Proud NRA Apologist

Sebastian has a post up that addresses a critic that thinks he is an apologist for the NRA. As both Denise and I have frequently stated, we are proud members of the NRA and think that the NRA is the most effective gun rights organization that we have.

Anyway, I left a comment at Snowflakes and thought that it may be of interest here as well.

Quoted from Sebastian's post:

"If you’ve ever spent any time talking to real people about the gun issue, you know that most people believe that some level of gun control is necessary."

My comment:

Here Here. I think we in the gun rights community often forget this fact. We have gun control in this country because the citizens of this country wanted it. We fool ourselves when we get the idea, amplified by our group think, that the general public is interested in removing the gun control laws. They aren't. Particularly law regulating fully automatic firearms.

For example, I was talking to my aunt about 4 years ago, who is not really anti-gun, and mentioned that machine guns ought to be fully legalized. She said, No Way.
If you talk to most Americans, they will tell you the same thing.

We have nearly 50 years of lies and propaganda to overcome and it will only be defeated by hard work and persistence. In particular, work needs to be done to bring women into the gun rights fold. We are having some success. What we don't need is members of our own community calling the most effective gun rights organization we have, the NRA, a gun control organization. It is silly and destructive.

I will readily admit that the NRA isn't perfect and has made mistakes. But it is the most effective gun rights organization we have. I urge anyone reading this to become a member. Add your voice to the membership.

New Bloggers--A Welcome

I had a little time to do some blogroll maintenance this morning. It’s like cleaning house, you gotta do it once a year or it just gets away from you (I’m joking I clean house at least once every six months).

I removed a few blogs and could have taken out more. I used ad hoc criteria—if a blogger hadn’t posted for awhile but the blog was still up and had something on the front page, I left it in. I hope they return to blogging. If the blog was “not found” or had nothing on the front page, then out it went.

I added three blogs and probably should add more later.

“Call Me Ahab” is really a name and address change. Ahab has moved to snappy new digs. He dropped his former blog name “What Would John Wayne Do?” I loved the name of the old blog, but “Call me Ahab” resonates too, especially for someone who reads as much as I do.

I want to welcome “New Jovian Thunderbolt” to the roll. He is fairly new to gunnie-hood and mentions several times the influence "Ten Ring" has had on his interest in shooting. We are flattered and your blog is now a daily read.

Finally, we are welcoming a professional blog: Outdoor Life Magazine’s “Gunshots.” The magazine brought together several excellent gun writers and told them to go forth and write. Michael Bane is among the writers. Yosemite Sam and I are also flattered and happy to see “Ten Ring” listed on their blogroll, despite my recent dearth of posts.

There is a certain ego-boost to this blogging thing. It's great to hear how we inspired someone to go shooting. Appearing on the blogrolls of so many bloggers that we respect is certainly welcome. If you would like us to add your blog to our blogroll, just put a message in comments.

Also, we recently had an e-mail problem, so if you e-mail or have e-mail us and not gotten an answer, your message was probably spam-filtered out of existence. Such is life in the digital world.

Let Me Eat my Steak in Peace

I'm not always popular here at work. I work in Massachusetts and most of my co-workers are to the left of Lenin. I don't look for political or social discussions, but I don't hide them either.

When people found out I was a gunowner, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth, let me tell you. I am, so far as I know, the only gunowner now in this building with about thirty employees. I italicized "so far as I know" on purpose, because you never know.

I'm also a carnivore. We have a vegatarian here who preaches her diet like Billy Graham preaches Jesus. She has added a new theme to her sermon. Not only does meat equal murder, but also meat equals a bigger carbon footprint. Like I care. Besides, I'm doing my best to increase my footprint given my 40 mile one-way commute.

I checked the InterTubes for information on her sermon and found an article that discusses some Japanese study on meat production. It made me wonder what a vegetarian diet's impact would be. What about here in New England when one's fresh fodder must be shipped in? What carbon footprint would that leave?

Besides, I love steak. I'm a woman and I'm not "supposed" to admit that. I'm supposed to love green salads with a teaspoon of lean chicken placed so artfully on top and then drizzled with no-calorie vinegar. I guess I didn't get the memo and if anyone sends it to me I'll sic Cooper the basset hound on them. Granted, he would lick you senseless, but dog slobber is a serious matter.

I'll say it again--I love steak. I love it medium rare, juicy, and with just a hint of char around the corners. I broil it, grill it, or saute it depending on my passion at the moment. I've always loved steak and my love affair has aged to where I avoid the round and chuck steaks and go for the loin cuts. Perhaps it's more a function of income.

I basically told my co-worker that she would have to pry my steak out of my cold dead jaws.

Anniversary of 9/11

It is 9/11/2007. Six years after we were viciously attacked. In fact, we were attacked on Tuesday, the same day of the week as today. Six years ago, that Tuesday was bright and clear. Today it’s cloudy, cool and drizzling. Appropriate in some way.

I thought about writing a memorial post and realized I had done so a year ago today. In that post, I said all I could say now. Give it a read if you wish.

Today I only wish to say that I still grieve for those innocent people killed on 9/11. I still loathe the bastards that did it. I am still angry at those people who spin conspiracy theories simply because they cannot accept the truth. I still honor the courageous passengers of United 93. I will never forget and I will never forgive.

The NRA Thing Again

You know, I really hate going over old ground. The third post I ever made to this blog, back in December 2004, was why I support the National Rifle Association even though it is not the strongest Second Amendment champion out there. I'll rephrase now for clarity. It is the only pro-Second Amendment organization that the gun banners fear and loathe and that's enough for me.

This week, Kim DuToit mentioned again why he doesn't join the NRA. His commenters chimed in. A few even said they would not join or they would quit because one of the NRA's board members disparaged civilian ownership of "assault weapons."

Since then, Sebastian and Ahab both have vocally supported the NRA. Sebastian later asked for ideas to improve the NRA. Their posts are worth your time.

I really hate this internal sniping at each other. The NRA is and should be a "big tent" organization. It should include hunters, Cowboy Action Shooters, bullseye shooters, and black rifle aficionados. By providing a home for all of these types of shooters, it provides them a voice that is much stronger than it would be otherwise.

Look at Gunowners of America. They are a "no compromise" group and that's great. We need them. But, they have no political clout. The NRA and the AARP have the loudest voices in American politics today. Do gunnies who decry the NRA want to give up that clout and that voice?

Being a "big tent" organization means that the NRA cannot please everyone all the time. NRA leaders also know that politics is the art of compromise. Thus, they may make a political decisions to support something or not support something for political reasons.

Let's take a look at the Gun Control Act of 1968. It was going to pass no matter what. The political assassinations of the 1960s, the arming up of radical groups (Weathermen Underground, Black Panthers, etc.) scared liberals and conservatives alike. The NRA helped protect gun owners rights by being at the table to help craft compromises. I believe that we would have lost a lot more in 1968 if the NRA had simply yelled "no compromise" and refused to take a seat at the table.

This argument does not do much for the blood pressure of those gunnies who quote "...shall not be infringed." They argue that every gun law, or at least most of them, are unconstitutional. You know something, they're probably right. Many gun laws have no basis in the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

No matter how true this is, the United States has always had some sort of gun laws. In the 18th Century, slaves could not own guns. Most white landowners were required to own a non-rifled musket (useless for hunting) and show up at militia practice. In the 19th Century there were laws against concealed carry, and even possessing a gun in some Western towns if you were a stranger.

We have gun laws now. Way too many of them. Many are unconstitutional, but asserting that loudly gets you no where except maybe jail (depending on your actions). The laws must be repealed and new laws must be stopped in their tracks. The only way to do that is through politics. The NRA is the best positioned lobby we have to fight for gun rights. Also, don't forget that anti-gunnies have a voice and they use it.

The courts do not offer us much either. They are the ones who basically decide what is Consitutional. We all know that courts are not really on our side. Even if we win a sweeping Supreme Court victory we will still have some gun laws. Any decision they hand down will include words like, "subject to reasonable regulation." Congress and state lawmakers will decide what is reasonable.

I am as strong a believer in the Second Amendment as anyone out there. I give money to pro-gun groups every two-weeks in payroll deductions. I buy a lot of guns and a lot of ammo. I run this blog. I vote and I write letters and make calls to Congresscritters. I know the NRA has done stupid things in the past and will do so in the future. I know they're not perfect, but their collective voice has helped be retain my gun rights through too many attempts at stripping them from me.

I urge people to join the NRA and vote in board members that support your idea of the Second Amendment or your favorite shooting sport. If you don't, then you have no voice in the one pro-rights organization that Congress and state legislatures actually hear.

Mandatory Health Care--No Way!

This is a non-gun post (unless I figure out a way to bring guns in later). Yosemite Sam and I played tortoise this weekend. That is, we pulled our shell in and didn't read the news, watch the news, or listen to the news. We had fun, but stayed blissfully unaware of everything else.

You miss stuff when you do that and you realize everyone is talking about important stuff. For instance, Presidential Candidate John Edwards is calling for universal health care. But, he doesn't stop at that.

He said, "It [his plan] requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care." and then, "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK." He mentions mammograms and possibly mental health visits (this is not very definite).

I really hate this idea. First off, I may not want to visit a doctor and that's my choice. It may not be the smartest choice, or not, but it's my choice. Further, if you visit a doctor who recommends a treatment, what happens if you refuse that treatment? What if that treatment's a diet and you can't resist those cupcakes and you fail to meet your goals? Will they fine you, put you in a fat camp and sweat it off you, or what?

What if the doctor advises you to take a psychotropic drug because you said you got sad when your cat died? What if a doctor asks if you have guns and then orders them taken away for your own good (I knew I could sneak guns in here somewhere)?

I wouldn't vote for Edwards if he was running against Jack the Ripper. I might, however, want to sell him hair gel and retire early. What a putz.

My Only Word on Larry Craig

I haven't said anything about the Senator Larry Craig fiasco (in fact, I haven't said anything in about a week--oh well). If you don't know what fiasco I’m talking about, you really need to come up for air.

I don't much care if he's gay or not, guilty of soliciting sex or not, or of being a hypocrite about family values. Those things don't really affect me so much. It is a matter that he, his family, and the people he represents needs to come to terms with it.

However, the one thing I keep saying to Yosemite Sam is, “Why did it have to be Larry Craig?” He’s one of the (if not THE) most gun-friendly senators we have in that exclusive club. He’s on the NRA Board of Directors. I have seen him at each of the NRA Annual Meetings I have attended. He supports gun rights. Now, some may quibble about all his decisions and all his votes, but it does not change the fact that he is a friend to gunnies in the U.S. Senate.

No matter what happens, he will no longer have an effective voice for us in the Senate. He may soon not have a voice in that body at all. Gay or not, hypocrite or not, we have lost a good supporter for our cause.

So, why did it have to be Larry Craig? Why couldn’t it have been Chuck Schumer, John Kerry or even Diane Feinstein (now that would’ve been a headline)? Hell, even Arlen Specter or Orrin Hatch would have been better. Why you Larry?

Question on ATF Trace Data Graphics

There has been blog-talk about ATF's release (other links in that post as well) of firarms trace data. I don't have the statistical background to crunch the numbers or offer any real insight.

I did notice on thing about one of the ATF's graphics. They showed the types of traced guns in a bar graph. They broke types of guns into distinct categories: pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, derringers, machine guns, unknown types, and combination. On the top of each bar for a primary type was a silhouette of that type gun.

The silhouette for machine gun was an M-16 rifle (with the old-style handguard). A true M-16 is certainly a machine gun, but the silhouette could be just as easily interpreted as a civilian AR-15.



I don't accuse the ATF of doing this on purpose, but it shows how easily semi-automatics are demonized in the public eye. They could of used the graphic of a Thompson (there is a semi-auto version, but it is not as common as AR-15s). Better yet, they could have shown a tripod mounted gun. But they used a silhouette of one of the most popular civilian rifles.

The public is confused enough between fully automatic and semi-automatic guns. This graphic won't help.

A Summer Ammo Day

I'm behind in my blog reading as well as other things, so I am way behind on the mini-Ammo Day that David Codrea of War On Guns is advocating (also see links in that post). Codrea points out that the anti-gunnies want to stage protests for gun control on August 28. He proposes that gunnies should buy ammo on that day.

I support National Ammo Day by buying at least some ammo. For that matter, I have bought a gun on April 15 (Buy A Gun Day) more than once. I am not sure if "buycotts" (or boycotts for that matter) work politically or socially. However, we put more ammo and guns in civilian hands and that's never a bad thing.

I am not sure what we can do to finally win the war on gun rights. That doesn't mean I've lost hope . Au contraire I believe we are making gains. But, here's the thing: there are too many Americans who are convinced that guns are evil. They believe that they are too unskilled, too clumsy, or too stupid to ever touch a gun. They believe that they must leave self-defense to professionals. They believe you and me are just as stupid as they see themselves and they don't trust us with guns.

We will never win these people over and they will always have a voice. It is up to us to ensure that our voice is louder and stronger. It is up to us to ensure that we support gun-related businesses--even gun counters in big box stores. So, let's take David's advice and get out there and buy some ammo.

Neighbors Try to Close a New Hampshire Range

You'd almost think it was a conspiracy. So many times we’ve seen people move into an area where an established gun club operates. Then the newbies decide they can’t stand the sound of gun fire. They ban together and move heaven and earth to try to close down a gun club.

I read about one club in New Hampshire with this problem. It was in one of those free marketplace-type papers, The Broadcaster. I checked the Internet-tubes-thingy and I was surprised to see they were on the web (I have no idea why that would surprise me in this day and age, but there you are).

The paper wrote a surprisingly favorable story about a club that’s not going down without a fight. The Lone Pines Hunters Club has been in Hollis since the mid-1960s. The club itself is much older; founded in 1913 in Nashua, New Hampshire. Club members used the Hollis location without a problem until eight years ago when a group of new neighbors formed an organization called “Residents Defending Their Homes.”

Before I go any further, I will admit that the paper’s story is one-sided. The neighbors’ were not interviewed while the club president tells his side. So, keep that in mind as you read on.

The neighbors went to the Planning Board and eventually the board ruled against the club. In 2003 a court ruled that the board could require the club to develop a site plan. In 2005, all shooting stopped at the club until the plan could be approved and then implemented.

From roughly 2003 until now the club has suffered over 22 planning meetings and paid out a staggering $358,000 for engineering studies, fees, and everything else. In March, the Planning Board demanded a shooting demonstration with monitors stationed around the area to listen for and gauge gun shot noise. Few if any heard significant noise.

Club members are going to fight the court and the board. I don’t know if they’ll win, but I hope so. There are too few shooting places for too many gun owners. It also dismays me that this is happening in New Hampshire.

You see, my state has a range protection law that clearly supports shooting ranges. (The law is a quick read and a model for a well-written statute.) There's also a tradition of gun ownership and hunting.

There may be more to the story. In fact, the article passed over a possible pollution concern. Also, the range protection law was revised in 2004, so the neighbors may have found a loophole since closed.

But if everything in the story is accurate, I really hope the Lone Pines Hunters Club members are sighting in their guns for this fall’s hunting season.

Lack of Public Shooting Ranges

Arms and the Law posts this news story about a lack of shooting ranges in Colorado. At least there’s a plan to improve the situation.

I’ve probably said this before (given the fact that I’ve said more about guns than I ever thought possible) that New England has a lack of public ranges. There are a handful of commercial ranges open to the public, but there’re not cheap especially if you need to buy ammo. Of course, ammo is getting spendy everywhere.

Yosemite Sam and I joined a couple of shooting clubs. New England actually has a good number of these private organizations. They’re usually called “[insert town name here] Rod and Gun Club” or “[insert town name here] Fish and Game Club” or permutations to that affect. Ironically, both clubs in which we’re members aren’t located in the towns for which they’re named.

We had to pay good money to join initially and we pay dues each year. Still, we have good, safe places to shoot. For us, joining both clubs was a no-brainer. We were already dedicated shooters and hunters. We needed a place to practice, sight in rifles, shoot clay birds, and enjoy the shooting sports. We took the time to find clubs and work through their membership requirements.

What about the person who isn’t sure shooting will be for them, but has bought or inherited a gun? Or the person who decides to buy a revolver just in case they get a visit from Mr. Burglar and his friend Mr. Rapist? They may not take the effort to find a club and become members. They may not want to spend a lot of money and time at a commercial range.

Public ranges are necessary. Local, state or Federal governments should provide an area and facilities in which to shoot. A few such ranges should offer shooting lessons. Being able to learn, to practice, and to improve marksmanship is part of the meaning of “well-regulated militia” (the whole body of the people, not the National Guard).

For most of us, there are relatively few impediments to buying a gun, but it can be difficult to learn how to use one. What do anti-gunnies want? Do they want to have gun owners who barely know which end of the gun the bullet comes from or don’t know gun safety?

Perhaps by ensuring that it’s hard for people to find training and practice and thus gain competence, the anti-gunnies can exaggerate the dangers of guns. Nah, couldn’t be that.

This, That, and the Other

I admit I haven’t been living up to my blogligations. I can sum it up in one word (or is it two) Burnout. I have said so much about guns in long essays, short posts, musings, range reports, Ones From the Vault, that I've said everything that I've ever thought about guns.

I've supported gun rights and the battle continues seemingly with no change. The anti-gunnies are lying while the pro-gunnies are slinging facts, but to little avail. Anti-gunnies have done an excellent job demonizing guns. Too many of our fellow citizens think a gun is too dangerous to own, too complicated to use, and too evil to touch.

Still, I see a lot of hope for gunnies. We have been winning battles, although we may need to continue fighting forever. Things are not as good as they were while I was growing up, but they’ve improved in the last fifteen years or so. I doubt we’ll ever restore gun rights to pre-1968 or 1934, but we’ve held our own and made some advances.

I’ve said all of this before in so many ways here on Ten Ring. I plan to continue to blog about guns after my recent breather, but I may throw in a few non-gun posts to liven things up (that is, to clear my head). Here’s a few facts about me to show I'm not just a gunnie:

I collect first editions of modern literature; the collecting field is called “Modern Firsts.” The Internet has made collecting harder. Bookstore and thrift shop owners have learned that a first edition can be worth a pretty penny. They might not be able to sell it for its full catalog price locally, but they can sell it on the Internet for that price and sometimes more.

I buy gold on occasion in the form of small coins--mainly Canadian Maple Leafs. I think gold’s a good investment because it’s always liquid, it’s never had no value, it’s portable. I don’t buy it as a TEOTAWAKI investment, although it wouldn’t be bad to have if zombies attacked, asteroids fell, or whatever else hits. Also, I’m such a girly-girl that the stuff is just too damn pretty to resist.

For my career or to attend graduate school, I have lived in (no particular order) Maryland, Idaho, Florida, Massachusetts, Texas, and New Hampshire. I have visited all but one of the lower 48 states (Minnesota), but have never been to Alaska or Hawaii. I would love to visit Alaska, but I’m not too interested in Hawaii.

Also, I don’t like Glocks or most other polymer guns. There’s nothing wrong with them in particular. I just prefer wood grips, blued metal, and a gun that feels good in my hand. I know there are many who swear by Glocks and that’s okay too. Each to their own. (Whoops this wasn’t a gun post, ignore this paragraph.)

Finally, we have mentioned our new addition, Cooper the Basset Hound puppy. He’s getting bigger all the time. He’s a really good natured, sweet dog. We didn’t mention that we found out he had pneumonia probably from the breeder’s kennels. We nursed him back to health with enough antibiotics to kill a jumbo jet full of pathogens. We spent a lot of money at the vet’s office, but he’s our dog, which means he’s our best friend. And here he is:

Cooper, Ten Ring's Mascot

One From the Vault

H&R Self-Loading Pistol
There are those who disparage mouse guns. These are the little guns, the vest pocket guns, that are easily concealed, light weight, and chambered for small cartridges. They’re second guns, or hide-out guns.

Some who disparage mouse guns say the cartridges they shoot are too weak for self-defense. Others say that they’re not accurate and complain about the sights, the grips, and everything in between. Of course, they have a point. But, I still like mouse guns. They’re little jewels of technology. Their makers have had to figure out how to make something that would work, stand up against recoil, and still be small enough to carry in pocket or purse.

I don’t have much interest in today’s mouse guns; the Ravens, Lorcins, and Jennings. Not my cup of tea. I like the old ones, the ones like our ancestors bought and carried. These guns are made of steel, not pot metal. They have heft and some serious machining.

One such gun was made by Harrington and Richardson of Worcester, Massachusetts—practically in my back yard. H&R as they’re usually called had long made revolvers and shotguns. They wanted to go head to head against Colt with a small semi-auto mouse gun chambered in .25 caliber. They decided to team with the British company, Webley & Scott. (They both made a larger model in .32 caliber as a joint venture.)

Webley had already started production of a small gun. One of their designers met with H&R’s engineers and they worked out a plan. Webley would license the design for a fee and H&R would sell it in the United States and make it in their own plants. This got around steep tariffs.

Certain realities caused the designer to make changes from the British model. They got rid of the hammer using a striker design instead. After all Colt's successful vest pocket gun had no hammer. They had to re-engineer the sear and trigger links because it was a smidgen too close to Colt’s patents. In 1912, both companies launched versions of the pistol, one in Great Britain the other in the United States.

H&R Self-Loading pistol in .25 caliber

One thing I like about the naming of the gun. H&R purposedly avoided the use of "semi-auto" suggesting that it could be too easily confused with fully auto. Had everyone at the time avoided that term, we may not have had the confusion between self-loading and automatic weapons the anti-gunnies have exploited.

The guns were not necessarily commercial successes. The Webley model was plagued with jams, but the H&R model proved a little more reliable. H&R stopped production in late 1916 and made a total of 16,630 pistols.

My gun is the H&R model. It was made in early to mid-1916 judging by the rollmarks and the serial number (which I obscured in the photo). It remains popular as a collector’s item because it was an early semi-auto mouse gun and it was well made.

The gun is solidly built with master-level machining throughout. It is also an early example of a gun that will give a no-snag draw from one’s pocket. Look at the rounded contours, the lack of a hammer, etc.

I haven’t shot this gun yet, although some day I will. However, I doubt I’ll hit anything with it. Remember I mentioned some people criticize mouse guns’ sights and that this gun would never snag in a draw. Well, this little gun has no sights at all, not even a groove cut into the top of the gun. It’s the ultimate belly gun.

Making Gun Sports Fade Away

Alphecca covers this article about a proposal to let up to 50 of Great Britain’s top handgun shooters practice shooting in England. This would allow them to prepare for the Olympics in 2012 and then the ban on handgun shooting would once fall again. Predictably some anti-gunnies are totally against this even though there will be many “safeguards” in place.

Here’s what strikes me about rules that would allow up to 50 shooters to practice, or laws that limit handguns to licensed competitors, or any such similar idea: How do you identify those 50 people? What happens as the older competitors get old and die off? If shooting sports become so hard to enter how will we find young people to replenish the ranks?

Basically we can’t. So many of these “common sense” ideas such as licensing competitors or any gun owner, or keeping firearms in a police operated arsenal, or making people jump through government hoops are designed to keep young people out of the shooting sports. The more hassles, the fewer people entering the sport.

At the same time, it’s getting harder to find ranges open to the public. Commercial ranges are getting more expensive. Membership in some local gun clubs is expensive or they’re hard to join. In some countries you face a Catch-22; you can only get a gun license if you’re already an experienced shooter, but you can’t get experience unless you're an experience shooter.

On one hand, I think more people in the United States are buying guns right now, but on the other hand, not many buyers will take up a gun sport. Too many guns will be bought for defense and languish in a nightstand. There’s nothing wrong with defense, I believe in it heartily, but marksmanship is important. One reason it’s so important is that some people must master their sport, so that he or she can teach their knowledge and skills to younger people.

If those younger people don’t become “serious” shooters they will not be able to pass any knowledge and skills to their children even if they can (or are allowed to) pass a gun to an heir.

I don’t know what the future of shooting will be, but I know we have to pass it down to those who come after us.

"Circles" E-Postal Match

I haven't written much here recently about getting out and shooting. Truth is Yosemite Sam and I just haven't been out much due to work and other demands. Still, we did get to the range last weekend and shot a number of guns and truly burned some powder.

I decided to shoot the "Circle" e-postal match that The Conservative UAW Guy is sponsoring. Until last year, I shoot a lot of bullseye pistol matches. I had to take a hiatus because my gun club is refurbishing the indoor range. That doesn't mean that I don't practice though. The "Circles" match's rules include one target shot offhand (one hand--just like in formal bullseye shooting). The other target can be shot either offhand or with both hands. I was enthusiastic about this match.

I shot my first target with a .45 Long Colt cowboy-type pistol. I was disappointed in the results. I discovered the gun that I thought was fairly accurate shoots to the left. Hmmm...nothing like having a different target to force one to discover certain unpleasant truths. No one will ever see that target (shudder).

I got out my bullseye pistol, that I featured here. I resighted it in for the 25 feet the rules required and shot a target. I did great on that one. But, I found out it was beginner's luck, at least for the Circles target. Let's roll that footage:



As you can see, I had a couple of throwers, but most hit home. I hit the edge of the smallest circle (13 points), but I have a little secret: I wasn't aiming at it. I was aiming at the bottom of the #4 ring and accidentally hit the 13 ring. I stared at it through my spotting scope and couldn't believe it. Knock me over with a feather. I got a total score of 88 out of a possible 91. I used a strategy of shooting the #8 ring first and then slightly raising my aim to hit the #7, then the #9 then #6 and so forth.

I then got humbled. I shot the next target with both hands and found the gun's grips don't really lend themselves to that practice. I managed to eke out a 56 on that target and here it is:


For the life of me, I couldn't even hit the #4 ring and sent a cluster of bullets next to it. Of course, I thought I could do better and took the last circle target I brought and tried in offhand. No improvement over 56. Thus I got a total of 144 for the match.

Shooting these e-postal matches is a useful practice. The targets take you out of your comfort zone and force you to try something new. If you haven't tried one, give it a whirl.

Steve "I'm Afraid of Guns" Bailey

By now most of you’ve read something about Boston Globe business columnist Steve Bailey and his potential problems with the ATF. He may have made a straw purchase while trying to show how “easy” it was to buy a gun illegally. If you haven’t read about it, catch up here and here.

Yosemite Sam and I heard Bailey on the radio last Friday, but that’s not what I want to talk about right now. Instead, Bailey wrote something in last Friday’s column (the one in which he tries to blame the NRA for well almost everything). He brags that, “…I’m afraid of guns.” He implied that he didn’t even touch the gun his or the Globe's money bought. The one that he had someone buy for him.

This bothers me. Why do leftists think it makes them a better person when they admit to an irrational fear? Experiencing fear when a bad guy points a gun at you is rational, but fearing an inanimate object is not rational.

Bailey must have known that the three people he was with could handle a firearm properly. One was anti-gun gunowner John Rosenthal (he likes to shoot skeet). Another was a Massachusetts cop and the other was the New Hampshire prison guard who made the purchase. All of them presumably can handle firearms properly.

Bailey probably realized that under supervision he could have safely handled the gun (perhaps he did and he’s lying). He could have even received bare bones training and then safely fired the gun in an appropriate place. But no, he has to make it a point that he fears guns.

Does he think that saying he’s afraid of guns makes him a reliable source on gun policy? In fact, I don’t think someone who’s afraid of cars should set highway policy. Or someone who’s afraid of knives should tell us how to prepare food.

With this statement Bailey admits that he’s the last person we should listen to on this issue. So, why should I listen to this fool on any issue? Too bad I don’t subscribe to the Globe—it would be so satisfying to cancel it.

Happy B'day to the AK-47 and Shooting a Clone

The New York Times "Week in Review" section has an article on the AK-47. Knock me over with a feather, but it has little anti-gun snark. The article centers on the weapon’s 60th anniversary of the weapon attended by its maker Mikhail Kalashnikov, now 87 years old.

The article states that Russia celebrated the gun’s “birthday” with pomp, circumstance, and a little chagrin. They praised the gun's world-wide acceptance, but they’re not happy that so many other countries are making and selling the iconic weapon. In many cases, the former Soviet Union established the very factories in those countries that are competing with them now.

The Russians are also unhappy that America has been buying a large number of AK-47s for Iraqi and Afghani police forces but not buying them from Russia. In other words, Russia wants to become the premier seller for AK-47s.

I think that horse has already left the barn, but who knows. Of course, they can’t sell a true AK-47 in America—at least not one made after 1986 (thanks to the execrable Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owner Protection Act). Semi-auto versions are still legal here.

Yosemite Sam has a semi-auto Romanian AK clone, a SAR-1. He enjoys shooting it, but I’ve never developed much liking for the rifle. The gun is all black stamped metal and a particularly unlovely wood with little finish. Not exactly the esthetic I look for in a gun. Still, that’s not the most important reason for my dislike of this one (and so far only) gun.

It beats me up when I shoot it. There must be a strange confluence of the gun’s shape and my body structure. No matter how I hold the gun when I shoot it, the rear of the stock flips up and bashes me in the cheekbone. I guess I could shoot from the hip like the Brady Campaign suggests is so deadly, but there’s no fun in that.

I guess I’ll have to settle watching Yosemite Sam shoot his AK clone while I shoot my AR-15 clone. Thinking of it that way, I’m not settling for anything.

New OSHA Comments Deadline and the NRA

Who says the NRA doesn't have clout when it comes to gun issues? According to a trade magazine for occupational health and safety, OSHA will increase the time for comment on its controversial recommendations that would demand retailers, manufacturers, and handloaders to treat ammunition the same way they would treat much more volatile explosives (smokeless powder is not even an explosive).

The article states;

The NRA is organizing opposition to the rule, which it believes would prohibit possessing firearms in gun stores (and other commercial facilities containing explosives); require evacuation of such facilities, "even your local Wal-Mart," the organization says, during an electrical storm; and prohibit smoking within 50 feet of such facilities.

The new deadline for comments is September 10, so get your cards and letters in. Keep them respectful and let them know that ammunition sales do not have to be regulated out of existence. Explain that modern ammo cannot be exploded with a spark, a match, a thunderstorm or any thing else that these people claim.

Also, this is one reason I am an Endowment/Life member of the NRA. I don't agree with everything they do, but they get attention when it's needed.

Gun Lies on the Radio Today

I came into work today all hot around the collar. I was driving to work and listening to a radio talk show. It’s called “Finneran’s Forum.” Host Tom Finneran was the Speaker of the Massachusetts House and practically ran the state for some time.

Finneran made a few wrong comments to Federal investigators looking into a possible gerrymandered redistricting map based on race. He ended up plea bargainong a felony conviction. I am unsettled about his conviction—the same type that got Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby. Any one could make a false statement even without lying and end up in the same position. Still, Finneran was convicted for a felony.

Finneran is a conservative Democrat and has surprising stands on many current issues. In other words, he’s not a moonbat even though he is a Democrat. This week, he has a co-host Todd Feinburg who is generally on the right. So, I was very interested when they announced their next segment would be on gun rights.

I turned up the volume and began a slow boil. They interviewed anti-gun leader John Rosenthal who sponsors a giant pro-gun control billboard placed on the Massachusetts turnpike near Boston. He is unveiling a new campaign on it—one that suggests we would have peace in our inner cities if only the NRA hadn’t bought off Congress and the White House.

Finneran objected to this and I waited for fireworks. They didn’t happen because his objection was to the thought that any lobbyist can “buy” a Congress critter at all. He and Feinburg, who I thought might know better, let Rosenthal get away with a lot of big, fat, porking anti-gun lies.

1) Rosenthal mentioned he was a gun owner and shoots skeet. At the same time, he opposes ownership of small handguns (maybe even target models) and “military-style” weapons. Too bad Finneran or Feinburg couldn’t point out that many people use “military-style” rifles for well-organized target shooting (Camp Perry matches anyone) and the guns are not true military guns anyway.

2) Rosenthal repeatedly talked about criminals buying guns in gun shows which he described as unregulated. He said most guns sold there go to anyone with the money. That’s not true. Gun shows are not a big source of crime guns and licensed dealers have to follow the same laws they would follow in their shops.

3) Rosenthal mentioned that most gun owners support a system where criminals could not easily buy guns. That could be true. I don’t like criminals buying guns, but the devil is in the details. He wants a Massachusetts style registration/licensing scheme—the same one that drove me out of the state.

I got to work before the segment ended and was so incensed I tried the call-in number but got a busy signal. Unless there was a change after I parked the car, there was little refutation of Rosenthal’s outright fibs, most of which were lies of omission. He knows that gun shows are not unregulated. He knows most gun owners would not support a Massachusetts-style scheme. He knows that “military-style” guns are not truly military guns.

Finneran and Feinburg should know better. They need to do a little research before letting outright lies go over the airwaves. Ironically, Finneran cannot touch a gun legally. Heh, maybe Rosenthal should invite Finneran for some skeet shooting and we can watch him give Finneran a gun and then we can watch the arrests. Nah, I couldn't nark like that.

Ammo, Dollars, and OSHA

Yosemite Sam and I went to our favorite gun store yesterday. We keep a fair amount of ammo on hand and also reload calibers we shoot the most. Thus we haven’t had to buy ammo like .45 Long Colt for awhile. Yes we've had to buy .22LR and other stuff, but that didn’t prepare us for sticker shock. As I reached for a box of Cowboy style .45LC, I saw a price sticker of $33.95 on the boxes and quickly snatched back my hand.

This is not a rare caliber people. It's become even more popular with Cowboy Action shooting. I decided that it was time to revisit the loading bench rather than buying new fodder. I know there’s good reasons for the price increase in ammo. I've been keeping up with posts from various people, but this hits home. It could also be very discouraging for those that are new to shooting. It is hard to buy a product for $33.95 that you’re planning to burn up in one short range session.

If you think prices are bad now, there's a proposed OSHA regulation that would treat small arms ammunition just like the most powerful explosives. If promulgated, the regulation would kill sport shooting. Xavier is all over it (as are gunnie organizations), so go do the clicky thing and learn more.

This proposed (and I have to stress it is only proposed) regulation is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. Every law, rule or regulation has goals—sometimes good sometimes bad depending on how you look at it. But, every one of them had consequences that no one foresaw. For instance, outlawing certain drugs has led to gang warfare, full prisons, and mayors bleating about banning guns in inner cities.

Let’s assume that OSHA is not ran by a bunch of bed-wetting gun fearing wussies (I know it’s a tretch). The employees who researched and drafted the proposal just want to make us safer. They want to reduce the loss of life of explosions in gun stores. Of course, this is a non-problem, but when did that ever stop a regulator.

The unintended consequence of such a regulation would be to virtually kill ammo sales. Thus a government agency presumably with no intent to damage ammo retailers and manufacturers could accomplish what anti-gunnies have been trying to do for years.

If I thought a box of .45 Long Colt was too expensive, if this rule passes I ain’t seen nothing yet.