Quote of the day—Sten Deadio

Allowing anonymous gun purchases makes as much sense as allowing anonymous anthrax purchases.

Sten Deadio
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[Anthrax possession is not a specific enumerated right unless you consider it a form of arm in common use.

Their analogy is just as invalid as it would be if you were to substitute any of the following for “gun purchase”:

  • “book purchase”
  • “printing press purchase”
  • “computer purchase”
  • “association meetings”
  • “religious meetings”
  • “speech”
  • “voting”
  • “homosexuals”
  • “Jews”
  • “Catholics”

As is usual, this anti-gun person has no comprehension of principles.—Joe]

Boomershoot prep blogging

Linoge posts:

fuzzyKBP posts A journey of a thousand miles.

Phil posts about some of the guns he is bringing to Boomershoot.

There are still some positions open at Boomershoot 2014. Sign up here.

Quote of the day—Paul Barrett

Our collective dedication to free speech and a free press comes with a price: media excess that may exacerbate a social pathology such as copycat suicide-shooting sprees. Our commitment to the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to protect widespread gun ownership, has a price as well.

Paul Barrett
April 3, 2014
Another Shooting at Fort Hood: Four Blunt Points
[There are tradeoffs in nearly every decision made. That is one of the things the anti-gun people seem to always ignore. It is rare for an anti-gun person to admit there are benefits to gun ownership beyond some aspect they can dismiss as “unnecessary in today’s world” like hunting, or derisively like “making you feel like a man”.

If the other side wants to have another “conversation” about guns they need to admit there are substantial advantages to gun ownership and consider all the risks, including that to the entire Bill of Rights, by ignoring the Second Amendment. Until then they should be treated like a small child throwing a tantrum because they aren’t allowed to play with a rattlesnake.

DSCF0003Cropped

They apparently don’t understand that what they insist on doing has horrendous downsides as well as violating certain truths which are self-evident.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Imma Commenter

All the NRA has to do is scream that Obama is coming for your guns & these gunsterbating animals foam at the mouth and dance like the monkeys on the string they are.

Imma Commenter
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[Citation needed.

This one almost qualifies as an example of Markley’s Law. And they do qualify for the category of “Crap For Brains”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dave Champion

In the debate over guns, both sides are angry. The pro-gunners are angry at the ignorance, lies, and distortions of the anti-gunners, and the anti-gunners are angry with the pro-gunners for presenting facts.

Dave Champion
I can’t find a date but it would appear there is a high probability it is this Dave Champion.
[I have nothing further to add.

Via a Tweet from Joethefatman™ referring to a blog post by Geoffrey & Mika.—Joe]

Quote of the day—critical1234

NRA – The True American Domestic Terrorists.

critical1234
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[And what do you speculate he might think would be appropriate treatment for “True American Domestic Terrorists”? People need to exercise their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from people like critical1234.—Joe]

Quote of the day—happy48

The NRA officer board needs to be put in prison. They’re bad people. If I ever found it necessary to own a gun, I’d never support that organization. They don’t represent me, a responsible person. They represent the people that shouldn’t have guns. That’s why we have such a problem. They’re the devil. You’re safer without a gun in hostile situations then with one. How is a cop going to tell the difference in a shoot out. What are you going to do put out a sign that says I’m a good guy.? Guns are a big business. And money is their God. The devil supports the Republican party. Their policies support abortions and murder.

happy48
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[And if an organization such as the NRA did not exist and he found it necessary to own a gun it would not be possible for him to legally purchase one.

“You're safer without a gun in hostile situations then with one.” I didn’t know that! I guess that is why when cops go into hostile situations they always leave their guns behind, right? Yeah. Right. And stealing the words of Roberta, “What color is the sky up his ass?”

This is what these people think of you. Imagine what they would do to you and the Second Amendment if they wrote the laws. Oh, that’s right. You don’t have to imagine. Just read the laws of Washington D.C, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, and Chicago. It is people like this that we need the Second as well as the 13th Amendment. And it is people like this that should be put on trial.—Joe]

We have interesting friends

Some friends of ours are leaving the area for a year or two and we recently said goodbye to them. We had only met them a few months ago but really liked them. They are very smart, happy, high energy people. When we went on the cruise in the Bahamas last month we invited them to go with us. There was no one else we even considered.

They didn’t go. They said they really tried to make it work but just couldn’t. The fact that it was a Disney Cruise did not seem to be an issue.

In my personal life I keep this blog in the background and don’t bring it up unless I think they are going to be okay with it. I hadn’t mentioned it to them until this last meeting. I explained it was a little controversial and could bother some people.

It turns out they have blogs that are “interesting” too.

NOT safe for work.

Blissfully Open and Compersive Times.

We have interesting friends.

The Land – a real playground

An interesting article in The Atlantic Magazine. A “junk yard” playground that is very popular. Apparently the story is making the rounds in my kid’s school district. I doubt it will change anything, but it’s a start. It’s similar to one from Kiwi Land.

Upshot of the two: more reasonable risk-taking, fewer rules, more natural consequences are better for kids than bubble-wrap and bureaucracy. Well, duh!

Right in line with your memories of the dump, Lyle.

Quote of the day—Lee Viola

Essentially, gun advocates in 2014 are of the same mindset as cigarette smokers in 1964—just deny, blow some smoke in a rationalist’s face, and toss a butt on the street as though you own it.

Reasonable gun control will happen in the US, but it will require about fifty years of education, needlessly lost lives, price increases, lawsuits, and the same social/sexual shunning that have made smokers a powerless minority.

In the future, gun ownership will be rare and expensive.

Lee Viola
March 28, 2014
Comment to The Gun-Control Conversation Happened—and the NRA Won Again
[Apparently he hasn’t been paying attention in his gun political history class. He has it exactly backward and the time frame wrong. Rational arguments, taking new shooters to the range, court decisions, and political action is driving anti-gun people into political oblivion. At the present rate of advance we can expect that in 25 years we will have constitutional carry in all 50 states and “full auto” will be a selector switch option on nearly all new detachable magazine and belt fed firearms. Gun ownership will be as common as cellphone ownership today. More so if you count the number of guns owned per capita. The average gun owners has more guns than the average cell phone owner has cell phones.

He does have one thing right. Fifty years of mandatory government education could have the effect he desires.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert Riversong

There are no “natural rights” any more than “God-given rights”. All rights are created by social consensus and protected by law.

Robert Riversong
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[It’s true this is merely the ranting of someone ignorant of history and legal precedent but he has a lot of people on his side. At one time our government did not recognize the right to be free of bondage and people like him perpetuated that condition. There have been many times throughout history when “the law” demanded that “certain types” of people be murdered by the thousands or millions. People who thought like Mr. Riversong enabled that. That makes him and his kind extremely dangerous.

People who believe in natural rights put Riversong’s historical compatriots on trial for crimes against humanity. I look forward to him being on trial.—Joe]

Too good to be true

I haven’t said anything, except privately and on Twitter, about Leland Yee. I’ve been extremely tempted but it falls into the category of “too good to be true”.

Ry also has a valid point:

New shooter report

A month ago I went to the range with two new shooters. These are my tweets from then:

Shijing:

Sharon:

They are friends of Gang who I took to the range a few years ago. He contacted me and told me some friends wanted to learn to shoot. We met up at Wades and after they got the paperwork done I spent about 15 minutes going through safety rules, sight alignment, and grip with a plastic gun. Once inside the range we did some dry fire before going to live fire.

I started them out on a Ruger Mark III/45 followed by a S&W .22LR revolver. Then I offered them my STI Eagle in .40 S&W with the caution there was going to be a lot more recoil. They did just fine with the recoil on the .40 but the large grip of the double stack STI was a challenge for their small hands. All the targets were at about eight feet away.

I was surprised they liked the S&W revolver and STI Eagle better than the Ruger Mark III/45. In any case they did very well. I was particularly impressed with Shijing who is cross eye dominate. I suggested she try shooting left handed as well as right handed and she then stayed with left handed to produce awesome groups for a new shooter.

WP_20140227_016CroppedWP_20140227_011Cropped
Sharon shooting the STI.
WP_20140227_003CroppedWP_20140227_014Cropped
Shijing with the revolver and then the STI.
WP_20140227_009Cropped20140326_022325000_iOSCropped
Shijing had the better groups and the bigger smile.

Afterward they took me to dinner at a place Gang described as the Chinese equivalent of Hooters. I have never been to Hooters before so I can’t confirm that assessment but the waitresses were very nice looking and somewhat scantly dressed. The food was good and I plan to take Barb there sometime soon.

We talked quite a bit about gun laws and why I carry a gun. They seemed to get it and expressed interest in getting their own guns.

Winning the cultural war one (or two) new shooter(s) at a time.

U of I response to campus carry

Via daughter Kim who is attending the University of Idaho we have this letter from the President:

March 27, 2014

To the University of Idaho Community,

As you may be aware, Senate Bill 1254 (commonly referred to as the “guns on campus bill”) was introduced in the Idaho Legislature in January. The University, our sister institutions, and the State Board of Education and Regents, opposed the bill; however, it passed and has been signed into law. The new law will allow citizens with an enhanced concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed weapon on university grounds and in buildings, except in university housing and in certain large public venues, such as events at the ASUI Kibbie Activity Center. The law does not take effect until July 1, 2014. Current University policies regarding weapons on campus remain in full force and effect until then.

The University of Idaho is fully committed to providing a safe, nurturing environment for living, learning, and teaching. As such, the continued safety of our university community remains paramount. In order to fully understand the implications of and implementation of this new law, I will name a task force made up of faculty, staff, students and law enforcement representatives who will assess the law, consult experts, and propose a comprehensive university policy regarding possession of weapons on University property. The end product of this process will be a comprehensive recommendation that will inform decision-making and ensure compliance with applicable law and policy in a manner that continues to promote a safe living, learning and teaching environment at University locations statewide.

If you would like to provide input into this process, please contact Matt Dorschel, Executive Director, Public Safety and Security at 885-7209 or by email at mdorschel@uidaho.edu.

Sincerely,

Chuck Staben
President

I find it odd that they are going to “propose a comprehensive university policy regarding possession of weapons on University property”. The state of Idaho has preemption on firearms law. The state legislature just told the University what the policy is. And now this guy says he is going to come up with some other policy?

These people just don’t get it. They lost. Now they need to get over it.

Quote of the day—jaxas4

… essentially a useless right that simply clutters up our Constitution and confuses people to no end because all it does is give violent right wing zealots a constitutional basis for inciting their emotional hyped up masses to form insurrections against enemies that do not exist, to promote idiotic gun laws that defy rational thinking and to quite literally turn our country into a seething cauldron of squabbling factions who have neither the intellect nor the patience for a civil discussion of the pros and cons of gun ownership. The most odious of these factions are the ones who hold to the lunacy that the right to own guns has the ultimate purpose of arming citizens against a tyrannical government, as if we do not have a professional military and law enforcement system to enforce the laws and keep order. What these factions want is what we had under the Articles of Confederation–mindless, lawless, anarchy in the streets.

jaxas4
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[“Squabbling” is something to be suppressed in the name of law and order?

This is what they think of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment in particular. —Joe]

You probably thought Nagant was the first…

…but here’s a revolver (a carbine in this case) patented in 1852, that wedged the cylinder against the barrel, to eliminate the cylinder gap while firing;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rP3zZ4dK0Ks
It was also a lever action of sorts.

It came to my attention in comments here.

Previously, the Colt’s “Root” model of 1855 was the earliest true revolving carbine I’d known. Although there were repeating flintlock rifles and carbines from much earlier which used a revolving cylinder, the cylinder in those was advanced by grabbing it with the hand and rotating it manually. The flint versions that I’ve seen had multiple priming pans and frizzens, so they would have been a bit dainty in handling.

Another interesting bit of trivia is that Colt’s had a fully enclosed frame revolver (meaning it had a solid top-strap) long before the Remington/Beals, but Colt’s didn’t bother using the idea for their famous Navy and Army models, and they continued making “open top” revolvers right up into the 1870s. To put it another way; there wasn’t really all that much difference in the open top design compared to the enclosed frame designs when using the relatively low pressure black powder charges typical in a handgun of the time.

And let it not be said that the American founders could not have foreseen the repeating rifle or pistol as a fighting weapon. Many veterans of the American Revolution survived well into the 1840s, ’50s and even ’60s, and they didn’t suddenly cry out, “Waaait a minute!– We never expected anything like THIS!!! We’d better re-write that there second amendment thingy, and right now too…!!!” The Colt Patterson revolver came out in 1836 (an “assault weapon” of its day if there ever was one) and I don’t believe anyone in the Supreme Court suddenly re-thought the whole thing about the right to keep and bear arms now that we had concealable, practical, multi-shot firearms. The Colt “Walker” which was far more powerful and fired a bigger and heavier bullet came out in 1847.

Quote of the day—ChrisFu1

Most of these tech workers make too much money anyway. The only issue I have is that instead of that saved money being taxed and given to the poor, it’s being kept by the company. It’s time we limit all wages to $32,000/yr for everyone.

ChrisFu1
March 22, 2014
Comment to Revealed: Apple and Google’s wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees
[Once you had maxed out your wages what would be the point of getting more training or coming up with new ideas that might save the company money, or starting a new business?

Communists/socialists/liberals/whatever. He/she might as well have said, “From everyone according to their ability.” I would like to invite them to North Korea so as to enjoy a much closer approximation to equality for a short time in extreme poverty until they reach true equality in death.—Joe]

Firepower!

Here is a three-barrel revolver. It has three firing pins and a firing pin selector (barrel selector) switch at the back of the frame. You cycle through six (of 18 total) rounds, then select another barrel and fire six more. Thus in three full revolutions of the cylinder you have fired all 18 shots. Open the Smith & Wesson type break action for reloading. Apparently the idea didn’t catch on, as this is reportedly the single example of this gun. For one thing it wouldn’t be cheap, plus even in its small caliber (32 or 380 ACP – I forget) it wouldn’t be convenient to carry due to its bulk and weight. You can look it up if you want more information, but that’s just about it.

Quote of the day—Anonymous Conservative

Liberals … have a deep psychological need to destroy happiness and irritate those around them that is so fundamental to their nature, I am not even sure they are consciously aware of it. The state of our nation under their leadership is no accident – no matter how outlandish that may seem. If you don’t like seeing people happy, you find the rich, and the successful, and the happy, and the contented, and you set about screwing up their lives under the guise of their happiness being unfair, their behavior being wrong, immoral, or inconsiderate, and them being evil.

Many of the most committed Liberal ideologues are actually deriving joy from how they are reducing the happiness in the nation, and destroying our social organization. Whether it is screwing up the healthcare of people who enjoy having their healthcare, or trying to make everyone render their families equally vulnerable to crime, or taxing the happy rich people on the grounds that their success and happiness is unfair, Liberalism is more about diminishing the happiness of the happy, than alleviating the suffering of the unhappy, no matter what any Liberal tells you.

Liberals are a truly evil enemy, every bit as much as the Narcissist, and we need to view them as such.

Anonymous Conservative
March 22, 2014
How Narcissists Use Amygdala-Focus
[This might not be the case for all people that identify with the political label ‘liberal’ but I’m pretty sure it is a match for a great many of them.—Joe]