Update to My 'Project Gunwalker' Post

So, 3 weeks ago, I sent an email to my 3 congress-critters: one congresswoman and 2 senators.

Since then, I've got a response from the Congresswoman:

Dear 'Hazmat'

Thank you for contacting me about the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry. It is good to hear from you.

As you know, Agent Terry was shot in the line of duty on December 15 2010. Agent Terry's death is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). I am aware of news reports that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) is facilitating the transfer of U.S.-origin firearms into Mexico as part of "Project Gunrunner." I am also aware of news reports that Agent Terry may have been shot by one of these firearms.

I realize that many in the public, including members of Agent Terry's family, are frustrated with the lack of information being shared by the federal government on this matter. They are right to be frustrated, especially considering the shocking allegations surrounding both Project Gunrunner and Agent Terry's death. Senator Charles, the Ranking Republican at the Senate Judiciary Committee, has led congressional efforts to get to the bottom of this scandal. I support his efforts to hold the accountable for its actions and will continue to closely monitor developments as the investigations proceed.

Blah, blah, blah, thanks for writing, sign up for my newsletter, blah, blah.

Cynthia M. Lummis
Member of Congress

You get the picture. This was on the 14th. Today, I got a response from one of the senators, Senator Mike Enzi.

Dear 'Hazmat'

The shooting of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry on December 14 was a tragedy. Diana and I send our prayers and thoughts to his family. His murder is currently being investigated. I will pay careful attention to the results of this investigation.

In the past, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) has overstepped its authority and Project Gunwalker may fit into this category as well. The Senate Judiciary Committee has oversight of the BATFE and understand the Committee's ranking member, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has been working to get answers about this program from the BATFE. I support his efforts to uncover the truth. I continue to encourage my colleagues to exercise their authority to ensure that not only are our Second Amendment Rights protected, but that our country and those who protect our borders are not put at risk by questionable programs.

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts and concerns. As the 112th Congress continues I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that the Second Amendment is not infringed upon.

Sincerely,
Michael B. Enzi
United States Senator

(bolded emphasis mine)

At Least They Ain't Hiding It Anymore

Doing another run around Google News today, and came across this nifty little report from Homeland Security Today about how to deal with the narco-terrorists and gunrunning operations in Mexico. While most of the report deals with policy tools for dealing with the drug part of the problem, what caught my attention was the proposals regarding guns. From the HS Today:

To increase to control gun smuggling from the United States to Mexico, federal agencies should establish "registration requirements for large-volume ammunition purchases and unassembled assault weapons kit imports", the report said, as well as reporting requirements for multiple long-arms purchases.

It further goes on to state:

The United States must provide more resources to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the primary agency charged with stopping arms trafficking, the report said, providing it with the capacity to investigate gun purchasing plots.

Furthermore:

The federal government should contemplate a ban on assault weapons and sniper rifles (emphasis mine) as such bans "have proved successful at the state level", the report suggested. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies must break down barriers to sharing information on gun crime data.

Leaving aside the gun trafficking issue for just a moment, this is a new, but not surprising twist in the campaign to ban guns. Before, we had the obligatory calls to ban assault weapons after every high profile shooting, whether they involved a so-called scary looking semi automatic rifle or not. We even had folks talking about using the '94 Scary Gun ban as a jumping off point to de-sensitize the public into going after other classes of boogey-man guns. The new wrinkle is the 'sniper rifle' bit. I would hazard a guess that the 20 lb brains that who wrote this probably didn't know that by using sniper rifle, they were REALLY talking about scoped bolt action rifles in calibers of .30 and up. You know, that favorite deer, elk, moose, or cape buffalo rifle in the average hunters gun safe. One would think, but I doubt it. It's a well known fact that THE hallmark of America is our marksmanship. Most of our Armed Forces are well trained in marksmanship principles even before they join up. So this little Freudian slip about sniper rifles isn't as innocuous as it seems. The other troubling thing about this report is the belief that we should give even more power and funding to a federal agency that, according to reports, has done more to arm the narco-terrorists than any gun-running operation could have hoped to accomplish. Evidently, they either haven't been following what's been going on with Project Gunwalker, or they are ignoring it all together. (My money is on the latter, personally.) For more on the Gunwalker scandal, Mike V over at Sispsey Street has all the tools, here, here, here, and here. And Michelle Malkin has a comprehensive round up of all the reporting to date, here.

New Gun Goodness, S&W Edition

Picked up a new S&W revolver tonight. A Model 310 Night Guard in 10mm with 2.5" barrel.

I've got a couple of other 10mm pistols, but they're 1911s with 4 and 5 inch barrels.

This should be interesting to shoot. I've got a lot of 10mm loaded and stored, 8 grains of Power Pistol sitting under 180 grain FMJs. Well, except for the 155 grain Noslers I got for S&Gs. This will be fun!

What Part of 'Shall Not Be Infringed' Does He Not Understand?

So E.J. Dionne is all butthurt because the NRA won't sit down to a round table discussion about new gun control laws with the very people who would dearly love to see the NRA's membership carted off to some camp and 're-educated', or worse.

Really, hoss? For nearly 80 yrs, gun owners in this country have been backing up and giving away more and more of our Consitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I mean, first we had to register and pay a tax to own short barrelled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and full auto weaponry. At least in the 1960s, the Poll Tax was eliminated so one could vote without fear of running afoul of some taxman.

And speaking of the 60s, what with all the fun and excitement of 1968, we just had to 'do something' about all the violence. I mean, all those radical left-wing groups that burned down LA, Chicago, and other places had to be put on notice that this was not going to stand. So, we borrowed the verbiage from the Nurenburg laws and we banned certain classes of people from owning guns. Think GCA isn't racist? Look at the block on the 4473 that asks for your race. WTF does that have to do with buying a gun?

Since GCA 68 wasn't good enough and gave rise to an as yet still unaccountable government operation and agency, we had to 'reform' things. So, we get the Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986. This little gem was supposed to rein in an out of control agency and give some semblence of continuity to gun owners. All it really managed to do was make one class of firearms unattainable for 90% of the gun owner population.

We did such a good job with FOPA 86, we had to 'fix' things again in '93/94. So, in order to make sure that those people we deemed as not good enough to own guns in '68, we had to make extra sure. So, the Brady Act was passed, ostensibly to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Even while this idiotic law was being debated, the next boogeyman was being pulled along.

Scary looking semi-automatic rifles, shot guns, and pistols were demonized left, right, and center as the preferred weapons of low-lifes, hoodlums, and gangsters and were only suitable for mowing down large swathes of school aged children in the shortest amount of time possible.

This was the last national legislative victory for the guns are icky crowd. Slowly, the pendulum has begun to swing back.

Mr. Dionne, you should know this. Not one more inch. Not one more law. We have had enough of your 'common sense gun regulation'. The time for compromise has past. We have given for the last 70+ yrs, it's time you gave some of it back.

Who Says Public Radio Is Biased?

Certainly not the fine folks at Minnesota Public Radio.

I almost laughed when I got to the part where they describe Tom Diaz of the VPC as an authority on gun industry operations. That would be like describing Jerry Falwell as an authority on the porn industry.

Seriously though, I could only slog through about a third of this before my stomach had had enough.

But don't tell anyone that public broadcasting is biased. No sir, not at all. We just won't mention that the Joyce Foundation is putting up the cash for the linked report.

Kommie-fornication

Came across this today wondering the Algorian intertubes.

All hell broke loose on Hwy 1 in Commifornia the other day over 'someone with a gun'.

Really, they had to close the frickin' highway over this?

One would think that with all the firepower deployed to take down someone on their way back from a trip to the range, someone should be in jail, if not in the hospital with life-threatening injuries.

But alas, just a father and son coming home from some much needed range time. If anything, they ought to charge the ninny who called it in.

Project GunWalker

With all the hubub caused by David Codrea and Mike V, it was time I wrote my congress-critters to call for investigations into what is becoming 'crass and dubious'. Below are the emails I fired off to them.

Senator-

In the last few weeks, a scandal has been brewing in the Department of Justice involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and gun smuggling operations in Mexico.

As you know, Border Patrol Agent Bryan Terry was shot and killed on the
Arizona border with a gun allegedly purchased by as straw purchaser in
Phoenix. It has been alleged that the BATFE knew of these operations and did nothing to stop this process, nor did they inform the Mexican government about an
operation they called 'Fast and Furious'.

It has come to my attention that Andrew Traver was scheduled to come up for
a confirmation hearing, but this was pulled by Senator Patrick Leahy.

In light of the allegations brought about by the murder of BP Agent Terry, and
subsequent murder of US government agent Jaime Zapata, serious questions need to be asked of both the DOJ and BATFE regarding what they knew, when they knew it, and why it was allowed to continue.

Senator Grassley of Iowa has taken the point on this, but he needs help in the form of more senators ashing the tough questions so the family of BP Agent Terry can get the answers they deserve.

Will you join Senator Grassley in calling for oversight hearings involving Operation Fast and Furious?

And this to my Representative in Congress:

Congresswoman-

In the last few weeks, a scandal has been brewing in the Department of Justice involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and gun smuggling operations in Mexico.

As you know, Border Patrol Agent Bryan Terry was shot and killed on the
Arizona border with a gun allegedly purchased by a straw purchaser in Phoenix.
It has been alleged that the BATFE knew of these operations and yet did nothing
to stop this process, nor did they inform the Mexican government about an
operation they called 'Fast and Furious'.

Senator Grassley of Iowa has taken the point on this, but he needs help in the form of more people asking the tough questions so the family of BP Agent Terry can get the answers they deserve.

Congressman Issa is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Along with Senator Grassley, oversight hearings need to happen not only in the Senate, but in the House as well. BATFE has asked for an increase in funding for the current fiscal year in order to combat so-called weapons trafficking into Mexico. If the accounts that have begun to appear on CBS news, the LA Times, and in the Associated Press are true, the BATFE is asking for more money to ensure more American guns go south of the border to kill untold thousands of Mexicans, and maybe even more American law enforcement personnel.

Will you call on Congressman Issa to hold hearings regarding this atrocious abuse of American sovereignty?

I wrote these emails 3 days ago, and as of right now, I have not received and response back from any of them. When I do, I'll be sure to post their responses right here.

Musings On The M9

This post over at Joe Huffman's site got me thinking. The OP was about how bad the M1911/M1911A1 are because you can't use your index finger as a point-and-shoot interface.

After reading the link in his post, I was compelled to offer my take on using the index finger as a sighting tool and the middle finger to pull the trigger.

Yesterday, it was qualification day at work. As part of my day job, I run the weapons vault and I am responsible for numerous rifles and pistols. Our duty weapon is the Beretta M9. It's a 9mm job, does a good job for what it was designed to do, and is generally a decent weapon.

I first qualified on this pistol back in 1995. At the time, I didn't know any better. It was the first autoloader I'd ever fired. (The first ever handgun I fired was a S&W Model 27 Highway Patrolman, .357 mag w/6" barrel.)

As I grew into gun nut status, some things started sticking out to me. First, was the grip. It was always billed to me as an 'any person' gun, meaning any person should be able to pick it up and start shooting. Well, the grip size is just short of being too small for Andrea the Giant. Of course, you've got to figure out a way to hold 15 rds of 9mm and having it all stick out the butt end of the pistol ain't exactly slick. I've got a fairly large paw, and it's a stretch to get my hands around the grip on this pistol.

Next thing that stands out, and in my mind totally turns me off on this pistol is the trigger. Horrendous doesn't even begin to describe it. To put it in perspective, it's like trying to squeeze a 2x4 with your index finger. When someone asks me why I don't like the M9, I tell them it's the trigger. It's got a trigger you start pulling on Sunday, and you're finally done sometime late Saturday afternoon. And that's the double action pull. If the guy in the article linked by Joe can accurately double-action fire the M9 with his middle finger, I'll spring for a beer for the guy. I know MY middle finger ain't that strong, that's for sure.

The single action pull is better, but only because you don't have to squeeze a 2x4 to get the gun to go bang. No, the SA pull has it's own issue. Namely, you have to take up 2.5 feet of slack in the trigger just to get it to the break-over point. I can see doing the point-and shoot method in SA, but transitioning from your normal trigger finger on the trigger to the middle, puts too much movement and memory in the equation. Trigger pull should be muscle memory automatic. Not a fumbling affair trying to change on finger on the trigger to another.

In the classroom before going out to the line, I try to get as much dry fire time in as I can to refamiliarize myself with just how terrible the trigger is. I have to consciously think about shooting this pistol, as I've spoiled myself on my 1911s. Something about a consistent 3-5 lb pull that has me hooked I guess.

I also have to change my shooting mechanics with the M9. I shoot high thumbs with the 1911, and being a lefty, particularly with the M9, I can't rest my thumbs where I'd like. There's this thing called the trigger bar that runs right where my thumbs rest that goes back and forth every time the trigger is pulled. Last year, this little design feature rubbed a raw spot on my right thumb. This year, I tried to rest that thumb under ledge over the trigger guard on the frame, with varying degrees of success. (And quite a bit of stopping to consciously put my thumb back where it needed to be, not where it wanted to be, damned muscle memory.)

So there you have it. The M9 (and it's civilian cousin, the 92FS) were all the rage when Detective Riggs and John McClain were running around hosing bad guys with them. In 1987. Not so much now. I'd take a Springfield XD or (GASP!) a Glock over the M9.

Side bar: Yesterday is also the first time I got bit by a slide. I was assisting a coworker in reassembling his pistol when I released the slide on mine. I was easing it forward, and for some reason known only to my left hand, I let go of it. I thought my fingers were clear, but alas, the meaty part of the middle finger of my left hand was not. At first, I thought I got pinched, but nooooo. I drew blood. So now, I've got a nice half moon cut on my middle finger that looks a lot like the rear of the breach area on an M9 pistol.

Note to self: Make sure ALL appendages are clear of the barrel/slide interface area when releasing the slide.

Done Like Dinner

So, the Wyoming House has answered the call and passed constitutional carry on vote of 49-9.

All that's left is for the Gubner to sign said bill.

The comments are running about even, with the whiny, blood-in-the-streets crowd having a slim majority in comments. This'll last until the pro-rights crew gets back from the range, I reckon. I may even head back on over there and join the fray.

Today is a good day for the state of Wyoming!

A Different Tact

With all the hoopla surrounding the adaption of constitutional carry in Wyoming, the arguments in favor and against generally follow that of most gun control arguments. On the one side, you have the blood in the streets crowd, who see any loosening of gun laws as in invitation for mass murder and mayhem. On the other side, you have the arguments about civil rights and protection.

One argument in favor of constitutional carry in Wyoming that has not been fully explored is the cost. Why cost? Because most folks don't see that aspect or it gets glossed over and forgotten in the debate.

Generally, the cost of a concealed carry permit in the state of Wyoming is $74. This includes application fees and fingerprint costs. Renewal of said permit is $50. In order to get a permit in Wyoming, if you are not a veteran or member of the armed forces, you also have to take a class. That class can run upwards of $100 or more, depending on who's teaching. So there you have it, the overall cost of a concealed carry permit can easily reach $200, if you factor in the cost of gas to get to the class if there's not an instructor in your area.

What got me thinking about this, is my brother. He's got a decent job, makes good wages, but between bills, and paying off what his ex-wife left for him in the divorce, he's got a whole of week left at the end of his paycheck. He would love to get a permit, but as I noted above, the cost is prohibitive. When you add in the time off from work he'd have to take in order to attend the class, you can see why he doesn't have his toter's slip. After you factor in house payment/rent, car insurance, gas for said vehicle, food, and clothing, that $175 for a concealed carry permit is the gold ring they may never be able to afford. And if you're unemployed, even the cost of renewal could be prohibitive.

So, he has a decision to make. Does he carry illegally and risk the consequences of getting caught toting a piece without the state sanctioned permission slip? Meaning not only could he lose his piece, he could potentially never be able to own a gun again. Or does he accept that because he's broke, he cannot legally carry a firearm to defend himself?

And it's not just my brother. There are lots of folks who find themselves in this conundrum across the state.

I see passing constitutional carry as a benefit. Not only to those who already have a permit, but to those who can't afford to get one. Are they, who can't afford the piece of state-issued paper, any less deserving of being able to carry because of their economic status? Should concealed carry be a 'rich mans' right? For most folks, $200 may not seem like a lot of money. But to those who have no choice but live paycheck to paycheck, or who may be unemployed, the ability to defend themselves by finally being able to carry a concealed weapon would be a welcome change.

A New Addition

As you can see, I dropped a poll on the site. This is in response to one Baldr Odinson and the 'poll' he put up a couple of days ago. (Which disappeared a day after he put it up because it didn't show what he wanted it to...So much for that week long poll, eh Baldr?) I'm interested in seeing what kind of reaction I get here. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, if you feel the urge, hit the poll. Leave a comment if you like.

Stand Up To A Bigot

I was going to post this as a response to this...I don't know what you'd call it, but I thought I'd drop it here. I may also post this as a response, but for now, I'm going to post it here.

A funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century. Guns got invented. That genie is now out of the bottle, and it ain't going back in. If you think that by banning guns all the ills of our society would go away, you are in dire need of some counselling. You cannot un-invent something, and you cannot make people forget the know-how to create it. Just because guns are banned, doesn't mean there won't be guns. In Chechnya for example, homemade guns abound. And not semi-auto guns. Full on, full bore, full auto machine guns. So you have to ask yourself this question. Would I rather deal with legal semi-auto firearms in the hands of law-biding citizens, or would you rather deal with backyard machinists cranking out Sten-type submachine guns for a group of angry partisans?

For those that think a few 'peasants' with spitballs couldn't possibly stand up to the best trained, best equipped, and most battle hardened army in the world, you don't know history, or current events, for that matter.

Our own history as a nation started out with a rag-tag band of patriots picking a fight with the most powerful army in the world. (I wonder how that one turned out?) A rag-tag bunch of settlers took on the second most powerful army in the western hemisphere in the 1830s. (Texas, anyone?) More recently, a rag-tag bunch of en-educated peasants took on the US Army, and WON! ( I can't remember what country that was, but the little guys wore black pajamas.) For the last 10 yrs or so, a rag-tag bunch of peasants has been kicking the largest army in the worlds' kiester. (Vladdy, phone please!) And lets not forget that rag-tag bunch of goat herders has been giving the most technologically advanced military the world has ever known absolute fits.

Now, as for registration, licensing, and means testing for a specific enumerated right, we wouldn't put up with someone telling us we had to have a permit and a background check to buy the latest Danielle Steele slobber book, nor would we put up with someone having us register and ask permission to go to church on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, or any other day of the week. As a country, we abolished testing as a means of exercising the most fundamental right of any American, the right to vote. So why, in all that's right and holy, would we subject ourselves to registering that which our country was founded on? We have the right to be secure in our homes and papers. Why would we give up the means to that security?

So, we don't put prior restraints on civil rights. Same goes for our Second Amendment rights. That states currently use a permit system means it is nothing more than a revenue system to add even more money into the states coffers. No one should have to beg the government to exercise their rights, and we rightly don't put up with that in any other context.

That you (meaning antis) don't trust others with something like a gun tells me you don't trust anyone. Which is kind of ironic, don't you think? You probably drive a car or truck that weighs in excess of 3000 lbs. You probably drive in congested traffic, and trust those around you to not run into you. Much hay has been made about the number of people killed by guns, but what is the real, true killer in this country? That distinction falls to the automobile. It's been killing people in this country at rates that are truly astounding. Yet we don't blame Ford or Toyota when someone crosses the center line and plows into a crowd of school kids getting ready to catch the school bus. Nor do we blame Jack Daniels, Budweiser, or Zima when someone gets mind numbingly drunk and plows into the local senior citizens center. We don't investigate what caused the drunk to do what he did. We don't go blaming the radio station, we don't make excuses and try to blame everyone else but the individual for the carnage. We arrest them, charge them, try them, incarcerate them, and in the most extreme cases take their life. And nobody cares that he heard voices, his girlfriend left him, his dog died, or he caught his wife sleeping with the Maytag man. We condemn the individual, not the tool used to commit the carnage.

My point in all this? Law-biding gun owners are NOT the problem. Lawfully owned, lawfully carried firearms are NOT the problem. Criminals ARE. People who, by their very nature cannot be made to register any guns they have, as to do this violates THEIR fifth amendment right against self incrimination. Passing new, onerous gun laws will not do anything to stop murderers from plying their trade. It will however, ensure a large swath of the citizenry won't be able to do anything but sit back and take it.

Pisses Me Off

What really pisses me off are these letters and articles in newspapers around the country written by supposed gunowners. They all start off the same:

"I'm a gunowner, but I don't support..."

This statement is usually followed up by inserting whatever politically sensitive firearm is on the hotseat that particular week. It could be Glock, it could be DPMS or Colt. Or it could be an accessory that is on the block, such as standard capacity magazines.

Take, for instance, a commenter named 'Boo Hoo' over here.

Typical 'I'm a gunowner, but..." response. I own guns but I don't see the need for anyone to carry one. I own guns but I don't see the need for a gun with a magazine capacity of more than x rounds. I'm a gunowner, but I don't see why anybody would need (insert politically incorrect firearm reference here) for hunting, self defense, ad nauseum.

I'll tell you what we don't need. What we DON'T need is some jagoff speaking about crap he/she willfully knows nothing about. We don't need one 'gunowner' out of 80,000,000 trying to put the rest of us in a neat little box.

One thing he mentioned in his comment to the linked story (which was about the Brady Bunch picketing an open carry meeting, go figure, huh?) was that without a gun, the nutjob in Tuscon wouldn't have been able to kill 6 and wound 20. I got a news flash for him. 19 guys with box cutters took out 3000 10 yrs ago. A whackjob with a Ryder truck, some fertilizer, and some diesel fuel killed 168 in 1995. Nutjobs half a world away are killing that many and more with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, some nails and ball bearings, and cell phone. Is he really that dense to think that mass killing in this country would magically disappear overnight if we could just get rid of those icky guns?

I got an idea. If you feel the need to post one of them "I'm a gunowner, but..." pieces in you local cat box liner, do us all a favor.

Keep your 'butt' out of it.

All This Talk Of Bans and Whatnot

In the wake of the shooting a couple of weeks ago, debate has raged from all over as to whether our gun laws are too weak or not.

The typical poo flinging monkeys (Josh squared and Paul) have stated that gun shows, magazine capacity, and an inefficient background check system (on top of all the rhetoric the shooter never listened to or heard) were all the reasons a deranged nutjob hell bent on killing the object of his desire needed.

A couple of other bloggers, Joe Huffman and Say Uncle, pointed out that when arguing about gun control with an anti-gunner, their responses pretty much run into the 'F/U' department. In a discussion on a report out of my home state of WY becoming the 4th state to allow Constitutional Carry, the discussion turned to magazine capacity. Several commentors finally got down to the 4 letter word of the problem, need. They argue that no one 'needs' a magazine larger than 10 rds for anything. I did manage to point out that when the conversation turns to 'need' the person making the argument has lost and is showing their intellectual inferiority by doing so. I believe I said 'Your IQ is at room temperature and falling like a stone'.

In this, they are technically correct. But where they fail is that 'need' has nothing to do with it. Almost all of my rifles were designed from the outset to shoot from magazines that hold 30+ rds so I would argue that it's not need, its a requirement. My pistols, not so much. 1911's generally shoot from magazines that hold between 7 and 9 rds, depending.

It reminds me of a silly rule that NASCAR has. In order to slow things down at the superspeedways like Daytona and Talledega, they install a smaller fuel cell. 13 gallons for the super tracks vs. 22 for the rest of the circuit. The reasoning for this is it's supposed to slow the race down by making the cars have to pit for gas more often. They haven't limited the speeds on the track, they've just managed to make it more dangerous for the pit crews, as they have to deal with pitting these cars more often, placing them in harms way on pit road more often.

See any similarities to the debate on magazine capacity? Makes about as much sense, doesn't it.

When The Monkeys Fling Poo At The Zoo

Normally, when the monkeys at the zoo start flinging poo all over the place, most folks try to avoid it.

What I'm seeing and hearing all over the TV, radio, and the Algorian intertubes is a whole lot of poo flinging with not a lot of it hitting anything. And what it does hit, it doesn't stick to very well.

From Paul Krugman at the NYT, to Olbermann and Matthews at MSLSD, all the way down the Obama-bot zombies in the farthest reaches of the intertubes. In this case, it's like passing a bad car wreck on the highway. You know you shouldn't watch, but you can't help it, either.

With each passing day, with more and more evidence of the twisted mind of the lunatic shooter coming to light that paints him not as some political assassin but as the lone, deranged nutbag he was before the NYT and MSLSD took over the failed narrative.

It's almost pitiiful to watch actually. The picture that has been painted the last couple of days is falling down around them, yet they can't bring themselves to backtrack or retract what they've said. And the venom they use to defend their position is probably the most ironic thing to come out of this whole mess. Blaming a political faction and party for violent rhetoric by accusing them with....violent rhetoric.

And does Bill Maher really believe the BS he's peddling? Calling the NRA a bunch of assassins? If that were really the case, would Maher have the balls to come out on national TV and say so? Don't think so. Because if all the violent stuff the political right has been accused of were actually true, there wouldn't be a political left in this country. Projection is such a lovely thing, ain't it?

My Take On Tuscon

With all the nattering of the media classes so far over the last 3 days, has it struck any one of them the irony of what they are spewing?

I mean, they are decrying 'right wing hate speech', while engaging, and forgetting, hate speech of their own.

Michelle Malkin has a great round up of some of the more egregious examples over at her site, here.

Snowflakes in Hell has a great little reminder of the 'hate speech' that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has conveniently forgotten, here.

And let's not forget our favorite bigots, the 3 Amigos of gun control at the Huffington Post (Horowitz, Sugarmann, & Henigan), who can't wait to dance in the still warm blood of the victims by trying to paint the firearms community as a bunch of blood-thirsty neanderthals and push for even more restrictions on That Which Shall Not Be Infringed. (As if any of the laws they push for would have stopped this. But I digress. That's a topic for another post.)

As the saying goes, I told you all that to tell you this. There was supposed to be a narrative of what happened last weekend. It has been reported that the One was in need of something, anything to save his reign, much like Clinton had Oklahoma City. You can tell there was supposed to be a narrative by checking out what the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSLSD, the liberal talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et al have been saying.

Never mind that within 24 hrs of the shooting we knew the nutcase in question read Mein Kampfe and the Communist Manifesto. And that former classmates in both high school and college described him as a leftist pothead. None of that matters. Every single talking head from ABC to MSLSD has been trying to paint this loon as some kind of right wing whack job. Unfortunately, with the rise of the new media and sources such as Drudge, Politico, Michelle Malkin; and talk radio hosts such as Andrew Wilkow, Mike Church, Mark Levin, and Cam & Company, they are having a really hard time trying to push their narrative like they did 16 yrs ago. Too much information is out there and Pandora ain't getting that back in her little box.

Mike Vanderboegh has publicly stated there will be no more free Wacos. After Oklahoma City, there will be no more free narratives such as that perpetrated in 1995. There are too many eyes, ears, and witnesses with an avenue to bring what they saw and heard to light. There is no way they can get away with it. Just witness what is happening in the media since Saturday.

ACLU, Guns, and South Dakota

So, earlier this week, the ACLU has filed suit against the state of South Dakota regarding the requirement that one be a US citizen to get a concealed carry permit here.

I've had a couple of days to think about it, and I'm not really sure.

One the one hand, we have a guy who has lived in Sioux Falls for 30 yrs and has not gained his US citizenship. He is however, a permanent resident alien. Nobody is telling this guy he can't own a gun. They're just saying he can't carry it concealed.

On the other, we have a states rights argument. The state of South Dakota should have the right to dictate who can or cannot get a permit to carry. Since Congress failed to pass national reciprocity in the last session, it is still up to the states to dictate who gets what.

Where this thing gets sideways is this. With the Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010, the courts have said that states cannot ban firearms. In regards to states like Illinois and California, these decisions were a welcome change to decades of precedent regarding guns. The unintended consequence is that states that are friendly to guns like South Dakota can be knee-capped when they try to pass truly sensible gun laws (unlike the 'reasonable' ones the Brady Bunch and the VPC espouse). But with these decisions, they have effectively cut the states out of the picture in regards to firearm law. This law will be hard-pressed to remain in light of those two decisions.

First thing that really pops out at me is that he was not able to obtain a renewal on his permit until just recently? Permits last 4 yrs. If the law was enacted in 2002, even if he got his permit right before the change, he has renewed it at least once, if not twice since then. Why is it that now all of a sudden this is an issue?

Then, there's the fact that the ACLU is involved in this. It wasn't too long ago that the ACLU was against individual rights for firearms. Hell, the national leadership is still hostile to gun rights. One has to wonder if the national board is out of touch with its member state chapters. More and more we are hearing about folks at the state level making court arguments about individual firearms rights. First it was Nevada, now South Dakota.

So where do I come down on this? I'm still undecided.

Farking Computers...

So, last night I sit down at ye olde laptop to do some travelling around the Algorian intertubes. While checking my email, a popup box appears from the manufacturer of my laptop wanting to run updates on a couple of system programs, one of which was BIOS.

The first download and install goes off without a hitch. When I get to the BIOS update, all hell breaks loose. First, my mouse cursor starts acting all funny. Skipping around the screen. Then it stopped all together. So, I tried the old standby in situations like this, control-alt-delete. Nothing. Tried turning the power off. Nothing. Damn, this don't look good.

Now, right after I got that old laptop, I took it on a trip for work. While I was gone, somehow the tabs that hold the battery in place broke and I never got around to getting them fixed. Stupid me.

So, while I'm trying to figure out why my laptop has suddenly gone HAL 9000 on me, I tipped it up. Keep in mind it is not plugged in at this point. So when I tipped it up, you guessed it, the battery falls out. As soon as the battery hit the cooling table, everything went dark. No bells, no whistles, no lights, no sirens, do not pass go, go directly to jail. Crap, this ain't good.

So, after many attempts to revive the dead horse, I decided to take it down to Best Buy to see what they could do, if anything. During the trip down there, I'm thinking the worst. This thing is fragged. Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.

So, after the white shirted dude at Best Buy looks all over it, the consensus is...It's fragged. With a solemn report that replacing the motherboard would cost at least what it would cost to buy a new one.

So, here I sit, pounding keys on a new laptop I didn't want to buy, but had to. (When I called Mrs. Hazmat to explain the situation, she remarked that I should go ahead, since life with me without a computer would be akin to living with a junkie looking for a fix. Did I mention I love this gal?) And trying to figure out this new Windows 7 thing.

Did I mention that sometimes I hate computers?

Holiday Cuteness

If this doesn't set your 'Awwwwww' machine into overload, you've got some serious issues.

Seriously, who wouldn't love to have a pet otter (or 3) around?

(Link and pic borrowed from The Agitator himself, Radley Balko.)

Merry Christmas To All!

From all of us here at Casa De Hazmat, Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year!