You're an Animal!

YouTube - Theo Jansen's Strandbeests - Wallace & Gromit's World of Invention Episode 1 Preview - BBC One



(H/T: The G-Man)

Stumble It!

BATFE Letter re: SBR and SBS

From today's post from the Michael Bane Blog, I gather that the BATFE definition of SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) and SBS (Short Barreled Shotgun) is in some transitory mode, and we may expect some kind of redifinition. Reference:
iThe Michael Bane Blog: Is It Monday Yet?

I don't understand it (and I will spend the next 5,000 words explaining all the ways and reason I don't understand it), and although Bane seems to count it as contemporary and as urgent as Representative Carolyn McCarthy's newest bill to re-invent the Assault Weapons Bill (ASW) ban on "High Capacity Magazines" (magazines capable of holding over ten rounds of ammunition), I think this is not only severely dated, but also not likely to affect as many people.

For background, Bane first mentioned this Sunday and added more [although not enough] background later.

(I may have got these two links confused ... there should be 2 links, but they are both dated Sunday, January 23, 2011; the first is "Home Again, Home Again", and the second is "Republicans Won't go To The Wall". I'm not sure the sequence is important, but they seem to be progressively 'more informative'.)

SUMMARY:
there seems to be a letter (or a "Newsletter") from BATFE defining "Short Barreled Rifles ("SBRs") and "Short Barreled Shotguns" ("SBS"s). The are presented as FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) and although they may seem obvious at the start, they become confusing as more technically oriented questions are applied to them. Generally, they address the question of when shorter or longer barrels and/or stocks are replaced on a rifle or shotgun.

The confusion addresses when a long barrel is replaced by a short barrel; a long stock is replaced by a short stock (pistol-grip stock); or vice-versa ... in regards to whether they may be transferred to a third party. And believe me, that is oversimplifying the issue, when you add the question as to whether and when the receiver (the part with the serial number, which is all BATFE knows about the firearm) is transferred.

HISTORY:
I've done some research on the internet, and surprisingly the question seems to be based on an inquiry from a private person to BATFE asking about the regulations and restrictions on a "Short Barreled Rifle"; the BATFE response to which is dated January 11, 2008. (I was unable to find a copy of the original letter, but the ATF response provides sufficient information to provide the gist of the discussion.)

This response was 'officially codified' (and I'm making assumptions here) by the BATFE NEWSLETTER dated November of 2009, especially in the section headed : "Pistol Grips and Shotguns".

This information is apparently 'clarified' in a FAQ from the BATFE (presented here with the appropriate questions in detail .. link from Bane Blog). This is part of the section titled:

The following questions are related to an SBR or SBS which has had the barrel removed and is no longer subject to NFA transfer and possession regulations:

DISCUSSION:
I fail to see how this question is timely (the question originated in 2008, was answered in 2009, and may have been added to the BATFE website in either 2009 or 2010.).

I also don't perceive this to be a question the importance of which is on a comparable scale with McCarthy's attempt to re-impose capacity-limits to magazines.

But Michael Bane found it sufficiently interesting, and sufficiently important, and sufficiently timely, to write about it in three consecutive blog-posts, and to link it to the McCarthy bill.

I concede that Michael Bane's finger on the pulse of Second Amendment issues is more sensitive than mine, so I can only conclude that he has identified a nuance which is beyond my perception; at least, in regards to the importance and timeliness of the issues. Unfortunately, either he failed to make it clear in his short posts, or I am just too naive to appreciate the issues.

CONCLUSIONS:
If I've mis-interpreted the situation sufficiently to confuse you, I apologize. This looks like a minor issue at least; perhaps even a non-issue. It may happen that in the ensuing days there will appear more facts to make it clear to even the most dense blogger that this is .. in the words of our Wonderful Vice President Joe Boden "A Really F**king Big Deal!"

Or it may not.

I'll reserve judgment until more facts and consequences become obvious. I suggest you do the same, and keep track of it on the Bane Blog (as I will).

If it turns out to be something you may need to write to your congressperson about, I'll let you know. But don't count on me: heck, I have initially categorized the question as "See how badly BATFE can manage to regulate firearms to poorly that even the experts don't know what they're saying!"


DEEP BACKGROUND:

See Shotgun World from 2006: "How to legally build a Short Barreled Shotgun (SBS)".
(See also the January, 2010 newsletter from Firearms Law group.)
_____________________________________
UPDATE: 25-JAN-2011
New news from the folks at Taurus vie the Michael Bane Blog: "Never mind"

Stumble It!

I AM TJIC

The Smallest Minority: I AM TJIC



Am I really?

Well, I'm not sure.

Here's the back story:
A blogger from Massachusetts wrote an article titled "1 down, 534 to go" referring to last weekend's assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

It was ... egrigious. A clearly objectionable commentary on the ... would the word be "advisability"? ... of shooting politicians. One phrase stands out:

"It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot 'indiscriminately'. Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone."

Let's come back to this later.

As a consequence, the local cops have seized his "arsenal" (11 guns .. that's not an arsenal, that's a dilettante), and have also "suspended his gun license". Well, it's Massachusetts, so you got to understand they think they can do this. If they require a "citizen" to apply for a license before owning a firearm, then they can suspend it ... with the added consequence that they confiscate all firearms. 'Well, the guy isn't licensed, so what can we do?' [Note: not a quote from any source referenced; I'm only imagining the rationale.]

Gee, this is bad stuff. How many laws has that doofus broken, anyway?

At last count: none.

Now, I don't claim that the guy has both oars in the water. What he said was stupid, and I don't agree with ANYTHING he said, assuming that all of the cited information is correct. Trouble is, the 'cited information' is second-hand at best, and probably 3rd or 4th hand. But let's assume that everything I've read is entirely factual, and also that it presents ALL of the 'facts' of the situation.

The guy said some stuff in a belligerent and bellicous manner, and it was WAY over the top.

Give that five exclamation points, just to emphasize that this is what I really, really really really REALLY think!!!!!

Let's go back to the number of laws he just broke.

None.

The thing is, there's this Constitutional issue.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[emphasis added]

See, the First Amendment wasn't written, and included among the FIRST RIGHTS of our country to protect speech that we all accept and agree with. It was included to protect speech that we don't like, that we don't agree with, and which we would rather not hear.

mmm .. I think that pretty much covers my own personal evaluation of the things this guy said, if I can believe the 2nd-hand information I have found.

Personally, I think these quotes are odious and egregious. Also, I think the man had every right to say them, and I am obliged by my belief in the righteousness of the Constitution of the United States to support his right to say them.

Wow! I can't believe I just said that. I would not invite this man into my home. I would not consider anyone who advocated the assassination of political officials a good choice as a 'friend'.


Let's briefly discuss the concept of "hate speech".

That's just stupid, trying to pass laws against words you use. Also, unconstitutional. This IS America, this IS a free country.

Okay, glad we got that out of the way.

How about this other thing? How about the "Arlington Police" confiscate his firearms?

Amendment II

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.

Wow again!

That's a two-fer. One sentence, and these guys not only deny his First Amendment rights, but also his Second Amendment rights.

I know, it's Massachusetts ... they get to make the rules.

Actually, they don't.

I understand their concerns, the cops. There's already been one very high-profile attack on a Congressperson, and this guy is saying "Hey, that's okay!" I don't blame the police for being reluctant to NOT act on such an obvious threat.

mmm ... maybe it's not that obviously a threat. Maybe it is. Maybe the guy is another nutter, maybe he's just a jerk.

Probably the guy isn't going to go shoot anybody, no matter what he says. But I've seen the movie "Minority Report", and I know what's what.

Which is to say, that was a movie. A made-up story. We can't know what is the inevitable conclusion of "words".

Do I think the guy is a danger to some un-named politician? Is he going to turn into a sniper?

No, I don't think that. But I don't know for sure; and if I was a cop I would probably be inclined to err on the side of caution. But I'm not a cop, and it's not my job to evaluate the circumstances and maybe decide that it's a lot safer to take the guys guns away until we can sort this thing out.

Would I be wrong?

Maybe I would.

What do you think?

This is a very grey area, and I have not taken the job of policeman (or judge) because I don't think I can sort these things out and make the right decision .. .because right now I don't know what the right decision is.

What I DO know is the first two amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that says:

1. I can't shut him up
2. I can't take his guns
   

Stumble It!

Pretty Woman

Stumble It!

NYPD actually 'buys back' missing gun stolen from 103rd Precinct locker

NYPD actually 'buys back' missing gun stolen from 103rd Precinct locker:

"A gun swiped from a police lieutenant's locker - sparking a probe into whether it was an inside job by disgruntled officers - was sold to an NYPD buyback program for $100."

Well, that's pretty exciting.

While I'm extremely supportive of Law Enforcement Officers (my son is one, albeit in the Nave as a Master At Arms), I'm dubious about the level of maturity this incident demonstrates.

Cops are all about "To Serve ... And To Protect". Right? Also, they are held to a higher standard, because in any society they may be the "only ones" who are authorized to carry firearms on a daily basis, with the expectation that they will use these firearms only to protect us ... the disarmed citizens. (This is especially true in NYC, because we all know that the average citizen is not allowed to possess/carry firearms for self-protection; that's what we have the cops for, right?

The story is that a commander and his driver locked their firearms in a 'gun vault' at the precinct house, and when the went back to retrieve them the guns were gone. Best guess: cops in the cop-house broke into the lockers and stole them.

To make matters worse, later a 'citizen" turned in a gun at the front desk as part in the "don't ask/don't tell" gun program, and only later was that gun determined (by checking the serial number) to be one of the guns stolen from the cops.

Now the NYPD have experienced a clueless moment, and there is no way to follow the non-existent audit trail.

What kind of bullshit is this? Cops vs Cops? Is this Candid Camera, or "Spy vs Spy" a la Mad Magazine?

The punch line is, NYPD has (through no efforts on their own) "found" the pistol belonging to the commander.

They still have no idea what happened to the pistol belonging to the commander's driver.

Hey, the state with the "Sullivan Law" needs to be more pro-active. Or less, whatever it takes.

But you for damn sure need to keep track of your own people.

Somebody must go down for this. And it won't be the Commander or his driver, because so far it appears that they are The Only Ones who followed procedures.

Stumble It!

Retirement

Today I submitted to my manager a Letter of Intent. I will retire in 90 days.

My original plan was to work for one more year, if only because the Social Security benefits are significantly higher. My pension won't be "fully vested" for another 15 years, and there's no way that I'm going to work that long ... nor would anyone in their right mind allow me to. But I thought that with the "reduced pension", and another year of contribution (from both myself and my employer), the total would allow me to continue to live in the life-style to which I have become accustomed. Although, I probably won't be spending $50 a month at the local Used Book Store, as is my current habit.

This plan, however, is a non-starter.

The past two years have been difficult. Sandie's extended illness has been emotionally, as well as physically, draining. I have watched her bowing her head, and I have crumbled at the sight like the wall on an old adobe building under severe weather.

Stress, depression, all have taken their toll. I've experienced several health issues .. my doctor has reluctantly attributed them all to stress.

These have had consequences. I've missed a lot of work, partly because of time I've felt that being available to help She were somehow more important than the mundane day-to-day duties of working for a living. Other times because I was sick ... more often because I was discouraged and heart-sick.

In the meantime, my IS department has changed the way they do business, entirely. New applications, new operating system, new scheduling system, new computers ... everything is new. My colleagues who show up every day take the classes, get the experience, and charge on. I, on the other hand, was either unavailable or ... was unavailable.

It's a new and vibrant working environment. I got behind, and didn't catch up.

After Sandie's death, after I took 5 weeks off on "Compassionate Leave" (but unpaid), I was behind on the few projects I had left. And looking at them last week, I realized that they required technical skills that I just didn't have.

Frankly, I didn't much care. And that bothered me.

I have been working since I was old enough to push a lawn mower ... which I did starting about age 12. I worked for people in the neighborhood who left on vacation, and hired me to cut their lawns and water. I got a job with a real estate agent doing this for a few properties during my 14th summer.

I worked summers in the wheat harvest, in the pea harvest (Did you know that Umatilla County grows 25% of the peas produced in the United States? It's a family thing: my mother use to work summers in the pea-cannery in Pendleton, Oregon. After that time, she never ate another pea; after my two summers, neither did I.)

For a couple of years, I worked after school and Summers for two years at a Caterpillar Tractor parts house.

Minimum wage jobs, all, but I needed to find something that paid more before I started college.

My parents couldn't afford college tuition, but they could co-sign a Student Loan for me.

When I turned 18, I spent summers working in the Wood Products Industry. I did the jobs nobody else wanted to do, and the summer when I was 18 I worked swing shift at a "Unfinished Furniture" factory in a small town new where I lived.

Then I started college, first at Eastern Oregon college in LaGrande, later at Oregon State University in Corvallis.

My brother-in-law worked for the National Biscuit Company ("Nabisco" .. makers of saltines, snack crackers, etc.) He got me a summer-relief job taking over routes for salesmen in the Willamette Valley area. I spent a couple of summers doing that.

After graduation, I got married, and six days later reported for induction to the U.S. Army. I spent two years at that, with a starting wage of $102/month. One year in training, one year in Viet Nam as a Staff Sgt (E-6).

In 1970 I left the army, took a 6-month in Computer Programming (COBOL, BASIC, RPG) and somehow found a job as a courier for a Computer Service Bureau in Oakland, California. Started at the bottom (at $405/month); and shortly after I had worked my way up to a Programmer job, I moved with my wife to Portland, Oregon, where I had found a programmer job with Freightliner, Corporation at the grand salary of $1,000+/month.

I worked there for a while ... 14 years. Finally was RIFFED in 1994. Started (and failed at) a Contract Programmer business, but somehow got a 4 month contract with Oregon State University. Completed that successfully, then was later hired by OSU for a "real" (full employment) job based at least partly on the successful completion of my earlier contract. And there I have remained for 14 years, 11 months.

Sounds just like a resume', doesn't it? And in a way it is, because I have no other way to talk about the concept that I have worked all my life, for over 50 years, and now I have voluntarily determined that the best thing for me is to NOT continue working.

I have no idea what I'm going to do with my time. I've worked my whole life; I have no experience with not-working. I am not qualified for the non-job.

My best guess is that I will let myself go, as Liza Minelli said in the song. Then I'll get myself back together and find other things to do.

The Japanese (or is it the Chinese?) have a cultural history, I am told, of a man working productively until it is time for him to stop, then giving away his property and becoming a Budhist Monk; wandering the land with his begger-bowl and saffron robe, searching for rice and enlightenment.

I don't guess I'm going to do that. Although I admit I am curious where I will find either rice, or enlightenment.

Or I may end up living under a bridge with the hobos. I hope not. That has been a long-standing joke between myself and a co-worker. It seems less funny now, but really I hope that I can dig deep into the resources of my soul and find something worthwhile to do.

In the final analysis, it's an exciting new chapter in my life. I've always accumulated "things" (usually books). Now I have the opportunity to restructure my life, my self-image (which has been sorely wounded by my realization that I am no longer productive. and need to opt out of the sense of being a "contributor" which has characterized my day-to-day life for over 50 years).

I can be whomever and whatever I want ... within certain restrictions, which I wonder how to define, let alone accommodate.

The situation also offers opportunities.

I have long regretted that I am unable to spend time with my grandchildren, who live with their parents (my children) 1500 miles away in San Diego. Can I move to California (which state I dislike intensely because of the politics there, but not really not all that different from Oregon)? Is it worth it to me? Can I be a positive influence on them, when I missed most of my children's development because of divorce when they were very young?

Or am I merely indulging myself in a certain degree of Angst, because I have to do something that I have never done before?

I don't know the answers to these, and many other questions which occur to me just now. It's all new to me.

Isn't that exciting?

I can't wait to see what happens next in my life.

Stumble It!

I do not want civil discourse � Don Surber

I do not want civil discourse � Don Surber

Seems reasonable to me.

RTWT (Read The Whole Thing).

Stumble It!

NPR is Involved, Civilization is Doomed!

From The Smallest Minority (re: Snowflakes in Hell), I note this NPR interview with Paul Henke ("The Brady Bunch"); Robert Levy (co-counsel in Heller); Tracee Larson, an 'undercover agent' of the deliberately misnamed "American Hunters and Shooters Association" (new blogger with two blogs on her website, both in the past week); and Representative Carolyn McCarthy .. who plans to introduce new legislation restricting magazine capacity as per the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban.


The 33-Bullet Magazine: How Much Firepower is Too Much? | WBUR and NPR - On Point with Tom Ashbrook

[This is a 47 minute audio file, and there is no video ... or transcript ... currently available that I can find.]

Hemke is the pivotal interviewee, and he presents the basic themes of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

Robert Levy gets about a half-minute to state his basic position, which passes without comment.

McCarthy presents her bill.

But the majority of the interview time is spent with Tracee Larson, who purportedly speaks as an advocate of the Second Amendment. Just a quick quotes-snatch of her comments in the first 23 minutes of the interview serves to demonstrate her political position vis a vis the Second Amendment ... which is quite different from that of people who regularly enjoy their rights and comment in the various milieu:

Tracee re: the Glock gun used in the shooting: "It has a lot of power, it has a lot of kickback .. it's not easily concealed".

Host to Tracee: "You're a Gun Rights Advocate" ... "Are you familiar with those high-capacity magazines ... have you seen them?"
Tracee*: "Yes I have. I've seen them at various gun-shoots that I've attended. It's pretty heavy... it's not somthing that I see for the home-user personal protection. ... It does have a lot of power, it has a lot of kick-back ... it does have a lot of power."

*(Some confusion whether she is discussing the Glock, or the "high-capacity magazine". In the context of the interview, it seems as if she is discussing the magazine capacity, rather than the pistol or the caliber of the pistol..)

Host: "How do you look at it, Tracee?"
Tracee: " My personal perspective, as a gun owner and someone who does support the Second Amendment; I don't see the Congresswoman's amendment ... I don't see it preventing a person from legally owning a gun. it's not taking away my rights to bear arms. ... I would see it as a sensible step in ... having rightful and sensible gun ownership."

(Compares "high capacity magazines" with "Suppressors" The host immediately interrupts her and, in an alarmed tone says: "Suppressors, you mean Silencers!")

Tracee: "I don't see that the Congresswoman's bill preventing a legal able person from owning a gun. It doesn't take away from my right to bear arms. It didn't take away my right to own a gun [the AWB ban] then, and ... it won't now. I look on it as a sensible step in having rightful and sensible gun ownership."

Speaking of suppressors: Tracee Says:

Not all states allow gun-owners to legally possess them, but those who can must apply through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to regulate the ownership of such devices. It doesn't mean that we can't own them, but there is a regulatory process that if you are to legally able and allowed to own a gun, that just go through a few extra steps .. uh .. um .. there is a little bit of a tariff that you do have to pay to own something of that, but it doesn't mean that a collector would be prevented from owning something [like that in their] .. .collection, but for me who is someone who owns guns for target shooting ... um ... [deleted text) I don't see why a gun owner needs ... a high-capacity clip."

That's a quick gallop-through of the first half of the interview, with special attention to the opinions of "Tracee", who represents herself as a "second amendment advocate".

Salient points are that Tracee is give the most air-time of any of the interviewees, and her opinions are consistantly that proposed (by Rep. McCarthy): legislation would not impose a hardship on gun-owners, and are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.

Which is not, perhaps, consistent with the phrase " ... shall not be infringed ...". But then, if you really don't care about the rights of firearms owners, that is not an issue which needs to be addressed.

One more thing.
In the 2nd half, after asking about the NRA opposition to McCarthy's proposed bill, the host asks Representative McCarthy:
"Do you feel safe, championing this as an American congresswoman today?"

McCarthy, of course, answers that she does.

The question, though, is insulting to American firearms owners. The implication is that an American Congresswoman cannot safely propose a bill which might restrict full interpretation of the Second Amendment. Or in other words, it implies that firearms owners are so intrinsically unbalanced that nobody can challenge the Constitution without personal risk.

Assuming that I did not already find National Public Radio an egregious outlook on American sensibilities ... I would now. How can anyone imply such a despicable view of honest Americans? Well, NPR obviously feels free to ask even the most despicable questions ... which in itself implies that they "feel safe".

(McCarthy's answer is : "Yes", but as soon as she attempts to expand on her comments the Host says: "We're out of time" and goes to commercial.)


Perhaps that answers the question.

COMMENTS:

But however warped the NPR perspective, perhaps it is even more telling that the comments the interview invites reveal an America which is fraught with fear, misinformation and Liberal Suggestion.

The online comments (embedded in the interview audio) are interesting, including as they do some input from firearms advocates .. which are typically dismissed by the host.

But the online comments on the website are extremely telling.


The first comment:

Please understand that gun control and magazine control is not the issue here. Fewer bullets in a magazine will not stop the kind of tragedy that we’ve just experienced. It is only when we as a nation demonstrate that we are one, do we have a chance of stopping the desire to use bullets in our discourse.

"We are one". Right. That's helpful. I have no idea what the author is trying to say.
However, saying that "... gun control and magazine control is [sic] not the issue here ..." seems disingenuous at first, but perhaps the commenter is correct, although not the way he probably intended that casually proposed statement to be interpreted.
This really isn't about "guns", or "Magazines". This is about Control.


The second comment:

... don’t you think there might be a genetic disposition towards irrational violence, just as there is a disposition towards “irrational exuberance” and genes for homosexuality? Or albinos?

Again ... I have no idea. Is it "our fault" that we kill each other because it's in our genes? Is the author suggesting that we need to impose a genetic gene scan on each individual, to filter out the people who are genetically dispose to killing each other? Winston Smith, maybe, but the rest of us? I don't think so.


The Third Comment:

A simple preventative measure to gun toting Americans is to make military service mandatory for every one as do many nations from Switzerland to Israel.

If you have even been in the service, you won’t have the need to find your masculinity in a gun.

Hmmm ... I spent two years in the army, went to Viet Nam, saw the elephant, and I still feel the need to find my masculinity in a gun. Or maybe not. Maybe I just like shooting. Maybe a cigar is just a good smoke.

Maybe I just don't care that much; maybe the author of this comment is without a clue; maybe he's projecting.

The Fourth comment:

How many bullets do military pistols hold?

Try fitting a 32 round clip into a pistol and then into your holster. Duh !

M1911 is what ? Seven rounds ?
The Berretta? 8? 12?

If the military does not need a 32 round clip, why on earth would civilians unless it is for some sort of pseudo-marcho-commercial reason.

Maybe the "military" uses "Assault Rifles" as their primary weapons, with 30 round magazines. And maybe they use their pistols as only their final defensive weapon; and maybe they can use magazines with as high capacity as the Army chooses to support ... economically. Maybe this question is bogus. You think?

The Fifth Comment:

Any firepower is too much. The 33-bullet magazine should never have been available to anyone except police, bodyguards, & those in the military. Whose side are these judges, lawyers & lawmakers on anyway? (As if we didn’t know. They certainly aren’t concerned with OUR safety.)

I have NO idea where this came from, but "any firepower is too much" must surely be a clue to the cluelessness of the author.

Why does he include "bodyguards"? Does the commenter believe that only the rich, who can afford to hire professional bodyguards, deserve protection? If he thinks police, bodyguards and military might find an advantage in having a "33-bullet magazine", then why does he think that the rest of us should be penalized by not having access to this advantage? And if it is not an advantage, why does he 'award' this non-advantage to privileged classes of people, and not allow it for the rest of us?

Ultimately, the entire sequence of comments suggests that there is something intrinsically WRONG in having "too much ... bullets" in a magazine. But who is qualified to determine exactly how many "bullets" are "too much"? And why are they more qualified than the rest of us to judge?

Skip a few, and then we get to the Seventh (Sixth?) comment:

I also thought, (hoped), I was off to bed, but tomorrow’s (today’s!) topics appeared, & I couldn’t help myself.

I’d give almost anything to read just 1 haiku about now, then drift happily off to sleep. Don’t know if I’ll make it or not, but fingers are crossed.

Sorry, but when this breached the Event Horizon, I quit and went to bed.

"Somebody" though the question sufficiently important to respond, but that "somebody" was so intrinsically clueless that she was more concerned with posing an appropriate haiku rather than to address an issue which "Somebody else" proposed.

The best I can do is to respond in an inappropriate Haiku:

The moving Finger writes,

and having writ,

reloads

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to check the "next comment":

I would like the Supreme Court to overturn the Second Amendment based on the concept that its ORIGINATION REPRESENTS AN ILLEGITIMATE BASIS FOR GUN OWNERSHIP TODAY. Once the amendment was overturned, the Court would require Congress to modify and replace it. Let us LEARN FROM this tragedy in Tucson: let’s work to grant ourselves True Life and Liberty!

The legal basis for this change is this: the Second Amendment was PARTLY passed as part of a Compromise between the North and the South. The South was afraid that the abolitionists in the North could get the federal government to overturn their states’ rights to raise armed militias which they had been raising for slave control, especially in times of slave insurrections, since colonial times. Should we be living under the “SWAY” of a law that was started in the context of slavery? Didn’t this “freedom” represent LOSS of freedom for millions of individuals living in this land, at the time, who helped to build this country? Yes, we no longer allow slavery, but we are living, on a daily basis, with the VESTIGES of it thru the Second Amendment!!

Not only way too many exclamation marks, but the author apparently confused the Revolutionary War with the Civil War.

Not only "Clueless", but .. aw, shit. These people are so without-a-clue that their ignorance automatically obviates anything they may offer in support of their so-called ... whatever.

I am so disappointed by the level of civic mis-comprehension of the average liberal, it makes me ill to read the crap that they write.

Stumble It!

Tri County Gun Club Cancels Sunday Match!

The last time TCGC (in Sherwood, Oregon) canceled a match 'at the last minute' was in winter of 2004. Heavy snow, partial thaw, then freezing overnight. The access to the range is a steep uphill climb, and that morning the Stats-Mistress couldn't get her aging Tempo up the hill. So SHE canceled the match.

Tonite I received a forwarded email from the Match Director via the Section Secretary:

Tri-County had the action range resurfaced and it looks great, however there is no cover available, no safety tables and everything is out of the bays. It is going to rain heavy tomorrow and as a result I'm going to cancel the match. We'll resume normal festivities next month.

Can you forward this to the distribution list and ask folks to pass it along? We won't get to everyone but we'll do the best we can.

Obviously, this is a time-sensitive message and I doubt anyone will read it here tonite and change plans for tomorrow.

But this is the oldest "IPSC" club in Oregon, and as far as I know the oldest club in a 3-state area. It's where I got my first competition training, shot my first year or two exclusively (until other clubs started a program) and it's one of the premier clubs of the Pacific NorthWet. It will always be important to me.

PS: Norm, Mark ... I passed it along. I did my part.

Stumble It!

Shooting Times News 1/15/10

As usual, most of the 'really good information' on firearms issues comes from my tri-weekly Shooting Times email subscription. (See here to subscribe ... you've seen this before.)

The editors have made some format changes lately, which not only provide a link to individual items but also the long-awaited permalink to the editorial.

Both to reinforce the suggestion that you get your own subscription, and to highlight the items that I found the most interesting, I'm providing an overview with links.

Aimpoint Launches New Website
(That would be Aimpoint.com, for those who can't bother to read the short article. It takes you here.)

ISSC-AUSTRIA and GEMTECH Co-Partner
Why is that interesting?
"WARE, MA - ISSC-Austria, exclusive importer and distributor of the M22 range pistol and MK22 range rifle, has partnered with GEMTECH, the leader in high- performance suppressors, to offer products that fit and function seamlessly together."

Please don't get me started on the reasons why I think that suppressors should be legal in America!

New Bullet for Existing Handguns and Hand-held Firearm
Okay, I see another "why is this interesting" moment. The leading paragraph:

Denver, CO - Recognizing that more than 90 percent of shots fired by handguns and hand-held firearms miss their targets, Advanced Ballistics Concepts, LLC (ABC), a ballistics research and development company, today announced the company has invented the first multi-part bullet that immediately unlocks and expands to a predetermined diameter and pattern of spread upon leaving the tip of a rifled barrel. This new wide envelopment bullet - enhanced with ABC's patent-pending Triple Threat™ Technology (T3™) - significantly improves a shooter's hit probability in ultra-close and mid-range engagements because the bullet produces a "spider web"-like effect prior to impact.

While I'm insulted by the "90 percent" statistic on misses (unless someone has been submitting my shooting videos to YouTube, in which case I am without defense), it makes me wonder just how expensive these bullets are, and can I get me some. If they were 'too cheap', IPSC might have a problem. Look for a new rule in the 2012 Rule Book. No, they probably would be good on Virginia Count stages.

Progress on South Korea Rifles?
This editorial informs us that "... the United States Department of State is reconsidering last year's decision to block the importation of World War II rifles from the Republic of Korea."

Which would be A Good Thing, no matter how it works out, because so far we get Bumpkes from the Diplomatic Service. To nobody's real surprise, one of the problems has been that the ATF doesn't like it; another has been that someone figures the US will buy all these M1 carbines to Mexico. I don't know why they would worry about that .. the carbine is nothing more than a poodle-shooter, more like a 2-handed pistol than a rifle. And yes, I expect to hear about that from someone who owns one.

There's still meat left on this journalistic bone, and the item/editorial is not all that long, so you should go read it now.

What, you have something better to do?

Stumble It!

Unintentional Felons

"Crooks and Liars" (obviously not a foe of Gun Control) has posted a very nice blog article titled" Has Rep. Peter King actually come up with a decent idea on gun control?
(Hat Tip to Random Nuclear Strikes!)

Our answer is --- NOT!

The Huffington Post article describes King's proposal as:

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official [emphasis added], according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King's measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.

The Gun-control folks are all over this ... they apparently think this is a good idea on toast, with gravy on it.

Why?

Because it would make it impossible for anyone with a legally carried firearm to know if/when he or she is breaking the law.

It's not like the laws which once made it illegal to possess a firearm within 1000' of a school ... in my small town, it's really, really difficult to NOT be within that distance of a school. But it's theoretically possible for me to find a route from my home to the the range, or to any exit from town, without 'encroaching' upon that limit.

"Government Officials", though, are a different beast. I'm not sure what constitutes a "Government Official". Is it my congressman? Is it the mayor? A City Councilman? (Mine lives within a few blocks of my home ... I couldn't leave my house without breaking the law.) And how do you know if you break the limit? These are people, they move around.

This proposed law would be impossible to enforce, impossible to avoid becoming an Unintentional Felon. If stopped, searched and arrested, I might be charged and convicted of this 'crime' without even knowing that I had broken the law. Hmm ... somehow, this doesn't seem fair to me, let alone reasonable. Heck, I actually like my congressman. Don't agree with his politics, of course, but I certainly wish him no ill.

The otherwise sane, reasonable people (okay, I'm giving them all the credit I can) don't think about that stuff. They don't own firearms, they don't care to consider the petty details. They think it's a good idea, so they are all for it.

If that law was in effect last Saturday when Gabrielle Giffords was holding a "meet and greet" at the local Safeway Store, any firearms owner on his way to the range who drove into the parking lot to pick up snacks and a bag of ice not knowing she was there ... would have been in violation. No intent to do harm would be necessary.

Madness.

In the interest of brevity, I encourage you to go to the "Crooks and Liars" post and read what is there.

Most emphatically, watch the 8 minute interview between PS_MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell ("The Last Word"; "Tucson Tragedy and Gun Control") where he interviews Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy.

O'Donnell's rhetoric is far removed from "Journalism". It is an opinion piece, blatantly illustrating his anti-gun bias. During his interview with Congresswoman McCarthy (who lost her husband during a 1993 assault on the Long Island RailRoad) he asks her, for example, whether " ... we are going to lose focus on what killed these people; a gun legally sold to a manman in a country that is intent on preserving the madman's right to obtain firearms and shoot people ...".

This question is actually, of course, a statement. Entered into the conversation for shock effect, and entirely without justification.

He also mentioned that the lunatic went to a store to buy ammunition, and was turned away. Actually, according to the store (a WalMart) he was not turned away. He merely "failed to complete the transaction". He later went to another WalMart and obtained ammunition there.

McCarthy plans to introduce (on January 18, 2011) a bill which is eerily similar to measures found in the failed Assault Weapons Ban:

On Tuesday, January 18, I will introduce legislation to restore the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices in the United States.

The United States Constitution guarantees to our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. At the same time that we can all acknowledge this basic right, I believe that we should also be able to come together to develop reasonable laws designed to ensure that the right to bear arms is exercised safely and responsibly. Just as we all celebrate and defend the first amendment but also understand that practical limits must be in place, such as not shouting, “Fire” in a crowded theater, so too should we be able to respect the second amendment while at thesame time supporting commonsense regulations.

Her statement fails to define the term "large capacity" although according to the Arizona Daily Star this is assumed to define magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

The failed 1994 Assault Weapons ban was part of HR3355, which was an omnibus bill addressing so many issues that the "Assault Weapons Ban" (Section 110101) was only a very minor part.

But at the very beginning of the bill (probably not a 'good link') was a very clear notice that the bill would be repealed after ten years:

SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle--

(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after that date.

When you read all of the pMS_NBC rhetoric, especially the parts where "it's all George W. Bush's Fault" (because he didn't take steps to "repeal the repeal") ... remember that this was the law. Bush merely declined to complicate the already failed issue. The crime statistics after ten years of onerous imposition on the rights of honest citizens to possess, for example, "magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition" resulted in NO positive effects on crime rates. It was essentially all smoke and mirrors. You and I went for ten years abiding by laws (which were surely not observed by criminals) and these laws failed to serve the stated purpose of reducing crime, violence, gun violence or any other goal for which this bill was purportedly established.

Why? How?

A report from the National Institute of Criminal Justice (U.S. Department of Justice / Office of Justice Programs) reviewed the results of the AWB, and among their results were the following statements:

• The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot victims.
• Target audience: Congressional representatives and staff; State and local legislators; Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials; criminal justice practitioners and researchers; advocacy groups; State and local government officials.

Rep. McCarthy's urge to revisit this failed attempt to control large-scale murder by reducing the legal capacity of "large capacity" magazines is understandable, and absent the egregious imposition on LEGAL and LAW ABIDING citizens, we are emotionally inclined to support any effort, no matter how futile and ineffective, to reach this goal.

However, we have already spent ten years valiantly attempting to determine whether her "new" efforts might have the effect she so obviously desires; the numbers just do not support her thesis.

We are so sorry, Representative McCarthy, but your proposal affects only those of us who are law-abiding citizens. Madmen, terrorists and criminals are not at ALL affected. You have proposed a bill which is a disservice not only to your constituents, but to those of us across thsi nation who would otherwise wish to accept any workable legislation.

A workable defense against Madness is not something that cannot be legislated, further than we have already done. At this point, our only proven solution is to arm our law-abiding citizens for the defense of themselves, and others.

Stumble It!

Dairy of a Madman

I heard about the "Tucson Massacre" on Saturday afternoon, but I didn't try to write anything about it because ... well, we just didn't know anything yet, did we? At the time, there was no information on who was hurt, how bad, let alone by whom or why.

Now we know "who", without any doubt at all. Described by people who knew him as a loner, frightening, mentally unstable ... this was definitively a "nutter" without any of the political slant (not a "right-wing nut" or a "left-wing nut").

Our country is still reeling from shock. We are experiencing forms of PTSD: Fear, anger, loss, grief ... denial.

Some people have written on the Internet to express their feelings. Some have declined to even identify the terrorist (because that is what the attack is, by definition ... no apparent purpose except to to sew terror among innocents) and instead only write of their cold, implacable anger.

I, too, am angry. Angry because of the senseless loss of innocent life. In a very real way, except for the magnitude of damage done this is very similar to the 9/11 Massacre of Innocents. It is an arrow in the heart of a nation.

In 2007, when a nutter named Cho shot up the Virginia Tech campus, I cursed the nutter with a vehemence I have not often felt. Later, I thought I had over-stated my feelings. Now I feel the same sense of violation, and I discover that what I said then is exactly applicable now, also:

"You sociopathic sick fuck. I don't want to feel your pain. I just want you to be dead Dead DEAD for all eternity and may you rot in hell. I don't want to feel this angry toward another human being again."

But now I do. Perhaps you do, also. In a way, these terrible, predatory attacks bring out the worst in us.

The thing is, the "worst in us" all too often includes taking advantage for political gain.

POLITICS:
Since that terrible day, we've seen that a lot of people have taken political advantage of the situation to tout their own personal political kant.

"DAIRY of a Madman"? Not "Diary of a Madman"? That's right. In the current political milieu, the Left is milking it.

They're taken on two talking points.

First Amendment Infringement: There should be a law forbidding people to say naughty things about politicians. This isn't "hate crimes" (with which I already have a problem ... it's so subjective). It's chilling free speech.

Second Amendment Infringement: there should be a law forbidding people to have magazines that hold more bullets than they could possible need. Again, subjective.

Leave it to the Nanny Statists to "protect" us from ourselves. As Pogo use to say: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

I still feel bad about my own vehemence, but I feel even worse that there are people in this world who will gleefully twist a tragedy into an opportunity.

Yes, it's too bad that people often use intemperate language, and will apply invective ... I've just done that myself.

And it's too bad that people go mad, are so sick that they will shoot total strangers for no apparent reason except to indulge in their own vainglorious fantasy.

We're probably not going to be able to rid our society of either societal illness.

But it seems to me that we're losing sight of what's really important.

Here is an interview of the father of the little nine year old girl who was shot in the back. Can there be any worse thing to do to kill a child? A little girl .. .aren't we suppose to protect our children? And what can be worse than to lose your own child; that's not the way it's suppose to work. They should be mourning us, not the other way around.

This is heartbreaking. It's ten minutes of heartbreaking. It's almost unendurable, but if you have ever felt disgust at the expression "I Feel Your Pain", this may change your mind.


We see a father who is holding himself together with an inner strength that I doubt many of us would have the depths to call upon.

And in his grief, he still found one more iota of strength to say: This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.

I would have preferred to present a much better organized .. expression. But this is the best I can do, right now.

Stumble It!

The constitution protects the rights of ... who?

Okay, consider this a High-School Civics Test.

No wait! It's a Supreme Court challenge of the most basic precepts of the Constitution of the United States!

Is there any difference between the two questions? Should there be?

The first .. the Civics test... wonders what we are teaching our new citizens today.

The second .. the SCOTUS .. wonders what we will be teaching our new citizens "tomorrow".

And who are our "new citizens"? Does this include only the children of today's citizens, or does it include naturalized citizens? Resident Aliens? Temporary (but legal) migrant workers? Illegal aliens?

Who is granted (acknowledged?) protections under the Constitution of the United States of America?

Let's look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This enumeration of "our" rights; acknowledges freedom of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, freedom to gather ("in protest?") and to petition.

Who is here granted the right to worship as he or she pleases? Is it only natural born citizens? Natives or Naturalized? Immigrants, visitors, interlopers?

Who has the RIGHT to march with a La Raza flag and sign on our nation's streets?

Who would deny ANYONE that right, in America?

How about the Fifth Amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Who is protected against Double Jeopardy? Who protected from being impelled to bear witness against himself? Who may be imprisoned without a trial, or be deprived of his home?

For that matter, in regarding the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Who is protected, constitutionally, against unwarranted search and seizure?


In America today there are many definitions of "The People", and it is so confusing that you and I are sometimes not only not certain who constitutes "The People", but we have no clear guidance, especially in the Constitution, to define what this body of people may be.

Sure, we have amendments to ascertain and define that much of the 14th Amendment was composed to address this question:

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This may be a clear and definitive description of those people whose rights under the Constitution may be applied: namely "citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside".

That last part may be confusing to you, though. It is to me.

Should we assume that the only persons resident in the United States who are "citizens" enjoy the Constitutional Rights here defined?

For example, if a person is not a Citizen (either natural born, or naturalized),. may he publish a newspaper, meet with his neighbors to discuss Important Issues, freely practice his chosen religion, and be free from warrantless search?

Or do those who do not have the right to define themselves as "Citizens" not also have the right to enjoy constitutional guarantees?

I draw your attention to the Second Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Do "all men" find themselves under the protection of the Constitution, regardless of their legal status? We have generally accepted that certain classes of men .. felons, the insane, children who are too young to exercise the judgment which comes from maturity and experience .. may not be either entitled or competent to enjoy certain rights, at least until their individual situation changes.

But if "all men" is no more limiting than that "all men" be sane, mature and responsible people, and if these rights are ordained by God and not by The State .. .then do all Amendments of the Bill of Rights apply equally? Isn't this the basis of our American Society.

(Note that the 13'th, 14'th, 15'th and 19'th Amendments include more classes of people who have the right to vote ... does this define "citizen"? Is it the sole criteria of :people who are (citizens / legally resident . otherwise not legal, but resident) in the United States who are granted the "God given" right to liberty ... by The State?)

We who demand an all-encompassing "Individual Right" according to the Second Amendment have been vocal for decades in demanding that right be applied "universally", because it is a "God-given Right" and not 'granted' by the state.

But now we find ourselves having to deal with the question: what of a person who is a legal resident is not a "Citizen". Does the Second Amendment apply to him as well and as thoroughly and as definitively as it applies to "us"? We who may have born in this great country? Those whose most enduring monument is the Stature of Liberty, which enduring motto includes the phrase: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

How high do we lift that lamp; how many are TRULY welcome through that golden door?

Many of us are disrespectful of the American Civil Liberties Union, because it has presented and argued against issues which we intuitively believe should stand without need for defense. We believe that our definition/interpretation of the Constitution is obvious.

But is it?

Those of us in that assumptive group also believe that the Constitution is a rigid uncomprimising traditional, uncontroversial body of law, and those who disagree with our interpretation should, if they are sincere in their controversial beliefs, be willing to mount a movement to change the Constitution, rather than to "re-interpret" it to meet the "Interpretation De Jour".

Now we are met with an issue which challenges our most sacred beliefs, and to our astonishment we discover that there are multiple interpretations which may not both be true in accordance with our individual belief systems.

ACLU Sues to Protect Immigrant's Gun Rights From Change in South Dakota Law - FoxNews.com

We are here challenged to decide whether the constitution as written may be interpreted to deny Constitutional rights to (legal) residents who are not Citizens.

That is, specifically, the 2nd Amendment:

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.

That statement is obviously NOT worded to include issues of citizenship, or membership in any definitive body: The "Collective Rights" folks, who we have opposed for so long and have attempted to define it as supporting a governmentally sponsored, say that it has nothing at all to do with the citizenship of the individual, as long as that individual is a member of the "army:". We, however, have rejected that interpretation, and made it clear that it is an INDIVIDUAL right irrespective of support from the State.

(But are we really that sure about this point?)

And .. what individuals may legitimately lay claim to this right?

The egregious Dred Scott decision, made by the Supreme Court of the United States, includes may arguments (and they of the SCOTUS were then honorable men) discussing how and why Negros would not and should not be counted as 'citizens'; not the least of which is that they were NOT entered into the country as 'immigrant's, willingly, but that they were universally brought into the country as "property".

Also, and this is the most frequently quoted portion of the judgementl we should consider it a 'telling' reflection of the bias of the SCOTUS at that time (although we are assured that the current SCOTUS has no comparable bias or 'hidden agenda': (quoted directly from FINDLAW):

The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

So we are given directly from history the most awful ruling of SCOTUS , based entirely on race and the dubious but well defined principle of "involuntary servitude" which is deemed not to qualify a human being for consideration under the Bill of Rights because .... come ON guys! .. the dude didn't want to be here in the first place, so why should we give him the same consideration which is naturally ceded to those folks who WANTED to be here?

(This argument, given the time in history, carefully avoids the question of "involuntary servitude" which may or may not characterize the ancestors of not a few men who were arguing the case .. and judging it.)

I ask you once again.
Upon what basis would you deny a person, who is resident within the geographic boundaries of the United States of America, the right to the full protection under law of the Constitution of the United States of America? Any clause, any amendment, any nuance?

If Dred Scott was denied Constitutional Protection because he was not a "voluntary immigrant", then what of the rights of those who are today "voluntary immigrants"?

Stumble It!

Bell's Palsy

Here's the good news: I didn't have a stroke or even a "TIA".

The bad news? You can't tell by looking at me, because I look just as weirdly lop-sided as someone who has suffered a stroke.

According to the Mayo Clinic, it "... occurs when the nerve that controls facial muscles on one side of your face becomes swollen or inflamed. As a result of Bell's palsy, your face feels stiff. Half your face appears to droop, your smile is one-sided, and your eye resists closing. "

Well, that is a fair description of it. and WebMD has even more information:

The nerve damage may also affect your sense of taste and how you make tears and saliva. This condition comes on suddenly, often overnight, and usually gets better on its own within a few weeks.

Bell's palsy is not the result of a stroke or a transient ischemic attack (TIA). While stroke and TIA can cause facial paralysis, there is no link between Bell's palsy and either of these conditions. Palsy simply means weakness or paralysis.

The cause of Bell's palsy is not clear. Most cases are thought to be caused by the herpes virus that causes cold sores.

I had trouble sleeping Monday night, because I had a stiff neck. The neck muscle on the left side, behind my ear, hurt to distraction. I tried a couple of aspirin and still didn't get much sleep.

Wednesday I was halfway through the day when I noticed that my lips felt numb. That evening I realized that I could feel it when I touched my lips, but they just felt ... weird. It was just like after you've been to the dentist and later the Novocain wears off ... you can't quite get the feeling that you can control your mouth.

This morning I was getting ready for work and realized that I couldn't control my left eye. My eyes were watering and I tried to squeeze my eyes shut. My left eye wouldn't squeeze. With experimentation, I found I could close both eyes normally, as if I were sleeping. But I couldn't wink my left eye; which was strange, because I've always been able to wink with each eye independently.

So I looked in the mirror and sure enough, the left side of my mouth drooped, the lips looked somehow thinner on that side than the right side. When I open my mouth, it's a great teardrop shape rather than round. So much for me singing the Hallelujah Chorus. Or whistling "Dixie".

I called my doctor and described my symptoms to my doctor; the left side of my face feels numb, and I don't have any motor controls on that side, and there's a pain on my left side behind my ear.

I didn't tell them I thought I might have had a stroke. This is fear fighting with denial. It has always worked well with me.

They cleared some time for me in the schedule, and I went in to see the doctor this afternoon.

When the nurse came in to get me out of the waiting room, she mentioned as she walked me into the Treatment room: "Well, looks like you have a good case of "Bell's Palsy".

Huh?

Turns out it's better than having a stroke, because they can treat this. Just take a few pills a day for a couple of weeks, and it will go away.

So it's all fix-able, but there are only 3 problems:

1. Sense of taste is all messed up; nothing tastes good, except for very strong flavored foods. I'll be eating sausage, garlic, and sour-cream-and-onion potato chips for a while.
2. My manly visage is twisted horribly (?) out of shape, ruining my regular features. You may think this is no great loss, but at this moment there are hundreds of young virgins weeping.
3. The eyelid, according to the doctor, may not close while I'm sleeping. This causes the cornea to dry out, possibly causing permanent damage to the cornea. I have to use eyedrops regularly, and at night I have to tape my eyelid shut and then tape a gauze patch over it. Fortunately, I found a black eyepatch so I can still look handsome even in my sleep.

Stumble It!

Dead Zero

I walked out to the mailbox this morning, and it was just like Christmas. I found Stephen Hunter's new "Bob the Nailer" book Dead Zero in the familiar plain brown cardboard wrapper, and settled in with a cup of coffee to read it.

I have deliberately not read any pre-publishing notes, or the end-wrapper notes on the book jacket. So I don't have any idea what the book's about. And so, I have no preconceptions.

Kind of kewl, right? I've read all the other Hunter books after a humungous amount of press releases (except for the first one I read ... "Point of Impact" ... which was a serendipitous event and made me believe in tooth fairies and Leprecauns), so I've almost always started reading Hunter books with a certain amount of preconception.

Not this time.

I don't even know if "Bob the Nailer" is mentioned in the book, let alone know the general plot. Which in a way is a blessing, after the disappointments of some of Hunter's books such as "Havana" and "The 47'th Samurai".

So I just spent a few minutes on the couch with Stephen Hunter, and if you'll try to resist the temptation to read anything sexual into the statement, I'm really turned on.

No matter what the rest of the book looks like, just judging from the first ten pages, "Dead Zero" reads like the very best of the W.E.B. Griffin books .. on steroids.

Watch this space.

No blogging until I've finished the book. Then MAYBE I'll have the energy left to confirm or deny my original impression.

BTW .... Hobo Brasser, you one-book-out-of-the-series book lender; buy your own copy. You don't want to wait until the snow melts in Oregon before you borrow my copy.

Stumble It!

Note on Sidebar Changes

When I recently reported on the new format and database for the USPSA website, I neglected to change this website to accomodate the changes.

I have had a "search for your USPSA Classifier Scores" widget on my sidebar. I have deleted it, as it no longer functions.

If I find a replacement widget, I'll install it at some future date.

Stumble It!

Cleaning Compensators

Everyone who owns an Open pistol knows that the most difficult part of cleaning it is to clean out the caked gunpowder residue in the Compensator ports. This stuff achieves the consistency of concrete within seconds, and it builds up with every shot taken. By the time one has completed a match, there is at least an hour's worth of effort to clean it out with knife, screwdriver, dental pick, and/or whatever your favorite tool may be.

Over the years SWMBO and I have attempted to make the effort more ... well, effortless ... by soaking the compensator in various solvents. Hoppes #9 seems to be the best solvent found so far, but that is only by virtue of imbuing the room with the wonderfully manly aroma of the solution; we havent' found that it aids significantly in actually softening the residue, or making it easier to remove.

The best solvent seems to be old-fashioned "elbow grease". Cursing may help, but that depends on the individual character .. or lack of it.

I noticed several years ago that there are various electrolytic systems on the market which promise to make it much easier to remove metal fouling (lead, copper) from the grooves in a barrel. They usually involve submersing the barrel in a special liquid and inserting an electrode or two into it, and then running electricity through the whole arrangement. I haven't tried that, since my primary concern is to remove gunpowder residue, which I suspect has no chemical properties which will lend itself to electrolysis.

But I may be wrong.

So my question to you is: does anyone know of any process other than the extravagant (and time-consuming) application of elbow grease to clean the powder residue from compensators?

I don't mind admitting my ignorance, so please don't spare my feelings when you reply: "Hey, Geek, where have you been? The XYZ Company has been marketing the MacDonald's Magical Powder Residue machine for years; it's inexpensive, it works overnight, and every body else is already using it!"

Oh dear, I DO hope such a wonderful solution (excuse the pun) is available.

Stumble It!

New Year Prognostications, Part I: Air Security

Every year about this time, we read predictions from wise people about what the next twelve months will bring. (And sometimes, people even follow up the following January to report on how well their prognostications were fullfilled .. or not.)

I've got a couple of ideas about what the next year may look like, but I haven't thought them all through; that is, I haven't extended them to their logical absurdity. So I'll start out with one (which may be #10), and for now I'll merely present that one:

#10: TSA and Airplane Safety: By the end of 2010, people will no longer be permitted the same laxity in air travel as they have before. Everyone will be required to strip before entering the plane, and will spend the entire flight (no matter the distance) entirely nude. That especially applies to international flights bound for American ports. Rather than sitting in chairs ... eww, nasty with naked people! ... they will be strapped to hand-trucks ala Hannibal Lecter in "Silence of the Lambs" and will be "parked" in a standing-up position with their hand-trucks locked to tie-downs on the floor of the passenger cabin. For sanitary purposes, the floors will be bare metal, not carpeted, and will feature drains in the floor. This will make it easier to route the water when the cabin attendents perform their single remaining responsibility ... hosing down the floor on an hourly basis, since no passengers will be allowed to exit their "security module" for potty breaks.

The exquisite beauty of this scheme is that it eliminates completely the need for intrusive scanning and body search.


(I would appreciate some help here. Anyone who has questions about what the year 2011 will bring is invited to submit suggestions in the COMMENTS area. Or perhaps you have your own predictions on your favorite topic?)

Stumble It!

Reading

For the last couple of weeks I've been doing a lot of reading, mainly focusing on a couple of new authors.

Greg Iles:
Iles writes in the mystery/adventure mode, most stories are centered in his home state of Mississippi and many in the exotic (oldest city on the Mississippi river? in America?) of Natches. It is a measure of his writing skill that I now wish to visit Natches almost as much as I wish to visit Charlotte, and Savannah.

Iles has a 'core' cast of characters who he often includes in apparently "otherwise unrelated" stories. At the same time, he manages to make each book unique and always entertaining.

It's interesting to look at the back-cover pictures of the authors. In the case of Iles, based purely on his photographs, I wouldn't be surprised to have him walk up to me on the mean streets of Corvallis, Oregon and beg me for loose change; although I would be even more likely to see him camped on the concrete doorsteps of the local "Curves" building between the beltline feeder street and the newest Safeway store, with his mangy cur mutt and his cardboard sign declaring him a Vietnam Veteran willing to work for food .. in hopes of a handout from the lady of the house through the passenger-side window (rolled down only a couple of inches). He is THAT weird looking!

I think that the very best, most innovative writers are probably weird looking. Distinguished looking best-selling authors such as James Patterson and John Sandford tend to write according to a strict formula, and early in their career take on a coterie of 'co-authors'; "apprentices" who perhaps do all the work under nominal guidance from their best-seller "master". (Okay, that last part probably applies more to Patterson than to Sandford.)

Andrew Klaven:
I first "met" Andrew Klaven as a supporting member of the PJTV universe. There he "plays" a befuddled man striving mightily but with little success as an apologist for the Obama Administration. Last Christmas (2009) he read a 5-part Ghost Story, not all of which I was able to read before PJTV changed their membership policy, and I was (and still am) unwilling to spend as little as $5/month to subscribe to the "premium" and archived articles.

But when I was searching for Greg Iles books last month, I noticed that on the bookshelf section to the right of the "I-books", there was a section of "K-books" and Andrew Klaven's name caught my eye. I bought one of his books ("Shotgun Alley") and after I had read all of the Iles books that I bought last week, I then read the Klaven book.


This week when I went to the book store, I bought the two remaining unread Iles books ... and a half-dozen of the Klaven books.

It was only after I read Klaven's 1995 book "True Crime" .. which was made into a major motion picture starring Clint Eastwood ... that I realized that I had bought not only the original book, I had also bought the version which came after the release of the motion picture.

Well, I was in a Feeding Frenzy and I didn't realize my duplicated effort until I sorted them all out. Anyone want an almost-new, almost-unread of "True Crime"? I can get it for you wholesale.

Klaven as a writer is not much like Iles. In the first place, his cover-jacket photo is much more "normal". In fact, it's hard to reconcile his 1995 photo with his 2010 appearance on the Internet videos. He originally had some close-cropped hair, and a close-cropped beard. Today on PJTV, he is entirely smooth shaven on both pate and chin. The only clues are the shape of the nose, the chin, and the eyes. But his website makes it clear that not only is he both presenter and author, but he is still writing mystery/adventure stories.

I find that oddly comforting.

He is also unlike Iles in that he has a strict formula (in the books which I have so far read; I admit that I have not read enough to discern a departure from the formula) in his creations. The Klaven book I'm currently reading, "The Occult", seems to be different in the first hour of reading from his previous books ... but then, he has a mini-series which he seems to return to occasional, and I haven't read enough of his work to discern the common characteristics of his authorship. I'm hoping that his formula applies mainly to his mini-series; or if not that, then the organization by chapters reflects his publisher more than it does his personal style.

By this time next week, I may be sufficiently familiar with his work to provide a more definitive characterization. I'm holding the last Greg Iles book as "desert" after I wrap up the current collection of Klaven. Who knows? Maybe by the time I finish I may consider Klaven to be the desert, and Iles the entree'.

Summary:
I initially started reading Iles because my so-called friend, the egregious Hobo Brasser (who regularly swaps books with me) included in his latest return "The Turning Angel" by Iles. As is usually the case .. he did the same thing to me by including one copy of Vince Flynn in 2009, and so far it has cost me over $50 $100 to find, buy and read all of Flynn's other "Mitch Rapp" novels. He did the same thing to me in 2007 with Lee Childs' "Reacher" novels.

I have most of the Iles novels, and perhaps half of the Klaven novels (published to date).

You can be sure that I will provide The Hobo Brasser with a couple of Iles books ... those with repeating characters and an obviously incomplete story .. and a similar selection of Klaven novels as well. It is my most fervent hope that I cause my so-called "friend" a similar economic hardship, if only to make a point.

Besides, that, I'll do it because I'm essentially a vindictive S.O.B.
And because I can.

Stumble It!

Officers and Ungentle Men

Spurred by a comment in a Michael Bane blog, I was tempted last week to read "Principles of Personal Defense", by the late Col. Jeff Cooper. When I ordered the book from Amazon.com, I noticed that "People who read this book often also read" the seminal work on Handgun Combat "No Second Place Winner" by William Henry Jordan ... Bill Jordan, as most of us probably know him.

The Cooper book (paperback pamphlet, 79 pages) cost $8.88; the Jordan book (hardbound book, 115 pages) cost $15.95. With $4.98 in shipping charges, it was significantly more economical to order them both together. And I've always wanted to read the Jordan book.

I ordered them just before Christmas; they were delivered on Friday.

Today I spent 2 hours and read them both. They had very little in common; Cooper was talking about Principles, and nothing at all about tactics, techniques, or equipment. Jordan, on the other hand, spent most of his time on the latter and little on the former. It occurs to me that they were two complimentary works, while noting that much of what Jordan had to say was dated by technological changes in firearms, ammunition and auxiliary equipment. Is it fair to say that Jordan's writing is "timeless", but Cooper's is "even more timeless"?

Principles of Personal Defense:

Colonel Jeff Cooper spent some quality time in the military (hence the "Colonel" designation), and later went on to found and run one of the Premier combat training ranges in the world. Thunder Ranch* Gunsite Academy established the Gold Standard of firearms training, and it is not by accident that he is sometimes referred to as "The Guru"

The book .. again, actually more of a "pamphlet" than a book, is organized to present his Seven Principles of Personal Defense.

1. Alertness
2. Decisiveness
3. Aggressiveness
4. Speed
5. Coolness
6. Ruthlessness
7. Surprise

The list of Principles underscores that he wrote in terms of "Personal Defense", not for the service officer (either military or Law Enforcement). This concept has to do with one man finding himself in a situation where he must defend himself against an aggressor. It's especially noteworthy that Principle 6: "Ruthlessness", is absolutely not 'appropriate' to a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). LEO's may well find themselves in a situation where Ruthlessness is needed, but it is decidedly not appropriate for a Public Servant to openly cultivate that quality. The common motto "To Protect, And To Serve" is not served by ruthless men.

On the other hand, it may be an unspoken necessary quality in men whose career choice is expected to lead him into confrontational situations on a frequent basis.

Here is part of what Cooper has to say on the subject:

"Anyone who willfully and maliciously attacks another without sufficient cause deserves no consideration. ... The attacker must be stopped --- at once, and completely. [Y]our first concern is to stay alive. Let your attacker worry about his life. Don't hold back. Strike no more after he is incapable of further action, but see that he is stopped. The law forbids you to take revenge, but it permits you to prevent. ... Take no chances. Put him out."

[Emphasis in the original text]

It is obvious in both this, and his other writings (especially including both Volumes 1 and 2 of "The Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip", where he refers to aggressors as "Goblins") that Cooper has no respect for the right of those predators to enjoy continued existence at a body temperature above room temperature.

Cooper's purpose here is clearly to encourage the reader to do whatever is necessary to avoid thermodynamic equilibrium.

No Second Place Winner:

Bill Jordan enjoyed decades of experience as a U.S. Border Patrol Officer on our Southern Border. Not to put too fine a point on it, in his own words, he spent the most productive years of his life as a federal officer charged with regulating predations of, as he unashamedly (and politically incorrectly) identified as "Pistoleros, Narcotrafficantos, and wetbacks". Many of his 'normal' engagements began in the dark of night, along the Mexican Border, with the Border Patrol announcement: "Manos Arriba! Federales!" (Hand Up! Federal Officers!)

He might as well have said "Let the Dance Begin!", for that is the not uncommon outcome of this introduction.

From that point on, the miscreants responded in either of two ways: either surrender and return to the Happy Mexican Ways, or a shootout in the dark, with the only light the muzzle flash of their guns. (Which, according to Jordan, was often the only indicator of who was armed. He mentioned that they made fine aiming points.)

Yes, there are a few War Stories there; most of them were identified as primarily being a way to pad the page-count of the book and make it 'entertaining', as suggested by his agent.

Most of the book, however (and in contrast to the Cooper book), was preoccupied by a discussion of weapons, equipment, tactics and other "technical stuff".

Just in passing:

• If you want to practice with your revolver without spending too much money, it's a good idea to make 'wax bullets' -- he provides detailed instructions on how to roll your own;
• Revolvers are a better combat handgun than automatics ("Yes I know ..." that they're actually Semi-Automatic Pistols) because he's an LEO and is obliged to use Factory Ammunition. The .45 ACP is probably the best of the bunch, but FMJ ammo is not very effective and semi-wadcutters are not reliably fed into autos.
• The best stopping round available in revolvers is the .357 Magnum
• The VERY best stopping round in revolvers is the .41 magnum, and within ten years (the book was published in 1965) there will probably be enough manufacturers of .41 Magnum pistols that they will replace the .357 for police departments across the country
• Equipment: best holster leaves the trigger exposed, is hip-mounted, and includes a metal 'shank' in the suspension of the holster so it can present the revolver vertical, grip away from the body, and it can be bent and/or twisted so that when you draw the gun you get "a fistful of gun", rather than "a fistful of everything"
• "Practical Pistol Competition" is better than no "high pressure at all" training, but its emphasis is on competition, not on survival in a combat situation
• The 'grip' on a double-action pistol which is best used for "long range" shooting (over 25 yards) includes having the left thumb over the right wrist; this allows the shooter to easily re-cock the hammer for single-action shooting; otherwise, the left thumb should be overlapped by the right thumb
• Most pistol (read: "revolver" in this as in most discussions) grips are not what we might call "ergonomic"; they either don't fit the hand, or they fit the hand 'wrong' as they don't accept the weight of the pistol on the 2nd finger of the right hand, and they tend to force the hand down toward the butt of the pistol. (This is just wrong in so many ways, when you may have to take multiple shots.)

Techniques of the draw; the trigger pull; the sight picture (necessary only at distances in excess of 25 yards, when shooting at a human target); point-shooting as an essential element of fast-draw combat shooting ... these elements and more are covered by Jordan and one cannot fault his expertise as he has demonstrably excelled in all of these areas.

Equipment requirements of the pistol, the sights (when used), the grip, the ammunition, the holster; training, practice -- all of these elements and more are covered by Jordan in this, the recognized most authoritarian work on Combat Shooting.

And rightly so.

Some of Jordan's prognostications do not take place. He predicted that the .41 magnum cartridge would replace the .357 magnum; that didn't happen. In fact, the FBI tried to introduce the 10mm (.40 magnum?) and found that it wasn't acceptable to agents any more than the .41 magnum was accepted by police forces.

Why? Because the average agent or LEO wasn't willing to "man up" to the increased perceived recoil of either cartridge.

Actually, I don't much blame them. They were accustomed to either 9mm or .38 Special cartridges, and compared to that the 1omm and .41 Magnum were bears .. hard to get use to, and the recoil included some pretty intimidating muzzle-flip, compared to the cartridges they (the agents and the LEOs) had grown accustomed to.

NOTE: Long after Jordan's book was published, Smith & Wesson came out with pistols chambered in the .40S&W (Smith and Wesson, although I tend to refer to them as "Slow and Wimpy" ... because it offends people, and because I can) which was actually a fairly acceptable compromise between the .38/9mm and .41m/10mm. It took a while to get accustomed to the (slight) difference in perceived recoil, but it wasn't intimidating. Read: scarey. And lots of pistol manufacturers jumped on the bandwagon and provided (semi-automatic) pistols in that caliber. Smith&Wesson, Colt, and even foreign interlopers such as Glock and Sig Sauer.

Sure, there was a period of KaBOOMS! type experiences with pistols in that caliber, until (a) the manufacturers decided that merely using 9mm-built pistols in the new caliber wasn't enough .. they needed to consider using .45acp-built pistols because the new cartridge was closer to the .45acp than to the 9mm; and (b) they needed to use fully-supported chambered barrels to managed the increased pressures; and specifically IPSC competitors needed to avoid using the really-really fast gunpowders, and to load the cartridge with a LONG over-all length, because seating the bullet too deep into the .40S&W case tended to create really monstrous over-pressures on a cartridge that wasn't really built for that kind of pressure.

But those learning-curve experiences, and the technological changes which were the result, happened LONG after Bill Jordan put his two cents worth of (very usable) advice into 115 pages of surprisingly well-written and exceedingly readable lore.

Yes, some of what Jordan wrote has been obviated by technological advances which he couldn't possibly have foreseen. And much of what he wrote in 1965 may have been obviated, but that doesn't mean that what he said wasn't universally legitimate, reasonable and (generally speaking) very good advice.

Anyone who picks up a revolver today with the expectation of using his advice in either a combat or a competitive application will find that, except for the unexpected technological innovations which he could not have anticipated (such as various effective ammunition for, and changes in the design of the 1911 pistol), every word in his books is golden.

Just pure 24 caret gold. And I don't care if I am a 1911 bigot. Reading Bill Jordan gives you the pure pleasure of sharing the thoughts of a man who really knows what the hell he's talking about, and speaks intelligibly and entertainingly.

* Thanks to Guy for correcting my error. Cooper did indeed establish Gunsite Academy, not Thunder Ranch.

Stumble It!