Day By Day


  • Greg B

    In light of what the guv did to us in CA, I’d suggest aim center mass.
    Sorry. It’s hard to feel celebratory right now.

  • JTC

    And to you and yours, Mr. Muir.

    Because of the willingness of our forebears to throw off the ties that bind, our Republic is still the shining light that beckons others throughout the world.

    Of course the problem is many of those “others” and the cancerous vermin within who lure them here want to not join but replace that free Republic. And so the forebears serve not just as a point of historical pride but an example and instruction of what must be done why tyrants and enemies foreign and domestic would enslave us.

    Let us prepare and pray to Almighty God that we are up to the task, or our days of celebrating our independence may be numbered.

  • JTC

    *when* tyrants…

  • B Woodman

    I’ll take one of each. Personnel AND armaments. Good to have to cover your back when the SHTF.

  • Only aim high if you hit short.

  • Pamela

    Vote NO on CA Prop 62. Slaver Bastards.

    Since the beginning all Freedom loving people have fought tyranny, slavery and oppression. Time to make History again.

    VOTE. Your lives and freedom depend on it.
    Be ready. Be wary. Verify then Trust. With a grain of salt.

    • Flight-ER-Doc

      I am a native Californian…and voted with my feet, 12 years ago.

  • Noelegy

    If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned guns like those, you bet they’d have wanted them.

    • eon

      Kalthoff repeating rifle;

      Lorenzoni repeating rifle;

      Espingole repeater;

      Don’t ever let anyone tell you the Founding Fathers “never envisioned” modern high-firepower weaponry when they conceived the Second Amendment. Only the technology base held them back.

      They would have loved to have a reliable repeating or even autofiring rifle in the hands of the Minutemen. And superposed load arms were in fact made and issued in limited numbers.

      The British had the Ferguson breechloading rifle but never really took advantage of it. (Muzzleloading smoothbores were the “only proper weapon” for the despised soldiery.)

      And yes, revolvers and other repeating handguns were in use. Double-action, self-priming flintlock “pepperbox” pistols were made on the Continent, in England, and even in Ireland as far back as the 1720s. One such figured in the Earl Ferrers case (see the Newgate Calendar).

      One characteristic of “anti-gun” types is their astounding ignorance of…guns. I can only assume that they believe such knowledge would contaminate their morally-pristine minds, and so therefore they proudly maintain their utter lack of education on the subject.

      clear ether


      • JTC

        Nice links and historicals eon,

        One quibble; I don’t for a second believe the autocracy who would disarm us consider themselves morally pristine as that is irrelevant to their “aim” which is simply to perpetuate their autocracy.

        They know and we know that they are instead morally perverted, deceptive, and maintaining their evil omnipotence requires that they convince their subjects that carnal knowledge of the tools of deadly defense and resistance -and the tools themselves-are deadly and immoral.

        And their efforts and pervasive and effective. Witness the shop owner/inventor that someone linked upthread who developed the bullet button in response to Cali legislation and then developed a workaround of it in response to the legislators making their own legislation illegal. In his video demonstration of his excellent (if short-lived; it will itself be illegalized in short order) compliance alteration, he twice refers to the gun in his hands as an “assault rifle” when it is just a rifle. Someone -I think rickn8or- pointed out that it might be full auto, but that just makes it an automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic rifle. I have never nor do I expect ever, to see a rifle assault anyone, and that is terminology that is constantly shoved down the throats of the ignorant public to the degree that it is the go-to nomenclature for any similar looking firearm. But we in the shooting and 2A aware community should never let our lexicon be set by those who would eliminate not only our tools but is if they had their ‘druthers. A similar term so ubiquitous that it goes unquestioned is “gun violence”; coined and repeated ad nauseum entirely to impart a sense of danger and evil for simple tools which again I have never witnessed or been made aware have ever commited violence without the helping hand of some third party.

        Sorry for the little rant, it is a very bothersome annoyance for me, and on this date it seemed apropos to bring up a small but harmful gambit by which antis and those who control them chip away at the popular attitudes related to what is arguably the most important Constitutional protection we have, attempting to set the stage for the Australian style controls that they have said is their immediate goal…in which case (another) Revolution awaits.

        • Kafiroon

          Totally agree, JTC. That bothered me immediately when he used that term. There is No reason to use presstitutes or gun grabber terminology.

        • markm

          No, “assault rifle” has a definite meaning: a shoulder-fired rifle with an intermediate power cartridge and selective fire. The first example of this put into production was the Sturmgewehr (Stg) 44, and “assault rifle” is a translation of Sturmgewehr. “Assault” refers to assaulting or storming an enemy position.

          If CA law now refers to semi-auto only weapons as “assault rifles”, this is just another example of a**hole politicians’ frequent belief that, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, a dog has 5 legs if a law calls the tail a leg. They aren’t assault rifles unless there is a full-auto or burst-fire setting. On the other hand, “assault weapon” is meaningless.

        • GWB

          Please don’t rely on the “assault rifle” quibble. It is a proper term in the right context. It is based on the name of a late WW2 German weapon called the Sturmgewehr. Yeah, that would be “storm rifle“, as in “storming” an enemy position – also known as an assault. Hence, “assault rifle.

          It does require an automatic or burst fire option to qualify. However, all modern “sporting rifles” like the AR-15 otherwise qualify for the designation.

          Here’s a decent history of the concept.

          Let’s fight the right fight: heck yes the Founding Fathers intended us to have them! To include automatics!

          • Kafiroon

            I have know about those weapons and their “names” for sometime.
            The Point is, the numb brains that go on about “assault” weapons Do. Not. Know. That. or anything realistic. Why present them with opportunities to claim they are right?

          • JTC

            Way to miss the point boys.

            We can have the historical militaria nerd circle sometime when 100% of media and academia aren’t doing the bidding of 50% of pols (or is it 90%?) to convince the 50% of proles they haven’t already entranced to join the 50% they have, to complete the demonization of your tools to ease the seizure of them and the reinterpretation of your rights to them. Mouthful huh? Heh.

            The only damn reason that every time some muzball or nutball goes johnny jihad, the immediate speculation is “an ASSAULT RIFLE of the type used at Sandy Hook” was involved, and every weekend when the thugs of Chitown off another couple dozen in drive-bys is “another bloody spate of GUN VIOLENCE” is to shift the perception of evil from the perpetrators to the tools and make it easier to take YOUR TOOLS from you.

            Yes, this shit has gone on for years. But we are at a crossroads with the imminent election of a person whose first priority and stated goal is to take your guns, to get you to ASSIMILATE dammit, so that they can have their way with you, your children, your grandchildren, etc. etc.

            The terminology is relevant for us as descriptors and historical reference yes, but to “them” it is about creating the perception of guns -all guns- as evil, and what sounds more scary and evil to the ignorant masses than Assault Rifle and Gun Violence? And every time those terms are adopted in casual conversation it makes it easier and more likely that the Australian scenario or worse will be pursued by the next czar. It just makes no damn sense for us to help them make that happen. In public discussions then, a rifle is a rifle, and people are violent, not guns.

    • interventor

      With rifles vs. Smooth bore, they already out gunned the Brits.

      • markm

        Yes and no. The Kentucky rifle far outranged smoothbore muskets in the effective range for aimed fire, and somewhat outranged them in the range at which a shot aimed only at a mass formation might kill a man if it happened to hit. But muzzle-loading rifles were terribly slow to load, so smoothbores had a rate of fire several times that of the riflemen. Riflemen were good as scouts and snipers, but in a massed battle they were easily overrun unless protected by massed muskets or fortifications. Against cavalry, a rifleman in the open got only one shot at any range – and they didn’t do much better against a bayonet charge.

        Another issue with the available rifles was that they always lacked a bayonet lug. This lack was also common with the muskets brought from home, but to some extent that lack could be made up with captured muskets, military arms smuggled in from overseas, and new muskets made for the war by colonial gunsmiths.

        Also, rifles were rare except in units formed from frontiersmen. Townsfolk and farmers from the somewhat civilized areas would not have them, and too much skill was required in producing them for gunsmiths to produce them in significant numbers during the war. They played no role in the first battles of the war around Boston. The Continental Army rank and file carried smoothbores, but they probably had ranger units with rifles. Rifles were less rare in the southern colonies, mainly because there was a very wide area inland where poor whites squatted on land the Indians had not yet conceded.

        OTOH, the Brits learned that rifles were useful in the right circumstances. Some time between the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, the British turned their light infantry companies (selected men serving as scouts and skirmishers) into rifle companies. For this, they used the Baker rifle, which was shortened Kentucky rifle with a bayonet lug – and to make up for the shorter barrel in a bayonet fight, they used extra-long bayonets, called “swords”.

        • eon

          The real problem wasn’t lack of bayonets, as actual bayonet wounds proved to be a rarity, and would remain so clear through the American Civil War. Firepower decided the issue before it came to bayonet range.

          Rate of fire wasn’t an issue, either. Whether rifle or smoothbore, the actual practical reload-and-fire rate was two round per minute per man. Highly trained and practiced personnel with the musket might manage three (one round every twenty seconds).

          The real problem was simply that the Continentals did not have enough gunpowder to fight a war with. In August 1775 Washington wrote from Cambridge that his command had only 32 barrels of powder, only enough to issue each man half a pound (about enough for 40 rounds, assuming an 88 grain load, typical for a .69 or .75 caliber smoothbore musket).

          At the same time the total inventory of powder in the hands of the revolutionaries in all thirteen colonies came to 40 tons. That’s about 4 million “rounds”, making no allowance for artillery, demolition, etc.

          This was the main reason for the “myth” of the colonist with the Kentucky rifle. It wasn’t really a myth. Washington and his officers were trained in “conventional” warfare, musket-armed infantry dressing ranks and firing by the numbers. As such, they knew they did not have sufficient powder to fight set-piece battles by those methods and hope to win against Royal Army and Marine units with as much powder as they needed, delivered by ship from England.

          As such, until the could build up a powder supply (partly by “domestic” production but mainly by import form the Continent, notably France), they prioritized powder supplies to “irregular” units armed with rifles. Simply put, the musket-armed infantry fired in the general direction of the target, while riflemen aimed at and hit discrete targets- like officers. It was a more efficient use of the scarce war materiel’.

          The “set-piece” battles that came later only did so after sufficient powder was in inventory to allow mass-firepower tactics to be effective. The end result was victories like Yorktown. But early on, at places like King’s Mountain, it was the sharpshooting of riflemen that won battles, and economized on powder while doing so.

          See; Kelly, Jack. Gunpowder- Alchemy, Bombards, and Pyrotechnics; The History of the Explosive that Changed the World. New York; Basic Books, 2004. Chapter 10, “History Out of Control”.



  • Pete231

    And duhbama claims he still doesn’t know why we citizens celebrate this Glorious Day. ” In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that He did not also limit his stupidity”. – Konrad Adenauer –

    • Bill G

      Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
      Robert A. Heinlein

      • FastFission

        “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Albert Einstein

        • John D. Egbert

          In this universe only two things are available in unlimited supply: Hydrogen and stupidity – Zappa’s Law

  • Calvin

    Add a couple more characters and this would be decent poster for the office.

  • rickn8or

    “Aim small, miss small.”

  • as mike vanderboegh says…


    got a junker magazine that’s over CA-legal? send it to the governor with a nice note reminding him that what he holds in his hands makes him a felon, and he should turn himself in. similar packages sent to the legislators that voted for this, with appropriate anonymous calls to the police once delivery is confirmed, is also a good tactic.

    • Norm

      You don’t really think that they open their own mail, do you?

      • not the point at all. you don’t send it to their send it to their HOME. it’s a “we know where you live” alert.

        • JTC

          And a “we know where you live” alert for the feds too, who will track your ass down and charge you with at least three felonies for a stupid stunt like that. Damn dude.

  • Iconoclast

    Nicely rendered, Chris, particularly in the character seen in Zed’s face.

  • Bill G

    Happy Independence Day!

  • Arkelk

    Happy Independence Day, everyone!

  • WEKM

    Well, that is going to be my desktop wallpaper for the rest of the day!
    Happy Independence Day!

  • Grunt GI

    Happy Colonial Treason Day!
    Remember, before they were our Founding Fathers, they were traitors to the Crown.
    Glad to see that bar almost filled in!

  • Flight-ER-Doc

    Good Independence Day!

    Aim small, miss small…

  • Badger

    “Aim high” Words from Clint Eastwood to cohorts, so as to hit the evil standing over you. Enjoy the 4th Chris. (and RIP Thomas Jefferson, if you can).

  • m225

    With the help of God, we will keep the flame of Liberty burning brightly as a beacon to all who seek the Joy of Freedom.

    Chris I hope your Fathers is going well as are you and your family.

    God Bless The Republic.

  • Jon

    Happy Fourth, all! Keep your powder dry. (And well hidden)

  • God bless the USA!
    The next peaceful transfer of power will determine much.
    200 days to go.

  • bill3542

    if Hitlery gets elected i seriously doubt this nation will survive… the next one will make the first revolution look like a sunday school picnic.


    Happy 4th everybody! Keep the faith!

  • This one would make a GREAT poster to keep.

  • Pamela

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    The rest is here:

    See how many matches there are between King George III and the current-soon-to-be-not-there occupant.

    • GWB

      Absolutely, Pamela. It gets read a few times a year around my house, to keep the comparison fresh!

  • Andrew Benghazi

    18th century Americans could not have envisioned automatic weapons, just as a 19th century Frenchman could not have envisioned a nuclear powered submarine or space travel. /sarc 😉

  • MajorMattMason

    The nice thing about modern optics: You can see “the whites of their eyes” from hundreds of yards away… ;-D

  • WSC

    One short comment about the ‘assault rifle’ comment in the earlier demo video I posted. He calls them assault rifles because that is what they are now legally defined as in Cali.

    • JTC

      Bullshit. He calls them that because he -and you- have assimilated. Sad.

  • Kafiroon

    Happy Independence Day! May we keep it.
    I am high anyway. And since it is at distance, I hit where I aimed or it drops into mass.
    I really do not care what progs, libs, lefties, other assorted elites and cali declare is law or settled science.

    • Kafiroon

      High on The USA. Try “aim” instead.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks