Sobriety check

I figure this is the appropriate time to bring it up (yes; I’ve been waiting for months now), what with some of the exuberance out there in response to DT’s election win.

Shall we start a betting pool regarding the exact date on which he blows up and shows anger and hate for conservatives who’re trying to hold him to it?

McCain and Schwarzenegger both did it, as have others. They run on a patriotic message because they know they need our votes, but they resent having to “lower” themselves to such a level, and that resentment will out itself. If I were a betting man I’d say sometime before the end of January. Maybe even before inauguration, but I figure he can control himself until after.

I would of course love to be proven wrong on this (feel free to jump on my case in four years, please), but it is nonetheless a good idea to have some guarded optimism, or hopeful skepticism, at this stage and save the heady exuberance for after the end of his first term when it turns out he actually didn’t ass-rape us after all.

The one up-side to a Trump win

I had not thought of this.

I would have thought that they’d have learned from other actors who’d promised to leave us if so-and-so won in previous elections, and then never made good on it. Credibility is apparently not highly regarded among entertainers.

A mass exodus of entertainers would not break my heart. I estimate that the number who actually leave the U.S. and change citizenship over this will be approximately zero, however. Instead of “Let My People Go!” I’m thinking “Leave me alone already. Go, and quit yer damned yappin'”.

To think of the number of hours of my life (to say nothing of the dollars) that have been wasted watching stupid movies, stupid TV, and listening to stupid music…

I wonder if I could find a court somewhere, to take my case of liability for loss-of-productivity against the entertainment industry. Such would be stupid of course, but less so than some of the blather that comes out of the mouths of entertainers.

Trump is certainly no prize, and may turn out to be a disaster. That’ll be hung on our shoulders as American patriots I suppose, though were not the ones who supported the New York Progressive.

Hillary & Trump on gun control

Hillary espouses the Australia model. Donald espouses the Bloomberg model (specifically upholding it in last night’s debate as the example to follow).

Oh, you Trump supporters, who once thought yourselves tea partiers. You’re in for such disillusionment. I almost hope he wins, just for that reason. I can envision some of you joining the Stop & Frisk teams with a hearty enthusiasm.

Proposed change in the oath of office

In making my previous post I failed to notice this. In this link is a little side bar on the subject, also from Spokane Valley, Washington.

Here’s a snip;
Spokane Valley city staff are researching a resident’s suggestion that city officials promise to “refuse to enforce any law that I deem to be unconstitutional, even if it’s upheld by the courts or I’m ordered to do so by my superiors.”

Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ ’bout. Go read the whole thing. It needs to go farther though, if it’s to have the needed effect. It needs to include a declaration that the oath-keeper will use all means available to protect citizens from outside authorities attempting to enforce unconstitutional laws or rules. Then we’ll start to have a real, constitutional republic.

Adding; “…and to this I pledge my life, my fortunes, and my sacred honor” wouldn’t hurt either. Those in law enforcement want us to see them as the “thin blue line” which protects us from aggression? OK then; let’s get serious about it for once.

Second amendment sancturay cities

Spokane Valley city council discusses it.

I like the idea for one reason; it puts people on record as to whether they support human rights or whether they’ve allied themselves with the criminal class. Take names.

Of course we already have the second amendment, and multiple legal tools for enforcing it against all encroachment, so the logical response would be a declaration to the effect that the constitution and the enumerated rights therein, and others, will be enforced and protected with vigor in this town. Oh, how far we’ve fallen, that we contemplate special declarations and special laws to uphold what is already the Supreme Law of the Land.

There’s another mildly satisfying aspect to this proposal– The Progressives love to flout the law (it’s what they do – they’re criminals), and have created “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants which they view as future Democrat voters. This is a slap in their faces on that subject. Two can play at this stupid game, but the problem is that a stupid game is always a stupid game no matter who plays it. I doubt that there’s a Republican alive who understands that simple truth.

Oh how far we have fallen!

Anyway; this is the sort of thing (though poorly thought-out) that’ll eventually bring the country around to reason– The states, and in this case the cities, who love liberty will have to thumb their noses at authoritarian feds, and then be willing and able to back it with force. In this particular case it’s a pretty empty declaration, and if they were serious, as I indicated above, they’d simply use existing law to prosecute the Progressive offenders, fine them, disbar them, put them in prison or hang them, as appropriate. It’s the only way freedom survives, and the sooner we realize that the sooner we can start fixing things.

Destroying Angel?

I find two or three of these every year in my lawn about this time of year. They look very similar to amanita virosa, but a. virosa is said to be a European/British species. Looking into it I find a close cousin said to live in Western North America, called a. ocreata. As best I can tell, that’s what I have here. Apparently as deadly as a. virosa, I come across these while picking the common Meadow Mushrooms that fruit in my lawn every Spring and Fall. Trouble is, they’re both white, with rounded tops and in the same size range. The distinct giveaway is the white gills of the amanitas, verses the salmon to dark brown gills of the good food species. Also the Meadow Mushrooms stain light yellow, whereas this white-gilled specimen doesn’t appear to stain when bruised.

Thin white gills of different lengths, not attached to the stem. Base of the stem in this case has turned yellow-brown. Prominent white annulus, or ring, on the stem. This one was found growing in the grass near a water spigot where the soil has been damp for a long time, with several deciduous tree and shrub species present. Others like it have been found in different parts of the lawn, East to West of the house, mostly on the North side.

Did not noticeably stain from bruising, even after 20 minutes

Amanita ocreata? I don’t know

Gills apparently not attached to stem Gills apparently not attached to stem.

Cap flesh Did not appear to stain when bruised, even after 20 minutes Cap flesh does not appear to stain from bruising, even after 20 minutes, though the base of the stem has turned yellow-brown. The whole mushroom appears more pure white in real life than in the photos.

16th Century Revolver

An eight-shooter from over 400 years ago. But those who wrote the constitution could never have imagined a multi-shot firearm.

Am I seeing a barrel-mounted, spring operated indexing pawl which engages tiny notches in the front of cylinder between the priming pan covers? On the other hand, maybe that lever on the right side behind the cylinder is part of the index locking mechanism.

Now what we need is a gas-operated, automatic firing, flintlock chain gun artillery piece.

Journalist education 99; Assault Rifle

Words continue to mean things, even though 99% of journalists fail to use them correctly. This post is for journalists, or for those who take them seriously. For everyone else who already knows this stuff; thank you for your patience while we dabble in some remedial education for the less fortunate.

There’s now a trend among conservatives in talk radio to declare that there is no such thing as an “assault rifle”. They’ll say it proudly, as though they’re among an elite few who know the truth about something. This is the sort of thing you “know” because some guy you know knows a guy who’s cousin’s step-father’s uncle knows a thing or two because he once knew a guy who knew a cop, and the story trickled down through several get-togethers and backyard BBQs. In other words it’s not something you know at all. Apparently they mean well in this case, but they are attempting to make a point that, at best, they didn’t quite get the first few times it was explained to them. We’ll try again.

Yes, there are assault rifles. The Germans seem to have cemented the design concept back in the 1940s. In short, an assault rifle (Sturmgewehr) is a smallish rifle firing a cartridge of intermediate size and power (in-between a pistol and a rifle), feeding from a detachable, box magazine, capable of full-automatic fire. The original had a pistol grip stock, but the latter feature is not critical to its purpose or function. Assault rifles really, really do exist. They’re a sort of halfway rifle, between the submachine gun (which fires pistol ammo) and the automatic rifle (which uses full power rifle ammo) and practically all militaries of the world now use an assault rifle of some kind as standard issue to regular infantry. They’re also found occasionally among law enforcement and private collectors.

Assault rifles were essentially banned in the U.S. (before they were even invented) by the National Firearms Act of 1934, as modified by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.

The thing that does NOT exist is any firearm design known as an “assault weapon”. Notice the difference there; “rifle” verses “weapon”. Sure; a rifle can be used as a weapon, but a weapon is not necessarily a rifle. A “weapon” could be a rock, for example, or a stick, or a fist, et al.

When we’re talking about classifications within the firearm industry, words really, really do mean things. There is no such thing as the firearm classification, “assault weapon”, and therefore no one can define it. When you think about it just a little bit, it makes sense that no one can define it, being that it does not exist.

Just as a politician talking about banning “assault weapons” is only showing his ignorance and therefore disqualifying himself from the discussion, those of you who say there’s no such thing as an “assault rifle” are just as ignorant, or more so. The assault rifle is a significant part of 20th century military and political history, and you seem to have missed the entire story. Please stay out of the conservation until you’ve got it right.

To summarize then;
Assault rifles DO exist. See right here.
Assault weapons (as a firearm design) do NOT exist.

Thank you.

From the NRA today – Washington State

On very short notice, but we do what we can;

“The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will be holding public meetings next week to discuss target shooting in state forests. It is imperative that shooters attend these meetings and weigh in. If non-shooters and anti-gun advocates are the loudest voices next week, these meetings will become the first step in prohibiting shooting on state lands.

We urge you to attend the following meetings beginning at 6:30 p.m.:
Tuesday, May 31, located at the Water Resources Education Center, 4600 SE Columbia Way, Vancouver, to discuss Yacolt Burn State Forest;
Wednesday, June 1, located at the Burlington-Edison High School cafeteria, 301 N. Burlington Blvd., Burlington, to discuss Harry Osborne State Forest;
Thursday, June 2, located at The Evergreen State College Longhouse Education and Cultural Center, 2800 Dogtooth Lane NW, Olympia, to discuss Capitol State Forest.
Keeping public lands open for hunting and target shooting is an NRA priority and the involvement and activism of individual NRA members is critical. There is a lot of public land at stake that could be closed to target shooting.

The ability to target shoot on public lands in an informal setting is being threatened by the increased use of these lands by non-shooters. Ensure that your public lands are not closed to shooting!”

We have it good in Eastern WA State and in Idaho, and of course that makes some people very angry and they want to do something about it. Take away your places to shoot and it’s the next-best thing to taking your guns.

What conditions your conditions are in

I had a nice place to shoot, nice and close to home, but there’s now a house sitting on it. Someone else’s house.

I found a new spot, not too far away, but it’s only good for 30 yards and in the late afternoons the sun is in your face while shooting. Oh well. It’s better than driving 20 miles to do a little pistol shooting or whatnot.

It happened that one of my older brothers was in the area, and one of our employees at the music store wanted to try the Marlin ’94 in 44 Mag that he’d brought. Late afternoon yesterday, as it turned out, we had a chance for her to try out the lever gun.

Continue reading

Constitutional Sheriffs in the news

Via Drudge, we get this piece from Progressive Rag, The Washington Post.

The elitist, fear-mongering editorializing in the piece only makes it better, kind of like John Boehner calling Ted Cruz the living embodiment of Lucifer– It’s something of a ringing endorsement, considering who’s saying it. So much so in fact that you’d think he should understand that and keep his mouth shut.

Continue reading

Advanced Firearms Nomenclature

Site; A place, as in “Bob went to the job site” or “Joe spent a lot of time at the Boomershoot site this last weekend.”

Sight; Generally, vision or something you see, as in “Bob lost his sight in one eye while on the job site last year.” In the case particular to firearms; the aiming apparatus (or a part thereof, e.g. “front sight” or “rear sight”) of a firearm as in, “Bob lost the front sight from his rifle at the Boomershoot site last weekend.”

With the release of this secret knowledge, you are now well ahead of many firearms enthusiasts in the highly specialized and esoteric field of study that is firearms nomenclature. You’re welcome.

Alternate quote of the day – Samuel Adams

“A general Dissolution of Principles & Manners will more surely overthrow the Liberties of America than the whole Force of the Common Enemy. While the People are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their Virtue they will be ready to surrender their Liberties to the first external or internal Invader. How necessary then is it for those who are determind to transmit the Blessings of Liberty as a fair Inheritance to Posterity, to associate on publick Principles in Support of publick virtue.”
Samuel Adams, Letter to James Warren (February 12, 1779)

Those old dead white guys seemed to talking about us (here in 2016) all the way back in 1779. Gosh; how did they know?

But they made a horrific error. They understood the importance of the non establishment clause, religious freedom clause, freedom of speech, of assembly and redress of grievances, AND the importance of education, but somehow they failed to make the connection between religion and education when it came to the importance of non establishment. He continues;

“I do verily believe, and I may say it inter Nos, that the Principles & Manners of N Engd, producd that Spirit which finally has establishd the Independence of America; and Nothing but opposite Principles and Manners can overthrow it. If you are of my Mind, and I think you are, the Necessity of supporting the Education of our Country must be strongly impressd on your Mind. It gives me the greatest Concern to hear that some of our Gentlemen in the Country begin to think the Maintenance of Schools too great a Burden.”

He’s right of course, but this argument has led to the making of law to establish education, rather than the free exercise thereof. It’s one or the other, which is why the first amendment included both the non establishment and the free exercise clauses with regard to religion.

That they (and we) seem to have failed utterly to understand the similarities between religion and education is surprising– Both are highly influential to a culture and it’s fundamental beliefs. That is precisely WHY they kept federal government out of religion and, tragically, why we got government into education.

The founders didn’t seem to contemplate the enemies of the American Founding Principles being in charge of a government education system, hostile to knowledge and truth, desiring a pliable, ignorant society ripe for the picking.

Therefore I once again put forth a recommendation for an addition to the first amendment to the U.S. constitution;

“…nor make any law respecting the establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,…”

It belongs there for exactly the same reasons that religion belongs there, and it always did. I see the failure to include it (to allow such a thing as public education at all) as being one of the greatest failings of the Republic, possibly THE fatal mistake.

Sue knit twill beak wrist missed day

I heard a song playing the other day, I wrote down the words as best I could, and that’s what I came up with. I don’t know what it means either; something about bells ringing, signifying that, due to an injury inflicted upon a woman by a bird, the time for making textiles had passed, I guess. It doesn’t seem to make sense, but song lyrics are often like that.