Another false narrative bites the dust

Stabbings in Sydney and elsewhere show that societal violence is not an issue of guns.

One woman was killed and another seriously injured by a knife wielding man shouting “Allahu akbar,” in downtown Sydney Australia Tuesday. It hasn’t been ruled a terrorist act despite the words shouted during the attack. As reported by the Guardian:

Sydney stabbing: one woman killed and one injured in ‘terrifying carnage’ in CBD

A man who allegedly stabbed a woman to death in Sydney’s central business district before attacking others on a busy city street with a butcher’s knife was arrested carrying information about terrorist attacks and extremist ideologies on a USB drive.
But police say the man did not have any known links to terror groups, and that he acted alone. The attacks are not being treated as a terrorist attack, the New South Wales police commissioner, Mick Fuller, said on Tuesday night.
Last week there were these reports of attacks with knives:

Four dead in Garden Grove mass stabbing attacks

An “angry” man went on a killing spree armed with a sharp object, possibly a knife or machete, as he went from apartments to local businesses in what seems to be a random series of attacks. Four people are dead and two others are injured.
Police have an unidentified suspect, reportedly a 33-year-old Hispanic male, in custody.
We also have this report from USA Today of another mass attack: 2 women stabbed, 1 fatally, in ‘random’ attack at Pittsburgh bus stop.
Another stabbing took place in Israeli, where a soldier was stabbed to death as reported by the Associated Press.

What should we conclude from all of these attacks?

What are we to glean from these disparate attacks? Are we to conclude that we now suddenly have a knife violence epidemic? With attendant hashtags #KnifeReformNow and calls to ban ‘military style’ edged weapons or ‘Assault Weapons’?
These were all random incidences, with it likely being that there is no connection between them aside from Media contagion very much like those involving firearms. But unlike firearms, the national socialist media won’t try to exploit these deaths for political gain.

Something else that cannot be banned.

Even more so than guns, knives would be impossible to control since these weapons are easily made by hand. As they say, all you need is a material that will hold an edge and way to make it sharp. Common materials: stone, wood, metal, plastic, ceramic and even hard candy can be used to make a weapon. It would be impossible to ban stone, wood, metal, plastic, ceramic and hard candy, so it would be impossible to ban edged weapons.

The Bottom-Line.

These incidents of violence show that it’s something more than mere inanimate objects. With the solution just one more Liberty Control measure away. It’s something far deeper than the fact of more than 120 million people and 400 – 600 million guns. These reports show that the gun part of the violence ‘epidemic’ is nothing other than a false narrative.
These incidents show that the problem of societal violence won’t be solved with a bunch of nonsensical hashtags or even more draconian restrictions on Liberty. The solution will have to be addressed with a restoration of moral underpinnings and culture, not with the forcible taking of people’s property without due process or government control of that property.
Originally published on the NOQ Report



Why is the media covering up the Leftism of the El Paso mass murderer?

The El Paso mass murderer is on the collectivist-Left. Why is the national socialist media covering that up?

Leftists love to play word games when it comes to the sinister characters on their side of the political aisle. They will endlessly repeat lies that a socialist workers’ party wasn’t actually a socialist workers’ party when that is clearly the case. Quite often, they will project their maladies on others to confuse the issue and absolve them of the issue such as a fascist cabal labeling themselves an ‘antifa’.
They also love to use assertions that imply something is true when it is woefully un-provable. An example being the supporter or voter ruse, making the claim that a certain group is ‘right wing’ because it was supposedly supported by those on the right. In actuality, there is no way of proving this either way.
In point of fact, examining a person or group’s words or deeds are the only way of determining their political ideology. Such is the case with the two mass murdering miscreants of recent days (note that we’re not going to use their names). Analyzing the words of both prove they were on the Left of the political spectrum.
Please note that there are those who doubt the authenticity of the screed of the mass murdering miscreant with confusing talk of where or when it was posted. However, this articledetails when and where it was posted, with accompanying documentation that shows it was posted just before the tragedy. Since this was quite some time before its name was released, it would have been next to impossible for it to have been faked.

BlazeTV Looked at the words from the El Paso mass murderer.

In the video, Jason Buttrill makes the very salient point at approximately the 6:28 min mark that murders words in its ‘manifesto’ are Left-wing talking points. That there is nothing conservative about it, that when they say ‘alt-right’ they mean the alternative to the right. They are not Conservatives, they are socialists or collectivists by nature, Identitarians by nature.
The national socialist media are clearly trying to avoid discussing those parts, instead they are selectively informing the public, incessantly focusing on only certain phrases to create a certain impression.

The Crime Prevention Research Center also analysed the words of the El Paso mass murder.

What does the El Paso WalMart killer’s manifesto show?

The killer’s manifesto made a couple of things clear.
1. He is a racist who identifies with the Christchurch shooter. The New Zealand killer was a socialist/environmentalist.

2. The El Paso killer is also an environmentalist. His environmentalism is also the basis for his racism and anti-immigrant views: “Our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources. This has been a problem for decades. . . . Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. . . . Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products. . . . So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”

3. The El Paso Walmart killer hates companies and technological change such as automation, but he seems to support at least some Republicans.

4. “Recently, the senate under a REPUBLICAN administration has greatly increased the number of foreign workers that will take American jobs. Remember that both Democrats and Republicans support immigration and work visas.”

[Emphasis added]
While it may have supported some Republicans, it clearly leaned to the Socialist-Left. Also note that it chose to attack a ‘low security target’ one where it won’t mean opposition, meaning a ‘Gun Free’ zone. It was reported on Townhall that the mall attached to the Walmart was a ‘Liberty Free’ zone:
Simon Malls, the operators of the Cielo Vista Mall, the scene of the El Paso shooting, bans guns even though Texans are allowed to open and carry concealed.

The Bottom-Line: This is how false narratives are built.

Leftists build these falsehoods by ignoring the facts or selectively presenting them and when all else fails, just make things up out of whole cloth. They are ignoring the facts of the Dayton mass murder while being highly selective in the El Paso case. The evidence is clear that the Dayton mass murderer was a far-Left fascist, while it shows the El Paso Killer to be on the same side.
Why is the National Socialist Media promulgating these lies? The potential answer is extremely disturbing, the national socialist Left is building on the false narrative that these attacks are coming from the right. That they also negatively impact President Trump and are pushing him to betray is base is just a side benefit.
This is a false narrative to not only disarm and silence anyone on the right, but it could also lead to further conflict.
Originally published on the NOQ Report


Why aren’t the media and the Left held to blame for mass shootings?

It’s time that we properly place the blame for societal violence on cultural Marxism and Media contagion.

The second mass murder tragedy in a 24 period perfectly demonstrates how the media and the Left [But we repeat ourselves] cynically exploit ‘serious crises’ for political gain. They are always quick to blame free speech or inanimate objects while forgetting their culpability. For decades, they have debauched our society’s moral underpinnings with Cultural Marxism while encouraging follow-on violence by Media contagion. Two such attacks in such a short time span are a perfect illustration of the problem of media contagion, that will be the main point of this discussion.

The problem of Media Contagion in causing mass shootings.

It’s become an all too familiar pattern, despite the falsehoods from the national media and the Socialist-Left there have been long stretches of time between the occurrences of societal violence. Then out of the blue a mass murder attack takes place, causing the socialist media/socialist Left to fall all over themselves to rush out and exploit someone else’s pain for their political gain.
While the elite of the socialist-Left compete to make the first pontifications on how we should have already confiscated guns, the socialist media begins wall to wall coverage of the tragedy, being sure to publicize the miscreant’s name, image, history, erstwhile manifesto and anything else they can think of. We are made to know all there is to know about the mass murder ad nauseam on every channel.
Then lo and behold, another mass murder attack takes place and the exercise repeats itself. Astoundingly enough, media personalities who are smarter than everyone else [just ask them] will suddenly lose their intellectual faculties in not realizing they have contributed to the crisis in trying to cynically exploit it. In the psychology field, this is known as Media Contagion, and it is endemic in how the Left and the media exploit these serious crises.

It’s all in the Liberty Grabber playbook.

As reported in Forbes magazine, the Liberty Grabbers put out a publication on how to exploit tragedy for crass political gain: Exploiting Tragedies, Dem’s Gun Grab Guidelines Emphasize Emotional Assaults Over Facts.  While it’s well worth reading and understanding the publication, including some suggested ‘examples of powerful language’ that are staples in the #GunControlNow threads:
  • “It breaks my heart that every day in our country (state or city) children wakeup worried and frightened about getting shot.”
  • “The real outrage – the thing that makes this violence so unforgivable – is that we know how to stop it and we’re not getting it done.”
The section on how to handle ‘High-profile gun violence incidents’ is very enlightening given how these tragedies are currently being exploited.
  • When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.
[Emphasis added]
Please note the rather interesting ‘unique circumstances’ language in the overview, clearly even the Liberty Grabbers know these are isolated incidents, but we digress.
These are a couple of pithy examples of their ‘guideposts’:





How many of those items have been utilized by the Liberty Grabbers on the Left in the last day or so? How many times have we seen this pattern?
These are breaking stories to be sure, but the media and the Left are extremely ‘selective’ in what to cover and overwhelm the viewer. For example, back on July 13 a man armed with a rifle and incendiary devices attacked a Federal building in Tacoma, Washington as reported The Epoch Times, a few days later a man shouting Man shouting ‘You die!’ killed 33 in Japan anime studio fire.
How well were those tragedies covered? Did the media cover it as much as they did with other foreign stories of mass murder? Was the first instance a case of the wrong type of perpetrator? Could it be that the second case was virtually ignored because it didn’t involve pushing the Left’s obsession over gun confiscation? Do we even have to mention the regular death toll in urban areas of strict Liberty Control run by the Socialist-Left?

Studies on Media Contagion prove the point.

Violent events are often covered by news outlets in great detail and spread immediately through mass media and social media. Experts believe that this media coverage can inspire others to copy these actions or commit similar crimes.[1] This is called the media contagion effect, and it happens with suicide, terrorist attacks, and mass shootings.

Studies indicate that the more media attention a shooter gets, the more likely the event will inspire a future mass shooter. For example, a 2015 study found that after a mass shooting, there was an increased chance of another one occurring in the next 13 days.[7] A 2017 study found that media coverage of a mass shooting may increase the frequency and lethality of future shootings, but the contagion period might not be within the first two weeks, but instead might inspire the frequency of mass shootings in the future.[8]


Thompson, D. (2017). Mass Shootings in America Are Spreading Like a Disease. The Atlantic. Retrieved March 14, 2018 from
American Psychological Association. (2016). “Media Contagion” Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says. Retrieved from Accessed on March 12, 2018
Duwe, Grant. (2017). “Mass Shootings Are Getting Deadlier, Not More Frequent.” Politico Magazine. Retrieved March 13, 2018 from
Federal Bureau of Investigations. (n.d.). “Active Shooter Resources.” Retrieved March 13, 2018, from
[Emphasis added]
A paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention asserted that: “Media Contagion” Is Factor in Mass Shootings
DENVER — People who commit mass shootings in America tend to share three traits: rampant depression, social isolation and pathological narcissism, according to a paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention that calls on the media to deny such shooters the fame they seek.

Johnston and her coauthor, Andrew Joy, BS, also of Western New Mexico University, reviewed data on mass shootings amassed by media outlets, the FBI and advocacy organizations, as well as scholarly articles, to conclude that “media contagion” is largely responsible for the increase in these often deadly outbursts.

The prevalence of these crimes has risen in relation to the mass media coverage of them and the proliferation of social media sites that tend to glorify the shooters and downplay the victims, Johnston said.
“We suggest that the media cry to cling to ‘the public’s right to know’ covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their No. 1 ratings and advertising boosters,” she said.
[Emphasis added]

The Bottom Line.

The evidence showing the Left trying to exploit tragedy for its own crass political gain has actually encouraged further attacks in a cynical, self-fulfilling prophecy. Events do have to be covered, but not in a selective manner to push the gun confiscation part of the Left’s socialist national agenda. It also doesn’t have to glorify these mass murders fostering further on attacks.
We’ve shown in previous articles that the Left carries a great deal of culpability in causing these tragedies, they should at least take responsibility for their actions as well as minimizing the Media Contagion that keeps the news cycle of death in operation.
Originally published on the NOQ Report


Mammals’ Demanding Action is calling for a ban on Assault Reptiles in the wake of the latest attack

The gecko control group has also called for reptilia purchase restrictions after a recent snake slinging.

Well, it’s happened again, the scourge of gecko violence has reared its ugly head. A few weeks ago a man assaulted a restaurant manager with a ‘military style’ [meaning it was green] Iguana. Now there is word that a snake slinging took place in the commission of a crime.

USA Today reported back in April that a man swung an Iguana above his head and hurled it at a restaurant manager. Unfortunately, it broke the reptile’s leg rightfully adding the charge of animal cruelty to the perpetrator’s rap sheet.

In the latest assault reptile attack reported by the Associated-Press:

Police say a woman stole a vehicle after throwing a nonpoisonous snake at the driver, then crashed through barricades set up for a pole vaulting exhibition.

Mammals’ demand has called for a ban on Military style Assault Reptiles in every town. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has vowed to take on the NRA – the National Reptile Association – on confronting the crisis with a promise to institute real Gecko reform in the first 100 days of her term, wherever that might be.


Originally published on the NOQ Report

America has always been Great

We are a great nation because we have a system that corrects for the flaws of human society.

It’s that time of year when we celebrate the creation of an exceptional nation. When patriotic Americans look back at the birthright of freedom they have been entrusted with from past generations. A legacy that we are duty bound to preserve for future generations.

We won’t dwell on those who choose to denigrate this legacy, suffice it to say that perhaps they have forgotten the difference between perfection and greatness. We haven’t made a claim to perfection, which is a goal that is impossible to attain in an imperfect world.

Greatness means that we have the best system that is humanly possible. A system that corrects for the imperfections of human society as best it can. The story of our nation is one of flawed men and women who have overcome their imperfections to create an exceptionally self-correcting system.

The founding fathers created an ideal society despite their many flaws.

There, we said it, the men who created this great nation had many and varied flaws as does everyone, including those who use passive voice far too often or use the word ‘and’ as a transitional phrase. Nevertheless, these flaws didn’t stop them from looking around to find the best ideas for the formation of a society to amalgamate them into a system that has stood the test of time.

It is quite possible that they knew of Plato’s ancient conceptions of an ‘Ideal State’ given that Thomas Jefferson had a copy of his Socratic dialog ‘Republic’ from over 2,000 years ago. Sir Thomas More’s classic work ‘Utopia’ was also a sensation when it was published in 1516, so it is entirely possible they could have been exposed to these ideas and rejected them.

Similarly, Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ was published in 1776, in addition to the works of John Locke and others. The point is that they created the best system possible, utilizing what worked while rejecting that which depended upon fanciful and untested theories that defy human nature.

A system of limited government able to correct itself.

Were there flaws in the system of government they created? Of course there were, with the vile institution of slavery being the prime example. Nevertheless, they were able to work around these flaws to form something that would correct this issue later on.

It was never perfect, but no system of imperfect beings can ever attain that goal. Taken by itself, our society could be assailed as being woefully inadequate, but in the context of other societal systems of now or then, it is vastly superior. Consider the words of some the people who created and fostered this great nation in taking account of what has been attained and what can be accomplished in the future.

Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence.

Everyone with even a passing familiarity with history should know of the man’s flaws and circumstance. Nevertheless, he was able to create an almost perfect statement of the relationship of government and a free society.

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.’ Thomas Jefferson

We concede that the man held slaves, the point is that he rose above that transient circumstance to create what is now colloquially referred to as a ‘mission statement’ for the proper relationship between government and society.

Thomas Jefferson’s declaration against slavery.

Please take note of the words that were struck from Thomas Jefferson’s “original rough draft” of the Declaration of Independence

With regard to the ‘repeated injuries and usurpations’ of the ‘present King of Great Britain’:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

The colonies wouldn’t have been able to attain independence without presenting a unified front to the King, therefor a compromise was made to avoid the problem at the moment, while they took steps to at least incrementally resolve the issue. This would of course come back to haunt them with the agony of the American Civil war later on.

The proper form of the rational political spectrum.

His statement on the direct relationship between the size of government and the circumstances of Liberty is an almost perfect encapsulation of the rational political spectrum:

‘The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.’ Thomas Jefferson

He also set forth a statement of the essential types of government:

Extract from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Paris Jan. 30. 1787.

Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. without government, as among our Indians. 2. under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. to have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. it is a government of wolves over sheep.

[Emphasis added]

That rudimentary framework along with the common definitions of most political ideologies informs as the best framework for a proper understanding of the rational political spectrum. Correlating them logically places anarchy as the first form. With Limited, Pro-Liberty Conservative government as the second form while the authoritarian tendencies of the Socialist-Left would fall under the third form.

This isn’t the purpose of this essay, but suffice it to say that those who choose to use deception to advance their attainment of power. Will quite often deliberately confuse the issue at to where certain political ideologies situate themselves on what should be a straight linear progression. From ‘without government’ on the far-right to ‘governments of force’ on the far-left.

Correcting for the original sin of slavery.

As was the case with the world at the time [and still is in many cases] the country had a major structural flaw: Slavery. Despite this flaw we persevered and compromised as we have always done. The founding fathers knew slavery was a horrid injustice that would have to be addressed at some point in the future. It should be noted that the abolition slavery was the raison d’être for the existence of the Republican Party. This was the structural injustice that caused the most devastating war was ever fought on the North American continent. It raged for four long years with the ‘high water mark’ taking place on the anniversary of the nation’s birth around the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Perhaps it was the timing of the first days of July with independence day looming that caused Robert E. Lee the commanding general of the army of Northern Virginia to take the gamble known as Pickett’s Charge on the third day of the battle. Never the less, the failure to win the field meant the ultimate end of the Confederacy and the abhorrent institution of slavery. It was also the timing of July 4 that caused Confederate General John C. Pemberton to surrender the city after a 47-day siege.

The dedication of Soldier’s National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania saw another flawed man arose to offer a few remarks. The short address by President Abraham Lincoln was only a few paragraphs, but it encapsulated and rededicated the purpose of the nation:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The American civil war would rage on for 2 more bloody years before effectively ending at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Throughout the years the system the founding fathers created still had problems and these were corrected with new laws or new constitutional amendments. Some of which merely affirmed what was previously set forth in the document. These corrections were done systematically, without the need for revolution or bloodshed, a bottom up approach instead of a top down Diktat.

A tradition of elevating flawed men and women to greatness.

We will close out this longer than expected dissertation with one other note. This great nation of ours has a ‘habit’ of utilising admittedly flawed people and having them do great things. This is more than exemplified by our current president. Like many, we were reluctant Trump supporters with many a time disagreeing with what he has done or tweeted. Nevertheless, he has also turned out to reach beyond expectation, while not perfect he has shown greatness in many ways. That is the essence of our nation, admittedly flawed people of all variations who have done extraordinary things because of a system based in Liberty. Let us keep it that way.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

Firearm Technology 101, Part I: The common elements of every gun

A tutorial on basic firearm terms and technology for patriots In honour of #GunPrideMonth

The Latin saying ‘praemonitus, praemunitus’ [Forewarned is forearmed] is more than appropriate here in that having basic knowledge of all firearms will prepare those of us on the Pro-Liberty Right for the ongoing attempts by the Authoritarian Socialist Left in depriving us of our basic freedoms.

Knowing the basic facts will help in dispelling the myths and lies from the Liberty grabber Left in the debate over Liberty control. Guns are essentially mechanical devices actuated by the chemical energy of a burning propellant. Most small arms operate in an automated fashion utilizing the energy of a rapidly expanding gas. It makes the use of these tools of self-defense far easier as is the case with most other automated processes.

Almost anything can be used as a weapon to carry out an assault.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left loves using undefined surrogate phrases to attack Liberty whilst pretending to not attack Liberty. It enables them to go after everyone’s freedom while still pretending to be ‘Liberal’. Hence, they exploit terms such as ‘Hate speech’, ‘Assault Weapon’ or their latest creation, ‘Military style’. They use these meaningless terms as a weapon to assault Liberty without looking like they hate speech.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the term weapon has the phrase ‘assault with a deadly weapon’ as one example of the use of the term. As the saying goes, anything can be a weapon if you hold it correctly, so if anything can be an ‘Assault Weapon’, everything and anything can be banned.

For example, Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell has disturbingly switched from a demand to confiscate semi-automatic firearms to banning of any weapon possible under that undefined term. Semi-automatic has a specific definition, ‘Assault Weapon’ or ‘Military style’ do not, meaning those terms could be applied to virtually anything that could be used as a weapon.

Tube, propellant, projectile, ignition

At its most rudimentary level, every firearm has the four basic elements consisting of a tube, propellant, projectile and ignition. There is of course a wide variation in these elements, but these are the common parts of every gun.


Some of the earliest examples of the technology were large bombards used to assault castles. These were formed with rings and staves that resembled a traditional storage barrel, hence the name for this part. It contains the rapid expansion of gases of the ignition of the propellant that forces the projectile through the bore, the inner part of the tube. The inside diameter of the tube it termed the caliber and it is the primary designation of a gun.

The portion of the tube or barrel of the gun that holds the propellant and projectile during the ignition and firing sequence is generally designated as the firing chamber. Some will refer to the inner diameter of the tube or caliber as what a particular weapon will chamber.


In most cases, this is a chemical composition that rapidly produces the gas that forces the projectile through the tube and out towards the target. In other cases this is simply compressed gas that performs the same function.

Gunpowder was the initial chemical propellant consisting of saltpeter (potassium nitrate), sulfur, and charcoal which was replaced by nitrocellulose.


At the most essential level, a weapon is a means by which force can be applied to a target, preferably at a distance. The projectile is the elementary means of carrying out this function and the reason for the existence of a firearm.


This is the means that energizes the chemical reaction of the propellant that produces the rapidly expanding gas that forces the projectile out of the tube and down range at the target. Initially, this was merely a section of rope smoldering at the end known as a ‘slow match’. The tube or barrel would have a small hole to transfer the ignition source to the propellant.

In later developments, a small metallic wheel would spin against a material causing the sparks that ignite the propellant. A spring would cause this rotation and this would be wound up with a spanner, the trigger during the firing sequence would release this to fire the weapon.

Note that the development of this technology in the early part of the 16th century was the cause of the first inklings of Liberty control because this weapon could be carried concealed on the body.

Son of a Breech.

Technological limitations had the barrel closed at one end, necessitating the loading of the propellant and projectile from the muzzle or open end of a firearm.

The development of a breech-loading firearm was one of the revolutionary technological achievements that changed everything. This meant that one could load the propellant and projectile from the opening or ‘breech’ of the gun, speeding up the process considerably.

A bolt from the blue.

The technological innovation of breech loading required the development of a means to seal the opening of the barrel to keep the expanding gases contained during the firing sequence. In most cases this is a cylindrical part that fits into the breech that also a means to load, ignite the propellant and extract the empty case in the instance of Cartridge ammunition.

There are variations in how the bolt seals the breech during the firing sequence, but most will have the bolt rotate along it’s cylindrical or longitudinal axis to engage locking lugs to withstand the firing pressures.

Every gun from a .22 caliber rim-fire to an 16 inch navel cannon has these basic elements. The primary difference between them being the inner diameter and length of the tube. Some have a set of spiral grooves or rifling to impart a gyroscopic spin to the projectile, but for the most part these basic elements describe every firearm in existence.

In part II we will examine the revolutionary innovation developed in the early 19th century and how it made every modern firearm.

Originally published on the NOQ Report

Imagine the Left being completely honest

The Left has to hide its core ‘value’ of forced wealth redistribution in order to survive, but imagine if the whole truth came out.

No one would support the Left’s socialistic slavery if it were truthful about its ideology of forced wealth redistribution. They will, however admit to some half-truths using the sin of omission to keep the rest under wraps. This is a look at what it would be like if they were completely honest about their socialist national agenda.
After all, these are people who disguise who they are with deliberately false labels. They can talk all they want about being ‘progressive’ or ‘Liberal’, but it’s all backward thinking with the antithesis of Liberty in having ‘the pedagogy of the paredón’ [execution wall].

Leftists weren’t socialists until suddenly they were.

It is really astounding that the Left expects their words to be taken at face value when their history has always been one of lies. For years they solemnly denied that they were socialists, even though the dictionary and their national agenda told a different story. Everyone was supposed to ignore their obvious denial of reality.
Then in a rare flash of honesty, they admitted what had been obvious for decades: They were socialists.
Lost in the accolades of their coming out of the red closet was the fact that they had been lying about their core values for years. It was positively Orwellian in how they switched without the slightest hint of guilt over their abject deception.

Leftist weren’t demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.

Leftists certainly seem to have a talent for being able to lie while the truth is in front of everyone else. They used to parrot the lie that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ while absolutely demanding gun confiscation.
It was a bold-faced lie designed to assuage the objections to the Left’s demands for Intergalactic Background Checks or gun registration. We’re not supposed to worry our pretty little heads about the implications of these measures because this just wasn’t in the cards. It was an obvious lie, but the Left demanded that we accept it as the truth along with many others.
These days it’s to the point that the mere rumour of the possibility of a shooting or a particularly cutting remark to a Leftist politician is enough to bring forth this demand. Nevertheless, Leftists will still try to parrot this obvious lie, expecting it to be taken at face value.

Happy talk half-truths.

The national socialist Left would like to be lauded for those rare occasions when they are truly honest. In most cases it’s only part of the story with ‘happy talk’ about free health care, free college, free food, free housing, leaving out the justification over how other people are morally obligated to fund all the freebies.
That is by design, because those discussions delve into the messier aspects of socialism. The false promises, the forcible wealth redistribution, the oppression when the false promises become manifest, the rounding up of dissidents into gulags and concentration camps, the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].
The full implications of Leftist half-truths reveals why they keep them hidden, only emphasising the positive aspects of their socialist national agenda.

‘From each according to his abilities’ has to be done at gunpoint.

It should be no surprise that a man who advocated the ideas of a parasitical ideology would have stolen them from the ancient dialogs of someone else. Good old Karl Marx was aware of these ancient texts since he commented on them in his writings. Many others were experimenting – and failing with socialism well before he wrote his ‘manifesto’.
However, the man did phrase the essence of forced wealth redistribution with his:
‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’    Karl Marx
Leftists love to talk up the second part of that little ditty with the promise of all kinds of free stuff while leaving out how the ‘From each’ is supposed to be implemented. This is because other people’s money has to be taken by force.
Bernie Sanders gloated about cancelling student debt and making Wall Street pay for it, without mentioning why they are morally obligated to fund that freebie. He also failed to mention the economic implications of stealing of $1.6 trillion from some people simply because he wants to buy votes.
Where the Leftists truly honest, they would make sure everyone knows some people will be forced to pay for all of the ‘free’ goodies. Most people don’t have to worry about being at the wrong end of government gun, but they do have to worry about that taking of other people’s money sinking the economy.

The full implications of Medicare-for-All.

If there is one thing Leftists love more than being called Liberal, its being lauded for generously spending other people’s money. How they think that money is theirs to take can only be attributed to the distorted mentality of the collectivist mindset.
As reported by JD Rucker Bernie Sanders confirmed the ‘all’ in Medicare-for-All includes illegal immigrants Let’s complete the ‘logic’ of the left in this case and other entitlement issues.
The truthful implications of this are that he believes that everyone has a claim on the property of those who may happen to earn or have more than others. That government is more than a mere protectors of basic human rights, but should be the conduit by which wealth is equally distributed to all in the world.
Never mind that the prospect of free health care, free college, free food, free housing will have the entire world-beating down our ‘door’.

The Left wants everyone to be able to vote to steal other people’s money.

As in the previous example, we all knew what the Left wanted. It was a case of the Left finally coming out and admitting the truth. As reported on Townhall: Caught Red Handed: Despite Their Protests, Democrats Want Illegals To Vote. This is not just a case of the government obtaining the consent of the governed, it is one of the Left flooding the country with illegal invaders that will vote to have other people’s money redistributed to them. Couple this with the promise of free stuff for all who can come in over the border and the people who pay the bills will have lost control of their own country. It will be the end result of every democracy that will be inherently unstable.
If they can accomplish this, the national socialist left will have succeeded in taking the most stable and functioning systems of government and perverting it to one where the minority will be tyrannised by the majority. It will inevitably disintegrate as fewer people work to have their earnings stolen by others, shifting the burden to fewer and fewer until the whole system collapses.

Open borders and reparations for past sins.

Our final two examples – in more ways than one – we have Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking ‘What’s The Point?’ on the issue of enforcing Immigration Laws In U.S. as reported in the Daily Wire.
Then there is the story reported on the website Twitchy of an opinion piece from the New York Times that openly admits that the illegal invasion and reparations movement are meant to be penance for ‘our’ past sins.
The national Socialist-Left doesn’t see any point in borders or Enforcing Immigration Laws and that we must pay some form of penance for our past sins. Never mind that the people who committed these sins have long since passed or that the people benefiting weren’t the original victims. No, to those on the Left, we have committed the unpardonable crime of being successful and having the best system of government ever conceived.

The Takeaway.

The full extent of the truth of what the Left has admitted is almost too monstrous to contemplate. They have no qualms about forcibly taking property in order to buy votes and loyalty. They are perfectly willing to hand out goodies to anyone who will vote for them. Finally, they don’t believe in sovereignty and see the illegal invasion and reparations as a way of the innocent of today to pay for the collective sins of the past.
Thus whatever they do to the country to attain power for themselves is perfectly legitimate in their minds. It doesn’t matter to them if it leads to our destruction because we probably deserve it. It used to be said that certain foreign entities hated us for our freedom. In looking at the implications of the rare instances when the Left has been a little honest, it would seem they agree with that sentiment.
Originally published on the NOQ Report