AK owned by Say Uncle, scope mount by UltiMAK, modeled by Melody of Anarchangel.

Taken during the Gun Blogger’s Rendezvous October 7, 2006 at the Palomino Valley Gun Club.

We accuse the leftist, feels-good types of reinforcing each other but now I understand why they do it. Wow! What a rush, what pleasure it is to be talking to all these articulate, smart, gun people who get pissed about the same sort of nonsense from the illogical, arrogant, elitists that want to take our guns away. Do recreational drugs make you feel this good? I wouldn’t know. I’ve never used drugs recreationally.

I only got about four hours of sleep last night and I’m still wired from talking to these guys even though I said goodnight a couple hours ago.

When I finally made it to the hospitality room most everyone was gone to supper. There was just Mr. Completely and two other guys there. I’d met Mr. C. before but didn’t recognize the other two. My Boomershoot t-shirt gave me away to them and Mr. C introduced me to Kevin Baker from the The Smallest Minority, and from Say Uncle. The two bloggers I most wanted to meet. This is so cool!

A little while later Cam Edwards shows up and is introduced. Now, I know who Cam is. I even recognized him when he walked in. But… I’ve only glanced at his blog. I was so embarrassed when he said he reads my blog all the time.

I pried myself away from the rest of the group long enough to have dinner (I basically hadn’t had breakfast or lunch, just snacking on trail mix since I got on the plane) with Chris and Melody Byrne (Archangel) and a friend (sorry forgot his name) they brought.  Melody and the friend were rather quiet but Chris and I had lots of fun talking about explosives (he played with them a lot while in the military) and about being fired by anti-gun bigots and by Muslims that didn’t like his participation with Team Infidel (do a search for “Team Infidel” on this page).

I reluctantly said good night when everyone else started talking about how late it was and drifted off toward the elevators.

Tomorrow we go to the range. I wish I had looked up the range website before I left Idaho. I would have brought a different rifle. They have a 1000 yard range here!

So we were sitting at the table in the hospitality room here at Circus Circus talking about small backup guns and someone mentioned how a visitor to his blog got all bent out of shape because of disparaging remarks about the .25 auto. I went looking with my cell phone web browser for what Jeff Cooper had to say about the .25, which is how I would handle someone defending the .25 as a defensive tool. I found the quotes but the moment had passed. Here they are–better late than never I guess:

We hear of an unfortunate woman who, during an nighttime asthma attack, confused the small handgun she kept under her pillow with an asthma inhaler and proceeded to relieve her symptoms. It was not a fatal mistake, partly because she used a 25 ACP, which everyone knows is not sufficient to clear sinuses.

From John B. Hubbard of Bangor, Maine 
   
Jeff Cooper
Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 2, No. 2
31 January 1994

Our old buddy Gene Harshbarger from Guatemala reports a recent episode with the 25 ACP pistol cartridge. It seems that Gene’s cousin was set upon by a trio of car thieves who shot him once almost dead center with that dinky little pistol. The bullet entered at a very flat angle, however, proceeded laterally just inside the pectoral muscle, and exited after about 5 inches of traverse, continuing on into the target’s left arm.

The cousin hit the deck and started shooting back, whereupon the assailants split. When he stood up the bullet slid out of his left sleeve and bounced on the pavement. It penetrated the jacket, but not the skin of his left arm.

As we used to teach in the spook business, carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it you may shoot it. If you shoot it you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody – and he finds out about it – he may be very angry with you.

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 4, No. 14
December 1996

In looking for Cooper’s advice I also found Ayoobs:

A .25 is a nice thing to have when you’re not carrying a gun.

 Massad F. Ayoob
 On the use of .25 caliber handgun.
 In the Gravest Extreme
 End of chapter 14
 ISBN 0-936297-001

Phil at Random Nuclear Strikes asks Ken Schram, Seattle liberal talk show host, Just One Question.

He probably won’t get an answer, but it might make a few gears grind for a minute or two.

I don’t think some people believe me when I tell them the hoplophobes frequently appear to believe that guns have free will. Here is more evidence of the truth of my claim:

No one will rise up to defend a man who walks into an Amish school, lines young girls up against a blackboard, ties up their feet, and then kills them before killing himself. But a surprising number of people will inevitably rise up to defend his guns, to call the man guilty but his weapons innocent.

…

There are no simple solutions to this conflict. It is neither possible nor tolerable to secure every school or guard every child. Nor is it possible or politically tolerable to keep tabs on every gun. But in these killings we see an open society threatened by the ubiquity of its weapons, in which one kind of freedom is allowed to trump all others. Most gun owners are respectable, law-abiding citizens. But that is no reason to acquit the guns.

Call the weapons innocent? “Acquit the guns”? Someone should commit these lunatics. They have mental problems.

The Utah Supreme court:

In the decision, the court ruled a University of Utah policy prohibiting students, faculty and staff from carrying weapons on campus violated Utah’s Uniform Firearms Act. The law, enacted in 2004, prevents any state entity from creating a rule which in “any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property,” according to the ruling.

So what are the schools doing?

Paul Murphy, spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, said the policies at both Weber State and USU raise legal concerns in light of the court’s recent ruling.

“Right now, the law is very clear that only the legislature can make laws concerning firearms,” Murphy said. “And if they [state schools] are out of sync with that, they will have to make changes.”

So far, however, USU and Weber State have no plans to permanently change their gun policies.

“I haven’t heard anything on our campus about making a change to this policy [prohibiting firearms],” said Travis Hampshire, a human resources generalist at Weber State. “I imagine if this was brought up to the president, they would look into it.”

“Look into it”? Yeah, right. They are going to do their best to ignore it and if necessary fight it every inch of the way. It’s just like 50 years ago with signs that said “no colored people allowed”. These bigots are defying the law, denying people their inalienable rights, and should be prosecuted, fined, and jailed under 18 USC 242.

For those of you who think Second Amendment cases can’t be won in court don’t forget that the U.S. Attorney Generals office has commented on the Second Amendment. They concluded:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment’s operative clause, setting out a “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution’s structure. The Amendment’s prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England’s Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment’s ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

Of course we can’t “take this to bank” but in the right circumstances it can be very useful to help “cash in” on the overconfidence of the anti-gun bigots. Look around for an appropriate application.