Category Archives: Freedom

Includes Shoulder Thingy That Goes Up

Posted on by

I haven’t used this gun in a while, so I’ve decided to offer it for sale.


This is the eeeeevil Striker 12, made by Sentinal Arms and sold by Penn Arms.  It has a 12″ barrel and a threaded muzzle with a split shroud-nut/thread protector designed to allow a custom-made, threaded muzzle device if one were inclined to have such a thing made.


It’s a DAO (double action only) twelve shot revolver.  The cylinder is not to be confused with a drum magazine.  It has 12 firing chambers (up to 2 & 3/4″ shells only. you could probably chamber 3″ shells but if you fire them, the rest of your day, and many after, might go poorly).  For some measure of protection from the high velocity gasses that escape the cylinder gap, the cylinder is inside a steel enclosure, which is why it could be confused with a drum magazine.  The Striker’s double action differs from that of most revolvers, in that the cylinder is rotated by a spring and controlled by a simple, beefed-up, clockwork style escapement mechanism rather than by the force of pulling the trigger.  The trigger cocks the enclosed hammer and operates the escapement.  Trigger pull is rather long and heavy.  Even so, it is equipped with a cross-bolt trigger safety behind the triggerguard.


To load; drop in a shell just as with any single action revolver, then press the thumb tab on the back of the boxlock frame to advance the cylinder one chamber, drop in another, repeat until full, then raise the loading gate.  Wind the cylinder by turning the wing nut on the front of the cylinder arbor and you’re ready to go.


You aim it by sighting down the groove in the top strap to pick up the front sight, similar to the 1858 Remington Army revolver.  The cylinder will index clockwise, lowering the loading gate automatically as you pull the trigger back to fire, and then release.  As you pull the trigger again, the first empty is now in position for ejection.  There’s a small, static feature in the back of the barrel, directing gas from the cylinder gap into the just-fired chamber,  which blows the empty out of the gun with no mechanics at all– just gas.  It works swimmingly.  When the last round is fired, you eject the one remaining empty with your off hand using the ejector rod, which is reminiscent of the old West style single action cat-ridge six-shooters.  If the cylinder was wound tight before you started shooting, you still have enough spring energy to load all 12 chambers as indicated above, whereupon you wind it again for shooting.  It will index approximately 27 to 29 times per wind, or thereabouts– I forget.


There is a hole in the top strap that could be threaded for installation of a custom-made optic mount, if you were so inclined.  That, with an Aimpoint Micro or some such, would make for a nice home defense or truck gun, methinks.


You can get 12 rounds off pretty quick, but at a lower rate than from the more conventional autoloader.  After that, it is a bit slower to load, and then you wind it.  If you fail to pull the trigger all the way back, as happens with the uninitiated now and then, or with weaklings, or when you’re squeezing the trigger and then decide not to shoot, you will have indexed the cylinder anyway, skipping one loaded chamber, leaving a loaded shell in that chamber.


This is one of the very few guns that have both a barrel shroud AND a shoulder thingy that goes up (included at no extra charge).


Push a button on the left side of the grip/boxlock frame, and the shoulder thingy goes up, around, and locks into the deployed position.  Unlike an AK underfolder, the buttplate deploys under spring tension– no extra manipulation required.


This (ahem) exquisite, hand assembled fowling piece is truly just like a work of art– simple, cheap, crude, the government has its hands all over it, and no one really understands it though we all pretend to understand anyway because it’s cool.  I bought it as part of a “You Ban it, I Buy it” program I started back in the ’90s.



I’ll take thirteen hundred for it, which, for transferable, functional art is cheap.  NFA rules, blah blah blah, 200 hundred dollar tax, yadda, yadda..  Yes; in their mighty wisdom, benevolence, and dedication to American Principles, the geniuses at F-Troop have declared this 12 gauge, 2.75″ shotgun to be in the same legal category as towed artillery;




If you live here in Idaho I’m told the in-state transfer of artillery or 12 gauge shotguns is easier, or cheaper, or something.  Plus if you’re local, we can take it out and burn some nitro first (fire before you acquire).  Still; fingerprints, photos, background check, CLEO, wait, etc…for the transfer, just so you know who’s owns this country.


It also comes with a nice wooden alto saxophone case (violin cases are so yesterday) with rugged polymer covering and steel draw-latches, into which it fits like they were made for each other, which they were.  I just never got ’round to lining the bottom of the case with velvet.


It is warranted to be in marvelous condition right now.  Though used, it looks nearly new and functions as new.  There are some minor handling marks, but they wouldn’t put off even the most discriminating, upper-crust Striker 12 aficionado.  It won’t break unless you’re stupid.  Original owner’s manual included.

Quote of the day–Adolf Hitler

Posted on by

We are freeing men from the responsibilities of freedom, which only a few men can bear.

Adolf Hitler
[This is attributed to Adolf Hitler by a few people but I am of the opinion that this might be “too good to be true”. I cannot find it in a speech or writing of his. But then my reference materials are limited to English and mostly on the web.

Still it could easily be the slogan of politicians in this country for the last 80 years. The so called “freedom” from want and and “freedom” from fear are the classic examples. The many others which have followed such as the welfare state, government run health care, bans on recreational drugs, and repressive firearms laws are mostly just details of the implementation.

But once the politicians come to the realization some people resist the Utopian vision through their own “selfish desires” and that the ultimate freedom from responsibility is achieved in death we then find ourselves back to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Phelps

Posted on by

At the risk of making you feel a little ookey, I know I’m not the only one with concrete plans for the day I see the “Joe Huffman Arrested” headline.


Phelps
June 17, 2010
Comment to And your point is?
[Great. I’m the canary in the coal mine.


Just keep in mind that this canary knows how to use explosives in the mine.–Joe]

Sausage

Posted on by

It has been said you don’t want to see laws nor sausage being made.

I don’t care much for the final product either.

Yes, I will eat sausage if it is put on my plate but I don’t think I have ever purchased it except when someone else put it on the grocery list.

Laws are a necessary evil. Some are less evil than others. But they all can and are abused by those that enforce them.

Guns laws are particularly evil because they have never been shown to have made the average person safer. Hence, they have all the potential for abuse and none of the necessity.

The potential for abuse is exemplified by a page on the Olympic Arms website where they describe the difficulty in determine whether a firearm was considered a “pre-ban” or “post-ban” “assault weapon” back when that law was in effect:

  • John Q. Public bought himself an AR-15 receiver in 1988 and put it in his
    safe. In April 1997, he decided to build it into a rifle. Was it a gun before
    The Date? No…so he has to build it into a POST-ban firearm.
  • Mary Quite-Contrary buys an AR-15 lower from her dealer who purchased it 7
    years ago, built it into a SAW 2 weeks later, and in January ’94 tore it apart
    to sell as components. Did she buy a pre-ban receiver? Yes. It was a SAW before
    the date, and is therefore pre-ban.
  • Billy Bob finds a respectable dealer at a gun show that is selling “pre-ban
    AR pistol lowers.” The dealer says he bought them before “the Ban” and
    registered them as pistol lowers, but never built them into anything. Are they
    pre-ban? No way. Are they pistol lowers? Sure…just post-ban pistol lowers. As
    long as they don’t have two or more “Deadly Features” when they are built, they
    are legal.
  • Fred Foosball buys a complete semiautomatic assault rifle kit in August
    1994, but doesn’t assemble it until September 14, 1994. Is it a legal pre-ban
    rifle. Yes it had all (and I mean ALL) of the pieces to make a complete SAW on
    The Date. BATF accepts this as a complete pre-ban rifle.
  • Josh the Impaler purchases a Remington 1100 on July 4, 1994 in order to
    celebrate Independence Day. Ax McGuitar purchases a Remington 1100 on July 4,
    1994 for duck hunting that fall. A year later, he decides that he would like a
    pistol grip and folding stock added to make it a better home defense gun. Is
    this legal? No. The shotgun was complete before The Date, but it was not a SAW
    before The Date, and therefore cannot be modified to a SAW after The Date.

It is Huffman’s rule of firearms law in full display.

And your point is?

Posted on by

The Huffington Post is having a PSH attack:

One of the more outlandish was a statement she made during a radio interview
last January in which she floated the idea that the public would bring down an
out-of-control Congress with “Second Amendment remedies.”

…

In an interview she gave with conservative talk show host Bill Manders earlier
in the campaign, Angle conspicuously floated, once again, “Second Amendment
remedies” to deal not just with the supposedly ever-growing “tyrannical” U.S.
government, but to replace her now general election opponent: Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep
and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military.
This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that
Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This
is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…

Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it
might be right now.

Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m
hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will
be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

And what’s the point of the Huffington Post in regards to this? I don’t see what the problem is. I hope we can vote our way out of the current crisis too. But the government starts rounding up dissenters to ship them off to work camps then “Second Amendment remedies” may be the only viable option.

This reminds me of something I heard at the NRA convention. I was told, “Just like Ted (Nugent) was telling me yesterday. You and I won’t have to worry about getting into an armed conflict with the government because they will pick up us on the first pass.” I’m not sure I find that comforting.

Medical pot and gun ownership

Posted on by

I’m a little surprised at how this turned out. I’m pleased but I still have to wonder what the Feds will think of it:

MEDFORD, Ore. — The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that a medical
marijuana patient can have a concealed handgun permit.

The court on Wednesday said Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters had no
grounds to deny the permit sought by Cynthia Willis in 2008.

Winters had argued the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 was the legal basis of
his decision.

The Court of Appeals rejected the sheriff’s arguments and found that Willis
complied with state law in her application.

Portland attorney Leland Berger, who represents Willis and three others who
were denied permits, called the ruling a victory for marijuana cardholders
around the state.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Useful to whom?

The only answer I can see is that such locks are useful to the enemies of freedom.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

History has shown it was not just Present Clinton, it’s now obvious it is Democrats in general, that want to suppress free speech. It just so happens that at this moment the NRA has enough power to resist for a while.

Quote of the day–Andrew Rothman

Posted on by

If there’s an unequivocal opposite to growing up around guns it’s being raised by New York Jews.

I grew up believing guns were bad. That’s what my parents taught me. But they also taught me to read. That was their first mistake.

Andrew Rothman
June 3, 2010
Testing Minnesota’s gun show loophole
[Being able to read isn’t a necessary or sufficient condition to arrive at the conclusion that private firearms ownership is a net benefit to society but it certainly does help.

I agree that ignorance, willful as well as unintentional, are huge problems which enable and create anti-freedom people. But I think reading comprehension and the ability and willingness to determine truth from falsity are the critical items.–Joe]

Dealing with the devil

Posted on by

As you probably already know the NRA made a deal with the devil:

On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives
pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet
certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a
result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in
final consideration of the House bill.

The “certain criteria” are:

  1. The organization must have more than 1 million members
  2. The organization must have been in existence for more than 15 years
  3. The organization must have members in all 50 states
  4. The organization must raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations

Some say this set of criteria can be met by only one organization–the NRA.

There are lots of ways to read this and as good as the NRA is at backroom deals and reading the political winds I still wonder if they got this one right.

If you read things from the NRA point of view in the literal sense it comes out something like this:

The NRA is looking out for the best interests of it’s members and the organization. If the proposed law does not apply to the NRA then the NRA has no business spending political capital on it.

If you read things from the point of view of the devil it comes out something like this:

Get what we can now and we’ll get the rest later. Once it passes those poor souls in Hell will scream so loudly about the NRA exemption that we will collect the souls of the NRA on our next pass through town without any difficulty.

In this scenario the devil wins and goes home with our souls. It may have been delayed for a few months or a year, but the devil wins.

If the NRA is good, really good, they can play with the devil and win the game for everyone without even trying. That goes something like this:

The NRA gets it’s exemption then either with or without some back channel urging by the NRA the exemption stirs up such a storm that the entire bill becomes impossibly toxic with or without the exemption.

I know the NRA is good. But are they good enough to take a 1000 yard shot with the proper windage such that the political winds push the bullet into the X-ring once it has left the barrel?

I hope the NRA knows what they are doing because they are playing a game where (mixing my metaphors because there has been a Charlie Daniels earworm of The Devil Went Down to Georgia going on for the last twenty minutes) the devil deals the cards. And it’s more than just a fiddle of gold against a soul at stake.

Your Safety and the Rights of People You Hate

Posted on by

This started as a comment to this post of Joe’s, but Joe has told me not to bury so much in comments.


Getting to basics; rights (or equal rights) have a long history of being extremely unpopular.  The American Founders knew this. They knew our rights would be constantly under attack, and tried as they could to protect them.


I spent some time, during the Cold War, listening to Radio Moscow, Radio Havana, and several other English broadcasts from not-so-friendly countries.  These programs were aimed at Americans, and attempted to malign, impugn, and smear the capitalist, libertarian ideals upon which the U.S. is founded.  The people they had as speakers were extremely good at sounding like your favorite, American-born uncle.  Very nice, well spoken, friendly, and (drum roll) they sounded exactly like today’s more reasonable sounding pundits of the American Left.


The posted quote instantly reminded me of listening to Radio Moscow back in the day, except that it is much more vitriolic than the Soviet broadcasts.


Yes; the protection of rights makes many more things possible, however, a potentiality is not actuality.  One of those things made possible by rights protection is a prosperous, dynamic society in which people can live their lives and pursue their dreams without looking over their shoulders all the time wondering when and why they might get arrested, fined, audited, stopped at a checkpoint, harassed with no recourse, et al.  Without rights protection, that vibrant society is impossible, mainly because doing less makes you safer from the above harassment, doing more makes you a target, and doing far more, and being good at it makes you the target…at some point Atlas shrugs.


As for the safety that the left pretends it wants to force on all of us;
Just as a matter of general practicality, are you safer with your rights protected, or without?  “Safe from what” would be the next question, or “from whom”?  As we’re discussing “safety” in the public arena, keep in mind the question of whether your and your neighbor’s rights are safe.


Human rights protection means that, no matter who you are, a lot of people are going to be doing a things that you absolutely hate, but are perfectly legal anyway.  A lot of other people are going to hate what you’re doing too, but they won’t be able to stop you without committing a crime of some sort.  That’s what it means, People.  It means all the good things that go along with liberty, but it also means you have to actually be tolerant, along with being tolerated, and not just talk about tolerance to make yourself look good in public forums.


Try this mind experiment, next time you see or think of someone or some activity that you hate, or that someone else hates.  Ask yourself; “who’s rights are they violating, or trying to violate?”  That’s a very clarifying and even liberating question.  If the answer is “no one’s” then move along.  Nothing to see there.  It’s time to dig in and start minding your own business, and hopefully you’ll have the freedom to mind your own business without someone trying to mind it for you.


ETA; I was once in a very long debate with my communist brother-in-law.  He was reciting the litany [as he saw it] of horrible, evil things that Wal Mart [a big target because they do so much so well] had done over the years.  When I asked that magic question; “Who’s rights are they violating?” he shut right the hell up.  In his mind I was just “tricking” him with clever rhetoric, but in fact he had never considered rights in his extensive evaluations of Wal Mart [or, presumably, in most other areas of consideration].  Again, I blame education [or what used to be referred to as Soviet propaganda] for the mass ignorance with regard to America’s Promise.

Quote of the day–Charlton Heston

Posted on by

A war put off is not a war avoided.

Charlton Heston
[I don’t know the context of when this was said but it probably wasn’t meant to be the one I am thinking of.

For decades there have been gun owners who were willing to “give them what they wanted” so they could keep their hunting rifles or shotguns or some other firearm not currently under attack by the bigots. Every concession with the enemies of freedom emboldened them. Every inch of territory they owned gave them more legitimacy. Just look at California, Chicago, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York City, and Washington D.C.

How many lives have been lost or ruined with the rampant crime enabled by disarming those victims? And the enablers make no effort to hide the fact they are nothing but petty tyrants ready to shoot those that question their decisions. They should have been slapped down 70+ years ago and countless lives, billions of dollars, and millions of man hours could have been saved.

I understand that sometimes you have to retreat and give them a
little ground so that you don’t lose the entire war but we must do our best to prepare the
ground so that reclaiming it will be easier when we return with
greater forces. With the “assault weapon” ban of 1994 we did just that.
Our side insisted the legislation include funding on studies of the effectiveness of the ban and an expiration date. Both of those helped reclaim the territory in later years.

The battle over NFA34 was lost without much resistance put up by gun owners and gun organizations. We were completely unprepared–condition white.

With the political climate of 1968 the battle was tough, our preparedness was pathetic, and we lost. We must remember these losses and never let ourselves be unprepared. We now have the initiative and we should not drop it. The battle in the courts will last decades just as the battle in the legislatures has lasted decades.

But always remember putting off the battle does not mean that it is avoided. It may require a strategic and temporary retreat but just as there is no compromise between someone intent on raping or killing you there is no compromising with the enemies of liberty.–Joe]

It Bears Repeating

Posted on by

A kind, compassionate, thoughtful, responsible, caring member of Congress, looking out for the rights of “the little guy” interacts with his beloved constituents;





Is it an isolated incident, or part of a culture that has metastasized throughout the halls of American government?  Little do we know that often we are actors in a grand play, the script being many thousands of years old.


All the guy had to do was answer the question; “Well, he is our president, but I can’t imagine I would “totally” support any administration.  That’s a bit of a stretch, son.  Now if you’ll excuse me…”


“Course then, the kid might have asked; “You don’t totally support Obama?  So you hate black people then, right?  You just can’t stand the thought of a black man in the Whitehouse?”  That’s probably what our good Congressweasel feared.


At a little over 400 thousand views on Youtube, last I checked, I figure it’s not near enough.


HT to Say Uncle and Snarkybites

This should be a clue

Posted on by

Someone is asking:

Where can I find “positive” ATF videos?

…

Raw or not, “positive” videos seem nearly impossible to find for the ATF (and even for FEMA,
for that matter).

You have to have positive acts by the ATF before you can have positive videos of it.

Quote of the day–Sheriff Richard I. Mack

Posted on by

Any right or freedom not worth fighting for is but a temporary privilege.

Sheriff Richard I. Mack
From My Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), page 212.
[Not only must it be worth fighting for but people must actually go out and do the fighting and voting.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Theodore Haas

Posted on by

Their ignorance is pitiful — their lives have been too easy. Had they
experienced Dachau, they would have a better idea of how precious freedom is.
These leftist should leave America. These Sarah Brady types must be educated to
understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not
yet happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than
street criminals or foreign spies.

Theodore Haas
Full Interview with Holocaust Survivor, Theodore Haas

[I was reminded of this quote by The Brady Campaign connection with anti-Semite Helen Thomas.–Joe]

Only 300?

Posted on by

I have conflicting data.

On one hand I have data points like this blog post and military officers who have privately told me that 20 well trained and disciplined men could completely change the political make up of this country. They make plausible arguments and I have only one data point to counter that claim.

If it only takes 300 (or 20) then why hasn’t Osama bin Laden (or the Weathermen, or whoever) deployed the 300 and done so? Is it that hard to find that many well trained and disciplined men? Or is it that those groups lack the motivation? Or is it that those claims are wrong. Just what is it?

The two data points are at odds with each other.

Quote of the day–Ronald Reagan

Posted on by

Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong.


Ronald Reagan
[This afternoon on my way back to my hidden underground bunker in the Seattle area I listened to A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell.  Kevin gives a more complete review than I would ever consider but one thing in the book jumped out at me that reminded me of this Reagan quote. In the unconstrained vision nations enter into war because of misunderstandings many of which are because one side or both became convinced that their neighbor was preparing to go to war against them. Hence, in the eyes of those who adhere to the unconstrained vision, one of the ways to prevent war is to disarm.


As Kevin points out those of the unconstrained persuasion are as much or more interested in intent than in hard data. Does that remind you of any politicians you know?


In the unconstrained vision the definitions of the most basic words have different meanings from those of a constrained vision viewpoint. Some definitions are not merely different–they are the complete opposite (for example see the video I linked to here). This is why, for them, “freedom” and/or “economic justice” can entail forced redistribution of wealth without a hint of irony.


For them, criminals can be understood and reformed. It was the fault of society/poverty/”economic-injustice” which creates criminals and by fixing those problems and taking away the tools of their trade there will be less (or zero) crime. As an example just last month Paul Helmke said gun violence is one component of the total violence. This, of course, presumes that violent crime committed with firearms is totally independent of other types of violent crime. It assumes there will be no substitution of other weapons if firearms are less available (and with the victims disarmed firearms are less likely to be needed by large predators). In their minds people like Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, and Richard Kuklinski (now there was one scary SOB–Ted Bundy was a pussy cat compared to him) apparently would not come into being.


That line of thought brought me to gun control and back to Reagan’s quote. What Reagan said in regards to war also applies to gun ownership and criminals. No violent criminal or political tyrant committed his crimes because his victims were too strong.–Joe]

As it should be

Posted on by

According to GunPolicy.org in the U.S. there are about 270 million guns in private hands, about 3 million under military control, and about 900 thousand owned by the police.


I find the ratio of 69:1 appropriate odds.


Public servants should keep this in mind if they entertain thoughts of changing the relationship.

Quote of the day–Thucydides

Posted on by

The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.


Thucydides
[When I was young I thought of people who entered the military as not smart enough to get a real job. This was based on a very limited sample of my classmates who joined the military. In the last couple of decades I revised my opinion as I met veterans who were incredibly smart and I read books about and by military people who were great thinkers as well as great warriors.


But I think there is a large segment of our society that does make a great distinction between scholars and warriors and thinks people who join the military are dullards.


I have yet to be convinced that the supposed scholars of our nation are not both cowards and fools.–Joe]