It sounds like I get to help in the shaping of young minds this weekend. My brother is coming over to sight in his Remington M-700 ADL in .243 and he's bringing his 3 kids along.
He's taking the right path with them, teaching the 4 Rules and starting them off with air rifles before taking the next step up the chain with .22s. What he wants to do this weekend is show the destructive power firearms are capable of. We'll probably fill some gallon jugs with water and get some watermelons to use to show the kids what happens when things get shot.
On a side note, the kids were up last weekend with G'Ma to go school shopping. My mother will not allow her grand kids to wear clothes that are from the bargain bin at the Salvation Army. Their Dad told them that if they asked nice, I would show them my collection. Well they did, and I did. Talk about awe struck. They really liked the Tiger and NDM-86, as well as the Saiga 12. The Saiga .308 was a little too heavy for them, and they thought the AKS-74U SBR was really neat.
They can't wait to come up this weekend. If they're up to it, and my brother allows it, they may get to shoot something out of my collection.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Gotta Love That PayPal
Seems the ijits over at PayPal shut down the donations of a non-profit veterans website the other day over an on-line raffle to support Project Valor-IT which gives voice actuated laptops to injured and disabled troops.
Gotta love PayPal.
Gotta love PayPal.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Quote of the Day (My First!)
Seems a goober with a holier-than-thou attitude tried to stand 200 yrs of legal theory, at least 3 Supreme Court decisions, and millions of man-hours/days of research on its head by claiming the 2A doesn't protect and individual right at all, and he has "irrefutable" evidence to back up his claim.
In steps Robb Allen, followed by Kevin Baker at TSM who handed this dude his proverbial behind as only he can.
Reading the email Kevin received from the dude in question in the piece linked above, I think I agree with Miss Tam:
"Seriously, he should sue whatever school system handed him a diploma for criminal negligence and deparved indifference."
In steps Robb Allen, followed by Kevin Baker at TSM who handed this dude his proverbial behind as only he can.
Reading the email Kevin received from the dude in question in the piece linked above, I think I agree with Miss Tam:
"Seriously, he should sue whatever school system handed him a diploma for criminal negligence and deparved indifference."
Even The Russians Are Catching On
I happened across this today and it kind of took me a minute to fully digest just what it was that I was reading.
Seems the residents of Mother Russia are themselves becoming fed up with the criminal element and are arming themselves at a greater and greater rate.
They're even buying "self defense weapons", and the city's Militia Licensing Administration is considering relaxing requirements and prohibitions on what citizens may purchase. (As an aside, it is interesting to note the Russians have a militia licensing bureau. Wonder what else the Ruskies have over there in the Motherland that we here in the supposed 'land of the free' aren't allowed to have/own?)
Seems the residents of Mother Russia are themselves becoming fed up with the criminal element and are arming themselves at a greater and greater rate.
They're even buying "self defense weapons", and the city's Militia Licensing Administration is considering relaxing requirements and prohibitions on what citizens may purchase. (As an aside, it is interesting to note the Russians have a militia licensing bureau. Wonder what else the Ruskies have over there in the Motherland that we here in the supposed 'land of the free' aren't allowed to have/own?)
Ahhh Boy
What starts out as a seemingly balanced article about guns and their usage in public quickly devolved into a hatchet piece by the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'm sure the guys over the Virginia Citizens Defense League are quite familiar with this brand of fish wrap, but this is the first time I've had experience with them.
Our intepid columnist quotes everyone involved on the anti-freedom side, but nothing from anyone from VCDL or anyone else on the pro side.
I really like the part at the end where Brady Puppet says "A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense has already lost the battle."
I almost made this my inaugural post in a Quote of the Day category I've been kicking around for awhile. As good as this one was, the best is yet to come.
I have to take exception to that little statement there, bucko. See, if worms like you didn't work to undermine the prosecution of criminals by throwing everything that can be wrong with a person at the wall and watching to see what sticks, maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem. I mean lets get real here. We are told time after time that we should give the criminal what they want, in this case it was everyone in the store dead. Which I guess comports with what the anti-gun/freedom crowd secretly wants. Mass shootings in which no one could defend themselves so they can dance in the blood of the victims to shout for even more controls on people who by their very nature will not be controlled expcept through return violence.
Our intepid columnist quotes everyone involved on the anti-freedom side, but nothing from anyone from VCDL or anyone else on the pro side.
I really like the part at the end where Brady Puppet says "A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense has already lost the battle."
I almost made this my inaugural post in a Quote of the Day category I've been kicking around for awhile. As good as this one was, the best is yet to come.
I have to take exception to that little statement there, bucko. See, if worms like you didn't work to undermine the prosecution of criminals by throwing everything that can be wrong with a person at the wall and watching to see what sticks, maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem. I mean lets get real here. We are told time after time that we should give the criminal what they want, in this case it was everyone in the store dead. Which I guess comports with what the anti-gun/freedom crowd secretly wants. Mass shootings in which no one could defend themselves so they can dance in the blood of the victims to shout for even more controls on people who by their very nature will not be controlled expcept through return violence.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
A Small Hiatus
Sorry about the lack of posting for the last couple of weeks, my muse went on vacation for awhile and I followed suit.
A little update is in order though. Since my last post on my wife, the New Shooter, we have gone out two more times to the range. The first time after that post, she fired not only her little Sig Mosquito, but also a .25 ACP pocket pistol and is getting quite good given the limited amount of shooting she's done.
The last time we went out, this last week, I took my Mother's Lorcin .25, my CZ-50, our .22 pistols and a pair of AKs (SA-M7 Carbine and my '71 Izzy AKM). Wife shot the snot out of the .32 and the .25 and even wanted to try the Arsenal.
She complained about the recoil the whole time she was shooting it, but wanted to shoot it (and the Izzy) again before we left. I'm thinking the recoil thing doesn't really put her off as much as she'd like me to believe. Hmmmmm.
On a related note, while we were out there, I tested a couple of the new TAPCO Fusion AK mags for function. The black ones worked flawlessly, but the Dark Earth ones kept sticking the follower in the mag body. Happened on both of them. When I got them home and disassembled them, I found something rather curious. The springs in the DE mags were smaller width-wise than the ones in the black mags. While that might be part of the problem with them hanging up in the body, it ain't the whole problem. I think the follower is just a bit too wide for the body and is rubbing too much on the sides. I think a little rub down with some 320-grit sand paper might fix the problem.
A little update is in order though. Since my last post on my wife, the New Shooter, we have gone out two more times to the range. The first time after that post, she fired not only her little Sig Mosquito, but also a .25 ACP pocket pistol and is getting quite good given the limited amount of shooting she's done.
The last time we went out, this last week, I took my Mother's Lorcin .25, my CZ-50, our .22 pistols and a pair of AKs (SA-M7 Carbine and my '71 Izzy AKM). Wife shot the snot out of the .32 and the .25 and even wanted to try the Arsenal.
She complained about the recoil the whole time she was shooting it, but wanted to shoot it (and the Izzy) again before we left. I'm thinking the recoil thing doesn't really put her off as much as she'd like me to believe. Hmmmmm.
On a related note, while we were out there, I tested a couple of the new TAPCO Fusion AK mags for function. The black ones worked flawlessly, but the Dark Earth ones kept sticking the follower in the mag body. Happened on both of them. When I got them home and disassembled them, I found something rather curious. The springs in the DE mags were smaller width-wise than the ones in the black mags. While that might be part of the problem with them hanging up in the body, it ain't the whole problem. I think the follower is just a bit too wide for the body and is rubbing too much on the sides. I think a little rub down with some 320-grit sand paper might fix the problem.
What's Going On in Omaha?
I don't know if it's the proximity to liberal Iowa or what, but the city of Omaha is now mandating that fingerprints be taken from anyone who sells a gun in the city.
It seems that some ninnies in the City Council are esscared that someone might try to sell a stolen gun. Surprise, folks, bad guys typically don't sell the firearms they steal to pawn shops for a little pocket money. No, they typically sell them to other criminals.
What this little law is designed to do, I have no idea. Will it get some idiot with the IQ of scrambled eggs who kifes a gun from a break in and thinks he can hock it at a pawn shop?* Maybe, but will it cut down on 'illegal' arms trafficking? Not a chance.
* A couple of years ago, I was headed into a pawn shop here in RC and there was an overwhelming police presence just leaving the parking lot. When I went inside to check to see if they had anything I might be interested in, I asked the guy behind the counter what all the po-po was doing in the parking lot.
It seems there were some goobers from Nebraska who had robbed a gun store and tried to sell the ill-gottenly gained loot at that particular pawn shop, not a half hour before I got there. Evidently, they didn't know about the database that tracks stolen firearms by S/N. The staff kept them (I can't think of any more suitable adjectives to describe just how stupid these guys really were, sorry) busy whilst they called the cops. I happened to come at the tail end of the incident as they were finishing up. Dang the bad luck, anyhow.
It seems that some ninnies in the City Council are esscared that someone might try to sell a stolen gun. Surprise, folks, bad guys typically don't sell the firearms they steal to pawn shops for a little pocket money. No, they typically sell them to other criminals.
What this little law is designed to do, I have no idea. Will it get some idiot with the IQ of scrambled eggs who kifes a gun from a break in and thinks he can hock it at a pawn shop?* Maybe, but will it cut down on 'illegal' arms trafficking? Not a chance.
* A couple of years ago, I was headed into a pawn shop here in RC and there was an overwhelming police presence just leaving the parking lot. When I went inside to check to see if they had anything I might be interested in, I asked the guy behind the counter what all the po-po was doing in the parking lot.
It seems there were some goobers from Nebraska who had robbed a gun store and tried to sell the ill-gottenly gained loot at that particular pawn shop, not a half hour before I got there. Evidently, they didn't know about the database that tracks stolen firearms by S/N. The staff kept them (I can't think of any more suitable adjectives to describe just how stupid these guys really were, sorry) busy whilst they called the cops. I happened to come at the tail end of the incident as they were finishing up. Dang the bad luck, anyhow.
What's the Matter, Paul?
Seems that Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership is a little PO'd that there aren't very many gun laws on the "federal level".
He enlightens us on the three big ones, NFA '34, GCA '68, and the Brady Law of '93. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a couple more he missed: the Hughes Amendment of 1986 which banned civilian ownership of newly manufactured machine guns after the effective date of the law-ensuring that owners of transferrable machine guns had a nice little nest egg as it put layman ownership of these weapons effectively out of reach for those without the disposable income to afford them.
Another law Paul forgot to mention at the federal level was the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996. This little gem made even misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence a no-go on ye olde form 4473. It also was (and continues to be) an ex post facto law, making people who were convicted of MDV before the law was enacted a criminal overnight.
And lets not forget the most famous one of the last 15 years, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, otherwise known as the "Assault Weapons Ban". This piece of work banned an arbitrarily defined classed of weapons based completely on their cosmetics. It also limited the capacity of rifle and pistol magazines to only 10 rounds and shotgun magazines to 5 rounds. Thankfully, this abomination on the books of law was allowed to expire after its renewal in 2004 failed.
Evidently, Paul thinks the 20,000-odd state laws aren't enough. Laws concerning how many guns you can buy a month, a ridiculously short time period to report lost or stolen firearms, microstamping, dictates mandating 'smart gun' technology, limits on where/when firearms may be carried and used, and outright bans on possession of firearms are 'inadequate'.
Of course, Paul and his lackeys, along with the Violence Policy Center and the Joyce Foundation who funds them will tell you all day long they are only interested in 'sensible' gun laws. Their definition of 'sensible' is that you shouldn't have them, period. Naturally, their definition differs greatly from mine, as my idea of a 'sensible' gun law is a lack thereof.
He enlightens us on the three big ones, NFA '34, GCA '68, and the Brady Law of '93. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a couple more he missed: the Hughes Amendment of 1986 which banned civilian ownership of newly manufactured machine guns after the effective date of the law-ensuring that owners of transferrable machine guns had a nice little nest egg as it put layman ownership of these weapons effectively out of reach for those without the disposable income to afford them.
Another law Paul forgot to mention at the federal level was the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996. This little gem made even misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence a no-go on ye olde form 4473. It also was (and continues to be) an ex post facto law, making people who were convicted of MDV before the law was enacted a criminal overnight.
And lets not forget the most famous one of the last 15 years, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, otherwise known as the "Assault Weapons Ban". This piece of work banned an arbitrarily defined classed of weapons based completely on their cosmetics. It also limited the capacity of rifle and pistol magazines to only 10 rounds and shotgun magazines to 5 rounds. Thankfully, this abomination on the books of law was allowed to expire after its renewal in 2004 failed.
Evidently, Paul thinks the 20,000-odd state laws aren't enough. Laws concerning how many guns you can buy a month, a ridiculously short time period to report lost or stolen firearms, microstamping, dictates mandating 'smart gun' technology, limits on where/when firearms may be carried and used, and outright bans on possession of firearms are 'inadequate'.
Of course, Paul and his lackeys, along with the Violence Policy Center and the Joyce Foundation who funds them will tell you all day long they are only interested in 'sensible' gun laws. Their definition of 'sensible' is that you shouldn't have them, period. Naturally, their definition differs greatly from mine, as my idea of a 'sensible' gun law is a lack thereof.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
New Shooter Report
Yesterday I took my wife to the range. While it's not the first time she's gone with me, this is the very first time she's done any shooting.
First, a little background is in order. When I first moved in with her, she didn't want anything to do with guns. Didn't want any around, didn't want them in the house, didn't even want to look at them. After a hunting trip to western Wyoming, I purchased a Ruger Black Hawk in .41 Mag so as to have a sidearm in a similar caliber to the others in our group. Not too long after that, I bought a Ruger P-94 in .40 S&W for personal protection. It was another year until I got my next gun, a Century Arms imported Maadi MISR/SA, a post '94 ban AK clone that was decidedly more work than pleasure to shoot (but that's a story for another time).
So, being sensitive to her feelings, I had to store my budding collection at our next door neighbors house. After getting a couple more AKs, the neighbor ran out of room for my stuff. Finally, she (my then girlfriend and now wife) relented and let me get a Stack-On 8-gun locker (the first of what has become 3) to keep them in. So now I had my burgeoning collection in the house, but she still wanted nothing to do with them.
Eventually, she came around to the point of reloading magazines after trips to the range, 8 or 10 of them per trip. (Yeah, that was back when 7.62x39 was still $60/500 and one could afford to fire 3-400 rds per trip to the range.) To this day, if I come back with empty magazines from any of my rifles, be they AKs, the M-1A, the Saigas, or my commie sniper guns, I get in trouble if I reload the mags myself.
A couple of years ago, I got into rolling my own ammunition. What, with the price of commercial ammunition getting higher by the day, plus the fact I couldn't find any commercial hunting loads in 7.62x54r (145-155 gr soft points) that didn't cost $40 or more per box, I made the plunge. This turned out to be a great idea, as it allowed us to have quality time together while reloading. She's taken so much to this process I got an RCBS Rock Chucker Supreme Master Reloading Kit for Christmas last year to replace the little Lee Handloader I'd had, and we'd used, for the last 3 years.
So, yesterday, I was heading out to the range to shoot my new hunting rifle, a Savage 10GLXP3, left hand. I'd asked if she wanted to go, as I needed someone to spot where my shots were going, as I haven't completely got her sighted in yet. She agreed and off to the range we went. Now, to be honest, I've asked her several times if she wanted to go shooting, and the response was always either an outright No or The Look. The only time she'd willingly went to the range with me was last fall when I had to bribe her with breakfast to go. The only thing she did that day was spot shots for me and bird-dog brass from one of my commie snipers, an NDM-86 in .308. Well, after some vivid nightmares (she's a firm believer in the power of dreams) she decided all on her own that yesterday was the day she wanted to learn to shoot. No input from me at all. This was entirely HER decision.
So, I loaded up the 6" Ruger Mark II I'd bought for just such an occasion, along with the LH .308 and all the accoutrements of a day at the open air, public access range. I know, the Mark II is not exactly a ladies gun; the grips are too big, the trigger reach is just a little too far, and it was a whole lotta front end heavy, but it was there for $225 and I wanted a .22 pistol, so there!
Once we got to the range it took a bit of coaxing to get her to come over to where I was set up, and it took a lot more convincing to get her to actually hold the pistol. Initially, I had her hold the pistol and I stood behind her and put my hands over hers. The first 2 shots were me pulling the trigger with her hands under mine just holding the pistol. I don't think she opened her eyes for those two shots, and there were tears on her cheeks afterward. At this point I was ready to call the whole thing off as I didn't want her to do anything she wasn't ready to do. But she persisted. Putting her fears aside, she fired the rest of the magazine with my hands over hers, but she was the one actually pulling the trigger. During this, I talked to her about proper sight alignment and the 4 Rules, particularly keeping her booger hook off the bang switch until she was ready to fire.
Mother Nature, however, had other plans for the day. While sighting in the .308, it took to raining, so we packed up everything so we could head home. Driving up to the backstop to retrieve the target and stand, the rain stopped and she asked if she could shoot some more. Taken a little aback, I said sure and loaded up three mags for the Mark II. After showing her how to do mag changes and charge the pistol, I turned her loose. Next to where my target stand was set up was an old discarded coffee can that some ignoramus left on the range (this is an ongoing problem at this particular range, and I'm surprised the Forest Service hasn't shut this range down over it) that she decided to take aim at. It didn't take long and she was making the can jump around the backstop area. If Ma Nature hadn't intervened again, we wouldn't have left until darkness came or we ran out of ammo, a 500 rd brick of Winchester Dynapoint, whichever would have come first.
One of her biggest complaints with the Mark II was that it was too front end heavy for her to shoot. So when we got back to town, we stopped by the local fun store to see if they had anything to her liking. After looking at several offerings, and bragging about how well she'd dispatched the hapless coffee can, she settled on the Sig Mosquito. The Sig fit her hand right, she could easily manipulate the controls, and the weight was just right. After a little horse trading, I traded the Mark II in for the Mosquito. So not only is she a new shooter, she's one of the thousands of new gun owners.
When we finally got home, she didn't waste any time calling her mother, my mother, and our next door neighbor to tell them what she'd done. I can't begin to describe how proud I am of my wife for tackling her fears head on. Yesterday was indeed a special day.
On our next range trip, I'll set up the target. Now, we'll have both of our targets hung on the fridge. Although I fear that with practice, she could, and probably will, outshoot me. I don't mind, such is life, I can't always be the best at everything we do.
Not a bad day at all. My wife conquered a long held fear and I get to play the doting hubby. Nope, not a bad day at all, if I do say so meself.
First, a little background is in order. When I first moved in with her, she didn't want anything to do with guns. Didn't want any around, didn't want them in the house, didn't even want to look at them. After a hunting trip to western Wyoming, I purchased a Ruger Black Hawk in .41 Mag so as to have a sidearm in a similar caliber to the others in our group. Not too long after that, I bought a Ruger P-94 in .40 S&W for personal protection. It was another year until I got my next gun, a Century Arms imported Maadi MISR/SA, a post '94 ban AK clone that was decidedly more work than pleasure to shoot (but that's a story for another time).
So, being sensitive to her feelings, I had to store my budding collection at our next door neighbors house. After getting a couple more AKs, the neighbor ran out of room for my stuff. Finally, she (my then girlfriend and now wife) relented and let me get a Stack-On 8-gun locker (the first of what has become 3) to keep them in. So now I had my burgeoning collection in the house, but she still wanted nothing to do with them.
Eventually, she came around to the point of reloading magazines after trips to the range, 8 or 10 of them per trip. (Yeah, that was back when 7.62x39 was still $60/500 and one could afford to fire 3-400 rds per trip to the range.) To this day, if I come back with empty magazines from any of my rifles, be they AKs, the M-1A, the Saigas, or my commie sniper guns, I get in trouble if I reload the mags myself.
A couple of years ago, I got into rolling my own ammunition. What, with the price of commercial ammunition getting higher by the day, plus the fact I couldn't find any commercial hunting loads in 7.62x54r (145-155 gr soft points) that didn't cost $40 or more per box, I made the plunge. This turned out to be a great idea, as it allowed us to have quality time together while reloading. She's taken so much to this process I got an RCBS Rock Chucker Supreme Master Reloading Kit for Christmas last year to replace the little Lee Handloader I'd had, and we'd used, for the last 3 years.
So, yesterday, I was heading out to the range to shoot my new hunting rifle, a Savage 10GLXP3, left hand. I'd asked if she wanted to go, as I needed someone to spot where my shots were going, as I haven't completely got her sighted in yet. She agreed and off to the range we went. Now, to be honest, I've asked her several times if she wanted to go shooting, and the response was always either an outright No or The Look. The only time she'd willingly went to the range with me was last fall when I had to bribe her with breakfast to go. The only thing she did that day was spot shots for me and bird-dog brass from one of my commie snipers, an NDM-86 in .308. Well, after some vivid nightmares (she's a firm believer in the power of dreams) she decided all on her own that yesterday was the day she wanted to learn to shoot. No input from me at all. This was entirely HER decision.
So, I loaded up the 6" Ruger Mark II I'd bought for just such an occasion, along with the LH .308 and all the accoutrements of a day at the open air, public access range. I know, the Mark II is not exactly a ladies gun; the grips are too big, the trigger reach is just a little too far, and it was a whole lotta front end heavy, but it was there for $225 and I wanted a .22 pistol, so there!
Once we got to the range it took a bit of coaxing to get her to come over to where I was set up, and it took a lot more convincing to get her to actually hold the pistol. Initially, I had her hold the pistol and I stood behind her and put my hands over hers. The first 2 shots were me pulling the trigger with her hands under mine just holding the pistol. I don't think she opened her eyes for those two shots, and there were tears on her cheeks afterward. At this point I was ready to call the whole thing off as I didn't want her to do anything she wasn't ready to do. But she persisted. Putting her fears aside, she fired the rest of the magazine with my hands over hers, but she was the one actually pulling the trigger. During this, I talked to her about proper sight alignment and the 4 Rules, particularly keeping her booger hook off the bang switch until she was ready to fire.
Mother Nature, however, had other plans for the day. While sighting in the .308, it took to raining, so we packed up everything so we could head home. Driving up to the backstop to retrieve the target and stand, the rain stopped and she asked if she could shoot some more. Taken a little aback, I said sure and loaded up three mags for the Mark II. After showing her how to do mag changes and charge the pistol, I turned her loose. Next to where my target stand was set up was an old discarded coffee can that some ignoramus left on the range (this is an ongoing problem at this particular range, and I'm surprised the Forest Service hasn't shut this range down over it) that she decided to take aim at. It didn't take long and she was making the can jump around the backstop area. If Ma Nature hadn't intervened again, we wouldn't have left until darkness came or we ran out of ammo, a 500 rd brick of Winchester Dynapoint, whichever would have come first.
One of her biggest complaints with the Mark II was that it was too front end heavy for her to shoot. So when we got back to town, we stopped by the local fun store to see if they had anything to her liking. After looking at several offerings, and bragging about how well she'd dispatched the hapless coffee can, she settled on the Sig Mosquito. The Sig fit her hand right, she could easily manipulate the controls, and the weight was just right. After a little horse trading, I traded the Mark II in for the Mosquito. So not only is she a new shooter, she's one of the thousands of new gun owners.
When we finally got home, she didn't waste any time calling her mother, my mother, and our next door neighbor to tell them what she'd done. I can't begin to describe how proud I am of my wife for tackling her fears head on. Yesterday was indeed a special day.
On our next range trip, I'll set up the target. Now, we'll have both of our targets hung on the fridge. Although I fear that with practice, she could, and probably will, outshoot me. I don't mind, such is life, I can't always be the best at everything we do.
Not a bad day at all. My wife conquered a long held fear and I get to play the doting hubby. Nope, not a bad day at all, if I do say so meself.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Hold The Phone
This piece looked like just another puff piece on the border patrol going about their daily business, doing a thankless job that many consider to be racist and authoritarian. My argument is not about that, I think the Border Patrol guys get little in the way of thanks for a thankless job.
But I noticed this quote in the linked piece.
"As Brownsville's CBP officers perform their critical mission of protecting the homeland from terrorists and weapons of terrorism, they continually apprehend wanted fugitives and seize dangerous narcotics," said Michael Freeman, CBP Port Director, Brownsville.
Any guesses what set me off about this quote? I'll give you a hint. There were two other large authoritarian countries that referred to their home country as "________Land.
Russia referred to her self as the "Motherland".
Nazi Germany was referred to as the "Fatherland" by its inhabitants.
See what makes me nervous about this quote?
But I noticed this quote in the linked piece.
"As Brownsville's CBP officers perform their critical mission of protecting the homeland from terrorists and weapons of terrorism, they continually apprehend wanted fugitives and seize dangerous narcotics," said Michael Freeman, CBP Port Director, Brownsville.
Any guesses what set me off about this quote? I'll give you a hint. There were two other large authoritarian countries that referred to their home country as "________Land.
Russia referred to her self as the "Motherland".
Nazi Germany was referred to as the "Fatherland" by its inhabitants.
See what makes me nervous about this quote?
Another of the Clueless Class
I guess for some folks, freedom is too messy. Take the writer of this piece. He bemoans the fact that a convicted felon used a gun to kill someone. Never mind the scum who shot up the Holocaust Museum was a prohibited person and had been since the 80's. No, what we need is just one more law making felon in possession and murder more illegal.
He also rails on about the flawed thinking involved in the text of the second amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." His first faltering step down this road comes from his flawed premise that the 2A is, was, and shall always be, a law enforcement tool. While he didn't stumble headlong into the National Guard argument, he still maintains that citizen militias were the forerunners of of modern local police departments. Different avenue, same destination. The "people" he says should have the right to keep and bear arms at those the 2A was designed are those who the 2A was explicitly designed to protect AGAINST. And since he has so obviously forgotten, let me remind him of Hurricane Katrina. regular citizens banded together to protect each other's homes and property from vandals and looters in the absence of any police presence. What was that definition of a citizens militia he threw out again?
His second false premise is his assertion that pro-2A supporters believe the amendment in question protects an individual right, where, as he states "the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to protect society". Who does he think is going to protect "society"? Law enforcement? Not knocking law enforcement here, but in more than a few cases, they have been part of the problem. No, the "people" who are going to "protect" society are the very people the 2A was written for, you and me.
What has also gotten his panties in a twist is the notion that conservative lawmakers (i.e. Republicans) are on the dole to the NRA and are thus advancing the mythological " gun lobby's" agenda. Does he not realize that while the NRA has over 4 million members (and growing I might add), there are conservatively over 100 million gun owners in this country? That 99.99999% of them are not criminals, a good percentage of them will not kill anything and/or anybody, and the VOTE? SO how does this moron explain the phenomena of the "Blue Dog Democrat", who was elected to office in conservative states like VA and MT precisely because they are pro-gun? I would like to know.
Funny there, Mr Riestenberg, I have an NRA sticker on MY vehicle. Life Member, actually. Yet I have no confederate flag stickers, decals, flags or other paraphernalia in my possession. So what does that make me? I do find it telling you have a link to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership on your page. Is that where you get YOUR marching orders, and your talking points?
He also rails on about the flawed thinking involved in the text of the second amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." His first faltering step down this road comes from his flawed premise that the 2A is, was, and shall always be, a law enforcement tool. While he didn't stumble headlong into the National Guard argument, he still maintains that citizen militias were the forerunners of of modern local police departments. Different avenue, same destination. The "people" he says should have the right to keep and bear arms at those the 2A was designed are those who the 2A was explicitly designed to protect AGAINST. And since he has so obviously forgotten, let me remind him of Hurricane Katrina. regular citizens banded together to protect each other's homes and property from vandals and looters in the absence of any police presence. What was that definition of a citizens militia he threw out again?
His second false premise is his assertion that pro-2A supporters believe the amendment in question protects an individual right, where, as he states "the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to protect society". Who does he think is going to protect "society"? Law enforcement? Not knocking law enforcement here, but in more than a few cases, they have been part of the problem. No, the "people" who are going to "protect" society are the very people the 2A was written for, you and me.
What has also gotten his panties in a twist is the notion that conservative lawmakers (i.e. Republicans) are on the dole to the NRA and are thus advancing the mythological " gun lobby's" agenda. Does he not realize that while the NRA has over 4 million members (and growing I might add), there are conservatively over 100 million gun owners in this country? That 99.99999% of them are not criminals, a good percentage of them will not kill anything and/or anybody, and the VOTE? SO how does this moron explain the phenomena of the "Blue Dog Democrat", who was elected to office in conservative states like VA and MT precisely because they are pro-gun? I would like to know.
Funny there, Mr Riestenberg, I have an NRA sticker on MY vehicle. Life Member, actually. Yet I have no confederate flag stickers, decals, flags or other paraphernalia in my possession. So what does that make me? I do find it telling you have a link to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership on your page. Is that where you get YOUR marching orders, and your talking points?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Chicken Little Is Back
Squealing. Just like little girls who’ve come across a bug. Only now, it’s normal everyday people exercising their rights. Wow. I mean, really? Guess what folks, as you say, open carry is legal in 43 states (almost 44, Texas is working on it). The only problems encountered are by the open carry person being targeted and harassed by police while doing absolutely nothing wrong. Happened to my cousin at the rehearsal for my wedding last year. Somebody got their knickers in a knot because he had a Taurus 24/7 on his hip. While the cop was nice about and all, it was still irksome when he was asked:
1) Why he was openly carrying a firearm. (Hint: Because I can, was the response.)
2) If he had a concealed carry permit. (Wasn’t aware you had to have a CCP to open carry in SD, but my cousin did have a valid CCP.)
3) Since he had a valid CCP, could he cover up the pistol. (This was June, and about 85 deg out, what clothing does one routinely carry around with them to be able to conceal a medium frame pistol?)
4) Since he couldn’t conceal it, he was asked to remove the pistol and put away. He put it in my truck, alongside my concealed carry piece. (I, coincidentally, forgot my belt otherwise I would have been carrying that day too.)
Fortunately, nothing came of it. In other places, like some places in Virginia, this episode would have landed my cousin in the pokey with some kind of bogus charge hanging over his head and minus his Taurus.
So to rehash what the ninnies are whining about, *GASP* there may be somebody carrying either openly or concealed wherever you go, to include, and I quote:
Sipping hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you;
Attending a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt; or
Boarding a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers openly carrying weapons.
I also take exception to being told I’m not good enough to defend myself in a public place, I have to have law enforcement do it for me. And we all know how well that can work out, right? Law enforcement are the only ones qualified to do that job, right? (h/t to David Codrea for the "Only Ones" files.)
But, reading other related articles from this group, I doesn’t surprise me any. What, with all the pant-sh*tting hysteria displayed in all the other articles on guns from this site, it’s a wonder they have any clean clothes at all. Remember, too that this is a Joyce Foundation-funded Astroturf program. So take what they say with a grain of salt.
1) Why he was openly carrying a firearm. (Hint: Because I can, was the response.)
2) If he had a concealed carry permit. (Wasn’t aware you had to have a CCP to open carry in SD, but my cousin did have a valid CCP.)
3) Since he had a valid CCP, could he cover up the pistol. (This was June, and about 85 deg out, what clothing does one routinely carry around with them to be able to conceal a medium frame pistol?)
4) Since he couldn’t conceal it, he was asked to remove the pistol and put away. He put it in my truck, alongside my concealed carry piece. (I, coincidentally, forgot my belt otherwise I would have been carrying that day too.)
Fortunately, nothing came of it. In other places, like some places in Virginia, this episode would have landed my cousin in the pokey with some kind of bogus charge hanging over his head and minus his Taurus.
So to rehash what the ninnies are whining about, *GASP* there may be somebody carrying either openly or concealed wherever you go, to include, and I quote:
Sipping hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you;
Attending a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt; or
Boarding a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers openly carrying weapons.
I also take exception to being told I’m not good enough to defend myself in a public place, I have to have law enforcement do it for me. And we all know how well that can work out, right? Law enforcement are the only ones qualified to do that job, right? (h/t to David Codrea for the "Only Ones" files.)
But, reading other related articles from this group, I doesn’t surprise me any. What, with all the pant-sh*tting hysteria displayed in all the other articles on guns from this site, it’s a wonder they have any clean clothes at all. Remember, too that this is a Joyce Foundation-funded Astroturf program. So take what they say with a grain of salt.
Monday, June 8, 2009
A Quote of My Own
I left a comment on an editorial, and I thought parts of it deserved it's own post.
Here it is:
Fear the government that wants to see you disarmed, not the armed neighbor. For it is your neighbor who may, in the end, be the one who defends your freedom when you have neither the stomach or the guts to do it yourself.
For those who think that if you do away with firearms, there will paradise on earth, I've got news for you. "Gun" crime may go down, but other types of violent crime will increase. Look at what's happening in England or even in NYFC. Crack down on guns and the skells will just shift their tooling. No guns, use a knife. No knife, use a chain. Where there's a will, there's a way. Never underestimate the ability of man to do bad things to his fellow man by any means he can find.
Here it is:
Fear the government that wants to see you disarmed, not the armed neighbor. For it is your neighbor who may, in the end, be the one who defends your freedom when you have neither the stomach or the guts to do it yourself.
For those who think that if you do away with firearms, there will paradise on earth, I've got news for you. "Gun" crime may go down, but other types of violent crime will increase. Look at what's happening in England or even in NYFC. Crack down on guns and the skells will just shift their tooling. No guns, use a knife. No knife, use a chain. Where there's a will, there's a way. Never underestimate the ability of man to do bad things to his fellow man by any means he can find.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Something To Think About
What with all the talk around the intarwebz these last few months, and all the attendtion the guys over at Sipsey Street got with their stand, it got me thinking. A lot of lefties point out that if things ever got down to the nitty-gritty and the lead content of the earth suddenly became airborne, those on the other end of the .gov wouldn't stand a chance due to said forces having tanks, helos, bombers and all matter of nifty little gadgets handy.
I've countered that argument on more than one occasion by asking that particular person to do some basic math. There are, conservatively, around 100 million gun owners out there who posses somewhere around 250 million firearms.
Now, take the combined arms of the entire US armed forces; active duty, guard, and reserve, and add in the combined forces of every law enforcement agency in the country. Even with that combined force, they are still hopelessly outgunned.
Then, just to toss a monkey wrench into the cogs, how many of those in the above mentioned group would side with the .gov? I'm betting there wouldn't be very many left when it was all said and done. For a sampling, check out this site
Even if only 3% of the gun owning public got mad enough to do something about what they saw as a government run amok, there would still be over 3 million people the .gov would have to contend with.
And that, my friends, is something to think about.
I've countered that argument on more than one occasion by asking that particular person to do some basic math. There are, conservatively, around 100 million gun owners out there who posses somewhere around 250 million firearms.
Now, take the combined arms of the entire US armed forces; active duty, guard, and reserve, and add in the combined forces of every law enforcement agency in the country. Even with that combined force, they are still hopelessly outgunned.
Then, just to toss a monkey wrench into the cogs, how many of those in the above mentioned group would side with the .gov? I'm betting there wouldn't be very many left when it was all said and done. For a sampling, check out this site
Even if only 3% of the gun owning public got mad enough to do something about what they saw as a government run amok, there would still be over 3 million people the .gov would have to contend with.
And that, my friends, is something to think about.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
What Did I Do To Deserve This????
Somehow, I got on the White House mailing list. How this happened, I have no idea. Maybe it was all those emails to Congress.org when during the last congressional term, I don't know. But the email is from David Axelrod, the "Senior Advisor" to Dear Leader.
What Mr. Axelrod wants me to do is watch "Dear Leader" pander to a constituency that doesn't have a thing to do with American politics. I heard excerpts from this speech today on the radio, and I can say unequivocally, I was underwhelmed.
One caller to a radio program I listened to today (and no, it was Limbaugh) wondered just why it is, that Iran can have nuclear power, but we here in the US of A can't. As I listened to these excerpts, I could only think to myself "How is it this guy can make all of these promises to all these people, yet we here in this country can't do anything close to what he wants the rest of world to be able to do?"
I have a hard time with anyone who goes around selling American Exceptionalism done the toilet like yesterday's spoiled milk. I didn't like it when Nazi Pelosi did it, I didn't like it when Slick Willy Clinton or his wife did it, and damn sure didn't like it when Jon Karee (sorry, I couldn't resist the dig on folks who joined the military) did it. So why should I suddenly be all hunky-dory with the new president do it?
Mark my words, this will be in our future if we do nothing to stop what is going on before our very eyes.
What Mr. Axelrod wants me to do is watch "Dear Leader" pander to a constituency that doesn't have a thing to do with American politics. I heard excerpts from this speech today on the radio, and I can say unequivocally, I was underwhelmed.
One caller to a radio program I listened to today (and no, it was Limbaugh) wondered just why it is, that Iran can have nuclear power, but we here in the US of A can't. As I listened to these excerpts, I could only think to myself "How is it this guy can make all of these promises to all these people, yet we here in this country can't do anything close to what he wants the rest of world to be able to do?"
I have a hard time with anyone who goes around selling American Exceptionalism done the toilet like yesterday's spoiled milk. I didn't like it when Nazi Pelosi did it, I didn't like it when Slick Willy Clinton or his wife did it, and damn sure didn't like it when Jon Karee (sorry, I couldn't resist the dig on folks who joined the military) did it. So why should I suddenly be all hunky-dory with the new president do it?
Mark my words, this will be in our future if we do nothing to stop what is going on before our very eyes.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Another Who Just Doesn't Get It
Well, it looks as if a retired preacher from Sewer Falls has his knickers in a knot over the NRA, the ban on scary looking semi-automatic rifles, and the 2A, all at the same time.
He editorializes about the true meaning of the 2A, telling you the reader, that 60% of you are wrong and have been duped by the evil gun lobby into believing the 2A protects an individual right. The good reverend would also have you believe all would be right with the world if we would just get rid of those "evil assault weapons" and make civilian ownership of all firearms impossible. What he doesn't get is gun control is a failed experiment that doesn't work. The CDC thinks so, as they couldn't find a single benefit or desired outcome of a single gun control law. The British and Australians are finding out that virtual bans on civilian gun ownership are having a negative impact on their crime rates (violent crime is going UP in spite of what the antis have promised, but gun crime is low-whoopee!)
One thing he does do is go on about how the expired '94 ban would protect us if only it was extended. The ban did nothing to reduce crime, especially use of those dreaded baby-killing machines. Hard to reduce that which wasn't even a statistical blip on the radar either before the ban went into effect in '94, or after it's expiration in '04. The ban didn't do anything other than ban cosmetic features, and manufacturers complied with the law by removing the offending features and renaming their products (also known as a loophole to anti-gunners). The exact same rifle available before the ban was available during the ban, albeit with some features removed to keep them "readily adaptable and useful for sporting purposes".
He also goes to on whimper about a statistic flopped out there by the Brady Bunch telling us that 15 kids die everyday from gun violence. What he (or the Brady Bunch for that matter) doesn't tell you is that bulk of the "kids" in their figures are between the ages of 17 and 21. Guess which age group makes up the bulk of those killed in gun violence and what those "kids" are engaged in when they become "victims"? Kind of like the kid he laments about in the editorial. Shot while breaking in to someones home, I'm betting the "victim" was an angel.
Yes, the ability of the anti-gunner to string together so much hysteria over the fact that close to 100 million gun owners did not kill anybody today can sometimes be breathtaking.
He editorializes about the true meaning of the 2A, telling you the reader, that 60% of you are wrong and have been duped by the evil gun lobby into believing the 2A protects an individual right. The good reverend would also have you believe all would be right with the world if we would just get rid of those "evil assault weapons" and make civilian ownership of all firearms impossible. What he doesn't get is gun control is a failed experiment that doesn't work. The CDC thinks so, as they couldn't find a single benefit or desired outcome of a single gun control law. The British and Australians are finding out that virtual bans on civilian gun ownership are having a negative impact on their crime rates (violent crime is going UP in spite of what the antis have promised, but gun crime is low-whoopee!)
One thing he does do is go on about how the expired '94 ban would protect us if only it was extended. The ban did nothing to reduce crime, especially use of those dreaded baby-killing machines. Hard to reduce that which wasn't even a statistical blip on the radar either before the ban went into effect in '94, or after it's expiration in '04. The ban didn't do anything other than ban cosmetic features, and manufacturers complied with the law by removing the offending features and renaming their products (also known as a loophole to anti-gunners). The exact same rifle available before the ban was available during the ban, albeit with some features removed to keep them "readily adaptable and useful for sporting purposes".
He also goes to on whimper about a statistic flopped out there by the Brady Bunch telling us that 15 kids die everyday from gun violence. What he (or the Brady Bunch for that matter) doesn't tell you is that bulk of the "kids" in their figures are between the ages of 17 and 21. Guess which age group makes up the bulk of those killed in gun violence and what those "kids" are engaged in when they become "victims"? Kind of like the kid he laments about in the editorial. Shot while breaking in to someones home, I'm betting the "victim" was an angel.
Yes, the ability of the anti-gunner to string together so much hysteria over the fact that close to 100 million gun owners did not kill anybody today can sometimes be breathtaking.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Ruminations on Stuff
With all the hoo-hah recently over the 10th Amendment, states rights, conservatism and libertarianism, I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring.
We'll start with the 10th Amendment and states rights. I think the federal government has grossly overstepped its bounds and has been doing so in ever-increasing steps since the early 1900's. This overstepping has been accelerating at an alarming pace since 2001. Most citizens, and states for that matter, operate on the whim of the federal government. How you may ask? Look at your pay stub and look at your tax rate. Savor it, because after 2010, it goes back to the rate in 1999 under Clinton. Also take a look at what has transpired over the last 4 months. Never before has government gone after private citizens and private business with the zeal we've seen recently. One investment firm was told point blank that if they didn't play ball with the new administration, they would bring the full power of government to bear on them. Think that can't happen? Try this one. Congress now believes it has the power to break contracts. Look at what happened to AIG. If they can go after an insignificant amount of people over bonuses that were specifically protected by law, then what's to say they can't go after you?
A recent study showed that the primary source of revenue to state coffers wasn't the citizens of those states, but in fact, the federal government. How upside down is that? With all those federal dollars comes strings. Some folks see these strings as beneficial. I mean if a public university receives federal funding, they have to abide by the strings that federal money comes with, like diversity issues like Title IX. But then there are the extortion schemes. Mandatory seat belt, DUI, and minimum drinking age laws come to mind. I mean, who can't be a fan of these laws, right? One mandates safety in your car, another is meant to keep kids from getting drunk and the other is meant to keep drunks off the road. Sounds all nice and rosy, doesn't it? What is lost in all this mess is the extortion behind the scenes. States that failed to pass these mandatory laws in a timely manner were threatened with having their federal highway funds withheld. That sound good to you?
Next, libertarianism vs conservatism. While I do hold some libertarian views, such as drugs, I believe there is a need to some form of limited government. Now there are certain federal agencies that are an abomination that deserve to be abolished immediately if not sooner, but there are also federal agencies that make life much better. Case in point are the Occupational and Mine Safety and Health Administrations. OSHA and MSHA, respectively. These two organizations under the Department of Labor are geared to make sure our workplaces, whether it be an office, a machine shop, or a mine are safe places to work.
Where I diverge from the libertarian line is that while I agree that less government is always better, there are instances where government has to be there. I mentioned OSHA and MSHA, but also, there's also the FAA, and certain entities under the Departments of Transportation and Agriculture that come to mind.
There is an argument to be made for all of these. Hopefully, sooner rather than later that dialogue can take place. This country has gotten so far from it's founding roots it has lost its mooring. If, by some quirk of science time travel were to become possible, I believe our ancestors would look at what we've become today and shake their heads in disgust and shame. Disgust for what we as a collective people have allowed ourselves to lured into, and shame for allowing the sacrifices they made, however big and however small, to be in vain.
We'll start with the 10th Amendment and states rights. I think the federal government has grossly overstepped its bounds and has been doing so in ever-increasing steps since the early 1900's. This overstepping has been accelerating at an alarming pace since 2001. Most citizens, and states for that matter, operate on the whim of the federal government. How you may ask? Look at your pay stub and look at your tax rate. Savor it, because after 2010, it goes back to the rate in 1999 under Clinton. Also take a look at what has transpired over the last 4 months. Never before has government gone after private citizens and private business with the zeal we've seen recently. One investment firm was told point blank that if they didn't play ball with the new administration, they would bring the full power of government to bear on them. Think that can't happen? Try this one. Congress now believes it has the power to break contracts. Look at what happened to AIG. If they can go after an insignificant amount of people over bonuses that were specifically protected by law, then what's to say they can't go after you?
A recent study showed that the primary source of revenue to state coffers wasn't the citizens of those states, but in fact, the federal government. How upside down is that? With all those federal dollars comes strings. Some folks see these strings as beneficial. I mean if a public university receives federal funding, they have to abide by the strings that federal money comes with, like diversity issues like Title IX. But then there are the extortion schemes. Mandatory seat belt, DUI, and minimum drinking age laws come to mind. I mean, who can't be a fan of these laws, right? One mandates safety in your car, another is meant to keep kids from getting drunk and the other is meant to keep drunks off the road. Sounds all nice and rosy, doesn't it? What is lost in all this mess is the extortion behind the scenes. States that failed to pass these mandatory laws in a timely manner were threatened with having their federal highway funds withheld. That sound good to you?
Next, libertarianism vs conservatism. While I do hold some libertarian views, such as drugs, I believe there is a need to some form of limited government. Now there are certain federal agencies that are an abomination that deserve to be abolished immediately if not sooner, but there are also federal agencies that make life much better. Case in point are the Occupational and Mine Safety and Health Administrations. OSHA and MSHA, respectively. These two organizations under the Department of Labor are geared to make sure our workplaces, whether it be an office, a machine shop, or a mine are safe places to work.
Where I diverge from the libertarian line is that while I agree that less government is always better, there are instances where government has to be there. I mentioned OSHA and MSHA, but also, there's also the FAA, and certain entities under the Departments of Transportation and Agriculture that come to mind.
There is an argument to be made for all of these. Hopefully, sooner rather than later that dialogue can take place. This country has gotten so far from it's founding roots it has lost its mooring. If, by some quirk of science time travel were to become possible, I believe our ancestors would look at what we've become today and shake their heads in disgust and shame. Disgust for what we as a collective people have allowed ourselves to lured into, and shame for allowing the sacrifices they made, however big and however small, to be in vain.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A Warrior Reborn
About 6 weeks ago, I bought a Remington Rand 1911A1, manufactured in 1944. There were some issues with it, as the previous owner had made some "upgrades" to her. A BOMAR rib, an adjustable trigger, an oversize attachment to said trigger, Pachmyer grips, and chrome safety and mainspring housing.
(Click to biggerize the pics)
After 6 weeks at the doctors office and some gifts to the gods of GunBroker, all of the upgrades were reversed. Witness a warrior reborn:
I decided to have her re-blued since I had to have the 6 holes in the top of the slide filled and welded over. Some will say I ruined the collector value, but that was already shot when I got her, with all of the things that were done to her. Jared and crew at Jack First Gun Parts did a top notch job putting her back to right for the amazing amount of $153
(Click to biggerize the pics)
After 6 weeks at the doctors office and some gifts to the gods of GunBroker, all of the upgrades were reversed. Witness a warrior reborn:
I decided to have her re-blued since I had to have the 6 holes in the top of the slide filled and welded over. Some will say I ruined the collector value, but that was already shot when I got her, with all of the things that were done to her. Jared and crew at Jack First Gun Parts did a top notch job putting her back to right for the amazing amount of $153
I've always admired the lines of the 1911, and after shooting a buddies 1917 manufactured Colt 1911, I got the bug. Now, I've had two other 1911-type pistols, both of them Kimbers. An Ultra Carry, and my current carry piece, an Ultra Raptor. While the lines of the Kimbers are graceful, there is nothing quite like the elegant lines of a true 1911, or 1911A1 in this case.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
It's About Damn Time
Read the text at the link. What we have here is a bill by the Wyoming Congressional delegation to force the issue of carrying a concealed weapon in accordance with the laws of the state in which the National Park resides. It'll be interesting to see if the bill ever makes it anywhere in either chamber, considering who has the reigns of the runaway stage coach that is the US Congress.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a state such as California doesn't allow carry of concealed weapons in a park (state, local, or otherwise) then carry won't happen in, say, Yosemite.
However, Wyoming and South Dakota, in particular, allow concealed carry in their parks. South Dakota just recently passed this important clarification 2 or 3 years ago. While Wyoming allows for carry in its parks, discharge of a firearm is a crime. (Although if it were a defensive gun usage or DGU, say to prevent a forcible felony like rape, I believe that would be OK by their standards.)
Bless Senators Barasso and Enzi and Congresswoman Lummis for bringing national park regulations into the modern era. 48 states allow some form of concealed carry (39 shall issue, 9 may issue, and 2 no issue, with DC recently being upgraded to may issue).
(h/t to Snowflakes in Hell for the link)
This is one bill that needs to see the light of day.
UPDATE: Kevin Baker of TSM pointed out that the actual number of shall issue states is not 39, but 37. Vermont has no requirement for a permit and Alaska does have a permit, but only for reciprocity with other states. Thanks!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a state such as California doesn't allow carry of concealed weapons in a park (state, local, or otherwise) then carry won't happen in, say, Yosemite.
However, Wyoming and South Dakota, in particular, allow concealed carry in their parks. South Dakota just recently passed this important clarification 2 or 3 years ago. While Wyoming allows for carry in its parks, discharge of a firearm is a crime. (Although if it were a defensive gun usage or DGU, say to prevent a forcible felony like rape, I believe that would be OK by their standards.)
Bless Senators Barasso and Enzi and Congresswoman Lummis for bringing national park regulations into the modern era. 48 states allow some form of concealed carry (39 shall issue, 9 may issue, and 2 no issue, with DC recently being upgraded to may issue).
(h/t to Snowflakes in Hell for the link)
This is one bill that needs to see the light of day.
UPDATE: Kevin Baker of TSM pointed out that the actual number of shall issue states is not 39, but 37. Vermont has no requirement for a permit and Alaska does have a permit, but only for reciprocity with other states. Thanks!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
While We're On The Subject...
Of things that make my blood boil are those tools who, after seeing the evidence to the contrary, still insist that banning guns (whether they be handguns, "assault" weapons, or any other arbitrarily defined class of firearm) will lead to a reduction in the crime rate. God, those people really....
Anyway, there have been few in the last couple of weeks that can't seem to get it through their thick skulls. One guy writing in the Casper-Star wanted all of us "gun nuts" to turn in all of our guns so they could be turned into ploughshares. This, after he insisted nobody wanted to come after anybodies legally held firearms. Anyone else see the irony in this?
Then, there's the "just one life" crowd. These buffoons argue that if a law "saves just one life" it's worth it. Hogwash. Whose life are they referring to? The creeps that break in to rob and kill a room full of college students? (Thanks to Bruce @ mAss Backwards for the link) The guys who intended to rape, rob and murder them? Because there's one guy that was there that had other plans. I think he chose right. Let's see here. Two goons with (most likely illegal) guns vs 10 college students, one of whom was legally armed. I'll take the legally armed college student for $500, Alex. Unfortunately, one young woman was wounded in the exchange, but given the alternative, I think she's one very lucky lady.
Because as Bruce points out repeatedly, there are those in this country that believe the right of two scum sucking cretins to rape a room full of college coeds and murder everyone in the apartment is apparently more important than the students right to life.
Anyway, there have been few in the last couple of weeks that can't seem to get it through their thick skulls. One guy writing in the Casper-Star wanted all of us "gun nuts" to turn in all of our guns so they could be turned into ploughshares. This, after he insisted nobody wanted to come after anybodies legally held firearms. Anyone else see the irony in this?
Then, there's the "just one life" crowd. These buffoons argue that if a law "saves just one life" it's worth it. Hogwash. Whose life are they referring to? The creeps that break in to rob and kill a room full of college students? (Thanks to Bruce @ mAss Backwards for the link) The guys who intended to rape, rob and murder them? Because there's one guy that was there that had other plans. I think he chose right. Let's see here. Two goons with (most likely illegal) guns vs 10 college students, one of whom was legally armed. I'll take the legally armed college student for $500, Alex. Unfortunately, one young woman was wounded in the exchange, but given the alternative, I think she's one very lucky lady.
Because as Bruce points out repeatedly, there are those in this country that believe the right of two scum sucking cretins to rape a room full of college coeds and murder everyone in the apartment is apparently more important than the students right to life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
