Does this have to be the way to go about it???
Oh. Yeah. I guess when you’re dealing with corrupt cops and an impossible “police chief’s friend” type of permitting system, this is what you’re forced to resort to. Shaya Lichtenstein could have done a better job of keeping his mouth shut, though.
(Via David Codrea)
On Friday, March 25, Governor Butch Otter signed SB 1389, making Idaho the ninth state to adopt constitutional carry (aka unrestricted carry or permitless carry).
Back in the day, we knew this as Vermont carry, after the one-and-only state whose residents were legally free to tuck guns in their pockets or purses or under their clothing without first asking their state government for permission. Vermont had been that way for generations. And for all those generations, they remained alone.
But now … oh my.
In some ways Idaho’s bill isn’t a huge change from its existing laws. Idaho residents already had constitutional carry outside city limits; SB 1389 merely extended it to cities — over the objections of police chiefs, Bloomberg’s Everytown, and the usual hoplophobes who cried the usual cry of “blood in the streets!”
In other ways, what a very, very big deal this is.
For one, the bill explicitly acknowledges the individual right to bear arms and that said people grant only limited powers to state governments:
The legislature hereby finds that the people of Idaho have reserved for themselves the right to keep and bear arms while granting the legislature the authority to regulate the carrying of weapons concealed. The provisions of this chapter regulating the carrying of weapons must be strictly construed so as to give maximum scope to the rights retained by the people.
Like all such bills, it’s full of legalisms that hardcore freedomistas won’t appreciate (for instance, permitless carry is only for those 21 or above; those 18 to 20 must still get permits, though those permits are “shall issue”).
But for some of us who’ve been around a long time … it’s a bloody miracle.
Let me take you back to the day
It was a dark day. 1993 and 1994. A rabidly anti-gun president held the White House. A Congress composed of rabidly anti-gun Democrats and wishy-washy Republican “leaders” like Bob Dole stood ready to give Bill Clinton more service than Monica Lewinski ever did.
Wham! They hit us with the Brady Law. Wham! They hit us with the Ugly Gun Ban. Over the next several years, they hit us with more laws to restrict guns, give more funding to anti-gun enforcement, and in general extend the powers of both the federal government and local police against We the People.
Dark days indeed.
In 1993, I used my smoking-hot 1200-baud modem to dial into a gun-rights bulletin board in Colorado — half the country away from my Pacific Northwest home. And for me, that’s where I first encountered hopeful change — though I didn’t recognize it at the time.
The Internet, though it existed in the scientific and academic communities, was not yet a thing for ordinary people. But we were reaching out to find each other, anyhow. Some via FidoNet bulletin boards (BBSes) like the one I mentioned, which had been set up by and for fans of writer and gun advocate L. Neil Smith. Or a bigger FidoNet operation, the Paul Revere Network (PRN — where I first met TZP co-founder Brad Alpert). Others gathered local friends and huddled around short-wave radios, where a handful of firebrands (some as crazy as moonbats, but that’s another story) were beginning to agitate against the looming federal takeover. Many began to gather in the real world to form militias.
I was soon running up $300-a-month phone bills dialing cross-country to various gun-rights and Bill of Rights bulletin boards. (My wallet and I were both so relieved when subscription Internet came along shortly thereafter.) But that first Colorado bulletin board remained my mainstay as long as FidoNet ruled the dawning e-world.
Quirky little Vermont and the people who saw bigger things
It was on those primitive BBSes that I first heard the term “Vermont carry.”
Maybe it was the term itself, which hinted at the quirk of one small and quirky state. Or maybe it was just the hopelessness of the times. But it never dawned on me that Vermont carry had a chance of slipping outside the boundaries of Vermont. If asked to give odds, I’d have put it at a thousand to one against.
The “shall issue” concealed carry permit movement was the only bright spot for guns at that moment. It had been gaining ground since the late 1980s. But for me that was no bright spot at all. I saw state-issued permits not only as unlawful government control, but worse, as a sneaky way to gather data on gun owners for eventual confiscation.
On that Colorado BBS, a Wyoming activist, Charles Curley, had a lively debate going on with L. Neil Smith. The two were friends, but on one issue they ardently differed. Charles was working with fellow activists to get shall-issue concealed carry permits in Wyoming, which Neil saw as a betrayal of true freedomista principles.
I was privately in Neil’s camp, but I liked Charles (with whom I soon had a seven-year romance) so I didn’t say much. But where Charles really made my head spin was with his claim — preposterous! — that he and his fellow Wyoming ccw activists were consciously and deliberately setting things up to move eventually from shall-issue to pure Vermont carry.
I simply didn’t see how giving state governments more control (as I viewed it) could ever result in less control, eventually. Just did not believe it possible. Especially in those dismal days.
But these steady, patient activists were beginning a major change. I just couldn’t see it. They worked. And they worked. And they got major court judgments in their favor. And they worked some more.
Now
Today, seven states have permitless concealed carry for every lawful gun owner and two (Idaho and Wyoming) have it for their own residents, though visitors still require permits from their home states.
It began in 2003 with Alaska, and continued through Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, and Maine. Successes were far between at first, but the pace is picking up. This month alone, both West Virginia and Idaho got on the freedom train. The West Virginia legislature had to override their governor’s veto. Although Idaho’s Butch Otter signed without quibble, both houses of the Idaho legislature passed the bill with impressively veto-proof margins (27 to 8 in the Senate and 54 to 15 in the House).
And there’s more. Oklahoma allows residents of constitutional carry states to carry discreetly within its borders. Puerto Rico has constitutional carry (following a lawsuit), though that’s being appealed. Other states have permitless concealed carry outside of city limits or allow it if the weapon is unloaded or in an “enclosed case” (and a woman’s purse or a man’s backpack counts as an enclosed case). Or on a motorcycle. Or on horseback.
Yes, the laws remain quirky and imperfect. (There’s no such thing as a perfect law.) But virtually every change has been in the right direction. And activists continue the march toward constitutional carry in many more states.
Are we likely to see constitutional carry in Massachusetts, New York, or California any time soon? Ha! But I can tell you that a lot of us who were around in the dark old days of 1993 and 1994 never thought we’d see even this much, ever, in so many places.
And “this much” is a lot. A hell of a lot. Better yet, we’re going to see more.
Do I now approve of the “shall issue” permits that laid the groundwork for this? Nope. No way. But even I have to admit that the grassroots “shall issue” ccw movement gave birth to the constitutional carry movement. And constitutional carry is an unreservedly good thing.
Back in the day — those dark old days of seemingly unstoppable federal overreach — I thought we’d have to fight (real “blood in the streets”) to restore our gun rights. Of course, we may yet have to fight to preserve our freedom.
But thanks to the new and expanded gun culture across the land — a culture in part built and normalized by the very activists I doubted — We the People are becoming an ever more formidable power.
I wouldn’t have thought it possible. I wasn’t a part of making it happen. In my eyes it will forever remain a mystery of darned-near miraculous proportions.
It definitely goes to show that there can be a lot of ways to skin the proverbial cat.
—–
This article appeared first on our weekly TZP alert. If you want to be among the first to see all articles, sign up!
TZP’s custom kippot (aka yarmulkas or kippahs) have been a big hit, thank you very much. Looks as if we’ll be carrying those in the store for a good long time.
We recently learned about somebody else who’s selling Gadsden kippot to raise money for a trip to Israel. Thought our faithful readers and members would like to know about those, too.
You can go here to learn more or contact the seller: davidhunt -@- outdrs –period– net.
His price, as he notes, is a bit “chai” because he’s raising funds. But it looks like a nice item. No financial interest on our part. Just helping a fellow freedomista.
Jewish comedian Jackie Mason has a suggestion for Michael Bloomberg:
He’s standing there with 12 bodyguards, telling you that you shouldn’t have a gun to protect you, while he has 12 guys protecting him! As if his life counts, but yours is not important? If guns are not important and nobody should have a gun to protect himself, why does Bloomberg have 12 bodyguards? Why doesn’t he stand there with 12 rabbis? Why do they have guns? Instead of guns they should have pastrami sandwiches.
TZP’s Nicki Kenyon did what nobody in the MSM or any major gun-rights group bothered to do. She interviewed Ted Nugent about his controversial Facebook post. Read that first, please.
Then take this week’s TZP poll on Ted Nugent and the media.
The following is a news release for the gun media and any mainstream media that might be interested. We urge TZP readers to spread the word to their media contacts.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 9, 2016
JEWISH PRO-GUN GROUP HAS AN OFFER FOR TED NUGENT
Ted Nugent planted boot firmly in mouth on Monday when he used a graphic on Facebook to make a point about gun-grabbing politicians that clearly implied that victim disarmament (aka “gun control”) is the work of a vast Jewish conspiracy.
Catching flak for anti-Semitism, he responded by saying that Aaron Zelman — a prominent Jewish PRO-gunner until his untimely death and the inspiration for The Zelman Partisans — called Nugent a gun rights hero. Nugent also stated (spelling his): “I adjust my yamika at my barmitzva playing my kosher guitar.”
Nugent is correct that Jewish individuals play an outsized role in U.S. anti-gun leadership. (Aaron Zelman, in his inimitable style, called them “bagel brains.”) It’s also true that Jews play an important role in defending gun rights. Zelman’s lifelong work and the existence of the recently formed Zelman Partisans serve as proof.
Invoking some hoary, fictional Jewish conspiracy is ridiculous. If Nugent insists on blaming entire groups for the deeds of a few members, why pick on Jews? The victim-disarmament movement is also largely an urban phenomenon, so how about blaming everybody who lives in a city? Women are among the most prominent anti-gunners, so why not post about the “international female conspiracy”?
Oh, but that would be obviously wrong.
Jews are simply an easy and familiar target for blame.
If Nugent means it when he says he’s really pro-Jewish, then The Zelman Partisans say, “Have we got a deal for you. Hey, Ted: If you show your support for pro-gun Jews by joining The Zelman Partisans, we’ll send you not only our standard beautiful membership package; we’ll throw in a TZP ‘yamika’ for free.” Better known as either a yarmulke or a kippah, the TZP version features a Star of David crossed with both an AR-15 and a Mauser 98 of the type WWII-era Jewish partisans captured from Nazis and used against their oppressors.
The Zelman Partisans appreciates Mr. Nugent’s intent in noting the misplaced idealism of those Jews who support victim disarmament. But we wish to remind him that Aaron Zelman’s true legacy of ‘Never Again’ lives on in the hearts and minds of those who understand the dangers of gun control. TZP’s motto says it all: “Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.” That’s on the TZP yarmulke, too, Ted.
—–
About The Zelman Partisans: TZP was established in 2014 to maintain the late Aaron Zelman’s vision. We are a group of Jews and friends who stand uncompromisingly for the right to keep and bear arms — and the entire Bill of Rights. We will keep a close eye on both the enemies of our rights and the compromising “friends” of the Second Amendment who try to sell us out while pretending to be allies.
Guest Commentary
Exclusive to The Zelman Partisans
By pigpen51
I have a confession to make. I’m not a millionaire.
This probably doesn’t come as a shock to anyone familiar with my comments on different topics on this website, but what you might not realize is that I have other interests outside of firearms, and other things to spend money.
Like a great many of you, I have a family that’s grown accustomed to a certain level of comfort. They expect things that, from looking at the lives of many other gun enthusiasts, are a given for most, but must be planned for in my case. Things like — oh, I don’t know — a roof over our heads and gasoline in our vehicles. My family even likes to eat every day.
It sometimes seems that I’m the only gun enthusiast who must work hard not only to squeeze firearms into my tight budget, but to squeeze in the normal, everyday things as well.
This post is not for the person who has an unlimited budget. It’s also not intended for the person who has a perhaps normal, decent, comfortable income. It’s meant for the rest of us. Living in the real world. The world where you can’t spend money frivolously for the latest and greatest guns and doodads.
Now, I know what a lot of you are thinking: I’ve seen this type of post before. How inexpensive firearms are just fine for self defense. But that’s not quite what I’m getting at. When I first was looking at a handgun for concealed carry, I also read as many of those articles as I could find. The problem with them, and the reason I ultimately rejected their advice, was that others’ idea of a cheap handgun and my idea of a cheap handgun are two different things. For starters, those other writers would balk at the word cheap and would insist on the term affordable, which opens a whole new can of worms.
Who hasn’t seen the post from the guy or gal who likes to say, “Your life is worth it. Don’t buy a cheap gun. Save your money until you can afford to buy a decent one.” Their idea of affordable almost universally has a price tag of $500 and up. Do you know how long it would take some of us to save up that much?
For those who are unwilling to use a credit card, or who chose to live simply and have finally escaped the rat race, that price can still be too steep.
So what do the rest of us do? Are we supposed to stay defenseless if we can’t afford someone else’s idea of “affordable”?
I used to think it was not necessary for me to carry a gun, that I could handle one or two attackers on my own. I was strong, fit, and of the mindset that I would prevail. In other words, I was an idiot. I’m now older, slower, and hopefully wiser. I realize that there are people out there willing not only to hurt me, but kill me to take what little I may have for themselves. And the only way that I can stop them may be with a gun.
With that in mind, I’m going to present you a real world example of self defense carry guns on a very basic budget — including the good, the not so good, and what I am doing now. This is not what I’m saying you should do. Rather it’s what I have done and some of the reasons why.
My first handgun was an H & R model 929, a 9-shot, .22 caliber revolver. I had the 6-inch barrel. I carried it for quite some time, and never felt like I was in danger of being “made” even though I used an OWB holster with a cover garment. It seemed like concealment became more of a mindset thing than anything else. And it was a fairly good sized gun.
I won’t get into the caliber wars. I used what I had. I figured that .22 was similar to the diameter of a pencil. I sure wouldn’t want anyone to stick a pencil through me nine times, so I felt somewhat safe.
I admit to making my biggest mistake next. Not because of my choice of gun, but because I was still using credit cards. I bought a firearm from Cabelas for $179. Looking back, I still would have bought the gun, but wouldn’t have gone into debt to do it.
This gun was a P-64, made by the Polish factory Radom. The short description is: an all steel military version of a Walther PPK, only instead of being .380, it’s chambered in 9 x 18 Makarov. Again, I am not getting into caliber debates. Just remember the .380 is 9 x 17, the Makarov is 9 x 18, and the Luger is 9 x 19. This gun is double-action, with a decocker safety. It came with two magazines, a military holster, and a cleaning rod.
It does have its quirks, shall we say. First, the trigger pull. Just go to the P-64 website and you will learn how to change the springs. I ordered the kit from Wolff springs. It took the double action from about 30 pounds (almost unusable) to maybe 16. It took the single action to probably 3 pounds. After about 500 rounds, the double action pull not only smoothed out, but lessened some more. Its other, more difficult for some, quirk is that it kicks like a rented mule. Not for everyone, but I had no problem with it.
I was working third shift when I owned this gun, and coming home from work in the morning, sometimes at 5:00 a.m., I had occasion to stop at the local big box store based in Arkansas. It was comforting to know that this gun slipped easily into the front pocket of my jeans and just as easily came back out in a hurry if the need arose. Even here in small town middle America, the class of people one might encounter at that big box store in the early morning hours after perhaps a long night of drinking are questionable at best, and not the type I wanted to brave without protection.
Next comes every gun snob’s nightmare. The dreaded Hi-Point. I bought a Hi-Point C-9, with a Galco paddle holster, for $140. I get how bad everybody says they are — that is, everybody who has never owned one or shot one. Yeah, they are kind of ugly. Just like I think all plastic guns are kind of ugly. They are kind of top-heavy. They feel weird. They also kind of work. Every time.
But here’s the best part. My wife was able to cash-flow the entire purchase of the gun and some ammo by winning a contest from a local radio station just before Christmas one year. She won gift certificates to a Cabelas close to us. I had been wanting a new pistol, and the prices for everything but the Hi-Point were more than the gift certificates.
Just a couple more to go.
I sold another gun, got $100 again, and wanted a pocket carry gun. I had my eye on the Phoenix 22a. It’s a .22 cal semiauto. I checked online and got a price of $119 from Classic Firearms. I thought, I really should give a local gun store a shot. You know, support them and all. I went to them and they said that they couldn’t sell me a Phoenix for a good price; they had to pay $130 to their supplier for the gun themselves. Of course, they not only lost that sale, they never saw me again. I have no problem with someone making a profit from me. I just am funny about rape.
The Phoenix 22a is a neat little gun from California. It feels nice in your hand. It has an available 5-inch barrel, which can be switched with the 3-inch barrel I bought.
I made a holster for it and carried it for awhile. Then my son moved back to Michigan (where I live) from California. His new wife, who hadn’t been exposed to guns, went shooting with us. She fell in love with the gun, and I sold it to her for $100, plus I gave her the extra magazine I had ordered.
This would be a great carry gun for someone with a small hand, or who was recoil-sensitive, save for one thing. The safety setup on the gun is onerous. It has a hammer-block safety, which is fine; it is a single action. It also has a magazine safety lever. And it has other idiosyncracies. One that I found just plain strange was that you could only draw the slide back about 3/16 of an inch to check for a loaded round. I just never got comfortable with all the monkeying about with safeties, and am reluctant to follow the advice of some on the web and just disable the magazine safety. I carried the gun with both safeties off and no round in the chamber, and although quite workable, it never felt like this was a good carry gun for me.
And now we come to my current carry gun. I paid exactly $200 for it, new, from Classic Firearms on a 4th of July sale. This is the Taurus PT 111, Gen 2. It’s a striker-fired, polymer gun with a second-shot capability, which means if the first time around it fails to fire, simply pull the trigger again for a double action attempt on the same round.
This gun was not affected by last year’s recall of Taurus pistols which could fire if dropped, safety on or off. Most of the time we try and not drop our handguns, but I suppose that it could happen.
The Taurus has an external safety, comes with two double-stack 9mm magazines, each holding 12 rounds, plus one in the chamber. Like any handguns I’ve owned, this one has never had any issues of any kind. I currently have about 600 or 700 rounds through it.
I carry this gun in the Hi-Point’s old holster, with a slight modification. The thumb-break strap was loose on the Taurus, so I drilled the old snap out and moved it to get a better fit.
I hardly have to say that these guns are not high-end. Yet, given my experience there is no need for any “expert” to claim that you should never carry a _____ (whatever gun that person doesn’t like) because it might blow up, or spontaneously combust, or even worse, one of my friends might see me with it.
Maybe you don’t want, or don’t have to, get guns as cheap as these, but no matter what any “expert” says, you can get a good carry guns without breaking your bank.
Of course, I would love to own and carry a different gun. I now have enough experience for MYSELF to decide what type and caliber of handgun I will ultimately acquire, if I decide to spend the money for something else.
I’m not going to tell you what gun I lust after, but for me it will be hammer-fired, double-action with a decocker safety. I would love to own another P 64, but the two issues that make it a no-go for me are parts availability and the caliber. It was a communist bloc gun, and if a firing pin were to break, it could be a problem to find a replacement. On the caliber issue: I paid from 21 to 25 dollars a box Makarov ammo in the town where I live, when it was available. I could sometimes order Russian-made ammo for as little as $9 from Cheaper Than Dirt, but that, too, wasn’t always available. With 9mm Luger, I can go to my local Dunham’s Sporting Goods and get Remington/UMC ammo for 12 dollars per box. I can buy just a box or two when I can afford it and not have to worry about availability.
I still have the Hi-Point in 9mm as well, and for us poor, I mean frugal-minded, folks, it just makes sense to settle on a major caliber for all of our carry guns. That means I can slowly build up my supply of ammo without trying to do so in several different flavors. I do save my brass, and also pick up other spent brass left behind. If someday the need arises, I can always start to reload, and the brass will keep indefinately.
Again, I’m not aying you should do anything I’ve just described. Rather, this is is what I have done and some of the reasons why. I don’t pretend this is what a quote-unquote knowledgable firearms person would recommend. I can almost guarantee they would scream in panic at the thought of carrying some of the firearms I’ve carried.
I can also bet that more people fit the mold of either going this route or going without. And I don’t have to tell you that I think doing without is a bad idea.
—–
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
Guest commentary
Exclusive to The Zelman Partisans
by Historian
During the Second World War, a variety of partisan groups arose in the territories occupied by Nazi Germany. In the East, Poland, the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and into Russia itself, some of these partisan organizations were partially or primarily composed of Jews who had fled German attempts to concentrate them into ghettos or who had fled the ghettos themselves. One of these was made famous by the movie Defiance, starring Daniel Craig as Tuvia Bielski, the leader of this partisan group. This fictionalized account of the Bielski Otryad, which hid in the Nabiloka forest in what is now western Byelorussia I found compelling, and it awoke an ongoing interest in the history of the partisan groups that arose from the German invasion.
These groups varied considerably, as one might expect. Some were comprised of mainly young more or less healthy males, and geared towards military action against the Germans. Other groups, such as the Bielski Otryad, were more inclusive, taking in any Jew that wished to join, regardless of their fitness or prior employment. I was impressed at the survival of Bielski’s group in the face of both anti-semitism from the Soviets and ongoing attacks from the Germans, but I found it surprising to learn that partisan groups composed almost exclusively of young strong males, dedicated to fighting the Germans and resisting the invaders, fared much worse than groups like the Bielski Otryad whose members had widely varied backgrounds, and whose primary goal was survival.
Most of those young fit men died and their groups were wiped out, while the Bielski Otryad survived the war, growing even as the Nazis chased them through the Nabiloka forest. Some of the Bielski Otryad members died during the war, but when they were met by advancing Russian troops, they numbered 1200 Jews, the largest number of Jews saved by Jews during the war. Two of the three Bielski brothers (Tuvia and Zus; Asael was killed in 1944 fighting for the Soviets) survived also, traveling to Israel and ultimately emigrating to these presently united States in 1956.
It appears that there were two key factors at play; one was that the primary goal of the Bielski Otryad was not to kill Germans, but to help Jews survive. The other was that even deep in the taiga, there was survival value in having a wide range of skills available to the group. A wide range of outlook, experience and opinion allowed the group to better cope when conditions or circumstances changed.
There is a lesson in this for the Liberty Movement.
Today, I see a wide range of opinion about the path forward for individual freedom. Many of those espousing these various opinions bitterly attack others in the Liberty movement for their ‘impure’ or ‘imperfect’ ideas, or slather acid criticism on those who disagree in one particular or another. Topics ranging from the ideal caliber for pistols or rifles to whether or not we need or should have a Constitution and everything in between are viciously debated, and barbed words fly back and forth growing more heated with each exchange.
To what end? Cui Bono?
What is the goal of the Liberty Movement? More personally, what is YOUR goal, in the pursuit of freedom? Each one of you will have to answer that question for yourself, but my goal is: to create a system that allows each person to do as they wish, to speak as they wish, to do with their bodies, their lives and the fruits of their labors as they choose, as long as they grant others the right to do the same. As Enlightenment philosophers put it- Life, liberty and property. If someone who shares this goal with you disagrees with you as to how best to accomplish that, so what? Isn’t the whole point to allow others their otherness? Aren’t we trying to help individual Liberty survive?
Or are we?
Tuvia Bielski made his goal the survival of Jews. He did not cast out the old, the infirm or those whose politics differed from his, and as a result, a community of 1200 Jews, anarchists, socialists, communists and individualists survived the Holocaust. He made a place for a wide range of opinion, and the Jewish community he built in the Nabiloka forest was stronger and more resilient as a result.
There is much to be said for earnest discussions about the paths forward for individual Liberty. This is, after all, a war of ideas. There is no doubt that the American experiment is in trouble and we need to carefully consider how we went wrong, and what must be done to make things better. But are the paths leading to the restoration of American Liberty to be found in the stifling of dissent, or in bitter vituperation among those who agree on the big issues? This country was founded on dissent and disagreement; rather than weakness, it may be our greatest strength.
Put it another way. If this is a war of ideas, and ideas are weapons, don’t we want the forces of tyranny to have to face as many different threats as possible? Don’t we want to see statism attacked on as many fronts as we can manage? Do we want to let the perfect become the enemy of the good?
Tuvia Bielski welcomed Jews of all social classes, ideologies, ages or abilities. They followed different paths through the Nabiloka forest to reach their refuge with other Jews, and this was again, part of their protection. Imagine how easy it would have been for the Nazis to exterminate them all if they had all followed one path. Regardless of how they got there, where they came from, or what baggage they carried, they were all welcomed. As far as I can tell from my reading, Tuvia Bielski only asked that each person work as they could to support the goal of the group, which was to ensure that the Jews survive. And they did. He won.
What is your goal, gentle reader?
Will you be like Tuvia Bielski, and make your goal the survival of Liberty, welcoming and protecting all those who love individual freedom, benefiting from each person’s unique outlook?
Or will you conduct intellectual auto-da-fé against all who disagree with you, seeking to crush disagreement and to force all to goosestep to the truth as you see it?
Do you view differing opinions within the Liberty movement as a threat, or as an opportunity?
I wonder what Tuvia Bielski’s Jewish partisans would say to the enraged ideologues among us?
Can you hear the whispers from the Nabiloka forest?
With regard to all who serve the Light,
Historian
—–
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
This week’s poll: Which gun groups do you support? And something a little different this time; we’re inviting any anti-gunners who might be lurking about to tell what anti-gun groups they volunteer for or send money to. No, there probably aren’t a lot of antis browsing TZP, but all it takes is one to show up and put the word out to her friends. Then we might get some pretty odd results.
—–
As usual, last week’s poll remains open until tomorrow evening.
As you go about your Monday (and your Tuesday through Sunday), please send your best thoughts toward Mike Vanderboegh, who got the worst possible word from his doctor last week.
And not only your thoughts, but whatever you can spare to make his last months and his wife Rosey’s future less dire. Mike has given his all — including his health and his financial well-being — for freedom. Without Mike (and David Codrea) the Fast & Furious scandal might have remained buried. Without Mike, the III Percent wouldn’t recognize themselves as such a powerful potential force.
I hope all freedomistas will give back to Mike in full measure.