Latest Posts

The Actual Totalitarians

Anarchist thugs, Marxists, Riotous Assemblies, Terrorism

Victor Davis Hanson points out (in not quite so many words) that in politics, there’s nothing new under the sun — most especially since the French Revolution, that is — and that the “Democrat Party” of today should just be honest about it and rename themselves the Jacobin Party.

Why?

Jacobinism aims to divide the nation arbitrarily between the noble oppressed and the toxic oppressors.  (Sound familiar?)

And VDH then goes on to list the offenders and offences:

BLM (actually, it’s Antifa, the only omission he makes), biological men competing in women’s sports, critical legal theory normalizing cashless bail, race-based reparations, violent felons arrested and back on the street hours later, radical abortion on demand until birth, attacks on the concept of the cultural “melting pot” and opposition to organized Christianity.

Read the whole article for the full catalogue.

Here’s the question to ponder.  Never mind what they might say;  which is the political party in the U.S. that actively supports terrorism?  And let’s be clear by what we mean by “terrorism”:  threatening assassination, supporting assassinations or calling for the same, beating up political opponents, calling for violence against those who refuse to support their policies (e.g. Supreme Court justices), using “grassroots” street protests to cow and intimidate opposition… the list goes on and on.

Yup:  that list belongs to the modern-day Jacobins — just as it was back in the late eighteenth century.  They would make history repeat itself, if they could.  And never forget that the term “Reign of Terror” was also coined during the French Revolution, by the Jacobins.  Ipse dixit.

Range Report: Walther-Hammerli B1 (.22 LR/WMR)

Gun/Ammo Tests, The Gun Thing

As Regular Readers know, I recently decided to do something about my .22 LR / .22 Mag situation, and sold my two Marlin rifles to a Reader so that I could free up space in both wallet and Ye Olde Gunne Sayffe for their replacement.

The old guys:

Their replacement:

…or, as kitted out by Yours Truly:

So last week I took it out to the range and got used to it, working the trigger, adjusting the red-dot scope, changing barrels and so on.

Everything about this rifle works as advertised.  The trigger is fine — a little stiff, but I’m guessing that a few bricks or so of .22 ammo should take care of that — and the straight-pull bolt is excellent, both positive and reliable.  (There was not a single issue with ejecting empties and chambering fresh ones, as expected from a rifle of this heritage.)  The B1 uses Ruger 10/22 mags, but:  please note that because the mag well is longer than a standard 10/22 rifle, you have to use a mag extender (supplied with the rifle) clipped onto the rear of the mags.  (Of course, the .22 WMR magazine doesn’t need the extender piece.)  This is a bit of a PITA only in that one needs to buy more of the extender clip thingies from Walther if there’s lots of shooting to be done without wasting time reloading mags, which is my preference.  It’s a minor hassle, but definitely not a deal-breaker if one should consider purchasing this gun.  (And one should, see below.)
I also like the ability to lengthen / shorten the stock according to preference:  one little button in the rear of the stock, and that’s all there is.

“How does the thing shoot, Kim?”

Well, I’d forgotten to bring my sandbag along, so I just shot off the bench, not expecting too much in the way of accuracy.  Ammo used was CCI Mini-Mag 40gr solid (my regular test ammo)

…and some Remington .22 WMR that was on sale at Bass Pro the other day:

Once I’d got the scope dialed in, I got the following, first at thirty feet:

…and then further out, at fifty:

I don’t actually know what happened with the .22 LR string — my eyes were getting tired, maybe, and that red-dot thingy was getting quite fuzzy.  Maybe I was getting tired of holding the rifle steady — it’s quite a hefty beast — causing the shakes?  Or maybe I just need MOAR PRACTICE.

Which leads me to my next point of consideration:

Am I going to use this lovely rifle for plinking, or just for serious target shooting?  (I know, it’s not an either/or situation, but bear with me.)

Perhaps, given that I may be shooting the Walther more seriously, as I did my two Marlin squirrel guns, perhaps a scope would be a better option?

Let’s see.  But whatever I decide about the sights, let me just say that this is a serious bit of kit, and it goes well recommended.  In my humble opinion, it would keep up with just about any rimfire rifle in a serious competition, for far less money.

Here are the specs for the gun:

LOL Poll

Foreign Affairs, Funny Stuff, Trumpism

Seen at Don Surber’s place, this tongue-in-cheek poll:

There are two points to be made here.  Surber points out, correctly, that Alberta ain’t Alabama.  Albertans are only conservative compared to, say, their Ontario compatriots.  Adding AB to the U.S. would give the Socialist Party two new U.S. Senators and several U.S. House seats.  This, by the way, is true of all the Canucki fiefdoms (“Fiefdoms, Kim?”  Remember that the actual political leader of Canada — albeit of the rubber-stamp variety — is King Charles III, as Surber also points out).

In the larger sense, this is also true of Cuba, Venezuela and any of our neighboring countries — they’re all frigging Commies, and we sure as hell don’t need more of them in our blessed Republic.  So, as my old friend Patterson would say, fuck that idea for a bowl of cherries.

And as much as the last suggestion (de-stating Minnesota) may seem appealing, that opens Pandora’s Box of Nastiness, because then we’d have to consider the idea of doing the same to (deep breath) California, Massachusetts, Illinois and New York.  (Also, as attractive as it may seem at first, we should forget throwing out New Mexico unless we want an actual Mexican Salient sticking into our underbelly.)

Nah.  Let’s keep all the kiddies in the house, so to speak, and just control their behavior the old-fashioned way:  by whacking their little pee-pees, politically speaking, whenever they get too obstreperous.