Remington Sale - Part 2

The word about the sale of Remington to Cerebus Capital Management is beginning to trickle down ... slowly.

There's a thread on "The High Road" which offers some more information.

That information is, admittedly, third-hand.

Although I am reluctant to do so, in my hunger for more information I am thrown back on today's expanded article from The Shooting Wire [subscription here] to expand the free access of data.

Note that I'm not reluctant to cite The Shooting Wire; I'm just reluctant to take advantage of their Industry Insider status. Unfortunately they do not provide either links to source data or a link to a place where I can request permission to quote from them. I rely on current copyright law which (generally) allows quotes for the purpose of comment on the posts. I take this opportunity to point out that all comments from The Shooting Wire are available only because they have generously declined to protest my quotes.

Or this blog hasn't breached their attention horizon, which is probably more likely.

Finally, I'm concerned that this information is also possibly 'third-hand' and at least 'second-hand' (derived from an unquoted source).

To continue quoting from The Shooting Wire:

With yesterday's announcement that Cerebus Capital Management, L.P. had finalized the deal to acquire Remington Arms, a company best known for owning airlines (Air Canada), car rental companies (Alamo and National), a bus manufacturer (Bluebird), and banks and lending institutions in Germany, Israel and Japan became an instant player in the firearms industry.

With their acquisition of Bushmaster, Cerebus already was firmly ensconced in the "black rifle" industry. By acquiring Remington, they have a significant presence in every area of the firearms industry - except handguns.

Some industry figures are already whispering likely candidates to fill what one wag calls "the final space in the Cerebus gun safe".

The deal itself doesn't really take Remington in a new ownership direction. Remington was already owned by two New York private equity firms, Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Company, and Clayton Dubilier & Rice. Clayton Dubilier bought Remington's assets from DuPont in 1993 for $300 million. The Wilmington, Delaware-based chemical company purchased a 60 percent stake in the gunmaker in 1933 and acquired the remaining shares in 1980.

The question that immediately comes to mind is whether the Cerebus group will consider a bid on Colt's civilian division. This would give them the 'Full Monty" in the sense that they will lock in both long-gun and handgun manufacture.

Also, I'm grateful to The Shooting Wire for having performed the acquisition history of Remington Repeating Firearms company.

Considering the imperative to get this information out to the folks who are interested (you!), I haven't yet fully researched the citations included in the quote.

However, a search of Claytton Dubilier & Rice provides only a list (wait for it, if you click on the link ... it takes a minute to load) of recent acquisitions.

A search on Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Company ("BBS:) yields even less immediate information. Sorry. Research at the 'holding company' level is typically unrewarding without more time and effort than is realistic within the imperatives mentioned above. I offer those links as a starting point for anyone who is inclined to advance the research phase of reporting.


However, a 2nd level search of the above link provides the following information:

Remington Arms Company, Inc. Initial Investment: February 2003 Remington, headquartered in Madison, N.C., designs, produces and sells sporting goods products for the hunting and shooting sports markets, as well as military, government and law enforcement markets. Founded in 1816 in upstate New York, the Company is one of the nation’s oldest continuously operating manufacturers. The Company had revenues in 2005 of approximately $410 million and distributes its products throughout the U.S. and in over 55 foreign countries. www.remington.com

Given that Cerebus acquired Remington for $370 million, and BRS paid $300 million for it four years, under the impression that it had 'revenues of approximately $410' , there is probably a very good reason why BRS was willing to take a ten percent hit on the transaction.

Maybe it wasn't really making $410 a year in revenues? Or maybe ...

We can only hope there is a better reason why Cerebus is willing to pay a third of a billiion dollars (the difference between the $410 milion 'revenues' and the 2007 sell price of $370) to acquire a company which BRS apparently found ... disenchanting.

Or maybe they considered the $70 million difference between the 2003 purchase price of $300 million and the 2007 sell price of $370 to be profit, assuming they had made no investments in the meantime.

I think I'm getting a Sick Headache.
You have the figures, you do the math.

(I'm wrapping my head in duct tape, lest it explode and make a mess on my computer screen.)

We can only hope it's not a raid, which would result in the demise of the Remington brand-name.

The Simple Life

Slow, sweet Power Point presentation with good music and pretty pictures.

2.25mb download.

You'll go through it faster the second pass.

You'll go through it slower, the third time.

H/T - SWMBO

Remington Has Been Sold!

According to a "Special Bulletin from The Outdoor and Shooting Wires [subscribe here],

Remington Arms Company, Inc. one of the nation's oldest continually-operating firearms companies, is being acquired by an affiliate of Cereberus Capital Management, L.P. The $370 million dollar acquisition includes the assumption of all of Remington Arms Company, Inc.'s liabilities and product lines.

Shooting and Outdoor Wire goes on to explain:

The acquisition gives Cereberus two gun companies, Remington Arms and Bushmaster. Sources familiar with both companies say Remington will quickly add an AR-style rifle platform to complement their M24SWS Sniper Weapon System while Bushmaster will likely add signature branded ammunition and products.

There's nothing new about this. On January 19, 2006, I wrote about the demise of Winchester. Winchester still makes ammunition, but judging by their website there's no effort to produce Winchester firearms. That much is real, and proven. Yep, they're just an ammo-manufacturer, now.

So, what American Firearms Company is still making guns?


Let me see, we talked about Colt the other day. Rumor was they had been sold. As far as we can tell, this is nothing more than rumor. Oh, it's not that they're not up for sale (at least, they're actively looking for a buyer.) It's just that nobody wants to buy their Civilian Firearms Division. Why? Word is, they're asking for too much money. Rumors have been advanced that they were approached by both STI and Taurus. So far.

Colt is apparently still making firearms. So far. But they sure are desparate to get out of the civilian-fireams market. Not desperate enough, though, to price half the company sufficiently to attract legitimate buyers. So far.


How about Smith & Wesson?

According to Wikipedia, the folks (Tompkins, PLC) who owned S&W during the egregious Clinton Gun Ban fiasco in 2000 sold out to Saf-T-Hammer in 2001 for little more than the cost of the machinery and an agreement to pay their outstanding bills.


As far as I know, Dan Wesson is still in business ... except after Dan died (1996), his family sold the company to Bob Serva and is now doing business as CZ-USA.


Let's see, we still have Ruger.

According to available sources (notably Wikipedia ... a dubious source but good for a first-reference) "Sturm Ruger" is "... the largest American firarms manufacturere".

This in spite of "The Ruger Letter".
I'll let Wikipedia explain that:

After a spate of high profile shootings and incidences with the Ruger Mini 14 rifle, along with a number of unsavory associations the Mini 14 had gained with militias and extremist movements during the late 1970s and early 1980s, William B. Ruger expressed a highly unpopular position (amongst firearms owners, users and enthusiasts) by stating his personal views on the "sporting" nature of certain firearms.

In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, Mr. Ruger stated in that which has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives."

In addition to the furor amongst hunters, sportsmen and shooters caused by "The Ruger Letter", Mr. Ruger made additional comments during an interview with NBCs Tom Brokaw that angered 2nd Amendment proponents even further, by saying that "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun…" and "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 and 30 round magazines…"

This is actually a very interesting insight on Firearms Manufacturers' Marketting Strategy, when you read the entire entry. I encourage you to go to the link and do so.

As far as I know, Ruger is still an entirely American company.



Glock, of course, is still doing a lot of business out of Gaston (* see comments, or note below). But they're also foreign-owned. The started out 'foreign owned', and altough they set up a manufacturing plant in America, they are still Austrian Owned.

I note that the Wikipedia article references Dean Speir's "KB!" article, which references my own "KaBoom!" article (referring to "... the tendencies of nervous, high-strung or over-stressed pistols to blow up during shooting."
Glock doesn't care. That company is a lot healthier than most Firearms Manufactureres in America.

Which brings us down to the 'smaller' manufacturers, who might as well be said to cater to 'niche markets' (albeit very profitably), such as STI and SV

I'm not going to dwell on the history of STI and SV here, although they should be the subject of future articles. For now, let's just accept that both of these thriving American Firearms Manufacturers started out making pistols designed for IPSC competition, and at least STI has branched out to serving Military and LEO applications.

Scroll through this article and you will see a lot of familiar logos. Reflect, if you will, on how well they typify American industry, culture and history. Then consider that they have almost all been either sold to foreign companies, or are for sale.

Scarey, ain't it?

* UPDATE: The Next Day
I have been reminded by reader comments that Glock's American manufacturing facility is located in Smyrna, Georgia. "Gaston" is the first name of the man who invented the Glock pistol. The mistake is retained to provide continuity between the text and the comments, and to demonstrate that writers get dorky after they work more than a couple of hours on a single article.
Jerry The Geek

1911 Flash!

Oh Wow!

STI has apparently commissioned somebody (somebody who knows what they are doing) to create a Flash Animation of a 1911 firing.

This is too kewl.

Even more, there's a similar Flash Animation of a Glock Firing.
Guess what? It doesn't go "KaBOOM!"

The 1911 thingie courtesy of 1911.com (naturally)
The Glock thingie courtesy of Sniper World.

H/T Xavier Thoughts, in "How Does It Work?"

There's no such thing as "Bad Publicity"

Two weeks ago I wrote about an article that appeared in the website of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence (here-after "The Brady Bunch" and, despite their renaming of the organization, remains all about 'http://www.handguncontrol.org/' --- The Organization Formerly Known As Handgun Control, Inc.).

The reason I visited the Brady Bunch website is because I think it's a good idea to keep track of those organizations who have the intention and goal to deprive me, personally, of my civil rights.

The reason I wrote about this article was because of the literally hundreds of negative, but generally avoiding ad homonym attacks, comments submitted by gun owners.

My article attracted some minor attention (according to my readership statistics) and a few comments. Surprisingly, one of the comments was from "Zach", who is in fact Zach Ragbourn, Assistant Director (Communications) of The Brady Bunch. (See Below)

Well, I don't know how they got my blog address. I certainly didn't contribute to the comments on their website but I did cite their URL.

Do you suppose they keep track of websites who link to their website?

Sure they do. We all want to know who's reading our 'stuff', but more important we want to know who is proliferating it.

Website Proliferation?

Remember the Bell Television Hour in the 50's? They had a special which demonstrated a Nuclear "Chain Reaction". They set a thousand mousetraps on a table and balanced a ping-pong ball on the bail of each mousetrap. Then they threw one more ping-pong ball into the middle of the array, and we all watched in awe as the bouncing balls set of mouse trap after mouse trap until they were (almost) all set off.

Chain Reaction. That's what happens when websites link to each other. The result is that readership increases in the "Level Zero" website. ("Level Zero" is a 'bio safety' technical term used to designate "the original source of contamination" -- no connection intended between The Brady Bunch and the term "contamination".)

By mentioning The Brady Bunch in a blog article, I have perhaps increased their readership. Okay, not by much. Just a little bit. Well, if not for gun owners, who else would read them? And considering the miniscule percentage of the American population who are NOT gun-owners but care enough to read them, who else would care enough to comment?

I'm completely opposed to their goals and deplore their persuasive techniques, but I'm not concerned about encouraging more people to read their website.

So when I received an email from Zach last Friday, it didn't take me too long to get past the knee-jerk reaction of "Hey, so now I'm a flak for The Brady Bunch? I think not!"

However, I had better things to do, which is why it has taken me four days to get around to sharing Zach's invitation with you.

I know you and your readers are interested in gun rights, so I thought I'd alert you to Sarah Brady's guest entry on today's Brady Blog. Today is the anniversary of the Reagan/Brady shooting, and also the anniversary of our Campaign Against Illegal Guns.

Some of your readers are probably aware of Sarah's post already, since I think The High Road and maybe one or two other sites have probably pointed it out. It's a good chance to have Sarah answer your questions directly, so I thought you might be interested in taking a look:
[article link here]

As was the case of the previous article, there are literally HUNDREDS of comments ... mostly from pro-gun readers. Again, I probably won't read all of them before I publish this. I certainly won't add my own comments, because almost anything I could think of to say has been said. In fact, it looked like a cow-tipping in a piranha tank.

If you want to go there and read that, then I think you should.

Gun Control is a touchy subject, and the commenters there seem to be not only opinionated but well read, thoughtful, and generally respectful. It's worth mentioning that Sarah "La Sarah" Brady is the author, and the occasion is the 30th anniversary of the shooting of Jim Brady by Hinkley in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

It's also worth mentioning that the shooting was a tragedy, and should never have happened. It's a failure of society in every sense, and the consequences to then-White House Press Secretary Jim Brady is the sort of thing which no-one would have wished for nor have wished upon our worse enemy ... of which Jim and Sarah Brady are decidedly not.

I do not agree with the politics, goals, aspirations, or tactics of the Bradys or their organization. I believe that they are working toward a goal with firm conviction, and while I think they are wrong and misguided I acknowledge that their beliefs are not a negative reflection on their character.

The tactics of The Brady Bunch -- -- I deplore. I believe the word "duplicitous" is not too strong because ... well, go read the comments and make up your own mind.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the thinking of people who make it their life's work to undermine the civil rights of law-abiding fellow citizens.

Dundee IPSC Videos - March, 2007

Just a little club match, means nothing at all.

But there are a lot of good stages, and some interesting videos.

You can see all of the match videos here.

And this particular video, a 20mb file featuring the Texas Star, can be downloaded here.


Or, you can just click on the YouTube version. Low-resolution, but it loads fast. I figure YouTube generates 1-2mb files, within the filesize I usually submit.

B29 and X1

Immelmans, Loops, Negative-G Loops, Barrel Rolls, Honors Passes, Take-offs and landings ...

Oh My!

B29 launches an X1 Rocket Plan and goes on to perform incredible in-air stunts.

All in 1/10 Scale.

As they say: "You know he didn't build this on his kitchen table".

H/T The Hobo Brasser

Just For Fun.

http://users.skynet.be/fa926657/files/B29.wmv  

Guest Blog: Current Oregon Gun-Control Bills

By now those of us who are paying attention have realized that the anti-gun factions are in full attack mode. Their perception is with the Democrats in charge they are not likely to find a better time to renew their attempts to outlaw guns. For the uninitiated, the way they see to accomplish this is to chip away. Take away one small right after another until they are all gone. A couple of examples: one national and one local to Oregon. On the national level; there is an attempt to resurrect the Clinton/Brady gun ban. H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007.. On the state level here in Oregon there are several bad laws being considered in our legislature. The worst is SB 1012. This bill mandates a full time range officer along with some other draconian measures which would put small gun clubs out of business.

You get the idea. It is time for everyone to get behind the NRA. Now I know some of you don’t like the NRA for various reasons. But let me ask you this. Are you a Democrat? A Republican? Are you happy with everything your party does all the time? If not, did you quit the party? Did you stop voting? Or do you grit your teeth and vote for the least offensive candidate? Well view the NRA the same way and join. They are our best resource for preserving our 2^nd amendment rights.

Yes there are other organizations, but I know from personal experience in politics they are not anywhere as effective. Nor are they feared in both Washington and your state capitol as much as the NRA. One state senator in Oregon is persistently anti-gun, however, she will not go straight up against the NRA anymore. She knows she is a target, so she tries to keep a low profile on the anti-gun issue.

Look hard at the other alternative organizations who claim to be alternatives to the NRA. There are three basic types of organization. One is the one-man operation. This type solicits contributions and attempts lobbying, but much of the money goes to pay the one man’s salary. Another type is the special purpose organization which purports to protect one kind of right, like say hunting. The last type is the stealth organization who actually is anti-gun putting out a subtle message contrary to the truth about guns and gun owners. None of these is as effective as the NRA.

Many of you will learn about the latest attempts to curtail our second amendment rights thru venues like this. Others like myself learned about them thru email alerts from the NRA. When an email arrives it contains all the pertinent info you will need to learn about the legislation and the names and addresses, including emails, of who to contact. The latest one for Oregon even included a suggested email message.

So get involved, join the fight, and join the NRA. Remember they may be after our “assault“ rifles today, but they will be after your trap gun or your .22 plinker tomorrow.

Mark O'Shea

"Gun Control is What IPSC is All About!"

20th Annual Media Research Center's DIS-honors Awards

Media Research Center's 20th Anniversary Gala


I wait for this every year. And every year, I am not disappointed. Is it a coincidence that it falls on April Fools' Eve?

I think not!

There's little that I can add. Go, read the awards, enjoy them in the best Politically Conservative tradition!

Heck, I haven't even read them yet, and I just KNOW it's going to be worth the effort.

Sometimes I just can't turn off The Evil Twin

(Click on the image for the full-size)


... And it IS April Fool's Day!

Les and The Race Gun

I've been working with Les for a couple of years now, ever since I transferred from the Oregon University System to Oregon State University during a re-organization at The Office.

Les has always been both an Alpha Geek with Banner and Oracle applications, and very friendly as a co-worker. When I have technical problems at work, I often find Les is a good source of advice and support.

In turn, he has always shown a candid interest in That Thing We Do .... competitive pistol shooting.

Since SWMBO was out of town this weekend, there was no IPSC match scheduled, and also because I had to work up a new .38 Super load using 115gr. HP bullets from Montana Gold instead of my usual 115gr FMJ bullet, I found I had an almost free weekend with nothing to do but go to the range.

Gee, tough choice.

So I invited Les to go to the range with me. We could both shoot the STI Open Gun ("The Race Gun"), and give the new load a workout. More, I have a small handful of pistols which haven't been used in a while and they needed some attention, too.

Sunday afternoon (a bright, sunny day that just cries out for some Range Time) I packed up the Kimber Custom in .45acp, the STI Edge in 10mm, the Mech Tech to go with the Kimber, the compensated STI Tru-Bore with a C-More Electronic Dot Sight, and a Ruger Blackhawk "New Model" single-action revolver in .41 Magnum.

I met Les at the Albany rifle & Pistol Club range at 1:30pm. We appropriated Bay 5 for our very own and started packing guns, range-bags, ammo cans and targets from the Damned Old Ford to the counter on the bay.

After we went through a brief talk about Range Safety, I decanted the guns.


NOTE: If you just want to see the video, skip down to the bottom of the article!


First choice was The Beloved Kimber. You gotta start with the rough, and work your way up to the sleek, so I set up a practice mini-popper and a single IPSC target downrange and did a short demonstration on gunhandling with live ammo.

Then it was Les's turn. He had no problem hitting the ten-meter IPSC target, but the mini-popper was safe from him. "No problem", I said. "I can't hit it either." Then I demonstrated that I couldn't hit it for the first four shots, and somehow managed to nail it the last six shots of the 10-round magazine.

we spent a few minutes talking about Sight Alignment, using 140mm and 170mm single-stack .45 magazines as make-shift representations of rear sight/front sight alignment and aiming point. Les took the Kimber back to the IPSC target, and did a fair job of search-and-destroy on the A-zone.

Then I dragged out the STI Edge in 10mm, compared and contrasted the two cartridges, and let him shoot some short-loaded magazines, finally working up to the full 20-round 140mm magazine of 200gr LTC (Lead Truncated Cone) bullets. I asked him if he could feel any difference, and he admitted that he could not. Even though I was shooting 230gr LRN (Lead Round Nose) bullets in the Kimber, I have to admit that the perceived recoil and muzzle flip is very similar to the same, even accounting for the Extended Dust Cover of the STI Edge.

My personal opinion?

They're very similar to shoot, but HEY! The STI Edge gives you 20 rounds in a magazine while the Single-Stack Kimber only gives you 8 to 10 rounds, depending on your magazine choice. The Edge has the edge in competition. (No apologies for gratuitous puns here!)

We played with the double-tap concept for a while, as I explained the concept of fitting your double-tap to the tuning of the gun. As Les was getting 0.60+ second split times it wasn't a major problem ... and that's as it should be. I did demonstrate a 0.25 sec. and a 0.33 sec. split time just to show that the bullet placement depends on the tuning of the gun and the load, but he was (correctly) working for the sighted shot every time instead of pushing for a true double-tap.

Yes, the slide on the Edge was slow enough that the 0.25 sec. resulted in a 'high' 2nd shot, and the 0.33 sec. split time resulted in a 'low' 2nd shot. If I could see the sights well enough that I was still using this pistol in competition, I would have to practice more to get the shots in line with myprefered 0.18 sec. split time. And yes, I know your split times are MUCH faster.

In between shooting the Kimber and the STI Edge, I dragged out my Mech Tech and quickly assembled it with the Kimber. Les shot the nasty mini-popper with it and got 7 out of 8 hits very quickly. The more he shot, the faster he went and he didn't lose any stage time after he got the feel of it. That's a powerful argument for the advantage of the Electronic Dot Sight.

(The Mech Tech mounted a PDP-1 tube-sight, and it works just fine for both Les and for me.)

Moving on, we finally got to the meat of the nut when I dragged out the STI Tru-Bore (Prototype) and shot some of the new ammunition at the mini-popper. I wasn't as much concerned with hitting the popper as I was checking the new load.

To digress, I ran out of 115gr MG FMJ bullets and was forced (due to availability of the one, and not the other) to change to 115gr MG HP bullets. Some people swear on the HP as being more accurate, but I'm not accurate enough to appreciate the difference.

However, I AM cheap enough to appreciate the higher price tag on the HP bullets. My understanding is that my supplier, "Big Dawg", had 13 cases of the HP and couldn't affor d to restock the FMJ until he got rid of it. I bought a case (partly because I want to help Big Dawn, mostlyl because I was down to my last 100 FMJ and was desperate!) and in return Dawg gave me a break on the price.

But that means I had to work up a new load.

Comparison of the old FMJ with the new HP bullet showed only a couple thousandths of an inch difference. I cranked down the seating die on the Dillon 650 loading press until that difference was obviated in the Over All Length, and pumped out a couple hundred rounds Saturday Night.

Somehow, between the change in the bullet and having to replace my last bent decapping pin, my sizing die doesn't quite manage to resize the case as well as previously. Ninty percent of the loaded rounds failed to pass the Chamber Gauge. No problem for my, my .38 super chamber is as welcoming and accomodating as a crib-hookers .... uh, I mean, it's very accomodating to oversize ammunition. But I will have to work on the sizing die adjustment, because SWMBO's STI Tru-Bore is as tight as a ... uh ... as tight as factory specs. Uh, so, uh, that means I have more work to do on the load.

Moving right along, I know that I need to work on the sizing, but I was concerned about pressure levels AND overall length. Turns out, the cartridges loaded with the new bullet exhibited some cratering, but going back to the baseline FMJ with the ammunition I loaded last month, there was also some cratering there. I suspect that it was due to the warmer weather (I have no idea how I'm going to justify this to someone who really knows about this stuff!) but it wasn't excessive so I'm going to ignore it for now.

Whew! Did I get away with that?

So, the new load is acceptable although arguably a little 'hot'. At least I didn't have primer smearing problems. If I resolve the case circumference problem (so SWMBO can shoot it in her STI) I should be okay.

More important for the moment (and a much-appreciated end to the digression), the new load feeds reliably from the magazine to the chamber, and it seems safe to shoot.

So I had Les load up a short-stack of .38 super/HP and go downrange with the mini-popper.

Les had experiences problems getting hits with the small (4") plate at medium ranges. So did I. But we were shooting iron sights, and we're both half-blind in one eye and can't see for shit out of the other. I scruplously neglected to keep track of my hit/miss count, but my best guess is thea Les (who hasn't shot a pistol for 20 years)and I (who have been shooting 3 or 4 times a week for the past 24 years) performed equally well when using Iron Sights.

Talk about The Blind Leading The Blind!



After Less shot the 25-round magazine at the mini-popper, he shot six rounds from the Ruger Blackhawk "New Model" single-action revolver. Didnt' hit anything but Dirt. Well, I wouldn't have done any better. But at least Les learned why we say "Lean into it a little .. lean forward from the waist".

There are few guns better than the .45 magnum Single Action Revolver to teach you why it's important to do that.

(NB: The full-size (15mb) version of the video is available here.)

Did Taurus buy Colt?

Last September, alerted by an email from The Shooting Wire, I wrote an article about Colt's attempt to attract a buyer for their Civilian Firearms Division.

At the time I was a sometime-guest-blogger at a somewhat larger and more popular gun blogger website, so instead of posting it on my own blog I posted it there. I thought it was a sufficiently important occasion that it deserved the much wider distribution.

To my surprise, the owner of the blog wrote me to explain that it wasn't really possible to post THAT article there. The owner had ties to the firearms industry, and was concerned that it would lead to frayed relationships. I replied that I understood, and suggested he had three options:

1. Let it run and see what happens
2. edit and republish it in an acceptable form
3. delete it, and I would publish it on my own blog.

His reply was:
"No problemo...I just need to go through it and de-libel it. Ironically, every word you say is true..."

So I left it up to him. To my not-very-great surprise (it was a rather long post), the article disappeared from that blog, so I re-published on my own blog as:

Cogito Ergo Geek: Black Beauty Is Dead

There it sat for six months, having received very little attention at the time.

This week I read the rumor that Colt had been bought by Taurus. As of this writing, I haven't made any effort to track it down ... even the March 30, 2007 edition of The Shooting Wire (which I consider an Industry Authority) failed to comment. So if you're looking here for difinitive confirmation or refutation of the rumor, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. Because the news hit the blogosphere late on Friday, even the NSSF website has no news yet, nor does the NRA website (although they have a March 31, 2007 editorial about Animal Rights by Wayne LaPierre). There's not even any information avaialble from the Colt Manufacturing Company, LLL website, and I suspect that this is the division (not the entire company) which would have been sold.

So the story is, as yet, only an Internet rummor.

Still ....
On the blog where I first read about the rumor, I left a short comment with a tinyurl link to my original article.

Someone on the AR15 forum picked that up, and posted the link (you can see the AR15 discussion in either of its manifestations, either here or the satellite version here.)

In the 24 hours, I have received over 1000 links to that article from readers of that forum.

(Welcome, AR15 Forum Members!)

The comments on that forum are, perhaps, representative of the reaction of most firearms owners to the rumor. There's incredulosity that an intrinsically American firarms manufacturing company can be best represented by a foreign owner ... as if that was a new situation.

Other than that, nobody seems to question the idea. You can hear the faint sound of "D'oh!" in the wind, implying that it's not surprising that the company is in trouble, it has been offered for sale, and that no American company is willing to buy Colt for the price offered.

Most of us, I think, have many more questions and observations than answers about the sale of Colt (or at least its civilian division).

Why is it for sale? Why can't a company which is arguably the premiere firarms manufacture in the United States make a profit on the sale of civilian firearms?

Is it because the increasing pressure on the firearms industry from gun-grabbers of all stripes (including our congressional representatives) has resulted in the 'demonization' of firearms?

Is it because the failure to introduce our children to hunting, competition and other free-time enjoyment of firearms usage has resulted in a much lowered market for firearms in this generation?

One thing I think we'll all agree on, when we think about it.
We've all seen the trend toward conglomerization of industry in this country. One company will buy another company and form a conglomerate, or larger corporate entity. This continues as corporate buy-outs swallow up the smaller companies, even eating the companies which focus on 'niche' markets.

But this has not happened in the firearms industry. Nobody wants to buy the problems that increasing governmental regulations, civil suits and criminal legislation, and bad Public Relations brings with the acquisition of a firearms manufacturing company.

This may be a symptom of a basic sickness in the American culture.

There is no such thing as a 'healthy' firearms industry today. The general opinion seems to be that the only reason for having a gun is to kill people. With the growth of the egregious PETA, it is no unacceptable to kill animals for meat or for sport.

As a Liberal Legislature and a Liberal Judicial system lead us closer and closer to the Socialist "European Model", the United Nations gains power in their drive toward Globalism ... a recent aspect of which is the attempt to enforce non-American values on individual liberties on all the citizens of the world. This is especially evidenced in the attempted infringement on civilian ownership of firearms.

Yet we sit quietly, expecting that these attacks on our civil rights will somehow fade away because they are obviously such an abomination that they can't possibly prevail in an American Free Society.

Think again.

Your elected representatives are happy to pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment, but they're just biding their time until you relax your vigilance. Then they take another bite ... or only a nibble ... out of your constitution. They don't even have to write a constitutional amendment. All they have to do is re-interpret it, and to attack the market economy that supports the people who make the firearms, and the ammunition, and the rest of the support industry.

They don't worry about someone buying Colt and continuing an American enterprise.

Sell Colt?

I'm doubtful.

Hell, they can't even give it away.

"French" Military Missile

I can't vouch for the authenticity of either the attached (4mb) video, or the accompanying text. I found it ... interesting. You may, too.

H/T to D.C., who use to shoot with us before he moved out of state (hope he comes back some day) via Paul the Soccer Coach:

READ THE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU VIEW THE VIDEO!!
A freind [sic] of mine sent this to me... Very interesting

This is a clip of a French-Canadian infantry soldier firing an Eryx anti-tank missile.
The Eryx came in to their inventory about ten years ago. The Eryx is made in France.

A lot of people poke fun at the French military but this may give you a better appreciation of their capabilities.This is PROOF POSITIVE!!!

Either cut&paste the two halves of this URL into your browser window ...

http://jerrythegeek.arpc-ipsc.org/videos/
Missile_Eryx_qui_tombe_de_tres_pres.wmv

... or click here to go directly to the movie download.



(1:05 minutes, starts slow; apologies to the originator of this video -- I have no way to provide attribution.)

Toyota Prius is less ... everything! ... than a Hummer

The Recorder

Last weekend I was telling SWMBO that the Prius Hybrid car is less econonimcal, and less environmentally friendly, than the Hummer. I based this on a short article I heard on the Lars Larson show.

It has taken me four days to find the reference artice, but I finally did it. Here is it.

Money Quote(s):

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

Follow-up: The Brits Lose Another Subject

Last August I wrote an article titled "The Brits Lose Another Subject", detailing the circumstances under which a young Londoner was assaulted (slashed repeadedly in the head and neck with a knife) only to have the Bobbies do absolutely nothing to apprehend the assailant ... even though they knew who it was and where he lived.


Six months later, the same 22-year old Peter Woodhams was again accosted on the street in front of his home and shot dead. This in a country where guns, especially handguns (which was the weapon of choice here), are forbidden to law-abiding Brits.

The punks still have guns. Only the law-abiding are forbidden the means to defend themselves.

After Woodhams' death, the police finally got off their dead butts and stopped by the punks house. Eventually they arrested him and put him on trial for murder.


This week, the punk was convicted of murder despite his strong defense that "he only meant to scare his victim."

How had he intended to scare his victim?

At the Old Bailey, Tucker [the murderer] said he believed the gun he fired would only "go bang".

He said he was on his mobile phone when he saw an angry Mr Woodhams coming towards him swearing.

"I put my phone in my pocket and pulled out the gun and started shooting," he told the court.

He said he fired the weapon "to scare him, make him go in the other direction", but then noticed the blood on his chest.

Very observant of him, 'noticing' the unexpected blood on the chest of his (unarmed) victim. One wonders what he had THOUGHT the logical outcome would have been. I can picture him now, looking down at the gun in his hand and scratching his head with the other hand, muttering to himself "Sonovabitch, how the heck did THAT happen?"

Here's the punch line, and this one will just kill you:

Nine police officers are now facing a misconduct inquiry after claims they did not carry out a detailed enough investigation into the incident.

Talk about bloody british understatement.

----------------------------------------------
UPDATE: March 29, 2007

The Bobbies must be truly desperate for 'good press'. This from the London Daily Mail:

A peeping Tom has been banned from going out at night without a fluorescent jacket on.

Stephen Cooper, 24, has been ordered to wear the high-visibility clothing so he can be spotted by potential victims.

The pervert, who has pleaded guilty to voyeurism, received the order after being caught creeping into a woman's garden and staring through a crack in her curtains.

Great. They can't do anything about assault, very little about murder; but they're great on controlling Peeping Toms.

The Brits must be really unimpressed with the priorities of their police, right?

Welllllll .... maybe. Maybe not. Here's a comment attached to the article:

It's not often I'm left speechless but truly after reading this article it did happen.

I'm so pleased he will be highly visible - that should put everyone's mind at rest. Thank goodness for British justice.

"British Justice." Right.

It's unclear whether this comment should be taken at face value, or the British gift for sarcasm still lives.

We hope it's the latter. Otherwise, there is no hope at all.

BUT WAIT! There's Still Hope!

According to The Telegraph (UK),
Children Face Criminal Checks From The Cradel!

Checks will be made on all children to identify potential criminals under an extension of the "surveillance state" announced by Tony Blair.

A Downing Street review of law and order also foreshadowed greater use of sophisticated CCTV, an expanded DNA database and "instant justice" powers for police.

The review is intended to chart a course for the next 10 years by focusing more "on the offender, not the offence".

Most crime is committed by a small number of offenders who could be identified almost from birth, ministers believe.

---

The Government believes children can be prevented from becoming offenders if early intervention is targeted at those who displayed certain traits. These include having a short attention span or living in a deprived environment.

Here's a list of "features" of the proposed action:

• Universal checks on children to see who is at risk of becoming an offender.

• More support for problem families.

• Expand DNA database to include people who "come into contact" with police.

• More summary powers for the police to hand out instant justice.

• Better use of more sophisticated CCTV.

• Prolific offender orders for repeat offenders.

• Seizing non-cash assets from suspected criminals.

• Special units and courts for mentally ill offenders.

• Tougher community sentences.

• More drug rehab in jails.

• Review of police service to reduce red tape and put more bobbies on the beat.

Great. The bobbies they already have 'on the beat' are demonstrably incompetent, lacking in initiative and notoriously lazy. What's the solution? Certainly not to thin the ranks of dickwads. Instead, they're going to hire more dickwads.

And they're going to target your children as "bad boys" before they graduate from nappies. Whatever happened to the concept of "Crime AND Punishment"? Now they're going to punish 'potential' criminals, but now word on getting proven criminals off the streets.

Sorry, Great Britain.

Soon there will be only incarcerated maybe-wanna-be's, and Yobs.

We in the civilized world are gonna miss you.

Texas Star - The Most Evil Star In The Heavens

I got this from the Brian Enos Forums.

I hope this array never shows up at a match where I have to shoot it. It's evil.

Sorry, it's not available on YouTube and it's only viewable using IE; Netscape doesn't display the image (and I am guessing that FireFox wouldn't display it, either.)

H/T to Steve Z.

Big Clunky ... what?

For years, literally, I have tried to talk Paul the Soccer Coach into replying to The Unofficial IPSC List instead of to my personal email when he had comments about something I had posted there.

Last night I wrote about Rule 2.2.1, an incident which happened on Paul's Watch at a Dunde match. I was obviously pushing the envelope in an attempt to make a point, and Paul was perfectly comfortable letting me dig my own grave.

Here is his comment in reference to the "$100 Arbitration Fee" (posted to The List), which not only explains his response but illustrates just WHY I wanted his comments to be publically posted:

As the MD for this match under discussion I had it all under control and figured out. Someone else mentioned the $100. I just followed another shooters direction, 'what's all the whining about' and firmly held my ground and asked the shooter to show me the rule. My plan was to keep Jerry on the fidgety edge for a bit, no arbitration fee it was just if he was wrong I was going to toss him from the match and make it so he could come back until he was wearing smaller boots! You see the size of the boots were the problem! Any way I think we messed around long enough to get into Jerry's head enough to mess up his reshoot.

We survived the situation and the day and all the other shooters had a great time and we didn't get rained on. But it's always the shooters problem especially when they wear BIG CLUNKY BOOTS!!!

Paul, you still crack me up.

I didn't realize you were considering my Big Clunky Boots. I thought the problem was my Big Clunky Mouth.



Thanks for the clarification. I shall take the issue under advisement.

Zumbo - Poster Boy for the Gun Grabbers

03-20-2007 - A Bit of Truth about Assault Weapons : Senator Carl Levin: News Release

Remember The Great Zumbo Uproar of a few weeks back, when Jim Zumbo spoke out of ignorance about "black rifles" and destroyed his career?

Remember that he took a close second look at his insular prejudices and spent two weeks sending apologies to every media outlet which would still accept his material?

Did any of us think about how the anti-gun fanatics would jump on his words and turn them against the RKBA principles which Zumbo supposedly embraced?

The legacy of Zumbo's ill-advised opinion has hit bottom and went [splat!]

Read the article. Don't spit into the wind. It didn't work for Zumbo, and now ... if there was anything left of his so-called career ... it is toast now that he is now the official poster-boy for the Gun Grabbers.

I sure hope Zumbo enjoys leaning over and grabbing his ankles, because that is the legacy which he has created for himself.

Extend Into Infinity

Tigers and Lions and Bears, oh my!

A few weeks I talked about the proposed 2008 version of USPSA rules, with special reference to Fault Lines (which) "... are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity".

I almost lost a very good friend there; the MD who approved a stage with such an assumption. Fortunately, he is a reasonable and thinking man who is unlikely to take criticism personally.

But he did manage to take his revenge upon me this past weekend, and I must say I enjoyed it immensely.

I refer here to the Dundee Practical Shooters' monthly club match, and specifically to Stage 6 ("Guard Shack 47"), which provided the perfect illustration of precisely WHY the current "... deemed to extend rearwards to infinity" clause is the subject of so much objective -- and erroneous -- interpretation.

Our squad ("Fourth Squad") came onto the stage while the previous squad ("Third Squad") was still shooting it. We watched them, and discovered that those last few competitors engaged the stage in the same way; lateral movement, not 'movement in depth'.

A short description of the stage is in order:

The competitor begins in a "guard hut" (a 4' x 4' covered platform, enclosed only in the frontal view which features a 2' square shooting port). Through the front port, you can engage a six-plate rack and an IPSC target on both sides. 3o feet on either side are paired IPSC targets, the view of which is partially obscured by a vision barrier. A Charge Line (note the nomenclature ... there will be a test!) runs laterally from the front of the Guard Shack along the 180 line to a point approximately uprange of the far IPSC target, on each side.

There was no rear charge line behind the guard shack, which would have limited rearward movement (away from the targets)!

Fault lines extend eight or ten feet back uprange from each end of this charge line, and these fault lines are 'stubbed off' with 3' charge lines. These short charge lines point toward the center of the bay, and (according to the Match Director and the Stage Designer, both of which were members of Squad 4, are "deemed to extend to infinity".

Why were these "charge lines" not extended as one contiuous, physical foot-barrier from one fault line to its opposite?

1. They were defined as "extending to infinity".
2. The club didn't have enough 2x4 boards to place, representing a continuous charge line.

While we were going through our walk-through, Norm the Ungrateful casually suggested:

Look, all you have to do is shoot the center array from the Guard Shack, then fall back a couple of steps and [plink-plink] shoot the left two targets, move a step to the right and [plink-pling] shoot the right two targets. Why would you want to do all of this running back and forth stuff? It's just a waste of time?

(Or words to that effect.)

I looked at the stage, nodded my head in a manner reminiscent of Clark Griswold when presented with the grandeur of the Grand Canyon in "National Lampoon's 'Vacation'", and decided that this is the way I would shoot this stage.

The strategy offered a number of advantages:

• It was faster ... because it required a LOT less time during movement;
• It was risky (because of the hard-cover steel IPSC-target partially covering plates on the plate rack), and therefore a more challenging approach with the potential to reward the bold and skilled competitor;
• With any luck at all, the Range Officer would be forced to make a judgement call which was completely unsupported by physical evidence if he thought I had violated the 'extended to infinity' but physically absent charge line and ALSO establish the difference between a "Charge Line" and a "Fault Line" in the minds of my friends and neighbors;
• I would get to request an Arbitration on a club match;
  
• Somewhere along the line, somebody (maybe not even me!) would get pissed off, and;
• The resulting discussion would firmly establish the reasoning why assuming that "fault lines (may be) ... deemed to extend ... to infinity" is NOT sufficient justification for scrimping on stage prop material.

Note the elipses (...) in the last sentence. It's important.

Therefore, when I shot the stage, I didn't make any lateral movement. I shot the center plate rack, and the bracketting IPSC targets, from within the Guard Shack. Then I took too giant steps backwards and engaged the two IPSC targets on the far left side.

Moving one pace to the right, I engaged the two IPSC targets to the right, and I was done.

The first comment from the RO:

Time: 14.63 seconds. Six steel.

The second comment from the RO:

Eight Procedural Penalies.

This is my cue:

"What are the penalties for?"

"Faulting the rear fault line!"

Geek:
"Huh? What fault line?" (Stomping around as if looking for a Fault line.) I can't see it. I can't feel it. It isn't there. How could I have faulted a fault line that isn't there?"

RO:

"The fault lines are deemed to extend into infinity!"

Geek:

"But how can you ding me on a foot fault when there isn't a fault line there?"

When the RO was adamant and unyielding on the point, I looked around and found the Match Director, Paul the Soccer Coach.

I requested an arbitration. He said "it's the RO's call".

"Yes", I said, "And I formally request that you call for an arbitration committee under USPSA rules."

Someone suggested that I would have to pony up a $100 Arbitration Fee. (Actually, it's not a fee. It's a deposit; if I win the arbitration, my deposit would be refunded.) "Okay, I'll write a check. I request arbitration."

Then Barsoom Bill, who was NOT the Match Director, asked me under what rule I would protest the call.

"I don't know the rule number, but I know the rule. I don't have a rule book handy; give me your rule book and I'll find it."

Barsoom Bill exceeded all expectations when he disappeared for a couple of minutes and returned with the most decrepit USPSA Rule Book I've seen since the 14th edition (2000) "Toilet paper" rule book version. I was ecstatic. Barsoom Bill, in the three years since it has been published, has obviously worked the current "January, 2004" USPSA rule book hard. I knew at that moment that I was dealing with people who had a complete and abiding respect for the rules.

That was all I needed.

While I was reading the rule book (without my reading glasses) in an attempt to find my mitigating rule, the match continued. The RO had scored my targets, and my score sheet reflected eight procedural penalties; however, it had not been presented for my initials, and so it was not yet accepted.

Three competitors shot the stage while waiting for me to complete my discussion with the MD. Every one of them used the "non-traditional" approach of using 'in-depth' movement (rather than lateral movement) to engage the far lateral IPSC targets. Every time, I commented to the Match Director: "I think he violated the non-existant rear 'fault line'; I protest." (My protest was implied to be on the grounds that the rules were not being imposed impartially; actually, it was a general protest that -- lacking a physical, visible representation of the "CHARGE LINE", it was impossible for the competitor, the Range Officer or even the spectators to definitively determine whether the competitor had violated the non-existant Charge Line ... which was repeatedly and erroneously referred to as a 'fault line'.)

One of the competitors was dinged for 8 procedural penalties by the RO. I said "I don't think he violated the non-existant rear 'fault line'; I protest on his behalf."

Finally, after three competitors had shot the stage, I cited the following to the Match Director:

2.2.1 Charge Lines and Fault Lines – Competitor movement should preferably be restricted through the use of physical barriers, however, the use of Charge and Fault Lines is permitted. Charge Lines and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material and should rise at least 2 centimeters (0.79 inches) above ground level. This will provide both physical and visible references to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting. Fault Lines and Charge Lines must be fixed firmly in place to ensure they remain consistent throughout the match.

2.2.1.1 Charge Lines are used to restrict unreasonable movement by competitors toward or away from targets.

2.2.1.2 Fault Lines are used to force the competitor to shoot at targets from behind physical barriers. They may be positioned at any angle extending to the rear of these barriers. Fault Lines should be a minimum of 1 meter (3.28 feet) in length and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, they are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity.

Please note the applicability of existing rules as they come into play:

2.2.1 - both Charge Lines and Fault Lines must be represented by physical barriers, to "... provide both physical and visible references to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting." There existed no "Physical (or) visible reference" for either me or the Range Officer to determine whether I had been guilty of "inadvertent faulting".

2.2.1.1 - defines the difference between "Charge Lines" and "Fault Lines". Because my movement was decidedly not "lateral", the rules for "Fault Lines" clearly did not apply.

2.2.1.2 - is applicable only to "Fault Lines", so a "Charge Line" (limiting movement "... toward or away from targets ...") may not be "... deemed to extend rearwards to infinity."

Summary:

• Under the current rules, there is a definitive difference between a "Charge Line" (regulating movement toward and away from targets) and a "Fault Line" (regulating lateral movement, generally understood as defining the area behind a barrier.)
• The phrase 'deemed to extend rearwards to infinity' is so full of possibilities to misinterpretation AND misapplication that we are better off without its inclusion in the rule book.
• The proposed 2008 version of the rule book removes the definition of "Charge Lines", and replaces it entirely with a single definition of "Fault Lines". However, in the process it fails to address the topic described in excruciating detail here.

The current confusion between "Charge Lines" and "Fault Lines" is subject to innocent interpretation, as we have seen here.

However, without the distinction between the two lines, we run the risk of even more misunderstandings and misinterpretation in 2008.

The "extend rearward to infinity" clause will obviously not address the situation where competitors are restricted from rearward movement in order to engage several, OR ALL, targets from a single position.

This contradition between intent and rules interpretation is bound to cause problems in future matches.

I was able (perhaps maliciously, perhaps in order to make a point) to delay a simple club match because of this simple misunderstanding.

When, in 2008, there are no rules to guide us ... what delay might ensue from the lack of this simple definition in terms? How many otherwise-acceptable stages might be thrown out because the design is faulty?

If USPSA was unable to avoid this contretemps today, how are they planning to avoid it next year?

In illustration of the advantage of a rear "charge line", I offer this video which clearly shows how a rear "charge line" may avoid these problems.




(NOTE: Squire Tomasie and I both incurred 8 procedural penalties during our original efforts, because we had been judged to have violated rear charge lines; eventually we were required to reshoot the stage after a rear charge line had been added to the stage. Both of us added about three seconds to our stage time on the reshoot, significantly lowering our stage factors.

Final match results are available here.)

The Shooter - not Bob the Nailer

This isn't a 'review' ... I'm just a pencil-necked Geek and have no pretention to critical capability. But I did mention that I was planning to see the Hollywood treatement of Stephen Hunter's initial "Bob the Nailer" movie, and I thought I owed it to myself to fulfill the implied promise (to myself) to voice my impressions.

The book (Point of Impact) was first published in February of 1993, about 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War. That would have made Bob Lee Swagger about 39 years old, and assumes he would still be active and in the prime of his life.

It's now 2007, and if the story were presented (as Hollywood decided it should be) as a 'contemporary' movie, Bob would be over 60 years old and he would look a lot like ... me. Not a terribly intimidating figure of a man, and certainly not an action hero.

So instead of a Marine Sniper in the late Vietnam era, they changed him to a Marine Sniper in an Ethiopian "Black Operation" ... circa approximately 2004.

Okay, I can live with that.

They changed Bob's territory from Arkansas to Vietnam. His spotter, Donny, is married to a woman named "Sarah" instead of "Julie", and instead of being a nurse she is a schoolteacher.

Okay, I can live with that too.

Place names were changed (for instance, the 'presidential speech' takes place in Philidelpha instead of New Orleans). Nick Memphis is not a 10-year veteran FBI failed sniper, but three weeks out of the FBI Academy. You'll see a lot more details, and entire chapters, either changed or entirely omitted.

That only proves that the detail ... including hundreds of pages of explanation and motivation ... is much easier to present in novel form than in book form.

Still, even in this much abridged and abreviated form, most of the essential elements remain. They're merely reduced to two-dimension glossy instead of rich exposition and the glorious, colorful exposition of an excellent wordsmith such as Stephen Hunter.

I have four major complaints, though.

First, Hollywood can't resist taking Liberal digs at the current administration, such as the real Presidential Sniper's comments suggesting that the Abu Grahib affair only prosecuted/penalized the 'little people'. In reality, they relieved a General, so the presumption is that the fault went as far as the White House.

Second, the scene at the country house of the real Presidential Sniper ("Michael Sandor" ... his character's real name is not memorable by Americans who expect fewer consonants in a name) is centered on improvised munitions rather than true sniper ability.

Third, the penultimate denoument of the movie does recognize Bob's defense that the supposed sniper weapon he used in the frame-up is inoperable, but he mentions that he has replaced the firing pin of ALL of his rifles ... "I do that every time I use them". That suggests a level of paranoia which is inconsistent with The Original Bob.

Fourth and finally, the last scene of the movie has Bob ambushing The Senator, The Colonel, and their remaining henchmen in a mountain cabin, in an orgy of cold blooded murder which I find appalling. This lends entirely too much credence to the Liberal image of gunowners as unbalanced, antisocial individualists who are potential murderers.

Go ahead and watch the movie. Stephen Hunter deserves the money, even the movie you see isn't the story he wrote. That's not a surprise; at least, not as much as that the film stars a felon who is forbidden by law to as much as touch a firearm (Mark Wahlberg) and who incidently has made public anti-gun statements, and Danny Glover (who is apparently an outspoken anti-gun spokesman.)

The only real surprise is that they didn't cast Michael Douglas as "The Senator". That would have completed the triumvirant.

The Shooter

The sniper movie based on Stephen Hunters Bob Lee Swagger book "Point of Impact" opens today. I'm a weekend-matinee-going kind of movie viewer, so I won't be in the theater Friday. And I have an IPSC match on Saturday, which means I'll be in the 9th Street Theater Sunday afternoon waiting to see how much of the original story remains in the movie.

Fish sent me a couple of links yesterday to early critiques of the movie which were not universally complementary.

The gist seems to be that the movie stays fairly close to the book in the better (early) half of the movie, but loses all continuity in the finale. Big surprise, huh?

In the source book, Swagger is a Viet Nam Marine Sniper. The book was written in the early 1990's, so by 2007 that made Swagger a middle-aged hero who may have become too old a dog to hunt.

Put another 15-20 years on our hero, and he's going to end up looking something like ... me. (Check the profile picture. Not an awe inspring profile eh?) So the first change has Bob Lee a veteran of a Middle-Eastern conflict, which takes the worst of 30 years off his age and makes Marky Mark a reasonable choice to play Swagger.

From that point on, the story is updated to fit the recent American history in a manner reminiscent of the swings of a pendulum which can't stay out of the way of directorial boosts.

By the end of the movie, the director has so lost track of the original story that he has to bend over and squat out an ending. No, I haven't seen the movie and I'm not prescient, but I've seen what Hollywood does to books and it isn't always a pretty sight. Have I mentioned the similarity between Hollywood treatments of 'action' books and sausage making?

I'm not so old and cranky that I'll boycot this movie just because some ex-L.A. Street Tagger can't get the ending right. I expect it to fall apart eventually, but the good news from the pre-release critical reviews I've read is they hold it together until right at the very end.

It's okay. I know how the story really ends (SWMBO and I reread "Point of Impact" within the past two weeks), and anybody who does even a fair job of paying homage to Hunter's plot is doing okay.

I just hope they don't lose the big scene at the Baptist Church. Oh, and is it too much to hope that they get Swagger's revenge on Payne at the end?

Watch this space.

Washington Gun Show Loophole

March 5, 2007

Gun show check bill moves along

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer chortles in its accustomed glee at the discomfort of Washington gun-owners who naively believe that non-dealers need not abide by the Brady Bill.

That federal law, which "... applied only to transfers from a dealer licensed to sell guns by the Treasury Dept to a private individual ... ", will (if this law passes) be enforced also against private individuals if the sale concludes on the site of a Gun Show.

Oregon, I shamefully admit, passed a similar bill a few years ago. There's no evidence that it has reduced the number of firearms in the possession of felons and others forbidden by law to own them.

As we use to say about the Federal 55 mph Speed Limit Law in the 1970's: "It's not a good idea, it's just the law."

Now Washington is jumping on the Gun-Grabber bandwagon with full enthusiasm, and my guess is that this bill WILL pass unless the good citizens of Washington stand up for their rights.

A couple of days ago, speaking of the Stealth Gun-Grabber Bill (SB 1012) now introduced to the Oregon State Senate, I mentioned that Washington citizens ought to pay close attention to RKBA impositions passed in Oregon, because as sure as DemocRats are Socialists, any gun-law passed in Oregon will soon show up in Washington.

It's just a political fact of life that The Pacific NorthWet is no longer the easy going Land of the Free it was 40 years ago. In the face of increasing liberal influence by the hippie protestors of the 60's who grew up to become the academia and legislature of the 90's (of COURSE they all got a law degree! Remember Billary?), the communes have spawned communists all over the upper-left-hand corner of the country.

Sell your Confederate money, boys, the South PNW will NOT rise again.

Unless, that is, you take steps now to become politicized, contract your legislators, and howl.

Quote from the Seattle P-I article:

In Oregon, where voters approved an initiative to close the gun show loophole in 2000, the effect of the measure is less than clear. Lawmakers who supported it say it has made a huge difference, but Portland police are unsure the city's lower crime rates mean fewer criminals are getting their hands on guns.

Before Oregon implemented its gun show loophole measure, which 62
percent of voters approved, Portland police spent three years tracing guns used in gang violence. Of those that could be traced, they found that 27 percent of them came from gun shows.

"Gun shows were always two things: a fun thing for a family to do on a Saturday morning, and a place for criminals to get guns," said Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, who is chairwoman of Oregon's Senate Judiciary Committee. "Now it's only one of those things." Portland police spokesman Brian Schmautz said the city has seen reduced crime since the measure passed, but its criminals don't seem to have any more difficulty getting guns than before.

Here's something to think about:

There ain't no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

There's just a lot of loopy politicians. We've got 'em. So do you.

SB1012 - Not Ginny? Stealth Bill?

I've been checking my statscounter account, looking for some idea of who is picking up on SB1012 (see here and here.)

Curiously, I found a reference to it on a forum called "JobsRelatedStuff".

There's apparently a lot of interest here.

But I found one post from a person who claims to have received a reply from the office of Ginny Burdick:

Hello. Thank you for contacting the office of Senator Ginny Burdick. Senator Burdick has read your email and asked me to respond.

Senate Bill 1012 is not her bill, nor did she introduce this legislation into committee or legislative counsel. Senate Bill 1012 is the product of a constituent of Salem and he had the bill introduced into the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is not Senator Burdick's constituent nor did he approach Senator Burdick about this legislation. At this time, Senator Burdick has not scheduled this bill and it is not likely to receive a hearing in the near future.

Should you have any further questions, either to this bill or to any other legislation, please feel free to contact me on this issue. Thank you again for contacting our office and please continue to participate in the legislative process.

Best,

--
Jordan Rash
Legislative Assistant
State Senator Ginny Burdick
District 18
Office: 503-986-1718
Fax: 503-986-1080
sen.ginnyburdick@state.or.us

A later poster on this forum related his own experience:

I just called her office and got off the phone with Jordan, he gave me more of the same. I told him where she can stick the bill (politely of course) and he also brought up assault weapons. I almost commented on it, but I decided since theres no legislation pending, there was no reason to.

He also told me that this came from a grudge that this guy had against a range here in salem. If that is the case, this legislation is an extreme overreaction.

My bet is that it was introduced by a brady campaign employee and that Ginny "allowed" it in.


It's very interesting, because this email explicitly demonstrates that she know's she's on a slippery slope in battling for gun control, she's obviously being careful not to take too much at a time here, and it will be interesting to say the least, to watch that play out.

... and still later, from another forum member:

Yes, I heard the originator on the radio yesterday, and actually got a response from Burdick today. The bill was initiated by a neighbor of the gun club down in Salem. He was all PO'd that rounds leave the range on a regular basis, and said he can't go out in his back yard for fear of being shot, and that his next door had been shot five times.

I cannot, of course, confirm the accuracy of these observations.

However, as far as I know there is only one 'outdoor' range in Salem, Oregon, and it is a little-visited range with very conservative leadership. I've never visited this particular range, so I cannot say more.

I don't know if this information is accurate, or complete. But if it is true that "... the product of a constituent of Salem and he had the bill introduced into the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is not Senator Burdick's constituent nor did he approach Senator Burdick."

... then the question remains which State Senator sponsored the bill. That information is not attached to the bill, which is an unusual, but not unheard of circumstance.

I have been unable to determine the author or the sponsor(s) of this bill. If you can positively answer these questions, I invite you to write me (email address at the bottom of this page). Please provide internet links to documentation, or have hardcopy available for mailing or hand-to-hand transmittal.


This is, indeed, a Stealth Bill.

Whatever happened to transparency in government? Of course, this is a Democrat controlled Senate, which suggests (to me) that only lip-service will be paid to the concept of accountability.

Comments?

The 2nd Amendment - Applied Locally?

So you think you know and understand the Bill of Rights, eh?

How does it apply to local government?

No, let's not talk about 'goverment' at even a municiple level. How does it apply to your college football team, or your neighborhood?

Case #1: The Hurricanes

Shannon: Firearms will not be tolerated

By Jorge Milian

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

CORAL GABLES — Randy Shannon has issued a straightforward warning to his University of Miami football players:

Get caught carrying a firearm and your days as a Hurricane are over.

After two shooting incidents involving UM players last year, Shannon plans to enforce a "zero-tolerance'' policy regarding weapons.

"You get caught with a firearm, you're dismissed from the football team," UM's coach said Monday.

"They're gone. They know the rules. It's not hard rules. It's to protect them."

Asked about his players' constitutional right to own firearms, Shannon said: "I'm thinking about the University of Miami and the kids. When you have a firearm, there's a 50-50 chance that you're going to get hurt. So I said, 'Let's not put ourselves in those situations.'

"Make it a 100 percent chance that you're not going to hurt nobody and that nobody is going to get hurt."

You can't argue with the good intentions of Coach Shannon.

Last July, UM safety Willie Cooper was shot in the buttocks by an unknown assailant outside his home in South Miami. Teammate Brandon Meriweather, who shared the home with Cooper, pulled a pistol from his pants and fired three times at the gunman, who escaped.

Police determined that Meriweather acted in self-defense, and no arrests have been made in the case.

On Nov. 7, UM defensive tackle Bryan Pata was shot and killed at his apartment complex shortly after a Hurricanes practice. Pata, who police say owned several weapons, was shot in the back of the head and the case remains unsolved.

Meriweather, who has completed his collegiate eligibility, understands Shannon's policy.

"Guns don't do nothing but get you in trouble," Meriweather said. "There really is no use for a gun in college. You've got to get rid of them. It's no time for them. If you're a team player, you won't have no problem getting rid of them."

I don't think I agree with this statement. Meriweather demonstrably drove off an attacker and arguably saved the life of his team-mate. Pata had nobody watching his ... um ... back, as Cooper did. It seems to me that this may be a case FOR ownership if defensive firearms. But that's just my RKBA prejudice speaking.

Case #2: Community Suggests Gun Possession Is Illegal For Residents

March 19, 2007 02:15 PDT


ANTIOCH, Tenn.- Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun.

Residents in Nashboro Village said it's unconstitutional and leaves them defenseless.

Two weeks ago, residents received a letter from their homeowners' association indicating that guns are not allowed on the property.

"It thought it was ironic that they say you can't have something when the United States government says you can," said resident Cristina Salajanu.

Salajanu would like to give her neighborhood management company a history lesson.

"I think it's unconstitutional," Salajanu said. "They can't tell you what to own or not to own in your own house."

Salajanu is talking about the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It's been an American freedom for 215 years but Salajanu and other residents said it's been taken away from them.

"Something needs to be done," she said.

Two weeks ago, the property management company at Nashboro Village told its residents no more guns on the property.

The residents protested, citing their Second Amendment rights. The 'village' responded positively ... more or less.

Officials with Ghertner and Company, the property manager at Nashboro Village, would not make an on-camera comment about the gun policy but said they plan on changing the rule soon to allow firearms on the property.

However, they would make it illegal to fire those guns, which residents say is still unconstitutional.

Let me get this straight. Now the property manager is saying that you can possess a gun, but you cannot fire it?

Aren't there already laws against discharging a firearm within city limits ... which I assume this is? And if you discharge it in a self-defense situation, isn't that justifiable by law? Does the community, then, consider itself justified in requiring the resident (who own their homes, withing the codicile of the community) leave? Can they DO that?

The Constitution and "Other Rights"
We think of the Constitution as limiting the powers of the Federal Government, usually. But we also recognize that it defines Civil Rights at every level of government ... in everything but the Second Amendment.

For example, we have the right of peaceful assembly, and free speech, under the Constitution. If your college or property manage decides that you cannot stand on a street corner and propound your political views to passersby, is your action not defensible under the Constitution?

Well ... yes. In fact, recent legal actions against College 'Free Speech Zones' have established that the Bill of Rights is a powerful threat to colleges who seek to prohibit 'hateful speech'. In fact, even non-verbal expression is protected, when academia is aggressively confronted.

It appears that the US Constitution is not merely a limit of the Federal Government, but in fact protects our rights in any venue.


Still, we continue to see these infringements imposed by non-governmental organizations as if the Constitution has no bearing on our day-to-day life.

This is, of course, most often (although not exclusively, since Freedom of Speech may now be identified as a 'hate crime') applied to the Second Amendment: " ... The Right To Bear Arms ...".

What do YOU think?


.