Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

Posted on by

We brought this action on behalf of the plaintiffs to establish that the state’s restrictions on the possession and carrying of firearms by foster parents is unconstitutional under both the Second and Fourteenth amendments. We’re delighted that the judge will allow our action to go forward because it is important to establish that people do not surrender their Second Amendment rights in order to become foster parents. We’re in court to make sure that the state cannot discriminate against foster parents who merely wish to exercise the rights we’ve restored in Illinois.

Alan M. Gottlieb
SAF founder and Executive Vice President
January 10, 2016
FED. COURT ALLOWS CHALLENGE TO PROCEED AGAINST ILLINOIS FOSTER PARENT RULES
[Illinois prohibits foster parents from possessing firearm. The lawsuit alleges the state is denying the foster parents their civil rights under color of law. I’m almost certain this will mean that if SAF and the parents win then the state will be required to pay SAF and the parents for their legal expenses. I just wish it would also mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt that state officials had violated 18 USC 242.

If you squint at the situation just right you can make the case we should be thanking Illinois for offering us this, almost free, low hanging fruit. It should be a relatively easy case to win and every win we get creates more case law which can then be used as leverage in more difficult to win cases.—Joe]

Another victim disarmament zone tragedy?

Posted on by

Hmm… The BBC reports:

FBI agent George Piro said earlier that the suspect had travelled to Fort Lauderdale specifically to carry out the attack.

Unlike Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and most other states Florida airports are “gun free zones”. So, did the murderer fly all the way from Alaska just to find a place to shoot a bunch of people where they are extremely unlikely to shoot back?

Quote of the day—Larry Correia

Posted on by

Larry Correia
Posted on Facebook January 8, 2016
[At least he knows how many after only a couple seconds of slow blinking.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lauren Bellhouse‏ @lbellho

Posted on by

@amountainpass and seriously, stop trolling me you weirdo gun freak your need for a penis extension is not my issue

Lauren Bellhouse‏ @lbellho
Tweeted on March 19, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via a tweet from Jeff Anderson.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jay Sekulow

Posted on by

This was a fake, false investigation from the outset.

Jay Sekulow
Chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice
Previously U.S. Treasury Department in the Office of Chief Counsel for the IRS
October 13, 2017
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider
[Read the whole thing. Take your blood pressure meds before you start. This is especially true if you have, or have had, a security clearance.

It is understandable though. Think of it from the point of view of FBI Director James Comey or Attorney General Loretta Lynch at that time. Even if you remove the possibility of Arkancide it was going to be difficult for them to charge Clinton without having extremely strong moral character.

It looked like Clinton was a shoe-in to win the election. If they charged her and she still won the country would have a complex, highly emotional, problem to solve. Riots would be likely and property and lives may have been lost. Or, quite likely, Obama would have just pardoned her and she became president anyway. Imagine the career options they would have had with President Clinton as their boss.

If, after being charged, Clinton lost the election Comey and Lynch would have been blamed for the loss. Then they, and probably their children, would have been in fear for their lives from the angry and violent left for a decade or more. The country would have been even more divided than it is now.

So, I can see why Comey might have just decided the best of all the bad options was to let the voters decide and risk letting a known criminal become president. I don’t think I would have chosen that option but it’s hard to say until you are forced to make the decision. And it is entirely possible Comey and/or Lynch could see Arkancide as a high probability event in their futures.—Joe]

They prove themselves unworthy

Posted on by

A thought occurred to me.

All the smartest people* in the nation -nay, the smartest people in the world- said two things over and over in 2016:
A) We plebs need to give more power and control to the government so all the really smart technocrats can make life better, more fair, safer, cleaner, more productive, and nicer for everyone because they were so smart and had all the data; and
B) Trump would never win.

It seems to me that (B) disproves the premise that they are the smartest people in the room, and further is a strong indicator that (A) should never be done because they just demonstrated they are clueless more often than not.

 

* we know they are the smartest people in the world because they tell us constantly.

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

Posted on by

As a general principle, you should assume that any weapon not yet banned by left wing state laws is so merely due to an oversight.

Paul Koning
January 6, 2017
Comment to Quote of the day—Hollis Phelps
[My only quibble is that Koning is limiting this observation to state laws. Left wing local and national governments are always looking for “loopholes” to close as well. It’s all part of the grand scheme where eventually those things which are not banned are mandatory.—Joe]

Violence and the left – pathology and party

Posted on by

Interesting interview by Stefan Molyneux of an academic researcher. Dr. John Paul Wright is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati and the author of “Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course.” More links and discussion at his youtube page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2w23Zc-Zfs

Not a lot we here didn’t already know, but interesting. I like some of his observations about why this sort of connection are not normally the subject of research.

Gun Song- Bang Bang by the Raconteurs

Posted on by

Bang Bang (my baby shot me down).

Other versions by Nancy Sinatra are pretty good, too, if you like the song type.

Or if you prefer Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga. Or maybe Nico Vega.

Dark song, but sometimes guns are used in dark times and for dark things.

Quote of the day—Jim Quinn

Posted on by

Global debt issuance reached a record $6.6 trillion in 2016, with corporations accounting for $3.6 trillion – most of which was used to buy back their stock at all-time highs. What could possibly go wrong? The level of normalcy bias amongst financial “experts”, the intelligentsia, and the common man is breathtaking to behold. We are in the midst of the mother of all bubbles, never witnessed in the history of mankind, and we pretend everything is normal, with no consequences for our reckless disregard for honesty, rational thinking, or simple math.

Jim Quinn
December 31, 2016
A BIASED 2017 FORECAST (PART ONE)
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Don’t blame the front sight

Posted on by

I started noticing this in the 1990s, shortly after getting back into shooting, and it came as a flood after I got into the gun accessory business.

We’d get it over and over and over. People would call in, wanting a sight, or an optic sight dot reticle, that wouldn’t “cover the target”.

My first response soon became, and remains, “If you don’t want your sight covering the target, then stop covering the target with your sight.”

It’s as simple as that. I believe the problem is that it is SO simple, beginners can’t believe it, and expert shooters won’t allow themselves to believe it because important things take time to learn and are complicated.

Some of the most experienced shooters, for whom I otherwise have a great deal of respect, seem unable to grasp the simple concept; YOU choose your sight picture. It isn’t necessarily built-in by the manufacturer. Stop assuming.

Also, give me a front sight, or a reticle, shaped like my shoe, or a Ford F-350 with duals, or Bridget Bardot, and I’ll be able to shoot just as well with it after a little bit of practice, AND since I choose to not cover the target with it, the target won’t be covered.

People have gotten, and no doubt will continue to get, all kinds of pissed off at me for saying this, pleading their case that no, since the post, or reticle, is such and such an angular size, and the target smaller, then the target is covered. Wrong! Don’t make me draw you pictures.

Stop covering the target, and adjust your sights accordingly. Chances are you don’t need new sights, or a smaller dot reticle.

And don’t bother arguing; I very much doubt you can tell me anything I haven’t already heard hundreds of times. I spend a good part of every day talking to shooters from all disciplines ad of all levels of experience.

Quote of the day—Keith McFarland @KeithMcFarland

Posted on by

Some people deserve ironic deaths that disprove everything they lived their lives for.

Keith McFarland @KeithMcFarland
Tweeted on December 31, 2016
[Via email from Paul K.

This was in regards to this:

M. D. Harmon, a conservative columnist who frequently wrote in favor of gun ownership rights for the Portland Press Herald, died this week after being accidentally shot by a teenage boy.

Don’t ever forget that these people want you dead.—Joe]

Doctor Joe’s Cure makes you smarter

Posted on by

Confirmation for Doctor Joe’s Cure for Everything. Indications are that it makes you smarter:

A growing body of research suggests that frequent sexual activity has brain benefits. For instance, a 2010 study on male rats discovered a link between sexual activity and neuron growth. Specifically, rats that were allowed to have sex daily over a two-week period demonstrated more neuron growth than rats that were only allowed to have sex once during that time. Likewise, a 2013 study—which also focused on male rats—found that daily sexual activity was linked not only to generation of more new neurons, but also to enhanced cognitive functioning.

Smaller studies with humans suggest the effect is present in humans as well.

Posted in Sex

Powder storage warnings

Posted on by

Via email from Roger W. we have this from Hodgdon:

Powder Storage in Reloader Hoppers

Powder left in the reloader’s powder measure hoppers for extended periods, overnight or several days, should be avoided. Powder needs to be stored in original containers ONLY, when not in use. Numerous modern smokeless powders are double base in construction, containing both Nitrocellulose and Nitroglycerine.

Roger sent them an email questioned them on this (“Why not leave powder in powder measure hoppers for extended periods?”) and got the following reply:

There are a couple reasons.

Despite warning some people have multiple powders on their bench, they leave the powder in the hopper for long period of times and they forget or think they know which powder is in the hopper, they pour it back into the wrong canister and there will be a problem. this may seem like common sense but we see this happen every week from a phone call or an email.

Some powders that are made today have a very high Nitroglycerin content to them, when left in  powder measures for a period of time the Nitro will seem to eat the plastic. We have seen this with standard hand thrown powder measures and electronic ones that will get ruined.

Powder has a built in moisture content to it. the proper storage of powder is in the canister with the lid shut tight, this will help keep the moisture in the powder. Most likely there would not be a problem with moisture left in a hopper unless the lid is accidently not put back on.

Mike Van Dyke
Customer Service Representative
Hodgdon Powder Company
6430 Vista Drive
Shawnee, Ks. 66218
913-362-9455 Ext. 109

I have plastic powder measures that are yellowed and I attributed it to an interaction with the powder. But I have never seen any that appear to have been eaten. Still, I probably should be more careful about leaving the powder in the measure for extended periods of time.

Quote of the day—Hollis Phelps

Posted on by

We shouldn’t “take them away” from people who currently own them, necessarily. That would likely cause just as many problems. I’m sure there are more than a few disgruntled gun owners out there who would take a ban as an assault on liberty, and act accordingly. We should, rather, phase them out over time, similar to the way in which the CPSC dealt with drop-sides. Allow those who currently own guns to keep them, but ban the future manufacture, sale and resale of guns and ammunition for personal use.

Hollis Phelps
December 4, 2015
The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

“More than a few”? I suggest they put some numbers in their spreadsheet and reevaluate the consequences.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Taylor

Posted on by

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

James Taylor
February 13, 2013
[Via a tweet from Scott Adams.—Joe]

No such thing as “too sweet”

Posted on by

Barb makes an absolutely amazing caramel sauce for special occasions which she puts on ice cream. There was some left over from a couple days ago and she put it on a Rice Krispy treat. She reported, “I think my eyes rolled back in my head”.

Okay, I need to try this:

WP_20170101_14_16_27_Pro

Yup. Those are awesome!

Bullet versus glass

Posted on by

I thought I had posted about this first video before but I can’t find it so I’m going to do it now as a prerequisite for the second video.

Now, see what happens when you shoot the head of a Prince Rupert’s Drop with a .22:

Here is a frame grab:

BulletVersusPrinceRupert

Now, the awesome video of a bullet shattering against a small piece of very special glass:

Jeff K. told me about the video at the match last Saturday. Then this morning gonxau (‏@gonxau) sent me a tweet about it. Thanks guys.

Quote of the day—Alison Wimmer

Posted on by

They are like 2nd graders on the playground. “You cannot play with my ball. You can’t have it.” I hope the secret service does take their guns. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Big guns, oh my! They must be overcompensating for a lack somewhere else, like bravery, self esteem or some part of their anatomy.

Alison Wimmer
March 10, 2016
Facebook comment on Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America page.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Woo hooo! We start the new year with a double cliché score!—Joe]

Reloading report

Posted on by

I enhanced my program which parses my reloading log files. It now reports on a month by month and yearly basis instead of just by caliber.

Here is the result:

 

223 Rounds Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1998: 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 20 0 0 0 0
1999: 1777 0 0 181 578 25 0 0 0 0 140 653 200
2000: 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0
2001: 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016: 397 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 257 0 0
Total: 2424
30.06 Rounds Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1997: 180 0 0 40 20 79 41 0 0 0 0 0 0
1998: 150 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 30
1999: 90 20 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2003: 47 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0
2016: 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 0
Total: 543
300WIN Rounds Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1999: 250 0 0 0 0 0 151 60 0 0 39 0 0
2000: 460 50 120 142 0 57 0 0 0 0 20 60 11
2001: 382 25 0 0 185 15 20 0 73 0 0 0 64
2013: 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 500
Total: 1692
40S&W Rounds Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1997: 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
1998: 11264 570 258 718 1577 1812 1710 402 0 0 1200 900 2117
1999: 2795 0 894 0 299 693 506 0 0 0 0 0 403
2000: 3187 795 0 0 0 0 1095 400 396 0 501 0 0
2001: 2295 0 300 497 300 0 0 1198 0 0 0 0 0
2002: 898 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 0 200 300 0 200
2003: 602 0 300 302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2004: 1345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 600 445 0
2005: 1059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 659 400 0 0
2006: 1000 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 200 400 0
2007: 1136 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 518 300 200 0 0
2008: 2398 0 300 0 0 0 0 900 399 0 200 0 599
2009: 1702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 300 900 400
2010: 1400 0 0 0 0 100 200 700 0 200 0 200 0
2011: 2300 300 0 400 100 0 500 500 200 0 0 0 300
2012: 399 0 200 0 199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014: 530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 530
2015: 7012 1699 1630 1137 0 0 0 547 200 400 100 200 1099
2016: 17792 2197 700 1462 837 1899 1999 1000 1500 1000 1700 1500 1998
Total: 59145
9MM Rounds Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1996: 11274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10944 141 189
1997: 7374 300 0 0 1190 640 65 0 100 1088 804 1060 2127
2015: 2993 0 1066 1927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total: 21641
Grand Total:
85445

I was surprised how many rounds I reloaded in the first month of reloading (9mm, October 1996). That was the most in any single month. I remembered I reloaded quite a few, but I thought it was just enough for the class I was taking. My memory was wrong. I got my STI Eagle, chambered in 40 S&W, in December of 1997. My 9mm reloading stopped until 2015 when I finally got around to using up the bullets I had left.

This year was the most I reloaded in any single year with 397 of .223, 76 of 30.06, and 17,792 of 40 S&W for a total of 18,265 rounds.

This last month I only reloaded 40 S&W. They were mostly 180 grain Montana Gold JHPs for practice at indoor ranges. 200 of the 1998 total were 180 grain Blue Bullets.

The 200 rounds with Blue Bullets were actually 100 bullets I reloaded, and pulled, twice. The first time I misremembered the powder charge and had a third more powder than I planned (4.0 versus 3.0 grains). I pulled the bullets, set the powder charge to the proper amount and reloaded them again. When I weighed the powder charge of the last round I discovered it was only about a third less than what it should be (1.9 versus 3.0 grains). I pulled them again and spent probably 30 minute trying to find out why the powder measure would sometimes put out the proper charge and the the very next charge would be way low. It turns out there was a bullet in the powder measure. Apparently when I pulled the bullets from the first set I accidently dumped a bullet into the powder measure along with the powder. I believe it was blocking the powder dispenser some of the time and giving me erratic charges.

I reloaded those twice pulled bullets this afternoon and everything checked out. I’ve got a good start on the new year.