It’s not about the guns—it’s about the people involved
Mass media won’t say, but it’s not suburbanites, right?
It has become totally obvious to everyone except the people nominally in control. The media is carefully obscuring the truth. So-called “gun control” is totally out of control, a product of ceaseless rhetoric, subversion and failed policy, with daylight murders on city streets a common occurrence. It is not widespread, and not everyone is doing it.
• Inner-city ghetto dwellers have lost all respect for the sanctity of life and no longer have any compunction about unleashing deadly force in the middle of town, on foot and from vehicles.
• Guns have become playthings for them, with no training, no background checks, and no authority figure providing any semblance of order. That includes family members, peers, police and educators.
• “Defund the police” movements, a Democrat-led concoction, basically detested by Republicans, is propelling and encouraging the violence and promoting lawless behavior. Deny it at your peril.
• Refusal by Democrat-appointed prosecutors and their go-soft policies to do anything about hundreds of felony perpetrators roaming free with mile-long rap sheets exacerbates the problem. So-called “news” media play along—as if they can’t figure out what’s happening. For shame.
• Nominating a head of the BATFE whose historically well-known attitude is vehemently against an armed public, at a time when people need to be armed more than ever, is a slap at our Constitution, the right to arms, and the rule of law, but Democrats act as if they’re not aware of these facts.
“If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught is to fear his victim.” –Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC
• Refusal by Democrat leaders to support use of force by sworn officers and backing them up by tough prosecutorial action will of necessity lead to the use of force by the citizenry to protect itself. It is—a situation you should not want to encourage or find yourself boxed into, but understand it is one properly protected by law.
• If the school system continues to ignore firearms and their quintessential role in history, or worse, portray firearms as evil, instead of righteous tools of justice, honor, self-defense and liberty, the situation will deteriorate further, and rapidly.
• Social programs implemented by Democrats but with Republican acquiescence or cooperation, which have led to fatherless one-parent homes, welfare dependency, uneducated youth, poverty, masses of people incapable of obtaining meaningful employment, and a disrespect for morals and human values, the current murderous civil structure will deepen and become more intractable.
• The willingness of teachers’ unions to adopt flat-out Marxism and propagate it thorough the populace and culture will continue to tear at the fabric of the nation, and work to deteriorate the growing problem often mischaracterized as crime, but a far great difficulty.
• Using all this to build up a groundswell of public support for disarming gun owners who did none of this will drive gun owners and decent people underground, further bifurcate the population, and lead to the demise of what was and still can be the greatest civilization this planet has ever known, creating more wealth, abundance and prosperity for more people than all other systems combined.
• Join Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org to help continue shedding light and rational on the landscape, and preserving the fundamental human rights we get from a source greater than ourselves. You don’t have to be Jewish to join JPFO, you just have to love liberty. Founded by the son of a survivor of the Holocaust, Aaron Zelman, 1946-2020.
“Gun control is not crime control.” “Disarming innocent people is an act of violence.”
As bad as Joe Pee Pads Biden is for gun owners Kalama Knee Pads Harris would be worse.
Fox News is reporting that Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-TX), the former White House physician, has doubts Joe Biden will finish his term as president, and he is calling on Biden to undergo an exam and disclose the results publicly.
“Our cities are EXPLODING with drugs & violence,” Jackson tweeted, “because of Democrat ‘defund the police’ policies and the GREAT UNITER Joe Biden deflects to talk about ‘sucking blood out of kids.’ He’s completely LOST it! Needs a cognitive exam NOW!”
But before anyone gets too excited about getting Biden out of office, whether it be voluntary or by invoking the 25th Amendment, better think ahead about his replacement. As vice president, Kamala Harris would immediately be sworn into office, and many believe she would be a disaster. After all, she dropped out of the Democratic primary race early, not because of Republican opposition but because she did not resonate with voters in her own party.
Her message on guns has been crystal clear since she started running for the presidency almost three years ago. She would go after gun owners, give Congress 100 days to pass the kinds of actions she supports, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and if nothing happened, she would take executive action.
As reported at the time by Harper’s Bazaar, “Harris publicly committed to a host of executive actions that she would have undertaken if elected to the Oval Office, including mandating universal background checks, revoking the licenses of (and possibly prosecuting) gun manufacturers who break the law, closing a legal loophole in order to prevent those convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a firearm, and banning AR-15-style assault weapons from being imported into the country.”
When she was California attorney general, Harris was sued by gun rights and retail firearms organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees.
Harris wants to hold gun manufacturers for crimes committed with firearms. In all, Biden may be bad but Harris has the potential to be a lot worse, and if she were to assume office 25 months into Biden’s term, she would be legally eligible to run for her own two full terms.
Bottom line is Harris would be bad news, and not just for gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Her tactic of answering questions she doesn’t want to answer by first being sarcastic and then breaking out into cackling laughter is wearing thin. That doesn’t mean she won’t continue doing it.
Democrats have wanted to be the first party to put a woman in the White House. They missed the mark with Hillary Rodham Clinton, but they might score with Harris.
Biden’s recent debacle during the CNN Townhall when his slip-of-tongue revealed he does want to ban 9mm pistols, and his other gaffes since taking office, and his shifting of gears midstream in a sentence suggest to many, including rep. Jackson, that he is not in full control of his faculties.
In a revealing piece aired by the KFMB in September 2020, the report acknowledged that what the Biden-Harris team wanted to do then was to “make the U.S. like California.” To gun owners in Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, the Dakotas, Utah, Arizona, Texas and elsewhere west of the Mississippi River, that’s the kind of discussion that starts brawls.
The only thing that could change what may be on the horizon is a Republican capture of Capitol Hill—both the Senate and the House of Representatives—in November 2022. With the GOP in control, neither Biden or Harris would accomplish anything. Should Republicans win back the House, it is not inconceivable Nancy Pelosi and other older Democrats would decide to retire.
But it would have to be a decisive GOP victory in November 2022, meaning that every gun owner would have to vote, instead of sitting the election out.
In the meantime, if Harris does somehow take the reins with a Biden departure—he will have, after all, achieved his 47-year quest to win the presidency that began when he first set foot in Washington, D.C.—there could be far more trouble than gun owners care to imagine.
That’s why talk of sending Biden home to write his memoirs should be alarming to gun owners, because while he may be losing momentum, Harris is just warming up.
This sign beyond a doubt will drive liberals out of their minds.
A restaurant in Huntington Beach, California, is trolling the fascists so hard, leftist Twitter is about to blow a gasket.
As California businesses consider requiring proof of vaccination for entry, one rebellious eatery, Basilico’s Pasta e Vino, recently taped a sign to its door that reads “Proof of being unvaccinated required.”
Underneath this warning is an image of a broken syringe and the declaration, “We have zero tolerance for treasonous, anti-American stupidity. Thank you for pondering.”
Basilico’s has a history of thumbing its nose at California’s far-reaching coronavirus mandates. Last year, when the state shut down indoor dining, Basilico’s stayed open, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Later, when the state issued a mask mandate, Basilico’s declared itself a mask-free zone and required patrons to remove their face coverings.
The new sign is just the latest jab at the powers that be, and it is a hilarious one at that.
It is clearly a gag, as it is impossible to prove one is not vaccinated, and an employee confirmed to the dismayed Times that the restaurant is not, in fact, checking anyone’s vaccination status.
Of course, it was all too much for Twitter leftists, many of whom seem to be under the impression that the unvaccinated are keeling over and dying in the streets and that this novel inoculation is the only thing keeping the more enlightened Americans from doing so themselves.
Meanwhile, to the Times, the sign is a “powerful illustration of the backlash against vaccines in some quarters, despite overwhelming evidence they are safe and a strong protection.”
“Officials have been fighting to get more people vaccinated as COVID-19 infections rise but are facing skepticism, misinformation and political opposition from the right,” the outlet added.
Anyone else getting sick of the establishment media and government officials talking down to the unvaccinated?
First of all, it is highly disingenuous to equate skepticism with misinformation; without a healthy dose of the former, one would never be able to discern the latter.
And even if the vaccine is entirely safe and effective, who says anyone has the right to demand we inject something into our bodies against our will?
Whatever happened to personal autonomy, “my body, my choice,” self-governance — liberty?
This is what Basilico’s sign is really about.
It was this willful defiance of tyranny — including the tyranny of social intimidation — that led to the formation of our country, and it is still necessary to ensure we don’t fall prey to the rising totalitarianism invading public and private life.
Twitter leftists may look down their noses at the unvaccinated masses, but it’s not hard to imagine these same people snitching on their neighbors to Big Brother for the good of the nation.
With crime exploding in Philadelphia this a bad decision.
A lot of people don’t like “stop and frisk,” including many gun owners. In their minds, it treats people like criminals who may have done nothing wrong. I get that. I truly do.
However, we’ve also seen that “stop and frisk” helps police catch people committing fairly low-level crimes before they can commit bigger crimes like homicide. Catching a criminal with a firearm, for example, will probably result in that criminal being arrested, but it may also stop that one from killing someone else first.
That’s what we in the business like to call “a win.”
Last month, a federal judge issued an order to begin a three-month pilot program on Aug. 1 in the Philadelphia Police’s 14th District in Northwest Philadelphia. The program will require police officers to ask people engaged in minor offenses to stop and leave the area. Officers can forcibly detain and question the person if they refuse.
The court’s order also includes a program that monitors racial disparities in pedestrian stops and frisks by officers and the development of an accountability and discipline system of those who engage in racially biased stops and frisks.
This is the latest salvo in the war to remove the proactive tool of “Stop & Frisk” in pedestrian stops that police officers need to reduce gun violence and take the truly bad guys and their guns off the street. Stop & Frisk has led to many an illegal gun being discovered and confiscated. Critics of the policy state the Stop & Frisk actions are racially motivated, and more people of color are stopped than white people.
Several Philly cops have told me they are not at all happy with this.
I recall interviewing former New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly a few years ago. Kelly was credited with a historic drop in crime in New York. I asked Kelly what he thought of Stop & Frisk. He said he preferred to call the policy “Street Inquiries” or “Stop, Question & Sometimes Frisk.”
“It is common sense. It says that if people, particularly young people, have a tendency to carry a gun and have the potential for being stopped and having that gun found, they are less likely to carry it, therefore you will have less spontaneous shootings,” Kelly told me. “When stops are done at a reasonable level, I think it will reduce shootings.
Of course, Kelley is right. Especially in states without constitutional carry.
No, that doesn’t apply to those carrying a firearm lawfully. If they have a carry permit, there’s no reason to frisk them.
(I’m not going to get into “stop and frisk” and constitutional carry because that’s a whole other kettle of fish. We’re talking about Philadelphia where they don’t have permitless carry, so it’s irrelevant right now.)
With criminals, though, the higher the likelihood that they’ll be stopped and their gun will be found, the less likely we’re going to see them carry it. Since a lot of shootings aren’t planned and plotted but are instead crimes of opportunity, that can save a lot of lives.
Unfortunately, the people of Philadelphia seem to have an issue with it. This at the same time they’re decrying homicides and are demanding the police do something.
Honestly, they need to make up their minds. “Stop and frisk” might well save lives, but do they want lives saved or do they want to be politically correct. Sometimes, you can’t have both.
Lawrence ‘Benny’ Goodman, the last surviving pilot from Britain’s beloved 617 Squadron, responsible for the Dambuster raids, has died, aged 100. His passing makes Leonard ‘Johnny’ Johnson, a gunner, the last living member of the squadron.
Goodman participated in many of the squadron’s most notable missions, attacking the Tirpitz battleship, the Arnsberg railway, and even Hitler’s “Eagle’s Nest.”
Lawrence ‘Benny’ Goodman
Goodman was born on September 24, 1920, in West London to a Jewish family. His first experience with aircraft came shortly after Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 when he enlisted into the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. In 1940, he joined the RAF.
After he completed his training, Goodman was given his flying badge in April 1942. With a natural talent for flying, he went straight into teaching the practice as a flying instructor. He was transferred to Kingston, Ontario, to train Fleet Air Arm pilots.
He was only in Canada for a short while, as he requested a return back to the UK in September of 1942. He left for the UK on a vessel carrying troops and civilians, but the journey took a terrifying turn when a U-boat torpedoed a US destroyer escort. His own ship was damaged too, causing him to lose his luggage.
He arrived safely on dry land and began training in bombers, eventually joining the legendary 617 Squadron. He was the first pilot without operational experience to join the elite squadron, a true testament to his airmanship.
His first action came in August 1944 when he attacked the U-boat pens in La Rochelle, France. On this mission, he flew as co-pilot to an experienced member of 617 Squadron to allow him to learn and familiarize himself with an operational mission. Goodman’s first mission with a crew of his own came a week later.
In October, Goodman participated in an attack on the infamous German battleship Tirpitz, an attack that failed to finish the already wounded ship off.
His next notable action came in March 1945, when he and his crew scored a direct hit on the Arnsberg viaduct in Germany. On most of the missions he had flown before, Goodman’s Lancaster had been carrying the 12,000 lb Tall Boy bomb, but on this particular mission, he carried the enormous 22,000 lb Grand Slam bomb. Both of these bombs were so heavy and large that only the Lancaster bomber was able to carry them.
In April, he flew a mission to Hamburg, Germany, where they fought off Me 262 jet fighters, and also attacked Hitler’s “Eagle’s Nest.”
After the war, he continued on with the RAF, participating in the Berlin Airlift, transporting casualties from the Korean War, and flying with a photo-reconnaissance squadron. He retired from the service in 1964. In that time, he flew many aircraft, including jet fighters and bombers. He retained his piloting license until his 90s.
In 2017, Goodman was awarded the Légion d’honneur, France’s highest award.
The CEO of the RAF Museum, Maggie Appleton MBE, said, “So many of us will be mourning Benny while celebrating his outstanding contribution during the Second World War and his faultless RAF Service.
“The RAF Museum has been fortunate to call Benny a friend.
“He supported us in sharing the incredible story of Jewish servicemen and women during the war and the brave airmen who were in a particularly perilous situation should they have been captured.
“Benny was a special man who lived a long and fruitful life and brought joy and inspiration to many.
“He will be sadly missed by his friends at the RAF Museum, but we will ensure that his stories live on to inspire generations to come
Ten years behind bars is a good start but he should get twenty years.
Highway Patrol Trooper Timothy Norman, 47, of Browns Summit, NC, allegedly made a practice of selling ex-police firearms, sometimes directly from the trunk of his patrol car while on duty. While this is perfectly legal in most states — though I’m sure against department policy (at least the “while on duty” part) — selling firearms to a known felon is most assuredly not legal.
Trooper Timothy Jay Norman, 47, allegedly sold some of those firearms to 33-year-old felon Tommy Lee Hudson of Reidsville, someone Norman had known since they both graduated from basic law enforcement training in 2010, the DOJ said in court documents.
Greensboro.com has the story, detailing how Norman sold “many firearms” to his friend, Tommy Hudson, even after Hudson was convicted of felony assault back in 2016. Norman also sold pistols, while in uniform and on-duty, to an FBI informant including $3,200 worth of firearms and ammunition sold to both Hudson and the informant in a single meeting just six weeks ago on June 8th.
Norman is now being charged by the US DOJ in federal court and is facing 10 years in prison.
The Smith & Wesson “Victory Model“ was chambered in .38 Spl. and had a 4″ barrel as made under a World War II U.S. Navy contract. It is seen here being fired by Navy cadets.
In mid-1940, when it was becoming increasingly likely that the United States would be drawn into the war raging in Europe, the U.S. Navy, along with all branches of our armed forces, was evaluating the projected demand for arms. The standard handgun for the Navy at the time was the M1911A1 .45 ACP pistol. It became pretty obvious that the demand for these pistols would soon overwhelm the available supply, particularly since the Army and Marines would also be clamoring for handguns when war began.
The Navy adopted a policy of equipping its personnel with as many M1911A1 pistols as possible and obtaining a secondary source of handguns for “less critical requirements.” It was determined that the most suitable gun for this purpose was the Smith & Wesson Military & Police .38 Spl. revolver with a 4″ barrel. The M&P was Smith & Wesson’s “K-frame Military & Police” revolver which had proven to be popular in the civilian marketplace prior to the war.
This course of action was related in the Ordnance Dept. document “Project Supporting Paper; Miscellaneous Pistols and Revolvers”: “In addition to the M1917 revolvers … sizeable numbers of various other revolvers and pistols were procured by Ordnance. The United States Navy, unable to obtain the standardized M1911A1 Pistol, placed contracts directly with Smith & Wesson for the Caliber .38 Special, Military and Police Model Revolver.“
(l.) Victory Model revolvers are distinguished by a lanyard ring and their “V”-prefix serial numbers stamped into the butt’s bottom. (r.) This original 50-count box of .38 Spl. ammunition, featuring 158-gr. jacketed bullets, was made by Remington for issue with Victory Model revolvers.
Although the U.S. Navy specified that the revolvers made under its contract be chambered for the .38 Spl. cartridge (technically, the .38 S&W Spl.), the British government also ordered large numbers of similar sixguns from Smith & Wesson chambered for another cartridge, the “.38-200”—which was essentially the .38 S&W cartridge with a 200-gr. lead bullet. This was later changed to a 175-gr. jacketed bullet.
The .38 S&W and .38 Spl. cartridges are sometimes confused, but they are two different chamberings and are not interchangeable; the .38 S&W is shorter and has a slightly larger diameter than the .38 Spl. As related in an Ordnance Dept. document: “From October 1941 to March 1945, Smith & Wesson produced the Caliber .38-200 Revolver for the British Army. This weapon was almost identical to the U.S. Navy’s Caliber .38 Special Revolver except for caliber and barrel length. The British revolver has a 5″ barrel, while the U.S. Navy used the 4-inch.”
While most of the S&W .38-200 revolvers did have 5″ barrels, some were made in 4″ and 6″ lengths as well. The 5″ barrel was made standard after April 10, 1942. Ordnance records indicate that a total of 590,305 of the .38-200 revolvers were manufactured by Smith & Wesson between October 1941 and March 1945, which was significantly more than the number of S&W .38 Spl. revolvers produced during the war.
Although the majority of S&W .38-200 revolvers were made under British contract and sent to Great Britain, some were also used by the U.S. military, chiefly for security purposes and for arming allies, such as resistance fighters. As discussed in Charles W. Pate’s excellent book, U.S. Handguns of World War II—The Secondary Pistols And Revolvers: “It is not a generally known fact, but the U.S. Army also used these arms (S&W .38-200 revolvers), though on a very limited basis.
There are a few documented cases of U.S. Army issue in the continental United States, primarily for guard purposes, and more substantial numbers were used in combat theaters. Several .38-200 serial numbers were found in OSS [Office of Strategic Services] hand receipt records of overseas units. But the revolver’s association with the OSS was primarily in that organization’s role in supplying resistance forces. Many thousands of .38-200 S&Ws were channeled through the OSS. In addition, it was the OSS that requested development of U.S. jacketed ammunition for the revolver.
“Clearly, the .38-200 S&W made a significant contribution to the war effort, especially with our allies. But with the end of the war drawing near and with the need for additional handguns lessening, the remaining .38-200 contracts were cancelled during the first quarter of 1945. Most components still in production were diverted to use in the .38 Special Victory Model, and surplus components in a finished state that were not interchangeable with the .38 Special, such as cylinders and barrels, were shipped to field service depots.
“After the war, thousands of the revolvers remained in the U.S. Army inventory as a regularly stocked item, but again, not for general U.S. issue. The primary use of these revolvers continued to be for arming foreign military and security personnel.”U.S. Navy pilot Lt. James Pope, shown here aboard the U.S.S. Yorktown in October 1943 (l.), had a Victory Model revolver in the shoulder holster on his left side. This “Property of U.S. Navy” marking on the side of a Victory Model revolver (above) has been enhanced with red ink, which was often the case.
Smith & Wesson U.S. Navy .38 Spl. Victory Model Revolver
While all of the .38 revolvers made by Smith & Wesson during World War II were dubbed “Victory Model,” the term as generally used today refers to the .38 Spl. 4″-barreled revolvers as made under U.S. Navy and U.S. Ordnance Dept. contracts. The Navy initially bypassed the standard procurement procedure of ordering its small arms under the auspices of the U.S. Army Ordnance Dept. and issued production contracts directly to Smith & Wesson. This course of action, however, soon resulted in problems, and Ordnance eventually got involved. As reported in the above-referenced “Project Supporting Paper; Miscellaneous Pistols and Revolvers”:
“The contracts at Smith & Wesson for Caliber .38 Special Revolvers were taken over by Ordnance, ASF (Army Service Force) in early 1942. Under Navy contracts, no inspector was stationed at the plant, and quality of revolvers suffered as a result. The Resident Inspector of Ordnance at Smith & Wesson worked under the handicap of having no drawings or gages with which to conduct a thorough inspection. The manufacturer had no complete set of drawings for the revolver so Ordnance inspection consisted of a visual and manual examination, function, proof and target firing. During the early production, as much as 30% of a day’s production was rejected for various defects.”
With the increased oversight by Ordnance, including more stringent inspection standards, the quality of the Smith & Wesson .38 revolvers continued to improve. The .38 Spl. revolvers built under Navy contract had 4″ barrels and the standard finish was Parkerizing. The serial number, having a “V” (Victory) prefix, was stamped on the butt. A lanyard ring was also attached to the butt. Some early production .38 Spl. Victory Model revolvers were not stamped with Navy markings at the factory.
In most cases, these guns were subsequently stamped “Property of U.S. Navy” on the left side of the frame. As production continued, the Navy markings were factory-applied to the topstrap above the cylinder. Approximately 65,000 Victory Model revolvers were purchased by the Navy directly from Smith & Wesson. After Army Ordnance took over procurement, the marking was changed to “U.S. Property G.H.D.” The “G.H.D.” marking signified U.S. Army Col. (later Brig. Gen.) Guy H. Drewry, head of the Springfield Ordnance District (SOD) in which Smith & Wesson was located.
Drewry’s initials will be found on other types of arms made in the SOD, including Winchester M1 Garand rifles, M1 carbines and military shotguns. It is sometimes believed that such initials represent the person who actually inspected the guns, but that was not the case. Rather, it indicates that the arms were inspected by Ordnance personnel operating under Col. Drewry’s authority.
A S&W Victory Model revolver is shown next to a World War II U.S. Navy shoulder holster (above) with cartridge loops on the strap. Note the markings applied to the topstrap of a Victory Model revolver manufactured under U.S. Navy contract (right).
The standard ammunition procured for issue with the .38 Spl. Victory Model revolvers was manufactured by the Remington Arms Co. The cartridges had 158-gr. steel-jacketed bullets, and the cases were head-stamped “REM UMC 38 SPL.” Standard commercial .38 Spl. ammunition with lead bullets could not be utilized in overseas combat zones due to provisions of the Hague Convention, thus the necessity for the steel-jacketed bullets. The cartridges were packed in green, commercial-style, 50-round cardboard cartons with lot numbers in the 5,000 range. There was also a limited quantity of .38 Spl. tracer cartridges produced during the war intended for signaling purposes.
Initially, the Navy restricted issuance of the M1911A1 .45 ACP pistols to overseas combat zones and used the .38-cal. revolvers for stateside Navy and Coast Guard personnel. Part of the reason for this policy was to mitigate the logistical problems inherent to having handguns chambered for two different cartridges in oversea theaters. Nonetheless, it didn’t take long for the impracticality of this policy to become apparent.
The lighter .38 revolver was actually preferred over the heavier .45 pistol by many Navy and Marine Corps aviators. By mid-1944, the Navy reversed its original policy and began to issue M1911A1 .45 pistols to some non-combatant personnel, such as guards aboard merchant vessels so that the .38 revolvers they would ordinarily be armed with could be available to flight crews.
The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aviators generally carried their Victory Model .38 revolvers in a leather shoulder holster, often with web loops sewn onto the strap to hold extra cartridges. A leather hip holster was also made for these revolvers, but the shoulder holster was generally preferred by pilots due to space constraints in the cramped cockpits. The hip holsters were used more often by security personnel, but period photos show some flyers with their Victory Model revolvers in hip holsters.
While the U.S. Navy was the primary user of the S&W .38 Spl. Victory Model revolvers, Ordnance records indicate that some of the guns were also purchased by the U.S. Army and the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). As was the case with the S&W .38-200 revolvers previously discussed, the majority of these .38 Spl. revolvers were undoubtedly used for arming foreign security personnel and, in the case of the OSS, irregular military units.
However, some of the revolvers were utilized overseas by American combat troops, including U.S. Marines. As stated in R.G. Rosenquist’s Our Kind Of War, Illustrated Saga Of The U.S. Marine Raiders: “The M1911A1 .45 automatic pistol was the standard issue sidearm, but also plenty of .38 caliber Smith & Wesson ‘Victory Model’ revolvers saw action.” There are a number of contemporary accounts of .38-cal. revolvers being used in combat during World War II by American troops. Often the exact model is not mentioned, but, based on the numbers made and wide issuance, the odds are that most were the S&W .38 Spl. Victory Model.
For example, Marine Raider R.G. “Rudy” Rosenquist carried a .38 revolver, quite likely a S&W Victory model, and found it to be a literal life-saver during fierce fighting on Guam when he was bayoneted by a Japanese soldier: “[A]s the enemy soldier … stepped over him, Rudy reached up and grasped the man’s canteen strap and was yanked to his feet. The Japanese tore loose and rushed on. Now a second enemy soldier came running, and Rudy took a bayonet wound in the stomach. By this time, he had got out a .38 pistol, which he emptied into the man, who fell back upon the Marine at the machine gun … .”
As the S&W Victory Model .38 revolver was becoming a commonly issued sidearm, a problem arose that caused a temporary halt in the procurement of the guns. As discussed in an Ordnance Dept. document: “The death of a sailor, resulting from dropping a loaded Smith & Wesson, Caliber .38 Special Revolver prompted a test by the Navy Department to determine (the) effectiveness of the Smith & Wesson Hammer Block. Results of the test showed the Hammer Block to be unsatisfactory. This test was confirmed by a more carefully conducted test at Springfield Armory, authorized by Office, Chief of Ordnance.
Work was commenced immediately by Ordnance and Smith & Wesson to develop an improved Hammer Block capable of preventing discharge even if the revolver fell several feet, striking on the Hammer. This was desired because of the possibility of a seaman dropping a revolver from one deck of a ship to a lower deck. Deliveries of revolvers equipped with the present improved Hammer Block commenced in early 1945. The improved Hammer Blocks are vastly superior to the old type, samples tested having withstood 90-foot lbs. impact without firing.”
The death of the sailor due the S&W Victory Model’s flawed hammer block design resulted in the U.S. Navy requesting that Colt .38 revolvers be supplied for future requirements instead of the Smith & Wesson revolvers. However, it was reported that “ … improved quality and the quick development of a new hammer block convinced the Navy to stay with the S&W revolvers.”This Smith & Wesson advertisement touts its Victory models and promotes the guns for plant defense by guards. It states that the revolver was adopted in 1942 as “ … the official sidearm for all U.S. Navy Flying Personnel, and is widely used by U.S. Marine Corps Flyers, the U.S. Coast Guard and in the Merchant Marine.” The gun was marketed for S&W via the Defense Supplies Corp.
Victory Model Revolvers With 2″ Barrels
While the vast majority of the S&W .38 Spl. Victory Model revolvers had 4″ barrels, there was also a little-known variant that was otherwise identical except for having a 2″ barrel. The revolvers were the subject of a May 10, 1944, letter from Stuart K. Barnes, vice president of Defense Supplies Corp., to Capt. F.M. Volberg, Small Arms Branch, Chief of Ordnance:
“[W]e have received advice from Smith & Wesson, Incorporated that they are prepared to produce a limited number of 2″ barrel .38 caliber Special revolvers without impairing their production schedule.
“The War Production Board, under the date May 8, 1944, has given approval for the production by Smith & Wesson of 500 .38 caliber Special 2″ barrel revolvers in order to supply essential non-military users. Therefore, it would be appreciated if permission would be granted for the production of 500 2″ barrel revolvers in lieu of 500 4″ barrel revolvers on subject contract at the earliest convenience and placed in the stock of Defense Supplies Corporation at Smith & Wesson Incorporated.
“These 500 revolvers would not be additional to the contract of the 35,000 4″ barrel .38 caliber revolvers, and would not constitute an increase in cost to Ordnance and this Corporation.”
According to factory records, the 500 Victory Model 2″-barrel revolvers were shipped to the Office of Strategic Services on Aug. 22, 1944. It has been reported that some were utilized by couriers, intelligence personnel and other individuals needing a handgun that was a bit more concealable than the standard 4″-barrel revolver. The only martial marking typically applied was a small “flaming bomb” insignia on the top of the frame.
The U.S. military “flaming bomb” insignia was applied to this S&W Victory Model with 2″ barrel.
It is easy to identify a genuine 2″-barrel Victory Model revolver from a 4″ revolver that subsequently had the barrel shortened. If a barrel was cut down from 4″ to 2″, a portion of the lettering on the barrel would be missing and a replacement front sight would be required, sure indication the gun had been modified. There was a well-made leather shoulder holster fabricated specifically for these 2″ Victory Model revolvers that had “US” embossed on the front. This would be suggestive that some were indeed used by U.S. military personnel. Original examples of these revolvers are quite uncommon today.
The S&W Victory Model revolver’s role in World War II is sometimes minimized or given little more than a cursory mention. Production of the Smith & Wesson .38 Spl. Victory Model revolver under U.S. government contracts (DSC, Navy and Ordnance) between 1941 and 1945 totalled the not-insignificant sum of 352,315 guns. While it wasn’t employed as extensively as was the M1911A1 pistol, it accompanied many U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aviators during the pivotal battles of the Pacific Theater. Its contributions to the war effort should not be overlooked.
Even though none were manufactured under government contract after 1945, the Victory Model revolver’s legacy extended well beyond World War II. It continued to be issued to some Navy and Marine Corps aircrews during the Korean and Vietnam wars and beyond. Uncle Sam certainly got his money’s worth from the Victory Model!
With an appropriate target, a shot timer, your EDC handgun and a mere 10 rounds of ammunition, you can regularly practice and hone your shooting skills to maintain readiness, even in the midst of an ammo shortage.
With ammunition expensive and hard to come by, making every shot count has never been more important. When I began writing this column, the emphasis was on drills using less than a box of ammunition; now I think it prudent to suggest drills requiring an even smaller number of rounds.
While I described the Gunsite School Drill in a column several years ago, I think now is a good time to look at it again. Why? Because it is an excellent Skills Check and only requires 10 rounds of ammunition. It’s the sort of drill you can run from time to time to check your skill level and with ammunition prices and scarcity being what they are, it’s an economical drill.I often use it when testing new pistols to find out if the sights, trigger and gun, in general, are working for me.
The School Drill, while seemingly simple, involves complex skills performed in short time periods. Drawing from the holster, aligning the sights, focusing on the front sight and pressing the trigger without disturbing the sights are some of them—and all necessary—if you’re to be successful. Speed is of the essence with 1.5-second shots into a head-shot zone about the size of a 3×5-inch card being the starting point.
We shoot the School Drill from the holster, but if you are not confident in quickly drawing the pistol or you’re shooting on a range where it isn’t allowed, it can be run from a low-ready, muzzle-depressed starting position.
You’ll need an Option or silhouette target, 10 rounds of ammunition and a shooting partner to time you.
Here’s the drill:
3 yards One round to the head-scoring zone in 1.5 seconds. Repeat. Total: two rounds
3 yards Two rounds to the center-scoring zone in 1.5 seconds. Total: two rounds
7 yards Two rounds to the center-scoring zone in 1.5 seconds. Total: two rounds
10 yards Two rounds to the center-scoring zone in 2 seconds.Total: two rounds
15 yards Two rounds to the center-scoring zone, fired from kneeling, starting from standing, in 3.5 seconds. Total: two rounds
If you score the head- and center-scoring rings as five points, the possible score is 50. Hits on the silhouette but outside the scoring zones are good for two points. Shots off the target or not within the time limits are awarded zero points. Perfect scores are, well, perfect. Scores in the 40s are very good.
Want to attend the Gunsite Defensive Pistol 250 class and hope to receive an Expert rating? If you’re in one of my classes you need to shoot a perfect School Drill, among other things. You can practice this five times with one box of ammunition. I assure you, it’s a good investment.
Too many DemocRat controlled cities are too soft on crime and criminals.
The past few weeks have seen a typical display of just how formulaic and predictable our local elected officials are as they echo national talking points while trying to micromanage our lives, threaten gun rights, and in general treat us like incompetent rubes who couldn’t exist on our own without their guiding wisdom. They made big claims about wanting to deal with violent crime but presented no actual solutions.
On July 12, Gainesville City Commissioner David Arreola recommended using American Rescue Plan money to fund a Department of Youth Services. You can find this quote at the 1:02:00 mark in the video or search the transcript for the tenth instance of “arreola”:
“We’ve had a lot of violence. Teenagers involved in that violence. We had a mass shooting at the American Legion, and it was gang-related violence as well. Someone lost their life. I really, really care deeply about including — I feel like it’s an emergency. I feel like all across the nation, it isn’t just Gainesville, all across the nation we’re seeing increases in violent crime that’s been reflective of the stress, the psychological damage this last year has done to us as human beings”
The irony that most of the psychological damage was probably caused by arbitrary lockdowns by power-hungry politicians was lost on Arreola.
The next day, County Commissioner Anna Prizzia was on the same script. She nearly sobbed, “We’ve got young people as young as my daughter getting access to guns and shooting at each other… if they don’t have anything to do, they are going to find something to do.” (Search this transcript for “gun violence” to find her remarks.)
The sheer ignorance of these commissioners never ceases to amaze anyone who bothers to listen to their dangerous ramblings. Their ideas are nothing new and have already failed at other times and in other places.
Midnight basketball was started in the mid-1980s, became part of President George H.W. Bush’s “thousand points of light,” and was instituted in President Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill… the same bill that NPR calls a “Terrible Mistake.” At its peak, the midnight basketball program involved over 10,000 men in 50 cities, but “the statistics didn’t bear out the effectiveness,” according to Joan Niesen. Not surprisingly, failed programs are frequently resurrected, and midnight basketball is no different. Since 2019, programs have been started in California, Connecticut, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. It will not be a surprise when Arreola’s Department of Youth Services starts up our own midnight basketball league.
Why the sudden push for government to play parent to young criminals and would-be criminals? The City’s original plan to solve gun violence was simply to pass more stringent gun laws. Our commissioners want to mirror laws in places like New York City, Washington, D.C., and Chicago. However, preventing legal ownership of scary-looking rifles and large capacity magazines will do nothing to prevent crime and would violate Florida law. Arreola is one of four commissioners who are personally suing the state over its preemption of local firearms regulation (790.33). They never bother to say how additional laws will reduce gun violence, but these policies are guaranteed to violate Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.
A quick glance at Florida Statues, Title XLVI, Chapter 790, reveals over a dozen laws related to weapons and firearms. Here’s a short list:
790.01 Unlicensed carrying of concealed weapons or concealed firearms
790.07 Persons engaged in criminal offense, having weapons
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms
790.115 Possessing or discharging weapons or firearms at a school-sponsored event or on school property prohibited; penalties; exceptions
790.15 Discharging firearm in public or on residential property
790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties
790.169 Juvenile offenders; release of names and addresses
790.17 Furnishing weapons to minors under 18 years of age or persons of unsound mind and furnishing firearms to minors under 18 years of age prohibited
790.19 Shooting into or throwing deadly missiles into dwellings, public or private buildings, occupied or not occupied; vessels, aircraft, buses, railroad cars, streetcars, or other vehicles
790.23 Felons and delinquents; possession of firearms, ammunition, or electronic weapons or devices unlawful
790.233 Possession of firearm or ammunition prohibited when person is subject to an injunction against committing acts of domestic violence, stalking, or cyberstalking
790.235 Possession of firearm or ammunition by violent career criminal unlawful
790.27 Alteration or removal of firearm serial number or possession, sale, or delivery of firearm with serial number altered or removed prohibited
Note that Prizzia’s concern is already addressed by Statute 790.17, which makes it a crime to provide a firearm to a minor without parent or guardian approval. It’s a third degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison or a $5,000 fine. There are also statutes making it illegal to discharge a firearm in public or to use a firearm in the commission of another crime (like shooting someone), but maybe we need another one specifically for young daughters.
There’s renewed political interest in gun violence because Gainesville just had drive-by shootings on July 18 and July 19. The perpetrators already broke several laws, so an additional law preventing specific types of weapons won’t make a difference. More gun laws would be as productive at stopping drive-by shootings as a law preventing certain types of vehicles.
Without being able to take the simple (but illegal) path of new gun regulations, the commissioners want to be seen as doing something to reduce violent crime. While Alachua County and Gainesville aren’t facing major crime waves like Chicago or Detroit, our crime rate here is above state levels and growing faster.
Based on the most recent Florida Department of Law Enforcement annual report, total crime was down by 14.1% statewide, but only down 3.3% in Alachua County. Our crime rate per 100,000 population is nearly 50% higher than the state level (3,208 vs. 2,152). Worse, violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) was up 14.7% in Alachua County, compared to only 2.3% statewide. Rapes were the only violent crime that decreased from 2019 to 2020 in Alachua County. Here’s how the other crimes changed from 2019 to 2020 in Alachua County and Florida:
A majority of the crime problem comes from a very small minority of the population. Based on the Alachua County Jail booking logs, 2,729 unique individuals have been booked so far this year (as of July 16). That’s just 1% of the population, and the 80-20 rule generally applies for the real “bad apples” in that group: roughly 1 in 5 were booked more than once so far this year, roughly 1 in 5 were booked with 3 or more charges, and just over 1 in 5 were booked with violent offenses.
Stopping violent crime is not rocket science. The simple solution is more police, not less. Steven Mello from Princeton University looked at hiring grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Community Oriented Policing Services and found “large and statistically significant effects of police on robbery, larceny, and auto theft.”
The opposite is also true: less police and weak enforcement leads to more crime. Barry Latzer, professor of criminal justice at City University of New York and author of The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America, wrote: “When police, courts, jails and prisons are unable to cope with crime, their failures serve as an incentive to increased lawbreaking.” He cites a study that found half of released federal prisoners are rearrested within 21 months of discharge.
Earlier this month, Mayor Lauren Poe said, “You know, we laid out a challenge about five years ago to find a way to arrest fewer people.” That’s practically a confession of at least one reason for our increased crime rates.
Rather than pushing national talking points on crime (gun control, diversion programs, prisoner releases, youth activities, etc.), our commissioners should find ways to get more police on the streets. They should also push the state attorney to be more aggressive with repeat offenders and encourage our state legislature to toughen laws on criminals, not focus on new restrictions for law-abiding citizens.
Simple changes to existing criminal statutes would probably have a bigger impact on violent crime by keeping criminals off the streets rather than banning certain types of weapons, which only affects law-abiding citizens. For example, Statute 790.07 says the display, threat, use, or attempted use of a weapon to commit a felony or while under indictment is a third degree felony. (In that statute, “weapon” is defined as “any dirk, knife, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife, plastic knife, or blunt-bladed table knife.”) It’s a second degree felony to do the same with a firearm, but the “or while under indictment” language is conspicuously missing for firearms. Using the same language for firearms as weapons seems like an easy fix to crack down on gun violence.
Another easy fix: Statute 790.169 allows the release of the name and address of minors convicted of any offense involving the possession or use of a firearm. If juvenile crime is a problem and we don’t want juveniles using guns, how about automatically charging them as adults if they use a firearm?
Probably the best way to reduce gun violence is to directly punish the people who have illegal guns. Statute 790.27 makes it a first degree misdemeanor to knowingly sell, deliver, or possess a firearm with an altered or removed serial number. That should be increased to a third degree felony, the same penalty as the act of altering or removing the serial number. The charge should also apply to anyone in possession of a stolen firearm. These laws would punish criminals with illegal guns and not affect law-abiding gun owners.
Crime was also increasing two years ago when Alachua County was pushing to avoid arresting non-violent drug users (in the name of equity). The Alachua County Sheriff at the time, Sadie Darnell, said she was in favor of second chances “but not about 4th, 5th, or 6th chances.”
It’s one thing to give second chances to non-violent drug users. It’s another to let repeat violent offenders roam the streets to inflict harm on more victims. That’s why Governor DeSantis vetoed Senator Keith Perry’s bill to expunge all juvenile records, not just first-time misdemeanors. A juvenile who commits a misdemeanor (with no additional offenses) deserves a second chance. That’s the current law. Why should juveniles with multiple misdemeanors or a violent felony have records expunged?
Sentencing guidelines are found in Statute 775.082 for prison terms and 775.083 for fines. More stringent guidelines for habitual offenders are outlined in Statute 775.084, which is a long, rambling, incoherent mess (over 3,200 words and prints over 5 pages). It has different requirements for “habitual felony offender,” “habitual violent felony offender,” “three-time violent felony offender,” and “violent career criminal.” Expunging juvenile records makes it even harder to identify habitual offenders and career criminals.
This all brings us to the best way to prevent violent crime: No bail for repeat violent offenders. Blaze Media writer Daniel Horowitz has published numerous columns on the problems with the “criminal justice reform” agenda, which he calls “the jailbreak movement.” Since 2018, Horowitz has been warning about the consequences of jailbreak and says we have an under-incarceration problem. Each week Horowitz discusses stories about violent criminals who are released with little or no bail and go on to commit additional violent felonies.
A particularly horrific example of the dangers of violent criminals let out with no bail is the death of Michelle Cummings, who was visiting Annapolis, MD, on June 29 to see her son’s induction at the Naval Academy. She was killed by an errant bullet fired at a rival gang by Angelo Reno Harrod. Harrod had eight convictions between 2010 and 2018, including robbery and assault with a deadly weapon (pistol whipping a driver over a $2 fare). He was charged twice this year (February 10 and April 12) for gun crimes and was released on home detention awaiting trial.
Extreme examples like this haven’t happened in Alachua County (that we know of), but we’ve had 30 people arrested four or more times already in 2021. Two-thirds of those had at least one violent offense or weapons charge, including two for kidnapping and one for murder. However, it’s difficult to tell from the booking logs whether these repeated offenses were committed after release or were additional charges while they were being held.
This is not a debate about whether jails are meant to be rehabilitative or punitive. They are meant to lock up people who endanger the lives and property of others. There is no excuse for violent offenders to be free to commit more crimes while awaiting trial.
Just last week, Horowitz said, “The purpose of a government… first and foremost, is to protect us from bad people so that we don’t have a dog-eat-dog world where the strongest and most evil and violent succeed. But instead that’s the one thing our government won’t do.”
Our local officials are more interested in preventing urban sprawl and giving rights to rivers than in fulfilling government’s basic job to protect life, liberty, and property. When they talk about preventing violent crime, we should be wary of their actual motives because they’ve shown no serious attempt to deal with crime.
After reading this article I want to try some Creme Brulee.
The history of crème brûlée is complicated and hotly debated. Chefs in England, Spain and France all claim they created the first version of this delicious dessert. Food historians note that custards were popular in the Middle Ages, and recipes for custards circulated widely through Europe. So it’s almost impossible to find the first recipe for this dessert. The question is: who was the first to caramelize the sugar on top of custard and to serve it as a dessert?
England’s Contribution to Crème Brûlée History
Lore says that sometime during the 17th century, a young college student supposedly presented the kitchen staff with a new recipe: a creamy unsweetened custard with a caramelized sugar topping. But this new dessert was spurned by the staff until the student became a fellow. With his credibility established, others in the kitchen took interest in his creation. It was named “Trinity Burnt Cream,” and its popularity grew.
While it cannot be proved that Trinity College in Cambridge actually invented the sublime treat which they also note as unlikely, their version of crème brûlée is a staple on their menu. The kitchen staff has an iron with the college crest that is used for making the burnt topping.
Brits vehemently deny that Trinity Brunt Cream and crème brûlée are even the same dish. While the French version is very sweet, British Trinity Cream is unsweetened, and the sugar topping is thicker and crustier.
Crema Catalana: Spain’s Claim to Crème Brûlée
The Spanish claim their version of crema catalana is the true predecessor of crème brûlée. However, creama catalana is not baked in a water bath, or bain marie, as crème brûlée is. Crema catalana is served on Saint Joseph’s Day (March 19th).
French Crème Brûlée Recipe
Most people assume that crème brûlée is a French dish. After all, the name is French. However, the name crème brûlée didn’t become popular until the 19th century. Crème brûlée is probably just another version of a custard recipe that was passed around through the Middle Ages.
The French version of this dessert is baked in a pan of water and is chilled for several hours. The custard is sprinkled with sugar and then caramelized with a kitchen blow torch and served quickly, so the contrast between smooth and cold custard and crunchy and hot topping is preserved.
Recipe by Linda Johnson Larsen
5 egg yolks
1 whole egg
2 cups heavy whipping cream
1/2 cup granulated sugar
2 teaspoons vanilla
1/4 cup granulated sugar
Preheat the oven to 350°F.
Butter 4 (6 ounce) ramekins or oven proof custard cups with unsalted butter and set aside.
In a large bowl, beat the egg yolks with the whole egg until smooth.
Stir in the cream.
Strain this mixture through a sieve into another clean large bowl.
Stir in 1/2 cup sugar, vanilla, and salt with a wire whisk until the sugar dissolves.
Pour the mixture into the prepared ramekins.
Place the ramekins into a 9″ x 13″ glass baking dish.
Carefully pour boiling water around the ramekins, being careful not to get any water into the custard.
Bake the custard for 30 to 40 minutes or until the custard is just set.
Carefully remove the ramekins from the pan and set on a wire rack. Let cool for 30 minutes, then cover and refrigerate the custards for at least 4 hours.
When you’re ready to serve, take the ramekins out of the fridge and place them on a heatproof surface.
Uncover and sprinkle each custard evenly with 1 tablespoon sugar. Using a kitchen torch, brown the sugar, moving the torch evenly over the top of each custard. Be careful not to burn the sugar.
Serve immediately. Each diner uses a spoon to break the hard sugar top and enjoy the custard and crisp topping together.
Variations and Tips
In many ways, crème brûlée is a timeless and classic recipe. From its predecessor of the sweet custards of the Middle Ages, to the variations of today, this popular dessert can be modified in many ways.
Flavoring the Custard
Some versions of this dish are very sweet, and some are more savory. The French tend to add a lot of sugar to the custard while other versions require a flavoring of vanilla. However, there are a variety of variations on custard flavoring:
Zest of orange or lemon is a popular variation, usually added to a sweeter custard.
Vanilla bean, cocoa, or even coconut extract are used in some recipes.
Fresh fruit is a sometimes welcome addition to this dish. Raspberries or blueberries are delicious with the rich custard.
Liqueurs can be added. Add 1 to 2 tablespoons of Grand Marnier, Amaretto, Kahlua, or Irish Cream to the custard before baking.
Bittersweet grated chocolate is sometimes sprinkled on top of the custard before the sugar topping is added.
The basic definition of a crème brûlée is a smooth and creamy custard topped with caramelized sugar. However, the type of sugar or other topping used, and the way it is caramelized can vary.
Sometimes liquor is adding to the topping and lit on fire for a dramatic presentation.
You can place the custards on a baking sheet and broil the sugar topping for a few minutes instead of using a blow torch.
You can use brown sugar in place of the granulated sugar for the topping.
Origins Aside, This Is a Classic Dish
The world may never know who invented crème brûlée or where it came from. However, everyone can agree that this delectable dessert deserves a place in cookbooks around the world. Serve it at your next dinner party. It’s the perfect make-ahead dessert!