30 November 2010

MikeB's quote of the day.....

Over at Joan's place MikeB left this little gem in comments:

Heather, Everyone agrees criminals don't obey laws. That's the point, you guys keep saying it as if you really believe we're all so naive as to think they do. You know better, but you keep saying it in some lame attempt to denigrate.

The laws are not prinarily directed at the criminals, but at the law-abiding. As I see it, we write off the criminals and try the best we can to keep guns away from them. That we do by laws aimed at legitimate gun owners.

First, prinarily isn't as cool as "refudiate".  That's just an aside though.

South Park unleashed a meme into the collective that explains irrational plans.  "Underpants Gnomes".

Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit

The problem is, at least in Maine vernacular "You can't get there from here."  There is a missing step, step 2, and step two is a prerequisite for step 3 "Profit".

You have to have a step two that logically links one and three...  And MikeB's plan to "cut crime by curtailing the rights of the law abiding" is ridiculous.  In New Jersey a 27 year old man was sentenced to 7 years of prison for the crime of lawfully owning property.  Mike just turned a non-violent person into a "regulatory felon".

There are various degrees of felonies.  Some are violent like rape, murder, assault.  Some are regulatory like, how many cigarettes you are allowed to take across political borders, or how you store your personal property. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ever_wonder_why_america_has_the_highest_per-capita_incarceration_rate_in_th/

Mike, do we really need more laws to turn more people into non-violent regulatory felons?  Cause I can't figure out your plan other than

1. Restrict access to lawful gun ownership.
2. ?

29 November 2010

Rule of law only works if it is obeyed.

The initiative, which would apply to foreigners convicted of crimes like murder, rape or trafficking in drugs or people, has been criticized by human rights groups and legal experts, who said it could disregard international anti-discrimination treaties and the free movement of peoples under European Union law.

The Swiss have decided to adopt a simple, reasonable, restriction on foreign criminals on their sovereign soil.

Good for them.  As opposed to gun control (which is really about people control) this is a direct aim at people control, and might make a nice impact on the already low Swiss crime rates.  Sure wish we could do the same thing here, since a large portion of our relatively low crime rate is caused by illegal aliens.

And to the pansies who say that this violates some "human rights" or "anti-discrimination" BS, that is what happens WHEN YOU BREAK THE LAW!  Felons here can't vote or own guns.  Discrimination isn't always a bad thing.  Discrimination based on anything other than past history is usually a bad thing (let's see, the US Army won't hire you if you have certain convictions...all perfectly legal discrimination).

Get over it hippies.

28 November 2010

Zip Guns, why gun control is effing useless.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/st_dangerousobject/ (it is very easy to make a 12 guage bangstick from 1 inch, 3/4 inch pipe, a 1 inch pipe cap, and a machine screw)

Guns are like any technology, you can't "unmake" them until some new technology makes them obsolete.  When I can have a phased plasma cannon in the 40 watt range I just might give up a hunting rifle or two.

Gun control restricts access to guns.  This is what gun control activists want.  Restricted access to guns means that there will be a high black market demand, which is something that gun control activists DON'T want.  Unfortunately for them, reality cares very little for what anyone wants.  In such a high demand market, zip guns proliferate.  And enterprising folks with enough resources can even use the STEN design and multiple individual part manufacturers to make machine guns.

Guns are very simple technology.  You can't put the genie back into the bottle.

27 November 2010

MikeB in comments

MikeB commented on my post about reducing crime by reducing law.

That's really funny, AM. I'm glad you labeled it "snark."

The solution lies in gun laws that are sensible and enforceable. They would have to be consistent across all the states. Then you'd see progress and here's the kicker, lawful gun owners would still be in business.

But, guys like you and groups like the NRA and the gun manufacturers and all the lobbyists won't allow it. That's why I blame you.

And you, AM, you yourself are a very disconcerting individual. Reading your posts it's clear that you're extremely knowledgeable as well as passionate about guns. Why would someone like you oppose the kinds of restrictions that would address the problem and not hurt you?

And I answered thusly:
Blame me all you want. I'm fine with being disconcerting. If everybody likes me I am obviously not doing my job.

Gun control doesn't work. It hasn't worked here in the US, overseas in the UK, South Africa, Germany, Finland, Australia, India, and even Japan.

Japan still has gun deaths, even with all the "reasonable" restrictions you want. A professional pig hunter was arrested and had his single rifle confiscated because he allowed a television reporter to hold it during an interview. How reasonable is that?

After the Civil War the KKK started up to oppress blacks, and white souther lawmakers began the first round of gun control in the US, to keep the "uppity niggers" from having access to firearms. From the point of view of the bigots, it was a "reasonable restriction".

If you don't think allowing niggers to have guns was a political nightmare, reference the Dredd Scott decision. "It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

And it just isn't blacks, it was Jews in Europe. Primo Levi wrote that "After Auschwitz, every man must have a gun." Because he lived through being disarmed, lived through a concentration camp. He survived, millions didn't. The Bielski's survived, and they fought, it was long and hard, but they did what was right.

And after the Jews in Europe it was the Hutu's in Africa, the Montagnards of Vietnam. History has a thousand lessons of the unarmed being slaughtered by the lack of mercy and humanity of government. Armenians by the Turks. Ethnic Chinese by the Khmer Rouge. The Trail of Tears didn't happen because the Supreme Court allowed it, it happened because a man with a gun did what he wanted anyways and damn the law. That man was our elected President.

So you say you want to make life safer. Fine, good for you. But you live in a big playpen of civilization which has a very short shelf life if push comes to shove. I recommend you travel the world, or talk to a Cherokee or Sioux about the mercy of the Government.

Remember, he who has the guns makes the rules. And the GCA 34 was translated from German and implemented here by a Socialist President and Legislature. It can happen. And you are working to make it happen.

And if it takes my life, the life of my loved ones, the blood of my children, I will fight you to the bitter end. Because freedom is worth the cost. I have seen the cost of your "reasonable restrictions", and it is too high a price to pay.

But now I would like to add to my thoughts.  MikeB assumes that restrictions will not affect me.

All restrictions affect me.  There comes a time when normal people say "screw this" and stop trying to obey the law.

For example, I am not authorized by the Commanding General of Fort Benning to ride my motorcycle "on or around Fort Benning" because I haven't had a memorandum signed by an O5 signed and a driving background check done.

These "reasonable" restrictions have made me say "screw it".  I already had to take a three day course on motorcycle safety.  I already had to register at Fort Lewis (where the only requirement was to have passed the safety course, which I found very reasonable).

But I have had a security clearance for the last decade, I've had multiple background checks to keep that clearance.  I've had a background check for every firearm I've bought since I was 19.  I've had two background checks to get my instate and non-resident Utah concealed carry licenses.  I've had a background check so that I could volunteer to work with minors.  I'm sick and tired of trying to exercise my "privilege" of operating my own property.

Because as one "reasonable restriction" doesn't work, instead of taking that restriction away MikeB will want to add another "reasonable restriction".  And eventually there are enough "reasonable restrictions" that we end up with MikeB's wishlist of total registration, confiscation, and oversight.

I will not compromise.  Good cannot meet halfway with evil.

26 November 2010

Bore Time

The time a projectile spends in a bore is also the time that allows the shooter to move the firearm off of target.

Tom, a cantankerous old coot if there ever was one, claims that this is important.

I disagree for the following reason; the bore time for any firearm can be compensated for with proper marksmanship fundamentals.  As long as the you practice BRASS (breath out, relax your muscles, aim, verify your sight picture, and squeeze the trigger) bore time will factor into your zero and have little to no practical effect on accuracy.

Whizzbang speedy cartridges like the 22-250 or 22 Swift are not used in benchrest competition by serious competitors.  Benchrest cartridges are designed for consistency, and while some of them are capable of impressive velocity, many are not.  Of course with benchrest, you have a mechanical rest that helps keep the rifle aligned with the target.

25 November 2010

How to lower the gun crime rate.

I have a guaranteed method of lowering the gun crime rate in the US.

Get rid of some onerous restrictions so that criminals don't have to commit a crime just to get a gun.

Seriously, a criminal is going to get a gun no matter what (they are criminals, they break the law, it's what they do).  By making it easier for criminals to get guns we can avoid "straw man purchases" and that will cut down on the overhead for prosecuting buyers.

Imagine, people from New York won't have to buy their guns from a straw purchaser in North Carolina

It is only common sense that by making more activities legal we would have fewer people breaking the laws.

24 November 2010


Knife steel is HUGE topic, and sorting through the advertising, hype, and whatnot is a tough task.

So first, there are no magic steels.  There are very good steels for all around knife work like Busse Combat's INFI steel (good edge retention, good lateral strength, good corrosion resistance, relatively easy to sharpen, etc), and then there are steels that are very good at making a certain type of blade (such as 440A, it makes very good blades for small pocketknifes meant for slicing).

The bottom line is that all steel is good at something.  Buck uses a relatively cheap stainless steel (420 series) for their knives, but use excellent heat treatment to maximize edge retention, and generally leave the spines thick for lateral strength. Does that make Buck knives "low quality"?  No, it makes them pretty good knives for the materials used, priced to compete for the most market share.

I've been trying to find a commercially available steel that will give me similar performance to Busse Combat's INFI steel, and I've decided on CPM 3V.  Slightly less impact resistance than S7 (which Dan Busse of Scrapyard Knifeworks heat treats and calls SR77) and much better corrosion resistance than 52100 (Which Jennifer Busse of Swamprat Knife Works calls SR101).

Another steel that is comparable to INFI is A8.  Both CPM 3V and A8 knives can be found by custom makers at prices comparable to Busse Combat. 

On the other end of the spectrum, Ranger Knives uses 5160, aka "leaf spring" steel.  Ka-Bar/Becker uses 1095 (a very simple carbon steel).  These knives can be had for less than a Benjamin and will do everything you ask them to.  Just because a knife is mass produced does not mean a lack of quality.

The reason why smaller companies use premium steels is because they can.  The price point per unit allows more money to be spent replacing grinding belts and whatnot (although Gerber has started using S30V in some of their blades, and that requires constant honing of grinding wheels, but the price of the knives reflects this).

In the end, what is a Busse kin knife?  It is a steel bar cut shaped into a knife and heat treated.  This is not very "time intensive" and the biggest cost is the steel itself and grinding belts.  Heat treating becomes more cost effective the more blades you treat so that helps your bottom line.

Remember, it isn't so much WHAT steel you use (as long as it is appropriate for the task) but how that steel is treated.  When someone starts talking about their magic steel, take it with a grain of salt, it is likely marketing.  Blacksmiths have been doing magical things with simple carbon steels for centuries.  When you buy a knife, make sure you buy a tool, not hype.

And if you DO buy a custom knife (I own Busse Combat, Scrapyard, and Swamprat knives), don't be that guy who has to explain why his knife is superior.  A tool is a tool, and good tools are a joy to use.  However, owning a Corvette does not make you a race car driver, and owning a custom knife does not make you a survival expert.

23 November 2010

The world is going to hell, how are you?

Calls for "compromise" and "decency" coming from the liberal left are nothing more than a stalling tactic to blunt the force of the righteous assault.

Rules for Radicals tell us that we do not compromise.  We personalize the issue and drive it home.  We go after peoples families, tear apart teenagers in order to win.

So fuck you liberal left.  Warfare sucks, but YOU WROTE THE RULES. 

Goldwater wrote "The Conscience of a Conservative", and if the libs ever read it they would get a pretty good look at republicans and many libertarians.

Unfortunately for the libs there is one very conservative trait that we have, "get the job done."  The job of driving back the welfare state and encroaching government cannot be "compromised".  Slaves cannot compromise for fewer lashes and more gruel.  Slaves must pick up arms and kill the slave owner.

Slaves cannot vote themselves free.

So to the Liberal Elite who would be our masters, to late.  You wrote the rules, and now you will lose by them.

20 November 2010

Ever get that syncing feeling?

Well, I've managed to get my iPhone to say "sync in progress" with Rhythmbox in Ubuntu Linux, however I have not been able to transfer music from the computer to the iPhone.  Don't know what the problem is.

Have tried gtkpod and amaroK.  No love from either.  iPhone 3G running 3.1.2 and banshee may be my last hope.

even tried iTunes under WINE, but no love there.  If anyone is a *nix/iPhone jedi please toss me a bone.

19 November 2010

17 November 2010

Machine guns round the world...


The Poles even make a machine gun lighter than the 240B.  Heck, even the "new" lightweight 240L will be five pounds heavier than the UKM-2000.

What the hell?  I know FN has a lot of contracts with the Military, but it seems to me we need a new machinegun competition for light infantry.

Tired, sore, situation normal

Modern Army Combatives (MAC) is a very specific set of "jujitsu" techniques designed to instill the "Warrior Ethos" into soldiers.  It is a set of drills, techniques, and certification/tests that has four levels.  Level one is the basic, level two is sort of "advanced basic".  Level three is "Instructor" and level four is "Senior Instructor".  Like the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) there are aspects of training that you just have to accept as unrealistic in order to "train" safely.

But still, MAC is a contact sport.  And like any contact sport it happens to deal out its fair share of injuries.  Today I threw out my back practicing Combatives (learning the "new" stuff since I last went through Level 1).  I suffered through the day with my usual grace and stoic resolve (to anyone who knows me that will mean walked with an obvious gimp and bitched like a diva).

I hope that my back feels better in the morning.

13 November 2010

What victory looks like.

It is cheaper for the US to periodically invade Afghanistan to kill the terrorists operating there than it is to attempt "nation building".

In Iraq, the cost benefit analysis is the other way.  Iraq has resources that make it a viable "modern" nation.  Afghanistan may be "The Saudi Arabia of Lithium" but until that resource translates into infrastructure, it will remain a primitive society fractured and fragmented by tribal connections.

So what will "victory" look like in Iraq?  Well lets just keep in mind that the Iraqi's are probably not going to give us what we want as victory.  For the Iraqi's, some sort of self governance and relative freedom from Iran.  We want the number of democracies in the mid east to grow, so adding Iraq to Turkey and Kuwait helps us out.

Afghanistan is a different story.  It will be at least a generation before any sort of "modern" government can emerge.  Our founding fathers took a nation racked by war and set up a more modern form of government than Afghanistan has ever had.  And with their choice to make Sharia the supreme law of the land, it will slow things down even more (contract law is the most important thing in terms of trade, and contract law under Sharia is troubling at best).

War is not just fighting.  War is imposing your will on another entity.  In Korea we failed to impose our will on North Korea and China.  In Vietnam we failed to impose our will on the North Vietnamese.  I called it a "stalemate and a loss" for a reason.  We are still fighting in Korea (and anyone who says it isn't a war zone probably needs to spend some time on the DMZ or South Korean fishing vessel).  Vietnam waited our political leadership out, say what you want about George W. Bush, he effectively led this country and continually sold his vision to the American public.  And Bush did it in a media environment completely hostile to his vision.

More and more I am impressed with the leadership of GWBush.  Leadership is getting people to do what doesn't come naturally, and GWBush had that in spades.  It took six years of his leadership for the public to hand Congress back to the Dems.  Obama just handed the House to the Republicans.  Hopefully the Tea Party can keep the pressure on the Republicans to actually cut some damn spending.  That would truly look like Victory.

I figured some things out...

Liberals hate Palin because she's hot, GWBush because he is a man of principle, and that is the bottom line.

It is like high school all over again, hate on the pretty girl, make fun of the kid who reads his Bible at lunch.

And the real downside?  They'll list all the reasons that they *think* they hate Palin or Bush, but at the end of the day it is because she's pretty and he is principled.

Which is probably why the Dems made Lieberman run as an independent, he is also a man of principle (I don't agree with him all the time, but I always understand where he is coming from).

The Dems have abandoned the principles of morality and embraced the principles of power.  If Palin had said "We have to pass this so we can find out what is in it" she would have been rightly skewered for her lack of understanding of how politics work in "the most transparent govt evah".

But what the hell, half of Americans have a below average IQ.  Half of Americans don't pay taxes.  We are quickly dividing ourselves into a nation of thinking producers and feeling dependents.  But what the hell do I know?  Time to grab another beer and find a comfy seat cause this show is getting interesting.

12 November 2010

Mike Vanderbough pissed me off

Colin Powell noted that the current generation of service members might be facing greater challenges than the WWII generation.

The intentionally provocative dutchman said this:

Look, my son is now on his third tour of Iraq. He was with the 101st for the invasion and the surge and is now with 1st Armored. He was divorced after coming home to a faithless wife after his first tour. The stresses of multiple deployments are many, yes, but each time between deployments our troops get to come home, to decompress, to get "normal". With multiple deployments our kids can get in as much combat time as the WWII veterans, but Powell is comparing apples and oranges, I think. "Asking more of them" than the WWII generation? I don't think so. As much, in a different way? Perhaps. More? No.

First off Mike is entitled to his opinion.  Now I will explain why his opinion is wrong.

Seldom do soldiers in the current wars do repeat deployments with the same unit.  This means that you go to combat several times with several units.  The WWII generation had the advantage of spending the bulk of their time in a single unit.  This lack of stability is a lack of support.

The psychological support network, the "brotherhood of warriors" was more stable for the WWII generation.  The guys from WWII who spent three or four years together had a group identity that my generation is denied because of manpower shuffling.

The communication technology of today means that guys in the field have to deal with the stress of home as well.  Instead of the occasional letter Joe now has to deal with his home life and combat constantly.

WWII had defined fronts and little unconventional warfare or "insurgencies".  There are no fronts in the current war, and haven't been since 2003.

WWII had an easily identifiable end goal and victory was when a legitimate government surrendered.  We aren't fighting legitimate government and our political leaders have no clue what success looks like fighting terrorists, islamists, tribes, and jihadists.  It may seem like I repeated myself there, but depending on who you are fighting, there is a big difference between the 1920's Brigade and JAM.

The average Infantry Company now has to deal with the amount of land that a Battalion would be expected to deal with in WWII.

And to sum it up, WWII had the draft, an average age of a lower enlisted soldier was in the early 30's.  Now we are an "all volunteer" (read that as "mercenary", because we know we get paid to fight) Army.  The draft meant that America was in the fight, and public support was high.  Now America is at the mall, and public support is eroded as Harry Reid tells CSpan that "the war in Iraq is lost" during the surge.

Am I saying that we are better than the WWII generation?  No, we pretty much all agree that we have it better than "The Greatest Generation".

But remember, "The Greatest Generation" lead directly to Korea and Vietnam.  It took a stalemate and a loss to get the military from thinking we could always win by following the model of WWII.  Any unit currently serving could go back in time and fight in WWII.  But you couldn't bring a unit from WWII forward in time and get the same success.  Hell, we had guys scalping Nazi's and not being prosecuted for war crimes.  Now when a soldier gave a terrorist a mercy killing (they had the medic try to treat him) he still gets three years in prison.

11 November 2010

Another comment left at Joans I expect will end up as reasoned discourse

Joan, you say are you taking these statements to be a complete ban on guns? They are not. but I'm just not following you.

Let's go a little further and see what your fellow travelers have to say.

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center: "A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls . . . and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act . . . [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." "Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines," Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

Doesn't the Brady Campaign still endorse Feinstein?

You have quoted Josh Sugarmann here on your blog and have linked to the VPC. Why would you support a politician who publicly stated her desire for a total ban on guns IF YOU DON'T WANT A TOTAL BAN ON GUNS?

You need to explain yourself. And you might want to talk to Paul Helmke about how he is an extremist who supported the "Assault Weapons Ban" and has called for the AWB (which had no measurable effect on crime) to be reinstated without a sunset clause?

CBSNews.com May 2nd, 2007: Helmke attributed the situation to what he called "the insane, weak gun policies we have in this country," adding that "even the few laws we have are not adequately enforced."
He called for effective background checks on would-be gun owners, for law enforcement agencies to be provided with "the best technology available," and for the so-called assault weapons ban to be reinstated.
Congress in September 1994 passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, prohibiting the sale of semi-automatic weapons manufactured after the ban. It expired in September 2004 under the law's sunset provision, lacking the votes necessary to reauthorize it.

Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand how an organization that supports gun ban legislation, supports politicians who want to ban ALL guns, and supports other organizations that openly lobby for total bans, isn't really trying to ban guns.

Could you explain it to me?

10 November 2010

Joan's Lies.

Joan wrote:
It's time to stop with the angry rhetoric, the ugliness, the accusations, the sarcasm, the hyperbole, the fear mongering, the threats, the name calling and all the rest. I am not engaged in that kind of writing and will not publish comments of those who do.
You have not seen the sorts of language I wrote about in anything coming from the Brady Campaign. That is nonsense. You have not seen the sorts of language I wrote about in anything coming from the Brady Campaign. That is nonsense.

The above was written by Joan Peterson.  The following are excerpts from the Brady Campaign website.

“We congratulate Senator Boxer on her strong victory,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which had endorsed the Senator.  “When Carly Fiorina started talking about allowing terrorists to get guns, her market share fell as dramatically as Hewlett Packard’s did when she was CEO.”

That seems like a pretty personal attack to me....

She championed efforts to ban the dangerous .50-caliber sniper rifle in the state and fought back an effort to repeal restrictions on large capacity ammunition magazines that give criminals extraordinary firepower.  "Colleen Hanabusa has shown that she has the political courage to stand up to the gun pushers

Gun Pushers?  What a respectful way to talk about civil rights advocates.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Colorado gun violence prevention groups had filed a friend of the court brief urging the Court to hear the case and overturn an April 2010 appeals court ruling allowing a lawsuit to proceed that seeks to force guns onto the University's campuses.

Force?  How about "allow" you sanctimonious moron?

In a debate last week with her Democratic opponent, New York Republican Congressional candidate Nan Hayworth incorrectly said people on the terrorist watchlist cannot buy firearms in the United States.  Congress' investigatory agency, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, strongly disagrees.  According to the GAO, from February 2004 through February 2010, Brady background checks revealed that individuals on the terrorist watch list tried to buy guns and explosives 1,225 times, and that 91 percent (1,119/1,228) of those sales were allowed to proceed because the checks revealed no other prohibiting information. "There is no way that suspected terrorists ought to be able to obtain weapons...

Sure, because denying people their civil rights without due process of law is such a huge part of the American Way.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement today in response to a Wisconsin trial court judge’s ruling concerning the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:"The ruling by a Wisconsin trial court judge that the U.S. Constitution provides a right to carry concealed weapons in public endangers our communities, puts law enforcement at risk, and is just plain wrong.

Sure, law abiding citizens are too risky to obey the law...

U.S. House Candidate Van Tran Turns His Back on Law Enforcement
Washington, D.C. - Van Tran, the Republican candidate for California’s 47th Congressional District has voted against critical public safety legislation in the California Assembly to protect law enforcement officers and to help police solve gun crimes.Earlier this year, Tran voted against AB 1934, a bill that called for an end to the carrying of openly displayed handguns in public.  The bill was a top legislative priority of the California Police Chiefs Association, and the California Brady Campaign Chapters and it was opposed by the National Rifle Association.  “Tran’s opposition was a clear signal that he cares more about pleasing the

Ok, since when have open carriers in California caused any problems except making the pansies piss themselves?  You don't have to like other peoples rights, you just have to respect them.

Sarah Brady, the honorary chair of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a Delaware voter, today urged Delaware residents to vote for Chris Coons in the U.S. Senate race and not Republican nominee Christine O’Donnell.  “Christine O’Donnell might not be a witch, but her views on sensible gun laws are plain wicked,” Sarah Brady said.  “If she’s elected to the United States Senate, it would be Fright Night on gun policy.”

That just DRIPS decorum...

Sarah Brady, honorary Chair of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is urging Illinois voters to reject Gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady because of his “awful” positions on gun laws and vote for Pat Quinn for Governor. Brady, the candidate, opposes legislation limiting civilian access to military-style semiautomatic weapons

ooooh, scary guns that look like but don't function like other guns...

Carl Paladino, the wealthy Tea Party candidate who recently won the Republican nomination for Governor of New York, wants to repeal New York’s assault weapon law that restricts military-style assault weapons like AK-47s and Uzis.  New York’s assault weapon law was signed into law by Republican Governor George Pataki in 1999 and took effect in 2000.“Police officers in New York have enough risk in their lives without adding more AK-47s and Uzis to the dangers they face on the streets. With his views on gun laws, maybe Mr. Paladino would be better suited to run for Governor

Let's see, class warfare reference "wealthy", AK's and Uzi's to scare the sheeple, something meaningless about risk, check...that is fearmongering plain and simple.

Fiorina Would Allow Gun Sales to Terrorists
Washington, D.C. - Carly Fiorina, the Republican candidate for the United States Senate from California, opposes pending Federal legislation to give law enforcement the authority to prevent terror suspects from buying guns, including AK-47s, Uzis and other military-style assault weapons.  Ms. Fiorina publicly stated her opposition to this common-sense “terror gap” legislation at the May 6 debate for Republican gubernatorial candidates.“Is Carly Fiorina running for the U.S. Senate from California, or from some state like Alaska that seems to worship guns?” asked Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Damn Paul, do all fascists want to do away with the rule of law so badly as you?  The watch list is not reviewed by any judge, no one knows how you get put on it, and no one knows how you can clear your name off of it...secret lists remind me of goose stepping brown shirt wearing party apparatchniks.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:“We can expect two things as a result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws,

Gun criminals?  Trying to affect laws?  Criminals don't obey the laws in the first place, dumbass.

All these taken from press releases this year. http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/release/1188/  Joan, why do you lie when it is so easy to prove you are a liar?

Discourse, freedom style.

Joan wrote;
Nonsense. " Ok, since over 75% of murderers in the US have prior criminal records what do you intend to do? Make it even MORE illegal for them to possess firearms? : This is simply not true. Most homicides not random shootings performed by criminals. Many domestic shootings are commited by people with no criminal history until they pulled the trigger.

I am not repealing any ineffective gun laws at this point. What are they? Someone else asked me the same question. Are you guys ganging up on me or what?
AM responded:
You say "many" like it is a statistically significant word.

75% of ALL murders in the US are committed by murderers who already have a criminal record.  The fact that 25% didn't have a criminal record means right around 2,500 people are murdered by someone without a criminal record each year.

That also means that 7,500 (roughly) are murdered by a career criminal (known prior conviction). 

So you say "many".  I can't argue against that because "many" is not a definitive term.  However, if you want to do the most good, you will focus on those career criminals who are three times more likely to kill someone they know. 

If we lowball the number of legal gun owners in the US to 50 Million, that means that 2,500/50,000,000 = 0.0005% of lawful gun owners will commit a murder each year.  To put it into plain terms, that is still LESS than the 3,200 killed by surgeons making medical mistakes every year.

Clearly surgery is a bigger health hazard than a law abiding citizen who happens to own a firearm.  I don't make these numbers up.

Truth be told the estimated number of gun owners in the US is closer to 90 million, but I don't care how you cut it, being murdered by someone who doesn't have a criminal record is really rare.

And disrespectful thought of the day; "what did Joan's sister do to make her husband decide that killing her was an acceptable choice?"

Reasoned Discourse

The Internet is Forever....
Joan Peterson wrote:
I have been advised to remove some comments because of their nature and my responses, not because of their nature but because I was advised not to respond to some commenters. 

Joan Peterson, ba ba ba

Joan said:
You have to be kidding me, Are you serious? You are very scary. Leave me alone!!

Remember, sheep can't tell the difference between the wolves who want to eat them, and the sheepdogs who are tasked to protect them. 

Joan will never understand that some people carry guns not so that they can cause violence, but so they can stop it when it starts. 

09 November 2010

Saga of the Chiappa M4-22

The retaining nut that holds the whole bolt assembly together worked itself loose last time at the range.  Much better ignition with the reduced strength firing pin return spring, I don't remember experiencing a failure to get good solid primer hits.

Bad news, ejection seems to be a problem.  Lots of spent cases getting stuck in the bolt group.  My attempt at fixing this problem is removing the aluminum block behind the bolt (it can only be there for added mass and to possibly stop the bolt from going back too far).  By removing the aluminum piece it will allow the bolt to go back about a centimeter further (and it leaves a small gap behind the bolt visible through the ejection port).  By traveling further back I hope that this allows the spent casings to leave the ejection port withing being trapped by the returning bolt.

So it is time to go back to the range and see if this fixes all my ills.

05 November 2010

Note to Paul Helmke

NRA members outnumber "gun violence victims"

In a DEMOCRACY that means that NRA members get their way.

Sucks to be on the losing team, doesn't it?

Comment left for Joan, I know it will see the light of day here...


You say that Paul Helmke is right, but you cannot show that ANY of the nostrums proposed by The Brady Campaign, MAIG, VPC, or other group actually has any effect on reality.  Even with over 100 years of historical data the CDC could not find a causal link between gun laws and crime.  A smaller 30 year look in Australia came with the same result, no discernible correlation between gun laws and "gun deaths".

If you say that Paul Helmke is "morally right" we can argue that, but the facts do not back up any other sort of "right". 

Oh, and the bust of a SEAL smuggling back a few AK's that he then sold?  Please, this isn't some huge international conspiracy to put machine guns onto the "black market".  In a nation of 300 million you will have the odd smuggler, bringing in guns from overseas or north from Mexico (where despite their draconian gun laws it is much easier to acquire a machine gun).

04 November 2010

Schools started...

I spent all day sitting in a classroom with various power point presentations thrown at my brain.  Oh and a vocabulary and reading comprehension test.  I think that was the first time in three years I filled out a "scantron" sheet.


01 November 2010

updated flash

Playback of "Chuck" was poor, choppy, and easily unsync'd from the audio, so I went about updating my flash player.

With 64 bit Ubuntu that is no easy task.  Well worth the three hours of work it took.