The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 provides a good example of what happens when ordinary citizens with small arms go up against a well-equipped force. The uprising in the ghetto possesses enduring symbolic significance, as an instance of Jews’ determination to resist their oppression. But the uprising saved few Jewish lives and had little to no impact on the course of either World War II or the Holocaust. Jews around the world did, to be sure, react to the Holocaust by concluding that they needed to protect themselves from anti-Semites more effectively. But they understood that this would be accomplished not through the individual acquisition of firearms, but rather through the establishment of a Jewish state with an army to defend it.

Source: Ben Carson Is Wrong on Guns and the Holocaust – Alan E. Steinweis – The New York Times

Sometimes, I don’t understand how some historians see the past. I am guessing that there is a certain rigidity in their thinking, sort of fast set rules and outcomes that cannot be altered so they squeeze the data through that filter and come up with some erroneous notions.

The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS.

They did not mount a defense, it was resistance. They knew they were being herded to concentration camps and not for massages and Mai-Tais at Treblinka and Sobibor, so they chose how to go. They chose to go fighting.

provides a good example of what happens when ordinary citizens with small arms go up against a well-equipped force.

Here we see the possible ignorance of Mr. Steinweis when it comes to armed conflicts. Partisans and Guerrillas are hated by the military for the amount of resources they take to neutralize. Military doctrine explains that it takes 10 regular soldiers to neutralize the actions of a partisan. Those 10 soldiers need to be armed, mobilized, quartered, fed and provided with healthcare while they fight these irregulars. It is a monumental drain of resources that could be used in other fronts or actions being taken by the regular armed forces. The malnourished, sick and untrained Warsaw partisan (about 500 at its highest number) faced 2,000 Waffen-SS troops directly and more than 7,200 other military and adjuncts had to provide security and support for them. The math is rather simple: they pulled almost a 20 to 1 ratio and that ladies and gents and I posted before in this blog, was a feat of arms.

I want to quote David Kopel next:

The Germans suffered over a thousand casualties in the first week of fighting alone. The Germans had to spend more time subduing the Warsaw Ghetto than they did conquering the entire nations of Poland or France.

The Warsaw Ghetto was one square mile and walled. Wrap your mind around that.

But the uprising saved few Jewish lives and had little to no impact on the course of either World War II or the Holocaust.

This is where Mr. Steinweis again filters so much information, it obscures his research. The Nazis were supposed to clean the Warsaw ghetto starting on April 19 and take no longer than 3 days. It took 7 weeks and 10,000 men and supplies. At the same time, the Allies were counterattacking in North Africa and those Nazis occupied with that small band of Jews, could have been used to help the Afrika Korps and the Italian army. North Africa fell to the Allies three days before the ending of the Uprising.

There are many other example where Partisans have made a difference in WWII: From the French Resistance to the Greeks Resistance to the multitude of Philippine resistance movements, all of them managed to misdirect millions of Axis soldiers from the main lines of battle. To belittle their effort is unbecoming by any serious historian and I do hope Mr. Steinweis’ view on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising is just poor understanding of the complexities of war and not just sad political punditry.

My guess is that Protest Easy Guns is not aware that Teddy carried concealed most of his presidency and was an avid hunter and gun owner pretty much till he died.

I’ll leave to you to snark at the sheer level of stupidity of this woman.

Hat tip to Mike’s Corner.

I know, it should have been finished by now, but between family medical issues and changing the motivation of the Bad Guy in the book and that cascading the hell out of rewriting some passages, made for basically a two month slow-and-stop on the process.

I am about 3 chapters out from finishing. Then I shall follow Ask Correia’s rules and let it sit for a month before re-reading it and fix the first batch of obvious mistakes. Then I’ll do the Alpha Reader thing and send the book out for initial autopsy. Then I have to figure what comes next.

Funny thing, what I intended to be a single book is now officially a two book thing. I was not very happy with the ending of the now officially First Book: It has the right and logic ending, but not the proper ending, I wanted something more spectacular. And also I realize that I didn’t do a whole lot of background history on the good guys and before I realized it, I ended up with the makings of a book that will be both a prequel and a sequel. And yes, the ending will be something spectacular.

And here is something to wet your beak.

Now, your question was, are we killers? Yes, most definite, we have killed people. But that is the wrong question, you should have asked ‘are we murderers?’ and no, we are not. We killed only those who sought to harm us or our family. We still hold the high moral ground: we did not go looking for trouble, nor we incited anybody to do us harm. We were living our lives in peace till somebody made a mistake selecting his next victim and paid with his life.

Understand this: We are the most dangerous human beings in Caribol right now. They don’t know it yet because of their own hubris, but the moment they figure out that two peasants, two serfs have decided to use deadly force against them with all the Moral Righteousness of a truly Free Man, they will unleash all their might upon us as our attitude can be contagious to the pacified masses. Our only advantage is that they really do not know how to fight the virus of a pissed-off righteous man and will repeat what works with others but not us. We are the stuff of horror films, The Thing That Would Not Stop.

If we are lucky, it will come to a moment where allowing us to leave this country will be the cheapest option for everybody. If we are not here, we cannot ‘infect’ anybody else or stop being an embarrassment. They hate being embarrassed.  It is going to take a lot of losses on their part to accept that solution and that means we must be willing to inflict those losses.

I hope we don’t have to.

Goes without saying that the above is copyrighted and all legal kinds of hell will be bear upon anybody who wants to profit from it.

Good luck with that. Statistics are not in your favor:

And as for a Constitutional Convention, I think you have a better chance to get Medicare to pay for a Barret .50 BMG and thousand rounds of ammo. If what I read is accurate, 200 attempts have been made with zero results.

And, of course, there is that thing about the Bill of Rights being rights not given by the Constitution but just enumerated therefore outside the scope of a Constitutional Convention.

My latest favorite Lib dumb-ass’ profile.

I underline the hashtags because of the next exchange:
Almost 40 hours later and still no reply from her. I am guessing she is still waiting for the paint to dry.

Via Bob Owens at Bearing Arms. The following are my comments and thoughts and not Legal Advice. I am too ugly to be playing a lawyer on the webs.

The guy would not quit. After hitting the pedestrians, knifing 2 rabbis (one died) and shot by the civilian, the bastard keeps going even when downed. That bring us to the concept of the anchor shot which is basically a properly placed shot to the head so the perpetrator stops for sure and no more actions would be forthcoming.

Anchor shot is controversial. On one hand the idea that a still living perpetrator, properly motivated by conviction and/or drugs may continue his wrongdoing after a brief pause and needs to be stopped for sure, versus the perception that the shooter is executing the bad guy with a coup de grace and the forthcoming legal trouble he might be facing.

In a case like the above, the shooter has plenty of evidence and help to go around: witnesses, the video itself, the victims being knifed and being Israel, they don’t go ACLU for the terrorists so even when he did not put one in his head. After the second time the terrorist got up, a properly placed shot to the brain pan would have been the right response as he looks like a continuous threat.

Same case and on this side of the world? You have to figure out where you live. Do you live in an area where the local prosecutor would understand the concept of continuous threat or he/she will look at you as extra 20,000 votes for the next election if he dresses you in all orange, specially if he is trying to pander to the #ColorOfTheDayMatters crowd. Or live in a State that does not provide you with immunity from civil prosecution and the relatives of Knife Boy are gonna come after your hard-earned belongings because he was “a good kid that loved his momma but too a wrong turn”? Unfortunately, you have to add that kind of crap to your equation.

Other anchoring shots (but without the finality of immediate death) would be to the pelvic griddle and the knees. If you happen to place a good shot to the pelvis and break it, there is no way in heck that the guy will get up again, not matter how determined of full of flakka he can be. The knee is much trickier as it is a smaller target and probably moving a lot so it basically means a contact shot and that is being too close to the subject.

So what’s the final answer? There is none. It will depend on the events and circumstances and your own set of rules to use deadly force

I forgot who I stole this Blogorado pic from, so my apologies.

Yes, a home made, bowling bowl-launching mortar.  Just for fun.