Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

No one in mass media is talking about murder and murderers. Watch. They’re only talking about shooting and shooters. By itself, shooters and shooting is not anything bad—and they know that. Being a shooter and shooting is what good Americans do all the time.

Murder is ugly, too ugly to bear. Murderers are horrible, to be rejected outright by society. No glory in being a murderer. Especially no prize for being a mass murderer. So the media avoids it, and in their conspicuous campaign against private arms, they avoid dealing with the murder angle.

The media are leading the nation down a path of perdition, turning shooters and shooting—people and activities with wonderful, excellent attributes—into targets for fear, loathing and legislative assault. And they’re good at it.

Alan Korwin
February 26, 2018
The Problem Isn’t the Shootings. It’s the murders.
[Interesting point.—Joe]

Quote of the day—K. Sennholz MD‏ @MtnMD

Posted on by

Your children will be tormented every day of their adult life, because of the evil you spread. They will be called vicious names everywhere and will have to change their names because of the SHAME you brought upon them. This is just a fact.

K. Sennholz MD‏ @MtnMD
Tweeted on June 11, 2018
[This was in response to the following Tweet from Dana Loesch‏ @DLoesch regarding the money the NRA received from Russia:

$2,500 over a three year period in expat dues and magazine subscriptions can totally buy an election but $145m paid to the Clinton Foundation after the Uranium One (and $500k for Bill’s speech) sale cannot, apparently. #AntiGunLogic #ButMuhRussia

This is what they think of you.

These people have mental health issues. Never believe that they can be bargained with. Never believe that you can have a rational discussion with someone like this. Never believe they wouldn’t celebrate the creation of death camps for gun owners.

And most importantly you should never register or willingly give up your guns.—Joe]

Another ASI match

Posted on by

Last Saturday Ry and I went to an ASI match at the Renton Fish and Game Club. This was my third and Ry’s first match of this type. We were not happy with a few safety issues that happened with our RSO officers. There was no one in real danger but some rules were broken and contrary to every other match I have been to they blew me off (in a friendly manner) when I gently pointed out one of them.

The match itself was good. The stages were interesting enough yet simple such that beginners wouldn’t have a problem with them. I came in 10th out of 65. If I hadn’t just barely nicked a no shoot target I would have came in 6th. And it annoys me they assigned the penalty as a procedural on a different stage (no difference in my final score). And they also misspelled my name. But that’s minor stuff.

I wouldn’t bothered with making a video but I had invited my team at work to watch and/or participate at the match and Caity told me that she and Kelsey were going to some sort of women’s conference. I joked that the match would be more fun. She joked back that she would take pictures and we could compare on Monday. So… I had to make a video:

Shooter POV Action Shooting International Match from Joe Huffman on Vimeo.

Caity took one boring picture. I won.

Quote of the day—Bob Cunningham

Posted on by

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

In that one paragraph, Scalia kills any argument that individuals have the right to carry weapons similar to those used in the military. Not only does he address military-style weapons, he anticipates the argument that every “pro-gun” advocate makes in declaring the militia equivalent to the military, and rips its heart out.

Bob Cunningham
June 12, 2018
Why There Is No Constitutional Argument Against Gun Control
[Interesting.

Reality is extremely difficult thing to observe and you don’t have to go to the subatomic or cosmic scales to be convinced of that. Here, Cunningham and I can read the same exact words, written by an experienced writer, and arrive at completely different unambiguous conclusions.

I wonder what color the sky is in his universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Don Brown

Posted on by

Frigus manus a mortuis

Don Brown
June 10, 2018
Comment to Group approves wording for proposed gun control measure in Oregon
[I suspected what this might mean, but I had to get it translated to make sure.

I’m not particularly fond of this sentiment in its original form but saying it in Latin gives it a bit of new life. I have been using a reversal of this phrase (see the third paragraph) for more than a decade now and think it is far more appropriate.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mr. Drew for 2018‏ @nofaith313

Posted on by

Jesus you really need to get over your little penis.

Mr. Drew for 2018‏ @nofaith313
Tweeted on June 9, 2018 in response to:

[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

For some reason they always find ways to amaze me in their ability to change the subject into their obsession with penis size.—Joe[

Quote of the day—Oleg Volk

Posted on by

In going after rifles, prohibitionists are more concerned about politically significant firepower than they are about crime. The authoritarians aren’t comfortable with constituents who don’t need state services, however unwanted those “services” may be. This is why shotguns with short effective range remained legal in many countries where rifles were banned from private ownership.

Oleg Volk
February 26, 2018
Rifles as canaries in the coal mine.
[I interpret “politically significant firepower” as meaning significant firepower to affect the balance of power between the state and the people.

This is a profound point. By attacking the ownership of rifles, involved in a such a small portion of the violent crime, anti-gun people are admitting it is not crime they are interested in reducing. It must be something else which motivates this action. The obvious answer is they want people less able to resist a powerful government.

Let that sink in for a while and then take the appropriate action.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Krauthammer

Posted on by

This is the final verdict. My fight is over.

Charles Krauthammer
June 8, 2018
A note to readers
[Krauthammer is no friend of gun owners. I’m glad he is out of our fight.

May his passing be as comfortable as is practical and may his family and friends have a chance to say their goodbyes and cherish their memories of him.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alex Yablon

Posted on by

If people own guns to defend themselves against situations like home invasions, they are likely to want them easily accessible and ready to shoot when the unthinkable happens. If the weapons are stored in a safe, separate from ammuntion [sic], that could be marginally more difficult.

Alex Yablon
June 4, 2018
A Gun Owner Explains Why He Leaves His Pistol Loaded and Unsecured
[“…marginally more difficult”?

When seconds matter your gun and ammunition are only minutes away from being useful.

Deliberate dismissive wording and/or crap for brains? You decide.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Robb

Posted on by

These networks don’t rely on government bureaucracies to coerce people.   They coerce bureaucracies.

Moreover, they are more effective than bureaucracies in the elements of power that matter.

They are capable of spying on more people than the East German secret police and they can stifle free speech without recourse to a gulag. 

They don’t have any need for state produced propaganda or the media to control the narrative.  They can produce a blinding blizzard of spin that can overwhelm official narratives.

John Robb
May 24, 2018
21st Century Authoritarianism
[There seems to be a fair amount of support for this hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bear

Posted on by

I plan to hunker down with several pounds of popcorn and defensive tools and enjoy “The Statist-Hunting Show.”

Bear
April 9, 2018
Remedial Practical Civics 100, Lesson 4: “A hunting we will go!”
[I wouldn’t argue with that.—Joe]

I found another one

Posted on by

A little over three years ago I reported that I found a Winchester primer without a anvil. I found another one today. The primer on the left is normal. The one on the right is missing the anvil:

IMG_9718Cropped

I searched through my log files for all the rounds I have reloaded with WSP (Winchester Small Pistol) primers. I have reloaded 62,719 of them and found two missing anvils. While rare it does seem like a more frequent event that I would have expected.

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Posted on by

The Associated Press and MTV, for example, teamed up this year to measure the “Youth Political Pulse,” with surveys conducted from late February to early March (when the news cycle was focused on the terrible crime at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School) and again from late April to early May. Between the survey periods, the percentage of respondents aged 15 to 34 who identified firearm-related issues as their highest concern for the country fell 15 points, from 21% to 6%. During the earlier survey period, the gun issue was the highest concern. In the latter period, it was tied for the sixth most common response, behind the economy, social inequality, and even threat of nuclear war.

NRA-ILA
June 1, 2018
Bedrock American Values Prove Stubbornly Resistant to Gun Control Opportunism
[The take away I have from this is to not get discouraged. Keep up the fight. Wear your gun logo clothing in public. Keep taking new shooters to the range. Keep sending money to gun rights organizations. Keep sending letters to your legislators.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bond_543

Posted on by

good and evil denotes an ability to consciously choose.

guns cant be evil. its about as rational as saying rolling pins are promiscuous.

Bond_543
June 1, 2018
Forum post
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Lott

Posted on by

Gun control advocates are used to getting their way without having to address the stronger arguments made against their proposals. That doesn’t create a productive dialogue, and it doesn’t help us figure out what laws will actually save the most lives.

John Lott
June 1, 2018
Little evidence to support the efficacy of more gun control
[It is quite clear to me that a large number of gun control advocates aren’t interested in saving lives. They are interested in “poking a stick in gun owner’s eyes” and/or enabling criminals. These criminals vary from individuals to a tyrannical government). Hence, to address your arguments in terms of “saving lives” is totally missing the point.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jenna Grayson

Posted on by

Deerfield residents have until June 13, when the ordinance goes into effect, to turn in their assault weapons and banned accessories to the village. Anyone found to have violated the ordinance will receive a daily fine between $250-$999 for each offense.

Jenna Grayson
June 1, 2018
How LHS Students Feel About the Deerfield Assault Weapon Ban
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Rounds in the last month

Posted on by

In May I didn’t start reloading until the 15th. Boomershoot recovery contributed to the late start. As did another trip to Idaho to replace some Wi-Fi equipment at the Boomershoot shooting line, Boomershoot inventory, and cleaning up things at Mecca.

My supply of practice .40 S&W ammo got to emergency levels with as little as 200 rounds at one point. I reloaded 1499 rounds in May and even with using the .22 for much of my practice I still consider my practice .40 S&W ammo to be at critical levels. I’m hoping to catch up soon.

This brings my lifetime reloaded ammunition totals to:

223: 4,813 rounds.
30.06: 756 rounds.
300 WIN: 1,591 rounds.
40 S&W: 82,507 rounds.
45 ACP: 2,007 rounds.
9 mm: 21,641 rounds.
Total: 113,315 rounds.

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

Posted on by

Greater safety, according to the VRG, lies in insuring that criminals can count on finding easy victims. The law should help satisfy criminals need for easy victims by preventing the law-abiding from defending themselves with guns, so that criminals know that they can victimize us with as little violence as possible.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards page 104
[“VRG” is Violence Research Group at the University of Maryland. Snyder is referring to a study they published in March 1995. It was funded by the CDC and titled, “Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effect Homicide in Three States.”

And, as Snyder points out, they start lying in the title. The study examines the homicide rates in five cities, in three different states.

As, is usual, anti-gun people find reasons to make violent criminals lives easier.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Over the weekend Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety was quick to push its gun control agenda, and the Alliance for Gun Responsibility was asking for donations to ‘take a stand…against the gun lobby.’ When was the last time either of these groups demanded swift justice and certainty of punishment for the actual perpetrators?

Time after time, with endless fund raising appeals and inflammatory rhetoric, we’ve seen these anti-rights lobbying groups immediately try to shift blame to the NRA, or the Second Amendment, or the firearms industry, or some mythical loophole in the law. But they never seem to point their fingers at the culprit, and we think it’s time for the American public to ask why?

By diverting public attention away from killers and toward law-abiding citizens who had nothing to do with the crime these lobbying groups have created a very strong impression that they’re not really interested in punishing criminals, but only in penalizing honest firearms owners for crimes they didn’t commit.

Time and again we’ve heard these groups demand a national dialogue on guns. But how do you have a rational discussion with people or groups that repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys?

They are so preoccupied with demonizing gun owners and eroding the Second Amendment that they have either lost sight of the goal of taking dangerous or deranged criminals off the street, or that was never their intention in the first place. If all they can do is blame innocent citizens while diverting attention from murderous monsters, then it is time to ask these people just whose side they are on.

Alan Gottlieb
May 21, 2018
HOW COME THEY NEVER BLAME THE MURDERER, CCRKBA WONDERS
[It would seem the last question proposed was rhetorical.

We have known, as does Gottlieb, for a long time they are on the side of criminals. They are natural allies in the destruction of our way of life.—Joe]

Democrats can’t get their message out

Posted on by

Interesting perspective:

Democrats looking to make good in November have a hard row to hoe, what with a booming economy, low unemployment, rising paychecks, and President Trump’s increasing foreign policy successes. They might get a foothold with the far left if they could talk about free college tuition, gun control, or opening U.S. borders, but they cannot get a word in edgewise with the media. They are only talking about on one thing: Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia.

It’s true that I have heard even less substance than usual from the Democrats. And what does come out seems to be random crazy talk.

After the November 2016 election the media cranked the crazy up to 11 and it still hasn’t come back down a year and a half later. But is the media really preventing a Democrat message getting through? Or is it that the entire political left is, in some sort of late stage insanity, frothing at the mouth and howling at the moon with Trump poking them with a virtual stick?