Happy Thanksgiving!

My holiday was exceptional .,., I spent it with my Son, "The Squid Kid:" and his family.  And my sister, and bro-in-law.
I can only hope that your holiday was even better than mine.

My loving sister hosted the gathering, she and her husband John.  Good peope, I've been blessed .

This is the third anniversary of the passing of SWMO

High School Football: "If you can't remember the play, You May Be A ......"

Star QB for Utah high school takes ‘big hits,’ can’t remember scoring winning TD | Fox News:

A Utah high school is under fire after its star quarterback told reporters during a post-game interview that he took big hits on the field and could not remember the last play, KUTV.com reported. 

 Britain Covey, the Timpview High School quarterback, was addressing a scrum of reporters after winning the championship on Friday and said, "I don't even remember who scored on that last drive. I think it was me, but....uh...so, I took some big hits, but it was all worth it. Unless I have permanent brain damage, which I'm really praying not...not to have."

 (Underlined Emphasis Added)

One of the things I say to people who ask to enroll in the "Introduction to USPSA" class which I teach is that ".  it's safer than playing High School Football".

In the interest of brevity, I don't expand on this theme in my "boilerplate" (standard) commentary.  However, my personal commentary is easily exemplified here.

The thing about Practical Shooting is, surprising?  That it IS truly safer than playing football.


"IPSC" is demonstrably less likely to result in physical damage to its practitioners.  Which has, admittedly (by my practice of comparing it to High School Football), established a very LOW standard of safety ... as this article establishes.

"IPSC"   (the International Practical Shooting Confederation) has established several "rules" which are not acceptable to "USPSA" (The United States Practical Shooting Association), primarily because some national states have LAWS which require, for example, that the targets involved must not, in their judgement, represent the human form.  Other laws have to do with the restrictions upon the specific technical forms of firearms which may be owned and/or available to adherents of the sport ... and other restrictions which are to numerous (and diverse among nation-states) to delineate in detail here.

Well, these folks do not live under the beneficent and benign Constitution of the United States of America, which recognizes the Rights of Man as opposed to the Rights of The State.  Their loss, and since the USPSA folks have made it clear that they are not required nor disposed to accede to the laws of foreign land, this is why the United States Region of IPSC (USPSA) has been "allowed" to establish and issue its own Rule Book for Competition ... which is quite different from the IPSC Rule Book, in that we fortunate few have a Constitutional right to take advantage of our own laws, rather than follow the laws of ... say ... Kazakistan *.  (They can't "always" have guns legally, but some folks have guns because they actually need to worry about, y'know, "shooting at people".)

* (Apologies to the good folks in Kazakistan.  I wasn't trying to make the case that they were the "worst place in the world to be", but only to emphasize the point that even though local laws might be restrictive, The People may find that their personal security needs may be more fundamentally a priority than National Laws ... and they can still see Practical Pistol Shooting to be a legitimate sport.)

Back to "Safety" and "IPSC":

I don't know how it is with other trainers, especially in other nations, but within the limited confines of USPSA .. when I teach a class in "Introduction to USPSA", my primary goal is to instruct people in how to run&gun SAFELY!

The secondary goals are to introduce them to the safety rules in a benign manner.  Which is to say ... you don't want to run & gun with people who are unsafe, so we're teaching you have to be the kind of gunner that you would feel comfortable with in your squad.

Beyond that are other goals:

• Learn the practices and purposes of  competing with a loaded gun;
• Become comfortable with the range rules, the Range Officer Commands, 
• Understand how and why the safety rules reflect on basic gun safety, and also who and why the competition rules address safety first, and then address rules of competition
• Evaluate the ability of the individual competitor to practice basic gun-handling skills
• Make the new competitor familiar (and comfortable) with the practices and procedures consistent with safety, skills and competition rules

All of these goals support the basic premise of instruction:

If you can't handle a gun, if you aren't safe, you will not pass the course.  Other than that, our primary goal is to insure that EVERYONE who commits to USPSA competition is a Safe Shooter.   Essentially, we want everyone to be a gunner who doesn't scare the pants off their squad members.  And the only one who can hurt you, is .. you!

First Turkey of the Season

Democratic Colorado state senator resigns to avoid recall over gun law | Fox News:

A Democratic Colorado state senator resigned Wednesday to avoid a possible recall election over a controversial gun control law that led to the ouster of two of her colleagues earlier this year.

Sen. Evie Hudak, who has represented a district that includes Denver’s western suburbs since 2008, announced her resignation less than a week before opponents planned to submit petitions to recall her.

So, a Colorado state Senator dodges the bullet and refuses to oppose a recall ballot which would castigate her for her support of unreasonable and outrageous "Gun Control" (read: "anti-Constutional) bills.

Ho hum, nothing new here.  Just another Democrat who got herself elected, decided to impose her own biases on her constituents, and when push leads to shove ... she hasn't the nerve to stand her ground against the mere threat of opposition.

Why is she the "First Turkey"?

Because her fellow state legislators were ousted well before the Thanksgiving Holiday.  She brought this approbation upon herself.  Other than that, she's just one more arrogant sow sucking on the public teat, until her constituents realized that she represented not them, but her own warped interpretation of "Civil Rights".

This follows the successful recall of Colorado State Senate President John Morse  and State Senator Angela Giron, both of whom not only supported but actively lobbied for strong state bills within the Colorado Senate.  Those bills would  require draconian restrictions on the number of rounds which would be allowed to be loaded into the magazine of a firearm, and would also require a "Universal Background Check" (and the parties involved in transfer of a firearm would be required to pay "a fee" for the background-check process).

Since the bill did NOT pass the Colorado Senate, the details of the background check are less specific than the "fifteen round" magazine capacity limit.


The good citizens of Colorado could see no reason why their civil rights should be so limited by local laws which so obviously obviated the Second Amendment Rights which were clarified in the Constitution, and they (rightly) availed themselves of their rights under both the Federal and the Colorado State Constitutions to recall their "representatives".

Silly Senators: Kix are for Kids, not elected public officials.  When you try to exceed your legal powers, when you abuse your office to advance your personal preference, should it be surprising that your "constituents" decide that you are no longer representing their common interests?

Fortunately for all the citizens of Colorado ... there WERE enough "Cajones" in Colorado to unseat two leading State Senators:  Senate President John Morse, and Senator Angela Geron.

Subsequent to their political demise, Coloradoan citizens set their sights on the second tier of (Democratic) senators, starting with Ms  Hodak ... who at least demonstrated the basic humanity to admit that she was acting under the emphasis of her own personal bias, rather than representing her constituency, and had the good grace to just quit!

Those among us who believe that the Constitution of the United States of America is the basic
"Law of the Land" in America should recognize the citizens of Colorado for their valor and determination.

The ONLY way we can defend our own Constitutional Rights is to stand up to those wussies who would impose their will upon us, whenever they clearly refuse to represent us.

These three State Senators chose to represent their own political bias, rather than their constituents.

They got JUST what they deserved:  when our representatives refuse to serve us, they should fall upon their political swords.

And this is JUST what Senator Hodak has done.

Whether she has done so because the realized the error of her ways, or because she chose to quit her "Day Job" because she would rather commit political suicide rather than being voted out of office ... is ultimately immaterial.   She saw which way the hammer was going to fall, and got out wile the getting-our was less bad than being summarily ousted.

Good for you, Colorado!

---

Other comments on the original FOX article:

The recall efforts came after Colorado's Democratic Legislature and governor last year approved a slate of gun-control measures including ammunition magazine limits and expanded background checks. ----

KDVR reports that by resigning, Hudak ensures that a Democrat will be appointed in her seat and the party will retain its one-seat majority in the Senate, which they would have lost if Hudak was successfully recalled.

(As if the Colorado Voters have confidence in the Democratic Majority in the State Senate!   Best Guess:  The Colorado voters will be VERY cautious about electing another Arrogant Democrat to that Senate,)

Kaleidoscope Glass Works

Kaleidoscope Glass Works Home Page:

 "I have erected a monument more lasting than bronze". (Horace)

Join me in spending some time admiring the artistry of a true master of Liturgical Art Glass.

I am in awe, and I'm sure you will be as impressed.

Washington man sticks with 'Joe Biden defense' for firing shotgun

Washington man sticks with 'Joe Biden defense' for firing shotgun | Fox News: VANCOUVER, Wash. –

 A Vancouver man who fired a shotgun in the air to scare off car prowlers has refused a plea deal and says he's sticking with what's become known as the "Joe Biden defense." 
 Jeffrey C. Barton was at the Clark County Courthouse on Tuesday and had his trial set for March 26 on a misdemeanor charge of illegally discharging a firearm. 
The 52-year-old told The Columbian he will not admit any wrongdoing for the incident last July because he was protecting his family, within his Second Amendment right, and following advice from the vice president. 
In response to a question about home defense, Biden told an interviewer in February Americans don't need semi-automatic weapons because a couple of blasts from a shotgun will scare off intruders.

Gun control: Biden, who led the national task-force on gun control after the Newtown school shooting, made the remark during a Tuesday Facebook town hall event with Parents Magazine

'You don't need an AR-15, it's harder to aim, it's harder to use... you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!'

(February 20, 2013)

The NRA (according to the Washington Post) says that the advise is 'unwise', if not "Illegal" --- as the article suggests:

“Great advice, Joe. Not only would that be illegal, but then a woman would face an attacker with an empty shotgun. For tips on safe and responsible gun ownership, ask the NRA, not Joe Biden.”

 Biden has been a United States Senator from Delaware for 36 years, and I still can't get over the concept that a state ... even one of the smallest states in the nation, can continue to re-elect The Senior LameBrain in Congress year after year after painful year.  He makes Dan Quayle look smart!

The odd thing is ... there is something in what he says.

A shotgun, especially a double-barreled 12 guage, is a very good choice for a Home Defense weapon.
Like a Revolver, a loaded double-barreled shotgun can sit in your closet for years and still be as effective years later as it was when you first loaded it.  Unlike semi-automatic weapons, the ammunition is not retained in a spring-fed magazine.  The second round is as reliable as the first.

(We're assuming that this is an exposed-hammer variety, of course; the spring tension is not loaded until the hammers are cocked; and nobody ... not even Joe Biden .. would have a shotgun with the hammers cocked.  At least, we hope not.)

No ObamaCare

No ObamaCare

Oh, go watch the six minute video.  You'll be glad you did. (H/T to The G-Man)

Why "No Obamacare"?

Because of the problem of "The Tyranny of the Majority".

The concept of "The Tyranny of the Majority" states that when the majority rules, and the government must -- or chooses to -- dictate policy based on the dictates of the majority, then the people learn that they can get anything they want based solely on their desires .... not necessarily based on their needs or their inability to provide for themselves.

This was a cautionary of Alexis De Tocqueville in his book "Democracy in America":

"Tocqueville speculates on the future of democracy in the United States, discussing possible threats to democracy and possible dangers of democracy. These include his belief that democracy has a tendency to degenerate into "soft despotism" as well as the risk of developing a tyranny of the majority .... ".

 Another interpretation of the term "tyranny of the majority" is "Mob Rule".

The American Founding Fathers introduced the Republican, rather than the Democratic system of governmental philosophy (along with the attendant "Electoral College") specifically to avoid this "Mob Rule" aspect of a true democracy.    True democracy works well for small groups; the Greeks found it worked well for city-states.  But in a nation of over a third of a billion citizens, the temptation is strong for the sick, lame and lazy to prey upon the productive minority.

True, President Obama has not yet turned America into a Socialist state; he has not yet nationalized industry.

Well, there's General Motors, and "Organized Labor:, and savings & loans, and banks, and the entire "mortgage industry", and  ... but that's all the fault of the Bush Bail-Out.

However, George W. Bush did not intentionally commit the entire National Debt for the next ten generations for the purpose "redistributing the Wealth of the Nation".

This is the avowed goal of our current president.

New Stamp

[Hat Tip to The Hobo Brasser]

The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama on it.   The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes.

This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.

After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a Special Presidential Commission presented the following findings:

1. The stamp is in perfect order.
2. There is nothing wrong with the glue.
3. People are spitting on the wrong side.

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries: Vol. 2, No. 5:

Now it happens that our elected government, after a fifteen year hiatus, has resumed the destruction of 1911 45s, M1 Garands, 03s, and Springfield 22 Trainers. Note that this has nothing whatever to do with crime. This is aimed directly at obviating the armed citizenry which is historically the only guarantee ohorf human liberty. Act on this at once. If you have not got a 1911, get one. If you have not got an 03, get one. If you have not got an M1, get one. (If you can possibly afford it, get two.)

Spending a dreary Friday morning surfing the nooks and crannies of the Internet, including the corpses of lapsed blogspots, I happened upon a link to Col. Jeff Cooper's "Commentaries".

(The opening exemplar quote was taken from his May 1994, edition.)

Senior members of the IPSC/USPSA addiction (speaking of seniority in terms of longevity rather than skill, and using the term 'addiction' for the same sake of accuracy) are almost invariably familiar with The Colonel.   However, during my recent experiences introducing new initiates I have become aware that most of the 'not-senior' people are ignorant of the origins and history of this addiction we share.

Thus a short historical note on the origin of the sport, and the significance of both The Colonel and his Commentaries seems both timely and appropriate.

Jeff Cooper has had experience in the Military, and did come by the nomenclature with some justification.  He founded and ran "The Gunsite Academy" for some significant decades where he, with a staff of experienced instructers, provided training in both handgun and long gun handling.   His emphasis has ever been on military and law enforcement, but his own extensive hunting experience rounded out his qualification to instruct in civilian hunting-related application of these   techniques.  (Which is not to suggested that he taught tracking and stalking skills.)

As a consequence of his association with men who went armed daily, mostly on a professional basis, he became interested in what was at the time termed "Combat Shooting".  Generally speaking, marksmanship and gun handling skills are "degradable".  If not practiced regularly, ones proficiency deteriorates. Standing on a firing line and shooting at bullseye targets is only "better than nothing".  It certainly isn't "sufficient" and in a sense probably isn't as appropriate as plinking at tin cans.  At least the shooter has a variety in target range and attitude when it bounces around every time you hit it,

So a more realistic target was designed which, yes, DOES share a general size and shape of the human body,  The scoring zones of this cardboard target were scaled on the relative lethality of a shot in the corresponding 'vital;' areas.

This stadardization of targets made it simple to form a competition based on shooting which was obviously more "practical" than bullseye shooting.  (Hence the expression "Practical" pistol shooting.)

Originally, the folks who gathered together to challenge each other were assumed, even expected, to be armed when they arrived at the range,  Anecdote suggest that at one match, when a shooter signed in he was asked where his pistol was.  Why?  Because the procedure for the first stage of the match specified that the gun stayed where-ever it was when the shooter signed in, and if he had it locked in the trunk of the car he had to go get his pistol after the signal to begin shooting.  Well, if he was a deputy sheriff and needed his pistol while he was "on the job", it wouldn't have  been very 'practical' to keep his gun in the car until he really needed it, now would it?

Most of the basics for IPSC competition are directly based on the imperatives that these pistoleros had learned on the job ,,,. often, the hard way,

SPEED?  When you really have to shoot, you really have to be the first one to shoot,
ACCURACY?  It's not going to help to shoot first if you can't hit what you aim at.
POWER? Everybody knows that a bigger or faster bullet is more effective ... and shooting follow-up shots quickly and accurately is more difficult if the shooter has to deal with heavy recoil, so the effectiveness of the more powerful pistol in "marginal" hits is reflected by a higher hit.  Thus, Major power scores higher than Minor power in the B, C and D zones of the IPSC target.   Of course, in Combat Shooting, Jame's Bond's pocket .380 would be right out!


Also, note that these pistoleers liked the idea of several targets, often of several types, at ranges which were not always the same.  They didn't have "standard" stage designs ... they made it up as they went along and each stage had some application to a "real life" combat situation.

For example, for the Classifier stage "El Presidente",  the scenario depicted was being attacked from the rear by the Presidente of an imaginary South American junta along with his two bodyguards.

(I have included this stage as the "final exam" of the Live Fire exercise in my "Introduction to USPSA" class.  It's fast and exciting, it's a change of pace from the rest of the period in which I have been encouraging the participants to take their time and always aim carefully at the A-zone.  We actually record their score and time, and an the conclusion of the exercise we use those statistics to calculate Hit Factor.  Then we declare the stage winner based on highest HF, and show how their stage points can vary dramatically based on each shooter's percentage of the stage winner's HF.  This is a graphic representation of the importance of shooting accurately quickly.)

So much for The Colonel's contribution to the beginning of the sport, except to say that a disgusted Cooper eventually divorced himself from IPSC after the "competition" became so emphasized that "practicality" had, in his opinion, completely obviated the purpose of the exercise!

Because No One Really Needs Ten Rounds in Their Gun

Because No One Really Needs Ten Rounds in Their Gun - Patriot Outdoor News - Patriot Outdxoor News

I keep saying this .. you keep repeating this .. but nobody listens.

Perhaps someday, somebody who thinks we're all just a bunch of paranoid extremists will actually THINK about it!

Ten rounds?  It should be enough for anyone, right?

9mm?  The Gang-Bangers think it's the schitz!  But it's a mouse load.

When you laughingly discount armed citizens by saying:
            "What's the worst that can happen" ...

You probably ......  Have. No. Idea.
And if I told you, you would laugh at me.

Think it's a Politically Incorrect Joke?

Think that nobody would possibly be so lame as to invade your home with guns, and a bad plan, and a sincere intent to kill you and your family?

Think again.


Who really needs more than ten rounds, honestly?

How about the Liberal head-of-the-family who thinks .. honestly, "I've got a gun and I know how to use it, and what's the  WORST that can happen???"

"Surely, there's no scenario in which I would need to have more than (6, 7,  10 .. whatever number) round in my magazine?  Anything more would be just ...another gun nut!"

Really.  What's the worst that can happen?




You have no idea, what can go wrong when the SHTF. (Shit Hits The Fan!)

Any thing that can go wrong, WILL go wrong, and usually in the ONE time when you can least afford the slightest mistake.

Open Letter to 'Hanoi Jane'

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' | Fox News:

New U.S. ambassador to the UN Samantha Power didn't waste her diplomatic skills on Vietnam veterans at a New York speech, praising actress Jane Fonda for "being outspoken on behalf" of her convictions.

Power, 43, was speaking at the United Nations Association of the USA 2013 Global Leadership Awards in New York Wednesday, where honorees included Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani teenager who survived being shot in the head by Taliban thugs and is now an education advocate for girls.

 “Hi everybody,” Power said, according to a transcript. “You know life has changed when you’re hanging out with Jane Fonda backstage. There is no greater embodiment of being outspoken on behalf of what you believe in — and being 'all in' in every way — than Jane Fonda. And it’s a huge honor just to even briefly have shared the stage with her.”

But Vietnam veterans have long held a less charitable view of the Oscar-winning actress, who in her younger days took her anti-war activism to North Vietnam, where she posed with Viet Cong soldiers at a missile battery and earned the derisive nickname "Hanoi Jane." The now-75-year-old actress has since apologized for what she told Oprah Winfrey was an "unforgivable mistake" made in 1972. Fonda told Winfrey she was taken to a North Vietnam military site during the last day of her visit, despite her objections.
"I was an emotional wreck by [then]," Fonda told Winfrey last year. "I don't know if I was set up or not. I was an adult. I take responsibility for my actions.

(This article is way, WAY too long!)


Dear Jane;
I was "an emotional wreck" when I was being shot at by Viet Cong in 1968 and 1969.

The difference between you and me is that you were a stone cold camera-loving BITCH, and I was just a guy who got drafted and wanted to live out my year in Hell, come home to my wife and have babies.

Guess we both got our wish, huh?  I know my two children are happy with the result, and they don't resent you at ALL.  But then ... they weren't "there", were they?  (No thanks to you!)

Here's another difference between us:

You got stardom; I got to live.

You achieved your goal from having your picture taken in an anti-aircraft gun which shot down American airmen.  I achieved my goal by not dying.

It's kind of a Woody Allen thing:
"I don't want to achieve immortality though my work; I want to achieve it by Not Dying!"

Yes, I realize I am repeating myself.  I don't expect YOU to understand the emphasis .. you were never in your whole life threatened with being shot, regardless of the drama in your many, many movies .. which brought you fame, stardom and great good fortune.

Jane, I'm pleased for you in that you are being lauded for "... being outspoken for what you believe in ...".   I think that is just SO sweet!

Forget the definition of "Treason" includes "Aid and comfort to our enemy".  Which you provided.  You were just cute as hell in Barbarella, and so socially significant in "The China Syndrome".

We can almost forget that you were a traitor, that you encouraged the North Vietnamese to continue a war by political means .. even though they could not win it militarily and that thousands of American boys died to support your cinematic career.

Almost, but not quite.  You may count me among the dissatisfied few who still resent your brain-dead gesture of support for the people who were killing American men of your generation.  I'd give you some names of the men in my platoon who died, or who were wounded, by your North Vietnamese friends ... but they deserve more honor than to be linked with YOUR name.

So I will honor them in my heart, because I lived with them and fought with them and trod through the jungle with them every day until they died.  But you will never know their names.  You might be tempted to speak of them, someday, and you would only dishonor them by speaking their names.

I've held this contempt in private for over 40 years, but until I saw you being lauded for "being outspoken about (your) convictions", I never had a reason to publicly excoriate you.

If there is a God in heaven, you will die in pain.   I watched too many young men die, in the jungle, in pain, for reasons which they never understood nor will ever have the opportunity to repudiate  if they would ... as you repudiated your actions, to your everlasting shame.

They never got to say whether or not they thought that their "public service" ... as an infantry man dying in Viet Nam .. was the best way they could serve their country.

I leave you with this one, single word:

Bitch!

Between The Berms: Paging Uncle Ted | Shooting Wire

Between The Berms: Paging Uncle Ted | Shooting Wire:
November 6, 2013

So, the internet began blowing up, again, with cries of betrayal and boycott.

It seems that yet another gun writer has weighed in with his considerable wealth of knowledge, years of experience and expertise to help those less knowledgeable better understand the constitution's second amendment.

Previously it was hunting expert Jim Zumbo who set us all straight on the AR-15, the modern sporting rifle...the black gun.

Now it's gun expert Dick Metcalf whose recent Backstop column in the December issue of Guns & Ammo helps us understand that the second amendment was intended to be heavily regulated, and that onerous regulations are not infringements.

Instead they simply reflect the wishes of the founding fathers.

Oddly enough this pro-regulation stance hasn't been a hit with readers, and instead of accepting the position of one of Intermedia Outdoors' - the publisher of Guns & Ammo - most respected contributors, they've taken a decidedly different position as evidenced by these few examples of comments left online in the many blogs and forums covering this story.

The story here is that a long-term, highly respected gun writer has made statements to the effect that gun owners should accept draconian firearms-confiscation laws without protest.

Dick Metcalf?  I've been reading his 'stuff' for a lifetime, and I have never had a whiff of "confiscatory laws" in what he had to say before.  Mostly, he talked about hunting.  Not a whole bunch about politics.

Now. has he had joined the Bad Boys who talk about how you and I should not contend against the Feds (eg: Obama) proposed confiscatory anti-gun legislation?

I don't know.  

I haven't read the article.  I don't subscribe to the magazine.  I don't know what Metcalf said.

I'm just putting this out her to make people aware of the controversy.  I'm not saying ANYTHING about Dick Metcalf, or his political bent.

You ought to know that this is an issue, and you ought to look it up (read the magazine!) and decide for yourself.

That  is, if you care at all about the supposed issue.  Which may not be an issue at all, except that Shooting Times thinks it is.

Geez!

Sometimes I think the "why can't we all just get along?" thingie is perhaps ... if inadvertently .. the most wisdom we can expect in our modern age.

This is one of those days when I wonder why I have lived this long, that I should be inundated by so much crap.

The Latest "Appcessory" is for Your Rifle?

Shooting Wire: The Inteliscope Tactical Rifle Adapter and App turns a smartphone into a rifle scope for tactical rifles, paintball markers, and airsoft guns and records video from the rifle POV. The Inteliscope turns your Apple mobile device into an intelligent scope. Newly conceived just six months ago in April, 2013, the Inteliscope Tactical Rifle Adapter is now shipping and the App is now available for download from the Apple App Store. The adapter to mount the mobile device to your rifle sells for $99; the App is included in the price and can be downloaded from the Apple App Store for evaluation at no cost. Customers may order the adapter now at www.inteliscopes.com or from one of over 350 firearms dealers worldwide.

 
From the ridiculous to the sublime.

I'm not sure whether I think: "Whoopie, this is SO great!" or "Damn!  This is even more stupid than if I had thunk it first!"

First thing my Verizon Guy said when I bought my StupidPhone was: "This isn't as robust as the last (non-smart) phone you had.  I will break.  Easily.  And the battery won't last as long."

So ... I'm encouraged to count on a StupidPhone to (a) endure against the recoil of a rifle, and (b) be 100% reliable in a SHTF situation?

I don't THINK so!

Kewl technology, if you have an IPhone (as opposed to an "Android", which I have).  But I believe I'll just stick with iron sights or ... maybe, if I'm feeling lucky ... the 6x scope on my .25-06.

Too many failure points on THIS hash-up to make me comfortable that it will be there when I really need to make a shot.

First gun all-3D-printed gun created

First gun all-3D-printed gun created: (MSN)

A company that specializes in direct metal laser sintering, or DMLS, has created a gun it says is composed entirely of 3D-printed metal. 

It reads like a plot of a dystopian novel: People develop a technology that allows them to manufacture—themselves, in the privacy of their own homes—working guns. Law enforcement is unable to regulate firearms. Chaos ensues. 

When a design for The Liberator, the open-sourced and 3D-printed gun, was released last year, worriers could take some solace: The gun wasn't entirely composed of 3D-printed materials. The gun's firing pin—the thing, essentially, that put the fire in the firearm—was made of metal. And metal is extremely difficult to use as a material for 3D printing. Until ... it's not. 

A company called Solid Concepts, which specializes in direct metal laser sintering, or DMLS, has created a gun, it claims, that is composed entirely of 3D-printed metal. The gun is not only fully metal-made; it is also capable of firing multiple rounds. (Liberator-style guns made of extruded plastic, on the other hand, are at this point able to fire one shot—ever.) The gun Solid Concepts is testing—and, indeed, using as a proof-of-concept—can fire 50 rounds. And be ready for more.

(click on the link at the top of the page to read the entire article ... Hat Tip to The G-Man!)

 I remembering watching an episode of Jay Leno's Garage (or whatever the show is) where he demonstrated this kind of laser technology.  What's it called?  Sintering?  I looked it up: this wikipedia article is almost 4 years out of date, which only proves that any published article is obsolete by the time we read it, if it involves engineering processes.

Yes, the machinery is quite expensive ... the old versions allow Jay Leno to build a plastic carburetor.
whoopie-freaking-doo.  

But .. a metal sintering process which creates a functional semi-automatic pistol?  Oh my, that's quite a different thing.

It's easy to believe that the skills and knowledge which allow one to construct an entire firearm, such as a 1911-style pistol with it's 54 distinct parts, present a daunting challenge.

The thing is, you can BUY parts for a 1911 on the open market with no governmental oversight.  They're not all that expensive.  The only part that the Feds define as a 'firearm' is the part that has a manufacturer's serial number on it:  the frame.

All one needs do to create a completely under-the-roses pistol is to create the frame.  You can buy the rest of the farm from Brownells (or Shotgun News, for that matter) with no more tracking/tracing/regulation than buying "parts".

Using sintering to build a (relatively) simple 3-dimensional object such as the frame of a 1911 seems to be less challenging.  The "Solid Concepts" people made the entire thing, one supposes, including the springs.  Coil springs require special metals.  The sear spring  is also 'special'.   But we're talking chump change here, and absolutely no governmental monitoring.  Same with firing pins, etc.

So, does this recent technological advance present a threat to Government regulation of firearms?

Hell yes!

What will the Feds do as a stop-gap measure?

Oh, you're so smart.  You're right, they will regulate the HELL out of this technology.  In fact, they're working on it already.

The REAL thing is ... do you remember "Jurassic Park", where "Malcolm" (Jeff Goldblum) is told that there is NO way the dinosaurs will reproduce?  His reply, in stentorian overtones, is that "...life will find a way ..."

We're saying, technology is expensive and hard to find, and cumbersome.  At first.  Then it gets simpler, and cheaper, and easier to operate.

For example, my first "cell phone" was a "Bag Phone".  It weighed a ton, was very expensive, cumbersome and ugly.

My current "smart phone" cost 20% of what that bag phone cost.  I've had it for five months and I'm still trying to learn all the ins and outs of using the damn thing, but I'm getting the hang of it without the need to register for a night-school course at my local community college.

I couldn't MAKE a cell phone (or an automobile, or probably even an electric generator), but if I HAD one, I could learn how to use it.

Saying that a DMLS is too complicated for most people to use doesn't buy many turnips, if the Feds expect that sheer technical complexity will prevent people from building their own untraceable, unregistered, non-serialized firearms.

Ever look at the receiver of an AR-16?  And the parts which make it different from the AR-15 (the semi-automatic only version of the fully automatic version)?

Shucks, the different parts you could almost make by hand, if you had the specs and were patient and fairly good with hand tools.  You should note, of course, that this was the kind of "cottage industry" which landed Randy Weaver in Federal hot water at Ruby Ridge.  He just sawed off the barrel of a shotgun, and look where that got him.  That was in 1985, under a much more 'understanding' President.  (Can you say "I must have mis-spoken", Children?  I knew you could.)


Defying the Federal Government is risky business.  They have their job to do, and they can be downright mean.

This is still a government of We The People.

Oh, I am SO going to enjoy the next 20 years of watching the Feds trying to put THIS toothpaste back into the tube!

Also reference the following:

• pandora's box
• can of worms
• meme
• gestalt theory of ideas

John Farnham and "LAX"

3 Nov 13

LAX Incident of 31 Oct 13

Last week's shooting incident at LAX blatantly illustrates (once  more):

1) "Gun-free" zones are merely imaginary, symbolic barriers. The suspect in  this case was not deterred in the least.  He was eventually stopped, but only by the liberal application of lethal force (gunfire), not by wishful thinking on the part of naive liberals, nor by "gun-free-zone" signs on glass  doors!

2) The "start-to-harm" time was so short in this case that awareness, decisiveness, and a plan for immediate and dynamic exit will likely represent your only viable options.

3) We Sovereign Citizens are increasingly being involuntarily herded into  "

enforced helplessness."  We are progressively unable to remain legally armed, and therefore we are more and more unable to effectively protect ourselves.  Put another way, we are contemptuously regarded as "disposable"  by self-righteous socialists.

4) It is painfully obvious how much protection "gun-free-zone" signs provide.  Terrorists and lunatics are really impressed, as we see!

/John

John S. Farnam

_______________________________________________

Dtiquips mailing list

Dtiquips@clouds.com

Copyright 2013 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.

It's rare that I fully quote John Farnham .. in fact, this is perhaps the first time EVER.

But when he's right (which is "USUALLY"), he's right.

And I think that his take here is entirely correct.  No 'Thinking Person" who is aware of our cultural vulnerability could find much fault in his preposition.

Still, it raises questions that we might consider.

Should Airports be "Gun Free Zones"?  As much as I have proposed that GVZ proliferation encourages madmen to attack us, I'm uncomfortable in this specific instance.

The armed officers seem to have been present, and they acted quickly and aggressively.  The result is that the attacker was  taken down in a short period of time, and from the moment which the counter-attack began, it appears that the only other victims were among the resistors.

If the airport was NOT a "Gun Free Zone", is it likely that the attack would have been curtailed earlier?  Based on the reports, I don't think so.  The attack was actually initiated BEFORE the initial screening area, and so the madman identified, recognized, attacked, and overwhelmed the First Line of Defense quickly and efficiently.

It may have been helpful that he had already researched the defenses, and was prepared for them .. which may not be said for the defenders.

The established defense may have served one  purpose; it identified an attack before the attacker could infiltrate into the "No Defense Zone", where the public was not prepared to defend itself.  Instead, ready reaction forces (policemen) were alerted and promptly reacted to the attack.

We can reasonably be confident that the initial delay, the early alert, and the available of secondary forces lead to the early take-down of the attacker, before he was able to fully attack entirely defenseless citizens.

Essentially .. no private citizens, whatever their state if preparedness, were required to defend themselves or others.  

It's likely that no better solution was available.  We regret the loss of lives in this attack, but we must recognize that we (citizens, not officers) were protected almost as well as possible.  

How could this situation have been resolved more quickly?  We probably are all asking ourselves the same question.  The best answer is ... we WERE protected, if imperfectly.  A surprise attack of this sort is almost impossible to defend against.

My personal understanding (and I'm sure there will be a lot of "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who will use hind-sight to critique the defenders) is that a lot of rough men put themselves deliberately in the way in order to prevent a greater loss of defenseless citizens.  I salute them all, as should you.

---

So .. what would have been the consequences if this had occurred in a shopping mall, a school, a church?

Chances are that there would have been NO first .. let alone Second .. line of defense.  The attacker would have assaulted defenseless citizens (children?) immediately, and would have run rampant.

He would have run rampant, slaughtering innocent defenseless people until (minutes or hours later) police appeared on the scene ... and then he would have killed himself.

That DOES seem to be the pattern.

The immediate solution seems to have both a first and second line of armed defense in any place of public gathering.

It's not going to happen.

Government at ANY level might semi-efficiently defend a "place" (airport, school, church, mall, etc.) but only at great expense to the tax base.  The American people are not willing, let alone able, to support this level of protection in most public areas.

LAX was fortunate, in a way, that it was so strongly defended.  And yet, still, people died there.

Insane and evil people exist.  We can't identify them until they actually attack us.  And then, it's too late for us.

The ONLY way we can defend ourselves in public areas is if the public is allowed to assume the defensive position.

No more "Gun Free Zones", please.  Allow "The People" to be armed, because we can't have armed TSA people at the front door of every school, church and shopping mall.

Or allow teachers to be voluntarily armed.  But no .. you don't want to allow guns in schools.

Allow preachers to be armed.  But no .. you don't want our spiritual leaders to be armed.

The only realistic solution to mass public murders is to allow the PUBLIC to be armed.

But no, you don't want your neighbors to be armed, either.

Okay. it appears that you are more comfortable with being murdered while shopping for a new leash for Rover, than to defend yourself.

Your choice.

For me?  I'll break the law, violated posted "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" signs, rather than to go shopping without a firearm closely at hand.

Does that offend you?

Perhaps .. until the first sharp crack of gunshots.  

Then, I imagine you will be hoping that is a shot fired in defense of you, rather than a madman shooting at you, your family, or your neighbors.

OBAMACARE: "... and if you don't believe it's all Bush's fault .. OBAMA (doesn't) CARE!"

Money Morning:

"Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs." 
The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases." Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%. 
Editor's Note: How much extra will you have to pay? ...... On top of higher premiums, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people. Most of the new taxes go into effect January 1, 2014, but they are already infuriating millions of Americans. 
 The Obama administration has even given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.

 (emphasis added)

See?  What I said!

You're screwed, blewed and tattooed.  Don't like it?  Tough!  The New President CAN and WILL enforce his unconstitutional regulations which FORCE you to buy his snake oil.

Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated!
z

Is it all still "W", all the time?

Sebelius suggests Republicans to blame for ObamaCare website woes | Fox News:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took a swipe Friday at those calling for her to resign over the botched ObamaCare website rollout, suggesting that Republican efforts to delay and defund the law contributed to HealthCare.gov's glitch-ridden debut. 
 During a visit to a community health center in Austin, Sebelius conceded that there wasn't enough testing done on the website, but added that her department had little flexibility to postpone the launch against the backdrop of Washington's unforgiving politics. 
 "In an ideal world there would have been a lot more testing, but we did not have the luxury of that. And the law said the go-time was Oct. 1," she said. "And frankly, a political atmosphere where the majority party, at least in the House, was determined to stop this anyway they possibly could ... was not an ideal atmosphere."

Yes, according to the House of Representatives "History, Art and Archives", the Republicans do control the House of Representatives this year (234/201 out of 435 representatives).

And because the House controls the purse-strings, it has more power in terms of MONEY than the senate.

Note that the Senate elects only two Senators to represent each state: that's why we have 100 senators.

But the Representatives are elected by each DISTRICT within the state.

Funny thing about the difference between Senatorial and Representative votes:  in a given state, the Senators are elected by the majority vote within the state.  That means that the population centers (in Oregon, the free-loaders in Portland/Multomah County .. not to say that all the people living there but MOST of the people living there) get to choose their Senators.

ALMOST every where else in the state or, say, OREGON .. well, this is a bunch of farmers who don't know any better, so they elect Republican Representatives.  Even in population centers, they tend to choose Democratic Representatives who actually listen to the Will Of The People.

So, while Senators tend to cater to Big City Folks, Representatives tend to  represent Grass Roots folks.

That's why our Founding Fathers set up this bicameral system.  They didn't want the Farmers to be outvoted by the Freeloaders, on wellfare.
(yes, I'm aware that I've just insulted a majority of my fellow Oregonians.  I can live with that.)

So: Kathleen Sebelius is protesting (weakly, not from a position of strength). that:
" ... a political atmosphere where the majority party, at least in the House, was determined to stop this anyway they possibly could ... was not an ideal atmosphere. "

Oh, I don't know about that.  It depends on what your definition of "IDEAL", is.

For the Liberal Democrat Sebelius, an "Ideal Atmosphere" is a situation where the Legislative Branch of the Government rubber-stamps the Executive branch.   She's seriously pissed, because "people" (read: "PEONS") who are not professional politicians, have expressed their will to not support the will of Their President ("Executive Branch").

Certainly, not an "Ideal Atmosphere" from her point of view.  After all, didn't she already accept responsibility for the failure of the ObamaCare Website?  How DARE the lowly "people" differ with her lofty Liberal position?





Did she not assume a sufficiently demure position?    She SAID she was "sorry" the website didn't work, and there was the odd Senator or two who suggested that "we have to pass the bill, before we know what's in it".  What more do the hoi poloi want?

Sheess!

Okay, let's look at the recent plethora of news stories which suggest that the Obamacare System can't even get people to register for the plan.
No, let's look at the stories which state clearly that the Obamacare System is too expensive for many Americans to afford.   More expensive than the plans they already have, but those plans aren't 'acceptable' to ObamaCare because the new insurance doesn't allow you to tailor your Insurance to our needs.
.
 No, let's consider that ObamaCare offers the Best, at the expense of the Good Enough.

No,  let's look at the stories which reveal that Obama Lied about "If you like your doctor/insurance policy, you can keep them".

No ... you've all heard these stories, and I'm not going to link to them.  Do your own damned Google Search.

Kathy is royally pissed because Republicans in the House are presenting roadblocks which cause both she and Obama to trip over their mutually non-existant Dicks on the road to full congressional acceptance of ObamaCare.  She thinks they're Bad boys, these Republican  iconoclasts who defy the will of Their Lord and Savior, B. Obama!

(... and their Goddess Kathleen Sebelius, for that matter!_

Unfortunately, both Sebelius and Obama have lost tract of one simple fact:  they are not Royalty.

In fact, they are Servants of The People.  As such, they are subject to the will of The People whom they represent.

And The People are pissed!

Among all the ills of ObamaCare, they ignore the fact that signing up for Their Plan is not only awkward, but costly.  Most people who have succumbed to their sweet melody and discovering that they are not paying less, but more, than their current plans.

And they can't keep their chosen Health Plans, which exposes the LIES of Obama.

For example, if you're a young male petitioner, you have to accept a Health Plan which provides both Natal and Abortion clauses.  Are you expecting to need an abortion?  Doesn't matter; you have to have it .. and pay for it.

A Perfect Health Plan for an Imperfect People.  And if you don't sign up for it? 
"I'll Kick Your Ass!"

So, Kathy is pissed because those Nasty Republicans (those few who still have the cajones to do so) are fighting against Presidential Edict?

My Dear, that's the best news I've heard all day!

Welcome to The Republic of America

LAX ... the new "Going Postal"?

TSA employee dead, at least 6 injured in LAX shooting; gunman wounded and in custody, officials say | Fox News:

A gunman with an assault rifle opened fire in a crowded terminal at Los Angeles International Airport Friday, killing a TSA employee and injuring at least six before being wounded and taken into custody. 
The suspect was identified by federal authorities late Friday as Paul Ciancia, 23, a Los Angeles resident, Fox News reported. 
The FBI said it had not interviewed him because he was hospitalized but expected to speak to him as soon as possible. A note was recovered from a bag he dropped at a security checkpoint. It was described to Fox News as containing threatening language directed at the TSA and anti-government rants. 
 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the gunman had an additional 100 rounds of ammunition he did not fire.

I've been listening to radio reports since an hour after this started, and as of this time (8:30pm, Pacific time) the reports are still full of  disinformation" and confusing.

The best information I have now indicates several salient "facts" (which are not confirmed):

• at least 7 people were shot, at least 6 were hospitalized
• at least one person, a TSA employee , was shot and killed
• the attack was initiated and conducted by a single Caucasian male, who has been identified
• the shooter use an m-15 type rifle, which has been described as an "Assault Rifle" in all news reports and police statements so far
• the attack was initiated outside the "Security Area" .. which means he broke THROUGH the Security perimeter and then attacked other people inside the airport
• the attack was "opposed" by "TSA" officers and police officers
• the attacker was shot and wounded, and the last reports indicate that he did not die as a result of his wounds but is now "in custody"

There are a few things which have NOT been yet officially confirmed:

• The attacker was a TSA officer
• He carried upon his person a "letter" which said, in effect, that he wanted to kill TSA officers, and "cops"
• The weapon he used was an AR15 or similar weapon.  No information is yet available to determine whether it was semi- or full-automatic capable.  For those of us who care about the definition of "Assault Rifle" ... if it was not full-auto capable, it was not technically an "Assault Rifle"

Positing that all of the "facts" are true, and that at lease some of the 'unconfirmed statements' are true, there are a few conclusions which are, at least tentatively, suggested:

This was NOT an "Islamic Jihad" attack, but rather it was a case of "Going Postal".  You may recall news reports of years ago where an US Postal Service or three attacked and killed several co-workers.  We're still not entirely clear on their motivation, but it seemed at the time to be a combination of job dissatisfaction and an inability to abide the personal "quirks" of co-workers.  Hence the term.

We're not prepared to state that this "Incident" was, in fact, directly comparable.   However, at this time we have no information to suggest the the motivation was politically, racially,  religiously, or culturally motivated.

Conspiracy Theory Alert!

Unless someone is doing a really sterling spin-factor job in the very earliest moments of the after-shock, and given the confusion of these "early days" reporting by the oh-so-reliable MSM  (I"m basing most of my reportage on the Lars Larson show and his live connections to on-the-scene reporters who are personally known by him),  this looks very much like a nut-job shooting by a disgruntled employee.

He knew JUST how far he could get with a rifle-in-a-bag approach.

When he disposed of all security personell at one station, he quietly marched to the next station and attacked the people there.

This suggests "insider knowledge" of the security apparatus.

He probably knew that police and TSA personnel would react quickly, and was not dissuaded; this suggests that these were his primary targets.  We don't  yet know how many "Civilians" were wounded in the attack,  and at this time it's impossible to determine whether his intention was to massacre as many people  ("targets of opportunity?") as possible, or if he was goading security personnel.

All we know for sure is that this person ... this "Bad Man" ... shot up a major American airport, and his motivation is still conjectural .. at best.

Also, if his goal was to totally screw up air traffic in the United States during the reaction to his assault?  He has accomplished his goal.

I seem to recall some commentary about the "Red Army" (I probably have the nomenclature wrong) training for JUST such an "incident" a few decades ago.

This is a good time for a pithy summary ... but I don't have one to offer.  I don't know as much as many of you probably know.

Until we all have more information, we can only conclude one thing:  this was the consequence of one young man's overwhelming rage.  And we still don't know why.

One is tempted to ascribe motives, due to our "civilized" need to understand aberent behavior. 

Let's just call him  "Crazy" for now.

Have a Belt?

Better Fit Equals Better Performance | Shooting Wire:

If you're one of the increasing number of Americans choosing to exercise your right to concealed-carry, you know a number of issues seem to work against "comfort" with your "comforting" sidearm. Several ingenious new holster designs have helped, but the belt is always a hassle. Regular belts just don't cut it. Rigidity and strength just aren't there. And the alternatives are the shooting world's equivalent of sensible shoes. Wider, heaver and designed to carry heavy loads, they don't fit every size belt loop. And if something isn't comfortable, you'll find reasons not to carry it. More than one person reading right now knows exactly what I'm talking about.

This "Shooting Wire" primary article spends exactly enough time talking about an issue which has bugged me for years:   Belts!

I know that the "Equipment Race" has been a big issue for years (decades) in IPSC/USPSA competition, but there has been very little attention paid to the question:  what is a legal belt?

According to the 2010 USPSA Rule Book (which here closely mirrors the IPSC rule book .. which seems reasonable), Rule 5.2.3:

5.2.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, the belt carry-

ing the holster and all allied equipment must be worn at waist level.

The belt or the inner belt or both must be either securely fixed at the

waist, or secured with a minimum of three belt loops.

5.2.3.1 Female competitors may be permitted (if so authorized in

Appendix D) to wear a belt, holster and allied equipment at hip

level, however, the top of the belt must not be positioned below

the furthest lateral point of the top of the femur (tuberosity

major)

This is, perhaps, the most frequently violated rule (and most often ignored by match officials) in the entire IPSC/USPSA community.

As a Range Officer and as a competitor, I've seen far too many competitors during the summer months wearing gym shorts with absolutely NO belt loops or other support for equipment belts .. except for the greater girth of the hips (or more often, belly) than the waist or the trouser belts.

As a trainer, I've seen far too many 'students of the gun' who are ignorant of the need to support the holster and other gun gear; they wear belts which are appropriate to suits more often than to hold two to five pounds of pistol and accoutrements in such a manner that they can reliably draw either a pistol or a reload magazine without fumbling.

When I tell them that a 1" belt is inappropriate AND inadequate, I usually get an "uh huh" nod, and then they ignore me.

Most of these people never show up at their Certification Match.  Those few who do?  The field is split; either they are unsatisfied with the experience and never come back, or they (a very few) go get a big ugly load-bearing belt and get serious about what they are doing.

For me, it makes no great matter.  But I wonder sometimes whether their decision to discontinue competition is due to their chagrin, or their reluctance to admit that their judgement is faulty.

In the long run, it doesn't much matter.  If they are unwilling to listen to Good Advice, they are much better off by quitting the sport.

They don't have to admit that they are in error, and those of us who would otherwise squad with them are spared the embarrassment of watching them struggle to draw a big pistol from an inadequately supported holster.

Ultimately, the sport is better served by the voluntary resignation of those who will not listen to the voice of experience.



x
x