Finally, what about a 2013 study of studies by the Centers for Disease Control? It failed to find evidence that gun control laws worked but did find evidence for something else: People rescue themselves from crimes on a regular basis with guns and guns work better than any other safety technique.
Me: The funny thing about the CDC was that for some time they deliberately downplayed the 'benefits' of firearm ownership, while the emphasized the "Evil That Guns Do". Which resulted in the Dickey resolution .. essentially stating that "they can say anything they want, but if they're going to report based on their personal bias against guns, instead of presenting a balanced and objective report, we won't pay for it" said the Feds.CDC was getting funding from NGOs to report on guns, but their bias seened to be beginning to show again. Deep Pockets in Academia and Bloomberg Nation.
(I was prevented from posting this comment on the website because Discus)
It is striking is that CDC has apparently received funding for posting anti-gun comments by institutions LIKE Harvard Law School, which has been known to fund anti-gun research.
Still, this recent finding by Ambrose (of which I have been ignorant for 3 years!) is unique because CDC has seemed to somehow discovered that there IS some value in private ownership of firearms.
They've danced around the truth for years, got their ears boxed for their can-can routine, (the Dickey Amendment of 1999), been defunded, been humiliated (by gun bloggers who have cheerfully held their dirty linen up for public display ......
... and now I wonder if I've been badmouthing the CDC for past indiscretions, although four years ago they may have demonstrated A Soul!
I feel uncomfortable knowing that my research never went in the direction of finding out if CDC had mended its morality.
Tone Down The Rhetoric?
Yes! If I've been wrong about CDC current policies, I'll retract and apologize.
Although ... this time I'll wait until I've found current evidence of their "Come To Jesus" moment.
(Admit it .. once your reputation has been ruined, it's difficult to convince your detractors that you have changed your ways. It's a higher standard you've earned for yourself, CDC!)
Perhaps I should look to my own reputation at the same time.
People are increasingly buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation, new research shows.
There's no doubt that people are buying "more lethal" guns, if one defines the term of "over .22 caliber".
And doubtless, many are purchasing firearms for no other purpose than protection of property, self and family. Also doubtless, the "Bad Guys" are also acquiring (read: stealing) Big Guns.
By the way, these firearms include AR15 variants .. which are usually, after all, .223 caliber.
But the AR15 (et al) have a SPECIAL entry; they are scary looking!
{shudder!}
The lead for the artical focuses on "more lethal guns" and "for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation".
I submit that the author has insufficient experience or knowledge of current "Action Shooting Sports" to be competent to defend his statement.
In The First Place:
... there is nothing wrong with buying guns for protection. The American society itself has become more lethal without the "guns" entering into the equation.
"Drugs" and "Gangs" are the driving factors of the increased violence.
Look at the published statistics ... you virtually can't surf the net without finding a website which address these two words. Usually, they're used in the same sentence. The reason is, 90% of gun crimes ("gun violence") are committed by gangs and 90% of the assailants AND victims are gang members, or innocents who are caught in the crossfire.
This isn't a "GUN" problem; it's a "SOCIETY" problem.
The answer to THAT problem is going to be very, very expensive. Somebody needs to define the answer (see below), and more somebodys have to pay for it.
And the middle-class has to make that 5-year old Chevy last for another year.
The cops are always a minute farther away than they need to be, to be useful
And the Upper Class isn't directly affected by Crime In The Streets; they hire their guns.
In The Second Place:
This isn't about a congressman being shot in the ass on a baseball field.
This is about crime in the streets, home invasion; about old white people being attacked in public for no better reason than the rage of a young black man who can't make an honest living, and he blames it on the white man.
And he's probably right; he just chose the wrong old white man. That guy in the wheelchair never had a vote in Congress.
Congress doesn't have a solution:
Well, they do have one solution; they have introduced a bill to allow congressmen to carry a personal firearm any time, any place (except in certain governmental venues, and on airplanes".
They didn't do this to find a solution for YOUR benefit. They did it because they're running scared and the pusillanimous pussies are going to protect themselves and their loved ones.
(Note:THEIR SPOUSES are not covered under the terms of this bill, which indicative of .... something.)
"Okay, Job Well Done. It's Miller Time, and I'm buying down at Hamilton House" (or whatever the current senatorial watering hole is named.)
Essentially, Congress has shown that they don't consider GUNS to be the problem.
As far as they're concerned, the problem is they ... personally ... don't have ENOUGH guns!
(So they're making them available to those members of their own gang. Sound familiar?)
BUT
In The Third Place: HUNTING
The article (remember where we started out?) mentioned this: buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation
Most people are not aware that a HUGE number of firearms are being purchased for exactly those reasons. For example, the AR15 is legal for hunting critters up to DEER size in most states now so everyone of those AR15's might be purchased for hunting.
And the AR15 is not generally considered a "more lethal firearm" when compared to those customarily used for hunting such as the 12 gauge shotgun, the .30-06 rifle, and the less-frequently used ,but increasingly popular chosen handgun for hunting. the .44 Magnum pistol.
(SEE PERSONAL OPINION, BELOW)
In The Fourth Place: COMPETITION
Most people are entirely unaware that there are three styles of competition shooting which may or may not involve the acquisition of "more lethal guns" in pursuit of achieving either a competitive advantage, or qualifying to use the chosen caliber at all.
There are three (at least)
Although I assure you that many of these ladies and gentlemen could shoot your socks off and you wouldn't even realize you were bare-footed until you felt the gravel between your toes.
WHICH BRINGS US TO THE CRUX OF THE STORY:
IPSC and USPSA
The real thing when it comes to "MORE LETHAL GUNS".
IPSC stands for the International Practical Shooter's Confederation, and USPSA is the American Region .. United States Practical Shooter's Association.
USPSA is the original Association for the sport; IPSC is International body. Because many IPSC member regions have national firearms restrictions which are not recognized by Americans, not all IPSC competition rules are relevant to USPSA competitions. I have never participated in an international (IPSC) competition. Their target designs are different (USPSA targets have been accused of being "Silhouettes of Human Beings" which is illegal in some countries.)
The rules are than you must be using a pistol with a caliber of 9mm or larger. For the metric-confused (us Americans), that's .38 caliber. Which is, we assume, a "More Lethal Gun"
A VARIATION ON THE USPSA THEME!
IDPA: (International Defensive Pistol Association)
IDPA generally requires targets be engaged from behind cover.
IDPA doesn't consider firearms with a caliber smaller than 9mm to be "DEFENSIVE".
IDPA has requirements including (shooting behind cover) and (not dropping magazines with ammo still in them) and (pistol must be carried "concealed" at the start of the stage).
You know, Defensive stuff.
Other than that, and with a few important exceptions, the rules are much like IPSC/USPSA. ANOTHER VARIATION ON THE USPSA THEME!
SPEED STEEL: (CF: Steel Challenge)
You shoot only steel plates. You are penalized for every target you do not hit. Targets will not fall when hit; they are painted between shooters so the number of targets "marked" by impact of each shooter's bullet can be scored. You are judged based on the time you take to complete each of several turns, and your score is the time you time to complete she shooting problem. Misses are penalized.
Speed Steel is different from IPSC/USPSA and IDPA in that no cardboard targets are presented, and your score is only the total amount of time you take to complete three iterations of each stage.
The competitor with the fastest accumulated time wins each stage.
Speed Steel has a special division for competitors using .22 caliber pistols; they are not required to holster before starting each 'run' on a stage. None of the other sports mentioned have this allowance for "Less Than Lethal" calibers. There are variations in all these latter sports based on equipment, defined only to make competition more equitable between competitors with difference firearm definitions. Tip of the hat to variations such as cowboy action and quick-draw competitions. There are more! SUMMARY:
It should be obvious to the reader that "More Lethal Calibers" have become a large part of competitive shooting in recent years. Only one of the four"Action" firearm sports cited allow "Less Lethal" (eg: .22 caliber) weapons to be used.
And as these action shooting sport become increasingly popular with each passing year, more shooters will become interested, and more citizens will be purchasing "More Lethal" firearms to address their new favorite shooting sport.
What's their attraction?
These sports allow their owners to learn safe shooting skills, become acquainted with the manual-at-arms of each individual firearm, and at the same time meet new friends who are sportsmen with similar interests. You can say much the same for a pickup game at your neighborhood baseball game .. except hopefully without the INCOMING gunfire.
SO if it seems to the ignorami press that "People are increasingly buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation, new research shows ", it's possible that a great number of the purchase of "More Lethal Guns" has been driven by the dramatic expansion of choices between the various exciting and rewarding Shooting Sports.
In other words: people are buying guns so they can play "Gun Games".
Don't laugh, fellows ... if you get hooked on the challenge and the chance to meet new friends with similar interests in the shooting sports, you too may find yourself comparing the size of your magazines.
Mike Johnstone, an Iowa sheriff infamous for pushing the anti-gun lie that “shall issue” concealed carry will lead to “wild-west” shootouts, has managed to Glockify himself. .....
... Johnstone removed the magazine from his pistol but failed to do a chamber check before squeezing the trigger as part of the Glock design’s standard takedown process.
... Thereby violating at least TWO rules of Gun Safety .... Jeez, Mike, don't you know better than to point the gun at yourself when you drop the freakin' HAMMER*? IDJIT! * yes, I know it's a striker in a Glock.
However, the article goes on to demonstrate Bob Owens' clear comprehension about LEO gun-handling standards:
The general public shares the common belief that law enforcement officers are highly-trained firearms experts. While there are indeed some incredibly talented shooters in law enforcement, the vast majority of patrol officers and deputies simply aren’t “gun people,” and aren’t typically as skilled as serious concealed carriers.
(Which reminds me, I haven't been to the range all week and I still need more work on "familiarity" of that damn KelTek P3AT!)
Interesting .... and surprisingly unbiased .... study on firearms ownership.
Recommended reading.
Quite long, so you may wish to bookmark it and read it in multiple sessions.
That has been my plan so far.
Guns in America: Attitudes and Experiences of Americans | Pew Research Center: The remainder of this report examines in greater detail the public’s experiences with guns as well as views on gun policies. Chapter 1 looks at the demographics of gun ownership and the reasons people own guns. It also explores early experiences with guns, such as growing up in a gun-owning household and participating in hunting or sport shooting. Chapter 2 focuses on the role guns have in the daily life of gun owners, including whether they carry a gun outside their home, how often they engage in gun-related activities or consume gun-oriented media, and their social ties to other gun owners. It also looks at negative experiences some people have had with guns. Chapter 3 examines the public’s views on the responsibilities of gun ownership, with an emphasis on the differences between what gun owners and non-owners consider essential safety measures for gun owners to follow. Chapter 4 explores what Americans see as contributing factors to gun violence. Chapter 5 focuses on the public’s views on policy proposals to restrict or expand access to guns.
On Monday, lawmakers passed a gun control bill introduced by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) to disarm teachers and staff who are currently allowed to carry guns for self-defense in California school districts.
On June 20, 2017, a Democratic State Senator in California denies the 2nd Amendment Rights of school teachers because of their educational position.
McCarty introduced his legislation, AB 424 in mid-February. On May 12, Breitbart News reported that he justified his push to disarm teachers by saying, “A safe learning environment is essential for our children to be successful in the classroom. That’s not possible if a school district allows armed civilians to roam California school campuses.”
McCarty did not differentiate between guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens at schools versus guns in the hands of criminals who will attack regardless of gun-free policies. Moreover, he did not list one crime committed by an armed teacher or staff member in the five California districts that allowed such personnel to be armed for defense of themselves and their students.
A careful reader might wonder whether, if these teachers had the intent of slaughtering their students, the question whether they might legally bring a gun into the classroom would be moot.
Congressman proposes that HE should be allowed to "Carry a firearm" in DC; but not YOU.
On June 20, 2017, Representative Brian Babin proposed a bill to allow members of congress to carry firearms where "citizens" cannot.
(PDF here) "A BILL To allow Members of Congress to carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the United States, with exceptions."
‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a Member of Congress who is carrying the identification required by subsection (e), to whom a State or the United States Capitol Police has issued a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, and who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, may carry a concealed handgun for any lawful purpose, subject to the terms and conditions of the license or permit (if issued by the United States Capitol Police), anywhere in the United States, except as provided in subsection (b). ‘‘(b)(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply in or on the grounds of the White House, or wherever the United States Secret Service is prohibiting the possession of a firearm. ‘‘(2) Subsection (a) shall not ...
Well, you can go look up the line-item details for yourself. *(the text has been mildly edited to remove line numbers and line-carryover text such as dashes to represent words interrupted to carry over to the following line.).
My personal opinion is that Congress-persons should have the same rights as their constituents.
Not less, and not more.
Remember, Congressman, you serve at the pleasure of your constituents; not the other way around.
Any "rights" that you fight for, must be fought for them as well.
Now one of USPSA's Champion Shooters has been busted: Majorly!
This is the first time I've heard about this.
I'm shocked.
Feds: Scottsdale Shooting Champ, Gun Maker Matthew Burkett Busted for Meth | Phoenix New Times: Former national shooting champion and Scottsdale gun maker Matthew Burkett continues to blow up his career with legal troubles:
This time, the feds say he's on meth.
Burkett was arrested in Arizona this week — and remains in federal detention — for testing positive for methamphetamine three times in the past month, court records show. He confessed to using meth after one of the three tests.
As the Phoenix New Times reported last month, Burkett previously was accused of defrauding customers of his company, Predator Tactical.
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) has another article for your edification.
As always, I highly recommend it for your enjoyment ... what you learn is a bonus.
This group is one I privately refer to as "The Good Doctors". The contributors are smarter than politicians (which sounds like 'damning with faint praise') and more societally productive. More, they report what they see; not what they think somebody wants to hear.
Since my opinions are usually very much in accord with their writings, I naturally think they're about the smartest people on earth. I've linked to their articles several times in the past, and I expect I'll be doing so for the foreseeable future, because all of the authors are skillful writers and highly readable.
Read this short except (link below) from the latest article, and if you've not previously been acquainted with their body of work, I'm sure you'll dig into the archives and read more articles. In fact, if this is your first introduction, I envy you the experience of discovery. I've been reading their articles for a couple of years and never felt I had a better use for my time.
It’s not guns but anti-gun “researchers” that menace the present age. They turn out the worst type of useless, Pot Boiler studies of injury and death to whine about. We can only hope that anti-gun “researchers” stop wasting everyone’s time and get real jobs. ....................
Thursday when asked about criticisms that her leadership contributed to the recent special election losses for the Democratic Party, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was a “target” because she is “a master legislator.”
Pelosi said, “We believe there’s a real opportunity. Now, it’s not a slam dunk. History is on our side, but it takes strategic, unified and disciplined — to have harmony. It doesn’t mean we have anonymity, but we have unity when it comes to that fight. Should I sing my praises? Well, I am a master legislator. I am a strategic politically astute leader. My leadership is recognized by many around the country, and that is why I am able to attract the support that I do which is essential to our election, sad to say.
I have absolutely nothing to say about that. Well, nothing I want to put in print, anyway.
99% of Americans don't believe polls. That's the result of at least one poll.
I don't believe in polls. I pay no attention to them except in passing.
Polls can be so misinterpreted that they not only do not add to the "Discussion", but they usually add so many confusing 'facts' (which can usually not be examined by the casual observer), they often provide more controversy than verifiable fact.
Congress received mostly high marks for its response to a shooting last week at a Republican baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, according to a new poll released Monday, although those surveyed said overall civility in political debate has deteriorated. (The poll dialogue continues with more statistics, but who cares?)
I offer this ... dissertation ... only to makethe point that when the subject is politics, there is nothing THERE, there!
Can you read the above quote and tell me what it said? (Go to the original version at the link.)
They quoted lots of statistics from POLITICO, but they mean nothing. If anything, they obfuscated any issue which you and I might have wished to have clarified.
Here's my interpretation of the statement, and I realize that whatever I say, it was probably wrong.
Congress has decided that they did the "right thing", whatever it was, and the politicians in power agree. Most people think that politicians are nice people, and everyone mostly agrees.
Balderdash! Nobody likes Congress, or Politicians of any stripe. This is an entirely self-serving quote which only serves to prove that Congress has no clue, and they're dancing as fast as they can.
("Whatever it was". we haven't been told, yet, and we probably never will.)
I don't know yet what was the point under discussion, or how Congress reached this conclusion.
Anything that results in 5 public political people being SHOT is not likely to be gladly accepted by The Common Man. When people get shot, there's something drastically wrong here. Glossing over the consequences of politics serves no meaningful purpose.
Sweeping it all under the rug doesn't resolve the obvious problems of political dissent becoming radicalized.
I don't have a solution, but I have a lot of questions; none of which have been addressed in this political statement.
The people who have spoken publicly to explain away the issue?
They are all a bunch of morons.
I may be wrong, but I don't think you can address a major political assassination attempt by saying "... they did the "right thing", whatever it was, and the politicians have proven their ability to rise above the worst thing that could have happened and ... just shrug it off
Polls don't mean shit; most folks think there is something rotten in Denmark (to quote a phrase). You cannot dismiss an assassination attempt with soft words and calm assurances. Unless there is an obvious effort to re-evaluate the current political contretemps, and to resolve the image which the public has of a failed national leadership, this shit will keep going on.
If that doesn't frighten you, nothing will. Assassination as "just a part of the process"?Absurd!
And I do not LIKE it when my country .. which I love far more than I love the politicians which have promised to protect us .. is under attack by anonymous mouse people.
.\They cannot even protect themselves ... even though they are surrounded by armed security guards and we are not. How can we trust them to protect US?
I have no confidence in the incompetent idiots politicians who are replete with smiles, soft words, and $400 haircuts. Anyone can get elected by promising Bread and Circuses; the Romans proved that a thousand years ago, and the formula remains unchanged and still useful.
Those who have the presence and gilt to be elected are rarely competent to lead.
They're just real good at smiling at the right times, and saying the right things to the right people.
Leadership Skills are not an issue.
Once again, Democrats are using the wrong tactics, targeting the wrong people, and causing more harm than good. Tax-the-hell out of guns and ammo and watch gun violence increase in your city. Who would have figured that? Well, anyone with a working brain.
Don't get your panties in a bind, PawPaw.
It's like we use to do back in The Day:
We would fire volleys into a suspected woodline in Viet Nam, hoping to draw fire. The technique was intended to urge Viet Cong to fire back at us so we could concentrate our return fire (and artillery) on their position.
It sometimes worked .. usually, it did not. but it always got their attention.
At Best, they would be eliminated by our "Heavy Guns". As Usual, they would retreat and end the engagement .. to our mutual benefit, to live and fight another day under circumstances which we could not predict. At Worst, they would trick us into revealing more about ourselves, determine that they could prevail in open battle, and demolish our forces. In the Political field of fire, that's what the Democrats are doing.
They're trying to draw your fire so they have a target to work with. The technique can backfire on you or them depending on variables of which neither of you are aware at the time, but you/they can always refuse the engagement.
Unless both parties are so focused on minor issues that they forget the primary goal; which is NOT to "look good in the videos", but to prevail on the political field.
The best response is to refuse to return fire; they know they have revealed their position, and although they have a pretty good idea where YOU are .. they're not sure.
If they wish to pursue their attack, they reveal more about themselves than they might have wished; then you can plan your riposte at your leisure,
It's more about Strategy than Tactics.
Tactics win Battles; Strategy wins Wars
And if you cannot draw your own conclusions about how this relates to the political field, you should not be commenting on political issues.
There's another military axiom which may be useful? He who commits his reserves last ... wins.
does the Chicago Sun-Times run the list of random shootings as a daily feature on the Society Page, like Wedding Announcements?
Or does it go on the Legal Page, like traffic accidents and Court News?
The cited piece (below) doesn't even bother to ask why anyone was shot (and sometimes killed). It reads like a summary on the sports page .. hey, maybe I just answered my own question! After all, Murder and Mayhem seem to have found their natural milieu in This Toddling Town, and have as many participants as a Cubs game.
A professor at Trinity College wrote that the first responders to last week’s congressional shooting that nearly took Rep. Steve Scalise’s life should have let him and others die because they are white.
Ms. Golob wants shooting sports to look like . . . CrossFit. “The first rule of shooting competition is to talk about shooting competition,” she opines. Ms. Golob pitched the idea of simple (i.e. easy rules, common equipment) “virtual shooting competitions” around the U.S. to the NSSF audience, imagining a network of ranges connected by the Internet.
It's impossible to make sense of this press release .. Golob obviously has a vision but she has been Stuck in Stupid because everything she says has obviously been filtered by the press.
Basically, Ms. Golob thinks the current shooting sports associations suck. She wants to bring millions of people into the shooting sports by creating a new shooting sports organization, simplifying, standardizing, marketing and friendly-izing firearms competition.
Of course the goal of USPSA and IPSC has been to attract new shooters; that's how I got sucked into the sport in 1983 and have spend tens of thousands of dollars in ammunition, practice, competition, match fees, new equipment to meet my improvements and (not the least) Travel Expenses!
I wonder if her presentation will inspire someone in the audience to launch her dream league. Or whether the OFWG gestalt of current shooting orgs will continued unopposed. *
* (That quote is from the original TRUTH ABOUT GUNS article; incidently, OFWH stands for "Old Fat White Guys" ... which is a pejorative, and not something which we would expect from Mw. Golob.).
Actually, USPSA (United States Practical Shooting Association). and IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation) were established for exactly that goal.
Everybody who has ever worked as a Range Officer (or Range Safety Officer), either at a Major Match or as a volunteer on (for example) "Hunter Sight-In Days" at his local range, has War Stories which would give you pause when considering the ultimate effect of the Second Amendment.
Specifically, everybody knows that there are some people who just Not Be Allowed To Handle A Gun.
(Sure, it's your right. Go ahead and buy one. But if you don't know what you're doing ... get training!) Here, a minor selection of War Stories, and suggested war stories:
,,, but I can add a couple of things:
Walk right in with a semi-auto rifle with a magazine in place, and when asked to remove the mag and lock the bolt back demonstrate that you don't know how. People will just love watching you demonstrate this.
On a very busy day demand that you and a friend want two separate lanes. When told no say "We've been coming here for years, and today you start giving us crap?" Because everyone likes an argument while the line behind you is building.
Interesting.
I looked it up, and found a couple of links on the internet (of course) which had a few juicy war stories.
(Just as an experiment, I searched YouTube for "incompetent people with guns on ranges", and got more hits than were appropriate; mostly in the category of "Idiot Lets Girlfriend Shoot .50 Caliber Pistol And Laughs When It Hurts Her". Not worthy trying to refine my search.)
Stupid, but interesting. (No, not the blogger [IRONS] but the people we sometimes meet ... especially at Major Matches.)
Or on Training Sessions.
My FIRST DAY at training "Introduction to USPSA folks, I had 13 people attend.
I had nobody helping me out, to (for example) act as a DEMONSTRATOR so new shooters could see how they should act. It was a hectic experience, because there no criteria about "experience in competitive shooting" or "familiarity with your firearm". Anyone who wanted to take the class was accepted. Many of the people who attended were either unfamiliar with basich firearms safety rules, or with the firearm they were using.
One guy failed to put his pistol on SAFE before holstering. I told him he had to do that, and he replied: "Oh, this gun doesn't have a safety".
It was a 1911. He had never bothered to explore what function that little flipper on the left side of his pistol served. He never came back; good choice.
It has been a long time since I was able to feel competent in USPSA competition.
Oh, I've got the guns and all the accoutrements.
I just can't see the targets. Or I can't see the sights. Usually, I can't see either.
It makes for a TERRIFIC alibi for poor performance, but it don't buy no pastrami at the Deli.
(Sorry, I made that up.)
I'm Thinking ... maybe I should find a competent gunsmith and get him to load my 10mm EDGE with a red-dot sight.
Maybe slide mounted, and one of the designs which allow you to use the original iron sights in case of an emergency.
Well, I'm thinking that an "Emergency" is having to rely on my (insignificant) ability to see the iron signs.
Yeah, that's an emergency, and I've been living with it for the past several years.
What brought me to this "crisis" was Fathers' Day. My son (The Squid Kid) and I were talking via the cell phone and text thingie today, and he asked me if I was still shooting. He lost his step-father last year, the man who had a significant role in the upbringing of The Squid Kid, and his complaint was that his stepfather never did anything; he just sat on the couch all day and watched television.
His comment was: "At least you get out and DO something physical now and then."
Well, that was then. "Now" is that I haven't competed in a match for the last two years (or more .. who counts?), and I'm thinking that I've not only missed out on a lot of fun and comeraderie, but I'm not getting as much exercise as I use to.
My original plan was to use the new "Pistol-Caliber Carbine" division to hearald my re-entry to competition. But I've used that excuse for almost a year, and my friends (both of them) are becoming a little dubious about my sincerity.
I'm not so sure about that myself. Seems like the procedures at the local USPSA club have changed, and I'm not sure even about how to register for a match.
Solution: I should rerume shooting>
Good for me (exercise more frequently), good for us (get to reestablish connections with long-time friends) and good for you (you look better in a match when I show myself to be so inept in comparison!)
I'm selfish. I don't care as much about your benefits as I care about m own ... and that's not much either.
Notes: (1) Need to find a gunsmith who will mount a red-dot scope on the slide of my 10mm STI EDGE;
(2) Need to finance the project; I doubt I can afford to buy a CHEAP red-dot scope; I need both good visual results, but also reliability. Also, since I'm loving on my Social Security, my budget is very slender. I'm paying electricity and stuff, and that consumes a lot of my available cash.
(3) If I'm going this route, I need to start loading more ammunition for my 10m, and I'm not sure that the load I'm using is much of a value to my competitive status.
(4) If I'm planning to mount a scope on the EDGE, why not go full-bore and get a compensated barrel for the Edge.
All of a sudden, I'm talking about a LOT of money spent on a perfectly operating pistol just to advance the optics,. adding a compensated barrel adds several hundred dollars to the project.
And I'm also talking about buying expended-length magazines, to match my new OPEN GUN stature; I can cram 14 rounds into a 10 mg magazine now .. is there an advantage to be realized if I get "long" (170mm) magazines in 10 mm which fit the gun.
Perhaps there's a lot more of "Thinking This Thing Through in line for me.
In the meantime, I would welcome comments which provide valued advice on the project, as defined.
Ron Weyden, the Democratic Senator from the (formerly) Great State of Oregon, chooses to grill Jeff Sessions on ... whatever.
This isn't about Sessions; it's about Weyden.
Decades ago I lived in Portland, Oregon, where Weyden held a relatively minor civil position in city government.
He was ambitious, and one day he knocked on my door to ask me if I would please vote for him in a somewhat more important political position.
I told him that I considered him to be nothing more than a political hack, that I had no respect for him, I would not vote for him as dogcatcher as that would be a disservice to homeless dogs, and that I wished he would leave before the neighbors spotted me talking to him.*
*(Okay, words to that effect; probably not a direct quote but close!)
A moment of silence.
Then Ron said: "Does this mean that I don't have your vote?"
I quietly closed the door.
And Ron got elected, all the way up to U.S. Senate, representing the state of Oregon. And he did it without my help. I KNEW I should have campaigned against him, but who knew so many Welfare Moms in Portland would sell their vote to him?
That was when I changed my registration from Democrat to Republican.
So as you watch this video *, please understand that the people in Oregon who do NOT live in Portland and are NOT on the Public Dole do NOT consider Ron Wyden to be the very best possible representative of our people.
And as I watch this video, I am once again embarrassed that this arrogant lame-brained IDIOT is my political representative in the Senate of the United Stages of America.
*(Note the moment, at about 4:20 minutes, when Sessions realized that he was talking to an idiot.)
The Milwaukee (Wisc.) Journal Sentinel's position has been well known for years; they're against current "gun control" laws, and think there should be more of them.
Their "Editorial Page Editor", David D. Haynes, has some scathing comments in his screed regarding the blame due to the National Rifle Association
There is zero chance that the shooting of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise earlier this week will change anything about the gun debate in Washington, D.C. That’s because there is no gun debate in Washington, D.C. The NRA has won. Not the debate — the gun lobby remains very wrong on the facts. But the group had won the politics — big time.
So apparently Dave's outrage is based on on laws which were enacted due to the urging of the NRA, which has as one of its primary goals to protect our Constitutional rights to "Keep and Bear Arms".
I'm not sure if he is equally adamant in his condemnation of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which shares some of these goals. Haynes didn't say.
But Haynes is certain that the NRA has goals which he cannot support. And he purports to speak as an "insider" in the firearms owners' community:
I have been a gun owner all my life. I’ve shot long guns of every kind and a variety of handguns. I have no problem with people owning them for legitimate purposes. I own a half dozen of my own firearms, several of which have been handed down for generations within our family.
But as a gun owner and outdoorsman, I also have no concerns with expanded background checks or limits on the kinds of firearms an individual can own. Civilians don’t need military-style assault rifles, which are nothing but tools for killing people. Civilians don’t need easier access to silencers or armor-piercing bullets, either, which a bill that was to be debated Wednesday in a House committee would allow. After the shooting, the debate was canceled — for now.
