Author Archives: Lyle

I’m in a practical shooting match as I type this

Posted on by

Tam has a good funny.

I’ve said before that it would be cool to design an IPSC stage in which there are no “shoot” targets (only “no shoots”). Maybe even, everyone goes home without firing a shot that day, because that’s more “real life” than anything else you could set up.

The most unrealistic thing about a Practical Shooting match, then, is that you go to one knowing for a fact that shots will be fired, and you are thus prepared for it. In real life on the other hand, you never have that advance notice, there are no rules, no scratch lines on the ground, no range Nazis to correct your “mistakes”, no timers, no “walk throughs” prior to shooting your stage, and probably not even any safe places to shoot at all.

In that most realistic sense then, I’m in an IPSC match right now, as I type– I’m carrying a gun and assessing the environment, seeing no immediate threats. I’ve been in this particular “IPSC Match” for over 20 years already and have yet to draw my pistol, much less take a shot. This isn’t merely similar to real life; it IS real life. I only draw and fire my gun when I’ve decided to pause the “IPSC Match” for a while, and find a safe place to shoot.

The range mentality has gotten so insane that I’ve seen multiple gun demonstration videos in which the shooter loads five of six, in a percussion revolver (which is stupid right there if you understand how a percussion revolver differs from a cartridge gun), fiddle farts around trying to lower the hammer on the empty but inadvertently lowers it on a live chamber instead and has to fiddle fart with the gun some more to be sure it’s “safe”, walks five feet to the firing line, confident that he’s “being safe”, and then looks down and shuffles around a bit to make sure his feet are right on the scratch line. Stuff like that.

Don’t even try to talk to me about it. I’m just…not…listening…anymore. I’ve hear it all before anyway. Hell I wrote some of those the rules, literally– I was once the president of a Practical Shooting club.

Go ahead and call me crazy though. I’m accustomed to it, as you may well imagine.

Is she clueless, or hoping we’re clueless?

Posted on by

Or both?

The bizarre assertion is that feminism is being bogged down by its association with leftist causes.

Sisters; the one and only purpose for the “feminist movement” is to advance what are essentially Marxist principles and goals. That of course includes the defamation and de-emphasis of men, especially Jewish and Christian men, along with them the very concept of morality, and the de-emphasis of the nuclear family as a cornerstone of civilization.

Calling for outreach to Christian women who embrace the American Principles then, is like the PLO and the other jihadists reaching out to Jews for assistance in destroying Israel.

It could work in some cases I suppose, if you find enough dumb “conservative” women who’re only pretending to be conservative or pretending to be Christian but don’t really know what any of it means. You get them irritated and agitated enough, and they’ll be open to your propaganda.

Agitprop.

Truly strong, American women have no use for the “feminist” movement. They’re already doing what they want to do, and the “feminists” (communists, essentially) have been verbally attacking them for it all along.

Constantly viewing oneself as a victim of this or that, or a victim of everything, is detrimental to one’s success, whether you’re a truly strong woman or anyone else (we have to be careful with definitions here though; to “The Sisterhood” of pissed off leftist women, the term “strong woman” means “nasty, dumb bitch”).

That’s the whole point really; the Marxist/Progressive/authoritarian movement needs as many people as possible thinking of themselves as victims and thus being pissed off, otherwise the movement has nothing. It’s the Grievance Culture, and so it doesn’t matter whether it’s women, men, black women and men, gay, trans, or any and all of the rest of Humanity; if we can get people pissed off and feeling like they’re powerless without Big Daddy Government stepping in to intervene in their personal lives, then the American Principles have been defeated right there.

It’s never been about protecting anyone’s rights or advancing anyone’s quality of life. The Original American Principles do that already. The Grievance Movement is purely about keeping the grievances alive and growing, as a political weapon against the American Principles.

And you in the “movement”, at least those few calling the shots, you know all this perfectly well. Nice try, keep it up and all, but your premise here is just ridiculous.

We talked about this years ago

Posted on by

Now apparently the technology to use sound sensor arrays to locate a source in urban environments is being deployed.

I do not for a moment believe that its main impetus is the desire to save lives however.

Notice the tricky little dance in the text, whereby they point to the high rate of gun ownership in Texas as a reason why a city needs a sonic surveillance network to locate gun shots. This kind of lie (we call it “fake news” now, but it’s just a form of lie – we could call it “the subtle art of the lie”) will always sway a few people and so it will continue to be used.

In reality of course, the city and state governments which commit the most significant infringements against the right to bear arms will tend to have the higher rates of violent crime in those areas as a result. They know this, and yet call for more of the cause, presenting it to us as the cure.

Innovation?

Posted on by

Maybe I’m old-fashioned in thinking that a motor vehicle design team would set out to make something that works.

This is similar to the “flying car” company web sites. They’re “designing” things that cannot work. They’ll even pre-sell you one.

In this case, they’ve “designed” something out of science fiction fantasy. I don’t know, but I think this crosses a line, and not a good one. We have designers from two major companies getting together to roll out their brand new…nothing. It only works in the virtual world, where the laws of physics are completely flexible. I have to believe there was marijuana involved.

More brand new discoveries by the left

Posted on by

In addition to the constitution and the concept of limits on executive power being good things, the leftists appear to have discovered, for the first time ever, the notion that government interference in our affairs may result in brain drain, and also in “instability and uncertainty” in the economy.

It’s as if they’ve heard us and understood us all along, and just didn’t give a damn.

As I’ve been saying recently, it is a mistake to assume gross stupidity among your enemies. They know, and they laugh at you calling them stupid.

Of course they’re still incapable of openly distinguishing between legal immigration and illegal immigration, because that would blow their current gig. The WA Post article is based entirely on that lie of non-distinction.

They’ll use that lie now, in the courts, and muck up immigration enforcement as much possible. We will play along as though they actually had the power to do that, thus granting them that power. And so it will have been conservatives and libertarians who broke with the principles, as much as the Progressive Marxists.

Just as sure as you’re born, however, the leftist agitator sector will at some point even recognize the importance of preventing the courts from assuming authority they do not have, over-stepping their purpose and exceeding their constitutional limits. But they’ll only recognize that when it suits them. Today it does not suit them.

You may call them stupid, or blithering idiots or whatever. I’ll call them brilliantly evil.

Don’t blame the front sight

Posted on by

I started noticing this in the 1990s, shortly after getting back into shooting, and it came as a flood after I got into the gun accessory business.

We’d get it over and over and over. People would call in, wanting a sight, or an optic sight dot reticle, that wouldn’t “cover the target”.

My first response soon became, and remains, “If you don’t want your sight covering the target, then stop covering the target with your sight.”

It’s as simple as that. I believe the problem is that it is SO simple, beginners can’t believe it, and expert shooters won’t allow themselves to believe it because important things take time to learn and are complicated.

Some of the most experienced shooters, for whom I otherwise have a great deal of respect, seem unable to grasp the simple concept; YOU choose your sight picture. It isn’t necessarily built-in by the manufacturer. Stop assuming.

Also, give me a front sight, or a reticle, shaped like my shoe, or a Ford F-350 with duals, or Bridget Bardot, and I’ll be able to shoot just as well with it after a little bit of practice, AND since I choose to not cover the target with it, the target won’t be covered.

People have gotten, and no doubt will continue to get, all kinds of pissed off at me for saying this, pleading their case that no, since the post, or reticle, is such and such an angular size, and the target smaller, then the target is covered. Wrong! Don’t make me draw you pictures.

Stop covering the target, and adjust your sights accordingly. Chances are you don’t need new sights, or a smaller dot reticle.

And don’t bother arguing; I very much doubt you can tell me anything I haven’t already heard hundreds of times. I spend a good part of every day talking to shooters from all disciplines ad of all levels of experience.

It had to happen eventually

Posted on by

Armed robber repelled by store employees wielding dildos.

Make jokes about it long enough, eventually it’ll happen in real life.

Still, I won’t be trading in my guns anytime soon.

No doubt Joe can come up with some self defense training scenarios involving the use of both guns and sex toys. We have umbrella guns. Some entrepreneurs might consider making a dildo gun, you know, in for the case you’re attacked while dildoing. The BATFEIEIO would have to make up another NFA weapon category, Any Other Dildo (AOD) and slap a five dollar tax on it.

Sobriety check

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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?

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

The audacity of hope

Posted on by

My thought exactly.

Doing something blatantly illegal and getting away with it is a badge of honor among thieves. I am reminded of “Guilty as hell, free as a bird”.

If you thought she was going to be prosecuted for this, you haven’t been paying attention.

Journalist education 99; Assault Rifle

Posted on by

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.