The Wall

You look out over the field; bodies of the savages your ballistae have laid scattered and torn. On your right flank and center the alae and auxilia respectively had moved the enemy back. On the left the resistance was more troublesome and it took artillery to quell the barbari. Your losses were not light, but acceptable, if this situation could be in any part acceptable. These primitive tribes were resisting enlightenment! As the mangled limbs and broken spears fill your gaze you can't help but think, "even these lowly proto-humans must want to be enlightened, mustn't they? Yet they resist; savagely, brutally, stubbornly. So we are forced to kill them in large numbers to gain their compliance. Yet with bodies of their finest warriors in pieces on the field that we now own, they still defy our rule, our enlightenment, our civilization! It's as if they prefer the darkness they live in to the brightness we offer them; if only they submit to our teachings, our superior way of life..." You turn from the field, having the taste of the day's victory soured by the incredulity of it all, and the fact that tomorrow, or next week, you'll be forced to repeat this exercise until these damned Caledonians accept your enlightenment or are destroyed to the last man, woman and child.

This all started around the time of The Great Revolt, almost 50 years after Christ took up his cross, just before Thomas was martyred, when Vesuvius hadn't yet claimed Pompeii, a few decades before the good news of John is said to have been penned. 

The place was the northern part of an island. To the invaders it was known as Caledonia, but we know it as Scotland. It was inhabited by several (Ptolemy suggests 18 in his Geography) tribes of Celtic origin, and while not much is definitively known about them, it is not a stretch to say that they disliked the notion of being ruled by foreigners.

The invaders were Romans. They had conquered almost the entirety of the Celtic world, including modern day England. Their attempts at subduing Scotland though proved problematic. They were met with resistance steady and fierce. Due to factors both martial and political, the Romans never managed to subjugate those early inhabitants of Scotland. Whereas the people in England had accepted and eventually embraced Roman ways, the people of Scotland thoroughly rejected them. Their defiance of Roman rule was so savage that eventually the Romans abandoned their conquest of those early Scots and built a wall to protect themselves (and later, another wall).

That was the beginning of the culture war we face today. 

Die Hardy

Die Hard is, in fact a Christmas movie. I mean, c'mon "Now I have a machine gun ho-ho-ho" - how can you get any more Christmassy than that? [Narrator: you can't]  Don't believe me? Watch the trailer:




I'll also submit that Die Hard 2: Die Harder is a Christmas movie. after all the movie didn't occur on Arbor Day now did it?

But more importantly, Die Hard is not recognized for another thing that it is - a mini-documentary of sorts. For instance

The ethics of journalism.

If you recall how Thornberg blackmailed the Mclane/Gennaro housekeeper to get an interview with minor children to push his narrative then you wouldn't be at all surprised that CNN would threaten to dox a person to keep them from posting memes it didn't like.

The competency of bureaucratic  police departments

The deputy chief of police constantly ignores input from folks on the ground, because he firmly advocates a top down system, and often blames others for his own mistakes. If you think this is fictional then ask police administrators (especially in larger departments) what they think should be done to lower the rate of violent crime, then contrast that to what the bulk of their patrolmen say. Oh and while you're at it, see if you can find any tales of them passing the buck. It shouldn't take long.

The competency of the FBI.

Their fictional representatives don't seem far off the mark from how the real life FBI screws things up. The Miami shoot-out, Waco, Ruby Ridge, encryption mistakes, flawed forensic analysis; here's a list of 10 FBI fails compiled a few years back, and here's a more recent listing of mistakes made by those fabulous G men. Given what I've seen of Comey and Mueller,  the fictional agents could have been even more arrogant and condescending without straining credulity. If Agents Johnson and Johnson (no relation) would have lived, they'd likely have got a lateral transfer then a promotion after the fibbies blamed Mclane for screwing up their well thought out plan.

The progressive reliance on experts.

In a top down system there has to be faith that the masters possess knowledge superior to that of the servants. So the press trotted out an "expert" to inform viewers that the hostages would be experiencing "Helsinki Syndrome" (by which they mean Stockholm Syndrome). The anchor man demonstrated his intense knowledge of geography by almost instantaneously getting the countries of Sweden and Finland confused, and the next scene showed that there was not a whole lot of Stockholming (or Helsiniki-ing) going on. But don't be a science denier, cause experts.

So it's not just a Christmas story, but a reminder that progressives hate you, and when they attain power they'll use it against you (and to cover up their mistakes). Oh, and also, if you attend a Christmas party in a high rise, no matter what keep your shoes on.

Backfilling

I've added some old posts of mine that originally appeared on another site. I've entered them according to their original publication date but for your convenience here are the ones I've added so far.

Mars Bringer Of War

Automatic For The Free People

Cult Of Personality

Absolutism 101: Prior Restraint

Absolutism 201: Principle Vs. Pragmatism

Absolutism 301: Felons

The Nationals And Defense

All That We Are

Mockingbirds And Canaries

Fire On The Mountain

ATFU: Gunowners' Public Enemy Number One

As He Told The Miller's Tale: Problems With u.S. Vs. Miller

Star Wars; The Unreconstructed Strike Back

So Now They Want Us To Make Machineguns

Here's Why U.S. Special Forces Want Russian Machine Guns

The article discusses  something that anyone who watched Charlie Wilson's War probably already knew.

"...when U.S. special forces provide some of these groups with weapons, they have to scrounge through the global arms market to buy Russian hardware as well as spare parts."

So they want American companies to produce the weapons to simplify things. But there are some hurdles, such as the would be manufacturer having to acquire the blueprints, drawings, etc themselves and a few other requirements:

"Companies will also have to 'address the manufacture of spare parts to support fielded weapons.' In addition, they must be prepared to start up and shut down production as needed, as well as provide varying quantities of weapons."

Sounds like a company would have to, oh, I dunno, have an alternate or concurrent buyer for when the military takes a break in purchasing. Which is exactly what would have already occurred if not for the NFA!

A civilian market would allow a manufacturer to maintain enough production to stay solvent while waiting on the military to decide it wants X thousand more units.

As I expand upon in Automatic For The Free People, the restrictions on automatic weapons, especially the complete prohibition on post-'86 automatic weapons, is damaging to our national defense. The situation with the Special Forces attempts to procure certain automatic weapons reinforces that notion.

Extrasensory Deception

Over at the NYT a progressive has posted a policy recommendation/call-to-action under the guise of a news story. (Well, looking back on that sentence I realize that could be used for anything posted at the NYT on any given day, but still...)

How Banks Unwittingly Finance Mass Shootings by Andrew Ross Sorkin

 The gist is that since some number of mass murderers used credit cards to purchase arms and ammunition then credit card companies should either closely monitor transactions to be able to report any potential dangerous purchases and/or generally refuse transactions involving firearms and ammunition. (Of course they fail to mention the tens of millions of credit card purchases where folks buy guns and ammo but don't cause any harm, or those cases where a poor person puts a firearm on a credit card as it's the only way they can afford to have a means of defending themselves and their family, but that'd require a journalist, not a progressive with a byline.)

They want private companies to prevent folks from acquiring weapons if they think that person may commit a crime with them. May.

Outrageous you say? Orwellian in some sense? Do you wish to protest that Minority Report wasn't that great of a great movie and it'd make even worse policy?

I agree. Now do Gun Violence Restraining Orders.

The premise is identical; deny someone their Right to arms because they might - might - use those arms to some evil end. It's mainly a difference in mechanism, and to some degree timing. With Gun Violence Restraining Orders - let's just call them what they are; Gun Confiscation Orders - the government removes firearms based on the possibility someone may commit a confrontational crime. With this Sorkin proposal private companies would inhibit a person's ability to purchase arms to begin with because they may commit a confrontational crime.

The notion that a judge or a middle management CPA can discern the future and thus proclaim a person's Right to arms null and void is entirely nonsensical.

I see this is a front with dual prongs. On one side the progressives are trying to gain traction with Gun Confiscation Orders while the progressives on the other flank are trying to persuade private companies to deny the acquisition of arms. They'll take both if they can get them, but they'd be happy if just one avenue to deny a person's Rights proves successful.

(Also, since the federal government is currently forbidden from keeping a registry of gun owners [aside from owners of NFA items] having private companies compile lists that the government could then peruse could be a not unintended part of this scheme)

If a person supports Gun Confiscation Orders how can they oppose this? Does anyone really believe an unelected government employee (i.e. a judge) has any special incite or ability to gaze into the heart of a person and accurately predict the future but an employee in the banking industry doesn't? If you believe that government pixie dust is sprinkled on all .gov employees giving them special insight, making them our betters, then would not that hold true for someone in finance, with a firm that's helped you secure your investments and perhaps even make money?

Of course psychic ability is not a feature of either government or finance, and I think most folks (all both of us) that read this wouldn't have faith in anyone to deny the Right to arms because of events that have not yet unfolded. But the premise of both the propositions is the same, therefore I cannot fathom how to strongly oppose one but not the other. "Only government should abuse my Rights!" isn't exactly the best rallying cry to oppose one and support the other.

While it's true that a private concern may do whatever it wishes and thus of course may limit contracts to support or oppose things based on its on beliefs, "get woke, go broke" is as much analysis as it is a taunt. I don't agree with it as it seriously impedes the Right to contract, but some folks will make a public accommodations argument that private companies can't discriminate via transaction (the argument would be akin to "if a company can't refuse to engage in transactions involving hair products for Black folk, or Spanish seasonings, or Asian restaurants,  or marital aids for the lgbteieio folks, then it'd be discriminatory to deny firearms transactions because Americans).

The coolest thing to do is oppose both, for the same reason; a person's Right to own or acquire weapons is not subject to review by any entity, corporate or governmental. Prior restraints are unacceptable and if government or a company uses them to the detriment of our Rights, then that government or company should go out of business.

If impeding someone's Right to arms because they may do something evil at some point in the future is wrong then the foundation for either proposal - Gun Confiscation Orders or companies not allowing firearms transactions - is wrong and both proposals should be opposed as vigorously as possible and appropriate.

Remember, appeasement is for chumps.

Lotophagi

It's that time of year again. One day I may get around to actually posting an essay or twelve, but for now here's the annual collection of vids mingled with with well wishes and good happiness stuff.

Rocky Mountain Bye

To give an idea of what I think Colorado's statewide election next week will entail I offer the following two words: I moved. 

Age Based Gunowner Restrictions

Florida recently enacted a gunowner-control law that included an age restriction. It also banned bump stocks (which I've posted about here, here and here), established a 3 day waiting period, instituted a variant of Gun Violence Restraining Orders (which I've written about here) and expands confiscation powers under the Baker Act which deals with involuntary psychiatric evaluation (this Politifact piece has some interesting information about gun owners and the Baker act). The NRA has filed suit over the age restriction. I do not know what the particulars are of their filing, but I see a clear statutory basis to establish that a state may not restrict firearms to those 21 or over.

Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the u.S. Constitution, has the power to, among other things, call up the militia.

10 U.S.Code § 246 defines the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 (with noted exceptions).

Looking at this chart if the number of people 21 and over is subtracted from the number of people 18 and over that leaves roughly 14 million people between the ages of 18 and 20. Out of roughly (again doing simple math from the same chart) 100 million folks between the ages of 18 and 45, 14% is a noticeable number.

By barring ownership of long guns to people between the ages of 18 and 20, a state would deprive the u.S. government of a decent chunk of its militia.

(Also, by barring ownership of long guns to people between the ages of 18 and 20, the u.S. government would deprive a state of a decent chunk of its militia.)

As long as the federal government has defined, by statute, that 17 to 20 year olds are included as a component of the unorganized militia, then a state may not restrict possession or purchase of long guns. Since militia are expected to provide their own equipment, including personal weapons, then such a state law would interfere with Congress' ability to summon the militia in times of peril. (Washington, D.C. did just that prior to the War of 1812, with disastrous consequences.)

(I also would turn around and file suit against the Feds, arguing that the federal laws preventing purchase of long arms by 17 year olds, and preventing purchase of handguns by those between the ages of 17 to 20, hamper a state's ability to call up the militia in a crisis.)

So if I were in the NRA's place, I'd toss that in there, not only because it is persuasive, but to get the anti-gunners off my back about ignoring the militia component of the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights.

I Am The NRA

Longtime readers (all both us us) may find the title of this post somewhat surprising. No need to check the date; it's not the first day of the 4th month. I still have many problems with the NRA. Their goals don't seem to line up with mine (they act like possessing weapons is a privilege rather than a Right) and their strategy is way too conciliatory. They seem to be all Chamberlain and no Churchill. When they should be on offense they play defense and when they should play defense they preemptively surrender. The power structure within the administration is way too top down for my tastes and I think current management should've stepped down a while back. (Although I do admit they've done a decent job regarding training and organizing shooting competitions.) Because of those consideration I haven't been an NRA member since I was a teenager (which was about the same time that mastodons roamed the earth). When the NRA stops supporting gunowner control laws and starts promoting the Right to arms instead of trying to slowly turn it into a privilege I'd be happy to join them. Sadly that day isn't today.

However, the NRA has come under attack in recent weeks. Correction - not attack, but onslaught. Companies are disassociating themselves with the NRA, there's a hue and cry in the mainstream media attempting to pressure politicians to cut ties with the NRA, and celebrities both new and long standing have been doing their best to vilify the NRA. (Here's a good overview on the situation.)

Only when they say NRA they don't mean NRA - they mean me. They mean gun owners in general. They mean folks who have concluded the 2nd article in the bill of Rights means government shouldn't interfere with people possessing weapons. Just as the wrong people was often a euphemism for black folk, the NRA in this context doesn't just mean NRA members (as is "the gun lobby" and a few similar terms); it means anyone who doesn't support some degree of gunowner control laws.

March Sixth Two Thousand Eighteen

I may be a day late, but at least I'm not a dollar short ($0.98 short is not $1.00 short, tyvm.)

It's Not About The Gun It's About The Good

I notice that a lot of progressives are having trouble internalizing a concept; what matters is the substance, not appearance. For example, if a person has double bit axe & a flannel shirt that does not make him a lumberjack; if a person has a 28 oz. waffle headed Eastwing & faded jeans that does not make him a framing carpenter; if a person possesses a ten gallon Stetson and a horse that does not make him a cowboy, and if a person possesses a doctor's stethoscope and a pastel shirt that does not make her an RN (right Miss Behar?)

Case in point:

"A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"

Simple enough, right? Not to progressives. Ya see, it has the word "gun" in it, which therefore becomes the fixation. Trips them right up, every time.

The thought (I use the term loosely) is that because Brave Sir Deputy failed to stop the mass murderer at the Parkland high school then voila! It is now proven that a good guy with a gun cannot stop a bad guy with a gun.

I present to you this dribble from one Elliot Hannon over at Slate:

"The problem is that there was a good guy with a gun at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that day" (emphasis in original)

This is very easy to clear up, and I shall in a moment.

Pardon My French, But GVRO Hell No

David French writes glowingly of Gun Violence Restraining Orders. In a fantastically doublespeakish introduction, French claims that GVRO's "...make us all safer while empowering the individual and protecting liberty."

(Hugh Hewitt has also been talking about a principal or some other school administrator being able to call NICS and place a "no buy" type of hold on someone. Most of my objections to GVRO's fall along similar lines so I won't deal with that proposal directly here.)

The concept is thus: Person A (family member, spouse, roommate, boyfriend or girlfriend, etc.) calls the cops and makes a claim that Person B is too dangerous to have firearms. The cops along with Person A (in theory) go in front of a judge and the judge decides whether or not to grant this GVRO.  Person B may be allowed to defend himself against the claims at the initial hearing, but an ex parte hearing is also an option for a temporary GVRO, with a 72 hour or so duration. If it is issued then the cops take away Person B's firearms. There should be an expiration date with either type of GVRO so that the claim must be reviewed and the GVRO either continued or rescinded.

That's the basics of it. French's piece is fisk-worthy of itself, but I lack the time to really dissect his arguments bit by bit. 

I will say I think this is a great idea - if the republicans are tired of being a majority party.  Otherwise it's problematic in all of its' aspects.

Literary And Literally

In Poul Anderson's War Of The Gods there's a tale about a king's hoardkeeper. Allow me to summarize (but do indulge in Anderson's book as it's a decent read):

Glum was an old man, and had been a warrior in his youth. He was appointed hoardkeeper under Haddings father, stayed in the post through the next king, and so Hadding decided to keep him on when he ascended the throne. He was housed in rooms at the front of the king's storehouse, and was given food, drink, clothes, and a servant and was treated with honor. 

One day King Hadding visited the storehouse to take some of his treasure, intending them as gifts for some of his allies and servants. After Glum opened the door to the storeroom (as only he had a key) Hadding discovered thieves had been in and did some plundering. Glum protested his innocence and Hadding discovered the thieves had tunneled in some time in the preceding month or so. He agreed that Glum had been no thief, but charged he was negligent, in that he should have checked on the treasures himself from time to time, or not been so drunk as to not hear the noise of thieves tunneling into the building he dwelt in. 

Hadding had Glum before his court and related what had happened, concluding with the charge that Glum was negligent, having allowed thieves to make off with things under his care. He pronounced that Glum should die and asked Glum if he had anything to say. Glum admitted he was negligent, said that he was too old to do the job properly and the king should have appointed a younger man to the post, but the king could do with him as he wished; just leave his honor intact. Hadding, in concession, agreed and ordered that Glum die on the gallows (which was a more honorable death than the other options) to which Glum consented that it was good.

Robert A. Heinlein has told a story on numerous occasions of an accident that occurred when he was a child. If you'll pardon me I'll paraphrase it:

A lady and her husband were walking through town. when crossing over a railroad track the lady's foot got stuck. The husband started trying to free her with no luck. Then a man - presumed a hobo - happened along and joined the husband in his efforts. A train was approaching and they worked steadily trying to free the lady's foot. They were still engaged at that task when the train hit all three of them. The lady and the hobo were killed instantly, and the husband lived just long enough to tell what happened. The lady was stuck; she had no choice in the matter. The husband did have a choice and he chose to do what a husband should do. The hobo - if indeed that's all he was - had a choice as well. He could have jumped aside at any moment and no blame or shame would have been incurred. Yet he stayed, helping with his last mortal efforts a lady whom he did not know; a couple whom may not have accepted him socially or sat down with him for lunch. He stayed and whatever fear he felt was quelled by something inside him that told him saving a lady whom he had no bond with or connection to was worth his very life.  This is how a man dies, and this is how a man lives.

Heinlein does a much better job of telling the story, but I think I got all the important points. Now contrast those two tales with this:

Four Sheriff's Deputies Hid During Florida School Shooting

CNN's Town Hell

I'm going to - well I guess I can't say live blog since I'm watching a recording - watch the CNN Townhall on the Parkland, Fla. mass murder (so you don't have to) and type about it as it goes.

Regular font will be what I'm seeing happening, my thoughts will be in italics.

Muh Narrative

There was an earlobe malfunction at the FBI's tip line that caused swift inaction when someone saw something and said something. Earlier the FBI investigated a tip from a youtuber but were stumped when confronted with someone that clandestinely used his legal name on teh internetz. (also see End The 9/11 Syndrome At The FBI: Terrible Things Happen, And There's Little Accountability, and What Do We Do About The Biased And Incompetent FBI?,  and last but not least Fire The FBI Chief)

To paraphrase a tweet I saw a few days ago :

A loose group of bored kids in their mom's basement used flight data from web cams to track down a flag hidden someplace in the u.S. in their spare time.
Paid professionals at the FBI couldn't track down someone that threatened to shoot up a school even though he signed his real name.

The local school board had reason to believe the student was troubled and dangerous. A few years back the school board implemented a policy to downplay the seriousness of student incidents because the arrest statistics from previous years were not helpful to their identity politics.

The Broward County Sheriff's office (Headed by gunowner control advocate Sheriff Scott Israel, for now) had received from 18 to 39 calls since 2010 concerning the murderer's address (depending on the source). The Deputy that was the school resource officer bravely stayed outside when the murders were going on inside. (He was suspended, but then retired.) ( Aside: why did they ask him to turn in his weapon? Clearly there was no danger of him actually using the thing.) Brave Sir Deputy also refused to share info with Social services about a visit to the murderer's home back in '16. Two other deputies were suspended amidst concerns that they did not follow protocol during some of the contacts they had with the murderer prior to the murders. (Also, no need to worry; Brave Sir Deputy is receiving a protective detail while he eases into his retirement.)

So of course, the media responsibly pushes for more gunowner control, as lax firearms laws is the only thing that could've led to this mass murder.

Not being content at demonstrating why Socrates won't return their calls, the fine folks in authorized media decided to use teenagers as human shields in their attempt to push for more restriction on Rights, because ratings. CNN is arguably the worst offender, but if you've looked around the last week or so you'll note that other MSM groups have followed their lead. The teenage survivors efforts at promoting gunowner control are organized enough that to some it smacks of astroturf. In short, the MSM is using these kids to push the MSM's agenda, and it's detrimental to those kids.

Miss Althouse asks what effect the coverage is likely to have on anyone thinking of becoming a mass murderer. I'd venture that "encouragement" is an understated response to her query.

CNN held what they called a Town Hall, because Show Trial, Anti-Gunowner PSA, or 2x53 Minute Hate seemed too obvious as titles, or perhaps too honest. Amidst calling a pro-gunowner lady a murderer, booing a story of a rape survivor wishing she'd had a gun, cheering at the thought of a complete semi-auto ban, and generally equating gun owners and the NRA as child murderers, they might have provoked a result opposite what they intended (though in an unsurprise move, the event mattered, according to the Atlantic). Oh did I mention the Antigunowner witch hunt was moderated by the ever neutral journalist Jake Tapper? I guess that makes things even since CNN never mentioned Tapper used to work for Handgun Control, Inc as a spokesman. There's also some debate over whether or not CNN scripted the questions for the ritual sacrifice. Sheriff Israel, whose deputy courageously sought cover outside while the murderer was murdering inside, accused the NRA (read that as "every gunowner everywhere, except cops) of not caring about the children. But as with the Atlantic piece linked above, the MSM is declaring a victory in the alleged televised conversation, getting heady with the notion of this being a path forward in the Children's March for Gunowner Control.

Sadly their efforts are gaining some momentum, which I'll try cover in another post.


Edited: 2-24-18 1:30 MST fixed a few typos, added 3 word to a sentence that somehow got deleted without my notice.

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?

Be Vewy Vewy Kwiet

Garands can be loud. Someone did something about that.



In this vid you can better hear the difference twixt suppressed and unsuppressed Garands



Fitting a suppressor to any semi-auto can be tricky. In this case there's a lot of blowback (hence wearing ski goggles when firing) and an adjustable gas cylinder lock screw to get the right amount of pressure in the gas system. In a thread on this build it's mentioned that the point of impact was about 27 MOA lower with the suppressor on. Details of how this was built can be found here. 

That Does Not Meme What You Thought

You've probably already heard about the school district in Colorado that bought some AR's for its security personnel. I was scanning through AM radio some weeks back and stumbled on the Joe Pags show, where they were discussing this event. A caller was hitting some familiar talking points, but I hadn't heard them in this context before.

The caller questioned buying AR's for the security staff, saying that it seemed the money could be better spent on training with the handguns they already had than buying rifles. When it was brought up that rifles were generally more effective and accurate than handguns, the caller retorted that a modern 9mm would be just as effective as an AR's projectile and claimed he was an avid handgun shooter.

This takes two trendy meme's and applies them to their logical and ridiculous ends.

The Firearms Blog has this post which does a decent job of explaining the thinking behind the "9mm is better" argument in relation to other handgun cartridges. Here and here are articles emphasizing the importance of training over cartridge selection for handguns. (Here is a more lengthy discussion of terminal ballistics, and Wikipedia has pages on both terminal ballistics and stopping power respectively. No discussion of this would be complete with The Anarchangel's Lies, Damn Lies and Ballistics post.)

Now I'm not in 100% agreement with those two points (a 9mm is just as good as any other, and training makes cartridge selection irrelevant) but I can understand their appeal when applied to handguns (though I still believe in 10mm magic). Rifle cartridges, even relatively weak rifle cartridges are another ball of wax entirely.

I'm not a fan of the .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO. But I'd take either of those over any 5" barreled handgun in any chambering any day of the week*. If I had a set budget, and could train twice as much with a 9mm handgun or half as much with a .223 rifle (and let us pray to a deity of choice it never comes to that) I'd pick the rifle (or carbine**) every time. It's harder to tuck a long gun under your photographers vest, sure, but for around the house or serious social interactions a rifle (or carbine) is simply more advantageous, in terms of ease of use, effectiveness and range.

I'll grant it was just one caller on an AM radio talk show, but I'd be concerned that he's not the only one that takes an arguable idea or two and applies it all wrong.

Personally I'd have preferred that the school district had purchased AK-47's (simply because it's too much to hope for that they'd plunk down the cash for Garands or M1A's). But damn near any long gun will be an improvement over damn near any handgun for stopping humans with evil intent.

Perhaps meme's should come with warning labels - or at least disclaimers...



* When dealing with humans. Colorado has bears though, and I'd have more faith in a hot loaded, nigh nuclear 10mm to reach a bruin's vitals than a .223. Ditto for .41 or .44 magnums or the hotter .45 offerings.

** I simply can't bring myself to consider anything with less than a 20" barrel a rifle. To my thinking they're more properly carbines. So most AR's and most AK's, for example, are carbines, not rifles.

A Prince Lived

Prince definitely wasn't a member of the gun culture. He was a progressive whenever anything remotely political came up. So most readers here may not have liked him that much.

I was a musician. I played a lot of Prince's stuff over the years, from his more popular tunes like Purple Rain or When Doves Cry to more obscure pieces, such as Starfish and Coffee to Sometimes It Snows In April (generally regarded by many as the saddest song in the world). In my professional opinion he was one of the most talented songwriters to date. Genius in fact would not be an exaggeration of his ability. Not all of his songs were likeable; some were better than others, but his ability to craft sounds into emotions was incredible.

I usually try to keep the writing here PG-13'ish, but there's simply no way to talk about Prince without some cussing, so you've been warned.

Remembering Things Right

Freddie Gray died a year ago today. All last night on the radio I kept hearing an interview which made me think the interviewee just didn't know the meaning of the word he was using, or was deliberately misusing it. Just to double check I did some searching and found the same word being used to describe the same event in multiple sources, sometimes by the reporters themselves.

That word is uprising.

For example, from this article (which isn't a bad summation of what's occurred in Baltimore since last year):

"Alston, of Kids Safe Zone, said the unrest galvanized organizations to do more for their communities instead of waiting for the city to help. 'What the uprising did? I wouldn't be in a position to offer the services that I do had that not happened,' she said." (emphasis mine)

There are several other places, in both professional and social media where I see that word used to describe the reaction by some in Baltimore to Gray's death.

From Merriam-Webster:  
Uprising: an act or instance of rising up; especially :  a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government

Again, from Merriam-Webster: 

Riot:  2 a :  public violence, tumult, or disorder b :  a violent public disorder; specifically :  a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

The Seventeen was an uprising. The Forty-Five was an uprising.
What started on this day in 1943 in the Warsaw Ghetto was an uprising.
What happened in Baltimore after Freddie Gray's death was a riot.

When the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto started killing the Nazi's that were seeking to murder them, that seems to me to fall under the category of uprising. 

When a mob burns down a CVS store I'm just straining to see a connection with government, unless they're really ticked about the FDA (and we all should be) and think that CVS is in cahoots with them. 

Here's the Wikipedia page on the 2015 Baltimore protests (their title) which will give you an overview of what all happened and when.

Now let me remind y'all of something which I think gets overlooked too often: Gray was arrested ostensibly because he carried a switchblade (though it's been said that Gray's knife was not actually a switchblade, but an assisted opening knife.) Here's a CNN piece discussing whether the knife was legal or not. The difference is semantic because the city of Baltimore declares it a crime to possess either. But even trying to figure out what type of knife (that to my knowledge no one has seen since the Baltimore PD took custody of it) is unnecessary.

Let me quote y'all a lil' sum'fin sum'fin with which you should all be familiar by now:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  (emphasis mine)

That good ol' 2nd Amendment. It doesn't say "guns". It doesn't say "hand cannons". It doesn't say "hoglegs" It doesn't even say "firearms". It just says "arms". I would argue, and in fact I am arguing, that "arms" would include knives of all sorts and sizes, including that Ken Onion that some of y'all reading this may have in your pocket right now. That little palm sized tool you might own and possess is the reason a man was arrested and as a consequence killed by the police in his own city. Not for threatening them with it, just for having it.

Freddie Gray was chased down because he ran when some cops saw him. After they detained him they saw a clip outside his pocket, searched him and charged him with illegal possession of a knife. If we assume that it's hunky dory for the cops to run a person down with no other suspicion than "he must've done something cause he ran from us" we still have the very damn sticky wicket of him being arrested for enjoying a constitutionally enumerated Right. 

His treatment and ultimately his death were tragic and criminal on the part of the Baltimore PD. If there would have been an uprising last year because of that - a man dying from at best criminally negligent treatment after being arrested for exercising a basic, fundamental Right - then I would have been proud of them. That's not what happened. 

What happened is that some of the people in Baltimore took the Underwear Gnome approach to redress their grievances:

1: Loot, damage and burn privately owned businesses
2: ?
3: Governmental reform

That's so not uprising. 

It's important to remember Gray's death and the circumstances leading up to it. It's important to remember the evil that was done to him and to reflect on why it was done to him. But the riots that took place allegedly in his name shouldn't be recalled with any sort of reverence or sentiment, and upgrading them to the status of uprising diminishes not only the victims of those riots, but the participants in actual uprisings, such as those folks in Warsaw 73 years ago today.

Putting The J In SW

If you haven't seen The Force Awakens yet there will be spoilers in this post.

I mentioned previously that I was concerned about how Disney would handle Star Wars. I finally watched it last week and I'm not thrilled with it at all. I'll explore why below the fold, and part of it does have to do with the culture war. It'll be lengthy and there will be hard core geekery involved, so you've been warned. With any luck I'll get back to my irregularly scheduled posting on more familiar topics, but for now here are my thoughts on this new Star Wars:

Mea Maxima Culpa Peccavi

Brothers and sisters, it vexes me, pains me - nay; it wounds me to admit this shortcoming, this failure, this iniquity, for I hath not found it amongst the papers of today, or amidst the tales of scandal so oft told of the heathens against whom we struggle to convert. It comes from my own bosom, and I cannot hide it from you, my companions in, but not of, this dark world full of misery and blight.

I have sinned.

Arrogance was mine, so much that I thought, not that I was perfect, but that I had immunity from this manner of error; I thought it could not happen to me, yet I am guilty of it, as sure as grits are groceries. I cannot expect your forgiveness, though I am compelled to explain my error in the hopes that I am the last lead astray in such a manner, that I will be the last ensnared by such a trap.

For years I opined - nay, preached - against the Gospel of Stoner, deriding it as an apocrypha, an heresy, at best a trifle to be indulged no more than occasionally, at worst a disease that must be eradicated. I shouted from the rooftops that direct impingement was not the answer - that only a long stroke (or at least a short stroke) could deliver us to the promise land. I testified that a .22 bullet was not seemly to use agin anything more than 70 pounds, that it was not a cartridge fit for warriors, nor adequate for the protection of their families. And the sproing - verily, the sproing did I mock, comparing it in an unfavorable light with a gun meant for BB's.

But I have seen the sign in the sky, the writing on the wall, and now my wits have returned and the most righteous message Brother Stoner (may peace be upon him) tried to bring to us all, for our betterment.

It is only now, after wasting all those years with claims of heresy that I now know to be false, have I seen the light at the end of the two tenths of an inch diameter tunnel. The .223 Remington is a superb cartridge for battle and beast alike, readily felling with a mere graze the most zealous warrior as well as stopping the charges of Cape Buffaloes mid-stride, and the AR-15 platform is surely the most divine manner of delivering them.

So I will give up my sinful ways that I thought for so long were wise. The '06 shall I speak of no more. Its .30 pill, both heavy & slow compared to the .223, shall darken my ammo shelves no longer. It is tempting to beat my clips into magazines, and turneth mine gas cylinders into windchimes, as the prophets of old saw visions of. Yet atonement must be made.

I have been shown the light, and guided to the edge of the promised land where I may look over its valleys. But I have too much sin on me, and I cannot cross over. I am not worthy of an AR, or its .223 cartridge.

But I have seen the truth now; to quote the prophet (may his parking ever more be validated), "Whenst thou picketh a projectile, let its weight be light and its speed be fast..." Though I am not deserving to possess the mighty .223 Remington (or its nearest equivalent the blessed 5.56x45mm NATO) I shall not stray from the path again.

My Garands shall be reworked, with the laborers of metal installing new tubes, ones which may be judged as near to the perfection preached by the prophet as a lowly sinner such as myself is allowed. As was the M1E10 so too shall mine be converted to an impingement that is direct! And verily, I will have them rechambered for the mighty .17-06! Surely, 17 grains of blessed boattail exceeding 5,300 fps will prove that I have mostly humbly repented of my apostasy. And maybe, after I have done sufficient penance for my depraved ways, I can step just a bit closer to the light and have them rebarreled in .17-06 Ackley Improved! Though I dare not look too far forward, lest I stumble and resume my haughty ways that lead only to ruin.

Thus let my folly instruct you, lest your path becomes as crooked and your steps as backward as mine hath been. Revere the AR-15 (was it not described as the greatest battle implement ever devised? Wise was he whose words offered such just praise!), adore the .223 Remington (as another elder proffered from his trove of wisdom, "there's nothin' a man can't fix with 700 dollars and a .223 Remington!"), and give thanks for the prophet Stoner (may Haagen-Dazs create a flavor in his honor). Wasteth not thine time and precious coin on battle rifles and cartridges capable of taking down game larger than coyotes - it is surely vanity! Buy an AR and thousands of rounds of .223 Remington that your days may be long and your nights in bear country no longer filled with dread!

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).

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.