Quote of the day—Robert A. Heinlein

Posted on by

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein
1942
Beyond This Horizon
[I went looking for this quote when making a comment the other day and found I had never posted this on my blog. It’s such an important and famous quote for our culture I decided that I should include it even though it is going to be rare that someone reading my blog will have not seen or heard it before.

While I agree with the first sentence I’m not so sure about second. I think there is something else going on. I think the more significant changes that occur are in the armed person(s) rather than those around them. I have carried a gun nearly every day for nearly 20 years and while it is difficult to recall exactly how I felt and acted before I started carrying I think the mostly subconscious thought process goes something like the following.

I shouldn’t, and don’t need to, let my emotions dominate in a conflict with another person. I have a gun. If my emotions rule me I might use it when I should not. Should my adversary get so far out of line that I, or another innocent person, be in physical danger I can probably handle it because I have a gun. There is no need to “get back in their face” if they are getting all wound up. I can let them blow off their steam and coolly observe and be prepared to defend with decisive force rather than attempt to confront them early in their emotional escalation. Hence my response to conflict tends to be more subdued than unarmed people. This, in most cases, results in the other side deescalating or at least not getting completely out of control. When both parties are armed the response on the other side is also subdued and we arrive at the observed result of “an armed society is a polite society.”—Joe]

Possible path in CT

Posted on by

Following the gun and magazine restriction news I didn’t like who things were playing out. Looked like there were way to many ways to make it turn ugly all around. While I’m sure someday tyrants will need to be used as tree-watering sources, I’d really rather not have it happen during my life- revolutions are expensive. I thought of a possible path out after watching this clip.

Stage an arrest of a “known offender” as a test case. Arrange for someone with an “unlawful” magazine and a barely illegal rifle (maybe something like a Nylon 66, or whatever the most innocuous technically illegal arm you can find) who is retired and can afford to spend a little time in jail. Roll the cameras, arrest and charge him, and have everyone on the scene know what’s going on so that nobody gets shot. Get him before a judge that day, and have a temporary order to put a hold on the law until it can be officially decided by a court. That gives the police an out to not enforce the law, but it also gives the citizens an out because it can’t be held over them for anything else so things do go all Waco on anyone. It gives everyone time to “let the court sort it out” without claiming any unnecessary lives. It also gives time for a new legislature to be elected if needed, because it will become a more well-understood topic by a broader range of the population.

Quote of the day—David French

Posted on by

The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens — including their right to life — if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext.

Protecting the right of self-defense is just. Mandatory disarmament is not.

David French
February 24, 2014
Dear New York Times, Self-Defense Is Not Vigilantism
[In other words, as is usual, they have to lie to win.

It is the right to self-defense that is our strongest point in the debate and the one they will lose when the debate takes place in the U.S. In some other countries and cultures a reference to the right of self-defense will get a blank stare.

I would like to suggest those who find the right of self-defense incomprehensible should be encouraged to leave this country. Surely they would be more comfortable in a time and place where the government had or has a monopoly on violence such as one more of the following (from here):

And that doesn’t even include Uganda, Nazi Germany, communist China, and Stalin’s USSR.—Joe]

Quote of the day—FightingIrish

Posted on by

Your assumption that we only take their guns away by physically confiscating them is very simplistic and not very imaginative. We take their guns, and I assume yours, by taking away the cachet of gun ownership. We did that with cigarettes. We take their guns away by having reasonable restrictions on what arms are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present. We take their guns away by teaching our children that pulling a trigger is not a valid form of expression.

FightingIrish
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns away.—Joe]

Quote of the day—baldguy

Posted on by

As long as the community of gun owners prove themselves to be unable or unwilling to keep their weapons secure from people who would kill, a national gun ban would be the only right & reasonable solution.

baldguy
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

“Gun control” in a nutshell

Posted on by

This in response to Uncle‘s post about NJ banning tube-fed 22s;

Well sure. If criminals already enjoy a government-enforced monopoly on more powerful guns, why not grant them a government-enforced monopoly on some of the most popular rimfire 22s as well?

It makes perfect sense to me– A corrupt government has more to fear from honest citizens than from other corrupt individuals, and so they’ll invariably attack, impugn and attempt to weaken honest citizens in every way imaginable. It comes from a simple and obvious (and entirely correct) threat assessment.

“We struggle not with flesh and blood, but with Principalities, and corruption in high places.”

That’s the long and short of it. It’s all you need to understand about weapon restriction (and politics in general). To put it even more simply; To consolidate power you must weaken the individual.

If there is a Prince of Darkness, this is his motto. So what then is the antidote? Strengthen the individual of course, and it starts with you.

More on single action v double action

Posted on by

This is in response to Uncle‘s response to this article.

First, we don’t need the new term “TDA” (Traditional Double Action). That’s the same as DA, which we’ve been using for a long time, as opposed to DAO. So we now have DA, DAO, and TDA. See the problem– So what does DA mean anymore? Do we now have to go back and revise all the old texts, adding the “T” in front of “DA”?

Anyway; I’ve never really understood the debate. If you have a DA and want to operate it as a SA, to avoid the “transition” then nothing is stopping you. Load it, put it on safe, and holster it cocked and locked, or ease the hammer down and then cock it before you shoot, just like your trusty, rusty old 1911. You need never encounter a DA pull unless you want to.

And for some reason this subject only comes up in a discussion of auto pistols. With revolvers, I don’t hear anyone complaining about all the double actions out there (and they’re always carried hammer down and have no safety switch). Does the “transition” no longer matter after you’ve thumbed the hammer back as opposed to having it cocked automatically? And you want to talk about light trigger pulls– you won’t find a lighter SA trigger than the one on a good factory-stock DA revolver.

I’ve never understood why SA v DA is this huge f’ng issue when we’re talking pistols, but it never comes up with regard to long guns. The most popular sporting and defense rifle in America is SA, with no de-cock, and no one blinks or ever thinks to consider thinking about it. Same with the Mini-14, 30 Carbine, M-14, M1 Garand, AK, et al, ad infinitum– The hammer’s out of sight, so it’s out of mind, just like the Ruger Mark II/III which we also never discuss as being a SA with no de-cock.

So REALLY this is more of a public perception issue than anything else— If you can SEE the hammer AND it’s on an auto, we’ll argue about it, but if not, “derp”. I guess that’s why Daewoo came up with their goofy action such as on the DP51– It’s cocked and locked, just like your AR-15, but it LOOKS like the hammer’s down. The old Lever action rifles are of course single action, with no de-cock and no safety per se. It’s also a training issue, so make sure you practice with what you have.

One of the coolest designs I’ve owned was the Beretta TomCat. It’s DA and has a de-cocker, but with its tip-up barrel you can load or unload it without cocking the hammer, so I always carried it like a revolver (hammer down, off safe) and to un-load it you just tip the barrel up and drop the cartridge out. The little 32 ACP scared me though, so I traded it away.

At one time I thought it would be cool to have a DA AK or AR. You wouldn’t operate it or carry it any different from the SA versions, but the only difference would be that it would give you a second strike capability. Then I realized that cartridges that actually do fire on a second strike are a sub set of those that fail to fire on the first, and so in many cases you’d be wasting time on the second, or third, or fourth strike compared to chambering a fresh round. On several occasions I’ve hit primers so many times that they were mashed WAY into the primer pocket, or rotated rimfire rounds to hit another part of the rim, and they never did fire.

Discretion

Posted on by

The Firearm Policy Coalition really nailed it with this one:

CCWdiscretion

They want a list? We have a list

Posted on by

In Connecticut, after the massive non-compliance, there is talk of the police confiscating ordinary, in common use, firearms from people who refused to register them. The media is saying such a crime “cannot go unenforced”. Some people are even saying these, estimated, 330,000 people should be “rounded up”. There are people who believe there might be “enough information on gun owners to start a confiscation effort, lets get started.”

Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta says:

From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.

See also Says Uncle who says, “This will get out of hand.”

So with the politicians being encouraged to use somewhat nebulous lists of gun owners that might still have their evil black rifles Dutchman6 posted a precise list of the 131 politicians, and their home addresses, who voted for the repressive law.

Apparently some people are getting upset about this. I don’t see what the problem is. People wanted a list of people they thought were a problem and needed to be “dealt with”. We have a list. And our list is much shorter. If people need to be “rounded up” to get past this impasse isn’t it better to “round up” a relatively small of people rather than hundreds of thousands? This is especially true when the people on the large list are saying Molon labe and the people on the short list apparently don’t have any fight in them and want others to fight for them. It would seem that there would be far less bloodshed and disruption of society if Federal Marshals went door-to-door and arrested the people on the short list so they could be prosecuted.

Quote of the day—Warren Stupidity

Posted on by

If its magazine capacity is larger than around 5 shots, it doesn’t belong in civilian hands.

Warren Stupidity
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But there is no slippery slope and no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Eric Darcman

Posted on by

#ICouldHaveBeenARepublicanBut I am not a crazy old white guy with a small penis and a gun fetish!

Eric Darcman (@Darcman)
Tweeted on February 5, 2013

[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—anonymous

Posted on by

In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can’t build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center’s demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

anonymous
February 15, 2014
Comment (which I marked as spam and hence can only be seen by administrators) to Quote of the day—Larry P. Card
See also 9/11 was a Mossad operation
[I’ve seen (and debunked) some truther stuff before but this is really out there. It’s amazing what people will believe and proselytize. I would like to know the psychology behind these sort of delusions. How does it benefit these people to believe such outlandish things? It’s even worse than those who believe gun control is a benefit to society.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Glen Reynolds

Posted on by

Are there any TV shows where the male hosts all chortle about their masturbation methods?

Glenn Reynolds
February 19, 2014
THINGS YOU MISS BY NOT WATCHING THE VIEW:
[Probably not and I don’t really care. Part of the reason is probably because of an anti-men agenda of the media. And the other part is probably because men don’t have the capacity to enjoy orgasms at a rate that requires electric motors powered from 117V household mains to keep up with them.

But it is interesting that talk about sex in the mainstream media appears to be becoming more acceptable.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Barrett

Posted on by

These days, an awful lot of those people … like their guns and intend to keep them.

Paul Barrett
February 20, 2014
Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?
[That is a huge understatement.–Joe]

Just my luck

Posted on by

Barb and I went on a cruise last week. One of the things we did was enter in a raffle for various spa services. We had to be present to win. They put all the entries in a box, announced what service they were drawing for, and then pulled an entry out of the box.

Just my luck. I won the “Keratin Hair Treatment”.

WP_20140218_026

I took off my hat and walked up to accept the certificate as the entire crowd roared with laughter. I heard one person, jokingly, ask someone else, “Do you suppose this one was staged?”

I gave the hair treatment certificate to Barb. While she got her hair treated I got a back massage from the masseuse Carol.

Mugme Street news

Posted on by

Visible from my office in downtown Seattle is a street Barb calls Mugme Street. Just walking down the sidewalk in broad daylight makes all kinds of alarms go off in my head. It is rare that I don’t see at least one, and sometimes a half dozen cops, loitering around within a one block length of the street. They remind me of vultures in orbit waiting for another body to dispose of.

On February 19th:

The victim in the attack was leaving a store near 3rd and Pike Around 10:30 PM on February 19th, when five men jumped him.

The suspects knocked the victim to the ground, where they punched and kicked him. The victim was able to get up and run from the suspects, but was attacked again further down the street.

After receiving a 911 call about the incident, medics arrived and transported the victim to Harborview, where police interviewed him about the incident.

The victim, who was left with bruises and cuts all over his head and body, wasn’t able to give police many details about the suspects, only describing them as ”five black males.”

On February 21st:

Just shortly before midnight, officers responded to a call of a shooting at 3rd Ave and Pine St. Officers located the victim in the alley behind a business  (the 200 block of Pine St – alley north.)

While there were a number of people with and around the victim, no one could provide information about what happened.  A garbage truck driver that was nearby said that he saw a group of young males get out of two vehicles that were parked in the lot. They crossed Pine St and went around the corner into the 1500 block of 2nd Ave.

A short time later, he heard a pop, possibly a gunshot, and the group then came running back around the corner.

The 17-year-old victim was taken to Harborview Medical Center by Seattle Fire medics with non-life threatening injuries.

Although I had previously seen the reports Ry also sent me a link to the first report and Rolf emailed me a link to the second.

Quote of the day—Barb L.

Posted on by

They should have chocolate covered frozen bananas. That’s totally a Disney food group.

Barb L.
February 19, 2014
[This was while on a Disney Island in the Bahamas.–Joe

Quote of the day—Pam Bergren

Posted on by

Today’s Courant says that there could be as many as 330,000 people with assault weapons who refused to register them according to the law. Then now is the time to increase the penalty and start rounding them up.

Pam Bergren
East Hartford
February 12, 2014
Prosecute Illegal Gun Owners
[Just so you know what they want done to you for exercising your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Ms. Bergren should be careful what she says. It may be used as evidence against her at her trial.—Joe]

Coyote attack

Posted on by

Going down the youtube rabbit hole I came across this. It was in Northern BC, where it’s far, far less populated than around here. Here the coyotes tend to keep their distance, or they generally get shot. Or they get shot from long distance. The closest I’ve ever got to one, that I knew about, was around 30 yards– Three different occasions in winter while I was out hunting. Their heavy winter coats are quite spectacular, and I’ve yet to have the heart to kill one. Beautiful or not though, if a ‘yote were putting its teeth on me, even my boot, it’d be dead right quick I think. If the bugger is that bold, I may respect it in a way, but it’s going to be causing serious trouble for someone if it isn’t stopped. Kind of like Progressives– They’ll push things until someone gets hurt.

Quote of the day—David Carr

Posted on by

Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.

David Carr
February 23, 2014
Piers Morgan and CNN Plan End to His Prime-Time Show
[Carr seems to get it even if he (reading the rest of his article) doesn’t agree with it. Morgan’s attitude and simply calling Alan Gottlieb and others “stupid” rather than having plausible argument made his position much, much worse.—Joe]