Free Shooting Introduction

In the effort to promote responsible gun ownership and rights awareness, I make the following open offer to any resident or visitor in the Metro DC area:

If you have never shot a gun and would like to try, I am willing to take you shooting free of charge. I will provide the firearms, ammunition, eye/ear protection and I will cover your range fees. I guarantee if you are on the fence about gun ownership and usage, you will not be at the end of the session. You will have fun and learn a little in the process.

I do my introductions in Northern Virginia. Evenings or on the weekends at your convenience with minimal prior arrangements. Contact me for details and to schedule your free introduction!

If you are in the Chesapeake/Hampton Roads area, Brian, an NRA instructor in Virginia Beach, is willing to do the same if you're in the area on a Sunday afternoon or Monday evening. Drop him a note to make the arrangements.

5 people have learned to shoot! Would you like to be next?

Friday, August 29, 2008

Two Definitions of Hypocrisy

A liberal pundit on CNN is having the unmitigated gall to criticize John McCain's pick of VP as being inexperienced for the position. Apparently, they have a different definition of hypocrisy that I do.

The money quote:
For months, the McCainiacs have said they will run on his judgment and experience. In his first presidential decision, John McCain has shown he is willing to endanger his country, potentially leaving it in the hands of someone who simply has no business being a heartbeat away from the most powerful, complicated, difficult job in human history.
I guess since she is one step removed from the Presidency that she has no business being there. But if you're Barack Obama, who is equally inexperienced for the job, it's perfectly ok. Even though it appears Palin has more executive experience being the Governor of Alaska versus being the junior Senator from Illinois without a single legislative achievement to date on his record.

Which one has no business running the country again?!? I'd take my chances with Palin. At least she sits behind a desk and has had to make executive decisions.

How many has Obama made? That's right...NONE!

Talk about blind hypocrisy.

Man this is going to be fun!

Anyone Up for Quantico?

This is for local area shooters. The ranges will be open for rec fire this weekend at Quantico and it looks like the weather is going to hold. And since I don't do the whole beach thing on Labor Day weekend, I am planning to head down to Quantico Saturday morning to do some shooting.

I apologize for the short notice but is there a local area shooter or wannabe shooter in the Metro DC area who would like to come along? Range 4 is the 1000 yard range and it will be open for general shooting Saturday. I plan to do fun shooting out to 300-600 yards depending on how badly I'm doing but I'd be happy to have someone else along who would like to do some rifle shooting at any distance from 25 to 1000 yards.

If you're interested, you're welcome to come along or meet me there. It will cost you $6 (which I will pay if you've never shot before). You're welcome to bring your own rifle and ammunition but it must not be in a Soviet caliber (no AKs or Mosin-Nagants). Bring along any gear you'll need.

I will be shooting my M96 Swedish Mauser off the bipod. It's zeroed at 200 yards and I want to see how it is performing out to 500 yards or so. I will also likely bring along my match-grade AR-15 and see how well it works with the 75gr match ammunition. I have room in the bag for a lot more than that.

I'll have a target stand, targets, spotting scope and so on along. I can teach basic marksmanship, teach you to shoot the Army Qualification course using an AR-15, plink with a .22 or .17, the list goes on. In fact, the .17HMR at 300 yards would be huge fun.

So, if you're interested, please drop me an e-mail on the blog so we can work out the details. I'm ruling out Sunday since it appears the range will only be open for 1000 yard work and there is no way I can shoot at this distance right now. I expect to be leaving the paper at around 600 yards.

Again, apologies for the short notice. But it's an opportunity if you're available. E-mail me for details.

Palin Would Bring Her Own Gun!

I just realized something with McCain's VP choice of Sarah Palin:

If she does a photo-op on a hunting trip to show her pro-gun credentials (she is an NRA Life member), the odds will be really good she'll be doing it with her own gun and camo.

It would be honest-to-God truth in politics for once in our lives!

Just thought I'd get that out there.

He Can Learn!

I don't believe it. I'm living in a goddamn parallel universe. I have to be.

McCain actually did something right! He choose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

John McCain just won the November election.

There is no way now that anyone but Marxist groupies and those on a pilgrimage to Lenin's tomb will vote for Obama. Two gun grabbing, neo-Marxist socialists against a moderate with a long political record and a popular young Alaska female governor with good conservative credentials.

How many of you think that Hilliary's supporters won't opt for this ticket as a nice consolation prize?

Game over, man. Game over.

All we have to do and have McCain do is pound Obama on his experience and stupidity on the issues and he will win in a landslide. I can take four years of a lukewarm McCain administration with a thoroughly pissed-off Democratic Congress getting nothing done. Which means that those in power will be too busy dicking themselves over to dick over the People instead. I'll take that.

I can hear the cries of Pelosi and company on November 6th now. I can see their sweet crocodile tears and the boo-hooing already about how the election was stolen from them. About how America hasn't learned to change and we're all a bunch of fucking racists.

Bring the popcorn! I'm going to enjoy it.

Hey, sometimes they do it right. Can't let down the guard but the air just got a lot easier to breathe.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

The 10,000 R.C. FAL.

I've had this article bookmarked for a long time. Since I am bogged down with work stuff, I thought I'd share it. This is one of the reasons why yours truly wants a DSA FAL. If I tried this with my ARs, I'd argue the bolt carrier would have seized long before getting halfway through the test and I'd have a smoothbore barrel instead of a rifled one.

Enjoy!

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

You Could Hear a Pin Drop...

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

You could have heard a pin drop.

Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying: "Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?".

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

You could have heard a pin drop.

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S, English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries.

Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, "whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English."

He then asked, "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?"

Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied "Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German."

You could have heard a pin drop.

A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on a tour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.

"You have been to France before , monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.

Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. "Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."

The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."

"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!"

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, "Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in '44 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find any Frenchmen to show it to."

You could have heard a pin drop.

And finally...

What Is A Veteran?

A 'Veteran' -- whether active duty, discharged, retired, or reserve -- is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America,' for an amount of "up to, and including his life."

That is honor, and there are way too many people in this country today, who no longer understand that fact.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Collecting History

It's rare that I will promote a company's offering out of the blue, but in this case I took advantage of it and I think you should too. AIM Surplus is running a deal right now on Mosin-Nagant M1891/30 rifles with full accessories for $69.95 each.

I ordered one from AIM because I was looking for a sling and a bayonet for one of my Mosins. A little digging around reveals that the sling and bayonet alone can run around $45 and a full accessory kit costs around $70. At that price, I decided I might as well add a rifle I was wanting to get at some point anyway to the collection since I was buying the accessories and getting the gun for free!

My fiancee agreed with that logic not to mention that it was only $70. Tough to argue with adding a gun for $70. She doesn't object to my firearms interest. She just wants it that I don't expend massive sums of money on them. To her, $1000 or more for a rifle is outrageous. $70, $100 or so is much more reasonable. I can acquire new additions more easily when they sit at the bottom end of the cost scale versus the top end.

Which leads to the subject of this post.

AIM, quite rightly, states in their ad: "Where else can you buy an authentic piece of Military History for only $69.95?"

In the past, I bemoaned the high cost of shooting and how it is affecting current shooters as well as attracting new potential shooters and gun owners to the hobby. This deal from AIM is a wonderful counterpoint to that problem.

My first gun purchase ever was a Mosin-Nagant M44 carbine. When I bought it, it was $60. I knew nothing about the gun except its name, caliber and the fact that it looked right for a bolt-action rifle. That's right, I literally chose my first gun solely on the basis that it "looked right". So it came home. I learned about what it was later.

Surplus rifles, especially Russian Mosin-Nagants, represent an excellent way for someone without a lot of money to acquire a firearm. Or several as it generally works out. Also, the ammunition is cheap. Although it is corrosive, almost nothing is cheaper than 7.62x54R in quantity. For $150, you can get a rifle, accessories, basic cleaning supplies and 440 rounds to take to the range. You'd be hard pressed to match that on a basic .22 rifle on sale.

The downside is that a Mosin-Nagant is not an ideal first shooter for someone who has never owned or fired a gun before. Especially the carbines. Putting a new shooter behind an M38, M44 or M91/59 is a surefire way to ensure they'll never try it again. The 91/30 (as this offered rifle is known as) is a little gentler but still packs a kick.

The upside is these rifles do represent a piece of history and this is why a lot of people own them. I do for that reason. My interests divide clearly between modern post-WW2 firearms and old surplus warhorses. Largely because of cost. For the cost of one good Remington or Winchester rifle, let alone an AR-15, I can buy 3-5 decent surplus rifles complete with ammunition to fire them.

Surplus rifles, even a basic Mosin-Nagant, share the common attribute of all firearms: They never go down in value. Firearms do represent an investment and provided you keep them clean and oil them once in a while, their value will alway increase. I would advise anyone looking at surplus guns to acquire them as they find them at a price they feel reasonable because they'll never drop in price. There are rarely "clearance sales" on guns and AIM's deal isn't a clearance. They've just got a boatload of them and they got them cheap. That situation will not last forever.

If you bought this deal today and just stuck the gun in the back of the closet, odds are good in two years, it will have picked up 10-20 percent more value. Unlike new guns, surplus guns don't suffer out-the-door depreciation like new cars do. Their values only rise. Even if you fire it but take care of it, that $70 Mosin-Nagant today will be worth $100 or more a few years down the road. Or even more.

I say that because eventually the supply of a given rifle will dry up. Last year, there was a glut of surplus Lee Enfield .303 rifles on the market. They could be had gun shows for $99. Look around now. Don't expect to find a .303 Enfield for under $150. And you'd be lucky. The only .303 Enfields I've seen in the past six months at the gun show have been restored examples commanding $400 or more.

Even the Mosin-Nagant M44 carbine, ubiquitous two years ago at $50 each and stacked like firewood, are all but gone. Today, M44s are still available but they are far fewer in number and now routinely ask $99 or more. Assuming you can find them. Many dealers no longer have them. Unless a new shipment of them comes in, eventually they will become rare too.

As will this cheap 91/30 from AIM. Eventually, these pieces of military history will be history at the gun shows and all that are here are all that will ever be. As a result, invest in one when you can. You likely won't regret it. I predict within two years, you won't see M1891/30 rifles on sale anywhere in quantity for under $150. If at all.

Someone people think these cheap rifles will last forever. As a result, many people buy them, cut them up and turn them into hunting rifles. It's a process called "sporterizing". In some cases, it is necessary to restore an unworkable rifle back to usable condition. Perfect understandable. But not all cases. Many are perfectly clean, good condition guns that are simply modified because they are common and cheap. So why not?

Because someday they won't be common and cheap and you can't bring that history back. Many of these guns went straight from the factory to the warehouse so their history consists of sitting in cosmoline ans grease paper for the past 50 years. But many didn't.

For every "cosmo queen", there is a rifle with a battered stock and a little wear that has a story to tell. Holding a surplus rifle, you can imagine what it was like to carry it into battle. You can picture what life was like for the man who depended on that weapon with his life. Did he clean it and care for it? Or did he toss it aside after a hard days march or fighting? Perhaps it saw the rubble of Stalingrad or Berlin or the icy snows outside Moscow? You may never know the story but someone, somewhere carried a rifle like it with all their hopes and dreams along with it. And perhaps died with it, the last object they ever held in their hands.

This is why I collect them. Holding that rifle, I am making a connection to the past and preserving it for the future. All of my surplus rifles are shooters. Not all of them have been shot, mind you, but all of them have ammunition on hand for them to be. That way, I can go to the range and imagine what it was like for that German carrying a Kar98K or how Ludmilla Pavlichenko must have felt looking through the scope of her Mosin-Nagant sniper rifle.

It can be a powerful thing. It's hard to explain that to a staunch anti-gun person when they ask "Why do you need so many guns?". They won't get it. All they see are a dozen guns with no purpose other than to kill. They've become blinded to the broad history those guns represent and where they might have been. It can be frustrating.

But it can be enriching. Not just for you but for future generations. How many rifles like the 91/30 will be around in 10, 20 or 30 years? How many will survive and be handed down from father to daughter? With each generation, they will preserve a piece of the past and become ever more valuable. Case in point: the Springfield 1903A3.

The Springfield 1903A3 was the primary rifle of the US Army in World War I. After the war, thousands, millions were sold off as surplus very cheaply. Many a surplus Springfield has taken deer over the years following the Great War. These rifles were sold for $2 or $3 and were left unmodified, others cut up, changed, abused and eventually disposed of.

By World War II twenty years later, the 1903A3 was a dedicated sniper rifle and following that war, rebuilt, rearsenaled and disposed of yet again. Through all those years, their numbers dwindled.

Today, you will not find a original World War II-era Springfield 1903A3 in good condition (outside of the CMP) for under $1200. $1600 seems to be pretty commonplace. A World War I era Springfield with its original wood and matching bolt, even in fair to poor condition, can command thousands.

Yet, in the 1920s, they were cheap and commonplace and no one thought twice about doing whatever they felt like to these old warhorses. Today, in 2008 some 90 years later, such a rifle would be a cherished collectors item. I'd settle for a decent replica or mismatched restoration. An original Springfield would receive an honored place in my collection assuming I ever had the means to afford it in one fell swoop.

Imagine what it will be like for your grandchild to display that rifle to their children and tell a story about 100 or 200 years of history that it saw? First in the hands of its makers, later in the hands of those who fought with it. And further on a lonely life gathering dust in a warehouse until finally landing in the hands of their grandparent, you. They'll feel that rifle as you felt it as their children will do so. By then, it may be one of the few surviving examples of its type and borne witness to things only seen in grainy movies or photographs long faded to blurriness.

Isn't that worth $69.95?

Monday, August 25, 2008

Make Em' Mad

As Kevin says, what we have to do to energize those who don't care much about an issue is to make them realize it could happen to them and get them mad at the prospect.

With that in mind, I bring you this story...

A hunter in Denver, Colorado walked into the hotel where Nancy Pelosi was staying with a rifle case. Secret Service freaks, evacuates the hotel, the guy gets arrested on weapons charges and has been released on $10,000 bond.

The stories on this are here, here and here. So far. David has more as well. As does Bitter.

First, I want to fisk elements of these articles. Emphasis in all cases is mine.

From the WTOP News article:
Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley said 29-year-old Joseph Calanchini of Pinedale, Wyo., faces a charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon after police officers at the Grand Hyatt hotel noticed him carrying a rifle-type case while checking in. Calanchini did not have a concealed weapons permit, said Lance Clem, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety.

Wiley said authorities were not releasing information about whether the weapons were loaded because the case remained under investigation. Wiley said the charge is the same whether the weapons were loaded or unloaded.
Is a concealed weapon permit required in Colorado for the transport of any firearm in a case? If not, the charge should have never been brought.

From the 9NEWS article:
He says he had just picked up his rifles from the Sportsman's Warehouse and had them in a locked gun case when he checked in at the Grand Hyatt. The clerk checking him in noticed the rifle case and called security.
Locked case. Answers the questions for the rifle(s).
Police say Calanchini had permits for the rifles, but did not have concealed permits to carry two pistols that were found in his luggage. Calanchini says he forgot they were in there.
Are permits required to own rifles in Wyoming? Otherwise, they are confusing a concealed permit with purchase paperwork. They are not the same thing.

As to the pistols, unless Colorado state law and/or Denver local law required the owner to have a concealed permit for mere possession of the pistol off one's person, how have any laws been violated here?
Calanchini, who sells drilling tools across Colorado and Wyoming, says he is a frequent guest at the Grand Hyatt.

But the Grand Hyatt General Manager says he was not a registered guest at the hotel.

"We don't know why he was walking through our hotel," said General Manager Ed Bucholtz.
Because he was looking to check in and get a room probably, you nitwit!

And lastly, from the Fox News article:
Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley said 29-year-old Joseph Calanchini of Pinedale, Wyo., faces a charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon after police officers at the Grand Hyatt hotel noticed him carrying a rifle-type case while checking in. Calanchini did not have a concealed weapons permit, said Lance Clem, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety.

Wiley said authorities were not releasing information about whether the weapons were loaded because the case remained under investigation. Wiley said the charge is the same whether the weapons were loaded or unloaded.
Sure, the police don't have to release any information that might weaken their case and show they overreacted but it is perfectly acceptable for the Colorado Department of Public Safety to dig into Mr. Calanchini's background and release the results of that investigation when it doesn't or may not favor him. Double standard at work here?
Authorities were investigating a report that Calanchini was in town on business and had had the weapons worked upon to prepare for the trip.
How is the fact he had a gun worked on prior to the trip have any bearing on this situation? I believe it is an attempt by the media to ascribe a sinister tendency in the readers mind of having the gun worked on just prior to coming to the hotel. Neutral and objective, my ass.

You good and mad yet? No? Fine, let's make you mad.

This is a wake-up call. This is not a Democratic vs. Republican issue. This is an authority issue and no gun owner is safe from it. Hunters, sportsman, you think you are safe in your gun ownership and usage? Think again.

What follows is my own opinion. I am hoping readers in Colorado can help me correct any bad assumptions on my bad.

How did this man violate any laws? From where I am sitting, if all his guns were unloaded and no ammunition in the same cases, then he adhered to the law. Federal transport law, specifically. And if no permits are required in Denver and Colorado as a whole for the possession of those arms, then he should have never been arrested. All of his actions would have been protected under FOPA'86.

The fact that he was arrested indicates authority gone mad and that should terrify you. Yes, I understand the Secret Service is institutionally paranoid and given recent events, probably reacted sharply at the prospect of an armed man in the hotel. But upon questioning, it should have gone no further than a stern warning to behave.

If my transport assumptions are correct, the Colorado and/or local police are way out of line charging this guy with a concealed weapons charge. Concealed generally means "carried upon one's person". Pistols in luggage and rifles in cases is not concealed carry and any attempt to stretch that meaning to encompass it is a pure abuse of authority.

I am certain the Pelosi or the Democrats in the vicinity had a hand in this. I am sure if this had been any other week, the nosy clerk would have likely said nothing. Or maybe not. Maybe they hated guns and was alarmed at being in their mere presence? Who knows? There is still no excuse for their over-reaction to a benign situation.

The truly frightening part is they are going to destroy this man's life to make an example out of him for daring to have legally owned firearms where it made someone uncomfortable or near a government official who might feel that it is wrong. Generally, $10,000 bond means they are going to carry through on the charges. Otherwise, those in power will lose face by having made a mistake and heaven forbid the police or prosecutors make mistakes! Then they'll get sued. Oh no, better to prosecute him on a technical violation than to admit they were wrong and overreacted. And because they have the power, they can.

And will.

And do you think this will be remembered by Nancy Pelosi next year the next time the prospect of a gun control bill comes up? I do. Maybe she'll think something needs to be done about these reckless hunters and their high-powered weapons.

I love this country but I am flat-out terrified at the chasm I see growing between those with authority that is supposedly granted to them by the People and the rest of us unable to challenge it. We've lost our ability to challenge it. If the government juggernaut chooses to come down on you, you lose. It will grind you up, wear you down until you whimper for mercy and then they'll either release you or imprison you. Either way, you'll be broken in spirit and never rise up again. We don't need gulags in this country to break you. Crossing someone in authority who feels you're too uppity for your own good will do the job just fine.

All we can do now as law-abiding citizens and would-be citizens is hope we aren't the ones they choose to come down on and hope we can live our lives and pursue our interests in peace.

That isn't freedom, folks. It is merely slavery without the chains. If the best we can hope for is that the master won't beat us and we get another day without pain, we are no longer free.

This must stop! We must organize, write letters and do everything in our power to pressure our legislatures to reign in these abuses of authority. To return to a time where the primary duty of a police officer is to maintain the peace, not engage in law-enforcement to the exclusion of all others and place themselves above us because of their profession. We're rapidly losing respect for such authority. Those authorities have forgotten that respect is earned, not bestowed. It cannot be forced upon the citizen by baton, pepper spray, taser, gun or the threat of arrest. All that does is widen the chasm. And yet, respect or not, they will persist in these actions unless something is done.

"With regard to firearms, the citizen acts at his peril.". I thought we only had to fear and avoid New Jersey. It seems those words have infected the country as whole and we seem powerless to stop it.

We must stop it. Otherwise, all I am working for to become a citizen of this nation will be for naught. I left Canada and gained freedom. I did not come all this way only to have shackles placed upon me and be told by those unelected authoritarians that I must behave or else. It is not their place to decide such things on a personal level.

We have to stop this. It is becoming too frequent, too close to home. The most frightening part of this is:

"What if the usual methods fail? If this status quo remains? What then?!?".

I weep for our future. This is not supposed to be the United States.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Defeat From The Jaws of Possible Victory!

Well, Obama announced Joe Biden as his running mate. I am jumping for joy at this!

Not because Joe Biden is a leftist, gun grabbing egotistical opportunistic scumbag but the fact by doing so, Obama just handed moderate or gun enthusiastic states to John McCain by default.

He can kiss Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, the Carolinas, Alabama, Montana, Texas and likely Ohio goodbye. And that's just on the gun issue alone. Think he can win without those states? I don't.

Gun owners are bemoaning this ticket as a gun grabbing perfect storm. On that score, yes they are. But Obama has to win in order to get that storm on the move. With this ticket, I don't see it happening.

He might have had a chance with someone like Tim Kaine. But with Biden, the Democrats have displayed once again their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is not a time to breathe easy for McCain. But on gun rights, all he has to do is go on the warpath and highlight Obama's desires (since he lacks a legislative record) and Biden's open support for any gun ban ever written. This isn't a bad thing; it's a godsend!

Thanks Obama for this choice! Those so-called bitter, angry country folk who cling to Gods and guns are going to hand you your ass in November and you likely won't be able to figure out why because you won't be able to see through your elitist smug from your ivory tower.

But we will. That's all that matters. Rejoice gun owners, this election has been made a little easier as long as McCain doesn't screw it up. Just keep doing what he's doing and Obama will never sit in the Oval Office.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Can't See Straight

I am so wound up right now I can barely see straight.

My weekend was good. I went to a Civil War skirmish in Winchester, VA and met some of the members of the skirmish unit I would like to join. It's kind of like pledging a fraternity. Which in many ways, this is really what it is. A shooting fraternity of some very talented shooters. I would argue to achieve the level of proficiency I saw with top teams using black powder arms puts any high-power shooting I've done in a category of "so what?".

Can you hit 2 35mm film cannisters at 50 yards with a maximum of 4 shots in 60 seconds from a standing position, unsupported? Well, these guys can and they're doing it with black powder arms, not modern ammunition! My jaw was hanging open. I gave applause for that performance. It will be privilege to learn from these shooters and I will be very proud if I am on their "A-Team" a year or so from now.

We won't even talk about the revolver competition. A lot of handgun shooters out there would have a hard time with this. 25 yards, 6 shots and 9 clay pigeons for three shooters to eliminate. Fastest time wins and you get no reloads. Go forth and try it sometime. I'm telling you now: I can't do it. My accuracy with modern handguns fall off rapidly beyond 10 yards. I couldn't do it with a modern gun let alone a black powder one.

I'm going to give it a try though.

I know, this post is worthless without pics. I'll add them tonight.

Planning to go to Quantico this Sunday. Work out my frustrations at 300-400 yards. It's been a rough week and not getting any better.

Bruce has a post up that wants me to make a single comment. Go read and here's my short response to this topic:

Why don't these professors just fail their students?

I want to comment at length on the issue of education that Bruce highlights and that Kevin has pointed out in the past. That whole Canadian perspective thing. In this case, you may find it enlightening as this topic of education is one of the few areas that I actually dislike the USA on and their approach to it.

Getting back on track tomorrow. Sorry for the short hiatus.

Friday, August 8, 2008

People Like Me...

Republicans bail out big business and banks at the expense of the little guy. Who do you think is paying for the big bailouts of Bear, Fannie and Freddie?

There's no such thing as free markets.

You want your Republican government to dole out corporate welfare to the banks and big oil. I'd rather the money go to hungry people and folks losing their homes.
This comment was left anonymously on a post meant as humor. Apparently some folks on the Left thought it was a anecdote reflecting my personal views. I posted the joke to highlight the flaws and heap scorn on the concepts of wealth (and grade) redistribution and social equality for all.

Apparently some people have their funny bones removed at birth.

I want to rant on this well-thought-out gem:
You want your Republican government to dole out corporate welfare to the banks and big oil. I'd rather the money go to hungry people and folks losing their homes.
First off, do not assume I am a Republican. I love how people simply divide issues into left and right and because I put up a joke ridiculing some leftist ideals, specifically the concept of social justice, that I am suddenly a Republican.

You want to know the truth about the above statement: I'd rather money go to neither group.

I work in big finance and trust me, where I work the so-called housing crisis is a popular topic of discussion because our revenues are being affected by it.

I am not in favor of giving money to either side of the equation. It's that libertarian streak in me again and this one boils down to the very ancient tradition of "Caveat Emptor" (Buyer Beware).

Everyone's crying about how people are losing their homes. Something must be done or these poor people will be put on the street! The Government must save them! They are victims!

Really? Did someone force a pen into their hand and make them sign a contract at gunpoint?

This whole housing situation pisses me off and I'm pissed that the Government, in its infinite "wisdom", decided to step in and "do something" about it. Whether to prop up banks with loan guarantees or to provide banks incentives (read: blackmail) to allow home owners to renegotiate their loans. The Government should have done nothing.

"What about these people who were taken advantage of by predatory lending?!?" they cry.

The term 'predatory lending' is an offense in and of itself. It implies that the person involved in receiving the loan had no choice in the matter. Like it was a form of extortion. While I admit this type of high-pressure lending does exist, it is relatively rare. The people in trouble right now were not and are not victims of "predatory lending". They're victims of their own stupidity.

I am by no means a model of fiscal responsibility. I've certainly made stupid mistakes but I understand mistakes have consequences you live up to. I had to absorb a fair bit of debt in my divorce. It was stupid to build it but I don't cry about it. I pay the bills on time and get rid of it. I understand how compound interest works and in another year or so it will be just a memory.

At no time, though, do I cry to the government and ask them to help me because I might be in over my head. One the basic things I did learn young was how to budget. Allowances are wonderful for that. If you're getting $5 a week and you want to buy a bike that is $60, you quickly figure out concepts like saving and budgeting (got to have candy bars and pop in the meantime).

So people about to lose their houses are victims of their inability to add and subtract. Specifically, allowing their emotions to exceed their pocketbook. If you are signing your name to the biggest contract of your life and you don't know what the terms "adjustable rate mortgage" or "interest only loan" mean then you deserve everything you get.

And yet, we are going to force/help lenders to let these people get new loans because of their bad decisions.

You know, there was a time you bought a house you could afford. I was raised on the idea that your monthly housing payment should be roughly 1/3rd of your take home pay. But people allowed themselves to be suckered in by the allure of "for just an extra $150 a month more, you can get this bigger house!". The pitch is no different than a car salesman.

Yet, we don't see cries to the government to help people avoid vehicle repossession. You want to talk "predatory lending"? Visit a car showroom. It's like lions and steak. Car salesmen routinely work to cajole you in to whatever vehicle they can convince you to buy along the lines of "For only an extra $50 a month more, you can get the V8 instead of the V6! Look at all the extra room and features that will give you!".

So people buy more car than they can afford and fall behind. I'm not talking in a hypothetical in this case because I'm driving around in the outcome of this type of emotion (story for another time). So I know how it works. And yet, you don't hear about a rash of car repossession and how these people were victims of unscrupulous car salesman and how the loss of the car will cost them their ability to work, their happiness and so on. No bailouts for people making bad decisions in car buying.

But we're doing it for houses. Has a house suddenly become an entitlement? If so, where do I get mine because I'm 35 and I don't own a home. But because I pay my bills and generally try to be a responsible adult, no one cares about me. But if you're being evicted out of a house you could never afford in the first place, you're a victim of a big evil bank and need to be saved from their predations on your tender innocent soul.

Spare me while I get out the violin. It may take me a moment to find it, small size and all.

Yup, people should lose their houses when their eyes exceed their pocketbook. If something happens to me and I can't pay bills, it will be my own fault and no one else's. Same applies to anyone else. And if you look at the problem closely, who is really hurting? Institutions that made the risky loans and who should have known better and the people who can't pay because of that lack of knowing better. They didn't fall victim to it. They failed to ask questions and got burned.

When I say "institutions should have known better", I mean exactly that. Another part of that basic financial education I absorbed was the concept of interest rate vs. risk. The higher the rate, the higher the risk involved. A bank would extended a borrower with a good history a low rate because they would be considered a low risk and most likely to pay the money back. As the rate goes up, it is an expression of decreasing confidence in the borrower's ability to repay. The rationale being that at a given rate, a certain percentage of borrowers would default and the high rate was needed to offset those losses. In other words, the high risk borrowers were being forced to pay for the bad habits of others like them.

Makes sense. Plus, if you were a real deadbeat, there was no rate high enough. The bank would simply not give you a loan no matter what. Come back when you shape up and pay your bills. Somewhere over the past decade, banks decided that these "no way, no how" borrowers represented an untapped revenue stream and suddenly decided to extend loans to people that a decade prior they would have laughed out of the bank.

If a bank gives a $500,000 loan to someone on the basis of an application lacking any income history and the credit check is a mere formality, ignoring the "560" that comes back from it, why are people shocked that these loans are being defaulted on? That isn't predatory lending, it's clinical institutional insanity.

My employer isn't hurting too badly because of this because they did laugh these applications right off the desks of the lending managers. We're getting burned on secondary effects but those will subside and not hurt our bottom line too badly. We'll be profitable. Just not as much as we'd like to be.

So I'm pretty serious when I say let them all sink. A bank dumb enough to extend an interest-only home loan to someone with a credit score so low that Visa had sent an agent to their residence to personally repossess their credit card doesn't deserve to stay in business. It certainly doesn't need that business extended on the taxpayer dime.

Same goes for the person dumb enough to buy a house with a $2500 monthly payment when their combined household income is $3500 per month. Doesn't take much to see that's a foreclosure waiting to happen. Big eyes, small wallet. The lesson should be driven home the same as anyone else who does that. Yes, it will hurt. The rental market will do a booming business for a few years and eventually these evicted former homeowners will reenter the market poorer but wiser and make better choices.

And all of this applies to oil companies or any other industry like the airlines who find themselves in difficulty because of their bad choices and suddenly expect the Government to help them out. Regulation and government intervention should only go so far and as far as I am concerned, they went too far with this housing "crisis".

One person's crisis is another's opportunity. Basic foundation concept of free market economics.

Too bad people like this won't let them actually act.

Democrats Believe in Relative Rights and Banning Guns...Still

They just don't get it. From the draft of the 2008 Democratic Platform:
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
Emphasis mine.

So let me see if I have this straight? The Democratic Party believes that rights are relative depending on where you live, they want to interfere in intrastate commerce between private citizens to dictate what property they can dispose of in accordance with the law and they want to ban scary looking guns again because they just need to try harder this time. Apparently Bill Clinton wasn't enough of a Democrat then to make it effective.

All in the name of keeping guns from falling magically from the sky into the upraised hands of eager, happy terrorists and criminals. Apparently the gun laws of the past 70 odd years haven't been enough.

They aren't respecting "differing views on the issue", they're doing what they've always done and are sticking to the party line.

Don't vote for anyone who supports even a fraction of this platform in November. It's clear they haven't learned a thing from Heller and see themselves enlightened, elite leaders.

Yes, people, the Democrats want to take your guns away. Pass it around.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

The FR-F2: French Firepower

Can it be? A post on French weaponry that isn't simply meant to serve as a warning to others (Chauchat anyone)?

I have two weird interests: sniper rifles and the French Foreign Legion. That combined with an old hardcover book called "Weapons of War" which had nothing but pictures of tanks, planes, ships and guns with little captions. That was pornography to the 12-year old Canadian male mind. I was a nerd then and a geek now. It shows.

In this book were dozens of pictures of various firearms. Those pictures were made more "real" playing a role playing game called "Twilight 2000". I could get a sense of what a G3, G11, M-16, FAL, AKM or a .22 could do in battle. The book also featured sniper rifles.

Two of these were the FR-F1 and FR-F2, both French weapons. I am going to say this: Regardless of your opinion of French military equipment, they do sometimes make stuff that actually works even if it looks off to us. For whatever reason, I like the French sniper rifles.

The French miltiary assigns snipers to squads and platoons as part of their regular organization. In a given French unit, there will be a handful of attached sharpshooters. It makes sense and it has proven very useful in irregular combat situations like that in Bosnia in the 90s.

So for a little mid-week gun porn, here is the FR-F2:


It is a bolt-action, magazine-fed, bipod-equipped sniper rifle. To us, it looks odd. Like the Russians who had an obsession with integral bayonets on their combat rifles, the French have an obsession with integral bipods on theirs. All of their primary small arms are fitted with built-in bipods. Once less thing to fall off the gun and you can always have a support available if you need it.

The FR-F2 is an interesting study in how different countries approach the problem of creating a designated marksmen or sniper rifle. The French have adapted their older MAS family of rifles to the sniper role. The FR-F1 is a logical derivative of the MAS 36 much like the Dragunov/Romak is a derivative of the AK-47/74. In this case though, FR-F2 shares much less with the FR-F1 other than the core action. Everything else is different.

The FR-F2 was initially made in two chamberings: 7.5mm French and 7.62x51 NATO. Today, the FR-F2 is chambered only in 7.62x51. It is fitted with a free-floated heavy barrel and flash hider. Yes, really! Take a close look at the muzzle end. See the cover behind the muzzle? That's to protect the barrel from debris and makes evident the free-float shroud.

The rifle is fed from a 10 round detachable magazine and is equipped with a pistol grip. This is one the reasons I like the FR-F2 (and the FR-F1). Many modern sniper rifles use pistol grips but not all. They are notably absent from the M21/M24/M40 family of US Army sniper rifles. US Army designated marksman's rifles use pistol grips but those are derivatives of the AR-15 family. I would argue it makes the rifle much easier to control and shoot. Anachronistically, the FR-F2 uses wood furniture.

The FR-F2 is built like a tank and it shows. The receiver is beefy and supports all of the hardware. It's reported accuracy is out to 800 meters. Pretty typical for a line-issue sniper rifle. An 8x scope is standard with a rangefinding reticle similar to those found in Russian rifles.

The FR-F2 is for people who like oddball weapons which appear to have been the offspring of some bizarre crossbreeding project and then let loose into the world. So ugly (to some) that you have to love them. Given the FR-F2 is a combat-proven weapon in many theatres, ugly or not, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one.

Alas, since the French tightly control their weapons industry, the FR-F1 and FR-F2 are not available on the civilian market. Perhaps in the future though. I like to own one.

It must be the Canadian in me. Plenty of photos here to satisfy your French desires (and where I obtained these two pictures, I hope the authors don't mind me showcasing their weapons).

Monday, August 4, 2008

The Art of Musketry

God I had fun this past Saturday!

I received a generous invitation to go out to Fort Shenandoah, the home of the North-South Skirmish Association (N-SSA) to try out a few rifle muskets and see whether this skirmishing stuff is for me.

It is.

Skirmishing is competitive shooting. As a result, the affiliated clubs, to lesser and greater degrees, are looking for recruits who are somewhat serious about the sport and having fun at the same time. You have to have a bit of a sense of humor because Minie balls aren't the same thing as modern ammo in its consistency and performance. Plus, you're shooting offhand and unsupported. I don't do a lot of shooting offhand but what I did this past weekend was certainly acceptable by the standards of the club.

It's an interview process of sorts. Just to make sure I can handle myself safely and hit what I'm aiming at 50% of the time. In this sport, that's decent accuracy. Into the 60% range and you're on a top team. Like modern rifle competition, you have to make every shot count. Unlike modern rifle, you have to take into account loading the powder and ball into the gun yourself and still get 4-6 shots off in a 3 minute window. That 3 minutes is awful short when you're operating "under the gun" so to speak. For breech-loading carbines, it's two minutes. It does go by fast.

I had the chance to try out three different rifles. A Colt 2-band musket carbine, a Jaeger musket carbine and a Maynard breech-loading carbine. The fascinating thing is that out of the three, only the Colt was reproduction. The other two were original period pieces. I was literally shooting history.

I won't bore you with the details but thanks to the expert experience of my guide, my introduction was fruitful and very enjoyable. I hit the paper targets in the white (they don't use black silohettes) more often than not and once I had figured out where to hold my sights on the reactive targets, I got two out of three to explode in a wonderful orgy of shattered pottery.

Black powder is neat because it is a form of slow-motion shooting. You can sense that things are not as fast as modern weapons. On two occasions, I was able to see the round hitting, or missing as cases were, the target while I was still sighted down the barrel on the follow-through. In one case, I saw the white puff of ceramic from the tile I was shooting through the smoke of the shot and saw the puff of dirt on the berm 100 yards beyond that. Nifty stuff.

It's a different form of shooting. It's dirty because of the powder. It's harder because of the tight time pressure and it's absolutely unique due to the team nature of the competition itself. My background in Airsoft skirmishing will serve me well here since I'll need gear to store the cartridges and percussion caps and develop muscle memory to reach for them to maximize my performance. As a lefty, that's going to make me an oddball on the line. My cap box and catridge box are going to be some rather unusual positions on my belt.

I can't begin to say enough about the facility itself. It is a throwback to a different time and set of values and I am very grateful that such a place exists. The openness and attitudes of the members I met is something else. They run their facility the way I would expect it from a previous generation: You're a responsible adult and we're trusting you to know what you're doing and act prudently and safely.

Trust. It's everything and the N-SSA appears to make it a cornerstone. Everyone who is a member of the N-SSA is an RSO. The range is open to all members as long as it isn't closed because of a match or other circumstances. People are free to camp out on the site and come and go as they please. It fosters a sense of shared responsibility and comradarie. Just show up and have fun. Want to practice on a Saturday and no one is around? You have the keys. Just clean up after yourself and lock up when you're done.

Very few shooting facilities operate like this. Places like the Izaak Walton League come close but I'd say the N-SSA is probably the most open you'll encounter. Part of it I guess stems from the fact it really is more of a private club than a public range. You have to be a member of an N-SSA affiliated club to have the privilege of using the facility.

At an hour away for me, I look forward to shooting there often in the months to come.

I had a really good time with the members I met and grateful for the generous use of several antique guns which went above and beyond as far as I am concerned.

I'll be attending the skirmish there this upcoming weekend and will get some pictures then. I figure it will take another trip or a few weeks before I decide on what gun I want to start with. Then to order it and all of the unique supplies it will require and start to acquire my uniform. Right now, I'm leaning towards a Remington 1863 "Zouave". But something like this Maynard would be a wonderful thing to own.

With luck, I might even be shooting in an individual competition in the Fall.

I'm looking forward to this immensely.

So You Are a Young Liberal Democrat, Eh?

Posted on the Maryland Shooters Forum...

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself a liberal Democrat and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

This is Why Gun Registration and Licensing Is a Bad Idea

As many people know, I have issues with gun owner licensing and gun registration. It's my pet peeve. I dislike them because their mere existence is a gross violation of 18 USC 926(a), a law which is very clear on the matter of licensing and registration and yet, many states/localities violate it with impunity.

The liberal argument is that knowing who owns guns and what guns they are contribute to the safety of innocents since if that owner becomes violent, they will be able to disarm them before they become a threat. As my previous post points out, I have a big problem with the outcome of that logic too since I have a problem with society engaging in prior restraint. Especially when it targets gun owners.

And David Codrea provides the details as to why gun owners are not paranoid about registration leading to confiscation because it is happening right here in this country. It's scattered and rare but it is happening. And all because the man in question was working within the system doing things the right way. But because he lives in a place where licensing and registration are done and they used it against him.

All because he was trying to work with his representative, she got annoyed and used her authority to make him go away. Or punish him from having the gall to be an engaged, responsible citizen. Here it is as David illustrates wonderfully (emphasis mine):
To sum it up, for exercising his First Amendment right to petition his representative, Razzano had the cops called on him by Congressman McCarthy’s office, which denied doing so until ordered by a magistrate to produce the name of the staffer who did this. Using the call as their reason to intervene, police made a decision to “temporarily” confiscate Mr. Razzano’s firearms. They subsequently revoked his pistol license, effectively barring return of his property. They have also retained custody of his long arms, and there is no provision to return them. And at no time has Mr. Razzano been charged with any crime, nor has he been adjudicated unsuitable or examined by any professional who has rendered that determination.
Let that last sentence sink in. Burn it into your brain and use it as a club the next time suggests registration or licensing as a "safety measure". It is nothing of the sort. It is a mechanism of control and a vehicle to maintain power over free people, nothing more.

This is why I will fight widespread gun registration and licensing wherever I live. Maryland does have gun registration but only for firearms that I've acquired in this state under its regulations. This means some of my guns are registered (a tiny minority) but not all of them. And I even hate that. But I take solace in the fact that short of police on the doorstep, the state will have a question mark next to my name with regard to exact number and type.

I cannot wait until I have property in another state to get some stuff out of here and into a safer location.

Read David's article and be outraged like I am. Sadly, I would say "unbelievable" but it is very believable. Yet another abuse of authority by those who think they are entitled when, in fact, they are elected. And elected to represent, not lead. Too many don't see the difference.

Hat tip to Sebastian.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

I Suspect Due Process Is In Here Somewhere...But I Can't Find It

I came across this article in the Republican-American and I'm stunned speechless. The first sentence says it all:
Using a unique state law, police in Connecticut have disarmed dozens of gun owners based on suspicions that they might harm themselves or others.
Yes, you read that right. Disarmed based on "suspicion".

Apparently Connecticut has decided that since disarmament based on protective orders is ok, why not expand it to any form of suspicion that the armed individual may commit a crime in the future?

I at least understand the rationale behind preemptive disarmament under a protective order. The individual in question usually has a violent past or has a disposition towards the use of violence or making threats in the presence of others. I personally disagree with this form of prior restraint against an individual's rights in the absence of being charged or being convicted of a crime but that is the law.

As I say, I get it but I feel such actions lie on the absolute edge of what we may charitably consider tolerable as an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights.

This Connecticut law goes beyond that edge. It is beyond the pale and the article shows it.
The state's gun seizure law is considered the first and only law in the country that allows the confiscation of a gun before the owner commits an act of violence. Police and state prosecutors can obtain seizure warrants based on concerns about someone's intentions.
Orwell would be so proud! All we need now are microphones on every street and the State can disarm everyone sooner or later.

So if someone overhears two neighbors talking as one is packing up to go to the range and catches pieces of a conversation along the lines of them "going to practice so they can park two right into someone's chest more quickly", is that considered justifiable concern? To whit, a warrant based solely on the perception of danger, a totally subjective thing, and subsequently result in this individual losing their guns on the basis of a busybody's say-so?
Opponents of a gun seizure law expressed fears in 1999 that police would abuse the law. Today, the law's backers say the record shows that hasn't been the case.
The mere existence of this law is an abuse. The fact that they actually use it just proves the old adage about power corrupting. I now understand why one of Joe's pet peeves are violations he sees under 18 USC 242. I'd say this law falls under that category. The article itself goes on to prove it:
Lawlor said there have been no challenges on constitutional grounds because of the way the law was written. "The whole point was to make sure it was limited and constitutional," he said. Sherman said it is because the law is used sparingly, and because a test case would be too costly for average gun owners.
And there you have it. Pass a law that pushing back the boundaries and don't use it too much but just enough so that anyone unwary enough to fall afoul of it would be bankrupted in their attempt to challenge. Hence, it's ok.

Read the whole article.

Why is it not surprising that some liberals are looking at this and saying it is no big deal because the folks involved are getting a hearing? After all, there's the police involved, an investigation and a hearing with a judge and everything! Liberals love it! "See!", they say, "He had a hearing and it was decidedly fairly!".

It is a short ride from the form of "due process" demonstrated in this article to a full-blown kangaroo court where the whole proceeding is nothing but a sham to give the illusion that a fair hearing was given. As we know, the outcome of such courts is predetermined and they solely exist to keep the so-called "useful idiots" happy and ignorant. Works great in the establishment of totalitarian regimes.

Due process is more than a hearing with a decision. The rules have to be fair. People generally think of due process and the subsequent revocation of rights to have been thorough and result in a conviction of some sort. So there is no doubt as to the correctness of the deprivation of rights. It is not enough to be judged. You can be judged and never get a fair trial if those in power get to write the rules as they see fit. And as they have done here.

I don't see any fairness here. I see another incremental expansion of the boundaries of due process and engaging in more prior restraint for thoughts, not actions. Remember, these seizures happen in the absence of criminal action, no charges are filed against those accused and the Court's themselves, despite supposed guarantees in the law, delay and drag out the taking of these individuals property solely on the basis of perception. Theirs or that of others.

And this is a property crime. It could be considered by some to be a 4th Amendment violation. But liberals dance happy because the law was followed and the guilty person got a hearing! Whoopee freakin' do! They got a hearing. No crime, no charges, no trial other than an Inquisition for bad thoughts or inappropriate words. All under the auspices of those in power and authority.

The last paragraphs sum it up nicely.
Crook and Sherman said law-abiding gun owners remain at risk while the gun seizure law remains on the statute books.

"The overriding concern is anybody can report anybody with or without substantiation, and I don't think that is the American way," Crook said.
Amen, gentleman.

I am never moving to Connecticut. I'll bet Obama would be just fine with this law.

And for those of you who think this law is just dandy, may your masters pad your chains and throw away the keys.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Conundrum and Weekend Fun

I'm wanting to finalize plans to attend GBR III in October. Here's my conundrum: I want to shoot. I'd really like to bring my Swedish M96 sporter/sniper in 6.5mm. My conundrum is the fact this rifle is unique. It isn't like an AR-15, even an unusual one like my Arctic Panther, that I can replace with some moderate effort after the insurance claim is finished. My M96 is one-of-a-kind and I'd literally have to obtain another M96 and destroy it in order to recreate what I have. To get another M96 similar to what I have would likely take a year of gunsmithing work and well over 1000-2000 dollars in costs above and beyond that of the M96 to provide the starting point. And I'd have to first find an M96 receiver or rifle not worthy of keeping original in order to do it.

My rifle is special. I'm not ascribing magical qualities to this rifle but it is one of the top guns in my collection and one of my favorites. It may have been bought as a $300 bastard but its cost of replacement is far greater. My fear is traveling with this oddball weapon and have it not arrive at the destination. It's not like I can drive to Reno in a day or two so flying is the only way I can attend.

What's your experience with long guns making their destinations? Am I being paranoid about losing an irreplaceable 1915 sporterized M96 Swedish Mauser or do I have a legitimate concern? Would a Pelican case with this rifle and its ammunition in it not make it because of lowlife baggage handlers shuttling it aside to add to their own collections? If this a problem, I'd rather risk a more valuable, monetarily speaking, match-grade AR-15 I can replace more readily than an M96 that I can't.

But it won't be as much fun to shoot in the desert. We all have our pride and joys in our collections and this is one of mine. I'd like people to be able to try it out and enjoy it. If this was a Remington 700 in .308, I wouldn't be as concerned because I can get another .308. 6.5mm Swedish Mausers aren't exactly common.

While you chew on that, I'm planning to have some fun this weekend. I'm going musket shooting! This time with the N-SSA to try out a variety of Civil War reproduction muskets with an eye towards starting Civil War skirmishing. A local shooter has generously offered to let me tag along and try some out. I'm hoping the 2-Band Enfield fits nicely as I really like that rifle.

Weekend fun ahead!