The Killer 1911 Heat Wave That Drove People Insane

H/T History.com.

This was horrible time on the East coast.

Railway tracks buckled, people slept in parks, hundreds died, while others tried to die as the heat and humidity became unbearable.
 
 

In July 1911, along the East Coast of the United States, temperatures climbed into the 90s and stayed there for days and days, killing 211 people in New York alone. At the end of Pike Street, in Lower Manhattan, a young man leapt off a pier and into the water, after hours of trying to nap in a shady corner. As he jumped, he called: “I can’t stand this any longer.” Meanwhile, up in Harlem, an overheated laborer attempted to throw himself in front of a train, and had to be wrestled into a straitjacket by police.

In an age before air conditioning or widespread use of electric fans, many struggled to cope with this multi-day deadly heat. June had been easy enough, but a sweep of hot, dry air from the southern plains suppressed any relief from the ocean breeze. In Providence, Rhode Island, temperatures rose 11 degrees in a single half hour. New York City and Philadelphia became sweltering centers of chaos, while all across New England, railway tracks buckled, mail service was suspended and people perished beneath the sun. Total death tolls are estimated to have topped 2000 in just a few weeks.

Though temperatures never quite broke 100 degrees in the first two weeks of July in New York, the city was poorly equipped to handle the heat, and the humidity that went with it. Poor ventilation and cramped living spaces exacerbated the problem, ultimately leading to the deaths of old and young alike, with children as small as two weeks old becoming overcome by the heat.

1911 Heat Wave
 

A man resting under the shade of a tree in Battery Park, 1911. (Credit: Bain News Service/The Library of Congress)

In the peaks of the wave, people abandoned their apartments for the cool grass of New York’s public spaces, napping beneath trees in Central Park or seeking shade in Battery Park. In Boston, 5,000 people chose to spend the night on Boston Common rather than risk suffocation in their own homes. Babies wailed through the night—or failed to wake up at all.

The streets were anarchic: People reportedly ran mad in the heat (one drunken fool, described by the New York Tribune as “partly crazed by the heat,” attacked a policeman with a meat cleaver), while horses collapsed and were left to rot by the side of the road.

Around July 7, when temperatures returned to ordinary levels of July sweat, the humidity remained high. It was this, reported the New York Times, that was responsible for so many of the casualties, “catching its victims in an exhausted state and killing all of them within the hours between 7 and 10 a.m.” The New York Tribune phrased it still more dramatically: “The monstrous devil that had pressed New York under his burning thumb for five days could not go without one last curse, and when the temperature dropped called humidity to its aid.”

1911 Heat Wave
 

Children licking blocks of ice to keep cool during the heat wave. (Credit: Bain News Service/The Library of Congress)

Outside of New York, however, temperatures had climbed higher still. In Boston, people struggled in 104 degree heat; in Bangor, Maine and Nashua, New Hampshire, it reached a record-breaking 106. In Woodbury, New York, a farmer left his field when the outside temperature reached high enough to melt candle wax. People didn’t just die from exhaustion or heat stroke, but from their efforts to escape the sweltering air. Some 200 people died from drowning as they dove head first into the ocean, ponds, rivers and lakes.

City authorities did what they could to handle the heat, including flushing fire hydrants to cool off streets. In Hartford, Connecticut, people rode around on free ferries and trolleys, trying to catch some kind of a breeze, while a local brewer donated water barrels to parks. Factories were closed and mail delivery was suspended as transport went haywire: boats oozed pitch and railways buckled in the heat. “The tar surface on some streets is boiling like syrup in the sun,” reported the Hartford Courant, “making things sticky for vehicles as well as pedestrians.”

1911 Heat Wave
 

A man using water from a fountain to cool his head in the intense New York City heat. (Credit: Bain News Service/The Library of Congress)

At the end of the first week, even a terrific thunderstorm did little to alleviate the discomfort. In New York, the Times reported, it was simply a few showers “accompanied by much thunder, which rumbled as early as 5:45 a.m., giving promise of big things, and then disappeared into the ocean.”

In Boston, the storm had disastrous consequences, damaging already charred property throughout the town and killing those who strayed into its path. A second thunderstorm, around the 13th, finally brought temperatures back down to manageable levels. As it did so, however, five more people died from lightning strikes. The record-breaking heat wave was over, but at still greater cost for the exhausted, grieving people of New England.

 
 

4 Reasons a Day at the Beach in Times Past Was No Day at the Beach

H/T Mental Floss.

If you were a woman who wanted to go for a swim 200 years ago, you'd first have to hop in a bathing machine.
If you were a woman who wanted to go for a swim 200 years ago, you’d first have to hop in a bathing machine.
SHUTTERSTOCK/NANA_STUDIO (STACK OF PHOTOS); HULTON ARCHIVE/THE PRINT COLLECTOR/GETTY IMAGES (BEACH)

I’m not what you would call a beach person. In general, I agree with Jim Carrey’s character in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: “Sand is overrated. It’s just tiny little rocks.” And those tiny little rocks find their way into all sorts of uncomfortable crevices.

The one upside: When I do go to the beach this summer, I’ll be grateful I’m going in the 21st century. Because a trip to beaches in the past was, well, no day at the beach. Here are four things that weren’t so fun about the beaches of yesteryear.

1. A SWIM IN THE OCEAN WAS A WHOLE PRODUCTION.

Especially if you were a British woman in Victorian times. As a lady, you couldn’t just stroll into the waves wearing your bathing suit. Heaven forbid someone might see a square inch of your skin. Instead, women kept their reputation pure by using an elaborate contraption called a “Bathing Machine.” The Bathing Machine was a large wooden box with wheels and curtained doors in the front and back. When the bathing machine was parked on the sand, the woman would enter fully clothed. Then, inside, she would change into her swimwear (which was no bikini, as we will see later). Following that, a pair of horses would pull the whole portable closet out into the surf, at which point the lady would descend some steps into the ocean. They were even more shielded from prying eyes if the machine had a canvas canopy.

2. FORGET CAREFREE FROLICKING IN THE WATER.

For many in 18th century Europe, going into the ocean was serious business—a doctor-prescribed cure that, as one article in The Atlantic put it, “resembled waterboarding far more than a spa treatment.” Resort doctors saw cold ocean water as a cure for everything: leprosy, ulcers, tumors, jaundice, scurvy, depression. Bathers were submerged repeatedly in the freezing water until near-suffocation by a specially trained employee called a “bathing woman” (or “dipper”), then reinvigorated with feet warmers and back rubs and tea. And this was during the Little Ice Age, when English waters were even colder than they are now. One dunkee wrote that the shock was so great that, according to Robert C. Ritchie in The Lure of the Beach, “she could not breathe or speak for a minute or two.” Oh, and you didn’t just swim in the ocean water. Some doctors prescribed that you drink it—though not more than one pint a day. Note: Mental Floss recommends drinking zero pints of seawater per day.

3. THE BATHING SUITS WERE EVEN LESS COMFORTABLE THAN THONGS.

Bathing outfits for women reached their zenith of discomfort in the 19th century. Women’s bathing suits were complicated affairs. According to Victoriana magazine, you’d wear a long wool dress as well as a pair of pants (or, as they were called then, Bloomers). That’s not to mention your other swimming accoutrements: black stockings, caps, collars, puffed sleeves, ribbons, bows, and lace-up slippers. Some bathing suits used nine yards of fabric and had weights attached to the hem to keep the dress from rising when the woman entered the ocean. In other words, don’t expect a Victorian-themed Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue anytime soon.

4. THE BEACH WAS A CESSPOOL.

Before the invention of water treatment plants, raw sewage was a common sight at the beach. The beach in the British town of Blackpool, for instance, was home to 45 pipes emptying raw sewage directly into the water where people swam. Swimmers risked cholera and other diseases, not to mention having to put up with the horrid smell. Or consider the beaches at Coney Island, which were popular for New Yorkers in the 19th and early 20th century. The surf was famous for the local specialty, Coney Island whitefish … which was not actually a fish at all. Coney Island Whitefish was slang for used condoms that were routinely tossed into the sea.

In sum, swimming has gotten easier every decade. Consider this line from a 1920s article, which was a Roaring Twenties precursor to the article you just read: “Getting ready for a bath when George III ruled was not the simple act it is in the term of President Coolidge!”

The History of the Bow Tie: Mercenaries, Churchill, and Bond, James Bond

H/T moc2000.medium.com

In high school, my archaeology teacher wore a bow tie. Seniors could elect to take an archaeology class, which held the allure of the occasional field trip to an old homestead near school where students could dig around for broken pottery and dishes. But the real motivation for many of the seniors was the fact that the teacher, Mr. Randall, was near retirement. Most of his lessons involved watching VHS tapes of ancient civilizations that a good portion of class slept through.

Question: Do you know what other archaeology instructor also wore a bow tie?

Answer: Indiana Jones.

Professor Jones was far more to my liking. (No one sleeping in class here!) He made archaeology come alive. And that bow tie sealed the look. That bow tie was the perfect spot of character and intelligence, and of convention just waiting to be upended.

The bow tie traces its origin to the Thirty Years’ War of the early 17th century. Croatian mercenaries used a knotted scarf around their neck to hold closed the opening of their shirts. French soldiers modified the style, wearing a short, wide strip of fabric tucked into an open shirt. The style was noticed and adopted by the French upper class as they saw it on French soldiers returning from war. And so was born the cravat (derived from the French for “Croat”). French fashion held prominence in the 18th and 19th century and the cravat gained in popularity. Over time this cravat evolved into the bow tie and necktie we know today.

A well-dressed man in the 19th century was likely to be seen in a bow tie, especially if he was a politician or an academic. Presidents Lincoln, McKinley and Grant were frequently pictured in bow ties. So too were Karl Marx and Thomas Edison.

During the Victorian era in Great Britain (1837–1901), dinner jackets and matching attire, including a white bow tie, came into style. The dinner jacket dates back to 1865 and was worn by the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII). The first mention of the tuxedo dinner jacket comes in 1888, named after Tuxedo Park, a wealthy enclave in upstate New York. The tuxedo, accompanied by the bow tie, would set the stage for more formal menswear in the twentieth century.

The early 1900s saw the bow tie take on more character and expression as performers moved from vaudeville to the silent screen. Bow ties were the common attire worn by Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel (when in character as Laurel and Hardy). Groucho Marx would come to wear a bow tie as would radio host Fred Allen.

In addition, bow ties became the choice of the stylish entertainer. Fred Astaire danced flawlessly across the screen in his white bow tie. In an early example of stylish androgyny, Marlene Dietrich looked stunning in her top hat and bow tie.

As World War II spread across Europe and as America entered the conflict in the Pacific, the times called for strong, resolute leadership. Roosevelt and Churchill needed to be strategic, brave, and bold, while at the same time engendering the trust of an anxious nation. While FDR sometimes wore a bow tie, it is Churchill who truly embraced the look.

Seeking to inspire confidence during very sobering times, Churchill took great care in what he wore. Most commonly he was seen wearing a navy blue bow tie with white polka dots. This bow tie became very popular and was marketed as the Blenheim.

Emerging from the War, America was ready to take things a little less seriously. Enter the Rat Pack — and the oh so cool bow tie. In the early days the group that came to be known as the Rat Pack met in the home of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Early membership shifted a bit but eventually settled down to include Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford, and Joey Bishop. On stage, in movies, and on the Las Vegas strip, these A-listers and their bow ties personified cool.

As the Rat Pack was taking shape, down in Jamaica a novelist named Ian Fleming was inventing a British Secret Service agent known as 007. When James Bond hit the movie screens in the early sixties, it is Sean Connery who brought the character to life. To many fans, Connery is the quintessential Bond. Debonair, and impeccably dressed in his bow tie and tuxedo, Connery owned the outfit and the role.

With none of the cool but all of the fun, cartoon characters also donned bow ties. Dating back to the 1920s and 1930s, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Porky Pig sported bow ties. Dagwood Bumstead, the husband in the long-running Blondie comic strip, was known for his bow tie. By the mid-twentieth century a number of Dr. Seuss characters appeared wearing bow ties, most notably the Cat in the Hat in his red bow tie.

So what happened in the subsequent decades to turn the bow tie into a sign of the nerd? Why did Pee Wee Herman gravitate to the bow tie to accent his outfit? In other words, how did the bow tie lose its cool?

The bow tie had its heyday in the 1940s and 1950s. By the 1960s, with the rise of the hippie counterculture and the anti-Vietnam War protests, contempt for the establishment was tangible. The bow tie represented the old guard, convention, and rules.

The bow tie eventually became a symbol of the socially awkward, the geek. This was true on television and in Hollywood movies. It was bold for a man to wear a bow tie and usually it signaled either the fashionably inadequate or the independent thinker who couldn’t care less.

But all is not lost. There are still celebrities that push the fashion envelope. Oscar winner Jared Leto added some style in his white jacket with a red bow tie at the 2014 Academy Awards. And singers from Andre 3000 to Janelle Monae have donned a bow tie.

There is not much need in today’s Zoom meeting world for a bow tie. But this will not always be the case. We’ll go out and the bow tie will find its next generation of followers. And until then, who says a bow tie couldn’t add a little pizzazz to your next Zoom call?

NJ Senator Menendez Panders to Constituents Over Chipman for ATF Head

H/T AmmoLand.

I can safely say that Little Bobby Menendez(Delusional-NJ)is a lying sack of shit he wants Little Davy Chipman appointed to head the ATF.



New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- The matter of David Chipman’s confirmation process to lead the ATF is still in flux. Advocates have been urging everyone to reach out to their senators about voting against the confirmation of Chipman. The rehashing of anything Chipman-related really does not have to happen again. However, what of the senators that are known anti-civil rights, proponents?

NJ Senator Bob Menendez

One such senator, Bob Menendez from New Jersey has a rather hubris and obnoxious form letter that he sends to those that write into him on the subject. Take a read:

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for contacting me to express concerns regarding David Chipman, President Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).  Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you.

 

 
On April 7, 2021, President Biden announced his nomination of David Chipman as Director of ATF.  Mr. Chipman previously served as a special agent at ATF for over 25 years.  If confirmed, Mr. Chipman would be the agency’s first permanent director since 2015.

 

As a former ATF agent and an advocate for sensible gun safety laws, I believe Mr. Chipman is prepared to lead the ATF’s efforts to help prevent gun violence and save lives in communities across the country.  I also believe that, as a gun owner himself, Mr. Chipman will strongly defend the rights of citizens to use legal firearms responsibly.

 

Mr. Chipman’s nomination currently awaits consideration before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member.  Please rest assured that I will keep your views in mind when his confirmation comes before me for a vote.
 

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance.  I invite you to visit my website (http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.

NJ Senator Bob Menendez

Including the letter in full was probably not necessary, as I’m only going to focus on certain parts. However, in the spirit of fairness to ole Robert, I left the missive unchanged for everyone’s unbiased review.

Some of what Menendez said is factually based. Yes, Chipman was nominated by the Biden-Harris administration. Yes, Chipman would be the first permanent director since 2015 if confirmed. That’s about all where the “facts” lay. The first falsehood that should be pointed out is that Menendez states:

Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you.

On its face, this statement is flat-out false. If Menendez cared about the opinion of the constituents who write to him in opposition to the confirmation of Chipman, there is a high probability the same people do not support all the legislation he’s introduced or supported in order to advance the anti-freedom caucus’ agenda. Menendez supports legislation such as:

  • S.1558 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) Untraceable Firearms Act of 2021
  • S.1131 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) HEAR Act
  • S.974 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) Gun Records Restoration and Preservation Act
  • S.736 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) Assault Weapons Ban of 2021
  • S.529 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) Background Check Expansion Act

That’s just a smattering of the bills that Menendez supports in this session of congress. This is not an extensive investigative piece, but suffice it to say if someone is against Chipman, they’re probably against those bills. We can politely reply:

No Bob! I know my opinion is not important to you, so please do not pretend it is. We’d not be having this correspondence if you respected my opinion, which happens to align with the Bill of Rights. Whereas, your opinion and actions are contrary to freedom.

Next piece to look at:

As a former ATF agent and an advocate for sensible gun safety laws…

As discussed time and time again, Chipman worked for the “anti-gun”, read anti-civil rights, lobby. Chipman does not advocate for “sensible gun safety laws”, he is a prohibitionist, like you. Further, it has been proved that more laws do not equal less crime. If that were the case, the state you hail from, New Jersey, would be one of the safest in the country. But instead, New Jersey has some of the most violent and crime-ridden cities in the nation. The only city that has shown any appreciable advancement in curbing crime is Camden, once the murder capital of the US, saw shootings drop in 2020.

I also believe that, as a gun owner himself, Mr. Chipman will strongly defend the rights of citizens to use legal firearms responsibly.

To think that Chipman, a former ATF agent, does not himself own firearms would be grossly obtuse. Many former law enforcement personnel own firearms. There are many reasons why they might, but none of which are prevalent to the conversation. Plenty of politicians, political hacks, and congresscritters that are members of the anti-freedom caucus own guns. How about you Bob? Do you own any firearms? Owning a gun does not make someone an advocate for firearm liberties or would cause them to “defend the rights of citizens”. I actually know what I’d refer to as anti-gun gun owners, and it’s frustrating talking to “them”. Speaking of Chipman’s firearms, isn’t there a little drama about that which surfaced recently involving him losing his service weapon?

In closure, don’t thank us for our thoughts. You don’t mean it, so don’t say it. The public at large would have more respect for you if you were unapologetic on this subject and just said:

“Ya know, I’m gonna confirm Chipman because I think he supports the same gun control agenda that I do. He may not know what an ‘assault weapon’ is, but by golly, he wants to take them all!”

 

 

Gun Control Group Applauds NJ Gov’s Office For ‘Operation ChokePoint’ Style Actions

H/T AmmoLand.

Governor Phyliss(Phil)Murphy(Delusional-NJ)fancies his self the next Bathhouse Barry Obama with an Operation ChokePoint style law.



New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- There are so-called “gun control” organizations that we, as gun owners, have to deal with on a constant basis.

Sure, the narrative has changed over the years, with many of the Astroturf groups referring to themselves as “gun safety” groups, but nonetheless, the spirit of “Handgun Control Inc” (aka Brady United) lives on in all of them. What is perhaps more surprising to me is learning about a group that apparently  has no issues mincing words and refers to themselves as a “gun control organization.”

One such group was corresponding with Governor Phil Murphy’s Director of Communications, Mahen Gunaratina. Looking through documents obtained through the Open Public Records Act (OPRA W170483) I glimpsed at an email thread involving Igor Volsky, the Executive Director of Guns Down America, and Governor Phil Murphy’s office. In the email dated March 15, 2019, Volsky does not hold any punches. In fact, what he had to say I’m going to include in full here for your immediate review:

Daniella — thanks so much for the connect, I’m moving you to BCC!

Mahen, we may have met when I interviewed the Governor as part of our ThinkingCAP podcast at CAP in 2018! I’ve since moved to running a gun control organization called Guns Down America and we’ve been absolutely loving what you guys are doing on the issue, particularly the decision to include the number of crime guns recovered by each manufacturer!!

I’m connecting with you because later this month we’re launching a campaign pushing the largest banks to stop doing business with the gun industry until that industry can be fundamentally reformed. Since TD Bank is headquartered in New Jersey, I’d love to hop on the phone and tell you more about that effort and ways the Governor can create some amazing change in the corporate responsibility/gun space.

I’m attaching a brief overview of our strategic thinking and would love to connect. Would you have some time next week?

Best,
Igor

Well, isn’t that a cute missive to digest? “I’m moving you to BCC!”, convenient. As noted earlier, this is a “gun control” group, self-proclaimed. If I had to take a guess, I’d say this goes directly against what the playbook from a group such as Moms Demand Action would say. My assumption, if I had the chance to read such a document, is it would say something very similar to exactly this:

DO talk about “preventing gun violence.” DON’T talk about “gun control.”

I suppose when the microphones aren’t hot, these groups have no issue admitting to exactly what they are. On one hand, I do find it rather refreshing to know that Igor, the head of a “gun control” group, is not trying to change his spots. Kudos! for honesty, at least with Governor Murphy’s office.

The first rule of gun control is never talk about gun control!

Something of a coincidence maybe, I will note that I did try to check out the podcast episode that Volsky mentioned in his email. Interestingly enough, the content of the interview is no longer available. What did Governor Murphy talk about? What is the content that no longer can be accessed? The title of the show is “New Jersey’s Gov. Phil Murphy on Resisting Trump” and you can read the show notes HERE:

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) joins Michele and Igor to discuss the progress his state has made—including passing equal pay and paid sick leave, pushing back against the GOP tax bill, and his decision to create a Cabinet as diverse as New Jersey—despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle progressive agendas. Also, Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Policy and Strategy at CAP, joins to outline the Center’s big ideas for states, including overtime, a state Earned Income Tax Credit, and “clean slate” legislation to automatically seal nonviolent criminal records.

This is the type of stuff we, as gun owners, need to be aware of. This is the type of stuff the general public needs to learn about. Volsky fed us the information through this email he probably never thought would see the light of day. His group was advocating for an “operation chokepoint” type of tactics to be employed in New Jersey. This anti-civil rights enthusiast was clearly trying to conspire with government officials in the state of New Jersey to engage in discriminatory practices.

Volsky applauds “…the decision to include the number of crime guns recovered by each manufacturer!!” The program seems to have begun in January 2018. I vaguely remember the murmurs of this initiative via executive order starting, and most people were dismissive of it being more Astroturf “we’re doing something” measures. In light of litigation against one such tracked manufacturer, we can see there may have been some method to their madness. As reported:

State data show that more than 80% of the guns used in crimes in New Jersey came from outside of the state, with Smith & Wesson firearms among the heaviest-trafficked firearms into the state. According to the latest report, 48 Smith & Wesson-brand firearms were used in crimes in the state, the leader among all gun manufacturers.

The litigation is in the form of New Jersey suing Smith & Wesson over their advertising methods. From another report on the suit specifically:

“New Jersey is asking a judge to force Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. to hand over internal documents, the latest twist in an ongoing legal fight over how the gun manufacturer advertises to residents.

The subpoena came after Grewal’s office asked outside lawyers to help investigate how gun companies promote their products.

Smith & Wesson said in its lawsuit that this all amounted to an “unconstitutional fishing expedition” designed to weaken the Second Amendment.

Grewal’s office pushed back, saying last week that state law allowed them to dig into anyone advertising within New Jersey.

The review was not about “the product Smith & Wesson sells, but the representations and omissions in its marketing and advertising,” state officials argued in court documents, and the investigation has shown that some ads “may misrepresent the impact owning a firearm has on personal safety.”

Some Smith & Wesson ads also promoted carrying concealed firearms without mentioning that New Jerseyans needed a permit to conceal carry, state officials wrote.

Grewal’s office asked that Smith & Wesson be held in contempt of court for ignoring the subpoena.”

It’s eye-opening to see how all the pieces come together. New Jersey officials are using taxpayer dollars to sue a perfectly legitimate business. Looking at Guns Down America and what they stand for sheds more light on perhaps what else we could be up against in the Garden State:

Guns Down America has led large coalitions to execute successful campaigns that have forced FedEx to stop providing discounts to NRA members, drove two large insurers (Chubb and Lockton Affinity) to break their business relationship with the NRA’s Carry Guard insurance and helped push the NRA toward bankruptcy, pushed the nation’s largest banks to publicly back away from doing business with the gun industry, and convinced Walmart to significantly reduce their gun sales and begin actively lobbying for gun reform.

You, the gun advocate can connect the rest of the dots. Taking a 30,000-foot view, we are better able to see how these groups and methods all come together. Guns Down America has a line of communications with Governor Phil Murphy’s office. People like Volsky have his ear. AmmoLand News is going to continue to monitor and look into any potential wrongdoing by the Murphy administration. As you can see, we have our work cut out for us, and we are dealing with groups conspiring with the government against the people to usurp their rights.

A Tyrannical Government Cannot Long Contain Or Constrain An Armed Citizenry

H/T AmmoLand.

The neoliberal Globalist and international Marxist elements are going to start a fire they will not be able to contain the fire of freedom.

 

United States of America Flag burning America American
A Tyrannical Government Cannot Long Contain Or Constrain An Armed Citizenry, iStock

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- If the American people are well-armed, then they can effectively, successfully resist Governmental attempts to control thought and action; they can effectively resist concerted efforts by tyrants to subjugate them, and they will always resist such efforts. But, if the American people are disarmed, they are defenseless before both two-legged predators and a predatory, tyrannical Government. So, the American people must continue to be well-armed. It is that simple.

Thus, among those Destructive forces—neoliberal Globalist and international Marxist elements—who strive for firm Government control over the citizenry, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be merely constrained, exercise of the Right must be curtailed.

But, because it is immensely difficult to curtail citizen ownership and possession of firearms outright, absent wholesale bloodshed, which is to be avoided, the liberal Progressive Left and Marxists have been forced to undercut the Right of the people to keep and bear arms through a gradual escalating legislative process.

The Federal Government’s assault on the Second Amendment started in earnest almost ninety years ago, with the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934. As with all antigun legislation, the pretext for the enactment of the NFA was an attempt to prevent criminal gangs from engaging in shooting rampages with certain classes of weapons, primarily fully automatic weapons and so-called short-barreled shotguns and rifles. The impact this law had on crime reduction was and is negligible. Its greatest and gravest impact was on infringing law-abiding American citizens’ right to possess those firearms.

Apart from actions by several State Americans to continue to enact laws to restrict and constrain the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, the public was provided with a respite from the enactment of wholesale restrictive Federal firearms legislation for a period of sixty years, when Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That Act contained a subsection titled innocuously, the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” a.k.a. “Assault Weapons Ban,” the latter descriptor of which is more accurate and to the point.

Once again, the public was told that the purpose of an assault weapons Ban was directed to curbing violent crimes committed with a certain category of guns. It did no such thing. It was all a lie, having nothing to do with constraining criminal use of firearms.

All the Act succeeded in doing and was designed to do was to target average, law-abiding Americans, not to reduce violent gun crime. The salient if tacit purpose of the Act was to ban lawful ownership and possession of a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons in the hands of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. The Act wasn’t designed to prevent gun crimes. And the banned firearms were not even utilized in the vast majority of gun crimes anyway.

The law was set to expire ten years later, in 2004. It did expire and not surprisingly, it wasn’t renewed. The public wasn’t deceived and demanded access to semiautomatic firearms.

Notwithstanding the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban, that didn’t stop Anti-Second Amendment forces in Congress to try to enact new laws restricting Americans’ access to semiautomatic firearms. They were relentless in their pursuit to curtail the exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment. And they continued their effort up to the present time. To date, all such attempts have failed, and that has frustrated the forces that seek to destroy this free Constitutional Republic and its sovereign people. It was therefore left to Anti-Second Amendment State Governments to fill the gap and States like New York and California did so, with relish.

With the neoliberal Globalist Obama in the Oval Office, to be followed by Hillary Clinton, the Destroyers of an independent sovereign United States felt confident that they could gradually tighten the noose around the neck of the American people so that, by the time the citizenry realized they had lost their Nation, along with their Bill of Rights, it would be much too late for them to do anything about it.

But Hillary Clinton didn’t make it into Office. Donald Trump did.

And once the sobering reality of that had sunk in for the neoliberal Globalists and the Marxists, they no longer took for granted that they could work leisurely and quietly to reconfigure the institutions of the Nation; disregard the dictates of or redefine the meaning of the Constitution to suit their goals, and implement their plans for a takeover of the Country incrementally.

The forces that crush entire nations went to work on our own; frenetically, ceaselessly, assiduously, to sabotage Trump’s policy initiatives; engaging in a virulent media campaign of vicious personal attacks on him, on his family, on campaign officials, and on Americans who voted for and who avidly supported him, who had realized the singular importance of the Trump initiatives and policy goals and promises in getting the Nation back on track to regain its historical roots and sensibilities. Yet, all the efforts to dislodge Trump from Office met with abject failure and Trump was successful in realizing many of his goals.

The forces that crush entire nations couldn’t understand Trump’s emotional strength; his resourcefulness, his fortitude; his resilience. The more vociferous and vicious the attacks became, the more implacable did Trump become.

The public saw that Trump’s “America First” domestic and foreign policies actually benefitted the American people, Americans of all races. Trump was primed to win a second term in Office.

The neoliberal Globalists and international Marxists would have not of that. And they pulled out all the stops to prevent that from happening.

So, as a last resort, the enemies of the American people, both within the Republic and outside it, including likely the CCP and the EU Government in Brussels, machinated and conspired to prevent Trump from serving a Second Term. And they succeeded.

Now, with Trump out of the way, and with Bush-era Republicans or otherwise meek Republicans offering no meaningful, substantial resistance to the agenda of Marxist Democrats, those Congressional Democrats are wasting no time consolidating their power over the Country and over the American people, before the 2022 midterm elections.

Democrats’ Ten-Part Program To Consolidate Power And Gain Control Over The Nation And Its Citizens

The Democrats’ program involves, one, systematically corralling the voices of tens of millions of Americans; two indoctrinating the public in the tenets of Collectivism; three, consolidating control over the military and police; four, continuing to create mass upheaval and volatility in society with the assistance of criminal gangs, and Marxist and Anarchist agitators; five, maintaining dossiers on every person residing in the United States; six, inducing fear in the minds of all Americans that Government may designate them as “Domestic Terrorists” and commence to hound and harass them; seven, asserting Government control over the operation of the entire electoral process in order to control the outcome of elections; eight, continuing, indefinitely, an open borders policy, allowing a continuous deluge of illegal alien migrants and murderous drug cartel gangs to invade our Country, thereby further disrupting society; nine, creating the conditions for hyper-inflation to proceed, to reduce the mass of America to abject penury; and, ten, curtailing exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to preclude the ability of the American people to revolt successfully against the inception of tyranny.

Concerning the last item of business, expect to see concerted efforts by the Harris-Biden Administration, to implement executive actions, albeit as a “temporary fix” to restrict the possession of semiautomatic weapons. This is being coordinated with efforts by the Democrat-controlled Congress to shoehorn semiautomatic weapons into the NFA, or, perhaps, to enact new stand-alone legislation, or to enact a ban on possession of semiautomatic firearms through obscure means, by placing a gun ban in some larger omnibus bill.

Whatever transpires, the American people should be prepared for a very rocky ride in the months ahead as the economy continues to deteriorate, as social volatility and unrest in society crank up, and as the Second Amendment undergoes an assault in a manner heretofore not seen.

Actually, Mr. President, You CAN Own a Cannon

H/T AmmoLand.

Joe Pee Pads Biden needs a history.

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- President Joe Biden has said on numerous occasions that a private individual couldn’t own a cannon at the time of the American Revolution. Is he correct?https://e87177198dcbe018b5c98b015c918ded.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

In short, no, he is not correct. (Shocker!)

At the time of the Revolutionary War and in the following early years of the United States, there were no laws prohibiting the private ownership of cannons. Neither King George III nor President George Washington (or any other president, for that matter), issued any kind of law that prohibited people from owning cannons.

Actually, Mr. President, you CAN buy a cannon!

Now, I would be remiss not to mention that the British Crown did make it illegal for the colonists to cast their own cannons while under the King’s rule. To do so was deemed treasonous. But owning an already-made cannon? Nope, no issue of treason there.

Privately organized and funded artillery companies in the colonies date all the way back to the 1630s. A century later, in the 1740s, there are records of Benjamin Franklin helping organize artillery companies while stressing that they were made completely of volunteers and armed at their own expense.

How do volunteers arm an artillery company? By spending their own money to buy a cannon!

One of the driving forces behind the first major battles of the Revolution was because the British soldiers were coming to confiscate privately-owned arms – including cannons and mortars – such as ones that were being held by veterans of the French and Indian War as war trophies.

Privateer ship “General Armstrong” carried 7 cannons in 1814.

During the course of the Revolution, approximately 1,700 letters of Marque were issued to privateers. In the War of 1812, President James Madison issued more than 500 letters of Marque to privateers. These letters of marque created what was, essentially, legal piracy, and it was sanctioned by the government and even deemed necessary. So how did these privateers arm their vessels? With cannons that they purchased as individuals.

Our colonial navy had approximately 1,200 cannons on board less than 65 ships. The privateers, on the other hand, had almost 15,000 cannons – all privately owned.

Throughout much of this country’s history, privately-raised militia units have fought side by side with regular artillery units, with the only difference being that these militia units were using cannons that had been privately purchased. Many artillery units in the Civil War were funded privately.

It wasn’t until 1903 that the Militia Act led to the winding down of private militias, but it did nothing to stop the sale of cannons to individuals.

The godfather of milsurp, Francis Bannerman, sold countless cannons to individuals in the late-19th and early-20th centuries.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, which is, by far, the most restrictive piece of Federal legislation related to the ownership of arms, says nothing about cannons. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It wasn’t until 1968 that things we regard as modern artillery – like bazookas, for instance – were regulated further.

But what about muzzleloading cannons, like the ones used during the Revolutionary War? They’re conspicuously absent in any of the legislation. You could buy a cannon as an individual in the Revolution era, and you can still buy one today as an individual.

Cannons for sale right now on the internet. (IMA-USA)

So with that, let us consider the matter settled, and make it clear once and for all: there never has been, in the entire history of this nation dating back more than 400 years to the early 1600s, any restrictions whatsoever on an individual’s ability to own a cannon.

Marine MIA At Pearl Harbor Has Been Identified After 80 Years

H/T War History OnLine.

R.I.P.  Marine Pfc. John Franklin Middleswart it has been a long trip to your final resting place.

Californian Marine Pfc. John Franklin Middleswart has been identified and buried with full military honors 80 years after he died during the attack on Pearl Harbor. His identification has come thanks to the USS Oklahoma Project, a program dedicated to identifying 394 unknown servicemembers from the USS Oklahoma, a U.S. battleship that was sunk at Pearl Harbor.

 

Middleswart was just 19 years old when he was killed aboard the USS Oklahoma on December 7th, 1941. The Oklahoma was docked at Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, when the Japanese attacked, and she received multiple torpedo hits while she and the rest of the military installation tried desperately to defend against the assault. She rolled over in the harbor and claimed the lives of over 429 sailors and Marines.

The ship was eventually righted and sold off for scrap once reusable fittings were removed. Over the next few years, the U.S. worked to recover her crew and buried them in the Halawa and Nu’uanu cemeteries.

In 1947, the American Graves Registration Service (AGRS) arrived to identify the fallen men but were only able to confirm the identities of 35. The remaining 394 were buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, also known as the Punchbowl.

Middleswart’s identification

Middleswart was among the 394 unknowns. In 2015, the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA), an agency that is dedicated to recovering U.S. servicemembers from the nation’s conflicts, began the aforementioned Oklahoma Project.

Courts of the Missing
Courts of the Missing. (Photo Credit: Jiang / Wikimedia Commons)

The DPAA disinterred the USS Oklahoma‘s unknowns for analysis. Middleswart was identified by comparing mitochondrial DNA extracted from his bones with that of his sister and two nephews. Y chromosome DNA (Y-STR), and autosomal DNA (auSTR) analysis were also used in the process. He was officially accounted for on the 28th of January 2021, the 300th identification from the USS Oklahoma.

Middleswart’s ceremony was attended by 50 people, where he was buried with full military honors this month at the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego, his hometown. Marines performed “Taps” on a bugle and gave a rifle salute in Middleswart’s honor.

Navy Chaplain Robert LeCompte said. “What an amazing miracle it is to have John with us today.”

“It’s the end of a journey,” said James Brown, one of the Middleswart’s nephews. “We couldn’t be happier.”

“We were always hoping one day they would identify him and bring him home,” James Brown said.

His death had a profound impact on his family, who received a Purple Heart and an American flag from the government. As he was listed as missing in action, his family wasn’t able to visit his resting place. Middleswart’s sister, Lauretta Brown, named one of her sons after her missing brother.

Because Middleswart has been recorded as missing since WWII, his name is listed on the Courts of the Missing at the Punchbowl. Now he has finally been identified, a rosette will be put next to his name to indicate that he has been found.

Senator, Marine, And Sailor John Warner Laid To Rest At Arlington

H/T War History OnLine.

R.I.P. Senator John Warner.

John Warner, a former sailor, Marine, and Senator, has been laid to rest at the Arlington National Cemetery following his death on May 25th 2021 at age 94. Warner spent the majority of his life in service to the United States and made crucial contributions to both U.S. and international politics.

 

He was buried on Wednesday, June 23rd, in Section 4 of Arlington Cemetery, in a location close to Joint Base Fort Myer-Henderson Hall, and not far from his parents, who are also buried at Arlington.

Rifle salute at section 4 of Arlington National Cemetery during ceremony for John Warner
Photo Credit: U.S. Army Photo, Elizabeth Fraser / Arlington National Cemetery

Described as a “class act,” Warner was critical to important political and military decisions. Joe Biden served alongside Warner in the Senate.

In his eulogy, Biden said, “He understood that democracy is more than a form of government. He understood that democracy was a way of being and … that empathy is the fuel of democracy, the willingness to see each other as opponents, not as enemies, and above all to each other as Americans, even when we disagree.”

Warner’s life was dedicated to the U.S.

Warner was born in Washington, D.C., in 1927 to parents who also served the U.S. His mother, Martha Stuart Warner, served in the Red Cross, and his father, John William Warner, was a surgeon for the U.S. Army during WWI. He joined the Navy in January of 1945 and served for a year. He left the Navy as a petty officer third class, and started college at Washington and Lee University. After graduating in 1949, he enrolled at the University of Virginia Law School.

In 1950, not long after he began at the University of Virginia, Warner left to join the U.S. Marine Corps instead and was eventually deployed to Korea. During the Korean War, Warner served as a ground aircraft maintenance officer. He left the Marines at the rank of captain after the war ended. Once he was back in civilian life, he continued to pursue his education, attending the George Washington University and earning his law degree.

In 1969, Warner became the Under Secretary of the Navy in the Nixon Administration, and in 1972, he was appointed the Secretary of the Navy. While Secretary of the Navy, Warner helped to negotiate in talks between the U.S. and USSR to reduce incidents between the nations at sea, and if they did clash to limit an escalation. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1978 and would remain there for over 30 years until 2009, making him the second longest serving senator from Virginia.

Warner had three children with his first wife Catherine Mellon, but the two separated in 1973. Three years later, he married famous actress Elizabeth Taylor. In 1982, Warner and Taylor divorced and he wouldn’t remarry again until 2003.

Elizabeth Taylor and Senator John Warner attend the afterparty for the play, The Little Foxes at Xenon on May 7, 1981
Elizabeth Taylor and Senator John Warner. (Photo Credit: Sonia Moskowitz/IMAGES/Getty Images)

Warner supported military action in Iraq, but would later oppose the continued military presence once he believed the U.S. had fulfilled its commitments.

He was a member of a vast number of committees, including the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and was the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Warner also helped boost billions of dollars into the Virginian economy by growing its military and shipbuilding industries.

Upon his death, Senator Mark Warner (no relation) said, “There isn’t a sailor, soldier, airman or Marine in Virginia or anywhere in the country who doesn’t owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Warner.”

Mark Warner said when he encounters difficult situations, he asks himself, “What would John Warner do?”

“That’s who John was, a class act,” Mark Warner said. “He was a leader of substance in the Senate and the country. May this American hero rest in peace.”

 

If It’s Legal To Shoot It Still May Not Be The Best Option

H/T Concealed Nation.

Sometimes shooting the thief is not always the best option.

A reader sent us an email in response to the article we published about the armed citizen who held a man at gunpoint who was attempting to steal his vehicle. It’s a topic that comes with a never-ending debate; If you’re in a state where it’s legal to use lethal force in defense of property, should you?

In the story above, no shots were fired. But what if they had been? How would a Judge or jury look at the situation? What would your ultimate outcome be? Hefty fees? Jail time? Psychological issues after shooting someone?

Is it worth it over a vehicle? How about a lawnmower?

I live in Florida now. When I lived in SC we lived in a rural area and had a problem with thieves coming onto private property to steal what they could pawn. We met with the Oconee County Sheriff for tips on how to deter this issue.

One guy raised his hand and said “Can I shoot them if I catch them with my lawnmower trying to leave my property?”

The sheriff said there is an old law in SC that seems to indicate he could. (Going back to the days where theft could severely affect a family.) The sheriff then said, “But would you really want to live with that for the rest of your life? You would be arrested and go before a grand jury. You could expect your attorney fees to be around $10,000. So, was the lawnmower worth it? What if the grand jury said you should be held accountable?

You get my drift. As responsible gun owners and family providers we need to think this through NOW and not make decisions in anger. The vast majority of us would not want to take another life over a lawnmower and risk being taken from our family which would almost certainly be bad for our family we are trying to protect.

A firearm is a very big responsibility. I think situations through all the time when I am out and about to prepare for what can happen. What car to jump behind. Where to duck behind.

I think about the churchgoer at the Texas church who was taken out by the second shotgun blast by the bad guy. He froze and tried to draw. Cost him his life. Taught me something. The bad guy was taken out by Jack Wilson. (Now the second churchgoer who was shot may have decided to give his life to keep the shotgun off someone else. I don’t know. Either way he is a hero to me.)

Best wishes.