (Hughes’s .38 not shown).

Naturallythe media went universally nuts over the saintly nurse who turned back a violent mob by sheer force of character, but most newscasters ignored the rest of the story. “Spiked” was the footage containing Hughes’s revelation that, “I had a gun in my pocket, I was ready to do some damage if I had to.” Following the incident, Chief James Craig declared Hughes a “Detroit hero.” WOOF considers her an American hero, cut from the same cloth as Craig. And as Hughes explained it “You have to carry a gun around here, this neighborhood is terrible. I don’t walk around without my gun.”

But remember, Hughes never drew the gun—it remained in her pocket throughout the confrontation, concealed, but available. Its presence vouchsafed Hughes the command she needed to disperse a crazed mob and save a man’s life. And that detail invests the encounter with a uniquely second-amendment ethos… a testament to the power of the quiescent .38 that proved unnecessary in the event, because as its owner later told WXYZ TV, “I was willing to shoot anybody who hit that man again.”

One remaining point

Max Eastman, in a conspicuously dialectical mood.

Max Eastman, in a conspicuously dialectical mood.

What accounts for the apparent illogic of a leftist philosophy that professes dismay when citizens shoot bad guys in self defense, but cares not a farthing when criminals shoot at citizens? Are they mad? Well, Max Eastman came close to saying so when he explained communism (a philosophy he formerly espoused) by pointing out that it was akin to mental disease. “You can’t know what it’s like until you’ve got it,” Eastman explained, “and then you can’t know what it’s like, because you’ve got it!”

What do we have to do, draw you a picture?

What do we have to do, draw you a picture?

Simply stated, Marx saw crime as a result of alienation resulting from unfair labor demands placed upon the proletariat. He considered laws and property rights invalid because they protect “the ruling class,” thus deviant reactions against them (i.e., crime) are not criminal at all, but  legitimate reactions against unequal divisions of power necessitated by the evils of the capitalist system. Few liberals wade through Marx’s Kapital,  but most have imbibed his toxins from the spigots of academe, media, Hollywood, and many mainstream churches. The doctrine is peddled today as social justice, but the root is communism. The Marxists who pull the strings know the pure doctrine—your liberal uncle just got the simpleminded version–but the left’s veneration of criminals and its comparative hostility toward decent Americans (the despised bourgeoisie) is easily understood once the source of the infection is revealed.

This is the power James Craig has engaged in battle—and he very probably has no idea of its wellsprings or its history. That said, he clearly senses its wrongness, and we brought it up because we think our readers should clearly sense it as well. As for social justice, well, WOOF believes in that too, but our version is less Marxian and rather more “Callahanian”—that is to say, derived from the sayings of “Dirty Harry” Callahan who perfectly summed up the argument for Detroit’s crusade against crime when, in the film Magnum Force, he rebutted an archetypically progressive police commissioner by asserting:  “There’s nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot.” WOOF PRINT

detroit nice



baker baker

Well, just as Sherlock Holmes relied on the intelligence services of his trusty “Baker Street Irregulars,” remember, we here at WOOF often rely on contacts in vital areas of national concern–ranging from PTA to CIA, from local campaigns to the Oval Office! (Okay, not the Oval Office--yet–but we’re all ears!) So if you would like to become a WOOF irregular at absolutely NO salary, and slide us some intriguing inside info to which you may be privy, check out our email address under “contact us” and leak your heart out!  If your info checks out, you’ll get absolutely zero credit, but when you see the bold “WOOF knows…”  preceding your info, you’ll still feel mighty proud, won’t you!  NB: Please, nothing more about Roswell, and we do not care where Jimmy Hoffa is.  Otherwise, knock yourselves out! –Your grateful editors.

To Ban, or not to Ban? Governor Christie on the Lathe of Ambivalence!

In "Gunning for success" forum on June 27, 2014 at 9:58 am

splash 45 days trenton

Sour Grapes

It is with mixed emotions that WOOF turns its attentions once again to the topic of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who is a somewhat sore subject hereabouts, we having been ejected from the “Conservative” forum on Reddit for publishing a previous screed that held the Garden State’s abdominous first administrator in unvarnished derision. True, in the name of 100% factual blogospherical candor we feel obliged to admit we were, on the occasion of our expulsion from Reddit’s chief conservative subreddit, officially accused of “spamming” by a site moderator—but consider these facts: First, nobody in the WOOF cave knows how to “spam,” nor harbors any inclination to “spam,” and nobody at Reddit voiced any objection to any of our activities prior to the advent of our anti-Christie article seven months ago. Add to this the curious fact that immediately upon banning us, the very same moderator took it upon him-or-herself to post a sidebar praising Governor Christie as “a pragmatic conservative executive, who is not afraid to take on the main pillars of the Democratic Political Machine” calling him “likeable to the electorate” and “the man of the moment.” These encomia were accompanied by a cavalcade of you-tube links summarized as the “Best of Chris Christie.” reddit

Okay, so we get it—our contentious mod really likes the governor, and that’s fine with everyone in the WOOF cave—really it is. But why should our vastly superior and considerably more entertaining insights be banished in perpetuity (by this unilaterally inclined browbeater who is no longer, we note, listed among the site’s moderators) when spritely debate is so much healthier than ham-fisted repression?  Okay, that’s enough about this sordid business—too much, in fact. But WOOF wants everyone at “Conservative” to know that we harbor no ill feelings and are prepared to graciously accept reinstatement once cooler heads prevail and evenhandedness is restored!  That’s just how magnanimous we are.

But as usual, gentle readers, we digress! This is not an article intended to criticize the inner workings (however lamentable we may consider them in the above-mentioned instance) of Reddit.  No, it is, in fact, an article intended to further deprecate the gubernatorial comportment of Chris Christie, and in particular his exasperatingly irresolute relationship to the 2nd amendment, which inalienable right he clearly seems incapable of embracing with nearly the ardor he famously exhibited toward Barack Obama on the occasion of the First Marxist’s Halloween stopover in Atlantic City following Hurricane Sandy.


Remember–walking in the sand?

To ban, or not to ban—a difficult question? twitter

And this brings us to that other modern miracle of social networking, Twitter. Despite initially insisting that no proper gentleman would ever “tweet,” at least not publicly, WOOF was eventually talked into opening a Twitter account, and does very well on that social medium. We know this because “Tech Elf” Noah, who manages our Twitter affairs and talked us into tweeting to begin with, has assured us it is the case, and we know him to be a probative lad. He also submitted a morning briefing to the effect that Twitter is ablaze with appeals to Governor Christie to veto the New Jersey magazine ban, as well as numerous tweets featuring pro-gun stories, all bearing the same general sentiment, usually something along the lines of, “Gov. Christie will surely veto the magazine ban if he watches this video!” or some similar example of wishful thinking–  but what really drew our notice was the span over which these tweets have been appearing. Apparently, Governor Christie has been doing his Prince Hamlet act over the magazine ban for weeks and weeks now—since May 22nd in fact when bill A2006 found its way to his desk–and this might set the average American to wondering, what on earth is so intellectually challenging about this straightforward assault on the 2nd amendment? Does it require lengthy analyses by armies of weaponological and Decalogical consultants? Are we missing some overriding complexity that makes this issue somehow—thorny?

The intolerable act

Prayer vigil outside gun store--Please Lord, make them sell smaller magazines!

Prayer vigil outside gun store–Please Lord, make them sell smaller magazines!

Late in May the liberals of the blue, blue New Jersey State Assembly decided that they agreed with Bryan Miller, executive director of the anti-gun group Heeding God’s Call, that “No law abiding citizen needs 15-round magazines” [because] “nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster!” Brother Miller (who is apparently the next Jeff Cooper, so packed with weaponological insights is he) added that, “Our top priority is a 10-round limit on magazine size.”  It may have escaped Miller’s attention that most law enforcement officers carry guns with a greater magazine capacity than ten rounds because they anticipate actually having to shoot at real people, and often more than one. In fact, a good many honest, hardworking citizens, insouciant of Miller’s pronounceomento, are walking around with handguns on their persons or in their homes that contain magazines with capacities in excess of ten rounds. Just as examples, the Beretta 92 model pistols customarily contain 15 rounds per magazine. Para Ordnance’s popular P14-45 1911s hold 14 rounds in their double-stacked magazines, and these pistols are hardly oddball defense choices, they typify respectable handguns on the market currently that offer standard magazine capacities in excess of ten rounds. [By the way, we know liberals read our website because we get their hate mail, so for the benefit of liberal readers WOOF wishes to clarify that one round equals what you more  probably refer to as “one bullet,” and so on, progressing along a one-to-one basis of numeric equivalency. This has been an across-the-aisle moment of sociopolitical outreach.]

Activist Miller, finger on the trigger of his trusty Ingram, aims to stop gun violence!

Activist Miller, finger on the trigger of his trusty Ingram, aims to stop gun violence!

Danny and the Liberal Gun

Speaking of Liberals, they, in fact, might wish to give special consideration to this point, because we have observed that Liberals are perhaps even more reliant than non-Liberals on high capacity magazines. Why do we say this? Well, it was first brought to our attention in the ‘70s, (back when WOOF operated as a kind of Samizdat publication), by a friend of ours named Danny. Danny house-sat in the Washington DC area, and because he was good at it, he babysat a lot of town houses and Georgetown apartments for dedicated inside-the-beltway liberals. Danny said that one day he was looking for something-or-other in a town house’s bedroom, and accidentally came across a gun. This surprised him because the leftist homeowners were ardently anti-gun—but despite their politics, they obviously owned one. Danny noted that it was a 9mm Browning High Power. Let’s face it, even principled anti-gun liberals might have to defend themselves, and like most good liberals (who can’t afford heavily armed body guards) they exceptionalize themselves out of self interest. Remember the Carl Rowan shooting? [It’s an oldie but a goodie reviewable by clicking here]

The Browning 9mm and the magazine that earned it liberal adherents in the '70s--but all glory is fleeting.

The Browning’s magazine earned it a liberal fan base in the ’70s–but all glory is fleeting.

His surprise discovery inspired Danny to launch a kind of one-man investigatory probe. He began checking all the houses and apartments that fell under his custodianship for firearms, and according to Danny, he repeatedly discovered a gun, and it was almost always a Browning 9mm similar to his original discovery. The singularity baffled him, so one day he mentioned the oddity to an acquaintance who owned a gun store.  The store owner was quick to agree that liberals liked the Browning, explaining that liberals purchased guns in case they needed them, but were typically equivocal about the idea and rarely planned to invest any time in mastering the weapon. They tended to gravitate toward the Browning, the store owner said, because it was a 9mm, which sounded easier to manage than a .45 or a .357 magnum, and because they were unfamiliar with the basics of handgunning and determined to stay that way, they went for the High Power because its 13-round box magazine (an exceptional capacity for the 1970s) offered, they reasoned, repeated opportunities to hit a home invader despite a lack of prowess. Thus, through no real fault of its own, John Browning’s venerable 9mm autoloader became what the gun store proprietor called “the liberal handgun.”

Because Fabianism takes time…

DID YOU KNOW? Fabianism got its name from "Fabius the Delayer," not from Fabian!

DID YOU KNOW? Fabianism got its name from “Fabius the Delayer,” not from Fabian!

The liberal metanarrative is always more compelling to leftists, ultimately, than matters of practical necessity, thus practical considerations will sacrifice themselves again and again to the larger purpose, in this case the humbling of America and its gun-loving culture of freedom and independence. The bitter clingers must be pried loose of their treasured thunder sticks, even if it means that the liberal homeowner must give up his shiny, unfired Browning autoloader because “No law abiding citizen needs 15-round magazines.” Or 13-round ones, either!  No, apparently the Gods of the Copybook Headings have hit upon ten rounds as the perfect number of “bullets” with which to defend hearth and home. For now, that is. Obviously only revolvers holding a maximum of six rounds will be okay later on—and then perhaps only flintlocks. Fabianism, by definition, takes time.

Original understanding…?

"Original understanding" means no magazines to argue about-- problem solved!

“Original understanding” means no magazines to argue about– problem solved!

Also weighing heavily (no dig intended) on Governor Christie must be the fastidiously marshaled arguments involving original understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Such arguments maintain an appeal because it is, after all, the crazy Bork-ites of the political Right (and we include ourselves here) who fuss endlessly about the importance of retaining an “original understanding” of constitutional writ, and it is they, the liberal argument goes, who should be the first to acknowledge that flintlock pistols and Kentucky squirrel rifles were all the Founders ever envisioned Americans keeping and bearing in the first place! What would Jefferson, for instance, remark, if presented with, let’s say, the M-1 carbine with a 30-round banana clip? Well for starters, he might say, “Cool, that’s farten more rounds than the rifles Lewis and Clarke are outfitted with!” (It’s true, Woofketeers; the 46 caliber Girardoni Windbüchse rifle with which Jefferson equipped Charlton  Heston and Fred MacMurray before Donna Reed led them on their legendary westward expedition were 20-shot repeaters—check it out here!)  And trust us, we could inundate you with descriptions of guns firing more than ten times without reloading from the 19th century onwards, but you know us–we’d just distract ourselves!

Straw Deer straw deer

The odd presumption that ten rounds=an honest citizen whereas, say, 15 rounds add up to a nefarious screwball is an offshoot of a favorite liberal straw argument, namely that true adherents to the 2nd amendment are hunters, and hunters only. Thus we have, for example, Governor Cuomo’s classic idiotism: “No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer!” Add to this the liberals’ traditional criticism of firearms they especially reprehend, namely that such weapons are “designed to do one thing, and one thing only—and that’s kill people,” and the planted axiom becomes obvious: Our founders established the 2nd amendment exclusively to defend the right of frontiersmen to take game for nourishment even as they usurped the land of persecuted native populations, and yes, archaic though it be, it also vouchsafes the right of a few modern-day slobs and backward bumpkins to go shoot a few deer now and then, so long as they do so with suitably unmilitary-looking sporting rifles. The corollary axiom is implicit: Any firearm designed to kill anything other than the occasional deer is an assault weapon and no law-abiding citizen would ever own such a weapon, such weapons being the sole province of raging psychopaths the vast majority of whom belong in state institutions for the criminally right wing. But even the most lambent examination of the record proves this interpretation of the 2nd amendment to be balderdash.

Governor Andrew Cuomo--channeling for Bela Lugosi? No, just being himself.

Governor Andrew Cuomo–channeling for Bela Lugosi? No, just being himself.

John Adams covered all the bases when he remarked that “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.” Jefferson, [who never shot a man on the White House lawn, click here for edification] emphasized that, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” George Washington summed it up mightily when he wrote that, “Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” It is interesting, we think, that one can read through a substantial volume of such quotations from the Founders without running across a single mention of putting meat on the table. No, it was the vital role guns played in dispatching assailants, discouraging tyrants, or repelling invaders that preoccupied the framers of our Constitution and the founders of our Republic.


…whithersoever the governor listeth…

It may be emotionally and philosophically wrenching to turn our attention from Adams, Jefferson, and Washington to Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, but we have put off doing so as long as possible. And how stands the Governor on the 2nd amendment? Well, it is no exaggeration to say that this depends heavily on the time of day and the prevailing winds. Lately, Christie prefers to take refuge in the mental health argument that gained prominence in the wake of the Elliot Rodger shootings in Santa Barbara and continues to gather momentum among politicians who fear the NRA too much to confront gun ownership per se, but who wish to maintain credibility as grappling with the issue. Christie told FOX News: “When you look at what we’ve done in New Jersey, we want to control violence. And some of that may involve firearms, but a lot of it doesn’t. In fact, my focus has been on making sure that mental health is done in a much more aggressive way. Every time we see one of these incidents happen across our country, it is almost exclusively with a deeply disturbed person at the helm (sic), and what we need to do is be much more aggressive about how we deal with mental health issues in this country. So I am for violence control.” How bold!

DID YOU KNOW? Despite opposing gun rights, Bruce Springsteen contriburted to Warren Zevon's "Jeanie Needs a Shooter!" O, the hypocrisy!

DID YOU KNOW? Despite opposing gun rights, Bruce Springsteen contributed to Warren Zevon’s “Jeanie Needs a Shooter!” O, the hypocrisy!

But apart from the fact that his statement is essentially meaningless, a mere summoning of obfuscatory rhetoric to becloud an issue upon which he means to waffle (you should excuse the term), the emphasis on mental health places the Governor on some extremely problematic terrain, as indeed it did the NRA, which was foolish enough to advance similar recommendations in the wake of Sandy Hook. [Readers unacquainted with the hidden perils of dragging psychology into the gun debate are invited to click here]. Of course, the mental health card cannot be easily played in contemplation of magazine capacities, since most Americans will not take seriously the suggestion that wanting more rounds in one’s weapon than Governor Cuomo believes one should have marks the difference between sanity and psychosis. There is something endemically hincty about an adult male taking week upon week to decide how many cartridges the citizens of New Jersey will be permitted to load into their personal firearms. And if the Governor were to decide and declare, “as many as they freely choose,” and veto A2006, what would it cost him? A bro hug from the First Marxist?  A return phone call from Bruce Springsteen?  Yes, it’s lonely at the top.

The sad fact is, Chris Christie has no more use for the 2nd Amendment than has Rosie O’Donnell or Barbra Streisand—so long as they are surrounded by armed bodyguards, of course, and Christy would gladly autograph the unctuously un-American legislation on his desk if it weren’t for his hesitancy to manifest his utter lack of conservative gravitas just when his bid for the 2016 Republican nomination seems ready to grind into gear. But no conservative need waste a nanosecond taking Christy seriously on this issue—his insincerity is manifested by his record.  In 2009, Christie appeared on Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News and announced his support for “some gun control measures.” When Hannity challenged him in this regard, Christie explained that he supported “commonsense laws that will allow people to protect themselves,” but added that he was “very concerned about the safety of our police officers on the streets, very concerned,” and wanted to “make sure that we don’t have an abundance of guns out there.”

christie sean

Juxtapose this, dear readers, to George Washington’s belief that “the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence.” Are not these two views of the 2nd amendment diametrically opposed? The problem with “common sense gun legislation” is that it seems commonly sensible only on the Left, where the mythos prevails that an armed citizen in a movie theater, for instance, will be safer with a seven round magazine in his handgun should a psychopath with a backpack full of magazines open up on the crowd, than if the honest citizen had ten-plus rounds at his disposal—and of course there is no assuming that the psychopath has dutifully equipped himself with magazines containing no more than ten rounds. The liberal logic accompanying the magazine ban is that law-abiding psychopaths will adhere to the magazine limits and be forced to reload more frequently during shooting sprees, thus affording bystanders a chance to escape. That a safer approach might be well-armed citizens shooting the psychopath before he can discharge a second or third shot into the crowd never seems to occur to anyone to the left of Marlo Thomas. It occurred to the “Batman shooter” (James Holmes) however. He bypassed three more conveniently situated theatres showing the Batman movie in order to open fire at one that did not permit concealed firearms—or, put more objectively, permitted only illegally concealed firearms.

Expanding efforts…

Why all the fuss over the Barrett? It's magazine only holds 10 rounds.

Why all the fuss over the Barrett? It’s magazine only holds 10 rounds!

Not that Christy isn’t on record vetoing anti-gun legislation, he even vetoes his own. In April of 2013 Christy assured the media that “the [state] assembly has put some bills forward, the [state] senate’s gonna put some bills forward, I’ve now put bills forward, and now we have to let the process work…” However, after introducing (with not inconsiderable fanfare) the concept of firearm ownership “smart” cards, and mandatory training periods for would-be gun purchasers, and having “let the process work,” he reconsidered and vetoed his own legislation. The governor also vetoed a bill to ban .50-caliber firearms, even though he personally led the initial effort to eliminate them. Had he discovered the joys of the Desert Eagle, or long-range watermelon blasting with the gubernatorial M82 Barrett? No, but WOOF knows Christie changed his mind after he was deluged with mail from angry gun owners in New Hampshire. And why should the governor of the Garden State care what people think in New Hampshire? Our perceptive readers will already have reminded themselves that New Hampshire is the site of the nation’s first presidential primary.

Wishful thinkers who persist in supposing Christie a conservative at heart should consider that just prior to serially vetoing his own anti-gun recommendations, the christie timegovernor responded to the Newton, Connecticut shootings by signing into law no fewer than 10 gun-control bills including one that mandated his state’s submission of citizen’s mental health records to the FBI for the National Instant Background Checks System. He also created a task force entitled SAFE, which he announced would “expand New Jersey’s strict gun-control measures,” even though they were already among the nation’s strictest. In fact, even before Christie launched his most recent assault on the 2nd amendment his state won accolades from the confiscation advocates at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which lauded New Jersey as the second most anti-gun state in the Union, finishing well ahead of notoriously hoplophobic Massachusetts and only narrowly ceding first place to ultra-blue California. Moreover, Christie’s history is strewn with anti-gun efforts and outbursts.

Thwarting radical plans…

In 1993 Christie registered as a Republican in order to confront Republican state senator John Dorsey in the primaries. When young Christie was scrubbed from the ballot owing to insufficient and often ludicrously invalid signatures on his petition for inclusion, he immediately switched parties and campaigned against Dorsey as a Morris County Democrat—again to no avail. During the campaign, Christie made it plain that his chief objection to Dorsey, and Republicans in general, was their support of gun rights.  “The issue which has energized me to get into this race is the recent attempt by certain Republican legislators to repeal New Jersey’s ban on assault weapons,” quoth the budding politico.   Defeated but undaunted, Christie discarded the Democratic label, switched back to Republican, and entered another Republican primary, this time for the less ambitious office of Freeholder on the Morris County Legislature. (In New Jersey, “freeholders” are roughly equivalent to city councilmen.) After a whopping two months as an elected Freeholder, Christy launched a primary challenge aimed at denying Patrick Carroll, a conservative’s conservative, a seat in the State Assembly. Christie’s enthusiasm for gun control quickly proved undiminished.  He accused Carroll of running a “guns for votes campaign,” warning voters that Carroll was in cahoots with the nefarious NRA and had to be stopped before he could implement his “radical plan to legalize assault weapons.”

christie anti gun ad, 1995

But here Christie made a rookie error. He placed his reliance on New Jersey’s liberal electorate, forgetting that Republican primaries bring out conservatives who don’t appreciate gun grabbers. He was roundly (you should forgive the expression) trounced, receiving only 4,376 votes which is to say, he finished dead last in a substantial field. But in this darkest hour, Christie could count at least one important lesson learned—mainly, that his anti-gun sentiments had to be tempered to fit political circumstances.   As governor in 2009 Christie confronted a new challenge. Not only was Congress bent on overriding (among other unconstitutional enormities) New Jersey’s ultra-restrictive gun laws, but closer to home the entire Republican delegation to the New Jersey House voted in favor of  “right-to-carry reciprocity,” which threatened to allow any American citizen with a valid permit to carry a gun in his home state the right to do likewise in the Garden State. Governor Christie outspokenly opposed these measures.   On February 12, 2014, the pesky National Rifle Association together with 19 states, and 34 members of the House of Representatives petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the 3rd District Court decision in New Jersey’s curtailment of the 2nd amendment rights of American citizens.

Nullify what?

When future constitutional scholars think 'nullification' in the future, they will surely think of Calhoun--and Christie!

When future constitutional scholars think ‘nullification’  they will surely think of Calhoun–and Christie!

Regarding this and other congressional efforts to defend the precepts of the 2nd amendment, Christie thundered: “I believe that each state should have the right to make firearms laws as they see fit. I don’t believe it’s right for the federal government to get into the middle of this and decide firearms laws for the people of the state of New Jersey!” In so saying, Christie essentially came out for “nullification,” but in a peculiarly topsy turvey sense. Rarely is the Supremacy Clause from Article Six of the constitution, which establishes the U.S. Constitution as “the supreme law of the land” brought to bear in this day and age as a guarantor of our Decalogical rights. It was intended to function as such, of course, but the increasing tendency of the federal government to circumvent the constitution, particularly under Obama and Holder, has cast the Supremacy Clause in a more sinister light. Thus, the separate states are increasingly prone to argue for nullification in their determination to protect their constitutional rights from federal vitiation.

James Madison--serious thinker.

James Madison–serious thinker.

But when elements of congress showed signs of becoming increasingly pro-2nd amendment, Christie stumbled upon the basic philosophy in order, as his quote makes clear, to protect the good people of New Jersey from the Bill of Rights. Imagining a more bizarre application of the legal theory of nullification would be difficult. Christie is quite literally insisting that stripping his state’s citizenry of their constitutional rights is his gubernatorial prerogative, all the while wrapping this sophistry in the banner of federalism. He isn’t doing this, by the way, because he actively seeks to subvert the constitution—he is doing this because he is not a serious thinker. He is, rather, a profoundly immature emotionalist who has reacted throughout his career to various perplexities in ad hoc and philosophically disjointed ways, as the mood takes him. James Madison, who was a serious thinker, foresaw exactly the attitude Christie’s outburst embodied when he wrote in Federalist 44 that if supremacy were not vouchsafed in Article Six, “it would have seen the authority of the whole society everywhere subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.” And it is exactly this insight that motivated the NRA and 34 members of congress to petition the Supreme Court.

Painful lessons


Majority Leader Greenwald–missing the painful truth?

And this brings us back to where we began—with thousands of tweeters exhorting the governor to strike down the magazine ban with a slash of his pen. It is widely asserted that a gubernatorial veto, even if forthcoming, would not prove conclusive. But inasmuch as the bill cleared the Assembly by a vote of only 44 to 34, which in New Jersey constitutes a shockingly robust display of right-wing resistance—an override is by no means guaranteed. Yet the governor continues to ponder.  Admittedly, he is under considerable pressure from both sides in the issue. The pro-gun factions are outspoken in their righteous opposition to the ban, and the anti-gun polemicists, led by the ubiquitous and aforementioned Bryan Miller of Heeding God’s Call, are equally ardent. In fact, Miller has gone out of his way to bring parents of two of the children slain at Sandy Hook from Connecticut to New Jersey to assist him in lobbying Christie. Their views were summarized by anti-gun Assembly Majority Leader Louis D. Greenwald (D., Camden) who explained, “My children will be safer, and your children will be safer, if we do this [pass the magazine ban] and if we learn the painful lessons from these families.”

Considering their socialist/New Deal roots, the NRA has certainly come a long way!

Considering their socialist/New Deal roots, the NRA has certainly come a long way!

And what is this painful lesson? Greenwald explained that reducing the maximum magazine capacity would force gunmen to reload more frequently, giving intended victims a chance to escape. And this is the painful lesson? With all due respect to the suffering of the Sandy Hook parents, one seems well within one’s rights to wonder aloud about Majority Leader Greenwald’s perspective. He means, one supposes, that if shooters stop to reload, they may be more easily avoided. So the “painful lesson” seems to be that the good citizens of New Jersey need more time (after a lawfully equipped maniac expends his limit of ten rounds and dutifully pauses to reload), in order to run for it. But this is a tenuous line of reasoning, put charitably. Much has been debated regarding the Sandy Hook shootings, but one thing is generally agreed upon, and that is that the shooter “reloaded frequently” as reported, for example, by the Hartford Courant of January 6,  2013. Yet the mayhem continued. It also merits mention that Connecticut, where the shootings occurred, prohibits possession or transport of AR style “assault weapons,” (Connecticut general statute 53-202c) so that the shooter, who used a Bushmaster rifle to blast his way through the school’s locked front door, was clearly unimpeded by existing regulations. In the end, the assailant shot himself when he realized armed defenders were on the scene. It is virtually endemic to these horrific events that the shooter shoots himself as soon as men with guns appear. The painful lesson that remains unlearned is that had anybody—any one teacher or administrator at Sandy Hook been armed, it is highly probable that the killer’s shooting spree would have been pre-empted, if not from a round fired by a defender, then by his own hand. One point upon which all sides of the gun debate can presumably agree is that suicide never requires a high capacity magazine.

An intolerable “act”? 

Governor Christie on the lathe of ambivalence, what to do, what to do?

Governor Christie on the lathe of ambivalence, what to do, what to do?

And so, the issue remains in play: Will the governor listeth to starboard or port? Will he decide in accordance with his obvious and long-standing partialities and sign the magazine ban, or yield to his ambitions and veto the bill, however reluctantly, to shore up his support on the political right in preparation for 2016? Readers may well wonder why WOOF has plunged into publication with this particular screed, when a few more days will tell the tale and provide a resolution to the matter—but the answer is simple: It doesn’t really matter.

Oh, sure, it matters to citizens of the Garden State who may wish to protect themselves in accordance with their constitutional rights, and who may prefer to confront potential assailants with enough ammo to make survival a likelihood; and it matters on the grander scale of our ceaseless struggle to preserve the Founders’ vision of an armed community of free Americans determined to preserve their liberty. Viewed in these contexts, it diminishes the Republic in spirit and body when even the bluest of states signs away its supernal birthright. But it does not matter an iota as it relates to the governor himself. Christie’s protracted display of ambivalence in this crucial moment, his career-long record of antipathy toward the right to bear arms, and his monumental show of indecision respecting bill A2006 are more than sufficient to disqualify him as presidential material in the eyes of a patriotic electorate. Aware of this at some level, Christie has affected a Hamlet-esque ambivalence as he ponders his options. He has, in other words, endeavored to dissemble purely political calculation as kingly deliberation. We say again, it doesn’t matter. No man who requires 45 days to decide whether the puniest, most ill-advised of assaults on the 2nd amendment ought or ought not to be embraced should be granted a moment’s consideration for higher office. It was George Washington, recall, who said of guns, “We need them every hour,” and it was Chris Christie who when asked by Sean Hannity, “Should every citizen in your state be allowed to get a licensed weapon if they want one?” replied, “In New Jersey, that’s not going to happen!” Any politico capable of voicing so ill-advised an apodicticity deserves to be told exactly the same thing about the American presidency.WOOF PRINT

rifleman two

While opinions varied as to how many times Chuck Connors actually fired his 1892 carbine at the beginning of “The Rifleman,” everyone agreed it was enough that he could safely reload!



Wherein the editors strive to even up our columns a bit by inserting images and contact info for old and new books we consider vital to the interest of our readers (old and new readers, for that matter) and sneakily endeavor thereby to avoid those awful “read more” buttons that prevent putting a whole story on the front page and require more work–like turning to some other page in a newspaper to finish reading a story–doesn’t that drive you nuts? Well, it does us, anyhow! And by the way, because we chose the Depo Masthead theme for our blog, the most stubbornly immutable theme in blogging history, this also moves the “sharing and comments” section down below the books part, but you are smart, gentle readers, and we know you would have figured that out without our help! And now, some “boiler plate” (newspaper slang for vicarious column filler) that also happens to constitute some first rate guidance for conservatives in search of exceptional reading!



Yes, WOOF loves DIana West, even though she even makes certain right-wingers mad with her case against Harry Hopkins--you can't badmouth her around the ol' WOOF cave! (You can badmouth Harry Hopkins, though!)

Yes, WOOF loves DIana West, even though she even makes certain right-wingers mad with her case against Harry Hopkins–you can’t badmouth her around the ol’ WOOF cave! (You can badmouth Harry Hopkins, though!) 

Purchase American Betrayal it from Amazon here!

Still need more convincing that FDR's gang was a rum lot? Try Burton Folsom Jr's thoroughgoing evisceration of the New Deal, the WPA, the ERA--the WTF (we made that one up) and all the other alphabet-soup lunacies of the nation's first artificially sustained depression!

Still need more convincing that FDR’s gang was a rum lot? Try Burton Folsom Jr’s thoroughgoing evisceration of the New Deal, the WPA, the ERA–the WTF (we made that one up) and all the other alphabet-       soup lunacies of the nation’s first artificially sustained socialist depression! 

Buy New Deal or Raw Deal on Amazon here! 


Tired of hearing people say all that stupid stuff about Joe McCarthy and not being able to put your finger on an effective, documentable rebuttal of the type that will force liberals to abandon the intellectual plateau and simply rant about their feelings? Have we got a book for you! Or rather, M. Stanton Evans does— an apologia for Joe so painstakingly researched and detailed that we even agree with the parts we don’t agree with!

Buy Blacklisted by History on Amazon here!

You may want to buy a bunch of the paperback versions of Allan Bloom's classic explication of how academe went to Hell (and the liberal intellect along with it) because if you are like us you'll want to give copies out like party favors!

You may want to buy a bunch of the paperback versions of Allan Bloom’s classic explication of how academe went to Hell (and the liberal intellect along with it) because if you are like us you’ll want to give copies out like party favors!  

Buy The Closing of the American Mind on Amazon here 

Okay, we know it has become fashionable to be dismissive of William F. Buckley Jr.'s role in the conservative movement, but WOOF promises you, this is balderdash!  Leaving Buckley out of conservatism is like leaving Einstein out of physics--and here is his earliest effort to disquiet the liberal establishment (after he hit them with God and Man at Yale) and an excellent starting point for a full familiarity with WFB's genius. Don't leave Buckley behind, America, he and Goldwater and Reagan got us going or we wouldn't be here to carry on!

Okay, we know it has become fashionable to be dismissive of William F. Buckley Jr.’s role in the conservative movement, but WOOF promises you, this is balderdash! Leaving Buckley out of conservatism is like leaving Einstein out of physics–and here is his earliest effort to disquiet the liberal establishment (after he hit the academy with God and Man at Yale) and an excellent starting point for a full familiarity with WFB’s genius. Don’t leave Buckley behind, America! Goldwater and Reagan got us going or we wouldn’t be here to carry on, and Bill got Goldwater and Reagan going!  

Buy Up from Liberalism on Amazon here 

Yes, WOOF is well known for running Christine O'Donnell for president in '12, and for planning a "Christine in 16" campaign, upcoming! This is the girl who was so much smarter than her debate opponent she knew "that separation of church and state" is not in the 1st amendment--which insight caused the press to denounce her as an idiot. If she'd won. They called her an idiot in '08, too, so the election went to Joe Biden. Read her book--see what you think! We still have a bunch of "Don't blame me--I voted for Christine O'Donnell" bumper stickers!

Yes, WOOF is well known for supporting this pulchritudinous  patriot and endorsing Christine O’Donnell for president in ’12. (Yeah we all voted for Romney, but Christine would’ve cleaned Obama’s clock!) We are also plotting our “Christine in ’16” campaign, upcoming! This is the girl who was so much smarter than her debate opponent (and everyone else in the hall) that she knew “separation of church and state” is not in the 1st amendment–which insight caused the press to unanimously denounce her as an idiot. They called her an idiot in ’08, too, so the election went to Joe Biden. Seriously? Read her book–see what you think! We still have a bunch of “Don’t blame me–I voted for Christine O’Donnell” bumper stickers available! 

Buy Trouble Maker on Amazon here 

Remember 1944? Well none of us does either, to be honest, but we know what was going on! School children were learning the lie that FDR saved us from the depression, Eleanor Roosevelt was continuing her husband’s campaign of praise for Stalin’s Russia with her customary conflation of good-heartedness and rotten judgment, western intellectuals were preaching the glories of Karl Marx and Einstein (who could never get a clue politically) was advocating socialism as a cure for mankind’s socioeconomic ills. But then, along came Freddy Hayek, the Austrian who shook up the entire misguided lot of them with his pellucid account of exactly how the principles of socialism were leading Americans (and most of Europe) down the road to governmental enslavement, and who demolished the favorite liberal argument that fascism is the opposite of communism when both are, in fact, two faces of collectivist totalitarianism. Glenn Beck praised this volume so highly that it wound up on the NYT bestseller list for weeks during 2012, too late for Hayek to get any royalties, but just in time to alert a new generation of seekers to the fundamental economic truths of free markets that Hayek espouse eloquently in this timeless volume! Was he a true conservative? No, like Milton Friedman and many other brilliant economists he was libertarian in principle and famously remarked, "Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves,” but hey, we agree with that, don’t you?

Remember 1944? Well none of us does either, to be honest, but we know what was going on! School children were learning the lie that FDR saved us from the depression,  (psst, it was really a guy named Tojo), Eleanor Roosevelt was continuing her husband’s campaign of praise for Stalin’s Russia with her customary conflation of good-heartedness and  abysmal judgment, western intellectuals were preaching the glories of Karl Marx, and Einstein (who could never get a clue politically) was advocating socialism as a cure for mankind’s socioeconomic ills. But then, along came Freddy Hayek, the Austrian economist who shook up the entire misguided lot of them with his pellucid account of exactly how the principles of socialism were leading Americans (and most of Europe) down the road to governmental enslavement, and who demolished the favorite liberal argument that fascism is the opposite of communism when both are, in fact, two faces of collectivist totalitarianism. Glenn Beck praised this volume so highly that it wound up on the NYT bestseller list for several weeks during 2012, too late for Hayek to get any royalties, but just in time to alert a new generation of seekers to the fundamental economic truths of free markets that Hayek espoused so eloquently in this timeless volume! Was he a true conservative? No, like Milton Friedman and many other brilliant economists he was libertarian in principle and famously remarked, “Conservatism is only as good as what it conserves,” but hey, we agree with him, and we bet you will too! 

Buy Road to Serfdom on Amazon here!



       Check out the details by clicking right here! 

 Or we’ll sic Auric Goldfinger on you!

images                                                                                                                                                                                                 th

“Gun Crazy”…Better than no guns at all?

In "Gunning for success" forum on December 23, 2013 at 10:01 am

gun crazy this one

Obviously, nobody in his right mind wants to advocate that the mentally ill be encouraged to own firearms. But permit us to analogize a bit. Nobody in his right mind wants to incite a nuclear holocaust, either—but that never made unilateral disarmament a valid alternative, except in the febrile imaginations of Chris Dodd, Teddy Kennedy and elements of the wastrel left that found themselves with time on their hands after Vietnam was surrendered to the communists. Nobody in his right mind wants a family to go bankrupt and lose its home and life savings because a beloved family member contracts cancer, but that doesn’t mean Obamacare is a rational solution to healthcare finance, as a bewildered (and lamentably bovine) nation is slowly coming to realize. In other words, the fallacy of the false alterative is an almost surefire liberal ploy by which to enact oppressive legislation and advance the socialist agenda. Indeed, as Americans become increasingly distracted by selfies, tweets, Facebook, and Snooki (whoever that is), they become even less proclived to examine issues of significance, let alone to examine them in careful detail—and that, of course, is one of the reasons WOOF is here….to do all that thinking and examining of issues for Americans who can’t find the time.

So as we were saying, although it constitutes the proverbial fool’s errand to argue against sane gun ownership, we here at WOOF have been contemplating precisely this argument since first remarking on the matter back in April of 2013 (viewable here) and we have concluded that we are the fools for the errand. And in this capacity, we need to open the discussion with a bit of history.

Even the First Marxist is taking selfies these days, although only the truly dedicated take them at funerals!

Even the First Marxist is taking “selfies” these days, although only the truly dedicated take them at funerals!

Early in 2013, close on the heels of the Sandy Hook atrocity, Chris Cox, the Legislative Action Director for the NRA, urged the Senate to focus on the mental health system. Because the Sandy Hook shooter seemed so patently disturbed, this tactic gave every indication of providing a sensible and far more realistic option to the usual liberal response of punishing legitimate gun owners and discovering fresh rationales for banning more varieties of firearms whose only commonality was that none of them was used at Sandy Hook.

Chris Cox of the NRA--too keen on mental health for his own good?

Chris Cox of the NRA–too keen on mental health for good sense?

Even so, in a free Republic where issues were stated honestly and debated openly by elected representatives while a concerned citizenry engaged in at least as much informed discussion of national affairs as of NFL playoffs or Pippi Longstocking’s porn career, one might reasonably assert that a gun purchaser’s mental health deserves consideration during the course of a firearm sale. Besides, Mr. Cox did not directly tie mental health criteria to the qualifications for gun ownership—he merely specified mental health concerns as being among those oft-neglected societal responsibilities that, if addressed properly, might go farther toward limiting gun violence than the usual anti-gun, anti-second amendment blatherings from the Left.  Cox, in other words, was saying, “hey, leave us gun owners alone and go get the mental health industry!” But in so saying he reckoned without the progressive movement’s affinity for harnessing psychiatry to Leviathan.

Jared Lee Loughner, Tucson shooter—the media wanted a tea-party assassin under orders from Palin, but got a "left wing, quite liberal pot head” according to acquaintances. But everyone agreed he was crazy!

Jared Lee Loughner, Tucson shooter—the media wanted a tea-party assassin under orders from Palin, but got a “left wing, quite liberal pot head” according to acquaintances. But everyone agreed he was crazy!

This is a dreadful oversight. It plays directly into the hands of the conspiracy to disarm Americans that drives large and determined factions of the anti-American Left. Beneath liberalism’s theatre of outrage and studied ululations of simpatico for the victims of gun violence lies a cynical, calculated operation aimed at expunging the second amendment or so drastically reinterpreting it that it allows only functionaries of the collectivist State to possess guns. Indeed, so exhilarating do liberals find gun slayings in America (insofar as they offer further pretexts for grabbing guns) that Eric Holder is openly known to have sought more of them through his exertions in Operation Fast and Furious. So duplicitous in these efforts are the Liberal Establishment Media that, as one example of many, an armed assault committed by a psychotic anarchist on a political gathering in Tucson where Federal District Court Chief Judge, John Roll (a Republican), was killed along with a nine-year-old girl, Christina-Taylor Green, and four others, was roundly laid at the feet of Sarah Palin, apparently because Palin’s website “targeted” the house seat of Gabrielle Gifford who was severely wounded during the shooting. So if Palin targeted Gabby Gifford, who targeted the Republican Judge who was actually slain? Who targeted the child? Who targeted building no. 7? (Sorry, wrong argument) Suffice it that the bizarre idea that Palin somehow bore responsibility for the actions of a lone homicidal maniac was granted legitimacy only by an assortment of media elitists who afforded the notion that level of solemn, chin-rubbing deliberation they always seem to reserve for the laughably indefensible.

The media fingered Palin as the brains behind the Tucson shootings--but she managed to beat the rap!

Sarah Palin–The media fingered her as the brains behind the Tucson shootings–but she managed to beat the rap!

Luckily, Palin survived the incident without being indicted by Eric Holder’s Justice Department for conspiracy to commit mayhem by web design. The mammoth Liberal anti-gun push that came out of such incidents as the Batman shootings, the above-mentioned Tucson shootings, the Sandy Hook killings (yes, they really happened), and a number of less broadly publicized incidents, seemed bound to ramify in a gun-control bill that would make a mockery of the second amendment, yet somehow this initiative fizzled and no fresh legislative push has thus far materialized, causing even the hyper vigilant NRA to guardedly acknowledge a welcome respite. Our Vice President’s advice to acquire double-barreled shotguns and to discharge both barrels into the black of night if ever we as citizens should deem our safety threatened has become a viral remix, and this too seemed to quell the rage of the anti-gun cohort at least sufficiently to inspire a truce. Sighs of relief were audible on the Right.

Even Breitbart joined the chorus, publishing AWR Hawkins to the effect that, “After failing to pass any gun control at the federal level during 2013, the White House has signaled its intention to lay off guns for a time and focus on mental health.”  A remarkable number of conservative and libertarian opinionists echoed Hawkins’s sentiment. Slate’s John Dickerson bemoaned the failure of the Senate’s anti-gun salient, lamenting that, “Democrats—who are so quick to blame Republicans for our broken gun laws—could not stand united.” The president famously staged a hissy fit in the rose garden and the news cycle faded, leaving everyone to conclude that indeed, it was more in keeping with the zeitgeist to consider better mental health treatment for the masses.

Even Mark Follman at the subversive periodical Mother Jones wrote that an examination of the mass shooters recorded between 1982 and 2012 showed that, “acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them.” Follman also made the point that 38 of those shooters showed some indications of lesser varieties of mental illness prior to their respective rampages.

Of course, the Left has occasionally called Mr. LaPierre's sanity into question...but hey, he likes guns!

Of course, some have occasionally called Mr. LaPierre’s sanity into question…but hey, he likes guns!

Meanwhile, back at the NRA, chief executive Wayne LaPierre took to the microphones and recommended the establishment of a national registry of the mentally ill as a better means by which to curb gun violence. LaPierre voiced his quite reasonable concern that mentally ill Americans constitute a more grievous threat to the commonweal than .223 rifles, and suggested that they might be roaming the streets in something like profusion. “How,” he asked, “can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?”

Wow! If one were of a sanguine disposition, one might go so far as to suppose that LaPierre had effectuated a kind of miraculous breakthrough here—a kind of Begin-and-Sadat handclasp across a desert of supposedly unbreachable divisions resulting in a wondrous détente between anti-gun crusaders and the nation’s millions of ardent shooters. Many anti-gun advocates including the subversive Mayors Against Illegal Guns clown act, advocated measures reminiscent of LaPierre’s proposal. The Washington Post applauded LaPierre’s statement, and many tenacious anti-gun senators embraced mental health legislation as “a way forward.” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and fake Vietnam vet, who has pushed for tougher gun laws since last year’s elementary school massacre in Newtown, declared that, “Mental health is really the key to unlocking this issue. I’ve become more and more convinced that we should establish the mental health issue as our common ground.”

Game theory


And if these sudden cries of kumbaya from both factions weren’t recommendation enough, senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who we need hardly mention was a driving proponent of the failed Senate gun grab, is now obdurately, not to say poutily, resisting efforts to initiate action on any mental health provisions, declaring them a sop to the pro-gun lobby. Reid apparently views the mental health issue as a diversionary tactic likely to hinder future Democrat efforts to debauch the Bill of Rights. Game theory may be useful here: Is Reid opposed to the advancement of mental health legislation for the reasons he claims, or is he feigning opposition, certain that his outspokenness will motivate Republicans to push all the harder for a mental health bill, which is what he really wants in the first place?

Harry Reid--definitely petulant.

Harry Reid–definitely petulant.

Answer: Without getting into the interstices of the Nash Equilibrium, suffice it that Reid is often more immediately motivated by petulance than any sort of refined tactical intent—he is also an experienced hand at shifting his stated position on a dime without so much as a mumble in explication or even acknowledgement of the shift—and his motives are therefore recognizably craven rather than exchange oriented. But the impact of a successful bluff is identical to the impact of a confidently played royal flush—the opposition loses. In reverse psychology, the opposition advances in a manner unwittingly supportive of the opponent’s ends. In this instance, where the proponents of mental health legislation occupied both sides of the aisle (the Left assuming a ploy on Reid’s part, the Right reacting to Reid’s presumed opposition) the advocates of mental-health activism advanced on all fronts! Thus, whether Reid is best adjudged a tactician or a nincompoop, the-mental-heath issue was strengthened by his blatherings. And that’s bad. That’s very bad.

Perceptions of purityimagesCA2B2DLI

Most Americans fell for Barack Obama’s healthcare scam because they believed him when he told them they could keep their doctors. Insurance plans are important, yes, and if the public had been told (by somebody besides us and the rest of conservative America) that they were about to be herded into intolerably expensive substitute plans that would cover less and supply pathetically little, they would have bridled to be sure. But it is only as Americans discover that their doctors will in most cases be replaced by whatever third stringers accept the government’s coin in exchange for their dubious services that we will see Americans rendered truly aghast at the lunarscape of socialist medicine. From the days of Lew Ayres’ and Lionel Barrymore’s Doctor Kildare movies through the soap operatic tenure of Young Dr. Malone, through Ben Casey, the Bold Ones, and yes, even House (who was redeemable for his genius, after all) the escutcheon of American medicine has remained ublotted in the public eye. Now, the public prepares itself to confront a new medicine—a cut rate, unsympathetic statist affair replete with waiting lines, surgical permissions, bossy bureaucrats, governmental snooping (is there a gun in your home?) and, yes, of course, death panels. Why was this so hard to anticipate for so many? Because medicine in America is (was) widely seen as a pure, unsullied realm of competency and noble commitment—so why not make it free to boot? Most of us just aren’t deep thinkers, sad to say.

imagesCA2TNW8USwitch now to the American view of mental health workers—psychologists, counselors, psychotherapists, psychiatrists—people who study long and hard to get where they are, driven by a profound determination to be of help to their fellow human beings—to bring succor to the anguished and address the roots of turmoil in the contemporary psyche. What is more widely and openly espoused in our culture than therapy? What is more heartily indulged than medications aimed at uplifting our fallen spirits? And who more trusted than the assessors, hourly confidants and prescribers who seek only our emotional betterment?  In the mental health field too, a glimmer of purity arrests base suspicions, but when you think about it, why would the Obamans leave this vital quadrant of the health field out of their schemes? What a waste it would be to let the massive mental health industry function freely, when it could be so much more useful if incorporated as a component of the totalitarian state! In short, the Left would have to be nuts not to grab up the mental health field while it has the chance. And the sorry truth is, it won’t require much grabbing!

The Leftmost Scientismmarx_freud

Long ago in the Reagan ‘80s the World Psychiatric Association condemned the Soviet Union for its invention of “sluggish schizophrenia”–sometimes called “creeping schizophrenia,” a diagnosis invented by Commie Master-Psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky and reserved for anybody whose loyalty to the Soviet system seemed to be foundering. In other words, its symptomology made opposition to the State a severe mental illness requiring all sorts of chemical and electro-convulsive interventions!  “Patients” in soviet mental hospitals were zapped and injected until their resistance to the state faded along with their mental competencies and their will. This is the sort of totalitarian nightmare we once shook our heads at in disbelief in the Free West. “It could never happen here,” we told ourselves, but these perversions of psychiatry, once thought of as peculiar to the Communist east, are ripe now for inclusion in an America that has undergone what our Beloved Helmsman called a “fundamental transformation.” Don’t doubt for a moment that American psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists will become willing, even enthusiastic functionaries of the new American order. To a frightening degree, this has happened already.

In China an unemployed man stabbed 28 children (most of them 4-year-olds) and 3 adults at a kindergarten. On Wednesday, a former teacher with a history of mental illness stabbed 15 children at a primary school. On that same day a 42-year-old man was executed for killing 8 children in a knife attack at a primary school.

In China an unemployed man stabbed 28 children and 3 adults at a kindergarten. A teacher stabbed 15 children at a primary school. On that same day a 42-year-old man was executed for killing 8 children in a knife attack at a primary school. No guns, though–so whew!

The field of psychology is utterly dominated by extreme liberals. WOOF does not know of a single credible source that disputes this point. In a brilliant, hard hitting, and generally ignored article in American Psychologist, University of Virginia Professor Richard E. Redding demonstrated conclusively that liberalism maintains an iron grip on research and practice in the field, which distorts findings and skews policy to the extreme left. More recently, survey research has demonstrated that many social psychologists would unhesitatingly discriminate based on politics. Almost 40% of those interviewed readily acknowledged that, given equally qualified conservative and liberal job applicants, liberal candidates should be hired over conservative candidates as a matter of routine.

Dr. Cross is White, by the way--shouldn't the guy who formulated the black racial identity scale by Black?  (It's okay--he's liberal!)

Dr. Cross looks white, by the way–shouldn’t the guy who formulated the black racial identity scale look black? (It’s okay–he’s liberal!)

Dr. Nicholas Cummings, once president of the American Psychological Association, says the organization that he formerly helmed is now completely governed by “ultra-liberals” who are militantly devoted to advancing the leftist agenda. In psychology, please recall, the liberal agenda includes the “pathologizing” of such manifest evils as “homophobia,” Eurocentric resistance to “multiculturalism,” the infamous neurosis of failed “nigrescence”  (when blacks fail to achieve proper “black racial identity” values—perhaps becoming conservatives), not to mention resistance to the advancement of feminist social goals, and, yes, to be sure, gun ownership!

Because you’re stupid!

Satoshi Kanazawa --smart enough to know you're stupid!

Satoshi Kanazawa –smart enough to know you’re stupid!

At least when the liberal media are confronted with their sociopolitical biases, they have the decency to deny them. Not so the liberal psychological establishment. A widely cited and quoted article  explains this lack of philosophical balance rather handily. The articlepublished in the Social Psychology Quarterly, is the work of one Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Kanazawa represents himself as “libertarian,” and insists that his findings are therefore not to be regarded as biased. He asserts, with almost no evidence whatsoever, that Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and even includes an explanation of why. The explanation is that liberals favor helping non-genetically related individuals—a concept foreign to the hunter gatherer mentality (allegedly found in Conservatives) and are therefore more intellectually evolved. Stop laughing–we are not making this up! It is worth noting here (without any hint of endorsement, allow us to emphasize) that when Arthur Jensen presented extensive research in 1969 suggesting that Blacks possess lower mean IQs than Whites, he was practically hounded from his professorship at University of California Berkeley.

Genius at work?

Genius at work?

Jensen also, by the way, asserted that conceptual, or synthesizing abilities manifest at significantly greater frequencies in Asians than in Whites, (which may explain why WOOF just can’t understand Kanazawa) but nobody cared—Jensen was marginalized in the profession by accusations of crypto-fascism and generally dismissed as a racist nut. Apparently, Conservatives are not to be similarly defended nor Kanazawa’s findings similarly denounced despite the fact that his work is almost hilariously inexact by comparison to Jensen’s. But in Kanazawa’s view, the liberal orthodoxy finds a rationale for spurning philosophical diversity. “Liberals do control the media,” Kanazawa explains, “or the [sic] show business, or the [sic] academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions.  They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of…modern life.” See? Liberals control everything, because you’re stupid!  And, thus, science marches on!

Consider how the American Psychiatric Association cured homosexuality…

You could probably have lived out the remainder of your life happily ignorant of the existence of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual if you hadn’t decided to read this article! The vaunted “DSM” is the official compendium of all mental-health diagnoses, as well as categories of mental retardation, eating and sleeping disorders, learning, motor skill, communication and attention disorders, plus a bunch of related stuff. In the United States the DSM serves as the universal authority for psychiatric diagnosis.  As they say in clinical settings, if it’s not in the DSM you can’t have it, because if it’s not in the DSM, insurance won’t cover it.

dsm_5The highly political nature of the DSM has long been a matter of concern even to liberal clinicians. The most notorious instance of liberalism overriding anything resembling the scientific method involved homosexuality. Now pay attention, because this is going to go by fast: The original DSM issued in 1952 called homosexuality a form of sociopathy and categorized it as a personality disturbance, but when the DSM II came out in 1968 homosexuals were listed as suffering from a sexual deviancy. Then came Gay Lib and hordes of placard waving Gay activists storming meetings of the DSM editorial board, and by 1973 homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder of any kind, according to the DSM; but this outraged therapists who were treating conflicted, unhappy Gay clients so that by 1980, with the emergence of the DSM III, a new category of ego-dystonic homosexuality was created (meaning Gays who were suffering psychologically because they were upset about being Gay). The Gay community, however, would not stand for the idea that anybody could be bothered by being Gay and once again rallied against the alleged homophobes at the DSM. The DSM’s board reconvened and decided that ego-dystonic homosexuality didn’t really exist either. The diagnosis is nowhere to be found in the text revision of the DSM III published in 1986. Ever since, psychiatrists and psychologists dealing with unhappy Gays have been sneaking them in under “Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified” while the new DSM V is concerned not at all with Gays, (who are apparently all okay nowadays), but exhibits a heightened interest in treating the distress that accompanies gender dysphoria resulting from our culture, which, you may be shocked to discover, stigmatizes people who do not conform to gender norms. Got all that? Obviously, all of these changes were sociopolitical rather than clinical in origin—WOOF mentions them only because they typify the highly politicized nature of the mental health establishment in America, and its diagnostic “bible.”

A .50 caliber autoloader, or a newly discovered sexual paraphilia?

A .50 caliber autoloader, or a newly discovered sexual paraphilia?

The new DSM V has already borne much criticism from concerned practitioners for lowering the diagnostic threshold of all disorders, which will obviously expand the number of people who meet the criteria for diagnostic labeling while increasing the likelihood of false-positive diagnoses. This should concern America’s gun owners, especially taken in correlation with the DSM’s proven tendency to accommodate leftist philosophies without reference to empirical evidence supportive of such positional adjustments. Of equal concern, surely, is the new DSM’s examination of “sociocultural variation” – the definition of which is so loosely constructed as to virtually invite the capricious labeling of any perceived sociopolitical deviance as a mental disorder. These elements alone should give pause to thoughtful advocates of an armed citizenry. Do we really want the American Psychiatric Association organizing a committee to review the sociopolitical deviancy of wanting to own an AR-15, or a fifty-caliber Desert Eagle?

Catch .223?


Long ago the psychiatrist Thomas Szasz undertook to demonstrate that psychiatry labels behaviors as mental illness when said behaviors threaten societal norms, thus most diagnoses of mental illness, Szasz contends, amount to politically and culturally motivated forms of repression. Remember also that the liberal academics and clinicians at the helm of the APA, American Counseling Association, and other major mental health organizations have not the slightest interest in what Americans qua Americans consider cultural or societal norms—they are entirely intent on advancing their own norms—the norms of the ultra-leftist faculty-lounge, born of arrogance and insularity. As if in complicity with Obama’s march toward totalitarianism, the DSM 5 crafts a cunningly slippery slope by introducing the concept of Behavioral Addictions—an amorphous concept that, with a little imagineering, can serve to make a mental disorder out of anything anybody does excessively—and, of course, “excessively” is defined by the attending professional. Simultaneously, as mentioned, the new DSM lowers the threshold at which such diagnostic judgments may be imposed.

images Consider the wisdom of Dr. Allen Frances, M.D., former chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and current professor emeritus at Duke, who said of gun control: “We must go much further. No civilian—mentally ill or not—ever needs or deserves access to a military-style assault weapon that is capable of killing dozens of people in a few short minutes. The pleasure that some gun enthusiasts seem to take in owning and firing these weapons is not an inalienable constitutional right deserving second amendment protection.”  Did that get your attention?  Yes, we know, your twelve-year old’s pump action .22 is “capable of killing dozens of people in a few short minutes” but seriously, do you think Dr. Frances gives a rat’s patoot? His goal is the eventual elimination of all legitimately owned firearms in civilian hands. He’d just like to start with your AR-15 because it looks scariest. And Dr. Frances speaks for the majority in his profession.

There is already an instrument by which DSM-V-based denials of firearms purchases can be imposed. Part of the federal government’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the Brady Check. This “safeguard” against possession of firearms by the mentally ill amounts to a repository of centralized data allowing “experts” to sift through the records of individual American gun purchasers with the intent of identifying and disqualifying any who transpire to suffer from a mental illness. Naturally, the final decision following an NICS/Brady Check would be made by a team of government psychiatrists.

All of this amounts to an obvious Catch-22 in the works for Americans naive enough to suppose that government can be depended on to bring psychiatry to bear upon the problem of mentally unstable individuals coming into the possession of firearms. A federal government determined to nullify the second amendment without facing a constitutional showdown need only subvert the psychiatric and psychological professions and impose gun control in the guise of a per-saltum leap forward in national mental hygiene. And the Obama Administration needn’t lift a finger to subvert America’s mental health professionals—they are already Leftist, Democrat, and anti gun.

teen-screen-psychiatrists-are-hereIt remains only to construct the following diagnostic paradox: All American citizens are guaranteed the right to own guns under the second amendment—unless they are found to be mentally unstable. But since only mentally unstable Americans would ever want to own firearms, all who wish to own firearms must be refused the right to own firearms on the grounds of mental instability. Wasn’t that simple?

Americans idolized men like these in the 1950's, but today we realize they were depraved psychotics!

Americans idolized men like these in the 1950’s, but today we suspect they were all depraved psychopaths!

From Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia to Obama’s America, wherever totalitarianism has sought to establish itself, psychiatry has become its willing handmaiden. The great majority of America’s mental health practitioners are dedicated janissaries of the Left who have shown time and time again that they will willingly substitute their elitist ideology for the scientific process whenever it serves the cause of socialism. We must persuade our well-intentioned representatives, the leadership of the National Rifle Association, and our neighbors, to resist the siren song of psychiatric oversight in the matter of gun procurement and ownership. The establishment is playing good men and women for suckers, luring them into a seemingly wholesome concordance with the Left in pursuit of increased mental-health oversight as a means to a safer armed society. The actual purpose of this seemingly salubrious endeavor is the dissolution of our right to bear arms. It must be resisted by every American determined to preserve our Constitution, and by every mental health professional courageous enough to resist the tide of collectivism sweeping through his profession and his nation.


Any review of the Framers’ quotes relating to the establishment of the second amendment would quickly persuade a contemporary liberal– Dr. Allen Frances, for instance—that our government was designed by a benighted cluster of slathering psychotics, so enthralled do they seem by the prospect of national gun ownership! And while it may be true that none of the first ten amendments was intended to be held most vital by Americans, it is unarguably true that none of them can be secured so assuredly as by the second! It may be quite true, also, that Madison and his compatriots never foresaw the development of a Bushmaster or a semi-automatic shotgun, but by the same token they never foresaw the NSA, drones, the IRS, legislation by presidential directive, or mandatory health care. Patrick Henry may best have emphasized the primacy of the 2nd amendment when he cautioned Americans to “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

Of course, now that we think about it, Patrick Henry may have been a bit off his nut...can't be too careful! severely

Of course, now that we think about it, Patrick Henry may have been a bit off his nut, too!

If you meet ‘historic legislation’ on the road to stricter gun control, shoot it down!

In "Gunning for success" forum on April 14, 2013 at 12:07 am

chicks with guns

The Senate’s procedural vote this past Thursday on gun-control legislation is being widely hailed as historic, which is kind of odd since it was nowhere near as horrifying or broadly limiting as the “historic” 1994 ban on assault rifles (which were already banned and had been since the FDR administration, but nobody seemed to care). Perhaps  because when a liberal says “assault rifle” he really means “guns that look scary and remind me of ones I see in spy movies,” the ban proved a ludicrously unenforceable joke and was ultimately overturned.  The latest assault on our 2nd amendment rights is not nearly so historic, therefore, as it is familiar, or  as Shirley Basey might say, it’s all just a little bit of history repeatingHere was the Leftist Establishment force-feeding another example of nuisance legislation to the American gun owner, while averring unwavering support for the 2nd amendment. Here also were the Senate’s reliably pusillanimous Republicans, chanting their fealty to Constitutional writ even as they sought nervously for any conceivable opportunity to sell it out and jump aboard some “bipartisan compromise” so that the Liberal media would hate them a bit less conspicuously—possibly even lionize them for a week or two, as opposed to blaming them for future tragedies entailing guns in the hands of lunatics. This is the sort of thing that ought to

Manchin and Toomey--That's Toomey on the right, more or less.

Manchin and Toomey–That’s Toomey on the right, more or less.

be settled by opposing camps in the Senate—the pro-2nd amendment Right versus the gun-grabbing Left.  In this way, the lines would be drawn starkly and the heroes and villains readily identifiable without a program, but alas, there is always some Republican lawmaker who sniffs the air for an opportunity to be lauded by the left-wing news media and apotheosized by the ruling elites, and such Republicans always seem to find the allure of forging some smarmy compromise with the gun-grabbers irresistible. One such man is clearly Pat Toomey (R-PA), who is suddenly the toast of the inside-the-beltway establishment for what the First Marxist called “leadership on forging a bipartisan agreement around commonsense background checks that will make it harder for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.”  The President called Toomey’s compromise, hammered out with Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, “a welcome and significant bipartisan progress (sic) [that] recognizes that there are good people on both sides of this issue,” adding that “of course, a lot of work remains,” by which, of course, he means the work of eliminating legal gun ownership completely for each and every law-abiding American citizen!

The missing member of the Troika--did you know Chuckie Schumer loves to shoot his Tech 9?

The missing member of the Troika–did you know Chuckie Schumer loves to shoot his Tech 9?

What’s with Toomey?

So wasn’t Patrick Toomey a gung-ho Constitutionalist whose path to victory in 2010 was hewn through the political jungle by the sweat, support, good-faith efforts and votes of the Tea Party? Yes, all that is true enough, gentle readers, but the values of many such stalwarts are strangely transformed by the atmosphere in our nation’s capital, and Toomey is now watching Pennsylvania trend deeper and deeper purple as his aids and

Elizabeth Warren--fake Indian

Elizabeth Warren–fake Indian

handlers assure him incessantly that the only principle that maintains any primacy in Senatorial politics is re-election. Therefore, Beltway Logic dictates swinging toward the limp-wristed center as the best means of having a defensible record when his Democrat opponent comes after him in the next election. This logic almost never works, of course, because voters who like smarmy left-leaning policies prefer Democrats to wannabe Democrats, and vote out the sell-outs in favor of authentically misguided Liberals. Ask Scott Brown in Massachusetts, for instance, who went unpredictably wobbly the moment he arrived in Washington and then got his clock cleaned by Elizabeth Warren, who faked her background both economically and racially (fake poor person, fake Cherokee Indian) and got caught at it both times, together with practicing law in Massachusetts without proper licensure and numerous additional lies and distortions, but who nonetheless decisively defeated Brown because Liberals prefer fake Indians to fake Democrats, and conservative voters were chagrined by Brown’s political apostasies. But Toomey is listening to the media siren song, and his compromise with the monolithic totalitarian

Buffy Sainte Marie, real Indian--see the difference?

Buffy Sainte Marie, real Indian–see the difference?

socialist conspiracy that governs us is a done deal. Hilariously, Toomey refused to appear on stage with one of his two partners in crime—Chuckie Schumer—preferring to promote the idea that he and (the slightly less egregious) Manchin had hammered out the compromise language on background checks as a couple. No matter how the window dressing is arranged, this inconvenient compromise on the sticky background-check language seems likely to give the entire bill a fighting chance at final passage, sad to say. And WOOF knows that Little Chuckie Schumer was part of the troika that hatched the disreputable enterprise—and WOOF also knows that Toomey’s belief that by controlling the “optics” he can elude recognition as a play pal of Schumer’s is exactly the kind of naïveté that kills campaigns in this day and age—which, by the way, is yet another reason that Obama wants the Internet censored and controlled!          


Does Toomey’s defection on this issue presage a headlong abandonment of principles by Senate and House Republicans who are, if nothing else, skilled in slithering sideward whenever they come hard up against the Left-wing Media Establishment’s sacred desiderata? WOOF acknowledges that there is still, as Our Beloved Helmsman asserted, a lot of work remaining before the Democrats can put gun-control solidly in the achievements bracket of their drive for total control of the civilian populace en route to the establishment of the Peoples Republic of America . For one thing, considerable debate remains to be heard as the Left confronts a variety of procedural votes on the bill—and for another,  pro-2nd amendment Republicans may erupt with a flurry of proposed amendments. Here, conservative resistance to the enhanced Federal background checks and centralized data gathering blatantly intended to clear the way for confiscation of civilian firearms (by dribs and drabs, not all at once—which is how socialism prefers to attack) could prove formidable.  Another 60-member vote would be necessary to halt such debate and advance the bill to final passage. And of course the patriotic men and women of the National Rifle Association are hard at work bringing their considerable influence to bear. But therein lies a hidden problem of major proportions which so far as we can ascertain is recognized nowhere but here in the WOOF cave!

tinfoil dog

The NRA takes a wrong turn!

In a letter to each Senator, Chris Cox, the Legislative Action Director for the NRA, wrote that, “Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.”  But rather than emphasize enforcement of existing laws and the prosecution of gun criminals, Cox urged the Senate to focus on the mental health system. This is a dreadful error and plays into the hands of the Communist conspiracy to disarm Americans. If you don’t believe there is such a conspiracy, consider that the title of the bill before the Senate is, in part, the “Second-Amendment Rights Protection Act.” Cynical? Hey, it takes a Commie to lie like that, gentle readers!

chinese mental health therapy

Therapy in Red China–“So how do you feel about that?”

Long ago in the Reagan ‘80s the World Psychiatric Association condemned the Soviet Union for its invention of “sluggish schizophrenia”–sometimes called “creeping schizophrenia,” a diagnosis invented by Commie Master Psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky and reserved for anybody whose loyalty to the Soviet system seemed to be foundering. In other words, its symptomology made opposition to the State a severe mental illness requiring all sorts of chemical and electro-convulsive intervention! This is the sort of insanity we used to shake our heads at in disbelief in the Free West, and everyone would recite the mantra, “It could never happen here!” But how many infamies have we watched happen here in recent years, Woofketeers? How many depredations against our freedoms and encroachments on our liberties have we experienced since 2008? And now these perversions of psychiatry, once thought of as infamies peculiar to the Communist east, are ready for introduction in our own mental health professions—and nobody is speaking out in opposition to the process, possibly because the psychiatric community along with the major psycho-therapeutic organizations and advocacy groups are today to the left of Che Guevara and can’t wait to pathologize any proclivity frowned upon by the Liberal Establishment—whether it be speaking out against progressive programs like the state ownership of children and the state’s control of medical treatment, or such anti-progressive disorders as “homophobia,” anti-multiculturalism, or, yes, gun ownership.

Allow Obama and his minions to focus on the “broken” mental health system vis a vis  the national gun-violence problem, and you will be heraldingcrimedoctor_5710 the dawn of a new breakthrough in socialist psychiatric medicine, namely the Catch-22-style discovery that desiring to possess a firearm is in itself a diagnosable break from socialist reality, and that while any sane person may own a gun under the 2nd amendment, only insane persons would wish to own a gun, ergo, nobody may own a gun. Sound crazy? Listen to WOOF, gentle readers, this absurdity is fast approaching, so don’t give Dear Leader any ideas, okay? Listen, National Rifle Association—we love you! We WOOF-link to you! But you are not thinking this one through to its obvious conclusion!

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the “official” listing of the psychiatric profession’s accepted mental-health diagnoses) has its 5th edition scheduled for distribution next month, and it is already well known that it represents a radical departure from previous editions insofar as it embraces a qualitative-analytic style of describing and ascribing its hundreds of diagnoses and symptomological complexes!  Without giving you chapter and verse on the postmodern ludicrosity that is qualitative analysis, suffice it that the American psychiatric community is Sovietizing itself rapidly enough without the NRA or anyone else offering it any creative input!

An awful lot of Soviet citizens turned out to need mental health services!

An awful lot of Soviet citizens turned out to need mental health services!

Where is the week ahead headed?

So where does this leave us for the upcoming week, fellow Woofites? Well, the pundits have now descried in the Manchin-Toomey language a clause or two allowing interstate reciprocity of concealed carry—so the Left is all upset and the squishy Republican middle is saying, look, this must be a very good compromise indeed! Ignore this flapdoodle, gentle readers! Any compromise that enables the passage of any gun-control legislation is a blow to your 2nd amendment rights—so stand your ground with WOOF and the righteous shade of Chuck Heston, America! Say it with us proudly: You can have our guns when you pry them from our cold, dead paws! (Or…well…mutatis mutandis… you know…)


President Obama once shot a clay pigeon on the Camp David lawn for treason!

In "Gunning for success" forum on February 5, 2013 at 4:19 am
Ouch! President Obama draws a bead on his critics--or is he searching for skeet using 'reconnaissance by fire?'

Ouch! President Obama draws a bead on his critics–or is he searching for skeet using ‘reconnaissance by fire?’

Well, we aren’t positive you can actually shoot a clay pigeon for treason, but betraying Our Beloved Helmsman to the media as a serial fibber probably seemed like an act of  treason to His Eminence, and he may therefore regard skeet as traitorous given the liberal appetence for indicting surrogate and preferably inanimate talismans for the follies of humans—kind of like the kid who bumps his knee on a chair and gets even by kicking the chair—and besides, let’s face it, it gives us yet another opportunity to revisit our favorite (though historically specious) quote about Thomas Jefferson. And as steadfast readers know, we really like that quote! (Quote viewable here)

But that’s not important now.

Not guilty--but we don't care!

Not guilty–but we don’t care!

What matters is that the picture is here, folks, in fact it’s been out since Saturday, when you might typically release something you weren’t all that eager to subject to the scrutiny of the weekday news programs. And it arrived with more warnings and cautions than a pack of Chesterfield Kings! We are sternly admonished that:

“This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests [sic] approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”

Well we’re in the clear on that one, because nothing we are about to say in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. Well, okay, maybe the White House. After all, Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge used to live there! Oh, and Thomas Jefferson once shot a man on its lawn for treason—oops, there we go again. Sorry.

The Three Stooges, mouths watering for some skeet!

The Three Stooges, mouths watering for some skeet!

There are two excellent reasons why WOOF would not dream of photoshopping or tampering with the above image. First, we can’t afford the gear—it’s expensive—the good stuff, and until our request for a bailout comes through and our stimulus money starts pouring in, we just won’t be able to Photoshop much of anything—or gear up to produce all those uselessly defective solar panels we want to manufacture, either!  The second reason, of course, is that only a political ingrate would consider tarnishing so perfect a comic masterpiece with any additional flourishes—heck, it would be like adding a laugh track to a Three Stooges hunting farce. Why bother? The picture itself is a diamond—a multifaceted gem of tomfoolery capturing in one glorious, frozen moment of 12-gauge thunder, the cold, clammy angst of one man, desperate to appear real.

Wooing the “legitimate” hunter…?

elmer fudd

“I’m a fwaud; cartoons aren’t weal!”

In eyeing this as outreach intended to shore up support amongst gun owners, the NRA and most of the right-wing media are missing the point. This isn’t outreach, it’s first aid for Our Beloved Helmsman’s injured-ego. Something in his haphazard sense of machismo impelled the President to crazily insist, during his NewRepublic interview, that he shoots guns all the time.  At skeet. This is, after all, a man whose clinical narcissism has been so exacerbated by a cooing and drooling media establishment that he has come to expect any lollapalooza that escapes his lips to pass immediate muster, whether he is assuring an audience that destroying the coal industry is perfectly okay because we’re going to build nuclear power plants all over the country, (even though he just shut down Yucca Mountain, so there’d be no place to store the spent fuel), or telling astonished students at a graduation ceremony that he met his wife in class at Harvard, which is blatant nonsense given that the Obamas met in Chicago in 1989 when the President was an associate at the Sydney Austin law firm…

Even Jimmy Carter knew how to hold a shotgun! He just couldn't hit the American Embassy in Tehran!

Even Jimmy Carter knew how to hold a shotgun! He just couldn’t hit the American Embassy in Tehran!

…or that his dad served in WWII (nonsense) or that his Uncle liberated Auschwitz (which would have been the neatest trick of the week, because Auschwitz was  liberated by the Soviet Army) or that he would walk the picket lines with Wisconsin Union members (he never quite got around to it), or that he was born in Kenya (which it satisfied him to tell folks before it made becoming President impossible, at which point he ceased to be born in Kenya) and all of this, and so much more, being total horsefeathers. Clearly the President is a man who has perfected what Charles Krauthammer sneeringly called “situational reality.” But the media just report this schlock; they never question it—why would they question the word of their cosseted, coddled creation?

When it transpired that the girl friend he described in his autobiography was not a real person, nobody on the left affected to notice. When he told George Stephanopoulos that his Muslim faith was important to him, Stephanopoulos simply corrected him, saying “You mean Christian.” And the whole show rolled on as if nothing, nothing at all, just happened. But something short-circuited this time—and if the Great Helmsman’s will-o-the-wisp sense of masculinity sought to reaffirm itself briefly by simply winging some noisome cow paddy about skeet shooting at a subservient interviewer, it must have felt doubly threatened when the reliably sycophantic scribbler from the New Republic challenged the plausibility of such a story, almost statim. This called for more and thicker manure, of course, and fast, too, so Dear Leader piled it on furiously, insisting that not only did he shoot Skeet, but that he did it “all the time.”

Actual skeet shooter, braced for discharge, actuallyshooting--and the most smoke we could find coming out of a shotgun anywhere this side of Camp David!

Actual skeet shooter, braced for discharge, actually shooting–and the most smoke we could find coming out of a shotgun anywhere this side of Camp David!

Unfortunately, the gun climate in America at the moment is intemperate, both Left and Right, and the President’s new skeet shooting hobby was therefore irresistible news. Obama could have said, “Oh, I used to work in a nuclear power plant,” or “Well, when I was a kid, I was a Boy Scout and I played on the troop hockey team,” or “You know, I’ve always dug deep to give to charities that support autistic kids,” and everyone in the media would have made a note of it, remarked on the wonderfulness of it all,  and moved right along, like always—but guns? Oops! Guns are hypnotically transfixing to Americans, and especially so nowadays; a fact that seems, fascinatingly enough, to have completely eluded the New Lincoln. A lie about skeet shooting should have been digested by the masses no less alacritously than a lie about anything else—but such was not the case. Americans take their shooting irons seriously, and the aftermath of this Executive Whopper was felt even in the sinistral sancta of MSNBC and the New York Times.

That members of the Washington Press Corpse should so thoughtlessly and indecorously violate protocol as to ask a hard question is almost unthinkable nowadays, but at the press briefing for Monday, January 27th, Jay Carney was asked the ugly question: How often does the President shoot skeet at Camp David? The boy propagandist replied that he didn’t know. Were there pictures? Carney replied that he didn’t know, adding that he had never seen one. Go figure. He was then actually pressed on the strange absence of any photographs of the Kenyan Nimrod at sport and explained that “When he goes to Camp David, he goes there to spend time with his family and friends and relax, not to produce photographs.” But in fact, at least one photographer accompanies the First Marxist everywhere except the lavatory, so as LBJ would say, that hound won’t hunt.

The second 2nd Amendment


Obama on clingers: Not to be dismissed out of hand!

The President might have supposed his expatiation, fed on the spot to the New Republic, more than amply disingenuous to put him out of harm’s way. He had, in fact, attempted to make a silk purse out of the misstatement by turning to a favorite Left-wing fantasy point. You see, he explained, “I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this [gun control] forward is understanding the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were 10, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that.” And blah, blah, blah. So okay, why is he saying this stuff?  As outreach to the hunting community? No, he is saying this stuff because the Left is determined to rewrite the 2nd amendment, that’s why! It is a main goal of the gun grabbers to deconstruct the right to keep and bear arms and rehabilitate it as some bizarre statement to the effect that, “A well provisioned larder and dinner table being necessary to the family togetherness of certain bitter clingers in fly-over country, the right of these yawps and crackers to go hunting with their dads and uncles shall not be infringed—at least not immediately.”  This is why we have all the shrill liberal pandering to “legitimate hunters” as though they could be split from the NRA like peeling off a minority voting faction—and why we have shatterpated hysterics like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo sobbing that nobody needs ten rounds to kill a deer. It currently suits the Left to pretend that the rights of hunters were first and foremost in the minds of the Founders, whereas in fact, the rights of gun-owning citizens to blow the heads off anybody who threatened the freedoms they were vouchsafed by the Constitution was more to the point—or as Roger Sherman succinctly put it in 1790, the 2nd amendment exists to guarantee   “…the privilege of every citizen, of one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.” If Sherman had deer in mind, it certainly wasn’t apparent in the moment.

Roger Sherman--singer of both the Declaration and the Constitution--and is he pee-ohed!

Roger Sherman–signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution–and is he pee-ohed!

In search of evidence!

The White House next scrambled to assemble folks who would be willing to reminisce about the President’s skeet shooting—to finesse the problem with a few satisfying narratives from those who had ostensibly been present for the festivities, as it were—so out came the usual gang of idiots. But the idiots were not keen to wax assistful, and many of them seemed to break down half way through their dubious testimonies. Men and women who might have been comfortable swearing that the President read Montesquieu or played tournament-level chess, or maybe had a black belt in Judo, seemed to shy at the excessive hurdle of describing him as Sergeant York.

Maybe the President could learn to shoot from Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn)--and get his image worked on at the same time?

Maybe the President could learn to shoot from Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn)–and get his image worked on at the same time?

One source close to the president offered that “This has only happened…at most, a couple of times.” Another informed source was equally leery of commitment, declaring that, “The only time he shot skeet was at the President’s Cup [actually a shooting competition involving the Marines in the White House guard]. He stayed about five minutes and couldn’t leave fast enough.” But this, the well-intentioned lackey explained, was perfectly understandable, because “Skeet shooting is very hard, especially for someone not used to guns…He couldn’t have been more uncomfortable.”  Well, obviously, that wasn’t working, and to further trounce the Presidential ego, along came that hot mamma from the irrepressible rural South, Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) and darned if that blonde bombshell didn’t up and challenge Our Beloved Helmsman to a skeet shooting match!  Things were coming apart fast, and steps had to be taken—and that brings us to the riotous high point of the entire burlesque: The now infamous photograph. A White House so bent out of shape over the simple, obvious nonsense that the First Fantasizer had spewed on the cusp of a silly whim, thinking only to sound a trifle less sissified and unmanly, decided finally to produce a photograph. And now we have it, America—the most outlandish signal to date that the Obama administration inhabits some parallel universe in which realities are a dime a dozen, and the only deity apart from Marx, Mao and Alinsky seems to be P.T. Barnum.

Michael Hampton of the U.S. Skeet Shooting Association is either a Democrat, or the kindest fellow around, for his assessment of the photo is, perhaps, the most charitable one to date. Hampton studied the picture and declared, “It isn’t something he does very often because of how he’s standing and how he has the gun mounted.” Really, Michael—ya think? Let’s face it, the photo is so ridiculous it must be concluded that the Administration declined to employ any technical directors for fear of a leak. Nobody shoots a shotgun like that—nobody except Barack Hussein Obama!

Some presidents look a bit more natural with a gun--just sayin'

Some presidents look a bit more natural with a gun–just sayin’

The Administration obliged loyal flak (okay, strategist) David Plouffe to tweet the “proof” with the dead-pan message: POTUS shoots clay targets on the range at Camp David on Aug. 4, 2012,” and the now infamous picture. Obviously aware that nobody in his right mind was going to accept the validity of the picture, Plouffe made a transparent effort to steal the march on the army of critics sure to assemble in the wake of his tweet, adding, “Attn skeet birthers: Make our day—let the photoshop conspiracies begin!” But nobody, not even Richard Nixon, ever hated ridicule as savagely as the man currently in the Oval Office—and no President has ever been so thin skinned. The notion that this photo was fed to the lunatic fringe so that the president and his sophisticated entourage could enjoy the ensuing hysteria is at least as implausible as Obama’s secret life as a shot-gunning nimrod.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Okay, comes now the fun part. What on earth are we looking at here? Let’s begin with what we cannot be looking at. The President cannot possibly be shooting skeet in the photograph. Skeet are released by a mechanical sling that sends them soaring through the air, and they are customarily targeted in mid flight. Yes, some are slung lower than others, but the President has his shotgun leveled at a flat trajectory, as though he is shooting the clay pigeons off fence posts. For treason. Seriously, what on earth could he be firing at? Did he study under Dick Cheney? Is he such a mensch that he orders the skeet be fired directly at him, so that he can, with blazing accuracy, pulverize the hostile discs as they launch, like our Strategic Defense Initiative does enemy missiles—or would have, had the President not suspended its development?

And the gun is not placed against the President’s shoulder. A careful inspection of the photo shows that Obama has the stock only half to his shoulder, half sticking up over it.

Bristol Palin, first time shooting skeet--note stock of shotgun properly couched in shoulder. Note recoil. And what Bristol lacks in style she easily makes up for in Bristolness-- just sayin'

Bristol Palin, first time shooting skeet–note stock of shotgun properly couched in shoulder. Note recoil. And what Bristol lacks in style (and vest) she easily makes up for in Bristolness– just sayin’

A 12-gauge shotgun simply cannot be discharged like that without inflicting serious injury on the shoulder of the maladroit shooter. Nobody would fire a shotgun that way twice! And who shoots skeet in a polo shirt? Skeet shooters wear vests as a matter of routine with extra shells snugged in them for reload, or carried in a shoulder bag. The vest offers padding to absorb the not unprepossessing buck of the recoiling weapon. Is somebody handing the President his shells as he shoots?  Is he so contemptuous of the sting of the mighty 12-gauge that he disdains to employ padding?

What on earth is he discharging from that shotgun? Black powder? Talcum powder? No shotgun in recent memory discharged so much smoke, not even in the movies. Was a special smoke-producing load manufactured for the President’s big moment, or is the smoke merely photo shopped in, thus accounting for the apparent lack of any recoil from the blast?  Experienced shooters will tell you, if you doubt us on this one: There is no modern round for a modern gun that squirts quite that much smoke out the barrel.

Vents on a Citori's barrel

Vents on a Citori’s barrel

Much has also been made of the ported barrel, because shotguns don’t typically have ported barrels, but some extremely expensive Italian shotguns do, and so does the Browning Citori 625 in the hands of the President.  And you can get one of your own for 4,799 dollars, so shop early, while it’s still legal to own one!

Why is the President wearing a watch he has never previously been photographed wearing?  WOOF has no clue. Is he in fact wearing a wedding ring?  (WOOF believes he is, others think not.) Why is the photo said to have been taken on August 4th, the President’s birthday? Does he enjoy busting the caps on a few rounds of birdshot so much that he spent his birthday doing it, and if so, why does he look like, on the whole, he’d rather be in Nairobi? Look, let’s face it, whatever this ridiculous picture is intended to demonstrate, it demonstrates nothing but the fact that Obama is an ego driven flim-flam artist who would still be voting present in the House of Representatives if the American Media weren’t wholly dedicated to backing his every enormity as though it were the latest exemplification of his supernal genius. And here it comes again. Everyone who notices the obvious—that this silly photograph is at best a picture of a little man holding a big gun because he is terrified the truth may leak out about a silly boast that nobody believed in the first place–will be hooted to derision in the lap-dog press until all protest ceases.

The Citori 625: A one-percenter's shotgun!

The ultra-pricey Citori 625: A one-percenter’s shotgun!

Run! Run! Here come the Skeeters!

Already, the left-wing media machine has gone into high gear vilifying any critic of the skeet pic who might otherwise be given a fair hearing in the public arena. Picking up Plouffe’s cue, they are calling critics of the photo “Skeeters.” In other words, the message from the Obama Media Establishment is that only a  right wing nut-case racist paranoid could be so crazy as to suggest that rappin’ preezy doesn’t really enjoy blasting a few clays out there at Camp David!  And therefore, all thinking, sophisticated, non-racist Americans must accept the genuineness of the photo as a matter of course, or at the very worst, dismiss its manifest inauthenticity as a matter of no consequence. Got that?  And perhaps the most amusing aspect of this kabuki dance is the level of dorky, unquestioning obeisance it ignites among the usefully-idiotic media sicophants. Consider the doggedly imperceptive Erik Wemple, blogging on behalf of the Washington Post to the effect that, “patience pays off”—insisting that the President enjoyed a “gotcha” moment with his photo surprise that “stung the growing number of skeptics.”   Believe it or not, this faction of the Left is also insistent that withholding the birth certificate for as long as it was withheld was also a brilliant “strategery” designed to make fools of the president’s critics. Among some wide-eyed populations on the faithful Left, the Kool-Aid flows like a mighty river, brethren.

Need a Kool-Aid container? Huff Post offers these triumphant Obama birth certificate “Made in the USA” mugs–no, really.

Meanwhile, those with eyes to see are left gawking at this embarrassing photo-op (rhymes with photo shop) wondering whether we have before us the image of President Obama holding a gun that was later “arted” to look like it was discharging (our best guess), or Obama actually firing the gun, taken a nanosecond before he smashed his shoulder and began yelping with pain (and its hard to believe the Secret Service would allow him to discharge the weapon from such an addle-pated position), or whether, perhaps, it isn’t our Beloved Helmsman at all, for there is also the “that’s-not-his-watch” school, which insists the man holding the gun is a body double. WOOF rejects this argument. If, after all, you were going to send in a body double for the President, would you pick someone in a silly polo shirt and “mom jeans” who couldn’t hold a shotgun?  But whatever the truth about the falsity may be, and however one wishes to interpret this frantic effort at validation, it perfectly exemplifies an Administration so numb to actuality that it has long since departed reality for the warmer climes of la-la land.

Obama is not the only community organizer to hold guns funny--here's OBL in Afghanistan demonstrating the same off-the-shoulder firing position.

Obama is not the only community organizer to hold guns funny–here’s Osama Bin Laden (also a lefty) in Afghanistan demonstrating the same off-the-shoulder firing position. 

What difference does it make?

The larger portion of the American Left, which lacks the naiveté requisite to swallowing the absurd idea that the photo’s appearance marks a brilliantly-timed  rebuke to the Presidents’ critics, has adopted the more sophisticated and time-honored defense of studied nonchalance. Have you noticed how Hillary Clinton’s most horrendously detached avowal, screeched at the apex (or nadir) of her recent hearings, has become an overnight  crie de coeur on the Left? Possibly because it so consistently fits their need to dismiss real events? Yes, the loudest, most consistently shouted message from the bastions of Liberalism on this subject, is, “What difference does it make?” In other words, yes the picture is a flagrant hoax, but so what? So the President never shot skeet in his life, does it really matter? And a sensible rejoinder to this might be: No, not really. It might matter in a saner era, in which our leaders were held to their word, and expected to maintain an image consubstantial with their actual personalities, but today? Not so much. The stark obviousness of the President of the United States lying casually, as a matter of convenience, about shooting as a hobby and then issuing a faked photo of himself holding a one-percenter’s shotgun in a hopelessly lubberly stance, with a preternaturally massive blast of smoke photo-shopped (or otherwise confected) at the gun’s muzzle, doesn’t amount to a high crime or a misdemeanor—it is simply petty, pathetic, and in the final analysis dumb. That’s all. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” None, really. We’ll all be moving along to the next thing that doesn’t make any difference by the end of the week, right?  Until then, keep your heads down out there! (Barry’s got a gun!) WOOF PRINT

Stay safe, America!

Stay safe, America!


In "Gunning for success" forum on January 17, 2013 at 6:14 am


New York State’s annual State of the State address this month turned into an especially distasteful venture into unmanly hysterics during which a clearly irrational Andrew Cuomo seemed to squeal, gasp, and shriek a weird assortment of a-tonal imprecations at gun owning “extremists” whom, however he envisioned them, he clearly and emphatically hated. Even more crazily, the Governor seemed driven by the ironic idée fixe that destroying the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution would be the most patriotically uplifting project to which New Yorkers could possibly commit themselves in the coming year, surpassing even Gay marriage and legalization of pot in this respect.  After spending the better part of the week sputtering about confiscation, the Governor proceeded to insist that this was not about “taking away people’s guns,” but was merely about “sweeping” gun control reforms in New York. In his speech, which was yelped at a frantic decibel level that might have been somewhat less unnecessary had microphones not been available, the Governor cried, “I own a gun! I own a Remington shotgun! I’ve hunted, I’ve shot! That’s not what this is about! It’s about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles– That’s what this is about!” The Governor did not say what a “high capacity assault rifle” is, or where he believed such weapons to be stashed in his state, but he did manage to add that “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer! …End this madness now!” Insouciant of his own plea, he raved for several more minutes, finally making time to mention the need for a women’s equality act, more Gay marriage, and the legalization of marijuana. But that’s not important now.

cuomo two

An unseemly display of histrionics by a man terrified of–Bambi?! Whitaker Chambers, please call your office!

Predictably, the monolithically left-wing media found the Governor’s histrionics impressive. Commentators assured one another that Cuomo had put himself center stage for his party’s 2016 nomination for the presidency, and proven himself a statesman of exemplary courage and clarity fit for higher station. WOOF doesn’t understand how grownups manage to tell each other this kind of pish and tosh without choking in mid-hyperbole, but WOOF does understand that Governor Cuomo is a babbling dizzard of the first order, and somebody needs to tell him so—so, hey Governor Cuomo—regardless of what all those televised blown-dry panty wastes are saying about you, you’re a…well, just read back to the previous sentence and that’s what you are. No offense; it’s just that being Governor of New York you might go quite a while, blathering pointlessly

Andrew Cuomo comes undone--the crowd goes wild!

Andrew Cuomo comes undone–the crowd goes wild!

out there before anybody else warned you about yourself!  See, Governor, deer don’t shoot kids in schools. Deer don’t break into families’ homes, deer don’t jack cars, deer don’t rob us at the point of a weapon, deer don’t rape women; deer, Governor, are just a lot more innocent than you seem to think. Few of us are armed to protect ourselves from deer, Governor Cuomo—in fact you may be the only person we know who is armed to protect himself from deer. The vast majority of us out here, whether we hunt or do not hunt, own guns that were specifically designed to kill people, because killing people who are attempting to kill us is still legal in most states—possibly even in yours!  And because progressive policies like yours and those of your political ilk have made society a very unsafe place for those of us who don’t travel with body guards, we prefer to take necessary precautions. So can we drop all this “rights of hunters and sportsmen” humbug and focus on why the founders gave us a second amendment?  They gave us the second amendment mainly because they also knew that deer don’t attempt to subvert and abridge the rights of a free people. Tyrants do. Tyrants, Governor, and oleaginous two-bit politicos with nothing between their ears but tax-and-spend liberalism and that set of dark, totalitarian visions that it amuses you to call “progressive.”

2010--Harry holds onto a gun, his NRA endorsement, and his seat.

2010–Harry holds onto a gun, his NRA endorsement, and his seat.

Remember a few weeks ago when WOOF told you bluntly that Harry Reid would lead the charge to grab your guns? Many of you told us not to worry. You told us that while Harry might be as shifty as a shite-house rat, and crazily far left on virtually every other position under the sun, we didn’t have to worry about his position on the second amendment. Old Harry was solid as Gibraltar on that point, you assured us.  But only this week Reid’s staff told reporters that his long-held pro-gun position was “evolving.” And do you know what it means when a liberal says he’s “evolving,” Woofketeers? It means he’s getting ready to publicly take a position that reflects what his true views have been all along. Remember when President Obama had to go evolve in order to support men marrying men?  (And just to be fair, women marrying women, which doesn’t seem quite as yucky, but still–!)  And if you don’t think Harry Reid is going to drop his pro-gun pretense in time for the final putsch toward an unarmed, subservient America, you’re delusional. We still like you and everything, especially those of you who are serially deceived Nevadans– but you’re still delusional! And if you think Harry has been pro-gun thus far in the course of his illustrious career, try popping over to Gun Owners of America’s website (we have the link below) and checking out their detailed history of Harry’s voting record on the issue! Or just go to http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm  Yes, we know you keep reading stuff about Harry pooh-poohing an assault weapons ban, but when he says these things, have you noticed his lips are moving? The surest sign that Harry Reid is being untruthful is his lips moving! Today found Harry making favorable noises about an “assault weapons ban” being on the Senate agenda. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton regarding a different Utopian socialist, one can lie in bed at night and hear Harry Reid evolve.

Harry Reid evolving--an actual photo.

Harry Reid evolving–actual photo.

Meanwhile, we have the painfully familiar sight of Dianne Feinstein, who wouldn’t know a derringer from a panzerfaust, storming to center stage in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. As anyone who has observed Senator Feinstein in full bombast is aware, she is never so much in her glory as when she can maladroitly hoist some formidable-looking firearm while wearing her most sternly sanctimonious countenance, and proceed to declaim on the hazards of “assault rifles,” which terminology she has of late changed to “assault weapons” she having apparently at last absorbed the fact that almost nobody in America can legally own the former, or realistically define the latter.  The beauty of a war on “assault weapons,” clearly, is that nobody knows what they are, and this means that liberal pontificators can claim them to be whatever they prefer.  This worked well enough to bring about the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Yes, that’s right—we already banned assault weapons, but apparently psychotic killers don’t read the papers, or else they appear not to have cared. A study conducted by the Department of Justice and the National Institute for Justice in 2004 declared that the assault weapons ban had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” So, Feinstein has decided with impeccable liberal logic, it is high time to ban assault weapons some more!

Feinstein armed

See? It’s an assault weapon! Feinstein strikes her favorite show and tell pose.

The bill she has proposed this time to really, really, ban assault weapons, whatever they are, is intended to halt the 1) sale, 2) transfer, 3) importation and 4) manufacturing of military-style assault weapons, handguns, and shotguns as well as high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. It further demands a ban on weapons capable of holding more than 10 rounds (which means bullets, for you liberal readers), presumably because you don’t need ten “bullets” to kill a deer. But while Feinstein’s hysterics are music to the ears of her San Francisco peanut gallery, and while Cuomo’s ululations may win him the hearts of the New York Times and the Penthouse Mensheviks of Manhattan, they are not likely to match the mood of Congress precisely, not even a Congress laden with cowardly, inside-the-beltway con-swerve-atives (and don’t think they all shambled off with Dick Lugar—there is no reason to think that Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley or Rep. Jack Kingston –just to name a few—won’t side with the gun banners given

Maybe it'll work this time!

Maybe it’ll work this time!

half a chance). So ramming “sweeping gun control reforms” through the legislative bodies might prove difficult. Normally, of course, this would mean the Second Amendment is safe—but not with Our Beloved Helmsman in the Oval Office….the first President in history to routinely ignore and openly disparage the constitution and even the courts is not likely to be slowed down by a recalcitrant legislative branch.

After the tortuous kabuki theater of Joe Biden spending days upon days meeting with the aggrieved, the anti-gun, the civic minded, and just for giggles with some pro-gun advocates, all the while taking pains to simulate comprehending what any of them were saying to him, the Vice President grandly approached President Obama with his “gleanings”—which gleanings had been placed in his hand by the leftists at the subversive think tank, Center for American Progress, before he’d ever met with anybody—trust us!  Thus Joe was saved the agony of having to contemplate anything, or even of paying strict attention to anyone—he was simply tasked with handing the preconceived program to the President, who accepted the hand-off and declared that a day would pass and then, surrounded by an army of children, (just to make the scene as cloyingly fulsome as possible) Our Beloved Helmsman will unfold his plan, and make it plain that many of the conditions, in order to be implemented (for the children, of course) must be implemented by Presidential directive. And what is a Presidential Directive?

Again with the big words! How many more days of this? Joe's show committee grinds along.

Again with the big words! How many more days of this? Joe’s show committee grinds along.

Correctly understood a Presidential Directive is an executive order issued by the President with the advice and consent of the National Security Council. Such directives are intended to define or orchestrate the executive’s national security policy and as such they carry the “full force and effect of law.” Bill Clinton abused this power frequently and nobody particularly objected, so Obama has evidently concluded that he can usurp congressional authority by issuing directives  to suit his every whim. But the constitutional separation of powers does not allow for such broad use. While the President may constitutionally issue a decree to carry out a particular action committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress, this does not mean he can slice through the separation of powers and usurp congressional authority. If the President attempts this, he is breaking the law and assaulting the very Constitution he is sworn to protect—an impeachable offense, in a time when grown ups were in charge. But today?

October 1789, Washington uses a Presidential Directive to proclaim the first national day of thanksgiving.

October 1789, Washington uses a Presidential Directive to proclaim the first national day of thanksgiving.

So this morning we have the spectacle of our Dear Leader, surrounded by der kinder and their beaming parents, speechifying from the White House, enjoining the nation to help him end the scourge of gun violence. Next we were treated to the high comedy of Janet Napolitano over at Homeland Security releasing a statement that she’ll be “proud to support” the Obama administration’s efforts to “combat gun violence in our country.”  Should someone tell this nanoid intellect that she is the Obama Administration? And how do she and Our Beloved Helmsman propose to ensure our safety? By disarming the honest citizenry and neutralizing that pesky Constitution, of course—but they daren’t directly say so. Instead, as predicted, Obama let loose a flurry of Presidential Directives, 23 in all, most of which are surprising for their mushy inexactitude, such as number thirteen, which directs that efforts be maximized (whatever that means) “to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.” This could obviously be construed to mean anything, from retroactive confiscation of firearms to mandating that every citizen go at all times armed. Additionally it seems to suggest that gun wielding crooks be

Many do not realize that using children to make a political point has a lengthy pidigree

Many do not realize that using children to make a political point has a lengthy pedigree.

punished severely, which the NRA, WOOF, almost all conservatives, Mickey Spillane and Batman have all been demanding for decades while liberals turned a deaf ear. Other directives are laughable for their disingenuousness, such as number fifteen, which posits that “it be clarified that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes,” which will be difficult to clarify indeed, even once that tricky syntax is resolved, inasmuch as the Affordable Care Act prohibits exactly that—but oh well. It seems odd that Obama placed so much emphasis on today’s speech and then held forth, in the event, with such phlegmatic decretals. But in all the mush and vagueness lies the opportunity for much mischief once the lawyerly classes of the Senate and House have an opportunity to do some interpretive parsing, not to mention every fruit loop that Clinton or Obama appointed to a Federal judgeship. So is it time for the citizenry to consider taking up arms against the leviathan of tyranny?

No!  That’s exactly what they expect us to do! Don’t be deceived by the fact that we dwell in a post-modern era in which truth is deemed unimportant compared to perception, and the perception created by the media is that all of this constitution trashing  is quite wonderful. Do not be deceived by the eight or ten “polls” that just fell out of the blue showing that a majority of Americans support the Obama gun control agenda—that’s just liberal pollsters at play. All of this anti-gun business may yet be rebuked by a Congress that fears its constituents far more than it fears Rosie O’Donnell or the Washington Post (which in any case, only they read). Let us confront this issue in Congress and in the courts and see if we can’t stymie the Vast Left Wing Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy that governs us! Perhaps we can settle this on the floor of Congress and in the judiciary when necessary. Let’s give it the old WOOF try! We can still win this one without “going Sam Adams” on the feds! The NRA has gained a quarter of a million new members in just two weeks, and more will surely follow! The media and the liberal establishment sought to shame gun owners into capitulation, or make pariahs of them; but instead they sent hordes of people flocking to gun stores to arm themselves in accordance with their second-amendment rights! There are plenty of us ready to stand against this tyranny by haranguing our elected representatives to wakefulness, and the new NRA ads assailing the moral hypocrisy of the Left are so “right on” that offended network news pundits are bellowing like branded cows. In fact, the funniest episode of the day was the White House’s reaction to the NRA ad pointing out that Obama’s kids go everywhere with armed protection while their father calls armed protection for most kids wrong.  A studiedly offended White House released a statement that “The President’s kids should not be used as pawns in a political fight.” Apparently, only the kids Obama has flown in as window dressing while he makes his emotion-driven anti-gun speeches should be used as pawns in a political fight. Who knew?

The President is really just high-fiving these momentarily useful children-- it's not how it looks!

The President is really just high-fiving these momentarily useful children– it’s not some kind of weird salute, or anything!

Meanwhile, want to totally mess with BATF, the White House, the congress, and Janet Napolitano? Want to simultaneously be able to stockpile types of ammo less in demand than many of the more popular calibers? WOOF’s own Bang Gunley has suggested getting yourself a “Mare’s Leg” like Steve McQueen (lifelong Republican, by the way) used to carry on the old TV show “Wanted Dead or Alive.” They are, admittedly, expensive, impractical, hard to aim, and totally weird looking, but trying to classify them will drive the Left nuts…and hey, one or two of these exotic works of art kept Steve alive through four entire TV seasons. And the intimidation factor? Now as then: Maximum!

Steve McQueen's "Mare's Leg" circa 1960--confusion to our enemies!

Steve McQueen’s “Mare’s Leg” circa 1960–confusion to our enemies!



Eagle Squadron Productions offers an “authentic 1892 Winchester Mare’s Leg carbine.” Of course the gun on the show was mythic, so “authentic” means it’s made like Steve’s! http://www.eaglesquadronproductions.com/bounty.htm

J.B. Custom markets a “1892 Mares Leg Lever Action Pistol”. ..a fully functional copy of McQueen’s weapon, available in a number of calibers.  http://wildwestmerchandise.com/

Rossi Firearms offers a Mare’s leg under the name Ranch Hand.  The Rossi Ranch Hand is manufactured by Taurus in Brazil. http://www.rossiusa.com/product-details.cfm?id=224&category=17.

Henry Repeating Arms manufactures two versions of the Mare’s Leg.  http://henryrepeating.com/rifle-mares-leg.cfm

This model by ROSSI is called the "Puma"

This model by Rossi is called the “Ranch Hand”


In "Gunning for success" forum on January 4, 2013 at 8:26 am

Violence in Chicago reaches unprecedented proportions despite anti-gun laws


Chicago has the highest murder rate in town, so to speak; it beat Detroit (the former champ), Washington DC, and New York in 2012 with over 500 killings.  And only today the  windy city hosted its fifth murder of the new year—a beloved muffler shop owner who was shot in the back by robbers posing as customers (no arrests so far, by the way) meaning Chicago is already moving ahead of the one-murder-per-day mark in 2013. This is dumbfounding considering that the entire state of Illinois is a positive paradise of anti-gun sentiment and gun-ban legislation. You can not legally carry a gun in Illinois, concealed or unconcealed, and if you have a license from another state, forget it—Illinois isn’t

Chicago tops 500 murders in 2012, rushes to make guns even more illegal!

Chicago tops 500 murders in 2012, rushes to make guns even more illegal!

allowing you to walk around armed! If you wish to transport a firearm you must carry it unloaded in an appropriate case, and to even possess a gun or even ammunition for a gun in one’s home is prohibited unless one has applied for and been granted a “Firearms Owners Identification Card” from the state police. For some reason that continues to baffle the Chicago police, the Chicago town council, Rahm Emanuel, and the

Illinois legislature, the citizens of Chicago seem to be gunning one another down despite all these common sense precautions. And don’t think the citizenry isn’t alert and cooperative in the effort to end gun violence. Take the city of Bellevue, Illinois, where some police detectives attempted to have a meal at a Denny’s restaurant on New Years day while carrying their concealed service pistols. An alert manager spotted the problem and marched right up to tell a lady detective (who identified herself with her badge) that she could either take her gun out to her car

Female cop terrorizes Denny's diners; alert manager cuts her spree short!

Female cop terrorizes Denny’s diners; alert manager cuts her spree short!

and leave it there, or eat someplace else. Police Captain Dan Sax, rather than congratulating the quick-witted Denny’s manager on his gutsy call, made a statement in which he declared himself “very disappointed by the lack of respect shown to on-duty sworn police officers.” Jeesh, what a fascist. And with people like Sax and his renegade bands of police detectives playing cowboy at the expense of Denny’s diners who wish only to degust their Moons Over My Hammy without the disquietude of glimpsing armed police units in their beloved eatery, it becomes blatantly obvious that more legislation is needed—and needed fast!

Need we say it? Yes, enlightened Liberals in the Illinois legislature have responded to this need, launching additional proposals aimed at banning the possession of, delivery, sale and/or transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles. The state Senate added more measures to this that would ban high capacity magazines. Things are going so well in the area of proposing anti-gun legislation that a main concern is checking to be certain that proposed legislation doesn’t redundantly ban or criminalize guns or gun-owning or gun-transporting behaviors that have already been proscribed by prior legislation! But all is not sweetness and light in the anti-gun state of Illinois—just ask Governor Pat Quinn, whose December 3rd efforts to get retrospectively confiscatory anti-gun language through the  Illinois House of Representatives were slapped down by a two-thirds majority vote around the same time the state Senate overrode his veto on a similar issue. One of the horrible ramifications of this mindless and possibly-NRA sponsored legislative resistance to Governor Quinn’s enlightened policies is that Illinois Firearm Identification Cardholders will continue to have the right to mail order ammunition from retailers elsewhere in Illinois. The horror; the horror.

Standing tall against soaring murder rate, Big Pat Quinn shows what he'd do to the NRA if he allowed himself to own guns!

Standing tall against soaring murder rate, Big Pat Quinn shows what he’d do to the NRA if he allowed himself to own guns!

But while Fightin’ Pat Quinn continues the battle to save babies from high-capacity magazines (his language, not ours) all the while remaining steadfastly committed, we might add, to abortion on demand, he can take comfort in knowing he is not the only one out there fighting the forces of Big Gunnery! That’s right Governor Quinn—others are standing with you around the nation, and they are on the move! Only a couple of days ago we reported on the obviation of a potential assault in New Jersey when alert school authorities specially trained to intercept would-be killers in the classrooms noticed a boy sketching a flaming hand in his school notebook “or possibly some type of weapon,” and that boy is in jail now, and you can bet he can’t buy art supplies in the commissary! And Governor Quinn, that’s not all! Even in gun-crazy Mesa, Arizona, a kid was suspended a while ago for sketching a gun during class, because the School District wouldn’t play ball with those First and Second Amendment crazies who attempted to intercede in the little monster’s behalf!

It starts out innocently enough--but once those genes are out of the bottle...

It starts out innocently enough–but once those genes are out of the bottle…

Not that every potential psycho has an artistic gift—some must resort to cruder expressions of burgeoning sociopathy. Early this year, a 7-year-old in Oklahoma City student gave away his homicidal fixation by pointing his index finger as though it were a death-dealing semi-automatic handgun—possibly a Glock, or a Saturday Night Special of some type, and aiming at a wall! Alert, trained educators spotted this and suspended the child forthrightly. They had seen this sort of thing before! Ever since enlightened zero-tolerance policies have been enacted in schools to vouchsafe the well being of all within their walls—students and staff alike—have school authorities been

A national psyche this twisted may take decades to   fix with anti-gun legislation!

A national psyche this twisted may take decades to fix with anti-gun legislation!

able to interdict potential mass slayings with the kind of preemptive action such cases demand! Yes, all across this gun-crazed nation, public school faculties are cracking down! Kids are getting suspended or expelled, or in some cases even arrested, for everything from drawing stick figures with little stick guns to wearing pro-military paraphernalia—and all that that implies!  Take heart, Pat Quinn! Last December, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch –a clear thinking liberal like yourself, Governor Quinn–organized an annual smashing festival of toy guns to which progressive parents brought their children so that the kids could repent of their dark proclivities and destroy their toy guns en mass, whereupon the misguided tykes received harmless, non-violent toys such as puzzles, Gay Teletubbie dolls, or Chevy Volts, in exchange. Hawaii’s left-wing legislature strove mightily to ban the sale of toy guns to anyone under 18, and although they were ultimately thwarted by the corporately-allied, ultra-wealthy toy gun lobby, they came close! And as a result, many of those legislators feel good about themselves, Governor Quinn—and so should you, sir! We understand that increasing numbers of your constituents have taken to calling you “Clueless” Pat of late, but that’s juts the right-wing smear machine, Governor! We know you’re a bigger guy than that!

Consider! Only months ago a 13-year-old boy at Chandler’s Payne Junior High School in Arizona attempted to dissemble his fiendish intentions by doodling a picture of a laser-beam space pistol instead of a typical handgun. Even five years ago he might have gotten away with it, but not this time! Chandler school officials took a gimlet look at the incident, declared it a “gun threat” and suspended the boy.

Nip it in the bud, Governor! Today's phaser is tomorrow's Bushmaster!

Nip it in the bud, Chandler School faculty! Today’s phaser is tomorrow’s Bushmaster!

Consider! The above mentioned suspension followed an earlier incident in which Gilbert AZ police rushed to Payne Junior High when a rumor circulated that a 12-year old girl had a gun! No gun was found nor determined to exist (as is often the modus operandi with these sneakier types) but you can be sure that that girl returned home with a stiff warning letter for her paleo-facist parents!

Consider! The Daily Caller reports on Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013, that a six-year-old student at Roscoe R. Nix Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland made “the universal gesture of a gun” with his thumb and forefinger. As if this were not sufficiently barbaric to quell his bloodlust, he next pointed his finger at one of his little friends on the playground and was clearly heard to enunciate the onomatopoeic syllable, “Pow!” The horror; the horror.


As horrifying as all the above information seems, there is a larger, more insidious threat descending upon this trigger happy nation—a phenomenon of such subtly menacing scope and dark portent as to defy belief, but it is true, dear readers—all true! And we will frankly admit that we would have scoffed at this latest information, if it weren’t for the fact that Rep. Steven Israel, (D-NY) made the whole threat very, very real when he introduced legislation to ban it in the bud! And what are we talking about here? Nothing less that computer downloadable guns, ladies and gentlemen! That’s right! Your children may be printing out guns for themselves even as you read this! Take a close look at what’s coming out of their printers, dear readers—is it a Wikipedia entry on the formation of crystals, a certificate of achievement from the good folks at Recycle America, or a semi-automatic assault weapon with a large-capacity magazine?  Hmmm?

Representative Israel shows how he;d take care of printable guns if he knew how to download one!

Representative Israel shows how he’d take care of printable guns if he knew how to download one!

Listen, Steve Israel is nobody’s fool, America! This is the man who pointed out that Democrats in the House of Representatives are there to provide “adult supervision” for their Republican colleagues—and Steve should know! Adult enough? Heck, he managed to swap his support for the 2008 TARP relief to criminally mismanaged banks for a bailout of his own Dix Hills home in Long Island—and that’s some good old Yankee horse trading! Of the adult variety! So when Steven says we need to stop people from printing out assault weapons on their computers, believe us, he is not smiling!

Still a few bugs to work out!

Still a few bugs to work out!

That’s right, a high-tech consortium calling itself Defense Distributed, claims to have developed a system for producing downloadable weapons  that can be produced using the latest-generation printers. Apparently the new printers can  mold plastics and other materials to create objects with moving parts. And assault weapons are well known to contain moving parts, readers! University of Texas law student Cody Wilson, the project’s 24-year-old CEO, says the group already printed out and test fired an AR-15 rifle. Think this is a joke? The gun was fired six times before it blew up. And say, aren’t most crazed gunmen suicidal anyway? Why it just might be that downloadable exploding AR-15s are just what they want!

See? You can print out parts for an AR-15 and you can even choose your colors!

See? You can print out parts for an AR-15 and you can even choose your colors!

Though no independent observer was present at the test firing, would the guys who run the company lie to us? A short video clip seems to show the printed gun firing and breaking—and you can find it on YouTube. When contacted by WOOF, Federal firearms regulators said they had heard about the potential manufacture of such experimental guns but insisted that they do not believe an entire weapon has actually been created. Oh yeah? Tell that to Steve Israel! He’s a lot less naive than those Federal agents, and as he put it, “What’s chilling is that last month a group of kids used a 3-D printer to actually manufacture an AR-15 and fire six bullets,” (regular readers are already aware that Liberals call rounds “bullets”) Steve continued, “a gun made by a 3-D printer seems like a Star Trek episode, but now we know it’s real.” And don’t believe otherwise, America! Apparently this nut case Wilson, the brains behind the print-a-gun project is not going to quit until anyone who wants one can print out and own his own plastic, exploding gun. And Wilson says they have them in blue and red, too. Or maybe he said green and yellow—we should’ve written it down–anyway, Wilson is steadfast in his resolve to manufacture plans for guns that we can print with our computers, and he doesn’t seem too upset that Rep.Israel called him and his business partners “kids,” either. While many gun experts with whom WOOF consulted are skeptical of the ability of your kids to manufacture an armory in their bedrooms overnight, the fact remains that these special printers are becoming cheaper to obtain, and the ability to make a gun that shoots several times before blowing up may soon be in the hands of our children! The plastic printers were never meant to be instruments of destruction, one technological savvy informant told WOOF—they were meant to print our spare hobby parts, or Legos.

WOOF has attempted to contact Representative Israel in an effort to learn what level of threat the New York Democrat attaches to the development of Lego assault weapons, but has not heard back from his office as of this printing!

Elizabeth Taylor may have played with a squirt gun on set of "Giant," but those were different times!

Elizabeth Taylor may have played innocently enough with a squirt gun on the set of “Giant,” but those were different times!


               Name confusion may have swung GOP primary to moderate! 

Low-information primary voting in '08 may have resulted in accidental nomination of Arizona Senator!

Low-information primary voting in ’08 may have resulted in accidental nomination of Arizona Senator!

WOOF ALERT: It has come to our attention that the “low information voter” as both parties now call voters who voted for parties other than the party applying the label, may have led the GOP to destruction in the election of 2008. After extensive survey research and tireless investigations of the matter (many of which remain ongoing as of this writing), it appears that a strikingly large percentage of Republican primary voters in that election year, and perhaps a majority, went to the polls believing they were voting for John McClane to become the party’s nominee, whereas for reasons otherwise deemed utterly inexplicable, the Republican nominee for the presidency was in fact John McCain, a moderate Senator from Arizona who will be remembered mainly for being Sarah Palin’s running mate. Given the obvious tendency to confuse the names, and the fact that McClane is a widely loved and admired hero of action motion pictures, taken in combination with the fact that WOOF’s investigation indicates he enjoys far great name recognition (especially among independents) than does former POW and Navy pilot McCain, it may very well be the case that most Americans who appeared to support McCain’s nomination in the ’08 primaries were under the mistaken impression that they were voting for McClane. “By the time it comes down to  the national election, voters are beginning to pay attention,” strategist Robert Bletchley told WOOF, “but in those early days, it may very well be that the nomination should have gone to the fictitious hero of the Die-Hard movies!” Bletchley went on to explain that a better informed electorate in November’s general election realized the error and either stayed home or voted for Alan Keyes. It may not matter much. Constitutional scholars have gone on record telling WOOF that McClane could not have been officially nominated by the Republican party in 2008 or any other presidential year because, although he was clearly born in the United States,  he doesn’t really exist. However, this need not debar congress from launching an inquiry into whether the entire process should be revisited, now that these facts have come to light.

Still wondering what gives with the zero vote count!

Still wondering what gives with the zero vote count!

In this vein, WOOF wishes to assure the many readers who have inquired that it is pressing ahead with its efforts to discover whether voter fraud played a major role in the fact that our own candidate for the presidency in 2012, Christine O’Donnell, did not receive a single recorded vote. Asked for his views in this matter, strategist and campaign expert Robert Bletchley told us, “It seems odd to an extent that defies believability that she didn’t get a single vote. I know I voted for her. And while it may be premature to suggest she’d have won the election if no tampering had occurred, it certainly seems reasonable that she would have made a far better showing!”  Exactly! And that’s why WOOF is pressing fearlessly ahead with its investigation into this matter, as well as releasing a survey to all major media pundits and political experts inviting their views. We will get to the bottom of the O’Donnell enigma, fellow patriots, and when we get there, you know we’ll describe it in detail!



box of rocks


We are pleased to announce that by unanimous vote, we troglodytes here in the WOOF cavern have elected to award the first ever annual Box-of-Rocks Award for exceptionally imbecilic journalism to the hardworking publisher, editors, and reporters of the Journal News, a daily paper serving the New York suburbs in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties. To be eligible for the coveted Box-of-Rocks award, journalists must evince levels of left-wing sanctimony, snarkiness, and slack-wittedness far in excess, even, of the normative standards acceptable in the realm of current left-wing journalism, and preferably invoke the law of unintended consequences by engaging in journalistic crusades of unrivaled injudiciousness producing no discernible benefit to any honest citizen, while amassing liberal cocktail-party “cred” for the authors.

downloadWhile many news stories of recent vintage competed gamely for the award, the Journal-News team won it hands down through their decision to publish the name and home address of every legal gun owner registered in Westchester and Rockland Counties together with a map depicting with pin-point accuracy who were the licensed pistol owners in the paper’s service area. Career criminals were quick to bestow their thanks on the Journal-News for making it unmistakably clear which citizens were most probably unarmed and therefore most vulnerable to robbery, while at the same time depicting which citizens probably own pistols and exactly where they live in case the criminals opt to burgle some handguns for instant resale on the street. Reformed criminals have been unanimous in their condemnation of the Journal-News’s action as “insane” and “exceptionally stupid!” And that’s exactly what WOOF was looking for in the bestowal this first “Boxie” award. And then there was Frank Abagnale, the international criminal portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2002 Speilberg film, “Catch Me If You Can,” who denounced the newspaper’s actions as “reprehensible” …but we didn’t count that. Reprehensibility is not one of the qualifiers for the “Boxie.”

gun map

The Journal News map–planning a getaway?

Anyhow, congratulations to the staff, editors, and publishers of the Journal News! And by the way, about that publishers? Yeah, they’re a Gannett newspaper, readers—so if you live in the affected areas and you get robbed, don’t think you can’t get your money back! You know, Gannett being the biggest single newspaper publisher in the whole country…you know, USA Today—stuff like that? SO they have a lot of money—like, you wouldn’t have to think, “oh it’s just a little local screed sheet run on a shoestring,” see, because there are actually some really big bucks behind this paper–you know—just in case you get robbed, hurt, humiliated, or deprived of property or anything in any of the areas they have on their map. Say, you probably wouldn’t even have to get robbed to  feel breach of peace, pain, suffering, or emotional distress–the kind of stuff some psychologist could maybe talk about in court– Just sayin’ they’re a bunch of one-percenters at Gannett, they don’t need the money—not as much as you do.

By the way: Those wishing to congratulate the Journal News on their achievement should contact: The Journal News at 113 Westchester Ave., Suite N110. White Plains, NY 10604 or call the paper at (914) 694-9300

Or talk to the publisher, Janet Hasson at her home number: (914) 694-5204

A disarming smile?

Publisher Hasson–a disarming smile?


In "Gunning for success" forum on December 29, 2012 at 3:23 am

“Americans always beat up the peanut vendor when their team loses!” — Marshall McLuhan (The Medium is the Message)

"...that every citizen be armed!"

“…that every citizen be armed!”

Okay, WOOF really wanted to let the liberals and the patriotic men and women of the NRA work this one out for themselves, but it looks like they’re just going to mess it up, so we’re sticking our muzzle into it—and yes, this should really go in our “Guns and Wham-o” forum, and it probably will, eventually, but we thought we’d just put it out here as a public service, because it seems that once again we are needed. Okay, we all know that psychopaths like to shoot large numbers of innocent people, and that the most convenient location in which to find large numbers of innocent people is usually in school. We also know that nobody ever shoots back because the wily psychopaths usually pick the places with the highest levels of anti-gun sentiment the better to carry out their foul deeds—like Norway, for instance—remember that guy? He killed 80 people before anybody else arrived with a gun.

Mrs. Peel--we are needed!

Mrs. Peel–we are needed!

Similarly, in 2008, Marti Saari, 22, walked into a vocational college in Kauhajoki, Finland, and shot 10 people, then set their bodies on fire—and then shot himself. (That makes 11). Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, was mad because he’d been expelled from school in Erfurt, Germany, so he killed 13 teachers, two former classmates and one policeman, before committing suicide. Back in 1996, Martin Bryant, 29, sauntered into a café in Port Arthur, Tasmania, and gunned down 20 people, killing 15 more on his way out of the place. In the same year, Thomas Hamilton shot 43 kindergarten children and their teacher in an elementary school in Dunblane Scotland and then shot himself. In 1989 Marc Lepine shot every woman he encountered at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique College, killing nine and then himself, apparently oblivious of the fact that he himself was not a woman, and making it impossible to ascertain his motive. We focus here on non-domestic incidents in order to demonstrate that a) they occur even in countries where gun control is almost total, and b) many people don’t realize they occur at all.

Since Nixon's cache faded, only this man's image can focus a liberal on the concept of evil.

Boo! Since Nixon’s cache faded, only this man’s image can focus a liberal on the concept of evil.

American Liberalism has never been able to cope with the idea of evil except perhaps as they perceive it to be embodied in such personages as Dick Cheney, so the Liberal must always substitute a talisman, a replacement for the actual problem. In the ‘80s this meant unilateral disarmament, because the Left was so frightened of nuclear war it craved the elimination of all American nukes, overlooking the fact that Soviet superiority in such weapons would be the surest guarantor of a nuclear war.  Ronald Reagan said it was like getting rid of the fire department because you hate fires. Similarly, in its argument for “choice,” the concept of infanticide is too horrible for liberal contemplation and so the baby becomes fetal matter and the issue becomes the woman’s body, which we all enjoy contemplating but which is only obliquely apposite. With mass shootings the idea of killing the mass shooter is too horrible for Liberals to contemplate, so they chant that the elimination of guns is the answer. But lets review.

You cannot legally own a gun in Finland unless you have first obtained an acquisition license, which canbe  requested, for a fee, from the local police. A separate license is required for each individual firearm. Self-loading rifles must be kept in certified gun safes inspected and approved by the local police authority. In Germany the law requires would-be gun owners to prove need, expertise and mental stability in order to get government permission to use and keep firearms.

Sweden has prohibitive gun laws, yet native Swede Ann-Margret clealry overcame any fear of handguns--not to mention of recoil!

Sweden has prohibitive gun laws, yet native Swede Ann-Margret clealry overcame any fear of handguns–not to mention of recoil!

To get a gun in Tasmania you have to apply for a firearms license. You have to show a genuine reason for requiring  a firearm, and wanting to shoot people is not on the list–and you have to demonstrate a need for the particular firearm you wish to own, and you have to store the weapon in an approved safe. Most readers are aware, WOOF supposes, that Scottish restrictions on gun ownership, in conformity with British laws generally, are among the most restrictive in the world. Liberals may now be applauding wildly –but please review the mass shootings we listed above—each occurred not only despite restrictive gun laws, but to an equally plausible extent, because of them! In Connecticut, to cite a tragic recent example, a permit is required to carry a handgun on or about one’s person, or in a vehicle, and the applicant must first complete a handgun safety course approved by the state. Not only did Mr. Lanza slip right through the state’s gun legislation, he seemed undeterred by being refused the legal purchase of a firearm. He couldn’t even get Dick’s Sporting Good store in Danbury to sell him a rifle, and rifles are easier to purchase than handguns since liberals used to blame handguns for everything almost exclusively. He used an illegally obtained weapon and gained access to the school by breaking and entering. Apparently it hadn’t occurred to anybody that a locked school door wouldn’t work very well if a suicidally deranged gunman smashed through the glass.

You know you're just going to have to move it back again! The "Atomic Scientists" at the University of Chicago and their stupid doomsday clock...

You know you’re just going to have to move it back again! The “Atomic Scientists” at the University of Chicago and their stupid doomsday clock…

So “banning” guns, like “banning” nuclear weapons, is hardly the road to freedom from spree killing lunatics. Even the infamous “Batman” shootings in Colorado (which has gun-friendly laws) occurred only after the killer bypassed two closer theaters showing the same film but where handgun carry was not prohibited.  So Liberalism is clearly wrong in its supposition that grabbing the guns out of Americans’ homes will stop gun violence. Most Liberals believe this because they are liberal, and not thinking carefully. The ruling class Liberals, such as Obama and his subversive puppet masters, know this perfectly well, but have long wanted an unarmed American citizenry as part of the agenda of their Worldwide Socialist Totalitarian Conspiracy. These power seekers wish only to see America disarmed and its Constitution shredded, and since nothing else will satisfy them, they don’t really figure into the current conversation. It is the genuine, caring, air-headed liberal, like Dianne Feinstein or Chuckie Schumer who suffers the talismanic obsession with gun banning as an authentic solution—and even at that, WOOF has learned that Chuckie likes to shoot. He particularly seems to enjoy blasting away with a Tec-9, a piece of junk by any standard, and one he wrote legislation to ban, but apparently cool-looking enough to give the Senator a visceral thrill on weekends. Liberals!

Think we're kidding? Here's Chuckie Schumer blasting away with a Tec-9--yes, America, even vacuous narcissists can enjoy the range!

Think we’re kidding? Here’s Chuckie Schumer blasting away with a Tec-9—yes, America, even vacuous narcissists can enjoy the range!

So what about the NRA’s idea of putting a cop in every school? Listen, Wayne LaPierre is a good guy and all, but he’s no Chuck Heston. Wayne is under a lot of pressure, and the whole cop-in-every-school idea may have been the first thing to come to mind, but it will never work. It would run afoul of sabotage from local police chiefs (and police chiefs are political animals who got where they are, by and large, playing footsy with the Leftist establishment), and local school boards who are largely irrationally liberal.

Cher, 1964--perfect until dementia set in from the Left?

Cher, 1964–perfect until dementia set in from the Left?

And even where it might actually be brought to fruition, the plan would provide one uniformed policeman who would be a likely first target of a nut with a gun. So WOOF has to say, nothing but love for you Wayne, but let’s rethink this. (Before moving on however, WOOF wonders—is Wayne LaPierre related to Cher whose last name was also LaPierre before she married Sonny? See, Cher might’ve turned out okay if she’d just stuck with Sonny—shows you what divorce does to peoples brains, right?)

Now, here comes the armed-teachers argument. Right now in Utah (which ranks 2nd after Texas on WOOF’s official list of sane states), teachers are turning out by the hundreds to attend firearms training classes in Salt Lake City. As one teacher put it, “[In the event of a school shooting] we’re sitting ducks—you don’t have chance in hell—you’re dead, no ifs ands or buts!” And in Ohio, a firearms group is launching a new test program to teach tactical firearms handling to 24 teachers. This is great stuff, and even greater because it absolutely drives liberals into apoplectic fits (which is one of WOOF’s clearly established main goals) but it is probably not the way—er—forward. Sooner or later a well intentioned, somewhat well trained educator will leave a Glock or a Ruger on his or her desk long enough for some middle-school student to snatch it, and while no violence may result, a carefully orchestrated spasm of media hysteria certainly will, and the whole armed teachers program will be dropped like a hot Saturday Night Special.

Ooops! One over-rammed charge on the U.S.S.. Iowa does more damage than the Japanese inflicted at Pearl Harbor.

Oops! One over-rammed charge on the U.S.S.. Iowa does more damage than the Japanese inflicted at Pearl Harbor.

Remember when that gun turret explosion happened on the U.S.S. Iowa? Remember the solution the politicians and President Bush (the First) came up with? Well maybe you don’t, so here it is: Get rid of America’s battleships! Heck, even Cher, who seems to be emerging as this screed’s recurrent theme, loved battleships—almost literally, vide her “If I Could Turn Back Time” video of decreasingly recent vintage. But one misfire in a forward turret and out they went! And with the Socialist Totalitarian Establishment in charge of almost everything the average American hears, sees, or is entertained by, it is painfully obvious that the first time anything goes wrong with the armed teachers plan, the plan will be rolled up by the Left with only a few whimpers of protest from the sheeple. Besides, we really don’t need a kind of well-intentioned Volkssturm doddering up and down school corridors toting weapons they are insufficiently trained to use matched with imperfectly developed weapons-management skills that may result in incidents, however slight, that the Leftwing Establishment Media will be poised to seize upon. That’s why the Utah experiment is unlikely to prove ideal.

Cher aboard the Missouri "...loved battleships—almost literally."

Cher aboard the Missouri “…loved battleships—almost literally.”

As usual, the great state of Arizona (number three on WOOF’s sane states list, narrowly edging ahead of Alaska), has a better idea. The Arizona attorney general has proposed changing state law to permit an educator in each school to carry a gun. And this is almost what is needed. Look, WOOF doesn’t want to abridge anybody’s right to carry a gun—we have Congress for that! And if teachers feel safer armed, let them go armed. Let college students do likewise! Statistics show time and again that the more heavily armed a lawful group of citizens is, the less crime and violence is perpetrated in their midst. The fact that liberals find this incomprehensible is one of the best evidences that liberalism should be included in the forthcoming DSM-V as a form of personality disorder! (Of course it won’t be, because the DSM– properly the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association– is compiled, edited, and revised entirely by liberals)

Liberalism's latest gun-control initiative?

Liberalism’s latest gun-control initiative?

And while we are thus digressed, this seems like a good place to add that some liberals have turned to a different talismanic substitute for really bad people—they have turned to really insane people and (joined by a few unwary conservatives) attempted to lay the blame for events in Connecticut and elsewhere at the feet of slipshod mental healthcare providers who, it seems, are not doing their jobs. Look people, the best psychologists on earth can’t typically tell when most psychopaths are going to go on a rampage, and the solution is not more widely disseminated neuroleptic drugs—nope, sorry. It’s more widely disseminated guns. That’s right—guns. But not on the hip of every health-class spinster in the NEA. Nope. That’s why the Arizona idea is closer to the mark. Here’s what is needed:

More pills=fewer kills?

More pills=fewer kills?

The ideal self-defense plan for a school would be the identification by the principal of three to four volunteer teachers who are either expertly conversant with firearms or who are willing to become so. These individuals, male or female, will be known to the Principal alone, and perhaps certain members of staff. Neither their identities nor, necessarily, their very existence need be publicized in any fashion. These individuals would be gun savvy volunteers who would carry a key inconspicuously on their persons, around the necks of males, or otherwise concealed on the persons of females whose mode of dress might make a neck chain visible. These keys would open any of four permanent, non-portable gun safes placed at equidistant localities around the school, known full well to the teachers, but to no one else except the principal and a few trusted staff. The gun safes would be secured in hidden locales making them otherwise unapparent among the typical surroundings of a school environment. They would contain a prescribed firearm and three additional magazines. In the event of shots being heard or strangers entering unbidden, the prescribed teachers would go to these locations and whoever was nearest would be first to challenge the shooter or the intruder, gun ready for use if needed.

Roddy McDowall in "Class of '84" --not what we're looking for here!

Roddy McDowall in “Class of ’84” —not what we’re looking for here!

One might argue that by the time shots have been heard it is too late for some, and this is unfortunately true, but there would be far less time for a shooter to inflict casualties, and the deterrent of knowing such systems were in place would be tremendous. For the ultimate word on the sagacity of this plan, let’s hear from the Israelis: Oren Shemtov is the CEO of Israel’s Academy of Security and Investigation.  In a recent interview with Fox’s Greg Tepper, Shemtov noted that armed faculty could go a long ways toward slowing down a planned killing spree while police are notified of the incursion and head for the scene. According to Shemtov, “Two (armed) teachers would have kept (the Newtown shooter) occupied….we need to give them the tools to be heroes.” Security consultant Dov Zwerling of the Israeli counter-terror police, added: “Of all the active shooter events in the U.S., almost all of them conclude with the shooter taking his own life the moment he is challenged by the first officer on the scene. Why not challenge him earlier?” Damn straight, Dov!

Guy Madison (TV's Wild Bill Hickok) taught Judy Garland to use a .45? Who knew!

Guy Madison (TV’s Wild Bill Hickok) taught Judy Garland to use a .45? Who knew!

So, there is the WOOF plan, America—it’s cheap, it’s low profile, it’s Israeli approved, and it’ll work—so we’re pretty much assuming it isn’t going any further than this page. But one thing is totally for sure: All the addle pate liberal politicians, school officials and University pundits backed by the full faith and credit of the Monolithic Leftwing Media Cabal will not do anything whatsoever to lessen the threat of gun violence in America. They will only achieve what they always achieve when they put feelings into a cause—the exact opposite of what they profess to desire, a cavalcade of unintended and equally undesired consequences, and a bunch of little magnetized ribbons to put on your hybrid. And then of course, they will recommend even more of what made the problem worse to begin with. Only WOOF can protect honest God-fearing Americans from liberal do-gooders run amok—but when it comes to nuts threatening our children, we can’t afford to lash out at talismans.

The Range Rider (Jock Mahoney) never got as much glory, but he had even cooler fringe!

The Range Rider (Jock Mahoney) never got as much glory, but he had even cooler fringe!

Even if he isn’t related to Cher, Wayne LaPierre got one thing absolutely dead center: The only thing that has ever stopped a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Not another law, not TV brow beatings from bullying wimps like little Davey Gregory and his petulant ilk, not another lecture from moronic entertainment personalities, no—only gunfire. That’s what Harry Callahan meant when he said, “there’s nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot.” And isn’t this the land of Wild Bill Hickok and Jingles Jones? Of Fess Parker as Davy Crockett? Of Chris Colt, Cheyenne Bodie and Bronco Layne? Of Jack Bauer and Dirty Harry?  Come on people, reach for your roots! If we give up our guns, who will protect us? The liberals? Oh, that’s right, they all have bodyguards and concealed-carry permits. What’s with that, by the way? Anyhow, more on this as needed! And somehow, sadly, we feel that needed it shall be!

It's tough on a Republican gun owner with these days, huh Steve!

It’s tough on a Republican gun owner these days, huh Steve!

%d bloggers like this: