SWMBO Laughs!

Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, November Club Match -- "Who Listens?"

You've got to appreciate the irony here.

Also the Chutspha (sp) , the nerve, and the confidence.

When you're shooting an IPSC stage, you're all alone. Anyone who offers advice from "The Peanut Gallery" runs the risk of incurring a procedural penalty (how this applied? Anyone?) and the shooter who obviously changes his/her approach to engaging targets on a stage risks incurring a similar penalty on the stage.

The Best Thing To Do is, invariably, Shoot 'Em as You See 'Em, and if you screw up ...

Let's Face The Music and Dance.

Here SWMBO loses track of her Round Count, and out of frustration makes a standing reload which eats up her time.

Does that deter her? Hell No!

If anyone ever thought that the best shooters are those who gets the most points in the least time, they have no idea why people come back every week to compete in IPSC matches.

If everyone ever thought that the best reason to compete in IPSC matches was to have a good time, and to enjoy the process, they simply have no idea why ... but you get the picture.

And in case you are among the benighted few who Have No Idea, here's a hint:

Veterans Day

Today is Veterans Day, 2007.

It may alternatively be describe as Veterans' Day, or Armistice Day.

Sufficient to say that, although this date (November 11) is generally reserved to honor American Military Veterans, it was originally intended to recognize the Armistice ... which occurred on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month (November 11) and acknowledged the surrender of the surrender of the German forces at the nominative end of World War One.

Since then, it has been alternative named Armistice Day and Veterans' Day, and has been the instrument of acknowledging the contributions of American Military Veterans.

So much for establishing cross-links between the date, the event, and the raison d'etre.

It may be useful to note that, since November 11, 2007, falls on a Sunday, this date and this event is formally recognized on Monday, November 12, 2007. Also, the union (Service Employee's International Union, or SEIU) in my home state, in negotiated agreement with my State employer) has 'traded' this day of observation in exchange for a Three Day Weekend, which this year is represented by The Day After Thanksgiving (a Friday). Much as it has 'traded' Presidents' Day for The Day After Christmas.

May I go on record as stating that I find this trade-off as an egregious exchange which disallows me from celebrating the entirely laudable option of celebrating the sacrifices of my fellow Americans in preference for a three-day weekend?

Okay, I've SAID that, but I don't really mean it.

I can celebrate the military sacrifice of my fellow Americans ... and some of my family ... anytime. The difference is that the Federal Government has 'adjusted' the legal holiday to fall on a week-day, so we can all rejoice in a paid holiday. And my union has negotiated the date so it falls on (this year) the Friday after Thanksgiving, so we can all enjoy a 4-day weekend.

I wonder how many of us, given the option, would take an unpaid day away from work to recognize and acknowledge the sacrifices of our friends and family, and people we never met, who gave their lives in support of their country, to protect the freedoms of their fellow man, and in service to their country?

Show of hands? Nobody? Probably not.

I know I wouldn't be comfortable with taking an unpaid day to recognize Veterans' Day. I am willing to wager that few of you who would be given the the option of working on V-Day, would be willing to take an unrecognized (unpaid) day off to march in a parade.

Perhaps I "under-misestimate" your patriotism, and if I do ... I apologize. I only offer my own poor integrity for your consideration.

It has been 37 years since I wore the uniform as a member of the American Military. Since then, I have chosen one single way to offer my own personal manner of recognizing the Sacrifice of Service.

There is a "Wall" (similar to, but smaller than, The Wall in Washington, DC) in a park in Portland, Oregon. This Wall lists the name of all Oregon servicemen and women who gave their lives in the Vietnam Conflict.

For over a decade, it was my habit to go to The Wall on the 11th hour (pm ... the dark of night) with a six-pack of cans of Budweiser Beer and a hard-pack of Marlboro Cigarettes, and a new book of matches.

I would 'infiltrate' the park area of The Wall, open the package of cigarettes and light and smoke one cigarette. Then I would open, and drink, one can of beer.

This was my way of 'sharing' with my past comrades a drink and a smoke.

I would then leave the (closed) pack of cigarettes, with matches, and the five remaining cans of beer, in memorial to my comrades. And I would then go home.

I assume that the remaining beer and cigarettes would be picked up by park employees the next day. They would either join me in imbibing, or throw everything away. (If I was park Maintenance Staff, I would throw it all away ... who knows where that stuff came from? I'm not talking!) I hoped that they would understand.

In recent years, I have not chosen this way to recognize the sacrifices of my fallen brothers. It seems too dramatic. Or it's disrespecting of the people who have to pick up after me.

Or it's too much trouble.

I probably don't do this any more because after thirty plus years, I've become too detached from the experience to feel the immediacy I felt before.

I'm reminded of the final scene of "Saving Private Ryan", where the Senior Citizen / Private James Francis Ryan comes to the military cemetery (in France?) and wails that he has spent his entire life in an attempt to "Earn This" ... the sacrifice of his fellow soldiers to save his life.

I do not wish to become a Private Ryan. I do not wish to 'earn' the sacrifice of my fellow soldiers. I saw them die in 1969, and never hope to be the REASON why I lived, while they died.

The point of a MOVIE is that your fellow soldiers gave their lives that you ('We', "I") might live.

And while it is true that men in combat most often risk/sacrifice their lives for their brothers, I can only hope that this "Band of Brothers" sacrifice themselves for a higher purpose than my personal survival.

I have seen men ... American Soldiers ... die in combat.

If I thought for one moment that they gave their lives for me, I would .... well, perhaps not be "unable" but certainly "not accept" that I was the reason for their gift of life.

Who could live with that burden?

And so I have put aside the burden of the sacrifice of my Brothers assuming that they have accepted the Ultimate Sacrifice for perhaps the meanest of reasons:

We were there. And it seemed to be The Thing To Do. We were young.

Had I been the one to die, I would never have wanted to put a 'guilt trip' on the men I/we fought and lived with and died before.

I hope I would have been so brave. I'm not sure. But I have too much with the men I knew in Vietnam to think otherwise.

Or perhaps I'm just getting too old to feel the pain ...

I Am A Genius ... NOT!

I've been reading my own blogroll, and both The Real Gun Guys and Josh have announced that their blogs are at Genius Level.

Here's my reading level.



Well, I suppose they have higher number of readers, or the number of articles they post. Either that, or There Has Been An Exchange Of Money.


(mutter mutter mutter ....)
Yeah, that's it. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the quality of the content.

Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions

Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and Bear Arms in State Constitutions

No comments, other than that this is a fine resource for people who are curious about legal references to the Second Amendment.

Although, for more current issues, here is an interesting article recently published in the ABA Journal (American Bar Association). H/T Michael Bane

Gene Wilder

It's not as easy as it may seem to write about the filmography of Gene Wilder. The best anyone can do is rave about their favorite Gene Wilder movie, and even then with some trepidation about their own personal masculinity.

1975 he wrote, directed and starred in a little movie called "The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter brother", which I remember with fondness and for which I have been searching for a couple of years. I finally found a DVD of the movie a few weeks ago, ordered it and saved it unopened until both SWMBO and I were sufficiently recovered from our various malaise until we could watch it together. I admit, I was a bit disappointed. It doesn't seem as fresh and spontaneous as it did in 1975, but that may have been because Wilder (Jerome Silberman) really needed the genius of Mel Brooks to teach him what comedy was all about.

Ignoring his 1963 Broadway rendition of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with Kirk Douglas", Wilder had a small but impressive movie part in "Bonnie and Clyde" in 1967 as " ... as a frightened young undertaker abducted by the duo".


But in his appearance as "Leo Bloom" in Brooks' "The Producers", opposite the brilliant but zany Zero Mostel, Wilder proved himself capable of making the most sublime characterization seem almost reasonable. (Note: now that Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick on Broadway have taken over the roles of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder as "The Producers", you can't find images of the original movie on the Internet!)

As the man who finds himself drawn into impossibly bizarre situations, most often through no fault of his own, the frizzy-haired, inadvertently felon Wilder lent credence to the most improbable plot twists.

Watching Wilder was usually much like watching a Donald Duck cartoon; when the Duck played a baseball pitcher and his wind-up was so vigorous that his pitching arm turned into an airplane propeller, causing him to rise up off the ground ... Wilder movies also called upon the viewer to 'suspend disbelief' in order to appreciate the situation.

Brooks brought Wilder through some of the zaniest social situations imaginable. And every picture he ever made was, to some extent, a 'con job'.

In The Producers, the con was to produce a play which was so outrageous that nobody would attend it past the first night. Then Mostel, who with his extreme comb-over would somehow romance elderly widows to invest in the play (until it was 1000% oversubscribed). Finally, when the show bombed, the huckster Mostel and the milquetoast accountant Wilder would abscond with the investments ... which had of course been used up by the newly found wild lifestyle. Of course, because of the unpredictably fickle Broadway audience, the most outrageous script, most disgusting musical lyrics of "Springtime for Hitler and Everyone" was judged to be "Camp" (shades of Televisions "Batman) and the dynamic duo of Mostel and Wilder were required to distribute profits instead of wiping the slate clean in the planned El Bombo.

Sure, it was both silly and stupid, but the combined brilliance of Brooks and Mostel (as well as the small but significant contribution of the vaguely effeminate Wilder) it seemed almost ... reasonable.


After Wilder's semi-failed attempt at independence with "Sherlock Holmes .." ("Sheer Luck!"), Wilder dallied in "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and later went back to Brooks. In an improbable teaming with Cleavon Little (later to star in a short-lived but hilarious hospital-based comedy named "Temperature's Rising") found his forte' in 1974's "Blazing Saddles", a cowboy movie where he played the improbable gunslinger "The Waco Kid". ("Wanna see my fast draw? Wanna see it again?")


"Blazing Saddles" somehow managed to combine Wilder, Little, Brooks, Alex Karras, Slim Pickens, Harvey Korman and Madeline Kahn (remember these names, you'll see many of them again) in a movie which featured the famous line (with Little holding a pistol to his own head) declaiming: "Nobody Moves, or the nigger gets it!".

To everyone's surprise, this was among the most memorable ... and most laughable ... lines in the movie. One of the cast found it extremely difficult to deliver lines including "the 'N-word", but was convinced by, of all persons Mel Brooks. Cleavon Little reportedly laughed through the making of the movie because of the discomfort of "the white boys". Everybody laughed through the "Bean Fart Scene" which was bowlderized in the television version ... the sound track was 'suppressed' ane parts of other scenes were completely deleted in both the television and the first-run movie. You have to buy/rent the DVD to see the movie as it was originally intended.



Later in 1974 (they were on a roll), Brooks and Wilder combined with Kahn to create"Young Frankenstein", featuring Peter Boyle as "The Monster". Marty Feldman, Wilder's alter ego in "Sherlock Holmes" and Cloris Leachman as "Frau Blucher" and Terri Garr as "Inga" all contributed some of the most memorable 'straight lines' in comedic movie history. It may be that Wilder's frizzy hair made him a 'natural choice' to play Frankenstein's grandson ("That's Frahnensteen!), but Wilder managed to hold his own among the most notorious scene-stealers since Harvey Korman and Dom DeLuis (and Brooks himself) in "Blazing Saddles".



The next year, Wilder co-starred with Richard Pryor in the improbable "Silver Streak", with Jill Clayburgh, Ned Beatty and Patrick McGoohan (Secret Agent Man) 'as Deveraux'. This was a patent contest between Pryor and Wilder to steal scenes; the score is tied, as it was in 1989's "See No Evil, Hear No Evil" (Wilder was blind, Pryor was deaf: or was it the other way around? Event they sometimes seemed to lose track but it didn't matter) and the earlier 1980 "Stir Crazy".



Somewhere in the middle of all that, Wilder marries Gilda Radner and, after she contracts Cancer, they star together in a comedically poignant (if that's possible) "Haunted Honeymoon".


Someday, someone will write the life story of Gene Wilder and it will prominently include the love story between Wilder and Radner. It won't be Carol Lombard and Cary Grant; it won't be Bogart and Becall; it won't be Tracy and Hepburn. But it will be no less important to the people who were involved, and The One Who Was Left Behind.

Why was this written?

Because if you haven't watched Wilder with some appreciation for his life's work, you've missed something that isn't important to anyone but you.

The 2007 Weblog Awards

I am, of course, desolate that once again I am not among the Top Ten finalists for "Best Gun Blog" this year.

The sole redeeming factor is that there is once again no category for "Best Gun Blog". So, I'll probably survive my Annual Disappointment.

For those of you whose tastes run parallel to mine, though, you still have the opportunity to vote for "The 2007 Weblog Awards" in 'other categories'.

For "Best Comic Strip" you can vote for Day By Day Cartoons here.

And for "Best of the Best 250 - 500", you can vote for Sondra K. here.

Miami Vice

I bought the First and Second Seasons of Miami Vice (the television show) a couple of weeks ago. I've spent much time which might more profitably be spent 'blogging', watching the First Season.

Other than the Jim Zibiena show, Season One is a disappointment. Until they decided to lose the comedy routines, replacing the theme with a more serious mien, the show was was a little lame.

Although I am inclined to recommend the video discs, I have to admit that there is only so much of Don Johnson that mortal man can abide in a limited time period.

Ann Coulter and "Automatic vs Semi-Automatic Firearms"

I've also been reading the books which Ann Coulter has 'recently' published. Like most people, I've found some minor inconsistencies, but nothing important ... until I got to Page 263 in "How To Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), published in 2004.

In this book she reprints previous columns which either have or have not been published (you have to read the whole thing, which implies "buy the book", to get the sense of which columns have not been published. Personally ... I can't tell the difference.) But each chapter is carefully prefaced by her own comments.

In Chapter 13" "Elian Gonzalez: The Only Immigrant Liberals Ever Wanted to Deport" (pp: 257 - 272) she discusses the obvious subject. Rather than quoting her articles, she presents an 'overview' and some background information demonstrating how ...

"[w]hen it came to Elian, liberals abandoned every seditious cause they had once held dear -- disfunctional familes, judicial activism, illegal immigrants, their opposition to the use of military force, their fear and hatred of "assault-type weapons," the Constitution as a living document, Fourth Amendment rights, and a weak executive branch."

On pp 261-262, she discusses the pre-dawn "Commando raid" which was conducted for the specific purpose of " ... seizing the terrified little boy ..." (Elian Gonzalez) "... who was hiding in a closet":

"Relying on the media's complete, abject ignorance of firearms, the administration and its lackeys insisted on calling the MP-5 submachine guns carried by the Delta Force Gang "automatic rifles." That sounds so much more gentle than "machine gun" -- which is what an "automatic rifle" is. (By contrast, those "assault weapons": liberals are so terrified of are semi-automatic rifles, considerably less lethal than the gun pointed at Elias's head.) ...

[Emphasis added by Editor]

I realize that Ms. Coulter is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. She makes that perfectly clear in Chapter 15: "Hello, Room Service? Sent Up a Bottle, a Blonde, and a Gun" (pp: 304 - 319; July 1999 thru July 22, 1999.)

But the point her is ...I do SO wish that Conservative writers, who intend to support Second Amendment causes, would at least get their facts right!

I refer, of course, to the parenthetical statement:

(By contrast, those "assault weapons": liberals are so terrified of are semi-automatic rifles, considerably less lethal than the gun pointed at Elias's head.)

Although it may be too late to be pertinent in the quoted context, I call upon Michael Bane (who knows Ms. Coulter much better than do I) to impress upon her the following pertinent facts:

Semi-automatic weapons are not necessarily " ... considerably less lethal ..." than full-automatic weapons. Lethality is a characteristic determined by many factors, not least are caliber and velocity.

Rate-of-Fire is not really a measure of lethaltity.

I note that the danger of fatal wounds from a 9mm MP-5 is probably less than that of a 7.62 M-60 (full-auto machine guns) and the MP-5 is probably less 'lethal' than a .30-30 .30-40 Krag.

Ms. Coulter is much smarter than I am, and a much better writer of political essays without doubt.

But she should leave the question of firearms lethality to the people who know what they're talking about. Or she should research the subject at least as much as Lexis/Nexis will support, or no further.

Or she should not make comments which are not supported by her research.

She does the RKBA folks a disservice when she offers opinions in the guise of fact ... a situation for which she (rightly) castigates Liberals without mercy.

Look For The Union Label ... Measure 50 in Oregon

I probably could have titled this article "Why I Am Not A Union Member", but the other was more to the point.

I work on a University campus in Oregon, and when I was hired in 1996 I was given a choice. I could either join the union, or I could become a "Fair-Share" employee. Essentially, the difference was that (a) I was a Union Member and could vote on issues, or (b) I paid union dues, but had no voice.

Of course, there was always (c) - if I was a Union Member and the Union called a strike, I was bound to respect their picket lines. Or face 'penalties'.

I chose (b). I don't agree with the liberal politics of the union, so I don't care to be associated with them more than is required by the (unfair) requirements of "Fair-Share" ... which takes $x out of my paycheck every month.

This month there is a state-wide Issue on the November ballot called Measure 50. Friday, I received a flyer from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) encouraging all Union members and "Fair-Share" employees to vote YES on the measure.

Here's what the (local 503) Union website (supported by the World Socialist Web Site) had to say about Measure 50:

Health Insurance for all Oregon Children
117,000 Oregon children don't have health coverage. They don't get necessary health care services, and are more likely to end up in emergency rooms or require more expensive treatments. Measure 50 is a fair and accountable way to provide our kids the health coverage they need.

Measure 50 Funds Health Care. Over 70% of the new cigarette tax revenue will fund the Healthy Kids Program. The rest goes to other health programs, including health clinics, tobacco prevention, and health coverage for 10,000 low-income adults.

As Employers Reduce Health Coverage, Oregon's Working Families Pay the Price:

• More than 80,000 Oregonians have lost their employer provided health insurance int he past four years
• As health care costs rise, more employers are either reducing coverage or shifting the costs to employees and their famililes

Kids can't wait! Kids should be at the front of the line when it come sto helth care. Let's protect the most important resource Oregon has ... our kids!

What they barely touch upon:
This measure would result in an increased tax on tobacco products to pay for this program. Not all Oregonians would pay for it ... only tobacco users. The flyer states that "70% .. would fund the ... program". The rest would go for 'other uses', including "tobacco prevention".

It doesn't mention that, as a result of a federal suit some years ago, Oregon has been receiving MILLIONS of dollars from the Tobacco industry ... supposedly to pay for "tobacco prevention" programs as well as to compensate for health-care costs which are directly imposed on the state as a result of uninsured tobacco users who incur medical costs which they cannot pay and which are absorbed by 'the state'. (More likely, picked up by health-care providers which are already required to pay for the medical care of 'indigent' patients ... such as Illegal Aliens.)

The State has not reserved these funds for the expressed purposes. Instead, it has included the funds in the "general fund", which could well be used (and has been) for 'any' purpose.

Now they want to impose a new tax to provide medical care for 'the children', who are generally supposed NOT to be 'tobacco users'.

A twenty-five cent pack of cigarettes now costs $4.40, because of the "Sin Taxes" added at the unilateral behest of Federal and State taxes.

Unanswered is the question: "What does Child Health Care have to do with adult Tobacco Users? If the concern is Child Health Care is at such a critical state, why should tobacco users foot the bill?"

What they aren't mentioning AT ALL:
The purpose of the bill isn't just another attempt to add another tax in Oregon. The State has attempted to add new tax revenue (including both Tobacco Taxes and a State Sales Tax ... Oregon is one of only TWO states which does not impose a Sales Tax on its citizens, and every time the legislature attempts to impose a Sales Tax it is voted down, and The State fulfills its threats by cutting back on Essential Services such as Police staffing).

No, Measure 50 doesn't JUST impose another tax. Instead, it proposes a constitutional amendment which would allow The State to impose a "Special Tax" on a consumer product.


Imagine, for comparison, a measure to enact a Constitutional Amendment to establish a tax on Mascara. This is a consumer product which is used only by a narrowly defined subset of the citizenry. Presumably, those who use excess mascara (harlots, professional models, actresses, Katherine Harris if she should move to Oregon) would only be affected and would be obliged to sacrifice for the benefit of another, unrelated minority.

Should we blithely accept this measure ... this constitutional amendment ... because the cost would only be borne by the 'unsavory element' of the voters?

This is the "Tyranny of the Majority", as John Stuart Mills defines it, at its worst.

More important, acceptance of this approach would impose a burden on a minority which is acceptable only because they are a minority.

Most important, it would lay the groundwork for other, even more egregious impositions on minority populations for the benefit of measures which are not generally accepted, and which have failed all other tests of the popular vote.

Fatuous, pernicious pusillanimous politicians. I detest them politically, and I detest their tactics both as a matter of personal and political preference.

Within the next week I will write to the local chapter of SEIU and require that they return all funds of my "Fair-Share" which are earmarked for political activism.

I have been acquiescent long enough.

What a bunch of Maroons!

USPSA survey: Win a Shotgun!

USPSA recently emailed this survey to members:

In 2005 USPSA conducted a member survey that helped the organization present an accurate profile of the practical shooter to the media, the firearms industry and USPSA partners and sponsors. The data gathered in 2005 was extremely valuable and response from the industry was excellent.

We are once again conducting a survey to measure the impact our members have on the firearms industry. This 2007 survey will allow us to track any trends and provide an updated profile of the USPSA member to dealers and manufacturers at the 2008 SHOT Show.

Please take a moment to complete this survey. The information you provide will be vital in our efforts to expand our sponsor base and build the sport. As a thank you for completing the survey, you will be entered in a drawing to win a brand new Mossberg shotgun. Although the survey will continue, the eligibility deadline for the Mossberg shotgun is 11/09/2007.

As with the last survey this online polling system gives USPSA the ability to collect data through a protected, anonymous online system. This system also ensures the integrity of the information by preventing individual members from filling it out more than once. It won’t tell us what you said on the questionnaire, only that you completed it. Your personal information will be protected, but USPSA will benefit from knowing more about our members.

We appreciate your participation and encourage you to act quickly to complete the survey in order to be eligible to win a brand new Mossberg shotgun.

Pretty cool, eh?

The only problem is, the survey requires you to register by submitting your USPSA member number and your PIN.

PIN?

What the heck is my PIN?

Do you know what your USPSA PIN is? I don't. I've never had to enter my PIN for USPSA access before.

I know what my USPSA number is, and I know what the UID and password is to enter the MEMBERS area. (Come to think of it, I don't know this: it's in my PASSWORD area for Microsoft XP. But that doesn't work, either.)

Come on, USPSA. I guess you know what my PIN is, but I don't. Is it one of the magic numbers published in the Front Sight magazine? I can't even find the magazine, and you expect me to know my PIN?

I'm thinking, this is one survey that isn't going to get a lot of responses.

Dave, email me. Okay?

(What, you can't find my personal email address Dave? Okay, I feel your pain.)


UPDATE: November 4, 2007
Comment from Evil Bill:

Jerry---It's on your Front Sight mailing label.

Look for PIN: followed by a string of seven numbers. Probably just to the right of your name.

Once again, Evil Bill is right.

I used the PIN I found on my Front Sight mailing label and was able to take and complete the survey.

I'll let you know how much I enjoy my new MOSSBERG shotgun as soon as they ship it to me. It may be a companion piece to the new MOSSBERG shotgun I bought in April.

Thanks, Evil Bill!

Meaningful Blogging Hiatus

I've had the flu for the past 4 weeks, SWMBO is recovering from major surgery, and neither of us have been to an IPSC match for over a month.

In the meantime, I'm running BlogMeat, Ugly Betty and "Plastic Greaves".

Can you see it's time for us to get back on the range?

I thought you could.

Armor All!

An excellent case for Shovel Control!

Ugly Betty

I never thought I would find myself linking to STYLE.COM ...

.. but here we are. Must be a slow news day, eh?


The thing is, I have from time to time found myself at SWMBO's house watching television, and actually enjoying Ugly Betty. I don't like their politics, don't like most of the people, but like millions of Americans I am totally charmed by Ugly Betty.


Imagine, then, my chagrin at learning that she 'cleans up good'.

(Click! Wait for it!)

TAS: "Ambush In Samarra"

The Longest Morning


From The American Spectator (h/t Donovan at Castle of Arghhh!)

Yes. This is what Combat is like. No "End Plan", no politics. Just hours and hours of boredom punctuated by minutes of terror and Doing The Jobs Only Americans Will Do.

This is "The Elephant" in its most terrifying aspect. If your admiration for America's warriors has grown tepid ... prepare yourself to be convinced all over again.

National Ammo Day

Kim du Tuit has just declared that the 2007 National Ammo Day will be November 19; National Ammo Week will be November 17 - 25.

The goal:

At least 100 rounds of centerfire ammo, or at least 500 rounds of rimfire.

Let me see ....
According to the calendar, the 17th is the 3rd Saturday of November. That means the 19th falls on Monday. Nope, no matches that day, so I won't be likely to shoot 100 rounds. Well, I get off work at 6pm and Sunset is calculated to be at 5:05pm.

Okay, this is too analytical. The point is, I work all day and can't get to the range in time to shoot 100 rounds before it's too dark to shoot.

But the day before National Ammo Day is Sunday, and that's the Tri-County Gun Club IPSC match (third Sunday of the month.) Yeah, I think I'll be shooting 100 rounds on THAT day. Probably more like 150 - 200 rounds, depending on the stages.

The day before? I'll be loading ammunition. And I'll cleave to the spirit of National Ammo Day by loading 500 rounds on Monday the 19th. After all, I'll need it for SWMBO and I to compete at the Dundee match the next Saturday ... the last day of National Ammo Week.



x

Geek Length!

Texas has too many reports

State agencies issue too many reports, a new 668-page report says.

Well, I thought it was funny.

Gun Free Zone

As much as I hate to steal from the blogger who originally did the research, for the sake of brevity I'll embed this Gun Free Zone parody here.



H/T Xavier

So .... in the interest of including 'value added' content (also from the Fox 1/2 hour News Hour), here's another skit on Gun Control:

Empty Holster Week - Part 4 and 5

Okay, I give up.

In the past week, I haven't seen a single person ... student, staff or faculty ... wearing an empty holster on my local campus in protest of the "no concealed carry" laws endemic to colleges in this country.

It may be due to the Oregon law (166.291, 166.360, 166.370) which permits concealed carry in this state. Or it may be due to student (and staff and faculty) ennui.

Fox News has an article, and there was a letter to the editor of the local student newspaper in favor of concealed carry on campus. It referred to an article titled "Guns On Campus", which is a likely original source but I can't find it on the school website.

At this point, I must concede that the "Concealed Carry on Campus" question is not a big issue here. I had hoped to present some evidence that it was, but I can only conclude that the fact that it is not news ... is news.

Band of Brothers

Yesterday was United Nations Day. It was, I think, an unhappy day, bringing to mind as it did the degeneration of a once honorable and hopeful force for civilization into the effete yet feral disappointment which now occupies Turtle Bay.

But today --- today is Saint Crispin's Day.

This is the day to celebrate the brotherhood of men who would lay down their lives for their family, their country and their honor.

Although our fighting men and women, our warriors, are daily denigrated by the rabid monsters of politics, we can take this day for our own to honor them for their devotion, their determination, and their sacrifice.

.... he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Empty Holster Week - Part 3

Another day, another "sorry, no empty-holster sightings here" report.

Sure, I don't spend all day standing on "The Quad" watching students march through the rain. I walk to the office from the parking log, take a break outside, look through the windows from time to time, trudge back to the car ... I don't see empty holsters.

Deciding that a little research is in order, I look through the student newspaper. Nope, no articles about Empty Holster Week, let alone Islamic Fascist Awareness Week. Could it be that I reside in a Politically Unaware Student Environment (PUSE!)

In Other News ...

I voted today in the November 6, 2007 Oregon State Elections. Easy ballot (they're mailed to us here in Oregon, you know) with only three issues:

State: Ballot item rejecting Measure 37, which originally refused The State to impose zoning restrictions on property owners which were not in effect when the property was originally bought. VOTE: No (Sorry, Fish, don't mean to make your life harder).

Too many stories about property owners (farmers, mostly) wanting to build a second house for The Next Generation, and being forbidden; or trying to dry up a quarter-acre marsh because the mosquitoes were eating up the grandchildren, but forbidden because it was a 'protected Wetland.

State: Ballot measure to change the state constitution to impose an even more exorbitant tax on tobacco. Vote: NO! This state has been receiving millions of dollars from The Tobacco Industry, presumably to use in treating citizens who have health-problems due to tobacco-product usage. But this is the same argument used to justify this measure. The Tobacco Industry funds received have NOT been used for this purpose, yet this is the same argument used to justify this measure. This is the first time a Constitutional Amendment has been proposed to impose a tax on a product. With any luck, it will be the last time. This is Oregon, the state which has infamously rejected Petition signatures and then unilaterally redefined procedural objections to review the objections of the petition signers who can prove that their signatures were in fact legitimate. (Complex subject, see here for a more understandable explanation.)

The bottom line is that this Red State is ruled by a liberal Democrat Governor, who historically as ALWAYS used the Bureaucracy to undermine the expressed will of the people. He's turning this green haven into Kalifornia North. I won't vote for anything that appears on his ballot.

Local: County measure to add 5% to the property tax to pay for improvements in police and 'other' county Support Services. Vote: NO! It breaks my heart to vote against anything that might help SWMBO (a county employee) earn a decent living, but the County is as Red as the State.

"This is just another Peyton Place and we're all Harper Valley hypocrites!"

Other:
The Wonders of Amazon.com -- good deal on Miami Vice Seasons 1 & 2
Good deal on the Jack Reacher (author Lee Child) book that I've read but don't actually own -- Running Blind. (The link is for the audiobook - no current amazon listings for the hardcover, which I just bought and AM reading as soon as I sign off here!)

Got 'em both, I'm spending more time blogging than I am reading or Pastell-a-visioning.

Must -- Resist -- The -- Fisk -- of -- Death!~

United Nations Day

Today is United Nations Day.

I remember the United Nations when I was a kid. Dag Hammarskjold was UN Secretary-General , Jonas Salk was giving the world a vaccine to immunize children against Poliovirus, and we went Trick-or-Treating for UNICEF.

I remember making the rounds in the neighborhood with my UNICEF collection cannister, before I went home and got my candy bag to revisit the same doorways.

Today ....

I can't say it any better than Sondra K.

Perfidious Albion!

A few months ago I held a sort of quasi-discussion with a Brit who called himself the ASBO-Monger. The subject was essentially whether gun control really works in Britain.

This video demonstrates the Buyer's Remorse of a people who have been convinced to give up their personal firearms ... with little or no compensation .. due to a governmental program which is wholly arbitrary.


I've said it so many times, so many ways, and yet I don't think I would ever be able to say it so well as these British Citizens Subjects serfs have expressed themselves in an NRA video on YouTube. (Courtesy of Ninth Stage)

I started out keeping track of the sound-bite / Bumper Sticker quotes, and soon lost track of them. The message from a people who have been forced to give up their guns for a pernicious Governmental program is this:

We will never give in. Never ... never ... never give in.

Churchillian, perhaps. More appropriately, reminiscent of "Rule Britania":

"Britains, never will be slaves!"

But today they are, and their message is clear.

When we accede willingly to governmental bans on firearms, we lose more than our right to own firearms. We lose our freedom to decide for ourself what is right, and what is not right. Only when we experience the consequences of our decision do we understand how wrong it may be.

Gun Control!

It's not about controlling guns.
It's about controlling the people.

It's not about who wins; it's about who loses.

Either we do, or they do; and we always, always lose when we allow them to convince us that we are being 'selfish' because we are not willing to 'compromise'.

For them, the word compromise means that we lose, and they win.

It's not about safety. It's not about crime.

It's about who makes decisions in the way we live our lives.
Either we do, or they do.

Our choice?

Liberal Talk Radio

Air America gone from Austin airwaves | Postcards from the Trail

Liberal talk radio will likely never be successful because liberals think for themselves.

Yeah, right.

Read the whole thing.

H/T: The Armorer

Empty Holster Week - Part 2

Breaking News - I Go To Work!

I'm still feeling puny, but my voice has changed from a croak to a growl to a really sexy basso profundo.

Maybe I'm being overly generous to myself here, but after a week of being unable to speak at all (Laryngitis caused by, according to my physician, "a combination of two or more flu bugs" which I prefer to call a "Flu Cocktail") it's really nice to be able to speak intelligibly ... if softly, very softly. Talking too much or being too active still causes coughing jags as it breaks up the bronchial congestion.

Um... okay, that's what they call a 'digression'.

Empty Holster Week
I did get to walk around on campus for a while today. I saw not one single student prominently displaying an 'empty holster'.

I'm disappointed. I thought this was going to be A Big Thing, and I was beginning to consider my home university campus to be more 'socially conservative' than most. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps it's a matter of the local university student body being more caught up in 'practical' matters, which might be expected in an institution which was originally named an 'Agricultural College'.

Or it may be a matter of ennui.

To summarize, here's the plan:

This week, you might see students around campus wearing empty holsters on their belts. Don’t be alarmed – it’s part of a harmless Rights Awareness protest. You'll probably see Ladies and Gentlemen both.

The point of any empty holster presence is to call attention to the gun owners whom you may not know. This is important for those who believe they are ‘uncomfortable’ with another adult student carrying their personal weapon on campus anywhere near them.

But one’s fellow student is the same person now they were before one found out they are a gun owner.

The thing non-gun owners can do is to inquire. The gun owner is usually well informed on U.S History, sovereign rights, personal authority, personal liberty, and tactics - and is a superb source of information on how it relates to heads of household who would like to learn more about household safety planning and considerations.

IFAW
I'm still hoping that the local University Students will jump on the bandwagon, so I'm thinking ... maybe they've been distracted by the (inconveniently timed) "Islamic Fascism Awareness Week".

During the week of October 22-26, 2007, the nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever – Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses.

The purpose of this protest is as simple as it is crucial: to confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that Global Warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat. Nothing could be more politically incorrect than to point this out. But nothing could be more important for American students to hear. In the face of the greatest danger Americans have ever confronted, the academic left has mobilized to create sympathy for the enemy and to fight anyone who rallies Americans to defend themselves. According to the academic left, anyone who links Islamic radicalism to the war on terror is an "Islamophobe." According to the academic left, the Islamo-fascists hate us not because we are tolerant and free, but because we are "oppressors."

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is a national effort to oppose these lies and to rally American students to defend their country.

So I'm wandering around the campus looking for flyers, demonstrations, protests and counter-protests.

Hmmm ... nope. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Campus Activism: Not Entirely Absent
I'm disappointed. Last year I was walking to lunch and ran into a battallion of Lyndon LaRouche supporters. As I passed by, they shouted "Hey, are you ready to impeach Bush and Cheney! Let's put them in prison. Better yet, they should be executed for treason!"

I admit, I was fascinated by their fascist fanaticism and spent a few minutes talking to one of the rabble-rousers. I asked him "Hey, is he out of jail yet?" The guy was a case-study in campus activism. As we talked, his eyes began to gleam and he started panting. Finally he shouted "It's you and your generation who are responsible for all that's wrong with the world today!" Too much for me, I went on to lunch and was happy to escape without punching the young gentleman in the nose. Or being punched in the nose myself, as in "Operation Mop-Up". Funny, I thought LaRouche was dead. No such luck, I guess.

Where are campus activists when we need them? They're never around, and I still haven't figured why Lyndon LaRouche campaigns were being conducted in a non-election year. Well, that's Campus Life for you --- fickle, peripatetic, and either spontaneous or a non-event.

DAY-BY-DAY:
Moving on, looking for a reason for living, I discovered that early editions of Day-By-Day cartoons are available as FREE downloads by Wowio.com, which you can find by going to the DBD website. I downloaded the first three 'books' (4th quarter of 2002, 1st & 2nd quarter of 2003) after establishing a Wowio subscription. It's a lot faster than going through Muir's website and accessing each individual day's entries. Wowio.com only allows 3 downloads at a time, and six 'books' are currently available.

UPDATE on "Empty Holster":
The Real Gun Guys has (have?) a bit more information.

Reid reviving 'amnesty' for illegals

WorldNetDaily: Reid reviving 'amnesty' for illegals

In a departure from our usual firearms-related ranting, I note today that the Liberal U.S. Senate is pushing a new immigration bill, which may be voted on as soon as tomorrow (Wednesday, October 24, 2007).

WRITE YOUR SENATOR

The Senate's Contact website has a quick, easy form by which you can email your senator.

Go there, then select your state. The websites for both of your senators will be linked.

Click on either of your senators (or both, one at a time) , fill in the simple identification information, find "Immigration" on the subject list, and type in your message.

I suggest you keep your message system, such as writing one of the following brief notes:

DREAM Act - NO

or

DREAM Act - YES

It appears that this is as close to a vote as we are likely to get on this issue.

Empty Holster Week - Day 1

You may have wondered if anyone on campus was spotted wearing a holster during "Empty Holster Week". (See Concealed Carry on Campus - SCCC) I know I'm curious, but I spent the day at home, still fighting the Three Week Flu -- and that's another story.

I did have a comment on that article, referring to a co-worker who "never saw any reason why anyone would want to have a gun." I started to reply in the comments section, but it started to get a little "Geek-Length" so I decided instead to reply here.

If you're reading this, you are probably a recreational shooter. Chances are, you shoot IPSC and are more or less competitive. Statistically, it's a toss-up whether you have a gun because you want to do a particular kind of shooting ("I need to hunt elk so my Elk rifle doesn't get rusty!"), or have a gun and just want some reason or excuse to go shoot it.

I actually shot my first IPSC match because at age 38 I had recently bought an army surplus 1911 from my father and was wondering what to do now that I had it. (I had never been a pistol shooter; some say I'm still not.) Someone at my office had posted a sign about "competitive pistol shooting" being available at a local range - Tri-County Gun Club - and I showed up the next weekend for training and certification.

Yesterday, home with the flu, was one of the few months times I missed a TCGC match. It takes a reason for me NOT to shoot.

You and I need no better reason than to shoot for sport -- an excuse to go to the range in nasty weather and embarrass ourselves in the company of good friends. We do have other reasons, including personal defense and hunting, but it's all of a package.

We just do not commonly associate with people who have NO personal firearms experience, who quite possibly have never handled a gun and aren't sure they remember if they've ever seen a "real live gun". The person of whom I wrote was one such individual, and was not only indifferent to an invitation to come out and try shooting one, but acted skittish about it.

It is a fact that there are people who are literally fearful of guns. The reasons for their fear are not easily understandable to me, I can never tell whether it's Nature or Nurture. That is, they're essentially timid or fearful people, or they have been taught to scorn and/or fear firearms. I suspect it's more often that their family was much different from mine, when they were children they were discouraged from a 'morbid interest' in guns.

I see this 'nurtured' abhorrence of firearms less often in my own generation than in the generation which was raised in accordance to the concepts advocated by Dr. Spock. Spock's best-selling book "Baby and Child Care" was first published in 1946, but his radical political ideals became more evident in the 1970's when my generation started families. Spock was a left-wing radical "political activist" and a Pediatrician. I have written here before, and recently, of the growing trend of Pediatricians to extend their influence on child-care beyond the scope of caring for the physical needs of children, and to treat firearms ownership as a 'safety issue' in child rearing.

Not to put the blame for timidity about guns, if blame there must be, on the shoulders of one man; many families consider firearms to be 'instruments of violence' and reject the ownership and/or usage of firearms as they reject violence. Some do this for religious reasons, some because it is a connection they have made independently.

I refer you to Kevin Baker's blog The Smallest Minority, and specifically to one article which in part discussed the two types of violence.

I refer to this as an inability to differentiate between the two "gun cultures" - the "violent and predatory" and the "violent, but protective." His type (exemplified by the British press, and it would seem, the majority of the British populace) sees only violent, and all violence is, by their definition, bad - unless that violence is carried out by an authorized member of the government, where it is instead referred to as force. And there is still some ambivalence even about those acts. I'm heartened to see what appears to be a growing public support for what they term "have-a-go heroes" - those who fight back against attackers - but they've got a long way to go after almost ninety years of a disarmament culture.

[Emphasis in the original]

I warn you, The Smallest Minority is (a) addictive and (b) almost invariably "Geek Length". The difference being, of course, that Kevin can put more concept and information into his writing than I do, he is a better writer, and a much better researcher.
___________________________________

I agree with Kevin's proposition, that people who object to guns on the basis of an abhorrence of violence do so indiscriminately. Literally, they don't see any difference, for example, between, a man who initiates a home-invasion burglary and the home-owner who defends his home and family by the use of violence. These are the people who say "only the police and the army should have guns."

And that is the fast-track to Gun Control, which is a growth industry which parallels the Information Age both in time-span and the increasing prevalence.

You ask: "Geek, a few minutes ago you blamed Dr. Spock for teaching parents to be fearful of guns, now you're blaming computers for gun control?"

Good question, and I'm glad you asked that. The answer is no.

The only way computers lend to the gun control movement is in the same sense that computers have enhanced the information-sharing ability of us all. Again, this is indiscriminate and allows strong opinions to be shared with like-minded individuals. You can not name a Gun Control Organization that doesn't have an active website, and you can't find a Gun Rights Organization that doesn't have an active website. The breaking point is that there are a lot of private blogs (such as this one) which allows individual Gun Rights activists to spout their own personal opinions on the subject. There are fewer personal blogs specifically devoted to advocating Gun Control than there are devoted to Gun Rights, by a factor of 1000%. (Yes, I made that up. Gun Control advocates make up their own statistics, I guess I can too.)

That private, individual alternative is part of the reason why the Gun Control controversy is becoming more intense in recent years ... say, fifteen years. In the same way that blogs such as Little Green Footballs (LGF) have exposed Main Stream Media (MSM) inaccuracies and slanted reporting (LGF was instrumental in exposing both the Dan Rather "Bush Letter" and the photo-shopping of TWOT photos from Iraq and Afghanistan), other blogs help us to become aware of anti-gun legislation such as the recent Kalifornia Microstamping Technology. We, as private citizens concerned with our Second Amendment Rights, can't always stop the passage of such wrong-headed state and local laws, but we can help ensure that legislatures don't push these bills through without the scrutiny of an informed citizenry.

And in a way, as we talk about these issues between ourselves, we are encouraged to talk privately to people who "never saw any reason why anyone would want to have a gun." We can at least act as an example of a rational person who sees no reason why they should not be able to have a gun, in careful distinction to not want to have a gun.

To not want to have a gun is to exercise personal choice.
To not be able to have a gun is an exercise in tyranny.

It's not a matter of safety. It's not a matter of culture. It's not a matter of "if it only saves the life of a single child".

It's a matter of who makes our decisions.

Concealed Carry on Campus - SCCC

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - ConcealedCampus.com




In my day, Student Activism consisted of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS, which actually still exists in a much watered down form), and The Weathermen.

Phooey! Those campus radicals were Idealists (read: Anarchists). Today there are new students with new ideals ... individual freedoms.

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) has called for a week of passive demonstrations. During the week beginning October 22, 2007, SCCC has called for students to wear empty holsters on campus.

I'm tempted to join them. Maybe I will. I'm getting long in the tooth, and my priorities are doing my job and earning the generous salary I'm provided from the state University System.

But I would like to support this drive to convince College administrators that students really care about their right to defend themselves on campus.

After the massacre at Virginia Tech, it's clear to most clear-thinking Americans that "Gun-Free Zones" don't protect college students against predatory madmen. What some may consider a protective policy, predators consider a 'target-rich' environment. If students don't buy into either concept, who are we to deny them the right to self defense?

The public outcry against "School Shootings' probably started with The Stockton Massacre.
It was brought most emphatically to the forefront of our attention by the Columbine High School Massacre,
but none of us are likely to feel comfortable with supporting the arming of juveniles, although allowing faculty and staff to arm themselves may be a good second step.

The first step just may be to acknowledge the right of adults on college campuses to defend themselves.

SCCC's position is that adults (21+ years old) with a Concealed Carry license should be permitted to carry concealed firearms on campus, for their own protection and for the protection of their fellow students.

Yes, in this state there are no laws forbidding an adult carrying a concealed handgun on campus. But school policy ... is inconsistent state-wide. Well, perhaps not so inconsistent; where policy exists, it is decidedly anti-gun.

When I consider my own participation, I have to consider two issues:

1. This is a 'student-driven' movement. If the students don't care, is it my place to make their point for them?
2. And if they do care ... if some students DO show up on campus with empty holsters ... would I be undermining their self-determinism by participating in a student-organized event?

At this time, I'm not sure what is the best thing to do. I know I won't wear an empty holster on campus tomorrow, although I believe I'll bring a holster. What I do with it depends on what the students do.

Many of my co-workers, all of whom are aware that I shoot pistols in competition, are already vaguely uneasy with having a 'gun nut' in their office. In casual conversation, at least one co-worker has already stated that he 'never saw any reason why anyone would want to have a gun'.

On the other hand, I've already taken two co-workers to the range, and they seemed to enjoy themselves.

Stay tuned. I'll let you know what happens this week.

The rest of the story

The Story:
cbs11tv.com - Dallas Man Shoots, Kills Second Burglar In 1 Month

A 70 year old veteran and business owner shot and killed a man who was attempting to burgle his place of business. This is the second burglar he has killed in the past three weeks.

The businessman, James Walton, was not arrested after either shooting. However, his two shotguns were confiscated and a Grand Jury will hear the question about whether he should face any penalties.

The Back Story:
Rebecca Aquilar, a local Fox News television affiliate reporter, found Walton returning to his car in a shopping center parking lot after he bought a new shotgun. Positioning herself inside his open car door (so that he was unable to leave), she questioned him despite his repeated statements that he didn't want to talk to her or to have his face shown:

"Are you a trigger happy kind of person? Is that what you wanted to do, shoot to kill?"

The Rest Of The Story:
The video of the newscast was all over the Internet for three days, until the television station caused it to be removed because it was "proprietary material".

The station then suspended the reporter. Supposedly, for 'journalistic improprieties'. We call it "ambush journalism".

No doubt they were embarrassed by their own lack of journalistic ethics. Didn't they send her on the story? Don't they have an editorial board to review and approve features before are broadcast? That seems the be the question of the day.

Breitbart.TV News, however, created an 8-minute video which features 'selections' from that original video, which is a legitimate usage of proprietary material (as opposed to publishing the entire content) along with appropriate commentary. This makes the TV station actions the focus of the story.

Sondra K ("Knowledge Is Power") has the link to the Breitbart.TV News feature, as well as links to other explanatory text. Rather than put the same links here, I suggest you go to the Sondra K. feature. She did the legwork, she deserves the traffic. (Read the comments appended the the Breitbart video, to see the sense of outrage it generated.)

Besides, "Knowledge is Power" is a fascinating blog and one which I visit at least two or three times a week. I may be moving it to the 'Websites that I visit every day' section of my sidebar.

Home Back-Up Protection

The Back-Up

(H/T: Conservative Scalawag)
Very interesting, but it won't fit on my waterbed.

Guess I'll just have to stick with the mossberg 590 laying on the floor, the 1911 in the nightstand, the Blackhawk .41 magnum in the computer desk, the ... hey, none of your business!

Still, it's an interesting idea, although prone to staining the sheets with gun-oil and making your bedroom stink of Hoppe's. Hey, that's an aphrodisiac, right?

"Many customers are buying one for each side of the bed!"
Sounds like a really rocky relationship.

AK-47

Defense Tech: Josh Rushing on the AK-47

(H/T - Castle of Argghhh! - H&I Fires October 16, 2007)

Whether you think the AK47 is "The gun that changed the world", or a piece of junk, you can't deny that the availability of a relatively cheap, relatively reliable honest-to-gosh Assault Rifle has put a lot of firepower in the hands of a lot of people.

Often these are people whose concept of firearms maintenance is primitive at best. We're talking about the same folks who think shooting full-auto bursts into the air, with no concern about where the lands round, is 'kewl'.
*(embedded video is 27.l3mb from Yahoo, downloads as you play it.)*

Click on the Defense Tech link for the full information, which also includes links to accompanying text AND a plethora of personal comments. You'll find that as many people there mirror your own opinion ... almost regardless of what your opinion is.

I can't speak for the accuracy of Josh Rushing's commentary, but it's 11+ minutes of interest for this Vietnam Veteran.

One thing which should be mentioned:
When I was in Vietnam, I heard rumors that the U.S. forces (especially "Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols -- LRRPS or LURPS) had found it effective to leave captured AK-47's where wanna-be VC could find them.

The 'top' of the breach on the AK was latched by a spring-loaded latch at the rear. The LRRPs would weaken the spring-metal on the latch so that it would hold it down until the gun was fired. This was done by simply stressing the metal. When the AK was fired, the latch would soon give way so that the breach cover released. This exposed the bolt and mainspring, allowing the bolt mechanism to travel past its designed limits. The bolt would be ejected to the rear with great force, speed and momentum causing grevous injury to any body parts in its path.

So rumor went. If the rifle was fired from the shoulder, it would be expected to, minimally, crush a cheek-bone. In actual practice, it was probably fired from the hip and the injuries were not likely to be fatal or even debilitating ... unless it broke an arm or took off a chunk of the rib-meat.

I can't attest to the veracity of the story, but it was some small consolation to those of us in the boonies.

A more believable war-story (all these from the 1st Infantry Division in 1969-1970 in the Dian area) is that of a young 2nd lieutenant on the first night of his first 8-day patrol. He had a squad of his platoon spread out in-line in a night ambush covering a known VC path. In the middle of the night a VC discovered the ambush, found a place at the end of the line and hosed the entire squad with a banana-clip (30 rounds) from his AK. They young lieutenant was not the only U.S. soldier to lose his life that night.

You can say what you will about the AK-47, but I know that it worked often enough to be an effective weapon in Vietnam.

Speaking of which, if you watch the video you will see comments about the unreliability and tendency to jam of the M16.

The early M16 did not have the 'forward assist' feature. Most of the problems were caused by fouling of the bolt, which allowed it to move forward without actually going into battery. It was difficult to recognize this situation, and more difficult to correct it.

Later versions (in place when I went 'in-country' in September of 1969) featured the forward-assist, and we found this to be an entirely reliable way of insuring that the rifle was functional

Other improvements included:

• the introduction of LSA rifle lubrication
• an understanding that not only the rifle, but also the magazines and the ammunition needed to be cleaned regularly
• appreciation that magazines (both 20-round and 30-round) needed to be 'underloaded' by two rounds to insure reliable feeding
• the issue of plastic 'zip-top' baggies to keep loaded magazines clean and dry in magazine pouches
• a regimen of using up 'old ammunition' between missions on the practice range
• the practice of always cleaning your rifle (often including using barrels of gasoline as a solvent!) EVERY time you completed a mission, and quick-cleaning your rifle at least every other day whether you used it or not

During the 12 months I was in Vietnam, I never heard of a single major malfunction with an M-16 when these procedures were observed and ritually practiced.

The M-16 was still a mouse load, and those fast, light bullets still couldn't be relied upon to push through the jungle to their target. I carried an M79 grenade launcher (loaded with 'canister' rounds ... buckshot) and backed up with HE rounds and flare 'illumination' rounds, as well as a 1911 .45acp pistol.

Still, my platoon never got a kill that wasn't directly attributable to artillary, the claymore mine, "booby traps" or the M-14 carried by our point men.

YMMV.

Mark Steyn on Gun Control?

Mark Steyn on National Review Online

"... on CNN the other night Anderson Cooper was worrying about the homicide rate in Philadelphia.

The city of brotherly love is the murder capital of the nation, and CNN had dispatched a reporter to interview the grieving mother of a young black boy killed while riding his bicycle in the street. Apparently, a couple of cars had got backed up behind him, and an impatient passenger in one of them pulled out a gun and shot the kid.

Anderson Cooper then went to commercials and, when he returned, introduced a report on how easy it is to buy guns in Philadelphia and how local politicians are reluctant to do anything about it. This is, again, an argument only the expert class could make.

In the 1990s, the number of guns in America went up by 40 million but the murder rate fell dramatically. If firearms availability were the determining factor, Vermont and Switzerland would have high murder rates. Yet in Montpelier or Geneva the solution to a boy carelessly bicycling in front of you down a city street when you’re in a hurry is not to grab your gun and blow him away.

It’s the culture, not the technology."

I've been trying to make that point for years, but without notable success.

Who can compete with the genius of Mark Steyn?

(Go read the whole thing)

Schwarzenegger signs handgun microstamp bill

Schwarzenegger signs handgun microstamp bill

This would be AB1471, which was approved by the governor on October 13, 2007.

(Here is the full and complete text of the bill as it was approved; the last update of 9/17/2007.)


As we discussed in September, 2007, the Gun-Control activists in California have been pushing The Governator to enact draconian anti-gun bills during his reign term in office, and now they have succeeded in Act II. (Act I was the 2004 "Drop Testing" of handguns. It also included, in the same year, the ban on private ownership of .50 caliber rifles. See here and here.)

The Governator's justification was:

"While I appreciate and understand that this technology is not without limitations, I am signing this bill to provide law enforcement with an additional tool for solving crimes committed with semi-automatic handguns in California," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

Translation: "I know the technology is unproven and dubious, but it makes me look good to actually sign a bill once in a while; with the other bill I signed last week, this puts both the Anti-gun lobby and the Gay Rights lobby right in my pocket. My message to Family Rights and Gun Rights people is: there aren't enough of you to affect my next election, so Hasta La Vista, Baby!"


The effect on gun owners is uncertain at this time. This is partly because news reports indicate that it only affects NEW guns:

Activists had called for the legislation, which requires new models of semiautomatic handguns sold in California to have internal parts that "microstamp" shell casings with codes that identify the guns when they are fired. Revolvers are exempt. [Ed. - emphasis added]

But the text of the bill which was made available in September suggests a much more draconian effect:

By expanding the definition of "unsafe handgun," the manufacture, sale, and other specified transfer of which is a crime, this bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, and thereby impose a state-mandated local program.

Note the added emphasis: "the manufacture, sale and other specified transfer of which is a crime."

This strongly suggests that not only is the designation of "unsafe handgun" not just applicable to new "gun models", or new guns ... it applies to any "semi-automatic pistol" which is transferred to another owner.

California owners cannot legally sell or trade or give away a firearm which is designated as an "unsafe handgun". If you're a California resident that means, for instance, that the 1911 which Grandpa brought home to commemorate the Battle of the Marne cannot legally be handed down to your children or grandchildren. It means that if you have a Glock 19 and your friend has a Kimber, you can't swap them whether or not there is an exchange of money involved.

It means that you can't take your Beretta down to the gun store and exchange it for a revolver. In fact, you can't even sell it to the gun store.

What happens when you die? That Colt Gold Cup can't be part of your estate unless it is retro-fitted with the "microstamping technology" --- which The Governator has coyly admitted is "not without limitations".

What happens if, by January 1, 2010, the "microstamping technology" has still not been proven? Oh, no problem: the bill is not enforceable until " ... the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions."

Another consideration is that, even though the assumption is that the microstamp will be either on the firing pin (imprints on the primer) or on the breechface (imprinting on the base of the case), the actual text of the bill requires that the firearm be "... designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired ..."

Technically, this requires not ONE but TWO imprinting arrangements, which more than doubles the technological challenge. Nobody seems to have questioned whether the primer is considered part of the 'case', as the term is used (but not defined) in the law.

The effect on the manufacture and sale of new guns is also uncertain. We can only look back on the 2006 "Drop Safety Requirements" to discern the guidelines. You will recall that this law (section 12128 of the California Penal Code) required handgun manufacturers to submit THREE handguns of the specific make and model for testing ... which includes dropping all three handguns on a concrete surface from a height of about 40". If any handgun fails any of the six tests, the make and model will not be certified for sale (failure is if the cocked hammer falls.) This is obviously 'testing to destruction' as the handguns will not be suitable for resale -- being as they are likely to be all dinged up!

Some manufacturers (STI specifically, with 25 models of 'semi-automatic pistols' in their current line) refused to yield to this unreasonable obligation. Manufacturers who gave in to the last (Act I: 2004) round of excessive gun-control legislation are likely to take a second look at the profitability of selling to California buyers when Act II becomes effective.

One more time, just for the record: this is not a safety issue, this is not a 'crime stopping' issue, it's not even a 'crime solving' issue.


It's a back-door 'gun control' issue ... just one more way to keep firearms out of the hands of honest citizens. And that means that by signing the bill, Arnold the Barbarian has signed the bill for purely political reasons.

He wants to be re-elected.

What do you know about the AR15?

I got a letter today asking for information way beyond my experience. Maybe you can answer some of these questions:

I'm Lee ****** and I live in Spokane. I've been active in USPSA pistol shooting since March and am having great fun building guns, reloading ammo, and shooting a large quantity of rounds. We do a little 3 Gun activity at a couple of shooting clubs in the area and I am thinking of buying a used AR-15 (Rock River). I caught your blog in a Google search and thought I'd ask for some advice, if you have the time.

Do you reload for the AR? Is it any more difficult or hassling than standard pistol reloading? Is swaging of military primer pockets as easy as I have read it is? Finally, should I look for a .223 or 5.56 chamber?

I'm running a Dillon 650.

Thanks for the help.

If you can answer some of these questions, either post here or send me an email. I'll forward it to Lee and I'm sure he'll be grateful for your help.

Even if you do choose to contact Lee directly, the next reader who has these questions might appreciate the information here, so ... comments would be appreciated.