NRA Needs to Use Some Public Relations

Apparently I am a paid shill for the NRA.

Thirdpower has a little post about a conversation that I got involved in. I haven't had an argument consisting of "Yes you are! No I'm not!" since 3rd grade.

Some folks just get convinced their views are correct and nothing can be done to persuade them short of direct, hard evidence. And even then they often won't believe it.

Many people believe that the NRA is this all-powerful superlobby bought and supported by right-wing Bush conservatives and the gun industry. It's not. But the media and those who don't even bother to contact the organization or its membership portray it that way.

People just see "NRA" and automatically assume evil things.

It isn't true but showing people facts is hard especially when they are being bombarded by falsehoods and half-truths by those who know nothing of the organization. Some of the popular views among certain groups is the idea that people who defend the NRA are somehow a "paid shill" to put out their disinformation and propaganda.

For the record, I am a member of the NRA and have been so for three years. I joined when I bought my first gun and been a member ever since. I am an NRA certified rifle instructor (inactive).

I have not received a single dime from the NRA in any form. I give them money. I paid my membership dues, my range fees, my materials costs and my instructor fees out of my pocket. They don't give me anything.

So if you're going to throw out the accusation that I am in the pay of the NRA, you better be prepared to back it up. The only money that I receive comes from my employer.

As to defending the organization, I will insofar as they are getting a bad rap they don't deserve. The NRA is first and foremost an educational organization and gun rights organization second. The lobbying aspects of it came much later in its life. In fact, I don't think the NRA does enough on gun rights. I think they should be more aggressive and more consistent across the board. As a member, I contact them on those issues on my own.

Having said that, I think the NRA does need to get the message out there to start breaking this unfounded public perception of them. It's called outreach and they have a group to handle it. Don't worry about the membership. If we're giving you money, you already have us. You need to show the public the things the NRA does and the face of those who belong who aren't members and can be reached with regard to guns and ownership of them.

The problem is, if they do that, those certain groups will immediately shout back that it is all staged and paid for by the NRA to make themselves look good.

Taking folks to the range helps. When I took a new shooter to the NRA Range in Fairfax, VA, his most notable observation was the fact that it broke the stereotype of what he was expecting. He had heard and read so much about the NRA in the media about who was a member, he was shocked at what he saw. Until that moment, he believed everything that had been said about the NRA.

Frankly, the NRA isn't doing much to counter this and they really need to. But how?

I don't have a huge plan or giant answer to the whole problem but I know one way they could start.

Put a web cam in the NRA Range.

I don't know about the liability aspect of this. There are already security cameras there so a cam or two covering the range proper shouldn't be much of a problem. The reason for this is really simple. Allow people to log on to the website (which needs work too) and let them see real-time video of who is on the range. Over the course of a day or a week, you'd see all types of people shooting safely from all walks of life.

Old people, young people, kids with parents, blue collar, white collar, military, law enforcement, women alone and with spouses or colleagues. The whole spectrum of NRA members and range users. Eventually, it would be really hard to deny that this was all being staged all the time.

It would at least put those who believe the NRA is part of some grand cabal into a small corner.

Plus, it would draw people in. People who have never seen anyone handle firearms would get to see it all on demand. With proper camera layout, it would be fun just to see who is shooting what. And given it is the NRA, unsafe gun handling doesn't happen much and when it does, the public will see a range safety officer dealing with it. Which would show a positive aspect of the NRA to those who witness it.

It wouldn't cost much. The main issue is the IT infrastructure at the NRA to handle the bandwidth and based on what I've seen, it probably could. With a little bit of grassroots or even upfront advertising, I'm sure people would stumble onto the cameras. Then they could see for themselves.

I think instinctively down below many people don't believe what they hear about the NRA but without a counter to it, it is all they have to go by. If the media says one thing and the NRA stays silent, the logic fits into place that the media must be right. After all, if they're wrong wouldn't you speak out?

Just a mid-week idea that popped into my head.

We Need to Stand Together, Gun Owners

On my little hunting adventure, I've started to encounter what we in the Black Rifle community refer to as "Fuddite" thinking. This is the type of thinking from gun traditionalists like hunters who believe only their rifles are proper and it is ok to enact laws against rifles such as the AR-15 because "there is no need for them". To them, it is perfectly ok to ban "assault rifles" since people (in their view) don't hunt with them and they just don't fit their ideal of gun ownership. As long as hunting is protected, sacrificing some of my guns is perfectly justified.

Funny how one side who see themselves as staunch gun rights defenders are perfectly willing to throw me under the bus to protect their sport.

When I encounter this type of narrow-minded thinking from within the gun owning community, I want to shake some sense in them.

"Don't you get it?!? They're coming after me because my guns are easier to demonize than yours! And you're not helping! When they're done taking mine, they will come after you! It won't be a 'sporting shotgun' or a 'hunting rifle' anymore, pal, it'll be a 'deadly street sweeper' or a 'high-powered sniper rifle'. Then what will you do? I won't be able to help you then because you'll be all alone."

I respect all shooters, whether a paper puncher, handgun enthusiast, hunter or black rifle aficionado. All I ask for is respect in return. For some reason, traditionalists whether by bias, ignorance or the best of intentions, don't respect my interests in firearms in turn disproportionately. This has to change.

A message to such gun owners: Just because I shoot something you don't see a particular need for does not make me expendable. As I say above, if anything, you need me. You need me to act as the speed bump before they get to you.

I will defend you, fellow hunter. Just defend me in turn. This isn't about our choices in guns. This is about our rights to own them. Period. Given enough time and the right political climate, don't think for one instant that your hunting and sporting guns will be spared. They won't be.

Because if anything, fellow hunter, your guns are less protected under a strict Constitutional interpretation (save for a few types) than mine are. If it could be demonstrated that your over-under shotgun and lever action hunting rifle served no militia purpose, all your 2nd Amendment protection is gone. Gone. The 2nd doesn't protect hunting; it protects "Arms". If it came down to it with a series of rulings that only effective militia "arms" are subject to such protection, your sporting guns are out in the cold.

And even if they aren't, your sport can be legislated away through zoning and bureaucracy. Hunting banned on public lands, trap and skeet ranges closed because of surburban encroachment. Bureaucratic policies or local/State legislation that effectively prevent hunting while keeping it technically legal (lead ammo ban in the California condor range anyone?). It's already started and happening in many places.

We need to come together, fellow shooters. That is our common bond: we shoot. Whether into woodchucks or wood pulp, Benelli or Barrett, that is the one thing that we all share. We shoot.

You don't have to like my guns. Or me for that matter. All you have to do is agree than an attack on my arms is an attack on yours and voice your support for me keeping mine. I pledge to do the same for you even if they succeed in taking mine. Just don't help them do it. Stay silent if you can't support me. As long as you don't aid and abet them, I will support you fully. I promise.

The divisiveness needs to stop. We can't afford it and it plays into the antis hands. Dissent among ourselves about strategy or approaches freely but when we speak, we must speak united under the common bond of being gun owners. Otherwise, we will surely be picked off one at a time and there will be no one left to fight once it has gone too far.

What they are planning for me will be the model for what they will do to you. Don't delude yourself.

It's time to stand together, gunnies. Are you with me?

No Universal Healthcare

I got called "heartless" at work the other day.

Why? Because I mentioned during our regular afternoon political debate (coffee break) that I was glad the President Bush had vetoed the S-CHIP program expansion.

To which one of my more liberal co-workers replied that I was a "heartless conservative" by denying health insurance to children that don't have it. I retorted they were being denied nothing since they don't have that government program today and frankly, if a family of four making $80K a year on average in this country is poor, then we have a large number of poor people where I work.

I work in the financial industry.

He followed this up with "Why would you object? You had free health care in Canada!".

Ever actually feel your jaw drop? Mine did.

Yes, I had health insurance provided by the Government in Canada (Ontario, specifically). It was anything but "free".

Trust me, when you are paying an average of 54% of your gross wages making $22K a year in taxes, you understand the meaning of the word "free" as it applies to anything provided by the Government. Such services are many things but "free" is definitely not one of them.

His idea is that since he pays taxes, he should be getting something he values out of them. For him, this is the end of the war in Iraq, stop Bush from helping the oil companies profit and the Government should be paying for health insurance. We can't afford it so the Government should pay for it since we pay so much to them.

It is a hopeless cause, really. But sometimes you just get drawn in.

He thinks the Canadian system of health care in this country would be fine and dandy.

Wake up, America! To anyone who supports the idea there should be universal health care paid for by the Government and thinking it is "free" is delusional. I think people get this mentality that anything the Government provides is "free" since the money appears to come from nowhere.

When will people realize these Government services they are receiving are things they've paid for in advance? And often, they are unable to receive these services for a variety of reasons (wrong skin color, too rich, too poor, wearing plaid instead of green that day, etc).

Health care on a Canadian model in this country would be anything but free. As it stands, spending in Canada works out to 16.7 percent of GDP. Interestingly, the USA right now spends over 18% of GDP on health care. That's right, we spend more than Canada does now.

Admittedly, the bulk of that spending is in private insurance but it is a useful guide.

Now imagine the Government spending that amount on health insurance to provide universal coverage. You think your taxes are high now, America? You ain't seen nothing yet!

I think $250 billion per year would be a low figure. Hilliary Clinton's estimates at $100-$120 billion are probably direct costs only and don't include all the third party and bureaucratic costs the Government could not talk about because of how they classify things.

I asked my Iraq war hating colleague, who bitches constantly abount the $800+ billion spent so far, how he felt about $250 billion a year being spent on health insurance in perpetuity with the likelihood of costs increasing every year with no end in sight.

He said he'd be fine with it as long as he'd be getting something out of it. Even if it meant higher taxes? That he didn't answer except to reiterate "$800 billion in Bush's war!".

Sigh. Why can't people figure out that just because we are spending in one area does that mean we had to take it from somewhere else? This reflected on a lack of knowledge and desire on his part to learn how money is allocated here by Congress for such things. Spending $800 billion on Iraq doesn't mean we've ever cut spending elsewhere on education, health care, social programs, etc. Nor does it mean we would have been spending it on education, health care or social programs. There is not a correlation here.

Seriously, folks, would you accept a 5-10% direct increase in your taxes to fund universal health care? I can tell you having lived in the Canadian system that I would not. I like having a tax bill 25% lower than what I paid in Canada on average and have more money to take home each paycheck. We are talking real money here folks and to get a Canadian-styled system of health care here means you will pay for it.

In advance.

If you support such an initiative, fine. Just be aware that it is not "free", your choices will be limited and ultimately as Government control in such a program increases, quality will decrease, wait times will increase and indifference will take over. You will be just like anyone else waiting for care in the emergency room. And wait you will. Everyone will be equal under such a system. Equally screwed over, that is.

Want an example? How about December 24, 2006. That's my mother's birthday. Early in the morning she was complaining of chest pains. She has a heart condition and suffered a near-fatal heart attack at 34. So anytime my Mom says she has chest pains, it gets our immediate attention. The advice from my sister (an Arctic nurse) was simple: "Go to the hospital. Now!". Forget the family Christmas gathering later in the day, forget inconveniencing me, I don't care. I got her into my Jeep and drove her to the emergency room. The last thing I wanted was to remember my Mom's birthday as the day she died.

We got to the hospital and went inside. As usual, there were about 10 or so folks in the waiting area. The nurse saw us after a few minutes and did the usual battery of quick tests and questions. As soon as my Mom answer "Yes" to the "Do you have a heart condition?" question, off into the emergency room she went. Within 10 minutes, she was on a EKG machine.

You must be thinking, "Wow, what great service!". Yes and for only one reason: triage. My Mom's heart condition is a "Get inside quick!" pass. Her condition is more immediate and potentially fatal than a cut. So she gets treatment first. The man sitting in the waiting area with the blood-soaked gauze to his face will get to wait, his protestations to the contrary, until there is space for him. This is not unique to Canada. You will witness this behavior in any emergency room in the USA.

Now imagine spending 10 hours waiting for a cardiologist to come on duty and two sets of tests to be completed. And when you left halfway through after 5 hours, that same man with the blood-soaked gauze was still sitting in the waiting area. No joke, gentle readers. And he was still there when I returned an hour later.

6 hours for stitches for a non-life threatening situation. Who knows how long he had been there before we had come in? Honestly, sitting 6-8 hours for non-emergency care at a hospital is pretty typical of the Canadian system of universal health care.

Did we pay to get in? No. Not in dollars. Definitely in time. That man certainly did. The question you need to ask yourself is would you accept that for yourself? Not in the abstract either. You're bleeding, in pain but not in any danger. You see others going ahead of you, injuries not obvious or serious from your standpoint. Eventually, you go to complain to the nurse and she tells you to sit down and wait to be called. So you do. And then protest more an hour later. And on and on until, finally, you are admitted for care, treated and released some 12 hours after you arrived.

Maybe you would. Now repeat that reasoning if it was your child instead of you? Got news for you folks, triage applies equally. I've seen kids sitting there under precisely the same circumstances and get exactly the same treatment, outraged and annoyed parents notwithstanding.

Do you really want this system here?

I believed the Canadian horror stories of the US healthcare system until I lived in it. Is it perfect? No, not by a long shot. I dislike, intellectually, the idea of for-profit health care. But as noble as I think health care should be as a social benefit, practical realities must give way. If there is no incentive to improve, offer different types of service, new treatments, etc, then health care will rapidly descend to the lower common denominator. Everyone equal, service mediocre, wait times long. Profit-making at least provides an incentive to perform. Do I like it? No. Do I think there can be a balance between public and private services? Yes. Do I think health care should be universal in this country?

Absolutely fucking not!

We already have public health care. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. We don't need more of it. The moment the US government steps in to regulate and control the health industries in this country as primary provider will be the day you can kiss quality care in any form, short of expensive private care out of your own pocket, goodbye. Whether you realize it or not, you'd create a two-tier system. Except the upper tier will be for the very well-off and the other tier will be for us.

We will get the quality and coverage we all pay for. We'll all be insured, that's for sure, but none of it will be any good.

Good luck then trying to get that system dismantled once it has been established.

Canada's system is already under severe strain. Did you know that it is not possible at this time for you to get a doctor in the province of Ontario? Not difficult. Impossible. If I moved back to Ontario tomorrow and got my health insurance again after 6 months (to re-establish residency), I couldn't get care because no doctor will accept me as a patient. They have waiting lists of new patients years long. I am not making this up.

The reason is doctors are government employees. They are allowed to bill only so much to the Government each year. In other words, their annual salary. So they work out how many patients they need to see to meet their caps and once they hit that limit, they stop taking new patients. Otherwise, they could wind up seeing patients for free past a certain point. Certainly noble but given how overworked a doctor is, would you be eager to provide two months of free work to your employer?

Doctors could certainly accept new patients if they are willing to pay out of their own pocket. The system permits them to do so at will. But because generations (since the 1950s) have been raised with "universal health care", they see it as a "right" and become very, very offended at the idea that they might have to, gasp, pay for something! Even small co-pays such as $2 to get a series of prescriptions filled, $15 for a doctor's visit or $50 for an emergency room visit (refunded if it was an actual emergnecy) have been hotly resisted by everyone.

So if you think people are going to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars privately out of their own pocket after paying for their "free" health care, I have some prime real estate in the Everglades I'd like you to see.

That's the reality in a country of 31 million people.

Now scale it up to 300 million. Do you honestly believe a system with ten times the volume is going to be any more efficient? Like any bureaucracy and government program, efficiency and quality are inversely proportional to the population it serves. I wouldn't expect much from universal health care here except long wait times and jerk-off bureaucratic bullshit on the best of days. On the worst of them, I'd expect to die.

Having lived and experienced the Canadian model you laud so highly I can tell you it would be a disaster if brought here in any form. I already pay for health insurance. I find a way to pay for it. I consider it a basic cost of living that I simply have to deal with just like rent and food. People serious about being responsible adults find a way.

I don't need the government to hand it out to everyone because they want it and I resent having my already high tax burden raised further in order to pay for it. Provide care to the poor, find a way to improve the existing programs, offer government-subsidized private insurance, anything but the Canadian system. Certainly keep your hands out of my pocket and yours.

It's a great way to buy votes though. Unfortunately for Hilliary, it doesn't work for me. I've been there and seen what she wants. It didn't fly as her pet project as First Lady and it won't fly with her as President. God help us if it does.

Imagine an addition 10% increase in your taxes right now. Imagine it never going away and only increasing over time. It will. It always does. Are you prepared for that? Is it worth it to pay more for something you already have and which won't be anywhere as good? You honestly expect things to improve without competition or any incentive whatsoever because of Government meddling in the system?

Our system of health care may not be perfect but at least it works! I'll take 10 million uninsured over 300 million fully insured at Third or Second World levels.

Say "No" to univeral health care. I prefer to be bribed with my own money by it staying in my pocket.

How is Gun Registration and Owner Licensing Even Legal?

Folks, this is something I have been wondering for a long time and it is really simple:

Why has no entity or citizen challenged the legality of firearm registration and/or owner licensing in any State that requires it under 18 USC 926(a)?

This section of the law reads as follows:

(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—

(1) regulations providing that a person licensed under this chapter, when dealing with another person so licensed, shall provide such other licensed person a certified copy of this license;

(2) regulations providing for the issuance, at a reasonable cost, to a person licensed under this chapter, of certified copies of his license for use as provided under regulations issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection; and

(3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s ^[1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

(b) The Attorney General shall give not less than ninety days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations.

(c) The Attorney General shall not prescribe rules or regulations that require purchasers of black powder under the exemption provided in section 845 (a)(5) of this title to complete affidavits or forms attesting to that exemption.

Emphasis is mine.

Can anyone tell me how any State-level system of registration of guns for any purpose is legal such as many States for handguns, California and Maryland for "assault weapons" (among others) or owner licensing such as in Illinois and Massachusetts given this statute?

I don't care what they call it. Sales records, safety inspection (Michigan's excuse) or an up-and-up registration database, by the reading of this section, are all illegal.

FOPA'86 was passed for the most part to protect gun owners from overreach by State governments against US citizens.

So can anyone tell me why any of these systems of registration exist when the law specifically says the States or any political subdivision of the US government (which would include cities) can't create such things?

Couldn't someone tell a State to pound sand with regard to getting a firearm license or be denied registration, be denied such as what occurred in DC which lead to Heller, and then challenge the legality of such requirements as illegal under 18 USC 926(a)?

Why do these systems even exist given this statute? Is there something I'm missing?

Registration of guns and owners is a big issue with me. I plan to explore it a little more in depth soon but if anyone would like to chime in with their thoughts, I'd love to hear it. Especially if you're an attorney specializing in 2nd Amendment cases.

Part 1 of 2: Battle Doctrine for Zack

It's Friday. This post is a "what if" flight of fancy. If you don't have a need to fight off zombies during a level 4 outbreak or having any interest in science fiction, feel free to move on to one of the excellent blogs on the right side. This post is for pure speculation and entertainment of the geeky mind.

New Jovian Thunderbolt commented on my post regarding World War Z on the weapon used by the US Army in that terrible time. He commented as follows:

Next up, I want to see an average well trained rifleman marksman keep up that volume of accurate fire for that long with a kicky rifle. My eyeballs get cagey after an hour. The breaks described were very short. Not a true rest. And to do 100 yard headshots from a kneeling position for 24+ hours straigt...

For those of you who haven't read the history of that period, what he is referring to is the American battle strategy used to combat the zombie hordes. Specifically, the battle doctrine that was worked out to eliminate them.

The doctrine called for the placement of range markers at 10 yard intervals out to 300 yards or so or as terrain permits. These are used for "known distance" shooting. The idea is to allow "Zack" (the US Army slang term for a zombie) to approach until they reach 100 yards. Every soldier is trained to do an accurate headshot at one second intervals at this distance.

Two lines of soldiers are formed straight across Zack's line of approach. In this they are assisted by other teams and methods which draw Zack in to the kill zone (K9 troops, loud music, etc). The lead line is the shooting line and the troops are firing from the kneeling position. Behind each man or woman is a second soldier. This is their reserve. As the shooter gets tired, the reserve steps in to take their place. If there is no reserve (if the lead is off on a break), then an ammo handler (called a "Sandler") can step in.

The idea is not unlike a Civil War skirmish line except this line doesn't move. The purpose is to put a steady hail of fire, accurately, into the Zack hordes until there are no more to stop.

The soldiers are trained not to start shooting until Zack reaches the 100 yard mark. When that happens, the whole line opens up and puts round after round into the brain of the zombie directly ahead of them. With nary a miss and continuously until they are out of ammunition. When this occurs, they hold their rifle up over their head (indicating they are empty) whereupon their reserve steps in to continue the fire without stopping while the lead hands the rifle to a "Sandler" for reloading.

If the psych troops monitoring the formation starts to see a soldier having issues (taking short shots rather than measured one second ones or beginning to miss too much), they'll tap them on the shoulder for a break (described as five minutes). Then they rotate back into the line.

This process continues non-stop until the horde has been stopped. Given that an area can hold tens of thousands of undead that are being baited into the kill box, these battles can rage for hours or even days. The Battle of Hope lasted over 15 hours.

I'm with Bolt, this seems a little extreme from a combat perspective. Some back of the envelope numbers reveal that a single soldier could, on average, take down 54 zombies a minute. This is assuming the use of 30 round magazines with one second per aimed shot with perfect accuracy and 6 seconds for a magazine change. That is absolute, metronome precision. During the course of an hour taking into account delays in switching from reserve to lead and moving on and off the line for breaks, I figure that effective shooting time for one position of two men would be 50 minutes. That translates to 2700 Zacks being made permadead an hour. Again, this is under perfect circumstances.

Battle conditions are anything but.

There are some things I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt on. One, Zack isn't shooting back. Just plodding towards you at a steady rate. Most of his threat is psychological. His moaning, his appearance, the fear he places in you at becoming just like him if he gets too close to you.

And that works in favor of the doctrine with the quote from the rifle trainer: "Zack's in no hurry so why should you be?". Hence the emphasis on steady, unwavering, precision marksmanship.

There are some issues with this doctine.

I don't dispute our emphasis on headshots. In all honesty before the war, a headshot standard (2 MOA for purposes of this discussion) was an achievable standard on iron sights at 100 yards with a moderately trained civilian with a good rifle. And we know the SIR (Standard Infantry Rifle) used against Zack was a good rifle. With practice and good sights, this can be done.

But not perfectly all the time. I'll be conservative and say that 10 percent of all shots are misses. This reduces our pair stoppage rate down to 2450 Zacks an hour. Still impressive.

A big issue with maintaining this rate is ammunition consumption. Bolt isn't kidding when he says they'd have to truck into the ammo loaded to the roof. Realistically, about half of a company (say 180 troops) would have to be ammo handlers (the "Sandlers"). Just reloading 30 round mags from pre-loaded stripper clips is going to take almost as long as a shooter will need to empty it.

Which also brings up the topic of the magazines themselves. Would the doctrine call for a "combat toss" similar to a "combat drop"? In modern battle, soldiers simply let the empty magazines to drop to the ground and move on. They're cheap and easier to replace. Only where combat doctrine requires for mags to held on person in a dump pouch (such as Special Forces ops) will they not be left behind. Most of the time, the second or two needed to place an empty mag in a pouch is more urgently needed for other tasks in battle.

In Zack combat, such measures are not needed but I suspect the shooters would need to be trained to toss their magazines away back over their heads so the Sandlers could scoop them up for reloading. The last thing you want is empty mags piling at your feet for you to trip on right into the path of a rogue Zack!

Talk about an annoyance though. The "clang clang" of raining magazines constantly just under the sound of continuous rifle fire. The Sandlers would need shoulder pads and helmets just to protect themselves moving along behind the line.

Which leaves the other half of the company to fight. Call it 80 men on the line. 40 shooters and 40 reserve. The rest of the company would be the Sandlers, officers and non-combat troops. That works out to approximately 98,000 Zacks per hour. If a battle rages for 15 hours, that is over 1.47 million Zacks taken down.

That's going to require in the neighborhood 1500 1000 round cases of 5.56mm ammunition. Heavy and bulky but doable. Especially if the rounds are pre-loaded onto stripper clips. Transport would be an issue with that much ammo. But in this, it would be realistic. You'd just have to have your logistics well in hand and I would definitely make sure about having a huge reserve on hand "just in case". I'd say 25 to 50 percent above your projected Zack population. You just never know where Zack might be crawling out from in order to investigate you.

All Zack needs to win is for you to run out of ammo. That's what happened to General Raj Singh. With ammo, you can keep Zack at bay as long as you can keep shooting. You must never, ever run out or you've had it. Which means you having upwards of 2 million rounds on hand to deal with Zack over a 12-16 hour battle.

Talk about crushing the pavement.

How long you could keep it up is another area of dispute. I think the doctrine fails to take into account the adrenaline slump that would kick in after a few hours of unrelenting, unchanging combat. Remember, Zack ain't shootin' back. It would all become a blur after a while and without the immediate threat of Zack taking a nibble out of your arm, your body will back off him being a threat and start to stand down. By the third or fourth hour, I could see fatigue become a real issue.

Bolt's right, five minutes out of an hour under unrelenting, steady firing isn't enough. Assuming you could even leave the kneeling position after being in it for almost an hour. I know my legs would be protesting and I doubt I'd be able to feel my butt or ankles anymore. I'd say the sitting position would be a better one for Zack combat if you asked me. More stable, easier to achieve a headshot (personally, I shoot best from the sitting position) and slightly more comfortable. Less stress on the joints.

You'd have to bump the rest period up to something like 10-15 minutes out of an hour. To work this you'd need to fight as two companies to ensure a steady rotation of Sandlers (the ammo monkeys need rest too) and shooters. Hard but more realistic I think. It wouldn't make those 12-15 hour battles any more pleasant but tolerable and within the limits of fatigue and endurance to stop Zack in his tracks.

What do you think, zombie hunters? Could you do it? Under such conditions would you volunteer to take on Zack and 1.5 million of his friends for 15+ hours straight?

"Because he'll never ever stop. So neither should you.".

It must have sucked being a recruiter in those days.

World War Z: The SIR Rifle and a Response

Thanks to New Jovian Thunderbolt with this post, I went out and bought both the Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z.

Overall, both are excellent, fun books for a geek like me.

In his post, NJT talks about the SIR rifle that is described in the book. This was one of the reasons I bought it. I wanted to read for myself what was written about this gun. I find myself speculating on the design of the rifle and its probable appearance. Hey, the way I see it, if you actually made such a semi-auto for the civilian market, I think it would sell.

At a minimum, I glean from the descriptions of the rifle and how it was employed that in addition to NJT's observations, I can make a couple of more conclusions about the gun.

One, I think it probably used STANAG M-16 magazines. This is only logical given the vast numbers in the supply chain at the time of the zombie outbreak. It wouldn't make sense to make a brand new magazine design given the lack of resources to make them.

The SIR rifle sounds like it has qualities of various designs but I also speculate based on what little is described about its origins that it probably drew from existing designs and parts. It would have been easier to modify existing parts to build the new gun rather than make all new ones. Again, the resource issue. For example, it would seem logical to me to reuse the existing M-16 or AR-15 bolt carrier and saw off the gas tube key and leave it flat or weld on a pad to allow a gas piston/operating rod to hit it.

I would love to see a sketch of what the gun might look like and its action design. I've been trying to design the gun in my head. I wonder if Max Brooks has experience with firearms or consulted someone who did to come up with his fantasy "zombie marksman's" rifle. You definitely see elements of the 10/22, AK-47, M-16 and M1 Garand in it.

One point I want to make in fun to counter NJT's observation of:

The character also complained the rifle kicked hard. Huh? 5.56 that wasn't designed to be super lightweight kicked hard? It HAD wood stocks, claiming synthetics were difficult to procure after the breakdown following the initial mass outbreak and societal collapse.

My response: Try firing an HK33 sometime.

I had a rare opportunity to go on a real machine gun shoot. On the line was an M4 carbine with 3-round burst and a full-auto HK33. I can tell you the difference in recoil and muzzle climb between the two are night and day both in semi and full auto.

I liked the HK33 and the idea of owning one right up until I pulled the trigger on it.

It is a violent rifle. Despite firing that "puny 5.56mm" cartridge, the HK kicked hard. You see, the HK33 lacks the recoil absorption system that the M4/AR-15 pattern rifles have. You may dislike the plastic gun but in comfort to fire, I'll take it over the HK any day.

Like you, I don't think a 5.56mm rifle is supposed to kick. But in a design that puts that force on your shoulder, it can kick quite hard. Not to the level of a full power .30 caliber round but definitely out of your range of expectation.

This leads me to believe the SIR rifle as described could have been a "kicker". Especially from a design lacking a recoil system and a weak bolt return system that imparts a significant part of the recoil energy into your shoulder.

And considering that these troops were firing for hours on end, I can see them perceiving a higher level of recoil overall as a function of time. As the shoulders begin to hurt and the grip slips, that stock pounding away is going to alter your perceptions after 100 shots and they'll stick with you.

I think an SIR would be fun though.

New Shooter Report

I took a co-worker shooting this weekend. I am proud to report that he did very well and wants to go again.

I will preface this with the statement that said co-worker already had a positive stance on the idea of self-defense but has had no firearms exposure save for what is in the media. I had been countering this falsehoods with information but without direct experience, he was still skittish.

Case in point: "A gun can just go off.". Sigh. Even with my explaining I could drop a rifle or pistol onto concrete and the likelihood of it just "going off" is very low. It would only be prone to doing so if it was in bad mechanical shape and not properly maintained or had been deliberately altered (usually with a trigger job for target work at pull levels totally unacceptable for carry or usage outside a controlled environment).

Even with my explaining that such a scenario is extremely unlikely and that any story of a gun "going off" was the result of negligence, not design, he was still unsure. Hence my offer to take him shooting and let him try for himself.

To paraphrase Heinlein: "He may not think; he may not understand but he can SEE!". Let him hold a gun and shoot with others around him doing the same will do more to educate than me pontificating for hours.

This is common among those who have no direct experience with guns. It's human nature. We fear what we do not understand.

So he was willing to give it a try. Nothing like a little curiousity. So after several weeks of trying, we finally managed to get together this past Saturday at the NRA Range in Fairfax, VA for his introduction. My instructions to him were simple: "Just show up. I'll take care of everything else.".

We met up around noon. He got there first and did his range test while I was enroute. Thanks the traffic gods for that one. I got there just as he was finishing up and there was no wait list. Perfect. This meant I could show him at his pace without being pressured for time. The NRA Range, like most ranges, restricts you to one hour if there is a waiting list. Without one, I can shoot as long as I like or until it gets busy.

I gave him eye and ear protection and went over a few basic safety rules. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and keep the gun pointed downrange at all times. With a nod, we went out and got my stuff unpacked.

I brought five (really six) guns with me. Two handguns and four rifles. I had agonized over what to bring since I wanted it to be a positive experience for him. As always, start with the smallbore stuff and work up as his comfort level increases. Now, as you know, I have many choices open to me. In the end, here is what I brought along with plenty of ammunition for each:

• Heritage Rough Rider .22LR cowboy single-action revolver
• Sig Sauer P220 .45ACP semi-automatic
• Savage 93R17VS .17HMR bolt-action rifle
• Eagle Arms/Bushmaster M15A2 AR-15 .223/5.56mm semi-automatic rifle
• DPMS .22LR .22LR semi-automatic rifle (upper only, swapped onto the rifle above)
• Yugoslavian M59/66 SKS 7.62x39mm semi-automatic rifle

The revolver was going to be optional to expose him to a revolver in addition to a semi-automatic .22LR. It didn't work out that way. My semi-auto .22LR pistol was down for repair and even though it is minor, I knew it wasn't going to shoot right after a few magazines and the last thing I wanted was to sap his confidence when rounds started going everywhere. Even if I tell him it is expected, you don't want to damage a new shooter's confidence by them not hitting even close to where they are aiming at. What is frustrating for experienced shooters can drive new shooters away permanently. It wasn't worth the risk so the semi-auto staying home and the revolver became primary.

It took several minutes for me to unpack the guns and get everything arranged. Once set up, I pulled him into the booth and introduced him to the Rough Rider. I explained how to half-cock it to permit loading through the gate and once loaded, how to hold it and shoot it. I handed him the empty gun, reinforcing the basic safety rules, and told him to fire it empty at the target 4 yards away (a 12 inch Shoot-N-See bullseye). After a few dry shots, I asked him "Are you ready to try it for real?". He nodded and I held up a handful of rounds. "Load up.".

He loaded the gun and I took a step back behind him. "All yours.". After sighting up, he cocked and fired six times steadily. All six rounds in the X ring. Of course, he forgot he was firing a revolver and didn't count his shots. So he got the "click" on the seventh cock and this was a good time to reinforce the rule of "on click, 30 second tick" and keep the gun pointed downrange. Which he did so dutifully and then ejected the spent brass.

"Want to do it again?" I asked. He replied in the affirmative with a big grin. So I handed him six more rounds and he repeated the performance just a little lower than the first six. Excellent shooting for the first time with any handgun.

I asked him if wanted to keep shooting the 'Six or step it up. He wanted to step it up so down went the Rough Rider and up came the P220. Unfortunately, I own nothing in the middle. I'm not a handgunner. I own the .22s for plinking and practice. The P220 is my one and only primary handgun. So it is a huge leap and I warned him the .45 was going to kick much harder. I showed him the controls and how the slide worked. I had him lock the slide open on an empty gun and had him dry-fire it to get used to the trigger. He got it and we loaded up two 8 round magazines.

I repeated to him to use a firm but not too tight grip and to just go with it. As long as kept a grip, the gun wasn't going to hurt him. He loaded up, let the slide go, took aim and fired 8 shots. Except for one flyer in the 7 ring, they all hit in the 10 ring or better. With both magazines.

His response, "Wow! That does kick harder! But not that bad." with a grin on his face. I asked if wanted to keep shooting or try something else. He wanted to move on to the rifles.

Now here's my other odd choice. I started him on the .17HMR smallbore. Why this? Quite simply, I didn't want to confuse with sighting my Savage Mark 1 FVT .22LR with its aperture sights. It isn't a conventional sight setup. The scoped .17HMR is easier to understand and easy to aim. I know, you shouldn't start new rifle shooters on scopes but with the right gun, they build great confidence and I was handing him the best rifle I had for this.

Simply put folks, a new shooter cannot miss with a properly set up .17HMR rifle. They simply can't. Even with the shakes and bad flinching, the round is still going to easily hit the target. If I could afford it, I would use the .17HMR as a primary teaching rifle in a Basic Rifle course. Only 30 cents a shot keeps it from being used widely in this way but even then, it is worth it.

So we rolled out another 12 inch target to 25 yards and put him on the bench with 3 magazines. Resting the rifle on the front bag, I showed him how to aim, load and cycle the action. He sat down, loaded and sighted in on the target. Then there is that distinct sharp, short supersonic snap of Mach 2 goodness followed by a quick cycle of the bolt. No problems or jerk. Just steady concentration and smooth actions. He was in the groove.

We brought the target in after 15 rounds. Everything clustered in a 1.5 inch group with many holes dead center and overlapping. He wasn't expecting that but silently, I was. See why I used the .17HMR? He was thrilled with the results. For new shooters, giving them a dialed-in tack driver is a surefire way to hook them. And I did.

By the way, can anyone tell me what it is about .17HMR rifles that draws other shooters in like moths to a flame? Garands, ARs and AKs get looks but this gun brings people over to ask. It must be the sound as it is so distinctively different from a .22LR (which anyone can recognize almost instantly). As usual, I had a couple folks wander by to ask what he was shooting. So I tell them and they nod approvingly with a hint of jealousy in their response along with "Beautiful rifle!". It sure is. It is the most accurate rifle I own.

We were in permagrin.

Now it was time for the main attraction. This is what he had come to shoot. The evil, black "assault weapon". The scourge of America: The AR-15.

The DPMS .22LR upper was already fitted. I bought it for practice and it serves as a wonderful lead-in for the full-power round. It lets new shooters get used to the controls and get used to the sights without the additional issue of noise and recoil.

I showed him the controls, how to load the magazine and cock the rifle from the charging handle and how to sight the rifle in. I rolled a new target to 25 meters (not yards, this rifle is set to a standard battlesight zero so switching between the .22LR and .223 requires no range adjustment) and gave him the magazine.

He fired his first shot and the gun jammed. I could see it and I stopped him. He ejected the magazine and cycled the handle. No dice. I could see the cartridge case jammed in the action and cycling with the charging handle. I got him to scoot out of the way and I broke open the rifle. Slid out the bolt, clear the jammed case and put it back together. An uncommon occurance with .22LR uppers. He reloaded and the other shots went downrange without incident.

A 2.5 inch group evenly spread around the X ring into the 10 ring. Not bad at all for a .22LR at 25 meters from the bench.

He wanted to move up. So I picked up the .223 upper and diassembled the AR. Now he got to see first-hand what I had told him about with these rifles and their modularity. I pointed out the internals and the recoil spring and the gun was back together in seconds, ready for use. We loaded two 20 round magazines and put a new target out. Since he was already familiar with the controls, he had no trouble and was aiming downrange. 20 slow, steady and well-aimed shots. The target said it all. A 2 inch group just to the right of the X in the X and 10 ring. Many overlapping holes. Can't ask for anything more.

Then we switched to standing position and I had him fire 10 shots at 15 yards. Everything on target. Broad spread out to the 7 rings but otherwise well within an 8 inch space. For a new shooter, this is perfectly fine. As we were rolling in the target, I got the 5 minute warning from the range safety officer. Given time was short, I rolled a new target out and handed him another 10 rounds. I instructed him to fire ten shots standing as quickly as possible as soon as the front sight was on target. I wanted him to get a case of "triggeritis", an affliction all of us who own semi-autos suffer from time to time. A little rapid-fire goodness never hurt anyone. So he did and was smiling at the tenth shot. "That's cool!" was the comment as the last target came in.

We didn't get to the SKS.

Packing up was the reverse, he swept the brass and we were done. Total time on range was a little under 2 hours.

"So what did you think?".

"I was scared of the noise and what was going to happen until I fired the first time. Then it was fine.".

"What did you think of the guns?".

On that, he had plenty of comment. He liked them all but thought my switching the AR from .22LR to .223 was the coolest thing he'd seen. He didn't realize it was so simple. Yup, it is one of the reasons why it is one of the most popular rifles in this country.

We washed off the lead and by tradition, my range buddies and I go to lunch or dinner after a range session. Usually carrying. He was hungry so we went to one of my usual places. I opted not to carry. He knew I did but I preferred to keep attention away. Let him get used to it in mixed company.

We talked about what he had done, about a couple of minor safety issues (not uncommon with new shooters). Notably, the one while shooting the AR-15 standing he lowered the rifle to the floor for a rest with his finger on the trigger. I brought his attention to it at the time and he removed it. He asked what would've happened if he'd pulled the trigger and I told him he'd either shoot his foot or hit the floor and ricochet. He was mortified. I told him not to sweat it too much. Nothing happened and I pointed out he'd remember from now on where his finger was. We all do it. I have. It is how you develop the instinct to keep the finger off the trigger at a subconcious level. A few more trips out and it would be second-nature to him. No harm done.

He made an observation to me that I take for granted being a shooter. He said he wasn't expected the diverse nature of the people that were at the range.

I asked what he was expecting.

"White male hillbilly rednecks.".

He saw a woman in her 70s shooting a .38 revolver, a older gentleman shooting a 12 gauge next to us and later, a boyfriend teaching his girlfriend to use his Glock. Another woman shooting another Glock further down. A younger guy shooting an M1891/30. Two black gentleman, one older and one younger with the older gentleman instructing the younger one how to shoot a shotgun at 50 yards. A variety of guys with AR-15s and AKs. An instructor next to me teaching a college aged guy with a lever action .22. In other words, a typical day at the range.

I don't blame the NRA for this. This one I lay firmly at the feet of the media. Their bias and lack of objectivety allows them to put forth this stereotype of a gun owner in America and especially of those who would join and, by extension, those who shoot at the NRA.

His exposure shattered that stereotype. The few journalists that have gone out to seek "the truth" for themselves have made the same observations but too few do it and not enough out there to get above the constant din of the clueless "reporters" out there who write about guns and their owners without knowledge. This is why taking the fence sitters and uninformed to the range is so important. Once they see it for themselves, you will never have to worry about them again.

We now have an ally. He had a great time and he walked away with a very positive experience. He wants to go out with me again and I am happy to have him. But even if he never does, he has come away with a basic knowledge of different types of guns and gun safety. And a true picture of gun ownership in this country. Knowledge and experience he can pass along to his son and to those he talks to. Folks who may not believe me but will believe him since he isn't in the "thrall of the NRA".

He took his targets home (another practice instructors are urged to encourage) to his wife. I am sure seeing the targets with all the rounds nicely grouped and his animated discussion of what went on served to allay a lot of her fears about the trip. He had told me before going out to the range proper that his wife urged him to "please be very careful" with the implication that he was doing something really dangerous. I think this type of exposure helps to ally such fears at home and help to crack the hold the media has on the general populace.

All and all, a fun and safe afternoon. He went home after lunch still smiling and looking forward to the next trip.

You can't ask for anything better.

Welcome to the fold, Sammy.

Man Forced to Clean Home at Gunpoint

A thief was forced to clean up the mess he made at gunpoint while robbing a home after the owners caught him red-handed.

Best quote from the article:

"This man had the nerve to raise sand about us making him clean up the mess he made in my house," she said. "The police officer laughed at him when he complained and said anybody else would have shot him dead."

How lucky the homeowners will be depends on what happens next. Anyone want to bet they'll be served with a lawsuit for kidnapping or unlawful restraint by the thief?

Bite Me, Brady! #4

This post is dedicated to Paul Helmke. It was for him that I acquired today's featured rifle.

It is one of the most popular rifles in America. But according to Paul, it has no purpose but to kill people.

In the hands of police, it is a "patrol rifle". Our police officers can be trusted with them. They possess the highly specialized, difficult-to-acquire and time-consuming training necessary to control this deadly, high-powered killing machine. One wrong move with this rifle and innocents could be seriously injured. On the shoulders of such men and women rests great responsibility. How they manage to not crack under the strain is beyond me.

How our soldiers cope with these deadly, amoral killing machines starting at the tender age of 17 I cannot fathom.

Which is why these rifles need to be removed from civilian hands. They are simply too dangerous, too prone to just "going off" and spraying rounds at hip-height into crowds of innocent bystanders if someone like you or I were to even touch it. But a wonderful feature for dealing with massed bodies of troops with one round per pull of the trigger. It is a "weapon of war", pure and simple.

You, gentle reader, of course know the subject of this installment of Bite Me, Brady.

It is the AR-15 "assault weapon", the second most deadly rifle in America. One of most preferred crime weapons in America and beloved of gang bangers and crack dealers alike. If it wasn't for the Kalishnikov AK-47, it would be number one.


Ok, did I get all the talking points in?

This rifle really was built for Paul Helmke. And I mean "built". It was the first gun I ever built up from a kit. For enthusiasts like myself, building an AR-15 pattern rifle is the introduction to home gunsmithing and an excellent introduction at that.

I built this rifle for fun and it was the second AR-15 I acquired. You've already been introduced to my first one in Bite Me, Brady #3. I opted to go for the opposite of a competition type rifle and build a rifle specifically to annoy the gun controllers. I wanted a black, evil looking rifle they could hate and want to take away from me.

The pattern I choose was based on the Colt Commando XM177/GAU-5/A carbine. Why? Because I liked the way it looked and I wanted a short barreled rifle. To this end, I purchased an XM177 CAR carbine kit from Model 1 Sales. Not as well known as Stag Arms, Rock River and the like but their prices are good and they have tons of options to choose from.

The rifle came about by chance and timing. At the time, I had just acquired the Arctic Panther and was starting to enter my "overboard" phase of gun acquisition. While at the NRA Range during a regular shooting session, I noticed an ad on the "For Sale" board for AR-15 stripped lowers. These were Eagle Arms MA-15 lower receivers for $89 each. But they had to be bought in quantities of 5 or more. Good deal if you have the money.

The ad stayed up for a month and during that time my friend Tom and I wound up on the subject. As a former armorer and instructor in the US Air Force, he expressed his desire to get an M4 pattern rifle for himself like he used to carry. With the comment that if he were to do so, he would build it himself much as he did in the service.

That stopped me in my tracks. You can do this? Like going to my first gun show, he cracked the door and I smacked it wide open with questions. How do you do it? What do you need? How much does it cost?

So he told me.

Folks, people either love or hate the AR-15. The arguments tend to revolve around construction, cartridge and carbon.

On construction, the gun is derided because the body of it is made of aluminum rather than steel. The important parts are steel but the ones not essential are aluminum. This is for weight savings. And what isn't aluminum is plastic. The end result is a full length rifles that is several pounds lighter than a comparable "traditional" rifle. At the end of the day, this is what the arguments boil down to: modern vs. traditional. Some folks just don't like guns with plastic on them.

On cartridge, the gun is derided because of the .223/5.56mm cartridge it fires. Sneered on as "the poodle shooter", the insult says it all. Some consider the AR to be only worth of hunting small, poofy dogs rather than animals or men. And there are valid points to this. Whole flamefests have been devoted to the topic. Many either like the cartridge or hate it. I like it and I recognize its limits and work within them.

On carbon, the gun is derided because of its direct impingement form of operation. Other designs harness the hot gases from the firing and channel them to a piston. The gases push on this piston and cause the action to cycle. That second, shorter tube on top of an AK-47 behind the front sight is an example for you non-gun people out there. The gases themselves vent out of this tube.

But since the gases contain unburnt powder, this residue gets on the surface of the piston and it does need to be cleaned every so often. The downside to this arrangement is weight. Since the piston is being hit with high-temperature, high-pressure gas, it needs to be made of a tough material. Typically stainless steel.

The AR-15 doesn't use this system. Eugene Stoner, a consummate engineer, recognize that if the gases could be used to push a piston to cycle the bolt, why not just let the gases cycle the bolt directly and lose the heavy piston and spring assembly? So he did. And for this he is forever reviled.

But the concept is sound and it saves a lot of weight. Instead of a piston, the gases are channeled through a lightweight tube to the bolt itself. The pressure of these gases causes the bolt to move, unlock and cycle back and forth. It is a simple, elegant engineering solution. It works but with a downside: once the bolt is clear of this tube, these gases flow into the area occupied by the bolt and all the internal firing mechanism and get that unburnt residue all over everything.

If you want to get a sense for how this system is regarded, ask any graduate of basic training. They will regale you with their tales of how much time they spent cleaning all that black carbon out of their rifles. And they won't be happy stories. Usually accompanied by copious amounts of profanity.

Those of us who own these rifles universally hate cleaning them for the same reason. We too often forget why the system was invented but we despise it nonetheless. I cringe at the thought of cleaning my AR-15. For an hour's worth of shooting, I'll be sitting for 30 minutes or more cleaning it.

Now you know why we love or hate the gun. Often, we do both at the same time.

The reason we love the gun is because of its modularity. The AR-15 is the Lego kit of the gun world.

Hate Stoner for the design of the shooting mechanism but in the modularity department, he was a genius. There is practically nothing you can't do to an AR-15 given the desire and enough money. If you've seen it in a picture anywhere, you can build it on your coffee table. In other words, if you can imagine it, you can probably build it and in likely any color you wish.

An AR-15 is your introduction into home gunsmithing because, quite honestly, it is very difficult to screw it up. All you need is a hammer, some punches, a pair of pliers, a screwdriver and masking tape. To assemble uppers requires more specialized tools (an armorer's block, armorer's wrench and a vice) but otherwise is very easy to do with a little patience.

Anyway, once Tom told me his intentions, I got curious. Doing some research, we found Model 1 and compared costs of building versus buying assembled. Unlike a lot of hobbies, such as computers, where home building costs more than comparable products off the shelf, building an AR-15 is generally 30 percent cheaper than buying an equivalent rifle. Why spend $900 when you can build the same thing specification-wise for $600? If you're willing to put the time in and can use simple hand tools confidently, it's worth it.

Suddenly, the $400+ for 5 stripped lowers wasn't looking so bad. Especially as they were $30 below what the typical costs of an AR stripped lower went for at a dealer. So like any good planners, we went looking for investors. Other gun owners and friends who might be interested in an AR-15 lower. We figured if we could find a couple of others to go in on it with us, it was doable.

Here's where the "overboard" phase comes into play.

When you're drooling over all the possibilities of what you can build, you suddenly want them all. And then you think, "Why do I want to get all these different uppers when for $100 more, I can another rifle?". That's it. Barrier gone. Tom and I made a deal. If he would take two lowers, I'd take the other three. He agreed and the call was placed.

Two weeks later, I hand the nice fellow $450 cash and he had five Eagle Arms "assault weapons" to my dealer who dutifully logs them into his inventory. With a handshake, he's gone and Tom and I are filling out ATF 4473 to transfer the receivers to us. Three for me, two for him.

That's right, Paul Helmke, I bought three lethal "assault weapons" at once in the space of thirty minutes. If it is any consolation, the Government had to think about it for me. For Tom, he was approved instantly and walked out with his death machines within five minutes.

Afterward, I sold one receiver to a gun owning friend and Tom sold his second one to a fellow instructor.

There's your "gun show loophole", Paul. No background check or any Government agency. Just a wink-and-a-nod, cash and gun changing hands under the parking lot of the NRA headquarters and we skulked off our separate ways (yes, really).

All perfectly legal and I have the bill of sale in my files.

The hard part was out of the way. We had the lowers. Now to turn them into baby killing, spray firing, weapons of war with those shoulder things that go up.

Model 1 Sales may not be the most well-known AR-15 kit maker out there but they are decently priced and their website is nicely laid out. They let you see all their products and you can use their order form to play mix-and-match. It is a gun builders candy store and I spent a couple weeks agonizing over what to build first.

The XM177 pattern rifle won. I just loved the way it looked. So we ordered the kits simultaneously and $1200 worth of gun parts came in the mail, nary a background check in sight and with no one the wiser, was delivered to Tom in a plain brown cardboard box. The standard wrapping for all things sinful.

90 minutes later on a Thursday on a coffee table, two deadly, high-power "assault weapons" came into being by the labor of our hands. There was much rejoicing, sighting and dry-firing all in a safe direction.

So what does this have to do with Paul Helmke?

When I made the decision to buy the receiver, I had options. As I mentioned, I wanted something that would annoy the gun controllers. To thumb my nose at them and say, "Here, see this! That's a non-citizen with a deadly 'assault weapon' bullet hose. Come and take it!".

So I put all those demonized features onto one black rifle. Then threw in the green furniture just to complete that "weapon of war", "only for the Army" image. I did it all for aesthetics and to give them the vapors. Save for one feature which you may notice is missing. We have the spray firing pistol grip, concealable collapsible stock, the evil vision saving flash hider, those lethal high capacity magazines and that hip supporting barrel shroud (the "shoulder thing that goes up").

There is no drive-by bayonet lug.

What?!? The Armed Canadian deliberately left a feature off his evil "assault weapon"?

Yes, I did. And I did so for legal reasons. You see, apparently in the State of Virginia there is a law that says only citizens can own "assault weapons". This came to me from my dealer and I haven't been able to find the relevant statute (if you know what it is, please leave a comment).

But Virginia uses their own definition. They define an "assault weapon" as a rifle that has 4 or more of the features listed above. But there's a catch: the magazine capacity only counts at the time of transfer. If the rifle comes OEM from factory with high-capacity magazines (30 rounds), then that is included in the feature count. So in Virginia, that is a total of 6 possible features. With 4 or more, non-citizens can't have it transferred to them.

I am not a lawyer and I've never seen the statute but this is what I have been told.

Well, guess what? Stripped lowers don't come with magazines or any features. So the magazine capacity doesn't apply at the time of transfer. And as long as the assembled rifle has less than 4 evil features, it isn't an "assault weapon" under Virginia law.

But also under Virginia law, if I assemble it I can have all of them, citizen or not. The restriction only applies to point-of-sale transactions for assembled guns, not ones assembled post-sale. Yes, it is messed up. But gun laws are like that. One set of rules apply in one case and don't in another.

But to play it safe, I decided to make sure for normal situations (i.e. a traffic stop) where law enforcement might see the rifle, I wanted there to be no question of legality. So I told Model 1 to cut the bayonet lug off. By doing so, my rifle only has 3 evil features under Virginia law and there could be no question of its legality for possession by a non-citizen. I didn't want to take a chance on having to prove I assembled it versus buying it built so I did the safe thing and not give them an excuse.

Maryland has no such restriction. If it had done it here, it would have the bayonet lug. Strange, eh?

So Paul, there you go. The gun laws worked and prevented me from getting a deadly bayonet lug! You just never know when the urge will strike to engage in drive-by bayonetings unless you've had proper training. So our children are safer today because of this. Rejoice for our children!

This rifle was built as a regular shooter. It isn't a collectible. It isn't rare or special. I made it to be my plinker. It's a short range gun obviously. That 11.5 inch barrel limits what this rifle can do. But that is fine. You see, I wanted a gun that could also be an emergency rifle and this is one of my choices. For urban chaos such as a Katrina type situation, I don't need the tack driving 300-400 meter accuracy of the Panther. 100 or so yards is plenty. When I shoot the barrel out, I'll buy a new one and fit it on. I don't baby this gun like I do the Panther.

My Helmke rifle is ideal. It is the shortest possible rifle I can legally own. It's light and simple. We can save the arguments about effectiveness. Yes, my SKS would be ideal for such circumstances. It has minute-of-looter accuracy, very reliable and a scary bayonet. And the AK round is effective.

But I prefer this rifle for the simple fact that nothing says "Go away!" to a group of looters better than a scary black AR-15 (or AK-47) with a full magazine. They get the idea the individual holding it means business and that more compliant prey is in order. Unlike the SKS, they'll identify the evil "assault weapon" far earlier. The SKS can be mistaken for a piddlin' hunting gun until you get close to it. There is no mistaking the purpose of an AR-15 under such circumstances. The bayonet would be a nice touch but I think I can live without it.

Plus I can always borrow ammo and supplies from the Guard should they wander by. Or be drafted into the local posse to assist them. Don't discount logistics and resupply under such circumstances.

The scope on the carry handle was added to give me sighting options. I prefer shooting through the scope. But I wanted a setup that wouldn't cause me to lose my iron sights. Always have a backup.

The gun is zeroed at 25 meters, not yards. It is quite accurate at short range and is a very fun shooter. It has slightly more recoil than my 20 inch standard configuration AR-15. That is due to the short barrel. Most people don't notice the difference unless they've spent time behind each gun back-t0-back.

This is the gun I will fight my way to in the event of a serious home invasion. Burglars and would-be rapists beware! Break into my home and force me to retreat out of my room, my pistol in hand, you'll be meeting this gun up-close and personal.

Lately, I've been rethinking this configuration. I like the scope. The problem is it is too high. To shoot with it requires a chin weld rather than a natural cheek weld. Doable but not as steady. I can fit a cheekpiece to accommodate the scope but that makes my iron sights hard to use.

I've come to like the idea of a co-sighted red dot sight in line with the iron sights. That way, my target acquisition is natural using either one. Use a flip-up rear sight so it doesn't interfere with the red dot but if the red dot dies, flip up the rear and go to work. It's a nice arrangement and I love them on rifles like the Barrett M468.

I'm also thinking of replacing the handguards with a set of rails and adding a vertical grip. Having used replicas under shooting conditions, for close quarters this is a nice setup and makes the rifle more stable.

Plus, I can do that because I can. I'm tired of people like Paul Helmke saying I can't have a gun that looks a certain way because it makes him uncomfortable. If I want to hang accessories off a gun that doesn't make it anymore lethal (vertical grips and rails do not make the 5.56mm round any nastier) and cost more than the gun, let me. I'm helping the economy if nothing else.

There, that's it! That's your justification for resisting Paul Helmke and Carolyn McCarthy on HR.1022! It will hurt the economy! And it will. Gun owners like me can spend hundreds, even thousands, of dollars on accessories to "pimp our guns". It hurts no one and if we like it, who cares? Some of us just like the toys our fine soldiers carry and we want them for ourselves.

So deal, Paul. This is your gun. You helped to create the market that made it so commonplace that even us legal aliens own them! I'll bet you didn't figure on that unintended consequence when you championed victory in 1994. Because this time, it is going to be a lot harder for you to get it out of my hands.

Bite me, Paul. Come and get it yourself.

HK416 Uppers to Be Sold to Civilians

From Say Uncle comes news that HK has decided to sell civilian legal semi-autos and uppers based on the HK416/417 gas-piston system for the AR-15! More details here.

HK essentially told civilians to piss off when asked whether they would sell the HK416 uppers to them. They saw their main market as the police and military and screw the little guy despite the fact we own more rifles of this type than the latter two groups put together. By a very wide margin too.

As Uncle says, maybe the military thing isn't working out for them. After all, the US Army and Marines aren't going to gas-piston uppers enmasse yet and are unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future. Logistics, cost and all that.

For many, they won't buy the HK upper and instead opt for Patriot Ordnance or another maker. Just because they are mad at HK for giving us the finger. I can understand that.

But if they introduce it at a price point that we can't ignore, many of us will buy it despite that. Our desire for cool toys can override our principles. Right now, gas-piston uppers hover around $1000-$1200. With more options on the market, this will drive prices down. If an HK416 upper falls into the $600-$800 range, I am all over it.

This is a good thing even if you are mad at HK. With limited supply and high demand (people want gas-piston uppers), the few makers out there can afford to charge a premium for the product. Contrast the cost of gas-piston uppers to standard uppers. Standard basic uppers can be had for $300-$400 on the low side of the scale. Why? Lots of folks making them. Admittedly a simpler, well-known and less complex design but they have to be priced that way if you want to sell them.

The same will happen to the gas-piston uppers.

Bear in mind I think a lot of the cost in the existing gas-piston uppers isn't the upper or piston assembly as much as it is the tactical rails that are hung around them. All of the Patriot Ordnance uppers are railed as is the HK416. Look at the standalone cost of a decent rail for your conventional AR-15 sometime. Easily $150-$300. But with market forces at work, I think these costs are going to come down.

Give it 6 months or so of steady production and to get the kinks out. Assuming they are reliable and priced reasonably, expect to see a lot of HK416 uppers out there by next year. I'm not mad at HK so much as I've just ignored the gas-piston market because I can't justify the cost to myself. Shave a few hundred dollars off and get me decently under $1000 and I'll be able to.

And odds are, it will be an HK416. Sorry, I guess I'm a traitor. I just don't like the Patriot options that are out there. I don't want a fluted barrel.

Disagree if you wish but this is great news. Better later than never.

Bambi Beware

Yes folks, I am planning to go hunting this year.

I'm not a hunter. As stated throughout my various musings, I'm a paper puncher first with the guns kept for self-defense in the home.

The funny thing is, I've contemplated killing a man. You have to if you are serious about keeping a gun for self-defense. And it doesn't bother me. I've made my peace with that morally.

Whether I'm going to actually pull the trigger on Bambi is another story.

I have no tradition of hunting. I know people who hunt, many of whom have asked me to go with them and I have refused. It didn't just interest me enough despite having the means to do so.

So why now?

Peer pressure is part of it. I work with a fellow who's a "Virginia good ol' boy" and he's going out. It's no secret around the office that I own guns. Most of my co-workers are pretty moderate and many own them as well. Gunnies tend to gravitate to each other. You just know sometimes. Maybe it's a law of nature.

My co-worker wants company in the woods and feels this would be good for me. In a sense, he's right. So I thought about it and decided to give it a try.

The real reason is because I never have. I think people should seek out experiences and try new and unknown things. Plus, the ability to hunt has real practical applications and that is what pushed me over the edge. Quite simply, if something ever happens to our civilization in our lifetime, I'm going to need those skills and I don't have them. I understand the theory but I lack practical experience. And with war, chaos and anarchy around you and panicked masses around you fighting for the same resources is a bad time to try to acquire such skills on the fly. As the Boy Scouts say, "Be Prepared".

So off to the woods I am going to go. And off to the classroom I go to learn since I need to take a hunter safety course in order to get my hunting license for Maryland and Virginia.

Usually I don't give Maryland any kudos. Overall, it is a liberal rathole that is one step away from being California East at all times. But in this area, they've done a really cool thing.

They offer an independent study program for hunters.

How this works is you go to a site to pick up a study packet. In my case, it was my preferred Maryland gun dealer so finding it was not a problem. You pay $26 and get signed up for an in-person class 2 weeks in the future. You take the packet home. Inside is all of the classroom material that would normally be taught to you by a volunteer droning away in a small room in a hall somewhere. You do it on your own time and when the in-person class rolls around, you hand in the completed workbook.

Then the instructor does an in-person lecture, covers a variety of topics, answers questions and then you go out for a firearm safety and familiarization component. When you're done, you get your certificate. The whole in-person component lasts maybe a day. Which is much better than the two days a normal hunter safety course lasts.

And they hand you back $20 at the end of it.

Your total cost for the hunter safety course is half the normal classroom time of a regular course and $6. You can't beat that.

For people like me who learn best from reading a book (since I'm a bookworm by nature), this is huge. I was all over this when I found it by accident. Other hunter safety courses might be free but this is a wonderful option.

Normally Maryland is completely F-d but in this, I have to give them credit. It is a fantastic program. My classroom portion is next weekend and then I am legally able to hunt in the 50 states provided I pay their fees.

Right now, the bet from my fiancee is that I'm not going to do it. Even with a deer in my sights with a perfect shot, she thinks I won't do it. And she may be right. She says the same thing if is a turkey in my sights. On that, I think she's wrong and I'm already practicing on the turkey targets to get ready.

And getting my rifle tuned up, deciding what I need to bring into the woods with me and getting used to the idea of sitting in a blind on a cold November morning until a turkey or a deer wanders into my crosshairs with my co-worker next to me whispering for me to squeeze the trigger.

I don't know if I will do it. But I think I should find out. If for no other reason than to answer some questions to myself. I expect this experience to change me. And perhaps not for the better.

I think doing things like this is a sign of maturity. I wasn't like this a few years ago.

Wish me luck.

Red Dawn Redux: A Tactical Analysis of Betrayal

Have you ever been lying awake at night and just have stuff pop into your head for no reason and you couldn't let it go?

That's what happened to me last night at 3am. I couldn't sleep and I am one of those people whose mind simply won't turn off and settle down. I shouldn't be surprised since I have done some of my best work (employment wise) in the wee hours of the morning. Still, not a good trait when you are actually wanting to sleep but can't.

So I am lying here and suddenly for no reason, a scene from the movie "Red Dawn" pops into my head.

It is a sequence where some Russian troops are trying to attack our children guerrillas (heroes) during the winter after one of their own betrays them without their knowledge. But the kids saw the attack coming for some reason, set up an ambush and gunned down the elite Russian soldiers as they were approaching to attack.

And what do I do with this lying there unable to sleep? I proceeded to analyze the engagement in my mind tactically and draw conclusions. On a 1980s Hollywood film. I am completely messed up.

Why? Because here is what I came up with.

For those of you who have never seen the movie, Red Dawn is a 1980s flick featuring a few well-known actors/actresses about a Soviet/Cuban invasion of the United States during the Cold War. During the initial stages of the invasion in the midwest, a group of high school students manages to escape a Soviet airborne assault and establish themselves in the mountains nearby. Many of these kids, having been raised on a hunting/self-reliance ideal, know how to survive and do so, waiting to see what happens.

As time passes, their families are captured by the invading Soviets and their allies (Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico) and after several are executed, they begin a guerrilla campaign to avenge their parents. Haphazardly at first, they start to gather equipment and get more proficient in their hit-and-run attacks in the rugged, wooded terrain. As they succeed and calling themselves the Wolverines after their local football team and used as their battle cry and by painting it on destroyed vehicles they leave behind, their notoriety grows and the occupying Soviets begins to hunt them down as a propaganda and morale victory.

At the mid-point of the movie, one of the guerrillas, the son of the city's Mayor, sneaks off to town, gets caught (by his admission), turned in by his father and comes back after swallowing a homing device to lead the Soviets to their camp. He indicates that he was forced to do it by the Soviets, hinting at torture, after his father turns him in.

The Soviets gather a team of what appears to be elite Spetsnaz troops and sends them into the mountains with a homing receiver to track down and kill our child guerrilla heroes. Being the middle of winter, this group of soldiers heads out in white camouflage into the woods. What they don't realize is somehow, the kids knew they were coming and set up an ambush for them. As soon as the troops get close enough, they set off claymores and open fire from hidden positions behind trees at near-point blank range and within minutes, kill or wound the approaching soldiers.

They manage to capture one soldier uninjured and in the process, find the homing receiver which leads them straight to the boy who had betrayed them. As a result, our child guerrillas realizing they have a traitor in their midst, execute him and the captured soldier on the plains.

As a result of playing this scene out in my head and the circumstances that led to it, I have come to the conclusion it is utterly unrealistic and would never have happened in real life. It is Hollywood drama and I believe the military consultants who were involved in this film must have been on holiday the day this part of the script came along. Otherwise, they'd be looking at this scene and shaking their heads.

In other words, I think this scenario as it played out was completely fucked.

As am I, because here is my tactical analysis from both sides. Isn't this sad?

The Guerilla Side

How did our betrayer manage not to get noticed?

Our group of high school guerrillas (freedom fighters) is a close knit group. Although from different backgrounds, they do band together and manage to start an effective resistance.

The one time they got back into town I got the impression that it was quite a hike. Their mountain hideout is definitely far outside town based on opening scenes from the movies. Realistically, a trip into town looks like it would consume the better part of a day.

Don't you think our small band of tightly knit guerrillas wouldn't notice one of their number missing for that length of time?

If one of my band disappeared for the better part of a day without mentioning anything, I would definitely wonder why. That wouldn't be paranoia; it would be self-preservation.

Perhaps this kid had a tendency to take long walks alone in the woods by himself on a regular basis? He must have because that is the only reason I could see for him getting away with it. And even only then after some of my trusted band members would have followed him covertly in the past to make sure all he was doing was walking with the trees. After all, this group had started out scared and figuring they should turn themselves in. Our traitor here, as school student body president (like father, like son) was the one who had originally suggested it. Even over time, the conflict inside might not subside and this boy would bear watching.

If not, I'd be asking some very pointed questions upon his return. All of our little band were clueless about his whereabouts until the Soviets wandered along later. That's not a way to run a resistance.

And on that...

How precisely did this small bunch of children know where exactly the Soviet troops would approach from?

On this, there is no explanation short of Soviet stupidity in not keeping their movements secret. Our guerrillas get their start by observing a small truck coming up a mountain road (presumably not too far from their encampment) and then engaging the soldiers rather clumsily after being discovered. Later, after their parents are executed, do they begin to attack in earnest by hitting convoys along mountain roads.

To observe the approach of the Soviet troops, our guerrilla band would a) need to see them actually coming up the road and b) have someone shadow them effectively enough to see where they debark but far enough out that they wouldn't be observed, continue to shadow forward of the soldiers line of advance and have some means of communication back to camp to inform them ahead of time so an ambush can be prepared.

At no time are our guerrillas observed using any radios save for a transistor radio given to them to pick up some news. But it cannot be ruled out.

It could be argued the Soviets troops were being drawn into the ambush position but nothing in their movements suggest they were. It appears they walked, conveniently and cluelessly, right into the place that had been prepared by our defenders. Nice dramatic effect, not so easy to accomplish in real life. Unlike IEDs in Iraq, these woods didn't exactly have regular movements of troops through them and our freedom fighters simply rely on lots of travel to have a target eventually wander into their ambush sites. Roads can act as funnels and chokepoints to force enemy forces into a kill zone. Not predictable or controllable in rough terrain such as this.

Our guerrilla band would not necessarily have needed a lot of lead time to prepare an ambush site (a few minutes would have been sufficient with practice) but it would have required close co-ordination with their scout to allow them to get ready, have depended on the scout remaining unobserved during the whole advance of the Russians and be able to fade far away before the ambush started lest they be caught in a crossfire.

Not exactly likely but it is possible. Sometimes simple tactics are best. I am just not buying that these kids had the ability to lead a bunch of experienced soldiers blindly into a preset ambush.

The Russian Side

I have more of a bone to pick with the actions of the Soviets and it really boils down to their overall ineptitude. Leave it to Hollywood to portray our aggressors as uncreative, predictable buffoons.

Why didn't the Soviets seem to know what they were up against?

The Russo-Cuban Army had one of their most wanted individuals land in their lap. Judging by what happened, they were very quick in interrogating (forcefully by the sounds of it) our young lad. This would have been done by the GRU, the Russian military intelligence branch.

Given they had a Grade A, solid gold intelligence source, why didn't they ask at least the following questions?

• How many of your are in the group?
• Where approximately is your main camp? How is it arranged? Defensive setup?
  
• What kind of arms are you equipped with?
• What is the best way for us approach?

But no, it appears the GRU intelligence officer didn't elect to ask these questions. They had him swallow a homing beacon, let him go and then created their plan of attack. What kind of elite unit does this? It must have been the Soviet conditioning.

The rest of my nitpicks deal with what they actually did and how they did it. No military force chasing after an adversary would have done what this body of troops did.

Why did the Soviet troops advance in a single line?

Knowing they were facing a small but determined group of children who was responsible for countless deaths and interdicting their supplies and equipment within their own lines, why on earth did our Soviet commander send in these troops in single line of approach?

It is reasonable given the scenes in the movie that these troop were not regular Soviet infantry but most likely GRU Spetsnaz soldiers. This is further borne out by the resistance of the one soldier they caught alive. His exortations of "Yankee, go die!" are pretty emphatic that he hadn't broken.

These were Special Forces troops. So why would they advance in a single line? It couldn't have costed them much in terms of equipment to have additional homing receivers and disperse their force into multiple lines of advance. Attacking on the flanks would have severely taxed our little band of guerrillas' ability to defend themselves.

Or to advance by squads with others remaining back to watch and cover them. Then leapfrog ahead. If the lead squad gets caught in an ambush, the ones behind can cover and begin to fan out to engage. Or provide covering fire for a retreat, cough, "tactical advance to the rear".

Which leads to my final question on the Soviets actions.

Why bother with an infantry skirmish at all?

Other than it looks good on film. Dramatic, exciting, guns going off, blood, you know, all that movie stuff.

Seriously. You had a double agent who had turned on his comrades. You had a potentially reliable indicator of the location of this little rebel band. Unless you're goal was to capture them alive to flush out other resistance fighters, why bother? They are just as good to you dead for propaganda purposes as they are alive. If there is no intelligence to be had, and since the Soviets believed they were only dealing with this one organized resistance group, killing them ensures there will be no future resistance from them. Ever.

The homing beacon had to be giving off a signal powerful enough to be detected at a distance but not sufficient to localized with a high degree of accuracy. Remember kids, this is in the days before GPS. The signal had to be powerful enough otherwise the troops wouldn't know what direction to go towards initially in order to locate the camp.

Once close enough, it is assumed the signal was usable to determine direction and proximity based on strength. Who knows, it seems a little too simplistic and fuzzy. But we'll go with it.

But you didn't need a team for this. A lone scout or a scout/sniper pair (assuming the Russo-Cuban army had equivalent types of troops) could have just as easily tracked our guerrillas until they had pinned down their camp location and numbers. And waited until they were all in one place.

And then call in an airstrike or Hind helicopter attack.

Troops were not necessary. Light rockets and heavy cannon fire would have been more than sufficient. Or a fighter-bomber. One good napalm run and the whole section of forest is a blackened scar complete with the crispy critter forms of our former American heroes.

Since we see an F-111 later in the movie doing that exact thing to Soviet troops on the frontline. We also see the Soviets having Yak-38s for what is probably local ground support operations, this isn't far fetched. Just need a radio and maybe 15 minutes flight times and you have no more Wolverines.

Troops were not necessary. And if you feel that they were, they could have been held back in reserve until the helo or fighter was finished and then go in to mop up, make sure all of the enemy were accounted for and get propaganda material (up to and including bodies to prop up on display in town).

The things I think about.

Of course, this movie was intended with the ultimate aim of having a group of wholesome American teenagers overcome the invaders of the Evil Empire through good old-fashioned American values of freedom, grit and democracy. Great for feeling good about your country but in reality, the Soviet invaders would have done their job and slaughtered your little band of resistance fighters and been home in time for lunch.

Gotta love Hollywood.

SayUncle Says: What I Think Gun Laws Should Be

Hmm, the stuff you find when you dig through the hopper. I forgot I had drafted this and never published it. So I put a few touches on it. It is very dated but should occupy you for a bit. Enjoy!

This is my response to a challenge by SayUncle. Here is the challenge:

So, here’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be re-written and revised. You are elected/selected/appointed as the negotiator for pro-gun folks. And there will be one negotiator for the anti-gun folks. All federal laws will be wiped clean and you two will negotiate what the new gun laws will be. There will have to be compromise on both sides. So, what will you concede? And what is nonnegotiable?

Whoever says that their position will merely consist of shall not be infringed, step to the front of the bus and exit please. Because that won’t work. We will have gun laws. As much as I admire your consistency, it’s not feasible. Deal with it.

And here is my response:

Overview

In general, I feel that any person should be allowed to own an individual small arm without restriction. By "small arm", I mean any handgun, manually operated rifle (bolt action, lever action, pump, etc), semi-automatic rifle, submachinegun, assault rifle (any) or light machinegun (any MG designed to be carried by a single infantryman without the need for a tripod or a second crewman to feed the weapon effectively). Cosmetic features on arms are irrelevant.

Crew-served automatic weapons (that require two or more crew to use effectively and include guns like the M1919 or M2HB) are to be no more restricted than smaller arms. Crew-served artillery, cannon and their ammunition, grenades and the like will be more restricted. I will explain.

I am not advocating private ownership of nuclear weapons or fighter jets and the like in this post. It is not necessary for the discussion of small arms here.

Since all of our gun control laws are gone and we are drafting new ones, NFA'34, GCA'68 and the Hughes Amendment'86 no longer apply.

My non-negotiable requirements:

• No mandatory registration of small arms and legislative (preferably Constitutional since we already have legislative restrictions that are ignored) guarantees that a small arm registry can never be established.
• No "peaceable journey" requirements on transport of firearms. This means you can carry an unloaded weapon in a locked case anywhere inside or across State lines without having a reason. Ammunition does not need to be separate from the weapon.
• No licensing or proficiency requirements for small arm ownership.
• Any small arm can be purchased across State lines by out-of-state residents at a licensed dealers.
  
• The existing NICS background check is sufficient and should not be substantially altered.
• Federal "shall issue" concealed carry permits that are required to be recognized in all 50 states just like a driver's license.
• The law against suing a gun manufacturer for the criminal use of their products remains in place. We can't sue GM or Ford for drunk drivers using their cars. Product defect suits and the like are permissible under this law as it stands today.
  
• Federal preemption. A State or locality may not pass more restrictive gun laws than what I list here.

Firearm Ownership

There is no reason to restrict ownership of small arms including fully automatic machine guns. Detachable magazine or belt-fed weapons don't matter.

• You will be required to pass the existing NICS background check in order to buy these weapons.
• No records beyond the existing Form 4473 forms will be kept and those remain with the dealer. And they must be paper records. This is deliberate. I want to make it hard for an out-of-control government agency to try to establish an illegal registry in violation of the law.
• The dealer will have the right to destroy these records after five(5) years if the firearm in question has not been the subject of a criminal trace that involved a violent crime ( I am in agreement with Sebastian on this).

Prohibitions on Ownership

I follow the existing NICS provisions with the following changes to what is considered a "prohibited person":

• A non-violent felony conviction is not a disqualifier. There are people today who can't own guns because they pled to a DUI felony right at the legal limit. Although showing poor judgement, this should not serve as a life-long disqualifier. If you are guilty of a non-violent felony and have no further convictions (beyond traffic tickets and the like) after five(5) years, you get your 2A Rights back.
• Any violent felony is a life-long proscription on arms ownership. You have shown you cannot be responsible towards others and have a predeliction for violence.
• Remove the "restraining order" restriction or accusation of a crime of domestic violence restrictions. This is a form of "prior restraint" and it is not a principle our system of justice is supposed to work by. If the person violates the order, arrest him then and restrain him. He has to commit a crime first before you can deny him his rights under the law.
• Misdemeanor drug offenses should not be a disqualifier. See non-violent felon above.

The NICS background check system, although introduced as a gun control measure, is an acceptable balance of exercise of a Right in the eyes of society. You prove you're responsible by passing the check and the liberals are happy because they get to see proof that their "restrictions" are working. NICS records are destroyed so there is no papertrail for the creation of a gun registry which keeps us rights advocates happy.

Violation Punishment

Any commission of a violent crime with a firearm is an automatic felony. You lose your 2A Rights forever.

Possession of arms lawfully but in violation of a transport requirement, carriage, etc absent of intent to harm will be classed as a misdemeanor and not subject you to a loss of rights.

If you demonstrate a pattern of repeat offenses of this nature, you will be subject to the provisions of a non-violent felony conviction for a period of two(2) years after the first offense with rights restoration being automatic after this period elapses. Should you offend in this nature again after such a provision has been placed on you, the intervals rise to five(5) and ten(10) years respectively.

Carriage and Transport of Arms and Federal Preemption

This probably violates States right. But, given the States have choosen to provide reciprocity and full recognition of other Constitutional Rights as well as state-level privileges in other areas, the fact that Federal law does override State law today (FOPA transport provisions come to mind), this isn't a great leap to see that it could work given the right climate.

Acceptance is a different story.

No person shall be presumed to be violating the law for transporting of any firearm provided it is secured in a case, unloaded and out of immediate reach. I do not care if loaded magazines are right next to it in the same. It is a ridiculous requirement.

Open carriage of arms will be left to the States. I am bending big time on this. I personally feel if you want to carry a gun openly you should be allowed to do so. It is none of anyone's business why you are carrying a gun. It doesn't matter to me if they are uncomfortable. Until you are threatening harm with an openly visible gun by leveling it at someone who isn't a threat, at best it twists people's underwear into a knot.

But, I am willing to compromise and leave that to the States to decide on what they are comfortable with. Most would feel that concealed carry overall is a better strategy.

The only exception to open carriage is that of arms on private property (which cannot be restricted as is the law today), hunting and in areas where it would be acceptable.

To carry a loaded firearm of any type in a vehicle will require a concealed carry permit.

With that said, I want to see the establishment of a Federal standard for concealed carry permit issue of a "shall issue" nature. I look to states like Virginia for examples on how to do this. The requirements are not onerous in terms of cost or proof of proficiency and such a permit should be honored much in the same way as a driver's license is across state lines.

And then use Federal money to pay the States costs on implementing it. I don't care how much they whine. Self-defense is a basic human right and you shouldn't be forced to leave it at the state line because some local politician doesn't trust you but the one behind you does. If they trust you with a 2000 pound metal box moving at 70+mph, they can trust you with a gun. At least the training requirements for carrying the gun are stricter than those for driving a car.

Artillery and Cannon

Honestly, I have no difficulty with a registry for this. If you want to own a destructive device such as this that clearly affects an area beyond a single man, you should have to jump through some hoops.

I have no problems with a law that requires you to own an explosive vault and/or demonstrate safe storage of explosive projectiles in accordance with existing military standards and local zoning.

The $200 tax per projectile can take a flying leap. It isn't necessary since the costs involved in safely storing the explosives are going to be higher than this even if the projectiles themselves are available through the military surplus market. $200 per round is punitive.

As to the weapons themselves, a registry for cannon or tanks is fine if you have the means to afford them and a place to put them. As to using them, existing standards for the detonation of explosives is sufficient. If you own or have access to enough land to provide sufficient safe space around you, knock yourself out with gunnery practice.

Clearly this not in the realm of the average citizen. I don't think anyone wealthy enough and willing to follow some industry standard practices will have any objection.

That's it really. Not exactly a compromise in the eyes of many but something I would consider acceptable if the gun control folks would be willing to concede.

Out to the Woodshed

Courtesy of Robb Allen comes this link at No Looking Backwards and its intrepid author Bruce. He takes some Massachusetts liberals to the woodshed (to use Robb's term) in truly exemplary fashion.

I am in awe.

Bruce, if you ever get down my neck of the woods, drop me a note. The beer and the ammo is on me!

The Other Side of Demetriou

I am under the impression that Kevin Boatang (hopefully I'm getting that right) is the other half of the pair referred to on their blog.

His style is ...different.

He posted a comment on the article that started in on this. I decided that a reply warranted a post rather than in comments.

Can we clarify something here. An ‘assault rifle’ is simply a term, it doesn’t mean we think that people are running around with full blown army weapons.

"Assault weapon" and "Assault rifle" are not the same thing. I state that so there is no confusion. An "assault weapon"is the media and political term for semi-automatic rifles styled after military rifles. They are functionally identical to more traditionally appearing hunting rifles.

An "assault rifle" is a selective fire (meaning semi and fully automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition.

To illustrate the confusion, here are two "assault weapons":

The top rifle is a Ruger Mini-14. The bottom rifle is a Stag Arms Model 4 AR-15 carbine.

What is the difference between them?

Nothing, practically speaking, other than how they look.

Both rifles fire the .223 Remington (5.56mm) cartridge, both acceptable detachable box magazines with capacities from 5 to 30 rounds, both are semi-automatic in operation.

The only difference is the bottom one has a pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash hider and bayonet lug. And it's black.

But in terms of lethality and effectiveness against whatever target they are pointed at, they do the exact same thing in the exact same way with the exact same number of shots.

So, you're correct, people aren't running around with "army weapons" because neither of these guns have been or are used by any army. They are civilian firearms.

The politicians banned the configuration of the lower rifle but the upper one wasn't even mentioned. And yet, the 2004 USA Today article you reference uses the upper rifle as an example of "death machine" that was suddenly available for civilian sale.

It was never banned in the first place.

The ban was about appearance, not function.

Also this ownership thing, under the Firearm Owners Protection Act 1986 people were allowed to have any ‘assault weapon’ before the date registered and kept, so there are all these things all over the place, we know that.

Sorry, Kevin, you're confusing the issue. FOPA'86 dealt with machine guns, not the semi-autos listed above, via the Hughes Amendment. So if you had an actual full-auto M4 carbine then you were subject to registration and could keep it up until May 19, 1986. Any gun made after that date couldn't be registered or owned by civilians.

The semi-autos covered under the 1994 AWB had nothing to do with FOPA'86. You've confused appearance with function, a common thing among those who don't understand the firearms in question.

Yes, this debate is about guns. It is also hard to discuss this reasonably and rationally unless you know something about the subject.

Why do you need a gun like that at all? You say the police don’t have to protect you, but protect you from what that needs a weapon like that!

Which one? The Mini-14 or the M4? Both are identical. Both can be used for self-defense. Or target shooting. Or hunting small game (smaller than deer). If the Mini-14 doesn't bother you but the Stag Arms M4 does, you need to ask yourself "Why?".

why is it a God given right to own a gun? In that case, I might start walking around with a sword, that’s been around for years.

The right to preserve oneself transcends government and law. It is wired into us by Nature whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Some believe rights originate from God, others see them as natural rights. Whatever you believe, when backed into a corner, you will revert to your basic survival instincts. Fight or flee.

Guns are simply one tool useful for preserving oneself. So are swords. Guns work better. If a sword is all you have, it is better than nothing. But unless your foe is at close range, the old adage "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight" applies. Guns are more effective tools for preserving life and limb against a foe than any other weapon.

If I choose to use one type of gun over another, does it matter? All throw projectiles accurately at high speed in a given direction. All that varies is the speed, size and shape. At the end of the day, that is what it boils down to. If I prefer one over the other because it is lighter and more comfortable to shoot despite its menacing appearance, so what?

And if it makes you uncomfortable because I would prefer the black one over the wood one, that is an issue you need to resolve with yourself. I can't do it for you. But projecting your issues, lack of knowledge or fear of certain types of weapons does not give you a moral basis in which to restrict my choices.

Especially in a free country.

Your argument would stand up if people didnt get shot. If you have a gun and he has a gun, then by your argument, neither of you would get shot because you both have guns. But you don’t, you both get shot. So what exactly was the point in having the gun? If you didnt, you would both be alive.

You are placing all gun uses by all people as equivalent. This is simplistic and not reflective of reality. There is a difference between "violent and predatory" and "violent and protective" behavior.

If both parties have a gun, criminal and victim, then your scenario is one possible outcome. But certainly not the only one.

What is the criminal doesn't know I have a gun and attempts to victimize me? Even if he has one, pulls it on me, he may not expect the victim to draw on in return. He's expecting an easy victim and the opportunity to run away to victimize another day. A victim fighting back in any way is not in the plan.

If the gun-toting criminal isn't expecting an equal response, the victim can get the drop on them and at that point odds are likely only one person is getting shot and it won't be the victim.

Just as likely, the criminal could simply step out and shoot you dead. If they didn't know you had a gun, it wouldn't matter in the end anyway. You're still dead.

You're making broad assumptions about people having guns without looking into how and where they can be used. It is not black-and-white. The possession and usage of firearms covers many shades of grey and they do overlap.

And this founding fathers crap, pah-leese. They intended for militias to be formed so the state didn’t require a standing army, not that every home and car have a machine gun. That’s just stupid. The state still controls you whether you have a gun or not, you pay taxes, you have an army that would beat the shit out of you, so how does the gun make you anymore of an individual against the state? It doesn’t, you just want it to because you’re paranoid. If it wasn’t guns you were militant about it would be something else.

Where you there at the ratification of the US Consitution? Unless you were, don't make assumptions about what the Founders intended.

In fact, you don't have to. You can read their intentions leading up to the ratification of the Constitution in their own words.

But to educate you, the Founders did intend for the people to form militias when called using arms supplied by themselves. Hence why the 2nd Amendment exists. It exists to protect the right of the citizen to have arms. The Founders felt that if the citizens couldn't organize with arms of their own as a check against a standing army (the existence of which they felt was a threat to a free people), then the standing army could be used in conjunction with other Government measures to impose tyranny on the populace.

Yes, the state controls who can have a gun. And the fact we pay taxes. Even the 2nd Amendment didn't stand in the way of the State of imposing harsh gun controls (so far only tried by a few cities with dismal results), guns are part of the cultural fabric of this country.

The fact that British Government legislated away the same birthright you used to possess doesn't mean the USA should give it up as well. People here will not give it up so easily. And if the State were to try, that would be seen by many as a tripwire scenario that leads to tyranny.

And yes, in case you ask, armed citizens could hold off the most powerful army in the world with just our semi-auto lookalikes and hunting rifles. Examine places like Vietnam and Afghanistan where guerrilla campaigns were successful by foes far less technologically advanced.

If you want to discuss the realities of what enough pissed off citizens with nothing to lose could do against the US Army, we can speculate if you wish. It all depends on numbers.

So Kevin, what is the argument about guns you refer to? What is it you feel banning certain type of rifles based solely on their appearance would accomplish? Is it crime control or is it people control? Or is it for the sensation of feeling safe?

I'd like to understand what the end result would be.

(Images from Ruger and Stag Arms. I will remove them if they object.)

Good Behavior?!?

A man who left a 5 year old girl to be eaten alive by alligators get the death penalty in Florida.

This quote says it all with why we have problems with violence and crime in general in society today:

A defense attorney said Harrel Franklin Braddy, who already served time in prison for attempted murder but was released early for good behavior, had befriended Shandelle Maycock and her daughter, Quatisha, through his involvement in church outreach programs.

Let me ask this one simple question:

Why is it that criminals always seem to have good behavior in prison but none once released?

Seriously, if the bar you are using in prison is "Inmate didn't kill another today", you need to raise the bar. Better yet, just eliminate "good behavior" in prison and let them serve their full sentence. After all, it wasn't good behavior that got them in their in the first place and clearly, this notion of rehabilitation doesn't seem to work. So let's try something radical and lock them up for the full duration.

Hey Florida, if you want some help on how to carry out this waste of oxygen's sentence, here's a suggestion: Take him out into the Everglades and hang him by his wrists from a tree. Leave his feet dangling about two feet off the water.

Then slit his calves and let the blood drip into the water. The 'gators will have a field day.

If he's lucky, unlike his 5 year old victim, the 'gators will sever his femoral artery in the first leaping bite and he'll bleed out in minutes. In a just universe, he might last an hour or two being violently ripped apart from the waist down.

Maybe then he'll have some understanding of what he put that little girl through.

To paraphrase Heinlein: "To forgive all is a load of tripe. The more you look to forgive some acts, the more you loathe them."

Demetriou Dicussion Blog Online

As some of my readers have noticed, I have been going back-and-forth with a fellow named John Demetriou on an article that he posted. In the process, we have agreed to have a little debate on the topic of guns and we'll see where it leads.

To facilitate this, I have set up a new blog to host the debate: The Demetriou Discussions.

Sorry, not terribly creative. If you have any suggestions feel free.

I've gotten the initial postings and comments up there and I will post my replies to John and his replies to me there.

Enjoy!

Q&A: Purchasing Firearms and Proving State Residency

A few referrals in my logs are Googling the words "drivers license proves state residency firearms". I guess someone is looking for information on what is required to prove residency in a state for buying guns.

Here you go...

To purchase a firearm from a dealer, either in a store or at a gun show, you are required to show two pieces of ID. If you are an American citizen, one must be a photo ID. A driver's license or state ID card is acceptable.

The second form of ID does not have to be a photo ID. For US citizens, this should be something that proves your citizenship such as a voter registration card, passport, citizenship certificate, birth certificate, etc. You have prove citizenship.

Now, here's where the rules get complicated. Between these two IDs, one must have your current address on it and must have been issued more than 30 days ago. The reason for the 30 days is important since this is the minimum amount of time you must reside in a state in order to establish residency.

Thus, between a combination of the two IDs, you can establish residency and citizenship. Usually, most people use a driver's license for the photo ID and a birth certificate or voter ID for the second. If you're photo ID lacks an address, most folks use a vehicle registration. The vehicle registration also doubles as the proof of state residency. You are allowed, in fact required, to use more than two if your two can't meet all the criteria together.

It's pretty straightforward and any gun dealer will tell you what you need. If you're going specifically to buy a gun, get your ducks in a row beforehand and you'll save yourself disappointment and extra trips.

Now, if you're a non-citizen like me, the rules get a little more complicated. Same ID requirements except now you need to furnish proof of legal residency (for permanent residents) or a hunting license (for non-residents). This is in addition to the documents above and is used in lieu of proof of citizenship since you aren't one.

In additional, non-citizens are required to furnish an additional proof of residency in the form of bank statements, utility bills, lease, etc. that shows you've lived in your state for at least 90 days. That's right, 90 days. Us non-citizens need to live in a state 3 times longer than a citizen to establish ourselves. Furthermore, this second form of proof must be contiguous and had been issued in the last 30 days. In other words, if you use a utility or phone bill, you must have your latest bill and the previous two before it. All of the bills must also have your current address on them.

If this sounds like a pain, you're right. It is. This is why my local dealers know my intentions for the day when I walk in. If I am carry a file folder, I'm there to buy.

Other than these differences, the process for purchase is the same. You buy your gun, fill out the paperwork as directed by the dealer and wait for the background check to clear. When it clears, you take your gun home.

Hope you find this useful, whoever you are.

Legal disclaimer: None of this to be construed as legal advice or information. It is my own words based on my personal experience and reading of the law. If you have specific questions under the law, you'll need to refer to your local statutes and/or an attorney versed in these matters. Rules on this vary from state-to-state and within localities.

Shameless Plug: "The Follies of Gun Control".

Via Ahab on a guest post at Snowflakes in Hell, comes this wonderful little editorial on gun control. He has his own excerpt on Sebastian's site regarding this article. I would recommend this article to anyone who supports or is on the fence on gun control since it sums up concisely each of the positions that the anti-gun argument usually takes.

If you're looking for talking points, this article is a good place to start (hint, hint).

Common Usage of the Term "Well-Regulated Militia"

A short commentary over on the Volokh Conspiracy regarding the phrase "well-regulated militia". Turns out the phrase predated the Constitutional Convention and Revolutionary War by decades. The term was in common usage long before the revolution.

The comments are interesting too. Give them a read for an interesting historical perspective on a false modern interpretation.

Sticking this one up here for reference. Such historical contexts are always useful and I didn't know how far back it went.

A Quick Note on California Microstamping

I'm still furious at the Governator for being such an ass in signing the useless microstamping bill into law. While I was frothing, I realized just how useless this law will be in helping police solve crimes since this was one of the justifications put forth for the law in the first place.

Microstamping doesn't come into effect until 2010 and then, only for new model guns not already on the approved CADOJ handgun list. According to the BATFE 2006 Gun Trace Data for California, the average time to crime for the vast majority of guns in the state is 12.7 years (see page 7).

What this means is the majority of crime guns using microstamping where the technology can tested on wide scale as to its efficacy won't land on the street until sometime around 2023!

This law is fucking useless. As a commenter on an article on the technology pointed out, the whole purpose of the law is to restrict the number of new models flowing into California over time in an attempt to decrease the supply of legal firearms for civilian ownership. All the manufacturers will do is not offer new models for sale in California. Hope you like the guns you got there already folks because Arnold just made sure you'll never see any new ones.

I hope Sig, Glock, Smith and Wesson and all the other handgun makers tell California to piss off.

Now I'm off to the range. I need to blow off steam. And give a range report on the new acquisition!

CA Alert: Microstamping and Lead Ammo Ban Signed into Law!

Ok folks, fresh from Calguns.net, the Governator has signed the California Microstamping and Lead Ammo Ban bills into law.

Mourn the loss of more freedom in the Communist Republic.

I hope the handgun makers will tell California to kiss their ass and follow Ronnie Barrett's lead and refuse to sell their products there. This technology is unproven, unreliable, forces even more intrusive measures onto law-abiding citizens, will do nothing to solve crimes and further raises the cost of arms in that state.

The lead ammo ban should finish off the ammo makers. Hopefully, they'll simply stop selling there as well. Hunters, kiss hunting goodbye. All for the California Condor. I hope deer and other overstressed game animal populations, starving, cute and cuddly to the last, will overrun Sacramento. Let the environmentalists give them a hug before the animals drop dead and spray their feces onto them. It would be only fitting.

Let California serve as a lesson. Whatever they do there with regard to guns should serve as a warning of what you don't want to happen in yours.

I could see microstamping come to Maryland in the future as a result of this.

Unbelievable.

Q&A: Is a Background Check Required to Buy a Muzzleloader?

I've been seeing a few referrals in my traffic logs for people looking for an answer to the question of whether a background check is required to purchase a muzzleloader?

The short answer is: "No."

I guess folks are Googling about the guy that was caught with a .50 caliber muzzleloader on campus which I talked about in this post.

The longer answer is "No" because muzzleloaders are not considered "firearms" under Federal law. They are considered "antique firearms" and are not subject to the same restrictions as firearms that fire modern cartridge ammunition. If you want more information, the relevant definition of a muzzleloader in the law is under 18 USC 921(16)(c).

Your local or State laws may provide additional regulations with regard to the sale of muzzleloaders. Most States require a purchaser of a muzzleloader to be 18 years or older. Other than that, it is a cash-and-carry transaction no different than buying a BB or pellet gun.

The only time a background check is required to purchase a muzzleloader is when the muzzleloader can accept replacement parts that will allow it to fire modern rimfire or centerfire ammunition. If that is the case, you do the background check paperwork on it as if it is a regular rifle or pistol.

The reason for this is because the parts that allow the conversion are not the regulated component of a firearm. In guns, the frame of the pistol or the receiver of a rifle are what is considered a "gun" under the law. The cylinder in a revolver or the bolt mechanism in a rifle are parts that can be ordered through the mail like any other product. As a result, you can buy the conversion parts anytime without any oversight from the Government since that is what the background check accomplishes.

Don't get alarmed by this state of affairs. Most countries in the world that permit civilian ownership of firearms tend to follow this definition of what constitutes a "gun".

So there you go. Hopefully those of you searching for the answer will find this useful.

Clueless in the UK

Via West, By God, comes this article from a pair in the UK bemoaning the fact the USA hasn't reimplemented the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban and needs to do so now as a act of symbolism.

Read the article and keep a helmet on so that you won't lose your brain matter as your head explodes for reading this incoherent mass of clueless idiocy.

I couldn't help myself, so here is the comment I left. I don't think it is too snarky but who knows? Maybe they will get in touch with me and we can discuss the state of affairs in this country in a reasonable manner and not in the disconnected fantasy the author portrays in their PSH rant.

I don’t even know where to begin.

First off, you’re British. You don’t live here. If you want to criticize US gun laws, feel free as you have. But ultimately your opinion has no bearing since you don’t live here.

Two, good for you that you’ve read the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. You understand the historical context but then choose to ignore it because they couldn’t have predicted the course of modern society. They didn’t have to. They provided a framework for future generations to operate in and had faith they would do so in a manner faithful to their intentions. That’s why we have the US Constitution.

Third, you’re expressing an opinion based on a 3 year old article! Why not investigate the issue with more recent information.

Four, as pointed out to you, you don’t have any knowledge about what you are talking about. Movie references are not reality! It is very hard and very expensive to own a machine gun here. You’ve fallen victim to invented media terms such as “assault weapon” that have no real definition in fact.

Five, the so-called “ban” that expired in 2004 and you are calling for renewal on banned NOTHING. It banned FEATURES, not functionality. If a gun had a specific combination of 2 or more out of 5 listed features, it was considered an “assault weapon” and couldn’t be sold after 1994. All the manufacturers did were to remove those banned features. The rifles sold as “assault weapons” during the ban were functionally identical to those sold prior to the “ban” but cosmetically different. That’s it. Not one gun was confiscated or turned in, registered or restricted in that time.

And the ban was an abject failure except to harass citizens, raise awareness of gun rights in this country and did absolutely nothing to reduce crime. The CDC agrees when they studied issue.

Six, why the call for “symbolic” action you know won’t have any effect? The 1994 “ban” was considered symbolic under the same logic. You don’t pass laws that restrict rights for the purposes of symbolism!

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It is the hallmark of ideology over reality.

Finally, why do you think the idea of legal gun ownership to be a problem? You like Britain now that legal gun ownership has been crushed (to use your term)? You like the skyrocketing incidence of violence of all types? You like that fact you are utterly dependent on the Government for your safety and well-being and if you attempt to defend yourself against an attacker, YOU will be charged with assault? You think that is correct? You think that is a reasonable state to live in?

Here, we still have the notion of self-defense of one’s person and home. That criminals are not elevated to higher level of protection than their victims. The UK wasn’t like that once. 80 years ago and up to the 50s, the UK was similar to the USA with regard to rights towards guns and self-defense. Only by ignoring centuries of common law and by legislative fiat in contradiction of past precedent did the Government take power to enforce its wishes and disarm the populace. And look where it has gotten you.

The anti-gun lobby is in retreat in this country because for the most part, the American citizen has woken up to the fact that the Government and police can’t (and have no duty) to protect them. They are ultimately responsible for their own safety. Most people here believe (correctly) that gun ownership is an individual right guaranteed to them by the US Constitution. It will not be taken easily here despite that anti-gun lobby’s best efforts. And it won’t be the NRA fighting them. It will be people like me who will not be left helpless by the Government who legally has no duty to protect me.

For what it is worth. I could discuss this at length but I think I’ve said enough. Feel free to contact me if you would actually like to learn something and discuss the state of affairs in this country as they truly exist and not what you believe them to be.

Good day.

I doubt they'll contact me but rather write me off as an NRA nut and a member of the evil gun cabal that keeps this country in thrall with threats of death and power.

Update: Well, I stand corrected. The fellow dropped me a note in the comments to which I replied. Let's see where this goes.

Blue Carry

I've been mulling a form of protest here in Maryland.

If you don't know, Maryland is at the edge of the abyss with regard to gun rights. It has restrictive laws on certain types of firearms (handguns and "scary looking" guns by make/model and clones thereof), practically no citizen carry, strict transport rules and "safe storage".

Maryland is not as bad as California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York or Massachussets. But it is close and gun banners for years have been trying to push Maryland over the edge to be like them and serve as a model of a "proper" state with regard to gun control.

Ignoring, of course, that Maryland is one of the most violent states in the country because of these near-draconian restrictions.

What rights advocates like myself are trying to do here is to pull us back from the edge and get us on solid ground. Becoming a copy of Virginia to the south is the goal of many including myself.

It shouldn't be a surprise then when I say I despise Maryland's gun laws. At best, I angrily tolerate them and I stand with others here in the stand to work on getting them changed. One of those big areas of change that we want to see here is for this state to become a "shall issue" state like Virginia.

Maryland is presently a "may issue" state. "May issue" means that the local authorities have arbitrary discretion to grant or deny a permit to carry a gun to a citizen solely on what they consider proper need. Here, you don't get permit unless your employer says you need it for your job, you carry large amounts of cash or valuables, you're under documented threat of death, retired police and so on. There are several categories of "need" listed on the application and if you don't meet one of those categories, you don't get the permit. Some more interesting, older reading on the subject can be found here.

I used to live in Virginia and had a permit to carry there. I miss that. I feel that the choice of armed self-defense is a choice every law-abiding citizen should be allowed to make for themselves. Carry or don't carry. You should have the option and it should be available to you without discrimination or at the whims of the State. Virginia is like that.

I want the right to carry here.

I could try to apply for a permit but I would be throwing money away. Even if I did so as a matter of principle, it would be nothing more than a symbolic act and I'd be paying for the privilege of annoying the State Police and the Licensing Division Appeals Board.

Right now, the politicians in Annapolis are quite comfortable with the status quo. They feel (that being the right word here) that the existing permitting system is just dandy and guns in the hands of their serfs would result in more violence.

Groups like Maryland Shall Issue are leading the charge to get the laws changed here. Do that and Maryland changes for the better. Every other of the "shall issue" states has much lower crime rates than us and some of it due to the fact that those states trust their citizens. And put the fear of being shot into the criminals.

Maryland doesn't trust us. Period. We aren't citizens; we're subjects.

When I moved here, I did so out of the more noble of motives: love. My girlfriend was born and raised here and this is her home. I moved here to be closer to her and my job at the time. But I did so with a caveat to her: Accept now the idea that I am going to be a royal pain in the ass to my elected representatives, I am going to write letters and I am going to go to Annapolis. Expect me to protest.

Now I want to protest and raise awareness among the common citizen how the State of Maryland doesn't trust them to be responsible. That they don't have the capacity to be armed in public and exercise that right responsibly. That we must put our trust in 911 and hope the police arrive before the criminal is finished with them.

My form of protest is two-fold.

One, I will go out in public wearing an empty holster on my belt. A Blackhawk CQC molded holster in my case.

Two, I will have a "blue gun" in the holster sometimes.

What is a "blue gun"? It is rubber replica used for training and familiarization purposes. They have the shape and appearance of whatever firearm they are meant to be but are made of blue, red, yellow, etc urethane rubber. It is no way a gun or could ever be mistaken for a gun by anyone with two functioning brain cells.

The purpose of this is to garner attention. It is the hope the empty holster, the classier and more subtle of the two approaches will be sufficient. When subtlety fails, resort to brute force. People will notice a blue chunk of gun shaped rubber on my hip and let the PSH commence.

I have found nothing in Maryland law that says wearing of a holster as a fashion accessory is a crime. And nothing that could cover the presence of a rubber dummy in said holster since a piece of rubber that just happens to be accurately shaped like a gun isn't a gun under any statute anywhere.

Not a replica, not an antique, not a weapon, not a bludgeon. Nothing. It is a piece of rubber.

Why do this?

Getting attention is the primary mission. But that is for the simple purpose that attention is required for this to work. I am hoping that out of the hundreds of sheep we are surrounded by at the Mall or at the movies, a few will notice that this behavior is very out-of-place and may tap me on the shoulder in line or out of curiousity and ask me why I am wearing an empty holster or the blue gun.

And then give them a short 20 seconds on why Maryland doesn't trust them, that self-defense is a human right that this State denies them and those across the Potomac have and give them a little laminated card with info and Internet addresses to find more information.

Get enough people to notice this odd behavior in public might also get the news media interested. After all, this is also an act of protected free speech. As one fellow pointed out on the Maryland Shooters forum, the media loves a good "private citizen against the evil Government" story. They may even be willing to overlook the 2nd Amendment aspects of the protest to focus on the 1st Amendment ones. Fine by me because it helps to raise the issue into the public awareness.

And even if they don't, think about it. What if 1 in 100 people question me regarding this? I'm not after the sheep. Their eyes are glazed over, they are locked on autopilot and going about their routines. They are the apathetic, uninterested and robotically political. Sad but true.

I'm after the curious, the one who notices the out of place, the one who thinks. Those are the ones that will take the card and perhaps dig into the issue. The one that will tell their friends about this weird guy he say at the Mall and here's the card he gave me. Maybe talk about the issue with their friends. Others that may think like them and get them to think and make them aware.

These are the types of people more likely to write letters to their elected representatives, to write letters to the editor and get involved if for no other reason that to tell the story of this weird protester and his message.

A message he will be transmitting into the public awareness without them realizing it.

I've read estimates that state a single phone call or written letter to a Congressman or Senator is roughly equivalent to the views of 10,000 constituents. That one individual was the one motivated enough to call but their views represent those of those others too lazy or unmotivated enough to do the same but would vote the way they would.

Similiar estimates apply at the State level. Last year, we had over 200 private citizens show up to oppose a proposed "assault weapon" ban in Maryland. That got their attention and we kept the pressure up on the Senate committee and the ban never made it out. We squeaked by but it proved a valuable lesson for me: citizens do matter.

In Maryland, those politicians were seeing not 200 or so faces, but the opinions of perhaps 200,000 or more of their voting constituents. For any politican, that is a scary prospect. That's enough votes against you to cost you an election. Get enough people pressing and they will listen.

What if as a result of this protest you get 10 or 20 citizens in a county calling their elected officials out of the blue to ask why they don't allow "shall issue" carry by citizens and why aren't they pursuing the issue to change it?

I think that would get their attention. If citizens are lobbying for a change in the law outside of organized groups like Maryland Shall Issue, they will pay attention. They may ignore you but the message will start to sink in. Get enough people thinking in this state and suddenly you are looking at a serious electoral shift in attitude.

An attitude they are going to have to pay attention to. Plus, it plays to their natural opportunistic streak. Give them an issue they feel the public supports and they may press on their own as a means of strengthening themselves. If playing to their baser political emotions gets me what I want and frees the citizens of this State, I'll do it. I am something of a realist here.

I do believe a few motivated citizens mounting visible, peaceful, symbolic and publically shocking (from the sheep's perspective) protests can work.

At worst, it does nothing and I get written off as a crazy gun nut. If so, I wear that banner with pride. At least I am standing up for principles I believe in. People may disagree but they often respect that.

The end goal of this is, of course, the conversion of Maryland to a "shall issue" state. But there is another goal as well.

We need to build the core of a visible, active rights group here in Maryland. I use the model of the Virginia Citizen's Defense League (VCDL) here. Put mildly, they are a very visible, very "in your face" armed citizen rights group. And a very effective one.

One of the worst things a LEO can do in Virginia is to mess with a VCDL member in violation of the law (such as open carry in a public place). Shortly thereafter, the VCDL comes down like the Hammer of God on the local government and police in protest. Not in small numbers either. They tend to pack local council meetings with dozens to a hundred or more pissed off, armed citizens. And virtually without exception they are in the right and they quickly put said authorities in their place with the law on their side.

We will need that here to protect our nascent carry rights once we get them.

Those who carry "blue" could help to form the basis of such an organization. Active, knowledgable on the law, willing to fight for principles. Willing to fight for what's right. For their rights and yours.

I think we can do it. Get enough empty holsters and the odd blue gun out there, we can get them to notice and perhaps wake people up. The whole country has been changing over the past decade or so with regard to gun rights and I think we can get Maryland away from the edge of the abyss.

And perhaps someday my holster won't be empty anymore.

Keeping Sufficient Reserves

New Jovian Thunderbolt has a post up about his current ammo situation. What Would John Wayne Do has an older post on the subject as well.

All I have to say is: "Stock up, you're low.".

Much to the chagrin of my girlfriend, I do operate in the "Gun Nut" plane when it comes to ammo.

The rule of thumb is 200 rounds per caliber you shoot. I break that rule and the whole hand it is attached to.

1000 rounds per caliber is more to my liking. It really depends on what you shoot. This is where owning a mixture of firearms helps. Milsurps are nice because their ammo tends to be cheap when it is readily available. When it is, stock up! Ammo keeps nicely. Decades or more if in a sealed can.

My current ammo stockpile would sent a liberal into orbit in a PSH fit. My current inventory looks like this:

• .22LR: ~1700 rounds. Shouldn't count.
• .22WMR: 70 rounds. I don't shoot it much.
• .17HMR: 350 rounds.
• .45ACP: 275 rounds. I need to stock up on that.
• .223/5.56mm: ~900 rounds. That's low too.
• .257 Roberts: 20 rounds.
• 6.5 x 55mm: 150 rounds. That's a top priority for the next show.
• 6.8SPC: 20 rounds. Doesn't count since I don't have a gun in that caliber.
• .303 British: 300 rounds.
• .308/7.62 x 51mm: 790 rounds. Need more of that.
• 7.5mm Swiss: 160 rounds.
  
• 7.62 x39mm: 1050 rounds.
• 7.62mm x 54R: ~1480 rounds. 880 rounds of that is in sealed sardine tins.
• 8mm Mauser: ~1100 rounds.

Grand total: ~8365 rounds.

I don't normally do this for the simple fact is reveals what I own. Notice the tendency to have large amounts of milsurp ammo on hand. This isn't an unusual thing. This ammo tends to be sold in lot quantities and it is cheaper to buy in 200, 400 or 500 round amounts in bulk than it is to buy commercial or in small amounts. 7.62x54R is a case in point. I have a ton of it because the spam cans the stuff comes in are dirt cheap ($50-$60 for 440 rounds). My attitude is to buy it now since it won't be readily available tomorrow. In that case, FMJ lead core ammo is getting hard to find. So I grab it when I see it. Just in case.

I don't buy commercial ammo in these quantities and the list above reflects that. All of my 5.56mm ammo is commercial. I generally buy 4-5 boxes at a time and shoot 3-4. That means I am building a surplus over time. The bulk of those 900 rounds represent that. That also includes the 100 rounds of military SS109. That's emergency SHTF ammo.

Folks, if this list was reported by the media, they would go insane. Eight thousand rounds! I can see the headlines in my head spinning that. It would be a liberal media wet dream and they would label me as a paranoid nut.

It reveals how clueless they are. This is nothing.

1700 rounds of .22LR can fit in a shoebox and have room to spare. I have that much because it is cheap to buy in 550 round boxes. Wal-Mart had a special so I bought three boxes. $12 apiece. Big deal.

It is the centerfire stuff that boggles the mind. It is all stored in military ammo cans, each labeled with their contents. I did that because I got tired of playing the can shuffle game in the closet trying to figure out what was in what can.

Notice, no shotgun. I don't own one. I'm a rifleman.

What troubles me are the small amounts. Especially of 6.5x55mm. One of my best distance guns shoots this. But it is hard to get and I generally can only get it at the gun shows. I had much more than that but I've shot it and haven't resupplied. Hence why it is a top priority in November. It will be my last chance to stock up until 2008.

200 rounds per caliber for me is the restock point, not the goal. In a SHTF situation, I would be very nervous with just 200 rounds on hand for a single gun. I prefer to have options including firing options. And if the zombie horde is coming over the hill, me and local self-defense militia will be blasting through 200 rounds per person in no time.

I don't know why people find this so unusual. For many gun owners, 8000 rounds is a pretty small amount.

I follow the maxim of: Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

A gun without ammo is an expensive club.

Just my two cents.

Real Women and Guns

Robb Allen has a nice little post on this woman whose husband wanted to get a gun for hunting but relented when they had children and felt it was too dangerous. Feel free to check out his post and the woman's original blog post.

I left a comment to another commenter. I may comment later regarding her standpoint.

But what I think about the husband is, "Damn, you gave in a little too quick.".

Wimp.

It is stories like that that make me love my girlfriend.

In a moment as us men are sometimes prone to doing, we'll just wander over to our gun cabinets and take stuff out. Play with, fondle, whatever. In my case, I had gone over, unlocked the cabinet and was gently manipulating one of my AR-15s. At that moment, she comes into the room to do some laundry. Here I am holding the AR and flipping it over in my arms lovingly.

"What are doing with that?" she asked me with a batted eye.

"I was thinking of taking the carry handle and scout scope off and replace it with a red dot scope co-sighted with the front sight post and maybe add a tactical rail and...".

She never heard me finish. She simply shook her head and wandered off, laundry task finished, with "Whatever makes you happy, honey.".

God, I LOVE that woman! The sight of her man playing with his toys doesn't even phase her.

She ignored the fact of the two other black rifles at my feet that I had to move and take out to get at the rifle I wanted to play with.

Love is wonderful. :)

Hughes is Here to Stay

I'm late to the party on this. I have an excuse, I really was out of town and have my spanking new Canadian passport to prove it.

Bitter and Sebastian have posts up regarding getting portions of the NFA repealed or struck down. For those of you unfamiliar with that term, the NFA is the "the National Firearms Act of 1934". Many in the rights community refer to it as NFA'34 or simply the NFA.

What that act essentially does is define how one may legally own large caliber guns (above .50 caliber which includes artillery), explosive devices such as grenades, sawed-off shotguns, short barrelled rifles, silencers and yes, that favorite of gun control: machine guns.

Yes, it is legal for private citizens to own all of the above provided they follow the rules. The rules demand a full FBI background check, the payment of a tax (such as $200 for the transfer of a machine gun), proper storage, permission for transport across state lines and waiver of some of your 4th Amendment rights.

The discussion is along the lines of how working towards attacking the NFA restrictions is a political loser.

That's an understatement.

Suicide in the progress we've made in restoring our rights is more like it.

The context of the conversation tends revolve specifically around the Hughes Amendment. This amendment is an abomination that should never have happened. Unfortunately, it did and has since created a very interesting world for modification of the NFA since it would literally create a case of gun rights advocates eating their own.

What the Hughes Amendment did was restrict the ownership of machine guns by civilians to those made on or before May 19, 1986. This is the bright, shining line of machine gun ownership in this country. Anything made after that date is either in the hands of law-enforcement, the military, dealer samples or is possessed illegally.

The reason the Hughes Amendment is an abomination is it created an artifical market condition. Since there are no new machine guns available for civilian purchase, the supply is permanently fixed. All the existing guns can do is change hands. And as parts wear out, the value of those that remain skyrocket since no new parts can be made to replace those that wear out.

Unlike for semi-autos, a legal machine gun owner cannot make replacement parts (specifically full auto sears and receivers) for their property. They must buy from the existing and ever dwindling supply.

This is why in 20 years a chunk of steel that fits on your fingernail has gone from $10 in value in 1986 to over $5000 in 2007.

Supply and demand economics created by government force.

This is the condition that pisses off non-machine gun but wannabe machine gun owners. Conversely, it is the same condition the existing machine gun owners will fight tooth-and-nail to defend.

And people are seriously wanting to try to take this on politically now?

Folks: We are not there yet. Not. Even. Close.

When we have right-to-carry nationwide as a matter of routine, no more BS restrictions on the appearance of our guns, able to buy guns interstate again freely from any dealer and gun control advocates (as it stands today) being thrown out of most politicians offices lest their constituents get wind of their presence and run said poltico out of office on a rail, then we can think about the NFA.

The last thing I want right now is for the average citizen to find out machine guns are able to be legally owned. Most labor under the delusion they are banned. They aren't. Don't hide the knowledge of the truth from them if they seek it but don't give them information they aren't ready for and can too easily misrepresent. It would be a very unncessary distraction.

The disaster from within by any attempt to alter the existing NFA status quo too much would be enough to destroy us.

Admittedly, the NFA owners are a small group. Wealthy too. Ownership of machine guns are one of those things many gun owners aspire to if they are inclined towards them. Along the lines of "when I have the money someday...". I have a friend who owns several. They are great fun to shoot. I'd like to join those ranks someday.

But right now if we tried to repeal Hughes, we'd never get in the door of our Congressman's office and the NFA owners themselves would turn on us like rabid wolverines. For a very simple reason: money.

Right now, the average cost of an NFA machine gun runs between $3500 to in excess of $20K. Typically in the $8K-$15K range. For example, a nice, warm Uzi will run you around $7000. Same for a Sterling. An M16 will set you back somewhere in the $15,000 range. It just goes up from there. There is no real ceiling. You can own an M60 machine gun if you can stomach the well north of $100K price tag.

Uzis didn't used to cost $7000. They never cost that much to make and still don't. They were alot cheaper back in 1985 when all you had to pay was the cost of the gun and the $200 transfer tax. Now, the cost of the tax stamp isn't even an issue. It is such a small fraction of the price that it is seen as almost incidental.

They cost $7K now because new ones can't be made. In fact, guns like this are recommended as investments for the wealthy because Class III firearms are one of those few things that will appreciate quite nicely and with virtual certainty. Better than stock in many cases. Buy that $7K Uzi today and it will be worth $9K in five years or so. These guns hold their value quite nicely. With the bonus that even if you use them, they won't depreciate.

All because of the government.

Now imagine if the law that says civilians can't have machine guns made after May 19, 1986 is repealed and new ones flood the market. Suddenly, the only appeal of these older NFA firearms is the fact they are "pre-86 Hughes guns". Might be a good marketing ploy for the rarer guns that will hold their value.

But for the rest, like MP5s, M16s, AK-47s and Uzis, the result will be what might be referred to as "a serious market correction". Who would pay $8K for a pre-86 Uzi when I can buy a new build Uzi on new tooling for $1500? The answer should be obvious and pretty close to somewhere near zero.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself how many people today are paying premium prices for pre-ban semi-autos with the 1994 AWB now expired? Hell, how many would pay premium prices for them during the ban? It was an advertising ploy, to be sure, but the only people who would were those who felt the extra $500 or $1000 was worth it to get a flash hider on their rifle. It didn't shoot any better, but man, it was so cool with the flash hider. Wasn't worth the money then and especially isn't now.

The same thing would happen to machine guns. Except now we aren't talking about a few hundred dollars. We are talking about amounts of money sufficent to buy cars and in some cases, houses, for cash if they were sold in the current market. Imagine having $100,000 in property today that is worth $10,000 tomorrow. That is what would happen to existing NFA owners if Hughes were repealed.

And why they will fight it tooth-and-nail to stop it from happening. If I was in their shoes, I might too, concern for my "brothers-in-arms" notwithstanding. When it is your pocket being picked, you have a tendency to get defensive and I wouldn't blame the NFA owners from turning on us upstarts for trying it.

Repeal of a good chunk of the NFA'34 (and the GCA'68) are endgame goals for us in the rights community. I would caution that we not get too big for our britches and see ourselves on an unstoppable rampage with the return of our rights over the past decade or so.

I would remind those that the Brady Campaign and the VPC were in a similar position in the late 80s and into the mid-90s and they took that one step too far. We can easily find ourselves in the same position if we push too hard, too fast or in the wrong places. Working on the Hughes Amendment is one of those areas.

It took decades for these laws to be erected against us. It will take an almost similar amount of time for us to win the mindshare of the populace back. Only when the average person sees a gun an inanimate object and an American birthright and only criminal scum as those who need to be punished and not the legal gun owner will we be in a position to challenge the NFA.

And even then, when we do, it will be a compromise. It will have to be. Something like periodic reopening of the registry to permit new registrations and slowly allow the prices of machine guns to fall gently so existing owners don't get screwed over and new owners and guns can join their ranks. Over time, I can see that a certain loss of value in some weapons as being a win overall as this "old guard" can acquire new pieces and gain value in other areas to offset their losses.

Total repeal is unworkable. Politically and popularly.

Damn, I'm starting to sound like Paul Helmke.

Unarmed Canadian and New Fun

Just to let folks know, I am out of town back to the Great White North for Thanksgiving. In Canada, we celebrate it on the second Monday of October. So I will be gone for the next four days.

Alas, due to Canada's not-so-liberal gun laws, I will be the Unarmed Canadian throughout the trip. Not even a pocketknife.

However, on a happy note, I placed my order yesterday for the Savage Mark I-FVT target rifle. With Guns and Ammo Warehouse's usual quick service, it will be here for when I get back. With a little luck, I might be actually using it competitively a couple weeks later.

Until then, I leave you these survival tips...

More to come! Thanks all!

Political Prediction

I am more than a two-issue pony. It should not surprise you that the politics of this country interests me. It should; I want to be a citizen in it.

Politics is a favorite discussion topic at work. This shocks me to no end because it is normally an off-limits area. Simply for the fact that if it goes on long enough, you'll want to kill your co-workers.

The sign of being in a really good work group is the fact you can argue vehemently on a topic and then laugh with each afterwards on the way back to your desks with the worst possible result being you agree to disagree. Do not discount this. It is no small thing and a definite rarity in any social context.

Suffice it to say, my views on the 2008 election are a not infrequent talking point.

On this, I made a straightforward prediction to my peers and I will repeat it here for you:

If Fred Thompson wins the GOP nomination, you are looking at the next President of the United States.

That is my prediction for 2008. I won't even qualify it. I don't have to. The only sad part is I won't be able to cast a vote for him (which is my fondest wish). The greatest gift any official could give me in this country is a one-time waiver to allow me to vote in the November election.

Yes, I am a Fred Thompson supporter. He is only the 2nd person I have ever given a political contribution to. The other is Maryland State Senator Jim Brochin in thanks for his supporter of citizen's rights by voting against SB.43.

I am late to the Fred party, so to speak. But this quote from this article sums up why I support him:

After a recent Thompson speech in Iowa a member of the audience called out: "Kill the terrorists, secure the border, and give me back my freedom." Thompson replied "you just summed up my whole speech."

I believe he would do all three and give us back our country. It is long overdue.

Fred has my support.

Decision .22: Thanks to All!

Thanks to everyone who commented on my quest for a competition .22LR rifle. Your comments definitely helped me out.

I'm glad to hear my instincts are on target (pun intended). An Anschutz rifle is definitely the way to go for the future.

Unfortunately, cost has a way of intervening. Based on the helpful replies, I see I am going to have to go with an Anschutz 54 or 64. In a left-handed configuration (for stocks) or ambi, the cost is going to be prohibitive. I can't justify it.

I am a beginning competition shooter. This is my dipping into the waters on this and I want to make sure I don't go too overboard (something I have a tendency of doing). It isn't the first time I've been involved in competitive sports.

Many years ago, I was an indoor inline speed skater. First as a racer then as a coach. When I started out, like with many novices in any sport, the urge to get the best equipment out there is overpowering. After all, you're seeing these extremely fast skaters and you want to be like them. It's only natural.

If you think shooting sports are niche, try being a speed merchant. The community of indoor speed skating is very small. Perhaps 40,000 or so skaters in the country. As a result, the equipment is specialized and adapted from ice speed skating. Custom leather uppers made on carbon fiber lowers, lightweight alloys and so on. $1000 or more for a pair of skates is not unheard of.

So when I started, I was going to get those fast skates. My coach, Bruce, gave me some advice I never forgot. He told me the equipment helped but in the beginning, master the basics. It would take me a minimum of two years for me to become competitive and no amount of equipment out there would change that. It required my dedication to practice and develop. Show the dedication first, develop technique and endurance and the speed would come. I listened and he was right.

I skated on cheap, very heavy Rollerblade race skates and then upgraded to a pair of used, medium-to-high end speed skates at Bruce's urging when he said I was ready. I skated on those skates until I shattered their aluminum frames and cracked their carbon fiber shells. It took about two years and they paid for themselves. Then I spent $1000 on a pair of skates. I was competitive.

Later, when I coached, I passed that same advice along to the parents of my skaters. One, to give them a reality of what they were getting into (indoor speed skating is a year-round sport) and two, to save them hard-earned money against what might be a passing fad for their kids.

In this vein, I think the same applies here to getting started in smallbore. All the equipment in the world won't make me a competitive shooter if I don't have the basics down.

So I am going to start with the basics. I need to shoot, put the time in and develop. I may not win but I prefer to start out with my first goal: Not be last on the roster. Everything can improve from there. In a year, two years or five years when I need the Anschutz, I will be able to justify it to myself as the next logical step (as well as to my girlfriend).

So, I have decided on a Savage Mark I-FVT single shot .22 rifle.


Why the Savage? Well, for starters, I own another Savage. It is a tack driver and the best factory rifle I own. I have a basis to grow from. That doesn't mean the FVT will be a tack driver like the one I have (different caliber). But the odds are good the out-of-the-box accuracy will be good. Assuming I get a good gun, I am reasonably confident with practice and learning how the gun performs, I will be able to hit bullseyes with it.

Second, it comes with the sights. This is not an insignificant issue. Anschutz guns don't come with them on most models and with the used ones, it is hit-or-miss. Sights can add several hundred dollars to the cost. Now, do I expect these to be best of breed? Hell no. But they will be good enough to learn on and spend the money on to upgrade later if needed. In addition, the stock Accutrigger is decent enough.

Third, the rifle is inexpensive. Listed at $329 retail. Reasonable. And the way I see it, the money I am saving can be spent to find a match grade ammo that the gun will like and shoot nice, small groups with. And to buy the accessories I need.

On that topic, I am going somewhat non-traditional on my sling choice. A shooting sling is necessary in competition shooting. In my case, I am going with a Quick Cuff Tactical Shooting sling. The reason is because the cuff can be worn separate of the sling. As a result, I can get additional slings and set them up separately for each shooting position. So when I switch positions, I can quickly detach from my arm and rifle and switch over without having to adjust the sling. And being nylon webbing, it won't stretch out as much over time. Somewhat expensive but I think a good choice. I'll probably get looks on the firing line for that.

I have a shooting mat and spotting scope. I shoot with nomex gloves already (no padding) so all I would need to add (if anything) is a shooting coat and whatever else I think is necessary. But I have the basics covered. After I place a bulk ammo and target order, I can work on getting used to the rifle at will at the NRA HQ Range.

I figure the gun will last me a couple years and then I can upgrade to the world-class gun when I am ready for it. Given the fact I am left-handed, I will need that time anyway to save the necessary funds. If I find the Savage works, why change? At worst, I can spend the money to have it rebedded in a custom stock and add new sights. Time will dictate my choices.

I will be placing the order in the next few days. Thank you everyone for your help!