Mitch Albom, a writer with the Detroit Free Press discovered that the etymology of the term “Assault Rifle” comes from Nazi Germany and maybe Hitler himself?

“The assault rifle traces back to Nazi Germany. Did you know that? The Germans were trying to develop a more effective weapon for their soldiers, one that rivaled the firepower of a submachine gun but had better accuracy in more confined spaces.  Kill faster, closer in. That was the idea. Adolf Hitler, according to some accounts, even named the weapon: Sturmgewehr. It means “storm rifle.” Tuck that somewhere in the back of your mind. The first people to really utilize this weapon were Nazis. Not our forefathers. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not George Washington.”

Holy shit, no.  Nazis!!!  Ban them all!!! Ban EVERYTHING!!!

Oh, wait.  Nope.  Never mind.

Yes, it is true that the term “Assault Rifle” comes from the StG 44, but as a gun nerd, I propose that the StG was not the first assault rifle.  If you go by the commonly understood definition: “By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.”  Than the first mass issued assault rife was the U.S. Army issue M1 Carbine.  It was select fire (early designs were select fire, this was ditched by the Ordinance Dept, but later put back in as an upgrade with the T4 and then as the M2), used a detachable magazine, and used an intermediate cartridge (the .30 Carbine is ballsitically more similar to the 7.92×33 than to the .45 ACP or 9mm).  Paratrooper models came with a pistol grip.  It is true it was not issued to front line troops and was considered more of a PDW, but it meets the definition quite well.  And that rifle was designed by David Marshall Williams, who was serving time in prison for murder when he developed the M1.

But I digress.

Guess what Hitler and Nazi Germany also paved the way for?  Anti smoking campaigns and bans on smoking in public.

Hitler was also big on preventing pregnant women from smoking or drinking.

Nazi Germany also paved the way on combating high fat and sugar contents in food.

The Nazis also created one of the first laws that required a permit to carry a handgun.

I guess NYC, San Francisco(most of California, really), and the rest of progressive America that bans smoking in public, trans fats, big sodas, and everything else tasty and fun for the good of public heath is run by Nazis and is carrying out the goals of the Third Reich.

I doubt any of that was also what our founders had in their heads when they created this country.  I don’t remember the government telling me what I can and can’t eat being in the Constitution.  Actually, I’m pretty sure the 10th Amendment says the opposite.

American is to go around with a Marlboro Red in one hand and a batter dipped, deep fried, Snickers in the other, alternating between the two, taking a break only to wet your whistle from the 2 liter Jack and Coke in the Camelbak you are wearing, all while permitless open carrying a pair of Colt 45s.

See, we can play this “the Nazis did it so it must be bad” game all day if you want.  By the time we’re done, I think I can effectively destroy every single DNC policy on this years platform.

Feinstein’s amendment to suspend the rights of the People without Due Process did no make it. Still, too many senators who sworn to protect and defend the constitution, voted to dump on it. The other motion for background checks in the internet and at Gun Shows also died. I don’t care for the other two other that they were poison pills and embarrassments for the Dems. They did their job.
I took the pic as the senate was voting on the resolution. Feinstein is the one in red toward the lower right corner. Notice she is isolated.
That is what failure looks like.

I have been silent about this on purpose as not to suddenly give the Opposition any ideas and I am a firm believer in not helping the enemy while they are making a mistake. Gun Control groups had in their hands a fantastic chance that went to waste today.

If instead of stupidly go for the easy morsel, any of all the major Gun Control groups had come out with a simple statement saying that although they continue to be passionately engaged in the control of “gun violence,” they could not support a bill that would infringe so deeply into the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens of the United States. That they found the potential for abusing the Feinstein’s Terror List amendment so huge, they in good faith could not support it. That a bill which places an American in a secret list without probable cause and restrict him from freely exercise his rights goes against everything this country stands for.

Funny part? They didn’t have to mean it, just publish the note.

Imagine the ton of brownie points they could have collected. After a statement like that, they could say that they do care for the Constitution and they “proved it” by opposing the Feinstein bill. It would have certainly made our jobs more difficult.

But instead of getting of their moral high horse, they shot it in the back of the head, decided to join the other political worms and crawl in the mud. If anybody sitting in the fence ever had doubts about how much respect the Gun Control entities had for the Constitution, today is the perfect evidence that they have none.

That is one mask they can never wear again.

This is awful! I need to help Ms. Watts and her Combo.

This is my humble contribution:

You are welcome.

The Washington Post seems to believe so:

Although some blame the NRA members for the possible failure (this is my shocked face). Then again, maybe it is probably because it does not solve the problem she was claiming to fix?

Or perhaps it is because is such an overreach of our rights that even some Liberal publications are warning about it?

If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.

Source: Hillary Clinton is wrong about the terror watch list – Slate.

When Reid and his accomplices argue that nobody on the “terror watch list” should be permitted to buy a gun, they are saying in effect that the government should have the power to deprive you of your enumerated constitutional rights purely by entering your name into a database. This is unacceptable. Even if the “terror watch list” were transparent and well-regulated, there would be serious philosophical problems with such an arrangement. But for the government to propose using a system that is as opaque, as messy, and as downright bloated as is this one . . . frankly, it beggars belief.

Source: Guns and the no-fly list: Whatever happened to due process? – LA Times

We shouldn’t revoke ANY constitutional right based on “predictive judgments” of the government—that includes the Second Amendment. What’s at stake here isn’t just national security; it’s the bedrock of our liberty. If we’re going to treat American citizens like criminals before they’re even charged with a crime, we’ve stepped into dangerous territory. We’ll continue to debate gun issues, but we must not throw out constitutional safeguards in the name of election year political expediency.

Source: The ACLU rightly rejects the No Fly List for gun control | AL.com

And I would add another warning of my own to our Liberal/Progressive Brethren:

Do you really want to give that much power to the Executive Branch? You do? What if Donald Trump becomes president? Are you comfortable with that?

That should do it.

I caught a trailer for a third movie in the Purge franchise, The Purge: Election Year.

At first, the Purge series seems to be following the SAW series of movies, the first one was novel and interesting, if only because of the new concept and the rest are murder porn.

Watching the trailer for the third movie, it seems that the powers at be in Hollywood have tried to spice up the plot with some political intrigue.

At this point, I can’t ignore the obvious anymore.  The Purge series is the ultimate liberal/progressive fantasy projection.  The overall plot of the three movies is:

There is a crisis of some sort, and a group of people known as the “New Founding Fathers” decide the best way to fix everything is with one night – 12 hours – once a year, in which everyone can go murder happy and “release” their anger and aggression.  Middle class and rich (and predominately white) people use the purge to kill the poor, working class, and minorities, which magically fixes the economy and social strife.

Of course, economically, this wouldn’t work.  If you kill all the working class people, who will fix the pluming, keep the lights on, drive the trucks that carry goods cross country, and so on, who will do it?  How does killing all the unemployed allow for any room for economic growth?  Who will all the upper middle class middle managers manage?  It is a ludicrous position. But there are better economists than I to deconstruct the economics of the Purge for you.

My issue with the movie is the psychological projection inherent in the movies.  The writers would have you believe that American conservatives believe that the best way to fix this country is to kill everyone that liberals believe that conservatives don’t like  – namely the poor and minorities.

I minored in military history in college.  Thinking back to my history of warfare of the 20th century, I can’t think of one mass murder committed by a conservative/classical liberal political party or group.  What does come to mind is:

The concentration camps of Nazi Germany

The Soviet Red Terror, Holomodor, Gulags, and Great Purge.

The Chinese Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries and Great Leap Forward

The Killing Fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge

The concentration camps and mass starvation in North Korea

The firing squads of Cuba under Che

And a whole lot more, with a death toll of over 94 million people in the 20th century.

The political left always comes up with a case of convenient amnesia when it comes to the mass murder and atrocities committed by regimes they are sympathetic to.

The central theme to conservatism/classical liberalism is individual rights and freedom.  We want our rights to private property and to express ourselves freely and then to be left alone to compete in the free market.

It is progressivism/neo-liberalism that is compelled to control what people say, own, and do in order to impose top-down “fixes” for societal problems.

But never mind history and reality, progressive Hollywood has to foist the motivations of the most murderous regimes of the 20th century onto conservatives, because…

Let’s hope this franchise stops at three.