Quote of the day—Paul Markel

You see folks, gun control absolutely does work. Gun control laws turn those who may have been strong and independent citizens into weak and subservient members of the collective. Gun control laws give legal standing to the notion that the armed state is superior to the disarmed populace. In the end that was the unspoken goal of gun control all along.

Paul Markel
August 21, 2014
Gun Control Works
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Moving

Update 8/25/2014 @1:32 PM: After much anguish, many partial restores, lost DNS records, out of RAM issues, orphaned databases, corrupted files, and I’ve lost count of things, I think the blog is working again with only two minor comments lost.


Update 8/25/2014 @3:52 AM: The move is back on.


Update: The move has been postponed due to technical difficulties in the exporting of the content. You may comment and post as desired until further notice.


Commenters: I’m moving my blog to another hosting provider. Any comments you make while this post is visible will be lost.

Co-bloggers: Any posts you make while this post is visible will be lost.

Quote of the day—Roberta X

But fond though I am of order and quiet, it’s costly and difficult to keep when purchased by the blood of brutes and fools — a well-run police state is quiet and orderly but it’s not free.

Roberta X
August 20, 2014
Frikkin’ Ferguson
[I’m probably in the 90th percentile of the people who have a fondness for order and quiet. But you’ll find me in about the 99th percentile of the people with a fondness for freedom. Hence people attempting to implement a police state are at high risk of me generating disorder and non-quiet as I oppose them.—Joe]

Refusing to enforce gun laws

Nullification, as it should be. It isn’t generally discussed (such discussion would ruin the anti-rights, i.e. Progressive, narrative) but taking that oath not only allows an individual in law enforcement to judge the constitutionality or legality of an order or a law, it requires it.

That is its whole and only purpose. They don’t take an oath to blindly follow orders, or to obey the Dear Leader or any such nonsense as happens in more backward societies. They take an oath to uphold the constitution. That is not a trivial distinction. Those are functionally opposite concepts, so long as the constitution in question supports human rights. I’d rather they take an oath to uphold human rights (and prove that they understand the meaning of same) being as the constitution is valid only to the extent that it recognizes and protects human rights.

Know which side your sheriff serves!

Calling it ‘Ignorance’ is being generous

I had thought it was well understood that one of the tactics of the anti rights movement has been to blur the distinction between fully automatic and semi automatic firearms (the former being ultra-restricted and therefore ultra-expensive and prohibitive and the latter being widely available and affordable). Apparently I’ve been very wrong.

Coyness apparently remains one of the most successful ruses for the anti liberty movement, even today when we have so much information at our fingertips that ANYONE who cares enough to jiggle his fingers over a keyboard for a few seconds can learn just about anything that is known by anyone.

That proves that most of us in the pro-liberty camp still fail to understand what we’re up against.

KNOW THY ENEMY!

It has been well-documented that anti-rights activists have spoken about, and organized efforts aimed at, confusing the issue of full verses semi auto, and yet we still would rather have fun pointing out the “stupidity” of people like Don Lemon. Well the joke’s on us, people.

More to the point though; if we were standing on principle, the distinction between full and semi wouldn’t matter. The Progressives have had most of us cowed for generations into accepting the NFA, and “defending” ourselves by accepting THEIR premise that, “Oh, well yeah– NO one wants machineguns ‘on the streets’! No-no-no-no!”

And so it’s an interesting play we’re in. The antis are using our own faults against us, by fooling people into making a distinction (which they’re trying to blur now) that only matters because they’ve been successful in fooling or intimidating us.

It’s the very definition of Progressivism. Get us comfortable with one outrage (in this case the NFA) and use that as a stepping stone to the next outrage (conflating semis with the already successfully demonized autos).

Far from calling Don Lemon an idiot or an ignoramus then, I’d say he’s pretty damned clever. So far he appears to have fooled 100% of the commenters on that Beck article.

Boomershoot steel target testing

Phil repaired the Boomershoot target steel someone (not a Boomershooter, it’s a long story) damaged with steel core bullets. This last weekend I tested the “target dog” he built for me. It was also the first time I had shot at the steel myself from further than about 75 yards.

Except for a single shot with a .40 S&W from about 20 yards all the shots were from 375 yards.

WP_20140817_007

The target is 3/4” AR500 so they are not your standard pistol targets. They were intended to stand up to .300 Win Mag from 375 yards and beyond. The white splotches on the target above were almost all from 55 grain .223 FMJ bullets at 375 yards. They barely took the paint off and as near as I could tell did not rock the target backward. The spring, as Phil noted, is way too stiff for that. And I suspect that with a .223 and that massive of a target it’s physically impossible to select a spring such that a bullet strike would knock it backward such that a mild breeze wouldn’t also do that. The .40 S&W didn’t move the target either.

WP_20140817_008

Notice the white stuff at the base of the target? That is lead spray from the bullet strikes on the target.

I was trying to zero my .300 Win Mag, without a spotter, from 375 yards and only got two hits as I probed different hold overs and unders. And the bullet splash on the steel was so small I couldn’t see it even with the 14 power scope at that distance. Here you see the impact from a 190 grain Sierra Match King bullet hitting the steel at about 2475 fps:

WP_20140817_009

There is just the tiniest of craters there.

A hit on the edge of the steel is another matter:

WP_20140817_010

The two .300 Win Mag hits weren’t particularly good to judge the knockdown potential of the configuration but as near as I could tell there was, again, no movement.

I’m extremely pleased with the crater repair Phil did. The targets look awesome! But we need to crunch some numbers to see if it is possible to choose a spring or maybe redesign the target dog such that it will be self resetting for a .30 caliber bullet at Boomershoot distances.

Quote of the day—Joseph Stalin

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?

Joseph Stalin
[It seems obvious (because “common sense”!) that our anti-gun political opponents must have an even greater distrust of people with “the wrong ideas” than people with guns. And with a little bit of conjecture one might even say the ultimate goal is the destruction of the First Amendment.

Most of us celebrated this SCOTUS decision which contains this paragraph:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

If ideas really are far more powerful than guns then wouldn’t it be just “common sense” to have a SCOTUS decision which said:

Like most rights, the First Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and read any book or religion or engage in any speech whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, child pornography and religions with human sacrifice, or riot inciting speech  prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of books or practice of religion by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the advocating of religion in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of books. Previous holding that the sorts of books and religion protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the practicing of dangerous and unusual religions and owning or reading dangerous and unusual or speech which is dangerous or unusual books.

The political campaign donation “reforms” they are so fond of advocating are just the tip of the iceberg.

Because they want to ban your guns you are reasonable to suspect they want to ban your speech as well.—Joe]

Shooting a rifle upside down

Ry pointed out this thread to me on ARFCOM. Probably many people will want to stop at the picture and move on after that but the more interesting part to me is solving the sighting problem.

UpsideDownRifleShooting

Here is my thought process on the problem:

The drop is the same regardless of the gun orientation. Keep in mind that drop is independent of point of impact (POI) relative to point of aim (POA).

To solve this problem in general look up the drop for this range on the ballistics table for your ammo.

With the gun zeroed for this range the barrel is angled up such that it compensates for both the drop and the height of the sight (Sight Height or SH) above the bore.

Suppose the drop is 2 inches and the sight height is 1.5 inches. Hence the angle of the barrel is such that the bullet rises, relative to the muzzle, 3.5 inches between the muzzle and the target.

When you invert the gun you have the angle of the barrel giving 3.5 inches additional “drop” to the gravity induced drop for a total of 5.5 inches.

But you have the sight below the barrel which means you “get back” twice the sight height of the total. So the gun will be shooting -5.5 + (2 x 1.5) or 2.5” low.

Hence, the general solution for a gun zeroed at a given range when you turn it upside-down it will have a POI of:

POI = POA + SH – 2 x Drop

Or probably more useful is the POA relative to the POI:

POA = POI + (2 x Drop) – SH

And people think I’m a packrat

Son James has often said he is glad he didn’t inherit the packrat gene from me. Barb has hinted at similar thoughts on more than one occasion. I’m a long way from being a hoarder but I admit I keep things most people would throw away.

I heard this story over the weekend when visiting Idaho but SIL Julie blogged about it so I’m comfortable telling about a relative of hers:

The funniest find of the day was a small box I pulled off the top shelf of the pantry.  I opened it and there was wedding cake!  Very petrified wedding cake.  Their parents were married 64 years ago…

Quote of the day—Femitheist Divine (Krista)

It is a proposed global initiative for population reduction which will, in a few decades, lead to a worldwide male population of roughly one to ten percent… This population reduction is the only logical long term solution.

Our plan is one of pacification and submission and many of these short term solutions are already underway in the western world so we are confident in our ambitions.

You can’t stop us, and you will not define us, so don’t even waste your time.

Femitheist Divine (Krista)
October 7, 2012
[H/T to Glenn Reynolds.

It has to be a joke, right? Maybe it started out that way. But I don’t think she is joking anymore.

Evil does not come in the packages presented to you by Hollywood. Evil isn’t required to have a long black mustache to be twirled by the villain. Evil doesn’t have to wear jackboots and use a swastika as their symbol. Evil doesn’t always wear a mask and have Jack Nicolson’s animated eyebrows.

Although it is frequently implemented from the muzzle of a gun evil doesn’t arise from it. Evil arises from the ideas of people. Freedom of speech and thought are far more risky to society than the right to keep and bear arms.

“Pacification and submission”? I think that is what ISIS say they are doing in Iraq right now.

This is the risk you take when you cede power to a central authority. Their master plan is one that benefits the masters. It may not be packaged and sold that way but that is the way to bet it will turn out.

What if someone proposed a similar plan to reduce the worldwide Jew/black/female/whatever population by a factor of 5 to 50 of the present values? Why is there no outrage similar to what would happen in those cases? Would anyone even hire someone like that for anything more than manual labor?

And some people think there is a war on women.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Considering the downside of the The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and various religious based genocides it is extremely clear the risks associated with the First Amendment far outweigh the risks of the Second Amendment.

If anyone wants repeal the Second Amendment because we are “more civilized than that” or some such utopian fantasy point them at the genocide and beheadings going in Iraq right now and suggest we need to repeal the First Amendment as well because freedom of religion obviously leads to barbarism.

If they then wanted to repeal both the First and the Second Amendment and you gave them a swirly in response I would vote not guilty if it made it to trial and I was one of the jurors.

I-594 questions

Text of I-594 here.

Video of testimony here.

I’ve been going over it a bit. I’ve got a few questions that might be good to ask its supporters.

A person wants to take an adult friend to do some casual training and firearms familiarization, planning on loaning her a variety of guns and ammo during the afternoon. They want to go to a nearby parcel of public land that has been legally and safely used for recreational shooting for decades. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt them from having to run a background check every time they handed a gun back and forth? Considering a vast amount of training is done this way, it seem important.

A friend discovers her violent ex-husband just got released from jail, and she calls you at 10 PM Saturday night, fearing he might show up at her door any time. She’s a decent shooter, but due to finances she doesn’t already own a gun. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt you from having to run a background check to loan her a gun for a month until she can get the money together to buy one?

Sec 3(4)(f) states that [requiring background checks] shall not apply to a list of specific activities, such as”: The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;
Why are no other family members included?

(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
Why is there no section listing such shooting ranges, or providing for how an existing range can become authorized?

(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
Why isn’t training for self defense, hunting, or recreation included?

(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms;
Why only minor children, not other family members or adult children?

or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
Can you clarify exactly when it would, or would not, be legal to borrow a gun to hunt with?

More generally, what section allows for temporary transfers for training for recreation, self defense, or hunting with privately owned guns without requiring a background check every time a gun changes hands?

MAIG bribery

To be more specific, Mayors Against Illegal Guns member Gordon Jenkins, a New York, Democratic Mayor, was arrested on bribery charges. Not just ““bribe receiving” but also “endangering the public health” and “intimidating a witness in connection with an incident in Fallsburg.”

A fine, upstanding bunch of folks those gun controllers mayor Bloomberg hangs with are.

Quote of the day—labman​57

Whenever these gun-toting knuckleheads see the Target logo, they get all moist in the loins and have an uncontrollable desire to whip out their weaponry for all the world to see.

labman​57
July 2, 2014
Comment to Big Win For Gun Control Groups: Target Bans Guns In Its Stores
[Emphasis in the original.

It's another Markley’s Law Monday!–Joe]

Quote of the day—Doug Huffman

We were horrified, and rightly so, at Adolf Hitler’s solution to the problem. But we haven’t got a solution to the problem either.

Doug Huffman
August 16, 2014
[No. No any sort of mythical “Jewish problem.” The problem Doug was talking about was what to do with those people that are “unfit” to support themselves because they are too stupid, crazy, or lazy. In our society we are on track for an Idiocracy type “solution”.

Doug and I talked late into the night on this and other somewhat related topics.

The problem as I see it is that our ethics are appropriate for a tribe but they don’t scale to a population of a million people let along a population of 300+ million. When we see someone, children in particular, hungry or in need of care we help them even if they will never be able (or choose) to support themselves.

In a tribe of a 100 to 200 people everyone know everyone else and the peer pressure significantly reduces the freeloader problem. As soon as there is anonymity freeloaders become an essentially unsolvable problem. And with large numbers of people combined with a society in possession of advanced technology in the essentials of life it now becomes possible to support those that cannot support themselves as well as those who chose not support themselves.

And with that support of those who cannot and choose not to support themselves we end up, literally, breeding more of them. We are scared, perhaps even justifiably horrified, of the risks of the government assuming the power to mandate some people not be allowed to reproduce or to raise their children the way they see fit.

I see horrific outcomes in either of the two “solutions”.

There is at least one other potential solution. It is, as I see it, the least unpleasant of the available alternatives and as you might expect, the least likely path for our society to take.

That potential solution is for our Federal government to stay within it Constitutional bounds. If the individual states or counties or cities wanted to experiment with government welfare or “free healthcare” then those experiments could have run their course over the last 200+ years.

What I expect would have happened is with enough of these type of experiments being run that people would realize there are some people that we just have to let “nature take its course” with. We would have a lot fewer freeloaders. We would have a constant, but small, set of tragic cases of people that could not support themselves and could not convince family and/or friends to support them.

There would be heart wrenching cases and people would organize charities (Shriners, Elks Club, Eagles Club, Salvation Army, etc.). to help those for whom help was appropriate. The decision to help or “let nature take its course” would be done in more of a “tribe environment” for which our ethics were “designed” for.

I don’t see how our society can get from where we are now to the “least bad of the available options” without a lot of pain, suffering, and death. It’s like trying to solve a global optimization problem when the slopes of the sides of current local optimum are steep and high.

Nature is “going to take it’s course” with us. All of us. I’m certain many, perhaps even a large percentage of, people will survive the big “challenges” ahead. But I cannot predict if those challenges will send our descendants to the stone ages  or to a Star Trek universe. But one way or another this ethical problem will “resolve” itself if we don’t resolve it.

Nature is testing it’s own “solutions” right now. Ebola, economic instability, and even the immigration issue are in beta test now. They may not be released soon or even ever if people do the right thing. But if we don’t then full production of something awful is coming soon.—Joe]