---

MAJ Anti is Infantry (Follow Me!), but USAMU takes all MOS/branches. (Heck, they have females, so you know they can't be all 11-series) You just have to be able to shoot (exceptionally) well.

by Heartless Libertarian on June 17, 2008 9:47 AM

---

IIRC, wasn't an army woman the big winner last year for the national cross country winter shooting?

by kat-missouri on June 17, 2008 11:30 AM

---

You mean the Biathlon?

It involves shooting, but it's not one of the things that the USAMU does. She'd fall under the Army World Class Athlete program.

by Heartless Libertarian on June 17, 2008 2:11 PM

---

"sliver Corvette": "chortle"!

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on June 18, 2008 2:54 PM

---

Heh. Had an interesting chat with a Canadian officer today... something about "Sugar Daddies" and "inbred black hats" came up...

by John of Argghhh! on June 18, 2008 2:57 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Natural selection does not like to be second guessed.

by Murray on June 12, 2008 3:35 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

As Castle Argghhh! LLC, is selling in the Leavenworth Farmer's Market (aka, little stand) who you calling huckster, kiddo?

by John of Argghhh! on June 11, 2008 6:49 AM

---

Remember the good old days, when we just had to worry about salmonella in bags of spinach? LOL

by fdcol63 on June 11, 2008 7:16 AM

---

Take it from one who may have been taken down by the tomato salmonella deal.... you do NOT want to get this illness. My case can't be proved at this point, but judging by the way I've been feeling for nearly a week, and what I had to eat just prior to getting sick, I'm pretty sure I am a statistic. It's been almost a week, and I am still bothered by headaches and nausea from the dehydration.

by AFSister on June 11, 2008 11:45 AM

---

Well, huck, if the bushel fits.. ;)

by kat-missouri on June 11, 2008 2:19 PM

---

Now you're conflating how I treat my friends with SWWBO's business practices...

by John of Argghhh! on June 11, 2008 3:30 PM

---

But all tomatoes should be washed before eating, officials advised.

Uhhhh -- just why would you *not* wash something -- other than ice cream -- before you ate it?

by BillT on June 11, 2008 4:05 PM

---

Friends? Who said friends?

by kat-missouri on June 11, 2008 4:31 PM

---

I don't wash Kielbasa before cooking it. I just take it out of the plastic wrapper it comes in at the store, boil it, and then make a sandwich out of it. Why would I wash Kielbasa(which, next to cheetos, is the food of the gods)? I don't wash bread either. No wonder you're so thin, Chief.

I dunno, John, I think I got a fair deal out of when I visited. I got a tour, a dozen history lessons, and some basic instruction in marksmanship. That sounds about right for a trip to say, DC, for the same things. (oh, and on the marksmanship thing, you think I should try shooting lefty? Might speed things up.)

by ry on June 12, 2008 12:31 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Well, hasn't the Federal Government already shown that secession is not an option? I believe 1861-1865 proved that a state may not secede -- legal or not. At least that is what my historian and politically active friends tell me.

by JimC on February 26, 2008 9:43 AM

---

Interestingly enough KDWill and I were talking about secession just this morning.

With the recent Tribal leader upheaval with Native American Reservations attempting to Secede from the US (which got shot down by the court ironically)

The ideal that states might secede due to current political climate, gun laws, restrictions, stem cell research taxes and otherwise, I hesitate to say it's a forgone conclusion that the idea of secession is not an imminent one.

As more states are looking to protect water rights, gun rights, personal property rights, and generally protect their states constitutions', I think, in fact if not practice a state declaration is in fact imminent in the next 5 to 10 years, versus just possible.

We were debating the factor of a major change in the governmental climate in the over all spectrum: ie is a revolution possible in the next 20 years? Spawned either from the left or right of the aisle? As majority conservative states continue to clash with majority liberal states regarding what they can and or can't do under Federal Law, at what point does the pot boil over from what citizens deem their rights to be, and what the law says their rights are? Toss in the personal rights reductions that have been encompassing our nation slowly (not just Patriot Act but things like gun rights for example) and I think the situation becomes more volatile in the long run.

Mix in a spatter of the Illegal Alien, and influx of aliens from other countries, both legal and illegal and the so called Melting Pot of America could lead to some pretty poor cooking in the long run.

But then I tend to be a cynic anyway :)

by BloodSpite on February 26, 2008 9:43 AM

---

Jim - based on the last 80 years or so, if we're going to rely on precedent, there is more recent verbiage on the part of government that would obviate against forcibly resisting secession. We're all about "self-determination" right?

That was why I put the slavery caveat in the post - the issue of slavery gives the Civil War the legitimacy that would be absent otherwise. Mind you - don't come back with all the exceptions and caveats regarding the start of the war... you know I know all that. I'm just saying that the issue of human chattel slavery gives the Federal position in the Civil War a standing that would be absent in the case of Montana seceding because they see the compact of the Bill of Rights as being broken by the Federal Judiciary.

by John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2008 10:25 AM

---

What John said.

by kat-missouri on February 26, 2008 11:26 AM

---

If conservative minded states were to secede and recall their delegation to Washington, who would be left in the Federal Gov't with the ba**s to stop the succession?

And John, even with the "moral high ground" of abolition, Lincoln barely got re-elected in 1864...

by Oldloadr on February 26, 2008 11:41 AM

---

Geez, get out of the weeds of the Civil War, people!

8^)

And I suspect Blue State Dems, seeing their power diminished, would be very bloodthirsty - for our own good, of course.

They would find some minority in the seceding states that would be harmed by the secession, and that would be all they'd need.

Their bigger problem might be the loyalty of the services, and the fact that a lot of combat power in the Guard and regular forces is stationed in Red areas, not to mention manned by Red people.

It would be ugly. As the lolcats say, "I do not want!"

And that's not just for political cya on fomenting rebellion. I truly do not want.

by John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2008 12:18 PM

---

I only made the point on precedent because that is how the country works. With the last 125 years under our belts could any of our states actually be an independent country at this point? Well maybe California, but would we miss them? -- oh yeah we need the vegetables.

BTW, whatever happened to the Ultimate Resolution? The national debt crossed the target point some time ago that was supposed to cause 14 states west of the mighty Mo to secede.

by JimC on February 26, 2008 1:53 PM

---

My biggest concern over either of the current Dem pretenders ascending to the throne is that they have the greatest chance of inviting 'rooftop recalls'.

Like John, that sort of thing is something I do NOT want going on in my country.

John Ross's book Unintended Consequences is a long read, but it's a good one. I don't think that Hillery or Obama would deliberately do something to push people over the edge, I just think that they'd do a comination of things that would do the trick.

by KCSteve on February 26, 2008 2:09 PM

---

Heh, Steve, as a gun-owner, what you describe is one of my nightmares. Nothing like an a$$hole killing a President to inspire gun laws.

It's one of the things I worry about, not that I can do anything about it.

Jim - but recent precedent is supposed to overturn older precedent, right? Almost by definition, else Dred Scott would still hold water.

That said - what is this "Ultimate Resolution" you are referring to? I have a gap in my memory banks.

by John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2008 2:23 PM

---

Hmmm. Can we _expel_ a state? I'm thinking Kali, and maybe NJ and Mass.

by Justthisguy on February 26, 2008 2:54 PM

---

Oh, I dunno, JTG, how about part of a state? The coast from San Fran to LA? Keep San Diego and the Inland Empire and the High Desert, the mountains and northern Cali. Hmm. Guess we'd want to give 'em Sacramento, too, mebbe.

Check with Bill about New Joisy, and Maggie about Massachusetts.

by John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2008 4:18 PM

---

The Ultimate Resolution was an idea in the early Clinton years, as I remember, to secede from the US if the national debt exceeded 6 trillion. I think that 6 trillion is correct it might have been 5. It was resolved by 14 states west of the Mississippi. I seem to remember Montana among them.

by JimC on February 26, 2008 5:43 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I think you should compete in that event, John!

by Beth Donovan (SWWBO) on February 20, 2008 1:49 PM

---

I do too...:)

by Carrie on February 20, 2008 3:00 PM

---

I do, three. Though just telling us about it is good, and like me, I reckon you have things going on preventing you from going. If I could get there with a half-day's drive I'd be there and borrow a rifle and participate, though I pierced the paper not even once.

by Justthisguy on February 20, 2008 6:21 PM

---

Yes, John, now that I have decided not to compete you have a shot. So you should definitely enter now that I won't be there to show you up.

by Princess Crabby on February 20, 2008 7:12 PM

---

I'm crying here on the east coast, as I own a 1903-A3 Springfield in 30-06, an Enfield in .303 British, and a M16-A1 in 5.56X45mm. I shoot all of them open sights, and am a former Top Team AMTU Sniper School graduate. (Fort Bragg, NC.)

Airborne, All the Way!!

by Alan Briley, RN on February 20, 2008 8:55 PM

---

Alan, you *own an M16Aanything?

by John of Argghhh! on February 20, 2008 9:15 PM

---

Hey, I'm sure he registered it just in time, having heard about the Hughes Amendment!

by Justthisguy on February 21, 2008 12:17 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I like the challenge. I'm thinking I've never really felt the need or been pressed to think about shooting a person so, while its vaguely on the back of my mind, what I enjoy most is the sport. Like skiing, baseball, golf and many other sports, it requires technical abilities, hand - eye coordination and various other skills that are challenging.

Frankly, the only thing I've ever aimed at with intent to kill was a baby copperhead that had taken up residence in my stone basement and apparently decided that it needed to come up stairs to get warm.

Other than that, I've not killed a single other living thing. I've come closer to killing humans and animals in my car.

Oh...and I like the power aspect of being able to control a controlled explosion sending a projectile down range at 2638ft/sec.

by kat-missouri on February 13, 2008 9:55 AM

---

I'm just a dilettante in this, but I found shooting captivating because of the instant-feedback factor. Putting holes in inanimate objects is very satisfying, and making minute adjustments in technique has big payoffs. And I'm competitive, so it was all very inspirational. :D

by FbL on February 13, 2008 9:57 AM

---

It's much more difficult to shoot as a civilian up here in the Frozen White North, so the only shooting I've done was in uniform. But for me, I loved it in the same way I love taking a basketball out on the driveway and shooting freethrows until I can go ten-for-ten, or jumpers from the corner. I've done a bit of archery, a bit of trap (again, not in Canada). I'm one of those people who will do drills on a billiard table or with a dart-board for fun. When I'm camping, I've even thrown knives for accuracy.

Hell, my son and I try to make smiley-faces on the side of the house with snowballs.

If you don't inherently understand that drive for accuracy, perfection, control in what you can project, I'm not sure it can be explained to you.

Oh, do you golf? Have you ever stood in the same spot, like on a driving range, and tried to hit a specific target again and again? Or putted from a fixed place to see how many you could drain? Same attraction for me.

by Damian on February 13, 2008 10:07 AM

---

Gotta admit, golf has no pull for me. I've played, twice, and realized it was going to take too much time I didn't want to slice out from other things to get competent at it.

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2008 10:14 AM

---

Lets see, why would anyone want to drive an automobile unless they just wanted to get to a particular destination. That is what they were invented to be -- transportation. Why would you want to drive one around a circular track as you aren't actually going anywhere. Archery is another example. The point is that each of these inventions require skill to operate. One doesn't just pick up a weapon, or start up a car the first time and instantly become an expert. The joy is in developing and obtaining, and exercising the skill. People just find pleasure in being able to do things.

by 74 on February 13, 2008 10:26 AM

---

I've been an avid sportsmen since I was old enough to climb in to a deer stand by myself.

My first gun was a Stevens Savage .20 single shot.

I progressed from there to a Winchester Model 94 .30-30, an excellent deer gun for the mountains and laurels of North Georgia.

My personal favorite now is a Stevens .30-06.

Hunting has led me to be a conservationist of sorts. Long story.

However I have not hunted since moving to the mid-west due to the lack of public lands to hunt and me not knowing anyone or where I can hunt save for my own families property in Georgia. 15 hour drive makes a weekend in a deer stand a tough sale.

I was raised on firearms, and as a kid we used to skeet shoot, and target practice.

When mmy grandfather would send us in the woods, as rounds are costly, he would give us a certain number of bullets. Come back with the same number or something to show for it. he reloaded all of our practice rounds himself.

Now I use target practice as a way to strengthen my hands. It's hard for me to shoot now with a set of hands that could make martini mixers envious, but I do fair. Fair enough that I know I could do what I had to if I had to so to speak.

I also do it to relax. It's a good excuse to get outside, breath some fresh air, and enjoy a pretty day.

Shooting is one of your most degradeable skills, and mine has went very south since leaving the service, but its not as bad as it coud be.

It's also a way for me to educate my daughter on what firearms are and for her to not take them lightly.

One thing I don't want her to be is afraid of them, but I do want her to respect them.

It's a fine line, but one my grandfather and father instilled well in me I think.

I'd like to pass that and a love for the outdoors on to her, while I'm still able.

And I want to know that when i can't deliver, I never have to worry about my wife or daughter and the protection they can provide for themselves.

by BloodSpite on February 13, 2008 10:26 AM

---

I've always enjoyed shooting. Ever since I was a kid and Dad or one of the neighborhood dads would take me shooting, mostly plinking. I was never particularly good at it, but never bad either. In all my army years, I enjoyed shooting. What can I say, the noise, the tracers, the dust kicking up. I never had a particular desire to shoot anyone, and as for combat, the shooting was really a small portion of what good soldiers are doing, ie: manuever, communication, controling your soldiers, just keeping track of what was going on.That type of shooting was just part of the job.
Shooting for shootings sake is relaxing and fun. Back in the old days, you used to be able to find a place near most towns where you could just go and shoot, not a range, but a dump or quarry. Burning off a couple hundred rounds of .22 or .223 with friends was a pleasant way to spend an afternoon. AFSIS may not believe it, but the thougt of shooting at people has no appeal to me. But I seem to have a pathological hatred of Coke cans. I've shot enough of them in my time.

by XBradTC on February 13, 2008 10:57 AM

---

Bloodspite - you can always come up here and go for deer. I can probably arrange permission to hunt our 80, plus another 240 acres that adjoin.

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2008 11:01 AM

---

To me, shooting is not about loud violent noises, nor about puerile fantasies of destruction. To me, it is all about the peaceful Zen-like trance that it makes me get into.

Firearms - Powerful Beasts that they are - do not react well to high-strung neurotic types. In these situations, at best they wildly discharge without control, or at worse cause harm to others.

Instead, one must become a Firearm Whisperer. Before even touching them, one must put oneself in a calm state of mind. Then, one must become intimate on what makes them tick That's right, give them the love and respect they need. Learn how do they operate; for if you do, the won't be prone to bite the hand that feeds them. Regular belly-rubs with emulsions and ointments makes them real happy too.

And when shooting, don't be rough with them. The gentle touch works best. Get into a comfortable stance, and become one with your target. Don't command your firearm to put its projectiles at a certain spot downrange; just convince your firearm that that is the best thing for them to do. Everything now comes naturally. Regulate your breathing; block out all ambient noise, and listen to your heart-beat. Only when shooter, firearm, and target are one in the same, gently pull-back on your index finger. REPORT - For an instant, all three become one.

Ahhh - No wonder shooting is so relaxing!

by Boquisucio on February 13, 2008 11:18 AM

---

Like so many others, I’ve always had a fascination with guns. I read a biography of Annie Oakley when I was in second grade, and I wanted to be her—I thought she was really cool!

I like the way guns look, and I like how they feel in my hand. The wood and steel are aesthetically pleasing to me. Many of them are works of art in their own rights. I like knives, too, for the same reasons, but I’m too clumsy for knives. 

I am not athletic, though my four brothers and sisters always were. I am also known as a nice person and I’m smallish and physically non-threatening—I don’t think anyone has ever been scared of me, including my children! I like it that I can excel at something that my brothers and sisters didn’t, and that I could be threatening if I had to.

I like the power of them, and I like the noise they make. I like to go the range after a frustrating work day and just shoot things. I have no interest in shooting living things—a target is perfectly fine. I do like the bad guy targets, and I recently got some zombie targets online that are fun.

Beyond that, I don’t know why I like guns. I just do.

by April on February 13, 2008 11:24 AM

---

Oh - and did I mention: that to me, the smell of conflagrating double base propellants, make for great aroma therapy.

by Boquisucio on February 13, 2008 11:32 AM

---

I have two very different motivations depending on what kind of shooting I'm doing. Recreational shooting is very zen like. In particular my wife and I shoot NRA High Power competition which involves rifle shooting with irons sights out to 1000 yards, though usually we only shoot out to 600 yards. The amount of discipline and concentration involved make a competition week or weekend take complete control of your being - breath control, heartbeat, postion, technique, breaking the perfect shot - you can't do it if you're thinking about work, or the last shot, or anything other than the "now". I don't even compete with the other shooters, I compete against myself. A weekend match is like a vacation because of the complete disconnect from the rest of the world.

I can't claim to be a hunter though we did go out and whack a couple of deer a few years ago. We ate venison for a year and thoroughly enjoyed it. Two small deer kept the two of us in meat for a year so economically it was a big gain, and morally I don't have a problem with it, indeed there's probably an arguement to be made that everyone who eats meat ought to be willing to kill it them selves (at least once.)

As a deployable National Guard NCO and as a responsible citizen I also train. I train to be able to accurately engage a threat - whether it be an enemy soldier, a terrorist or a criminal threatening the life of my family or myself. Not only am I responsible for the final resting spot of every round I fire, I'm responsible for the decision to fire it in the first place. I do not take these responsibilities lightly. While I enjoy the training, it is deadly serious in its purpose. The satisfaction is derived from use a tool well and as intended here. (I'm referring to the training aspect.)
Finally, as a collector, though now where near as deserving that title as our good host, the best answer I've ever heard to the question of "Why do you need all those guns?" is "Why do you need all those shoes?" :-)

by Pogue on February 13, 2008 11:52 AM

---

I can't figure out why people practice archery either. After all, a bow and arrow wer invented as lethal weapons (I can't mow my lawn or build a how with a bow and arrow) so there is no other reason to learn archery other than to learn how to kill.

Or is there?

by Phelps on February 13, 2008 12:03 PM

---

Shooting is one of the few sport hobbies at which women have an advantage instead of a disadvantage. At the beginning stages women have a lower center of mass for greater steadiness of platform, and at the higher stages a woman's heartbeat is not as destabilizing to the body on average as is a man's.

It is also a hobby based on discipline, relaxation, and steadiness, and you can decide for yourself if women have more of that than men. I think we can all stand to get some of that.

by luagha@yahoo.com on February 13, 2008 12:06 PM

---

I started to answer here, and the response got way too long...

http://www.midkiff.us/index.php?i=Why%20Shooting.txt

Thanks, questions like this really get me thinking!

by Chris on February 13, 2008 12:13 PM

---

I shoot because it truly is a blast to combine all of the required skills & to see the hit on the target where you want it to land. It is also to practice a skill I hope never need to use - the ability to defend my family from any predators who decide to attack my family while out & about or even to break into my home to take either the life or the freedom of any member of my family. Such a predator will have no chance of committing their evil deed in my home. This is the home of sheepdogs, not the sheep that they prefer for their standard pray.

Anyone who tells you that you can ban evil by banning guns has not learned the lesson of history. Look at the UK or the city of Washington DC for just a couple of examples of places where handguns are banned but murder & crime has skyrocketed. Evil exists & always will. You can decide to be a sheep & hope that predators never pick you, or you can be prepared for the worst but hope for the best.

As for me & my house - we hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

by Dustin on February 13, 2008 12:13 PM

---

My family came to America in the early 1600s. Relatives fought in the Revolutionary War. All four of my great grandfathers fought in the Civil War, two for the North, and two for the South. One died a prisoner. Another was one of three survivors of Co. E, Third Iowa Volunteers.

At age eight, my father gave me a pellet gun, a Sheridan with a rifled barrel. With practice, I got so I could put two pellets in the same hole in the target reliably. At age twelve, my father gave me a .22 for my birthday. I won an open shooting contest at the local range, bringing home a Thanksgiving Turkey that my mom didn't want, getting her all mad at me. It went to charity.

In the Army, I fired third in my battalion in basic. I have pointed a gun at someone while under orders on active duty.

Now I spend a lot of time in the mountains at a second home. I've had bears in my kitchen four times. My daughter is eleven, so I keep a high-powered rifle in an unlocked and loaded condition in my home. When people ask why, I show them the tooth marks the bear left in the milk carton. So far, the bears haven't tried for my daughter or myself, so I've just called the Sheriff. He pops them with a rubber round from his 12 Gauge, and they go away. But they can't be trusted, and we are a part of their historical food group. I'll be damned if I'll be lunch.

by Bill on February 13, 2008 12:13 PM

---

I defer to Krusty the Clown:

Guns aren't toys. They're for family protection, hunting dangerous or delicious animals, and keeping the King of England out of your face.

by SayUncle on February 13, 2008 12:22 PM

---

I think there is a bit more to shooting for a lot of people than just working on a skill. I think folks have a certain affinity for things that go "bang", like fireworks or explosions that are in a controlled environment. Watch the guys on Mythbusters (and the people watching the show) laugh when they blow something up. Learning a bit about guns and getting some proficiency at controlling them seems to spark a pretty primal sense of fun in a lot of people. Then there's the discipline and skill involved.
As to trophy hunting, done right, a trophy hunter is a person who limits himself to taking only a particular animal that is not only a mature, but usually old and therefore extra-wary. Basically, someone who limits himself, but, rather than choosing to use a weapon with a shorter range, or only hunt in a particular manner (not that he might not do both of these as well) but by only taking very large or unusual examples of the species hunted. Unfortunately, that is not the picture the phrase usually connotes and the class of hunters denigrated by the guys who substitute money and sometimes lack of ethics for patience and skill, confused by the idea that the end (a big dead critter) is the point, rather than the journey.

by mdmnm on February 13, 2008 12:32 PM

---

Host,
Please delete (one of) that double post and apologies.

by mdmnm on February 13, 2008 12:37 PM

---

you can always come up here and go for deer. I can probably arrange permission to hunt our 80, plus another 240 acres that adjoin.

Don't tempt me with treats like that. You'll end up seeing me more than you want ;)

by BloodSpite on February 13, 2008 12:39 PM

---

I shoot for the same reasons that people like to do things like snowboarding, kyaking, or playing basketball, it's something I enjoy doing. However, snowboards, kyaks, and basketballs are worthless when it comes to defending yourself and others from violent attackers. A gun is not. So for me shooting is both a enjoyable passtime and a necessary skill for self defense.

by Cactus Jack on February 13, 2008 12:57 PM

---

Krusty the Clown has a point on the most important uses of guns for sure, but above & beyond that.
I shoot for recreation & yes to relax. I live in the country & can shoot a couple shots or shoot all day from my yard where as pool requires another person & more organized game settings which is not my idea of relaxing usually.
In my area modern Deer hunting began in the 60's as a bucks only sport. Naturally hunters would ask size, where & when it was killed . It became a matter of pride to kill a deer with larger rack early in the season. This has been good for the deer population to kill bucks only or prefering to kill bucks so ill say nothing against trophy hunting.

by Gary Hobbs on February 13, 2008 1:17 PM

---

Those of you who double-posted - no worries. It's the famous "Castle Echo" and there is a little routine that runs around and cleans it all up.

Thank you for not posting and posting and posting and posting and posting and posting and posting. that happens too, the the little cleaner daemon gets mad at me...

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2008 1:23 PM

---

For the same reason I have practiced with and keep a fire extinguisher.

Practice is mildly entertaining, and sure there's a sense of accomplishment when I achieve a nice, tight grouping, but it's expensive and then there's the cleaning....

So mostly, it's that I want to be able to shoot well if I ever have to shoot.

Simple as that.

by DJMoore on February 13, 2008 1:52 PM

---

And let me add:

Because an awful lot of people want to keep me from doing so.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a bunch of folks telling me that I shouldn't put my head in this cement mixer....

by DJMoore on February 13, 2008 1:57 PM

---

"... guns were invented as lethal weapons ..." is the main point and the one most non-gun fanciers latch onto quickly. Unfortunately, one can cast about and find similar problems with much of modern sport. The original sports featured in the modern Olympics are derived from military training activities.

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on February 13, 2008 2:37 PM

---

Because there were those pesky Persians just across the water.

And the Thebans.

The Spartans... and let's not even get *into* the damned dirty Macedonians hanging up north.

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2008 2:40 PM

---

I don't shoot much any more, basically twice a year when our club takes assorted olde gunnes out for exercise. Still, I love, err LIKE guns and horde all I can. Think Castle size addiction here. (In fact some of my overflow now adorn the Castle!)
Digging round in a big box an hour ago, I just rediscovered my first gun, a Stevens 14 1/2 Little Scout .22 rifle. Still got it!
I had great fun with guns in school shooting at paper targets on the rifle team through High School and College. I often wished we had enough room to add 50 feet of culvert out the basement for an indoor range, but alas, the neighbors would complain about burrowing under the fence into their yard!

by John on February 13, 2008 4:08 PM

---

OK... but why did you LEARN to shoot?
Something made you all decide "I need to learn how to shoot a gun". What was it?
I know why you like it, and I'm not ignorant enough to think that firing a gun makes you a murderer, but why did you learn in the first place?

by AFSister on February 13, 2008 6:04 PM

---

Because I wanted to. Simply put. I like guns, so I wanted to know how to use them.

Not because I wanted to kill anything.

Just because.

Literally.

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2008 6:17 PM

---

Because at the tender age of 8, AFS, I learnt that it was fun to take down hornet nests at a distance, with my trusty old double-cylindered .22 Cal. Coleman Pelet Rifle.

Piss of them hornets and run like hell.

This all happened at Gramps' old farm in Cidra - BTW

by Boquisucio on February 13, 2008 6:19 PM

---

mmmmmm Cidra.... beautiful place, Boq!

John, I don't understand the "just because" answer. I know that's your answer, but I don't accept that answer for anything. There's ALWAYS a reason, no matter what. There has to be something more to it, even if it's "Dad was doing it, so I wanted to try too", or "Guns give you power, and I wanted power over something- anything."

by AFSister on February 13, 2008 6:45 PM

---

Boq..at least you had a .22. We used to throw rocks at the nests behind the barn and then ran. Obviously, you "lost" if you got stung.

Man, I could run fast when i was young.

I personally learned to shoot because, first, my dad was a police officer who always had his gun hanging in his belt on the back of a chair or laying on the table to clean, so he taught us to handle the gun, to clean it and to shoot it so that we would not think it was an object of mystery.

I took it further because I simply wanted to know and quickly learned to enjoy developing some skill.

by kat-missouri on February 13, 2008 6:49 PM

---

OK.
Kat has an excellent reason to learn about guns - if they're going to be around, you'd better teach the kids to respect them and how to handle them properly.

by AFSister on February 13, 2008 6:58 PM

---

God - Do I hate hornets. They wouldn't let me pick ripe guavas from the trees in peace. Ripe Red Juicy ones would invariably be hanging right next to a dozen high-strung, little beasties; all packed tightly around their paper nest.

When I turned 8, Pepe (my gramps) pulled out the old Coleman Pellet Rifle from the closed. The same rifle that my uncle had used back in the 50's.

First thing he did was teach me the basics of shooting, plinking cans down 20 yards away. I quickly got the hang of it, and learnt to enjoy the calming feeling of putting that bit of lead dead center on Mr Goya's Beans.

The hornets on the other hand, were an exercise on adrenaline rush. Step into the Guava Grove, smash and run for dear life. Solarcaine is good for stings, I soon leaned.

by Boquisucio on February 13, 2008 7:02 PM

---

The initial reason I learned to shoot is just because it's fun. Dad took me out for my first time in the Arizona desert with a derringer and a coke can. A couple of years later I got an air rifle which was great for cans in the back yard. After that, it was the occasional trip to the range with Dad and his pistols (31 years on the California Highway Patrol) and shooting black powder, shotguns, and .22s in scout camp every year. I think Dad taught me and my brother and sister to shoot because he had guns in the house due to his work. If he hadn't it would have been Grandpa because he enjoyed shooting and hunting all around. I continued shooting after the first trips because I just thought it was fun to put rounds on target.

I now own the .22 that was passed down to me from Grandpa and it's a fun little rifle!

I've thought about hunting a couple of times, but I really don't see the point for me - I like beef, pork, poultry and fish. So yeah - it's been all about targets and fun my whole life.

by Parrothead Jeff on February 13, 2008 7:34 PM

---

Jeff, why did you Dad need guns for work? Police? Military?

by AFSister on February 13, 2008 8:06 PM

---

Why do I shoot?

Might as well ask why I breathe.

by Kim du Toit on February 13, 2008 8:53 PM

---

Kim, I could get all sarcastic back at you.. but I won't.
Why did you learn to shoot? I have a pretty good idea of why you like to shoot.

by AFSister on February 13, 2008 8:59 PM

---

AFSis - Most of us well know we have acquired a skill capable of killing. Hunting is killing, after all.

Meat eaters who buy their meat at the supermarket simply outsource the details. They are as complicit in the killing as the wielder of the knife, killing gun, or neck wringer.

Heck, the meat eaters have created a market that causes most of the animals harvested to live very brief lives in very artificial circumstances. Not true of hunters.

Many martial arts produce the same possibilities.

Many skills are easily adaptable, you appear to think that we simply don't think about it and don't care about it.

I think you're really very wrong in that perception, but perhaps I'm misreading something.

Just what is your point/concern?

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2008 9:16 PM

---

Just because. Really. I mean you can parse the crap out of it. I like guns, just for the fact they are what they are.

Therefore, I want to shoot them.

What do you want? That secretly, deep inside, I revel in the thought that I have the power to kill?

Sorry to disappoint you. It just ain't there.

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2008 9:22 PM

---

What is my point... what is my concern?

I'm not a gun user. I am not anti-gun. I am pro-gun ownership. But... not being a gun user, I posed a question: What made you want to learn how to shoot a gun?

Answers have ranged from "it's relaxing and fun" to "Might as well have asked why I breath". So I have to wonder if many of the commenters have ever thought about the original purpose of guns, which is to kill. Pure and simple. Obviously, some have, but not all.

And yes, I do realize that intent matters, and yes, I do believe that you can learn how to fire a gun without the desire to kill a person.

As a non-gun user, I don't see the attraction. I don't know why anyone would want to learn how to use a gun, or perfect that skill, for any reason other than killing or defense. And apparently, asking why did you learn how to fire a gun makes everyone around here quite defensive about that decision. Defensive postures indicate you feel threatened by my question- which is all the more reason to explore your answer.

by AFSister on February 13, 2008 9:54 PM

---

I have a photo of myself, taken in 1970, wearing a sailor suit, riding my wheeled plastic duck and aiming my double barreled popgun at something that is out of the frame. I was still a couple of months short of 3 yrs old. I would say that's proof that I have always been into guns. I was probably 5 or 6 when I fired my first .22.

Pat

by Pat on February 13, 2008 10:02 PM

---

I am always bothered when people confuse the purpose of a gun with an intented use. The purpose of all guns is to put a projectile (bullet) at location X (where YOU aim). Anything beyond that is a use of the gun.
To use a bad analogy what you said in other words is: cars and alcohol were only invented so you can drive drunk and kill people, that's the only reason to learn to drive.

Why I shoot? The Zen of it, one trigger pull at a time. It takes huge metal concentration to put the bullet where you want it. Try it, try hitting a target at 25 yards and see if your head can be disorganized and unconcentrated. You will need clear focus and to quiet your body to get it done.

by 686plus on February 13, 2008 10:20 PM

---

Yes. I have thought about what a gun was built for and used for. It's original iteration being the tool of large forces to invade or defend, resulting in death.

I usually think about why I should own one above and beyond the skill and challenge as being a necessity for defense against hostiles, starting with any and all who would attack this country.

I then think about it in terms of self defense as it became to be used thereafter and in terms of hunting though I never did enjoy that (one quail hunt was enough for me, thank you).

The difference is, what you intend or want to do with it, as has been noted.

Do I want to have to pick up a gun and defend against invading forces? Do I hope for it? Nope to either, but I would if I have to. I think a lot of people see it in those terms. I don't believe that a free people who are responsible for maintaining that freedom should rely on diplomacy or a few forces (percentage wise) to defend it. If we are not willing to do it, who will?

In regards to self defense, the difference is whether you go looking for trouble or try to avoid it. even owning a gun doesn't make you super man. bullets don't bounce off. thus, like 99% of America with guns I do all the things a non-gun toting person does which is to not go into areas that I believe are dangerous if I can avoid them. Keep aware of my surroundings at all times but most specifically when I am alone, in less traveled areas (like parking lots at work after hours) or areas that are not well lit, etc, ec, etc

I don't go around thinking "I got a gun. Let some punk try to rob me. I can kill him." That is just stupid. It's not the first thing on my mind at any point. The first thing is actually how I can avoid the situation all the time.

I don't know about the rest of the people on this comment section, but I certainly never imagined the gun made me immortal or empowered me to be an idiot with my life or to take someone else's because I can. the last is for criminals.

Once you've carried a gun and shot a gun, the idea that it can kill IS with you at all times. But, the idea becomes subconscious and you simply do things that maintain safety through the same subconscious and conscious efforts.

But, I suppose that may be the difference between those who respect the power of the gun and those that don't.

Finally, the defensiveness about your repeated question comes from the usual reasons. Most people that keep asking that question have a deep seated fear that people with guns ARE CRAZY and either are mesmerized by the power to kill or are all idiots who are likely to kill you either by accident or purpose.

But, you got honest answers here. What people think about the gun is exactly what they wrote. They are neither made crazy, idiots or killers by owning a gun.

As I once wrote to a fellow who thought all gun people were crazy and potential killers:

Cain killed Able with a rock. when you see the rock lying in your yard, is your first instinct to fear it as a weapon? Or pick it up and hit somebody with it?

People are who they are. They only "change" when they own a gun if they weren't who they thought they were in the first place.

by kat-missouri on February 13, 2008 11:55 PM

---

Initially, historical interest led me to muzzleloader shooting, then flintlock muzzleloader. Which led to my oldest daughter (and later her brother) joining in competitive shooting. (And making friends with some very fine folk in the process.)

Then, too, good firearms can be lovely machines, and the historical aspects arise again.

Spending a morning and part of the afternoon trying to put small holes very close together can be extremely relaxing. And the company tends to be pleasant, putting a little icing on the cake.

Haven't done any hunting, yet; but it's a possibility for the future, too.

by steveH on February 14, 2008 12:01 AM

---

I haven't read the above, so this may be a duplicate: I shoot stuff because I just like things that go bang, and I really do like the potential lethality of it all. I love to shoot stuff, and the bigger and noisier the better. I've fired everything from an old luger to an M60A1 Main gun (and drove the tank for 2 months of tank gunnery), done M60mg doorgunner practice on a huey one time, hung 4.2in and 81mm mortar rounds, fired real and subcaliber LAWs, thrown grenades (that may not count), clacked of real claymore mines, fired M2 50cal and the machine guns on a tank, and so on. I've stood beside or sat on or near scores of firing tanks and got lots of pics (see the www.canted.com gallery), stood next people sending TOWs being sent down range, fired a 106 recoiless once, watched Cobras and A10 shoot up targets nearby with rockets and guns, watched napalm dropped in Hawaii, and all sorts of arty stuff get fired from Hawaii to Ft. Hood Graf. Bottom line, I really like things that go BOOM, and the bigger the boom the more it turns me on.

Like John, however, I do not hunt or aim guns at living things. I have also been fortunate enough to never have to shoot at a person, and I've only ever been shot at once that I know of (for doing something I shouldn't have been doing in a place I shouldn't have been)--good thing the bad guys were crappy shots (or were being nice).

For all that, however, I really do like being competant enough and comfortable enough with weapons to be able to defend myself if ever I need to. I don't want to shoot another person, but i sure want to be able to if I need to. That's the reason I have allowed my daughter to shoot things since she was around 8 (one of her uncles who lives in more open country could stock an arsenal with all manner of small arms, so whenever we go there, she gets to go out to the Gin to shoot. I don't ever want her to have to shoot someone, but I sure as the devil want her to be able to. What I find interesting too is that she sees nothing wrong with hunting "as long as you eat what you shoot, Dad." Good for her.

As for me, I want to fire a howitzer someday, a 155, or better yet, and MLRS!!! And I'm still hoping to be near a shuttle sometime when it takes off, cause I figure that's got to be the biggest boom going. Short of that, I wanna hear another one of those MOABs go up, like the one thy fired off in Florida when I was there. We all heard it at Ft. Walton beach, my wife heard it 30 miles North in Crestview! It was dropped somewhere between....

Oh and as for the man-shaped targets, well why not? People don't come in black and white stripped circles.. :-)

by SangerM on February 14, 2008 1:07 AM

---

AFSis,
Dad was on the California Highway Patrol (state police) for 31 years and I can remember when they switched from revolvers to semi-auto pistols as well as when they got Ruger mini-14s and then switched to AR-15s. That's why we had guns in the house and why he had them for work.

Now about the whole original purpose idea. Yes, I know it and have thought about it. But I don't dwell on it. I think the best analogy I can come up with is a civilian nuclear power reactor and the people who operate it. They all know that the original reason the atom was split was to make a terrible weapon. They put that same power to use to turn on a porch light. They don't dwell on the original purpose, only their reason for doing so.

I'll give you a standing offer - Any time you're coming to Las Vegas, drop me a line and I'll be happy to take you out with my quiet, virtually recoil free .22 and we can go put holes in paper, cans, and anything non-living for fun. If you like it, great! If not, maybe I'll have provided some insight ;-)

by Parrothead Jeff on February 14, 2008 2:29 AM

---

I shoot because guns go boom, bang, and ratatatatat. This makes me smile.

I'm kidding, of course. All my life, I've been around handguns, rifles, etc. I can even remember how easy it was to teach me about firearms safety. My grandfather went and bought a canteloupe, set it on a stump behind their house, backed off three steps, and hit it with a blast from his old Savage. He then looked me in the eye and told me "If you ever fool with firearms, that's what your head will look like. Treat every weapon with respect, and always assume that a weapon is loaded."

I fired my first rifle at age 6, which was my grandfather's old .22 that I'm about 80% sure is still locked away in the big safe at my parents' house. Don't know why it wouldn't be.

I fired my first shotgun, an old side by side .410 that my Dad bought off a friend of his for maybe $20, at the age of (ten???) Memory's a little hazy on that one.

My first handgun was some piece of junk .380 that my Mom got somewhere. She's never been as badly into firearms as my Dad, my brothers, and myself.

I'll admit, I haven't always been smart when it comes to weapons. Remind me sometime to tell the story of me, Dad, and his model 629 S&W. Hint: I was 14, 5'7", and all of 100 pounds soaking wet.

I own weapons. Unfortunately, I don't currently have any of them with me, they're still in Georgia, but I know they're being taken care of. I have two 12-gauge shotguns, a Mossberg 500, and a Winchester 870. I have two rifles, a .300 WinMag and a .30-30 Winchester Model 94. I only have one handgun, a Glock 27 (if you haven't shot the .40 Smith, please do.....).

I hunt in Michigan. I love it there, and yes, I eat what I hunt. I don't hunt for a trophy. I hunt for food. Venison, to me, is the best meat that God ever put on this earth. And if I can't use all the meat, I am more than willing to donate it to a less fortunate family.

I shoot because I love it. It relaxes me, like someone said earlier, it makes the world go away until it's just you, the rifle, and the round. (Well, in my case, except for the .223.....I ain't never been good with that. Put something north of .30 in my hands, and then we're golden.) I shoot because I enjoy it, I shoot because I love it, and I shoot because the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution says I can.

Hopefully, I didn't ramble too bad during this. It's just my $.02

by sandman6actual on February 14, 2008 4:11 AM

---

Hey AFSis - I thought you asked why we shoot, and I answered that (for me). As far as why did I start? Easy - it looked fun. Same reason I tried a lot of things. Some I enjoyed and kept doing, some I didn't.

I don't think anyone is getting defensive, but you are kind of coming off like "I don't accept that answer" to honest attempts to respond to your question.

by Pogue on February 14, 2008 7:08 AM

---

Actually Pogue, you gave me an excellent answer. So did Boq, Jeff, and Bloodspite. You gave me the reasons you learned to shoot, and why you continue to shoot. That's the kind of thing I was looking for.

The only answer to any question I have a hard time accepting is "because"- doesn't matter what the question is, who asks it, or who answers it. There's a reason for everything, not just "because".

by AFSister on February 14, 2008 8:54 AM

---

What? I didn't give that kind of answer, too?

As for my 'defensiveness,' Pogue nailed that one, too.

Exasperation would have been a more accurate description.

by John of Argghhh! on February 14, 2008 9:35 AM

---

Personally, I have an issue with AFSister's

As a non-gun user, I don't see the attraction.

I was a gun non-user for many, many years and was very attracted to guns and shooting. So don't accept that statement.

Why was I attracted to guns? And why did I recently start shooting? Because shooting looked like fun.

And it is fun for me. Obviously, it doesn't appear to look like fun to AFSister, as she doesn't "see the attraction." That's fine.

But what sense does it make to debate and demand reasons for something that folks have already said very plainly is fun? Just as well argue about why someone likes one color more than other colors.

by Murdoc on February 14, 2008 12:55 PM

---

With all due respect, I believe that if you ask "why do you shoot" No answer can explain it.

It's almost like that old saying, if you have to ask what a top of the line Ferrari costs, don't bother cause you can't afford one.

by jim b on February 14, 2008 4:05 PM

---

I call bull John. 'because' is inadequate. It's a way of evasion. One could do anything 'because' and the missing info is not given. Like why did you kill mum? Oh because. Or why did you donate your life savings to starving kids? oh because.

It doesn't have to be your defensive "That secretly, deep inside, I revel in the thought that I have the power to kill?" But it's not just because.

Actually it's the answer I get out of the kids sometimes. You have to dig to get the truth. Not that the truth is always bad. One cannot dig a John of Arghhh across a blog however.

Still the question has been answered widely enough imo. I completely understand John's connection to old wars via the bangsticks of the age. That's like realism collecting.

I guess i could understand the challenge/skills but I'd have to feel connected to the usefulness of said skills and I think that's a weak point for me.

I don't understand AFSis either, have you never had any interest in guns? No games? no toys? no movies? TV shows? I am not a gun user probably never will be but I can't say I don't understand the attraction at all. Not that I really understand it well.

by Trias on February 14, 2008 8:32 PM

---

Trias, the "because" was an artifact of the exasperation at the implication I had somehow not answered the question.

I had the impression that AFSis found my answers to be inadequate.

Because I did answer the question, in multiple ways, as these cherry-picked bits from the post and thread indicate:

I have *always* had a fascination with firearms. I got my first gun, a M1873 Springfield Trapdoor, when I was 15, as part of a family distribution of guns from the old family hardware store. All the males in the family got one. I still have it, natch.

I'm into the variety of weapons I own because I'm into the history of it all, military and technological. These artifacts were there. As participants, so to speak, at events we only read about.

I love to shoot them. Just for the sport of fitting myself to the tool (and adjusting the adjustable parts of the tool to me) for the purpose of hitting that elusive "x" in the center of the target. The combination of accounting for all the variables - the ammunition, the sights, the shooter, the micro-weather between the muzzle and the target.

I'm into the guns and the shooting for the history, the technology, and the test - can I hit what I aim at, and with anything you hand me (which is also a soldierly combat skill, in truth).

Because I wanted to. Simply put. I like guns, so I wanted to know how to use them.

Sandman6 said "I shoot because guns go boom, bang, and ratatatatat. This makes me smile." You can sign me up for that, too. Which is just another facet of what I said above.

by John of Argghhh! on February 15, 2008 9:01 AM

---

John,
You told me why you LIKE guns- and I appreciate that. Most of what you said, I already knew from previous posts and conversations.
My original question was "Why do people learn to use guns".
It was not "Why do you like to shoot".
I also asked "What is the appeal of target practice if you're not practicing to actually shoot something other than the target". That question was answered repeatedly, but my first question was rarely answered.

Call it symantics if you want, but I was trying to figure out why people first picked up a gun and learned how to use it. I have a friend who was robbed at gunpoint and beaten. I know why she learned- to defend herself against any future attacks and because even if she could have gotten the gun away from the guy, she wouldn't have known how to use it.

by AFSister on February 15, 2008 9:30 AM

---

OH- Trias... THANK YOU for backing me up on the "because isn't a good answer" deal.
Like I said, I don't accept that answer from anyone, on any topic. There is ALWAYS a reason.

Re. your question about what interests me. Sure, I have lots of interests- but I've never had an interest in learning how to kill anything- even a target.

by AFSister on February 15, 2008 9:34 AM

---

Part of the problem is, I'm thinking, is that many of us saw

"Why do people learn to use guns?"

and

"Why do you like to shoot?"

as a form of chicken and egg question, depending on how you came to it, which isn't what you were after.

To better refine it, and keep it a "me" question to maintain parallelism, it should read,

"Why did you learn to use guns?"

and

"Why do you like to shoot?"

And you don't want an answer to number 2, though many of the readers see the answer to number 2 as answering number 1, as well, hence the mutual frustration, exemplified in Jim B's response of

"With all due respect, I believe that if you ask "why do you shoot" No answer can explain it."

Why did I learn to use a gun. Because - wait, can't use that term, it's verboten.

My answer is, "I like guns. I am fascinated by the technology and variety. Therefore, I learned to shoot them." Which, in one way or another, I said. The history aspect developed in parallel.

I still have the feeling you are searching for something else in the answer, when it just isn't there.

by John of Argghhh! on February 15, 2008 10:37 AM

---

As to the refined question "why did you learn to shoot?" I'm probably in the same boat as several others who commented. I learned to shoot with supervised bb gun and occasional .22 rifle sessions around age 5 or 6. At nine, I was (again supervised) participating in dove shoots. At ten, I was shooting competitively. I learned to shoot because, in the culture I grew up in, that's what a significant percentage of the kids did. I was too young to really analyze it. As things turned out, I really enjoy it and have some talent for it. That's not true for everyone, I have two cousins who had similar introductions- one loves to shoot and competes on a national level in a couple of shotgun sports, I doubt the other has picked up a gun in the last five years. He knows how to handle one, but it isn't his cup of tea.

by mdmnm on February 15, 2008 2:12 PM

---

Ok John I get it. I'm not sure AFSis is looking for that kind of answer though.

OH yeah I'm with you on the because factor alright. There's an old German trick; Warum? Darum. AFSis I'm going to go out on a wing here and say I think it's possible something about guns repulses you. It seems illogical given this blog environment but hey it sort of reads across the text. Is that true? If so remember not all have this feeling so for them it's not about looking for a reason to overcome the repulsion. The hurdle, if you like, is far smaller.

The following is even more subjective guesswork. I present it though because i think it might clarify what AFSis is requesting. At least I hope i have interpreted it correctly.

AFSis if you're looking for the initiator like the very first reason it was touched/shot it's probably something simple like why one uses scissors or the fridge. We pick up and try many objects as a matter of discovery. Probably they were available. They see dad do it and are curious or if they are older perhaps they see it as useful for whatever purpose.

Then once it's experienced well we keep using it because it proved it's usefulness etc. With bangsticks the competitiveness and the power of it would be appealing as well.

Any of you other guys have a take on this? I'm too gun clueless to be clear enough. I guess it's possible John doesn't even remember his very first reason, I doubt I would have.

by Trias on February 15, 2008 8:59 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Nice shooting... I always did like the ergonomics of the Radom. I shot one for years, and then traded it for a nickled M1911A1 in .38 Super- THAT was a sweet shooter, too. And a good deal- I sold it for three times what I payed for the Radom.

by Neffi on February 12, 2006 2:00 PM

---

She's probably much cuter than you are.......

.......Mr. C.

Imagine how she'll shoot once she's got 10 or 12 range trips in!

by Mr. Completely on February 12, 2006 4:52 PM

---

Mr. C - no doubt, no doubt, on all counts. That's why we got the memberships!

by John of Argghhh! on February 12, 2006 4:58 PM

---

Nice shooting, now why don't you give a few lessons to V.P. Dick Cheney, he could use them. Have you heard about the Elmer Fudd hunting incident?

Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

by Raymond B on February 12, 2006 7:40 PM

---

Indeed, Raymond, I have. I linked in the H&I post.

As for the Cheney incident, all I can tell from the news thus far is that one of the two were out of position.

Regardless, it is the responsibility of the guy pulling the trigger to ensure his line of fire is clear.

I'm sure we'll hear more about this - but the bottom line is - someone didn't pay attention to the rules.

That's why there are rules.

by John of Argghhh! on February 12, 2006 7:44 PM

---

OH yes, the lib cartoonists are gonna have a field day with this, you dambetcha! I can *hardly* wait...

by Neffi on February 12, 2006 7:56 PM

---

Heh. I suspect a few conservative cartoonists are going to get in on it. I'm betting Muir... among others.

Mallard Fillmore, perhaps?

by John of Argghhh! on February 12, 2006 8:18 PM

---

Oh sure John. Put a dozen or so rounds into the head over 5 yards away, and then complain about it. Geez, not only do we have to put up with collection envy but now accuracy envy too? Youse a cold bastid(or not, it doesn't seem that ambient temperature affects you much).

by ry on February 12, 2006 9:57 PM

---

C'mon, Ry. Quit whining. That's not combat shooting, that's warm dry and comfy shooting, with no messiness... like a moving target.

If I could shoot like that in a shoot-house or combat range... then I'd be impressed with my shooting.

by John of Argghhh! on February 12, 2006 10:20 PM

---

" A good Red State day", what a perfect description! I took my brother out for a similar day during his weekend visit to my red state.
A Utah red state day

by Nate on February 12, 2006 10:58 PM

---

Yea - the Veeps little shooting incident is already being called a 'fiasco' in the teaser for the local news ... sheesh. Just another reason why I don't watch local news. If the Olympics weren't on, I wouldn't have been watching TV at all!

by Barb on February 13, 2006 12:32 AM

---

Heh....and here I thought I'd get an invite, being so close and all.

I feel unloved. ;)

by kat-missouri on February 13, 2006 2:10 AM

---

Perhaps SWWBO didn't want to lose her semi-auto virginity in front of witnesses, eh?

We did buy memberships - so one *may* infer from that we'll go again.

It was also a scouting trip for a probable Castle Muster venue.

by John of Argghhh! on February 13, 2006 6:04 AM

---

SWWBO isn't into pistol range voyuerism?

I admit I have gun envy.

I thought that might be the case. Scouting out the territory. I will have to make sure I have my ear plugs and safety glasses in my shooting bag and ready to go at a moments notice. Though, last time I was at the range, I used up a good bit of my ammo. Need to restock.

Hey, speaking of weapons, my Bersa is the older model and the wooden grips and screws are in bad shape. I've looked on the net and found some places, but I was wondering if you knew of anyplace locally that would custom fit some grips?

I couldn't find any new ones for the model. Everything I found was for the new Bersa .380 which has different notches for the releases and safety than my model. I was hoping to not have to send the thing away or pay $300 for grips (in which case, I'd just go buy a new pistol). 'Preciate the help.

by kat-missouri on February 13, 2006 3:19 PM

---

I humbly suggest that SWWBO be coached to place her weak side thumb on top of her fingers, "cupping" the grip on the weak side of the pistol, not grasping over her right wrist.

Many "first time" auto shooters get away with the grip employed in the photo, but I've seen many eventually get their thumbs run over by the slide.

by TmjUtah on February 10, 2008 1:32 PM

---

Certrainly, TM - remembering this post is two years old... and I got lots of email grief for that pic...

by John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2008 6:01 PM

---

Sorry about the prickage. It wasn't intentional. I was just trying to insulate myself from being completely off-topic for hijacking a thread just so I could brag on the LG.

[Hey, it got me to post gunnish stuff - it's all good! -the Armorer]

by Yu-Ain Gonnano on February 11, 2008 11:08 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Even safer place to keep the loaded pistol is on your person.

Being out in the country KS law allows you to open carry as you wish. I think you're ok carrying concealed on your own property with or without a permit but not being a KS resident (or lawyer) I can't say for certain.

by KCSteve on February 7, 2008 11:22 AM

---

Yup. Don't I recall a test, wherein six kids at a daycare- who had been through the Eddie Eagle program- were each 'allowed'to find a (empty) hand gun mixed in with the toys? Followed by six who had not attended the program, each encounter secretly video-ed... IIRC all six of the Eaglets did the right thing, immediately putting the piece down and going to get the 'teacher'. All six of the others played with the gun, one boy even putting the gun to the head of a little girl and pulling the trigger.
Educate the kids and secure the firearms. It's the only sane and responsible thing to do.

by Neffi on February 7, 2008 11:23 AM

---

Many years ago in a world far far away my father made take the Hunters Safety Education Course.

At age 6.

Then again at 10.

And 12.

And finally at 15.

Not because I didn't learn, but rather because, at home in Georgia at least, the predominant currciulum of the time for the course was firearm safety.

With that plus his own education to in that regard ("Guns can kill people, they are not toys to be played with, you should not fear them but respect them, and respect the work they can do and provide for you." My father, and I, were avid hunters)

Often he took the time to have me clean them, with his over site, so that I would be familar with them, understand them, knew how to make sure they were unloaded, and they became not a curisoity or something for random examination, but rather a fixture and something I had no reason to bother with at all save for when they were required. namely deer season.

In this, I can say, I felt he did right by me for certain.

by BloodSpite on February 7, 2008 11:38 AM

---

Not appalled....just jealous.

by David M on February 7, 2008 1:59 PM

---

Keith said his local news station ran a story last night about a reporter who just "walked right in to a gun shop, bought ammunition... AND LEFT! No questions asked!"

Granted, the story was on armor-piercing rifle ammo, but the fact is, buying ammo isn't illegal anywhere.

by AFSister on February 7, 2008 2:10 PM

---

AFSis,
All (or almost all) center-fire rifle ammo can penetrate your standard issue police bullet proof vest and as such is "Armor Piercing".

It's just that calling it "The most common deer hunting ammo" doesn't sound near scary enough.

Just remember, no one is going to take your hunting rifle. Until they start calling it a sniper rifle.

by Yu-Ain Gonnano on February 7, 2008 4:55 PM

---

And they won't let you call your assault rifle a hunting rifle, either.

Even if you actually hunt with it, and it cost more than their digital camera did.

by John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2008 5:01 PM

---

Oh, and by the way. I just hafta share (this is a gun-ish blog of sorts):

The LG and I just completed the Safety Course needed to obtain our state's Handgun Carry Permit.

And while I've only been to the pistol range twice before, I've got to say my groups looked pretty dang good. From all the targets I could see, only one person shot better than me.

But what really made me proud was the LG, who had never shot a gun before came in 3rd. If it hadn't been for two fliers she would have beaten me.

The instructor looked at her, then at me and asked me if I played poker. I told him I played a little. He looked straight at me and said "Don't Cheat".

Heh!

by Yu-Ain Gonnano on February 7, 2008 5:11 PM

---

jim b saunters in and sits. He gets himself 2 fingers of Scoresby's and plops down on the couch.
He reads the comments and says.... What kinda idiot would keep an unloaded pistol in a toybox?

I only keep bayonets and live grenades in mine.

by jim b on February 7, 2008 9:29 PM

---

Nice post. On that note don't eat the candy grandpa and granma have near their plate at dinner. It's.. theirs.

by Trias on February 8, 2008 12:26 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Ummmm, where do we submit our claim for a new keyboard??? Seems mine is not working well after all the drool from looking at your collection. Please give warning that computer equipment should be wrapped in plastic before showing those pics again. :-)

by Andrew on January 29, 2008 3:37 PM

---

Andrew - submit all claims to:

www.bradycampaign.org

Make all contributions to:

www.nra.org
www.goa.org

Or the nearest RKBA org that you find congenial.

by John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2008 3:51 PM

---

..but does it come with Mushy Peas?

by CDR Salamander on January 30, 2008 6:23 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

If your state allows "shall issue" concealed weapon permits to good guys with minimum hassle (about 40 states do now) then you should get a permit to carry. Maybe you don't want to carry every day, but it is good to have that option so you CAN defend yourself. You never know when you may find yourself threatened, so it is good to be ready all the time. (Don't wait for the kitchen fire to start before getting a fire extinguisher, either!)
Remember, when you are in serious danger and seconds count, the police are only minuntes away.

by John on January 26, 2008 10:32 AM

---

Nay! OF COURSE he "was in fear of his life." That eliminates any question whether his use of lethal force to blow away the two scumbags was proper & justifiable. Lacking that, a shyster lawyer could make a case the one living wounded robber was due damages for at least medical expenses.

One dead slimeball and one in critical condition bothers me though. Did he run out of ammo?

by NOTR on January 26, 2008 1:08 PM

---

Awesome, awesome story.

by FbL on January 26, 2008 1:23 PM

---

Semper Fidelis!

You know what they say, "Once a Marine, Always a Marine!"

by DoubleTapper on January 26, 2008 1:34 PM

---

Nice!

by Murdoc on January 26, 2008 4:11 PM

---

Perhaps a revised advertising slogan for Subway?
'Subway... Eat Lead!'
hmmm.... mebbe not...
;)

by Neffi on January 26, 2008 5:22 PM

---

I guess one was a to-go order....

by SangerM on January 27, 2008 12:52 AM

---

Subway, HIS way. Outstanding.

by Cricket on January 27, 2008 5:58 PM

---

"once a Marine, always a Marine...except for Jack Murthaforker."

by doug in Colorado on January 28, 2008 4:29 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Citizen, Arm Thyself:

Audio of a 911 call.

by Cannoneer No. 4 on January 15, 2008 12:25 PM

---

So John, you're saying you never go to schools, or malls, or church?

And that you'll have a good six month's warning of any impending 'unpleasantness'?

Kansas law does not, to the best of my knowledge, have an 'emergency' provision in their CCW law so if think you might ever need it you'd best start work on getting it now.

Then again, some people only put their seatbelt on when they're going to be in an accident, and pick up fire extinguishers on their way home on the day they'll have a fire.

by KCSteve on January 15, 2008 12:47 PM

---

Actually, Steve, any more, I *don't* go to schools during schooldays, I *rarely* if ever, go to a mall, and I don't attend church.

So, in a sense, I have that covered.

I do have multiple fire extinguishers. In the kitchen, in the basement, on the deck, out in the barn, and, currently, one happens to be in the car, too. We have smoke alarms, CO sensors. I a seatbelt when driving the tractor, or scooting across the demesne on the Ranger. I wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, even though I don't have to on this side of the river.

Because all the dangers thereby mitigated are *far* more likely to happen to me than getting shot at in a mall, school, or church.

Does that mean I'm not aware of my surroundings? Nope. Does it mean I won't take action should I find myself in such a situation? Nope. But by your logic, Steve, if you aren't running around in body armor daily, you also aren't serious about the risks, either.

As I said, I don't live in a Hobbesian world, despite the evening news penchant for portraying it that way, and the politicians who sometimes seem to want to blame it on those who *don't* live in a Hobbesian world - for causing it.

And, the reality is... the vast majority of people go through their entire lives without hearing gunshots in close proximity, much less the whizz-thump of a bullet going by and hitting something.

I also didn't make sure my son had a cell phone, so that I could *always* be in contact with him. The world we live in isn't as dangerous, for most of us, as we sometimes believe it to be.

I've got good friends who carry. Some who carried whether or not the government was supportive of that activity. And I suspect they carry now on occasion, still without the benefit of a state-issued permit to do so.

I choose not to. I don't criticize people who do carry. I support making it legal in all 50 states.

But I choose not to. If circumstances change, then perhaps I will change my mind, too. But, for the nonce, I choose not to, because I choose to look at the world as I do.

Gad, it should be enough that I'm supportive, now I *hafta* or I get snarked? 8^ )

by John of Argghhh! on January 15, 2008 1:25 PM

---

So, are you implying that the CCW programs of Washington state (background check, no training or qualification required), along with Alaska and Vermont (no permit required), are not 'properly implemented?'

BTW, a service member with a clean record can get a CWP in Yakima County the same business day, if you fill out the forms before lunch.

by Heartless Libertarian on January 15, 2008 1:47 PM

---

Mostly, Dave, I was making the point that the police are just armed, trained citizens who happen to wear uniforms and badges, and who, in addition, are granted *offensive* authority (subject to constraints) that the average citizen is not generally granted.

You *can* infer that I prefer a system that wants people to have basic grounding on the legal aspects of deadly force, and I don't mind if there is a requirement to show an ability to handle a weapon properly, and hit what you aim at.

And there are ways to do that without making it onerously expensive, either, at least in terms of web-based training with a sitdown, supervised written exam process. A shooting proficiency test would be a trifle more time consuming and expensive, granted.

As for military personnel - that's mostly a presumption on the background check, so in that wise, I don't see a problem with it.

I don't know the current state of pistol training, nor the universality of deadly force training in the force these days - but if there was to be a deadly force and qualification requirement added, I wouldn't object to same day service for a service member coming in with qualification and training records.

Everybody's prickly today!

by John of Argghhh! on January 15, 2008 2:18 PM

---

I have made my peace with the Ossifers of The Law, whether they know that or not. I don't carry in public, and am willing to put up with a certain amount of rudeness from said Ossifers, in exchange for their taking charge of a part of the public safety which I am unable, for whatever reason, to guard. I do try to be polite to them, even when I think that they are in the wrong.

I'm pretty much alone in the world, (at least in this county) so it behooves me to stay on the good side of the forces of order, whether I like them or not.

Now, at home, yes I do keep a revolver at the bedside

by Justthisguy on January 15, 2008 4:00 PM

---

Damned if you do, damned if you don't ...

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on January 15, 2008 5:16 PM

---

Holy smokes, John. You can't win on this CCW thing, can you?

Antis practically stone anyone who admits that gun owners might have a point, even if they don't carry themselves.

Pros practically stone anyone who admits that they don't carry, even if they support the right to.

by Murdoc on January 15, 2008 7:25 PM

---

Well, in truth Murdoc, if it's friendly fire, it's with an Airsoft...

by John of Argghhh! on January 15, 2008 7:38 PM

---

I don't even own a gun right now. And, I support all of the rights and then some.

Frankly, I was jut reading Justice Story's commentaries on the constitution. His important commentary on the 2nd Amendment echoes my own sentiments on the subject. Then he goes on to add:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.1

by kat-missouri on January 15, 2008 7:52 PM

---

Kat, as I've said many times, viva voce, to many people, the Founders got it right the first time. That is, volunteers only for foreign wars, and everybody MUST show up for militia drill, or he doesn't get to vote. I have no problem with wimmin in the militia, our militia being a purely defensive organization.

Going across the sea to foreign lands to kick ass seems to be more of a boy-type thing.

by Justthisguy on January 15, 2008 10:31 PM

---

John,

Actually I have no problem with you not carrying, but it was too good a chance to remind other people that spend all their time in 'safe' areas that, well... no they don't.

And also to point out that being prepared for an unlikely event isn't necessarily a bad thing.

For young women especially the fact that it can take six months (or more) to get a permit indicates that it's not a bad idea for them to get one - even if they don't own a gun. The time it takes to legally acquire a gun is similar to the time it takes to realize that your ex doesn't agree with the decision to make him an 'ex'. The unfortunate fact is that there are a lot of guys who're not only too dumb to take a hint, they're dumb enough to think they can force things to go the way they want them to. A little equality via Mr. Samuel Colt helps keep things from getting uncivlized - or at least equally uncivilized.

In truth, most days the ever-indulgent wife and I get up, go to work, and go straight home. Odds of anything 'interesting' happening (or even just plain interesting) are pretty darn low.

When we go out and about on the weekends it's hard to say just where we'll wind up so we're more likely to dress up a bit.

by KCSteve on January 16, 2008 1:07 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Mmm...I really, really hate this stuff. I was reading the historical laws and Supreme Court Cases that have created our current situation last night.

It is hard not to conclude that the Supreme Court, past and present, has been influenced by outside events, not just reading the law or the constitution. That yes, indeed, it has often leaned towards the protection of government rights or powers over individuals. That bad case law has turned into other bad laws and erosion of rights.

The other day, I couldn't believe that the DoJ would use the terrible argument that the purpose clause of "a well regulated militia" gave them the power to regulate arms. Well, the DoJ took that right out of already determined Supreme Court Case law.

I tell you, I am new to this stuff, but I was shocked. And, it was clear that the courts made that statement and held up the governments case and right to do so because of experiences with organized crime and other crime sprees post WWI.

That was really bad decision making. And not the first. The Presser decision was post Civil War and pretty much makes the same mistake.

Now we're stuck with it because the Supreme Court will never reverse itself. Sucks.

by kat-missouri on January 14, 2008 1:02 PM

---

Hmmm. I think the Court reversed itself on Dred Scott...

I'm betting we get a narrow, focused decision or a remand (?) back to the lower court - if for no other reason than what all these governmental amicus briefs are about: "Don't rule in such a way that overturns all the existing laws!"

Some of the amicus briefs almost concede the question of the individual vs collective right argument - they want to preserve what they've got, and to keep the option open for more.

I don't think anyone will be truly happy with the decision.

by John of Argghhh! on January 14, 2008 1:24 PM

---

"Don't rule in such a way that overturns all the existing laws!"

The ironic thing is that Miller was more about being able to regulate non-military/militia weapons than regulate ownership by non-military/militia members.

Which seems to suggest the .gov has more latitude to restrict a single shot .22LR rifle than an M-16. The .22LR rifle serves even less of a militia purpose than a sawed off shotgun.

by Yu-Ain Gonnano on January 14, 2008 2:47 PM

---

John, I do believe I see an attitude. Don't worry, mine is only 40 years old. We look at this type of thing and ask, "When are we ever going to start actually using some common sense?" My Father passed away almast 26 years ago. To understand him, you need to understand, he was literally a genius with an IQ in top 1%. He designed and built machines that worked with glass, all by hand, no computers. One day, I actually stated the above question about the use of common sense. He came up behind me and whispered in my ear, "Son, I hate to tell you this, but I think somebody shot 'Common Sense' in the head with a Bereta using .22 shorts in the head behind the left ear, 2 shots." The older I get, the more I think the old man was right. The strange thing is this, to start to answer your question, This Nation needs to take a break. This is the hard part, our leaders, both parties, ALL branches need to collectively pull their heads out and smell the coffee. First, wash their head and face, then even have a cup of coffee. This will definitely improve their viewpoint. Then they will be able to make wiser choices.

As always,
Grumpy

by Grumpy on January 14, 2008 2:57 PM

---

Good point. Dred Scott. But didn't they have to because congress passed the 14th amendment?

After that, they could not claim any constitutional ground.

Bizarrely, I cannot figure out how "shall not infringe" backed up with the 9th amendment ended up with any decision that rendered power to the government to regulate arms based on "a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state".

I was getting ready to argue extensively about the foolishness of the argument when I discovered miller and presser, amongst others. That foolishness could lead to all sorts of restrictions as well as people pressing the issue based on what a militia typically has or has had at their disposal.

by kat-missouri on January 14, 2008 5:29 PM

---

Sadly, BATF abuses are widespread. Their flimsy cases are often torn apart, if the presumed guilty parties are willing to pay the huge legal fees needed to get a skilled lawyer to fight the unlimited resources backing BATFE.

Note that most of their cases are brought for paperwork errors, and folks falling for sting operations with very murky lines between right and wrong procedures. Darn few cases where they are actually taking guns away from violent criminals- which may be dangerous.

In fact, in one state where the BATF is given the name and address of every prohibited person who tries to buy a gun and is turned down on the Brady check, they make no attempt to prosecute 99% of these easily proved felonies. Nor have they bothered to file federal charges in at least three robberies of FFL gun shops, another federal felony where perps were caught by the state cops.

They demand 100% complilance with every single rule by those they have their heel upon, but fail to obey the plain letter of the law in meeting FFL application processing deadlines or maintaining the national database of machine guns.

They refuse to make information available to help people obey the laws they enforce, and their testimony about certain issues is based on self proclaimed expertise with vague allusions to reference materials that they are unwilling to cite specifically.

A seriously rogue agency, totally out of control, and with a vindictive nature if anyone crosses them!

And that is under the watchful eye of a supposedly pro-gun rights adminstration. Just wait for the zealous enforcment to begin if/when Clinton or Obama and the Dems seize power.

by Anonymous on January 14, 2008 11:50 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I am ashamed to admit that I want the Hello Kitty AK-47. Just because.

by April on January 4, 2008 11:23 AM

---

Good enough reason for me.

by John of Argghhh! on January 4, 2008 11:26 AM

---

Did they have people like you in mind when they designed that bayonet, John?

I used an '84 at Bisley back in the 70's - it beat a 7.62 FN at 600 yards.

BTW, I like Crazy Einar's choices, but I've never heard of a short MODEL smelly.

by rikkochet on January 4, 2008 12:54 PM

---

Rikkochet wins the "what's wrong with this post" prize regarding Einar's bit. To be truly pedantic, it would be the Rifle #1, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, but who around here would be like that?

As for the ramrod bayonet, they sucked. And the M1903 version wasn't any better. They are too thin and nowhere near rigid enough to properly stick anything, bending too easily, and aren't useful for anything else - except maybe as pointers, when removed.

I suppose you could use 'em to roast marshmallows...

And we ignore your snark, sir. ;^ )

by John of Argghhh! on January 4, 2008 1:18 PM

---

Rifle, No 1 ...

... and what's wrong with "Brown Bess" (hi SWWBO)

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on January 4, 2008 1:23 PM

---

Heh. Sometimes I wonder if John hovers, waiting to pounce on my typos, as he darts in to snark me even while I'm in edit mode fixing my fat-finger'd faux pas...

by John of Argghhh! on January 4, 2008 1:33 PM

---

"fat-finger'd faux pas" ??
"fat-finger'd faux Gras" might fit better, tho' for priming only.

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on January 4, 2008 3:51 PM

---

WAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNTTT.....

by E. M. on January 4, 2008 7:32 PM

---

Oh! Jeebus! Can't comment. Eyes watering from laughing so hard.

by Barmy Mama on January 4, 2008 8:27 PM

---

Got any AK's or M-4's in a SpongeBob motif? I love SpongeBob.
Heck, I'd fire a "John Kerry the War Hero" or a
"Hillary in '08" model as long as it has full-auto!!!
Well, maybe not really...... but get me that SpongeBob model and IT'S ON!!!

by JihadGene on January 4, 2008 10:14 PM

---

Einar seems to be Mike Williamson, actually, and I think that's his own daughter Megan holding the AR-15 with can and pink furniture, which he made for her. Note her excellence in observing Rule #3.

Barmy, you should check out his site, wherein he discusses getting gurlz in shape for the military without breaking them. (He trained his wife into shape, at 30-something)

I did find yer previous blog and read most of it. Couldn't stop.

I am hoping to hire on in a chipper squad as throttleman when Mike achieves world domination. I have some professional experience with that method of execution, though only with vegetables, so far.

by Justthisguy on January 4, 2008 11:48 PM

---

Hello Kitty Boom-Boom-Thingie?!?!?

No thanks Massa John. The only Kitty I wanna is Korner Shot Kitty. I know that Melchior will bring it to me tomorrow morn.

Happy 12th day of Christmas everyone.

by Boquisucio on January 5, 2008 8:26 AM

---

Artillery Zen

Spose this thing would unfreeze the horse fountain?

by jim b on January 5, 2008 2:48 PM

---

No no wait ... This ONE

by jim b on January 5, 2008 2:53 PM

---

LMFAO!!!

by MR T's Haircut on January 7, 2008 2:20 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Such understatement, John! I'm not sure I get your point... ;)

As you know, I've only held a firearm once (though I did pretty well, if I do say so myself). But I never feel safer among other people these days than when those other people are well-trained and armed. In my experience, nothing says piece of mind--in even the sketchiest parts of town--like an armed boyfriend. ;)

by FbL on December 10, 2007 9:40 AM

---

"Piece" of mind? OMG, brain cramp... or thinking about the ex-boyfriend (I miss him)... Yeah, that's my excuse! :P

by FbL on December 10, 2007 9:42 AM

---

I have the sense that attitudes are changing. Massive logical failures can be ignored for only so long.

by Fred on December 10, 2007 9:54 AM

---

This law-abiding Coloradan no longer heeds the 'No Guns' signs- I've been packing the SIG pretty much everywhere, since the Omaha shootings. That sort of thing tends to unwrap the last tendril of sanity from the copy-catters.
Mind you, very few places around here are posted- but I'm waiting for the knee-jerk signs to start appearing in response to Sunday. My little friend conceals easily (and I've got the permit)...

by Neffi on December 10, 2007 10:12 AM

---

Neffi
Just a reminder: "Homoousian" versus "Homoiousian" is a doctrinal debate, not inciting civil disorder.

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on December 10, 2007 1:36 PM

---

I understand the debate regarding the Nicene Creed, but my recently-unfrozen-caveman brain doesn't get JMH's linkage.

Or, it could be that my brain is being turned to mush by the info-overflow trying to get established in my new task.

by John of Argghhh! on December 10, 2007 1:56 PM

---

We have 2 LEOs at our church - one civilian and one military. They both carry, regardless of uniform. And everyone is comfortable with that. They make it well-known and invite discussion. I appreciate it and so do many others at church.

An armed society is a polite society.

by HomefrontSix on December 10, 2007 1:59 PM

---

JMH, the Trinitarian controversy is more likely to incite stupified slumber than civil disorder so far as I'm concerned... you'd think 1700 years would be time enough to hash it out, eh?

by Neffi on December 10, 2007 2:24 PM

---

A friend of ours is a nice southern lady and she
carries. She also teaches the toddlers in the nursery class at church. She used to teach the teenagers. No, the weapon isn't anywhere near the children; she keeps it in her car.

Hm.

Heh.

by Cricket on December 10, 2007 2:47 PM

---

I will never understand the mindset that thinks, "If we ban guns, no one will carry one." Naivete? nah stupidity. Thank God one of the security people was armed in C Springs and prevented a real disaster. God bless her and thanks to her for her courage.

by JimC on December 10, 2007 4:19 PM

---

Colonel Jeff would have been proud.

by Slabsides on December 11, 2007 12:33 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

John,

The Sarah SchumerBradyRodham-ClintonSteins would say there's a special place in H-E-DoubleHockeyStix for people like you .... if they believed in H-E-DoubleHockeyStix. LOL

by fdcol63 on December 3, 2007 9:26 AM

---

Why yes, I do hold you responsible. After the .40 pistol becomes comfortable, I'm moving on to skeet shooting.

I did well in my class John, you'd be proud. Thanks so much for pushing me down this road.

by Stacy on December 3, 2007 9:43 AM

---

Ah, you didn't need any pushing.

Tammy, well, it looks like *Tammy* is gonna need a bulldozer to get her down the road.

But I do have a basic theory on the subject.

Which is- for many people, get a gun in their hand, with proper tutelage and support, and you can take a GFW and get 'em to understand that a firearm isn't just a menace to society. It's the person holding it who is.

And they can understand that normal people can handle a gun and not turn into a monster.

by John of Argghhh! on December 3, 2007 9:47 AM

---

Which is leading me to finish my first section on the place of the inherent right to self defense and moving on to the ever growing vision of guns as the tools of government and crime along with the potential erosion of freedom under such simplistic morality and idealism.

The idea of the state being the sole owner of such power or the right to defense of itself or the people seems highly antithetical to the purposes of our founders and to freedom itself.

But, I won't give the premise away. You'll have to wait. Though, I am sure the notions I put forth will not be a surprise to anyone who regularly reads here it may spur debate among the few opposition posters.

by kat-missouri on December 3, 2007 10:06 AM

---

This must be that *post-in-waiting* I've been keeping an eye on...

by John of Argghhh! on December 3, 2007 10:11 AM

---

Yep. Been trying to wrangle it in without getting off the "inherent right to defense" into other ideas best left to another day (and also not taxing the server or concentration of the dear readers). LOL

by kat-missouri on December 3, 2007 10:26 AM

---

Congratulations on catching another John....but you can't get us all.

I think it's great that you got to meet Stacy. I knew I liked her when she agreed that "Orgasm for Victory Day" was a good idea.

by Maggie on December 3, 2007 11:16 AM

---

Awesome - another Gun Chick at the Castle! YAY! And a lovely choice for your first one, Stacy :-)

by Barb on December 3, 2007 11:23 AM

---

Hey Maggie!!

I think I'll be purchasing this book soon.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

by Stacy on December 3, 2007 11:55 AM

---

Stacy - I'd recommend this book, too. Armed America by Clayton Cramer.

by John of Argghhh! on December 3, 2007 12:01 PM

---

Of course, it's currently only available on Alibris.

by John of Argghhh! on December 3, 2007 12:05 PM

---

Stacy, I prefer to surround myself with capable *men*. They can stop intruders, repel threats. They are fun to play with.....I like to feel the heft in my hand (did I get that gun lingo right). But with men you never have to check the local bylaws, you don't have to declare them at security check points.........

For particularly serious threats the Princess prefers to use her Grand Vizier.

by Maggie on December 3, 2007 5:06 PM

---

Ah well. My weapons are pans. And bagpipes.
heh.

by Cricket on December 4, 2007 7:06 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Umm, I think the incident of which you speak was in a different part of Lousiana, not New Orleans. As I recall, it happened on Hallowe'en, and a Japanese kid knocked on the door and got shot dead.

by Justthisguy on October 30, 2007 1:05 AM

---

"Only trying to steal?" What kind of a mind produced THAT?

by Fred on October 30, 2007 1:49 AM

---

potentially fire upon bad guys who are

only

trying to steal?

Qualification of a thugs actions

Shameful. The poor kid was "ONLY" trying to steal. We have dumbed this act down to show the criminal as the victim... Put me on that jury...

First a burgalary next an assault, then a murder... what if the kid stumbled upon a homeowners young daughter or child then what?

Defend what is yours. Don't tread on me or my household..

by MR T's Haircut on October 30, 2007 3:38 AM

---

Why should criminals in the act of their crime have protections of any kind?

'Only' huh. Granted, at least in Australia, it seems the pettier the crime the more serious the punishment at times but I don't think that covers an 'only' kind of excuse on what is still a serious crime.

by Trias on October 30, 2007 4:19 AM

---

1. I went and read the whole article and I find I agree with your apraisal. It proves the point that journalism in this country is biased to the left and they are so insulated from the rest of the world, they (the journalists) don't even realize their bias.
2. I checked Brady bunch site and found that OK has a D-. Obviously, the people/politicians of OK are not giving much credence to what their media are muttering.

by Oldloadr on October 30, 2007 7:53 AM

---

I'm not surprised that the media around here is trying to portray this kid as a victim. But seriously... what do these ninnies expect? Someone breaks into my place, I'm gonna shoot them too! I've worked too hard for what little I've got, I'm not going to let some little wannabe thug take what's mine. If he wants what I've got, get it the same way: work for it. Aside from that... a buddy of mine works at the local shooting range. Sounds like as good a reason as any to send a few more downrange!

by NinjaFluff on October 30, 2007 9:25 AM

---

When you steal my property you're stealing a part of my life. Unless you make arrangements in advance I have no idea how much of my life you're intending to steal so I have to assume you're after all of it and I will defend it.

by KCSteve on October 30, 2007 11:30 AM

---

I kinda figured all y'all would react like this.

Like I said, *I* in the situation described, might choose to not shoot, if letting the kid look up the muzzle will do the trick, but I don't fault the guy on the ground for shooting.

I just found the whole thing... interesting.

by John of Argghhh! on October 30, 2007 5:00 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I don't disagree that the bill is generally a good thing... I'm worried about the future though. Right now, a government doctor isn't a "lawful authority", but it only takes one court case with a bad judge to change that. I think the appeals process is a good thing... but I'm not sure the bill is worded strongly enough to demand that there be a fair process for unfairly prohibited persons. In addition, some of the NRA's arguments rely on BATFE regs, which we all know can change at the drop of a hat.

There is nothing bad about the bill... it just leaves a lot of real thin areas that are just asking for anti-gunners to attack in the future.

by Greg Morris on October 10, 2007 6:57 AM

---

Well thought out position, although I'm a little more concerned with the scope than you are. There are a lot of Viet Nam era vets who have been diagnosed with varying degrees of PTSD and when we de-mobed they spent a lot of time trying to remove the stigma of PTSD during our debriefs to the point of almost encouraging filing a PTSD claim to the VA for any level of stress. I suspect as soon as you're classified by the VA you are going to meet the bar for this bill. Sounds like Lautenberg to me. As far as the ability to get this reversed, I've noticed that PTSD seems to be treated a lot like alcoholism, i.e., once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. I think this bill if passed as is will be a major setback to the ability to diagnose and treat PTSD. It would certainly make me think twice about looking for help if I needed it. Put me in the respectfully disagree group, sir.

by Pogue on October 10, 2007 8:20 AM

---

I'm old enough not to get too worried about this bill having any effect on my predelection toward the shooting sports. However, I'm also old enough to realize that any law that effects gun owners can and most probably will be misused against those same owners, sooner rather than later. And this is most especially true when a democrip administration is runnuing the show.

by emdfl on October 10, 2007 9:03 AM

---

"Lawful entity..."

What happens when doctors are/become (single-payer healthcare) government employees?

by FbL on October 10, 2007 9:04 AM

---

John,

I accept your view on this given your expert understanding of the issue.

However, just an observation. I find it curious that while all Constitutional Amendments are equal, some are more equal than others, at least in the minds of the left. Felons have by longstanding practice forfeited their rights to vote, just as they may rightly forfeit their right to bear arms. So, why is it that the left now advocates restoration of the former, but favors expansion of the latter?

I wonder where our dear Congress persons falls on this point?

by Leavenworth Centurion on October 10, 2007 9:32 AM

---

Wouldn't it be cheaper to require firearms purchasers or possessors to present and carry a certificate of mental health? /sarcasm

Do you really think that the appeal process won't be promptly unfunded, not allowed, or take so long that you'll be in the grave before it's successful?

Sorry, John, I can't agree. This is a bad idea, rooted in the idea that there is some kind of control of people that is not self-control.

by htom on October 10, 2007 9:34 AM

---

Same thing as VA docs who are currently gov't employees.

Nothing.

And I wouldn't worry much about doctors becoming "lawful authority". If they did, bypass the entire due process clause of the Constitution. Political troublemakers could be forcibly committed by simply by one doctor's word (Ron Paul, please contact you physician for your annual check-up please.)

Even the ACLU would be up in arms about that happening.

And when you get those pinko commies supporting conservative issues, you know somebody has #$%%^*-up.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 9:48 AM

---

If they did, it would bypass...

PIMF

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 9:51 AM

---

htom,

What you are arguing there is not really against this bill, but the entire NICS process itself, possibly even the entire concept that there are some people, who through their own actions, have demonstrated that they ought not have the same rights as everyone else.

The only way to support that position is if every violent crime is met with a life sentence without parole.

Otherwise, we need some way to identify those who may have finished their jail term, but who's debt to society is never fully repaid.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 9:57 AM

---

Heh...very timely FBL as tomorrow I plan to present a rather lengthy, though timely, overview of current effects of corrosive government involvement in health care.

At which point, I will jump in here and agree with some folks above that there are some seriously thin and ultimately exploitable portions of this bill in relations to the determination of mitigated or eliminated mental health issues.

For instance, without damaging current policies protecting private health information, how will these "mental health" issues be transmitted? Who will have access? Will every tom, joe and harry gun shop owner, police officer, etc have instant access to a list of people with "mental issues"? How exactly will that be protected from going out into the general public once it is in the hands of many more government and non-government entities?

Are we saying that the danger of, what can only be called "limited", incidents involving people with mental health issues and guns is so pervasive that we are willing to throw out or seriously damage this right to privacy to protect what is ultimately a few people, comparatively speaking, while stigmatizing many others and damaging the very fabric of our constitutional rights to privacy?

I simply can't believe that and do not feel that this bill offers the necessary protections. Where is the penalties for those who do share this information inappropriately? Who will regulate, investigate and prosecute such cases?

Secondly, in regards to this piece:

the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill. In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms.

How will information that "relief from the adjudication" be transmitted to NICS to "expunge" that information? Based on my understanding of current probate processes (that which legally deems a person incompetent through a hearing in a court room in front of a judge, not in a mental health institution), any person that is deemed "relieved" by the health care community is not instantaneously "legally" relieved of the finding of "mentally incompetent" by a "legal authority".

They have to request a hearing, obtain legal counsel, pay court and other legal fees, etc, etc, etc. As noted, this "adjudication" process is already over burdened. Many patients who are considered "relieved" by the medical community are released without ever being re-adjudicated, competence re-established or any legal guardianship of the state, institute, family or other entity being revoked.

Further, the process and legal fees alone can be quite prohibitive. In fact, having such a law and process implies, not a temporary inability to obtain fire arms, but a long standing and binding inability to do so simply on the grounds of prohibitive costs and over burdened judicial systems.

Finally, on an anecdotal personal experience, I can tell you that getting a doctor to consider a sufferer of depression, PTSD or any other mental disorder that the medical profession believes can be "relieved", to actually close the file on someone and designate them "relieved" is da*n near impossible regardless of their progress. As noted "once an addict always an addict" and that does tend towards almost all mental health issues, not just PTSD or addiction.

To top that off, also anecdotal, but relevant, we are giving physicians a lot of power over a non-health related issue where they believe they should have a lot of in put. I mean, specifically, the issue of gun control among the general population. Most doctors I know are not conservative, gun rights folks. They have worked in situations where, of course, they are exposed to the worst violence that guns (mostly illegal) can perpetrate on human beings. Their first re-action is to ban all guns. Their second, given this power, may be to effect that demand through some back handed means of establishing mental health impairment among the greater population.

In fact, there are plenty of doctors I've had the pleasure of meeting who think gun ownership itself is a sign of an aggressive mental disorder.

Not anecdotal, but proven by the numbers, mental health disorders are being more often diagnosed than ever before. Some might say that it is the mental health profession catching up with reality. Others might say that it is the mental health profession reaching for significance in the over all health care community. What is really happening is that people who suffer mild depression and other commonly mild symptoms of such are more often going to their mental health provider. It's not decreasing "depressive events", but it is causing a serious rise in possibly unnecessary diagnosis.

I understand this law is supposed to be directly related to judicial findings of "incompetence", how is the normal corrosive, invasive and ever expanding reach of the government going to be stopped once this law is enacted? Are organizations that demand gun control going to start lobbying for more expansive determinations of mental incompetence or expand the definition of "legal authority" or "legal proceedings"?

Frankly, I am amazed at the support its getting, even here.

Why didn't they just write a bill that says "if you've ever been deemed 'mentally incompetent' by anyone including your barber, you will never own a gun, your private mental health status will be known by anyone with access to the NICS and, to short cut the inevitable spread of this information and your eventual public stigmatization, a list of incompetents will be posted in public places all over town"?

by kat-missouri on October 10, 2007 10:07 AM

---

The only way to support that position is if every violent crime is met with a life sentence without parole

And?

by kat-missouri on October 10, 2007 10:15 AM

---

Relief programs are not that complicated. When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf. The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.

Major malfunction with incomplete information here. The "relief" application might be a "simple two page form that a person could submit on their own behalf" and "60%" might have been approved, but they don't tell you a) how long that took or b) whether that 60% did or did not include additional legal expenses or court hearings to clear. They simply said that 60% of all applications were approved, not what it took.

Are we to assume that 40% of applicants were still too crazy to get "relief" or would it be better to assume that there was a chunk of that 40% who simply had not completed the paperwork properly or who were required to go beyond the "simple two page" document that just gave up because it was a pain the butt?

We can't know either of these facts. Absence of findings does not mean absence of events.

As I once told someone arguing with me over fire arms and violent crime statistics, I can make statistics spin on their heads and say anything I want to support my position by leaving out pertinent information or wording explanations just so.

by kat-missouri on October 10, 2007 10:22 AM

---

...through their own actions ...

No, through some other folk's opinions of their thoughts, through a process that presumes that the targets should prove that they are innocent of a vaguely specified thought-crime.

Expungement has become a joke in our system; Minnesota, at least, has recognized this and no longer does it (I'm not saying that that is a good thing, but the recognition that it had become useless is.) Sealed records are open, not only to the sealing court, but to any law enforcement process. They are not, in general, open to the person about whom the record is about.

Our legal system accepts secret accusations -- without allowing rebuttal -- as fact for sentencing enhancements.

Our society has become enthralled by the idea that others can be controlled, while remaining free themselves.

by htom on October 10, 2007 10:37 AM

---

I guess I just don't see murdering your wife as "some other folk's opinions of their thoughts, through a process that presumes that the targets should prove that they are innocent of a vaguely specified thought-crime."

Kat,

If only.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 10:43 AM

---

John's take on this issue is correct.
Sadly, the GOA crowd has overhyped wildly inaccurate speculation about the bill's contents (versus what it actually has in black and white and any possible interpretation). I think this is part of their perpetual feud with the NRA.
GOA needs to stop this "friendly fire" crap against the NRA and focus on the real enemy. With the looming spectre [cue Hillary cackle...] of Hillary in the White House and Dems solidly in control of both House and Senate, we need to devote every bit of our energy into fighting the real anti-gunners who want to take ALL guns away from EVERYBODY!

by John S. on October 10, 2007 10:46 AM

---

Murder is not a thought crime (well, I suppose it is, in a way, as the allegation is that the thought of the killer when he planned the deed was to kill, otherwise it would be some other form of homicide.) It's a very different thing than someone claiming that in the future you might act on thoughts of killing someone.

And in any case, murder is a felony, so they're already not allowed to own or possess firearms. Ergo, I think that someone other than murdering felons is the target of this bill.

How many times does Lucy have to snatch the football before the NRA comes to its senses?

by htom on October 10, 2007 11:06 AM

---

Kat,

If only.

I assume we're talking about criminal sentences for violent crimes? ;)

I would include child molesters not otherwise covered under "statutory rape" laws and that the statutory rape laws were re-evaluated for better and slightly more restricted application (ie, do not charge 17 year olds with statutory rape of a 15 year old when it was consensual between "boyfriend and girlfriend" garbage; parents don't want their daughters to have sex with a boy, don't let them date, tell them its bad and punish the girl). Not to get off on a tangent.

But, Child molesters (aka real pedophiles) commit long term damage on children, possibly their entire lives. Why should we let them out when they are the highest repeat offenders and can never repay their debt to society, much less their victim?

Back to the gun situation....

John S...this is not "friendly fire" on the NRA. This is me telling you that when you let the government start using your private health information to effect non-criminal activities (ie, purchasing a gun), you are starting a very bad trend. I don't care if the NRA is trying to buy some good publicity over the VA Tech thing with it. I do care that they are about to effectively violate established privacy laws over an incident that is still has relatively limited impact on the lives of overall society as compared to the hundreds of thousands of people whose mental health status is about to broadcast to all and sundry.

by kat-missouri on October 10, 2007 11:07 AM

---

Additionally, for those that argue that this bill could be used to make doctors "lawful authority":

While I contend that it's not really an issue, that issue is not created by this bill. That issue is created by already existing law. And can be done just as easily if this bill is rejected.

This bill does not alter the definition of "adjudicated mentally defective" or of "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority."

Those are provisions of part of already existing laws. Don't like them, wonderful, go and change them. But HR2640 is not the law you're looking for.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 11:58 AM

---

htom,

But how will you keep track of who is a felon or not if the information isn't reported?

Or should we make people carry around cards stating whether they're a felon or not?

That is the point.

This bill does not change who can and can not own a weapon. It only enforces that those who are already prohibited from weapons ownership get reported to the NICS system.

Don't like the definitions of who is a prohibited person, great, so do I. But this bill does not change that. The only aspect of prohibited classes it does change is that now there is a way to have those records expunged and gain back your right to own weapons where you had no way to do so before

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 12:10 PM

---

Way off topic.

"Why should we let them out when they are the highest repeat offenders and can never repay their debt to society, much less their victim?"

Because incarceration and punishment aren't about vengeance or deterrence maybe? Maybe because it's supposed to be about the person breaking the rule, how severely it was broken, and the threat said breakage has to the Lockean compact all citizens make with society(with child molestation being very low on the threat to order list---and before anyone decides to go ballistic on me over that you might want to talk to AFSis about me first).

by ry on October 10, 2007 12:12 PM

---

Kat,

My position is that if you are such a danger to society that you cannot be truster to own a firearm, you are probably too much of a danger to society, period, and should not be allowed back into said society.

However, I also know that position is infeasible in today's environment.

Thus, I do support background checks that, at least, make it marginally more difficult to obtain firearms. Plus, it means that we can have you arrested simply for possession, prior to it's use (and double whammy you for an illegal purchase/theft/etc, to boot).

And when you've been brought before a court of law and the judge has said "You're guilty of Murder/Assault With a Deadly Weapon/Bat$hit Insane" I think that qualifies.

What I don't think should qualify is a person driving 5 miles across state lines to buy 25 cartons of cigarettes to avoid paying $50 in excise taxes being called a felon and loosing the right to vote and own a gun.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 12:31 PM

---

Folks,

Well, you can count me as against this bill. What I find offensive is the idea that anyone would support further gun laws of any type. What the citizens of this nation OUGHT to be doing is acting to repeal the 1968 gun control act and all ammendments since.

ALL gun control laws need to be repealed and that right quickly. Then we can start with doing away with speech control laws, such as hate crimes legislation, etc until we get back to a bare-bones constitution.

Perhaps then we might be able to agree on a few laws, but until that point, I will not support any gun laws. I am sick to death of the whittling away, the death by a thousand cuts, of a citizen's inherent right to own and carry a weapon. This law is but one further bit of erosion, another stepping stone to confiscation and the final slave-shackling of our citizenry.

A man without a weapon is no longer a citizen, but a subject, and I would rather live in a society where everyone is armed than one where politicians forget to whom and to what they owe their allegiance.

What the government OUGHT to be doing is providing arms and ammunition and the requisite training to EVERY citizen and demanding that they keep and maintain both the weapon and the skills in handling it.

Maybe I'm just too old and too regressive, but I cannot fathom why this nation's citizens submit so readily to the gross infringements of their rights.

A pox on the house of any politician that supports any form of gun control.

respects,

by AW1 Tim on October 10, 2007 1:22 PM

---

ALL gun control laws need to be repealed and that right quickly

Well... good luck with that.

You'll have about as much success in completely abolishing public schools.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 1:45 PM

---

And another thing,

That's why our gun laws are so pitifully draconian as they are. The other side understands the concept of baby steps, of working incrementally toward an absolutist goal.

Our side get's upset and throws a tantrum when we can't pay off $30,000 in debt on a $40,000/year income by next week. It makes you look silly.

Absolutism is fine, I hope we get there, but we didn't get into this mess overnight, we won't get out of it overnight either.

/rant

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 2:11 PM

---

I just *knew* this would be popular.

by John of Argghhh! on October 10, 2007 2:49 PM

---

Just how much good does this bill do? How many Chos are there and how many do they kill and maim compared to other crimes and issues? How much does this law actually prevent Chos in practice? To me it looks little more than a patch bill to enable other bills. Did these bills spring up as a whim or was some effort put in to figure benefits and costs? This issue seems overly loaded with emotional argument.

I prefer law minimalism. I question this law has enough value. Perhaps it does, but maybe more people, esp pro-gun people need to know about it if that's the case. I also think many Americans will just see it as a reaffirming that all mentally ill people need to be controlled, including PTSD vets.

by Trias on October 10, 2007 2:58 PM

---

How much good does it do?

Well, it doesn't really do much more than say, "Guy's we know we said you had to tell us this stuff when we first created NICS, but this time we really do mean it. Oh, and here's some funding to help you do it."

So, not much, besides handing out some cash.

Which is why I'm so shocked people are reacting to it's like it's blasphemy.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 3:40 PM

---

Oh, and from the text of the bill itself.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) COURT ORDER- The term `court order' includes a court order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States Code).

(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code

So if your problem is with a doctor's diagnoses becoming an "adjudication", your problem is with section 922(g)(4) and (8) of title 18, United States Code, not HR2640.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 3:46 PM

---

Little gun control law here
A little expanded health care there

pretty soon you can say all your rights belong to the government.

I don't like these arguments that, you know, its inevitable, why fight it. That seems utterly self destructive. I saw the same argument over at Mega McCardle's this morning about why fight the SCHIP program expansion for children.

Because, if you don't fight it, you might as well just sign it all away now. This is what continues to happen, little bits and pieces get bit off in the process of trying to make "good society". Pretty soon, the lockean compact ry was busy flapping his gums about won't be necessary or remembered because everyone will think the reason they live together here in the big melting pot without blowing up is because the government told them so.

by kat-missouri on October 10, 2007 4:30 PM

---

Kat, what 'little gun control law' is happening here?

I just don't see it.

All I see is a law demanding that agencies comply with a law they should already have been complying with.

I mean, is a law saying, "You know, we can't really use paper documents because they take to long to input, we need you to send us a comma seperated text file instead" a gun control law?

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 10, 2007 4:52 PM

---

Kat - I'm with Yu (heh) here.

The reason I'm supportive of this bill is because it corrects a flaw in the existing system. In that regard I don't find it to be a "little expansion" and was the subject of a good chunk of the discussion on the subject I had with Representative Boyda back in May.

Now, if you want to argue for the revocation of the Brady Bill, you are on stronger ground rhetorically than I think you are on resisting this.

This isn't a matter of rolling over to the inevitable - it's a matter of allowing the system to work as intended.

Can it be subverted? Sure. As can any law. Which is why the focus now should be on what the Senate committee tries to do to the bill, and, if needed, keeping an eye on the conference if the bill has to be reconciled.

This is at least as much about the bickering between GOA and the NRA as it is any true merits/demerits of the bill.

One reason I chose to weigh in again publicly is because of the unintended consequences of the debate on PTSD sufferers. It's hard enough to get the warrior class to admit to what they percieve as weakness - much less when you tell them (incorrectly, I believe) that this bill will cost them their 2A rights.

And it's not like I'm trading away something that won't affect me, either, in terms of I'm a rather significant consumer of the product in most of it's forms. And John S. makes his living fleecing, er, taking advantage of the weakness, er, facilitating (yeah, that's it, facilitating...) people like me, and he sees this the way I do.

So this isn't like some skeet shooter selling the black rifle guys down the river "because my ox isn't gored". Not that anyone here has accused me of that - I just thought I'd toss that out there.

Like I said - I knew this would generate some heat, some of it spanging off the barbican near my head... not for nothing does the Armorer wear a Great Helm!

by John of Argghhh! on October 10, 2007 6:50 PM

---

And I wouldn't worry much about doctors becoming "lawful authority".

Unless the Fed follows Joisey's lead. One doctor, who doesn't even have to be a shrink, can get you popped into the psych ward for "observation and evaluation" based on nothing but that doc's *opinion* that you are in need of having your thought processes evaluated.

That said, it hasn't happened often. Most docs I know around here are Strict Constructionists, although there are a couple up in Union City I would *not* engage in casual conversation...

by BillT on October 10, 2007 7:17 PM

---

"...some of it spanging off the barbican near my head... not for nothing does the Armorer wear a Great Helm!"

I thought the helm was to keep the rocks in your head and not out, Armorer.(Aieeeee! The Big Boot! It burns us(not to mention hurting the lower back a whole hell of a lot)!)

by ry on October 10, 2007 7:18 PM

---

Heh. Ry-me-bucko, you need to worry about recto-boot insertion issues...

by John of Argghhh! on October 10, 2007 9:17 PM

---

well, I heard on the Chris Core show a week ago about the fact that the doctors now question the kids about their parents' habits, alleged alcohol and drug use, sexual deviations/abuses, gun ownership and such without the parents' presence AND having one particular doctor file a report with the police because she did not like the fact that the child's father owned guns. How about that when it comes to administration of this proposed law?? Do you want something like this happen and have your arsenal confiscated because you are someone deemed by a doctor to be 'unfit' ??
and there was a case in the UK when a woman got her newborn taken away from her because the doctor who never saw her but read her history of being abused by a father and being raped by a stranger while in her teens, decided that she showed possible proclivity to become an abusive parent herself sometime in the future...
Plus, the anti-gun crowd does use the death of million papercuts on us, this bill is one of them...
Sorry, I am wholeheartedly against this bill.

by olga on October 10, 2007 11:14 PM

---

I pity the Fools!

Regarding the main opbject of competency - "lawful authority" I have seen a HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION be granted the status of "lawful authority"... we know where that leads... Additionally, a State Medical Board, could be appointed to handle the implications of this act with specialty on specific gun and mental illness issues. Remember the Socialist Health and Human Services, or Familiy Protection Services or Child Protective Services or whatever your states name is for these so called "lawful authorities"

I am against this Act....

No Sir, I disagree with the premise of qualifying any CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Have seen how this "safeguard" will be reported into the system? My assumption is on a qestionaire, like we do now, example:

(standard form) will ask "Have you ever had any mental health issues?" If Yes please explain in comment section.

"Have you ever sought counseling for Anger, Depression, or Family Advocacy? Any Other counseling sought? "

"Have you ever been treated for PTSD?"

"Have you ever been prescribed a mood altering prescription? Ie: Ritalin etc"

"Have you ever felt depressed?"

Exactly WHO will qualify the background check if an unfavorable answer is given? Who will adjudicate for a denial? What about Due Process?

This is the most slippery of slopes...

by MR T's Haircut on October 11, 2007 5:27 AM

---

Olga - if we use your "but what if" limited exception analysis method, then I won't wear a seat belt because it *might* cause me to be trapped in my car if I ever managed to find myself trapped in a flooded low-water crossing, or, since an airplane crashed yesterday, I'm not going to fly because one might crash today.

The potential for abuse is there, certainly. And some places carry more risk of that than others. They key there is the provision for petitioning for relief, which is present in the bill, and in fact is in some ways strengthened sufficiently that anti-gun groups *oppose* the bill precisely because it makes petitioning for relief easier.

Your complaints are ones that require vigilance on the part of We The People, and bruiting them about - just as I did earlier this week and last with the bits about what the American Pediatric Association instructs it's members to do.

No system of anything is perfect, and "Perfect is the enemy of good enough."

We live in the real world and we have to account for the entropy in the system.

Just as I have to change the oil in my car periodically, we citizens have to keep an eye on the gauges and ensure they remain within the operational parameters, but we'll paralyze ourselves if those gauges have a green zone only a hairbreadth's wide.

by John of Argghhh! on October 11, 2007 5:48 AM

---

Re: Mr. T's comment (in context with the whole stream...)

...SPAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang!

by John of Argghhh! on October 11, 2007 5:50 AM

---

Again,

You all are missing the point.

The problem with doctors becoming "lawful authority" is a problem in section 922(g)(4) and (8) of title 18, United States Code, not HR2640.

If you defeat this bill, DOCTORS CAN STILL BE MADE LAWFUL AUTHORITY ANYWAY, because those terms are defined elsewhere.

You want to prevent doctors from becoming "lawful authority"? You're changing the wrong flipping law!

*pantpantpantpantpant*
*breeeeeeeaaaaaaath*
*pantpantpantpantpant*

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 11, 2007 8:50 AM

---

No Sir, I disagree with the premise of qualifying any CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

So I take it you're OK with Tookie Williams, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. voting from jail, then? Because that's what an unqualified constitutional right to vote would look like.

Defeating this bill will not give back/prevent infingement of 2A rights. Those infringement were made somewhere else.

If you are a prohibited person now and that information isn't reported to NICS that does not make you a non-prohibited person. Just because "The A-hole who will not be named" wasn't in NICS did not make it legal for him to own a gun.

If you are not a prohibited person now, even if erroneous information is reported, it does not make you a prohibited person. (If it did, you could bet your bottom dollar that some democratic staffer has paid some database tech to put Ann Coulter's name in there.)

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 11, 2007 9:12 AM

---

So I take it you're OK with Tookie Williams, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. voting from jail, then? Because that's what an unqualified constitutional right to vote would look like.

Well, Dahmer must be registered in Chicago since he's dead, but actually no, I don't mind them having a vote. Why would I?

by Pogue on October 11, 2007 10:39 AM

---

Well, currently, but they weren't executed the night they were convicted either.

But, basically, for the same reasons that I don't want resident aliens voting. They are not members of our society.

Resident aliens, despite the fact they are physically located here, have choosen not to become members of our society, while those I've criminals, despite being physically located here, have choosen (through their actions) that they no longer want to be members of our society.

When you prey on a society, you don't get to help run it.

(And yes, I do realize that eliminates many politicians. What's your point?)

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 11, 2007 12:11 PM

---

[Munches popcorn]

by John of Argghhh! on October 11, 2007 3:37 PM

---

You have to register to vote in Chicago? /snark

I would not especially object to laws that forbade persons convicted of violent felonies from possessing firearms, as long as there was a process that they had available to restore those rights.

It seems to me that firearms and voting should be granted and removed together, but I'm strange.

by htom on October 11, 2007 4:43 PM

---

No, I'm most of the way there with you on that, htom.

I could be convinced that firearms should be the harder to restore simply because once you blend your vote in with the rest of the population, you are only 1/200,000,000 part of a say so in anyone elses life. But when you shoot someone because you wanted the $50 in someones wallet you had 100% say so in the rest of their's.

But I lean more towards my earlier comment: If you are so dangerous to society that you cannot be trusted with a gun, you are too dangerous to society to be in society.

Unfortunately, it won't happen so we go with what can, until we can make it happen.

by Yu-Ain Gonnano on October 11, 2007 7:53 PM

---

Yu,

Yu r missing the point by asking a question of a question.

Apples and Oranges my friend.

You have to be CONVICTED to lose your right to Vote. That is a legal action made and codified by a legal authority, the JUDGE. I have no issue with a LOSS of a right for being convicted as a felon or bad actor. I do have issue with qualifying a RIGHT without a conviction or legal means of due process. IF this provision required the designation as ordered by a JUDGE, then I could possibly see the reasoning of denying the certifiable nutjob the right to own a firearm.

But to leave it to the discretion of "lawful authorities" for an important issue such as this is pretty damn ambigious.... In my opinion.

by MR T's Haircut on October 12, 2007 5:46 AM

---

OK,

I'll say this for the umpteenth time on this thread.

THEN YOU NEED TO CHANGE SECTION 922(G)(4) AND (8) OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE., NOT HR2640.

HR2640 does not define "lawful authority", SECTION 922(G)(4) AND (8) OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE does that.

Defeating HR2640 will not prevent a doctor from becoming "lawful authority".

You are correct to be barking, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

by Yu-ain Gonnano on October 12, 2007 9:03 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

good job. keep it up plz!

by winston on September 17, 2007 3:06 PM

---

Here, in Kansas City, NAFTA is a part of the problem. While I am a supporter of free trade agreements as an important aspect of economic development in third world countries as well as a significant part of our over all security, NAFTA has been a boondoggle for drug and gun smugglers.

Kansas City has been the center of this for over a decade.

NAFTA allows trains and trucks basically to enter the US or transport trade goods without much in the way of routine inspection. This allows drugs and guns to be smuggled in to criminal gangs from Mexico fairly routinely without much interdiction.

Chinese made, fully automatic AK-47s are high on the list of weapons that are smuggled in through these routes though semi-automatic AK-47s that are easily converted to fully automatic with also easily obtained conversion kits.

In Kansas City, though not often reported by the press, the use of AK-47s in gang warfare is on the rise. My favorite reports report the use of "assault rifles" in crimes, but also the ones that don't designate the type of "weapon" yet indicate "30 some rounds" fired. These are often in conjunction with pictures showing what are clearly cases from 7.62mm rounds.

Couple this with the influx of drugs through these NAFTA routes as well as the rise of meth labs in the area, you have a serious problem.

In Kansas City, part of this problem comes from a refusal by government and police to call the situation as it really is: gang warfare. in fact, as the violence escalated, they continued to place the blame on the availability of weapons to "young people" who then apparently, for no good reason, use these weapons to "settle differences violently". Those are almost direct quotes from two years ago when the rising gang wars started to take place and the city officials and police were desperately trying to down play it (wouldn't do to have "gang and drug wars" taking place in a city that is busy trying to re-invigorate downtown commerce).

Much like the refusal of some US officials to recognize the nature of the Iraq insurgency until it had escalated beyond control, the local police and government officials have been reluctant to do what is really necessary.

No, we're not talking about "gun control". we're talking about putting money into law enforcement such as "gang units" as well as other important economic development causes in low income neighborhoods (such as the now famous "broken windows theory").

You don't stop gang wars from banning guns of any sort or blaming guns or talking about how bad guns are, you take away the territory the gangs control and use to create and sell drugs. You take away the territory where they can intimidate the population and have a "safe haven" from which to operate.

You take away their economic incentives and you tell people exactly what drugs do. I don't mean those milquetoast commercials that tell you drugs are bad with some sweet innocent kid talking about why they don't want to do drugs, but show people real drug abusers before and after. Show people the dead from these gang wars. Not in washed out, 2 minute reports. but, show the dead.

People will say that this would be too offensive. To me, drug abuse is offensive. The death of people due to drugs, either by the abusers or by gangs that sell it, are offensive.

Gun battles on our street corners are offensive.

You want the citizens to get behind any law enforcement funding and activities, they need to show the people just how bad it is. But they won't because, if they do, the people will demand that something "more" be done. That something more will take money and that means that money earmarked for certain special interests in this city would be reduced or disappear.

That's why city governments like here and Miami Dade (even national government) spend their time talking about and enacting one stupid, low rent, barely enforceable gun law after the other. It makes them look like they are doing something while leaving the larger dollars intact.

As far as healthcare or treatment for drug abusers, they don't mind putting that out there. It's hidden in a way. Do you know how much the government is spending on these rehabs? Does anybody ever ask? It is still cheaper than an over all effective war against drugs, gangs and other real causes of escalating murder rates that budget minded government folks want you to ignore.

by kat-missouri on September 17, 2007 6:29 PM

---

kat, you sensible woman, you, are you trying to get me to drink more than I already do, which is much, much more than is good for me?

Owhell, as I've written many times before, here and elswhere, I want to be numb when they come for me, numb,I tell you!

Now that this blog is watched by the Executive Office of the President, I reckon I can no longer express my preference for keeping a couple of tons of cyclonite in the basement of my house, hooked up to a deadman switch under my bottom on the Barcalounger.

No worries, I don't know how to acquire Cyclonite, and I think Barcaloungers are sill

by Justthisguy on September 17, 2007 6:57 PM

---

y.

by Justthisguy on September 17, 2007 7:01 PM

---

P.s. There are no basements in Southern Florida, where I am.

by Justthisguy on September 17, 2007 7:06 PM

---

Note to CARNIVOREous types - it's true, there are no basements in Southern Florida.

by John of Argghhh! on September 17, 2007 8:20 PM

---

... but JTG does use veiled speech. "Switch" and "under my bottom" are very suggestive of exotic arcane rituals, inducing varying levels of numbness. Possibly carried out in subterranean locales that are not basements, even in Florida. Explosive revelations may result from "switching" during repetitive nocturnal periods.

Deadmen = "empties".

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on September 17, 2007 9:36 PM

---

Just so it's clear how NAFTA is the problem here, besides cargo not being routinely inspected for fear of "slowing down" commerce in a JIT (Just In Time inventory) economy, the central railroad hub for most of this illicit trade is right here in Kansas City. Which is the reason that violent gang warfare using illegal weapons for fights over territory and drugs is on the rise here.

And, while the police are unfunded, the gangs take over more territory, create a serious network for creating and distributing drugs as well as ways to launder the money.

And, hey, talk about "offensive" anti-drug commercials, I actually liked the one where the guy was telling the other one that his drug use was supporting terrorism because it is. though, marijuana was a bad choice. Cocaine supports narco-terrorists who kidnap and kill people all over south America.

Heroin from opium definitely supports terrorism.

But, we couldn't show those videos because it "demonized" drug users who are supposed to be lamented for their "disease". Screw that. Most people take up drugs because THEY WANT TO not because somebody holds them down and forces it on them or even that some "addictive gene" makes it a foregone conclusion.

Bring on the "what drugs really do". How about some victims of narco-terrorism or terrorism in general? That is much more offensive than telling some jack leg that doing drugs is bad and possibly hurting their egos. People actually die and that is pretty d__n offensive.

by kat-missouri on September 17, 2007 9:42 PM

---

. but JTG does use veiled speech. "Switch" and "under my bottom" are very suggestive of exotic arcane rituals, inducing varying levels of numbness. Possibly carried out in subterranean locales that are not basements, even in Florida. Explosive revelations may result from "switching" during repetitive nocturnal periods.

Deadmen = "empties".

Now that was amusing after my rant. thanks, I needed that.

by kat-missouri on September 17, 2007 9:45 PM

---

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/18/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

by David M on September 18, 2007 10:57 AM

---

JMH, you bastard! I've seen yer regimental coat of arms. It involves canoes, and beavers! Pervert!

Pfvbbfthh!

by Justthisguy on September 18, 2007 9:17 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Hmmm.... down to about a dozen, myself- from a high of mebbe three dozen at one time when I collected first-generation military semi-auto pistols.
Perhaps I'll bump the numbers with one of those StG 44s....

by Neffi on August 29, 2007 7:13 AM

---

Let's see - carrying others, why is that familiar? Oh yeah, taxes. Not only do I support a bunch of no-job, drug-taking criminal lay-a-bouts with my taxes now my mini-arsenal is part of the 90 guns for every 100 people statistic.

BTW, I have two guns I've never fired. One is a sporterized Arisaka that no one around here seems to have ammo for and the other is a Turkish Mauser that I have been getting ready for mumblety-mumble weeks. I really have to get that front sight soldered on and get that out to the range. If I feel rich enough one of these days I'll even spring for some of that high-dollar ammo for the Arisaka

by NevadaDailySteve on August 29, 2007 8:01 AM

---

hmmm... if that averages out to nine free citizens for every subject, one is forced to wonder why we can't get good laws made (and only the few laws that are necessary) ...

by MajMike on August 29, 2007 8:20 AM

---

How many Americans have taken advantage of their right to own expended TOW tubes?

Darned few. I figger I'm carrying -- ummmmmmm -- divide by *mumblemumble* -- carry the 'lebenteen -- fifty million of ya.

Oooop. Forgot the three in the shed...

by BillT on August 29, 2007 8:35 AM

---

Thanks for carrying the load for me!

by Maggie on August 29, 2007 8:38 AM

---

I'm carrying how many? leemme see now...divide by zero error. Ahh yes i think I'm one of those unarmed 9 in 10 of the non US Americans.

by Trias on August 29, 2007 8:55 AM

---

Between my father and myself about 40.

But 35 of those are of the hunting variety in various forms of shotguns and rifles. The rest being hand guns of various applications.

by BloodSpite on August 29, 2007 9:11 AM

---

Keith's taking up the slack for me.

And some other things, but that's another story.

by AFSister on August 29, 2007 9:17 AM

---

I only have five, but one is a black powder muzzle loader (replica .45 Hawken), does it count?

by Oldloadr on August 29, 2007 11:34 AM

---

I see I must accumulate more and better carry my share of the load...

by MAJ Arkay on August 29, 2007 12:23 PM

---

Only three, here. But two are in calibers that start with the digit "4", at least.

by Justthisguy on August 29, 2007 9:21 PM

---

we're a little above the ratio (grin) and are determined to do more to carry our fair share [GRIN]

by Some Soldier's Mom on August 30, 2007 10:45 AM

---

I need to get one... I've been thinking about it for a while now. But first I've gotta find a safety class and figure out what paperwork I need. If I'm gonna do it, I want to do it right.

Suggestions for a SWF first time owner? Any other advice?

Should I just stick with pepper spray?

by One of many Tracys on August 30, 2007 11:31 AM

---

I'm happy to be picking up the slack for several of my neighbors as well. This so-called "study" is so blatantly aimed at gun owners insinuating that a high ratio of gun ownership is somehow wrong.

Time to lug my range bag out to the range again this weekend.

by ProudMarineDad on August 30, 2007 11:53 AM

---

One of many Tracys:

Take a shooting class, it covers gun safety but also gives you shooting time which is important. You need to feel comfortable shooting the gun. Look around for a class that will let you shoot various caliber pistols and rifles to see what you might want to buy. Most gun stores can point you in the right direction. I bought myself a nice Kimber .45 semi-automatic - that is one smooth shooter - and want to expand my arsenal to include some nice rifles. I took a shooting class with my daughter to get her comfortable around firearms. Continue to carry the pepper spray (otherwise you need to jump through all the hoops for a concealed carry permit - in which case you should probably go with a smaller caliber) but make time to shoot regularly in case you are forced to defend your home/family.

by pcake on August 30, 2007 12:13 PM

---

Oh, sweet Broomhandle!

But when is bazooka season in your state?

by richard mcenroe on August 30, 2007 8:21 PM

---

Right after mortar season and before heavy machinegun season, of course.

Why? When is it in *your* state?

by John of Argghhh! on August 30, 2007 8:45 PM

---

Trias,
The wife and I are looking after your interests! We have enough for a number of Americans, even. When the revolution comes, all right minded people get a .303 and some chargers to start them off - and are supposed to bring back more goodies!

by SezaGeoff on August 30, 2007 9:22 PM

---

That's the spirit Geoff!

by John of Argghhh! on August 31, 2007 5:05 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a "peace that is no peace."

I've always liked Orwell. Just think, he wrote this in the short span between WWII and the USSR's first atom bomb test.

The man was a freaking genius.

by NevadaDailySteve on August 22, 2007 9:16 AM

---

The Cold War has created much of the status quo tyrannies of our day. Both the US and the Soviets fought over Middle East oil tyrannies, propping up so called "stable" dictators against grassroots problems.

The Soviet Union, prevented from hot warring and invading the US, turned to propaganda, psychological warfare, and asymmetrical warfare through proxies.

The atom bomb is not being used because something more powerful prevents its use against Iran, terrorists camps in Iran, and Syria.

There is such a thing as power in numbers. The Japanese anime folks often phrase it as this. Every weapon has a limit. The more powerful the weapon, the higher the limit on its use. A missle launcher may fire once and blow a hole through a building, that is its limit. A machine gun may fire many thousands of times, but each individual shot is far less powerful than the hand held portable missile launcher.

In this case, asymmetrical warfare, free of the threat of the US using nuclear devices to balance things out, has an advantage. And when terrorists obtain nuclear weapons, it will have even greater advantage.

Iran, if they were to acquire nukes, they would do as Orwell said states would do. European states and America, will be crippled by the power of asymmetrical warfare, allowing other states to use nukes, guns, bombs, and armies to create slave empires.

by Ymarsakar on August 22, 2007 5:32 PM

---

When reading that, I thought about the effort by governments to keep us ordinary peasants from having armor-piercing ammo, and foreshadowing of us not being allowed armor. The whole point of the cheap musket, as Orwell pointed out that he thought everybody knew, was that it could launch a ball that would pierce plate armor.

I did see a photo somewhere, of a wounded French Couirassier being treated in August 1914. They hadn't unbuckled the thing, yet, in the pic.

by Justthisguy on August 22, 2007 7:41 PM

---

JTG - this guy?

by John of Argghhh! on August 22, 2007 8:07 PM

---

OHYEAH sir. That's the one! Never saw it in color before.

W00t Hoot toot! Vielen Danke!

by Justthisguy on August 22, 2007 9:53 PM

---

I think one effect of the widespreadedness of lotsa not-so-costly firearms, was that it required everyone to "play nice", assuming that they were sensible, reasonable people who were capable of imagining the consequences of their actions.

However, there are also people who are insensible, unreasonable, and dullwitted, not to mention the left-over aristocrats and wannabee aristocrats.

M'self, I lean towards arming everyone, and I'll hide behind something thick and dense until the crazy badasses shooting each other mostly stops, and if I like the survivors, I'll let 'em live.

In my ideal world.

Sner

by Justthisguy on August 22, 2007 10:30 PM

---

I've always had a love hate relationship with Orwell. You read biographies on the man and you find out he was a committed democratic socialist(but not a wackado one like the ANSWER types, but still a true believer in the writing of Marx). Ode to Catalonia shows where his sympathies lay as well. He cheered on 'revolution', like some real historical scuzzballs. He did publically deplore what folks like Che and Mao did in the name of socialism(when he was alive to do so of course).

Populism, the main thrust of this piece, has its place, but too much is not good either. There's a nice 'sweet spot' balance that I think is best, but can't put in hard and fast terms. Give me a mix of 'Leviathan' and Orwell(to act as conscience). I wouldn't want to live in Dodge City before Wyatt Earp(him being an agent of Leviathan-esque Federal Gov't(i.e. BIG Gov't)) showed up, thankyewverymuch.

by ry on August 22, 2007 11:05 PM

---

Umm, ry? I think our Founders were trying for said "sweet spot."

Of course they succumbed to the Ahenobarbic Fallacy, that everyone was like themselves.

Or maybe they didn't: In their writings they hinted that the polity they left us would prolly only work if composed of people like them ethnically, and of similar religious opinions.

by Justthisguy on August 22, 2007 11:40 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

regardles.. you have to admit two things:
1. trading guns for shoes is extremely creative!
2. it's pretty damn funny that he brought a missle launcher to a gun exchange, and that he had tried other ways of getting rid of it but no one would take it.

by afsister on August 20, 2007 8:52 AM

---

AFSis - once the missile has been launched, the only thing left on the tube is the contact for the guidance wire and the (pretty destroyed) wiring disk.

Dunno why the guy couldn't get rid of it -- it's perfect for keeping rakes upright in the corner of the garage...

by BillT on August 20, 2007 10:47 AM

---

Hee! I use mine to hold fence t-posts...

by John of Argghhh! on August 20, 2007 12:16 PM

---

Disposable missiles that can't be disposed... hrm.

by Ymarsakar on August 20, 2007 12:38 PM

---

Hiya, Ymar!

No problem disposing of the missile -- just hang it on the nearest launcher and squirt it at that tank crashing through the neighbor's fence or that pesky sniper popping in and out of a cave.

[Note: not intended for use against snipers lurking in somnolent volcanoes]

Problem lies in disposing of the tube. Folks who don't normally hang around with Uniforms think everything painted OD will go *boom* if you look at it crosseyed -- kinda like Grim splitscreening...

by BillT on August 20, 2007 12:51 PM

---

Looking crosseyed like Grim splitscreening, not going *boom* like Grim splitscreening.

Oooog. A Horse Lord going *boom* -- *there's* a visual for you...

by BillT on August 20, 2007 12:55 PM

---

John,

Thanks for the email reply and for this post - both have been just what I hoped you'd provide - context and vastly superior knowledge!

I knew it wasn't a Stinger - got acquainted with the Captive Flight Trainer for that at the MCAS Miramar airshow - but aside from the Stinger, I confess that one tube looks a lot like another. Those covers on the ends were one of the things that tripped me up on the fired vs. live issue.

Military aircraft are more my area of interest.

It's stuff like this, how the mis-information propagates, that makes my life as a collector more difficult - with good intentions all around - and is part of what drove me into blogging.

I can understand about media and misconceptions - I was in high power rocketry for quite a while. You get some raised eyebrows when you carry around a 3" x 36" cardboard tube with plywood fins and a plastic nose cone, even if it is painted as loudly and as brightly as a NASCAR race car and there's nothing in the bottom end.

Dunno why the guy couldn't get rid of it -- it's perfect for keeping rakes upright in the corner of the garage...

Sounds about right to me!

Thanks again and keep up the good work!

Jeff

by Parrothead Jeff on August 20, 2007 1:42 PM

---

Doh! Sorry for the double post. A correction has been posted over on my blog along with an apology for assisting in making John's collecting more difficult.

Thanks again guys!

by Parrothead Jeff on August 20, 2007 1:46 PM

---

I heard this on the radio yesterday and was blown away (no pun intended). Now that I have the context, it's not quite so shocking. Amusing, yes. But not shocking.

by HomefrontSix on August 20, 2007 1:54 PM

---

Those covers on the ends were one of the things that tripped me up on the fired vs. live issue.

The covers are only there to keep the missile snug until it's party time, Jeff. Loosen the retaining screw, flip off the clamp and no more cover. Sojer-proof, too. You can't load the launcher with the covers still in place -- although it's been tried...

by BillT on August 20, 2007 2:16 PM

---

The article has been updated to pretty clearly say that it was *not* a missile, or indeed anything more dangerous than a "carrying case."

They've changed the headline, the photo caption, and added a correction to the beginning of the article.

Not that that undoes any of the damage caused by the original misinformation, but at least they've fixed it...

by andy on August 20, 2007 6:05 PM

---

Andy - the "Army of David's" does it's work once again!

Heh. I've *offered* to help CNN and AFP and AP with this sort of stuff - but they don't care, really.

by John of Argghhh! on August 20, 2007 7:02 PM

---

Went to read the updated article - they acknowledge it up front, and don't try to sneak it in like some outlets do.

Good on 'em.

My services as a consultant on the issue of ordnance are *still* available... though admittedly, if the police told 'em, well, they thought they *had* the expert answer.

Police knowledge on this subject is very spotty. Some LEO EOD people know this stuff cold - but many don't know it as well as they think they do - especially if it's older stuff.

We had fun, anyway!

by John of Argghhh! on August 20, 2007 7:05 PM

---

We had fun, anyway!

The LEA folks had mixed emotions, from the tenor of the article. They got to see memorabilia and collectibles but *not* what they were looking for -- the gats the gangbangers use.

A fifty-buck coupon for cheap-sneaks isn't going to tempt a scuzzbucket to turn in his nine-hundred dollar persuader. They probably got some kid-tempters out of people's closets, though...

by BillT on August 21, 2007 5:00 AM

---

Problem lies in disposing of the tube. Folks who don't normally hang around with Uniforms think everything painted OD will go *boom* if you look at it crosseyed -- kinda like Grim splitscreening...

Yes, last time that happened I think a star went nova.

Heh. I've *offered* to help CNN and AFP and AP with this sort of stuff - but they don't care, really.

Well, John, maybe you're just too high class for them to afford. Their warfare mandates that they try to acquire munitions from a Scott Thomas Beau type, given the pricing.

by Ymarsakar on August 21, 2007 9:33 AM

---

Bill- I know the launcher's pretty much useless after it's used... which is why I brought up the "I can't believe he couldn't get rid of it" comment. But come on... you have to admit that bringing a launcher to a gun exchange is kinda like bringing a Sherman tank to a antique car show. "neener, neener... mine's kewler than yours!"

It's cool how the "Army of Davids" took care of this story!

by AFSister on August 21, 2007 5:52 PM

---

Actually, Sis, bringing a TOW tube to a gun exchange is like bringing a dog sled to an auto show -- minus the Huskies.

The guy who traded the tube for the sneaks got the best of the deal...

by BillT on August 22, 2007 5:29 AM

---

Folks who don't normally hang around with Uniforms think everything painted OD will go *boom* if you look at it crosseyed --

Well, they will go boom if you are a jihadist firing mortars and called out to Allah, and Allah smited you causze he was pissarsed.

Link

by Ymarsakar on August 22, 2007 5:39 PM

---

Manlaw Question! When Ymarsakar leaves a link to his post, which in turn links to Uncle Jimbo's post which has an embedded link to a jihadi self-destructing with a mortar... that *I* embedded in this post - is that a Manlaw Violation?

Hmmm. I guess not. Jimbo got there first.

Okay.

by John of Argghhh! on August 22, 2007 7:19 PM

---

JoA! Stop that Sir, pleez! You are messing with my mind, making my brain hurt, sticking the cyber-icepick through my eye socket and waving it around in there!

Please explain this silliness!

(Only yours, of course; nobody can explain my silliness.)

by Justthisguy on August 22, 2007 11:11 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

...*no one* needs a knife longer than two inches - a size chosen by the medical professionals involved in this as being short enough to make the damage from stab wounds minimally dangerous...

...while allowing a blade length that will still make an effective slashing weapon against an untrained individual.

They've not only abrogated their responsibility, they've abandoned common sense.

by BillT on August 19, 2007 8:45 AM

---

I'm wondering when the next law will be no more Crickett bat's, or baseball bats.

Personally I think I'd rather have one of those in a knife fight :) Especially against a fella with a 2 inch shiv :P

by BloodSpite on August 19, 2007 9:32 AM

---

In regard to the story about the Bf-109 one can only quote George Santyana "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

Unfortunately we live in an era in which revisionist history has become commonplace. Instead or recognizing the context of the times in which things occured, and using the opportunity for lessons learned, too many people today choose to impose thier political beliefs on what they THINK should have happened and erase all possible records that don't support their political viewpoint. Santyana would understand, and probably be appalled.

Marine6 Sends

by Marine6 on August 19, 2007 9:52 AM

---

*sigh*

Just like a techie to bring a stick to a knife fight...

by BillT on August 19, 2007 9:53 AM

---

Shipmates,

Ya know, interestingly enough, it would appear to me that the reverse is also true. Banning the tools of crime to stop crime makes as much sense as saying that giving a chemistry set to a kid makes him a chemist.

It's the skill set, the knowledge and the intent to use that knowledge which is important, not the tools associated with it. Talk about Xerxes flogging the ocean!

I mean, seriously, mandating licenses, permits, registrations, and operator classes ofr drivers hasn't done anything to stop drunk driving. The only thing that will stop drunk driving is banning booze and cars. Oh. Wait. they tried that banninc booze part, didn't they? Yeah... funny how THAT turned out. Seems people still kept drinking it. Just found another source for the stuff. Sort of like guns in gun-free zones, eh?

by AW1 Tim on August 19, 2007 10:06 AM

---

It's the skill set, the knowledge and the intent to use that knowledge which is important, not the tools associated with it.

Bingo!

And which is the aspect of crime prevention the solons are so fearful of addressing, lest they *offend* the scuzzbucket subculture...

by BillT on August 19, 2007 2:31 PM

---

" ...*no one* needs a knife longer than two inches ... "

You can tell a European said this. They've never had a reason to carve a Thanksgiving turkey.

LOL

by fdcol63 on August 19, 2007 4:06 PM

---

Maybe England should outlaw opposable thumbs.
That would make those nasty knives and bats very hard to use.
And of course, strangulations would drop precipitously...

by jimmyb on August 19, 2007 7:22 PM

---

Jimmy - excellent point...!

by John of Argghhh! on August 19, 2007 7:58 PM

---

If knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have knives!

Oh, yeah, ummmm, and professionally-trained kitchen staff...

by BillT on August 19, 2007 10:55 PM

---

Chief, there's a Patrick O'Brian quote I sorta remember:

Dr. Maturin said something like, "Jack, a human is a tolerably fragile machine. Two inches of steel in the right place can do for him." Or something like that. I don't have the book before me, don't remember which one it's in, even, and why don't novels have indices, anyway?

by Justthisguy on August 19, 2007 11:22 PM

---

There's always the knitting needle into and past the eye socket, and then wave it around in there, if you have the stomach for that kind of thing.

I don't, and just contemplating it makes me taste the HCl in the back of my mouth, a little. I doubt if I could even work myself up to it, at my age, even for a good reason.

I betcha there are some folks who wouldn't be bothered at all.

by Justthisguy on August 19, 2007 11:38 PM

---

Not in the eye socket -- you'll skew the tip of the needle and gran'ma will get torqued.

And twirling it around in the frontal lobe doesn't always work -- where do you think trials lawyers come from?

by BillT on August 20, 2007 2:21 AM

---

Hope nobody points out to the potential customer base of those kevlar backpacks that while kevlar may help protect against a slashing-type attack, it won't help a lot against a stabbing-type attack.

by emdfl on August 20, 2007 7:32 AM

---

"So what? It's harder to actually kill people with clubs and knives, so that's a net good."

The only thing you need to kill people is knowledge, preparation, and practice. Guns or knives are just tools. They are not the weapon itself.

Knives are good for the silent kill. A stab in the kidney or a puncture of the eye, are manifestly more noiseless and intimidating than noisy handguns. A gun you can shoot a man and then what? Dead folks can't give you money. However, a man or a woman has two eyes and two ears and 10 fingers. Plenty of redundancy there.

Politicians are spineless enough to be intimidated by anything, anyone, and any implement so to them banning handguns removes a portion of the threat. Threats to them that is. Politicans then only have to worry about assassination and attacks from peasants wielding pitchforks and blades, rather than handguns and rifles.

But you are more likely to be victimized by direct personal violence. Trade-offs, I know.

Free food. But we get to beat you. Trade offs indeed. Choices, choices.

a size chosen by the medical professionals involved in this as being short enough to make the damage from stab wounds minimally dangerous while still actually allowing you to, oh, slice or chop something - though they'd really prefer to mandate the use of things like mandolins and food processors, etc.

With the use of a scalpel, I think you can conduct some very profitable extortion and intimidation rackets.

So sharp. Off comes the finger.

precisely so they don't truly have to do the ugly work of making judgements about the mores of less-inclined-to-be-law abiding groups.

And they will eventually say that you are arming militias, going up against the central government and the rule of law by helping little kids and their families protect themselves. They will say that this militia in Al Anbar might solve one problem, but they will become another problem soon enough. Let the police handle things.

I betcha there are some folks who wouldn't be bothered at all.

Probably. Thugs think they are the hard mofos. Too bad they weren't paid for their brains

Hope nobody points out to the potential customer base of those kevlar backpacks that while kevlar may help protect against a slashing-type attack, it won't help a lot against a stabbing-type attack.
Posted by emdfl at August 20, 2007 7:32 AM

It also won't help a boy or a girl held down as they carve up their face. A turtle in its shell may be safe. Unless you already grabbed its head and one of its legs.

by Ymarsakar on August 20, 2007 12:23 PM

---

From the time I was a cop I remember the vest manufacturer (Safariland in our case) did NOT certify their Kevlar vests as protection from pointed or edged weapons! These people are living in a fools paradise.

by Chris in AZ on August 22, 2007 11:06 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

I agree, John.

As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply .. most usually provided by violent criminals in the black market, aided and abetted by authority elements in the political and law enforcement class who profit from corruption and kickbacks.

The best way to reduce these types of "sins" is to come up with better ways to reduce the demand for them. We need to stop glorifying and promoting their use/abuse in media and entertainment, better educate people on the negative consequences of using them, offer alternative "escapes from reality" that aren't as harmful, and address those issues and needs that compel people to "escape from reality" in the first place.

by fdcol63 on July 18, 2007 7:48 AM

---

Yes, how to fund health programs through the sin tax...discourage the sin but don't outlaw it to keep revenue going...but don't be seen as promoting it.

by Cricket on July 18, 2007 10:24 AM

---

I was having this dicussion with the CLU#1 about three weeks ago, and raised the first half of the issue which was if you discourage a vice through a tax, and do it well enough that the money drops off, then you have an unfunded program and either have to promote the vice or find another source of revenue. He asked me about the black market then...so he took it to your conclusion and well, I am so proud of the lad!

We were talking about Richard Mayberry's excellent economics primer 'Whatever Happened To Penny Candy?' I highly recommend that one as
an introduction to government meddling and taxes.

Thanks again John for having a blog with high quality content. I hope you don't mind, but I do
use yours and Cass's blog to teach writing. No, I don't even dare print it out, but they have to read it and look up the relevant sources used to sustain cause and effect in lawmaking and politics.

WOO HOO!!!!

by Cricket on July 18, 2007 10:39 AM

---

Like John I'm a non-smoker who lost his mother to smoking induced lung cancer.

And like John I think this manages to be one of the stupider ideas I've heard out of Gov't - and that's not an easy mark to hit.

by KCSteve on July 18, 2007 1:09 PM

---

You need help with hay baling and removal?

I am currently available on certain days of the weeks and weekend, barring angeling activities, particularly in the evening or early morning hours when it is cool.

And, I need to lose some weight. ;)

What do you need?

by kat-missouri on July 18, 2007 4:05 PM

---

Ah, clever woman! Your offer of assistance arrived... (well, was read) after the last bale was stacked.

Next time, we'll make a party of it.

This time, I'm kinda glad we did it ourselves - to prove to myself that those things which cause the VA to pay me can be worked through doing this sort of thing, and I have a much better appreciation of what needs doing for next time.

Like the amount of beer/Powerade/water per person we'll have to lay in, based on my personal consumption rates. And we'll have a bigger trailer.

by John of Argghhh! on July 19, 2007 5:38 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

OMG - that commenter isn't kidding. I thought (hoped) it was a comment in jest.

We already have many representatives of that form of smarmy, self-righteous bastid here in the Seattle area - both at the state and county level. They want us out of our cars and in public transportation, and make almost no attempt to hide the attitude at all.

by Barb on June 23, 2007 9:41 AM

---

That comment does look more like a copypasta-troll:

Take a successfull flame-bait [Guns] replace theme with yours [Cars] fiddle the examples and voi-la

by DoesNotMatter on June 23, 2007 1:53 PM

---

Sigh!!!
The comment was in geste. Because it also easily encompasses the ant-gun argument in Canada. Which is NOT a popular point-of-view at SDA.

Cheers

by J.M. Heinrichs on June 23, 2007 2:24 PM

---

Indeed, JMH, indeed.

Some people's irony-meters need some tuning...

by John of Argghhh! on June 23, 2007 6:19 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Heh. I either wrote the Perfect Post®, or nobody's reading it...

by John of Argghhh! on June 21, 2007 2:30 PM

---

Well, I'm reading it - but it's late in the day because I'm having such 'fun' at work.
But hey, it's air conditioned and well paid and I (usually) have time to check the web so why complain?

I'm one of the ones who've heard about this bill. But then I'm in / on various gun boards.

If Rep. Boyda asks you for suggestions on how to 'improve' this bill I'm afraid there's only one I can think of:

1) take a fresh sheet of paper.
2) That's pretty much it - this thing stinks on ice.

by KCSteve on June 21, 2007 3:06 PM

---

Ditto on the hearing it, but from what I understand I don't think I have to be too concerned with my reps supporting it. As usual the wild card in the deck is McCaskill since she can't seem to make up her mind on which side of the issue, like every other issue, she falls but Blunt and Co are more or less holding formation.

Don't have much else to interject on it yet as I'm still keeping my head low currently

by BloodSpite on June 21, 2007 3:12 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

Given that Sen. Mikulski is working to strip the Tiahrt Amendment (which, for some idiotic reason, must be renewed annually) from legislation in the Senate Appropriations committee, I'd love to see it attached-permanently-to HR 2640.

by Heartless Libertarian on June 17, 2007 1:37 PM

---

I've some discussions with Boyda about that...

by John of Argghhh! on June 17, 2007 9:31 PM

---

As someone who's pretty sure he's a bit neurally divergent, I look at these kinds of laws with some suspicion and fear. This one _seems_ Ok, as they describe it, but I'd rather not have the unconstitutional (IMHO) NICS thing at all.

by Justthisguy on June 18, 2007 1:05 AM

---

Concerns like yours, JTG, were actually central to some of the hardests discussions during the negotiations on the bill.

by John of Argghhh! on June 18, 2007 4:21 AM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!

---

How bout this as a first .. no Moore talk from me.

Strange collection of sponsors. Of course I tend to be jaded when it comes to Congress. Few can object to this thing, however it's the creeping incrementalism thing that concerns me.

I refuse to shake hands with anyone in congress and not count my fingers after.

I believe this is the first ... most even in nature ... and non-objectionable bill in what will be a continuing flood of stuff to make "Gun Control" not quite the "third rail" it has been for Liberals.

Isn't "Shumer" Hebrew for "Trust me"?

by jim b on June 13, 2007 1:34 PM

---

While there's no doubt about that, Jim - this really is just closing a true loophole.

The question is, down the road, how does it get implemented by the states and feds, and how do the anti's find ways to expand definitions to widen the net?

by John of Argghhh! on June 13, 2007 3:17 PM

---

� Dismissed, Soldier!