Category Archives: Lord Love a Duck

Different Spanks for Different Ranks, #473

Why did Stefan Arzberger, 43, walk away from these charges in Manhattan court?

…strangling and nearly killing a tourist after he barged into her hotel room nude in a drug-induced stupor…

First, he blamed his rampage, not on the traditional bad ice cube, but on what is apparently New York City’s prime attraction in the post-Bloomberg era, a tranny whore named Jerry Neptune, aka Natalie Pros. No, seriously. We Are Not Making This Up.

Supposedly, Stefan’s Walk on the Wild Side with Jerry was derailed by Stefan getting so stoned that he didn’t notice when the he-she vogued out with Stefan’s iPad. And then, as the saying goes, his troubles began.

Later, a wild-eyed and naked Arzberger stumbled out of his room at the West 58th Street hotel and began mindlessly knocking on guests’ doors, prosecutors said.

When the North Carolina tourist opened her door, he wrapped his hands around her neck with so much pressure the blood vessels in her eyes allegedly popped.

He also, according to her testimony which the judge grudgingly took, tried to smother her. She was a 65-year-old lady, attacked and violently injured by a drug-abusing 43-year-old man. That’s a serious crime of violence in 49 other states. So why were a New York prosecutor and judge bouncingly eager to let Stefan Arzberger walk?

Because, in the corrupt courtroom of crooked judge Ronald Zweibel, with corrupt, crooked and conniving prosecutor Joshua Steinglass in attendance, what matters is not what you did, but who you is. In the words of that age-old New York parvenu’s refrain, “Do you know who I am?”

Zweibel and Steinglass (and for that matter, the New York Post’s Rebecca Rosenberg, who writes approvingly of the resolution of the case) know who Arzberger is. They’re cultured New Yorkers, or wannabes, and he’s a top concert violinist with the Leipzig String Quarter. He’s somebody. His victim? Tourist. From the flyover state of North Carolina. She’s nobody. 

Decision made: Arzberger walks. And so he did.

It lets a couple of Manhattan shysters feel like they did something for culture. And, don’t forget, to strike a blow against the crime of being from North Carolina.

How Anti-Soldier Lawyers Banned a Kind of Ambush

(File photo of Navy Recon Doc Michael Conti firing a sniper rifle in training).

(File photo of Navy Recon Doc Michael Conti firing a sniper rifle in training).

Two men from the IED cell padded silently down the road. Abdul and Roshanullah had two 107mm rocket warheads, a cell-phone detonator, and detailed instructions, including a sketch map of their emplacement point. The rest of their cell waited for them to return.

At a point where the road crossed a filled area, the two HIG men — many Afghans changed allegiances more frequently than their shalwar kameez, but once you were Gulbuddin Hekmatayar’s man, you were always Gulbuddin’s man — slipped down the side of the fill to the mouth of the culvert. This one hadn’t been fitted with a grating yet, but even if it had, they had been prepared.

There was just enough starlight for Abdul to see Roshan’s grin. This was going to be easy! First, the blessing: “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem,” In the Name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful…

High on a hill facing the culvert, nearly half a mile away, a sniper team leader whispered, “Send ’em.”

The wind was fortuitously towards the hill, and at the culvert, all that there was to hear was the thwack of bullet impacts. Then one of the men — Roshanullah, not grinning any more — groaned and moved.


All was still.

An hour before sunrise it was visibly getting light in the valley, and the five armed men who came down the road moved from cover to cover, nervously. They were breaking every tactical rule that had kept them alive this long, but their leader wanted to lay his own eyes and hands on the IED team.

They all died within the span of one and a half seconds. With five targets, both snipers, the spotters, and the team leader had all taken one. That was breaking a tactical rule too, but the difference was, the rulebreaking worked for the ISAF snipers. They recovered their 360º observation as soon as the shots were sent, also.

The team met the road clearance unit for a ride into the FOB. Intelligence collected from the dead laid bare the workings of the cell, and the telephone carried by the deceased IED cell leader allowed the Afghan NDS to identify two key HIG facilitators; one fled to Peshawar and the protection of ISI, but the other was reputed to be singing like a canary.

It was a successful operation until the Staff Judge Advocate spoke up, taking, as usual, the side of the enemy, and demanded the snipers be charged with war crimes — for shooting armed unlawful combatants carrying out combat operations!

Believe it or not, Army lawyers have defined this tactic as a “baited ambush” and have worked hard, if not to make it a “war crime,” at least to create a grey area in which it is the slightly less felonious “violation of the laws of war” and possibly a “war crime.” Lawyers, of course, love grey areas which take decisions out of the hands of decision-makers and deliver them, instead, to the captivity of cabals of, what else, lawyers.

For example, Army judge advocate LTC Chris Jenks — clearly, from his writing, the sort of SJA who joined the Army for personal gain, hostile to the guys with guns who make up the actual Army part of the Army — wrote in The Army Lawyer1 that this tactic “comes close to, if not enters, the law of war violation continuum….”2

Certainly this is an example of why it is impossible to win a war without first staking out the enemy’s fifth columnists, to wit, about 95% of SJAs, on culverts like the ones in our hypothetical, and letting the enemy have their way with them.

Jenks also doesn’t think the troops should enjoy a victory:

Members of the unit filmed the artillery strike and can be heard laughing and cheering, which presents additional challenges to a command.3

One gets the impression that his spectator sport is golf or tennis, not football or hockey. And he grew up in the age of scoreless soccer, and participation trophies.

Jenks makes a few clumsy gropes in the direction of understanding military necessity, a concept he, not surprisingly, has not picked up by osmosis merely by donning a bestowed uniform bearing an unearned rank. But he still concludes that hunting over bait is outside of the fish and game regulations of scoreless-soccer SJA war:

Ultimately, in the absence of an armistice or suspension of fire, engaging combatants attempting to recover their dead and wounded is not a per se violation of the law of war, but utilizing known—or even suspected—enemy wounded and dead as “bait” for such targeting enters the continuum and, at some point, will constitute a violation of article 15.

(The reference is to Article 15 of the First Geneva Convention of 1949). Jenks continues:

The more time that passes following the engagement, the closer the engagement is to U.S. forces, and the more control U.S. forces have over the “field of battle,” the more likely the failure to search for enemy wounded and dead becomes to violating the Geneva Convention.4

We bet we can guess what Scoreless Chris Jenks thinks about whether pirates should be held hostis humanae generis or treated with kid gloves in Article 3 courts, just based on the way he reasons himself into coming down on the side of our hypothetical decedents Abdul and Roshanullah here.

Army lawyers are entertaining, if you don’t have to operate like Combat Houdini, kicking off every patrol with their manacles and straitjacket on you.


Jenks, Chris “LTC”. The Law and Policy Implications of “Baited Ambushes” Utilizing Enemy Dead and Wounded. The Army Lawyer, June 2010. DA PAM 27-50-445. pp. 91-94.


  1. The Army Lawyer is a monthly magazine in which the judge advocate fifth column coordinates their attacks on combat troops.
  2. Jenks, p. 91 fn 1.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Jenks, p. 93.

Bubba Beautifies a Tokarev

Well, Bubba thought he was beautifying it. How about a two-tone hack paint job — black and candy apple red? Take it from the top:

Bubba Tokarev TT33 2-4

If you look at the area around the rear sight, you’ll see that the paint job is not only gaudyit’s also lousy and inept. 

Same is evident from the bottom:

Bubba Tokarev TT33 2-5

And, guess what? We just showed you this abortion’s two best sides. Look at the crappy job around the slide serrations, and the orange peel and bubbles in the paint on the slide:

Bubba Tokarev TT33 2-3

Two other things about that picture… ask yourself, what’s wrong with that firing pin retaining pin? And where’s the clumsily added safety on all recent Tok imports?

Now, we’ll let you see the whole thing:

Bubba Tokarev TT33 2-1

A coyote ugly Bubbafied Tokarev. And yes, he didn’t even use a crappy recent import job for his failed attempt to teach-yourself-cerakote. (Or more likely, “teach yourself Krylon”). He used a pre-68 import and/or GI bringback of a relatively uncommon postwar Tokarev. An all-matching gun, too.

But that’s not even the worst violation of this poor rape-victim of a pistol. Bubba had his way with the slide, too, in his inept attempt to, apparently, change firing pins.

Bubba Tokarev TT33 2-2

He helpfully had TOKAREV TT-33 stamped on it, in case no one could recognize it any more after his close-enough-for-government-work ministrations. You know, where he milled the slide serrations off.

The current owner — who’s trying to sell this junker for $400 — suggests that Bubba might have been trying to get at the firing pin retaining pin. That’s as good an attempt to read Bubba’s mind as we’re likely to get, because that ol’ boy just don’t reason like the rest of us.

What he has done is blow it right past “gunsmith special” into “parts gun” land. It would take a lot of work on that gun to make it good enough to stink, and if Fyodor Tokarev Himself weren’t dead and pushing up whatever they decorate Soviet cemeteries with, this’d kill him.

Maybe we should take this page down, lest Russians who take pride in their achievements in the Great Patriotic War consider it a casus belli. In the meantime, you can always go see it (and the other Tok the guy is selling, a recent import in arsenal-overhauled shape) at this thread in the ARFCOM Equipment Exchange.

Remember that Slide? Yes, it was Real. Yes, the Army Flipped Over It.

Yesterday, we showed you this slide, which originated at the US Army WTF moments Facebook page. The question on everybody’s lips was: was it real, or was it Photoshop?

Army Insider threat brief

The answer is here: it was real. and now every knob-polishing, superior-stroking, i’up-sucking staff officer in the army — one thing the service has in plentiful supply — is trying to find and hang those responsible.

The Army Times has the story, but the bottom line is this: the slide has been pulled, the witch hunt for its creator is on, and the message is being sent to all hands: punishment for misconduct is strictly for lower ranks, and even references to misconduct by higher ranks now are a self-inflicted career threat.

David Petraeus, whose picture has been removed from the slide, is actually a federal convict who pled guilty to mishandling classified information. You would think that was worthy of discussion, or at least a reference, when the subject is information security and the insider threat. You would think. But because he is a former general and member of the senior executive service, and because he is affiliated with a political campaign at present, he is immune to criticism for his misconduct.

Knowing that, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out who else’s picture has been removed from the slide.

Naturally, they had no problem finding a career-first, self-serving, knob-polishing, up-sucking yellowstain of a major to quote in the article, clutching his pearls at the idea of lèse-majesté in the ranks.

So, are you still telling yourself that the people in charge of the military take their oath to the Constitution seriously? Nonsense. They stand ready to serve a government of men, not of laws.

Bottom line: the Army is like a Turkish water pipe: the more you suck, the higher you go. Case in point, David Petraeus.

How Guns Caused Mideast Wars (per Amnesty)

Arms are loaded into a cargo Il-76 in Belgrade in January, bound somewhere south and east. BIRN photo.

Arms are loaded into a cargo Il-76 in Belgrade in January, bound somewhere south and east. BIRN photo.

How do the rebels and the governments in Libya, Syria, and Iraq (not to mention Iran’s pawns in Lebanon) manage to continue arming themselves with modern weapons, mostly of Russian or older Soviet design, when most of them are under embargo?

Would you believe, systematic cheating on UN embargos and laughably gauzy international “control” regimes? We knew you could! Just like Iraq kept arming up during a decade of sanctions, thanks in part to the corruption of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and every other UN official or soi-disant “diplomat,” nowadays anyone who says he’s Sunni Moslem can get the Saudis to stand him an End User Certificate or three for the mayhem-makers of his choice; the UN is anybody’s for a few bribes; and the national intelligence services who might know enough about this traffic to disrupt it, would rather not do so. They’d rather exploit it.

The Soros-funded (-controlled?) Balkan Investigative Reporting Network is claiming that the arms in these post-“Arab Spring” conflicts are being provided by the USA and its allies. And they do have some evidence for it: Saudi EUCs, contracts let by American commands for “weapons to be employed outside the USA” (those contracts are probably for arms for Iraqi or Afghan military, actually).

Amnesty International, another NGO that seems to find error only in Western Democracies, is always good for some high dudgeon:

“The evidence points towards systematic diversion of weapons to armed groups accused of committing serious human rights violations. If this is the case, the transfers are illegal under the ATT (United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty) and other international law and should cease immediately,” said Patrick Wilcken, an arms-control researcher at Amnesty International who reviewed the evidence collected by reporters.

And how many divisions has Amnesty?

But with hundreds of millions of euros at stake and weapons factories working overtime, countries have a strong incentive to let the business flourish. Arms export licences, which are supposed to guarantee the final destination of the goods, have been granted despite ample evidence that weapons are being diverted to Syrian and other armed groups accused of widespread human rights abuses and atrocities.

Naturally, they can find a political-appointee AMEMB who fingers the USA as the bad guy. Nobody’s as post-American as the zeroes in charge of American diplomacy.

Robert Stephen Ford, US ambassador to Syria between 2011 and 2014, told BIRN and the OCCRP that the trade is coordinated by the US Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Turkey and Gulf states through centres in Jordan and Turkey, although in practice weapon supplies often bypass this process.

Why, if someone were to send arms to the Middle East, those peace-lovers there might just be corrupted by them!

BIRN and the OCCRP examined arms export data, UN reports, flight records, and weapons contracts during a year-long investigation that reveals how thousands of assault rifles, mortar shells, rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons, and heavy machine guns are pouring into the troubled region, originating from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Montenegro, Romania,  Serbia and Slovakia.


Since the escalation of the Syrian conflict in 2012, these eight countries have approved the shipment of weapons and ammunition worth at least 1.2 billion euros to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey.


While the number is scary-sounding, you don’t know what it means. A billion euros could be trillions of rounds of small arms ammunition… or it could be a few ships and aircraft.

According to a New York Times report from February 2013, a senior Croatian official offered the country’s stockpiles of old weapons for Syria during a visit to Washington in the summer of 2012. Zagreb was later put in touch with the Saudis, who bankrolled the purchases, while the CIA helped with logistics for an airlift that began late that year.

With the Saudis in it, you see why the islamist parties are the ones getting the arms. The same thing happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when we channeled aid through ISI and the guys who wound up with arms were ISI’s preferences — mostly, the hardcore islamists.

While Croatia’s government has consistently denied any role in shipping weapons to Syria, former US ambassador to Syria Ford confirmed to BIRN and the OCCRP the New York Times account from an anonymous source of how the deal was hatched. He said he was not at liberty to discuss it further.

Well, we guess that tells us who the confidential source of the Times article was.

And naturally, to the Amnesty drone for example, the weapons are the cause of the conflict:

“Proliferation of arms to the region has caused untold human suffering; huge numbers of people have been displaced and parties to the conflict have committed serious human rights violations including abductions, executions, enforced disappearances, torture and rape,” said Amnesty’s Wilcken.

Lord love a duck.

Chiappa Chiappa Bang kBANG!

Here’s a Chiappa Rhino 2000DS revolver that has more or less reverted to kit form, kinetically.

Chiappa kB!

Now, you may have seen this before (about a quarter-million people have looked at the original post on Imgur as of now).

Poster saith (on Reddit):

This is a friend of a friend occurrence. This is what they told me: New gun and factory ammo at the range. They fired approximately 70 rounds when this happened. It blew the pad off his index finger. They just finished reconstructive surgery. I’m assuming it was caused by a squib. I’ll post more when I learn more.

And now the money shot…

We’ve got the missing finger for you, after the jump for the squeamish among ye.

Continue reading

Military Priority: Sex Changes

"She's a man, baby!" This is why they're too busy to address readiness or technology problems.

“She’s a man, baby!” This is why the SecDef is too busy to address readiness or technology problems.

Hey, we have the weakest Army and smallest Navy since the heyday of America FIrst! isolationism. We have had a full return of post-Vietnam style readiness pencil-whipping.

What are the suits in the E-Ring working on to enhance combat power, so that our military can deter, deny, degrade and defeat rivals and potential enemies? Sex Change Policy Documents.

The first of which, the Transgender Service Member Policy Implementation Fact Sheet, is attached for your perusal. It has been sent to all DOD leaders (and may be sent to all hands). It illustrates, if any further illustration was needed, that the only war the E-Ring is preparing to fight is the endless Social Justice War. The implementation runs about like this:

  • Effective immediately, mentally ill people who imagine they’re the opposite sex are, for all intents and purposes, untouchable. Their delusion must be taken seriously by all.
  • Effective 1 October 16 the DOD and the services will issue training materials and DOD medical facilities will provide sex changes on demand.
  • NLT 1 June 2017, all personnel will be subjected to mandatory training on all the glories and wonders of the transgender lifestyle.
  • NLT 1 July 2017, the services must accept transgender candidates as recruits, academy cadets or midshipmen, and ROTC students.
  • In a token nod to fiscal responsibility, recruits are supposed to be “stable in their preferred gender” and not need new surgeries, etc.
  • As soon as PFC Joe Tentpeg says he’s Josephine, he is Josephine, and moves in to the female barracks, whizzes standing up and shaves his beard in the female latrine, and tests to female PT standards.

There’s no guidance yet on what happens to the change-and-change-back trannies. Also, you can’t call a tranny a tranny:

Any discrimination against a Service member based on their gender identity is sex discrimination and may be addressed through the Department’s equal opportunity channels.


Diverse vibrancy is what these people believe in, in place of God.

Reportedly, the VA is also being directed to prioritize such sex change elective surgery.

Inside DOD, the attached document will be followed by a Directive Type Memorandum and a Department of Defense Instruction.


It’s a really good year to be retired, isn’t it? Imagine what the next step the SJWs will demand, after this.

When they make this mandatory, will Ash Carter go first? We’ll bring the Sawzall.

The Eternal Life of the Twist-Barrel Derringer

This type of weapon first appeared circa 1860: a two barreled derringer with a third central
“barrel” that’s really an axle.

sportarms derringer 2

A catch in front of the spur trigger releases a barrel lock, and the whole thing rotates 90º to load both barrels and 180º to fire the second barrel after discharging the first. A half-cock notch gets the hammer out of the way so that the barrels can rotate. So it’s not a true double-barrel in which the barrels can be discharged sequentially: it’s a turn-barrel repeater. Apart from the half-cock notch, there’s no kind of safety. Hammer down, the firing protrusion on the hammer rests on the cartridge rim (and all of these that we have seen are chambered for rimfire cartridges). To carry it safely you’d have to carry hammer down on an empty chamber à la Single-Action Army revolver, and rotate the barrels for your one and only shot! This is exactly the sort of thing incremental gun banners were going for when they used to propose banning Saturday Night Specials as the next step in their endless march.

cdm sportarms derringer 4

Muzzle End View

A variety of these were imported before the Gun Control Act of 1968 forbade their importation. Given their small size, simplicity, low parts count and therefore, ease of manufacture, former importers quickly found US manufacturers. The primary importer turned manufacturer of these, at least based on the numbers of them that turn up, was Sportarms of Miami.

sportarms derringer 4

You might ask what the sections of drill rod are for. That, Grasshopper, is your ejector. It takes a pretty good poke to get the cases out of the usually loose-fitting chambers.

A variety of finishes have been offered over the years.

sportarms derringer

(The 1968 small-pistol import ban was meant by its proponents to be an increment before banning domestic manufacture of such firearms, but events, like the censure for corruption of gun control leader Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, intervened).

Another manufacturer, CDM products, called it the “Long 2 Derringer”:

CDMLong 2 Box

Whatever you call it, this pint-sized pistol is intended, apparently, as a hideout or last-ditch defense firearm. We’ve seen them chambered in .22 short (the only one that’s comfortable to shoot, really), .22LR and even .22 Magnum.

It’s hard to imagine a worse self-defense gun. It has all the disadvantages of a small .25 autoloader, plus it’s a max 2-shot pistol, of which only one shot is available. We strongly suspect that many of these are bought and owned as pure novelties. Going price is $40-75, although we have seen dealers list them for $200 or $300, apparently on the Greater Fool Theory of marketing.

An exact copy, except brass-framed, of the little derringer was made by Estul, Inc. of Matthews, NC 28105, as the Twist-2. Estul was a machine shop that operated under than name from 1954 to 2007; it’s now called ABT Metals Manufacturing and based in Statesville, NC. Heres a brief (just over 5 minutes) video of unboxing and firing of what appears to be an NOS Twist-2.

Yep, his first shot failed to fire (and his 3rd). And in .22 short. This is clearly a novelty, not a pistol with any plausible defensive application.

If you look at the parts of a Sportarms Derringer / Long 2 / Twist-2 (or any of its many iterations) you will see that there are things that are easier, and less demanding of machine time and operator skill, to build than a Sten. Many homemade and improvised firearms are more involved than this, and actual 07 Manufacturer FFLs built these.

Military “Leadership” Roundup

ITEM: Equality, Imposed not Earned

scales_of_justiceThe warrior (social justice, one each) in command of Fort Myer, is opening the officers’ club to all ranks. An article in the Washington Free Beacon quotes a bunch of drivel from the CO of the post about how “inclusive” the move is. He even invokes the memory of George S. Patton, who undoubtedly would have been a social justice warrior like himself.

He hasn’t read a biography of Patton, apparently. The commander, some tool named Col. Patrick Duggan, did get one thing right: he “said the values at the base ‘have changed.'” No $#!+, Sherlock.

The story is missing several key points: O Clubs as a social destination for officers have been in decline since the outbreak of anti-liquor Puritanism in the mid-1980s. When you don’t know which ass-kissing 2LT is snitching to the CO about how many drinks you had, the fun goes right out of drinking. And the policy seems driven as much by the idea of giving O Club privileges not to the relatively few NCOs and enlisted soldiers at Fort Myer, but to the teeming ranks of already-privileged government workers.

ITEM: And we Thought the Old ROE Were Bad

SF1CRESTEli Lake has a remarkable story on the Rules of Engagement (ROE) for US SOF in Syria. We have no direct knowledge of the current ROE.

Four U.S. military officials told me that the 300 or so U.S. special operators in Syria are under very strict rules of engagement. Because such rules are highly classified, these sources have requested anonymity.

But the rules in place, known as “last cover and concealment,” are highly restrictive compared to special operations missions in the war on terror before 2014. Those rules of engagement allowed for U.S. special operators to fight alongside the local forces they trained. The rules of engagement for Syria, according to one military officer, amount to: “don’t get shot.”

Like everything that comes out of Washington these days, they’re playing with the lives and effectiveness of our guys on the ground.

Major Adrian J.T. Rankine-Galloway, a spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, told me Wednesday, “Our forces always have the right to defend themselves, but they do not engage directly in offensive combat operations.”

However, it appears that if you do defend yourself, you’ve tripped the catch-me-F-me switch.

Behind the scenes, the restrictive rules of engagement have met opposition. U.S. military officials tell me key members of Congress as well as officers on the ground in Syria and Iraq have asked for the flexibility to do more. One such lawmaker is Mac Thornberry, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The communications director for his committee, Claude Chafin, declined to discuss the matter in detail. But he said, “The chairman is concerned about the restrictions placed on our guys which limit their effectiveness in helping others.”

Lake took the exact same inference we did:

In some ways the rules of engagement for Syria are reminiscent of the restrictions placed on U.S. special operators in El Salvador in the 1980s. The U.S. forces in that tiny country helped train the embattled government’s counter-insurgency forces. But they were not allowed to go into battle with the forces they trained.

Not going on patrol with your Gs you’re training is really, really bad. In the 1980s, a Democratic Congress imposed that rule on USSF because, essentially, they wanted the Communist FMLN to win. Our guys argued at the time, and their advocates are arguing today, that:

  1. Not going on patrol is inimical to rapport building;
  2. It shakes G confidence in their instructors;
  3. It blinds the instructors to the actual performance of their Gs;
  4. It makes it impossible to measure G performance, and renders any performance metric that is issued corrupt and worthless;
  5. It loses the synergy that comes from cooperation in the field of USSF’s technical mastery and host nation personnel’s native cultural and locational knowledge.

Lake concludes that the essence of the current weasel ROE is: “Don’t get shot.”

Remember: when Washington says they have your back, they mean in their sights. 

ITEM: SecNav Shamed into Naming Ship for Hero

Er... yeah, in this post, that logo's sarcasm.

Er… yeah, in this post, that logo’s sarcasm.

After facing considerable backlash for announcing the naming of a several ships of the dwindling Navy for various living and dead Democrat politicians, the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, took a moment’s respite from “downsizing” the service he is supposed to be leading, and announced the naming of one ship for a sea-services hero, WWII Marine and posthumous Medal of Honor recipient John Basilone.

Recently, Mabus has announced ships named for Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. John Lewis, and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. None served a day in the military; Levin and Lewis were Cold War draft evaders who sent other young men to serve in their place. Other prominent Democrats rewarded with ships in the class were the late Harvey Milk, a San Francisco councilman, Attorney General and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Supreme Court justice Earl Warren. Of them, only Warren (who served stateside as a junior Army officer in WWI) and Kennedy (who dropped out of an aviation commissioning program in 1946 to serve as a seaman apprentice on the ship named after his brother Joseph, who died in a flying accident in 1944) were veterans.

Most ships in the same class (DDG-51 Arleigh Burke) as the USS Basilone (DDG-122) are named after significant naval officers or medal of honor recipients, but Mabus has named some for Democrat politicians, including DDG-117 for former LBJ official and Washington Post executive Paul Ignatius (whose sons are well-connected journalists), and Sen. Daniel Inouye. Ignatius had served in the Navy, and Inouye served in the Army with distinction, losing his right arm and earning the Distinguished Service Cross, which was upgraded in 2000 to the Medal of Honor after passage of a bill that Inouye himself championed.

Banned in Boston: Death Rays and Phasers

Marvin and his Illudium PU-36 Space Modulator are Banned in Boston

Marvin the Martian and his Illudium PU-36 Space Modulator are Banned in Boston

We are not making this up. The State of Massachusetts, ground zero for the world hoplophobia movement, has banned any “weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill.” That’s clearly a ban on death rays and phasers, just in case they might be invented! It would also seem to cut off any possibility of some citizen militia arming up with photon torpedoes and phased pulse rifles in the 40 megawatt range. Men of Northeast Shooters Forum, you have been warned: govern yourselves accordingly.

Invent a working example of any of these, and you get 2½ years in the State House of Correction, with all the pervos and hardened prestoopniks (like two of the last three heads of the State Senate, for instance).

Now, while the wise legislators (heh) of the Massachusetts General Court have ensured that the rabble in such dodgy places as Lexington and Concord aren’t amassing pulse cannons and storing hogsheads of electrons for potential insurrection, the law does make an exception for such of the King’s servants as are required to enforce the King’s Peace upon His bumptious subjects. Straight outta the statute (emphasis ours):

No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill, except: (1) a federal, state or municipal law enforcement officer, or member of a special reaction team in a state prison or designated special operations or tactical team in a county correctional facility, acting in the discharge of his official duties who has completed a training course approved by the secretary of public safety in the use of such a devise….

Yes, they misspelled “device” in the statute book. Morons.

And there’s another exception, for the suppliers of the King’s servants (and here they resume spelling “device” right):

or (2) a supplier of such devices or weapons designed to incapacitate temporarily, if possession of the device or weapon is necessary to the supply or sale of the device or weapon within the scope of such sale or supply enterprise. No person shall sell or offer for sale such device or weapon, except to federal, state or municipal law enforcement agencies.

Anything else, while we’re banning science-fiction weaponry?

A device or weapon sold under this section shall include a mechanism for tracking the number of times the device or weapon has been fired.

Sure, because if you’re going to ban future weapons you might as well imbue the ones used by your servants with futuristic capabilities!

The secretary of public safety shall adopt regulations governing who may sell or offer to sell such devices or weapons in the commonwealth and governing law enforcement training on the appropriate use of portable electrical weapons.

Government: full employment for all the kids from the Special class. Think of the numbers of people who write these regulations, and thank a merciful God that they are not embedded in some company that is doing something productive, hardening its arteries and reducing its employees’ mean IQ.