It’s not about the guns

Re another hack writing in the NY Daily News (something in the water there?)

Let’s See:

This time it was just amendments on the floor of the U.S. Senate, one simply asking that no one on a no-fly list be allowed to purchase a gun in this country.

OK, it “Simply” asked that Americans be denied a constitutionally protected right based on a secret list, with no due process, means of redress or even ability to know one is ON the list until denied access to basic rights. Yeah, that’s simple and reasonable.

Strangely, nowhere does this hack mention that the Republicans, supported by the NRA, had an alternative available, but it failed, not because it couldn’t get a majority vote, but because the DEMOCRATS filibustered it, preventing any vote at all.

What was this Republican bill? Well, it basically said that if someone on a terrorist watchlist tried to buy a gun, the sale would be delayed while an investigation was conducted. If the investigation determined the attempted purchaser was involved in terrorism, they would be ARRESTED and PROSECUTED…you know…that whole due process thing. Otherwise, the sale would be allowed…you know…exercising rights and all that.

Seems like a pretty straightforward compromise to me. The Democrats get a little of what they want, while due process and constitutional rights are protected. Win-win right? Not for the Democrats, who love to compromise as long as compromise is defined as “Democrats get everything they want and Republicans get nothing”.

Apparently, Democrats don’t want terrorists off the streets, only to be denied the ability to buy a gun from a dealer. As long as they only kill people with pressure cooker bombs and not with guns, the dems are OK with it.

Oh…and by the way…no mention of the FACT that none of the proposed amendments would have had any affect whatsoever on the attack in Orlando, or on any of the other recent “sudden Jihad syndrome” attacks.

There’s a reason for that. This really doesn’t have anything to do with Orlando; it has nothing to do with terrorism in general; it really has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with “never letting a crisis go to waste”. It is a pure case of “saltatus cruoris”…dancing in the blood of innocents. The Democrats are doing nothing less than exploiting the victims of tragedy to try to advance their longstanding agenda…and in my humble opinion, it’s disgusting.

And the beat goes on…

Why do so many people who are so blissfully and intentionally ignorant about the uses, purposes and capabilities of guns insist upon trying to tell us what kinds of guns we “need” and what kinds are just “too much gun”?

First, she damns with faint praise “The NRA’s terror watch list suggestion” without ever mentioning what it actually is.

She links to an NRA-ILA release that basically reiterates the stand the NRA has taken on terror watch lists for quite a long time and then tries to imply that it’s a new policy in response to the Orlando shooting.

Basically, the NRA’s position is that using terror watch lists to TEMPORARILY halt a sale of a firearm would be OK, as long as there is due process…meaning there is an investigation and if the accused turns out to actually BE a terrorist, they should be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the investigation turns up nothing, the gun sale should be processed.

Of course this is not enough for the anti-gunners…it “doesn’t go far enough”. Why? Because the anti-gunners support violating the rights of US citizens wholesale. Damn due process, damn the constitution, damn the consequences, they want our guns.

Then the author proceeds to the obligatory stage of her post and demonstrates unequivocally that she knows nothing about the subject upon which she feels she should have the final say.

The AR-15 — the common name for similar, Colt-produced M16s for civilians, or the Sig Sauer MCX rifle, which was the actual weapon used in the Orlando shooting — can shoot about 40 rounds per second. Hunters can take out grizzly bears with two rounds.

40 rounds per second: hmm…basic math is HARD…let’s see…40 rounds per second times 60 seconds per minute: that’s 2400 rounds per minute. Here’s a video of an MG-42, which fires at a rate of 1200 to 1500 rounds per minute…which, by the way, is considered a high rate of fire for a single barreled machine gun:

What do you think? Can you pull a trigger twice that fast? (MG-42 is fully automatic…keeps shooting repeatedly as long as you hold the trigger down, an AR-15 is semi-automatic…fires once for each trigger pull).

The link she provides to demonstrate that, using an AR-15, “hunters can take out grizzly bears with two rounds” demonstrates no such thing.

It’s a field and stream forum thread where someone asks how many shots it takes to take down a bear. No mention of the AR-15 or .223…although one responder pointed out that it only takes a single .22 round to avoid a bear attack…just shoot your companion in the ankle and run…but I digress.

Of course, toward the end of her ignorant nonsensical post, she makes the inevitable plea: “It seems at least worth talking about”…but no comments are allowed on the site the article is posted to.

Apparently her idea of “talking about” means she gets to spout whatever vacuous nonsense pops into her silly head, but no one else is allowed to respond.

As usual.

Philadelphia reporter discovers she lives in a free country…is appalled.

A Philadelphia reporter yesterday decried the fact that she was able to purchase a self-loading rifle and that the requisite background check only took 7 minutes

Seven minutes. From the moment I handed the salesperson my driver’s license to the moment I passed my background check.

It’s obscene.

Makes one wonder: what is it that this reporter knows about herself that causes her to think she should have been delayed in exercising a fundamental right? Based on the tenor of the entire story, the author makes it clear she doesn’t believe she should have been “allowed” to purchase a gun at all…or at the least should have had to articulate a reason for doing so.

Why is that? Why, in a country that used to be known as the “Land of the free and the home of the brave” would someone EXPECT to have to justify the exercise of a right explicitly spelled out in the Constitution?

What does she know about herself that we don’t know…what does she know about herself that makes her believe so strongly that she shouldn’t be allowed to own a self-loading rifle?

Maybe we SHOULD enact some common sense gun control: Perhaps journalists, Muslims and liberals should all be added to the list of “prohibited persons”.

Response to Orlando Shooting

I’ve had a long standing offer to take new shooters to the range and teach them basic gun safety and marksmanship. I used to have the offer in the sidebar on the right, but when I abandoned blogspot and started hosting my own blog, I neglected to restore the sidebar widget with the offer…an oversight I’ll have to rectify.

Even so, I’ve taken many dozens of new shooters to the range over the years and introduced them to the shooting sports.

In response to the Orlando shooting, a fellow Gun rights activists requested info for anyone interested in teaching LGBT people to shoot.

I added my name to the list. I don’t discriminate about who I’ll teach, I just enjoy spreading my enthusiasm for the shooting sports and believe that the best sort of activism is to get as many people involved in shooting as possible.

To that end, I’ll re-iterate my offer. If anyone unfamiliar with gun safety and shooting wants to learn about it (you don’t have to be strictly a newbie, I won’t turn you down if you’ve shot before, you just have to consider yourself to be a beginner and be willing to learn more), I’m happy to take you to the range and show you the ropes. The offer is open to anyone, but I want to specifically extend the offer to members of the LGBT community in light of the recent attack in Orlando.

I am an NRA certified rifle, pistol and shotgun instructor and 4-H shotgun instructor. If you are a resident of Virginia and are interested in obtaining a Concealed Handgun Permit, my training will satisfy the experience requirements for the permit application.

I will provide the guns, the ammo, the safety equipment the targets and the range time. All you need to bring is yourself. If you have a gun you’d like to get some training on and practice with, you are welcome to bring it (with ammo), but it is not necessary.

This offer is open to anyone willing to travel to the Southeastern Virginia area (I live in the Hampton Roads area and the range is outside of Wakefield, VA).

If you’re interested, click the “Contact” link in the header above and shoot me an e-mail (pun intended).

Liberals smacked in the face by reality

A more descriptive illustration of why socialism does not, can not and will not ever work would be hard to find:

Grant Moran, 29, also quit, saying the new pay-scale was disconcerting

“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told the paper. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”

Hmm…high performers quit working when they perceive that additional effort does not result in additional rewards. Who could have possibly predicted that?

The entire liberal mindset is predicated on the denial of basic human nature.

Just to recap how things work in the real world where most of us reside:

When actions or behaviors are rewarded, you get more of those actions or behaviors.
When actions or behaviors are punished, you get less of those actions or behaviors.

So when poor decisions, ineptitude and laziness are rewarded, guess what happens to those traits?
When good decisions, competence and hard work are punished guess what happens to those?

This isn’t rocket surgery here folks, but your basic liberal can sure find inventive ways to screw up what any average 8 year old could explain (prior to having the common sense indoctrinated out of them at government schools).

The Trump Craze

This is not a well researched or studied thesis or anything. I’m not going to do a google search and make arbitrary judgments about what I find to “verify” my theory “scientifically”…but it’s a thought I had this morning.

I have to wonder about the mania of Trump supporters who are willing to ignore all evidence that Trump is:

1. Not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
2. A fully grown child who throws tantrums and pouts when he doesn’t get his way.
3. A narcissist who cares only about his own well being and couldn’t give a rip about the country or its inhabitants except to the degree that caring about them advances his own interests.
4. A snake oil salesman who will say whatever he thinks you want to hear to bamboozle you into buying what he’s selling.

I could go on.

All of these things are blindingly obvious to anyone who hasn’t drunk the Trump Koolaid (heck, a couple of them he’s flat admitted to), but based on his vote totals, an astonishing number of Republicans (and democrat crossovers) have imbibed in the aforementioned cordial.

My thought was:

How much of this is due to the basic human fact that the majority of humankind is suited for and desirous of only slavery?

I know that sounds extreme, and I’m not trying to say Trump is a slaveowner…it’s metaphorical.

I could replace that with “most people are suited for and desirous of only perpetual childhood” and mean the same thing.

What I’m saying is that the majority of people want nothing more than to be cared for. They want to be protected, provided for, and dictated to by someone or something else.

They don’t want to have to make the hard decisions (or even easy decisions for that matter) or to take responsibility for their own lives and decisions.

This penchant is demonstrated by several common aspects of human nature: The weird obsession with superheros comes to mind immediately. Why are superhero movies and comics so popular? Because a large part of humankind loves the idea of having some “superhuman” being to swoop to the rescue and save them when they’re in trouble.

In the real world, the superhero is replaced by authority figures and the government. I think The Donald is playing the role of superhero at the moment. The people who’ve fully bought into his dog and pony show view him as some sort of savior and redeemer. They’ve been disappointed in the current “superhero” government so they’re grasping for another, stronger, faster, more blustery one to take its place.

I don’t know…this isn’t a fully fleshed out theory, just a thought I had this morning.

The overall theory that most people want nothing more than to be taken care of and told what to do has been in my mind for years and nothing humankind has done in my lifetime has dispelled it…I’m kind of wondering out loud if the irrational cheerleading for Trump is a manifestation of that more basic trait.

Thoughts?

A sign of the times?

Years ago, science discovered a cure for polio, antibiotics, electricity and nuclear energy. They did this through rigorous lab work, experimentation and the scientific method.

Today, “scientists” google pictures and make arbitrary decisions about what the pictures portray.

Apparently, that’s now what passes for “science”.

And the conclusion?

“It is clearly better from the dog’s point of view if you express your fondness for your pet with a pat, a kind word, and maybe a treat.”

Wow. That’s deep. It’s a good thing I had a “scientist” to tell me that or I would have never figured it out.

Obsession

What is it with the media’s obsession with the death of a minor celebrity?

Yes, I realize that the artist formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince was very good at what he did: He was a prolific song writer and very accomplished entertainer…I even enjoyed the movie he made way more than I would have expected to.

Yes, I realize that his death was somewhat premature. I’m not much younger than he was and I don’t think I’m nearly ready to go yet (unless it is in a fiery motorcycle crash, which is my ultimate goal, and therefore not untimely at all if it befalls me).

But come on…do we really have to mention his death every few minutes non-stop for days? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, how significant is his death really? It’s not like his contributions to society ended world hunger or cured cancer. He was a singer for crying out loud.

His family and friends have my heartfelt condolences and well wishes. Any death is a tragedy to those closest to them, especially an unexpected and untimely one and I am very sympathetic to their feelings.

But I didn’t know the guy. Even if I LOVED his music, I still didn’t know him personally. I feel sad for his death to the same level as I feel sad hearing about the death of anyone else I don’t know. His celebrity has no bearing on those feelings and I don’t understand why the media seems to think that it should.

Merry Buy a Gun Day!!!

It’s that time of year again: BAG day.

I actually celebrated this year for the first time in a while. Since it’s been a while, I saw no reason to limit it to one gun, I bought two.

I bought them online and talked about that in a previous post but I didn’t tell you what I got.

First, I am an NRA and 4H certified instructor and I really enjoy sharing the shooting sports with the uninitiated. I regularly teach classes, take newbies to the range, etc. The problem is that I’ve been missing something with regard to my training aids. I’ve got several flavors of semi-auto pistols to use for training, but the only working revolver I’ve got is a replica 1858 Remington cap and ball revolver. While fun to load and shoot, it isn’t really representative of modern revolver technology.

I’ve been looking for a long time for a .22lr revolver and I just couldn’t find anything that I wanted that was also in my price range. I decided that I needed to find something else. Something that fired a light enough caliber with a heavy enough frame that a newbie could handle it without too much trouble.

GP100I had a friend back in the day who had one of these and I always thought it was a great shooter, even with full house loads, so when I found a good deal on one…well…there you go:

The Ruger GP100 in .357 Magnum.

Nice heavy frame, adjustable sights, 4″ full underlug barrel, Hogue monogrips and should be very manageable for a new shooter with light .38 special loads.

And for the second gun…I’ve got a (very) old Springfield 12 gauge Pump shotgun that I bought for a song many years ago. It’s had a good run and has been a good gun for me, but it’s reaching the end of its service life. Starting to get wonky in the action…sometimes shells hang up while entering the chamber requiring one to “jiggle” the pump to get it to slide home. Also the firing pin is worn and it’s beginning to misfire by not striking the primer hard enough to ignite it.

Because it’s a not so popular brand that isn’t made any more, parts are hard to come by and resale value is low. I may try to fix her anyway just as a project, but I decided I needed something new and exciting in the shotgun arena.

I’m not a big shotgun shooter to begin with. I enjoy the occasional round of skeet and I have a thrower that I take out for some informal clay shooting sometimes, but shotgun isn’t my “thing” really…but it’s nice to have a good scatter gun when you need one. I don’t really feel the need to have a collection of shotties, so I wanted one gun that would do pretty much anything I need it to.

I thought about another pump, but I’ve not had good luck with a pump when shooting doubles in skeet. The pump is just too slow and while you’re pumping, it’s too easy to loose track of the 2nd clay. I decided I wanted a semi-auto. I wanted something long enough for shooting clays recreationally, but not so long that it would be useless for home defense or other “tactical” situation.

Other factors were that I wanted something common and popular enough that I’d be able to find accessories and parts for it and so it would carry some resale value if the need arose, but I didn’t want to break the bank on a Benelli or Baretta either.

I thought about getting a “combo” with both a 28″ and an 18″ barrel and swap out depending on what I’m doing. I was looking into the Remington 1187 but short barrels are hard to find, I’d probably have to buy a 28″ barrel and cut it down, plus the magazine capacity isn’t that great.

mossbergI started looking into Mossberg semi-autos and stumbled across this:
Mossberg 930 Jerry Miculek Pro series. Honestly, I don’t care about JM lending his name to it…in fact I usually avoid things like that to avoid the extra markup that it usually entails, but this was exactly what I was looking for.

3″ chamber, 10 round magazine (with 2 3/4″ shells), choke tubes, 24″ barrel, fiber optic front sight. Long enough barrel to effectively use it on clays, but short enough to still be useable in relatively close quarters and the best magazine capacity I’d seen on a shotgun. Perfect.

I got them both at Bud’s Gun shop in Kentucky. Their prices were right, they made the procedure easy (already had my transfer gun shop’s FFL on file) and shipping and handling was reasonably speedy. I paid using ACH so there was a delay waiting for that to clear, but you get a cash discount that way so it was worth it.

I was very satisfied with the service and my purchases. The weather here’s been crap on the weekends lately so I haven’t had the opportunity to go to the range yet, but things are looking good for this weekend. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Marry Bag Day to one and all!

Gays, Genes and circular logic

I’m no scientist, but I think I have at least a passing familiarity with how science works.

Supposedly someone discovered a “gay gene”. A gene that supposedly causes homosexual tendencies in men. Yes…yes…I know that all these “discoveries” have been debunked and there are scores of other studies that disprove the idea of a “gay gene” but bear with me.

So, to discover this “gay gene” one would assume that they used standard scientific practice. They compared the genes of gay men against the genes of straight men and found a gene that is prevalent enough in one set and not in the other to declare that this must be the “gay gene”.

With me so far?

OK…So they discover this “gay gene” be determining that gays have it and straights don’t by studying some number of gay men and straight men and controlling for other factors.

But today, in the Drudge Report (which I’m beginning to get a bit tired of. He constantly suckers me into clicking on a story only to discover that the story itself has little bearing on the sensationalist headline he gave it, but that’s beside the point) I found a link to this story:

Around half of all people, including straight men and women, could carry “gay genes”, meaning that they continue to be passed down the generations despite the tendency of homosexuals not to have children, new research suggests.

Wait…what?

So, they discover a gene that is predominantly present in gays, which causes them to declare it the “gay gene”, but then discover that it is present in about half the population regardless of their sexual orientation?

And their takeaway from this is that THIS is why the gay gene doesn’t die out through natural selection?

Grasping at straws here a bit I’d say.

How about this possibility: If you found the gene in half the population, straight included, then just perhaps your original contention that this is the “gay gene” has just been disproven by your own research.

Nah…can’t be that. We’ve got an agenda to push.