Wednesday, January 06, 2016

A Tangled Weber

A Better Way to Tackle America's Gun Problem

The linked piece is another call for more gunowner control, this time in the form of mandating certain tools and accouterments be kept only at licensed ranges. But there's something important nestled in the paragraphs of justification leading to this proposal:

"The state has been defined as whatever authority possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. It is this monopoly on violence that fosters social order and permits civil society to flourish and thrive. When a mass shooter opens fire on a crowd, he is also taking aim at civil society and striking a blow for chaos and barbarism. But when citizens respond to this act of anarchism not by empowering the state to make it more difficult for the next mass shooter to carry out his murderous plans but by putting even more guns in circulation, they further degrade public authority by refusing to grant the state the authority it needs to preserve order and keep us safe.
Down that road lies the dissolution of politics, and a return to a pre-political state of nature in which every individual acts as his own highest authority, using violence to defend himself against violence found all around him." (emphasis mine, link in original)

The piece concludes thusly:

"Let's make it just a little bit harder for the barbarians to wreak their havoc — and a little bit easier for the rest of us to take a stand for civilization."

This notion, that the state is responsible for societal growth through a monopoly on legitimate use of force, is antithetical to the concept of Natural Rights.  It's one of the chief demarcations betwixt the Progressive Culture and the Scots-Irish Culture (which is arguably synonymous with the Gun Culture, or Gun Culture 2.0).


Sunday, January 03, 2016

Prescribed Burns

David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh respectively have been on top of the situation near Burns, Oregon.

The Hammond Family Does Not Want An Armed Standoff

Respecting Wishes

Oregon Standoff Report

Perfect Timing for the Regime...

The Collectivists Have Begun to exploit It

3% of Oregon Official Press Release

Oregon Situation on the Web

The MSM has been taking notice as well...

Militants Continue Occupation of Oregon Refuge, Police Keep Low Profile

WTF is Happening in the Oregon Militia Standoff, Explained

David and Mike are the best places to go to for updates on the events in Oregon. Mike points out that the twitter feed of Les Zaitz (a reporter for TheOregonian/OregonLive) is also a good source for keeping up with things.

The TL;DC version (Too Lazy; Didn't Click) is that on Saturday, January 2nd, a group of people occupied a previously unoccupied (it was closed for the holiday weekend) federal building on a remote wildlife refuge about 30 miles outside of Burns, Oregon. Estimates of the number of occupiers range from 15 to 150. These folks split off from various patriot groups who were in nearby Burns to protest the treatment of the Hammond family. Those patriot groups have disavowed the occupiers' actions, stating the purpose of coming to Burns was to peacefully protest the Hammonds plight, not entice an armed stand-off. The occupiers are being represented by Ammon Bundy, whose father Cliven Bundy was the centerpiece of a dispute and stand off with the feds.The occupiers have stated they in addition to the Hammonds release, they want the federal government to return land to the loggers and ranchers of Harney County, and they're prepared to use the occupied building as a staging area for years if necessary.

The Hammonds patriarch Dwight and his son Steve were convicted of arson for burning land the feds owned (which was next to the Hammonds land) without permission. The conviction was under a 1996 anti-terrorism act which carried a mandatory 5 year sentence. The trial judge thought 5 years was absurd and sentenced them to less than a year respectively. The feds appealed and the 9th circuit court of appeals upheld the mandatory 5 year sentence, but graciously allowed them to delay reporting for prison after the holidays. A fairly good write-up of their plight can be found here.

The Hammonds were not asking anyone to do anything, saying they'd report to prison as ordered to serve their remaining sentence. The residents aren't happy about this situation, though they seemed at least tolerant if not supportive of the original protests earlier.

David, and especially Mike are speculating that the feds not only have people inside with the occupiers, but they instigated this situation to begin with, via agent provocateurs

The big wild card is the feds. For now they're hanging back, but I don't expect that to last much longer than it takes for Obama's team to plan out how to spin this situation.

Let us not forget, that in the Oval Office sits the most politically minded president ever to set foot in D.C. - which is saying something. No situation, crisis or opportunity to pass the salt is not sifted threw his "how can I make this work for me politically?" filter. Anyone thinking Obama will let this crisis go to waste hasn't been paying attention. It's just a matter of what angle he'll play.

He could not do much and point to this as an example of "domestic terrorism", urging congress to pass legislation that he wants passed to deal with this situation. Or use it as justification for executive action. He could also clamp down and put on a show of force to bolster his base. Doing the latter wouldn't negate the previous options. It's merely a question of what Obama think would be the approach most advantageous to him politically.

Obama wants more gunowner control laws, and he's planning on using executive action to get as much as he can. It's not debatable if he'll use this situation to that end, but how.

That the cops aren't doing much doesn't surprise me; the feds are in charge, which means the FBI. I have no doubt their inaction up to this point is because they're waiting for Obama's team to give them instructions. I'd assume explicit instructions, of the micromanaging variety. I doubt Obama's team wants this to get away from them as did the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

The Hammond family plight is worth protesting, as is the amount of land in the west controlled by the feds and their treatment of the locals. Occupying a remote building on federal land, trying to provoke a confrontation isn't how I'd go about things, based upon what I know of the situation currently. Politically this plays directly into Obama's hands and I'm a firm believer in it being unwise to attempt to out-democrat a democrat. I won't rule out the notion that government infiltrators had some part, small or large, in orchestrating this event. It is entirely possible I'm missing some information that would change my mind, but as it stands I think this occupation is a mistake that our enemies will use against all of us.

I don't plan on going to Oregon, but I fear Oregon may soon come to us.

Saturday, January 02, 2016

Odds and Ends

Criterion is going to have Garand barrels in .35 Whelen available this spring. I assume they'll only be in the u.s.g.i. contour, though they do make tanker as well as gas trap barrels. You can also opt for one of their barrels in .308 Winchester as well as .270 Winchester, but .35 Whelen definitely has more punch than anything else offered (at least since McCann passed away and his .338 Winchester Magnum and .458 Winchester Magnum Garands went out of production).

Speaking of non standard cartridges for Garands,  Lothar Walther has Garand barrels in diverse chamberings. In addition to .30-06, .308 Winchester and .270 Winchester they have tubes in 7x64, 8x57IS, and 9.3x62.

Henning has made a "cone fit" guide rod for the Tanfoglio (EAA Witness) pistols for years. The shape of the rod reduces frame distortion that can occur with the factory guide rod and heavy loads, especially in 10mm and .45 ACP. Well now he has a variation on that, called "Last Defense". The muzzle end of the guide rod is sharpened into a spear point.


Being a firm believer in bayonets for long guns I of course wholeheartedly approve of this product. Henning notes that on long slide Tanfoglio's (such as the Limited, Stock III and Match) the spike will only protrude when the slide is locked back, which means you won't have to alter your holster.

Clement Custom Guns is doing a cool little conversion. If you send him your GP-100 in .357 magnum (along with some money) he'll send you back your GP-100 in 10mm. I'm tempted.

Course a 10mm is okay, but I do ponder getting a decent size pistol, say in .64 caliber. Not only would it be .14" better than a 10mm, but in that 1733 configuration it'll be great for non-permissive environments! Though even a flintlock pistol will still get you a felony indictment in New Jersey, but who'd want to go there anyway? Unless of course to liberate the place.

Friday, January 01, 2016

Movie Watching

I'm not crazy about the way Hollywood treats certain stories. For example, the Harry Potter flicks diverged too much from the books for me to really approve. (Actually the first two weren't bad interpretations, but after Harris passed things went downhill fairly quickly.) After the 6th, someone pointed out that they were successful at the box office, and I answered that they could have a movie comprised of stick figures and it'd still sell well - and lo and behold, in the last movie they did feature a segment with stick figures. But the story, as relayed by the books, was compelling enough that people would go see the movies no matter what. That provides a false metric for movie makers to go by, and reinforces their tampering with, and in some cases completely screwing up a story.

The usual justification is that some changes had to be made to transfer a tale from pages to film. My usual response is "bullshit!". While some changes are necessary for the switch in mediums, most are simply a director wanting to tell his story, not the story.  The omission of The Scouring of the Shire from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Ring films, and the Burning of the Burrow which was inserted into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince are two examples of a director's whims adversely affecting the tale they claim to be telling. Of course Starship Troopers, Noah, and Exodus: Gods and Kings are atrociously different from the source materially, to the point that only the names give a clue as to what story they're claiming to tell.

With that in mind I'm real damn skittish about Disney's handling of Star Wars. I've been a Star Wars fan since about 1977, and in fact it could be argued that John Williams (the composer, not to be confused with the other John Williams, who's a helluva guitarist) score pushed me in the direction of a musical career. So I want to like it, I really do. But I know how Hollywood has a way of screwing up stories - hell, Lucas did a fair job of screwing up the story that was his! (I of course refer to the prequels that must not be named).

In short, I don't really want to know what color Pinocchio's nose saber is gonna be, or find out that there is, indeed, a Darth Jiminy.



Le sigh.


(I did watch the first season of Star Wars: Rebels and thought it was decent, but I don't want to get my hopes up too high.)

So I reluctantly did some looking online. It's been about a decade since I went to a theater to watch a movie and wanted to see what theater options were available. Turns out none. The theaters within my town all have no weapons policies. Of course I could just keep my coat on & no one would be the wiser, but that would mean I was giving money to folks that want me to be disarmed. I'll pass on that.

My personal boycott won't cripple any of the theaters around here, and I doubt if all the gun owners in the area called them and reported their disdain for the no weapons policy that the theaters would change their tune. But I just don't want to do business with those that would prefer I was defenseless. I don't want any part in sustaining their distasteful practices.

I still may look around for a theater in a neighboring town (other than Denver proper of course) or I may just wait til it comes out on DVD. Should be around May or so, which everyone but the execs at Disney know is the proper time to first view a new Star Wars film. (The heathens!) Besides, I can smoke while watching DVD's, and not have to go through a credit check and establish collateral for an extra large bag of popcorn that may or may not be fresh. Plus, should anyone bust in and try to shoot up the place I'll have better options than a hogleg with which to quell the miscreants.

For now I'll make do with an in depth review of the BlasTech DL-44 from Jerry Miculek, which can be found here.



More Maths

There have been calls by some for "mandatory buybacks" of firearms. This of course is nothing more than a misleading euphemism (how can government "buy back" what it never possessed?) for confiscation. Proponents of such measures have neglected their calculators. Luckily I'm here to help.

I'd estimate there are 150 million gun owners in America, but let's go with the more common figure of 100 million. 1/2 of 1 percent of that would be 500,000.

There are about 800,000 police officers in the u.S. That's in total, not just on duty at any given moment. Let us assume that all of those 800,000 policeman would follow orders and go about confiscating firearms.

If one half of one percent of the gun owners in this country forcibly resist attempts at confiscation, only 4/5th's of us would have to shoot twice before we went home. That would leave an entire field army of gunowners with no law enforcement agents standing twixt us and the politicians. Even if all of us were killed and we each took 1.6 of the enemy out with us, that would completely eliminate the police forces in the united States.

Keep in mind that's an extremely low estimate of how many gun owners would forcibly resist confiscation, and an unrealistically high estimate of the numbers of policemen that would try to carry out such a dictate. I'd guess that between 5% and 10% of the police force would openly switch sides in such an event, and another 10% to 30% would refuse to obey such an order, either openly or covertly, which would leave only 680,000 at most to try to round up all our guns. I'd also be disappointed if less than 1% of my original estimate of gun owners didn't participate in the resistance, which'd place the number of defenders at 1.5 million.

What I think most politicians fail to realize, is that the constitution's enumeration of the Right to arms isn't there to protect us, it's there to protect them.

But as has been said, maths r hard.


Maths R Hard

I dislike using statistics. When the methodology isn't flawed and everything is on the up and up (which is damned rare) the most they can do is point in a general direction. Correlation is not synonymous with causation after all, and often the results will lead one down a false trail. In addition it tends to negate individuality.

That being said I see a lot of talk about the number of people killed in the u.S. with firearms and clamoring for a way to reduce that number by restrictions or even outright prohibitions on firearm possession by non-government agents. There are a few numbers to keep in mind.

Around 30,000 people are killed each year with firearms in the u.S. Roughly 16,000 are suicides, a little less than 1,000 are negligent shootings (what are erroneously referred to as accidental shootings), and the rest are homicides, both justifiable and non-justifiable.

So 30,000 people a year, if constant would mean that in a decade 300,000 people die as a result of gunfire. In a century that'd be 3,000,000 people dead from gunshot wounds.

That means it'd take an entire century to equal the number of people killed during the 2 years of the Holodomor (if we go by the lowest estimates). It'd take between 2 to 4 decades to equal the number murdered during the 2 years of the Yezhovshchina. It'd take from 3 to 5 decades to match what happened in the 4 years of the Medz Yeghern. (But combined with the 6 years of the Sayfo and the 9 years of the Greek Genocide, another 2 or 3 decades could be added to equal what the Ottoman government did around World War 1.) It'd take about a decade to match the body count from the 6 weeks during the Rape of Nanking.

To match the death toll from Hitler's 4 years of murder would take 2 to 5 centuries. For 30 years of Stalin (including the above mentioned Holodomor) it'd take from 7 to 14 centuries. The 30 or so years of Mao would take a little over 2.5 millennia.

For the number of people killed with firearms in the u.S. per year to be equal to the number of people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century, it would take about 8.7 millennia.

If 30,000 people a year were killed by gunfire from the beginnings of the Copper Age til present, it'd still take another 1,200 years before the numbers equaled what governments did to their own people in the 20th century alone.

It's estimated that around 100 million Americans own firearms. I think that number is low and would assume around 150 million Americans own at least one firearm.  But going with the low figure that'd mean for every 3,300 or so gun owners, 1 person dies as a result of gunfire.

There are roughly 2.7 million people working for the u.S. government. If we use that number and apply it to other governments from the 20th century (which is most assuredly a very high estimate), then for every government worker in Nazi Germany 5.5 people were murdered. For every government worker under Stalin 16 people were murdered. For every government employee of Mao almost 30 people were murdered.

Yet because 30,000 people are killed with firearms in a given year by government and non-government actors, some folks are insisting that all firearms be turned over so that only government may posses them?

Indeed, maths r hard.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

Ol Hickey

I looked up wikihow's 11 easy steps to remove a hickey, but the bastard only persists. Attempts to hide it have failed as it spoke with NPR today:

"Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS inspired terrorism..."

The gist is that he thinks an AWB would be difficult to pass or enforce, but says that if more mass shootings occur it could be on the table. He did mention mental health as a possible approach to the gun owner control problem, as well as keeping folks on the No-Fly list from obtaining firearms. He mentioned domestic violence convicts again, as well as restraining orders (makes ya wanna send him a highlighted copy of federal law, don't it?). Children. He mentioned children. And firearm storage. Oh, and he did make a deal about Colorado Springs being well populated with concealed carry permit holders and that not stopping the Planned Parenthood attack. He wasn't saying that a high gun toting population caused the attack, he just used that bit of asininity to slam the idea that more folks carrying weapons would deter mass shootings.

(Now just twixt you, me and the entire free world, I think it's safe to say that no matter what the demographic is of the block surrounding block the number of concealed carry permit holders, or even just gun owners that carry sans permit, would only approach zero from the negative side of the scale inside Planned Parenthood. It's like a democrat campaign rally - it may not say it's a "gun free zone", but no one in Vegas would lay money down otherwise.)

What I gathered from our states most annoying hickey is that the dems here will try to push through some sort of mental health bill relating to firearms. There's even a chance they will try to ban anyone in state from possessing weapons if they're on the No Fly list. I think some sort of push for a safe storage law (For The Children, of course) may happen.

If you're thinking there's no chance any of that will pass, I wish I could share your optimism, but I know the local GoP. I can see some "law and order" type of stupidity being used to justify a reach around across the aisle, and ol' hickey has mentioned that he's been talking with some people that were opposed but now open to more gun owner control laws. Hopefully it's no one with any power or influence within the local GoP (such as the one defector we know of), but they ain't called "the stupid party" for nuffin'.

I also think there may be an attempt to up the magazine capacity limit to 30 rounds. This is a mistake as there are better ways to attack the entire law (through the courts as well as through the legislature), not just put out our hats as we beg "Please sir, may I have some more". 

Colorado has a hickey that just won't go away. A very embarrassing hickey (which usually you can't see because it's covered up by that nasty little fascist from NYC's Bloombergs boot on our throat...). I wonder how many gallons of witch hazel it'd take to... oh, nevermind. I fear we'll just have to wait this one out. Anyone got a state-sized turtleneck we can borrow?


Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at: http://www.cpr.org/news/story/hickenlooper-calls-further-investigation-planned-parenthood-wasting-taxpayer-money#.dpuf
Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at: http://www.cpr.org/news/story/hickenlooper-calls-further-investigation-planned-parenthood-wasting-taxpayer-money#.dpuf
Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at: http://www.cpr.org/news/story/hickenlooper-calls-further-investigation-planned-parenthood-wasting-taxpayer-money#.dpuf
Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at: http://www.cpr.org/news/story/hickenlooper-calls-further-investigation-planned-parenthood-wasting-taxpayer-money#.dpuf
Hickenlooper also talked about the attack on Planned Parenthood two weeks ago and potential new gun control measures; what he can do to prevent acts of ISIS-inspired terrorism - See more at: http://www.cpr.org/news/story/hickenlooper-calls-further-investigation-planned-parenthood-wasting-taxpayer-money#.dpu

Saturday, December 05, 2015

Foreign And Domestic

The case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome in California appears to actually be an episode of Premature Jihadilation (as explained by Nikki). Though Cali has arguably the strictest gun owner control laws in the nation, that didn't stop Jihad Joe and Jane from simply ignoring them and others (such as the ones prohibiting murder). The reaction form some quarters has been predictable in direction, though a bit surprising in degree. Michael Bane points out that indeed, they want to take away our firearms. The NYT editorial that Mr. Bane mentions is fisked by Miss Claire, who notes that the first front page editorial from the NYT since 1920 is all about gun owner control with innuendos of confiscation. David Codrea notes that it may be time to add another line to the Hickenlooper Blues. He links to a Denver Post interview where Bloomberg's that nasty little fascist from NYC's chief public servant in Colorado claims he's talking with folks about adding more constitutionally repugnant gun owner control laws here. For those of you with any sort of faith in the Colorado GoP, I'd point to the DP article Mr. Codrea links to, wherein Hicky claims he's in talks with those who previously opposed any more gun owner control laws but now say they're open to them, and this was prior to the latest breakout of SJS (or PJ) in Cali. Given the talk about cutting a deal for 30 rounders a while back, I'd also keep an eye on the local (and national for that matter) pro-gun groups to make sure they aren't trying to pull a Chamberlain Gottlieb (again or again).

It's easy to see who are enemies are when they call for disarmament, whole or partial. But I would also caution that our enemies aren't just the ones that try to enact new laws to impose upon our Rights, but also those that try to protect laws that currently impose upon our Rights. Y'all have probably heard that attempts at passing new gun owner control laws were stopped in the senate last week. What I fear may be overlooked is that an attempt to loosen a very burdensome situation was also stopped. Via David Codrea I found this article from the Hill, explaining Rand Paul's attempt to force D.C. to issue concealed carry permits to residents and non residents as well as honoring out of town permits. Of course I'm not happy with anything short of constitutional carry (no permit required to carry a weapon, openly or discreetly), but no one voting against Paul's measure, including Kirk from Illinois (who for some inexplicable reason has an "R" beside his name) did so for the sake of a constitutional carry bill being brought to the floor.

Billll contemplates calling out the militia. While making a formal call may not be uncalled for, it may not be necessary either, as most folks I know of are making it a point to be not only cautious but prepared. With advanced warning, calling out the militia may just be the thing to do. But the threat we have is non specific; there's no particular area or even type of place that we're certain the enemy will fling itself against (though it's not a bad bet that there'll be a victim disarmament sign outside whatever locale they pick next). Militia historically have not always been summoned by some central authority. If the Reivers descended upon your village, you didn't wait for word from the chief - you cried the alarm as you grabbed your spear and sword and went out to repel the invaders.

I'll also remind folks, cause it's worth reminding folks about, that a little over 14 years ago the militia, who had been disarmed by the feds, was called into service. But instead of having a .380 in his pocket as was his birthright, the Feds gave Todd Beamer a food cart and told him to go do his duty. They have not admitted their mistake, and in fact have doubled down on unconstitutionally disarming the citizenry that wish to travel. So in Detroit, upstate NY and D.C. you have public servants that are in effect calling forth the militia, telling folks to be prepared and to be vigilant. But in those places, and too many others, an immoral process of permitting or licensing is in place that has at the least a chilling effect on people exercising their Right to carry weapons.

We have enemies outside of this country that seek to send their agents in for the purpose of attacking us. Bear in mind that we also have enemies within this country that, while being too cowardly to attack us directly, would use the law to disparage our Rights to the point that we are defenseless against direct attacks. While being cautious and looking out for the former, don't get blindsided by the latter.

And in case you've forgotten, appeasement is for chumps.

Thursday, December 03, 2015

A Few Losses

Sadly, Dean Dillabaugh passed in mid-October. He ran Dean's Gun Restorations whose motto is "Life's too short to shoot an ugly gun". The business he started is still operating and from what I've seen doing nice work.

Also, Jim Dubell of Delta Gun Shop and Clearwater Reboring passed away back in July.

I never had occasion to do any business with either of the aforementioned gentleman, but their work was reputed to be of the highest quality in their respective fields. They will be missed.

What They Think Of You

 Joe Huffman has a category on his blog labeled as "This is what they think of you". When I stumbled upon the following story it definitely came to mind.

A Nazi who worked at Auschwitz was tried for complicity in the murders of 300,000 people. He received a 4 year prison sentence.

Keep in mind, having a shotgun with a barrel that's 17.99" long sans a $200 tax stamp can land you as much as 10 years in the pen.

In Cali, possessing an "assault weapon" or a .50 BMG rifle contrary to the law will net you a minimum of 4 years in prison.

In Illinois possessing a firearm without a FOID will land you up to 1 year in prison.

In NY possessing three or more firearms, an "assault weapon" or a "high capacity ammunition feeding device" carries up to a 7 year sentence. If you have five or more firearms, or one that's loaded, then it's up to 15 years.

Possessing a handgun without the proper permit in Iowa or Massachusetts can fetch 2 years in prison. In NJ it's 3 years minimum.

Merely exercising a constitutionally enumerated Right if your papers are not in order can cause you to spend anywhere from 1/4 to almost 4 times the prison sentence of a Nazi that helped the death machine at Auschwitz murder 300,000 people. (Granted, the Nazi should have gotten more - I've long thought that the nooses at Nuremberg should have had cooks & clerks as well as commanders - but the point still stands, that if you own or carry a firearm then you're equivocal to an evil person that belonged to an evil group.)

That's what they think of you.

Friday, November 20, 2015

What Chesty Would Say

In late 1950 the Chinese managed to sneak an army into north Korea and surround X corps. This was a bit problematic, as you can imagine. MacArthur's staff had vehemently denied that the Chinese would get involved, and when reports of Chinese assaults were relayed, Willoughby (MacArthur's Chief of Intelligence) snorted "That's another goddamn Marine corps lie".  There were a lot of internal politics involved and MacArthur did not want to believe that the Chinese had entered the war. Reality tends to trump politics though.

Chesty Puller was commanding the 1rst Marine Regiment at the time. When the embedded press asked him about his plans concerning the distressing situation they were in it's reported that he replied;

"We've been looking for the enemy for several days now. We've finally found them. We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem of finding these people and killing them."

It is also told that when informed by his intelligence staff that they were surrounded, he quipped;

"Great. Now we can shoot at those bastards from every direction."

The order was given for X Corps to turn around and march back down to Hungman, to establish a perimeter under the guns of the Navy.  Puller's regiment, acting as rearguard for X Corps, not only smashed up 7 Chinese divisions on their way out, but managed to take a bunch of equipment the Army had abandoned. When they reached the safety of Hungman, Chesty told some reporters, "Remember, whatever you write, this was no retreat. All that happened was that we found more Chinese behind us than in front of us, so we about-faced and attacked".

I bring all of this up not only because it's fascinating history, or that brave men and their deeds should not be forgotten, but to highlight that Puller was not "nervous in the service" so to speak. He wasn't prone to exaggeration or paranoia or unwarranted concern. In fact the actions mentioned above got Chesty his fifth Navy Cross and a Distinguished Service Cross from the Army.

On the road from Koto-Ri to Hungman, Puller admonished his troops, especially the tank commanders, to not let the civilians that were tagging along get too close. Most were merely North Korean refugees that just wanted to get the hell out of there and find some semblance of safety (and food and shelter). But scattered among them were North Korean and Chinese soldiers that had donned civilian clothing. Under their coats they had grenades and submachine guns. The instructions were to fire over the heads of the civilian crowds to keep them back. If that failed then firing into the crowds was the only thing to do. It was gruesome and a sorry thing to go through, but necessary. A few commanders didn't follow those orders and at least 3 tanks were lost because of it.

When talk of bringing refugees from the middle east over here comes up, I recall what Puller went through in North Korea. I remember the unwillingness of the brass to acknowledge the realities of the situation, and the danger that was hidden amongst folks that were naturally sympathetic.

The reality is that for every hundred or thousand refugees that only want a safe place to live there's probably a few miscreants who wish to get as close as they can before they attack. It's entirely possible, given the relatively porous state of our borders, that dozens of such infiltrators are already here, waiting for the moment to strike at us. But I see no benefit in flying more groups in here when they're possibly contaminated by those who only want to get their jihad on.

The federal government here is even blinder than MacArthur's folks back then; the current administration will refuse to see beyond the politics of the situation and thus dismiss the notion that they cannot control every single immigrant once they're here.

Being vigilant is definitely something to strive for (as it always has been). This country has plenty of soft targets - schools, malls, movie theaters - too many of which are "gun free zones". This country has plenty of places where self defense and effective tools for same are discouraged. If you have to be in any of those locations I'd advise keeping your eyes open as well as having a plan to deal with any sudden jihad syndrome that infects the place. With the holidays approaching, many of those aforementioned places will be much more crowded than usual, and thus be more tempting targets as well as being harder to notice signs of danger in.

If several places are hit on the same day across the country it'll create a panic. I'm confident that in such an event the federal and state governments will take immediate, decisive and inarguably wrong steps, bolstered by folks who are just downright scared. The upshot of this cheery prediction is that, as you probably already figured out by now, you're on your own.

So have a plan, not just for dealing with a crackhead who really needs your money and has a knife to prove it, or for some emo punk that thinks killing folks before offing himself is somehow the thing to do, but for being in a place that has 2 or more attackers that desire to punish the infidels in as great a number as possible before moving on to the next location on their quest for religious purity. I'd go ahead and assume they would have something thicker and more bullet resistant than a T-shirt on under their coats, for what it's worth. (If you're thinking, "Gee, it'd sure have been nice if they hadn't outlawed armor piercing handgun ammo now wouldn't it? then allow me to welcome you to the Libertarian Party).

That means having an escape plan, and having the means and skills to fight back if escape isn't desirable or feasible. Some folks suggest putting the trunk gun back in your trunk, though I'm still wondering why anyone would drive around without at least one there in the first place. If you can't keep a medical kit on you, at least have one in your vehicle. And for Vishnu's sake, don't walk around in a blissful daze thinking your I-phone's screen is more important than your surroundings. If you end up in Valhalla because you were reading a semi-funny text and didn't notice Jihad Joe whipping out an AK and deciding you were a perfect first target, Thor will make fun of you. For millennia.

I'll leave you with another admonition from good ol' Chesty:

"I want you to make 'em understand; Our country won't go on forever, if we stay as soft as we are now. There won't be any America - because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race."

Thursday, November 12, 2015

A Bone To Pick



Winter's Bone is a book written by Daniel Woodrell in a style he calls country noir. It was made into an independent film back in 2010 starring Jennifer Lawrence. As usual, I'd suggest reading the book after watching the movie, but the movie was a much better telling of the story than a typical Hollywood effort (for example what they did to Starship Troopers, or Percy Jackson, or how they distorted LotR and Harry Potter). It's about a poor family in the Ozarks and their struggle to survive a crisis caused by the meth trade. Woodrell writes decent prose and tells a good story. I was impressed by Lawrence and the other actors, as well as the way the movie transferred the story to film (minus one semi random polarized shot of squirelliness, which I'll give a pass on since it was an independent film going for an award). so I do recommend reading the book and watching the movie. In fact, here's the trailer:




Now, what I wanted to chat about was a review of the movie, which I think not only highlights the anti-Southern prejudice prevalent in so many places, but provides another glimpse into the culture war we've been fighting for a few millennia now. Oh, and there'll likely be spoilers.


Ten I See

Over at Unc's place, there's an amusing little poster whose aim is to further the caliber wars. Just to catch anyone up who wasn't munching on popcorn whilst perusing gun nut forums for the last decade-ish, there's a disagreement as to whether it's best to have a lot of rounds of a smallish caliber, or a few rounds of a biggish caliber, usually simplified as 9mm vs .45 acp (or .40 S&W). PapaDeltaBravo has a pic to illustrate the smaller caliber advocates position.

A 9mm loaded with modern JHP's of a sufficient velocity (which you'll find in most "defense" loading of said cartridge) is probably fine for most situation where someone would have occasion to fling rocks at someone. Most people will be well served by that cartridge.

I don't carry a 9mm. I carry a 10mm. (cause it's 1mm better!)

Looking at the pic PDB has up, you'll see that penetration of several different projectiles is virtually the same, thus leading one to conclude that since each projectile is practically the same as another, then using a projectile in a cartridge with increased magazine capacity and reduced recoil would be a wise decision.

That pic however is not all inclusive. I note that the .40 S&W rounds weren't loaded to their full potential for example. And it was not all inclusive, as the 10mm among others wasn't shown. Also, I presume it was bare gelatin.

In WW2 (and The Korean War) the most prevalent round on the battlefield was not M2 ball. It was M2 AP. That's because there was a helluva lot of metal all over the place, and having a projectile that could reach the other side of some of that metal was desirable. M2 ball would have worked just fine on the itinerant fascist, imperialist or (later on) communist soldier who hadn't seen the wisdom in surrendering, but it had to reach said enemy combatant before it could do its job, and with the metal prevalence it was best to just go ahead and use AP ammo.

That's what I think a lot of folks neglect when proclaiming their choice in cartridge, especially when accompanied by "stopping power is a myth" or other such rallying cries. I'm sure 9mm will do fine if its trying to reach vitals covered only by denim and skin, but what if there's a more substantial barrier?

Bears live out here. There's been occasion when they've wandered into my neighborhood, and I'm only 15 minutes from downtown Denver. A 9mm won't reach anything terribly important in a bruin. It's arguable that a hot loaded FMJ in .40 S&W wouldn't do enough to put a bear down. A 10mm loaded relatively hot will.

I know my luck well enough to speculate that if I am attacked in such a manner that I think making real loud noises whilst throwing rocks is warranted, that the assailant(s) will likely have more than just a winter coat on. Depending on how thick any body armor is, a 10mm may not penetrate though it'd be more likely to than a 9mm (though less likely than a hot .454 Casull). But the loads I carry have more muzzle energy than a 9mm, thus a better chance of distracting an attacker even if the hit doesn't go through body armor. I may even be fortunate enough to crack a rib, which will make that assailant less effective in attacking me.

For any number crunchers out there, I found this test of several different types of 10mm ammo. I'll note that all but two type of 10mm achieved at least 12 inches of penetration (the two that didn't had more than 100% expansion). Here's a ballistic chart showing velocity and energy of various 10mm loads. (And for what it's worth here's a forum thread discussing 10mm ballistic gelatin tests).

You can find 10mm pistols with capacities varying from 2 to 20 rounds, with concealability decreasing proportional to the yield of the cartridge box. In general it's usually about the same number of cartridges in an otherwise identical pistol chambered for .40 S&W, and two or three less rounds than you'd find in a comparable 9mm. My 10mm's have noticeably more recoil than a comparable 9mm, and thus follow up shots are a tad slower. Accuracy is equivalent for all practical purposes.

Where the 10mm shines is that it can go places the 9mm or arguably even the .40 S&W and .45 acp just can't go, namely to the vital zone of something with a moderate to heavy barrier twixt you and it. (A .44 Magnum would accomplish that even better, but at the cost of increased firearm weight, increased recoil and much lower capacity.)

I mention all this to illustrate that when most folks start pointing to that PDB pic of gelatin tests or otherwise proclaim the 9mm equal or superior, they're neglecting the qualifiers, such as having the target being a human sans any sort of artificial barrier.

If you carry a 9mm and are happy with it then cool. I won't attempt to alter your selection. If you carry a .380 acp, a .22 magnum, a .357 Sig, a .455 Webley, a .32 H&R Magnum, or even a .22LR then as long as you're proficient with it and understand the cartridge's capabilities and limitations then that's groovy.

There is no one best cartridge, only cartridges better suited to particular tasks than others. a large part of what determines that suitability is little more than personal preference. If you lack bruins and discount the small but not improbable likelihood of being attacked by armor wearing thugs (here's where I'll remind y'all of the Tyler Texas courthouse shootings, and Mr. Wilson), then the 10mm may not be the best choice for you.

For me and the way I think, the 10mm makes the most sense in a carry gun. However it's still a compromise and if a bruin or armored miscreant was something I knew I was gonna face, I'd grab a Garand loaded with AP. (that's if I couldn't get my hands on a Bofors of course).


The Keyword Is Fight

Firearms are usually the best tool to use to exert force against another entity. Usually. Being gun nuts a lot of us have a tendency to over-emphasize firearms use. Now I don't want to be misconstrued - if you're 5'4" and barely tip the scales over the 100 pound mark, then a firearm is definitely the most effective way to stop that unknown and uninvited fellow from busting all up in your house (unless you've got a lightsaber). But as the old saying says "a .25 in your pocket is more useful than a .45 back at your house" it also is true that whatever you have in hand when the fight starts is more useful than anything you have to unholster.

Let's say you're sitting in a bar. You have a glass half full (cause we're optimists on occasion) of your favorite beverage. You have a very cool automatic knife with adamantium blade on your belt and a handgun in an IWB holster under your light jacket. Suddenly, seemingly out of that proverbial nowhere, a large, angry, somewhat substance-altered fellow comes rushing at you with a machete raised. So how would you get to your primary weapon?

You wouldn't - your primary weapon is already in your hand. It's the glass with liquid in it. You throw the liquid in the fellow's face, then fling the glass itself at the same face that should be drenched with that raspberry-strawberry smoothie you were enjoying just seconds before.

Even a full glass of berried up smoothie isn't anywhere nearly as effective as a handgun. But when a fight starts you don't have time to organize your equipment to your liking. The number one task is to stop this hypothetical miscreant from making you test how effective your health insurance is. Yes, shooting him once or thrice would be more effective than a face full of juice if you had time to draw and fire. In our hypothetical you don't. You do have time to hinder his eyesight by dousing his ocular region with liquid. If things go well with that, he'll falter long enough for you to introduce pain into the equation via a glass to the face. Those things will hopefully give you enough time to create some lateral distance and grab one of your other weapons.

It's a simple idea to test; have an assistant standing well off to the side with a glass of water. Place an object a few feet ahead of yourself that you intend to cleave with a machete (or axe, or tire iron - whatevs). At a signal, move forward and try to strike the object while your assistant throws water in your face. You may be able to pull it off, but you'll know you weren't nearly as efficient as you'd have otherwise been. You'll have taken longer, and that delay is the important part as it gives an opponent more time to react.

Someone, and I forget who exactly, once criticized the notion that in a theater shooting the audience should have pelted the attacker with popcorn. But that's exactly what folks should do. A bag of popcorn, even day old mostly stale popcorn like you'll find in some theaters, isn't as effective as a .45, or even a 9mm. There's not gonna be any ballistic gelatin tests or one-shot stop ratios concerning a bag of Redenbacher. But its purpose is not to stop, but to distract and/or delay.

Again, use an assistant. set up a target 25 yards away. Use whatever weapon you like. At a signal, try to fire 5 rounds into the target, but at the signal your assistant will throw popcorn at your face (from the side of course). The result will be that you'll take longer to shoot those shots, and your shots will not be as precisely placed.

If a punk decides to shoot up a movie theater, folks should throw popcorn, drinks, purses, cell phones, canes, chairs - anything they have at hand. This will distract said punk enough to decrease his ability to hit what he's aiming at. It will also remove his focus from anyone who may be trying to rush him form off to his side. And it should overwhelm his senses enough that he won't see the two or three people reaching behind their back to draw a handgun (all things being ideal).

When you're attacked your primary weapon is whatever you can use right damn now. Be that a glass or a bag of food or an electronic communications device or a barstool. Whatever you have to draw or otherwise whip out isn't. At that point when aggression is initialized against you, that slick 10mm on your belt is a goal. Just like it's said that a handgun is a good thing to use to fight your way to your long gun, whatever you have in your hand (or close enough to grab without much effort) is a good way to fight your way to your handgun.

Firearms are real damn cool once you break them out, but they are just a type of tool, and not the only type. A gunfight is just a type of fight. While the gun is a real cool component to have, the most important part isn't the gun, it's the fight.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

What Really Matters

Over at Sipsey Street Irregulars I stumbled upon this post which contained the following photo:





Which is yet another flagrant example of Direct Impingement Supremacy rearing its ugly head! (not to mention it's displaying a carbine, not a rifle.) Black Rifles aren't the only rifles that matter. For instance:



and



and




So in short:



Which technically is misleading since I pictured two carbines. Lemme try this again:





See? That's much more inclusive of our inherent diversity, isn't it? :)

Oh, and just cause shorty's need love too:




How To End The Colorado Magazine Capacity Limits

There was for a while talk of cutting some sort of deal to increase the magazine capacity allowed by an unconstitutional law. The method was legislative and for a number of reasons I was not in favor of such a move. The most practical reason is that increasing the limit to 30 rounds would negate a fatal weakness in the law as it stands now. That particular flaw is that the magazine capacity limit law interferes with interstate commerce, and thus is unconstitutional. I'll spell it out below the break.


Friday, August 21, 2015

Garand Stuff

Just a quick update on the Garands around here. I have the new barrels about 1/5th of the way broken in. I've added optics to 2 out of 3 I plan on putting some form of glass on. I acquired new springs and pins for them all, as well as butt stock cleaning kits, plus a few accessories here and there.

In case anyone that reads here missed it, I had one of my Garands worked on by Tim Shufflin of Shuff's Parkerizing. He offers a modification he calls the Mini-G, which shortens the Garand's barrel to 16". his turn around time is measured in weeks and I his customer service is superb. I heartily recommend him for any of the services he offers.


Here's my Mini-G is as currently configured:


That's an Aimpoint Micro T-1 with a 4moa dot with an LRP conversion kit (basically it turns the Aimpoint mount into a QD affair) sitting on top of an Ultimak M12 rail. On the back is an Olongapo stock pouch. The front sight is a Smith Enterprise Tritium post. An M1 web sling and an M1 bayonet round out the package.

When I took it to the range I was pressed for time and didn't get around to everything I wanted to that day. The Mini-G and another Garand both have new Krieger barrels and I was hoping to get them both properly broken in, but I fell woefully short of that goal. I did manage to get everything sighted in with irons (or reconfirm the sighting in some cases). That was before I got the optics. With the Aimpoint it's not that big an issue, as the iron sights are usable through the glass, so I just adjusted the dot to sit on top of the front post as I sighted through the rear aperture. It'll have to be verified at range of course, but that should get me minute of windbreaker on anything within self defense range.

After initial sigtht in I did manage to get off a few shots at 100 yards to get an idea of how the Mini-G will work:






Considering the HXP ammo and my old eyes, I'm thinking that 16" barrel is gonna work out fine, just fine.

Recoil was a bit more pronounced and the report was louder than a full length Garand, but nothing too harsh for me. I did acquire a rubber boot meant to soften the recoil from launching grenades on old '03 Springfields. It slips on a Garand buttstock with some effort and off again. I'm unsure how much a difference it'll make (as I don't find the recoil that bad to begin with) but I'll try it next time I hit the range. I still had to consciously refrain from yelling "PULL!" every time I threw that thing to my shoulder. This may become my go-to pheasant gun... (I kid, but not by much)

Another Garand got new glass:




This one is set up almost identical to the Mini-G - Smith Enterprise Tritium front sight, Olongapo stock pouch, M1 sling and M1 bayonet. It also sports a GarandGear Ported Gas Cylinder Lock Screw (which they call a Gas Plug) as well as a Burris 2x7x32 handgun scope in Warne Maxima QD medium rings.(Note: I tried the low rings but didn't quite get enough clearance aft, so went with the medium.)  I haven't had a chance to sight in this scope yet, but it seems like a promising set up, judging from how things looked as I got the eye relief adjusted when I mounted it on the rifle.

The others are coming along but nothing too exciting to report. I'm still trying to decide on a scope for the Griffin and Howe mount, and the remaining Garand I'll leave as is (except I did add a GarandGear Ported Gas Cylinder Lock Screw). I'm also contemplating having Rock Creek Barrels whip me up some G.I. contour tubes but with a 1:11 twist, as well as a few other odds and ends. The main thing left now on almost all of them is to refinish the metal and wood and do some adjustments to the triggers to smooth things up a bit. I'm also look real intently at this DMR adjustable trigger. It's pricey but it's very interesting, as is their drop-in competition hammer and their selection of reduced and rectangular apertures (for Garands, M1A's and a few other types of rifles) Oh and of course I still need to remedy the lack of grenade launchers round here.

I'm hoping things slow down enough in the next few weeks that I can hit the range again and get all these fundamental operations out of the way so I can start putting these hole punchers through their paces (and start load development for those new barrels). Knowing my luck, weeks could turn into months. So when I can I'll keep y'all updated on how these projects are coming along.

I Am Offended

Speaking (er, typing) on behalf of those of us who self-identify as Operating Rods (personal pronoun of choice being "You mother*&%^$%^!!!!!") I am deeply, gravely and perhaps even gustationally offended by someone I thought was more sensitive - nay - someone whom was a pal, a friend, a fellow who wouldn't steal towels at the beach while everyone else was in the water. In other words, Michael Bane (a wolf in self identified Llama's clothing!).

In this post Mr. Bane perpetuates the Direct Impingement Supremacy (Hereon after referred to as DIS) propaganda with the following hurtful words strung together as if to form a sentence of pain and entitlement:

"...the AR-15 platform carbine, which should of course be the first long gun purchase."

There it is. Bold and brazen for all to see. A first long gun purchase should never be some dirty, ill used, socially irrelevant thing with a piston on it. Oh nooo, why that would just  upset the social order and cause people to whisper loudly at the theater now wouldn't it? But it gets worse...

In this post he continues his unabashed DIS'ing and in this one, the micro-aggressive macro-aggressions are enough to offend your offensibilities! To wit:

"We also got so see a bunch of new products for the AR platform…they are every bit as thoughtful and well-designed as the rifle itself."

See that? His subtle implication is not just that the AR platform is well designed (a contention that those of us around here would dispute if we weren't so sensitive to other people's feelings!) but that any and all piston involved firearms are thus inferior, brutish, of sub-standard comprehension capability and should be sent off to reeducation scrap metal camps! Oh, how we have been DIS'ed!

It gets worse. In that last linked bit of hurt and woe and DIS, he links favorably to a piece entitled "If You Only Had One 5.56 Carbine", wherein the gentle reader is shocked to find these words:

" And yes, trust us on this: you really want an AR, not an AK or G3 clone or Valmet or AUG or Tavor."

See? The DIS is not hidden or subtle or even deftly concealed in an Eastern Barbecue sandwich - it's right there in the open for all to see and be viscerally injured by!

Yet it gets even worse. Michael Bane Felabeorbt unleashes more DIS in this post, wherein he intones the chant of:

"Black Rifles Matter!"

Mr. Bane? Michael? Felabeorbt? Don't Brown Rifles Matter too?



Can we live in a world where all Gas Operated Reloading methods - Direct Impingement, Long Stroke, Short Stroke and even Gas Traps - get along? Can we have a conversation about the validity of the variety of Gas Systems available? Can we just celebrate diversity? As long as Direct Impingement Supremacy continues to repress us, I fear the answer is no.

Oh, the pain of being DIS'ed! Oh, the emotional trauma of being treated like we're Children of a Lesser Gunsmith!

As a result of these tetra-aggressions I have become not merely offended, but More Offended Than Thou (which consequently makes me eligible for a Senate seat in New York state or tenure at CU Boulder, possibly both...). Now if you will excuse me, after all these emotional blitzkriegs I really need to go hug a Garand. Or two.


Missouri Gets It Wrong On Rights

In Missouri the state's supreme court has decided that the prohibition on felons possessing firearms is not constitutionally problematic. (h/t Sayuncle) Let's examine the situation, shall we?


Friday, July 31, 2015

Defending The Bridge At All Costs

Too bad this particular one is located on the Kwai River:

Now More Voices Agree on the Need to Fix NICS:

"...We are in the third year of our industry’s national effort to ensure that the system has all the appropriate records put into it.  We call the initiative FixNICS  and we have been successful through our direct efforts to convince 16 state legislatures to pass legislation to ensure that there are no statutory, regulatory, administrative or procedural impediments to entering all appropriate records – criminal and mental health – into NICS." {internal link omitted, and h/t Sayuncle)

Yes, Ve need to in-sure that ev-reboodies papers are in ord...er, I mean that only the desirables get to have gu... er, Oh nevermind.

Fix the background check system? Only if they're talking about fixing it the way Rand Paul videos himself "fixing" the tax code - while the chainsaw method looks fun I've not ruled out the flamethrower as the best option just yet.

The background check system exists to make sure The Wrong People don't exercise a basic, fundamental human Right that's enumerated in at least one applicable constitution. It should be eliminated, not enhanced in its efficiency.

"Yes.  The 'gun lobby' did that.  We prefer to be called the firearms industry, but yes, we did that. We don’t expect the gun control groups to provide any credit to our industry. It runs counter to the narrative that they proffer, and that is too often accepted without challenge by reporters who should know that verifying information should be part of every story they file."

Why should the anti-gunowner groups credit the NSSF for the gun industry's work on background checks? I mean, it's embarrassing when your enemy effectively does your job for you. What is a surprise to most gun owning folks is how willing the firearms industry is to further the cause of gunowner control.

Then they go on to offer a tepid repudiation of extended background checks to private sales. You cannot reasonably prop up background checks at retail and effectively argue against them in other venues. That whole principal thing comes into play and most people aren't convinced by what seems a schizophrenic response.

The only thing to do is to oppose background checks in their entirety, and support abolishing the prohibited persons list altogether. It won't be easy swaying public opinion (especially with so many of our alleged allies cheering the other team on in this matter) but I have a few ideas about that.

And remember, appeasement is for chumps.

Edit: 07/31/15 14:35 MDT I just realized that thanks to the NSSF's efforts, no vet or octogenarian who has someone else deal with their finances will slip through the cracks. After all, the VA and SSA aren't the only ones who keep track of who ain't balancing their own checkbook. I'm sure there are state level programs that have that info and, thanks to such efforts as FixNICS, they'll be sure to include them from now on.

The South

The Anarchangel his-self has a post up I want y'all to read. It's entitled Wounds, and Scars, And Battle Flags.  It's not a short read, but many things that are worth reading tend toward the lengthier side of life. As he warns, it contains something to piss off just about everyone concerning this issue. But read it as what I'll write will make more sense with his post in mind.

Now that you've presumably read it, I disagree with My Byrne's base assertion - that the confederate battle flag is a symbol of hatred towards black folks. I agree that some if not many black people have this view, but in general it's not quite what it seems.

When a person sees the flag that once flew over the Army of Northern Virginia, they don't see it a as symbol of hatred. They see it as a symbol of The South. They view The South as something that represents hatred. They're gravely mistaken, but that's what they see. 

What was missed in that very well thought out post is what southerners see, specifically southerners that grew up in the 1960's through 1990's.


Vets And Purges

Workmageddon appears to be easing up momentarily, but I don't want to count my days off before they hatch. Posting may continue to be light (er, nonexistent) for a while, but whilst I have some time I'll try to jot down a few things.

So, Obama has told Israel that if they like the peace in our time they can keep it and goes on to criticize critics of his so called deal. Steyn disagrees that this is comparable to Chamberlain, as Chamberlain actually loved his country, or to Munich, as this seems far worse than Munich.

Domestically Obama is moving to disarm what seems like old folks. I don't think that's his goal though.

"The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported."

That same criteria is used by the VA. Coincidence? I kinda doubt it. Methinks this is geared towards disarming vets. If some old folks get caught in this net, no biggie, but the goal is vets. 

Far fetched you say? I'll remind you of that DHS report from 2009 which listed vets, among others, as potential terrorist threats. Legislation is almost assuredly out of the question, so Obama is doing what he can (and more if one puts any stock in the Bill of Rights or that whole separation of powers notion) through executive action, and if your resources are limited you use them on what you perceive as the greatest threat within your capabilities of acting upon. In this case, it's vets.

Of course, hypocrisy is obvious - telling folks who can't balance a checkbook that they're unfit to own firearms coming from a guy who can't balance a budget yet has nukes at his disposal?

A lot of folks - millions from what I gather - have some trouble keeping their finances together. Now if you look at the Rand Paul videos where he literally destroys copies of the u.S. tax code you'll perhaps note the enormity of the documents. It is perfectly reasonable to be able to competently own and use a device as mechanically and morally simple as a firearm while not wanting the stress of flipping through 70,000 pages of legalease to interfere with trying to deal with whatever it is you're trying to deal with. Hell, most folks without PTSD or some other ailment don't want to deal with the tax code. That in no way reflects their competence with firearms, or motor vehicles or power tools.

But for this administration it's a way to disarm those that are seen as the most pressing threat. After all a veteran presumably has training in the use of arms and would therefore be able to put up the most resistance to any government imposed efforts to force a population into doing something it really didn't want to do. I am not saying or even implying that Obama is looking to declare martial law, crown himself president for life and start setting up re-education centers to murder 25 million stubborn Americans (the latter was only endorsed by Obama's pals, not by Obama himself). But if you see a group as a threat you try to take away their ability to do you harm. If old folks get disarmed along the way I doubt anyone in this administration will shed a tear.

I should also note that Obama has been making some changes within the military itself.  Not just cultural changes, but a reduction in troops as well. There are suggestions of a purge of the military, not only of high ranking officers who aren't politically or socially desirable, but of the warrior class. I don't think this is part of some diabolical plot but simply an extension of Obama's (and the Progressives) worldview. He sees everything as political, and the military is a cultural problem that needs attention. Military culture ain't perfect - no culture its. But military culture is as close as can be of an institutionalized form of Scots-Irish culture, which is an abhorrence to the Progressive culture. Therefore it requires no Machiavellian plot to conclude that the changes he's trying to make to the military are an extension of the changes he's trying to make to society at large. Not good changes, as they all operate on the foundation of videri quam esse as does the Progressive culture itself, but not changes involving any sort of conspiracy.

Of course, just because there's no conspiracy doesn't mean they're not out to get ya, and you don't really need an excuse to stock ammo cans four or more deep. 


Tunes For Gunnuts Part 1

 By chance I found a CD just lying on the ground. Normally I'd have just tossed it in a trash can but on it was written "Gunnut songs" Intrigued I took it home & popped it in a player. I was astounded as I never noticed the tunes on it were in fact geared towards the Gun Culture. I must have misheard the lyrics for all these years. Here are a few of the titles

A.R. U Gonna Go My Way (Lenny Kravitz)
R.O. Got Us Fallin' In Love (Usher)
She's Only 17 (HMR!) (Winger)
It's Still Rock Island Armory To Me (Billy Joel)
Glock Around The Clock (Bill Hailey)
My Baby Garand (Billy Joel)
The Garand Tour (George Jones)
Trigger Control (Janet Jackson)
Three Times a Lahti (The Commodores)
For Those About To Glock (AC/DC)

 Damned montegreen

Friday, April 24, 2015

30 Ain't Enough

30 pieces rounds of silver were offered to us. Allegedly. Kinda. Maybe. Sorta.

A democrat, none other than ol' "you don't know if you're being raped" Salazar (D-Thorton), mentioned he might go for upping the limit on magazine capacity to 30 rounds. He wasn't speaking on behalf of his party, he wasn't making a solid proposal, he just tossed that out there.

I doubt that the dems would have gone for it. even if it could have passed the house it'd be moot as it would have never passed out of committee to get to a floor vote in the house. And Hick would have never signed it, as Bloomie the Hut would have denied him permission to do so.

But like a scrap of meat dropped twixt two hungry dogs much fighting has ensued over it.

I won't get into the players involved as that's not all that important. What is important is that A: a lot of gunowners fell for it and B: a lot of gunowners don't realize what they fell for.


Saturday, April 04, 2015

The Covers Are New But The School Is Old

Posting has been and likely will continue to be light, so in lieu of actual content I have something a bit cheerier - interesting covers of popular tunes, like Trainor's "All About That Bass" (Postmodern Jukebox European Tour version), Smith's "I'm Not The Only One" (Vintage New Orleans style), Maroon 5's "Maps" (Vintage 1970's Soul version), Blackstreet's "No Diggity" (Vintage Jessica Rabbit style), Guns'n'Roses' "Sweet Child Of Mine" (New Orleans style), Bishop's "Fooled Around and Fell In Love" (dobro, upright, snare & heels version), Bel Biv Devoe's "Poison" (Vintage Old Jack Swing version), Thicke's "Blurred Lines" (Vintage Bluegrass Barn Dance style), Brown's "It's a Man's Man's Man's World" (Orchestral Funk version), Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise" (Vintage 1920's Al Capone style), and Franklin's "Baby I Love You" (jeans and dobro version).

If you've never heard of Miche Braden, Morgan James, Shoshana Bean, Ariana Savalas, Hailey Reinhart, Robyn Adele Anderson or Casey Abrams, then below the fold I'll help you correct that distressing oversight.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

The Highs And Thurlows

Via Mandy Connell, I see that state rep. Thurlow is upsetting his constituents. In case you didn't jot it down, Thurlow voted with the dems to kill a bill that would have forced the CBI to respond to NFA paperwork within 5 days. He did vote correctly on the other gunowner bills that were up that day, but his attempts to reach across the aisle in other areas are ticking off folks that voted for him. This is perhaps why the old guard GoP around here doesn't like the concept of recalls - they know it can be used against RINO's just as effectively as against dems.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Ten Years American Time Etc

Again, apropos of something in particular (though probably none of my damn bid'niz), a few vids below the break.


Sunday, March 08, 2015

Killing Daylight

Savings Time, that is. Here's an article discussing some of the reasons to nix DST. I will add this; all the hipsters who revel in the extra hour of daylight after clocking out of their 9 to 5 - they, like proponents of smoking bans, think musicians make way too much money.

Ya see, DST results in folks spending less time in bars. I don't just mean the little dance joints with electronica blasting louder than the obnoxiousness of the $20 cover, I mean bars where working bands ply their trade. Less of a crowd means less revenue is generated, and therefore less money the bar owner has to pay the band.

So when someone asks why aren't there any good blues bands around any more and everyone's stuck listening to N'Sync records at the local bar of choice, now you can tell them - it was the government's attempt to make thing better by arbitrarily changing the time so senators can have an extra hour-ish on the back 9 each day.

(I'm not exaggerating all that much - the decrease in revenue because of DST won't usually wipe out a bar scene where live music is the draw, but it will hamper it for the players. Making a living playing music was difficult enough that even a little bit mo' difficult can't be justified to me by skiiers wanting to stay on the slopes til 8 or 9 p.m.)

Petty Is As Petty Does

Ages ago, I was a regular on a Guns and Ammo forum. I am not positive, but I suspect that a notable gunwriter who at that time had recently dropped by started grumbling about KeepAndBearArms.com as there were several postings from there that did not present the NRA in a good light. I defended the use of KABA as it was very informative, especially back then, and tried to explain that it was a clearinghouse of firearm related news, though it seems the powers that be were either daft or biased. A new policy was announced that any posts containing links to KABA would be deleted. A few days later, one of my posts was deleted because it contained a link to a KABA story (I forget the details, but I recall it wasn't bashing the NRA or anything - just a bit of news I thought relevant).  I left. Never posted there again. Never bought another G&A magazine or anything from Petersen Publishing.

So it's a bit sad that KABA has resorted to the same petty behavior.


Ya Best Stay Off His Lawn

Perusing the CMP forums I stumbled across a post that I thought was worth sharing. Here's the accompanying photo:

And here's the post about a vet acquiring his first Garand since leaving the Army.


The person who posted and the vet pictured live in Wyoming. If they'd been just a few hundred miles south this neighborly gesture would have involved a trip to a gun store, government paperwork, a fee and a wait for approval from some bureaucrat, all to make sure this octogenarian wasn't one of the wrong people.

Luckily they live in America* instead of Colorado, so it was a rather simple exchange. Somehow, even without government oversight, I don't think anyone is gonna lose sleep worrying about this fine old gent knocking over  a liquor store with his recent acquisition (well, except for those jack-asses who want to keep this "military-grade weapons off the streets"**). Trespassing would be ill advised however. Remind's me of a post over at The Smallest Minority: Old Men Must Be Dangerous. Go read that one if you haven't already.
 


(*That'd be the current America, not the Bloomberg/Obama/Gottlieb America where Universal Background Checks would have been traded for some beads and promises not worth the paper they're printed on. Remember this tale when folks try to sell you on UBC's for some other concessions. Don't let America become BOG'ed down.)

(** At the cost of at least 41 jobs and over the objections of Senator Leahy (D-Vermont) amongst others, Obama used his executive power to block the re-importation of M1 Garands from South Korea, implying that they were too dangerous for mere civilians to possess. Criticism of this move could be found in the expected places, like Ammoland but also from Obama-friendly sites like the Huffington Post. [The CMP does not use commercial channels to acquire its stock of M1 rifles and is therefore unaffected.] Of course, I regard this action of Obama's as a high crime and/or misdemeanor and am sorely disappointed that impeachment proceedings have not begun in regard to this.)

Saturday, March 07, 2015

Wait A Minute or 77,760

It is worth mentioning that the Colorado GoP had a stand off with the dems here over increasing funding for the CBI's background check department.  Colorado Pols wasn't happy with them ( that's a very left leaning publication btw) and has a nice conspiracy theory take on things (i.e. the GoP wants the backlog to go past 90 days so people won't have to have background checks for CCW permits). The Gazzaette has a more head covering-sans-aluminum foil discussion:

"If we're going to add people and we're going to expand the program, it's more appropriate to do it during the budget, not a supplemental,' House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, said. 'I think that is a department that the numbers may fluctuate."

Further, Sloan (the head of the CBI) has a problem with arithmetic. Back in 2013 before the gunonwer control laws were passed, the CBI had trouble keeping up with background checks. wait times were well over 9 days at one point. Finally CBI re-allocated some staff to reduce the backlog,  but it always seemed to me that the long waits had more to do with Sloan wanting to use them as an excuse to increase his budget than them merely being overwhelmed. His comprehension seems questionable as well, judging from his inability to answer a question about a law he supports and would oversee enforcement of.

Back to the Gazette article, with the appearance of deceptive practices by the CBI's head, I find this next quote to be plausible:
"DelGrosso said the denial of funds shows the agency was not convincing in the need for the mid-fiscal year budget increase."

So perhaps the budget committee used calculators when Sloan was speaking?

"Traditionally, when the House and Senate cannot agree on a final version of a bill a temporary committee is formed to hash out the issue and find a middle ground.
On this issue, however, Senate Republicans adhered to their original version and sent the bill back to the House to either be approved without the background check appropriation or the entire bill would die."

That's promising.

The Durango Herald also covers this story:
"The current wait time is about 54 days on background checks. The additional money aimed to lower that time to about 20 days. Wait times are expected to increase past 54 days without the funding. Colorado law requires permits to be issued without a background check if the wait time crawls past 90 days."
54 days? 54? To get permission to exercise a Right? And Sloan's request for more funds would only cut that wait to 20 days? I'd assume that's 20 business days, mind you. 54 days is 77,760 minutes to wait on something that should be instantaneous if it is to be tolerated at all.
"But Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, chairman of the JBC, said some of the blame should be placed on the CBI. He also suggested that Colorado should adopt a different concealed-carry background check law that models one used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which Lambert said would reduce wait times to one day.
'I believe the request at this time is superfluous and unnecessary,' Lambert said."

So it may not be that the GoP has a problem with the concept of background checks 9much to their discredit), it could be that they think that waiting 20 days, or 54 days, or more than one is ridiculous. 
It's nice to see the GoP here showing some backbone. Shame the same can't easily be said of the national Gop. But if the Colorado GoP was really interested in protecting the Rights of folks to own and carry weapons, then they should expand this new-found linkage of vertebra into a broader effort, similar to the one I proposed here.