The actual thumbnail pic. Yes, there's a gun in there somewhere.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
Saturday, February 27, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E24: "Yes, there's a gun in this--a lever-action--so it technically fits."
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
Russert's "Rule of Three": Asiatics get the White treatment, and essentially for same reason -- Lesson for "White nationalists."
Asiatics join Whites as targets of discrimination because our races--the ligher-skinned peoples--score better academically on tests.
White nationalists, urge your more extreme fellows to accept the need for alliance with these people. Everyone can get ENOUGH of what is aimed for, and all within the constitutional call for "equal protection."
Friday, February 26, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E23: "Henry X Series."
I've not had much luck with levers, but despite the $1000 MSRP, the features--modern sights, polymer furniture, side loading gate (Henry is finally coming into the latter 19th century on that), rails, threaded barrels, glove-compatible lever loop--make it very competitive in the soon-to-be-fudd-only arms race in this post-Election Steal time
Of course, people should stick to the common calibers--no .44s. The .45-70 isn't exactly common, either, but might TECHNICALLY squeak in as "45" honorific of the last legitimate President of the United States, Donald J.Trump. But please, think three times before choosing that caliber, then think again. If you aren't already heavily invested in .45-70... Think a fifth time. CAVEAT: Also consider the issue with FMJ ammo. Rounded-tip rounds can create chainfires in a tubular magazine, even as pointed rounds can. COMPANY SITE: X Models | Henry Repeating Arms (henryusa.com) https://www.henryusa.com/firearm-category/x-models/ Nice video: Henry X Series First Look - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgIeXbFP6Ms
Just one of many destructions the American people have brought on themselves -- Rand Paul goes after tranny nominee about trans child abuse.
If you didn't call for #Federalist46 State action against the Election Steal and urge your friends to do the same, this nominee is on you.
If you're STILL not doing so (I called my Governor and State Senator today--that is, yesterday), you're moving in the "condoning" direction.
Rand Paul Hammers Biden's Transgender Nominee on Child Surgery (breitbart.com) https://www.breitbart.com/health/2021/02/25/watch-rand-paul-hammers-bidens-transgender-nominee-child-surgery-sterlization/
Thursday, February 25, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E22: "This liberal is a liar or self-deceiving, or both, but he has a point we must consider now." (Republishing of CGNS article)
This is a rework of a post here on "Cats, Guns, and National Security" blog pertinent to the TDF topic line.
Cats, Guns, and National Security: This liberal is a liar or self-deceiving, or both, but he has a point we must consider now. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/02/this-liberal-is-liar-or-self-deceiving.html
This liberal gunner claims more liberals owning guns will reduce efforts by liberal politicians to ban them. While I do agree that the post-2YK/9-11 and 2020 growth in lower-end gun ownership--particularly handguns--can and should be used in preserving some base-level RKBA following the Election Steal, he does miss the bigger point: The concern about liberal gun ownership is that in the event of civil war, they will be on the wrong side.
I confess, prior to the Steal--back when I thought the American people might actually stand against the tyranny that 2A purists had claimed was the target of their keeping of higher-end arms--I was much more inclined toward concern about civil war. I didn't want the enemy armed when we--per Federalist 46--had to kill them to save Western heritage. Now, though, with the American people failing, and the preservation of American and Western national heritage on the verge of becoming a subculture waiting for the time to rise and reestablish our rightful place, conditions on the ground require a shift-fire.
So, this guy is wrong in thinking that liberal politicians will cease most anti-gun efforts. He has a certain point about the lower end, which I discuss in a comment on the video reproduced below. (NOTE that "frankly ironic" has been edited out since screenshot was taken.)
As a Rightwing Patriot, I will say that you make a partial point on the effect of liberal gun ownership on liberal politicians, but only a partial point. The post-2YK/9-11 andfrankly ironic 2020 growth in lower-end gun ownership--particularly handguns--can and should be used in preserving some base-level RKBA in coming years. But it will likely have no real effect on efforts against higher-end arms--ARs and the like. Things like PISTOL hicap bans might be combatted--liberals bought 9mm's with truly "standard capacity" mags, and might want to keep them), but semi-auto long guns and AW characteristics will continue to be targeted.
As I've long tried to explain to pro-gunners on my own side, it is wrong to make RKBA positions an either-or. The vast swath of people are neutral or moderate on the matter. So I can accept that some liberals can be technically pro-gun, but the vast majority will only be so at the lower end of the arms spectrum--i.e., moderate at most.
BTW, I find it fascinating how you as a liberal acknowledge liberal YouTube censorship. Just sayin'.
I didn't mention the civil war aspect nor explicitly reference the "2020 Election Steal"--as much as I wanted to. I made the tactical decision in order to hopefully head off him deleting the comment. That was a fascinating trait of this fellow: He's a self-professed liberal--which classically means he's all for "free speech"--yet openly acknowledges censoring views he dislikes. Match that with his attempt to get around YouTube censorship of gun ads ("rhymes with 'E-Z'" in his announcement at the beginning), and perhaps it will help conservatives understand that liberals aren't about principle, but results.
Honestly, we can learn from them on this. NEW RULES!
=========================
UPDATE: "Sapper Gentleman" replied. Not sure, but he might actually be covering for YouTube. I screenshot it in case our liberal friend decides to uber-liberal and censor yours truly.
UPDATE 2: The fellow claims, "Patreon doesn't allow pew giveaways, and yes they do scan our content somehow. I got flagged on my first go round."
I cannot readily confirm or deny that.
Cats, Guns, and National Security: This liberal is a liar or self-deceiving, or both, but he has a point we must consider now. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/02/this-liberal-is-liar-or-self-deceiving.html
This liberal gunner claims more liberals owning guns will reduce efforts by liberal politicians to ban them. While I do agree that the post-2YK/9-11 and 2020 growth in lower-end gun ownership--particularly handguns--can and should be used in preserving some base-level RKBA following the Election Steal, he does miss the bigger point: The concern about liberal gun ownership is that in the event of civil war, they will be on the wrong side.
I confess, prior to the Steal--back when I thought the American people might actually stand against the tyranny that 2A purists had claimed was the target of their keeping of higher-end arms--I was much more inclined toward concern about civil war. I didn't want the enemy armed when we--per Federalist 46--had to kill them to save Western heritage. Now, though, with the American people failing, and the preservation of American and Western national heritage on the verge of becoming a subculture waiting for the time to rise and reestablish our rightful place, conditions on the ground require a shift-fire.
So, this guy is wrong in thinking that liberal politicians will cease most anti-gun efforts. He has a certain point about the lower end, which I discuss in a comment on the video reproduced below. (NOTE that "frankly ironic" has been edited out since screenshot was taken.)
As a Rightwing Patriot, I will say that you make a partial point on the effect of liberal gun ownership on liberal politicians, but only a partial point. The post-2YK/9-11 and
I didn't mention the civil war aspect nor explicitly reference the "2020 Election Steal"--as much as I wanted to. I made the tactical decision in order to hopefully head off him deleting the comment. That was a fascinating trait of this fellow: He's a self-professed liberal--which classically means he's all for "free speech"--yet openly acknowledges censoring views he dislikes. Match that with his attempt to get around YouTube censorship of gun ads ("rhymes with 'E-Z'" in his announcement at the beginning), and perhaps it will help conservatives understand that liberals aren't about principle, but results.
Honestly, we can learn from them on this. NEW RULES!
=========================
UPDATE: "Sapper Gentleman" replied. Not sure, but he might actually be covering for YouTube. I screenshot it in case our liberal friend decides to uber-liberal and censor yours truly.
UPDATE 2: The fellow claims, "Patreon doesn't allow pew giveaways, and yes they do scan our content somehow. I got flagged on my first go round."
I cannot readily confirm or deny that.
A CGNS statement on "Heritage": The real import of "National Security."
This blog is focused on three things: Cats (and other animal friends), guns, and "national security." Generally speaking, that last term is applied to a sovereign political entity. Yet, America is facing a transition fundamentally away from its foundational basis, threatening Western civilization and heritage. Ultimately, for this polity we call the United States of America--as well as the component States--preserving heritage is integral, even to the point of concurrent, with preserving polity security. The USA and the American and Western civilization/heritage it has upheld as the world megapower for decades rise and fall together. "National security" MEANS "national heritage."
NOTE: Perhaps "Cats, Guns, and National HERITAGE" would be a more apt title. But given this operation's long-standing position that practicality overrules most symbolism, there will no change, as indeed none is necessary. The failure of the American people need not impose more burden than necessary on this Patriot operation.
NOTE: Perhaps "Cats, Guns, and National HERITAGE" would be a more apt title. But given this operation's long-standing position that practicality overrules most symbolism, there will no change, as indeed none is necessary. The failure of the American people need not impose more burden than necessary on this Patriot operation.
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
This liberal is a liar or self-deceiving, or both, but he has a point we must consider now.
Watch the video before or after reading my brilliant commentary. But do both.
(Screenshot is from another video, but posted here for its expressive effect.)
I confess, prior to the Steal--back when I thought the American people might actually stand against the tyranny that 2A purists had claimed was the target of their keeping of higher-end arms--I was much more inclined toward concern about civil war. I didn't want the enemy armed when we--per Federalist 46--had to kill them to save Western heritage. Now, though, with the American people failing, and the preservation of American and Western national heritage on the verge of becoming a subculture waiting for the time to rise and reestablish our rightful place, conditions on the ground require a shift-fire.
So, this guy is wrong in thinking that liberal politicians will cease most anti-gun efforts. He has a certain point about the lower end, which I discuss in a comment on the video reproduced below. (NOTE that "frankly ironic" has been edited out since screenshot was taken.)
As a Rightwing Patriot, I will say that you make a partial point on the effect of liberal gun ownership on liberal politicians, but only a partial point. The post-2YK/9-11 and
I didn't mention the civil war aspect nor explicitly reference the "2020 Election Steal"--as much as I wanted to. I made the tactical decision in order to hopefully head off him deleting the comment. That was a fascinating trait of this fellow: He's a self-professed liberal--which classically means he's all for "free speech"--yet openly acknowledges censoring views he dislikes. Match that with his attempt to get around YouTube censorship of gun ads ("rhymes with 'E-Z'" in his announcement at the beginning), and perhaps it will help conservatives understand that liberals aren't about principle, but results.
Honestly, we can learn from them on this. NEW RULES!
=========================
UPDATE: "Sapper Gentleman" replied. Not sure, but he might actually be covering for YouTube. I screenshot it in case our liberal friend decides to uber-liberal and censor yours truly.
UPDATE 2: The fellow claims, "Patreon doesn't allow pew giveaways, and yes they do scan our content somehow. I got flagged on my first go round."
I cannot readily confirm or deny that.
THE DAILY FUDD: E21: "FUDD FACT: 'Where does 2A say anything about "need"?'"
A common rhetorically-intended question asked by sincere fellow pro-gunners, when questioned about needing high-end arms like ARs and AKs is, "Where does 2A say anything about having to 'need' something?" "Rights," they often say, have nothing to do with "need," but rather simple desire--i.e., it's whatever the person WANTS.
Well, in keeping with my long-given advice to be wary of using rhetorical questions, because someone might give you a not-so-rhetorical answer: "The sixth word of the Amendment":
The problem with the original question is that the concept of need ("necessary") is indeed attached to the right. Being in the prefatory preambular clause and not directed at the need of the individual person, it doesn't restrict the right of the operative clause. It does, nonetheless, give the aspiration of securing the right, and that is a basis in need. 2A is the only right of the Bill of Rights to have such a clause, and the from-the-hip rhetorical question simply sets up the questioner to an embarrassing retort. Pro-gunners need to conform both their perspectives and their rhetoric to the reality.
.
BONUS FACT:
The old 1688/89 English Bill of Rights held that class and situation--"conditions"--bore on its Right to Arms, and it needs to be addressed, as it frankly can cut both ways in the issue of the nature and scope of RKBA:
Well, in keeping with my long-given advice to be wary of using rhetorical questions, because someone might give you a not-so-rhetorical answer: "The sixth word of the Amendment":
The problem with the original question is that the concept of need ("necessary") is indeed attached to the right. Being in the prefatory preambular clause and not directed at the need of the individual person, it doesn't restrict the right of the operative clause. It does, nonetheless, give the aspiration of securing the right, and that is a basis in need. 2A is the only right of the Bill of Rights to have such a clause, and the from-the-hip rhetorical question simply sets up the questioner to an embarrassing retort. Pro-gunners need to conform both their perspectives and their rhetoric to the reality.
.
BONUS FACT:
The old 1688/89 English Bill of Rights held that class and situation--"conditions"--bore on its Right to Arms, and it needs to be addressed, as it frankly can cut both ways in the issue of the nature and scope of RKBA:
A point of clarification is needed here. The "as allowed by Law" reference points to the view of "rights" at the time and where the threat to them came from. The concern in those days was that the Monarch--to a degree analogous to our Executive Branch--would act to restrict private arms. Part of the issue, but not entirely, was worry that a Roman Catholic might ascend to the throne and disarm non-Catholics--hence the "Subjects who are Protestants" line. (Religion was not the only concern, as Joyce Lee Malcolm shows in her essential work, "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right".)
We see such a dichotomy between "right" and "as allowed by law"--at least, as it may be perceived by some--in 3A, where quartering of soldiers in private homes is permitted in wartime, BUT only "in a manner to be prescribed by law." The intent here is to restrain military authorities--including the President--from using war powers in such an intrusive way without the involvement of Congress.
The American constitutional RKBA provision, however, holds no such branch distinction.
But to the matter at hand is the "suitable to their conditions" clause of the English act. As noted in TDF Edition 10, "artillery"--cannons, catapults, etc.--was largely the province of government, communities, and aristocracy/nobility, and thus not in focus for rights of the general population. Yet even in the "small arms" (in modern parlance) focus of the 1688 provision, an individual's "condition" ("needs"?) in that society were a factor for them there. (PERSONAL NOTE: It always conjures up for yours truly the image of a peasant possessing the proverbial blunderbuss to ward off burglars, and the nearby lord of the manor keeping an arsenal to equip his servants.)
We see such a dichotomy between "right" and "as allowed by law"--at least, as it may be perceived by some--in 3A, where quartering of soldiers in private homes is permitted in wartime, BUT only "in a manner to be prescribed by law." The intent here is to restrain military authorities--including the President--from using war powers in such an intrusive way without the involvement of Congress.
The American constitutional RKBA provision, however, holds no such branch distinction.
But to the matter at hand is the "suitable to their conditions" clause of the English act. As noted in TDF Edition 10, "artillery"--cannons, catapults, etc.--was largely the province of government, communities, and aristocracy/nobility, and thus not in focus for rights of the general population. Yet even in the "small arms" (in modern parlance) focus of the 1688 provision, an individual's "condition" ("needs"?) in that society were a factor for them there. (PERSONAL NOTE: It always conjures up for yours truly the image of a peasant possessing the proverbial blunderbuss to ward off burglars, and the nearby lord of the manor keeping an arsenal to equip his servants.)
In the American Constitution, though, "equal protection under the law" generally precludes such distinctions, with differentials in rights calling for some other valid basis. That said, "need" is in sight in the American vision of RKBA: "necessary to the security of a free State."
As stated, the 1688/89 legacy of Anglo-American rights can cut both ways in rhetoric. It is important that proponents of RKBA have a clearer picture of matters BEFORE offering up what they think are rhetorical killshots. (And they should actually READ! "Necessary" is the sixth word of the Amendment, folks!) The anti-gunner they are facing on social media might be as smart as me! Better to check in private beforehand with someone knowledgeable than to have one's backside handed to you in public.
As stated, the 1688/89 legacy of Anglo-American rights can cut both ways in rhetoric. It is important that proponents of RKBA have a clearer picture of matters BEFORE offering up what they think are rhetorical killshots. (And they should actually READ! "Necessary" is the sixth word of the Amendment, folks!) The anti-gunner they are facing on social media might be as smart as me! Better to check in private beforehand with someone knowledgeable than to have one's backside handed to you in public.
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
ICYMI: Media censoring media -- Our failure to silence them has created the tyranny 1A was meant to prevernt.
I told people before the Election Steal we needed to seize most media outlets, put their execs and families in Git'mo for waterboarding, and hand their facilities over to The Trump Organization.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/02/watch-president-trumps-censored-newsmax-interview-from-feb-17/
And this:
"Meantime, the left wing propaganda blog Raw Story falsely stated that YouTube had not taken down the Trump interview, and said it was folly to suggest that it had been removed. (Go figure!)"
THE DAILY FUDD: E20: "No need to wait: Anticipate RKBA loss with 28A NOW."
TDF E5 was a presentation of this. But it included a now-stricken line suggesting we wait until SCOTUS has already done the dirty deed of gutting 2A. The truth is, we should NOW rush a constitutional amendment which would secure a more limited RKBA than 2A should, and explicitly so. Libertarians and 2A supposed "purists" live in a state of either delusion or self-gratification, demanding everything when it will only lead to them losing everything. It is more important that good people be able to defend themselves with meaningful lethal armament than is indulging some pothead or overgrown child wanting to play with guns, talk up their fantasies, and run down Patriots trying to do something. It's fine for someone to have their fun. But when reality is the issue, we must all be grownups.
PLAYTIME IS OVER. Libertarians, put away your pot and stop talking about full-auto and an end to NICS. Purists, accept that most people don't agree with us, BUT most people DO agree in the call for some sort of baseline Blackstone-type personal defense armament right. Most of you failed to make a Federalist 46 effort for your States to stand against the 2020 Election Steal. You forfeited your right to demand your desires or your Teabrained opinion of what 2A (likely to be gutted by SCOTUS anyway) protects. Join with us Patriots trying to preserve a portion of our heritage and RKBA. Otherwise you will have nothing to use when the BLM gangs and others come to rape your wives and daughters. And they will come to do just that.
Here. Contact your State legislators and members of Congress to push for something like this. A Convention of States will be the most likely avenue, but nothing should be written off.
RKBA is more important than, "But I wanna!!!!" Grow up and act.
Conservative justices fail -- Why? One's a partier; the other's a dame.
Attorney Sidney Powell Responds to Latest Supreme Court Rulings on Election Integrity - Justice Thomas's Dissent Included (thegatewaypundit.com) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/attorney-sidney-powell-responds-latest-supreme-court-rulings-election-integrity-justice-thomass-dissent-included/
The United States Supreme Court refused to review the Pennsylvania 2020 Election cases.
The court made the announcement on Monday morning.
Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented from the denial.
Trump- nominated Justices Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the liberal justices.
Kavanaugh and Barrett are more vulnerable than Gorsuch to coercion. Kavanaugh could see a repeat of his confirmation hearings, and Barrett is a conservative female and mother, and thus more psychologically fearful of Dem threats to move judges from court to court, disrupting family life.
This explains their vote now and before the inauguration. Nice to see Gorsuch grow at least a tiny pair. But in truth, none of the SCOTUS justices are trustworthy, based on their individual failures during the Election Steal.
Federalist 46 State action remains the answer. The ONLY answer.
Monday, February 22, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E19: "My original fudd: The rather PC 'Homeland Defense/Militia Rifle' concept."
Another point checked off the Edition 15 list:
6. My "Homeland Defense Rifle"/"Militia Rifle"--featureless OFFICIAL 2A-protected longarm--concept that I've been pushing some since Heller in 2008 and heavy since Sandy Hook remains valid. It will definitely be a topic for an upcoming TDF edition.
I first conceived of this after the 2008 Heller decision. My thought was to work out a settlement on an official rifle that would be fairly PC but provide requisite Militia firepower. That eventually evolved, building up increased focus due to recent gun control efforts.
Please consider this from the perspective of Militia efficacy and a realistic view of the military ability of the general gun-owning population, not purism or personal libertarian preference or indulgence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My aim is the efficacy of the civilian Militia of the American nation. Sometimes that means working through laws of varying wisdom, and sometimes it means acting despite the stupidity of our own people. So be it.
Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD: E126: "Affirmative fudd: A discussion of the 'fighting rifle.'" (catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com)
Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD: E175: "The featureless 'battle rifle': More practical for civilians, more tactical for Militia, and yet a PC ban-beating 'fighting rifle.'" (catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com)
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
6. My "Homeland Defense Rifle"/"Militia Rifle"--featureless OFFICIAL 2A-protected longarm--concept that I've been pushing some since Heller in 2008 and heavy since Sandy Hook remains valid. It will definitely be a topic for an upcoming TDF edition.
I first conceived of this after the 2008 Heller decision. My thought was to work out a settlement on an official rifle that would be fairly PC but provide requisite Militia firepower. That eventually evolved, building up increased focus due to recent gun control efforts.
Please consider this from the perspective of Militia efficacy and a realistic view of the military ability of the general gun-owning population, not purism or personal libertarian preference or indulgence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDENDUM: A 7.62mm M1 Garand might be the ultimate uber-PC take on this concept:
My aim is the efficacy of the civilian Militia of the American nation. Sometimes that means working through laws of varying wisdom, and sometimes it means acting despite the stupidity of our own people. So be it.
Further reading:
Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD: E126: "Affirmative fudd: A discussion of the 'fighting rifle.'" (catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com)
Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD: E175: "The featureless 'battle rifle': More practical for civilians, more tactical for Militia, and yet a PC ban-beating 'fighting rifle.'" (catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com)
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
Sunday, February 21, 2021
THE DAILY FUDD: E18: ICYMI -- Yesterday's TDF: ""Heller, phasers, and Firefly: RKBA's unfortunate built-in planned obsolescence--sorta."
OFF-TOPIC: Cover band "Foxes and Fossils."
Meaning of the name is obvious: https://foxesandfossils.com/news/
A few of their covers over the years:
One of my faves: Can't Hurry Love by The Supremes (Cover) - Foxes and Fossils - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJDPhjQft04
Some Country: Foxes and Fossils cover "When You Say Nothing At All" - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdsNy86ivec
Some '80s Pop: Foxes and Fossils Our Lips Are Sealed cover of The GoGos - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35n2Pkm8J90
Ballad: Let It Be Me - The Everly Brothers (Cover) by Foxes and Fossils - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a17uIHCQ4qE
A more modern classic: Ed Sheeran Cover - Thinking Out Loud - Foxes and Fossils - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DnraDXsR-g