What Do You Call Fuddites On Skis?

 The u.S. Olympic Biathlon team, sadly enough.

Over at National Progressive Radio I found this piece from early February on the plight of the poor, underfunded u.S. Biathlon team. If you got a little miffed at miss Dunklee's comments towards the end of the article, get ready to hold their beers:

One of America's Best Marksmen on Gun Control: "There's just no reason for assault rifles to be in the hands of ordinary citizens"

 The quote in the headline was from Lowell Bailey, who is the u.S.'s first world cup champion. Here's the full quote:

“We’re a sport that uses a .22-caliber rifle,' Bailey said. 'A .22-caliber rifle that shoots a single round is a much different thing than an AR-15. In my opinion, there’s just no reason for assault rifles to be in the hands of ordinary citizens.'

Bailey said he does not own an AR-15 and has no desire to get one.

'I have no interest in owning a weapon that can kill another human being – that’s designed to kill another human being,' he said. 'And to do it in an expeditious way. Why is that allowed? It’s maddening.”

Not content with turning his back on fellow gun owners, Bailey asks us to hold his beer while we're still holding his beer:

“There was a time in our country when the means to defend yourself against an oppressive government was an appropriate justification,' Bailey said. 'That time has passed.'

He paused for a second before continuing: 'That’s a debate. But I think there needs to be a respectful dialogue, an open dialogue without special interests involved. It’s time our politicians sat down and made some tough choices. What’s more important? Owning an AR-15 or having innocent school children get killed?” (emphasis added, stupidity as in original)

I'll go ahead and point out the obvious - if a person wants a respectful dialogue then perhaps they shouldn't imply that you owning a rifle causes the death of youngins. It tends to insinuate that the person one wants to have a conversation with is a child murderer, which is usually not taken well. It also leads to the conclusion that the asker not only failed in basic logic, but his parents were remiss in the use of a hickory switch to instill basic manners.

Any sympathy I had for their funding plight has evaporated, along with any desire to watch them or support them in any way. 

Bumpers

I'll omit yet another trillion word rant on the importance of preserving principle, or not being afraid to fight even if there's a chance of losing, or by making bad laws "better" it hurts us in the long run. Instead, I'll simply pose a question.

If you were a lawyer and wanted to win a case - any case - which of the following would you choose:

A challenge to a regulation that narrowly banned bump stocks, arguing it's unconstitutional

A challenge to a law banning bump stocks and trigger cranks that also criminalized lightened strikers, firing pins, and hammers; extra strength trigger springs, hammers springs and recoil springs; any lubricant with more viscosity than the heavy preservative grease slathered on at the factory by the manufacturer.

Related:

Fudd Me? No; Fudd You!

And Another Things

I Kant Even

Another Youtuber (name of Roaming Millennial) has a nice little piece on the concept of Rights, and does a decent job of providing a secular justification for Natural Rights. It's worth the 10-ish minutes or so, so give it a watch when ya can.

Nix NICS

Liberty Doll (over on the youtubes) sums up some of the objections to the "Fix NICS" act which has been added to the national reciprocity bill in the house. For myself it's simple; if any changes to the prohibited persons list do not involve eradicating the prohibited persons list then it's not cool enough. Background checks exist for one purpose only - to deny the wrong people their Rights. And lest we forget, upwards of 94% of the time that denial is a false positive. Then there's that pesky little thing about putting government in God's place (the theory being, since God granted Natural Rights then only God may legitimately interfere with them, so since government is deciding who may or may not engage in a natural Right - owning or carrying weapons in this case - then we've put government in the place of God) which, at least for folks of a religious inclination, should give folks pause about such a system no matter its (allegedly) benign intentions.

But listen to the Doll le Liberty as she makes the case concisely for not supporting the "Fix Nics" amendment.

Lotophagi

Just the yearly post (albeit a bit later than I was planning) full of well wishes & music of questionable utility. Now let me see if I remember how to embed stuff...

And Another Things

I thought I'd covered everything in this post about using bump fire stocks for appeasement purposes. I was wrong.

Fudd Me? No; Fudd You!

I can't leave y'all alone for a minute...

Appeasement is for chumps.

I see I'm gonna have to break that phrase down for some folk.

If you're being chased by a bear and you think "Gee, that bear looks hungry. Perhaps if I let him eat my pinky toe I can keep him from devouring the rest of me. It's not like I use my pinky toe that often anyway. Yeah, I'll just do that." then you're gonna die. The bear won't be satisfied with just dining upon your pinky toe, and you'll have put yourself in a position where it's much, much easier for the bear to eat the rest of you.

You'd think after all this time the concept would be taken to heart, but nope. In the calls to do "something" after the Las Vegas shooting it seems some gunowners and even the NRA are wanting to throw bump fire stocks under the bus.

 I've seen comments here and there claiming that this ban on bumpfire stocks is inevitable. That's a self fulfilling prediction. Keep telling yourself you're defeated and you will be. Others have argued that this isn't a hill they'd die on. I don't see why not though; are there better hills anyplace at the moment? Or do they merely look at the grass and scree and not think it aesthetically pleasant enough for risk, yet not see that this hill is an encumbrance to the anti gunowners? That the loss of this hill gives the enemy a firing position on our very homes? Think it's just bump stocks the enemy wants? Hell, that's not even all they're going after now.

Yoda Was Mistaken

The Army is looking at cartridges with larger bullets and contemplating a new rifle.

I have a theory on this; my people were big Braves fans (so don't you try to tell me what optimism is!) all through the 1970's and 1980's and even to this day. My maternal grandfather was chiefest amongst them. He passed away in the middle of one of the worst seasons ever for the Braves (which for the Braves is saying something). The next year they went to the World Series (lost, but went), battling their way to the pennant from a 39-40 record . They also played in the 1992 World Series. When folks we knew would express wonder at the turn around in fortune the Braves seemed to be experiencing, my relatives would say it wasn't unexpected - my grandfather was now able to directly intercede with the Good Lord on their behalf.

With that in mind, perhaps the late Col. Cooper has been making the case to the Good Lord that the poodle shooter's time has come and a more manly weapon is needed to smite the enemy (or at least let ol Chesty take a fiver cause you know he's been making the same appeal since he got there).

As for considering a bigger cartridge, I'm not surprised by this one whit. Once the Army went co-ed I knew eventually they'd realize that bigger is better. After all, you try to tell any woman that "size matters not". Go ahead. I dare ya. (Even a green Jedi master wasn't about to try to tell that BS to anyone but a guy. Luke mighta bought it, but Leia? puh-leaze!)

In the 1920's there was an argument for a 7mm-ish round, but this was downsizing from the mighty .30 that our doughboys took over there. It took final form in the .276 Pederson. That cartridge lobbed a 140 grain pill at 2400 fps from a case that was a tapered 2 inches (51mm) long and all together the cartridge was 2.8 inches tall. (The .280 British was similar, but still-born due to the u.S. shoving the 7.62x51mm down NATO's throat.)

Contrast that with the .260 Remington - 140 grain bullet launched at 2750 fps from a case that's 2 inches (51mm) long and all together the cartridge is 2.8 inches tall.

I've said for years that the best* general issue long gun** for the military would be a BM-59 chambered in a hot little 6mm or 7mm cartridge. The .260 Remington would fit the bill nicely (with a 1:8 twist).

A BM59E is roughly an inch longer than a standard Garand, while the other BM59 variants are slightly shorter than a standard Garand. Loaded weight is similar to a Garand (albeit with 20 rounds vs. 8) so about 1 and 1/2 pounds more than an M16. (that's with 7.62x51NATO ammo though - a .260 may trim some weight off of that.)

Replace the rear handguard with a rail mount, add an electronic sight or LER scope, add a tritium front sight and start passing them out. Oh, use an elevation knob calibrated in yards (cause Murica) and add about 3 and 1/3 inches to the bayonet - cause size matters.

And great Bastet bouncing on a beach ball -  the first person that "suggests" "upgrading" to a plastic stock should be [censored due to punishment being too graphically described and possibly causing a PETA civil suit] until they repent of their sinful ways. If for some reason walnut ain't good enough there's always a nice laminate. (You don't want the third option. You just don't.)

(Want to get all slick? Add a variable gas system, with a dial from say 1 to 6. Then issue a guard round for close in work - say a 140 grainer pushing 2400 fps.  Adjust the gas system for reliability and you've got a very controllable automatic carbine** for going into a city. Though this wouldn't be essential it's a nice thought.)

Price would be a problem; BM59 receivers are Garand receivers with some additional cuts on them. But if a company such as Ruger cast the receivers instead of having some middle aged fellow wearing a brim with a cigar hanging out of his mouth machine-whittle them out of raw organic free range steel then they might be cost competitive-ish. I'm sure MagPul could make polymer mags, possibly even adding 5 or 10 rounds to what the steel mags currently carry.

Speaking of mags, Fulton Armory has a page up contrasting M14 feeding devices with those of the BM59. I do not think a BM59 mag would survive a direct hit from a nuclear missile, but I'm confident the pieces would be identifiable.

A BM59 in .260 Remington (6.5 .26 NATO anyone?) would be about perfect for any branch of our military. It'd be a good general purpose carbine for us civilians as well (especially if the fun switch was intact). Aside from social purposes, it'd make a decent little target rifle (tell me one of these at a 3 gun match wouldn't just be fun) and could handle almost all game duties in the continental u.S. (.260 Remington may be a bit light for the bigger bears and moose and maybe a bit heavy for prairie dogs, though I'm sure handloaders could argue otherwise.)

Shame the military brass that handles procurement hasn't been hitting on all eight since about 1957-ish or I'd get my hopes up. Ah well, it was a nice thought while it lasted.


* I could still make an argument for a Garand, but in a concession to all the damned whippersnappers who think not having a box magazine is just too damn much hard work, or they might chip a fingernail, I'll posit Beretta's variant on Mr. Garand's rifle as the best design to date. Now don't say I never compromised (and don't ever expect me to do it again, ya heathens.)

** I consider 20 inches the dividing line between rifles and carbines. The BM59 models (except the BM59E and BM59SL) have 19 and 5/8" barrels or less, so to my mind they're still carbines, as are most all AR's and AK's and anything else with a pipe shorter than a cubit. Great carbines but carbines none the less.

My Bullets. Mine. My Mags Too

Living in a ban state is damned aggravating. A few observations though:

I've become even more aware of vendors listing restrictions on their sites. For example Centerfire Systems has a page devoted to restrictions among the various states. I'm not just picking on them; many other sites have something similar (Luckygunner for example), and usually a statement that they follow all federal, state, and local gunowner control laws.

Contrast that with Buffalo Bore:

Pressure

In a comment to this post, (in relation to a manufacturer not advising loads "hotter" than 10mm +p in their firearm) Billll (of Idle Mind fame) asks;

"Why would you want to go over +P anyway? especially in an already hot load?"

A fair query.

The short answer: 'Cause.

The long answer:

March Sixth Two Thousand Seventeen

Presented without comment (well except for the comment stating that there would be no accompanying comment, which I'm sure is some sort of paradox...)

These Go To Ten

Some interesting (to me at least) options for 10mm firing platforms have appeared on my radar as it were, so I'm going to share them with y'all.

Xmas Marks the Spot

I'm just parking some Christmas songs here that I always got a kick out of. Y'all might enjoy them too so feel free (or at least minimally charged) to check them out. Hope y'all have a happy Hanukah and/or a merry Christmas.

Don't Worry

For some reason I've gotten about half a dozen queries from ex lovers the last month or so. The preponderance have been in text form, but a few actually were upset enough to call. I've replied to them first with the qualifier that while I'm fairly confident of my assessment I could very well be wrong, then going on to give an abridged version (my texting thumb ain't as spry as it used to be ya know) of the answer to this most pressing enigma they woke up to find staring them in the face. So I figured I'd park a post giving a bit more detail as to what my conclusion is (as my reply of, "They tried to screw us, but the condom broke and now they're trying to victim blame/slut shame everybody to avoid paying child support and hoping they wife don't find out" probably requires some expansion). That way instead of texting around the bush I could just point any stragglers here.

The question they've all been asking is some variant of,

"Publicola? Hi, it's [insert name here]. Listen, I'm really upset and so confused and I just don't understand this at all. I've been trying to figure it out and then, well,  I remembered that you're a redneck, so can you please tell me how the [multiple expletives and a vow to Tyr deleted]  Trump won????"

Lotophagi

Of course I'm running late, but hopefully my tardiness won't keep it from being a very happy & fun time of year. :)

Gonna Need A Fresh Whetstone

I have to admit, I think it's just sooo cute that some people think we can vote our way out of this.

For old times sake I'll ask you to indulge my musings on this election coming up.

Autumn Leaves

The college I attended was just starting to incorporate jazz into its music program, which was focused on classical music as most music programs were and presumably still are. One of the courses I took was a jazz ensemble. In it a very full band learned various standards from a fake book (actually it was a Real Book). One of them was Autumn Leaves, chosen for its ii-V-I progression, as well as its opportunities for the horn section to harmonize. I couldn't stand it. Well I could stand it, but I didn't like it very much.

About Elections And Gunowners

In the 1980's when a Republican senator or congressman was confronted about voting for some gunowner control law, the reply was typically, "Yeah, I voted for it. So what? My opponent in this election would have voted for it and a whole lot worse. So if you don't want what the Democrats will vote for you'll shut your pie hole and pull the lever with an "R" beside it this November. Besides, the NRA was fine with it and I've got a good rating from them. Now go away."

With the 1990's came a change in attitude. In a surprise move, gunwoners got kinda tired of being told to sit down, shut up and vote for republican anti-gunners cause the democrat anti-gunners were worse anyway.

In 1992 George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton. This was partly because of his "no new taxes" betrayal, but also in large part because he ordered the "assault weapons" import ban into existence through administrative action (urged along by that petulant slug Bill Bennet, lest we forget).

In 1996 Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton. Dole allowed the Brady bill to go through. He voted for the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act which contained the 1994 federal "assault weapons" ban (although he voted against it in its final form). He then, less than four months before the election, changed his mind about making a repeal of the 'assault weapons" ban a primary focus of his presidency, and implied he'd veto a repeal if it his his desk.

In 2000 George W. Bush won against Al Gore. Bush (indeed his entire family from the looks of it) is not pro-gunowner. He supports a lot of gunowner control laws. But one gunowner control law is seen as a plus by a lot of gun owners, and that's Shall-Issue concealed carry permit laws. Bush signed such a bill into law in 1995, after having made such a law a campaign promise. This was seen as at least pragmatically pro-gunowner and helped Bush win the election. Gore was of course no pal of gun owners.

In 2004 George W. Bush won against John Kerry. This was because the 1994 Federal "assault weapons" ban expired on Bush's watch. Bush had mouthed support for renewing the ban, but a lot of gun owners gave him credit, some even saying he was a "stealth pro-gun" politician, having to publicly support renewal whilst working behind the scenes to make sure it expired.

In 2008 Barack Obama won against John McCain. McCain was good on "assault weapons" but he supported a bill that would have eradicated almost every gun show in the country (by making the sponsors of any show criminally liable for non-compliance of their employees).

In 2012 Barack Obama won against Mitt Romney. The GoP offered us a choice between someone who wanted to sign an "assault weapons" ban and someone who already had. The "already had" was their guy and unsurprisingly he lost.

Gunowner control has been viewed as a losing platform for democrat candidates. And rightly so. In fact, it cost the dems in Colorado control of the state senate in 2014. But currently the democrats are pushing a very anti-gunowner platform. This is due to two things, which are connected.

The first is that the progressives took effective control of the democrat party in 2008. They drove off all the blue dog dems and asserted control of the party apparatus.

The second is that a nasty little fascist from NYC (to narrow it down I'm referring to Bloomberg) started throwing money to anti-gunners. There's a theory going around that the gunowner control movement would be non-existent if it weren't for Bloomie the Hut's cash propping it up. I think that notion has merit.

However progressives have also taken control of the republican party. Not ideological progressives, but those that are culturally progressive. Usually they're simply labeled as "establishment" (or rino's) but from what I gather they're simply folks of the progressive culture that didn't go down the left wing path that others did.

(It really requires much more elaboration, which I'll hopefully get around to soon, but the progressive culture and the progressive ideology share the same two base tenants; a belief that society should be structured from the top down, and that the collective [or collectives] are the most important aspect of society. This is in marked contrast with the Scots-Irish culture, which is built on a bottom up structure with a focus on the individual.)

I don't think there's hope of the progressive dems seeing reason. But hopefully there's enough pressure within the GoP to remind the progressives currently running things there that without gunowner support they won't win much. Granted, I'm mainly referencing presidential elections over a relatively short period, but unless things change moreso than I think they have then the following holds true:

Republicans may lose with gunowner support, but they simply cannot win without it.

Make sure to remind whatever politician you favor of that.

Its Not A Conspiracy Theory If They Actually Conspire

 If it seems like the MSM is working for the other side, then you've reached a plausible conclusion. It's also as likely that they aren't working for the other side, they are the other side.

Meeting In The Ladies Room

I'm happy to see that Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam and others have decided to not play in NC due to NC's unconscionable law concerning  permits to purchase handguns.

Oh wait - that's not the law they were bitching about?

Here's a FAQ concerning NC's bathroom law. And here is the text of NC's Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act in .pdf form if you care to read the thing.

In a nutshell, the city of Charlotte passed a law that would have required government and businesses to allow folks who claimed they identified with the opposite sex to use the bathroom of their choice. The state passed this law in reaction to that, in order to clarify that for the purposes of bathrooms, lockers, showers, etc, biology trumped feelings, and that non-government entities could do as they wished.

Then a bunch of folks cried "Oppression!" and launched a boycott of NC. Let us look at those pinnacles of moralism, shall we?