Shiny

Posted on by

I recently purchased some Hornady One Shot Sonic Clean Solution (currently on clearance at Midway USA). This is only for cleaning brass, not gun parts in general.

I put a bunch of dirty, deprimed, brass in the sonic cleaner with the solution diluted 40:1 with water and let it run for 30 minutes while stirring every six minutes or so. The result is quite pleasing:

WP_20131128_001

The interior of the brass and even the primer pockets are shiny clean. This is faster than using the tumbler with corncob media and gets the interior clean as well as the exterior.

Quote of the day—Ed Koch

Posted on by

When Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.

Ed Koch
Former New York City Mayor
January 13, 2013
Ex-NYC mayor: Ban all guns
[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.—Joe]

Epson MX-80 dot matrix printer

Posted on by

I bought this printer when I got my first computer in May of 1984. It’s nearly the identical age as my son James. And, appropriately, I stored it in James’ closet for many years before he moved out. From my discussion with him last night that was a bit of a sore point with him over the years. He told me he frequently uses the story about the printer in his closet of an example of me being a packrat or something. I’m not sure why he would think it is evidence of that but whatever.

As I was unpacking in my new Clock Tower residence I came to the printer and decided it was time for it to go to the great recycling pile in the sky. But it was painful. It still looks to be in pretty good shape. Barb L. offered to try selling it for me which eased the pain some.

She has a bid of $50 for it! Amazing.

EpsonPrinter

Ammo by the pound

Posted on by

This could be a good deal for a lot of uses. Ammo by the pound. Think of this as “shelf sweepings”.

“Black Friday” only and the limited quantities will disappear fast.

Via email from Eric the AmmoMan, who said in part:

we’re doing something kind of cool for Friday related to loose-pack ammo— lots of it. Basically, we’ve sorted out any rounds where the boxes have been damaged so we’ll have ammo for dirt-cheap (For example – 2100 rounds of .22 delivered in an ammo can for $99).

You can see all the details and calibers we’ll have in stock here:

http://www.ammoman.com/ammo-by-the-pound

If you think it’s worth sharing, the ammo will be put “in-stock” on Friday morning at midnight.  We’re limiting each caliber to one per customer since it is kind of a unique deal and we want to help as many shooters as possible.

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

President Obama really has a way with words, such as calling the problems that millions of people have had trying to sign up for ObamaCare “glitches.” When the Titanic sank, was that a “glitch”?

Thomas Sowell
November 26, 2013
Random Thoughts
[The government has said the website will be fixed by December 1, just four days from now. That will not be the case. The keel of that ship is broken and it’s headed for the bottom of the ocean. As I have been privately telling Barb L. they did not build the web site with security in mind. They tried to put security in as an afterthought.

Security as an afterthought is like attempting to put brakes on a car after it has been purchased. You end up with solutions like throwing a boat anchor out a window and holding on to the rope really tight. When it fails they put gloves in the car and tell you to use them when holding the rope.—Joe]

Ignorance and bias

Posted on by

The headline is “Police find 5 guns, large ammo stash in George Zimmerman’s home.” The text of the article says, “police found five guns and more than 100 rounds of ammunition in the house.”

“Large ammo stash”?

When I buy either components for reloading ammo or completed ammo I consider 100 “sample size”. When reloading, unless I’m doing load development, the smallest batch of anything is 100.

100 rounds isn’t enough for an ordinary morning pistol match. When at a match I carry close to that many (typically about 85) rounds in the magazines on my belt. I could easily burn through that in a two minutes of practice. A single ammo can holds about 1000 rounds of .40 S&W and I have several cans in my gun room. A year ago I bought 4000 rounds of .22 LR (yeah, great timing!) which I could probably have stored in my coat pockets.

If I’m down to 100 units of any type of ammo I consider that “out” and time to restock.

Ignorance or bias by the reporter? Ignorance and bias?

What’s wrong with this statement?

Posted on by

This is from a Second Amendment Foundation e-mail;
“With a track record like Barack Obama has on health care, we don’t want the president getting involved in gun care or firearms safety.”

Anyone?

If your IMMEDIATE reaction wasn’t something along the lines of; “Wait! The president’s track record is irrelevant. The second amendment (and more importantly the ideal of liberty) prohibits politicians getting involved in such things” then you have some reflectin’ to do.

What the statement implies, whether its originators know it or not, is that the “right” president would be more than welcome to tell us how to do things, pushing us around, meddling with our lives using intimidation and coercion as though humans were no better than livestock.

There is no “right person” (or group of people), regardless of their track record, who can properly use coercion, wielding the Ring of Power so to speak.

I donate regularly to the SAF, and they do a lot of good work, but that statement is just sad. Plus it is simply wrong on its face– If you understand the meaning of the word “We”, then yes, certainly; “We” DOES want Obama in charge of our guns.

It depends on how I feel

Posted on by

Yesterday I posted some screen clippings of Tweets by @lougagliardi. Today I received these Tweets directed at me from them:

.@JoeHuffman hates free speech. He hates people that disagree with him. Why is he so angry? what is he trying to compensate for?

— Me (@lougagliardi) November 26, 2013

interesting that @JoeHuffman believes the screenshots of a pro-gun, transphobic bigot without actual links to anything. should sue for libel

— Me (@lougagliardi) November 26, 2013

 

This gave me flashbacks and other symptoms of mild PTSD from years of dealing with someone with mental health issues. @lougagliardi lives in an alternate universe where they imagine I have written things that have no basis in our reality.

If I hated free speech, in particular speech by @lougagliardi, why would I posted their Tweets? Where is the evidence I hate free speech?

Where have I said @lougagliardi should be sued for libel or anything for that matter?

@lougagliardi either imagines I have said things I have not or believes they can read my mind and spectacularly fails when they attempt to do so. I can feel the anxiety rise up as the flashbacks occur of these same things happening to me before.

All that remains to complete the connection to interactions I once had with someone else with mental health issues is to ask, “What is the process by which you determine truth from falsity?” And their reply being, conclusively confirming the mental health issues, “It depends on how I feel.”

ID Verification

Posted on by

I came across this, a story about people getting hung up on the “ID Verification” part of the application, because Healthcare.gov won’t let you shop for plans until it “knows” who you are. So data-security issues aside, could this hangup be used to leverage a renewed call for new universal ID cards, now possibly (probably) tied in with biometrics, DNA, and medical records?

Let me rephrase: I know can be. Any bets on whether or not it does (soon) and who will be the first to call for it?

Quote of the day—Richard C Suquer

Posted on by

As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all guns. It is time we put these gun-toting extremists in jail where they belong!

Richard C Suquer
November 7, 2001
Ban All Guns Now!
[I could almost believe this post was satire but not quite. Here are some more choice quotes from the same post:

It all goes back to an obscure centuries-old document called the “Constitution of the United States of America.”

…

Many right-wing members of today’s United States have interpreted this amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to “keep and bear arms.” Absurd? Perhaps. But uneducated people in our society (such as members of Congress) can still be fooled into believing this absurdity.

…

Suppose a person breaks into your house at night and attacks you with a knife. Now, according to the right-wing point of view, you would be justified in shooting him with the gun you keep hidden under your pillow.

However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person’s breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man’s life? The answer is: you can’t.

In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.

…

Imagine the typical day of the white male hunter:

The hunter gets up early, before daybreak. While shaving, he cuts his face. He tastes the blood and it is good. His desire for the prey has become sexual.

Later that morning, the hunter enters the forest with his phallic firearm, and stalks the great horned beast. He sees one innocently drinking water from a stream, and raises his phallus-gun to his shoulder. Pulling the trigger he releases his sperm-bullet into the innocent mammal. But rather than life, his sperm-bullet spreads death.

I have to conclude people like this have a mental illness.–Joe]

Kafka didn’t write Cliff’s Notes for law design… did he?

Posted on by

Shamelessly borrowed from RNS comes this gem:

Section 501 of ObamaCare makes a non-profit hospital giving charitable care a punishable offense. Short version: people might not buy insurance if they think they can get free care via charity, so Section 501 “discourages” giving free care by fining non-profit hospitals that do so. For-profits face no such penalty.

But, not to worry! via AceOfSpades comes the return volley.

Hospitals, being full of smart people, are now exploring buying insurance for their frequent delinquents, er, regular uninsured customers. Possibly even working ObamaCare exchange insurance that can’t deny care for pre-existing conditions into the regular admitting procedure for uninsured people.

[Later Edit, pulled from my own comment: Don’t forget that the EMTALA requires emergency medical care centers to treat all comers with emergency medical needs, and those in active labor.]

Sure, why not! No possibility of adverse selection there, right? No chance of side-effects or unintended consequences to either of these things, eh wot?

FacePalm.

Folks, we now have front-row seats at the Theater of the Absurd. Gonna need more popcorn.

And another thing that made me angry

Posted on by

Thinking back to the dark ages of the ‘94 Assault Weapon ban today reminded me of some other things that upset me at the time. There were numerous court challenges to the law. One of the most frustrating things about the disposition of these cases were that the government would say, in essence, “We haven’t prosecuted anyone under this law so you don’t have standing to challenge it.” I recall (but cannot find a quote) Attorney General Janet “Butcher of Waco” Reno saying that they had no intent of enforcing the law either. Hence the courts dismissed the challenges. Here is one such case.

My interpretation of it was that this they knew they would lose in court and were deliberately preventing us from proving they had overstepped their Constitutional limits.

They lie. They can’t help themselves

Posted on by

Over at Sebastian’s he talks about the distortion of the language by the anti-gun people. In specific the attempt to change the meaning of the phrase “well regulated militia” from “well functioning” to “government regulated”. And how it upset him when he found out about it:

I went through most of the Clinton years not understanding how the Assault Weapons Ban was even remotely constitutional, and wondering why nothing was done about it. When I found out, I became angry.

It was just a few minutes ago when I was having lunch with Barb L. I told her about Speaker of the House Tom Foley losing his seat over the AWB. At about that same time she was a Washington State lobbyist and generally pretty plugged into Washington State politics. But she didn’t understand how he lost his seat.

I explained it was because of the AWB and there were two things that really, really pissed us off above and beyond the ban itself.

One was they called the ban “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act”. It’s a firearms use protection act that bans guns? They lie. It’s what they do. They can’t help themselves.

And the other was that Foley kept the voting open for several minutes after the stated voting period had expired. The bill failed but by keeping the voting open they got people to change their votes until they had enough for passage. He then closed the voting. The video of him doing that was incredible propaganda for the pro-gun side during his election that fall. Foley became the first sitting Speaker of the House to lose his bid for re-election since Galusha Grow in 1862.

If the gun owners his district in Eastern Washington could have gotten away with it I’m sure you could have sold thousands of tickets to use a horse whip on him.

Russian commentators on U.S. gun rights

Posted on by

Russian political commentators seem to have a better handle on some aspects of U.S. politics and human psychology in general than do U.S. commentators:

Who is stronger, the gun lobby or the president? The answer is – of course, the gun lobby.

…

Obama came up with his gun violence reduction plan after last year’s mass shooting drama in a Connecticut primary school. Immediately, gun sales shot up. Leading US firearms manufacturers – Ruger, Smith&Wesson, and Remignton – reported a 40-50 sales increase. So, Obama virtually did his opponents from the National Rifle Association (NRA) a big favor, said Valery Garbuzov, deputy head of the Institute for US and Canadian Studies in Moscow.

“Whenever people learn that there might soon be a shortage of some goods or other, they rush to buy things they would never have bought under usual circumstances. That same with guns. Obama’s plan triggered an adverse reaction. I think that it was a poorly calculated move,” he told the Voice of Russia.

My first gun was purchased because of President Clinton and the impending “Assault Weapon Ban” of 1994. Numerous other people I know became gun owners for almost identical reasons. Obama is a better gun salesman than Clinton. We’ll be reaping the rewards from Obama’s efforts to ban guns for at least a decade.

Which U.S. political commentators are talking about this? Our opponents just keep urging the politicians to, indirectly, sell more guns. The more gun owners there are the more firmly entrenched the right to keep and bear arms becomes.

This is what they think of you

Posted on by

Via a Tweet from Linoge:

BZ7FaIaIYAApckf

After you grasp the fact that this person regards gun owners as “murderers who hate children” think about what the next step is. What is the normal disposition of “murderers who hate children”?

My conclusion is that this person wants people who exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm in prison or executed. And just what does someone like this think of people who defend Second Amendment? My speculation is they are hostile to the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments as well as the Second.

These are very, very dangerous people.

Update: Linoge emailed me more tweets from this person. Imagine if they were saying these things about blacks, Jews, or gays. It reinforces my conclusion that these are very dangerous people.

lougagliardicompromise1

lougagliardicompromise3

lougagliardicompromise4

lougagliardijustifiedhomicide1

lougagliardijustifiedhomicide2

lougagliardilibertarian

lougagliardireligion

lougagliardireligion2

lougagliardiwantpeopletodie

lougagliardiyoukilledthosechildren

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

22686d67ecea8d25f527b4f46a5dad94

It’s a Markley’s Law Monday gun cartoon!

The real message of course is the same as if blacks, gays, women, or some other minority showed up to a “presidential event”. Gun owners are a minority and need to get out of the political closet and show their numbers. That this cartoonist thought it was appropriate to say something like this just shows what a prejudiced bigot he is.

Via an email from Weer’d Beard who sometimes follows Baldr Odinson.

Quote of the day—Nick Armer

Posted on by

I was wondering if you’re obsessed with guns because they make up for what your dick lacks you limp dick piece of shit

Nick Armer
Email to Connecticut Carry on May 9, 2013.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

The law does not apply to us

Posted on by

I used to work for a government lab. One of my most persistent memories is of when a co-worker vigorously asserted, “See this badge? This means the law doesn’t apply to us. The people that enforce these laws are the same people that want this work done.”

It’s as if these exact words were used when building the Obamacare web site:

H/T Joey for the email.

Quote of the day—Emily Miller

Posted on by

The entire public discussion of gun control issues today is dominated today by terms created by the people who want to chip away at Americans Second Amendment rights. Anti-gun activists invented these phrases:

  • Assault weapons
  • High capacity magazines
  • Cop killer bullets
  • Universal background checks
  • The gun show loophole
  • High power ammunition

Not one of these terms actually means what President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, and their allies mean to suggest by it. Rhetorical deception is the key component in the push for more gun control laws.

Emily Miller
2013
Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours
[In other words, they know they cannot win unless they use deception.

If you ignore the adrenaline dumps and the blood pressure spikes this is a very, very good book. It’s easy to read and very informative. Even though I have been involved in the fight for nearly 20 years I still learned things from it. Read it and encourage your friends to read it.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

After President Obama set the precedent with not enforcing the individual mandate and the discussion I had with Ry the other day I thought back to some of the other things he has done along the same line. The rule, in direct violation of Federal law, about reporting long guns sales to the ATF is one example. The selling of thousands of guns to people known to be ineligible to posses them who were delivering them to the Mexican drug cartels is another. And failure to prosecute officials in D.C., New Jersey, Chicago, and New York, etc. for infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm in general.

I was then anticipating the sweet, sweet pleasure of the screams of the anti-gunners at some time in the future. I was imagining that we get an extraordinarily very pro-gun president in office and, just like President Obama, he say you don’t have to pay a particular tax for the next year. The $200 transfer tax on suppressors, destructive devices, and machine guns would be at the top of the list. Form 4473’s are a burden, people affected don’t like them, so don’t worry about them. And, oh, by the way, we won’t be enforcing the NFA 34 registry or Hughes Amendment for the next year either.

At the end of the year, machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and destructive devices would be so widespread they would be considered, “in common use” and therefore protected by even a strict reading of the Heller decision.

The tears of the anti-gun people would be so plentiful we would collect them, put them in empty pop cans and sell them as reactive targets. Life would be good.

Then I had another thought. Obama also is not punishing the IRS for oppression of organizations opposed to his political party. Nor has he done anything about the NSA spying on everyone. And now the judges being appointed don’t need the support of even a single person in the minority party of the Senate. What justification do I have for even having a wild fantasy about something like that? What justification do I have to imagine the socialists will ever lose control of the Whitehouse? Or after the next election even either house of Congress?

The reality is that I need to put more effort into Plan B.

My next shipment from Dillon Precision arrives on Monday:

DillonPackage