The Truth About silencers/Suppressors: Debunking the Myths of “Spy Weapons”

Phoenix, AZ—Here in Arizona, where gun laws are few and liberty thrives, firearms enthusiasts have the rare privilege of legally owning suppressors. These misunderstood devices, often sensationalized as “silencers,” have a reputation steeped in Hollywood drama and misconceptions. But what’s the real story behind these so-called “spy weapons”? Let’s pull back the curtain.

The Birth of a Legend

The suppressor, commonly referred to as a silencer, was the brainchild of Hiram Percy Maxim, a brilliant inventor and son of the legendary machine gun designer Hiram Stevens Maxim. In 1909, he patented the “Maxim Silencer,” marketing it as a revolutionary tool to reduce firearm noise. But Maxim wasn’t just thinking about guns—he also adapted his sound-dampening principles to create automobile mufflers, another enduring invention.

While clever, Maxim’s marketing stretched the truth. His device didn’t “silence” firearms; it merely dampened the explosive roar. Until 1934, suppressors were widely available and even sold at local hardware stores. Then came the National Firearms Act, which slapped a $200 tax on them—a staggering sum at the time. The once-accessible tool became a tightly controlled curiosity.

Myth vs. Reality

Suppressors don’t render firearms whisper-quiet. That Hollywood trope? Pure fantasy. The crack of a supersonic bullet—traveling faster than the speed of sound (1,125 feet per second)—cannot be silenced. What suppressors can do is reduce the decibel level of a gunshot, making it less ear-shattering. They’re most effective with subsonic ammunition, which travels slower and avoids that supersonic “crack.”

Another often-overlooked benefit is reduced recoil. With less kick, shooters gain better accuracy and control. Yet, for decades, suppressors weren’t particularly popular. They were tools for hunters and recreational shooters—not the shadowy assassins Hollywood would have you believe.

Hollywood’s Love Affair with Suppressors

By the mid-20th century, the silver screen had discovered suppressors. No spy thriller or action flick was complete without a sleek silencer, hissing like a whisper into the void. Foley artists exaggerated their capabilities, making them seem like magical noise-canceling devices that left no trace of their user.

Even revolvers—a firearm that mechanically exposes the gap between the cylinder and barrel—were portrayed as “silencer-ready.” In reality? Suppressors are useless on most revolvers. But Hollywood never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The Real Purpose: Hearing Protection

Beyond the myths and cinematic flair, suppressors serve a practical purpose: protecting hearing. Gunfire produces sounds loud enough to cause instant, permanent hearing damage. Suppressors reduce this risk, making shooting safer for everyone involved.

Consider this: The Department of Veterans Affairs issues more hearing aids than any other organization in the world. Why? Because generations of soldiers were exposed to deafening gunfire without adequate hearing protection. The military didn’t even issue earplugs until 1969, and even those were often ineffective. Suppressors could have prevented untold cases of hearing loss, but restrictive laws and misconceptions kept them out of reach.

Forbidden Fruit

Today, suppressors carry an air of forbidden allure. Their scarcity fuels their desirability. The more something is restricted, the more people want it. But let’s be clear: suppressors are not tools of stealthy assassins; they are safety devices—ones that reduce noise pollution, protect hearing, and improve shooting accuracy.

The real danger lies in letting Hollywood fantasies and outdated laws cloud our judgment. It’s time to separate fact from fiction and recognize suppressors for what they truly are: practical tools, not “spy weapons.”

One more thing to say about suppressors.   Today’s technology allows them to be manufactured with simple 3-D printers.  That means you can make your own effective suppressors and not rely on third-party manufacturers.  It will make things much more difficult for government to regulate.    Yes, the forbidden fruit can be in your own hands.

The Heroic Brinks Guard Who Changed Aviation Security Forever

Los Angeles, CA — As we reflect on air travel discomforts and the tragedies of 9/11 and consider how to handle similar threats in the future, let us revisit a long-forgotten story with a very different outcome.

The only hijacker ever shot aboard a U.S. airliner was stopped on September 15, 1970, aboard Trans World Airlines (TWA) Flight 15, a Boeing 707. The flight, originating in Chicago and bound for San Francisco, had just completed a stopover in Los Angeles when Donald Irwin, a 27-year-old armed hijacker, seized control of the aircraft. Irwin, brandishing a firearm, threatened flight attendants in the aft galley and demanded the plane be diverted to North Korea.

Unbeknownst to Irwin, the aircraft was neither equipped nor capable of such a journey. His plan was doomed from the start. However, the actions of one courageous individual ensured the safety of everyone onboard.

A Captain’s Quick Thinking

The pilot, Captain J.K. Gilman, was quickly informed of the hijacking and remembered that Robert DeNisco, a plainclothes Brinks security guard, was aboard in First Class, tasked with escorting a shipment of money. Using the airplane’s intercom, Captain Gilman relayed a simple yet shocking message to a flight attendant: “Tell him I said to go back and shoot that bastard!”

DeNisco’s Heroic Actions

DeNisco, a Vietnam and Korea combat war hero, didn’t hesitate. Slowly and methodically, he moved toward the aft galley where Irwin was holding court. DeNisco changed seats multiple times, inching closer with each move. When the time was right, he sprang into action.

Instead of firing immediately, DeNisco decided to take control of the situation verbally. He stood up, pointed his revolver, and shouted, “Police officer, drop your weapon!” Though he wasn’t a police officer, the authoritative command startled Irwin, who turned toward DeNisco with his gun. DeNisco fired a single, precise shot, hitting Irwin in the abdomen. The hijacker collapsed, and DeNisco secured his weapon. Thanks to his bravery, the plane made a safe landing, and all lives were saved.

Aftermath and Recognition

Irwin, critically injured, survived thanks to emergency medical care. Robert DeNisco was hailed as a hero. His actions marked the end of the hijacking, but his story didn’t stop there.

The incident inspired the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to create the Air Marshal program, a new layer of security for U.S. air travel. Recognizing DeNisco’s courage and expertise, the FAA recruited him to train the first generation of Air Marshals.

DeNisco’s heroics even caught the attention of President Richard Nixon, who personally called to congratulate him. Brinks, proud of their employee’s bravery, hosted an event in his honor at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, where DeNisco was recognized by numerous officials and peers.

A Troubling Turn of Events

Despite his contributions, DeNisco’s later life took an unfortunate turn. FAA regulations eventually disarmed even sworn law enforcement officers, leaving only federal agents and hijackers armed on planes. DeNisco, the very man who had saved Flight 15, was later stripped of his right to carry firearms due to a technicality: a juvenile joyriding incident that resulted in a conviction. Though it had no bearing on his fitness as a Brinks guard or an Air Marshal trainer, it was enough under gun control act of 1968 to permanently disarm him.

The Legacy of September 15, 1970

DeNisco’s story is one of heroism overshadowed by bureaucratic missteps. His quick thinking and courage saved countless lives and reshaped aviation security forever. Yet, the same government that honored him later undermined his rights and contributions.

Today, we face ongoing challenges in aviation security. Since 9/11, the TSA has implemented sweeping changes but has yet to prevent a single terrorist attack. Instead, it has created a culture of inconvenience, humiliation, and inefficiency for travelers.

Ordinary citizens—not the TSA—stopped both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. Perhaps the lesson we should take from DeNisco’s story is this: heroes emerge when individuals are empowered, not hindered, by bureaucratic red tape.

As we remember September 15, 1970, let us honor Robert DeNisco and his legacy. His bravery serves as a reminder of what’s possible when individuals step up in the face of danger.

A sidenote: I wish to thank Robert DeNisco for granting me the interview long ago. Sadly, he passed away in 2013 at the age of 76.  

The Truth About Ghost Guns, Gun Registration, and Serial Numbers

New York, NY—The cold-blooded, brazen murder of a UnitedHealth CEO recently reignited the national conversation about so-called “ghost guns.” But what exactly is a ghost gun, aside from being a sensationalized propaganda term? At its core, it is simply a firearm without a serial number.

The push for serial numbers and gun registration has long been a favored strategy of politicians aiming to infringe on Second Amendment rights when outright bans on firearms were politically or constitutionally untenable. The end goal has often been the creation of a comprehensive registry to track every firearm in the United States—something that could facilitate future confiscation schemes if a total gun ban were ever implemented.

Do Serial Numbers and Gun Registration Actually Solve Crimes?

A basic application of common sense suggests they do not. The only time a firearm is typically left at a crime scene is when the criminal is incapacitated—dead or wounded—or caught in the act. In such cases, the firearm’s connection to the crime is already established. Tracing the gun back to its original purchaser rarely provides actionable information, especially since most guns outlive their original owners and often end up passed down to family or friends.

Furthermore, the serial number traceability mandated by the Gun Control Act of 1968 only works for the first transfer of ownership, from the manufacturer to the initial purchaser through licensed dealers. After that, private transfers, inheritances, and undocumented exchanges render most firearms effectively untraceable by design.

In practice, the tracing of firearms has often been abused by law enforcement. Agencies routinely trace every firearm they encounter—whether or not it was used in a crime—then cite inflated numbers to support calls for stricter gun control. This misuse feeds into the narrative that every “recovered” firearm is associated with criminal activity, even when they are seized during unrelated investigations, such as searches conducted for non-violent offenses.

The Impact of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

The Gun Control Act of 1968, which imposed serialization requirements on firearms, has been effectively rendered unenforceable by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). In that 6-3 decision, the Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment’s original meaning, declaring that government efforts to regulate firearms must align with the text, history, and tradition of the right as understood in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in Bruen, rejected the “interest-balancing” approach that allowed courts to uphold gun laws in the name of public safety. Instead, the Court made clear that no modern governmental interest—no matter how urgent or compelling—can override the Constitution’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

This decision has significant implications, effectively casting doubt on the constitutionality of tens of thousands of federal, state, and local gun laws. It also builds on earlier decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which collectively affirmed the individual right to bear arms and extended Second Amendment protections to the states.

A History of Supreme Court Decisions on Gun Rights

The Supreme Court has addressed gun rights in only a handful of cases:

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - While infamous for its pro-slavery ruling, the Court noted in passing that granting citizenship to African Americans would afford them the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went,” inadvertently underscoring the broad scope of the Second Amendment.

2. United States v. Miller (1939) - The Court upheld a National Firearms Act restriction on sawed-off shotguns, but only because it erroneously determined there was no evidence such weapons were commonly used by militias. This case left significant questions unanswered.

3. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - The Court definitively ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms, striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

4. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) - This case incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments, ensuring that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed at any level of government.

5. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) - The most recent and transformative case, Bruen dismantled many longstanding assumptions about permissible gun regulations, setting a precedent that laws must align with the Second Amendment’s original context.

The Reality: Rolling Back Unconstitutional Gun Laws

The Supreme Court has never expanded gun rights; instead, it has consistently struck down laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates lack the political support necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment, leaving them to pursue their goals through unconstitutional legislation that the courts have begun to unravel.

Efforts to vilify “ghost guns,” enforce registration schemes, or push for universal tracing of firearms are not about solving crimes—they are about control. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Heller, the Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people,” enshrining the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution to prevent government overreach.

The ongoing assault on gun rights underscores the importance of vigilance. Without the judiciary’s recent reaffirmation of constitutional principles, the Second Amendment could have been eroded by decades of incremental infringements disguised as public safety measures. In reality, these measures serve only to disarm law-abiding citizens, while doing little to prevent crime or protect lives.

Do criminals have too many rights? You better think carefully before you answer!

 

I don’t give a rat’s ass if my friends are conservative or liberal—what matters is our unwavering celebration of the Bill of Rights. These aren’t just lofty ideals; they are the backbone of our freedom. And yes, we must especially venerate the rights that some find inconvenient or annoying, those that protect the accused, the outcasts, and yes, even the guilty. Why? Because those same rights are the only shield standing between you and false allegations, torture, or even execution at the hands of a corrupt government.

Never—ever—give an inch on your rights. Not one. These freedoms were not gifted to us; they were bought with the blood of young men who fought and died to preserve them. Throwing away even a single right because it feels unnecessary or inconvenient is an insult to their sacrifice and a betrayal of everything they stood for.

Look at the world. In Syria, a repressive regime was toppled, only for its replacement to descend into the same darkness—or worse. That is the fate of people who fail to protect their freedoms, who allow their rights to be stripped away bit by bit. Don’t let that be us. Stand firm. Stand strong. Celebrate and defend all of your rights as if your life depends on it—because it does.

Election Fraud, Liberal California, and Bruce Boyer’s Cartoon Cats: A Comedy of Errors

 

Ventura, CA—Imagine living in a world where you need an ID to do practically everything: buy liquor, fly on a plane, rent a car, or even pick up a package at the post office. Yet somehow, when it comes to voting—the foundation of our democracy—many politicians insist identification is not only unnecessary but actively oppressive. Apparently, it’s too much to ask for even a shred of verification to ensure our elections are secure.

The logic behind this? Democrats have long argued that requiring ID to vote disproportionately affects minorities, particularly Black Americans, claiming voter ID laws are a tool of suppression. Never mind that this argument essentially paints minorities as too incapable of obtaining basic identification—a view that reeks of condescension. To “solve” this non-issue, they pushed through motor voter laws, which allowed anyone with a driver’s license to automatically register to vote.

But wait, there’s more! The motor voter laws opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses—and, you guessed it, they’re automatically registered to vote too. The reasoning is simple: politicians assume these new voters, reliant on government assistance, will overwhelmingly support Democrats. Subtle, right?

For those keeping score, this is the same party that venerates President Lyndon B. Johnson, who reportedly quipped, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” after signing the Voting Rights Act. LBJ’s history of racist remarks is well-documented, but no one seems to care because, well, politics. The Voting Rights Act he championed wasn’t just about fairness; it also helped dismantle safeguards like ID requirements that would have deterred fraud. Coincidence? You decide.

Fast-forward to California before the 2020 election, where things got even laxer. Voters could register, receive, and cast ballots without ever proving their identity—or even seeing another human being. Mail-in ballots? Check. Ballot drop boxes? Check. Voting deadlines that stretch out longer than the latest Marvel movie? Check. The system practically begged for fraud, but Californians were assured everything was perfectly fine. Trust the process, they said.

Then comes Bruce Boyer, a cowboy with a sense of humor sharper than a cactus needle. Frustrated by the absurdity of California’s voting laws, Boyer decided to demonstrate just how easy it was to game the system. His weapon of choice? Cartoon cats. Yes, Boyer stands accused of registering four fictional felines to vote, all conveniently listing his home address. Felix the Cat, meet California politics.

After successfully registering his furry friends, Boyer couldn’t resist telling the Ventura County Board of Supervisors about his little experiment. Naturally, this didn’t sit well with the incumbent County Clerk, who promptly involved the District Attorney’s office. Within no time, investigators came knocking, and Boyer found himself slapped with four counts of perjury. For registering cartoon cats.

Here’s the kicker: Boyer never intended for Felix or his pals to actually vote. The whole point was to shine a spotlight on how laughably vulnerable California’s election system had become. But the joke was lost on Ventura County’s Soros-backed District Attorney, who decided Boyer’s stunt was a felony-level offense. You know, because protecting the integrity of imaginary cats is apparently more important than addressing real election vulnerabilities.

So now, we’re left with a question: does Bruce Boyer’s high-profile prank justify branding him a felon for life? Or is this just another example of California’s justice system punishing someone for exposing inconvenient truths? Boyer’s antics may have been unconventional, but his point remains valid—our election system is ripe for abuse, and pretending otherwise only perpetuates the problem.

Stalin once said, “It’s not who votes that counts; it’s who counts the votes.” Perhaps California’s leaders should stop worrying about cartoon cats and start worrying about the real flaws in their system. Until then, we can only wonder how many other “Felixes” are out there, quietly waiting to cast their ballots.

The Ventura County DA should immediately dismiss this case if he had any decency.  But he can be counted on to dig his heels in and punish this conservative would be politician as much as he possibly can. 

When Insurance Karma Gets Deadly: A Sarcastic Take on the New York CEO Shooting

New York, NY — The whole world watched as an irate customer gunned down an insurance company CEO in New York. Sure, murder is a crime (we all agree on that, right?), but let’s not pretend the motivation came out of thin air. Apparently, this customer felt the insurance company had been a tad… let’s say, less than honest.

For those not in the know, there’s a curious little rule in personal injury lawsuits: juries aren’t told that an insurance company will foot the bill. Why? Because everyone knows insurance companies excel at one thing—collecting premiums like clockwork. Paying claims? Eh, not so much.

You’ve seen the commercials. Nice, friendly spokespeople assure us we’re “in good hands.” What they don’t show is the dark side: armies of lawyers and a well-oiled machine designed to delay, deny, and defend against paying out claims. Oh, you’ve got an airtight, 100% bulletproof case? Congrats, they’ll grudgingly pay—because they have to, not because they’re feeling generous.

Now back to the unfortunate CEO. While it’s only a matter of time before the shooter is caught and punished, this incident has sparked a broader conversation. Suddenly, the insurance industry is grappling with a harsh truth: their relentless mistreatment of customers might someday lead to more than court battles and bad Yelp reviews. Social media is ablaze with people saying what they’ve always wanted to: “Insurance companies deserve what they get.” Not exactly the PR spin they were hoping for.

But let’s be realistic here. Are we about to witness a wave of kinder, gentler insurance companies with hearts of gold? Yeah, no. What we’re more likely to see is an uptick in armed security guards and fortress-like insurance buildings. After all, the industry knows its reputation—and it’s not exactly inspiring hugs and goodwill.

So, while murder is never the answer, this event has shone a light on the deep resentment many people feel toward insurance companies. Maybe it’s time for the industry to rethink its priorities. Or maybe they’ll just double down on the security budget and hope for the best.

In any case, one thing’s for sure: those warm and fuzzy insurance commercials are going to feel a whole lot more hollow from now on.