A Mosque at Ground Zero?

'10,000' throng to stop Ground Zero mosque

"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.

Americans all over the country are rallying to stop the construction of a Muslim Mosque at "Ground Zero"; actually on currently unused grounds near to the Twin Towers which were destroyed by terrorist attacks on American infrastructure during the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001.

Meanwhile, the man who proposed this project has been quoted as saying: "I don't believe in religious dialogue". PJTV auditing his American and 'other' statements has found "extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic..."

Many New Yorkers, and most friends and family of 911 victims, have attended public meetings to discuss the proposal.

The proposal was actually entered sometime before 911, and the prospect has been 'on hold' until just recently.
Here is a YouTube video describing some of the commentary regarding the proposed construction:

Although NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to be in favor of the proposal (latest word is that the city council has approved the project 29-1), many people suspect that the motivation is more than to approve a previously proposed project. Some believer that the construction of a Mosque on Ground Zero would represent the Muslim religion placing it's foot on the neck of a conquered foe. ("It's a stab in the eye of America.")
There may be some justification for this interpretation, as suggested by this PJTV video:

It's difficult to know what's "right", when one considers the anguish of 1911 families versus the lack of understanding of what any gesture may mean from the perspective of an Islamic fundamentalist.

Some think that it would be a gesture to reassure the Muslim populations of the world that we do not hold 'them' personally responsible for the 1911 tragedy.

Others believe that it would be an insult ... to the victims, to the American People as a whole ... and also an acknowledgement that Islam has, by the American permission, forced America to bow in dimmitude to the Islamic Movement.'

And one wonders whether the primary imperitive is for the American People to thus acknowledge that it holds Muslim followers ultimately blameless, or to allow Islamic Terrorists to boast of their conquest over The Great Satan.

Should this decision be left to the City Council of New York City?

Or is it a decision that all of America should share?

Having trouble deciding which should be the priority? Perhaps it would help to have more information about what this Mosque conduction would mean to the Islamic Society. This 11-minute PJTV interview with Walid Shoebat, a former Islamic Terrorist, may help to to understand the issues.

I found it helpful:

Stumble It!

NRA and the 1st Amendment

Democrats face criticism from customary allies - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

This story has been around for several weeks, and I've been following it without comment because I wasn't sure where the story was going, nor on my stand on it.

There's a local talk-show radio host, Lars Larson, who expressed his disappointment that the National Rifle Association seems to have 'caved in' as soon as Congress agreed to exempt the NRA from the egregious requirements of non-profits.

Briefly stated, the bill ( the "DISCLOSE" act) was intended to counter a "loop-hole" in compaign contributions which, according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCUSA) allowed Corporations the same First Amendment Protections as individual.

Essentially SCUSA ruled at the first of the year that Corporations could 'speak' about campaign issues, and publish these comments, with the same freedom as individuals.

Since Corporations typically have deeper pockets than most individuals, Congress thought their political comment should be restricted, especially in months toward the end of the campaign season.

So they fabricated a new bill which, if enacted into law, would impose incredibly burdensome reporting regulations on political speech. This bill was also directed at non-profits ... who usually (as in the case of the NRA, for example) have their own agenda.

The NRA objected, and since the NRA wields stronger political power than most non-profits (see the failure of Al Gores's 2000 Presidential Bid, where he couldn't win his own home state of Tennessee because of his anti-gun agenda), Congress decided that they could pass the bill if they could just buy off the NRA. Which they did, as well as several other Non-Profits (including the Sierra Club, the AARP, and the Human Society) which 'profited' by special exeptions:

"Regardless of your position about the legislation in general, we think you will agree with us that this special carve-out is undemocratic and dangerous," Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, wrote Tuesday to the leaders of more than 100 member-organizations. She sought signatures on a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing "profound disappointment and anger about the special treatment provided to those least in need of special treatment."

If anything, the president of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence was even more barbed about the concession given to the organization that arguably does more than any other to thwart his own group.

The special treatment for the NRA "is exactly why Americans are so turned off by politics and cynical about Congress," Paul Helmke said in a telephone interview. "It makes no sense at all when you say you're concerned about the role that money plays in politics."

The League of Conservation Voters also opposes the measure, according to a spokeswoman. Aron said the Sierra Club does as well, although officials for that organization could not be reached.

The developments left the fate of the legislation in doubt, according to Democratic aides who said the leadership likely would decide on Wednesday whether to go ahead with earlier plans to seek a vote by the end of the week.

The bill calls for new disclosure requirements to accompany campaign advertising by outside groups, which can now spend millions of dollars in often rough-and-tumble political activity without publicly identifying their donors. Democrats agreed Monday to exempt the NRA from its provisions after concluding the gun owners' group had enough allies in the House to bring down the measure.

The NRA issued a statement saying it would neither support nor oppose the measure as long as the exemption was a part of it — effectively a statement of acquiescence in the bill's passage.

So that's the back-story.

Our Mr. Larson was disappointed that the NRA was not willing to fight for the 1st amendment with the same fervor as they had historically fought for the 2nd amendment. And I admit, I was also. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA appeared on the Lars Larson Show to explain their position. I was unable to hear that show, so I don't know what the NRA had to say. Except, although this link may disappear, here is what LaPierre had to say.

LaPierre introduced himself (and the NRA) as historically strong proponents for the 1st Amendment. Larson said "Congress wouldn't have offered the NRA a ... thing ... without knowing they couldn't pass the bill without you?"

LaPierre said the Democrats could have rammed the bill down our (the NRA) throats. "We had to make sure that our gun owners were protected. We think it's unconstitutional, we think the supreme court is going to throw it out. ... this probably isn't going anywhere. .. they didn't give us anything. ... we didn't cut a deal ... but we still think it's unconstitutional. If it had not been for the NRA, this thing would probably have gone through two weeks ago. I represent a gun-rights organization, and I would be derelict of our membership if I didn't object to this thing." And he also said "we're the national RIFLE association! "

And he finally said that the NRA is intended to preserve the SECOND amendment.

(Continue listening to the Lars Larson audio comments, if they're still available, to hear even more critical comments.)

And actually, the recent word is that the bill is in deep, deep trouble simply because of the exemptions!

Not because of the 'large' (over 1 million members, been in operation for over ten years) non-profits were opposed to the bill, but because many other non-profits had been left out of the exemptions (including the US Chamber of Commerce) ... the bill is now in danger of not being passed.

For me, I would wish that the NRA would have continued protesting against this bill. But as LaPierre (not my all-time favorite person) implied in his interview, the business of the NRA is the protection of the Second Amendment. And by extension, it follows that the NRA is conceivably not strictly following it's own charter if it allocates donated funds in an effort to protect the First Amendment.

I don't like it. I've spent my entire life looking upon the NRA as my personal Constitutional Savior.

Well, perhaps not. My father and all of my uncles were Life Members of the NRA. I have not been, and in fact my NRA membership is lapsed. I am not a great fan of the NRA ... as I have said before and often for this sort of reason. The NRA is not a Constitutional Savior. It's all they can do the defend the Second Amendment, and they do little enough of that.

But here, the NRA is clear (if not by the Wayne LaPierre interview, but by the consequences of his "constitutional sell-out"), when the NRA signed on to the exemption it placed the spotlight firmly on the constitutional conflict inherent in this bill.

If the Democratic Congress had not decided to 'buy off' the Large Non-Profits, would this bill have been passed with little or no public comment?

I think so.

Here's a shocking thought for you to contemplate:

Who made the biggest stink about the NRA 'buy off''?

The Brady Bunch.

They had nothing to say about the bill per se, but they were so outraged that the NRA was granted an exception, they truly soured the dish that Congress was so assiduously stirring, to serve to the American people before they dropped us into the oven in their "Hansel and Gretel" Chocolate House.

Politics truly makes strange bed-fellows.

Who would ever believe that the Brady Campaign would support the NRA's true agenda?

The only thing that Wayne LaPierre has to offer to the membership of the NRA as that he is an accomplished politician. I'm not saying he expected exactly this outcome, but he DID say that he thought the bill was 'unconstitutional' and, with the list of exceptions listed, the bill is now a Poster Child for a constitutional battle.

I think the Democrats well be found to have become stuck in the Hunny Pot, and this is the lead-in to a depressing (for them) judicial refusal.

Anything that results in a disappointment for the Dems is a 'win' for America.

And you can take that to the bank.

Stumble It!

USPSA Rule Changes

USPSA Rule Changes 0301101.pdf (application/pdf Object)

The Range Lawyers are Alive and Well, and ... well ... confusing.

The latest Columbia Cascade Newsletter (H/T "The Hobo Brasser") introduces New Rules from USPSA.


I suspect you will find them somewhat confusing. I know I did. Perhaps it would be best if we attribute the confusion to Friday Night Follies ("Yippee! It's The Weekend!")

Still, there are a few rules which are not intrinsically obvious to the casual observer. Most of them are relevant only to those who compete in Production Class, but some of them may affect us all.

Here are a selected few, and my first-impressions. I'm pretty sure I don't understand them, so if anyone has a better (or more authoritative) interpretation, I do, as always, invite corrections.

After all, I'm not an authority and this is not something that I had prior or background knowledge of the changes/improvements or the reasons why they were enacted.

And I'm assuming that these rule changes are definitive, official, and immediately applicable. This may not be the case.

Oh, and my comments only apply to the "Handgun Rules"; not being a 'multi-gun' competitor, I would not dare to comment on "Multi-Gun Rules".

...

1.2.2.3 “Speed Shoot”-Courses of fire consisting of one continuous string of fire not exceeding 16 rounds shot on one or more arrays of multiple targets from a single location or view. No more than 8 rounds may be required without a mandatory reload and no more than one mandatory reload may be required in the course of fire. Stage may be scored either Comstock or Virginia Count. See Rule 9.2.3.2.

Level II or higher matches are allowed no more than one of these courses of fire per every five stages. The total points available in these courses of fire shall not exceed 20% of the total points available in any match. Weak /Strong hand may be stipulated after the reload is complete.

Second Paragraph does not apply to "Club Matches" (Level I).

Do you not understand where the "Speed Shoot" designation applies? Neither do I.

In this, as with all succeeding rule discussions, it would probably be handy to have your current USPSA Rule Book handy.

(I don't intend to fully parse these rules. The purpose is only to make you aware that they are 'new', and to familiarize you with them in the general sense. I hope that this will lead to a fuller discussion.)

4.3.1.5 Scoring metal targets must be shot and fall or overturn to score. Scoring poppers which fail to fall when hit, are subject to the provisions of Appendix C1, 6 & 7. Scoring metal targets which a Range Officer deems to have fallen or overturned due to a shot on the supporting apparatus or prematurely fallen or moved for any reason will be treated as range equipment failure. (See Rule 4.6.1). All Poppers shall follow the guidelines below:
1. That a minimum of 50% of the calibration zone be available at some point in the COF.
2. That the calibration will be done from a point on the COF where the calibration zone is available, closest to where the contested shot was fired.

The salient point in this rule is, I believe, that historically it has been permissible (especially in Club Matches ... see above) to score a 'hit' on a plate when the plate has fallen because of a hit which actually struck the supporting structure. After this rule is enacted, if a plate falls because the shot hit the thing-a-ma-bob that holds the plate off the ground, it's considered a REF ("Range Equipment Failure") and results in a mandatory reshoot. Which may grow tiresome, and expensive in terms of ammunition expended to complete a single stage.

This puts the burden on the stage construction crew to ensure that it's not possible (or at least, not easy) to hit the platform rather than the plate.

Three comments:

1. This is only determined if the RO cannot see the mark of a bullet on the plate, which directly implies that each plate MUST be re-painted between shooters;
2. The stage must be set up so that it is at least difficult, preferably impossible, to hit the support structure. Again, this puts the burden on the host club to insure that only the steel target is visible to the shooter.
3. This is obviously intended to apply mainly to plates; however, it is possible to hit the base of a Pepper Popper and shake it sufficiently that the popper falls. Again, the steel target MUST be painted between shooters to insure that this rule can be applied. If the RO cannot definitively determine that the target has not been struck by the bullet, the shooter must reshoot the stage. There is no other option available to the Range Officer.

5.2.4 During the course of fire after the start signal, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and/or speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor’s belt and specifically designed for that purpose.
Unless specifically prohibited in the Written Stage Briefing, a competitor may also carry additional magazines or speed loading devices in apparel pocket(s) and retrieve and use them without penalty, providing that the location of the apparel pocket does not violate the requirements of Appendix D, Item 12 (subject to the provisions of Rule 6.2.5.1)

Yes, this is essentially a re-iteration of an old rule which requires the shooter to use the magazines in his/her "mag-carriers" before dipping into the pocket to get the 'back-up' magazines.

I'm not sure how or whether this is an improvement on existing rules, but it is clear that the intention is that the shooter uses ammunition carried on the belt before using ammunition carried in the pocket.

Pfaugh!

Sorry, I can't say this in a kinder, more gentle way: This is a stupid rule.

Not "stupid" because it's not a 'good idea', but "stupid" because it is unenforceable.

There is no penalty associated with this rule. If there is no penalty, there is no way to enforce the rule.

Is it possible to assign a Procedural Penalty for failure to follow this rule? I don't know why. Procedural Rules are enforceable only if the mandate to reload only from the belt ammunition-carrier is part of the written stage procedure. If it is written in the stage procedure, it doesn't need to be in the rule book.

Have I missed something here? I hope someone can tell me how, as a Range Officer, I can enforce this rule.

Don't bullshit me here, Boys.

9.1.3 Prematurely Patched Targets - If a target is prematurely patched or taped, which prevents a Range Official from determining the actual score, the Range Officer must order the competitor to reshoot the course of fire. However, if following the scoring of a target by any assigned Range Officer, the target is patched or taped by anyone other than a Range Officer, the score will stand as called regardless of the competitor’s opportunity to see the target in question and the competitor will not be permitted to appeal the score as called.

This is an odd one.

It sees to address a rare situation where the competitor doesn't follow the RO around during scoring of his targets, and challenges the score after the target is taped.

Okay, so we now that it's the competitor's responsibility to witness and accept the scoring of each target. Is this something new? No, clearly not.

As far as I can tell, it only circumvents the competitors ability to challenge the scoring of an individual target AFTER it has been scored by the Range Officer, and AFTER the target has been taped by the follow-up tape-apes.

Hmmmm. I suppose it's worth the effort to make a rule to prevent a competitor from challenging a call AFTER the target has been scored and taped. And it does reinforce the encouragement of the competitor to follow the Range Officer as he/she scores the targets.

Frankly, I have to fall back on the "Old School" injunction: "The Competitor Will Witness The Scoring Of Each Individual Target".

In other words: "If you snooze, you lose".

Okay, I can live with that. It just seems a shame that the situation is so common that it requires a rule to justify it.

9.9.1 Moving scoring targets which present at least a portion of the highest scoring area when at rest following the completion of their designed movement, or which continuously appear and disappear, will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties (exception see Rule 9.2.4.4).
See Appendix B2 or B3 for the percent of target to be presented.

I don't see anything new here, except for the last sentence. Again, I'm not comparing it to the current rules, which (if I recall correctly) require that all of the Upper A-zone or at least 50% of the 'main' A-zone of a target be available to hit for score.

But it seems as if at least the last part of the first sentence is missing here. It's not intuitively obvious why this rule is needed. Is it just me? What are the conditions under which "failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties" will be applied?

Perhaps my copy of the summary is defective. Or perhaps I am defective.

---

The rules about Arbitration may be significant, but I don't see anything that applies to most shooting situations. Ho-hum.

---

Appendix A3 Facing Uprange—Face and feet pointing straight uprange with shoulders parallel to the backstop.

Now, this is new.

I cannot count the number of times when the shooter is enjoined to face uprange, and he ends up with his body skewed to one side or another while his face is turned 'uprange'.

This is a welcome addition, or should I say "clarification", and I look forward to correcting the wayward competitor who thinks he has gained some advantage to twisting his body into a pretzel shape. It's silly to do so, but now we have a rule which not only supports the supposed "right way" to stand but also allows Range Officers to correct the competitor.

Still, it's a small, almost insignificant rule change because there is not that much advantage to be gained by assuming the Pretzel Position.

Add to Appendix D4 under special conditions: Anyone signing up for Production is declaring minor regardless if the ammunition makes major at the chronograph. Should they be moved to another division, they will shoot minor for the entire match or sub-minor should their ammo fail to meet the minimum.

Okay, this is another minor point which is apparently intended to enforce 'other rules'. I have no problem with this rule, other than to regret that it is necessary to enact it to further discourage violation of 'other rules'.

-------------------------

There are a plethora of other rules in this ... 'announcement' ... and you should go read the whole thing to determine your own interpretation of whether or not it applies to your own special situation.

Generally speaking, these are all 'special rules'. The most commonly will not affect folks who are competing for the fun of it.

Which is just another way of saying that these rules are intended only to discourage "gamers".

[sigh]

In my humble opinion, it takes some of the fun out of the competition. When you can't "game" a stage, competition loses some of its flavor.

Stumble It!

Xavier Thoughts: Checking a Used 1911 with a Purchase in Mind

Xavier Thoughts: Checking a Used 1911 with a Purchase in Mind

My "old friend" (no, we've never met, never talked, and he is a friend' in my mind only ... but I have a great deal of respect for his writing and his experience) Xavier has written an excellent treatise describing the things to check when buying a 'used' 1911 pistol.

In fact, sometimes even 'factory NIB' pistols would best be evaluated by subjecting them to the same tests.

This is one of those "Gee, I wish I had written this!" blog articles. I couldn't have written it, wouldn't even try.

Feel free to bookmark it, and even to comment on it

I have.

Stumble It!

We Con the World, the Turkish 'Aid to Gaza' Song - Mpg

PJTV - BANNED BY YOUTUBE: We Con the World, the Turkish 'Aid to Gaza' Song - Mpg

Presented with no comment.

(Because I can't get the code to embed the video.)

Stumble It!

OREGON - UTAH CONCEALED CARRY - FIREARM TRAINING

OREGON - UTAH CONCEALED CARRY - FIREARM TRAINING: "UTAH PERMIT CARRY CONCEALED PISTOL IN 33 STATES /- SEE FACTS!

OREGON - UTAH Be Armed Be Safe.

We certify both! 2 classes weekly, no shooting, no test, just show up, please be on time. Oregon $35 Utah $35 both $70, get certified now. We issue only original Official Certificates, no counterfeits."

No Shooting, No Test.

Well, there's a fine recommendation for taking the class, isn't it?

Why can't you just sent in your email address and receive certification by return email?

Oh, you can?

Wonderful!

I'm encouraged to take this class to ensure that I'm "safe to carry".

NOT!

Stumble It!

Come to the USA

YouTube - Ray Stevens - Come to the USA

Just interesting and fun stuff. You don't have to be an IPSC Competitor to enjoy and appreciate humor, do you?



(Heck, you don't even need to be an American!!!)

[H/T: The Hobo Brasser]

Stumble It!

Brits vs Americans: who is the most violent, how does gun ownership affect the respective cultures?

There's an interesting dialogue going on between Kevin Bacon at "The Smallest Majority" and a Scotsman named James at "SCOT goes POP!" about the British policy of severely restricting the private ownership of firearms.

Essentially, Bacon (the American) is an adherent of the philosophy of "More Guns, Less Crime" (as advocated by John Lotte, Jr). He really believes that the individual citizen should be "allowed" to protect himself/herself and his/her family and property.

But James (the Scot) believes that the British policy and law preventing Britains from owning firearms reduces the number of "gun deaths" in his country, and that's all that matters. Nothing in the Scot's "Why 'being right' isn't good enough for them - a cut-out-and-keep guide article (which includes his "ten question challenge" ... and first you may care to read James' follow-up article "The smallest minority : the individual, alone and abandoned") discusses either the right or the responsibility of a person to self-defense ... the entire point is to elucidate all the BAD ways that private firearms ownership can affect society.

Yep. Lots of ways that guns can be bad for people, but not a single suggestion that owning a weapon can prevent predation on innocents. James is determined to make the point that "Guns Are BAD!", and (one supposes) that Only Bad People Have Guns.

I have presented many ways in which the encroaching Socialism of British Governmental Policy have made the British (including Scots and Irish) seem to move Brits from the classifications of "citizens" to "subjects" ... subject to the arbitrary whims of their government. And if I seem to be excessively vituperative today it may just be on account of the way which our current Federal Administration seems determined to follow the European (and British) example in redefining our culture, and eliminating our freedoms in preference to a 'Strong Central Government'.

So perhaps it is not entirely fair for me to negatively compare the British Culture with the American Culture, especially in terms of individual freedoms. After all, are we so far away from finding ourselves equally subject to the unilateral determination of our Federal system, especially considering the huge number of unelected "Czars" who are sneaking their way into the American decision-making process?

One only needs to look at the ATF, who last week redefined the legal essentials of Federal Control of "transfer of firearms" (which requires ATF permission) from "ownership" of firearms to "possession of firearms", to understand how easily this creeping control can administratively be inserted into our day-to-day exercise of our Constitutional freedoms.

Yes, I had to comment on James' article. The daily lives and preferences of common people may soon mean less than a pile of beans to the American Czars, but I can only speak to the America of Today -- June of 2010 -- and how I hope it will continue rather than the way I fear it may become.

So here is the extended comment I made to James' article, which is probably incomprehensible unless you have read his original comment and understand the context.

Note that this is slightly longer than the version actually posted. The website has a 4MB (4096-character) limit on the comment length, and as frequent readers probably realize it is almost impossible for me to complete a though under these restrictions. Consequently, I have had to drastically edit my final accepted version in the actual comments section of James' blog.

I trust I have retained the flavor, which I'm afraid is a bit ... dismissive ... of the current British culture and entirely too laudatory of American culture.

I'm a throw-back who believes in the sanctity of the home, the rights of a citizen, and the hominem that "good fences make good neighbors".

I can't stop myself from jumping into the argument, because my opinion is that if there is a conflict between a private person and an 'aggressor', chances are that the bad-guy has a weapon of some kind and has also in some manner acting as a predator stalking a victim. In that scenario, the 'victim' should be allowed to protect himself/herself with whatever weapon seems most effective.

And the most effective defense weapon is a firearm, especially given that (a) the "victim" is most likely someone who is definitively unable to put up a good defense based on training, weapons at hand, situational awareness, and body mass; and (b) the aggressor is likely to have a weapon, more aggressive (and probably stronger) than his chosen victim, and has the advantage of surprise.

Read the original article, compare the comments which I made to James' article to that which is here presented: the greatest difference between the two versions (besides length of the comment) is a couple of embedded links providing background and substantiation of the comments.

"[J]aw-dropping, logic-defying belief" is it?

Well, I think you have the right phrase there. The question is, whose jaw is dropping?

It may be both your jaw and mine having difficulty maintaining equilibrium considering the contradictory claims of opinion being tossed about here.

James, your ten-point questionnaire would have more believability if you would do the research and find the answers to the questions you pose.

I once had an extended discussion with a British policeman who described himself as the "ASBO Monger". He was proud of the number of Anti-Social Behavior Orders he had handed out. When I asked why he didn't just arrest the Bad Boys (Yobs) on the first offense ... no matter how egregious their behavior, he seemed confused. That just wasn't they way they did things over there.

The thing is, my "ASBO Monger" friend was determined to make the case (as you did) that Britain has fewer firearms-related deaths than does America.

Well, duh. Americans are allowed to protect their persons, their property, and their families. Brits are not.

That doesn't mean that Britain has fewer assaults; they don't, they have more. The point you consider significant is that the assaults are less likely to result in a death.

Instead, the home-owner is likely subject to a bad beating, or a stabbing, because the aggressor (the ASBO-burdened YOB) has a weapon like a knife and a club, and the victim has no weapon at all. And the YOB has a plan, which is to kick ass until the victim is a bloody mess on the floor.

YOBs don't HAVE to kill anybody to have their way, although it doesn't much bother them if they do.

As a Consequence, the British Government has decided to resolve the situation by ... making it illegal for people to have knives. That's good, clear thinking.

And if a British subject (Y'all aren't "citizens" any more, did you notice that?) chooses to defend himself, his home and his family, he is MORE likely than the aggressor to spend serious jail-time than the YOU who attacked him. Have you looked at the statistics?

Compare "Deaths by firearms" with "violent assaults" in Britain vs America. I have. I found it meaningful. But I won't give the citations, the statistics, the references. You chose to make your point without references, you have the onus of proving your point.

Americans don't typically treat their YOBs gently. We have them, but the resolution is usually Darwinian

As you can see, especially from the example of "the tragic case of Andrew de Vries", the response to crime in America is much more inclined to the protection of the rights of the victim, than to the rights of the guilty. Mr de Vries was trespassing and acting in an aggressive and intrusive manner. Most folks here-abouts have a more respectful manner ... or they are considered a bad health risk and treated appropriately.

The cultural dissonance is that you treat it as a tragedy which should/could have been avoided given a more understanding attitude on the part of the home-owner.

We treated it as a tragedy which should/could have been avoided given a more understanding attitude on the part of the aggressor.

We don't expect nice people to climb over our fence and bang on our back door in the middle of the night. This is the "Darwinian Solution" which I mentioned earlier. Nice people bang on the front door and wait until they are noticed. Fences are to keep good people out; a gun is used to deal with not-good people. Folks who don't recognize the boundary of acceptable behavior are not generally considered to be trying very hard to meet to our standards of "good people who are only asking for help."

Now, I'm sure you won't acknowledge the legitimacy of "The Castle Defense". Heck, you don't even spell it right. "Defence"? Who the heck taught you to spell ... or, more importantly, to act? Certainly people like the ASBO Monger aren't teaching you to act. Instead, they are teaching your youths that if they are aggressive and rude, and step on toes everywhere they go, nothing particularly bad will happen to the. Bad thing to be teaching your children. Do you start out to be idiots? No, you are training yourselves that way

Not a good idea. Americans don't always do a much better job of bringing up our children, but at least we haven't institutionalized the idea of raising idiots.

(I'm not going to get into politics, but just to comment -- I have to admit that neither side of the Atlantic has a monopoly of electing Idiots to public office, and I'm real sorry about that. I mean that sincerely.)

So, you think you have a better culture than do Americans, because you have fewer "gun deaths".

Is that per-capita, or per assault?

Are your children more often murdered for their cell-phones, or for their sneakers than ours?

That is perhaps a better measure of the deadliness, and the violence, of our respective societies.

And that is my "One-Point List of Questions" may perhaps better go "to the heart of the credibility of any conclusions that could be drawn from the study".

Bottom line, studies and conclusions are based on statistics. You can tweak statistics to suit any conclusion you like best.

I don't like your conclusion, I don't think you have proved it, and I challenge you to answer your own questions.

.

Stumble It!

NY Cops Legally Mandated to shoot armed Felons "In The Limbs"

NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly will invite City Council members to fire guns at shooting range - NYPOST.com

The city's top cop, Ray Kelly, is inviting all City Council members to shoot guns at the NYPD's firing range -- as the state Assembly considers legislation to require police officers to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the limbs, rather than aim to kill.

The Commish invites local dignitaries to try shooting at targets, to demonstrate how damn hard it is to hit ANYTHING, even without the pressure of having a gun pointed at you.

MOST of the commenters found the entire State Assembly proposition to be total B__S___!

Hat Tip to Michael Bane Blog

Stumble It!

Do you hate your Internet Provider?

Do you hate your Internet Provider?



Me, too!


(click on image for larger format)

Stumble It!

Musings of The GeekWithA.45

Musings of The GeekWithA.45 posted an article yesterday (June 10, 2010) discussing the effect of the Commerce Clause on the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Essentially, the Commerce Clause was not the excuse used for restricting access to firearms.

The justification was .... Taxation!

We probably kinda knew that, but we got all confused. (Okay, so I got all confused.)

If you want to understand how we all got to this sorry state of affairs, where the Federal Government justified its unconstitutional intrusion on the 2nd Amendment, go read the article.

When you're done, I'll have another sorry story to tell you.

Stumble It!

Why did ATF suddenly redefine firearm transfers?

Why did ATF suddenly redefine firearm transfers?

David Codrea writes in the "Gun Rights" section of The Examiner that the ATF has suddenly, inexplicably, changed the definition of "Transfer" in regards to changing the physical possession of a firearm from one person to another.

Previously, if you "transfer" a firearm, it changes ownership.

Now, it is not necessary to give or sell a firearm to another person or 'entity', it is enough to let them have it.

Which means, for example, if you send your firearm to a gunsmith to work on it, you may have to complete all of the same paperwork as you would if you were selling it to the gunsmith.

And that applies to ANY other person. A gunsmith may not have a "dealer's license", so you would have to ship the firearm to a dealer, and the gunsmith would have to fill out the ATF Form 4473 before he/she could take possession ... not ownership, but simple possession ... of it.

Please note that this is not a bill in the legislature; Congressional oversight is not a factor. This is an administrative ruling ... by people that you did not get to vote for.

Jim Shepherd has a very nice write-up on this situation with a couple of embedded links to the applicable legal documents, on The Shooting Wire. Since I cannot link to it, I will add his two-cents worth by a full, direct quote:

Transfers, Paperwork and Questions

ATF-WTF?

The ATF has very quietly reversed a forty-plus year interpretation of the Gun Control Act. Under the "new" interpretation, any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer to any agent or business (that includes engineering/design firms, lawyers, testing labs, gun writers or whatever) for a bona fide business purpose to be a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

What that means is the amount of paperwork, red tape and potential for inadvertent ATF violations has been increased - exponentially.

Say, for instance, a gun company wants testing done at an independent lab. Under the "new" interpretation, the test gun must be transferred using a form 4473 and a NICS check as if it were a firearm being sold at retail. If the test facility does not hold a FFL, the gun must be transferred to a nearby dealer, local laws complied with, and the dealer now becomes responsible for tracking the firearm on his records. If the test facility is located in one of several locales that are decidedly firearms - unfriendly- then there are the inevitable delays.

Under this ruling, it might become easier for a registered company agent to actually take the firearm to the test facility and wait while the testing is done.

If there were any history of abuse in the longstanding process, modification might seem more reasonable and less capricious. However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation says the ATF has been unable to provide a single instance during the past four decades where a single firearm shipped in reliance on the ATF's rulings was used in a crime.

ATF officials admit it's a radical change. The longstanding interpretation of what is not a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968 was first made in a 1969 ruling ("Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.") It was upheld - and further clarified - again in 1972.

The bottom line...the ATF now says those long-standing rulings were wrong. Taking 42 years to decide that seems a little excessive, even for a federal bureaucrat. The NSSF has suggested that ATF "appears" to be under the impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes "transfers".

It is appropriate to use "appears" in that instance because the ATF admits that neither the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the 1993 Brady Act defines "transfer".

So why the change after forty years? Seems no one except the suits at the ATF can answer that question - and Deputy Director Kenneth E. Melson, the man who authored the ruling, is not talking.

You can read the ruling for yourself at http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-1.pdf.

In a separate ruling issued Friday, the ATF has initiated a ruling that says ATF headquarters has oversight of all administrative actions prior to notices being sent to the licensee. In effect, this ruling establishes the final approval authority of denial of applications for licenses, suspensions, revocations of licenses or imposition of civil fines.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary & General Counsel, Larry Keane says, "NSSF supports that all cases where revocation is recommended by the field must be cleared by ATF headquarters prior to issuance of notice to FFL. This will promote consistency of interpretation of the law and regulations."

You can read that ruling at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13392.pdf

More happening out there, and we'll keep you posted.

--Jim Shepherd

GO to the links, see what the rulings (again, not "laws") look like, and you can make up your own mind about how happy you are that unelected administrators can so blithly trounce upon your second amendment rights to Keep and Bear Arms.

OH, and the election promise by Obama that he "would not take your guns away from you"?

Witness Step Number One of the very convoluted procedure by which Obama is going to ... if not do that precise thing immediately ... make it extremely difficult for you to keep your firearms, and for any service industry to support your ownership.

I ... am ... so ... pissed!

I'm so pissed off, angry and (unreasonably ... we knew he was a politician and therefore a lying S.O.B.) disappointed that I'm not even going to rant about this.

Not right now, anyway.

Stumble It!

New 'Red Dawn' to attack communism again!

New 'Red Dawn' to attack communism again!

Oh my!

Someone is trying to release a re-make of Red Dawn, the 1984 adventure movie which starred (among other 'young-gun' type Hollywood luminaries) the late Patrick Swayze and the almost-too-late Charlie Sheen.

And the Main Stream Media doesn't like it, no sirree!

Why?
Because this time, the Bad Guys aren't Cuban and Russian, but Chinese.

We're running out of Politically Correct Bad Guys here, folks.

Looking at the trailers on reddawn2010, it doesn't look like much of a movie. But HEY! It's Hollywood, they're not suppose to be accurate. All together now: "It's Only A Moveeeee!"

In the last few years there have been a lot of politically correct movies about America's fight against terrorism, most of which earned about a dollar and a half at the box office. Nobody (except the movie-going audience, the few of which actually watched them) complained about America-bashing Hollywood.

But to put the Chinese in the role of the Bad Guys! Wow! The MSM is all over it like stink on what-you-avoid-on-the-sidewalk.

The Guardian doesn't like. The New Yorker doesn't like it.

These sound like recommendations to go see the show, even though there isn't yet a release date (IMDB.COM does list it; but the November, 2o1o release date on the movie's website has a strike-out line drawn through it. I assume this means that it's still questionable whether the movie will EVER be released.)

Here's the trailer for the movie, and it is about as boring as it can be:


There's even a website set up called "Anti-reddawn2010". But it's a little difficult trying to figure out what it has to say, because it's mostly written in (you guessed it) Chinese.

The only good news, out of all this, is that there's an option on the reddawn2010 website where you can build your own "alert" against 'enemies of the state' (or "suppressive persons ... whatever).

Here's my own personal Alert: click for the full-size image.


Kinda helps get you into the mood, doesn't it?

Stumble It!

Norm's Unforgivable Gift

I have been focusing on the misfortunes of others. That's unforgivable, indicative of a low sense of humor and faithlessness toward one's friends.

Perhaps I can make it up by showing something 'fortuitous' that happened on the range. Specifically, at an IPSC match.

Really, I'm amazed that it has not previously occurred to me, that I should report on Norm's Unforgivable Gift.

Again, this happened at Tri County Gun Club a few years ago, on a soggy damp morning in Bay Two.

I'm not entirely certain, but I think this was a classifier stage. A very simple one, at that.

The shooting problem was to knock down six mixed steel (Pepper Poppers and U.S. poppers), reload, then knock down six more.

Norm The Ungrateful was up, and we were primed for a six-second run, maybe seven seconds, max. And he had it going in, but he fired the first four shots ... and got a jam!

While Norm was fiddling with his pistol, trying to clear the jam as quickly as possible, the fifth popper just ... fell down.

It may have been a matter of habit; when Norm shoots, the steel falls like tenpins. Norm would probably be inclined to think he had knocked down the first four poppers so solidly that it set up a tremor in the earth. Or else, he just intimidated it down.

Whatever the reason, he was saved a shot (which shaved something like a quarter, perhaps a third of a second, off his stage time, which was a total of 11 seconds rather than the expected six seconds).

When he completed clearing the jam, he just knocked down the sixth popper, reloaded, and knocked down the last six. I'm not even certain that he realized, at the time, that one steel had sacrificed itself in a paroxysm of terror.

What amazes me now is that I have apparently never thought to post it here.



The thing is, we were all in such jaw-dropping awe that the Range Officer just recorded the time and score and let him walk away from what would normally be a "Range Equipment Failure".

We all knew he was going to win the match anyway, and it was only a Club Match. At least, that's what we told our private selves.

The truth was, we weren't entirely certain that this wasn't the way he had planned to shoot the stage.

[YouTube Link here]

Stumble It!

The First "Fish Flop"

Given the great kerfuffle about yesterday's post describing WhiteFish's demonstration on "how to take a fall and come up shooting", it seemed necessary that I provide some visual documentation.

June of 2006, Tri County Gun Club, Stage 1.

Starting prone on a platform, grab your pistol from one of the barrel and engage all targets as they become visible.

Unfortunately, the barrels were staked down using 9" spikes. The ground was so hard, they weren't pounded in very deeply. it was difficult to avoid them when moving from one side of the stage to the next.

The inevitable happened ... to WhiteFish!

Fortunately he recovered quickly and with a minimum of damage.

The video wasn't filmed from the best angle, but it's obvious that he managed to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction while rolling around in the dirt, and although he had to quickly clear a jam he kept his head and finished the stage as aggressively as he had begun it.




The man has the reflexes of a cat!

(NOTE: The title on the video is in error. The match was in 2006, not 2009.)

Stumble It!

Fish Flop

When I have new people (and they're always new) taking the Introduction to USPSA class, it helps a lot if they come with experienced friends. Often, these are the people who have already talked them into trying IPSC competition, and as part of the encouragement they bring them to the range in time for the class.

I like to draft these experienced shooters to be "Demonstrators". That means I run them through the exercises in the "Life Fire" portion of the class, so the folks see what it is suppose to look like when someone actually shoots the stage scenario. Then the new people try it. It's all part of the "We tell you what to do, then we show you what to do, then you do it, then we talk about what you just did" school of training.

That's the exception rather than the rule, though. Usually the "new people" are members of the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, and they've done little more than contact Mike McCarter -- by "boss", sort-of -- and make arrangements to sign up for the next class.

That was the case last weekend. I had four "new people" for the class: Bruce and Margie, and Bill and Loci (pronounced like "Lucy", except the OH instead of the EWE sound). I was delighted to have two married couples show up. It's much more fun when couples can go shooting together, and it's an especially good sign when a man wants his wife to join him at the range.

I also had another member, who had been an IPSC shooter before but came by for the class-room segment. I had hoped he would be able to stick around for the "Live Fire" exercises, but unfortunately he had other commitments for the rest of the afternoon.

Acting as my own Demonstrator isn't the best approach. It's difficult for me to act as my own Range Officer, so I have to wing it. As usual, this means I hand the buzzer to one of the students, walk them through the Range Commands a couple of times, and then we just sort of wing it. This does have a slight advantage in that they learn the Range Commands faster, but they are distracted from the demonstration.

We worked this through the first hour and a half of the Live Fire exercise, when my friend WhiteFish showed up.

I asked him if he would be Demonstrator for me, and he decided he could do that. He got his gear out of the car and "geared up" while I was finishing the current exercise, and then I described the next exercise to the class ... and also to my Demonstrator.

This was going to be the first time we were going to try moving from one shooting position to another. We would start out engaging three IPSC targets from Box "A", then move down-range and to the right and engage two steel targets from Box "B", which was behind a Bianchi Barricade.

I hadn't noticed it, but WhiteFish was wearing his disgustingly dilapidated pair of pointy toed cowboy boots. When he half-turned to the right and started out of the box, those toes caught the one-inch high shooting box and he fell like a Helicopter with a shot-up engine.

Except for the auto-rotating part, which a Helicopter can do but a Whitefish cannot.

It was a thing of beauty.

He did everything exactly right. He turned it into a hip-roll, and even though his gun-hand was on the downhill side, he sacrificed his elbow by sliding it along the gravel. In doing so he kept the muzzle pointing downrange and his Open Glock out of the dirt.

As the dust settled, WhiteFish was curled in a semi-fetal position. I was standing over him, timer forgotten (it was still at shoulder height, pointing at the Fallen Warrior) when he looked up at me.

"Are you alright?" I asked him, conscious of the four pair of eyes behind me who have GOT to be thinking "Are we sure this is how we want to enjoy the Shooting Experience?"

My Downed Demonstrator looked around, checked himself out, and not finding anything broken nodded and said "uh huh".

"Well, the clock's still running. We're waiting on you."

My compassion for my fellow man is legendary.

WhiteFish jumped up crawled uphill until he got his feet under him, and advanced toward the Bianchi Barricade at his best speed. I noted that it was about half the velocity he had obviously been trying for Before The Fall.

But he got 'er done.

Still shaken, but not stirred, he took an extra moment to get a good bead on both the Pepper Popper and the U.S. Popper down-range. They fell with all the alacrity, but none of the style, which he had just demonstrated.

After completing the unload-and-show-clear thingie, we turned it into a teaching moment. Yes, we had planned this out ahead of time and of course he had deliberately scraped about a pound of skin of his elbow just to make it more realistic.

One of the students, I believe it was the naughty Loci (whose mother, it occurred to me, may have not known the correct spelling for Loki) asked if we would run through that one more time. She believed she may have missed some of the nuances.

Bill asked if this would be on the Final Exam.

Margie, every the practical one, was heard to mutter "I'm not doing that, no way!"

And Bruce was ... just not saying anything. He knew he was the next up in the shooting order, and he appeared to be calculating the distance from Box "A" to Box "B", and the height of both shooting boxes.

We finished the class, taking an extra class just because we were having so much darn fun. As we were hauling the target stands and steel back to the Prop Room, I offered WhiteFish ten bucks a day if he would just come out to the class once a month and Take a Dive for us again. I allowed as how it would be a great advertising gimmick, and I would split the "take" with him after we started selling tickets.

No, he didn't agree to it even when I upped the offer to twenty bucks.

Then I told the class about the offer, and his refusal.

That's when Loci turned to WhiteFish, and sweetly offered to pass the hat. The whole class was willing to chip in for an Instant Replay, if he would just wait until they retrieved their cameras from the car.


One thing is sure: if WhiteFish squads with me at the Certification Match next weekend, I know that I'll have four new shooters signing up for the same squad.

Plus, of course, the inimitable Hobo Brasser, who is always happy to end up the Last Man Standing.

Stumble It!