Saturday, April 08, 2017

Lemonade and Cookie and Guns Stand; what could go wrong?

Tennessee lawmaker tries to sell gun at downtown lemonade stand | WKRN News 2:
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – House Democratic Caucus Leader Mike Stewart set up a lemonade stand on a corner of Tennessee’s Capitol Hill early Wednesday that featured a newly purchased assault rifle to show how easy it is to buy a gun. But a few hours later, his bill to try and change that did not sway Republican colleagues. The lawmaker said he brought the knock-off AK-47 assault rifle in a parking lot after finding a seller on the Internet. There were no takers for the gun, the lemonade, or some cookies that were also for sale at the stand.

He should have offered Famous Amos cookies.

I swear, I am NOT making this up!
When it comes to bizarre political showmanship, you can't beat the Democrats.

I tried to set up a lemonade stand in front of my home when I was 10 years old.  No takers.
There were no AK-47 rifles available then, but I suspect I still wouldn't have any buyers.

If you're a Democrat, you have to be over 50 years old before you learn the same lesson.

Submarine Killer Bullets ...Oh, The Humanity!

"You can fire from a helicopter and take out a sub if you have a big enough caliber."

If nobody has yet notified "Mothers Against Nearly Everything" .... let me be the first!

These 'Swimming Bullets' Can Obliterate a Target Underwater - Kit Up!
{actual weblink!}

{April 05, 2017)
 NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — A Norwegian company hopes the U.S. Navy will see the value in its revolutionary product: bullets that “swim” and remain effective on target for significant distances underwater. The secret to DSG Technology’s CAV-X supercavitating bullets is a specially turned tip and carefully calibrated balance and mass, creating an air bubble that allows the munition to shoot through the water, said Kristian Aksnes, director of Special Operations Forces for DSG. The bullets are tungsten with a brass shell and designed to be fired from conventional weapons, he said.

Forget the U.S. Navy ... where can I buy one of these?

Earplugs, Suppressors ... eh? Speak up, Sonny!

I've been shooting guns for sixty years .. indoor gun ranges, outdoor gun ranges, hunting, Vietnam, and IPSC competition.

When I was a kid, I got a kick out of it when people would ask my father (who trained me) a question and he would say "what?  Speak up, boy!"   I thought he was putting me on, but he shot rifles ... not pistols, and he was half deaf from the experience.

It made him look like an idiot.

Unfortunately, he never used any kind of ear protection, so he didn't teach me that!  Part of the reason was that he only shot rifles, and at that time there were few "inside the ear channel" options; it's hard to get a good cheek press with a rifle while wearing earmuffs.

But there were a few options;  I found them, and used them, and ignored his "A Real Man Doesn't" remarks.
I took to stuffing cotton in my ears before bench-rest testing his rifles ... like the .30-338, the 338 Winchester magnum and the 7mm Remington magnum ... which he built over the years.

(He loved building rifles in experimental calibers.  I was glad when he decided Jack O'Conner was his hero ... smaller, faster calibers, such as the 6.5-285, were easier on the ears!

Still, my hearing acuity has diminished over the years.   And this is not a 'minor issue'.  I'm now the grandfather who says "What?  Speak up!" and my grandkids get a kick out of their idiot grandfather.

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership: Firearm Suppressors Fight Hearing Loss - Breitbart:
After showing that “significant, permanent hearing loss” can result from “a single exposure of 140 decibels or more,” DRGO points out that that “muzzle blast sound levels for most firearms (handguns, rifles and shotguns) range from 140 to over 170 decibels, more than sufficient to cause instant, permanent hearing damage.”

Friday, April 07, 2017

Bows and Arrow Not Mentioned

Registration .... the next step is Confiscation

Navajo Nation considers implementing gun registration - ABC15 Arizona:

 PHOENIX - Navajo Nation Tribal Council officials are reviewing a proposal that would require tribal land residents to register their firearms. The Daily Times reports the proposed bill would require residents to register firearms such as automatic guns, rifles and shotguns to the Navajo Nation Police Department.
 The bill would allow the police department to maintain a registry which would include the firearm's serial number, registration date and the owner's name and address.
"... automatic guns"?)

This is wrong in so many ways.
Delegate Davis Filfred says the measure would create accountability for gun owners and make identifying gun owners easier for police.
(Photo: Iron Eyes Cody ... NOT an Indian)

So ... Indians not only are depicted by Italians in the movies, but they now have anti-gun infringements imposed on them which are not shared by non-indians.

"First they came for the  Jews... Navajos, but I was not a Jew Navaho, and so I did not speak out", 

I Always Wanted To Be "That Guy"

BLUE ANGELS - Insane Footage Takes You Inside the Cockpit - YouTube

H/T "The G-Man"

Best viewed in FULL SCREEN with SOUND ON (go to the link)

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Nobody Does It Better

When it comes to ignoring YOUR Constitutional Rights, nobody does it better than well-entrenched Democrats.

Pennsylvania lawmaker proposes 'no fly, no buy' gun legislation:

A Pennsylvania lawmaker has proposed legislation that would prohibit people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list, including the no-fly list, from possessing or purchasing guns in the state. House Bill 528, sponsored and introduced by Democrat Rep. Perry S. Warren, would call on Pennsylvania State Police to check the FBI’s terrorist watch list when someone attempts to purchase a firearm. Anyone denied the purchase of firearms would have the right to appeal.

Pennsylvania State Representative  Perry S. Warren  (Democrat, natch) knows what he wants, and he's just the guy to make it happen!

His philosophy is: "if you're not allowed to fly, you're not allowed to buy!"

Guns, that is.

Note: Nobody knows who is on the "Terrorist No-Fly List, or Why, or Whether They have been accused ... let along convicted ... of a crime.

Here'e the thing about Elected Democrats:

They're not idiots.
Correction: they're not ALL idiots.

Unfortunately, this particular Democrat is, demonstrably, an idiot.

But I think we can usually agree that this guy is a total 'tard.

Money for Nothin', and Checks for Free

The Gun Grabbers (democrats and the CDC) are at it again.

Democrats request $60 million for CDC to study gun violence as health crisis:

A group of 30 Senate and House Dems debuted a proposal on Tuesday to fund research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on firearms safety and gun violence prevention.
 Backed by U.S. Sen. Edward Markey D-Mass., and U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, along with a host of other Democrat and Independent lawmakers, the bill, S.834, would provide $10 million per year to CDC for a term of at least six years beginning in 2018.
You will note the list of radical leftest senators who are sponsoring this bill to use my federal tax dollars to politicize the "gun violence" issue ... again.
 The measure introduced this week would set aside $10 million in funding each year for FY2018-2023 to be added to the CDC’s budget, earmarked for research into guns. The money, if approved, would be the largest funding for federal gun use research since a 1996 amendment by then-Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark., precluded CDC’s funds from being spent on actions intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.
(And there are NGOs involved in this effort, too ... which will come as no surprise.)
The bill is supported by a number of health care lobby groups and gun control organizations including the Newtown Action Alliance, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, the Brady Campaign, Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
This bill is an attempt to go back to the Good Old Days, when the CDC could pursue its own political agenda ... at our cost!   Before the Dickey amendment, the CDC could publish biased reports on "gun violence".   Their reports were long on the harm that guns can do, but absolutely lacking on any "positive effects" of private firearms ownership ... such as self defense, and the original purpose of the 2nd amendment (which was to prevent a runaway government from controlling an unarmed citizenry).

After years of whining because the mean old Republicans wouldn't let them undermine our Constitutional Rights at our cost, the Dems have taken the "Moral High Ground" by asserting that the CDC is hampered by the Dickey amendment.

Write your congressman.

I just wrote to mine:

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Arizona Weighs In On Smart Guns ... kinda/sorta/maybe (We're Not Sure)

Some Arizona lawmakers voted to block a measure that would stop people from buying smart guns.   (WTF?)

Have I read this wrong?

The original article is unclear, but it sounds as if a "YES" vote would make it "unlawful" to buy a "Smart Gun".

Some states (notably New Jersey) have laws which REQUIRE people to buy Smart Guns if available;   is it possible that Arizona has taken The Road Less Travelled and is considering making them illegal?

Some Arizona Lawmakers Concerned About Smart Gun Technology | KJZZ:

Some Arizona lawmakers voted to block a measure that would stop people from buying smart guns. The House bill would prohibit any mandatory tracking technology on guns, but most of Thursday’s debate centered on the idea of who is and who isn't supposed to be able to fire the gun. Proponents said smart gun technology could prevent shooting tragedies like what happened last week when a little boy was killed by his two year old brother. But opponents like Senator John Kavanagh said the technology isn’t there yet.

It may not matter, since the technology is still untested, but it sounds as if they're only concerned about the option to track the guns. Which seems a valid reason to oppose them, based on privacy issues.  

We're going to assume that the short article was poorly written, and that the legislature is not really going to make Smart Guns Illegal ... just make it illegal to track them.

(By the way, the parent station KJZZ has a nice jazz station online, where you can listen to some good vibes while the reporter goes back to journalism school!)

John Farnam Says ... About 9mm Revolvers

QUIPS | Defense Training International, Inc.:
Bullet Migration in 9mm Revolvers by John Farnam
| 4 Apr 2017

 “Bullet-jump” with light-weight revolvers, particularly those chambered for 9mm: 
Last weekend, during a Defensive Handgun Course, a student brought a Ruger five-shot revolver, chambered in 9mm.
During an exercise, shooting factory 115gr hardball from a well-known and reputable manufacturer, a bullet jumped forward far enough to protrude from the face of the cylinder and thus prevent the cylinder from rotating normally. In fact, the bullet jumped forward far enough to physically separate from the case. This not only precluded the revolver from continuing to fire, but it also made it impossible to swing-out the cylinder, so the revolver could now not be reloaded!
I don't have contact information for Mr. Farnam (a well-respected trainer in these parts), but if you have a 9mm revolver, you may want to be aware of his warning.

Revolvers are often held to be "the most reliable handgun in the world" by some people, but I have had personal experience of "loose gripped bullets" in revolvers causing this cylinder lock-up.

In fact, while officiating at IPSC matches (over the past 30 years), I've actually seen at least one example.
This was, in fact a .38 Special revolver (I do not recall the manufacturer of the pistol or the ammunition), but it stopped cold the budding career of a wanna-be Revolver Ace.

This young man was a member of a group of revolver afficianados who came to a Major IPSC match in Oregon to prove that Revolver Shooters ... uh .... I'm not sure what he wanted to prove.   But he had a cartridge which was not sufficiently crimped (as I recall, he was using handloads with cannelured lead bullets) and he had failed to sufficiently crimp one round.

He fired over 500 rounds in a 600 round Crocodile Dundee High Round-Count Match, and he had his wife and his two (3?) Children reloading his speed-loaders for him.

I'm not sure, but I think he even brought his cat with him!

I had squaded with him, and I was at least  almost as disappointed as was he in his ill fortune.
(His family was close to weeping for "Daddy's Misfortune".)

They came from the Shasta, California are, and my friend if you are reading this I hope you are encouraged in knowing that you are not the only revolver shooter who has ever experienced this kind of 'failure' in a high-profile situation.

I suspect that having your revolver lock up during a John Farnam Class is at least as embarrassing as during a Crocodile Dundee Crazy Croc High Round Count / Weekend In Hell match.

Silence Of The Lambs

I use to compete in a sport called "Practical Shooting", which is where scenario-based stage designs are used to help people simulate 'defensive' pistol shooting scenarios.

One of the things we did in Practical Shooting Matches was to shoot at targets behind a partition ... variously called a 'baffle', or  'vision barrier..   What is was, was a wall that we had to shoot around.
You had to stand behind the baffle, and crane your neck (and upper shoulders) to get the handgun past the vision barrier far enough so you could engage the target.

You could't always manage to get the muzzle of your gun past the Vision Barrier far enough that you could see the target, keep your balance, and still keep the Vision Barrier between yourself and the handgun.

With the usual kind of handgun, that imposed a penalty of a LOT of the noise of the handgun firing bouncing back, so you heard more of the noise of the gun than was comfortable.

But some of us were shooting what were called "Open Guns".
They were guns which were fitted with Compensators.

Compensators were heavy metal additions to the 'front ends' (muzzles) of the barrel which (because of inertia) minimized the amount of "muzzle flip" between shots;  so that we could shoot two shots quickly with about the same sight-picture, but needed less time between shots, because the weight prevented the front part of the gun from 'bouncing' (recoiling) as much as it would without the Compensator.

Another factor of the compensator was that it had holes drilled in the top, and at the sides, so that the "muzzle blast" was directed both vertically and laterally so the "muzzle bounce" was not so extreme.  Thus, the word "Compensator" ... compensated for the nature tendency of the muzzle to rise dramatically between shots.

This allowed us to re-engage the targets faster ... we didn't have to wait the extra half-second for the sight picture to re-show us the target, so we could shoot two (or more) shots in quick succession.   Instead of waiting a second (or more) between shots, we could take our "double-tap" in "Split times" of 0.17 to 0.30 seconds.

In a stage with, say .... ten shots, that could save us as much as 2.5 - 3 seconds, depending on the number of targets we had to engage (it usually took us from 0.30 to 0.50 seconds to transit between targets, if they were placed close together).

And in competition, a full second is like an eternity. It can be the difference between first place and forget-it-ville.

JUST TO DEMONSTRATE the difference in seconds, here are two examples of shooting a 'stand and shoot' stage with a compensated and a non-compensated pistol.

(The videos may load slowly ... they are high-resolution files.)

(Later: Well, I can't get the videos to show.  I guess the 1MB+ videos aren't acceptable to Blogger.

The first competitor is using a non-compensated (limited-class) pistol:

The second competitor is using a compensated (open-class) pistol.
You can see how the compensator allows the competitor to get that 'second shot' at a target faster (and more accurately).

Well ... you can see it if my video load works correctly.

Underreported: How Gun Silencers Became a Health Issue:

Most people only know about silencers from what they see in the movies—a stealthy gun accessory that helps criminals more easily kill by suppressing the sound of the gunshot. But silencers, some say, is a misleading way to describe these firearm accessories. Why? Because they don’t actually silence the sound of a gunshot.

Varying interpretation of the Second Amendment Over Recent Years

Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment - The Washington Post:
Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.

(David Kopel, H/T Bearing Arms)

Actually ... while quite interesting, I'm not certain that the entire explanation is absolutely necessary.

However, it's also interesting to see the timeline of draconian regulation of firearms ownership, manufacture and transfer during recent years:

Gun Control has been entirely political since 1968

The Second Amendment has been accepted as (relatively) sacrosanct until the at least the Post-Eisenhower years, when creeping socialism became "popular" in America, and social activists began revising the image of America.

[see some sources at the bottom of this page]

In 1968, during the Johnson Administration, the Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed stringent controls on firearms. (Became the National Firearms Act)
Passage of the Gun Control Act was initially prompted by the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1963.[1] The President was shot and killed with a rifle purchased by mail-order from an ad in National Rifle Association (NRA) magazine American Rifleman.[2] Congressional hearings followed and a ban on mail-order gun sales was discussed, but no law was passed until 1968. At the hearings NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported a ban on mail-order sales, stating, "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.
While Johnson was a Democratic President, you will note that the NRA supported the new bans.
(This was only the first reason why I have since been reluctant to support the NRA, although I am currently a member; but the year is not over yet.)

The passing of the bill was encouraged by the assassinations of Presidential Candidate Bobby Kennedy and Afro-American Activist Martin Luther King, Jr.,in the same year.

In 1972, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was created.   This expanded the role of the Treasury Department, which was often referred to as the "Revenoors" during Prohibition.   Their new duty was enforcement of the National Firearms Act.

In 1986, we saw the laws against "Cop Killer Bullets" and, conversely, the Firearms Owners Protection Act (this last also imposed additional penalties on certain crimes committed with guns. and some restrictions on illegal importation of guns).

In 1990, the Crime Control Act (under president GW Bush) imposed penalties on felonies in school zones, and also unregulated construction of automatic firearms.

In 1994: The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act ...  Background Checks/Waiting Period, and NICS.

In 2013, President Obama proposed "sweeping" gun control measures ... most of which were already in effect ... and the rest ineffectual. Also Colorado voters recalled several pro-Gun-Control state senators who were just pissing them off!


Tuesday, April 04, 2017

The Zombification of America

One Gun A Month: Not Just A Bad Idea

Liberals often wonder aloud why Gun Nuts can't accept a "Reasonable Compromise" on the subject of Gun Rights.

The answer (as they know very well) is that there is no "Reasonable Compromise" on the table.  .
Once you start down that road, there is no turning back.

(Note: this is an expansion of my April 01, 2017 article)

Editorial: How many guns do you need? - Daily Press:
Those who oppose the one-per-month rule and similar legislation frequently speak in defense of "responsible gun owners." But isn't that precisely who should be supporting these measures? Shouldn't legal gun owners want laws that target those who circumvent and abuse our state's lax gun laws? If you keep a licensed handgun to protect your home, wouldn't you rather make it harder for that intruder to have an unlicensed one?
Gun Control Zombies want to undermine, and ultimately eliminate, our Second Amendment Rights.

They have no respect for it, and cannot understand those of us who consider it as anathema.

It would be different (but only in the degree of outrage generated) should the Gun Control Zombies propose something of a quid pro quo agreement, if only as a beginning discussion point.

But I'm not sure what would be their valid initial proposal:
"Tell you what: we'll give up all the Anti-Gun Pro-Reasonable Gun Control Editorials in the New York Times for the next year   three months  week if you'll just give up your opposition to ... say .... "One Gun A Month".  How's that?   You could be just like us!"
Hmm ... no,  I don't see that happening.

However, I DO see that as being assumed a "reasonable starting point" for discussion .., from their point of view.

The author of the editorial which began this thesis seems to be thoroughly encamped in the community which would  accept the (farcical) proposal as "reasonable".

(I'm not calling him a "Gun Control Zombie", I'm only saying that his comments feed the political viewpoint which might eventually lead to even more infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.)

Campus Carry: Thoughts

Inside the Fight Over Guns on Campus - Rolling Stone: How a group of students teamed up with the gun lobby to get firearms in the classroom at over 200 colleges – and counting.

Living (as I do) in a "college town", it seems both appropriate and significant that college students are becoming more aware of certain significant facts:
  • If you are disarmed in a kill zone, you are a statistic
  • If you are armed in a kill zone, you are less likely to be (a statistic).
  • Yielding to the demand of a "mass killer" is not a "friendly gesture"; it is volunteerism in a venue where a willing killer seeks victims

Significant quote:
Shortly after the Virginia Tech shooting, in 2007, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson suggested the massacre might have been averted had other students been armed. The comment was met with national ridicule; even the NRA's Wayne LaPierre disavowed the idea. But for a small group of conservative college students, mostly in the South and West, it was a rallying cry. One of them, an undergrad at the University of North Texas, launched a Facebook group: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, or SCCC (later shortened to SCC). 

"... the massacre might have been averted had other students been armed. "

What a concept.  
Someone besides me should have voted for Fred.   
Sure, he is an oddball ... but what have we now?