Saturday, June 07, 2014

Who's Sorry Now?

American Soldiers on Omaha Beach ... D-Day, 1946:

"Tank Man" ....Tianamen Square, June 7, 1989:

The President of the United States of America, June 6, 2014:

Barack Obama at D-Day 70th Anniversary Ceremony 

Shooting in "The Zone"

What can be more boring than watching someone else shooting at Bullseye Targets?

The USOC (United States Olympic Committee) recently ran a study of alpha-wave vs beta-wave activities of a member of the US Olympic Pistol Team, and they found some relationship between the shots fired when (in the words of the shooter) "... it just happened the way it was suppose to".

This video is also available under "Isogora muscle and brain wave activity during shooting" and on YouTube under "Muscle and Brain-wave Activity while Shooting". (Published on May 22, 2013Pistol athlete Teresa Chambers works with USOC Psychologist Lindsay Thornton who is measuring her muscle and brainwave activity during shooting.  It's an 18 minute video.)

(I don't claim to understand the relationship between "Alpha Waves" and "Beta Waves", but I do think I understand that your body talks to you in ways that your mind doesn't.)

Surprisingly, the best circumstances didn't necessarily focus on the highest-scoring shots; in fact, it pretty much focused on the shooter's very personal "feelings" about each individual shot.

Which means ... what?

Essentially: when you feel good about a shot ... when you know that you did everything right even though your sights might not have been perfectly aimed at the 10-ring or the A-zone ... your body works with you so you 'feel' that you have performed well.  Even though you didn't necessarily achieve your goal of a perfect hit, your brain may know that you didn't aim perfectly, your body knows that you did what you trained it to do, perfectly.

And it rewards you.  Positive feedback is necessary to encourage you to come back another day to continue your quest for perfection, whether you can get all the parts together or not.

(Which may be the reason why only 5% of IPSC shooters are Grandmasters, and the rest of us continue to "feed the kitty" even though we know we may never win a match!)

This requires some background information, to establish a context:

Friday, June 06, 2014

It's worse than even *_I_* had thought

Shock Medical Notice: We Need to Have a "Short 5 Minute PRIVATE Conversation With Your Child":
(June 05, 2014)
Do the government and its ancillaries have ownership over your child? Do they have the power to detain and question a child without parental permission? Apparently they think they do according to a new Michigan medical records access law which reportedly requires doctors to have a private conversation with minors when their parents bring them in for medical care.

Mac Slavo over at SHTF presents this story of a woman who brings her teen-age daughter into a medical facility for Immediate Care for an injury, only to discover that she must allow her child to be "privately interviewed".

The mother objects. Vehemently.

You will recall that I have talked about young children being quizzed by pediatricians about 'guns in the home", without the parent being present (Pediatricians vs Family Rights).   I'm not surprised that adolescents are also being "counselled" by medical personnel, sans parental consideration or consent,   Although the questions asked of teenagers are presumably about sexual situations and related health issues, rather than firearms, the principles are similar.

I'm aware that teen-agers may have concerns about sexual situations, and that they may be reluctant to discuss them in the presence of their parents.   That reluctance may lead to important health issues not being addressed.

I get that.

But to make it a state law?

There must be a middle-ground which is acceptable to parents, their children, and the medical professionals whose priority is presumably to provide the best health-care for their patients.

I say "presumably";  we don't know, really.

I don't blame parents for being concerned ... reluctant ... in these circumstances.  A State Law enforces the distrust between the State and the Citizen.

There must be a better solution, or parents will seek other resources.   There are people who love our country, but fear our government.  When the government intercedes between Parent and Child, the mutual distrust is iniated by the government, not by the people.

Billary, Junior

Michelle Obama for Senate? Speculation Rages - Minutemen News:
(June 06, 2014)
With more than two years remaining as first lady, there’s speculation Michelle Obama may seek election as a U.S. senator, according to Keith Koffler, editor of the website White House Dossier.

“She’s raised her profile a lot, she’ll have pressure from Democrats to get in and pick up a GOP seat, and her own strong commitment to left wing values will help impel her to make the race — to continue to ‘make a difference’” he wrote in a June 5 post on the website.

This will be the SECOND time she has been proud of her country, right?

I don't think I could bear another Obama continuing to make a difference.   How's that "make a difference" thingie working for us so far?

Given her husband's lackluster record in the Senate, and Barry's disgraceful record in the Executive Branch  (broken promises, lies, lack of transparencies, etc. ad nauseum) ... America couldn't hope for a less bright future than with the First Lady making her husband the First Gentleman.

To have BO followed into the congressional milieu by MO would the ultimate degradation of our electoral system.  It would be following inexperienced incompetence with ... well, even more inexperienced incompetence.

The good news?  She has a snowball's chance in hell of "picking up a GOP seat".   The Democrats must be hurting for candidates in the next Illinois Senatorial election, if they're putting out feelers like this.

The bad news?

Everything else, including and especially that Democrats have allowed even these tentative 'feelers' to be published.

Remember all those Democrats who promised to leave the country if Bush was elected (or re-elected)?

Now I know how they felt.   It bodes ill for an sort of coalition between the two warring parties.

Aren't we TIRED of both parties proposing idiots for national office?  Where have all the good men gone?  If our country is so devoid of viable candidates (and I can't think of one in either party, for any national office), we might as well phone in our votes for "None of the Above"  (see "Brewster's Millions").

Oh!  There's an idea?  How about a write-in vote for Richard Pryor for Illinois Senator?

Thursday, June 05, 2014

Why I still object to OCT tactics

Lagniappe's Lair: Open Carry Texas demonstrates why THEY are not qualified to carry rifles in public places.:

These clowns have to be paid anti-gunners trying to discredit the rest of us...they just have to be.
The NRA is still taking heat about their criticisms of the techniques of Open Carry Texas (OCT) manner of making their point ... whatever it is.

The most recent OCT protest rally (if that's really who they are, and what it is) SEEMS to be just one more of the continuing series of NSFW events in which they specialize.

IF I (and other gun bloggers ... I wasn't there, I only see the photos and read the comments) am/are correct, the ongoing efforts of OCT to prove that they are legal, responsible examples of gun-owners in public...

it ain't working for you, Fellas.

Get a job, get a life, but mostly get out of the "Second Amendment Movement" which you so proudly propose to represent.

I've got guns and I believe that Open Carry is a reasonable expectation, for most of us.

But if you are as lame as you seem; if you are as casual about gun safety as you seem; if you are as arrogant as you seem, I can only echo the lament of other gun bloggers than me:

PLEASE don't represent us!

You make everybody look bad.


BAN ALL GUNS, (Gun Free Zones are GOOD, dammit!)

Am I the only one who is getting tired of presenting arguments opposing "Reasonable, Common-Sense" Gun Restrictions?

Why do I even bother?

I give up.  I quit being a Conservative, Opinionated, Scary Gun-owner.

I have decided to become an anti-gun Liberal Democrat.

California shootings: Tragedy! Chicago shootings: (big yawn)

Chicago gun violence eclipses UCSB shooting, media silent | Communities Digital News:

WASHINGTON, June 4, 2014
 It has been almost two weeks since a mentally ill man killed six people in Santa Barbara, then took his own life. The wounded and the families of victims will be picking up their lives for years. The media and Washington liberals, and liberals in state legislatures around the country are using this incident to push for tougher gun laws and more gun control. To that end, the media have covered this story relentlessly.
 But while the UCSB killings hold media and political attention, the press seems to be turning a blind eye and deaf ear towards one of the most violent cities in the country.


This image shows the shooting incidents in Chicago between May 23, 2014 — the day of the UCSB shooting — and June 4, 2014. There were over 80 documented shootings in Chicago in this timeframe. These include fatalities, botched robberies, and gangland killings. Some of these areas see so many shootings that it is unclear just how many there are on the map without counting by hand.
Why is this information not causing a firestorm among politicians and the media? Why has this information not been brought to the attention of the public? Where is the outrage?
I don't know the answer to that.

Is it because there are so murders in Chicago that everybody just takes it for granted that the Murder Capital of America will have ... well, more murders?

Are we becoming complacent?

Is it because most of the people who are being killed in Chicago are ... ummmm ... "minority races".   Do we tend to shrug it off, because it isn't happening in OUR non-minority neighborhood?

Is it because Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been reclassifying "murders" to "other classifications" for the past couple of years, so we can never be sure just how bad it really is? *

Three Mounties killed, two wounded, in gun-controlled Canada

Shooter on the loose after killing 3 officers in New Brunswick, Canada - (CNN) -- Police in New Brunswick scoured overnight for a man they say fatally shot three of their officers and wounded two others in the Canadian province.

No word yet on whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) offers were able to fight back.

No word yet on whether the assailant has been caught, or whether his rifle was registered.

[H/T: Guns Save Lives

A New Paradigm: Students Fight Back!

1 dead, 2 wounded in shooting at Seattle Pacific University | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News: SEATTLE
(June 05, 2014 - 3:34pm)
 -- A gunman opened fire at Seattle Pacific University Thursday afternoon, killing one person and wounding two others before being pepper-sprayed and disarmed by students. The wounded were rushed to Harborview Medical Center, where one victim, a man in his 20s, died shortly after arrival. A 20-year-old woman is in serious condition while another man was in satisfactory condition with minor injuries, hospital officials said. A fourth person who was not wounded but traumatized by the incident was also taken to Harborview.
The gunman walked into Otto Miller Hall just after 3 p.m. and opened fire on three people, said Capt. Chris Fowler with Seattle police. The gunman then began reloading when a student building monitor pepper-sprayed the shooter. 
"The shooter began to reload his shotgun and the student building monitor inside the hall confronted the shooter and was able to subdue the individual," Fowler said. "Once on the ground, other students jumped on top of them and they were able to pin the shooter to the ground until police arrived."
[emphasis added!]

[H/T: Guns Save Lives]

FINALLY ---- someone did something to "Stop The Madness"; he dropped the shooter before he could cause more injuries and deaths.

USA Today identified the Man of the Hour:

On Twitter, many Seattle Pacific students identified the student who pepper-sprayed and subdued the suspect as John Meis, an engineering student, and called him a hero.
John Meis is indeed a hero; we need more people who are willing to step forward and DO SOMETHING to stop these madmen.  Running and hiding are responses of little value.   "These People" who do these things will not stop until they run out of targets, ammunition, or time.

Time is the critical factor, for those who want to survive.

Screw the talk about "get rid of the guns"; laws are not the answer.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.

And people ... such as the brave and quick-thinking John Meis ... are the answer.

We can only hope that while the other responding students had the shooter down in a dog-pile, they kicked his ass.   That's a fully legal response to an asshole trying to kill people, and as Rahm Emanuel should have said:

"Never let a satisfyingly retributive crisis-response opportunity go to waste".

Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Pediatricians vs Family Rights

Pediatricians Take on the NRA:

By Toni on June 2, 2014 (Excerpted in part from The Daily Beast May 15, 2014.)

 “The NRA and the AAP have been embroiled in a very public legal feud over the rights of doctors to talk with parents about gun safety.” 

This article starts out with a lie.  The NRA (and private families) have complained for decades about the unethical practices of American Pediatricians with respect to the way they unilaterally champion their own causes ... at the detriment to the way families choose to raise their children.

At heart is the (previously) common practice of Pediatricians to  privately quiz children on the family ownership of firearms.

This is not something new here; I've talked about this before )in 2007 ... see the links at the bottom of the page), and I'm not the only one who has complained; which is the reason the 'very public legal feud' has occurred.

The AAP has a Jones on about "Guns In The Home":

For the past three decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) – with 62,000 members – has been an outspoken voice on the issue of gun control. In 1992, the AAP issued its first policy statement supporting a handgun and assault weapons ban, making it the first public health organization to do so, and it has long recommended that doctors talk about gun safety with parents. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, the AAP has stepped up attempts to educate parents about gun safety around children.

In other words, the AAP has become very actively intrusive in the family home.  And some families resent the way that their pediatricians unprofessional activism has turned their children against him.

Here's what the AAP's own blogsite recommends as 'treatement practices' when talking to children .. outside the presence of their parents:

  • In your practice:

    • Address firearms safety as part of your routine anticipatory guidance with children of all ages. Ask about the presence of firearms in the home, and counsel parents who do keep guns to store them unloaded in a locked case, with the ammunition locked separately. While the safest home for children is one without a gun, safe storage practices can significantly reduce the risk of gun injury or death.
    - See more at:

    Note that the advisory does not specify who is asked "... about the presence of firearms in the home ...".

    The issue has not been that Pediatricians are counselling parents (whether the parent have expressed a wish to be given the advice at all).

    The issue has been that Pediatricians have been separating the children from the parents, and then talking to the children without the parental guidance which is THEIR right.

    Guns Gone Wild

    Lagniappe's Lair: Stop being on our side, dammit!:

    Sonic. Chipotle. Chili's. Starbucks. Wendy's. Jack in the Box. Applebee's. What do these restaurant chains have in common? Well each of them used to have no problem with law-abiding gun owners carrying their handguns, concealed or open, into their establishments. But currently, all of them have changed their policies and barred firearms on their premises either in Texas or nationwide thanks to a small but destructive group of squirrels known as "Open Carry Texas", whose members seem to get off on carying long guns into local businesses and yelling "Hey, look at us!" while snapping pictures and shooting video until the businesses react to the unfavorable attention and just ban firearms on their property. Because of their actions and their boorish behavior, restaurant chain after restaurant chain that heretofore never had a problem with open or concealed carry is now banning firearms. But these window-licking toads show no sign of knocking it off or taking a break and they apparently plan to keep doing this dumb shit until they've got every business in the state--or America--banning guns. And if that's not accomplishment enough, now they want to publicly lock horns with the NRA, which is trying to rein them in and get them to act like mature adults. It's official: Open Carry Texas has become to gun owners what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christians.
    Political Incorrectness, and the attempt to use "In Your Face" confrontations to 'educate' folks that Right To Keep And Bear Arms issues are something that they need to 'get use to' have come full circle.

    I originally wrote of my distaste for this kind of confrontational RKBA activisim on May 07, 2014, and not-everybody who reads my 'stuff' agreed that it was A Good Idea gone Wrong: so a couple of days later I explained that this controntationalism (yes, I just made this word up) could have wide-ranging consequences for the RKBA movement and the NRA.

    It's one thing to be a cranky ol' Curmudgeon; it's another to be a cranky ol' Curmudgeon who was right.

    Eventually, the NRA took issue with the manner in which "Open Carry Texas" chose to make their point, and then even Texas and Fox News noted that "this isn't how we make our point".

    One more point, and then I'll shut up.

    "An Armed Society is a Polite Society".  
    *Robert Heinlein*

    If what you do .... how you act, the way you conduct yourself as a Second Amendment Advocate doesn't support his concept .. you are doing something wrong.

    Stop it!

    That's all I have to say about this.


    Comments at the Blog - NaNaNaNa Hey Hey Hey... Goodbye! | Julie Golob:

    Hey everyone! Just a quick courtesy post to let you know that I am shutting down comment capability on my blog. Why? I hate to get all, “my site, my rules” but this is, after all, my site so… Here are my reasons:
    No, it's not me shutting down comments; its Julie Golob.

    It's not that complicated; she's getting spammed to death.

    She's not going to take it any more!  (And I can't blame her!)

    It's not just the wanna-be's; it's the spammers who are a plague upon all our houses.

    With my three (5?  7?  12?   Whatever .... ) regular readers, it's not that difficult to separate wheat from chaff.  But when you're a globally acknowledged STAR in your genre, I'm sure that the issues become geometrically more problematic.

    If you're waiting for the Punch Line, forget it.  No quick and pithy comments here, except the observation that when spammers have free access to your online personal comments, they can be like the Gnats in that scene in "African Queen" when the boat cannot be moored near the river shore because of no-see-um

    Oh, you need a punch line?

    Damned shame!

    Tuesday, June 03, 2014

    Fisking: "NRA’s constitutional fraud" (SALON .. not surprising)

    NRA’s constitutional fraud: The truth behind the “right to bear arms” -
    (Monday, June 02, 2014)

    The notion that the framers meant for every nut to have unlimited guns is a sham. Here's the little-known reality

    In the wake of the horrific Isla Vista, California, mass killing, Americans have once again engaged the debate over gun proliferation. Victims’ families issue primal cries for regulation of these deadly weapons and gun activists respond by waving the Constitution and declaring their “fundamental right” to bear arms is sacrosanct. Indeed, such right-wing luminaries as Joe the plumber who not long ago shared the stage with the Republican nominees for president and vice president, said explicitly: 
     “Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights.” 
    And what's wrong with that?  He has the right to speak his mind, under the First Amendment, doesn't he?  The First Amendment was specifically included in the Constitution to acknowledge the RIGHT of every American to speak on "unpopular thoughts".

     Iowa Republican Senate candidate Jodi Ernst, known for her violent campaign ads in which she is seen shooting guns and promising to “unload” on Obamacare, had this to say when asked about Isla Vista:
     “This unfortunate accident happened after the ad, but it does highlight that I want to get rid of, repeal, and replace [opponent] Bruce Braley’s Obamacare. And it also shows that I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. That is a fundamental right.”
    You say that like it's "A Bad Thing".  And perhaps it is, by your standards.  But by the standards of millions of Americans ... and perhaps by your standards, Ms Parton ... you have the right to denigrate the opinion of Joe The Plumber (and others), but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

    Or incorrect.

    Perhaps the emotional reaction to the Isla Vista shootings causes Joe The Plumber to consider that this is an issue which the Emotional Left will use to further their own agenda.

    If so, who's The Bad Guy in this debate?  The man who has an opinion and sticks to it, or the lady who uses a tragedy to further her own political agenda?

    It's all about "Perception", isn't it?

    But let's read on:

     This argument is set forth by gun proliferation advocates as if it has been understood this way from the beginning of the republic. Indeed, “fundamental right to bear arms” is often spat at gun regulation advocates as if they have heard it from the mouths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson themselves.....
    Um .. well ... yes.  We have.

    Thomas Jefferson labored long to frame the Constitution, and in fact the Second Amendment was one of those which caused the most contention.  John Adams was a powerful voice during this period, and he could have killed the amendment;  Jefferson proposed several versions, until the Constitutional Committee accepted a version which they could all live with.  They were not ignorant men.  They knew that technology would advance, and they wanted a statement which would be applicable throughout all time:

    "... Shall Not Be Infringed."

    There were Idiots and Madmen in the 18th Century, Ms Parton, and the Constitutional Committee were not dreamers.   They were pragmatists, and they recognized that in affixing their affirmation to this document, they were pledging (among other things) their lives, their fortunes, and their "Sacred honor".  Perhaps that's one standard which has not stood the test of time.

     Politics has changed in the past 200+ years.  Or perhaps it's Politicians who have changed.  Their lives are not at stake in stating their political views.  Their fortunes have probably been enhanced.  But "Honor"?  More ... "SACRED Honor"?  Today the issue is not "Honor" as much as public approbation.

      What they were after was a measure which would affirm that the right to defend your home, your self, your possessions, your country .. would not be abrogated by subsequent generations generations.

    Because, you see, they had "liberals" even then; although perhaps not by the same name, at least there were people with the same philosophy which did not recognize that even flawed persons had rights.
     But what none of them seem to acknowledge (or, more likely, know) is that this particular legal interpretation of the Second Amendment was validated by the Supreme Court all the way back in …2008.That’s right. It was only six years ago that the Supreme Court ruled (in a 5-4 decision with the conservatives in the majority, naturally) that there was a “right to bear arms” as these people insist has been true for over two centuries. And even then it isn’t nearly as expansive as these folks like to pretend.

    Well ... no. They were not omniscient.

    It may seem disingenuous for you to suggest that the Founding fathers were Dreamers (remember the John Lennon song?  It works both ways) ... but nobody here is questioning your sincerity.

    Only your pragmatism.

    The results are clear to see. Mass shootings are just the tip of the iceberg. Today we have people brandishing guns in public, daring people to try to stop them in the wake of new laws legalizing open carry law even in churches, bars and schools. People “bearing arms” show up at political events, silently intimidating their opponents, making it a physical risk to express one’s opinion in public. They are shooting people with impunity under loose “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” legal theories, which essentially allow gun owners to kill people solely on the ground that they “felt threatened.” Gun accidents are epidemic. And this, the gun proliferation activists insist, is “liberty.”
    Oh, wait! You say ...

    People “bearing arms” show up at political events, silently intimidating their opponents, making it a physical risk to express one’s opinion in public. 

    and in the same paragraph:

    They are shooting people with impunity under loose “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” legal theories, which essentially allow gun owners to kill people solely on the ground that they “felt threatened.” 

    It appears that you are attributing several phenomena under the same umbrella.  Was this your intent, or was it all mere rhetoric?

    Let's look at "intimidating their opponents":
    Do you think that "No Taxation without Representation" was intimidating?

    Of course it was, and deliberately so!   And for a purpose, which remains as legitimate today as it was in the 18th century.  Consider it co-equivalent to dumping a shipload of tea into the Boston harbor, while the perpetrators were comically dressed as American Indians.

    Civilized?  No.  But .. funny?

    However, "... shooting people with impunity ... " is surely a moral low blow.

    It's obvious to many of us, Ms. Parton, that you lead a sheltered life.  You have never had your life, your home, your personal safety, threatened by gun-bearing aggressive bulky men who have invaded your personal privacy.  Hence your cultural viewpoint is skewed toward the opinion that 'there is no need for anyone to have a gun'.

    There's an old saying to the effect that:

    "A Liberal is someone who has never been mugged; 
    a Conservative is someone who has never been arrested."

    I assure you, Ms, Parton,  that the individual Point Of View is radically skewed when your personal experiences includes such thoughts as "Oh, I Wish I Had A Gun!"

    You are a Liberal for your own reasons; I am a Conservative for my reasons.

    I sincerely hope that your political opinion can be swayed by logic, other than by personal experience.

    Not all of us enjoy the cognitive dissonance which supports your personal viewpoint.

    Monday, June 02, 2014

    We knew it would happen

    Sonic Robbed On Same Day They Asked Customers to Leave Legal Guns at Home
    (June 1, 2014) (H/T: "Guns Save Lives")
    According to local media reports, a Sonic drive-in restaurant in Topeka, Kansas was robbed by two individuals. No weapons were displayed The robbery happened in broad daylight and was said to have been committed by two teenagers.
    The robbery ironically happened on the same day that Sonic asked law abiding customers to not openly carry firearms in the dining area of the restaurants.
    The chain became the latest national corporations who were essentially forced to weigh in on the open carry debate due to anti-gun pressure.

    The robbery occurred on June 1, 2014, the same day we wrote "Another One Begs; Please Rob Me!"

    Is there any connection between the robbery and the new corporate policy?

    Naaaaaaah.  Couldn't be.

    To suggest otherwise would be ... schadenfreude.  [video link NSFW]

    Shannon Watts has never eaten will never dine at a Sonic.   It's now too dangerous (as opposed to the danger she warned about earlier this week, of having legally armed citizen open patronizing the fast-food restaurant).

    But it's okay for YOU to support their "No Guns" policy, because it fits her politics.

    Which is:  "No Guns For You!"

    Black Screen of Death

    I know I live in the Sticks, but really ... power outages in Oregon in the late afternoon?

    While merrily searching through this evening for some other blogger's good ideas that I could steal borrow expand upon for my own selfish purposes commentary, I was amazed when my local power grid went down.   At ten minutes before seven in the evening.

    Reboot, computer does a CheckDigit ... and two minutes it died again.
    (Resume CheckDigit all over again ... some files fixed, reindexed, whatever; it's a computer thing, I wouldn't understand.)

    So my question is ... how does the local power grid get so inundated with user demands that it crashes momentarily?

    I mean, it's about the time when people are turning off their air conditioners, isn't it?

    Sunday, June 01, 2014

    MDA being rude? Kick them out of the restaurant!

    Tulsa Chipotle Kicks out Anti-Gunners "Moms Demand Action" for Rude Behavior : Freedom Outpost:

    What happened next is the true sound of sweet justice.  .....
    MDA activists then proceeded to take pictures of the gun owners and attempted to portray them as intimidating and threatening. The management wasn't having any of it; he threw Moms Demand Action out of his store!
    I love it!

    It's about time that somebody stood up to the intrusive, judgmental effrontery of I-deserve-special-treatment Liberals.

    I don't eat Mexican food, but I might learn to like it if THIS is the kind of people that Chipotle hires to run their business franchises.

    "Things I Learned From MY Father"

    My father had a hobby-shop, where he built custom-stocked rifles.  It was a business, in the sense that he sold rifles.  Those sales provided him money to buy (and build) more rifles for himself, and eventually for me.   He called his business "The Stock Shop", and it was based in a corner of our garage.

    But it was more of a hobby, than a business.  All he really wanted to do was to build beautiful rifles, and then prove that they were more accurate than anything available on the "open market".  Which he did.

    He never owned a rifle he wouldn't sell. He use to make new rifles (often on the Springfield 1903-A3 war-surplus frames that he would by through the NRA for $25 each), and tear the Springfield apart to build something completely unlike what he started with.

    He once built me a beautiful .30-06 for my first deer-hunting trip (when I turned 13), and it was so beautiful I almost cried.   It have a spring-loaded magazine base-plate that looked like gold.  Actually, it was anodized tin, and too light, but I was small and skinny and he was trying to save weight.   I loved that short little ought-six, and killed my first deer with it.

    But by hunting season, he had got into the fast/light bullets thing, and insisted that I try the 100-grain hollow-point bullets he made by boring a cavity in the heavier Spitzer bullets that he could find.

    He was right; the fast/light combination was a guaranteed one-shot kill on light game like Mule Deer.  But the first and only deer I killed with THAT bullet (running left-to-right, on a hillside in Eastern Oregon, at 100 yards) ... was a mess.  There was a tiny little dimple on the near side, hole the size of my thigh on the far side.  We lost a lot of meat, and cleaning the game was excessively yucky-making.

    I killed three deer before I learned that usually, the hunter needs to bleed-out the meat first.  My meet was always bled out by the time I got to the gutting part.

    Another One Begs: "Please Rob Me!"

     Sonic restaurant sets no self defense policy  News -- GOPUSA:

    Sonic Corp. is asking customers to refrain from bringing guns to its indoor restaurants and patio dining areas at Sonic Drive Ins. The company had been under pressure to revise its firearms policies from the gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Patrick Lennow, a spokesman for Oklahoma City-based Sonic, said the company has not changed its gun policy because it previously had no policy, instead relying on local laws. "Sonic and our franchise owners work hard to provide an inviting environment for customers and employees alike. While we historically have relied upon local laws to guide how we address the display of guns at drive-ins, recent actions required we carefully reconsider this approach," the company said in a statement. "We've considered the views and desires of our customers and employees that staff the drive-ins across the country."
    (the Hobo Brasser)

    These Mothers are wreaking havoc everywhere they go.

    "We are heartened that we can take our children to these family-oriented restaurants and not worry about being confronted by customers with semiautomatic rifles," Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said in a statement Friday in response to the new Sonic policy on guns.

    Shannon Watts has never eaten at a Sonic; they don't serve argula.