Combat the Cost of Shooting

In my last post, I discussed how the cost of ammunition is influencing my shooting options. So today I would like present one of my solutions to this problem.

I attended the Nation's Gun Show in Chantilly, VA this past weekend. I went with the specific intent of bringing a new addition home. I was not disappointed. Since this seems to be a time for like-minded things, here is my newest addition to the collection:


I'm not as lucky as Kevin since I cannot order from the CMP. I meet all of their other requirements except for US citizenship. But despite this, I think I managed just fine.

My newest addition is an Inland M1 Carbine mounted in a reproduction paratrooper stock. It was made in early 1944. The bolt shows the most wear minus most of its bluing but the rest of the gun is in great condition. Bore is shiny and rifling looks sharp.

I choose the M1 Carbine for mainly practical reasons. The two big ones being compactness and cost to feed.

As I mentioned in my previous post, shooting costs are getting high. The most common caliber I shoot is .223 and that is getting pricey. Especially at retail prices. Prices on it have literally doubled in the past two years. I can remember $98 for 500 rounds in 2006.

The cheapest centerfire rifle caliber to shoot is 7.62x39mm. But I have only one gun chambered in that caliber and I've got some minor repair work to do to it to fix a couple of issues with it. The only gun I ever regret selling is my WASR-10. I didn't like it from a shooting perspective but one should never part with a gun unless they have to. I didn't have to.

So I found myself looking at the ammo tables at the last gun show running mental calculations in my head along the lines of "What can I find in the price range up to $600 that will be cheaper to shoot than an AR-15?".

I was noticing that .30 Carbine was pretty inexpensive at $15-$17 a box for 50. Hmm, not too bad. 30-34 cents per round. So I began looking at M1 Carbines scattered around the show found several examples in the $400-$550 range. I'm starting to like what I see. So when I got home, I began to do research.

As much fun as the AR-15 pattern rifles are, they can get large and loud. Despite my attempts, my fiancee has refused to shoot any of them. Their bark is worse than their bite but to listen to an AR-15 being fired, you'd be convinced it was a small cannon. Especially indoors. Thus she feels it would kick hard and hurt her. Best I've been able to do is the .22LR upper.

As a result, I'm thinking a smaller rifle that looks more traditional and less threatening might get my fiancee behind the trigger. We'll see. Guns, regardless of shape, don't move her in any way but the smaller it is, the more likely it is she wil shoot it.

The M1 Carbine fits that bill. If there was ever a TEOTWAKI scenario, I think I might be able to hand her the M1 Carbine and a .22 pistol and she'd take them. I'd be humping the heavy firepower.

Plus, the M1 Carbine is a beautiful gun. I think we've lost something in our modern age of lightweight, soldier-proof battle rifles. Modern rifles are mean-looking, lightweight, reliable, accurate, easy to maintain without tools, easy to clean (save for the M4/M16/AR) and so on. The sacrifice of wood for plastic and reducing the action workings to the minimum needed is meant to achieve those goals and build for strength. Aesthetics are secondary.

John Garand did the world a favor. The operating mechanism of the M1 Garand is complex by our current standards. It is fine engineering. It requires special skills to assemble an M1 action. Soldiers didn't take apart their M1s. It's heavy. But, god, it is mechanically beautiful! Parts slide and shift and move magically together in choreographed precision. Rotate, rise, slide and fall. All at once. It was meant to solve the practical problem of building a reliable semi-automatic action for a high-powered round that could function under combat conditions. So it was overengineered, needed a lot of parts but it works perfectly.

So when the US Army needed a small carbine for self-defense and support use, the design that ultimately won used a scaled-down M1 Garand action. There are many differences between the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine but they both share basic Garand's action design. It helped sell the Carbine to the Army.

They went and built six million of them. The M1 Carbine is one of the most heavily produced combat firearms in history. And with the exception of its stock, it pointed the way for future combat arms because it was semi-automatic*, lightweight at 5.2 pounds and magazine-fed. For the time, it is any wonder that combat troops loved this weapon?

And for us, the M1 family represents one of the very few cases where civilians can acquire true, unmodified military weapons that are not bolt-action in operation and own them without restriction and as the soldiers would have carried them.

If you buy a USGI M1 carbine, you know that weapon was carried by someone in combat. You may not know where it served or who carried it, but you can be certain it was in the fight somewhere.

I like surplus rifles. So when I decided I wanted an M1 Carbine, it was only an issue of which one and how much.

It's funny how things work out. When I walked into the show, I went looking for the guy that was selling the M1 Carbines I was drooling over. But I couldn't find the vendor. I foolishly assumed he would be in the same location as the previous shows. Many regular vendors get the same spots every time at a show to attract business. I know who's new at the show by looking at who is where. I assumed the vendor would be in roughly the same place.

I wanted this vendor because he had an IBM M1 Carbine for $700. Given my profession, that would be a cool addition to the collection. But I couldn't find him. Figuring he had skipped the show, I began to power-wander to find M1s and compare prices.

Ever been in a situation where you just look down and suddenly you feel it? That instant connection between gun and shooter that says "You're mine!". That's what happened here. The dealer I got my M1 from had two. An Underwood in a cracked stock and an Inland in an reproduction paratrooper stock. Both at excellent prices. So when the dealer asked me if he could help me, my response was simply, "I'll take it!".

After getting the whole "Will you sell to a Marylander?" crap out of the way, I filled out the paperwork and told the dealer I'd be back in an hour while it cleared. I always get delayed so it was a good time to go shopping for goodies! I did.

3 30 round magazines, 6 15 round magazines, 3 magazine pouches, bayonet, 2 bandolier repack kits, a regular stock and all the hardware to fit it, sling, one technical manual, one owner's manual and a reproduction USGI carrying case later, I returned to pick up my rifle. The irony: For the first time in my life, I was approved without delay. Figures.

Then I bought 550 rounds of ammunition and left a happy man. The following day, I found the vendor that had the M1 Carbines. Turns out he was two tables over from the vendor I had bought mine from. So he lost an M1 Carbine sale but he had some nice restored Springfield M1 Garands. Hmm, wedding present?

I think this is going to be a nice little shooter. The small size of the rifle makes it easy to grab for a range session and it is easy to prep magazines and stripper clips in a hurry. And if it doesn't have a kick or a loud bark, I think it would be really cool to see my fiancee bring it to her shoulder and fire off a magazine. My only fear is, if she does, she might decide to make the rifle "hers". She's already claimed my P22 so it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

I hope you like it. I'll have a range report as soon as I get it out.

* The original design specifications asked for full-auto capability but it was dropped because of control and ammo consumption issues during testing. The belief that a full-auto weapon was better in battle than a semi-auto was commonly held at the time. Practical reality made it clear that it wasn't an advantage and the Army, in a rare bout of wisdom, allowed the full-auto requirement to be removed. The Army then forgot that lesson and was force to relearn with the M14 and again with the M16.

The Price of Shooting

As I hinted at last week, this past weekend was the big gun show in Chantilly, VA. I was looking forward to this one since I was hoarding my pennies for what is likely the last booger hook exercise system purchase until I buy myself a wedding present next year.

You shall not be disappointed. I have indeed added a new member to the arsenal. Shortly, I will reveal that new member in an exclusive, not-to-be-missed special report right here on this blog! Watch this space, it's coming soon (as in after this post).

One of the reasons for the new acquisition is the issue we as shooters are all dealing with: the cost of shooting.

Let's face it: ammo is just getting plain fucking expensive. Even in bulk, 1000 rounds of .223 for an AR-15 is now adding up to a sizeable percentage of the cost of the weapon itself. If you're not a shooter, you may not realize 1000 rounds is not a lot of ammunition. The media has conditioned you to believe that this is a staggering amount, worthy of a spree killer or some insane social misfit bent on revolution but it really isn't. A person who enjoys casual target shooting can easily expend 200 rounds in a single session. It doesn't take much to reduce the size of that pile quickly.

Within a couple months, it's gone and gone fast. Believe or not, it's cheaper to rent a gun at a local range than it is to shoot it. Purchasing the ammunition (which is not included with the rental) costs more than the rental fee for the gun itself.

This situation is a big problem in keeping the shooting sports alive. I've spoken to quite a few potential new shooters on their first purchases and the number one deterrent to acquiring anything is the cost of feeding the gun itself. Only .22 caliber guns are considered reasonable but almost everyone looking to get a gun wants something other than a .22. But the moment they look at it and see the ammo cost being 20-30 percent of the cost of the gun itself for a starting amount, it's no longer an easy sell.

And it's only getting worse.

Don't bother talking about reloading to reduce the cost. If you want to make shooting even less attractive as a hobby to new shooters than it already is now, tell them the only way they can do it is to have to load their own cartridges out of the gate with their first gun. That will guarantee you won't be seeing a new shooter to the sport. I'm a shooter deep in gun nut territory and I don't yet reload. Reloading is a further barrier to entry. We don't need more of those.

Suffice it to say, I have been doing more stockpiling than shooting. With the cost of ammo so high, I don't want to dent too deeply into my reserves lest I have to replenish them with ever more expensive replacements I will be less likely to want to expend in a bout of range frippery. And since I do want to shoot rather than stare at an acquisition, cost of feeding comes into play.

For me, the starting amount of ammo for any new addition is 250 rounds. Enough so I can sight in and zero and leave a little left over for another trip or two. This is by no means an acceptable amount. As far as I am concerned, 250 rounds is starvation rations for a gun. I consider 500 rounds to be a realistic minimum on hand. That at least gets me through the zero period and numerous range trips, exhausting the pile into survival territory just as the next gun show comes to town to permit me to resupply.

Heaven forbid the gun show never returns. If it does, that gun is screwed.

Even if you only shoot 50 rounds in a session, you can easily run through 500 rounds in six months of semi-regular trips to the range. Chewing through 50 rounds with a pistol is child's play. 100 rounds is realistic in an hour of shooting. We'll use that as a reasonable assumption of consumption.

Present costs of commercial .223/5.56mm is running around $198 for a case of 500 rounds. That's around 40 cents a round. That lasts five trips to the range. And if you're emptying a 20 round magazine, it's costing you $8 per magazine to fire that weapon. If you suffer from even a fleeting case of triggeritis, you'll spend that $8 in around 20 seconds. That's $24 per minute or $1440 per hour.

As you can see, this can be an expensive hobby if done with any degree of regularity. We won't even discuss competitive shooting. Those hypothetical hourly figures can become very real indeed.

40 cents per round of .223 is the bulk price. If you've visited gun shops lately, you'll notice the per-box retail cost is higher. For a 20 round box of .223, the cost is running anywhere from $12-14. That 60-70 cents per round.

At those costs, .223 is almost as expensive as .308 and not much cheaper than 6.8SPC to shoot. It is definitely starting to climb out of the range of the occasional shooter to use and makes the acquisition of an otherwise desired "black rifle" less likely. Who would want to pay $400 per year to shoot an $850 AR-15 casually? As the costs increase, the pool of likely candidates willing to do so decrease.

For those of us who already own such guns, we are becoming more reluctant to take them out on a week-by-week basis. Until the past year, the only other hobby that would allow you to throw dollar bills away with such reckless abandon, other than a raging crack habit, is boating. I've been there and done that too.

So the ARs have been staying in the cabinet as of late. I'm not shooting .308 because I've been stockpiling that for the FAL. I have my CETME but I'd prefer to save the mil-spec 7.62 if I can. The 6.5mm is right out; that's a special occassion rifle.

So that leaves me with few options.

Handgunners aren't suffering quite as badly as riflemen. But not by much. The saving grace for handgun shooters is their ammo is priced per 50 rather than per 20. So the cost per round even at retail box prices is in the range of rifle ammo bought in bulk. Say 25-35 cents per round for common handgun calibers. Unpleasant but doable. Handgun ammo prices are now where rifle ammo prices where a year ago. 25 cents per round for .223 is a pleasant memory now.

If you want to shoot centerfire rifle on a budget, you have tough choices to make. The cost of ammo has become a consideration. Back in the days of inexpensive ammo, I lusted for a 6.8SPC upper for my AR-15. I like the round, its capabilities and its accuracy. But that was when I could get 6.8SPC for 75 cents a round. Those days are mostly gone and its tougher to find now. I've put those plans on hold.

So what does the budding rifleman do when they want to shoot something other than .22LR on a budget?

You look at what is the cheapest ammo out there and find a way to get a gun you like in that caliber. The irony is, if you own an AR-15 platform, the cheapest centerfire option out there requires you to commit a sacrilege.

I am giving serious consideration to building not a 6.8SPC upper but one chambered in 7.62x39mm. That's right. I want to chamber my American red-white-and-blue homeland defense rifle in a Communist caliber. And all because of pure Capitalism.

Marx and Lenin have to be spinning in their graves and laughing their asses off at the same time.

You see, 7.62x39mm is cheapest bang-for-the-buck when it comes to rifle ammunition. Prices on it have not taken off like .223/5.56mm has. If you're looking to simply shoot for fun, a 7.62x39 rifle is the way to go right now if you want something semi-automatic. It's still reasonably cheap to buy an SKS or an AK clone which is why I recommend either to a potential new shooter with a bent towards modern rifles. I suspect out of the right length barrel, it will perform better at range than it does out of the AK pattern guns. I was thinking along the lines of a 18-20 inch heavy barrel, free-floated with iron sights. I'd say it would offer better self-defense capabilities at minute-of-looter ranges than .223 and allow you to retain familiar operation of the gun.

I suspect purist heads are exploding right now and the mouths elsewhere are frothing.

It is something to consider if ammo prices keep going the way they're going. My next post will illustrate the other solution I have pursued in an attempt to make my shooting casual and fun again without having my wallet scream everytime or have me weeping as I pull stripper clips out of the ammo can saying "$10, $20, $30...".

Isn't out of sight ammo prices one of the signs of the apocalypse?

For the Love of Cotton

Foster got fixed as a puppy by my fiancee when he decided the Comcast install technician's leg was just what he was looking for in a romantic partner. He was at the vet shortly thereafter. As the great George Carlin said, "We had him altered". Fixed is inappropriate because he wasn't broken in the first place. We took him to the vet to break him. Foster has been absent his special friends ever since.

Hasn't done a damn thing to affect his love life.

Foster has two bitches. His main bitch is exotic and of mixed origin. She has lots of color. But she is his first and who he generally turns to when he's feeling amorous. But he has another bitch. She is more plain in appearance but roomier and more cuddly, a comforting type. For a long time, his bitches were kept apart. His first love in our room, his mistress in the other and would visit them so the other wouldn't see what was going on. Recently, they've been moved back together. I guess Foster has figured they aren't jealous of each other and because Foster finds his bitches are kinky, sometimes dallies with both at the same time. They like a menage-a-trois.

Here is Foster with his bitches:


We all have our passions in life. Foster has a deep love of natural fabrics.

If you think a dog is better than kids because the dog can't embarrass you as badly, think again. The only thing worse than having your dog go for your friend's leg upon introduction is Foster grabbing his bitch and start going to town within five minutes of meeting my parents fresh in from Canada.

Makes for a fabulous icebreaker. Certainly relieves the tension. Maybe not for us but Fossie was having no problems enjoying the day.

Foreplay is important in blanket love. Foster sidles up next to her, nuzzling alongside her. It's gentle and sweet. He's telling her he's in the mood. That's it, foreplay's over! He's ready. He then grabs her by the back of the scruff in his mouth, turns himself around to ball her up and reaches around her with his front paws, to bring her up from behind and, voila, he's off!

She likes it ruff. After he's had his fifteen seconds on and off for a few minutes, he'll shake her head violently or slap her around a little just so she knows who's in charge. We're surprised she hasn't taken out a restraining order against Foster but, sigh, she loves him.

She's also pretty open-minded since often, he'll have relations with her and his other bitch. When he's in the mood for two at the same time, he'll drag one on top of the other and then force them together with a twist. He's making a superbitch. In his younger days, he had others who were a little loose in the threads and would have three or even four all at the same time and make a mega-superbitch or an ultra-mega-superbitch.

Regardless of the number of bitches, they'll busy themselves for an hour or so until Foster is spent. He has that glow about him. That glow of a supremely satisfied dingo. If they're pleased by his performance, we never know. We can simply assume that he's good at what he does because they never complain and collapse in a heap.

All this passion has a downside. For Foster, he is very protective of his main bitch. No one can touch her. When we move her, he works to stop us. He's telling us, "She's mine! You can't have her!". When we want to keep him out of our hair for a day, we use his passion against him...

We wash his bitch.

It's cruel. He'll lie in front of the washing machine and dryer the entire time and look pathetic. We've separated him from the love of his life and who knows how long it will last? Everything to a dog is either now or it takes forever. After she's been washed and dried and is so fluffy and clean, he has to do something about it.

He'll have his way with her for an entire afternoon. From his perspective, she was off cheating on him so he has to make her "his" again. We're bad parents for doing that to him.

We aren't supposed to laugh at him either while he's in the middle of the act. It's tough not to. The tail straight in the air, his sculpted haunches hammering away. It lets him stay toned if nothing else. But according to our vet, if we laugh at him we're emasculating him.

Huh? I thought we had already done that? Can only take them once. Doesn't matter, it's a dominance thing. We're weakening him in the eyes of his bitches. Apparently threatening his alpha dog status among his harem is bad form.

The fact that our vet even tells us this indicates to me that Foster's polyamorous interests are not uncommon. Anyone else have a dog or a cat with a "special friend"? Such as the dog and the duck in the movie "Click"? We laugh at those scenes because we live it on a regular basis.

After a busy weekend, I think it's time we fired up the washing machine.

Citizenship Roulette

Here's a topic I bet you don't hear much about.

As many commenters have pointed out, one of the things I do bring to this medium is a rather unique perspective to what it means to be American because I wasn't born one. I'm certainly not the only blogger in this boat (Kim du Toit, Emperor Misha, Oleg Volk, to name a few) but one of the few you don't hear about. I'm not from across the pond but rather from right across the street. To paraphrase the only Michael Moore movie actually worth anything, Canadian Bacon, "We walk among you.". I'm going to save the "Looking in the Mirror" post for a later day because I do think you might find those perspectives interesting.

I'm a US Permanent Resident as you know. Permanent residents have most of the same rights and due process protections as a US citizen. But we can't vote and we are held to a higher standard of behavior than your average citizen. Things that get a citizen a slap on the wrist and probation can get a permanent resident deported depending on the mood of the USCIS that day. Dead serious on that. A misdemeanor drug offense is a one-way ticket out of the country. Permanently.

Permanent residency is precisely that. I can maintain this state for the rest of my life. As long as I avoid the USCIS equivalent of the "31 one ways to crash land" and renew my Green Card on ten year intervals, I can live here, work here, pay taxes and play the part of American in everything except name and at the ballot box as much as I want.

Some American citizens disagree with this. They feel if you want to stay here, you should be forced to become a citizen or leave. I disagree. If you remain on a Green Card your whole life, you're paying the same taxes, contributing your productivity and spending your money in the same economy as them. No different than anyone else but with the bonus that you don't get a say in how things are run and you must remain on the straight-and-narrow for all time. People who do this, regardless of anything else, you will always know are not criminals and never will be.

The only way to change that set of rules is to become a citizen.

Every Fourth of July, the news always highlights people swearing in and becoming American citizens. They reached their dreams, the epitome of their lives in some cases. Someone escaping from a third-world shithole and spending 15 years to become an American with two children, a home and prosperity is always something to be admired. And rightly so. They set out with that end result as their goal.

For a lot of people, it doesn't happen that way. American citizenship just becomes the next logical thing to do and the motivations for it do range from simple convenience to developing a pure love of the United States and its values.

I never planned to pursue citizenship. And my motivations have crossed the very spectrum I just described for the simple fact I wanted to remain a Canadian.

To an American that almost sounds like treason. Why on Earth wouldn't you want to be an American? Aren't you proud of that?!? This is where, as USCitizen pointed out to me, that unique perspective of mine comes into play.

Born and raised in Canada, you develop a different view of Americans. A common Canadian view is Americans are arrogant and poke their noses into too many affairs that are none of their concern. Especially in international politics. As a result, Americans often get a varied reception when they travel in other countries. Dirty looks, cold shoulders, haughty customs agents or outright hostility. I am sure there are many of you who could relate such experiences. To you, it is "What have I done?" and wonder what it you did. To Canadians, it wasn't what you did but what you are.

You never hear about Canadians being bothered traveling internationally. Especially in Europe. And the reason was, at least when I was growing up, is people from other countries like Canadians because all we do is help people. All you ever hear about Canada doing is sending peacekeepers. That's it. We don't poke our noses in other countries affairs. You never hear about Canadians sending battlegroups or demanding an embargo. Just silence and you hear about a few Canadian peacekeepers in Cyprus. So Canadians can easily understand why American travelers get kidnapped, assaulted or treated like crap. They've brought it on themselves by being part of a country that doesn't see it shouldn't be sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

Don't believe me? Just ask any Canadian in Canada what they think about America's involvement in the Iraq war. You'll get an earful.

What did this have to do with US citizenship? Perspective.

Where you are from shapes your views. Walking among you, unless I tell you where I am from, you'll never know. I could be from Michigan or Minnesota for all you know and if I told you that, you'd believe me. But when you understand where I came from, you realize I don't see your country and culture through your glasses. I see it through the ones I was raised with and I don't share in a common set of experiences.

Education, news reporting, politics, state's rights, Federalism, health care and so on are all things I see differently than you do. Because I was raised with different starting points on them. How can I understand applying and getting into a US college and taking an SAT when no such thing exists in Canada? I had to learn.

To an American never exposed to Canadian culture from within, I might as well be from Mars.

So when I arrived here in 1997, I suffered culture shock. Enough things were familiar like driving on the same side of the road, same language, both use dollars and cents, enough similar ways of doing things (e.g. DMVs are the same on both sides of the border in terms of service and attitude) that I was able to get by. The things I noticed were subtle. Unless I pointed them out and provided counterexamples, you'd never see as being an issue or worthy of discussion.

But I adapted. Daily life here isn't much different but you always felt slightly out-of-phase. Like something wasn't quite right. Like most foreigners, I was looking for things to be the way they were back home. It's normal. We all do it. But over time, the ways things are here became my normal. In daily life, I was an American. I adapted myself to the culture. I knew had done so when I stopped using British style spelling in my day-to-day work (i.e. colour, favour, neighbourhood, centre vs. center and so on) and began using American spelling and idioms. Managers kept complaining about the spelling errors in my documentation and I was getting tired of trying to explain that they weren't. Or asking for a "soda" instead of a "pop" at a restaurant to avoid getting funny looks or asked "What's a pop?". It took years.

After I had been here for around five years, inevitably discussions turned towards long-term plans. I was not yet a permanent resident (that was a couple years in the future) and still on a visa that would eventually run out. Did I want to return to Canada or did I want to stay? In the end, I decided I wanted to stay but the Canadian in me was strong. I still saw myself as being from what I felt to be a better country overall and didn't want to give that up. I'd rather be a Canadian living in America than be an American. Especially when traveling.

Don't be offended. I'm from a different culture. It doesn't agree with yours on many things. I'll try to explain that later on.

So I pursued permanent residency as the next logical step and never planned to go beyond that. My attitude at the time was I might want to go home and leave my options open. With "home" being Canada and "home" here being simply the place I was living at the time. Yes, I see the double standard in that thinking. But that's what I wanted at the time and wanted to make it so I could do it if I felt it necessary. It's pretty easy to abandon permanent residency. Just live for six months and a day outside the US on non-US income and that'll pretty much do it. Given the difficulty what it actually takes to get permanent residency, only a fool would abandon it so readily unless they never intended to return.

The thought of American citizenship wasn't even a factor. And it was because I had believed what I had been raised on about America and getting bits and pieces of American culture through television. It was the notion that when you became an American you had to give up your citizenship from where you where from.

So the Canadian in me said, "Fuck that!". Why would I be that stupid and give up the greatness that is Canadian citizenship? And so that was my state of affairs until I learned that my learned propaganda was a lie.

I learned I could hold dual citizenship. I could retain my glorious, wonderful, perfect Canadian citizenship and have the convenience of being an American too.

Are you looking for heavy objects to throw and preparing to blacklist me for all time now? Good.

Most Americans don't realize you can hold dual citizenship. Remember that affront many Americans feel that I mentioned at the start of this post? This is why. It is the idea that American citizenship is a mere convenience, something you wrap yourself opportunistically but with the option of holding another citizenship so you could cast off being American when it became too much trouble rather than something to be treasured and honored.

Oh trust me, I understand exactly why Americans get pissed off at the notion of dual citizenship.

What you may not know is that belief is wrong. Most people don't become or retain dual citizenship because they can. It's because all too often, they can't being anything but dual citizens.

Many native born Americans take the Oath of Allegiance seriously. Especially the part about renouncing your previous allegiances and loyalties to your previous citizenship. You're taking an oath! They expect you to take it seriously and honor all its provisions.

Except many naturalized citizens can't.

Dual citizenship isn't something meant to offend Americans or devalue American citizenship. It is, in fact, the reality of having to work in a imperfect world. The State Department has had a policy regarding dual citizenship since the 1960s. It isn't so much policy as unspoken agreement because of those realities.

You see, many people who become American citizens are from countries that have no framework within their systems of government or legal justice to permit them to renounce their former citizenship. These people literally cannot hold to the spirit of the Oath because there are two countries involved here, not just the United States. Many countries operate on a policy that if you are a citizen of that country, you're a citizen of that country for life regardless of what you say or do. You can take the Oath and become an American but they won't care. You were a citizen when you left, you'll be a citizen when you come back and a citizen until the day you die and beyond.

As a result, you personally might mean and take the Oath literally, renouncing your former citizenship in your heart but your former country doesn't care. You'll always be one of them.

This created problems within the State Department for naturalized Americans returning to their countries of origin. Because these Americans were also something else and often, that something else superseded being American despite the views of the State Department. Even if the people in question announced to the sky they were American, passport and citizenship papers in hand, it didn't matter. On their old home soil, they were what they were before they left and nothing could change that.

As a result, there was no way for these naturalized Americans to uphold the Oath in practicality. Damn, real-life countries were getting in the way of what it meant to be an American. So the State Department and US policy towards these situations adapted. It had to. It's actually not uncommon.

So they decided that, long before Bill Clinton made it fashionable, that renouncing your prior allegiances didn't really mean that when you took the Oath. It just sort-of meant it. Legal and case history back this up as well as the fact that the Oath has no requirement that forces its taker to make an effort to renounce. The State Department allows a naturalized citizen to retain their prior sovereignty provided they do so quietly. Yes, it goes against the Oath but as long as you don't embarrass America with it or draw undue attention to the fact of your duality, you'll be left alone.

When I learned this, I rejoiced. You see, Canada is one of the countries that the State Department permits dual citizenship with. This meant I could have my cake and eat it too. I immediately saw the benefits of this. The ability to live here in full measure but always having the option of escaping. If things got too bad here, which I thought at the time, my Canadian citizenship would permit me to take me and my family away to greener pastures. Given this was around the time of 9/11, this was not an insignificant consideration.

I'm sure many of you could see the advantages in such an arrangement.

That "escape hatch" provision was what put me over the edge and put me on the path to deciding to pursue American citizenship. My mother was happy. Because she didn't like the idea of me giving up being a Canadian. I should be proud of where I am from and who I was. Having to give that up to be an American seemed like a step backwards and bringing dishonor on my family.

Dual citizenship is interesting and it creates some fascinating complications. The basic concept of being a dual-citizen in America is this: "On American soil, you're an American". A dual citizen cannot under any circumstances claim their other citizenship for purposes of avoiding things or complicating justice while somewhere under American jurisdiction. That means if I get arrested for a capital crime here, as a dual-citizen I can't go running to the Canadian Embassy to get consular help and avoid the death penalty. My other citizenship has no meaning since I am an American first.

No one would argue with that. Attempt to claim that other citizenship and you enter the territory I mentioned regarding the State Department and attracting undue attention to the fact you're a dual citizen in America. Essentially, if you act in a manner that indicates you really didn't mean to take seriously the other aspects of the Oath besides the renouncing part, the State Department will work to strip you of your American citizenship. Short version: Don't act American and you won't be one. It's incredibly rare but it is possible for a dual-citizen to lose their American citizenship.

An example would be me trying to avoid conscription by claiming I was a Canadian and essentially ignore my responsibility and duty as an American citizen. I likely wouldn't be conscripted. But I wouldn't be an American anymore either and would probably find myself with my suitcases standing at a Canadian border crossing with a note saying "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!", taped to my chest.

Where this gets really fun is leaving American borders. Then you have to make a choice and then you're living something out of a spy novel. You see, as a dual-citizen, you get to choose what citizenship you want to travel on.

For practical matters, this doesn't matter. Most of the time in leaving the USA, you'll leave as an American on an American passport. But you don't have to (but really should). You can travel in your other persona. But it's real bad form to leave as a Canadian and come back as an American. That creates problems. That's the spy novel part. I understand that international customs officials really get curious if they find out you're carrying two passports and are using them interchangeably.

Then imagine trying to explain to a US Customs officials you're an American citizen with a Canadian passport in your hand and American citizenship papers tucked inside it. Don't be surprised if you wind up in a small room for a few hours having an extended conversation with a senior customs officer as to why such behavior is not considered funny.

Dual citizenship most often reveals itself when you aren't here but back home in your home country. This is when the other half of the deal kicks in. As a dual citizen, when you are in the country of your original citizenship, the USA considers you a citizen of that country usually regardless of whether you or not you used an American passport to enter.

This means when I go to Canada as a dual citizen and hand them an American passport, the moment I set foot across the border it really doesn't matter. Since I never relinquished my Canadian citizenship, I am a Canadian again for all intents and purposes. If I am arrested in Canada, I can't go calling on the US Embassy for help. You have to be aware of where you are and realize your citizenship shifts depending on what border you crossed. I might have called myself an American to anyone who asks but I'm really not. I become one again when I come back.

I understand why dual citizenship offends Americans. To them, it diminishes what it means to be an American and reduces American citizenship to a flag of convenience outside of American borders. And the fact that you can rightly be perceived as not wholly committing to the United States and its values and ideals.

But understand for some people, they will be dual citizens because they have no choice. But it is a dual citizenship on paper. Many dual citizens have no intention of really ever exercising their old nationality again.

When I learned all this, I liked it. As I mentioned, it is that "escape hatch" provision that appealed to me. That I really wasn't giving up being a Canadian and that I could still "go home". And for years have proceeded steadily forward with that plan and attitude in mind.

Something changed in that process.

I came to a realization that I'm not Canadian anymore. Oh sure in a birth and national origin sense and in my original set of values and views I arrived in the USA with. But over a decade in the USA, I came to understand that when I was going "home" to visit my parents and friends I felt like a foreigner in a familiar place. I knew my way around, spoke the language but I was finding that now Canada felt out-of-phase. I had lost touch with day-to-day local nuances and customs. Patterns of speech no longer seemed familiar. Even though "aboot" and "eh" re-entered my vocabulary when I was home (it's like geese, it imprints on your psyche at a young age), I was feeling awkward. I felt like a visitor.

I was.

For years after I moved here, my parents would agitate me to tell them when I was "coming home". It was felt my adventure to live in the USA was temporary and for those years, I agreed with them. I saw it as temporary too. I was on a temporary visa in a temporary life. As the visa ran down, economic necessity was one of the reasons I pursued permanent residency. I had too many responsibilities here. It isn't easy to pick up an established life and move it to another country. It's one thing when you're 24 and the detritus of your life can packed into a small U-haul trailer. It's something else entirely when you're married, takes up half-a-semi trailer and you're 7000 pounds overweight because you're a bookworm.

After a few years, the question of "When are you coming home?" stopped. A truce had been made but with the unspoken expectation that this state of affairs of me living here in the USA was not a permanent affair. Someday, I would come home.

It was in this past year that I came to the understanding that I was "home". I've changed too much, "Americanized" as it were. Things that an American citizen is born and imprinted with are things I've had to learn. I've had to let these ideas and concepts of what it means to be an American, the foundations of why and what America is, percolate through my mind and become part of me. And then I had to accept them as my own by questioning the values and ideas I had been raised with and brought with me. I had that moment of clarity where I suddenly recognized I was more American than Canadian. I've been here so long, been immersed in the culture and made those concepts part of me that I was no longer thinking of terms of someday going back to Canada but thinking of where here in the USA I would retire.

In May 2008, I told my best friend in Canada (whom had asked casually over the year when I was coming back) that I wouldn't be coming back. I had "Americanized" too much and that going back in the future would cause more problems. I would never be able to accept Canadian gun control having gotten used to owning an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine (AR-15s are restricted in Canada and high capacity magazines are forbidden), or be able to accept a society where rights aren't Constitutionally protected. Where you have no 4th Amendment protections the way we do here. Or where I can be charged with assault for defending myself from a criminal breaking into my home. Or paying an exorbitant tax rate of 45-54 percent. Or having to deal with socialized medicine again.

So the whole rationale for getting US citizenship fell apart. I discovered I was no longer thinking in terms of being a Canadian living in America and being an American citizen while here. I was simply seeing the day I would become an American without hyphenation or qualification. No "escape hatch", no dual personality, no seeing myself as special and having something unique to stand out from other Americans around me.

Today, I'm starting to give thought to formal renunciation upon my naturalization in a couple years. Some of you may agree with it. I don't know if I will ever reach and cross that threshold because that's true bridge burning. But I've realized when I go back to Canada after I become a US citizen, it will be with an American passport in my hand. The thrill of being a Canadian returning home is gone. I'm not going home anymore; I'm leaving it behind.

I don't ever have to give up my Canadian citizenship. The worst that would happen in that case is it atrophies on the vine. In many ways it already has. It's actually a burden now. I don't like this feeling of being an almost-citizen because I still have to deal with all the hassles of being Canadian too. Like driving 550 miles to get a new passport because the Canadian passport office is overwhelmed and our embassy here isn't equipped to help. I'm not liking to have to go to a special line anymore and be singled out as a "non-citizen" when I enter the USA. I want to be made whole and today, that involves only one citizenship, not two.

But even if I never renounce and hold dual citizenship, it will be mostly symbolic. My only concession to my dual nature is the idea of after I'm gone to have half my ashes taken back to Canada to be with my family there and the other half remain here at home with my family here.

I think that's an acceptable use of dual citizenship.

Superdog

Foster sleeps like this. In perfect form, his back paws are going one way and his front paws are stuck straight into the air. Maybe he imagines himself some kind of SuperDingo?

Dogs, got to love them.

Crossroads

I'm at a bit of a crossroads here.

I started this blog with the intent to educate and communicate regarding guns and gun rights. In this, I believe I have done an adequate job. Certainly not as good as many of the others I link to here but I think I've done some good.

The downside is that I am, in fact, surrounded by such excellent people. Whenever I manage to find some inspiring or interesting to say, others always manage to do a better job than I think I ever could.

Part of blogging is ego. You want to feel important, that people care about what you are saying and hang with rapt attention at every word. I think it is the first phase of blogging. Most blogs never make it out of that phase and go inactive. Because they realize that it becomes work and no one wants to work for free or do it if there is no reward. Even of the narcissistic variety.

To get here, you reach the second phase which I think Uncle puts it perfectly: "I do this to entertain me, not you.". You can't persist in this with any degree of regularity for 18 months or more unless that is your first mantra.

This is my outlet. As Breda says: "To be perfectly honest, I started this blog as a kind of time capsule. I wanted to have something to look back on, to remind myself of who I was in this period of my life.". So it is with me.

I do this so I have a memory of what I was thinking or saying or doing that day. When I manage to do something I think others would enjoy (e.g gun porn), that's a bonus.

Lately, I'm having a hard time finding stuff interesting to say. Hence the dearth of gun related posts lately. There is only so much you can say about guns and gun rights that others have said before and better than you. I try to limit myself to specific areas such as commenting on local issues in order to remain unique or interesting. But even that goes only so far.

I'm also a little upset. Some anonymous commenter called me a right wing nut in an old post. It isn't the "right wing" comment that bothers me. Anyone I think who has a brain who actually takes time to read posts here will quickly figure out that I am not right-wing in the classical American sense. I self-identify as a libertarian (small "l") and every "What philosophy/political stripe are you?" quiz I have ever taken for years has consistently placed me there. Degrees vary from moderate to conservative but any two-bit left-wing agenda extremist who think Man is the cause of all our troubles (read: global, er climate change, warming) immediately ignore all my other views and comments and decide I am merely another right-wing tool.

A fact that upsets me because by and large I support their rights and freedoms far more vigorously than they will ever support mine. Hell, I defend their right to say things that would deprive me of my freedom! That is not a right-wing behavior. Nor is it left-wing. Most normal, average people do not sit in a nice box with all their values and beliefs neatly arranged where people think they should be.

It is the stereotyping, the failure to understand an alternate view of the world that we have actually more in common than not, that upsets me. How on earth can you refer to me as a "right wing nut" (guns aside since there I am a true conservative) when I am agnostic, but support freedom of religion, don't really get bothered about references to such provided you are not shoving it down my throat and frankly support more "progressive" viewpoints than I do conservative ones?

You know nothing about me and I guess that is the point of this whole post. I want to do something to be seen as a normal, average person, not some gun-nut extremist. My passions may not intersect with yours but I find it difficult to believe someone with left-leaning beliefs can't have things in common with someone whom they perceive to be a knuckle-dragging, redneck who doesn't care about anyone else.

Maybe that's the problem. I'm looking for some form of acceptance in the wrong places.

So I guess that's why I'm branching out. Talking about story ideas, software, other things that I do. I don't go home at night and stroke the smooth finish of my guns and dream about the next time we'll be together on the range in a passionate hold. Oh, wait...

So my question is, is this going to help or hinder? This same anonymous poster cried about wanting to find gun knowledge and instead found my "right wing drivel". I'd be thrilled to answer questions from anyone! If you want to know the history of a given gun or how some gun works, or how it was used, by all means, ASK! As I alluded to in a previous post, I am an information sponge. Give me a reason to go digging and you'll get more information than you can ever imagine. I think my previous novellas on various gun topics have made that abundantly clear.

Is there an interest in my views and philosophy on things like online gaming (why World of Warcraft sucks, for example), unusual gaming interests, software engineering, read snippets from any fiction I happen to be working on, musings on my philosophy both personal and acquired (aka "Views on Life" posts) in the grand tradition of Kevin Baker (whom I strive to model myself after)?

For the most part I am a boring individual. The things that actually drive me and make me "me" have little to do with guns or games or ideas but rather the passion I hold for things. For the people I care about and the things I see right and wrong in the world. But I think these things can make for interesting tales in and of themselves. I have a small following that seems to like what I say and how I go about saying it.

I do this for fun, for myself and for you. How can I make it better or more interesting?

What say you?

Safely Home!

I'm back and in one piece. Some highlights from my five days in the Gulf of Mexico:

The dog had better accommodations than most four-star hotels. Complete with a personal webcam so we could watch him over the 'Net whenever we wanted for the low price of 37 cents a minute via shipboard satellite. Don't discount this feature for neurotic doggie parents leaving him in the care of another for the first time as a diabetic. This feature was a godsend. We will be talking to the kennel about the screwups. The one thing you must do with a diabetic animal is maintain a strict routine. Mistakes kill.

If you're a kid raised on Tonka, a shipping port can provide hours of fascination. Only such a person can find enjoyment in watching gantry cranes load a container ship. I'm easy to entertain. By the way, a longshoreman gantry crane operator even at a small port like Port Everglades makes more than I do as a senior software engineer. I'm in the wrong line of work.

Stingrays are cool. Yes, we did get the "Steve Irwin" briefing prior to jumping in the water to be surrounded by them and touch them.

Personal submersibles are even more cool. Not for the claustrophobic. I watched a muscular 250 pound man absolutely freak upon descent and head for the surface. I admit to a minor momentary panic attack halfway through the dive before I told myself to settle down but otherwise thoroughly enjoyed myself. I prefer regulators but the scooters are big fun.

I can get seasick in calm seas even using a TransDerm Scop patch. How pathetic is that? And I like being on and in the water so it's a double curse.

I am never flying out of or into Reagan National Airport again. I have never seen the National Mall from that angle before and hope to never do so again. Can someone tell me in the era of post-9/11 flight the rationale for having jets come in over the Mall before making a very hard left hard turn onto final when the whole point of changing approach routes into that airport specifically was to prevent an airliner from being a threat to important government buildings below?

I was able to see the granite seams on the Capitol Dome, got a real up-close-and-personal view of the top of the Washington Monument and I'm sure had I been on the right side of the aircraft, able to reach out and touch the West Lawn of the White House. Hey DHS, you're doing it wrong! All it would have taken would be a suicidal pilot and pressure on the rudder pedal. By the way, this was on a weekday so let your imagination flow on the possibilities of that.

On a related note, being in a Boeing 737 in a crosswind landing at Port Everglades is not a way to calm my heartrate. Plane is yawing and all I'm thinking "US Air 427, United 585". Have you seen THAT approach? There's a sign on I-95 labeled "Low Flying Aircraft". They aren't kidding! I wonder how many people have wet themselves driving through there not knowing about the airport beside them and seen landing gear go by their windshield? As a plane watcher, that's a cool section of road. Only the park next to Dallas Love Field on the north side can match that.

Getting caught up. Gun show is in five days. Getting ready for that!

Off on Vacation

This is for my two, maybe three, loyal readers.

I am off on vacation for the next week. I may find an opportunity to post from the cruise ship. I may not. So don't worry about the sudden silence for the next 6 days. I will be back next Friday.

To those who are interested in my story idea: Thank you! I am really enjoying your comments and ideas. Think of it as a collaborative effort in a sense. I may write a little bit of the story on my netbook (an Asus 4G 701) while I am away. If you have ideas, refinements, comments, criticisms or just want to toss me your views, feel free to comment away in the two posts on it or send me an e-mail. I'll work on responding.

I've actually been kicking around four or five different novel ideas in this universe of mine. Some of it is very dark. No happy endings. Maybe you'd like that too.

Natter away among yourselves and I'll check in. Until then, don't worry! I'm off to swim with the stingrays and dive on some reefs.

When I get back, the usual. And a new gun post after July 25th!

Stay tuned and thanks for reading!

The ABC's of Me

Following the lead of others and giving Breda a little linky love. Breda, after all, deserves to have her top spot on the Goggle search results. Breda is a great addition to any blogroll and a good daily read since she is a woman with a gun. What man wouldn't enjoy reading about Breda's experiences?

Hopefully that helps, Breda.

Now for the ABC's of Me (courtesy of Bolt, Breda and Squeaky):

Accent: Is that a rhetorical question? I'm Canadian! I am told I have a Canadian accent but I don't buy it. But if I had an accent, it is said I come from the northern USA. Canadians apparently sound like they're from Michigan, eh.

Breakfast or No Breakfast: No breakfast. And I'm not a coffee drinker either.

Chore I Don't Care For: Any. People aren't supposed to like chores. My goal in life is to achieve the ability to have others (not my fiancee) do them for me. And anything she asks me to do, I do willingly and happily.

Dog or Cat: Both. But I am dog person now. Australian Cattle Dog, I have no more energy for anything else that is capable of independent locomotion outside of an enclosure.

Essential Electronics: The two AMD64 dual-core computers and the three LCD displays that occupy my desk. Sorry, I'm a computing horsepower junkie.

Favorite Cologne: Bulgari Black Water.

Gold or Silver: Gold. And platinum. And titanium.

Handbag I Carry Most Often: It's such a hard choice and co-ordination with my outfit and mood is critical! Men will never understand women and purses. I don't. But to each their own. But I do carry a backpack daily. Currently, a "No Fluff, Just Stuff" backpack I got at a software development conference. Roomy and rugged.

Insomnia: Not lately. If my mind is racing about something or if I know I have to up early without fail the following day, I won't fall asleep until 2am and wake up ever hour or so.

Job Title: Senior Software Analyst.

Kids: One. Red and white. Four paws. Murfs a lot. Attempts to herd household members. Ornery and stubborn. Wait, you meant human! None at the present time.

Living Arrangements: In the basement with my fiancee in her Mom's house. We split the bills equally. I don't need a lot of space.

Most Admirable Trait: The obsessive-compulsive ability to devour knowledge and information on a subject I become interested in. I don't dabble; I hurl myself bodily into anything I want to try. Even if I back off later, I never regret having acquired the knowledge. It is a trait that serves me well in my chosen profession. You see it here. Three years ago I knew nothing about guns other than their basic concepts. See what happened?

Naughtiest Childhood Behavior: Any lying to my mother.

Overnight Hospital Stays: Only one and I'd care to forget it. Bad pneumonia as a child and spent two weeks in the hospital.

Phobias: You'll love this one. I have a fear of flying in commercial aircraft. It is a case of knowing way too much about the subject of flight (see: Most Admirable Trait above). Specifically, the mechanics and causes of plane crashes (see: Most Admirable Trait above). It's irrational because I know statistically flying commercial is the safest form of travel. But knowing why planes crash and knowing that even though statistics are on my side, when those statistics catch up with you, it's a bitch. Suddenly, a whole bunch of people just got that "1 in 10 million chance" all at once. Hence the fear. Way too many minutes, short of a catastrophic disintegration of the aircraft at altitude, to realize what is happening.

Here's the funny part: I actually love to fly. I've flown aircraft as a student. But it is a case of the smaller the plane, the more comfortable I am. I'd rather fly in a Cessna or a sailplane than a 777 even though I know the most well-maintained light aircraft are dozens of times more dangerous statistically than a Boeing 737 being maintained by crew of monkeys imported from Africa and who are holding the manuals upside-down and learning as they go. But it's me in the cockpit with my hands on the stick.

So I white-knuckle it on take-off and landing (the two favorite places for the big aluminum birds to lose the battle with gravity) and try to enjoy the view while not thinking about how cold and thin the air is outside. And then become very, very still when said plane begins to bounce in turbulence. I won't even discuss my stress levels in having to fly through a storm. Visions of an L-1011 in pieces in Dallas with black clouds overhead dance in my brain.

It's not healthy but it is my phobia. I still get on the plane though. I will tomorrow.

Quote: None that come to mind or than "An armed society is a polite society.".

Siblings: Sister. And two step-sisters and a step-brother.

Unusual Talent or Skill: None really.

Vegetable I Refuse to Eat: Want a list? Brocoli and brussell sprouts top that list.

Worst Habit: I am a master procrastinator. Fortunately in the areas that I do it, I am also an expert at digging myself out of my self-created holes with no one being the wiser.

X-Rays: I rode a bike everywhere and jumped hills and rock piles with it for the first 12 years of my life. Too many to list. Not a single broken bone in my life though.

Yummy Stuff: Chocolate mousse.

Zoo Animal I Like The Most: Got a thing for the seals. I think they enjoy their private pool. Like the least? The pandas at the National Zoo can go fuck themselves. They do that too and can't manage to reproduce their species. I avoid that enclosure like the plague. No desire to stand in line to get a glimpse of a bamboo chewing spectrum-challenged bear that can't manage to pump out enough replacements without the help of two vets up their neither regions and a bag full of semen. My dumbest cat had more personality. The bats are far more interesting.

The Story of a Story: Your Thoughts?

I still haven't figured out why some posts generate comments and others do not. My musings on my idea for a novel generated quite a few helpful comments from readers. Given that interest, I'd figure I'd help flesh things out for you a bit in response to my previous post.

First, in response to the suggestions about Lucifer's Hammer. I'm going to pick up a copy of that book. Looks interesting. But I want to make it clear in case I hadn't that my idea isn't about telling about the process or period of post-apocalyptic survival as it appears that book is about. The post-apocalypse is merely the setting and I want the setting to be realistic and plausible. It serves as one the environments and a central part of the backstory. After all, the entire space-based society that followed was the result of that apocalypse. What happened afterward I plan to weave into the story but I am not trying to tell the story of from the Day After up to the time of where I am setting the story.

I'm trying to come up with a unique story, not reinvent the work others have done far better than I.

I want to answer this question by an anonymous reader:

Can't help on the physics, but I might question the 300 year recovery (what with libraries and all). The USA went from (basically) subsistence farming to 21st century technology in about that amount of time... and that's even with having to invent everything from scratch - rather than just read a few books...

The difference between what I am thinking of and the history we know is the USA was growing and evolving a society with rule of law, social constructs, its base level of technology and living within that harmonious civilized framework. This story won't have those supports. They're gone.

I would argue that 300 years would be a plausible minimum recovery period to a certain level of knowledge and technical ability through trial-and-error. The post-impact/disaster conditions would be horrendous and concepts of civil order will be the first to go. Survival by any means becomes the order of the day. Between those initial months afterward, the effects of disease, starvation, predatory behavior by brigands, gangs, warlords and the ultimate collapse as conditions worsen, it would take time for some form of stable social order to emerge. I'm thinking along the lines of enclaves and the ability to reach just above subsistence level so some small amount of time can be dedicated to figuring out how things worked and being to recover a slow sense of progress.

The other rationale for the 300 years to be blunt is the people left behind who survive have a common bond: they're pissed. Generational anger can act as a wonderful focusing mechanism against the greater depravities of social collapse.

The apocalypse occurs sometime in the early 2100s. At that time, our planet is not much different than it is now. We've managed to get into space in the solar system, have started to explore and exploit the outer planets and the world is operating under a quasi-government body. But the nations we know today still exist for the most part. We still have similar squabbles. The world would be recognizable by someone around today. News and information travels fast and the follow-on networks to our modern Internet as part of daily life to the point no one thinks of it as unique or unusual.

Against this backdrop, reality intrudes. Despite all our technical prowess, knowledge and ability, we are unable to stop this disaster. We try and fail. Just imagine the government ineptitude that would be created as a result of dealing with a real, in-your-face planetary disaster. No secret spaceships to save us, no hare-brained, last-minute heroics to save a world. Just the terrifying recognition that by the time the governments try anything, it is too late and the knowledge spreads that the apocalypse is inevitable within a few years.

While this is happening, mankind discovers how to travel between the stars and manages to get the technology working well (or crudely) enough to be able to escape the disaster. Unfortunately, with the chaos occurring on the planet and limited by resources available or can be completed quickly, there is not enough ships or time to save more than a tiny fraction of the population. In a rare show of intelligent thought, the governments back the scientists by any means necessary to help them to save as many as they can.

Think about the choices that would have to be made. With world order coming apart, the only stability is in space and in places where some semblance of order can be retained. Often by force. The decision is made to evacuate those to newly discovered habitable worlds and start over. The problem is: "Who goes?".

So a lottery is created to decide who is saved, beyond those who have skills essentially to preserving knowledge and building a new world. Think of the Continuity of Government programs the USA has to do similar things. In the end, a million or two can be chosen, prepped and transported at great danger (compared to the period the story is set in) across the stars to new worlds.

And all of this happens with everyone on Earth knowing it is happening and for 99+ percent of those knowing they will be left behind to face the disaster. So the chosen ones leave and the rest of humanity bears witness to its expected extinction.

This is the backstory of the novel. Those that ultimately survive on the homeworld know exactly what happened and they know that they were left behind. That knowledge is passed down and serves as a focusing point. They want to survive in part to acquire the knowledge needed to get back into space and show them smug, elitist bastards the mistake they made. One society has done everything in its power to forget or make this history disappear; the other has never forgotten it.

And the scientist who had to make these hard choices became the unwilling leader of a new society and decreed that the truth would be hidden as one of his last acts. His personal guilt created an institutional guilt that kept the secret over the centuries out of respect for his name. The truth was eventually forgotten and all that people know now is humanity had to leave its homeworld and it was far away. They have pictures and video from the pre-apocalypse period and since they survived and no one alive could or would question the details, that was the revisionist history they wrote and taught. Within a generation, it was gospel.

Only a handful of government people and Naval officers know the truth of where the homeworld is and the fact that some did survive. That's the conspiracy. They feel it is they're duty to keep the truth secret.

Except a fringe civilian group finds cracks in the pieces of the story and a cult forms around a glorified idea of a shining homeworld hidden from view where only the chosen ones can find it. But the nutjob fringe people have a rational side and use their foundation as a front to fund expeditions to find the homeworld. This goes on for over a century and then suddenly, a fragmentary clue lands in their laps and they decide to pursue it.

They decide to send a ship into space to the system they can see and that the Navy says is a military area. Supposedly uninhabited. Just a system used for secret military work and practice maneuvers. The survey charts says that is what it is (think of a solar system being used like Nellis AFB which consumes most of Nevada), so who would question it and risk military arrest or worse?

They do. And discover both the truth before them and the fact that the Navy expected such a thing. Only one person escapes, quite by accident and manages to land on the surface of Earth. And is found by one of the more advanced enclaves who have just figured out how to send television signals. And who have built their own social ideas and quasi-religion over those who left and those who were related to them and left behind.

And whom have never, ever forgotten the name of the man that condemned their ancestors to death.

A grand collision of societies and history is about to occur. The question is: Will it and how far will the various elements go to achieve their goals? Will the great disgrace of an otherwise decent society be revealed and how would its people react? Or will it be suppression to the point of rogue elements of the Navy trying to finish off what the impact started in order to prevent the truth from getting out? Or will a lone survivor with knowledge and ability the locals can scarcely believe manage to get rescued against the odds and carry the truth out, damned be the consequences?

What ultimately happens is the conclusion of the story. Not sure which way I want to play it but I think telling the story of getting there and why it happened by weaving in the history and backstory in would make for an interesting story. Classic elements of a great, lone but unwitting hero, grand conspiracy (which we all love), bumbling bureaucracy and bearing witness to great change, not all of it roses and unicorns.

Any interest in a story like this? Or am I just whistling into the wind with a bad idea and poor execution? But if it is a good one, I want to get the details right.

Oh, and there would be guns in the story.

Thoughts, my loyal and interested readers?

Update: Bolt has given me some help. Give his review and thoughts a read.

Post Red, White and Blue Randomness

Some random stuff for today...

Random stuff #1, some of additions to the Blogroll:

Mindful Musings by Chris Horton.
Billls Idle Mind

And lastly...

Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest. This fellow linked to me early on and I don't why he likes me. But I appreciate the link. I certainly am nowhere near his ability when it comes to survivalism and I am sure I would be wolf droppings long before he ran out of food. But I'd give it a good try in the meantime. I take comfort in the fact I am probably better equipped to survive than 90 percent of the urban population around me and that someone feels I am worth linking to as sharing kindred values.

Random stuff #2:

Lots of folks have gone out and bought guns and related miscellany to celebrate the Heller victory. I have not done so...yet. I am biding my time. Like many borderline insane, clinically diagnosed and certifiable gun nuts, I plan such things around the comings and goings of the big local gun show like many folks used to when the Carnival came to town. They share so many similarities when you think about it.

The next big one in this area is July 25-27th. I am going on vacation this week and the show arrives the following weekend. So rather than be naughty on my vacation, I am going to exercise restraint and be naughty when I get back. This is when I plan to celebrate Heller properly.

The front-runner is an M1 Carbine. I saw a dealer at the show who sold them exclusively and had decent prices on USGI carbines. I'd like a Inland M1 or any other M1 compatible with USGI parts. That's my only requirement. Price range is $550 to $800. I really don't want to spend in excess of $1000 for an M1 (or another other rifle for that matter). So if you have a good deal going on an USGI M1 Carbine in serviceable condition (must shoot, no rust, decent bore) in my range, drop me a note. I'd rather help out a fellow gunnie if I can.

Barring an M1 Carbine, the field is open. An M1 Garand, Springfield, Russian SKS, M96 Swedish Mauser, nice shotgun and so on. I'm covered on black rifles and really prefer the older stuff anyway. Cash-and-carry, no Maryland shipping BS and more history attached. A nice antique Turkish Mauser, early Gewehr 98, Snider-Enfield and so on works too. Only requirement is they be in shootable condition.

Stay tuned for what comes of this. Only real major acquisition this year with a wedding to plan and pay for.

Random stuff #3:

This is science bleg.

I have been working off and on (more off) on a series of science fiction novels since I was a teenager. The details change but there is one certain element to the series: Mankind has abandoned the Earth due to natural disaster. Lately, I have been jotting down the outline of a novel/novella dealing with that.

To flesh out the details, humanity makes it out to the stars and deliberately erases the knowledge of its homeworld due to the fact that hard choices had to be made and only a million or so were able to escape. This core formed new societies but one of the secrets that is kept by the founders of these new cultures is where the homeworld was. Schoolchildren are taught it is far away when, in fact, it is visible in their night skies.

This alteration is due to the racial shame of having to leave behind 7 billion people to die. Humanity was unable to stop a cometary/asteroid impact that was expected to wipe out humankind. The few that escaped were the scientists, elites and those with knowledge to form new technological civilizations on the wings of newly and barely discovered FTL (faster-than-light) drives. These scientists made a hard choice to hide the truth from future generations rather than live with the possibility that some may have survived on the homeworld in a state of unimaginable survival and brutality.

This secret and the attendant conspiracy to hide the truth of the homeworld has been kept for centuries. The premise of my story is the revelation and ultimate destruction of that truth.

It is said that good science fiction is allowed to break one rule of physics and it is obvious which one I chose. Everything else in my universe is very familiar. No impenetrable shields, no accelerations beyond 12G (for fighters), Newtonian mechanics when it comes to space warfare. Recognizable technology in the form of computers, communications and lifestyle, just extrapolated a few hundred years out and conservatively so at that.

But in order to tell this story, I have to get the setting exactly right and believable. It's easy for sci-fi to deal with outright destruction of the planet via impact or any other means. One only need to watch the History Channel and read about the killing of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago to see what it takes to wipe out 90% of the life on the planet.

In this case, I don't want to wipe out 90% of life. I want to wipe out 90% of the technology and life surrounding it and keep just enough people around to barely keep some of that knowledge alive. I'm looking for an impact size that will kill a very large percentage of the worldwide population but leave a core group intact somewhere that will permit a slow, painful recovery using what technical and survival resources remain.

Can anyone out there help me out in figuring out a realistic scenario in term of impact size, location, type of impact body that would permit, say, the central United States to survive, be reduced to subsistence levels but retain enough terrain and population to permit rediscovery of basic technical concepts and learn to use whatever technical equipment survives. This requirement is central to the story and the ultimate revelation of the truth about our homeworld.

I'm pretty open to how and where. It just has to be scientifically reasonable. Outliers are permitted. For example, if a oddball impact in Antarctica out-of-plane with the ecliptic at a grazing angle will generate the necessary post-impact conditions, all the better. Great storytelling there.

But the key is it must be realistic. No absolute doomsday scenario with everyone fried in the space of hours. Just a sorta doomsday scenario with a long-odds survival provision involving pockets of human life just hanging on in sufficient quantity to be viable. Along the lines of requiring around three centuries to reacquire early-to-mid 20th century technical knowledge. Not necessarily the ability to manufacture it (plenty around left to tinker with and learn from) but enough to reacquire a basic understanding of its fundamentals from what does survive and by the labor of smart and determined people to not let it go out.

On this, throw in one underdog, a lot of generational Government conspiracy, a complacent bureaucracy, a heavily armed Navy determined to contain the homeworld and the fact you can't stop radio waves.

What do you think? Does it have the making of a good story? Anyone able to help me out?

That's it for today. Thanks for reading!

Quote of the Day

By Kevin himself on his post "Trembling with Anticipation". Like a lot of bloggers, Kevin has folks that just rub him the wrong way. Here's why he doesn't like GEErnst of potowmack.org:

Because he's a statist fuckwit who believes that government should have a monopoly on the use of violence, and we "good citizens" should submit to whatever outrages our "elected officials" visit upon us.

I agree! That just makes me chuckle. I think meeting Kevin face-to-face would be a lot of fun.

Not the Revolution I Expected

David Codrea points towards this article from an Idaho attorney decrying the Heller ruling. His view is the Supreme Court went too far he repeats the notion that local legislatures know best with the following summation:

But we have our own uniquely local problems. The people who hail this decision as a victory for Second Amendment rights should keep that in mind, because someday, nine unelected individuals could strike down one of Idaho's local laws, passed by its citizens to confront its own local problems.

Emphasis mine.

Have you noticed that this is a common rallying cry of those who consider the Bill of Rights malleable? That local concerns should trump your rights when deemed appropriate? Or when a majority of citizens in that area vote to do so?

Attorneys like Mr. Cronin and too many American citizens miss the point. The fact that nine Justices can declare your local laws null and void is precisely the point! They exist as the final check-and-balance in our system to ensure that local tyranny cannot arise just because the majority of people living there think it is a good idea.

Too many people can't see through to the idea that Constitutional rights are supposed to be transcendent. They are meant to exist above the fray of local concerns, petty squabbles and deliberate abuse by those in power. Why can't people see that rights are meant to be equal everywhere? This is supposed to be the standard, not the exception. It's sickening that one group of people believe that they can simply vote away whatever freedom they don't like because it is supported by another group,

How would these people feel if 4th Amendment rights could be altered at the whim of community rule? Not by the President because Bush's actions are not the point here but because your Mayor puts it to a referendum and the voters say "Great idea!" and approve it.

Imagine if you had a elusive serial child molester with a unique birthmark that a victim could identify in your area that parents were desperate to find. And the proposed solution was to suspend the 4th Amendment for a month to let police go door-to-door to find the monster and check for the marks. Every male would be required to submit to prove they weren't the molester. And because the parents are so desperate that they'll do anything to protect their children and the because the community has more parents than not, they approve it.

How fast would there be an injunction in Court to prevent this or would your response be: "We have a unique local problem. You'll have to live with this violation of your rights because we are trying to solve a critical problem.".

No one would sit back and accept this explanation. Yet, people like Mr. Conin insist that such a thing is necessary with regard to the 2nd Amendment because of crime.

You know why I find that interesting? Because Mr. Conin's view was the dominant one with regard to local governance. Local communities solved their own problems.

With one difference:

Until the existence of gun control laws starting in 1934 and really reaching their stride in 1968, the notion of limiting guns anywhere in this country wasn't even considered. Hell, the notion of local gun control never even came up because the idea of gun ownership was so natural that no one felt was even an issue!

If a thug shot someone, they arrested and punished the thug. No one in the 1950's, for example, ever thought that restricting someone else's guns after the fact was the way to deal with the thug's behavior.

Today, this notion of "local control" is seen as normal. It's not! It's an aberration, a cancer that should have been exorcised the moment it was detected. Communities were able to govern themselves for well over century without a single shred of gun control. The notion of guns and crime were separate and distinct, people knew this and acted accordingly.

And you call people like me who think this is a problem "regressive"?!? If progress means the surrender of individual rights because you say so, I wear that label with pride.

Rights must transcend local control unless the Supreme Court says otherwise. And when they do, they limit those rights only to the minimum required to meet the necessary goal with the notion of balancing the individual's rights first.

The idea of local control for anything, whether it be gun laws, dress code, type of cars one can drive and so on is the worst form of Communism there is. It is a demand that an individual must be forced to surrender their rights to the collective with the officials in power being "the collective". It sure as hell isn't the community no matter what language the person proposing it chooses to describe it as.

It's not our fault that communities large and small have chosen to enact laws that question fundamental rights. And then people like Mr. Conin get mad when the Court's correct that error and demand to retain the status quo because the alternative would be hard on them. Hard on you Mr. Conin because the Court took away power you were never supposed to have?!?

This beginning in the correction in 2nd Amendment understanding has been really needed for the past 40 years. I'm not sorry it is going to make life difficult for politicians in distant towns and cities. Or ones close to home in my case. In fact, I welcome it. I want this upheaval to happen. We need it to happen. It is about time we came forth and told these "leaders": "You've gone too far. Give us back what was ours in the first place and what you should have never taken!".

What you don't get to do is plant the goal posts at today and say this is the accepted standard because you don't feel like digging them out. Gun controllers got used to moving those posts forward and were quite stunned when they wouldn't move forward anymore. With the exception of CCW, they never really moved backwards until now.

Hence why we are seeing the hysteria we are. Until now, they've never known what it is like to be shoved backwards forcefully. It was ok when they were doing the shoving and now that they are the ones being pushed back, they claim this nonsense of "local rights".

Obama's made that pitch too. It's fucking abhorrent to me. It really is. It is also depressing that so many citizens can't see it and blithely assume that their rights come from the Government rather than something that was always theirs to claim and that no one should have been allowed to strip from them in the first place.

For one, I say bring on this upheaval! Everywhere! Federal level, State level, in your town. Challenge these thieves for once. Demand answers of them. Make them do their duty as their Oath requires for once.

This wasn't the revolution I was expecting as a result of Heller but I'll take it. It feels damn nice for a change to fight and have the Supreme Court say it is the correct fight.

Better the courtroom and council chamber than with cartridges on the Common.

Deal with it, Mr. Conin.

K.31 Screws are Made of Armor Plate

I don't know what kind of steel the screws that hold the trigger guard/magazine plate on the bottom of the K.31 rifle are made of but I'm convinced they punched them out of the armor plate of an unbuilt Swiss battleship.

I have a K.31 I acquired through Impact Guns over a year ago as a "shooter grade" rifle advertised in good condition with dinged or blemished stock. No biggie. Good condition means an ok bore and the usual battering a used rifle will have. But serviceable.

Not in this case. Mine apparently spent time buried in the snow up in the Alps. Because at best this rifle was in fair condition. The bore is decent (mostly shiny with good rifling) but the rest of the gun was in a sorry state.

So I decided that this rifle would serve as a good restoration project. Might as well get something back for my money. So I proceeded to detail strip the rifle so I could begin to clean it up. I found rust and pitting on the outside of the barrel when I pulled the forearm off. Trust me, this gun needs some work.

All went well until I went to take the last obstacle to removing the action from the stock: the trigger plate. There are two screws that hold the action in place. The rear one came out with effort. The rust holding it in place is evident in the hole on the plate as is the pitting on the bottom of the screw nearly an inch down. It came out but it took effort.

The front screw must have signed a contract with the Devil himself to stay put because the little bastard isn't moving.

I've been trying off and on to get this screw out for over a year.

I've tried hammering on it. Different size screwdrivers. Vice grips plus screwdriver for extra torque. Penetrating oil. PB Blaster. Heat. Nothing has loosening this thing up and all I have to show for it is a battered slotted screw head that can no longer hold a screwdriver.

I decided I didn't care if I destroyed the screw or the trigger plate. I need the action free. I can replace the screws and any other parts. So I picked up a screw extractor. The kind you drill a hole with on one side then flip it over and thread it into the hole. It grabs the screw and hopefully lets you back it out. Destroys the screw in the process.

These extractors are supposed to cut into the metal and let you drill the pilot hole. You'd figure that such a device meant to remove screws would be able to cut through the metal of the average screw?

My screw must not be average. My 12 and 18 volt drills and me leaning my 190+ pounds on top of said drill is just making the cutting oil dirty on the extractor. I've got a dimple in the head of the screw to show for my efforts. Hence why I think these screws were made out of the armor plate of some secret Swiss desire to have a battleship in its distant past.

I'm being stymied by a $3 screw on a $100 rifle. I'm not even planning to shoot the thing. I got a second K.31 shortly thereafter. I just want to try my hand at restoring this gun and making it look pretty for resale or to hang on my wall.

I need a bigger drill. At the rate I'm going, I'm going to spend more on the tools to get this screw free than the whole gun is worth. I'd buy another K.31 gladly and use this gun for parts except I'm back to square one if I can't disassemble the rifle to get at the parts.

This is how I know I'm a gun owner. I spent time on torturing myself with stuff like this.