Grains by Volume

I’ve said before that some things are so simple they can’t be grasped.  “Co witnessing” of iron sights is one of those.

“Grains by volume” is another.  It started when Pyrodex, a black powder substitute, came out.  People were accustomed to using a powder measure, used to charge a rifle or pistol with a consistent, known amount of black powder, back in the day when black powder was just “gun powder” simply because there wasn’t any other kind.  As we do today when reloading metal cartridges, people way back then used a volumetric measure to easily charge a muzzle loader with powder, but of course someone needed an accurate scale to verify that the volume of powder they were dispensing was of the correct mass.  Same thing with metal cartridges.  Verify with a scale, then dispense time and again, easily with that volume so you don’t have to weigh each individual charge.

Same thing was done for hundreds of years in the field when using black powder guns– you pour from a flask into a measure that was pre-determined to hold a certain number of drams, or of grains, of black powder.

Then Pyrodex came along with their “volume equivalent” and few seem to have understood any of it since.  Pyrodex is a substitute for black powder.  It’s chemically different, safer to handle and ship (ostensibly) and doesn’t require the onerous licensing, confiscatory fees and demeaning inspections of premises associated with black powder.  By design, Pyrodex will generate approximately the same results in terms of pressure and projectile velocity as the same volume of black powder.  This makes it super easy to use the old way– you use the same measures that you always used for old fashioned black powder.  Though Pyrodex isn’t nearly as dense, so if you were really meticulous and wanted to know precisely the “volume equivalent” grains of Pyrodex powder you’re using, you’d need to weigh real black powder from your measure.  Dreaming up the “volume equivalent” was their way of making it easy to switch to their new powder.  You didn;y have to think about– just use the same measure, made of brass or deer antler, etc., that your great great grand pappy used in the War of Northern Agression.

Totally, super simple, right?  Use the same volume of Pyrodex you’d use of black powder.  That’s it.  No; shut up– that’s it.

But now it seems we can’t discuss even real black powder and real black powder alone without people (experienced people even) chiming in about “grains by volume” verses “grains by weight”.  That would only come into play if substitute powders were somewhere in the discussion.  Otherwise there’s no difference, which we all knew centuries ago (or would have known, had we been alive centuries ago).

“Sure; you verified your charge by carefully weighing it, but you might be off ’cause you’re using grains by weight instead of grains by volume.”  I actually got a comment like that today, and I’ve seen it many times before.

Now maybe it would be simpler if Pyrodex loads, just like loads made up from dozens to hundreds of very different smokeless powders, were expressed in actual mass instead of “volume equivalents”.  At least I wouldn’t have to explain things when someone tried to tell me that there is something out there called a “grain by volume” of black powder.  Then I have to remember that we actually do have something very similar– the milliliter, which is the volume of one gram of pure water, which is what you get from a cube that is one centimeter on a side IIRC.  Or was it the other way ’round?  Something like that.  I forget the actual starting point but last I heard it had been decided that we’d count a certain number of wavelengths from the emission from a certain energy state jump of a certain isotope of a certain element and call that a meter.  Look it up and count wavelengths (somewhere in the yellowish range of visible light I think) to calibrate your measuring tape, but please don’t talk to me about “grains by volume” unless we’re discussing Pyrodex or other substitute-for-black-powder loads.

Silly Me

Condition White.  I’d started a batch of pumpkin ale just after All Hallows Eve with the intent of shipping it to family and friends across the Fruited Plain that is this Land of The Free and Home of The Brave.  It took six weeks of doting over this ale– a recipe with a lot more than the usual four ingredients (water, barley, hops and yeast) that I’ve used before and it didn’t behave the same, so it took more fooling around.  It was well worth it because I ended up with what I regard to be a fine and unique product, perfect for a little Christmas indulgence and cheer with family and friends.

I didn’t know you were supposed to lie, so when the guy at UPS asked me if there was alcohol in the packages I went ahead told him the truth.

It turns out you can’t ship alcoholic beverages unless you’re an “authorized shipper”.  Apparently someone is afraid that someone else, somewhere, might enjoy themselves.  For years I thought (correctly) that people were shipping booze right and left all over the place, but now I know they have to lie to do it.  It’s a free country, sure, so all you have to do is lie here, or break the law there, and you can do anything a reasonable person would want to do.  So Prohibition is still very much with us, which I knew.  I knew for example that you couldn’t make a legal business out selling alcohol without The Mob getting its piece of the action.  I just didn’t know it was still quite so much in effect until tonight.  I probably broke the law just by trying to ship this wonderful home brew to loved ones to enrich their Christmas experience, so come and get me.  “Attempting to ship alcohol in violation of federal law such and such, sub section such and such, sub, sub section such and such, apendices B through W49z”.  Add to that “Attempting to ship alcohoil while armed”.  I’ll have the evidence all consumed before you get here, and besides; you’ll never take me alive, coppers!

So to those of you I’d promised pumpkin ale; You’re more than welcome, but you’d better get over here quick if you want some.

Prohibition is actually in full force (more than full if you compare now to the 1920s) when it comes to certain other drugs, and naturally there is a lot of money and power to be had as a result if you happen to be in organized crime (either free-lance or official).

On a similar note; I spent several hours talking with my teenaged daughter yesterday and the subject of Mary Jane (pot – that’s what the cool kids called it in the ’60s) came up.  I had to kick myself because I got side-tracked talking about the relative dangers of this or that chemical indulgence, but it turned out even better that way–  “But none of this is on point” I tolder her.  “The point is that in a free society the government has no authority to tell an emancipated adult what to put in his body and what not to put in his body.  I’ve I allowed myself to be side-tracked here by the ‘relative dangers’ arguments.  Those are entirely bedside the point.”  She understood perfectly and she appreciated the rare and wonderful experience of finally being exposed to clarity on what was previously a matter of cloudiness confusion.

Quote of the day—Daisy Arizona

This is the perfect example of the paranoid lunatic weirdo freak NRA. Guys! Allow me to share a little…r­eally little fact…The­y are guns…not your penis.

Daisy Arizona
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Blog problems.

Yes. In case you were wondering, my blog was down for several hours today. And it has had problems for a hour or two on other days recently. My hosting provider is apparently having problems. I have been busy with many other things and haven’t had time to look into it.

Sorry about that.

Quote of the day—Diane S. Sykes

On appeal the City raised but did not dwell on its concern about lead contamination. For good reason: It cannot be taken seriously as a justification for banishing all firing ranges from the city. To raise it at all suggests pretext.

Perhaps the City can muster sufficient evidence to justify banning firing ranges everywhere in the city, though that seems quite unlikely. As the record comes to us at this stage of the proceedings, the firing-range ban is wholly out of proportion to the public interests the City claims it serves. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim has a strong likelihood of success on the merits.

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with this opinion.

Diane S. Sykes
July 6, 2011
Circuit Judge
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO
[See also other QOTDs I have posted from this same judgment here, here, here, and here.

The response of the Chicago and Washington D.C. reminds me of the response of politicians in the deep south confronted with civil rights laws telling them they had to treat people with dark colored skin the same as those with white skin. They became very creative in their methods of discrimination and the Federal courts were kept busy for years putting them in their place.

But the courts can only do so much. What has to happen is for these people be shamed and shunned for their persistence in discriminating against people exercising a specific enumerated right. Treat them like the scumbags they are and tell them that to their faces.—Joe]

Quote of the day—jumkey

What, only 3 dead children?

Gun owners had better step up their war on elementary school-age children and babies. They’ll never get them all only shooting three at a time.

jumkey
December 17, 2011
Comment to Sheriff: 5 dead in Ill. murder-suicide
[I don’t think any comment beyond the post category of “Crap for brains” is necessary.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Linoge

The anti-rights cultists’ logic fails: on the one hand, we are supposedly high-strung, hair-trigger murderers just waiting for any and all excuses to “whip out our pieces” and go on a shooting rampage, but on the other hand, “gun control” extremists feel quite comfortable insulting and attacking us on a regular basis.

Linoge
December 12, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—lonewolfwisconsin.
[Made QOTD at the suggestion of Windy Wilson.

It’s a good point but I’m sort of dulled from the continuous expose to the irrationality of anti-gun people. These people live with one foot into an alternate universe where the potentialities of their active imaginations are just as real, if not more so, than reality itself. I wish there were a way to make it sink in that potentialities are not actualities.

We are constrained to live in the real world. Neither the utopia they try to legislate nor the “gun-owners will start shooing over parking spaces” universe they imagine are supported by the evidence gathered from all the different legislative experiments run in all the states and the Feds in the last several decades.

Being unconstrained by reality is probably good for art but makes for very poor public policy.—Joe]

Defensive knife class: +1

Caleb does a review of the Insights Training Defensive Folding Knife classes.

I haven’t taken the second class but I took the first one twice. Once by myself and the second time with the rest of my immediate family. I told my kids they couldn’t go out on a date until they took the class.

And for Christmas last year I gave daughter-in-law Kelsey a Spyderco Delica. I toyed with the idea of giving her a gift certificate for the class this year but son James and I need to work on her mindset a little bit more before we go there.

This class, actually all Insights classes that I have taken, is highly recommended.

Quote of the day—edgeninja

The NRA should be referred to as the Assassin’s Lobby, since their advocacy primarily helps arm terrorists and mass-murde­rers.

edgeninja
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[It’s good to know what they think of us. This should also be a hint as to what will happen to us if our political power becomes too weak.

Perhaps that explains why the terrorist watch list is so large. They are putting all 4.3 million NRA members on it.—Joe]

Lion Hunt

The guys at the music store showed this to me.  It’s been up a while, and there are several others.  It’s not like hunting prey animals like deer, in that the deer rarely try, and even if they do they can’t kill you as easily as a lion can kill you.  I don’t know these guys, but someone had very good concentration and clear purpose for a bit;

That’s about as close as it gets I guess.  I didn’t know how to categorize it, so I put it under “Boomershoot” (aim small, miss small) though at Boomershoot we don’t aim at moving targets that are very capable, and determined, to kill us.  I have a very long hunting story I’ll bore you with later, which includes missing some very easy shots that I was, up until that point, convinced I could never miss.  The point being that missing an easy shot didn’t get me or anyone else killed, but only delayed getting meat on the table.

Can Someone Please Explain

…in short, sweet, straight-forward detail, the “conservative” position on immigration?  I’ve heard vitriolic disagreement and angry attacks toward any policy proposal that even remotely smacks of “amnesty” and I’ve heard demands for building a wall around the country (like that ever works) but I’ve never heard what the attacker actually wants, exactly.

For the record (and I know this is off-subject as it doesn’t answer the question, because I have no idea as to the answer, which is the point of the post after all); In principle, I believe it should be easy to get into this country, and to become a citizen.  The problem as I see it is the socialism – the goodies – people coming here for a share of the loot.  Turn off that loot spigot and the problem, such as it is, evaporates overnight.  “Heal the World – Outlaw Socialism” would be my bumper sticker if I ever got ’round to putting one on my vehicle, which I probably won’t.

Outlawing socialism would include doing away with labor laws, minimum wage being a big one at play here.  The other loot spigot in play was also manufactured by our government– the “War On Drugs” and we all know for certain that Prohibition failed the first time due to human nature, and that human nature dictates that it will fail just as catastrophically every time, which is what we’re seeing every day.  But we can’t separate it from imigration policy.  Because we’re sniveling cowards.

“They’re takin’ Our Jobs!” (Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!”) is an idiotic assertion.  So forget it.  When the Europeans first started coming here in the late 1400s and early 1500s, they took all the jobs from the “Indians” very quickly, so there haven’t been any jobs here since then anyway, right?  I mean, if you figure that the “Der Derkin’ Er Jerrrbs!” argument has any validity whatsoever.  IF people coming here from other places “takes jobs away” then the peak in the number of available jobs in North America would have taken place before Columbus’ voyage (or much earlier – before the migration out of Siberia during the last Ice Age) and as the Euros et al started coming in, the number of jobs available would have been shrinking constantly ever since.  QED.  So there.

Anyhow;  What, exactly, is the “conservative” policy on immigration – the one that won’t get the pundits, the self appointed Representatives of Modern American Conservatism (the RMACs) all pissed off?  I maintain that there is no such thing, which is why I brought it up.

I figure Newt has a four thousand page preliminary proposal, submitted by his Provisional Committee on Immigration Policy Proposal Research Exploratory Studies, complete with thousands of cross-references and cross-cross-references to the cross-references, which means he doesn’t have a clue and is desperate to avoid clues as it would mean standing for something meaningful and concrete which is to be avoided at all cost.

My explanation for the absurdity is that the Republicans believe in the all the negative stereotypes that the Democrats have created for conservatives– racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes….ad infinitum, thumpin’ a Bible and cryin’ ’bout Jeezus! and so the Republicans are trying, like frightened little kids faced with putting out a house fire, to pander to the Saturday Night Live stereotype “conservative”.  They have no idea how to please us stereotype bigot buffoons without getting into trouble.  They’re scared and frustrated, but they know they have to at least pretend to try, because that’s on the list of things to do to get elected.  So it’s a contest to see who can come up with the most plauseablely meaningless proposal that will offend the least people and will never get enforced anyway.  It makes for good theater all ’round I suppose.

We know for certain that outlawing socialism would be among the most frightening prospects ever presented to a Republican.  Right?  The planet being wiped out by an asteroid would be bad, but at least it wouldn’t leave them blinking in the lights in front of a camera babbling like idiots, knowing they’d have to face the criticism for it the next day– they could die right along with the rest of us and that would be much more comfortable as it wouldn’t require any acts of courage or any application of principles.  It would let them entirely off the hook.

Quote of the day—Conservative4Ever

I had to go talk to my guns just now to let them know If I let them walk that they will be responsible for the violence they cause.

Liberals kill me by their complete lack of logic and reasoning abilities. They are like children.

Hence my talking to guns like they were children.

Conservative4Ever
December 9, 2011
Comment to Gunwalker goes “legal” … again
[He is insulting children. By the age of four my children had better reasoning abilities that some of the anti-gun people I’ve dealt with.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

With partial credit given to Jeff Foxworthy…

If you can count to 1023 on your fingers then you might be a computer jockey.

Christmas gifts for the Brady’s

By all accounts guns and associated gear are a big sellers for Christmas this year. Here is what one article says:

A sale for a basic Russian-made rifle — priced to move at $79.99, bayonet included — was targeted at bargain shoppers buying gifts for a first-time shooter.

“I’ve had little old ladies come in… and buy them by the crate for gifts for all the men in the family,” he said. “Across the board, we used to sell to men, adult men, ages 18 to 45. Now we’re advertising to everybody.”

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, handgun production and imports more than doubled between 2005 and 2009 to 4.6 million, as changes in many laws have relaxed restrictions on carrying such weapons. Gallup’s annual crime poll in October showed record low support for a handgun ban for civilians. It was also the first time the poll found greater opposition to a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles than support for such a restriction.

Say Uncle said Cheaper Than Dirt was running ads on the radio in his home town. I’ve been hearing them on a Seattle radio station too.

This made me wonder; What would be an appropriate gift for someone still aligned with The Brady Campaign? Mailing them a gun is out because that is still illegal. Ammo would be pointless because they probably don’t own any guns. Tequila has it’s appeal but a little birdy once told me someone at the Brady Campaign had a really bad drinking problem already and it wouldn’t be appropriate to tempt them. I can understand the temptation to give whiskey and sleeping pills but the humor would probably be lost on them. A one-way ticket to the “gun-free” utopia of the U.K. would probably be well received but it’s too expensive. I could see a Sad Panda being acceptable but it’s a little “down” and I think they really need something to cheer them up after all they have been through the last few years.

Therefore I believe some suggestions for a name change would be the ideal Christmas gift. With a name change they could have a chance of starting over without so much anti-gun baggage. They already changed their name from oppressive “Handgun Control Inc.” to the neutral sounding “The Brady Campaign”. It’s now time for something positive. They already say they are defending the Second Amendment (H/T to Sebastian) so here are my suggestions:

Second Amendment Supporters: The plan would be to beg for a buyout from The Second Amendment Foundation. But a SAF audit would find their computers are so old they are still running Windows 95, they are behind on the rent for their office space, Dennis Henigan doesn’t have a clue what Alan Gura is talking about, and the only the people on their mailing list that have donated any money in the last two years are a few people on the board of directors who stopped payment on the last check they gave them.

Handgunning and Running for Fun and Profit: They could start out helping the ATF run guns into Mexico then transition into USPSA/IPDA training.

And my favorite suggestion is Gunowners Anonymous: Initially they could offer to help people with their “gun addictions” but when no one shows up they could transition into a service to anonymize gun purchases.

What the World Needs

There was an article in a recent issue of Guns and Ammo Magazine about what gun products the various gun writers would like to see.  Most of the suggestions were for re-issues of favorite old gun models.

Here’s what we really need though– A variable power Intermediate Eye Relief (IER or “Scout”) scope with an illuminated reticle.  I see that Leupold now has a variable Scout scope in their VXII series, but without illumination.  Some of the big optics retailers show it for sale, but I can’t find it on Leupold’s web site.  If I had to choose, I’d take the illuminated reticle over the variable power though.  A fixed 3x or even 4x would be just dandy.

Trijicon has it figured out.  The illuminated reticles in their ACOG series are just the ticket for fast target acquisition.  You use them like a reflex sight with both eyes at close range, for speed, and their fixed 4x models are good out to farther than most people will shoot. (See Bindon Aiming Concept, or BAC)  Trijicon doesn’t make an IER version of the ACOG, else that would be the end of the discussion.  Something like that mounted low on an M1A with the M8 rail would rock, I tell you.  That scope would also be just the ticket for the dangerous game hunting market, for them that likes optics.

With more options available for forward mounted optics, and with Ruger jumping in with their new Scout rifle, there is no doubt a market for such an animal.  I see that in the sub 100 dollar range (complete with rings) the Chinese companies have an illuminated Scout scope, but the world needs a really good one, made in a really good country, like this one.  A couple guys from NightForce Optics came over and we spoke about it, but they didn’t seem to be terribly excited.  Maybe I didn’t do enough convincing.

Let’s see it, World.  I (and my customers) want a ~1x to ~4x IER scope with a ~32 to ~40 mm objective, with something like Trijicon’s illuminated chevron and some vertical range ticks.  Ready…..Go!

Quote of the day—Jeff Cooper

Rumor has it that Sarah Brady is being put forward by the Shooting Industry Magazine as “saleswoman of the decade.” It is quite obvious that Sarah has done more to boost the sale of personal arms than any person in recent memory, and she should be appropriately honored.

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 2, No. 4
22 March 1994
[This is in response to Ken in the comments here who suggested Clinton popularity and success meant people didn’t buy guns for fear they would be taken away shortly. And that the surge in sales at about the same time as Obama was elected were due to the Heller decision and not the threat of Obama.

But it that were true then why was there a big surge in sales during the first part of the Clinton presidency? I was there at the time. I was one of the people buying my first guns. Nearly everyone I talked to about guns were buying things they were afraid would soon be outlawed.

If you read the book Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun you will find a similar thing happened with Glock pistols. Politicians and anti-gun people started talking about it being a “terrorist gun”, “invisible to X-Rays”, and they should be banned with the result the factory couldn’t manufacture them fast enough to keep up with the demand.—Joe]

Is it still paranoia?

Fear of big government is near an all-time high (via a Tweet from Michelle Malkin):

A near-record level of Americans, 64 percent, say that “big government” is a bigger threat to the country than “big business” or “big labor,” according to a new poll.

While nearly two-thirds say big government is the major threat, 26 percent name big business, according to the Gallup survey conducted November 28 – December 1. Just 8 percent name big labor.

Since Gallup starting asking the question in 1965, Americans have typically named big government as the biggest threat; an all-time high of 65 percent named it as the biggest threat in 1999 and 2000.

If a large majority of the population think they really are out to get us can it still be considered paranoia?

Denial, deception, or refusal to answer?

As was widely reported at least ten days ago Dennis Henigan was in denial about the number of guns being purchased. He has a lot invested in that belief because The Brady Campaign has repeatedly said gun ownership is on the decline:

The report they quote was published by the Violence Policy Center. The VPC relied on gun data from the General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.

The tabular data agrees with the VPC report. But what is interesting is (as of 2001):

Trends in Gun Ownership
The proportion of households with a firearm has been in slow decline over the last quarter century (Table 6). In the early 1970s about 50% of adults lived in households that kept a firearm. This now has fallen about 34-35%. Similarly, the percent of adults living in a household with a gun fell from a high of 51 % in 1977 to a low of 32-33% in 2000-2001. These declines are partly the result of a decrease in household size. From 1980 until 1997 the proportion of adults personally owning a gun held steady at about 29%. However, since then even this level declined to about 22-24% of adults personally owning a gun.

One of ways people can “cheat without lying” with these statistics is to choose which number make their case look better when there is actually another variable that is changing. In this case the size of household affected the numbers.

In tough economic times households tend to get larger and hence the likelihood of someone owning a gun in the house could increase without the actual number of people owning guns increasing. Hence during good economic times the anti-gun people could chose to report declining “gun in the household” number while ignoring the fact that gun ownership on an individual basis was essentially constant.

I was unable to obtain the percentage of adults that own guns from the GSS data. Perhaps someone else can see a way to do it.

What is very interesting that I was able to get from the data is the number of people that refused to answer the question, given that a gun was in the house, “DOES GUN BELONG TO RESPONDENT?”

Year Percent Refusing
1991 0.0
1993 1.4
1994 0.6
1996 0.8
1998 1.0
2000 3.6
2002 2.4
2004 3.6
2006 4.7

The number of people that refused to answer the question about a gun in the home was smaller but had a similar trend:

Year Percent Refusing
1991 1.2
1993 0.6
1994 0.9
1996 0.4
1998 0.4
2000 1.3
2002 0.9
2004 1.4
2006 1.7

I would expect the upward trend to continue in 2008 and 2010 because of the mass buying associated with the election of President Obama.

I’m not sure that I have a good explanation for why the Gallup Poll reported gun in the home rate is much higher than reported by GSS (for the most recent GSS year I could find, 2006, is it 42% versus 34.5%). My speculation is that people are more trusting of Gallup than of a much lesser known organization located in an extremely anti-gun city such as Chicago. If that is true then one must also conclude that at something on the order of 5.8%* of the gun-owners lied and said “No” when asked if there was a gun in the house rather than merely refused to answer the question.


* 5.8% is obtained from (42% – 34.5%) – 1.7%

You can’t fix stupid

This post is essentially all plagiarized from various people on the email discussion list at work about this event (more details can be found here):

A pistol discovered in a passenger’s carry-on bag was accidentally fired inside the Atlanta airport, grazing a police officer, authorities said on Monday.

Security screeners at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport spotted the .22-caliber pistol Sunday via an X-ray machine and notified Atlanta police, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Jonathan Allen said.

Authorities said the gun was loaded with five rounds of ammunition known as “snake shot,” which typically is used to kill small animals. As a police officer tried to remove the rounds while pointing the weapon at a screening table, the gun was unintentionally fired, according to an incident report.

The passenger, a 43-year-old Georgia man, was arrested on weapons charges and remained in jail early on Monday. He told police that he “travels to Florida often on business and keeps the weapon on him for protection, not to kill anyone but in an attempt to scare people off,” the report said.

It was stupid to attempt going though the TSA screeners with a firearm. It was stupid for the police officer to fire the gun. It was stupid to carry snake loads for self protection against humans. It was stupid to carry a firearm to only scare people.

Quote of the day—ContrarianbyDefault

These people need to get laid. The persistent fears of some authority coming to take their guns (see: power, virility, agency) speaks to a rather deep seated insecurity of impotence and phallic malfunctio­n. I don’t mind someone owning a handgun for protection of property or self, but the stockpilin­g of assault rifles either means they’re borderline­, paranoid sociopaths or they’re desperatel­y overcompen­sating for some other shortcomin­gs…

ContrarianbyDefault
December 2, 2011
Comment to Gun Ad Likens Obama To Hitler, Other Dictators.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]