Blood Dancin'? Why they haven't even cleared the scene yet.

Not that that will stop these ghouls.

What makes this school shooting interesting is that it's happening in a state that has a Private Sale Ban on the ballot.

And thus we have  DR710's comment (at noon) within hours of the shooting.

let's guess he got the guns from his gun loving parents like the majority of school shooters. one less gun nut. too bad for the innocent victims. YES ON I594 NO ON 591

Wilson172 the majority of schools where shootings happened already had armed guards you moron. read the news instead of the NRA propaganda. wrap that tin foil hat a little tighter and get back in the basement loser. 

So...  a few things.    The grand hate and dehumanization is pretty standard.  And  his (paranoid) ire is at Wilson's suggestion that faculty or guards should be armed.  And is worried that this tragedy will be used to exploit for further gun control.  (Note that).

Now if one presumes DR710's comment that "majority of schools where shootings happened already had armed guard" is right that means DR wants to... what?  Disarm them?  Is he against guards that have had training, background checks and uniforms?  Why?  Why did DR go on about guards and not say that Wilson also wanted faculty armed.

I'd wonder if DR even has a source for this and if so does it have the casualties of when there was on-site armed response versus no on-site armed response?

But the main thing to note is this:   DR is presuming that the attacker in this case got his weapons from his parents.   And *yet* he is demanding that a bill be passed which would do nothing about that.  Even DR's  idealized assumption is that I549 would do nothing but he'll push for it anyway.

And then he dares to call Wilson paranoid for worrying about exactly what he is doing.

Yeah... looks like my best stuff is my away game.

But hey at least I made Weerd Beard's quote of the day.

You can go here to read it and his thoughts on it.

Double-think at it's finest.

Science isn't a popularity contest!  Except when it is.

Yeah.... see Oliver, maybe the person that dedicated a whole segment (including a gaggle extras in lab coats) to the whole "99% of scientists agree!" poll and how great it was shouldn't be the one to say "Science isn't about polls!"

No Oliver, science is about how well a prediction matches empirical data.

How's that going for you champ?  

Cracked: Bless Their Heart Edition.

Sometimes I talk about how subversive Cracked is.

This is not one of those times.

No take a gander at this.

Come for the massive misrepresentation of Gammergate
(They are aware that it can be both sexist 4chan people *and* corrupt pay-for-play game reports right)?

Stay for the delusional scoffing at gun rights people.

Guys, if you Google long enough you can find a conspiracy theory proving anything -- from vaccines causing autism (CDC cover up!) to the government trying to take your guns (it's Obama and ACORN!).

Conspiracy?   Uh...  the president gave multiple speeches that he wanted an Assault Weapons ban... he lobbied congress to get a bill doing that passed.

How is that a conspiracy?  Or is it not "take your guns" if he simply makes it illegal to buy the most popular rifle in the country?

Oh and you gotta love a guy that writing a "chill out and don't do conspiracy theories"  unironically cites Aljazeera.

No conspiracies there,  good thing he wasn't writing an article about Jews.

Now the Aljazeera piece (which is also about Palestinians helping in Ferguson)  as to why the Tea Party is hypocritical because it didn't send armed militia to Ferguson.  Which is exactly what the cracked article crows about.

Oh and the NRA is at the fault... you know that shooting where the only person with a gun was the cop.

Heckuva job Cracked!

And then there's this.

Ask a fanatical gun nut if, for all their paranoia, they've ever had their weapons physically taken away from them by the government. Those guys sure are silly and deluded, huh?

So there you go. It's only a *real* gun ban if the state rolls around taking them house to house.

Oh the government passes a law making it illegal to buy or trade a very popular type of weapon? You know like the President openly lobbied for.  Well that doesn't *count*.

And apparently,  just because New York and Connecticut went ahead and passed their second Assault Weapons bans, and enacted registration schemes...  

One can't criticize even those laws...  unless you live in those states.

By this man's logic....  

Say Alabama decided to enact an abortion ban.  And they do it by banning women getting their *first* abortions.  If you've had an abortion before the law was enacted then you're grandfathered and can have as many as you like.

Again following this man's logic, first, do you live in Alabama? Oh you don't  then shut-up because you haven't personally experienced it.  And you're just a paranoid.

Oh, you do live there? Well have you personally had your attempt to get an abortion physically blocked by the government?   You haven't. Sorry according to Cracked, it doesn't count.

Oh you have? The cops threw you out of the clinic? Well it's not a *real* ban.   I mean the state isn't going door to door and closing abortion clinics.  Nor are they rounding up women who have had abortions.   They're merely making it illegal for women who have not had one from getting one.

Any sane person would say the law in this hypothetical case would be a blatant abortion ban.
But change it to guns and all of a sudden people hem and haw and go "well, it's not *really* a ban".

The Gear's a symptom....

On the whole militarization of the police.

The way I see it the equipment is a symptom of a greater problem of the attitude of how procedures are carried out (warrant service, arrest, ect).

To be blunt, that a cop has a gun on his hip (or slung over his shoulder) is the *least* scary thing about them. In a free society just about anyone can do *that*.

The difference is that Joan Q Public doesn't have police powers. She's got no legal way to break into someone's house, take their stuff, and kidnap the people inside (In other words, serve a warrant, come in with force, take evidence, and put suspects into custody).

It's like how one can propose that cops have "badge cams" when on duty and not want non-police CCW's to have them. Again the difference isn't the gun, but that police are employees of the state who are authorized to use force.

And to go back to the well of Peelian policing. Take a note that all the rules are about how the police interact with the public and the level of force they use, and not the kind of gear they've got.

That isn't to say that the police buying (or being granted) lots of equipment that they can't afford to keep, that eats a budget that could have been spent on training or other more useful stuff, isn't a problem. The use it or loose it dictum does come into play. But again, it's symptomatic of a larger problem.

As for which police gear is kosher, I'd say put it on parity of what the public can own. As the police are civilian, and that'd be a simple enough rule of thumb.

Yeah... Police Militarization is totally a "Red State" problem.

Some maps,  from the NYT of all places.   Again, this shows that blaming this on "conservatives" (or liberals) is a myopic view.   The problem is far too widespread for that.

Course liberal gun controllers also have to deal with the whole "Only the Police should have guns" and the proliferation of "military rifles" in states where they banned commoners from having 'em.

I'd like to stress that this gear is symptomatic of a greater problem.  That is the abandonment of Peelian Principals.

It's less the gear the police have and more their acting like an occupying army and thinking warrant service has to be framed like a tactical assault.

The problem with this gear is that it's expensive to maintain, is handed out cheaply,  and thus can become a big budget drain and threaten to be a white elephant.  So there's the temptation to use it.  And why not use it? Afterall aren't the police the front line in the War on Terror and the War on Drugs?

One can readily see how problems crop up.

Mr A knows who's to blame for the Militarization of Police.

Well.... it hasn't been quite a month since my last post... Yay?

So doubtless you've heard about the Ferguson riots and the over militarized police response. If not,  use your search engine of choice to read up on it.

What's fascinating is how this has mainstreamed the whole "Hey the Police are acting more and more like an occupying army and that's not good."

And of course whenever something enters the mainstream that conservatives and libertarians have been debating and warning for years many liberals have to pretend that conservatives and libertarians haven't been talking about it.

Enter Washington Post blogger Paul Waldma who makes such claims. Now I'll leave you with a link to David Kopel at Volokh

Of course, I'm not here.  I'm here to put up the latest bit from Mr. A.
(Hey it was this or his rant against the Israelis and how mean they are and that Egypt's Gaza border doesn't count.)

I was having a conversation with some friends talking about the police militarization.  These folks are very differing politically, but know that I personally am a large 2nd amend advocate and have been harping on the militarization of police for years.

And in saunters Mr. A who drops this bomb:

Those police are Conservative America in a nutshell
Big mouths, lots of gear, not much between the ears

I blink and give a drawn out...  Riiiiiight.  And he follows up with 

It's conservative towns that have these cops, that pay them, buy their tacticool gear.

And I ask "Liberal towns don't? Can we talk about cities? What about the armed helicopters that the NYPD has?  Does the LAPD need to have everyone armed up in SWAT gear?  How about Boulder or Burlington or any other city in the country?"

He then goes on about how cops are inherently conservative. Huh, an upper class liberal seeing LEO as untermenschen.

I then followup by pointing out "Heck, isn't the idea that 'Only the police should have guns' especially military guns pretty liberal?  Aren't liberal gun control laws the ones that specifically exempt cops?"

To which he demurred and then started talking about his job offeres.

It really does show that so much of gun control has a "stop hitting yourself" vibe.

Example: silencers are banned,  then people complain about the noise gun-ranges make.

Police are going all tacticool with military gear,  then very people that want it make it so that *only* the police can have such gear blame gun owners for the police having such gear.

And of course David Frum is on board with it going on about how the police wouldn't be all militarized and abusive in their powers if it weren't for all those armed proles.

Edit:  That's not to say that there isn't a "Law and Order" Conservative streak.  Tough on crime sells.  But for a liberal to think the militarization of police is only a conservative problem is to be in total denial.

Oh look another "X wants to reclaim the constitution"

So I've been seeing this article floating around and now it's in the WaPo.

How liberals can reclaim the Constitution

(I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is written by a guy hawking his book  on "Living Originalism")


What's fascinating is that it's just advice on Liberals to simply claim the constitution.   It boils down to "Hey remember civil rights and women's suffrage!"  And "The constitution is more than just the actual text and what judges say!"

So...  in other words.  Ignore that the amendment process was key in civil rights and women's suffrage  and keep pretending that the Constitution means "Laws we want are not just acceptable but mandatory!"

Basically this guy is going "Nu-uh! That the Constitution can change to mean whatever we want it to mean IS the real origininalism!"

Which is...  different from the status quo... how?


Though this is a huge admission of defeat: "Second, to better understand how the Constitution actually grows and develops, liberal scholars have turned away from the courts and judicial review — now the focus of conservative obsession — and toward the work of ordinary citizens and political movements."

It's not a wise idea to cede the courts and judicial review.

Course the article is full of paranoia about "Oligarchy" (but is oddly silent on how to *deal* with that problem) , and it weaves a conspiracy theory that somehow it was Conservatives who *tricked* liberals into abandoning Constitutional fealty.

And the guy ends by using examples of passed amendments to show how legitimate "Living Constitution" is.
I wonder if he's aware that Originalists don't actually thing amendments aren't legitimate.

I know he *is* aware that the biggest point of the Living Constitution view is that you don't *need* Amendments. That's um... kind of the whole point.

It's not just Diversity of *thought* that is eliminated due to these policies...

FUNNY, BUT ALL THESE LEFTY ENCLAVES THAT PRIZE DIVERSITY TEND TO WIND UP AS LILY-WHITE AS A HOWARD DEAN MEETUP: Feeling “Invisible,” Black Residents Leave Austin.

Related: Education is Producing a Nationwide Gentrification Effect. “The larger the share of a city’s workforce that’s made up of college graduates, the more expensive it is to live there.” And yet education is pushed as a cure for economic inequality.

Via Glenn Reynolds.

It's no stranger than how states with bigger "Blue State" policies have more inequality.  Course you can have a fun time looking at the causality in that codependent relationship.

There's a reason the Democratic Party doesn't normally put these party planks *next* to each other.

So ABC has their own List Post.  5 Things Liberals Really want out of the Obama Presidency

And the only thing surprising is that parts 4 and 5 are next to each other:

4. Gun Violence Prevention5. Voting Rights

And by four they mean "expanded background checks"  which really means a private sale ban.   And by 5 they mean "invalidate Section IV of the Voting Rights Act" which really means "Voter ID is racist!"

Okay, so if Voter ID is racist due to the disproportionate impact ID requirement on poor and minorities...

How are expanded background checks for guns not racist? They're literally proposing a law to make it impossible to legally buy a gun without presenting ID.

While at the exact same time saying a less stringent requirement is unacceptable because it's racist.

I suppose their argument is  "voter fraud never killed anyone", what but that's really saying is "Racist laws are okay if they keep those people from getting guns."


See, this is why the Democratic Party normally has a bit of daylight between these two issues.

But it's not bad when the Federal Pork brings us things we like!

Well, I've seen another example of why Congress is so fucked up.

I've got a friend who's really into gay rights.  And unfortunately his Congressman is a real ball-buster "family values", traditional marriage scold.

You know those preachy guys who make your skin crawl?

And of course my friend isn't too fond of this guy.

But!  My friend is really big into municipal parks redevelopment.

Well guess what Congressman is pledging to bring in a few dozen million dollars of federal money to revitalize a major riverside park.

Now all of a sudden my friend likes this plan. Yes, when even a politician who you find ethically and morally reprehensible can bribe you with your own tax money....


And people wonder why incumbents keep getting reelected.
(Fair disclosure I may have swapped the issues and what is getting federal teat money.... or I may not).

Great con!

Had a great time at the NRAcon!

Things got... busy this week, but I'll have a writeup and some pictures when I get the time.

Thanks to everyone who came to the BBQ on Friday!

And thanks to Erin, Wenthe, Odd and Mad Saint Jack!

The people in government are either dumb or evil. Let's give them more power!

So says Mr. A.

During a conversation about how there's "only idiots in charge" and how the mafia won again (this by a mutual friend talking about politics back in Quebec) Mr. A actually said something... interesting.

"There's only idiots in charge because we made it that way."

And when someone asked who would even want the job Mr A promptly replied: "devoted Machiavellians"

And yet this is a devoted champagne socialist progressive who is big on the "we know better than you".

It must be nice to be part of the aristocracy

Course if the red flag goes up... those that think they'll be the in crowd... might not be.

Not an April Fools.

An Illinois Handgun Carry Permit.

And it's been given to a commoner too!  

Never thought I'd see the day.

Tam was right: Yee's story does read like a Tarantino production of an Elmore Leonard novel

Wow,  seriously,  it's scary how it builds up.  There's drugs, guns, money laundering, paranoia, and more.

If you want to see how deep the hypocrisy hole goes for Yee  check out the FBI report on his alleged crimes. (The FBI better have this on tape).

Take this from page 94:

SENATOR YEE believed the other Senate Senator was wearing a "wire" for the FBI.  SENATOR YEE thought the other State Senator was a classic example of involving too many people in illegal activities.  SENATOR YEE believed his arms dealer connection could in fact provide weapons to UCE 4599.  SENATOR YEE took and "agnostic" stance on UCE 4599 and the dealer's purported weapons deal.  SENATOR YEE said "People what to get whatever they want to get.  Do I care?  No, I don't care.  People need certain things.

That's coming from an man who in 2006 was named to the e Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll by the Brady Campaign and has an A+ rating by this organization.

A man that wants to ban people from owning guns with detachable magazines.  A man that helped draft and enact a microstamping law.

A man who doesn't care what mobsters will do with the machineguns he sells 'em

Know what the anti-gun movement thinks they need? Even LESS grassroots!

That's what Timothy Bal  advocates in a brief, but amazingly delusional NYT letter to the editor.

Weer'd points out that this is another example of the Antis not bothering to understand how the opposition (us)  thinks.  Basically Bal has a two-pronged approach.

1) A mass evacuation and boycott  of "decent" people from pro-gun states.

2) Have those same people raise money to pass gun control... in the places they just left.

Yeah...  instead of wanting people to be more active and actually be able to vote and personally advocate to accomplish what he wants,  Bal is instead telling people to turn tail and simply cut checks to Bloomberg.

Look,  I can get leaving a state because you can't stand its laws.
(I moved out of New York)

And I can get wanting to do something to "help" where you used to live.
(I'm a member of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association)

But here's the thing,  I don't think moving out of New York positions me to be more effective at lobbying for New York gun rights.

But really Bal's argument is a concession that the gun grabber grassroots (such as it is) would do better concentrating their efforts...   holding ground in their home turf.

Quote of the day.... ME? (Part 2)

I commented on a post of Weerd's a couple days ago and he promoted it to a whole post.

Yeah, that's about it for now.

So a couple of Leftists start looking down their nose poor people on welfare...

Yes!  It's time for another Mr. A story.   This time it's in regard to Tom's thankless counter job.

But it's also an example of how quickly the compassion of "I'll make the goverment spend your money"  turns  judgmental and moralizing.

If you'll remember Mr. A is the well-to-do champagne socialist, and Tom is not so well off.  But they're united in a common hobby and a common hatred of "The Right"

Let's begin with Tom regailing the group with a story from his day job:

 Tom:  Obese woman with 6 kids comes in and spends 20 in foodstamps on 2 liters of soda and candy bars This job is so depressing sometimes.

 Mr A: I'm looking for a silver lining there, but all I've come up with so far is "at least she wasn't a tweaker"

 Tom: Yeah, but we do get those too. There's another woman. The state has taken two of her kids, and now she's pregnant with a third.
 

A third person (who thinks that maybe communism won't result in a piles of skulls either by incompetence or by malevolence if it's tried in Ireland)  is gobsmacked: "How can you spend 20 on 2 liters of coke and chocolate?: But is then apologetic going  "I suppose if it makes her feel good...."

Ah yes, because State aide is really just succor for the masses.

But what's fascinating is Mr. A and Tom reject that notion. 

 Mr. A suggests "2 bucks for the soda, and 18 candy bars"
 

 Tom corrects "3 2 liters. On sale actually, 2 for 2.50. Which gives you an idea of how many candy bars she got."

 
Miss Wolf asking the pertinent question: "I'm not sure how depressing that is. Six kids are going to go through a shitload of soda and candy bars."
 

She's right, what exactly is Tom's problem?  Divided among over a half a dozen people that isn't *that* much candy. Okay it's a lot of soda but maybe it's not going to be eaten all at once.

To borrow a phrase, who is Tom to judge?  What happened to her body her choice?  I mean it's not like she's spending his money...   Oh.

What is he depressed about?  That she's obese?   That she's got a lot of children?  That she's using food stamps for indulgences?

Ah!  He's depressed that all her kids are fat.

Tom answering Miss Wolf: : "And that's why her kids are all obese too"

My my, if Tom's not careful he'll start sounding like a conservative.  Course for Tom and Mr. A it wouldn't be the first time.

One wonders what "solution"  does Tom see?  Perhaps limiting what can be purchased with Food Stamps.  Making it so missuse results in their revocation?   Or are those reforms too heartless and icky?

Tom:  "Care to guess what the tweaker woman whose children were taken bought? Scratcher tickets. God I hate this job."

That's another thing Tom hates.   Stracther tickets.  He goes on and on about their addictive nature.  And when it's pointed out that the government makes them, profits from their sale, and maintains a monopoly...  he suddenly draws very quiet.

How much of the hate is from the loathsome duties that come from slinging a counter, and how much of the hate comes from seeing the beneficiaries of his Progressives dreams?

1911's outdated? They sure are.

I can't say there's much with what Hilton Yam,  says here about the 1911 being out of date and for a carry piece not really worth the trouble.  Via Bayou Renaissance Man.

And I say this as someone who at this very moment has a 1911 strapped to his hip.  And who uses one as a carry gun.  As guns they can be fiddly, they'd have more feeding issues and things that you have to tweak and adjust on them.

Especially when you compare them to a modern design. (Doesn't even have to be polymer or double stack. As a wear game I prefer metal frame, and single stack can oft fit in the hand better for me, not to mention the slimmer profile helps for carry).


Same goes for the 45acp too. I shoot 45acp.  I like to shoot it.  I have a variety of guns that shoot it. I even reload it.  But... with modern defensive ammunition a 9mm Para will get you there just as well, and give you greater capacity.

If I was starting off "clean sheet" on firearms.  I'd might go with something in  Kahr in 9mm.   Have one that'd be fullsize and one pocket.  They'd have interchangeable magazines too.

(Glocks don't "point" naturally to me.  I could fix that with practice but personal taste and all.   M&Ps shoot just fine for me, but I'm not too keen on all the little fiddly parts.  Nor all the stuff you have to do to get the triggers "right".)

But, if you really like a 1911 by all means carry it.  But like any other gun put enough rounds through it before hand that you're comfortable with its reliability and function.

That said, you'll have better odds with a more modern design being reliable out of the box.  Now as to how it fits in the hand... well ergonomics are a deeply personal.

Really, I'm surprised that this is actually news.  But the 1911 does have a long hold.

Two years ago today...

I did some work on the Desantis holster  for my PM45.

So let's see how it's worn.

Looks like some dust and dirt.  A bit of black on the woodstain.  And some of the "tacky" sections coming off.    All in all not bad wear.

And it still draws good.   So I'll say it wore pretty well.


Also the Remora magazine holders for my PM45 are holding up quite nicely.

As are the magazine holders for my 1911.  And my holster for my 1911.

If you want a solid holster that will be made to spec, I'll happily recommend Michael's Custom Holsters

For anyone who has lost a dog...

Which is all dog owners, save those who have had their own lives tragically cut short...

Brigid has a memorial to Barkley who passed yesterday.

  There is much that dogs do not understand,  but they comprehend pain, even if they do not know why  and they look to us, their companions for help. I can understand the pain of the realization when the best thing you can do for your best friend is to release them from their pain.

Sometimes our best is still tragic.

For me it was Bob.  A delightful talkative Brittany Spaniel. I got him when he was a puppy no bigger than my shoe.  Had him through high school,  was separated through university and grad school, and was reunited with him out in Indiana for one last year.

   Brigid,  I'm truly sorry for your loss. He was fortunate to have you as a true friend.

Edit: Erin's got a very touching poem up.  The third to last stanza really hit me.

Yeah I know it's another Tom story....

But this one's quite amusing.

So here's another story from Mr. A's  more blue collar progressive friend.

And he came up to a mutual friend in law school with this question:

I got a question maybe you can shed some light on in my town there's some sort of bylaw they put on the books. Once a year we have to pay them 60 dollars and they come into our home, make sure our fire detectors have batteries and check the temp on our water heater. If we refuse them we can be evicted. How the hell is this legal? Why do cops need warrants but these dipshits can just barge right in?

Just bask in the realization of what his policies of "common good" and "important regulations" have wrought.

The law school friend replies amazingly with a straight face:  "Because those dipshits aren't cops. They're there to perform a "necessary function of government" well, a necessary service. Also! those guys? if they see anything illegal? you don't have 4th amendment search and seizure rights"

To which Tom replies:

That's so fucked. We can check our own fire alarms, thank you. And why the fuck do they get to dictate what temp we can set our water heater to? And how is that a valid administrative reason? Apparently checking batteries qualifies and pretty much everyone has smoke detectors

Careful there buddy!  You're starting to sound like you're some libertarian nut job.  Besides you've got nothing to hide, right citizen?

Remember this IS a man who thinks people should be finned if they don't buy health insurance.

Ehh.... how about another rambling Tom story?

You might remember Tom? He's the more "blue collar" progressive friend of Mr. A.

Now I could tell the story of a "tongue and cheek" tabletop idea of Tom's.

Basically the paranoid right wing fantasies are... dun dun dun... right! That's fascinating for what he doesn't say. See the game is limited to right wing paranoia being communist-Muslim-gays and harry potter being satanic and chemtrail stuff.

And not things like: The IRS is punishing people based on politics.  The AFT shipping guns to Mexican drug lords.  The NSA spying on everyone's email. The President wants to ban guns.

But as Glenn Reynolds says. "Yeah but they keep raising the bar on what it takes to be ridiculous: 9 Utterly Ridiculous Conspiracy Theories."

And his views on guns are interesting.  He doesn't like them, and he doesn't like the gun culture. (There's also some daddy issues at work here. He doesn't want his dad being able to carry a gun.)  But  he'll readily confess the gun control won't work in the US.

And he'll begrudgingly admit that gun control has a racist history, falls disproportionately on the poor,  and the police are totally except.  And this is amazing from someone who is a big anti-rich, the republicans are racist, the cops are corrupt class warrior.

Heck, he'll bemoan the police abuse against the "mostly peaceful" occupy protesters while admitting that armed 2nd amendment protests don't get the hickory shampoo.

But then he'll go on about how gun rights seem to come at the cost of "open season on minorities".  He doesn't have numbers to show that gun control reduces white on minority violence, and because he doesn't actually advocate for gun control he doesn't have too!

Oh as a bonus,  he lives in Massachusetts and his bosses-boss is one of those "connected assholes" (his words) that can get a carry permit.

So he gets to bemoan gun rights, without actually having to face the arguments that refute his position.

And thus he'll occasionally mention some tragedy.  Like a father shooting his daughter when she snuck into the house and he thought she was a burglar.  Or a child accidentally shooting a sibling.

And he'll blame the gun culture.  And when it's pointed out that gun control is all about "abstinence only" education and that gun rights people are the biggest gun safety people and are very big on the Rules, he brushes it aside with a "Well, *some* gun rights people and organizations are big on safety".

Here's a comparison that made the penny drop for me. 

Imagine someone who is all "eww teh gay" and "The bible says Adam and Eve!"

Now imagine this person looking at the various court rulings and going: "Oh guess we're doomed to have gay marriage."

Now imagine this person rooting around for "crime of passions"  where the victim and murderer are the same sex.  And using these examples to denounce same sex marriage while bemoaning that its too late to stop it.

The upside? The guy won't actually advocate for gun control.   So there's that.

But he thinks of it less like a rights or even policy issue and more like a cultural greegree.


On a somewhat related note I've seen people who brim with oikophobia at the idea of  heathens from Utah carrying in NYC admit that magazine and assault weapons bans are stupid. Then they'll go and say the gun debate is pointless and doesn't even address the "real issue of violence".

This has happened a few times.  Heck Cracked even did an article with this exact theme.

Again you have someone conceding "Sure gun control is stupid"  but they can't admit that the gun rights people are... right.

See the people who are arguing for banning guns because they look scary, and the people who don't want to go to jail because they own the wrong type of stock are *equally* to blame for not addressing the "real issue of violence".

It couldn't possibly be that the former is a mite more exploitative than the former.

My guess is that they're saying "Sure gun control is wrong, but! That doesn't mean you gun nuts are right!"

Hell, I've had the Mr. A's friend lament that discretionary issue "isn't binary."  See he didn't like the idea of cops being empowered to deny something to people for any reason, but he felt all icky with the logical result being that all those stupid commoners could carry.

So he had to invent a third option.  

It's like MST3K but for shitty Tabletop games.

Erin's got a review up of Traveller 5.

And yes, it really is that bad.

And with special guest commentary by McThag!

Not all Kahrs are the same.

So I was at the Indy 1500 early this Sunday (as part of a very busy, and strange day).

And I was able to spot something I had been looking for for along time.

It's the one on the right.

See my father was impressed with my PM45, and he had a P45 but he found that was a bit big. Amusingly the table I found it at was run by the same brick and mortar gun shop that I bought my PM45 at.  It's another one with night sights and since this one was used and got on gun-show Sunday I got a good deal on it.

I put it through its paces and am now getting ready to have my FFL ship it to my father's FFL down in Memphis.  It's a belated Christmas gift, or maybe an early birthday.

Then I noticed something.   Despite being the same model guns are not actually identical.

Again new one on the right

See that, the slide is just a hair shorter.

That same difference can be seen on the barrels too.

3-1/8" barrel on the left.  3" barrel on the right.

There's also a slight difference in the recoil spring size, some engraving on the side of the shorter barrel identifying the caliber that isn't on the longer barrel, and some slight changes on the side plate of the receiver.

Still,  there doesn't feel to be much difference between that extra eight of an inch.

Edit:  Checking the serial numbers I think the smaller one is older.  And might even be a first generation.  Or a "series A" variant.

Echo Sling and Swiss K31 and Windchime

A while ago I learned about the Swiss K31 straight pull. Now as a southpaw I got a thing for oddball bolt action guns. And then, a couple months back, I learned that Aim Surplus had some in stock.   The were out of the pre-war walnut stocks at the time, but I was happy to get a post-war beechwood  one.

At around the same time  Erin was running Jennifer's Evict Lyme raffle.  And one of the items were a couple Echo Slings made by Matt Rogers.

Now I managed to clean up pretty well when it came to getting prizes. One of other things that came was a custom wind chime made by Mark White of Rimfire Designs.  Sounds great and yes that is Joe on the windcatcher.

 

But back to the K31.   So I had that coming, and it didn't have a sling.   Amazingly I did win a sling!

First a couple things.  I'm rather tall and broad in the shoulder.   This means often a sling can be too short for me.  I also shoot left handed and most long guns have their furniture on the wrong side, which eats up more distance and can make things awkward.

So I'm used to kludging things out.

But the real nice part about these slings?  Plenty of material to work with, easy setup and very sturdy material.

I've had very good experience shooting with it and can't recommend them enough.

If you want to help Someone out *and* order some knitted geek swag.

You may have remembered those great Jayne hats from the Squeak or Treat raffle.

Well Evelyn Hively the maker of those wonderful hats  her siblings have gotten into a spot of trouble and she's looking to help them. 

And here's what's in the offering.

I am offering Dr. Who Scarves (there's a 100 dollar version and a 425 version which is a very accurate one, as per several hours of research), they are both full sized but take 2.5 months to make.   I am offering Ma Cobb hats (these are usually 30), Tardis themed hats (30), dolls, shawls, bags, afghans, normal scarves, baby gift sets, custom coats etc.
This is not a donation, but a loan that I am paying you back with knit and crocheted goods as fast as I can make them.  There's two ways to get ahold of me:1) On Facebook I am Jade Rose Zen.2) Etsy located here:https://www.etsy.com/shop/JadeRoseZen?ref=si_shop

Easy and good to order from.  And now your timing might be as good as mine, as she had just finished a large Jayne hat just before I talked with her.

Link from Erin who's been busy boosting the signal.

Cracked and Guns... who knows?

So Cracked has a new article up on trying to "bridge the divide" on the gun control debate.

What I find fascinating is that the writer tries to keep a neutral tone. And goes with a sort of "hey both sides are crazy and should totally agree to this."

But let's look at what he's actually saying.

See Gun Grabbers should realize that not all gun owners are fat old white 'murrican!  men.  They should give up on their dreams of banning assault weapons because the bans are based on cosmetic features and are on guns that are hardly used in murders anyway.   They should also give up on magazine bans.  Oh and they should put facts before fear mongering and know what they're talking about.

Meanwhile gun nuts should admit that their Red Dawn fantasy camp dreams are just that.  That it's okay to own guns for fun.  Oh and gun people should calm down since no one's coming for your guns and that Universal Background checks are popular.

Note the difference?   Well the writer is telling the gun grabbers to give up and stop being ignorant and prejudiced.   Meanwhile the gun owners should be more honest about how nerdy their hobby is and calm down.

Maybe I've gotten the wrong impression, but it's funny how in an attempt to be "even handed" the writer basically writes off gun control's hole agenda of banning things.

See it's a compromise!


And note that the last two Gun Lover points aren't quite right.  Given that the President himself demanded an Assault Weapons Ban, and a magazine ban, and endorsed the states that passed said bans.  So that there isn't a federal ban on those guns owes more towards a lack of political power than presidential desire.  Is the idea of rushing to buy guns before they're made illegal really that crazy when there was a federal push with that exact goal and several states... did exactly that?

And amusingly for an article that denigrates gun control as being motivated by ignorance the writer doesn't actual define what Universal Background checks would entail, how they would function, or what they could ban.  Just that "Hey people like it when you say " making sure the dude buying a Glock doesn't have a restraining order or history of schizophrenia"

Because that's totally the same thing as making it illegal to loan your friend your hunting rifle.   Here's a dirty secret, when they say "expanding background checks" they don't mean expanding the check itself.