Mental Midgets

I'm in a snarky mood lately. If this is an issue for any of my 6 or so regular readers, please let me know. But for now, I'm going to rant on a little Reasoned Discourse(TM) that plunked itself in my comments to this post.

Here is the comment:

The real focus of attention should be on Eric Thompson and his TGSCOM company for selling concealed handguns to mentally disturbed people in the first place. The best solution is to sue him and his company out of business to set an example to other irresponsible dealers.

First, before I address this, an observation. Why do folks who violently disagree with your viewpoint hide behind anonymity? Man or woman up and have the courage to stand behind your convictions. You might accuse me of being anonymous but other than my hiding of my last name, I stand behind who I am and am honest in where I live, what I do, etcetera.

If you're going to spout off with stuff like above, have more courage than a common earthworm or the French Army and identify yourself. Anonymity guarantees you'll remove all doubt of you being ignorant, shallow, incapable of independent thought and waiting for the farmer to shear you in the paddock. Being honest as to who you are raises your credibility in the eyes of others.

Not that it would have saved you in this case, Anonymous.

For the benefit of those of you who do not know, Eric Thompson is the man who runs a gun sales business that sold Cho the P22 pistol he used at Virginia Tech. He operates out of Green Bay, Wisconsin and sold Cho the gun online.

Eric Thompson did nothing wrong. The fact that he is apologizing or engaging in contrition for an act he was not party to nor had any control over shows him to be a man of compassion and conscience. A decent human being by my standards. And yet he gets wrongly blamed.

First, there is no such thing as a "concealed handgun". That alone shows that Anonymous is an Idiot. "Concealed" is a state of transport, not a type of weapon. A handgun held openly is certainly not concealed.

Second, how is Eric Thompson responsible?

Well, the mental midget we are dealing with here states clearly that he/she feels that Mr. Thompson is responsible because he sold a gun to a mentally disturbed criminal. Ok. That sounds reasonable on the surface, right? It's pretty easy to follow that path of logic. Punish those that provided the tools used in a crime.

Except that Eric Thompson had no way of knowing Cho was to be a criminal. None. Zip. Zero.

That is what fools like Anonymous don't seem to understand. They spout off stuff like this as if it was common knowledge or holy writ from the Gods themselves but never bother to question the assumptions laced within them. If they bothered, then this comment collapses into the heap of rubble it deserves to be.

Here's why.

It is absolutely undeniable that Cho bought one of his guns online from Eric Thompson. It is true. But this very fact is why Thompson is not irresponsible as Anonymous believes him to be.

It is for the simple fact that Federal law does not permit handguns to be transferred to someone who doesn't reside in the state it is purchased in! In such cases, like this one, Eric Thompson had to ship the gun to a dealer in Virginia so the transfer could be performed to Cho.

And for the two-by-four cluebat, pay attention to this part, Anonymous:

The background check that should have revealed Cho to be mentally disturbed and thus prohibited from owning a gun can only be performed at the time of transfer. Usually, this is the same place as where the gun is bought. But in the case of interstate sales, this is where the gun is shipped, not by whom it was sold.

In other words, Eric Thompson had no ability or authority to do the background check! That was done by the Virginia gun dealer than received Cho's gun. It was where Cho filled out the paperwork once the gun was received by Eric Thompson's company from out-of-state.

So, you are wrong, Anonymous. 100 percent flat-out stupid wrong. Eric Thompson was in no way irresponsible. In fact, it would have been illegal for him to access the background check system for any purpose other than a face-to-face sale in his own business.

Just like any other gun dealer.

But now Anonymous may make the leap (assuming that much self-honesty and mental capacity) that Eric Thompson wasn't at fault but then the Virginia gun dealer is for letting Cho have the gun.

Which is also bullshit since the dealer only acts based on the response received from the Virginia State Police and the FBI after Cho filled out the paperwork and both of them told that dealer to proceed! There was nothing in the database that said Cho was not legally allowed to own a gun. The fact there wasn't has now been corrected and was an administrative failure by the State of Virginia, not Eric Thompson.

Both of Cho's guns were transferred to him 100 percent legally under this system in place at the time.

Drive that fact into your pea brain and lodge it there permanently.

So explain to me how Eric Thompson and other "irresponsible" dealers like him who followed the law to the letter should be sued out of existence as an example to others?

The problem with folks like Anonymous is they aren't capable of critical thinking because it isn't a simple answer. It actually takes, you know, work to learn what the laws are and how they apply. But people like Anonymous simply believe things like "guns are easy to get" and "anyone can buy a gun over the Internet" and leap to the conclusion that there are no controls and that the gun trade here is not dissimilar from someone smuggling arms into Liberia. Blood, money and anarchy.

Nothing is further from the truth. Truth you never bothered to learn. Or even thought existed.

The irony of your last "demand" for a lawsuit is the best part: Congress passed a law that specifically prohibits the very lawsuits you demand except in cases of criminal negligence! It's called S.397, "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act". Click the link provided if you don't believe me.

Doing what the FBI tells you under its rules is not criminal negligence.

Perhaps it is good thing you didn't sign your name, Anonymous. You wouldn't want people to know you're a fool after all.

CNN on Campus Carry

CNN admits they didn't write this article and you'll see why. It is actually fair coverage regarding the visit of Eric Thompson, the man who sold the VT shooter his P22, to Virginia Tech.

You can tell they tried to put a sensational, biased spin on this with the article title but ultimately fail. I would like to make two points about this article and leave you to it.

University spokesman Larry Hincker released a statement denouncing Thompson's visit.

"Free speech is a hallmark of university life," Hincker said. "Still, I find it terribly offensive to learn that the gun-seller of the weapons used in the Virginia Tech campus murders would set foot on this campus.

"Additionally, the organizers appear to be incredibly insensitive to the families of the victims who lost loved ones and to the injured students still recovering from this horrendous tragedy."

Fuck you, Larry. It is well-known you prefer students to be unarmed and have actively opposed any effort by the State and law-abiding citizens from violating the fiefdom you and your betters would like to rule with an iron hand.

And from the one protester who was there:

"I don't believe in concealed-carry [of guns] on campus, and I don't think that is a good idea for a university," Schmale said. "I thought the speech was respectful and I think that he did show that he had compassion for people.

"I still think a lot of it was slanted and very rights-oriented, and did not fully address the idea of what having guns on campus is going to mean for safety in classrooms and the environment in general of Virginia Tech," she said.

Damn right it was rights oriented! This is what this is all about: your rights. I don't consider talking about the exercise of Constitutional rights to be "slanted". To her credit, she actually had a reasonable response and view on the issue than most protesters. She acknowledged the other side's view politely and agreed to disagree.

I disagree with your view but you protested the way people should on this issue. I hope she will come to realize that defending all your rights is a good thing.

That is all from me. I'm back to work. Good weekend everyone!

Limits at Quantico

My friend Tom forwarded this to me yesterday:

Due to recent events, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 7.62x54 calibers are NOT being allowed on WTBN ranges until further notice. We will keep club members advised as this situation develops.

This is from the President of the Quantico Shooting Club. Turns out I wasn't on the mailing list but I am now. For those of you wondering, WTBN stands for "Weapons Training Battalion". They control all of the shooting ranges on Marine Corps Base Quantico. The Quantico Shooting Club operates under their rules and regulations.

I can find nothing on the member forum or the site indicating what is happening. This is very odd to me that these three calibers have been singled out. I'm sure there's a good reason.

In parallel, the rifle ranges don't appear to be scheduled through the end of May. Very depressing. Admittedly, they generally don't post the rifle range openings until the Friday of the weekend they will be open but still an unhappy thing if the current schedule holds.

I'm a rifle shooter. If you have any interest in long distance (300 yards and beyond) shooting, there are only two places you can do it. One is the Fairfax Rod and Gun Club. They have a limited membership and you need to know two people in the club to even have a chance at joining. I've heard the waiting list to join there is years long. The other is the Quantico Shooting Club. Unlike the Fairfax Club, QSC is open to public membership provided you meet the criteria. Knowing someone helps too.

As a result, a membership at QSC is worth its weight in gold to a shooter. Especially a rifle shooter. You get to shoot on some of the best ranges in the area. So this development is frightening. It's probably just security and I can certainly respect that. Personally, it doesn't affect me too greatly except for the fact my Mosins and AKs have to stay home. And my CETME. And eventually my FAL. But my 6.5mm, the rifle I want to shoot at Quantico anyway, still is usable.

But for other shooters, this is huge since 7.62x51 is the dominant long distance caliber. This has to be affecting them.

Hopefully it's just range repair work or something that will be lifted by late Spring or Summer. I enjoy the few opportunities I get down to Quantico as it is a really great place to shoot. Very friendly folks and really nice facilities.

I'd like to know what's going on and here's hoping for a quick resolution.

Book Meme

Robb and Tam have this going and several other bloggers of the geeky persuasion have jumped on in. Since I am a big bookworm, this one I cannot resist. Here is the meme:

1. Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. No cheating!
2. Find page 123.
3. Find the first five sentences.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.

Here is my selection:

Too often, people feeling secure in their boat have stopped at night, dropped anchor, and dozed off. Some of these people have never awoke. Zombies walking on the bottom can hear a boat approaching as well as the sound of an anchor hitting the mud.

Any bloggers are welcome to tag themselves and play too!

Good Reads

A couple of great reads courtesy of David Codrea at War on Guns while I get the next post out of the hopper. Trying for this afternoon.

No Bullets No Shooting and "Taking Gun Virgins for a Desert Shoot". The latter is timely in light of my recent activities and taking "gun virgins" out to shoot is more common than one might think. Curiosity and the thrill of the "forbidden, itself a sad commentary on attitudes towards guns, do most of the work.

The Shooting Offer

Greg points out my latest introduction on his blog with the following in his post:

Putting that offer at the top of your blog is a GREAT idea, and more of us should do it. Just because you are willing to take newbies to the range doesn't mean they know that.

In the interests of honesty, I'd like to point out that I'm not the first one who's done this (I think). The offer at the top of the page was one of the cornerstones of this blog from the first day I set it up. It was one of the reasons I started doing this. I wanted to reach those out there that might want to try shooting but didn't know where to start.

Others have used my offer presentation as inspiration to do it themselves. I've even received e-mail from several bloggers asking my permission to do what I've done.

By all means, do so and you don't need to ask! I don't own a patent on this stuff. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Flatter away!

I would like to point something out the fact that the idea of taking shooting virgins to the range never originated with me. I first saw it on Smallest Minority and Publicola. It was Publicola (now-defunct) that made the call for bloggers and individuals who wanted to volunteer with this and provided a clearing house for people to find.

That page is still being updated. My entry on that list predates my blog by over a year.

Elizabeth and Zack this past weekend asked me why I started blogging. I gave them the answer of "To have a voice when I was forced to fight legislation when I moved to Maryland. To get information out there on State and Federal issues.". I started it because Maryland gave me a reason to. In hindsight though I think that was merely the catalyst. I had the means. I just lacked the motivation until I had to really fight.

The fight may have started it but the desire to pass along knowledge is the real reason I do it now. Either personal philosophy or views, rights-specific stuff or educational.

Should I stop doing this, the one thing I would like my blog to be remembered for is the shooting offer. To me, it has the greatest impact. Posts are read and fade into obscurity. They are the treat of the day. But the offer is always there. It is at the top for that reason. It is the first thing you always see when you come here. I consider it more important in some ways. It is a constant in my corner of the blogoverse. Of all the things to be taken away from here, the knowledge that I have been able to help strangers learn something through sheer passion with no expectation of anything in return, is what I want to be preserved.

Going from the keyboard to the range to help others is what fosters a sense of community in others. Too many people complain we lack of sense of community, that we don't reach out to each other in mutual aid or friendship. Not here. You don't see gun controllers doing stuff like this. They paint us to be fear-mongering, backwater barbarians. If so, why is it that gun owners far and away do stuff like this? I've never met a gun owner that didn't like to teach others about their sport. And most do it voluntarily in the truest sense of the word. We hope for nothing more than a nod of thanks and a smile to show we've done a good job.

Maybe that's another reason why we win.

The offer has been out there a long time and is slowly being discovered. I've been excited when I've gotten e-mails asking to do this. So far, my close rate on actually going from initial contact to range has been very high at 2/3rds. And if you've contacted me, gotten my reply and figured it's been too long: you're wrong! It is an open-ended offer for whenever your time and schedule permit. I will work to accommodate you to the best of my ability. You have my word.

Here's hoping to more people in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C. take me up on this.

Besides, it's just plain fun!

New Shooter Report #3

I've reached a milestone in my shooting philanthropy. I have introduced true strangers (to me) to the world of shooting via this blog. This past weekend I gladly introduced a couple to this world.

Before I get into the details, think about that for a second. It takes a big leap of faith and trust on anyone's part to meet a perfect stranger whose full name you don't even know at a strange location and let them show you all about firearms. Bear in mind someone who publicly talks about the shooting sports and seems rational over the Internet probably is in real life. But you never know. I'm not a serial killer but they don't know that.

I'm thankful for that. It shows me my general view of humanity is not misplaced. As a rule, people try to be decent, honest folk who will treat you as you treat them. Free is nice but it can also be a cautionary thing for some folks. Along the lines of "if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.".

I hope what follows dispels this. This is my small way of giving back. This is how I like to spread the message of positive, safe, normal gun usage and ownership. I can, will and do spend my own resources in time and money to show someone what shooting is all about even if they never do it again. Education is my goal, not conversion.

With that said, let me introduce Zack and Elizabeth. This couple contacted me back in mid-March through my blog asking about the free shooting introduction offer that is posted prominently here. Their interest was self-defense and general firearms introduction and they asked when I would be available. I replied with my schedule and they kindly responded with additional questions on when, where, what to bring. The whole exchange lasted several weeks as I want to provide as much information as I can. In the end, we finally arranged a date of April 19th, an early Saturday evening at the NRA Range.

I forgot the first rule about scheduling get-togethers at any facility: Make sure the facility is operating on the schedule you think it is. So you can imagine my surprise at arriving before the scheduled time at the NRA Range in Fairfax, VA and see a "Range closed Saturday April 19 and Sunday April 20" sign on the range door.

Mild, surprised profanity emerges from my mouth at moments like this.

Now I have a problem and put down the heavy bags containing several firearms and ammo while I think. The one thing I really hate is having people take time out of their schedule to meet me and having to disappoint them. I have no idea how far they are coming and I'm going to feel really bad if I have to move this because of my stupidity in not calling ahead to make sure the bloody range is, you know, actually open.

Fortunately, I have an out: Blue Ridge Arsenal in nearby Chantilly. It's not my first choice for shooting (more costly, shorter firing distance, not as nice indoor range) but when it's your only option, you take it. I gave them a call and they had lanes open. Excellent! So I wait by my truck, hoping to stand out for when Zack and Elizabeth arrive. After about 15 minutes, I notice two folks carrying new earplugs and glasses and looking a little concerned. I called out and sure enough, it was them. After introducing myself, I apologize for the hassle and have them follow me over to Chantilly to Blue Ridge.

The one advantage of this is the easier waiver process. No range test required. This compensated for the extra time to drive over there and get signed in. Once we had everything taken care of, I gave them a brief safety lecture and we went on the range.

Probably the worst part for anyone is the waiting. I hope I was efficient enough at unpacking everything. After all, all they are seeing is me unlocking cases and removing one gun after another and then unlocking those. Then diving into pockets to retrieve magazines and get everything arranged. If nothing else, it should be entertaining to see all the things you'll get to shoot.

Having done a couple of these intros prior to this point, I seemed to have settled on a standard introductory set of firearms. Here is what I unpacked onto the lane:

• Heritage Single Six .22LR single action revolver
• Walther P22 .22LR semi-automatic pistol with 3.4 inch barrel
• Sig Sauer P220 .45ACP semi-automatic pistol
• Savage 93R17VS .17HMR bolt-action scoped rifle
• Eagle Arms/DPMS .22LR AR-15 A4 pattern semi-automatic rifle, iron sights
• Bushmaster .223/5.56mm AR-15 A2 pattern semi-automatic rifle, iron sights (this is a separate upper swapped onto the rifle above)

As you might note, with the exception of the .45, all of the firearms are smallbore, low-to-no recoil guns. I brought the .45 as a option for them to try out if they felt comfortable with the others.

I started with the Single Six. This is a gun that I don't shoot often but really should. It's a simple gun to load and shoot and is quite accurate. Plus, it has the appeal of being a "cowboy" gun. I think people like it because they can imagine themselves in a cowboy hat and spurs as they step up the line. At least, I hope they do. The idea is to have fun.

I showed them each how to load it (half-cocked with the door open) with six rounds, how to hold it, cock it to fire and actually pull the trigger. Once I walked through the steps, Elizabeth volunteered to go first and I handed her the gun. She quickly loaded it, we rolled a 12 inch target out and with a quick coaching at her request on how to grip it, she let loose with six shots. All hit the target.

Once done, I showed her how to unload it and she put it down with the comment, "That wasn't bad at all.". Then Zack stepped up, repeated the process, took aim and parked six rounds on target just as easily. I asked them, "What do you think?". Both nodded and thought it was cool. Both commented there was no kick. This is a good thing.

I asked them if they wanted to fire more with the Six or move on to the semi-auto P22. Naturally, we moved on to the little Walther. The green-and-black uber-tacticool pistol draws them in every time. In my opinion, a gun like the P22 is an essential gun to use in shooting introductions. The appearance and operation of this type of gun is the norm for what most people see in movies and TV. It's what they expect a gun to look like. It what they would expect to shoot. As a result, anyone with an interest should learn how to use one. To me, it's one of those essential life skills that Robert Heinlein felt everyone should acquire.

I picked up the three magazines for the P22 and handed them out. One to everyone. I then used my magazine to show them how to load them. Hands rustled through the ammo box and soon, 10 rounds were in each magazine. Elizabeth then stepped and I handed her the P22.

The main difference is in the loading process and showing her where the controls on. The key thing I emphasized is releasing the slide. The P22, especially, does not like having the slide eased forward. I walked her through it and after a few steps, she was ready to shoot. "Pop! Pop! Pop!" quickly followed. All on target well inside the 9 ring. Excellent for a first time. Once she had fired her ten rounds, I showed her how to drop the magazine and she placed the pistol on the table, muzzle downrange. Zack then stepped up, comfortably loaded the pistol and parked 10 rounds neatly in the center of the target. I asked him if he had ever fired a handgun before. "No." came his reply. Like Elizabeth, impressive shooting for a beginner.

By this point, both Elizabeth and Zack had mile-wide smiles. They were hooked. I think any fear they had about this experience had evaporated at this point and they were having fun. They were doing everything hands-on themselves (a rule I try to follow) and were doing things right. I asked them if they wanted to do it again and both enthusiastically agreed. Two more magazines and ten more shots apiece with only two minor "problems".

One was Elizabeth had a misfire. Not uncommon with .22s. Took the opportunity to explain what to do in a misfire and hold the pistol downrange. No issues in clearing it and continuing on.

The second both of them succumbed to. It's a common malady among new shooters and it happens when the adrenaline gets pumping. You're having so much fun that you forget that you don't have Hollywood InfiniClip(TM) technology and you pull the trigger when the slide is locked back. Both were surprised when the pistol didn't go "Bang!".

"Uh, the slide's locked open. You're empty." I told them both with a grin. I have not yet failed to see a new shooter yet not succumb to pulling the trigger on an empty gun. Proof positive that there is no fear in place at that point and fun is ruling the day.

After the P22, I issued the challenge: "Want to give the .45 a try?". This is the optional part about these intros. I explained the .45 kicks much harder and held up a .45ACP cartridge next to a .22LR for comparison to illustrate the difference between the two. I offered to fire it to show them how it sounded and locked. They agreed and I did so. Both decided to try it afterward, not seeing the big Sig as too overwhelming.

Like the P22, magazines were handed out and 8 rounds were loaded into each. Elizabeth stepped up and fired 8 into the target low and left. She stepped off the line with a comment, "That wasn't bad at all.". I agreed with a caveat that some folks find the .45 a bit much. Zack then stepped up and parked 8 nicely into the target as is he'd been shooting the .45 all along.

I can confidently conclude both are quite familiar and comfortable with handguns at this point.

On to the rifles.

I brought forward the delightful Savage 93R17, the accuracy queen of my arsenal. No one can shoot badly with this gun. After explaining how to use the bolt action and the fact it was a scoped rifle, we ran into the problem I have Blue Ridge in its lack of ability to shooting sitting supporting the rifle on a table with a front rest.

There are no chairs at Blue Ridge. So we improvised and decided to use the flip-down booth table as a support and shooting kneeling. Not ideal but it provides enough stability.

As usual, Elizabeth went first and here we found a real problem: She couldn't see anything through the scope. I noticed she was trying to use her left eye to look through the scope even though she was right handed. I asked her to step back and I ran her through a quick eye dominance test. Sure enough, she came up left eye dominant. She was cross-dominant.

I explained this to them and had her try to use the rifle left-handed. Instantly, she was able to see the target and after adjusting the support for her height (wound up using my pistol case), she was able to put five rounds in what looked like a 3 inch group at 25 yards. She liked the gun and made note of the fact that the target really shakes when looking through the scope.

Ah, learning opportunities! Please note, when I do these intros, it is about basic firearms handling and trying them out. It is not a formal course of instruction. As long as we are handling the guns safely, hitting the circles anywhere and having fun, that is all I care about. Beyond my instruction of "line up the dots" or "put the crosshairs on the center of the target", I am not spending a lot of time on proper shooting technique unless asked. Which Zack and Elizabeth did and I explained what to do when they did so. I am more interested in fun than technique. Technique comes later with me, another instructor or with their own guns on their own initiative.

But when the subject comes up, I'll make suggestions. In Elizabeth's case, I explained how to control breathing to reduce the shaking and shoot when the crosshair appears the most still. Both she and Zack were very receptive to this information through the session and I'm glad they asked and didn't find the answers boring or useless.

Zack stepped up and matched Elizabeth's performance with the .17. It really is an easy rifle to shoot and I did allow myself to brag a little about its capabilities. You can never go wrong with a .17HMR rifle in your cabinet and as a confidence builder for a new shooter. Personally, if I ever have the means to instruct formally on a regular basis, I would use them as my primary instructional smallbore rifle, cost be damned. The ten-fold increase in shooting cost is secondary to the results they leave on an uncertain new shooter in being able to hit a distant target and hit it well.

At this point, we are at the apex of the session. We arrive at the mighty AR-15.

Well, not-so-mighty. I explained the history of the AR-15 (being a civilian semi-auto version of the military M-16) and some of its features. I told them it fired a .223 caliber round that was only 3/1000ths of an inch larger than the .22s we had be shooting but it shot it farther and faster. At the end of that, I showed them the ARs best feature, its modularity by switch out the .223 upper for the DPMS .22LR upper.

The .22LR AR-15 was for familiarization to get them used to shooting the "Black Rifle" and using its sights. Both had an easy time with the gun and the only comment I got on it was from the lane next to ours when I overhead a fellow say, "Check out that .22 AR-15! There's the way to save money.". Being an outspoken gunny, I replied to him, "Yes it is but the cost of the upper alone is nearly that of an entire rifle! Savings is in the ammo, not the purchase price.".

We didn't spend much time on the .22LR, merely as a lead-in to the full-power AR-15. Zack and Elizabeth thought the loading the magazines from stripper clips was pretty neat. Definitely a time saver. With 10 rounds each, we returned to kneeling position and Elizabeth took to the line.

She was very metered and controlled with her shots. She did fine with 10 on target and Zack stepped in and shot his magazine at a metered pace but changed it up and did five standing and five kneeling. Both noted afterward that they were expecting a kick from the rifle that wasn't there. As most people learn, the AR-15's bark is worse than its bite. They liked the rifle greatly.

Then we moved on to the added guest. It turns out Zack owned a Ruger 10/22 that he wanted some help with. So I walked him through how it worked he and Elizabeth fired ten rounds from it as well. Elizabeth said she had the most problems with the 10/22 as she couldn't get the sights to line up correctly. Zack enjoyed shooting his rifle.

The comment afterward was amusing. They said shooting a .22 after the AR-15 made it seem like a toy.

Just wait until they fire high-powered rifles. The AR-15 will seem like a toy by comparison then. But that is another introduction. (A side note: I will bring whatever a new shooter expresses an interest in to these sessions. If they would like to try a battle rifle or high-powered surplus/bolt action rifle, I'm happy to bring one. Each person's comfort level and perceptions on recoil are different).

With the 10/22, Elizabeth and Zack decided they had had enough and were getting a headache from the stuffiness of the range. So with a reversal of the unpacking sequence minus roughly 100 rounds of ammunition, we gathered up the gear and went back into the cool environment of the main store front.

After washing up, we stood outside the range and I asked what they thought and answered their questions. They asked me about what was a good handgun for self-defense and I gave them my view on the matter. Short version: Find a gun that fits your hand well and you are comfortable shooting. What works for me won't necessarily work for you. If you're more comfortable and able to use a .22 over a 9mm or .45, do so. We can save the "best caliber" conversation for a later date.

On the walk out to and at the cars, we talked about guns in general, a little gun rights and what got me into blogging. I don't think either found it overwhelming and I think they came aware with a lot of useful information and positive experience overall.

I asked that Zack and Elizabeth send me their comments, if any, and if they do I will post them here for you to read.

With that, I add two more to the new shooters list and I wish them well in their future together and whatever they decide with regard to guns. I had a great time meeting them and showing them the ropes and hope they feel the same way.

Two gold stars!

While You Wait...

I'm getting a couple posts through the blog hopper, so while you wait...

Rustmeister has this fabulous post up on implants designed to deal with those who would impose their will upon us. I find this great and very well done. Your sense of humor may vary.

On the up-and-coming, I have a new shooter report almost finished! This blog thing does reach people and I am very pleased to have an impact no matter how small.

And I have a request from a kind reader for me to discuss my thoughts (rant?) on a subject he pointed out to me. That's a high compliment and I'll try to oblige him as best I can.

Plus the usual bunch of random stuff swirling around my head. We'll see which ones become posts and in what order.

Stay tuned!

Additions to the Blogroll

Added a few more folks to the blogroll...

Firearms and Freedom. Only fair since he referenced my Wal-Mart 10 Point Plan post.
The Right to Bear Arms. Another great gun blog.
Musings of The GeekWithA45. Kept forgetting him.
Legion's Fate. Another blogger who comments here.
Page Nine by Alan Korwin.

Pay them a visit and enjoy!

The Yellow Jackboot

In honor of Yuri, who provided the graphic.

My post on the 10 point plan that Reichs Wal-Mart agreed to with Chancellor Bloomberg has gotten some comments and links. Thanks for the coverage! I'm pleased it's useful to folks. Sometimes I get this blogging stuff right.

Firearms and Freedom and Joe Huffman both point out something about #2 on the 10 point plan that's been bugging me. Specifically, how Wal-Mart will build its list of customers who have had a firearm traced to them which they would then use to deny the customer their purchase. They nail the scenario about how they would do it.

As I pointed out, Tiahrt is an obstacle in the sense it prevents a law enforcement entity from sharing trace information to non-law enforcement. It says nothing about the entity that actually provides the trace data itself from utilizing it.

Essentially what happens is a gun is recovered and a trace is initiated by the police. The manufacturer's records shows it was delivered to Wal-Mart. The police goes to Wal-Mart and they produce the Form 4473 linked to the gun and hands over the information. The police walk away and do what police do with the trace information.

But now instead of going back to business as usual and slipping the Form 4473 back into their records, Wal-Mart is going to copy its information into their own private database and use that personal information later to deny that customer the right to purchase a specific legal product from their store in the future.

What are the legal ramifications of this? This is much worse that I thought. At a minimum, a gross violation of privacy.

Can Wal-Mart legally use the information as the result of a police investigation they provide for questionable purposes after the fact solely because it was requested?

Remember, a trace is not an indicator of criminal activity. The gun may have not been involved in a crime and is simply being traced as part of something more mundane. But Wal-Mart is reading their own intent, with the help of Mayor Bloomberg, into the purpose of the trace. And all because Mr. Bloomberg can't get the trace data himself to further his own authoritarian aims so he resorts to drawing others in by banging his sippy cup on his high chair.

This behavior on the part of a corporation is frightening and a lot of people don't see why. Because it deals with guns, this action of creating a "do not buy" list as a private entity is not seen as a problem. At a minimum, its ethics are questionable and if I ran a company where a manager or officer was considering something like this, I'd put an end to it in a hurry.

What if the purchase of other legal goods were stigmatized and the store decided to put purchasers of those products onto a watch list for later by using the purchase receipts as the source of the data? Items like white sheets. Knives? Linseed oil? Harry Potter books?

Is it right then?

Wouldn't you as a consumer be appalled at the idea of a private company denying you the right to purchase a product based on their perceptions on how it would be used or has been used by you in the past? Should they even be privy to that information?

Why not release the names of convicted arsonists to Wal-Mart so they can create a "do not buy" list for lighters and matches? Or condoms for sex offenders? Or latex gloves for suspected burglars?

I was being facecious with term "jackboot" as applied to Wal-Mart. I'm starting to think I was more accurate than not.

Understand, a private business is free to deny service to anyone they see fit. Bear in mind, if they get too obvious about who they are denying, they can easily find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Like denying purchases to protected classes of people (ethnicity, religious views, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc). Should that also apply to the exercise of purchasing a product that is explicitly named in the Constitution?

How far can it go? How far will we allow to go? I see the danger in the larger picture. The Government is prevented from violating our rights but can corporations act as their proxies instead to do so? If a business is selling a legal product, are they allowed to impose their own restrictions upon its sale above and beyond what the law demands? Especially given that firearms are the only consumer product that requires the permission of the FBI to sell in the first place.

I know if a business required you to sign a "knife usage and safety" waiver and made a call to the local Sheriff to see if you've ever been accused of a violent crime every time you went to buy a $12 set of steak knives, that business wouldn't be selling many steak knives before too long and would likely cease to exist due to customer outrage not too long afterwards.

But not here. People will see this as just fine. I don't. My original assessment was off. It's worse than I thought. The Government won't need to legislate our rights and freedoms away. They'll just enter into agreements with soulless, unethical corporations run by barren and empty men to do it for them.

Fuck Wal-Mart. Anyone who shops there deserves the imprint of the smiley faced heel of their jackboot on their neck.

22 Years Ago Today

Tam just reminded me of my omission for today. Too busy thinking about mailing out my taxes and sending another piece of my personal pie to the IRS and the State of Maryland.

It was 22 years ago today that some very pissed off 'Earth Pigs' arrived over an insignificant but foolishly dangerous and cowardly country in Africa and provided the adult response to the childhood game of drawing a line in the sand and double dog daring us to cross it.

France, of course, wet their Depends at the thought and demanded we fly around their country so as to not remind them that white handkerchiefs are not considered standard equipment by the armies of other nations. The white kepi of the French Foreign Legion excepted (surrender is not a word in their dictionary. See "Dien Bien Phu" and the actions of the Legion there.).

If you're at a bar or having a drink this evening, hoist a silent toast of thanks to Captain Fernado L. Ribas Dominicci and Captain Paul F. Lorence for making the ultimate sacrifice in demonstrating to the world the proper American response to international terrorism.

In the words of the great President Ronald Reagan, "We will not cave in.".

Comrade Wal-mart's 10 Point Plan

I caught this news on the way home last night and Sebastian has more here and here. Wal-mart has entered into a voluntary agreement with Mayor Bloomberg to "self police" their gun sales in the interests of stopping illegal gun crime. This is nothing short of a betrayal of their customers trust and their rights in many ways.

I don't shop at Wal-mart often but this guarantees that I will never set foot in one of their stores again.

When it broke and I heard about the 10 point plan, the first question that popped into my head is: "What are the 10 points of this ass raping Wal-mart just handed to gun owners and law abiding citizens?".

It took me a bit but I found it. Here is the 10 point plan that Bloomberg has gotten Wal-mart to agree to: (Source here and here.)

The 10 points of the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership are:

1. Videotaping the Point of Sale for All Firearms Transactions. Participating retailers will videotape the point-of-sale of all firearms transactions and maintain videos for 6 months to deter illegal purchases and monitor employees.

This one I don't have much a problem with given a lot of regular gun shops have cameras that record on the premises. It is the right of any retailer in any business to do this and we have no control over their retention. I wouldn't get too spun up on this one.

2. Computerized Crime Gun Trace Log and Alert System. Mayors Against Illegal Guns will develop a computerized system that participating retailers will implement over time to log crime gun traces relating to the retailer. Once the program is in place, if a customer who has a prior trace at that retailer attempts to purchase a firearm, the sale will be electronically flagged. The retailer would have discretion to proceed with the sale or stop the sale.

This one is the betrayal. This is a massive overreach on the part of Bloomberg and Wal-mart and it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. First and foremost is, "Where are they going to get the trace data from?". The BATFE doesn't release this information to non-law enforcement. Heard of the Tiahrt Amendment, Mr. Bloomberg? That's right, you have! You hate it.

This requirement might well be a good sound bite and feel good measure that cannot be done. The only way to do it is to overturn Tiahrt. Unless Bloomberg has decided to "help" Wal-mart out of local resources. This one needs to be watched very closely since it is also a violation of personal privacy. It is not Wal-mart's job to maintain a database on private citizens they feel is suspicious with regard to firearms.

Remember, a trace is not an indicator of criminal activity! Bloomberg and his anti-gun cronies tend to omit that part. The BATFE says so themselves. Guns are traced routinely and many come back clean as part of family members bringing them into police, police investigating a natural death of someone who owns guns and their guns are traced as a matter of routine. And on and on. Trace does not equal crime.

3. Purchaser Declaration. For sales flagged by the trace alert system, participating retailers will ask purchasers to fill out a declaration indicating that they meet the legal requirement to purchase the firearm.

With #2 above, Wal-mart maintaining a private database using illegally held data and notifying the customer that they have. What if you refuse to sign their declaration? That goes above and beyond Federal and State requirements for purchase? Can private gun retailers impose their own private restrictions on firearm sales? I'd say no and I'd say to do so is to invite a civil rights lawsuit.

4. Deterring Fake IDs. Participating retailers will only accept valid federal- or state-issued picture IDs as primary identification. Retailers will utilize additional ID checking mechanisms.

What mechanisms? As long as they aren't refusing ID permissible under Federal and State law (listed on the back of 4473), this is worthless.

5. Consistent Visible Signage Consistent Visible Signage. Participating retailers will post signage created by the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership to alert customers of their legal responsibilities at the point-of-sale.

Most retailers already post similar signage. Usually from the BATFE. Like "Don't lie for the other guy!". But posting the Bloomberg signs will let everyone know that you've gotten into bed with this authoritarian scumbag and his ideas of gun control.

6. Employee Background Checks Employee Background Checks. Participating retailers will conduct criminal background checks for all employees selling or handling firearms.

I thought most gun retailers already did this given that it is a crime for a prohibited person to even set foot inside a gun store? No objection here.

7. Employee Responsibility Training. Participating retailers will participate in an employee responsibility training program focused on deterring illegal purchasers. The Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership will create an online training system based on Wal-Mart’s training program.

Want to bet this program will include "training" on how to recognize suspicious people? Mostly useless. At best, it might help identify someone with their boyfriend/girlfriend buying a gun together and too many questions or coaching going on. In which case, Wal-mart would be justified in not selling to them. Which isn't odd since a lot of gun dealers already practice this as a matter of course.

Or perhaps this will be when Wal-mart introduces their low-cost, user friendly personal mind reading system for their employees to use? Must be since that is the only way to know the thoughts of someone making a purchase to determine illegal intent.

8. Inventory Checking. Participating retailers will conduct daily and quarterly audits. Guidelines will be based on Wal-Mart’s existing audit procedures.

Doesn't Federal law already cover this? Failure to maintain proper records as an FFL tends to result in a BATFE performed colonoscopy.

9. No Sales Without Background Check Results. Participating retailers would prohibit sales based on “default proceeds,” which are permitted by law when the background check has not returned a result within 3 days.

And here is the other violation of Federal law. The law specifically allows for a "default proceeds" to permit the sale to complete in the event NICS cannot provide an answer. This was done to ensure that the NICS process or the background check couldn't be abused by the Government by simply taking NICS down.

By doing this, Wal-mart is once again violating the rights of their customers. If Wal-mart waits the 72 hours, doesn't get an answer and releases the gun, they cannot be held liable for later criminal misuse. They followed the law.

Not anymore. Now they are making their own law. I hope they get sued by the first person this happens to. I've never heard of a "defaults proceeds" result occurring to anyone I know. Personally, that is the only one I'm missing from my collection of personal NICS responses. Maybe I should shop at Wal-mart and add the coveted "default proceeds" to my current proceed, delay and deny set. Not likely.

10. Securing Firearms. Participating retailers will maintain firearms kept in customer accessible areas in locked cases or locked to racks.

And this is different than any gun shop how? Doesn't bother me.

Participating retailers will phase in the provisions of Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership over time.

And there is Bloomberg's and Wal-mart's out. With the exception of #2 and #9, the bulk of this is already covered by existing practices and procedures and makes it sound like Bloomberg achieved some groundbreaking result here. He didn't.

But the gun control groups will be crowing about this as a victory by having the nation's biggest retailer brought into line for more "sensible", "common sense" gun control. Which this isn't. But it is one more thing for us to fight and debunk and the people that hear about this won't know the details. Which is exactly the way gun controllers like it.

I hope more people boycott Wal-mart and splash their selling out of their customer's for political gain far and wide. I hope they're proud of themselves.

Sometimes the jackboot does wear a smiley face.

Met Dick Heller

I just got home from the Nation's Gun Show in Chantilly, VA. As I was wandering, there was a table set up with political signs and a fellow wearing a shirt that said "Dick Heller 1, Washington DC 0".

I thought to myself, "He looks familiar..." before I jerked and realized it wasn't a guy in a Dick Heller shirt, it was Dick Heller himself in a Dick Heller shirt! I did a rapid 180 and went back.

He was at the table for Vern McKinley, who is campaigning for VA Congressional District 10. He introduced himself and I shook his hand with an emphatic "Thank you!". He talked a little about the DC gun ban, asked where I was from and I told him, "Maryland.". He replied, "I'm sorry.". I agreed with that, saying things were tough here.

To which he responded, "At least until June." with a grin.

It was a busy show so I didn't spend a lot of time talking to him. But he was very friendly and down to earth. He gave me a form to make a campaign contribution for Mr. McKinley, shook my hand again and wished me well.

Very nice fellow. It was worth the price of admission just to shake this man's hand.

Update: Originally reported that Vern McKinley was from VA District 30. He's in the 10th District. Fixed.

Old School Gun Control, Hollywood Style

Many folks have short memories. They read the stories of guns in the media and think that these are new things in our society, a sign of dangerous times or attitudes that didn't previously exist. Or that gun violence in the movies is a modern creation along with the attitudes that come with it.

A lot of Liberals feel that their views on guns are progressive, forward thinking and have no place in a civilized society. They see their views are new, you know, "progressive". Any views held in the past were regressive, short-sighted, limited, bigoted or flawed. Their goal is to advance civilization, to move our society out of the Dark Ages of the 50s and 60s. To bring forth the New America as it were.

Of course, one of these areas is gun control. They think that their attitudes towards guns are a recent thing. That they are harbingers of civilization and want to control and/or eliminate guns from our society as a barbaric relic of a violent, uncultivated past. That these ideas originated recently.

How wrong they are!

We often demonize Hollywood for their treatment of guns. Specifically, the lack of realism regarding them (think the patented InfiniClip(R) technology). Unlike the media, their errors are technical. A much easier nut to crack than the ignorance displayed by the media.

Sometimes, though, Hollywood does some good. I wish to use them to illustrate the delusions of progressive thinkers over this issue.

I call your attention to the movie "Death Wish". It may be familiar to some of you. The movie is about a man named Paul Kersey, a self-styled New York liberal who becomes a vigilante after the murder of his wife and rape of his daughter.

The movie is interesting because it provides a succinct view into the mind of progressives of the day by dealing with the issue of gun control. Or the "rural vs. urban" divide that often separates the two. There is a conversation in the movie between Paul Kersey and a man named Ames Jainchill, an Arizona land developer. Admittedly, the movie plays heavily on these stereotypes but the conversation between them is a nice summary of the gun control issue.

Here it is (it starts at 32:07 in from the beginning):

Ames Jainchill: Might amuse you though, being from New York maybe you never seen a club like this. It's a gun club. We shoot guns.

(Fade to entrance of gun club with Paul in tow)

Ames Jainchill: So god damn much hoopla up from the gun control people, half the nations' scared to even hold a gun. You know, like it was snake, it was gonna bite'cha or somethin. Hell, a gun, gun just a tool like a hammer or an axe. Wan't long ago used to put food on the table. Keep foxes out of the chicken coop. Rustlers off the range. Bandits out of the bank. Paul, how long since you held a pistol in your hand?

Paul Kersey: A long time.

Ames Jainchill: Hmm. Which war was yours? Korea?

Paul Kersey: Yea.

Ames Jainchill: See much action?

Paul Kersey: A little.

Ames Jainchill: Were ya infantry?

Paul Kersey: I was a C.O. in a medical unit.

Ames Jainchill: Commanding officer, huh?

Paul Kersey: Conscientious objector.

Ames Jainchill: Oh Christ! What a guest to bring to a gun club! You're probably one of them knee-jerk liberals thinks us gun boys shoot our guns because it's a extension of our penises.

Paul Kersey: I never thought about it that. But it could be true.

Ames Jainchill: Or maybe it is. But this is gun country. Can't even own a handgun in New York City. Out here I hardly know a man who doesn't own one. And I'll tell you something, unlike your city, we can walk our streets and through our parks at night and feel safe. Muggers operatin' out here they just plain get their asses blown off.

Sound familiar somehow? What you may find educational is this movie was released in 1974. I was two years old when it came out.

Same tired old arguments used by gun controllers. Same tired comparisons. Same tired stereotypes.

This gives you an idea of how long these types of arguments have been going on. Over thirty years and the same basic comparisons are still being made by gun controllers. Many still can't move away from penis references. And rights advocates constantly repeat the truth that a gun is a tool without will of its own.

The movie itself is rather dark and explores the notions of self-defense, police responsibility and crossing the line from personal protection to vigilantism. It is easy to both agree with and hate Paul Kersey for his actions in the movie. Defending oneself is one thing. Seeking out criminals or lying in wait for them passively to act as judge, jury and executioner is more complex.

The movie is something of a time capsule regarding these issues and a useful one. It goes to show, sometimes Hollywood gets it right. It serves as a useful illustration to so-called progressives that their notions are not new and original. That their arguments, and ours, have been repeated ad naseum back and forth for decades.

The only difference between then and now is we are gaining the upper hand. The 70s was when a lot of the restrictions against carrying personal arms really came into being across the country. The target back then was handguns, even then still seen as the source of crime in urban areas. Today, we have largely regained that right albeit with greater regulation than previously existed.

I thought you might find this interesting. The movie itself is ok and might be a worthwhile gift to a "it is the job of the police" urbanite as it does cover the notion of proper self-defense (woman defending herself with a hat pin). It isn't a black-and-white issue and this movie does a good job of exploring it from both sides and their extremes. There are some good quotes and conversations that are educational on the issues of civilization and responsibility.

If they can deal with old school, gritty, traditional issues rather than shiny, civilized and progressive ones that is.

Zombie Killing Music

Uncle asks what music you think would be appropriate to kill zombies to? Music that will inspire you to feats of courage or piss you off so badly that you want to kill all the undead you see just to make the music stop. He lists his three choices. Perhaps in hopes of starting a meme, here are my three zombie killing music choices:

Ich Will by Rammstein. Sorry, it's a personal favorite. Dark and violent.

Liquid Separation by Front Line Assembly. It's Canadian hardcore industrial and if you don't kill them, it might help screech the flesh from their bones.

Doctor Online by Zeromancer. I'm going to let the opening lyrics for this song speak for themselves:

It's the beginning of the end.
You want things to go faster.
It's the beginning of the end.
Now everything's too slow for you.
It's the beginning of the end.
You are one step closer.
It's the beginning of the end.
Say Amen.

1-800-SUICIDE
Or maybe Doctor Online could help you die
You need wings to fly
You need someone
To take your place
When you are gone

Along with apt phrases like:

"For death by self-inflicted gunshot, press 5".

I think it ought to be the infantry's zombie combat theme song. With a couple of appropriate changes I'm sure the artists would help out with assuming they haven't had their copyright released and are shambling towards us. In which case, they probably won't object.

It's the beginning of the end.
You don't want things to go faster.
It's the beginning of the end.
Now everything's too slow for you.
It's the beginning of the end.
They are one step closer.
It's the beginning of the end.
Say Amen.

I'm sure these choices weren't what you would expect.

Tagged

Ok, 'Bolt and CTone tagged me with this meme.

Here's the rules:

1. Write your own six word memoir.

2. Post it on your blog and include a visual illustration if you want.

3. Link to the person that tagged you in your post and to the original post if possible so we can track it as it travels across the blogosphere.

4. Tag at least five more blogs with links.

5. Leave a comment on the tagged blogs with an invitation to play....

Since others would like me to play, here you go...

He wondered, insignificant but gratefully awestruck.

If you're wondering, the photo above is sunrise on Mars at Gusev Crater. To quote the Apollo astronauts, "Magnificent desolation.".

As to tagging, I am going to take a middle-of-the-road approach. Some of the bloggers (like Kevin) I would have tagged but someone beat me to it. I'd rather not clutter up other blogs comments with those unrelated to the topic but here is who I would tag:

No Looking Backwards, West, By God, Fighting for Liberty, Law Dog and Sharp as a Marble. If these bloggers would like to play, they are welcome to do so.

The Gates to Hell Have Closed

We have once again stepped back from the precipice of the abyss here in the State of Maryland. For another year, we have once again remained free.

Yesterday was the last day of the 2008 Legislative session.

Strangely, I find myself surprised by the Legislature. Apparently they work like the winters do here and alternate between good years and bad years. They only brought a few anti-gun bills to the table and none of them passed. The big ones were the "Lost and Stolen Reporting" bill and the "Encoded Ammunition Tax". Both were opposed and died in committee.

The big surprise for me this year is they didn't try to bring another assault weapon ban. Given that SB.43 last year was the reason I started blogging, I had all my material ready and waiting for a battle that never came. I guess they trot that legislation only on alternate years. Or perhaps they got the message last year that such things do not fly at the State level since they are not passing anywhere else or at the national level. I expect it will probably return in 2009 or 2010.

The Lost and Stolen bill mirrors trends that have been rolling through various State legislatures this year. On the surface, so does the Encoded Ammunition Tax bill. However, what seems like a new threat out of the blue this year in other states like Pennsylvania is actually the third time it has been defeated in Maryland. It seems they roll it out every year here and try again.

On the downside, the one pro-gun bill was put in the drawer by Chairman Vallario so it wouldn't have to come to a vote that might, sigh, have actually allowed it to reach the House and perhaps passed. This was HB2, the bill that would have repealed the "good and substantial reason" language from Maryland's existing CCW law and effectively made Maryland a "Shall Issue" state.

The bill had over 200 supporters testify in favor of it. Not one person testified against it. Not one. The Brady Campaign, CeasefireMD (that's another story) or the VPC didn't even show up to fight it. But because Vallario hates guns and citizens actually being citizens instead of serfs, he exercised his power as Chairman and simply never brought the bill up for a vote. If the Chairman doesn't bring it up, it doesn't happen.

And you're telling me we live in a representative democracy?

Marylanders across the State, myself included, wrote anyone we could think of to try and get attention drawn to the fact a bill that had total public support and no opposition was stalled because of the personal prejudices of one man. This is flat-out wrong. Vallario didn't even have the integrity or courage to listen to the will of his constituents and do what he was elected to do: represent them.

If there is someone to be targeted by the citizens of Maryland for being voted out of office, he's it. As long as Joseph Vallario remains the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee here in Maryland, this State will never become CCW friendly. He's done this for years.

Just thinking about the HB2 situation angers me. You'd think a representative would place their constituent interests above their own petty prejudices. I still cling to such idealism but I recognize that reality is different. Still, it's nice to hope and dream. Sometimes it does happen.

Other than that, not much else happened here this year. We were kind of like tourists at the Grand Canyon this year. We took a look over the edge, saw the Abyss, said "Hmmm, that's nice." and wandered off with a shrug.

In Maryland, that is a victory of sorts.

Progress can only happen here over the long-term. Probably when either enough money leaves the State to better places because of horrible taxation and socialist policy or enough of the sheep start to clue in that the State cannot and will not protect them and begin to demand their rights back. We're fighting and but it is a long, slow slog in the mud.

It's depressing at times though.

However, overall for gun rights, the past session was good for us. Nothing new or onerous came down and our turnouts in support of pro-gun bills is steadily increasing. One of those reasons is the Maryland Shooters Forum. It has served as a valuable resource to keep shooters abreast of issues in this state. Many kudos to them as well as Maryland Shall Issue, Maryland Alert and others.

The Gates to Hell have closed for another year. We'll be ready for when they swing open again next year.

Bad News

I've been sitting on this news for a while but it is time to let it out. A few already know this behind the scenes.

I won't be attending the 2nd Amendment Blog Bash in Louisville, KY.

Because of the circumstances involving my dog Foster, I don't feel comfortable leaving him alone for several days while were still getting him regulated. This is hard on my fiancee and I feel better being around in case I am needed rather than 550 miles and several hours away.

Sometimes things happen we just can't anticipate.

It's unfortunate and I was looking forward to meeting many of the bloggers who are daily reads of mine. But there will be other opportunities. The GBR III in October is a likely possibility and I have a lot of time between now and then.

I've already cancelled the travel plans and gotten my money refunded since I don't expect the situation to change. I think you'll understand and I look forward to hearing about it from the rest of you who will be there.

Making 6th Graders Cry

Don't I just feel like an ass?

I assumed, incorrectly, that Sarah from yesterday's fisking was a college-aged (or at least high-school aged) student. Turns out we were off by several grades. It is the observed opinion that Sarah is in fact a 6th grade student.

Had I know that, I would have taken a different tack with my arguments. Not saying they were wrong but I probably would have framed them differently. I generally assume my audience is of the late high-school and beyond group.

I feel for her in the sense that she had adult rights supporters descend upon her. That had to be a shocking experience. But she is to be commended as well. I haven't seen journalists and adult professionals respond as well to such an onslaught as this girl has. In the comments on her blog, she comes across as calm and engaging. I think she has handled herself well.

I have posted the following as a follow-up comment on her blog:

Hello Sarah,

It was brought to my attention that you are a 6th grade student. You're probably shocked by what's happened here as a result of your paper.

As you've just seen, you've inadvertently wandered into a minefield. Gun control is one of those topics that will bring out strong reactions in people. It's a serious issue for a lot of people, myself included. In your case, your posting was picked up by a very widely read blog that deals with gun-related issues. This resulted in lots of people seeing your post. Many of us didn't realize you were so young.

I apologize if some of what I said if it came across as harsh. I honestly thought you were older than you are. Take that as a compliment. You're discussing fairly sophiscated topics (gay rights, gun control) for someone of your age. The fact that you are thinking about them is commendable.

But as you've learned, there is a downside to it. Your writing and arguments are actually comparable to those made by adults with similar feelings regarding guns. Often making the same conclusions or demands as well. That shows a lack of education on their part, not yours.

Topics like this can bring out the best and worst in people. It is easy to misinterpret things. People are very involved and passionate on this issue. And will defend it. As you get older, you'll be getting involved into issues like this and eventually cast votes for elected officials based on your views on them and the views they hold. Hopefully by then you'll realize why people are so involved and care so much about such things.

I would encourage you to take this experience as a positive one to learn from. You've managed to engage adults on this topic in a very level and mature fashion. We've seen adults respond far less properly and calmly with similar postings than you have here. Articles, I might point out, they were paid to write. Bravo!

It is my hope you'll take away some of the information you've been provided and examine it for yourself. Or at least the reaction you've received here will hopefully spark you into looking back on it and think "Am I making a reasonable, well-thought out and supported argument? I remember when all those gun people came to my blog...".

By learning to think critically, you'll learn how to stand on your own and make wise and thoughtful decisions on issues that might concern you. And more importantly, defend your position with facts and reason. Often the best way to learn is see what holes were shot in your argument the last time so you can do better next time.

You've done well. Rarely does a young student bring down dozens or hundreds of adults to engage her. A lot of professional writers can't achieve that or do it as well as you have.

Even if you never change your position or views on guns, you've still done well for yourself here.

Take care and good luck with your studies.

Hopefully she didn't feel too beat up. I'm willing to give a little slack to someone who is still developing critical thinking skills. If she can learn about the holes in her arguments and study this topic a little deeper, she'll achieve more than most paid journalists and politicians ever do. She's certainly handled herself better than Paul Helmke or Bryan Miller do with similar arguments.

I may disagree with her but I give her credit for the attempt. The fact that you managed to engage adults much older than you and do so with greater maturity than adults who make similar arguments makes me re-evaluate your grading. Your arguments and reasoning may be flawed but overall approach to the topic helps too.

For that, you've earned a passing grade. Keep writing and trying, Sarah!

D.C "Scaling Back" Their Voluntary Search Program (a.k.a. No Jackboots Up Your Ass Today)

It seems the Safe Homes door-to-door program to get people to "voluntarily" allow the Police to search their homes for illegal guns and drug in the District of Columbia has been scaled back. Just a little.

Instead of going door-to-door, asking for consent (read: abuse under color of authority) to search their home, the District decided instead that it will be by appointment only.

Color me shocked!

The Safe Homes program instead will be offered by appointment only at residents' request, said Chief Cathy L. Lanier.

I wouldn't expect many phone calls, Chief. In fact, I suspect the hotline you're using for this will develop a healthy accumulation of cobwebs and dust.

The program was supposed to begin last month but was delayed after a backlash from residents, D.C. Council members and the American Civil Liberties Union. The critics said some residents could feel pressured or intimidated by officers asking to enter their homes.

Backlash. Good word. Whenever the Post uses the term "backlash", it's a bit of understatement more akin to "if this program had gone forward, there would have been riots".

Lanier joined Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) last month in announcing the program and saying that police would begin work March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington. In hindsight, officials said, more details should have been worked out before the announcement was made.

Hindsight is wonderful. It lets you know after the fact how much of an ass you were being before. Oh no, the details had been worked out. The problem was, the citizens of the DC had other ideas regarding those details. I think Fenty and Lanier didn't expect the citizens of the District to actually develop spines. Given they both see the populace of DC as little more the sheep to be herded, I can at least understand their error in judgment. There is no excuse for it but I do understand it.

"I should have realized that the program needed to go out with a whole lot more information," Lanier said. "I should have put it out with very clear facts."

This woman does have a gift for understatement, doesn't she?

Chief Lanier, the facts were clear. You planned to send uniformed officers into poor and distressed neighborhoods and ask them to consent to police presence in their homes under the promise of amnesty for anything illegal discovered. And you expected that these folks would invite the officers in for tea and cookies because of the wonderful public rapport your department shares with the community.

In Southeast.

The facts were crystal clear. These neighborhoods weren't as clueless as you thought them to be.

The new start date is mid-June, which will give the department time to train officers to conduct the searches and gather more input from the community, Lanier said.

"We want it to be in full swing the entire summer," Lanier said.

Well, there's a waste of DC taxpayer dollars. The training for this ought to be real short. Along the lines of: "There's the phone for the consensual searches. Here's the pot for the department pool. If it rings with you watching it, you get the half the pot (after we restart your heart). The other half goes to the person who picked the date and century the phone would ring in.".

Want to bet those officers won't be getting a lot of overtime on this? I figure the money will be eventually donated to charity.

Safe Homes targets those who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. It asks residents to call police, set up appointments for officers to visit and sign a consent-to-search form. Officers then would check the homes for guns, with no risk of immediate arrests. The amnesty offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

Police plan to test guns recovered through the program to determine whether they can be linked to crimes. If so, police will launch investigations, which could lead to criminal charges.

This is the crux of it. The key words here are "no risk of immediate arrests".

Here's what the Post and police departments gloss over with regard to these notions of amnesty for crimes discovered as a result of consensual searches: the Police have no authority to grant amnesty.

That authority comes from District Attorney or their equivalent. That office is the one that decides the charges that will be levied against someone and whether or not to prosecute. The police can certainly provide guidance on what they think but the decision does not rest with them.

I want to see the official memo from the District Attorney stating flat-out that crimes X, Y and Z will be granted full amnesty.

But since they said "no immediate arrests", that really isn't amnesty, is it?

Want to bet that the District would have waived an illegal gun charge but still found something to charge someone in the household with? Possession and trafficking in narcotics are two different charges. As is possession of a machine gun versus possession of an unregistered firearm (in DC, a machine gun is defined as any firearm with a capacity greater than 12 rounds and is illegal for civilian possession. See DC Official Code 7-2501.01(10)).

If you voluntarily consent to a search of your home, then everything in your home is fair game. Everything. The police may not find any guns or drugs but if they see a bruise on a child who walked into a doorway, do you think that DCFS won't be called?

That's the difference between a warrant search and a voluntary one. A warrant must list the place to be searched and the things they are seeking. Anything outside that is not fair game. Volunteer and you have no protections at all.

Johnny Barnes, executive director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area, said he was encouraged by Lanier's changes. Still, he said, there are better ways to get guns off the streets -- such as the successful police-sponsored gun buyback program, in which residents bring guns to a designated place on a certain day and turn them in for money.

"Why do we have to put at risk our fundamental constitutional rights?" Barnes said of Safe Homes.

Want to bet the fundamental Constitution rights the ACLU spokesman is referring to here doesn't include the 2nd Amendment? Or maybe not. Maybe the ACLU locals as a result of Heller are developing a clue and perhaps preparing to adapt to the fact the 2nd might, gasp, be an individual right up there with their cherished 4th Amendment?

We'll know when it happens because the FAA will be issuing NOTAMs to pilots regarding the sudden risks to aircraft due to porcine aviation.

The ACLU is partnering with the community group ACORN and others to sponsor a "training session" to educate people about their rights. The session will be at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow at St. James Episcopal Church in Southeast Washington.

Participants plan to go into neighborhoods to pass out fliers that say, "Help people understand they can say NO." They also will pass out cards that residents can place in their windows that say, "NO CONSENT TO SEARCH OUR HOME. This home protected by the United States Constitution."

If you live in the affected areas in the District, I recommend you attend. I do not agree with the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment but any program that educates citizens on their true rights is a good thing in my book. The card in the window idea is a good one.

So is this.

A Safe Homes program similar to the District's was announced in Boston last week after several months of citizen resistance and delays. That department has yet to get a call to search a home.

"We're still waiting for the phone calls to come in," said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston police.

And I wouldn't expect any either.

Tools, the lot of them. Expect this program to die a quiet death in a departmental memo.

Making College Kids Cry

I couldn't resist. Uncle posted this. It's like throwing raw meat to lions, I swear. Here is my response to a clearly uneducated college student (I assume) on her little screed, which she actually submitted as a paper for grading, demanding more gun control.

Be thankful I'm not your instructor.

Here is my response:

Hello Sarah.

I hope your instructor doesn't read this. Otherwise, I think they might want to reconsider giving you a passing grade. I'm going to be polite but at the same time, this will be harsh. You have made a number of factual errors and your attempts at justification are disjointed and the figures you used have been thoroughly discredited.

Shall we begin?

It’s no mistake that buying a gun is easy- here in Virginia anyone over the age of 17 can purchase a rifle or shotgun and anyone over 18 can purchase a handgun, all without a permit or sate waiting period. The question at hand today is how easy is too easy?

I've lived and bought guns in Virginia. Before writing about the laws in Virginia, it might have done you well to have actually researched them. A call to any local gun shop could have saved you some embarrassment.

You are correct, anyone over 17 years of age can buy a rifle or shotgun. Nice use of 17 rather than say "18 and over". It implies that teenage minors in Virginia can buy guns. Very clever.

You're dead wrong on the handgun laws though. You must be 21 years of age or older to purchase a handgun in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is no State waiting period. There is, however, a "one handgun a month" law in Virginia that effectively acts as a waiting period on purchases of more than one handgun at a time.

Yes, no permit or license is required to purchase or possess a gun in Virginia. What I'll bet you didn't know is that if you have a State issue CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit), the "one handgun a month" rule is waived. That means with a valid Virginia carry permit, you can buy as many handguns as you want at a time.

I know. I've done it.

Continuing on...

One of the reasons these laws should be tightened is because it is fairly easy - too easy - for children to get a hold of firearms. Currently there are an estimated 223 million guns in American homes- 70 million of those are handguns. Of those handguns, 30% are stored loaded, 51% are stored unlocked, and 13% are stored both unlocked and loaded. One study found that as many as 80% of young children knew where the guns in their homes were kept. 75-80% of first- and second-graders knew where their parents’ guns were kept (these are 6, 7, and 8 year olds). 50% of all childhood unintentional shootings occur in their home from their parents’ guns and 40% occur in that of a friend.

Your estimates are low. The figure is closer to the 270-300 million range.

This is a nice use of figures that bear no connection to each other. A locked up but loaded gun cannot harm a child. A unlocked but unloaded gun can likewise do no serious harm (other than being used as a club). Only the 13% figure has any bearing.

I might note that in the State of Virginia (and many others), it is a crime to knowingly store a unsecured, loaded firearm where an unsupervised child may gain access to it.

The second half of your paragraph is unrelated to the first. So what if 80% of children know where their parents guns are kept? If they do, perhaps it shows that the parents are taking proper responsibility and educating their children on the proper use, safety and storage of firearms. Age is irrelevant here.

As to unintentional shootings, I reiterate that it is a crime is virtually all states to leave a firearm unsecured where an unsupervised child can gain access to it. Virginia is one of these states. Charge the parents for man slaughter and negligence.

The second reason is that gun control isn’t something recently thought up. Other countries, particularly countries such as Japan and New Zealand, have stricter gun control laws than the United States. According to the Center for Disease Control, the number of people in the United States killed by firearms is five times higher than that of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Singapore, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, and Taiwan. All of these countries have stricter gun control laws than the US. In Canada, gun-related violent crimes went down 8% in one year.

Gun control laws in other countries do not concern us. And if you are going to use them as an argument to engage in greater gun control here, you would be advised that there is more to fewer gun related crimes than simply gun control. There are cultural and causative factors that need to be taken into account.

I find it fascinating that you raised Israel and Switzerland as models of gun control. Are you aware that in Israel that it is common for people to walk around carrying fully automatic weapons? Did you know that teachers in Israel routinely carry concealed weapons into the classroom and have stopped terrorists from killing their students by using them?

Are you aware that in Switzerland, every home has a fully automatic assault rifle in it?

I would not hold either country out as "strict gun control" nations. They might have tighter rules and regulations in some areas but the prevalence of arms in those societies among the common population is much, much higher.

Another reason is that when they are in the home, guns are rarely used for self-defense. A firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to be used in the killing of a family member of friend than it is to defend oneself. Why? The sole purpose of a gun is TO KILL, which means the purpose is to shoot it, not whack someone over the head with it. In addition, if the gun is stored unloaded and in a locked container, like it should be, then why take the time to unlock the container and load the gun when you could be running away or calling the police? There are other options besides firearms.

You cite the discredited Kellerman study. You really should do more research about the sources and methods used to gather the statistics you cite.

No, miss, the purpose of a gun is not to kill. A gun is an inanimate object. It has no will. It can only be used for the purposes its wielder intends, nothing more. To make that assertion that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill is emotional hand waving and should not be the purview of a supposed objective scholarly research paper.

Your last sentence regarding retrieving a locked gun rather than doing the "proper" thing of running away or calling the police betrays simplistic thinking. What if you can't run away? For example, a rapist having entered your bedroom and is blocking the door? Sure you could dial the phone and call the police but how long will it take for them to arrive and apprehend the vile criminal before he can do you harm? It sure won't be the 10 or 20 seconds the rapist will need to approach you and get his hands upon you.

Google "national average police response time". You'll find that minimum times for police arrival on the scene across numerous cities is in the 6-8 minutes for priority calls. In less protected or areas with fewer police resources, the response times can fall to 20 minutes to never showing up at all.

Given that, what other options besides firearms do you propose that would be effective at protecting yourself when you are backed into a corner and the police sirens cannot yet be heard? Hurry up and reply because the criminal won't wait!

Our final reason is that the very few of both state and federal gun laws we have are loose ones- they have loopholes or they just aren’t enforced. Only 20 of the 22 federal gun laws are actively enforced, and only 2% of gun crimes ever make it to trial.

You are contradicting yourself. You are stating that few of our State and Federal law are loose. So how can they have loopholes since logically they would have to be tight or strict, the opposite of loose? And if someone is following the letter of the law, how is it a loophole? Laws that do not proscribe a specific activity are not lax or in possession of a loophole just because you disagree with that activity. Laws that are vague or unclear, subject to widely varying interpretation, are the problem. I know in the cases of laws involving firearms where folks claim there is a "loophole", the opposite is the case. The law has or is being followed precisely.

Laws are not required to list things that both allowed and not allowed at the same time.

Where did you acquire the "only 20 of the 22 Federal gun laws are actively enforced" value from? There are a lot more than 22 Federal gun laws out there. They number in the thousands and cover a myriad of topics. Can you provide a summary of these 22 laws? I'd like to see them because I do recall more than 22 the last time I read 18 USC 922 (the main body of Federal law that deals with firearms).

Lack of enforcement is something we can agree upon. Many folks such as myself agree the solution to many of our gun crimes is the enforcement of existing laws rather than make the demand that you do of passing more laws. Coupled with the notion of actually locking up violent gun-using (or any other instrument) criminals rather than let them back onto the street through a system of revolving door justice.

Most violent crimes are committed by the those who have committed previous violent crimes. And by law, these criminal are prohibited from owning guns under Federal and State law. It is a crime for them to possess a gun. Yet they seem to acquire and use them anyway. So maybe the problem isn't the laws; it's the criminal. On enforcement, we can agree.

Please provide citations for the level of gun prosecutions. I suspect you got that figure with regard to gun purchases and gun trafficking statistics. If so, then yes, less than 2% of all prohibited gun purchasers or felon-in-possession crimes are prosecuted. But that is not all gun crime. To read your paper, it would imply that gun toting murderers, muggers and rapists are not prosecuted. This is not the case. Nice cherry picking of statistics there.

223 million firearms and we have 200 child deaths a year. Our government spends 3.7 billion dollars a year on locking away the criminals who commit gun law crimes, money that could be spent on the educational system or alternative energy research. Letters should be written to the different people in our government explaining to them our viewpoint and why laws should be enacted that make it harder for someone to buy a firearm.

200 deaths out of 223 million firearms. Do you not see the statistical insignificance of that resulting value? Every death is certainly tragic but as a percentage of overall firearms ownership, this isn't even a blip. Swimming pools kill more children than firearms do in this country.

Are you actually arguing to spend LESS money on enforcement of gun laws than we currently do? Because that is what it sounds like here. But I see you then argue that we should lobby for tighter gun laws so we don't have to spend the money we otherwise would enforcing existing laws. I guess the idea is with more gun laws there would be less gun crime.

This is known as "magical thinking". If you pass more laws, they will need to be enforced. Name a single law that has prevented a crime from occurring. Note I say prevented.

By their nature, laws dictate activities that should not be engaged in and the punishment that will be levied should they be engaged in anyway. At no time does the mere stating of "thou shalt not kill" does that the result is no murder taking place. We have lots of laws against murder yet not one of them seems to prevent it from happening. All laws do is provide the framework of punishment for acts in society that we consider to be "uncivilized", nothing more.

So why should gun laws be tightened? Do you even know what the current gun laws are? Apparently not because you didn't even know the age limits on gun purchases in the State of Virginia. If you can get that simple fact wrong, it doesn't surprise me that you can compound your error. The age limits merely scratch the surface. I seriously doubt you have any idea what current laws are. You've probably simply read somewhere or been told anecdotally that it is "easy" to buy a gun and believed it.

Without corresponding proof. Without facts. Without any desire for yourself to learn the truth.

And you make the demand that gun laws need to be tightened? What hubris! At least I'm arguing from a position of knowledge. I know what the laws are. I've experienced them first-hand and researched them. You haven't. I don't accept you making demands for changes in the law from a position of ignorance. This is not how we should pass laws.

Stepping away from that, let me add some more thoughts (if I can). One thing I did not put in the paper was the fact that one study found that every single shooting in which a child 5 or under shot and killed themselves or others could have been prevented by a trigger lock. Also, most children 3 and older have the strength to pull the trigger on most handguns. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT. No, not saying our children should be weak…but why does someone have a gun where their 3 year old can get it? Seriously. Just think, people.

Did you think?

No, shootings cannot be prevented with a trigger lock. Trigger locks can still allow a gun to fire. Care for a real-world demonstration? I'll be happy to show you how a gun can be made to shoot with the trigger lock firmly affixed. In a safe environment with an unloaded gun, of course.

You may not think, you may not hear but you will see.

The solution isn't trigger locks; it's education. By teaching a child properly with regard to gun safety, the trigger lock is not a requirement.

As to toddler strength, big deal? An average handgun trigger requires around 5-8 pounds of pressure to activate. Well within the realm of a self-mobile child. No, there is nothing wrong with that. It is simple engineering.

Yes, there is something wrong with a 3 year old gaining access to a firearm. But I've already covered this.

My final thoughts: Nice emotional screed that uses selective statistics taken out of context, illogical, disjointed progression of thought between topics and backed by discredited studies. I sure hope you didn't submit this for a grade because if I was your instructor, you would fail utterly.

F.

How To Deal With "The Most Disgusting Creature Known to Man"

The picture alone is worth it. They have a toad problem down in Australia and you want to know what they are recommending?

Kill them.

But, because we want to be humane and civilized, the only method of humane killing the authorities are recommending is freezing them. That way, they'll go quietly to sleep and not suffer any pain.

They say freezing to death is one of the better ways to die. When you feel warm, wave bye-bye. Except for the freezing and shivering part leading up to it. It can take a while. But that's not the funniest part...

...they want to make it a special day of toadicide so the kids can get in on the action!

From the article:

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said it backs the plan by Queensland state lawmaker Shane Knuth to launch "Toad Day Out," but only if the creatures are killed in a humane way, such as euthanizing them in a freezer.

"Obviously we're not idiots. We understand a lot people will be highly reluctant to fill their fridges and freezers with dying cane toads, but at the moment that is the only humane way that we can recommend," said Michael Beatty, the society's spokesman.

Look at that image again and picture these toads stacked in your kitchen freezer or filling a chest freezer to the brim? Have these folks even considered the aftermath when you have to take these frozen, stiff toad corpses that are staring back at you with lifeless eyes out for disposal with your children? Might be "Toad Day Out" but it will become "Toad Horror Night In". Days or weeks worth of nightmares, I dare say.

Sigh. This is what happens when you neuter a population and convince them firearms are bad. Long, drawn-out freezing death for pests when a .22LR or .17HMR to the head would be much faster, cleaner, humane and easier to deal with. Give toad blindfold (no cigarette, that's not PC). Pop! Grab toad body by the legs and bury in the prepared mass toad grave.

Got to love watching civilized people squirm and dance around an unpleasant and necessary fact of life. God help us if they start recommending this practice here for deer!

Put a Scarlet F-ing A On Me

"Fuck" doesn't quite cut it...





You thought you had it bad (or good), Robb? Holy fucking shit!

I never claimed I ran a family friendly blog but honestly, who would have thought a occasional curse to emphasize a particularly stupid or microencephalic world view would result in me being confined to the potty mouth ghetto?

C'est la vie. I'll just have to work on being a better fecal slinging asshole.

April 2nd

Missed the flight. What can I say? Metro DC folks know what traffic on the Dulles Toll Road can be like.

No, I didn't join the Foreign Legion. Not the April Fool's post I had planned but I decided to go with what I know. Thanks for the compliments in the comments, by the way. I did try to make sure everything in the post was accurate and it was right down to the Air France flight. There really was an Air France AF027 out of Dulles at 10:15pm to Charles de Gaulle International. If one was really joining the Legion, this would be a likely flight to take.

If anyone actually went to Dulles last night, my humble apologies. And if you did, damn I was good!

We shall now return to our regular programming.

Until next year...

Final Greetings

While I'm getting my last few affairs in order before I fly out tonight, I'd like to set out greetings to various folks who have stopped by from the following organizations:

IBM
Boeing
Northrop-Grumman
NRC
The US Navy
NMCI at Norfolk
NMCI at Quantico
The Pentagon
Lippincott-Williams-Wilkins
The US Federal Judiciary (Hi guys!)
NASA

I'm sure there are others but these came to me courtesy of Uncle. A special thanks to him for sending traffic my way on my latest uberpost. It's a wonderful send off and his links have been great for helping me reach a wider audience. Hopefully my sordid past as a minor blogger won't result in a Euro size 42 boot up my backside as a hazing ritual with my fellow enlistees.

New Beginning

I've hit bottom. I can't do this anymore. My bags are packed and I'm ready to go.

I'm booked on Air France flight AF027 out of Dulles at 10:15pm this evening. Anyone who wants to come out and say their farewells are welcome to do so. I'll be the auburn headed guy wearing my trademark RCAF blue t-shirt. Should be easy to pick out the Canadian amongst the crowd.

That should put me in Paris tomorrow morning. I plan to take several days, take in the sights and work on exercising my rusty French. You may not know this but I've been spending the past several months relearning French, a language I gave the finger to the moment I was able to in Grade 10. I'm going to need it now.

I plan to visit the Champs Elysees, the Eiffel Tower and travel the countryside. Two places I want to see before I die are the Normandy coast and the Douaumont Ossuary at Verdun. I want to see them before I make my final stop at Fort de Nogent outside Paris.

I'm turning over a new leaf and I will do so by handing the fellow outside a note or perhaps speak to him if my French is good enough, the following phrase:

"je veux rejoindre la légion étrangère française"

I've decided to join the French Foreign Legion.

I figure if I'm going to fight and die for a country, it might as well be France. It is, after all, much closer to me culturally than the USA is. I've never really felt totally at home here and frankly, if you're going to join the military, you might as well join the best.

Yes, folks, the French Foreign Legion is one of the world's elite fighting units. They are not the Regular Army. You see, white hankerchefs are not part of the standard kit issued to a Legionnaire.

This is my last chance to serve and might as well make the best of it. Too old for the Marines but trust me, a Legion recruit after six weeks can walk the hardest Marine drill instructor into the ground. 30 kilometers in mountain terrain with a full pack is normal after the first month of Legion basic. I don't even think regular Marines get anywhere close to this and certainly not in Boot. Pussies.

I want to wear the kepi blanc with pride and not be waving it in surrender at the first sign of a child with a slingshot. I want to do something that matters. Where a foreigner like myself will be welcome. I want to start over and actually fight. I think combat is the ultimate calling a man can seek. There is nothing more noble than placing oneself between home and war's desolation. And when you have no home, the Legion is your home. Your family, your brotherhood. War becomes your companion, your dark friend that must be sated from time to time.

I've been quietly planning this for months. I figure with my background I stand a good chance. At worst, they run me out with my tail between my legs and I'll wind up drinking espresso in some streetside cafe in Paris, lamenting my lot in life with my horrible French accent.

I've researched the Legion a lot over the years as my friend's will attest. I know what I'm getting myself into. I think it is the best place for me. A kepi and a FAMAS I think are a better deal than a dingo and a cubicle. My fiancee understands and I don't expect her to wait for me. Sometimes our dreams need to be lived before it is too late.

I won't be able to blog for a while since I won't have computer access for the first few months. I've made arrangements with a buddy of mine to update the blog as I write him from training. But it will be several weeks before I'm able to write so don't be alarmed at the silence.

Wish me luck. I'll need it.