Rudyard Kipling - Tommy

Haven't had a Kipling Night for a LONG time.

Given the shameful quarters for wounded soldiers at American military hospitals, Nancy's trip to Damascus, the pork-barrel Appropriations Bill, the failure of Congress to send a bill version that the President can sign ... perhaps this is the most appropriate of Kipling's Barracks Room Ballads.

Tommy

Rudyard Kipling

---

I WENT into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ’e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,—
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ’adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”;
But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide,—
The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide.

Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ’ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ’eroes” when the drums begin to roll,—
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s “Thin red line of ’eroes” when the drums begin to roll.

We aren’t no thin red ’eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind”,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind,—
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind.

You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ’is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!

The American Congress today is no better than British Parliament 120 years ago.

And the American public no more supportive of its brave fighting men.

Shame on us.

Ten Ways to Screw Up in England

Oh, where to begin.

Great Britain is becoming a prototypicaly Socialist "Nanny State" ... one where the government seems determined to deprive citizens of rights, then find fault in every conceivable aspect of life, and finally to designate victims as villains.

Here are Ten Ways To Screw Yourself In England.

(1) Blair has identified "Black Culture" as the cause of "gun and knife violence", and asserts that "Political Correctness Is Not Helping".

Here are a couple of the sweetest Money Quotes:

"... the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth."

Well, he knows his national culture better than I do. But remember, GB has made it impossible for an honest person (and even some 'dishonest persons') to legally possess a firearm. What is the consequence? "Gun Violence" has degenerated into "Knife Violence". While the "Gun" part is somewhat shifted, the "Violence" goes on and on:

Giving the Callaghan lecture in Cardiff, the prime minister admitted he had been "lurching into total frankness" in the final weeks of his premiership. He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime. He said that "the black community - the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law abiding people horrified at what is happening - need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids"

Mr Blair said there needed to be an "intense police focus" on the minority of young black Britons behind the gun and knife attacks. The laws on knife and gun gangs needed to be toughened and the ringleaders "taken out of circulation".

...

The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.

What? I thought the Brits were already imposing draconian sentences of imprisonment for firearms possession and usage. Didn't they imprison some home-owner for umpteen years for using a shotgun against a home invader? (No link cited ... of course they did, several times in a continuing trend.)
Here's the juicy part:

He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime.

Oh, well done! You've imposed every possible restriction on firearms ownership, on the grounds that there is no legitimate use for a firearm, and your people are now using knives to kill each other.

Mr Blair spoke out as a second teenager was due to appear in court charged with the murder of 14-year-old Paul Erhahon, stabbed to death in east London on Friday. He was the seventh Londoner under 16 to be murdered since the end of January, and his 15-year-old friend, who was also stabbed, remains in hospital.

How will you justify the imposition of laws against the possession of knives? If you find a way, Tony, The Missus will be reduced to jointing a chicken with a cricket bat and the Yobs will be using their mum's cricket bats to clobber their neighbors.

Don't you GET it yet?

The problem is not the guns, or the knives, or the cricket bats ... the problem is the VIOLENCE. By mandating against means of personal defence, you're only disarmed the honest citizen. Yobs will always be armed.

_______________________________

Here are other ways that Great Britain is invoking Big Brother:

(2) Are you a 'bad neighbor'. You will be sent to Coventry.

(3) Even if you're a perfectly law-abiding citizen, your children will be finger-printed in anticipation of future prosecution ... even if the school headmaster has to lie to them to do the job.

(4) Park your car in a 'no parking' zone? It's no longer an 'oopsy'; it's a criminal action which allows the Bailiffs to enter your home (without a warrant) to serve you.

(5) Got a good "Squirrel Joke"? The Bobbies will hunt you down to make sure you're not abusing rodents.

(6) UK Schools may no longer tell their students that the Nazi's slaughtered 6.5 Jews in WWII concentration camps. It may offend a Muslim, who has been told by his Imam that the Holocaust is a lie.

(7) Join the Royal Marines to defend King and Country? Okay, but don't you dare shoot anybody.

(8) Think that, just because you're a Brit you have privacy rights? F'gettaboutit! They can put a chip in your brain which will provide all of your personal information to anyone who has the equipment to read it, and there's not a thing you can do about it.

(9) Think you can walk down the street without causing an uproar? Now way, somebody is going to yell at you!

Finally, and perhaps most egregious of these measures ....

(10) Wanna Be a Hero? Think your country will love you for "Doing The Right Thing"? Forget about that, too. No matter your motives or your personal sacrifice, Great Britain won't give you public recognition because ... guess what.

That's right, it might offend a Muslim.

The sun has set upon the British Empire.

Don't let it happen here.

L.A. 'Shooting Victims Bill Of Rights'

LA City Council Gives Supports For 'Shooting Victims Bill Of Rights' - News Story - KNBC | Los Angeles

NBC Television in Los Angeles reports (April 4, 2007) that the L.A. City Council " ... went on record Wednesday in support of four state gun-control bills dubbed the "Shooting Victims Bill of Rights."

The four California State Gun Control bills would:

1. "... require all new semiautomatic handguns to be equiped with microstamped technology by 2010".
2. " ... require retailers to have a license to sell ammunition."
   
3. "... require firarms owners to notify a law enforcement agency within five days within five working days of discovering that a gun has been stolen or irretrievably lost."
4. "... allow California's Law Enforcement Agencies to use and compare forensic and ballistic information kept on a national database."

The first law is eerily reminiscent of AB352, which was defeated in the California State Assembly late last year (October, 2006) when the sponsor of the bill failed (deliberately?) to defend his own bill. More later on whether this is actually a New Bill, or someone just hasn't got word that the bill was defeated six months ago. Or, if they know the bill is dead but tacked it onto their own private agenda for the sake of looking good to their constituents. ("Typical Political Trickery".)

Bill #2 has no obvious application to the usual justification of Gun Control bills ... to restrict access of firearms to "legitimate purchasers". It's just a way to put a roadblock in the way of honest citizens and, in doing so, advance their own political career. (AB362) Violation (selling more than 50 rounds of loaded ammunition in a month) is subject to a fine of $500.

Bill #3 also has no obvious reason for being, other than to put the hammer in the hands of The State in the unlikely case of a gun-owner not reporting a stolen firearm. This bill would allow the state to prosecute the victim. (AB334) A fine ($100 or $250) may be imposed for failure to report a lost or stolen handgun.
Simple tyranny, nothing to see here, folks. Move on.

Bill #4 is a cheek-kiss to firearms registration. The Brady Bill requires firearms purchasers to be vetted by The State, in order to prevent firearms sales to people (felons, etc.) who shouldn't be allowed to purchase firarms; but it specifically requires vetting agencies to destroy records in order to avoid the possibility of registration. This bill requires records keeping, specifically "forensic and ballistic information kept on a national database." If the only information was dimension and rifling on a bullet, it might be useful to connect a bullet used in a crime in one state to be connected to a crime committed elsewhere via retrieved bullets found at both crimescenes. However, any bullet retrieved from sources other than a crimescene would presumably include information on the owner of the firearm. This is just another backdoor approach to registration.

When I have found ALL the actual bills and have read them, I will be better able to report on whether suitable limitations on personal information have been included.

Best guess, lacking any other information, is that this last bill fails to include such limitations.

California residents are invited to provide more information on these bills, for the purpose of determining how loosely they are written.

Incidentely, AB854 provides restrictions on the transfer (including loan) of firearms. The bulk of this very long bill is generally devoted to 'exemptions', and I haven't done more than scan it VERY quickly so far so I can't profess to understand it. However, it bears a second, closer look. My summary on a first glance is that it does absolutely nothing. That suggests to me that the purpose of this bill is so buried in obfuscatory verbiage that something significant MUST be goiong on.

This is a good subject for future evaluation.

Translation: I don't know what these scum-sucking, bottem-dwelling low-lifes have plugged in here, but I'm morally certain that there are some unpleasant surprises here for law-abiding citizens.

Buy A Gun Day

Hey, I've got my Income Tax Refund (Grrrr ... don't get me started) and my gunsafe has a big gaping hole where a Defensive Shotgun should be.

And Cowboy Blog as designated April 15 as Buy A Gun Day!

What to do, what to do?

Actually, I'm thinking ... Mossberg 590.

(I'm also hoping that it doesn't come with a bayonette!)

A recent newspaper ad (Big 5) lists the 590 at $319, "Regularly $399". My research indicates that this is probably the regular 590, not the "590 A1". I have a vague understanding that the "A1" is superior, but I"m not sure what the advantage is. (I assume that the 'sale price' is for the older model.)

Also, my limited research shows this as an 8-round capacity shotgun, but the newspaper ad lists it as a 9-round shotgun. I'm guessing it has an 8-round tube, and the 9-round claim includes the chambered round.

Why am I writing about this?

I'm really interested in buying this type of shotgun, and I have the impression that this is a good shotgun in this price range. But my Internet research is not terribly enlightening, leaving me with more questions than understanding.


I'm hoping that there's someone who can read this and give me some answers. What I'm looking for is a lot of response which will tell me either:

1. Why I should buy this shotgun over others in the price range, or
2. Why I should buy another shotgun over others in the price range.

To clarify the question, I already have plenty of guns that seem perfectly workable for Home Defense. What I'm really looking for is a shotgun I can use in the local Practical Shotgun matches which crop up from time to time.

I bought a Mech Tech for Pistol-Caliber Carbine matches, and I have mixed feelings about it (mostly, the sluggish bolt action and the annoying wire-stock vibration.) But, for what I paid for it and considering my low expectations, I'm not disappointed in that purchase. I'm looking for someone who can predict any "Buyer's Remorse" if I get a 590, or alternatively a reason why I might be disappointed if, for example, I buy a Remington 870.

Remember, "Buy A Gun Day" is imminent, and I need information before I plunk the VISA card on the counter ... probably Monday, April 16, 2007.

Help!

______________________________________

Here's some of the information I've found on the Internet. This may demonstrate why I'm dubious about the authority of the presenters:

Home Defense

12 gauge shotgun. It dumps an immense amount of energy into your target at close range. It is less likely to overpenetrate than most other firearms, so you're less likely to accidentally kill a neighbor, while it is still plenty effective at the longest ranges you are likely to encounter inside your home. Other things like pistols and rifles will punch relatively small holes in an attacker, while a 12ga shotgun will blow significant chunks out and almost certainly knock them over. I recommend a pump shotgun for reliability. Some semi-automatic shotguns have difficulty reliably cycling some types of ammunition. A pump shotgun will still work when packed full of mud. You can get ammunition which is specifically designed for home defense that will kick less hard, and penetrate fewer walls, if it is to be used by a smaller person, or overpenetration is more of a concern to you. More magazine capacity is good. Some believe that a smaller magazine capacity and correspondingly shorter barrel length improves a shotgun's maneuverability enough to be worth the loss of magazine capacity. I prefer more magazine capacity.

Mossberg 590, 8 round magazine

I prefer the Mossberg 590, with an 8 round magazine. This is a combat style shotgun with a large magazine capacity

On the difference between the 870 and the 590.

PA. Gun Control Mania

In Pa., it's high noon in battle over gun control | Inquirer | 04/08/2007

Philly dot Com (Sorry ... The Philadelphia Enquirer) has an article about the FIFTEEN Firearms Control Bills backed up in the state legislature.

(We already talked about at least one of them, here.)

You can read the whole thing .............. here:

http://www.philly.com/philly/
hp/news_update/HARRISBURG_
-_Seven_months_after_a_
special_two-day_legislative_
session_on_crime_in_which_
more_than_a_dozen_
gun-control_bills_were_
defeated__anti-crime_
advocates_are_hoping_a_new_
climate_in_Harrisburg_will_
mean_movement_on_
long-stalled_gun-control_
meas.html

I have to admit, that is the longest URL I have ever seen. I'm sure there are some conclusions to be drawn from this, but I am not man enough to accept the challenge.

Well, it's probably not significant that Philly's newspaper doesn't know how to generate a short, unique URL, but it probably IS significant that:

1. PA introduced a dozen gun control bills seven months ago ... all of which were defeated.
2. (midday Friday)"... the number of slayings in Philadelphia is edging painfully upward - 105 at last count, the majority of them at the point of a gun."
3. "Gov. Rendell has turned up the volume on his pleas for stronger gun-control measures, and Democrats now control the state House. All this comes at a time when a new poll suggests a majority of Pennsylvanians are willing to accept handgun-sale limits. "
"... the bills face an uphill battle in the General Assembly, which is dominated by lawmakers who support gun rights.

So, if there is such a ground-swell of popular support for gun control in Pennsylvania, why is it so difficult to make new laws?

Answer: Politics. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, the lawmakers are keenly aware that (a) their main priority is to be re-elected; (b) their constituents don't REALLY want the State to take their guns away, and; (c) if they vote for gun control laws, the politicians will NOT be re-elected!

Think I'm making this up? This is a direct quote from the article:

From House Speaker Dennis O'Brien (R., Phila.), who blocked gun-control bills as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to the current leaders of the committees in the House and Senate, there is reluctance to support gun bills for fear they will fail or bring lawmakers defeat in the next election.

Rep. Dan Surra (D., Elk) said that while he sympathized with residents living in high-crime areas, he could not support any gun-restriction bill because in certain quarters of his district, a hunting stronghold in the north-central part of the state, guns are a single-issue item at the polls.

"They will vote you out on this," Surra said.

(Governer) Rendell's mention of gun control in his February budget in the Capitol drew a chorus of hisses from Republicans - and likely some Democrats in the Capitol - underscoring the largely geographical, rather than political, divide on the issue.

This sounds serious. The Public has identified a problem (heightened murder rate in major urban centers); The Politicians have offered a legislative solution (specifically, limit gun purchases to one per month, in an attempt to limit "straw purchases"; The Public has rejected that offer.

The Politicos are wandering around Harrisburg, scratching their pointy-haired heads, asking each other "What's wrong with this picture?"

As far as I can tell from the article, they have decided that voters are a fickle bunch. They not only want a 'solution', they want 'the RIGHT solution'. This is beyond the competence level of the Pennsylvania State Legislature, so their response is to -- what?

That's right, they are determined to JAM Gun Control down the throats of their constituents, as soon as they can figure out an acceptable way to reword the phrase "Take Your Gun Rights Away From You".

Well, good luck to you, PA Pols. (Not really, you slimy scum-sucking bottom-dwelling Lawyers! I hope you try, and I hope you choke on it.)

"Voters are in a different place than some lawmakers," said Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), the poll's sponsor and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Yeah, you think? That's something new in American Politics, especially when there's a new Democratic Majority in the State Legislature.

But deep philosophical differences separate those in rural areas who treasure their Second Amendment rights, and for whom a Winchester .30-06 is for shooting deer, from those in urban areas who associate gun use with murder.

"The feeling out here is that proposals that deal with firearms in general are inched toward the precipice, and once you start eroding Second Amendment rights, it's a cascading effect," Surra, the legislator from northwestern Pennsylvania said.

"Guns are part of our culture, too. The difference is we don't shoot each other," said Surra, who recalls teaching students to build guns in shop class.

Well, not shooting each other seems an uniquely intuitive step in a situation which has already been defined as "we have too many people shooting each other, what should we do about that?"

Obviously, that's too simplistic and the Pa Pols have ignored what may seem "a common-sense approach" to some of us.

Clearly, a battle looms over one-handgun-a-month in the Capitol

The Gun Owners' Advocate Speaks:

"We're opposed, of course," said Melody Zullinger, executive director of Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen, an umbrella group representing 300 hunting and outdoor organizations.

...

"All [the laws] do is infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights," Zullinger said. "The criminals get illegal guns on the black market. It's not going to curb the crime problem."

The Gun Control Advocate Speaks:

This time around, gun-control groups have a new advocate: Philip R. Goldsmith, Philadelphia's former managing director, who is now president of CeaseFire PA.

"The time is ripe," said Goldsmith, who wants to build a grassroots movement like the one that defeated the controversial pay raise that legislators voted themselves in 2005. "The paradigm is changing on this."

and ...

Pennsylvania "is a priority state for us," said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, which teamed with other gun-control groups to form the coalition Pennsylvanians Against Trafficking Handguns in 2005. "We believe there is enough political ability in the legislature to enact change."

That looks good to the Democrats, I suppose. But here's the Money Quote:

State Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R., Bucks), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he supported one-handgun-a-month but would not bring up a bill for a vote in his committee that is doomed to failure.

"I run what I think I can get through, and this didn't come close to passing," said Greenleaf. "Still, we have to do something that will have an impact. It's a war."

Yes, it's a war. The conflict is between Citizens who want to reduce the murder rate in their (gun-control intrusive) urban areas, and politicians who can see no other solution than to take firearms out of the hands of honest citizens.

As my old friend Bumstead is fond of saying: "When all you have is a hammer, all of your problems look like a nail."

.. and as another friend, Earthworm, would say:

"What a bunch of Maroons!"

Letters, I get Letters ...

... From Paul, The Soccer Coach:

I know you'll say I'm hurting myself but I had a thought and think I'm onto something here. As we get older they have all sorts of drugs for memory loss, eyesight and sex problems. Why isn't there a drug for poor shooting.....

Paul

I too think you're on to something here, Paul.

And whatever it is, it's not working for you.

My suggestion: change your prescription.

jB)

Ruger

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. Reports Sale of Non-Manufacturing Real Estate
March 8, 2007

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE-RGR) announced that it sold 42 parcels of non-manufacturing real property located in New Hampshire for $7.2 million today. The purchaser of the property was William B. Ruger, Jr., the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.

The Company expects to realize a gain of approximately $5.1 million from this sale in the first quarter of 2007. In December 2006, the Company announced its intention of selling non-manufacturing real property assets and artwork. This sale included substantially all of the Company's non-manufacturing real property assets in New Hampshire.
________________________________________
About Sturm Ruger
Sturm, Ruger was founded in 1949. The Company's business segments are engaged in the manufacture of the world famous RUGER® brand of sporting and law enforcement firearms and steel investment castings for a variety of customers and end uses. Plants are located in Newport, New Hampshire and Prescott, Arizona. Corporate headquarters is located in Southport, Connecticut.

The Company may, from time to time, make forward-looking statements and projections concerning future expectations. Such statements are based on current expectations and are subject to certain qualifying risks and uncertainties, such as market demand, sales levels of firearms, anticipated castings sales and earnings, the need for external financing for operations or capital expenditures, the results of pending litigation against the Company including lawsuits filed by mayors, attorneys general and other governmental entities and membership organizations, the impact of future firearms control and environmental legislation, and accounting estimates, any one or more of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date such forward-looking statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of subsequent unanticipated events.

Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens

(From the Ruger "Corporate News" website.)




Comments on my original article about the sale of Remington have caused me to do a little more research on Ruger.

Ruger's "Corporate Directory" website again lists facilities in Southport, CT, Newport, NH and Prescot, AZ. I see no listing of a 'foreign' factory.

And I note in passing that I'm please to learn that Bill Ruger, Jr. has purchased the "non-manufacturing real property" in Connecticut. I'm not sure why he did that, but it suggests a continuing interest in his familial endeavor and, as noted in the news release, the transaction added significant depth to Ruger's financial health.

Other comments found on the website include an observation that

And the Archived News site provides a history of Municipal and State "liability" civil suits (based on mis-use of firarms which had been sold according to current restrictions and laws) which were rejected. In a sense, this is a mini-history of the events which lead to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" act (S.397 - August, 2005).

You may find a tour of the Ruger website interesting.

Remington Sale - Part 3

Update, Day 3: April 5, 2007
(Posted: a few days later)

Michael Bane's website offers More Content in respect to not only the Remington Corporate Garage Sale, but also in respect to the fall-out.

Specifically, The Word is that discredited outdoors writer Jim Zumbo may be the 'spokesman' for what Bane describes as "Big Green" (apparently a reference to the predominant color of ammunition packaging and marketing efforts of Remington ... both Arms and Ammunition.)

I don't know about you, but I consider this an astounding about-face for Zumbo who not only infamously poo-pooed Black Rifles as a legitimate sporting arms only a few weeks ago, but has since offered A Sincere Public Apology for his provincial 2nd Amendment attitude AND written to congress a defense of Black Rifles.

Excuse me. I mean, a defense of firearms which seem to have No Legitimate Sporting Purpose.

Now, there may be a tiny window of opportunity for Mr. Zumbo to creep back into the arms of NSSF inasmuch as he could be positioned to voice support of not only Remington, but also Bushmaster.

(I won't bother searching for the links; they're all over the gun-osphere.)

Amazingly, he may be proven to have survived the demise of his Flux Capacitor!

This isn't about Zumbo, his career or his mercurial attitudes toward the 2nd Amendment. It's about the future of Remington, and how the marketing of a failing firearms market may lead to some surprising changes of attitude (changes of latitude) for the designate spokesmen of said firearms market.

Nobody is paying me to write about the Firearms Industry, so please understand that I may be guilty of having not Got The Word. But if this rumor should be proven true, it will serve to prove my own ignorance. It will be a very interesting world for the next few months as we watch the tap-dancing exhibition.


I don't know how to take Zumbo's miraculous conversion. I never read his stuff before he became infamous, so I have no take on whether the conversion is/could be sincere or disingenuous. All I know is that he had an attitude, he got stomped into the mud and the blood and the beer from people who arguably should have known that it was ignorance talking rather than disenchantment with ugly semi-automatic rifles, and now the trend seems to be that he was just didn't make the connection because HEY! How many times do you see AR-15 knockoffs in an Elk Camp?

If you find yourself confused by recent events, please don't feel alone.

I just wish someone was paying me to know what to think about all of this.

I wouldn't be any less confused, but at least I wouldn't care any more.

NOTE:
Here is the official announcement from Remington, courtesy of The Bane Blog.

Bigger NOTE:

Here are some comments from the "official announcement" which may be of interest. Interpret these comments as you will:

This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements give the Company’s current expectations or forecasts of future events. These forward looking statements include expectations regarding (i) the proposed sale, (ii) the anticipated benefits of the sale and (iii) the timing of the proposed sale. The Company cautions that these statements are qualified by important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include the demand for the Company’s products, the Company’s growth opportunities, and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s reports filed with the SEC, including its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.

The Company assumes no obligation to update publicly such forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Immigration Gumballs

Immigration is a 'hot button' in America today.

The Administration wishes to keep an Open Borders policy, even though a majority of Americans are concerned about free passage of Terrorists.

Some people even think that immigration is putting an unbearable burden on our nation's infrastructure, because we are unable to provide services and support for a rapidly growing population. These people are just racist scare-mongers who are unwilling to share the bounty of this prosperous nation with the less fortune. They don't realize that, by accepting the poor of the world into this country, we can help alleviate the poverty and suffering of the Third World.

They're just mean, and selfish.

Or are they?

Here's a presentation which may cast some doubt on that perception of the "mean, selfish racist" America.

YouTube, 9-1/2 minutes long, worth the viewing.


H/T: The Hobo Brasser

You think it's bad here?

If you think your state legislature is Down On Guns, check out the website of a Pennsylvania Republican Representitive: Samuel E. Rohrer, 128th Legislative District:

(H/T - Geek With A .45)

Recently, I’ve been hearing from many sportsmen and other Second Amendment rights advocates who are rightfully concerned about the deluge of gun control bills being introduced in the Democrat-controlled state House.

As the Republican Chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, I am committed to defeating any proposal that further infringes on a law-abiding person’s right to bear arms while doing nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

How You Can Help

Take a minute to sign my anti-gun control petition available at my Web site or at my district office.

We need to stand together in the fight against legislation like House Bill 760, which:

• Creates a statewide registry of guns.
• Requires gun owners to renew their registration annually and pay $10 per gun per year.
• Requires gun owners to be fingerprinted, undergo a background check and carry a registration card – with the owner’s photograph – with the gun at all times.

Other Gun-Control Issues

We are also facing proposals that would allow for municipal preemption of state firearm laws, limit handgun purchases to one per month and require mandatory reporting within 24 hours of lost or stolen firearms and notice of multiple purchases.

Let's talk about Pennsylvania "House Bill 760":

1. The author of the bill calls it the "Firearm Registration Act". Well, at least he is open about the intent of the bill. Those of us who have followed the ugly action of California Attorney General Bil Locklear's follow-up to "registration" understand that it's the necessary pre-cursor act to Confiscation.
2. Registration will include all personal information of the applicant, including name, address, telephone number, date of birth, age and sex, and Social Security Number of the applicant.
3. Registration will include the fingerprints of the applicant, plus a background check.
4. Annual re-registration for firearms owners.
   
5. Registration will incur a ten dollar ($10.00) per firearm fee to the Pennsylvania State Police, which body is assigned the requirement to administer the registration process.
6. Per-firearm registration includes "the name of the manufacturer, the caliber or gauge, the model, type and serial number of each firearm to be registered".
7. The registration process also includes "Two photographs taken within 30 days immediately prior to the date of filing the application equivalent to passport size showing the full face, head and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinguishing manner."
8. There is no Eighth Point. Sure, there's a lot of verbiage about 'antique weapons (constructed prior to 1848) and "LEO Exceptions", and even a provision for tourists and other folks 'just passing through" Pennsylvania, but it's all smoke and mirrors.
   

Given my current firearms inventory, if this bill was made law in a State where I was Resident, it would cost me several hundred dollars per year with no advancement in the security of ... anything. It would just cost me a lot of money, and cause me to reconsider if I really needed to keep Uncle Doug's .30-40 Krag that I've never fired, and I which I keep only because it is a Family Heirloom. Also that 1903-A3 Match rifle that I've never fired, and the 1894 .30-30 Winchester that I have just because it kept my family fed during the Depression (before I was born.)

This bill is hereby established as the prototype "Gun Registration" act for the United States of America.

Yes, this is the same "United States of America' which, in the second amendment to its Constitution (the "Bill of Rights"), mentions the phrase "... shall not be infringed".

The bill is nothing more or less than what it purports to be ... firearms registration.

As such, I find myself in a "Duh!" state.

As in ... "Hey, you guys are trying to formalize firearms registration. That's unconstitutional. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?' "

If *_I_* lived in Pennsylvania, I would be up in arms (pardon the pun) about this kind of nasty, stupid, needless (I'm trying to avoid the word 'egregious', can you tell?) legislation which obviously has a single objective: forcing me to reconsider ownership of perfectly innocent guns which I already have, so I would concentrate my firearms collection with the guns I currently use.

Because that's where this bill is going, you know. It's the Camel's Nose Under The Tent" ... the "Slippery Slope" ... the "Rock Soup" of Firearms Confiscation.

Don't let these bastards fox you, Pennsylvanians! They don't want to make your state safe against criminals ... this bill doesn't even include the phony verbiage about "do it for the children" or whatever. It's too stark, too blatant for pretension.

They just want to take your guns away from you.

All of the guns, from all of the people. Destroyed, 'decommissioned', disintegrated, disposed as if they were trash.

That's where this bill is going.

Pennsylvania, if you let this one slip through your fingertips because of ennui or lethargy ... you have no-one to blame but yourselves when you discover that you have watched your last firearm go through the shredder.

Then you can sit at home, and wait for the Yobs (imported from England) as they come through the windows of your home with their baseball-bats and their Butcher Knives and their firearms that you don't own because you're an Honest Man ... but they have the guns because they don't care a fig about firearms laws.

And if you defend your home, Pennsylvania will throw you in jail for Firearms Laws violations, just as they did in England.

Remington Sale - Part 2

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

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

That information is, admittedly, third-hand.

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

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

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

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

To continue quoting from The Shooting Wire:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Simple Life

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

2.25mb download.

You'll go through it faster the second pass.

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

H/T - SWMBO

Remington Has Been Sold!

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

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

Shooting and Outdoor Wire goes on to explain:

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

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

So, what American Firearms Company is still making guns?


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

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


How about Smith & Wesson?

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


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


Let's see, we still have Ruger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Scarey, ain't it?

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

1911 Flash!

Oh Wow!

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

This is too kewl.

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

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

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

There's no such thing as "Bad Publicity"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Website Proliferation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dundee IPSC Videos - March, 2007

Just a little club match, means nothing at all.

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

You can see all of the match videos here.

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


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

B29 and X1

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

Oh My!

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

All in 1/10 Scale.

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

H/T The Hobo Brasser

Just For Fun.

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

Guest Blog: Current Oregon Gun-Control Bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark O'Shea

"Gun Control is What IPSC is All About!"

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

Media Research Center's 20th Anniversary Gala


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

I think not!

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

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

Sometimes I just can't turn off The Evil Twin

(Click on the image for the full-size)


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