Another Hysterical "Gun Owner"

Bill (Yosemite Sam) recently discussed gun owners who aren’t supporters of gun rights, only their version of it. This morning the New York Times gives Bill more ammunition. Their pastoral editorialist, Verlyn Klinkenborg, attacks concealed carry in Minnesota and the NRA in a hysterical editorial.

Let’s highlight some of the more egregious statements, but there’s more of them in his article if you care to read it:

He says, “…a year ago the State Legislature passed a ‘concealed carry’ law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit.” And, “I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a ‘shoot first’ bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation.”

In other words concealed carry in Minnesota is a done deal and now anti-gunnies are fighting the Castle Doctrine. (Later he describes Florida’s Castle Doctrine as the “Shoot the Avon Lady” law.) There’s more than a little hysteria in his statement that such a law would allow gun owners to fire away. In his willful ignorance, he doesn’t state that you can’t shoot someone unless that person is a valid threat. It just means you don’t have to try to run.

He then states that, “There are some other twists to these laws. A person carrying a concealed weapon cannot be banned from a public building, even if it’s a library full of kids.” We all know that a law-abiding person won’t shoot up a library full of kids or septuagenarians for that matter, but he equates us with criminals who might. Mentioning kids adds more emotion and more hysteria.

He’s dismayed that such a law could be passed in Minnesota, which he describes as a “socially progressive state.” He explains that he’s from Iowa and Iowans like, “…Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today.”

Now, he get’s to the obligatory statement that he grew up with guns: “I grew up hunting and shooting, and I still own two rifles (a .22 and a .270) and two shotguns (a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge, to be specific).” He states that we’ve regressed as a society because we allow CCW and that, “The N.R.A. would argue that society has changed since those innocent days.”

He doesn’t understand the history of carrying guns in America. Permits were available to almost any white man who wanted one. In fact, “may issue” permits were a way to keep guns out of the hands of “undesirable Persons” such as blacks and Jews. Permitless carry in a glove box or even coat pocket was rarely prosecuted if you were white and at least middle class.

He supports such a system and states that we’re not responsible enough to take care of ourselves: “Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.”

Talk about hysteria: “…a blow against public safety” indeed. I have a CCW permit and I’ve never harmed public safety and I believe I’ve helped it. Discretion in issuing CCW permits allows a corrupt or racist police chief to issue permits to people he finds desirable instead of issuing them fairly based on subjective standards.

We get to the meat of Klinkenborg's concerns, “…, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot. The police are trained to handle guns. The criminals know they’re not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A. Let them fight it out. No one is safer if gun-carrying civilians believe their rights entitle them to pretend they’re cops.”

We who carry a gun sometimes (or all the time) know we’re not cops. We’re not out to do their difficult jobs. We only want protection should we find ourselves in a dangerous situation and the nearest cop is too far away to help. I don’t think I’m a fireman just because I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen.

Finally, he shows his true colors as a collectivist who would deny individual rights, “Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual.”

We have to live in society and some laws are necessary, but they must be based on harm to an individual or property not on dangers perceived by people who feel threatened that good people might carry guns.

States traveled meme

Bitter inspired me to do one of these maps for myself, so here it is:



create your own personalized map of the USA

This year, I've added Wisconsin(thanks to the NRA convention) and Utah.

I think a trip to Boomershoot would allow me to fill in those two holes in the lower 48.

Alaska and Hawaii may take a bit longer.

Pro-Gun????

via Say Uncle comes this bit of dreck from the LA Times (requires registration or http://www.bugmenot.com/).

Have you noticed that almost every anti-gun article has to have an aside where the writer states that they are pro gun and support the 2^nd Amendment, then go on to show their complete ignorance about firearms and finally throw in some gratuitous bashing of the NRA.

For example, from this article: “I like guns. I come from a gun family. I am a 2nd Amendment, pro-gun liberal—which makes me a very lonely creature when the subject comes up in casual conversation around the office.”

The writer establishes his creds. He isn’t one of those knee jerk, gun haters.

Then, the obligatory lie:

“The drug cartel guys deploy a variety of very fun assault rifles. Their big gun—and the most overtly political weapon in the film—appears to be a Barrett .50-caliber M107 semiautomatic rifle, a 32-pound, 5-foot-long military sniper rifle that was banned in California starting last year, for the altogether sensible reason that it can bring down airliners.”

Finally, more NRA bashing: “As I said, I'm pretty pro-gun, but I would never belong to the NRA because, well, those guys are lunatics. One of their more far-fetched paranoid fantasies (here comes the e-mail!) is that the United Nations is conspiring to take away America's guns. Right! Let me know how that project goes, Secretary Annan!”

Who is this guy fooling? Jesus H. Christ, the UN has a statue of a twisted gun right in front of their bloody headquarters. I think that should make it pretty obvious where they are coming from.

But the writer is “pro-gun”?

GMAFB.

Advice on Collecting Firearms

A frequent reader sent me an e-mail about collecting guns. I answered his e-mail and realized it was turning into a post. So after a little rewriting….

The best advice I can give a potential collector is to collect what you like. If you like military bolt action rifles, then that's an excellent place to start. On the other hand, you might like handguns, shotguns, etc. I like "mouseguns," handguns, and military firearms. Don’t forget though that a collector must specialize; even “mouseguns” is a huge field.

I tend to shoot what I collect (with a couple of exceptions) so anything I buy must be mechanically sound and not “demilled” (made inactive). I don’t want a Thompson sub machine gun with a dummy receiver no matter how many original parts they hang on it.

I select guns based on condition and originality. That is, I don't collect sporterized military rifles, but someone else might find it a fascinating field. I make sure that any gun I buy has all the parts the factory intended and no extras. Similarly, serially numbered parts must match.

In fact, the more you know about a particular gun, the easier it will be to spot problems that reduce its value or historical interest. A good set of reference books is a must. By the way, I loathe electro-penned imports marks. I own a few with these marks, but I’m not pleased.

I hope to find cartouches (inspection stamps in the wood that the Federal inspectors used before and during World War II and slightly beyond), but an arsenal rebuild might not have them. I'd rather not buy rebuilt firearms, but complete originals are not always in my price range.

Condition is important. I've picked up a few diamonds in the rough before and "rescued" them, but it takes a lot of work and it's better to buy guns in good condition in the first place. I look for a gun with a nice, bright bore with strong rifling. I want the gun to be free of rust and pitting from previous rust removal. The stocks/grips should look decent although a little wear is not a problem. The action should work and feel like it is working. That is, the bolt shouldn’t feel like you’re pulling it out of concrete, the trigger should activate the sear, etc.

As far as preservation, a lot of military guns will come coated in cosmoline and it takes a lot of work to get it all off. Once you have the cosmoline off, there’s still dirt and grime to worry about. Be careful of using solvents like turpentine or alcohol. You could wreak a sporting arm's finish quickly and not really help a military gun’s finish (usually linseed oil rubbed into the wood). Because I want to keep the gun as original as possible, I don’t refinish my guns (I made an exception for my M1 Garand that didn’t have an original finish).

Inspect for active rust. If you find any, you'll need to remove it with dental picks or similar tools, but go slow and don’t scratch the non-affected area. Once cleaned, I usually apply a thin film of CLP BreakFree to the metal and I've been known to rub a silicone cloth over the wood and metal as a rust preventive.

Guns should be stored in a reasonably dry environment. If you use a gun safe, the sealed interior becomes a micro-environment and it can get humid in there. You'll probably need a dehumidifier or drying agent in the safe.

There may be a time when you want to sell a gun from your collection. Be careful because it's easier to break the law when you sell than when you buy. For instance, you can’t sell a handgun to someone who doesn’t live in your state (there are exceptions for Curios and Relics if you and/or the buyer are licensed depending on the circumstances).

Guns tend to hold their value over time and if you keep them long enough, you can make a profit. But, you can't sell them in such a way that means you're "in the business" of selling guns (i.e., selling a lot at once). Selling them on consignment through a gun store is a good idea although it'll reduce the amount you'll make from the sell. Still, it beats having the ATF knock down your door at 4:00 am. I don’t like giving that advice, but it’s a reality in today’s world.

A New Gun in the Family

Right now, Bill and I are feeling the stings of frustrated spending. In other words, money’s tight because we’ve spent it. I helped my nephew out on his visit and was the chief buyer of whale watches, tour trolley tickets, and meals. Then there was travel this summer—Las Vegas and Zion, a visit to Ohio. These things start eating into the wallet.

We were also got hit with a condo fee “special assessment” to help pay for flooding that occurred in May. It won’t last long, but ouch, just ouch.

We haven’t been buying guns as often as we did last summer, but sometimes the right one comes along and “damn the bankers, full speed ahead.” I had that experience recently and spent part of our disposable income reserve. I found what had been a holy grail, a World War II 1903A3 rifle. It spoke to me. It weaved a net around me and my checkbook. I had to buy it. And I did.

You see, it’s in excellent condition. Remington Arms built it in 1942 and it sports a dated 1943 Remington barrel that is clean and bright with strong rifling. We’ve been trying to find one for awhile that didn’t totally break the bank, was still authentic, complete, and not butchered by a garage ‘smith. I saw it in July and immediately put it on layaway and got it out of retail limbo two weekends ago.

I thought I’d do a “One From the Vault” about the gun after I fired it, did more research, and generally got to know our new firearm a little better. Thus, I didn’t blog about it the day I bought it. Time slips away and I thought I’d mention it now. In short, there’s a longer report about it in the Ten Ring’s future.

Remember the tight wallet problems I mentioned. Well, I faced yet another temptation when I picked up the 1903A3. I found another of my holy grail guns. Oh, what wretched circumstance put a “red nine” Broomhandle Mauser in my way?

If you’ve been reading Ten Ring for awhile you’ll know I really like Broomhandles and own two of them in different configurations. In World War I, Mauser took the 7.62mm pistol and rechambered it for the German military pistol cartridge, the 9mm parabellum. In order to reduce confusion as to what ammo to feed it, they engraved a number “9” on the wood grips and dribbled red paint into the deeply-etched lines.

They’re fairly hard to find and command decent prices if in good condition and if all numbers match on numbered parts. That is, certain guns needed to have a gunsmith hand-fit important parts. The parts were numbered to a gun so an armorer could ensure that each part ended up in the proper gun and reduce the amount of time fooling around with ill-fitting parts.

Well, given the state of my disposable income, I managed to avoid buying the “red nine” even though it was a struggle. You see, the number on the hammer didn’t match the rest of the gun. Yeah, that’s the ticket; I’m being a responsible collector and choosing wisely. Yeah that’s it, I’m being responsible, but why do I want to see if it’s still for sale?

Teaching My Nephew to Shoot

My visit with my Marine nephew is over and I can give up my week-long stint as tour director, chauffeur, and pistol trainer (well maybe I won’t give up that role). I can also cease to be amazed about how much a young Marine can eat.

I appreciate comments that others left on this post. I do honor my nephew’s service even though I still think he has some funny ideas. For instance, he is wrestling with pacifism. I bought him a few books of his choosing as gifts and one was Gandhi’s autobiography (and I am familiar with the pro-gun quote about Britain forbidding a people the use of arms).

Other than philosophical discussions and trips to Boston (not my favorite place), we did a few fun things. He wanted to learn how to shoot a handgun. He hadn’t fired a handgun before thanks to his mom and it hasn’t been part of his Marine training, so I taught him.

He did the typical male thing that I’ve seen whenever I’ve taught men how to shoot a handgun. He thought he knew it all until he got to the range and then wondered why his shots were going underneath the target when he hit the paper at all.

You might remember that his sister visited me some months ago. She listened very attentively to my safety lecture and then how I explained the interplay of sight alignment and trigger squeeze. My nephew, however, already knew the safety rules and recited them while standing almost at parade rest.

His range safety was impeccable, but his accuracy was less than good. He thought his rifle skills would more readily transfer to a handgun and didn’t understand how much a handgun wobbles even with a two-handed grip. The wobbling caused him to snatch at the trigger when he saw a good sight alignment. He had to pause and listen to me explain trigger control which led to better accuracy.

I’ve introduced a respectable number of men and women to handgun shooting and fewer to rifle and shotgun shooting. It’s always easier with women and I think it’s a societal thing. After all, too many movies show a cowboy, cop, or gangster making impossible shots with guns held in any position except backwards and with no aiming. Maybe young women pay less attention to that aspect of those movies.

I don’t know, but I’ve always found it interesting and I’m not the only one who’s noticed it. Any other theories?

House Guest

Bill and I have a house pest guest this week, or rather I do. Bill's away on business for a couple of days. My nephew came to jolly old New England for a visit. We did the touristy things including a whale watch on which we saw more whales than I can count. They were having a very active feeding day, so we lucked out.

We did the trolley tour, stopped by the USS Constitution and saw some truly big guns. My nephew is a Marine so he was fascinated by the ship and wondered how the ship's sailors had landed such a cushy berth.

I won't go into details, but my nephew has adopted some strange ideas for a Marine. He is somewhat pacifistic; for instance, hoping that we can solve our terrorist problems with diplomacy even though there is proof that we cannot. I agree peace is better than war, but it takes two to have peace and only one to have war.

Another thing my nephew has swallowed hook, line, and sinker is global warming. He dragged me to see Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's movie on that topic. Talk about preachy. Cotton Mather and the old puritans had nothing on Al Gore when he goes into his full preacher mode. I've read up on pros and cons of global warming. I believe there's something to it, but I think it's not caused by man. Man may contribute a small amount, maybe, but we are not the cause. THe world has gone through hot and cold cycles and will continue to do so over time.

Try to get that idea into the shaved head of a young Marine. He's also religious. He gets it from his mother. He won't play poker or watch it on TV--aaaarrrrgggghhhhh. (I'm glad my family doesn't read this blog. I'd be in trouble.)

Well, on a positive note he is a crack rifle shot. He's never shot a pistol before (his mother), so I will be taking him out to the range today. I'll let you know how that goes.

Writers Who Throw Stones...

Stumbling around the Internet, I find that Jenny Price fired up her word processor and placed another anti-gun op-ed in the LA Times.

Back in December, she'd written an editorial calling for bans on handguns. Her brother and his fiancee had been killed by the fiancee's mother. I give people a little slack for legitimate grief, but Ms. Price went tolling around the Internet to see what people were saying about her. She may have hoped that everyone who commented on her piece were now organizing gun bans.

She was disappointed to learn many people disagreed with her. There was name-calling, Molon Labe style threats (you can have the bullets first), and speculation if her brother even existed.

Ms. Price was hurt and friends told her what do you expect from guys, especally gun guys. Well, I'm not a guy, but I like to shoot and own handguns. I can treat Ms. Price with respect, but I will never support a handgun ban, registration, licensing, or any other scheme.

In fact, we need to roll laws back to a more tolerable level. Now Ms. Price needs to learn to treat someone like me with respect by not claiming a foolish gun ban will solve anything.

When Nannies Attack

As I’ve said before, I play a little penny-ante online poker. The government has decided that I shouldn’t do that. The government and certain busybody, do-gooding groups also wish I didn’t own guns.

Of course, the government can’t go after the tens of millions of Americans who make an occasional online bet. No, they went after an online gambling company head, David Carruthers, and arrested him on a layover flight in Texas.

His company and others like it are based in countries where online gambling is legal. Carruther’s company is traded on the London Stock Exchange. US prosecutors are arguing that their use of American internet access constitutes a crime based on a 1961 law.

The company, BetOnSports, has now fired Carruthers and will cease any transactions from Americans. In other words, they capitulated. Thus an obscure 1961 act aimed partly at shady bookies is used 45 years later to control a new technology and to squelch a new acceptance of gambling.

Let’s face it. Americans like to gamble. Television channels broadcast poker tournaments routinely. The Travel Channel’s most popular program is the “World Poker Tour.” Gambling moved from Las Vegas to Atlantic City, and now to Indian casinos that sprung up in many formerly isolated communities.

Governments of various stripes started to run lotteries and a few set up Off Track Betting parlors and partially replaced 1961-style bookies. Some of these interests are concerned about online betting cutting into their share and a few support laws against it.

That’s short sighted. Many online players will learn how to play in micro-stake games (bets of $.02 and losses of less than a price of a soda) before they go to casinos. Some will win, many will lose, and a few will lose money that should’ve gone to the mortgage.

Freedom, liberty, and personal choice can be messy. There will be people who’ll abuse gambling just like those who abuse firearm rights. You can’t apply laws to the many in order to protect the few from themselves.

If a compulsive gambler loses his shirt, it’s not the brick & mortar or online casino’s fault just because it’s there. The gambler made a choice to risk money he shouldn’t have and must face the consequences. If a criminal shoots someone, he must be arrested and locked away from the rest of us.

Almost all gun owners are law-abiding. Almost all gamblers play responsibly. Stop trying to baby us you nannyistic, do-gooding, busy bodies.

Democrats, Joe Lieberman, and Me

Sometimes I'm inspired to write a non-gunnie post. Sometimes I just want to vent, so here goes:

I used to be a Democrat. I never supported the party’s position on gun control, but I agreed with certain ideas and platform planks. I gave money to Democrats and tended to vote for all but the most gun-banning Democrats.

I was raised in the party. My Dad was an active Democrat who ran “get out the vote” drives. My mother came from a long line of union steelworkers for whom voting Republican was anathema. In other words, I came by it honestly.

I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s in the mountain West. I was never a hippy, but I sympathized with social justice causes. I believed black people had faced discrimination even after lynch mobs became socially unacceptable. I believed that abortion was a bad choice, but laws against it were worse. I believed that there are a certain few people in society that need our help and that refusing that help diminishes us all.

I still believe some of the above and more, but I no longer support the Democratic Party or its candidates. The party left me some time ago, but it took me awhile to realize that fact. Living under Massachusetts’s foul gun control schemes certainly helped me wake up. Seeing moonbats wailing “what did we do to deserve this” after the attacks on 9/11 was another splash of vitriol.

The party pushed those good things they used to support and took them too far. Frank Church, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Zell Miller, and my parents who are now committed Republicans would no longer recognize or embrace Democrat programs and ideas.

Instead of welfare that helps only truly disabled people, we ended up with bloated programs where able-bodied men and women avoid responsibility. We ended up with Affirmative Action programs that pushed good candidates aside even while not truly serving those to whom it was directed. Abortion has become almost a sacrement where any attempt to impose reasonable regulation is resisted.

The moonbats in the party are pushing these and other “social justice” issues even harder in the name of “progressivism.” If enacted their programs would pick the pockets of productive citizens. The moonbats have the upper hand now in the party, which will drive even more people out of it. They are very happy to sponsor pogroms and kick out those people who disagree with them.

Bill Clinton’s former special counsel, Lanny Davis talks about moonbat attacks on Joe Lieberman. Moonbats made comments on various blogs that might make a KKK member blush.

The Democrats have now defeated Joe Lieberman in a primary for his Senate seat. I didn’t support his views on guns, but Lieberman is a good man overall. I voted for him in the New Hampshire during his short presidential run. He was Gore’s vice-presidential candidate in 2000. Now he’s not good enough for the moonbats to support. Just like Zell Miller.

Lieberman says he will run as an independent. I hope he wins. With his victory, I hope moonbat Democrats come to understand that pogroms, particularly against observant Jews, is truly anathema to all the party once stood for and believed in.

Go Joe Go.

Surprise, Surprise

It's not every day you look in the Boston Globe and read a favorable article on shooting. It's an even rarer day when you're reading about young teens shooting. Two summer camps have a long-standing riflery competition that pits the girls against the boys. The girls won this year.

What's nice about the article is there's no self-conscious snarkiness about kids and guns. It's almost a throwback to when I was young and competitive shooting deserved no more or no less comment than a swimming match. Go give it a read and, oh yes, there's even pictures of kids with guns.

What Are THEY Smoking

Alphecca linked a Burlington Free Press article about guns. More specifically, it’s about guns acquired in Vermont and used criminally in Massachusetts. The article pointed out that it rarely occurs, but just the thought of someone being able to buy a gun without a horrendous amount of paperwork and government approval is enough to drive gun banners batty.

The article mentions John Rosenthal. I’ve heard him talk on the radio and he claims to owns guns. He believes people ought to be able to own guns, but only those suited to sport, preferably trap and skeet. He sponsors an organization that puts up anti-gun billboards on one of Boston’s busiest freeways. The current one proclaims that lax gun laws in other states contribute to the availability of crime guns in Massachusetts. Other billboards have called for handgun bans, “assault weapons” bans, etc.

Oh, he’s also lent his name to the American Hunters and Shooters Association, an organization of Elmer Fudds who’ll support your right to own a $25,000 shotgun, but might balk at a $300.00 pump-action and oppose self-defense handguns and black rifles. With friends like this….

The article says Mr. Rosenthal went to a gun show in Vermont. I bet he had full intention of being shocked. He wasn’t disappointed and saw, “…guns being sold by private owners ‘in the aisles and from pickup trucks in the parking lot.’ In Massachusetts, all handgun sales require a background check, and buyers must have a permit issued by local police.”

That’s the goal of gun owners like him—a Massachusetts-style licensing and registration scheme. Under such a scheme, you would need to go to a gun store if you wanted to give a gun to your adult daughter or sell one to your neighbor. There both parties would provide IDs, verify that they have a valid firearms license for the class of gun being transferred (now verified with a fingerprint scanner in Massachusetts), complete transfer paperwork, and wait for approval. Of course, the gun store will charge you for their part of the transaction.

By now you all know what I feel about Massachusetts’ gun control (check the sidebar if you don’t). It won’t work. For one thing, criminals buy or rent guns from each other and they’d never go through a licensing procedure.

The article quotes a Springfield, MA police captain, “Still, the perception is that it's easier to get access to guns in Vermont…People will go up from here with heroin and crack and trade them for guns.”

Heroin and crack are illegal. It’s also illegal for illicit drug users to own a gun and more so if they have felony police records (or a misdemeanor domestic battery convictions). Think about all the implications of using an illegal substance as currency to acquire a gun illegally. They have already broken laws on drug possession. They know people with a product they want and that person is willing to accept an illegal substance for payment. I doubt your local gun dealer is taking heroin as a payment method.

Does John Rosenthal really believe that criminals will take a few rocks of crack to the local gun store to complete a gun transfer legally? I’d like to see that receipt and also find out what he and other gun banners are smoking.

Gun Phobia v. Common Sense

I’ll never understand gun phobia. I have a friend who is anti-gun, anti-NRA, and generally against guns. You know the type. But here’s the thing. He’s Jewish and ardently supports Israel and her right of self-defense.

I’ve pointed out to him that I exercise my right of self-defense by owning and knowing how to use guns. I mentioned the recent shooting in Seattle. A Muslim killed one woman and wounded several other Jews in a place well equipped with security. I politely suggested that his own self-defense might just be a good idea. He was aghast at the idea. He let his gun phobia exceed his common sense.

Not to pick on him; but I will anyway and give another example of his gun phobia. He visited Israel a couple of years ago as a representative from an American Jewish group. He and other representatives traveled near a border that had been infiltrated a few times.

His hosts offered him (and others) in the group sub-machine guns for their defense and they would give him a lesson on how to use it. When he refused, they—thinking maybe they had offered something beyond his comfort level—offered him a handgun and a lesson. He refused and was told, “Okay, your funeral.”

Nothing happened to him. Still he refused to arm himself even though everyone else in his group accepted the offer. He evidently sulked on the tour bus during the range session. (I would never pass up the opportunity to shoot a submachine gun especially at no cost to me. But that’s just me.)

It’s easy to say each to their own, but my friend believes in the motto, “Never Again.” Never again will Jews let a holocaust happen, but he is unwilling to equip and train himself to prevent that.

It’s pure gun phobia. Part of his phobia stems from him growing up in a city and never understanding that good people can use guns for good purposes. Another part comes from his political leanings. He’s a leftie; so much so, that he bemoaned Kerry’s nomination in 2004 instead of Dennis Kucinich’s although he knew Kucinich couldn’t win.

Maybe one of these days he’ll get it. There’s hope. A friend of his visited Israel and spent a week near Gaza. He borrowed an Uzi submachine gun, learned how to use it and now wants to buy a rifle and handgun.

Thus one more gunnie was born. Maybe my friend will become a gunnie too (I’m not holding my breath).

Something Oughta Be Done

I don't do too many "me too" posts, but every now and again I make an exception when I read something that really gets my head to nodding. Michael Bane posted about how American men may finally be tiring of "metrosexual" nonsense and being men. But that's not what got my head nodding.

He mentions this John Lott article on the decline of gun stores thanks to over-regulation. Michael Bane mentions he's been feeling unease over just this problem. We may be winning the battles of public opinion, laws, etc, but may wake up one day and find we can't buy a new gun to replace Ole Betsy. Bane mentions the need to have a national firearms agenda.

I have to agree with his point, thus the nodding head. As Lott and Bane point out, we can no longer buy guns in Wal-Mart or other stores. I remember when a trip to Sears involved a good look at their guns. That's a thing of the past.

Now, I'm not saying that Wal-Mart or Sears are the best places to buy guns. They're not--Support your local gun shop and all. But we've lost a time when guns were common, ordinary tools to where they've become mythologized and demonized.

Sometimes it's Hollywood that creates the myths. Hollywood depicted guns as being able to blow up cars. People who were shot with one would fly several yards through the air (the TV show Mythbusters has de-mythed these and other gun fallacies).

These myths hurt us because most Americans now live separate from nature. In the recent past, people hunted and knew a .30-06 didn't hurl a deer 20 feet through the air. Now, people have no context for what they see, so naturally they say, "something oughta be done about guns."

When Congress Critters and others hear that a certain percent of the population wants "something to be done" it's like adding liquid oxygen to a fire. They pass laws based on their own inadequate understanding of guns (and other things as well, like Internet tubes). The next thing you know, we're in a cultural and legal battle for our gun rights.

We need that national firearms agenda that Michael Bane mentioned even though we gunnies are divided. We need to be the ones who tell the Congress Critters that now is the time to rein in or disband the ATF and reduce regulations and other gun laws. As consumers, we need to support any store that sells guns or ammo. We need to take a non-gunnie shooting and win this war.

Now I can stop nodding my head--I'm getting dizzy here.

Laws, Guns, and Fish?

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed” at least according to the United States Constitution. These words mean something, but governments—local, state, and federal—are constantly trying to refine their meanings.

A bill of attainder is a law that applies to only one person or entityand they're not a huge problem (except maybe the recently struck-down law in Maryland dealing with how much Wal-Mart had to contribute to their employees’ health care), but we gunnies must fear ex post facto laws (that is, government making something illegal and then prosecuting you for doing it even though it was legal when you did it).

One possible example of an ex post facto law is the Lautenberg law—if someone is convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, then he or she is barred from gun ownership forever, unless they’re pardoned by a governor or president.

Lautenberg is ex post facto by most reasonable definitions, but it has never been struck down as unconstitutional. Its supporters get around ex post facto problems by saying that owning a gun prior to the conviction is not punished; however, continued ownership is illegal. Thus you sell or must turn in your guns even through you’ve owned them since you were 18 years old. If you’re caught with a gun and you have a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of violence no matter how long ago, you’re looking at a federal felony.

Sometimes, laws targeting guns or other property are passed with grandfather clauses. For instance, it’s against the law to own a handgun in Washington, D.C. unless you registered it prior to the passing of a stupid law in 1976. If you properly registered it, you’re untouchable as far as the police are concerned. If you get a new job in the District and move your trusty .38 to your townhouse and you’re caught—forget the job and find a lawyer.

Governments, when we let them, like to pass laws on guns and other property, but they don’t like grandfather clauses because they’re too hard to enforce because they create two different classes of people. A handful of states and localities have now gotten smart and are using a Lautenberg-like pattern; continued possession is the crime, not the original possession. Thus Illinois and Massachusetts can demand that you get a license to continue to possess your guns even though you purchased them many years before such schemes were passed.

So, why am I gassing on about this? It’s simple. A state government (in Maine) passed a law that you can’t possess koi fish and it has no grandfather clause. They won’t bust you for having owned them for 15 years as in this case, but they will bring the full force of law against you if you continue to own fish.

Today koi, tomorrow the guns. What a strange, dark world we’ve made.

I'm mad as hell.......

This morning, I irritated Denise and probably the neighbors with a full throated, Kim Dutoit patented, red curtain of blood rant that had the cat shrieking from the room. I won’t iterate here what Denise had to hear, but I do remember that the phrase Nazi, jack booted thugs was liberally used. This rant had been building for awhile and I must admit that it felt good to give vent to it.

Three recent stories stick out in my mind as the instigators of my present foul mood. The first is from Illinois. Kim mentioned it recently. It seems that the governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, feels that any one who owns a firearm in the Chicago Metro area must be a gangbanger. That he said this at the opening of a shooting facility only adds insult to injury. Next, we have a leading member of the Cook County Board, Joseph Moreno, suggesting that the police should go house to house to “pull every gun out of Cook County”. Grossly unconstitutional, but since when has any Chicagoland government official, elected or otherwise, given a rat’s patootie about the Constitution.

The second story comes from my old home, the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. While driving in to work yesterday, I heard on the Scott Allen Miller show on WRKO in Boston, that the police chief of Lawrence, Massachusetts is going to revoke the gun permit of Marine SSGT Dan Cotnoir.
In case you haven’t heard the story, Dan is a former marine of the year who was attacked in his own home by an unruly mob. He had called the police, but they never showed up. In fear for himself and his family, SSGT Cotnoir fired a shotgun into the ground and with that, the mob got the hint. The police, this being Massachusetts, decided that SSGT Cotnoir was the problem and he was charged with attempted murder. Amazingly, a Massachusetts jury acquitted him. But since this is Massachusetts, and it is up to the police whether or not you have constitutional rights, Police Chief John Romero has decided to deprive an honored marine of his god given rights.
As you can guess, the bile was churning in my stomach at this point.
By the way, if you are able, please give to the Dan Cotnoir Defense Fund:

Racicot Funeral Home
256 Broadway
Lawrence, MA 01841

Scott Allen Miller and his band Red State are putting on a benefit concert for SSGT Cotnoir to help defray his legal expenses.

Finally, this morning, I was reading Joe Huffman and came across this gem. It seems that the police in California with the help of the BATF are going to confiscate firearms and bullets that are in a configuration that they deem to be illegal. As in Massachusetts, the laws in California are so arcane that you have to be an attorney to even begin to figure out what is legal or not. But be that as it may, it is especially outrageous that they would charge someone with a felony for mere possession of a bullet. A felony for people who have committed no crimes and have not harmed ANYONE.

This story finally put me over the edge and I went into full rant mode. Suffice it to say that I had little nice to say for the people who would agree to the mission of confiscating firearms that girly man Governor Terminator thinks are scary.

Now that I have cooled down and have had time to cogitate on what should be done about these egregious actions, I have decided on what I think is the best course of action for gunnies.

It’s simple, but also incredibly difficult to accomplish for a lot of people.

Under no circumstances, should anyone that believes in the Right to Bear Arms live in the following Fascist states. These are, in no particular order, Illinois, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. These states have absolutely no respect for the Constitution and as far as I’m concerned are no longer, in spirit at least, part of the United States of America.

There are those who will say that we should continue the fight there and that there are a lot of good people in those states that believe in RKBA. My answer to that line of reasoning is that it’s too late. The fight in those states was lost decades ago and the fat lady has already left the stage. We need to pool our resources in places where we can still win. Places like New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. With the additional votes of people that have moved from the four fascist states, we can stop this garbage from ever happening in the free states. All of the states I have listed are on the cusp. They really could go either way. With the addition of gun rights supporting, liberty loving citizens, we can win the fight in these states, shore up our flanks, and then move forward.

At the very least, if you live in California or Illinois, which seem to be in the vanguard for gun confiscations, get your collection out of state, so that the jack booted thugs can’t get your heirlooms when they inevitably come.

Why We Live in New Hampshire

You gotta love New Hampshire. Bill and I fled Massachusetts mainly because of that state’s restrictive gun laws. New Hampshire gun laws are few and far between, which is just the way we like it.

For those poor unfortunate gunnies who still live in Mordor Massachusetts, here are a few highlights of our adopted state’s laws. I'm not positing this to gloat; I’m posting this for educational purposes only (yeah right). Remember, I’m not a lawyer and I’m only pointing you to laws.

First, New Hampshire has a state preemption law (the main laws are cited here and this one is 159:26). That means that no gun-banning police chief, mayor, alderman, town manager can deny you a gun license simply because he doesn’t like you. In fact, there is no need to have a gun license if you aren’t going to carry a concealed gun. In Massachusetts, you must have a license even if you never take your rusty shotgun out of a closet.

New Hampshire has a shall-issue license to carry (159:6). Mine is a little rectangle of paper with my signature, the Deputy Police Chief’s signature, my name and address, and a brief description of me. It took me a couple of days to get it and it cost $10.00 total (no training fees, no nothing). As far as New Hampshire is concerned, I can carry in a church, school, and everywhere else except a courthouse (159:19). By the way, no photograph or fingerprints are required and state law demands that all license information remain confidential.

New Hampshire has barred itself from ever operating a “voluntary surrender and destroy” program otherwise known as a gun buyback (159:25). If someone’s silly enough to give the state a weapon, New Hampshire must sell it at auction or use it. I’m not sure, because of preemption, if this prevents a town from sponsoring a gun buyback. Still, it’s a step forward.

There are laws dealing with sales. In fact, there was once a record of sales law (159:9) that could have been an infringement on gun rights, but it was repealed in 1996. Someone who’s not in the gun business can sell a gun to someone personally known to them (159:14). I am not sure how one defines “known to them,” but it’s a lot better than Massachusetts’s registration and licensing scheme with all of its paperwork and demands.

Most of the other laws parallel Federal law—felons can’t possess a gun, no sales to minors although a parent can give a minor a gun (159:12), altering serial numbers, and provisions on committing crimes with guns.

Chapter 159 has four other parts (A-D). One was on the purchase of shotguns and rifles, which was repealed in 1996. Part B covers shooting ranges and gives full protection to ranges so long as they were present before noise ordinances were passed or neighbor complaints made.

To be complete, Part C dealt with a criminal history check and it was repealed in 1994. Finally Part D deals with the more recent criminal history checks. The Department of Safety is the point of contact for the NICS check made when one buys a gun and it cannot keep records on people who pass NICS check.

There are laws that govern how guns are used in hunting, but overall, New Hampshire gun laws are focused on illegal use of guns, not on simple ownership and lawful use. Contrary to Massachusetts’s laws, they are easy to read and understand (click here for an example of obtuse writing from a Massachusetts law).

Our gun laws probably aren’t as good for gunnies as Vermont’s laws, but still way to go New Hampshire.

Guns and Movies

Work is still keeping me busy, plus I'm very sleepy today. Saturday evening, Bill and I went to a double feature at a nearby drive-in theater. The last movie ended at 2:00 am, so by the time we got home and to bed we were seeing 2:50 on the clock. We slept in until about 10:30, which meant that I could not sleep last night, leading to the inevitable head nods while the boss drones on.

In other words, you won't find a longish essay here today. Instead, I have a movie related question. Bill and I saw "Pirates of the Caribbean" (Part 2) and "Cars." Pirates included a scene in which our heroes have to shoot a cargo net containing six casks of gun powder and one or more barrels of rum. The shot is shown exiting the gun barrel about ten yards away from the casks. You guessed it, the whole thing went boom.

Why does Hollywood persist in thinking that a little lead pellet, without the benefit of incendiaries, will blow up gunpowder, gas tanks, ships, planes, and assorted stuff? It won't. Of course, it's entertainment and not the real world, but people start believing that bullets have these mythical powers and must be banned for all but a few.

That's the trouble with these scenes and now back to my nap work.

Surprising New York Times Article

Every now and again The New York Times surprises me. This time they published an article in the travel section that describes getting a Texas concealed carry license (registration probably required).

It’s relatively free of snark too. One or two phrases are cringe-worthy such as “Nationwide, for better or worse, Americans own some 220 million guns, and half the households in the country are believed to be armed.” For me, there is no worse when good people own guns. The author also turns his nose up at the clothing and armaments of his instructions, but even that is not too intrusive.

Overall, it is a descriptive article that even includes good advice on shooting a handgun. Give it a read.

Nannies Strike Again

[Sorry for the recent posting drought. Going on a short vacation leads to playing catch-up at work.]

Once again I am outraged at our representatives. The US House passed a bill that would outlaw online gambling in America (the Senate still needs to vote on the bill).

I’ve mentioned before that I play penny-ante poker at an online casino. I find it relaxing, I improve my skills, and I almost always win. And don’t tell me I could play for free. If you’ve ever tried it, you’ll see people going “all-in” with a seven-deuce unsuited. After all, it’s only free points they can renew in an instant.

Now the House wants to protect me from spending my money in a way I see fit. Their bill puts teeth in laws against online gambling and cracks down on banks and intermediaries that pass money to online casinos.

Don’t these representatives have better things to do? Shouldn’t they pass bills that would remove unconstitutional and unfair gun laws? What about homeland security concerns? What about cleaning up the tax code? What about—whatever? No, I guess the representatives are only trying to nanny us because they “know” what is best for us.

Even a Massachusetts liberal, Barney Frank, sees the bill as a new form of prohibition that will not work. Unfortunately, a lot of the bill’s supporters are Republican although many Democrats also voted for it.

It’s nannyism like this that prevents me from becoming a Republican even though they are much better than Democrats on gun rights—a primary interest.

Here’s something else to consider. With a fall of a gavel, the House moved to make it illegal to use credit cards, check, and other financial instruments to gamble online. Using this model, a future House of Representatives could pass a bill that makes it illegal to use financial instruments to buy ammunition, gun parts, gun books, or accouterments online.

A truly evil group of Representatives could even pass a bill that banned the use of financial instruments to buy guns period. One could always use cash, but even that could be regulated with harsh banking rules. Also, imagine if a gun store owner had to buy his inventory with cash. Therefore, legislators wouldn’t have to touch the Second Amendment or make guns illegal, they would just make them harder to get.

Making it harder to get guns is Massachusetts’ model. With its licensing and registration hoops, its legislators have made it much harder for an average person to buy a gun. Because there is so much effort involved, many people don’t bother with it. Or they own a gun illegally.

Nannyism is a state of mind in which the nanny believes they know best for us and want to regulate us out of our "vices.". True, one can point to people who can’t handle online gambling just as one can point to people who drink too much, drive too fast, and use guns criminally. Still, many voters find nannyism acceptable—after all, gambling is “immoral.”

Nannies are never satisfied. Their urge to do good just keeps on going. Nannies count on the support of good people who believe that “someone needs to do something about that.” Yesterday it was drugs, today it’s online gambling, tomorrow it might be guns.

Just remember, you may support a law that seems good, but eventually someone will sponsor a bill that will outlaw something you enjoy.

A Visit to CMP

Bill and I managed to visit Camp Perry and the CMP store yesterday. I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity, but it is a good trip for gunnies.

We arrived on the Thursday before the start of the Camp Perry National Matches. Pistol and rifle shooters from all over the country will be coming here to compete beginning Sunday. Too bad we're not among them. As you can imagine, there was a lot of activity around the ranges--sprucing them up for the big week. I couldn't help but imagine what the area will be like next week, the ranges full, the small of powder, the sound of guns.

Entrance to Camp Perry

When we entered the camp, the guard directed us to the CMP store. The store is in a warehouse in a corner of the base reached by a gravel road. It’s small although there are a lot of "behind the scenes" areas. We roamed around about 100 racked M1Garands of various grades along with 1903 Springfields and .22 target rifles. Many of the guns were still thickly coated with cosmoline.

CMP's Warehouse and Store

The staff helped about four people buy rifles while we were there. I was tempted to start my paperwork for a .22 target rifle, but looked at my checkbook balance and decided to wait for a better time. Besides, I’m not too sure about driving through New York State (we will be staying the night there) with a rifle in the car.

We picked up a bunch of Lake City .30-06 surplus ammo, a training DVD for Bullseye Pistol (never hurts to learn more), and a couple of books. We even got a souvenir CMP pen.

You have to do paperwork to buy ammo at the store, but Bill has already bought a 1903 from them and they had his information in their computer.
CMP's Sign

We have a little trepidation about carrying bulk ammo across New York State. Here we are free Americans and worried about carrying a legal product bought from a federally chartered public corporation. But, there you have it. Life in America today.

If you find yourself in Northern Ohio, be sure to stop at your CMP store.

On the Road Again

Bill and I are traveling again. This time we're going to his cousin's wedding and an impromtu family reunion (his family, but I'm a member of it now that we're married). We're near Cleveland, Ohio staying with Bill's aunt and uncle.

We have some gunnie plans if they work out. For one thing, Camp Perry and the CMP store are not too far from here. Hmm...guns to fondle, books to buy, armory-type tools to take home. What's a girl to do?

Of course, wedding rehersals, family dinners, and everything else may be the end of gunnie plans. We'll keep you posted.

The sun never sets……?

As long as I can remember, I have been an Anglophile. I can’t quite explain why, but I have always been fascinated by English culture and society. So I was thrilled when I got assigned to England as my first assignment in the Air Force. When I arrived there, it was actually like I was returning home. I loved the pub culture and the general environment of the country. But after some time, I began to realize that what I loved was not the England that exists today, but an England of the past, an England that had confidence and would bear any burden, an England that unfortunately no longer exists.

My realization of this is one of the reasons that I am not as outraged as Kim by this bit of tyranny.

This kind of thing is becoming all too common in Blighty. Five years ago, I would have been spitting angry, now I just feel a deep sadness. It’s depressing to see a society and nation you once respected in decline. But in the end, how much pity can you have. England was and still is a democracy. The majority of the people of England voted for the politicians that passed the laws that allowed this travesty to happen.

Some people are fighting against the tide of statism in England, but I suspect it will be futile.

I continue to be an Anglophile and I will visit England in the future, but I will go there to see the glories of England's past and try to ignore the present.

It isn’t futile here, yet. We can still fight and we can still win. We have made a lot of progress over the last 20 years and we need to keep pushing. One way to do this is to refuse to live in a state that requires gun registration and permitting. Come live in a free state like New Hampshire. We need more pro freedom voters here and in other Second Amendment friendly states.

The future is in our hands.

A Promise to Myself

When I successfully escaped from the People Republic of Massachusetts, I made a promise that I intend to keep as long as I live. That promise is simply that I will never register any of my firearms, ever again. I will endeavor to live in a place that does not require any registration or Massachusetts style gun control, but if there are ever any national or international laws passed that require me to register firearms then I will Ignore Those Laws.

I am bringing this up due to the UN small arms conference, taking place right now in New York City. In particular this statement by IANSA head Rebecca Peter, via Kim Dutoit.

“I think American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world. At the moment there are no rules applying to the rest of the world. That’s what we’re working for. American citizens should have guns that are suitable for the legitimate purposes that they can prove. I think that eventually Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they’re going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that. I think Americans who hunt—and who prove that they can hunt—should have single-shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they’re hunting. I mean American citizens should be like any other citizens of the world”

Well, Ms. Peters, I for one have no interest in being like any other citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States of America and damn proud of it. Our founding fathers fought so the new nation they were creating would be independent of the rest of the world and not under the thumb of various kings and potentates.

Our obsession with arming ourselves and our household arsenals were critical to the lend lease program that helped protect Great Britain from a Nazi invasion.

Our paranoid belief allowed us to stave off the ill of a world ruled by a German, Italian, and Japanese axis.

America is often accused of being an arrogant power. But what about the arrogance of foreign nationals arguing in our largest city on our most important holiday that our freedoms are the cause of the world’s problems.

Finally, it strikes me as the ultimate irony that while our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect our country, Peters and her brethren argue on our own soil to take away the rights that our people have fought so hard to secure.

So Ms. Peters, I will never again register my firearms and I will never abide by your prescriptions.

It will be over my dead body and millions like me before your obscene agenda ever has a chance to pass in this country.

UN Follies

I haven’t mentioned the United Nations “Small Arms Review Conference” yet. If you need background, here is one of Alphecca’s recent posts that will bring you up to speed.

First, here are my opinions about the UN. I believe it started out with good intentions, and it might have made sense in the Cold War period. It might have prevented wars between superpowers. “Might” is the operative word, because there’s no way to prove or disprove it did any good at all.

Today the UN is a way for various nations to peck at the United States and to funnel money into dictator’s and UN official’s pockets. It has become a corrupt blight on New York City. The UN should either go away or be reformed into something good. I suppose one could argue that certain of their humanitarian-health programs, certain cultural ones, and other programs are beneficial to someone. Maybe, but these programs don’t redeem the whole.

The UN is looking at a real problem; terrorist and guerrilla forces buying machine guns, explosives, mortars and everything else. These forces have armed children to fight children. No one, except third world war lords, supports drafting children.

These despots and UN do-gooders want to regulate trade in weapons in order to disarm bandit, terrorist, and guerilla bands (some of the latter are actually fighting the despots). They claim they don’t want to interfere with legal firearm ownership. But, the devil’s in the details. They advocate licensing and registration schemes. They would outlaw “military” weapons (which could logically include M1Garands, etc). Such regulations are anathema to me and many other gun owners.

Maybe UN officials are telling the truth and the results of this conference won’t affect my personal ownership of firearms—at least not this time.

What happens when their hopes of disarming Africa’s children soldiers fail? They’ll do what every other collectivist minded “leaders” will do. They’ll promulgate another treaty with harsher restrictions that will then begin to affect me. When that one fails, they’ll pass yet another treaty ultimately making me into a slave or an outlaw.

Prohibitions don’t work. Black markets have thrived in despite the harshest repressions—Jews in the Nazi surrounded Warsaw Ghetto got guns.

You can’t ban your way into peace. Look at England, which banned handguns, and experienced higher handgun crime rates. The actual percentage of increase is debatable, but it doesn’t matter at all. What matters is that banning didn’t bring peace to England’s streets despite the promises of gun controllers. If gun control worked, England’s handgun crime rates should have plummeted.

You have to solve the problems that lead to child soldiers and street thugs in the first place. That takes years of hard work—something that despots and UN do-gooders won’t do.

Bottom line; this conference should never have been hosted on US soil and US government officials should never agree to even one punctuation mark in the final document. If our representatives to the UN can derail the conference, so much the better.

One From the Vault

Nambu Type 14
Living on a small island with few natural resources, Japanese officials wanted to create a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It would not be a free collection of friendly trading partners, but assembled by Japanese swords, bayonets, and guns. The Japanese Empire seemed unstoppable in the 1930s. Manchuria and much of China fell under their sway. They bombed Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike and, as we all know, their plan backfired.

Japan had long been a closed society, suspicious of foreigners and their ideas. When Japanese leaders looked outside, they realized that technology had passed them by. They had to play catch-up and learn fast. They coupled their old Samurai ways with new technologies in a sometimes uneasy pairing.

One antique concept was Bushido, the “Way of the Warrior.” Bushido meant that a fighter’s spirit was the most important ingredient to victory. Because a warrior’s spirit was most important, the quality of his weapons was secondary.

Japanese arms of the World War II are not fine quality examples of the gunmaker’s art. Arisaka rifles were obsolete even in the 1930s, their machine guns were clumsy, and their semi-automatic pistol, the Nambu, was under powered and moderately unreliable. Despite their flaws, their weapons still worked. Coupled with Bushido, Japanese soldiers won victory after victory until they ran up against a more modern military.

The Nambu was the principal side arm of the Japanese Army for much this time although some officers were armed with a revolver and late in the war another semi-automatic was introduced. Still, when you think of Japanese side arms you think of Nambus.

Kijiro Nambu was a young weapons designer when he invented his first pistol in 1904. It was a large, ugly-duckling of a gun that most collectors have nicknamed “grandpa” Nambu. Its designer came up with a similar design now nicknamed “papa” Nambu. General Staff officers and the Emperor carried much smaller pistols, “baby” Nambus.

Nambu’s early pistols were expensive to manufacture and he needed to simplify his gun. By 1927, he finalized his designs with the Type 14, which Japan adopted as its issue weapon for non-commissioned officers. Commissioned officers had to purchase their own side arms.

My Nambu Type 14 and the standard reference work on these guns

The Type 14 looks a lot like its grandpa and papa, with significant internal differences including doing away with a grip safety. Its slab-sided grips are unlovely, but “pretty” was not part of its design. Still, Type 14s are interesting handguns to handle, take apart, and shoot.

They handle much like a Luger because of its similar grip angle. When you disassemble a Type 14, the trigger guard is the key. It slides down and off when you have the magazine catch in the right position. Once taken apart, you’ll find more springs than what seems necessary.

I’ve shot my Nambu, but not successfully. Despite having springs everywhere inside it, the firing pin spring was worn out and that led to too light primer strikes. I'll buy a new one soon. However, the few shots I got off though were very accurate.

Nambus are accurate partly due to balance and pointability. The sights just naturally fall on target. A Nambu’s sights are like few others. The front sight is a pyramid and the rear notch is an inverted pyramid. They work together quite nicely.

Nambus were not known for reliability. In fact, there was a major recall in the 1930s due to firing pin breakage. Later Nambus had a large trigger guard, but early Type 14s had a small trigger guard. That was fine on a range, but soldiers couldn’t get their trigger fingers into the guard when they were wearing gloves (Manchuria is cold in the winter). Its cartridge, 8mm Nambu, is also notoriously under powered.

My Nambu was made in November 1930 at the Koishikawa Arsenal. Koishikawa was a government operated factory, but many Type 14s were made by private companies, even The Tokyo Gas and Electric Company. My Nambu was originally equipped with a small trigger guard, but many officers paid to have the arsenal install a large trigger guard. When the arsenal did so, it numbered all the newly installed parts so that they matched the gun.

My Type 14 has all matching parts (except the magazine) and is in decent condition (after I eradicated a layer of old cosmoline and gunk). It’s a welcome addition to my World War II firearms collection.

Another Milestone and a Thank You

After watching a movie on HBO (Cinderella Man), we stumbled upstairs to web browse awhile. I checked Ten Ring's site meter and what did I see--we had reached 99,995 readers. Of course, I had to stick around for the admittedly juvenile pleasure of watching the meter roll over to 100,000. Okay, it didn't really roll over, I had to hit refresh a couple of times, but there you have it, 100,000 readers.

The 100,000th reader came in from San Diego County in California. He or she was looking for information on the NRA and came here at 10:47 pm Eastern time. If you're still on, thanks for stopping by.

When Bill and I started Ten Ring, we didn't know how long we'd blog or how many readers we'd get. Personally, I'm amazed you all keep coming back. Thank you for doing so.

Hunting v. Pig Exterminators

I had a little time at lunch today to stroll around the Internet. Hell in a Handbasket linked to Blogonomicon who in turn linked to a story about feral pigs in Texas. Some parts of that huge state, which was once my home, are being overrun by wild oinkers.

Pigs will eat anything that’s even semi-edible and not leave a trace. A rancher mentioned that he was missing a number of goat kids that probably ended up inside pigs. Pigs also dig up land, destroy plants, and generally make a nuisance of themselves.

Pigs should be hunted and their numbers controlled, but I have qualms about a pig exterminator as the article describes. Jody Payne kills pigs by having his dogs chase one down and hold it until Payne plunges a knife into its heart. Ironically, the article is located in the newspaper’s Sports section. There’s no sport here. Maybe the article should be in the Business section.

Payne’s kills are probably quick, although the dog thing is not a peaceful way to live your last moment. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not feeling sorry for the pig, but I do wish more people would hunt so we wouldn’t need pig exterminators—or deer exterminators, or bear exterminators.

That’s where we’re heading. Deer, feral pig, bear, coyote, etc populations are exploding. That’s a mixed blessing because there aren’t enough predators to control populations. People must step into the gap and resume our role as nature’s top predator. Because we’re not doing that, towns hire “sharpshooters” to cull deer herds. And, we see pig exterminators in Texas.

Why aren’t more people hunting if game is so plentiful?

For one thing, people don’t know how to for many reasons. Their parents didn’t hunt. People know it’s time consuming, demanding, messy, difficult, and there’s no guarantee of success. Not like a video game.

Also, having lived in Texas, I can guess another answer. Too many land owners won’t open up their land to hunting unless you pay a significant amount of your hard-earned cash for a hunting lease. In fact, the rancher in the article raises exotic animals for apparently semi-canned hunts. So, instead of inviting hunters to control the pigs, he brings in a pig exterminator.

We need access to good hunting land and in return hunters must respect that land, its owner, and the animals that live on it. Among other duties, that means don’t shoot unless you know what your target is and what’s beyond it. Instead, we end up with pig exterminators. I can’t imagine a more soulless job than shooting deer or stabbing pigs just because there’s too many of them.

You know, I wonder if feral pigs live in New Hampshire. I haven’t heard one way or the other. A nice loin roast from a plump acorn-fed pig sounds mighty tasty right now.

A Gunnie Book Review

The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals

I haven’t done a book review in awhile and wouldn’t you know it, I pick one that’s not really about guns. Still, Michael Pollan has written one of those must-read books that too few people read.

Pollan is a journalism professor in California. He’s not a gunnie although he doesn’t seem to be a gun hater either. As part of his research, he borrowed a gun, went out with an experienced hunter, and killed a wild pig. So I guess he’s a junior, double-secret-probationary member of our group.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma looks at the way we eat in America. Given the topic, you might think Pollan would be a scold. He’s not—except when it comes to corn. Instead, he’s interested in understanding our food by looking at three different ways of getting food and the meals they produce.

His first meal is at McDonalds and this leads him to rant about corn. He finds corn is government subsidized, that we have converted much farmland to corn monoculture, and it’s in everything from ketchup to us. A McDonalds meal consists of corn-fed beef, high fructose corn syrup, corn derived preservatives and extenders, and other products that look nothing like an ear of corn.

He interviews a corn farmer who loses money with each crop, but somehow stays in business thanks to the subsidies. Pollan buys a steer and watches it grow from a calf to a feedlot animal where it’s fed copious amounts of corn—a grass that cows never evolved to eat—and sent to the slaughter house. There he finds that we cannot enter the door due to concern for his “tender feelings.”

He turns his attention to organic farming and doesn’t find much to like in industrial-style farms no matter how eco-friendly they make their labels. In fact, supporting large supermarkets like Whole Foods leads to the same shortcuts and economy of scale decisions that Whole Foods shoppers decry. Even worse, big-organic farming can require more fossil fuels to put a product on the consumer’s plate than conventional agriculture.

Pollan is intrigued by a “grass farm” (no not that kind of grass, the kind cows eat). He meets up with a farmer in Virginia who calls himself a grass farmer because he uses pasture rotation and other lost arts to raise chickens, pigs, cattle, and eggs on grass. I’ve ate grass-fed beef before and it’s different from corn and grain fed supermarket beef. I might have to think about finding a “grass farm” up here in New Hampshire and filling up our freezer.

His book’s last section is on hunting and gathering. He decides that he has to understand how mankind gets meat in the most natural way possible. But, before doing that he tries a vegetarian diet. He concludes man is an omnivore and that cutting meat out of one’s diet divorces us from nature. We evolved as a predator not a grazer. Hear, hear.

Pollan teams up with an old-world Italian who hunts pigs for classic prosciutto and wild-boar sausages and Pollan learns how to shoot a rifle. After a misadventure or two, he finally kills a large pig. Pollan talks about his emotions and disgust when he helps field dress the pig, but also about his joy and feeling of oneness with nature. He recognizes that he probably gave that pig a better death than it would have experienced otherwise.

He writes beautifully about his hunting experiences albeit as an urbanite babe in the woods. I doubt he’ll continue to hunt, but he made me wish the summer would pass faster so hunting season would start. If you’re a hunter you must read his hunting related chapters (parts were excerpted in a New York Times article that is now in their archives).

Pollan’s writing is clear, concise, and enjoyable. A quibble is that most of the meals he makes and describes are gourmetish. If you’re a meat and potatoes person, you might be put off by his foodie descriptions. But, if you eat any kind of food (and I know you do) it’s still a must-read book.

Household Vulnerability

Here’s something to ponder. Have you ever broken into your own home? If so, were you surprised how easy it was? Learning how easy it was, aren’t you glad that you believe in self-defense and keep a gun in the house?

Bill and I spent part of the weekend fixing a door to our condo. You see, a little while ago, Bill locked himself out of the house after I had left for work. If you’ve ever wondered why he’s called Yosemite Sam, well wonder no more. He simply kicked the door in and it gave him little trouble. Granted, only a door knob lock was on and not the dead bolt, but the dead bolt wouldn’t have been that much more difficult to kick open.

Of course, the door frame was broke all to hell including the jamb with the lock faces, the molding alongside the door frame and bits and pieces. Hmmm…. Neither of us are carpenters, but we pulled off the molding, cut out the broken jamb, cut a new piece of hardwood to fit, planed it, mortised places for the lock faces, and then screwed it all together. We still have to nail up the molding and then paint, but it’s stronger now than it was a few days ago.

The lesson here is that it’s too easy to break into a house. We may call a modern house our castle, but in reality a modern house is not fortified. It has glass windows and it doesn’t have armed retainers manning the walls. You get the idea.

That leads us to two related lessons:

When not at home, lock your guns and ammunition into something that would at least slow down a burglar. I don’t want to “donate” my guns to the illegal market and a safe or a very secure cabinet is a good idea and the law in certain states.

When home, keep a gun loaded and under your control. A home invasion can happen in the length of time it takes for someone to kick a door a few times. A quiet break in can happen anytime and your first clue that an unwanted quest is present might be a confrontation. In either case, you won’t have time to get to a locked up gun and its ammunition.

Given the reality of home invasions and burglaries and the impossibility of truly burglar-proofing your house, what other good choices are there?

Guns, Gambling, and Washington State

It’s time to step out of my office, come up for air, enjoy the rare sunshine, and see what’s going on in the world. Hmm…I see we won another victory. Louisiana Governor Katherine Blanco signed a new law stopping local and state police from confiscating firearms in an emergency no matter how much they might want to. Yay for our side.

Then I found something that makes me want to crawl back into my office and pull my spreadsheets and Word docs back over my head. It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom from Nanny State. Because too many states and localities want to nanny us about guns, I guess in a way it’s about guns too.

I’ve mentioned Washington state’s law forbidding online gambling. Part of the law makes it illegal to even link to an online gambling site. Despite obvious First Amendment problems, Washington state is going to prosecute someone who blogged about online casinos and provided links and advertisements.

It seems that even the Seattle newspaper, which runs a poker column, may run afoul of the law. A columnist discusses it at length and finds that he may also be committing a crime. I found the editorial on Radley Balko of the Agitator and here’s a big hat tip.

What is it with these damn nannies? I don’t know and I don’t care if this law came about because of right-wing or left-wing moralists. The right wants us to live a moral life according to their Biblical interpretation du jour. The left wants to create a utopia where we all care and share. After all, dude, how caring and sharing is spending your money on selfish pursuits such as poker when that money could best be used to provide health care to the poor undocumented workers or a living wage to all.

The religious right does it to please God. The left does it because they want to live your life for you. I believe the left is now taking on online gambling even more than the right. Here’s a long article on a college kid who royally screwed up his life when he became an online gambling junkie. It’s in the New York Times, hardly a bastion of conservative religious morality.

I own guns, I gamble occasionally in casinos, and I play penny-ante games in an online poker site (here’s my gratuitous link that may send Washington state into a fit and I'm not sure it works because my employer's net nanny blocks it, grrr).

A few people can’t handle gambling and even fewer people abuse guns, but that gives no would-be nanny the right to live my life for me. Instead, people who abuse guns criminally should be locked away for crimes they commit with a gun. People who become addicted to gambling, alcohol, drugs, bubblegum music need help.

Here’s something Washington state and would-be nannies need to understand: If you prohibit something you drive it underground and you no longer have any control over it. If an activity is legal, a state can regulate it provided the regulations are not so onerous as to create a black market.

Look at guns. I think there’s too much regulation, but still I can buy a gun with relatively little hassle and I’m not driven to a black market. Look at alcohol. When it was prohibited, criminal bootleggers flourished and people still got their drinkies, but the state received no tax money and bootleggers could sell to children if they wanted to—sort of like illegal drugs now.

So for guns, let’s roll back some of the regulations—take your pick I have my ideas. For Internet gambling let the nannies, if they really want to, dream up a few reasonable regulations for online casinos designed to protect players. Such regulations would ensure an honest game, protect player accounts, and enforce age requirements.

Of course, I could be all wet. Maybe Washington state only wants to protect its own gambling monopoly such as the lottery. But, no that would be cynical.

Smile--We Won One

I'm attending a one-day conference today in Nashua, New Hampshire. It's almost a holiday for me because it shortens my commute by 25 to 30 miles.

I'm in the hotel's business centers checking e-mail and a news feed and guess what I see: a California judge overturned San Francisco's gun ban. I'm sure this is old news and every gun blogger has already covered it, but it is enough to put a smile on my face for the rest of the day.

The aptly named Proposition H would have meant that San Franciscans couldn't have owned handguns legally. The city had passed a similar proposition in 1982 (according to the article) and it too was shot down (pun intended). The state will not allow an individual city or county to usurp their monopoly on making gun laws.

The NRA and I believe the Second Amendment Foundation (not mentioned in the article) sued the city and now they've won. It reinforces my belief that NRA, though not perfect, is still a gunnie's best friend. Gotta run now.

Guns in Cars

Sorry for the lack of posting recently. My work cycle is feast or famine and I’m in the feast (too much to do) part. Such is life.

I posted about the erosion of freedom and got more comments than usual. People must protect their rights, but there are other times when liberties are at odds with each other.

A commenter, tkdkerry, wondered about my stance on guns in cars that are parked in company parking lots. (Employees of Weyerhauser in Oklahoma lost their jobs when the company searched private employee vehicles parked on company lots for contraband, including guns.)

What an excellent example of rights colliding with each other.

A property owner has the right to say no guns on my property just as he has a right to say no Bibles, booze, playing cards, cigarettes or whatever on his/her property. On the other hand, the owner is telling you that you don’t have the right to keep something in your property, your car, or the right to keep and bears arms, freedom of religion, etc.

The NRA is all over this one. They believe one should be able to keep guns in locked cars regardless of company policy and want government rules to enforce it. Other people and groups disagree vehemently with NRA.

So where do I stand? I agree with the NRA. A company should not be able to dictate the contents of my car, just because it’s casting a shadow on their lot.

Here’s why. My car is an extension of my home and is so recognized (with some caveats) by our courts. When I pull into a company’s lot for work, I don’t sign my car over to them. It’s still mine. I shouldn’t be subject to a “contraband search” unless there’s evidence I was planning or committing a crime. In that case, police should be called not private company guards.

Someone could say that if such a search is a condition of my employment, I should do what my employer says and that we shouldn’t use government to regulate what a company can do. If it upsets me too much, I should get a new job.

That’s all well and good if we were dealing with negotiations between equals.

Many companies are too big to negotiate equally with individuals. Instead, they issue policies that are subject to change with relatively little notice or they’re bought out by a larger company that changes the policies. You’re subject to these new rules even though you didn’t agree to them when you got the job. There are places where it would be hard to find a new job because your employer is the biggest in town or you’re in an esoteric profession.

Here’s another poinr, accepting gun bans based on private property rights will result in the end of legal armed self-defense. Any company, shopping center, strip mall could ban guns even if they’re locked in cars. You will have the choice to be (legally) defenseless or not be able to shop, work, or whatever.

Maybe I’m more sensitive to this than others because I’ve lived and still work in Massachusetts—home of the gun-fearing wussie. I can only imagine what would happen if employers and property owners were allowed an unchallenged right to ban guns on their properties. Pretty soon we would have bans in company lots, apartment complexes, and everywhere in between.

You see, Massachusetts has not banned guns, they’ve just made it so hard and costly to own one legally that most people don’t go through the hassle and own illegally or not at all. Anti-gunnies will use our deep respect for private property to do something similar throughout the nation.

Military Intelligence?

Denise has complained that I haven’t posted awhile, so here goes. She might regret poking me awake. Via Kim comes this excellent CBS news report that discusses the effectiveness of the .223 battle rifle.

It should be no surprise that I agree that the .223 is wholly ineffective as a combat round. Denise agrees as well, derisively calling it a poodle popper. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy shooting the .223, but it has no place in the kind of irregular warfare that we are waging in the Middle East and I am dubious it ever had a place in our military’s arsenal.

But that issue isn’t what has me outraged. No, it is this quote from supposed weapons expert Pierre Sprey,

"There is no such thing as a well-aimed shot in combat," said Sprey. "Combat is fought by scared 18-year-olds who haven't trained enough and are in places they've never seen before."

Well Mr. Sprey, as a commenter at Kim’s site said, tell that to Sergeant York and Audie Murphy.

Our soldiers are better trained than they have ever been. They are certainly trained better than they were during World War 2, where they were sent overseas as quickly as possible and training was rounded out at the front. But, they won that war, primarily with “well-aimed” shots. WWII soldiers were as scared as anyone in a combat situation, but they were still able to squeeze off that well aimed shot.

Also, I suspect that Mr. Sprey has never been hunting. While no where near the level of stress that one feels under combat, it is still necessary to quiet ones breathing, take careful aim and to squeeze off a well aimed shot. Many people have done this many times before their 18^th birthday.

Mr. Sprey, supposedly an expert, must have little knowledge of military history as well. In World War I, our Marines picked off Germans at 1000 yards under combat conditions and earned the nickname, Teufel Hunden(Devil Dogs) from the shocked German soldiers.

In fact, our military is well renowned for its marksmanship and the Marines have a lot of pride in their motto of “Every Marine a rifleman”.

So to be blunt, if Mr. Sprey is a typical example of what we have for weapons experts in this country, maybe it is no small wonder that we are having a problem with ending the insurgency in Iraq. Mr. Sprey’s attitude is a perfect example of what is wrong with a lot of this country’s military thinking.

(UPDATE: Blogger or something messed up some paragraph returns and left pieces of html code floating around. I edited the post to remove those pieces and I hope I didn't mess something else up. Denise 3:51pm)

Still Here

Bill and I are still here. I've been traveling for work--in Maryland this time--and got back last night. I tried to get Yosemite Sam to post (what can you do with a co-blogger who has a lot to say, but rarely says it), but he didn't do it.

Work kept me late today with meetings and stuff to write. After all, work pays the mortgage, utilities, food, and everything else. Believe me, I wish I could make a living blogging, but I don't think that's very likely.

I have two major projects I need to get out soon. Regular blogging will resume in the next day or two. Thanks for checking in.

Self-Defense and the "Castle Doctrine"

Work is not leaving me a lot of time for blogging—I came back from vacation and found even more stuff on my desk. Don’t get me wrong; I like vacations a lot more than I like work, but sometimes they lead to more work. I even got “volunteered” for a couple of things that I would‘ve dodged had I been here. Oh well.

I did stumble on one thing while working. It made me wonder why smart people are so often dumb. The Harvard Journal of Legislation has an article on the “stand your ground” law (.pdf file) in Florida, also called the “Castle Doctrine.”

Virtually all states allow self-defense in the face of an attack; however, many of them require you to retreat if at all possible. Florida’s law removes the duty to retreat although it doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to kill a person (as anti-gunnies want you to think).

According to the journal, retreat requirements were recognition of the value of life. I agree that life is precious, but when someone attacks another person, they risk death. It’s that simple and I don’t need fourteen pages of text and a multitude of footnotes to state it.

But, I’m not here to debate legal issues with a law student. I don’t know enough about law in general or Florida’s new law specifically to win. However, I do know about self-defense and those who would deny it to the rest of us.

Here’s a statement that illustrates a problem with the article's argument and betrays an anti-self-defense mentality. The author states that the new law “…allows a person outside of his home to stand his ground in the face of an attack and inside of his home or vehicle against an intruder, even if there is no threat of harm.”

First, in an attack there is, in fact, a threat of harm. That’s what a freaking attack is. Second, if you have an intruder in your home you're probably under threat. Now, I don’t advocate shooting someone if you find them in your home, if they show empty hands, and if you can tell they’re not a threat. But, in most cases an intruder is a serious threat.

There are people, who don’t understand just how dangerous certain criminals are. They believe that one can reason with them, reach an empathetic understanding, or just give them the property they want and they’ll go away. They don’t realize that there are monsters out there who’ll kill you for the thrill of it. They may also face a thug who wants more than any person should give—a rapist, for instance.

I think the law student who wrote this article is someone who’s lived a sheltered life although I bet he thinks he’s world-wise and experienced. He’s probably always been safe and has never met someone whose eyes lack all human warmth or empathy.

I’ve met such people and I thank God I survived my encounters with them. In one case, I escaped death or harm only because I had a gun to enforce my shouted “No!” It’s amazing how fast bad guys can run when they look down the barrel of a 9mm.

I’ve never had to shoot someone, but I still carry a gun often and keep one loaded at home. I only wish New Hampshire had passed its version of the Castle Doctrine (I understand Governor John Lynch vetoed it while we were on vacation). I never want to be in a position again when I have to defend myself and wonder if I will be arrested for it no matter how much I feared for my life.

Freedom Eroding

My how things change when you go on vacation. I come back to work and find that computer policy people have decided that we need a net nanny service. You know, software that blocks entry to certain websites that someone, somewhere has found offensive.

We didn’t get the net nanny program to enforce a no-Internet policy. My employer’s official policy is that you can use the Internet for personal use provided you’re not interfering with your work,surfing porn, racist sites, gambling online, engaging in illegal activities, or sending chain letters.

Given today’s litigiousness, I can understand the no-porn thing (a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen) and hate sites. One shouldn’t expect to gamble on an employer’s premises (unless you work for Harrah’s), and chain letters chew up bandwidth. I understand these rules, but the net nanny blocks other things.

Someone at the net nanny company doesn’t like guns and created a “weapons” category. Fortunately they don’t have an exhaustive list of gun blogs, but I can’t get on The Other Side of Kim, Heads Bunker, or Publicola (forgive me if the links don't work, I can't test them) .

When I click on each site, I get a popup screen telling me I’ve been a bad girl and that the site was banned because it dealt with weapons. (Out of curiosity, I clicked on NRA and I can go there.)

Their list is not exhaustive. I can get on Ten Ring and most other gunnie sites, but I’m always waiting for a blocking screen that will, according to text, tattle-tale on me to our IT services people. Whatever.

I agreed to provide my employer with my services for a certain remuneration. I didn’t make a pact that includes censorship. It’s one thing if my employer bans use of the Internet for any private reason, but to allow it and then selectively censor legal things that I might choose to read on my own time is wrong.

I also discovered another site it doesn’t like. Bill sent me a post from Say Uncle about Washington State outlawing online gambling. I can get to Say Uncle, but he linked to “rgtonline.com” and that invoked the nanny screen because it deals with gambling. I have no idea what rgtonline is, but what about the First Amendment? What about my right as a free American to read what I want?

Americans are losing their freedoms slowly but surely. If you like to do certain things that others consider asocial, you will become an outcast or even a criminal. It’s affected me with the net nanny. I like to read about guns. So far that’s not illegal even if it offends people I work with every day.

However in Washington State, I would commit a felony if I even link to an online gambling site (at least as far as I can tell given censorship that blocks me from learning more).

I can’t buy one round of ammunition in Massachusetts if I don’t have their stupid firearms card. I could buy ammo in Maine with no questions asked other than, “Need help carrying all that out to your car?”

If I smoked, I can’t light up in a bar in too many cities and states to list.

Wake up people and start defending everyone’s liberties. You may like a smoke-free restaurant. You may think online gambling is devil’s work. You may be an anti-gunnie. You might say that your employer should be able to censor what you read. But one day, a liberty dear to you will be crushed. Who will you turn to for help?