The View From North Central Idaho

Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck Idaho farm boy who became a software engineer living near Seattle.

The View From North Central Idaho

Author Archives: Lyle

Pistol/Carbine Conversion

Posted on by

I almost bought one of those MechTech carbine conversions for my Glock 20 once.  “Cool– a 10 mm carbine!”  (Hat Tip Uncle)


But then I thought; What would I do with it?  If my Glock is in carbine config, I don’t have it as a carry pistol.  Do I carry another pistol in a smaller caliber?  Do I get another pistol?  But in the latter case I’ve spent enough I could get another puspose-built carbine like an AR, an M1 Carbine, used Ruger Deerfield etc. for the same money or even less.  And come to think of it a 44 Mag levergun would be pretty nice, or an old Marlin Camp.


At this stage I have so many guns, and each one is this on-going program (load selection or load development, sight configuration, magazine and ammo inventory, on and on) so each one demands a certain amount of time.  On the other hand, what is cool and fun is cool and fun, so I never stop thinking of that next cool gun or that next cool caliber.

Public Education

Posted on by

I heard a call to a talk show late last night (sorry, I don’t know who’s show).  The caller had this great, revolutionary idea– instead of using gasoline or fuel oil, we should use a computer program to move the pistons in an engine.  Engines are computer-controlled to some degree already you see, so why not go all the way?  He said he’d been thinking about this for a long time and it had been bugging him– why, it’s so obvious.


If a person can think that, what can’t be believed?  It is said that Kim Il of North Korea hit some fantastic score in golf the first time out, that when he was born a new star appeared in the sky to mark the event, and that he doesn’t urinate or deficate.


Yes; public education has a purpose, and to some degree it’s working.


The host set him straight, recommending a book; “Physics for Future Presidents” I think it was.  How about just plain old, basic physics?  That would be nice, but all Democrats and most Republicans would always lose if we knew that it’s impossible to get something from nothing.

Showing off

Posted on by

The manuals for some of the percussion guns suggest loading with a rather small powder charge, saying that anything more is just “showing off” (never mind that these replicas were originally designed for a full cylinder of powder and ball, else the cylinders would be shorter to save steel and weight).


By that reasoning, I suppose anything more powerful than a 22 Short is purely showing off.  For that matter, using a gun at all is showing off.  You should use a bow.  But maybe that’s showing off, so you should use a slingshot.  No doubt using a slingshot could be seen as showing off, so you should use a spear, but come to think of it that could be showing off, so use your bare hands.  Someone using theior bare hands for something that would betterbe done with a gun is certainly showing off– no question.


The only proper choice then, if we follow this line of reasoning, is to never do anything, but that, for sure and for certain, is showing off your piety your restraint or your modesty.  I hate it when people like to flaunt their modesty all over the place.  Show offs!

Flying debris hits spokane man during target practice

Posted on by

In my home county.  The report said “shrapnel” but that term doesn’t quite apply here.  “Shrapnel” consists of separate metal fragments, usually balls, placed around an explosive weapon for the purpose of increasing lethality, not to be confused with shell fragments or secondary projectiles.  The differences in this case being “purpose” and “weapon”.


No, Young Grasshopper– If you’re going to blow up something with your exploding target, put the explosive target in front of it, so the fragments fly back and away from you and any spectators, then make sure there is ample backstop because fragments, especially from a ductile metal like mild steel or copper, have been known to accelerate to some major percentage of the explosion velocity (or so I was told by those who claim to know).  This guy was airlifted to hospital in serious condition.  Estimated distance from target; 50 yards.  Some mistakes are painful.  And expensive.  I bet he won’t make that particular one again.


Ry and I once detonated a teeny weeny Boomerite target in front of an extra heavy railroad tie plate (nearly an inch thick, IIRC), and that plate flew 75 yards (back and away from us – we were thinking a little bit at least) after being severely bent.  Maybe Ry could fill in some detail on that one.

Micheal Savage Doubles Down

Posted on by

He’s so proud of his Brady Campaign talking points, he sent them out in a mass e-mail today;



‘You don’t need body armor to hunt deer’


Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily insider report on all things “Savage.”


In this issue: Michael Savage is in distinguished company. Last week, he was virtually alone in placing partial blame for the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre on Hollywood.


Now esteemed director Peter Bogdanovich has joined the chorus. With that, Savage renews his call for a moratorium on violent movies, as well as a ban on body armor and certain kinds of ammunition.
________________________________________
“After the slaughter in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, I immediately blamed the actors, the directors and the violence in the movies,” Savage reminded listeners, adding:
Nobody paid attention to it, because I’m only Michael Savage.


I’m not a legendary movie director, like Peter Bogdanovich, who I see from this morning’s Drudge Report more or less agrees with me.


Charles Hurt of the Washington Times also mentioned the connection between movie violence and the real thing, so I put a link up to his article on my website.


His article is called “An Open Letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers.”


Maybe you already read it. Maybe you want to move on. But I don’t want to move on.


I’m going to say this again: Last Friday I said they should ban body armor for civilians, and they should ban drum magazines of ammunition.


Yet my point was missed by almost everybody in the media


I’m a gun owner. I was on the rifle team in high school.


I absolutely would defend the Second Amendment. But let me tell you something: There’s a huge difference between the right to bear arms and the right to carry around a weapon that could shoot a hundred bullets at police.


You don’t need body armor or drum magazines to hunt deer.


We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.


That’s because unless our side controls what gets banned, we’re liable to see things happen that we don’t want to happen, because we have a communist in the White House who’s capable of doing anything.


(Emphasis mine) This man clearly has what I’ve come to call the “Beltway Disease” or the “Republican Disease”.  “We’ve lost and we’re going to lose more, so lets lose more in a way that’s a little bit more palatible by losing in a way of our choice.  It would be wise, my friend.”  Typical Republican– pretend to be on the side of liberty so you can woo us into submission.  Michael; go bang your head against a wall.  That, I would pay to see.


Oh, and; you do realize that city, county and state LEs are civillians, don’t you?  Just checking, Michael, being as you tell us on a regular basis that you are ever so highly educated.  Never mind that the CO shooter wasn’t wearing body armor, and that you’re asking us to be unprotected while the criminals could always get their armor, and their drum magazines, illegally under any “ban”.

Michael Savage Rages Against Drum Magazines

Posted on by

Talk show host Michael Savage went on a tirade today, using many of the left’s anti-gun talking points while calling for a ban on drum magazines.  To paraphrase; “Do you need something like that to hunt rabbits?  Enough is enough!”  He used multiple hunting references, and said multiple times that he is a gun owner and a 2A “supporter” (more of the antis’ talking points).  I didn’t hear any of the callers’ responses (because I work for a living and can’t be glued to a radio) but here is my own.


First, Michael, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  This “need” test of yours is so obviously foolish that I won’t glorify it with a response other than to say; anything you have that you don’t absolutely “need”– turn it all in, sucker, or quit using a stupid argument like the “need test”.


Why would I want a 75 or 100 round magazine?  Deterrence, for one thing.  Mob control for another.  Are you familiar with the concept of suppressive fire?  The assault rifle (full automatic) isn’t typically used in battle for mowing down hoards of enemy, charging up a hill at you.  More often than not it is used for “suppressive fire”– pinning down opponents while you or your partners maneuver against them, or while others escape.  A semi-auto (especially one with a large magazine) can be used effectively for suppressive fire.  Remember the LA riots?  Suppressive fire is a legitimate tactic even against a lone attacker.


Overall deterrence is an important factor in an armed society.  That Switzerland hasn’t been attacked in over 500 years is some testament to that.  The American founders spoke of the deterrent effect when they started that an armed population would hold any government in awe.  “You’re never going to fight the government, and if you did, you’d lose” says Savage.  Not the point, says I.  Sure, you may lose, but when it is widely known that millions of Americans have the ability and the equipment to make any armed conflict a very costly one for the government, you have effective deterrence.  That is an extremely important point.


And Michael, seriously, I know you are aware of the fact that prohibitions make things worse.  When alcohol is prohibited, only outlaws will have alcohol, and things go all to hell– gangs get rich and powerful, corruption is rampant, and a general disrespect for the law is fostered.  When drum magazines are outlawed, only outlaws will have drum magazines.  That’s what you want?  Really?  I think you’ve been in San Fransicko for too long.


I don’t suppose you heard that the CO movie theater killer’s drum magazine jammed.  Be sure to get a good one.  The all-steel European 75 round AKM/RPK magazines with the ratcheting loading lever are very good.  I think I’ll get another one, in your honor, Michael.  We also use them in our high round count “torture testing” of our gun accessories, but as I indicated, I don’t need any reason to own them other than the fact that I damned well feel like it, Skippy.


Lastly; I’ve wondered for years whether the things you say on your show are from the heart, or if a lot of it just a shtick– playacting to what you think of as a dumb audience, for ratings.  I still wonder.

The Kaboom That Wasn’t

Posted on by

Yesterday I had a bullet in the bore in front of another complete cartridge that was fully chambered.  The bolt was in battery, the hammer cocked, and the safety was in the Total Devastation position.  But I thought better of dropping the hammer.  Well I didn’t think so much as feel that for some non-specific reason it might be a good idea to get out of my ready-to-shoot position and open the action.

I had fired hundreds of these cast bullet loads for a Win ’94 carbine and was having quite a good time shooting, using the new tang aperture sight after getting the sights dialed in.  The 311291 mold puts out a “bore rider” bullet, meaning the shank of the bullet ahead of the drive bands kisses the rifling as it’s chambered.  It’s supposed to make for better accuracy, and so far these have been pretty good in that department.  But my mold produces bullets that more than kiss the rifling– they have to be jammed in with just a tad bit more force than optimum.  I’ve chambered and un-chambered lots of them before without observing any sort of problem.

Yesterday, I don’t remember why, I decided to check the status of the rifle before taking a shot.  It was harder than usual to extract, so when it came loose, the bolt came back rapidly, expelling an empty case.  “Odd” I thought, “I’m pretty sure there was a loaded round in there.  Oh well.” (first red flag).  So I rammed the lever home to chamber another round.  It took more than the usual amount of force to chamber (second red flag).  But it chambered.

I actually had the rifle up to fire, and then…”Naw…I’ll be needin’ to see that cartridge.”  Again it was harder than usual to extract, and this time I could see fine ball powder all over the action and my hand.  “OK then, I’m done with the Winchester for the day.”

That first hard extraction had pulled the bullet from the case, but I didn’t notice the spilled powder because I had my long-range shades on (can’t see close-up very well) and the low, direct sun made for so much contrast that anything in shadow was much harder to see.  I didn’t notice the little detail of the still un-dented primer.  The next round was harder to chamber because I was forcing the first bullet deeper into the bore in front of the fresh cartridge.  The new brass was maybe a little soft, and maybe that bullet was on the large side of the size variation range, and maybe the case was on the short side of the narrow length range I had allowed, the crimp design is very good at preventing bullet set-back (which is the concern with tubular magazines) but poor at preventing bullet pull-out, so anyway the bullet pulled free and stayed behind when I extracted the case.  Never heard of such a thing, which is why I bring it up here.  Maybe I should get another bullet mold.

You know they say that for a single shot action, you don’t need any crimp at all.  After yesterday, with any bore rider design I would recommend a crimp no matter what.

Shooting alone is a real pleasure for me.  I love taking other people along and having a good time that way, sure.  Some of my best shooting memories come from having other people along.  I have to get out alone once in a while though, especially with rifles, and I highly recommend it for everyone.  It allows focus, and the contrast between the fire and the total silence during breaks does the heart good somehow.  On the issue of focus; I believe that the chances of my pulling that trigger on that double bullet load were fairly high, had there been company along.

Edited to add; Below is the bullet in question.  You can just see the engraving from the rifling.  That individual bullet fit pretty well, but others are a bit tighter (random variations in casting).  I should have posted this photo earlier to avoid some of the confusion.  “Regular” bullets begin to taper off right in front of the case mouth, but this one is designed to enter the bore in front of the throat, touching the lands.  The design helps align the bullet right from the get go.  For actual use, the front drive band at the case mouth (and those behind it) is sized to .309″ to tightly engage the .308″ barrel groove diameter and produce a good seal.  Also notice the ring around the back of the short ogive, from the seating plug that was designed for longer ogive bullets.  This photo was taken over a year ago, before I fired any of these rounds, and you’ll see that the case is either crimped very lightly or not at all.  This was a test seating.  You also see that the chamber throat is super short (the rifling comes very close to the case mouth, but it’s a largely non-issue here).  That’s not a problem with most modern full-copper-patched bullets either, but it does limit the styles I can use.  This #2 alloy cast 170 grain gas checked bullet load reaches 2,000 fps from a 16″ barrel, using White Label Carnauba Red lube and 33.5 gr of Win 748 with a WRLM primer.  The powder charge and primer are from the Speer manual as a jacketed load.  After 50 shots, the bore looks like a polished mirror (the powder burns clean and the bullets don’t leave lead behind).

Communication

Posted on by

I was weeding my garden the other day.  A neighbor sees me out there and remarks; “Nice looking garden you have there.”
“Thanks” I reply, “Other than some deer nipping the tops off a few of my beets, it’s doing pretty well.  I have some nice 
radishes coming in right now.  Would you like some radishes?”
“Rabbit stew!” he replies, with enthusiasm.
(I paused a moment) “No; radishes.  Would you like some radishes?”
Without another word, he turned around and walked away.


That one was quick in getting to the point where both parties realized that they were engaging in a conversation which had 
nothing to do with what the other was saying.  I’ve had this sort of thing go on for a long time before I realized that the 
conversation I was having bore little or no resemblance to the conversation the other person thought he was having, even when 
the individual words were all intelligible.


A recurring theme in such instances relates to the difference between principles and group identification, or “group think”.  
There is a saying floating around lately, which says “When the government has its boot on your throat, it makes no difference 
whether it’s a left boot or a right boot.”  It makes sense, I suppose, if your world centers around group, or political party, 
identity, but it’s a blitheringly stupid statement if you care about principles.  I stated, over at Kevin’s, that if there’s a 
government boot on your neck (and you don’t deserve it) then by definition it is a left boot. QED– those who uphold the 
principles of liberty do not abuse people as a matter of policy.


The response?



“I find your lack of insight disturbing. As a libertarian, I see just as much interference in my life coming from the so-called 
right as from the so-called left.”


Fair enough– the operative term being “so-called”.  But that was my whole point after all, see.



“Maybe because I have friends from each of those camps, I can somewhat understand how each only sees the abuses of the other, 
but not their own.”


I’m sorry; my own abuses?



“The ‘giveaway’ in your case is the ‘deserve’ line: who are you, or anyone else, to be the sole arbiter of whether someone 
“deserves” abuse? Please don’t go on about breaking the law, that is not what the poster is referring to, as I would suspect you 
know. And having a boot on one’s neck is not an appropriate response to law-breaking; arrest and trial would be (if the crime is 
real and not a consensual activity of which you disapprove).”


What if they resist arrest?  Yeah, I’m going with the boot, thank you.



“No arbitrary political group is either all good or all bad; the same goes for people in general, unless you want to bring up 
mass murderers or serial child molesters. So to attribute all evil intent to your political opponents is not only facile and 
simplistic, but often leads down the path to violence, pogroms, and war.”


Umm….yes; I do attribute all (political) evil to my political opponents.  The moment someone commits an evil, I oppose them, 
see.  Individually.  Not the whole group, unless the whole group embraces the evil act in which case the whole group is leftist and I oppose it.


I was talking about principles and he was talking about political parties (group think– tribal association).  Two different 
subjects.  Lets break this down further.


If some members of the Catholic Church are found to be sex abusers, are all those who try to follow the teachings of Jesus then 
to be held accountable for the abuse?  More important; are the teachings of Jesus thereby rendered invalid and useless, or even 
evil?  If some who claim to be Christians are practicing serial child abuse, then Christ himself was an evil man, and 
anything he said should be dismissed out of hand?  That would have to be the conclusion of the tribalist, and of course it would 
be insane.


If I’d left out the “and you don’t deserve it” bit, someone would have said, “Oh yeah?  What if you just murdered someone?  Does 
that mean that anyone who comes after you for it is a leftist?!!!”  Since I put it in, I got criticized with “…who are you, 
or anyone else, to be the sole arbiter of whether someone ‘deserves’ abuse?”  Either way it’s a change of subject– a diversion 
from the point.  I’m talking about principles and he’s talking about something else– anything but the point.  It’s a 
sophisticated version of “Oh yeah?  Well your mother wears Army boots!” after which I suppose I am to argue about my mother’s 
fashion sense instead of the fact that leftists are all authoritarians and all authoritarians are leftists whereas those on the 
right are for liberty.  That someone may falsely claim to be on the right, or that someone on the right might commit a crime of 
some kind, is not my fault, and it certainly does not say anything whatsoever about the validity of my principles.


What that self-described libertarian is actually saying (probably without thinking about it) is that the principles of liberty 
are invalid because, for generations, leftists have been posing as Republicans.  Therefore, if I espouse the principles of liberty, I’m a hypocrite.

It was Racist from the Beginning

Posted on by

Hat tip; Uncle


This is the first I’ve heard about it.  I can’t say I’d be surprised.  Federal gun restriction has always had racial motivations, among others.  One of the “problems” of recognizing black people’s citizenship rights was stated openly– that such would allow them to go about armed anywhere they went.  We could fix this gigantic mess by simply repealing the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of ’68.  This country got along just fine without them.  As it is, we’re still festering in FDR’s aftermath.


Meanwhile, the Republicans are busy trying to figure out what it is they should pretend to believe during the upcoming election.

More on ‘Gunsmiths’

Posted on by

This happens a lot.  A customer calls about a problem, and it’s the customer’s gunsmith who says “X” yet the “gunsmith” is totally wrong.  The “gunsmith” is the source of the problem, or the source of the misunderstanding of the problem.  Yesterday, a rep from Big Household Word High-End Optics Company came in with a Yugo M70.  The wooden buttstock’s comb was too high for him, plus he had a Galil missing a detent ball for the rear sight.


Solid wooden stock with a bolt through the middle.  So shave down the comb.  Fit and try.  Ten minutes, plus some finish sanding and some linseed oil.  Nope.  “Gunsmith” decided it would be a better idea to bubba some lump of weld under the rear sight leaf, to raise the sight instead, thus negating the elevation slide function entirely, and crank up the front to match.


“Gunsmith told him that a detent ball for the Galil was “hard to find”.  It took google less than a second to find several sources of loose steel balls, and yet you don’t need a ball per se.  It could be a short piece of rod.  All it really needs to do is fit in the hole with the spring and be sort of roundish on one end.


I asked the rep; “What kind of a ‘gunsmith’ is this guy?”  And this is the answer I get every time;


“Oh but he’s a really great guy.  Really a great guy.  Old School.  He’s been at it for decades and really knows his stuff..”  I have gotten that answer from a lot of people.  That very same answer.  In that very same kind of ‘I can’t believe what I’m hearing’ situation.


I’ve taken to using Tam’s definition of a gunsmith– one who can take an amorphous lump of steel and turn it into a fine firearm.  Give the average farmer or junior high school shop teacher around here a bent, rusty nail, a hack saw, an old bastard file and a power drill, and he can make you a new detent pin for your Galil rear sight, without ever having heard of a Galil.  Actually he could make do with just the file, the saw and the nail, and his bare hands, but that take a little longer.  Same deal for adjusting the comb height, but you only need the file (or a pocket knife) and a chunk of sandpaper.  But an “experienced gunsmith” was out of his element.  It’s gotten so every time I hear the infamous words, “My gunsmith says…” I start rolling my eyes.  I know there are good ones out there (some really, really good ones) but no one calls me or comes in with a problem if they have a really good gunsmith, do they?  So my sample is heavily weighted.  Or so I hope.


A big takeaway here is that a nice personality, I suppose, can overcome the greatest depths of incompetence, and keep you in business.

That’s it then

Posted on by

If the constitution allows Congress to do practically anything it wants, so long as it can be called it a “tax” by some stretch of the imagination (remember the NFA?), then we’ll have to repeal the 16th amendment.


Has anyone else made this point?  I had Rush on for about an hour, he was talking about the SCOTUS decision on nationalization of the medical industry the whole time, and he never mentioned the 16th.  That’s where most of this social engineering crap comes from– “nudge” us this way and that using the tax code.

One Step at a Time, Then

Posted on by

In the spirit of boldly following the truth where ever it leads; can I get any agreement on the following statement?



Prohibition is an absolute, 100% guarantee that there will be increased gang activity, increased gang power, increased gang violence, an escalating police presence, and increased corruption at the police level working its way up through government at higher levels, with a coresponding deterioration of respect for police, and the rule of law, among the general public.


Yes or no?  You have to take all points in the above sentence together.  If you disagree with any part of it, your answer is “No”.  Give a brief, simple explanation of why you disagree.  For our purposes here, we will limit the definition of Prohibition to; a federal ban on alcohol or any other popular intoxicant.  This has nothing to do with your opinions, or clinical expertise, on this or that drug, the general effects of intoxicants on society or any of that.  Keep all of that out of the discussion, please.  Focus like a laser beam.


Yes or no?

This is for Bill Whittle

Posted on by

And also for everyone else.  I don’t get paid to do this.  The time spent is all cost, so I don’t spend much time editing.  I wanted to take this piece, or rant, of mine and really polish it, using historical links and references, but too bad– here it is.  It’s verbatim off of a members only section on gunrightsmedia.org, from a thread on medical pot and guns.  I bring Bill Whittle’s name into this post because he has, as I’ve been describing on numerous blogs, fully embraced, with relish, the left’s “guns cause harm” meme.  All the best intentions will be for naught unless we think clearly, following the truth where ever it leads.  Well here it is;



There is a direct and inseparable link between Prohibition and gun restriction. Note Operation Fast and Furious.

The authoritarians learned a great lesson from alcohol prohibition. They learned that huge amounts of power and money were transferred to authoritarians, both inside of government and outside of government (tyrants and gangsters) as a direct result of prohibition.

The first time; Americans understood that it would require a constitutional amendment, because the government is not authorized by the constitution to tell us what we may or may not consume. When Prohibition was modified (it was never ended) with another amendment to the constitution, the feds that were employed to smash down doors and brutalize people over alcohol were given another job, the very next month. Prohibition was modified in December of 1933 and the NFA went into effect in January of 1934. The former Prohibition enforcers, who were accustomed to stealing alcohol for their own use and profit could now smash down doors and brutalize people to enforce the brand new National Firearms Act,. Stealing guns and using them for their own use and profit, and making deals with gangs as before.

Just as Prohibition created a newly vitalized and powerful organized crime culture, which of course availed itself of the best weapons, so too did it give FDR an excuse to circumvent the second amendment. He pushed for and got the NFA as a backdoor to gun restriction, making the case that all this gun violence is just too much—something must be done. “Why; it’s not a ban– it’s a tax!” The shiny new ATF was originally a part of Treasury. See?

Create a situation of violence and gangsterism (Prohibition) then swoop in and “fix” it with more even authoritarianism. Works like a charm, every time it’s tried.

The authoritarians have since come up with ways to fool us into accepting federal drug laws, this time without a constitutional amendment. So now we’re right back to the 1920s, but the constitution took a hit in the process. Drug money instead of alcohol money, drug gangs paying off law enforcement instead of Al Capone buying cops– drug enforcement excuses for more power and money instead of alcohol as an excuse for more money and power. The equation is exactly the same, only this time it’s far worse. They’ve beat down former constitutional limits, this time it’s far longer lived, it’s still growing, and it’s growing right along with outrageous actions of feds working directly with Mexican drug gangs (Fast & Furious). Meet your new masters– the big, happy family of gangsters, corrupt government officials, corrupt police, corrupt foreign governments controlled by gangs, some of the worst enemies of America, the BATFE which was recently made part of the Justice Department (not even any more pretense of being a tax authority) and whole new agencies with guns, lots of funding, and protection from the President when they get caught with their pants down, all circle-jerking together, and weakening America at every stage.

Meanwhile; the Republicans are still busy, frantically trying to decide on what they should pretend to believe during the next election. You Suckers!


Now was that so hard?  I don’t believe I blamed guns for anything, or said that guns were “responsible”, I acknowledged the existence of the constitution, acknowledged the fact that corruption exists at all levels (though it’s unpopular to even think that cops can be corrupt) I blamed gangsters for their gangster crime, I didn’t use the term “assault weapon” which was fabricated by the anti-gun media and the Clinton administration, I didn’t confuse an assault rifle with a semi auto carbine, and I laid out a brief history of drugs and guns, showing that they have been inseparable since the 1930s, when FDR linked them and made up the BATF as a faux “tax” authority.  This is all one, continuing story, see, on-going for generations– we’re just caught up in it.  It’s louder now, our government is every bit as corrupt as during the 1920s and ’30s if not more so, and it’s bigger and more powerful, but as of this morning we’re still not connecting all the dots.  Now I have to go pick up my kid.


ETA; Here’s the Whittle piece.  Listen to the actual words.

Mid 19th Century Belt-Fed

Posted on by

Well almost– this uses a closed loop chain, but the concept is there.


Joe and I spoke of this concept many years ago, but I didn’t know until today that it had actually been done.  My version, though, would have been gas operated, but that technology wasn’t tested until some time after the end of the percussion era.  Gas operation and black powder wouldn’t go very well together because BP is so dirty, but it certainly can be done.  Energies are quite a bit lower, but you can throw a projectile of several hundred grains well into the super sonic, from a rifle.  The pistols of the same period could only just make, or slightly exceed, the speed of sound with heavy charges.  I’ve gotten 1130ish fps with a 180 grain pill from an 8″ bbl on an 1858 Remington New Model Army revolver replica, which is on par, energy wise, with the 40 S&W.  The huge 1847 Colt’s Dragoon (Walker) revolver could do somewhat better, but the story goes; it was prone to blow up.  Metalurgy has come a long way since then.


Hat Tip; castboolits.gunloads.com (I learned a lot about casting there, and I still hang out on the muzzleloading section now and then)

What, indeed, my friend

Posted on by

A lot of people are thinking the same thing.


But let’s not be too coy about it.  What if Al Capone actually condoned illegal activities in Chicago?  Gosh; that would be shocking, wouldn’t it?  Oh but that would mean…. No; it’s too much to contemplate.


And again, because it isn’t sinking in.  At all;
Saying that the guns were “allowed” into Mexico is a bit like saying that the Reichstag building was “allowed” to burn.  Why; they just stood by and let it happen.  That’s it– there were all these petty arsonists all over the place, setting fires all the time, so all that happened was someone (we don’t know who) turned off the pumper truck.


No, you fools; Obama and Holder longed, they desired, they were frustrated, so they planned, they plotted, they bought the gasoline, they bought the matches, and they lit the fire.  THEN they “allowed” it to burn, see?  You still don’t really know what we’re dealing with?  Do I need to slap someone upside the head?  Can you read the ten-foot high letters on the wall in front of you?  No?  Well then take a few steps back and look again!

Check Your Premises

Posted on by

I thought we knew what we were fighting for, and against.  I thought we were in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.  I thought we understood what a right means and how it works in the world.  Instead, it seems we have Chief Runs-with-a-Premise in charge of setting our narrative (and the fact that it seems we even have a narrative, meaning repetitions of the same fool nonsense over and over, is fairly disturbing in itself).


I thought we had dispelled the left’s highly imaginative premise that says a criminal can’t get a gun (and therefore can’t hurt anyone) unless our “lax” gun laws “allow” criminals to get guns, but it turns out that most of us are embracing that very premise with regard to Fast and Furious, and embracing it with relish.


Posit; You see a video of some jihadists sawing the head off of a captured American.  Is your first reaction; “Well Goddamit, I want to know who made that saw!!!  We must also find out who sold that saw and see to it that they are punished.  Enough is enough!  Enough of these lax saw laws!  The National Saw Association is just as guilty of murder as anyone!”  Really?


No, Young Grasshopper; check your premises.  Please.  It’s not about where the saw came from is it?  Yet that’s the very case you’re making against Obama, Holder and the gang.  You are ceding one of the primary, false premises to the Enemy.  Stop it!


The Mexican drug gangs get their guns any damn where they want to, and they sure don’t need anyone in the U.S. for that.  They will kill one way or another, and they will get their guns one way or another (and our drug Prohibition law will ensure that this never stops– Oh yes, our drug laws, gun laws and gang are inseparable, though you thought this three way, authoritarian-feeding racket was all about “helping people”, reducing crime, or some such blather).


Grasshopper; are you listening?  Snap out of it, Man!


The point is; Our President along with his carefully hand-picked attorney general, the BATFE and the FBI, collaborating with Mexican gangsters, initiated a fraud against the American people.  They initiated and perpetrated a fraud so as to garner support for more infringements on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.


If you want to point out the deaths from infringements on Americans’ gun rights, point to the multitudes who’ve been victimized in gun free zones, or anywhere or any time someone who would have had a gun for defense was prohibited by law from having a gun for defense, and died or was seriously injured or otherwise victimized as a result.  THAT is your body count.


We need look no farther than here;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm
Read those words very, very carefully.  I now doubt that many of you have been paying a lot of real, serious attention.  I believe that you’ve been caught up in the game, or with your blogs and radio show businesses, or something else I don’t know about.


Read.  The.  Words.


Forget about what you feel, or the business aspect, or the silly political game or whatever it is you’re playing, or what you want to see and hear verses what you actually see and hear.  I’ve been seeing a trend among our ranks– a lot of assuming, inferring and…I don’t know what to call it except failing to understand the basics and failing to see and hear what’s being written and said, and I don’t like it.  I don’t want to be everyone’s friend, or accepted in this or that group or whatever, so I can say it– you’re missing the point and it’s sad.


And you Republicans; Why is it so damned difficult to see a crime, CALL IT a crime, and prosecute it as a crime?  Seriously.  Wasn’t that supposed to be your job?  I mean, isn’t the fact that we have downright criminals in high places in our government pretty much an overriding concern?  Get busy, you slackers!  Or do you have too much to hide, yourselves?  Or are you just cowards?  I think we’ve had just about enough of cowards in government, haven’t we?


ETA: It seems the DOJ took down the link, so here are the words, right in your lap;


DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.


For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.


The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Without Comment

Posted on by

Just watch the two videos.

Unauthorized Eating! Oh My!

Posted on by

I went to an FFA meeting a while back.  It was a pot luck banquet.  We all ate food that was prepared by semi annoymous, untrained, untested, unlicensed cooks in multiple households without inspection, using unlicensed, uninspected, unauthorized cooking equipment.  It was served in the open on low tables with no sneeze guards, and in some cases there were no tongs for serving things like hotdogs and hamburger patties.  We were drinking lemonade from an unknown source, dispensed from a communal, uninspected cooler that was being serviced by multiple, untrained, unlicensed kids.  There were no ingredients listed and there was no nutritional information posted.  No one knew for sure whether there were organic or green or union-made or imported or genetically altered foods, whether the various types of not exactly specified meat were “free range” or not and no one gave a flying crap.  It was good food.  Shockingly, no one died, or even got sick from it.  No one wet their pants even.


Better yet, a good time was had by all– There were no parasite/bureaucrats or parasite/government thugs getting in our way, no one was accusing us, no one was groping us and no one was threatening us.  This is how we eat on a regular basis and we will keep it that way.


So yeah; if you don’t like what we’re doing in this neck of the woods, just keep your worthless, less than worthless, pathetic, parasitic, self-serving, batshit insane, power-mad selves out of our way.  I know that it is virtually impossible to reason with you.  To beg people who don’t believe in freedom, asking them for our freedom, is a fool’s erand, and so I have to say that when push comes to shove, there are plenty of people who can shove back as hard as you can shove and who aren’t intimidated.  Just go and bang your head against a wall next time you feel the urge to fuck with someone.  It’s much safer.

Jobs Jobs Jobs (and Governor Butch Otter)

Posted on by

Just in case you’re confused on the subject (and I know that millions of people are); the purpose of a business is not to “provide jobs”.  Not ever.  Don’t even think about it.  Stop talking about it.


The Republican Governor of the State of South Idaho is one of those who are deeply confused.  He instated his “Hire One” program to nudge us into hiring people.  We’re supposed to go to some government web site and see if we “qualify”.  (Ooh!  Do I “Qualify?  Maybe I’m “special”)  Maybe that’s the “jobs program” right there— more state workers to manage the web sites and the “jobs” program implementation, whether or not anyone applies.  To hell with that, Governor Otter.  My business is not a stupid Butch Otter, State Government “jobs” program.


If we really need more help, we (without holding your hand and without being threatened) will hire someone.  That is, unless taxes, requirements, energy prices inflated due to restrictions, red tape and more restrictions get in the way, and unless you stick your nose where it doesn’t belong and use the coercive power of government to favor some businesses or industries at the expense of others– then we’d be expected to come crawling to you for some of that favoritism that only communists and mobsters have the power to dole out to their supporters.  I’ll die first.  I want nothing to do with you.  I have work to do.  You and your fellow communists at all levels are in the way.  Just get the hell out of the way.  Understand?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  You have “interests” to pander to.  You’re a coward at best, and we have no use for cowards.


You’d rather have a government “jobs program” so you can take credit for that which I accomplish in spite of your interference and confiscation.  Have you ever considered a “liberty program” instead of a “jobs program”?  No; I’m sure you haven’t.  Too novel.  It takes too much imagination for some people.  Communist scum don’t think that way, see.  They think instead of how they can meddle, how they can take credit for other people’s work, and live as parasites off of other people’s honest work.


The purpose of business, Little Grasshopper, is to create goods and services, sell them at competitive prices, and thereby make a profit.  See– jobs don’t even figure into it, except that in order to provide our goods and services at competitive prices, we NEED to hire as few people as possible to get it done right.  Otherwise our expenses are too high and we fail.  Get it?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  If you got it, you wouldn’t be talking about “Jobs” AT ALL.  Jobs are what happen naturally when you leave people alone, you ignorant, pathetic, self-serving heap of RINO shit.  Only communists talk about “jobs” in the context of government action.


The rest of us talk about liberty, because we want you off our backs so we can produce, sell, buy, exercise ownership of what we make, and live in peace.  Get it?  No; I’m sure you don’t.  Your actions and your language betray you, Fool.  You don’t belong here— not in the Republican Party and not in America.


We’ll make it real simple;  People either a) work, because they’re free, or they b) don’t work because they’re not free (government’s paying them not to work or the government’s in the way).  “Government jobs program” is therefore something of a contradiction in terms, and the mere fact that we have a Department of Labor is an affront to America.

Our Vice Moron at it Again

Posted on by

Imagine, in just a few years, solar shingles on your brand new custom house (all you high school graduates) that cost no more than regular shingles, that will power everything in your house, heating, AC the whole deal.  Imagine crops that don’t need soil (OK, maybe hydroponics) and no water (oops) and no fertilizer.  Magic crops.  “Literally just around the corner.”


And of course none of that can happen if the eeevil Republicans are in power.  Only more of ‘bama’s stash money can make the magic happen.  The private markets?  Meh.  All that’s done is fail continuously for 200+ years, apparently.  What’s been happening in the last few years– that’s the ticket, Baby.


Now if kids actually learned science, physics, biology or basic economics, they’d laugh that gibbering idiot off the podium.  This is where our Soviet-style education system comes in.  Of course now anyone can look up maximum and average available energy per unit area at their latitude at various times of the year, and the efficiency of the best PV panels, take into account the problem of tracking, or in the case of your magic roof shingles the lack of tracking, and so on.  And naturally, to get the most out of your magic solar roof shingles you’ll have to cut down the trees that shade your house, increasing the AC load.  Or maybe not, being as they’re magic and all.


He had a teleprompter, so I have to assume that he didn’t make that up as he went along.  There had to have been some planning behind it.


The Moron in Chief, to make himself look better by comparison, had pick the stupidest fool he could find I guess, and then put him out there to show the contrast, such as it is.