One From the Vault

Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector Model of 1905

Tam of View From the Porch acquired a new antique gun the other day. She scored a Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector Model of 1905. I own one of these firearms and Tam’s post inspired this One From the Vault.

Hand Ejectors are fine guns and interesting pieces of history. Smith & Wesson needed to figure out new ways of building guns. They had long built top-break revolvers like the New Departure. Mechanically, it proved hard to build a top-break strong enough to withstand heavier pressures that smokeless powders produced. At least it was difficult to do without building a bulky, clumsy lock.

Smith & Wesson engineers rethought the whole process and designed revolvers with cylinders that swing out from the frame. The modern revolver was born. There was a problem with swing-out cylinders though. They didn’t eject spent cartridge casings automatically. With top-break revolvers you could use the pivoting barrel to load a spring which tripped an ejector rod/star which tossed out casings.

You couldn’t easily make casings eject automatically with a swing-out cylinder. So, designers decided that a little do-it-yourself was in order. They added a rod to the cylinder’s front, which the user pushed back to eject casings. Someone nicknamed it a "hand ejector" and the name stuck.

The Model of 1905 was the first to be built on a K frame and was made until 1940. While the model stemmed from earlier models, it in turn became one of the most venerated of Smith & Wesson’s revolvers. With a few changes the Model of 1905 became the Military & Police Model also known as the Model 10.

Hand Ejectors were popular and were made for a number of years. Collectors have defined eight design "changes" that were made to improve the revolvers. All told 144,684 of these guns were made.

My gun is a first change and I had it "lettered" a couple of years ago (the letter is where I got the production figures—thank you Mr. Roy Jinks of Smith & Wesson). It left the factory on March 24, 1906 and went to a distributing company, M.W. Robinson, Co. of New York City. That company shipped all over the country. It was shipped with a nickel finish and wood grips now long gone.

My revolver ended up in Idaho where my father acquired it in the 1960s. The gun had belonged to a town Marshall. If you look closely at this picture, you’ll notice there’s a notch in the after-market stag-horn grips. I wish I had more history on it, but the gun can’t speak.

My S&W Hand Ejector

The outside of the gun is in fairly good condition and all serial numbers match. The bore leaves a lot to be desired. It’s pitted because someone shot black powder or corrosive-primed cartridges and hadn’t cleaned it adequately. Also, the ejector was repaired and doesn’t have the correct tip. Still, I hope I look that good if I’m ever 101 years old.

Hand Ejectors were chambered in a variety of cartridges. Like Tam’s, my gun is chambered for the .32-20. Winchester created the round in 1882 for their lever-action rifle. The medium-powered cartridge had a great reputation for taking small game. Many people liked having a revolver chambered in the same round as a rifle and .32-20s were fairly popular. It’s not seen much today, although it has enjoyed a bit of a renaissance with Cowboy Action Shooting.

Comparison of .32-20 cartridge with the ubiquitous .45 acp cartridge

I’ve shot the gun and for having a pitted bore, it shoots decently. Still, I don’t plan on shooting it much. It’s more of an heirloom now than a shooter. One way or another, this firearm will remain in my family. Gun-banners hope to make handgun possession illegal one of these days. They don’t feel the tug of history, family heirlooms, or even see guns as examples of technology’s evolution. They’re wrong, we’re right. They need to get over themselves.

Why Do They Hate Us?

I am angry.

Let me explain. It is very hard to be a gun aficionado in today’s world. Why? Well, let me be blunt. We are detested by many, many people in this country (more in the rest of the world). We are blamed for crime problems and every time some lunatic goes off on a rampage, well the bien pensant says it must be the gun culture.

This is a relatively new phenomenon.

When I was young, not all the long ago, I learned to shoot at scout camp, had cowboy style pop guns and no one had a second thought that this was wrong or improper. Today, it is almost tantamount to child abuse to teach a child to shoot and pop guns are as rare as hens teeth. An entire culture that was good and useful has been tossed on the dung heap of history and for what? Did we get a reduction in the amount and severity of crime?

Criminals ignore every gun law that is passed. Crime continues to climb or fall due to other factors that we barely address due to our elites fixation on guns as the root of all evil.

I've been thinking that the shooting at Virginia Tech has set the gun rights movement back 8 years. We are where we were in 1999, after Columbine. I see no more pro gun laws being passed on the national level and it will be hard to fight off new gun control laws.

It is extremely frustrating. We have worked hard to get where we are today and some lunatic destroyed it all in a few hours. The media is bleating its usual gun control line and we basically have to hunker down until some time passes. We take one step forward and the media pushes us two steps back. And where the media goes, the majority of the American people seem to follow, sooner or later. We become pariahs again, barely sentient, inbred hicks in the eyes of the elite and their followers.

I’m sick of it. I’m sick of not being able to talk about my favorite hobby because someone might be offended or even call the authorities because my "fascination with guns" must be the symptom of a sick mind or someone who might lose it at any minute.

I would like to be able to come out, so to speak, and be honest about my hobby. But, it is too dangerous, especially where I work (Massachusetts). Too many good people have had their careers destroyed because they had the temerity to be honest about their hobby.

I live for the day when a co-worker says something that implies that he may not be entirely hostile to the right to bear arms. A few knowing words and phrases are exchanged and a secret is shared. There are more than a few people that share this hobby, even in the "People’s Republic". But, it can be a risky enterprise, trying to get to know them.

I would like to live in a country where I could be honest and tell all of my co-workers that I am going to the NRA convention in St. Louis and not have to mumble that I am traveling there to visit some friends and family. Maybe other parts of the country are better, but not here.

I know for a fact that if too many people find out that you like to collect and shoot firearms, you will be distrusted and shunned. This has happened to someone close to me. This person is shunned basically because she enjoys shooting and collecting firearms. She overheard one of her co-workers suggesting that maybe someone should be informed of her "obsession with firearms."

At her office, workplace violence directives suggest that people who enjoy shooting and collecting firearms could be a danger and if they seem obsessive, they should be reported, so they can get counseling. But, how does one define obsessive? Well, in Massachusetts, obsessive means that you own guns, period. That makes you automatically suspect.

The irony is that this person’s co-worker is gay and Jewish. You would think that he would realize, more than anyone, what happens when the people are all disarmed. Does he not remember the Warsaw Ghetto? The final irony is that he is a potential informer.

I really don’t know how we as gun rights advocates can begin to turn this country around. The media is our biggest hurdle. Day after day, month after month, year after year, the media pumps out total lies, misinformation and propaganda that would make Goebbels proud. It is extremely difficult to fight this. All I can think of doing is continuing to support gun rights organizations like the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and JPFO. But our enemies are well funded and too many people in this country agree with them, 100%.

This shouldn’t be hard. We really aren’t asking for much. We just want to be left alone and not demonized and sanctioned because of our beliefs. But I suspect that isn’t going to happen. Our enemies want to crush us under their heels and if we so much as whimper, we will be attacked for being unreasonable.

BAG Day Update

As promised, here is the BAG Day update. We didn't find anything else. We went to a gun store in Ohio and it didn't have anything that we wanted. In fact, they didn't have much stock at all because they deal primarily with auctions now--or at least so it seemed to us. The Arisaka I mentioned is now my official BAG Day gun.

Thoughts on VTech Shooting

We're back from our trip to the NRA Convention and other things we wanted to see and do. We didn't have good access to the Internet the last couple of days. We were stunned when we turned on the car radio late Monday and heard about the shootings at Virginia Tech. Our hearts go out to the victims and their families.

There is no gun control, no law, no rule that could prevent a mass shooting. New laws could make it harder for someone to get guns or ammo, but it wouldn't prevent them. People can buy any illegal substance with a bit of patience and enough cash. A person dedicated to carrying out a shooting, such as the bastard in Virginia, would be dedicated enough to get a gun illegally. Even in "gun-free" Japan, a mayor can be nurdered with a gun.

The only people that truly such laws would affect are those like Yosemite Sam and me and we aren't the problem. I can offer no solution and no news. I am still catching up on blogs and media reports.

BAG Day

One of our goals on this trip is to buy a gun for Buy a Gun (BAG) Day. I wanted to check out a particular gun store in Ohio, which we will do tomorrow. If I buy anything there, I will declare it my official BAG Day purchase and let you know.

For now, I have an unofficial, secondary, non-primary BAG Day purchase to share with you and if I don't find anything in Ohio it will become my official BAG Day gun. I bought it two weekends ago because it spoke to me.

It wasn't in the world's best condition when I found it and I had to disassemble it, remove old grease and dirt, and brush off a small amount of rust. Once I reassembled it, I had a very good and welcome addition to my collection.

Because Yosemite Sam and I are traveling, I only have one shot of it that was already on the camera. Without any further ado here is my unofficial possibly secondary BAG Day gun:



All of you probably know what it is. If you don't, it's a Type 99 Arisaka battle rifle used by the Japanese Empire in World War II. Mine has a semi-intact mum as you can see in the photo. It looks like someone passed a file or bayonet across it.

Most Arisakas were marked with the Imperial symbol, the chrysanthemum. When the Empire lost the war, they turned over weapons, but before doing they ground off the mum. Most Arisakas you see now have a area where the mum used to be.

I like to think mine may have been a battlefield "bring back." Many Japanese soldiers before surrendering would deface the mum somehow so gaijin would not defile it. I can't prove that this is what happened to mine, but when I disassembled the gun, I found small pieces of grass between the barrel and the stock as well as a liberal amount of dirt.

Of course, the grass is just as likely to have come from an importer's poor handling practices, someone using a surplus gun for hunting, or a myriad of other sources. Still, I have a probably naive dream of it having been used on some god-awful Pacific island. Then some desperate, starving Japanese soldier sawing away at the mum before he hugged a live grenade.

It's possible, but the gun can't tell me how the mum was partially defaced and how the grass got under the stock. Still, it's a very welcome addition to my World War II firearms collection.

My Arisaka is an earlier one (I need to do more research before I can figure out the date). It has a monopod attachment and the aircraft sights (little wings attached to the sight that supposedly showed how much to lead an airplane to shoot at it more accurately).

I'll keep you posted if it becomes my official BAG Day purchase.

NRA Banquet and More

Sorry to not update our NRA experiences until now. We had to get on the road. We’re still in Missouri, but exploring now. We’re going to take the road east tomorrow.

As usual, the NRA banquet ran smoothly. Even the food was halfway decent for convention food. They served a chicken breast cutlet with a small filet mignon. The chicken was about what you’d expect on a convention floor. A little rubbery, some flavor, but nothing to write home about. The filet though was much better. Mine anyway was tender, flavorful, and gone all too fast.

Former UN ambassador John Bolton gave the keynote speech. He talked about international threats to our gun rights. He said the people that oppose civilian, or "non-state actors," are persistent and dedicated to their goals. They believe taking away guns from you and me while allowing certain elite groups and "trusted" groups like soldiers and police retain theirs will somehow lead to utopia. He warns us to keep fighting.

John Bolton

Of course, he received the customary gift flintlock handcrafted rifle. Nice gift and because he’s no longer a government employee he will probably be able to keep his.

Uncentered Jumbotron shot of Bolton (It was hard to take the photo with all the people cheering)

Comedian T. Bubba Bechtel entertained us with his stirring support of the "bubba" lifestyle. Further entertainment was available. Budweiser sponsored a party off site with music, dancing, beer and the works. I hate to say this, but we passed it up. We’re getting too old for partying especially after walking around the exhibit floor all day.

Champion of bubbas, T. Bubba

Speaking of exhibit floors, we finished touring the floor and schmoozing this morning. I’ve mentioned here that my "Holy Grail" dream gun, the one I doubt I will ever achieve, is a transferable Thompson sub-machine gun. Well, the Thompson Collector’s Society was out in force with an amazing display of these guns. They had models I’ve never even read about. The photo doesn’t come near to doing justice to their display. I talked to the collectors even while I tried mightily to control the drool reflex.

Many More Were Here

Well that’s it for now. Tomorrow we’re on the road so posting may be spotty depending on where we stay. Hard to believe another year is in the bag.

NRA Annual Meeting and Exhibits

It’s been a busy day here at the NRA Convention. We’re decompressing in our hotel room before we go to the Members Banquet and talking about the day. We talked about our in-room breakfast, how my feet hurt (the are barking), and NRA stuff.

First thing, we attended the Annual Members Meeting. We’re both voting members so we had our credentials ready. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of substance to vote for or against. The officers make most of the real decisions. Members have less say than I would prefer in a perfect world. On the other hand, with about four million members, no business would get done if everyone chimed in once a year. What can you do?

Chris Cox, Director of NRA-ILA

As usual, the oldest and younger life members were identified for special recognition.
Here’s Taylor, the youngest member this year.

The election coordinator announced the results of the latest Board of Directors meeting. He mentioned the number of ballots that were sent out and then returned. Over 1.5 million ballots went to voting members and about 99,000 were returned and some of those were spoiled. Folks, that ain’t good. If you’re a voting member, get those ballots mailed back in, m’kay. Just saying.

We then hit the exhibit floor and roamed around most of the day. I believe there were more people than we saw in earlier conventions. An exhibitor we know told us that attendance might be about 62,000. I wouldn’t be surprised.

A Very Crowded Aisle-They all Were

We met Michael Bane of television's Shooting Gallery. We also met Bitter, Bitter Mom, and Sebastian who were also waiting to say hello to Michael. We enjoyed meeting all of them. In fact, Michael quipped that we had a gun blogger quorum.

We’re getting ready for the banquet. We’ll let you know how that goes. Bye for now.

NRA Opening Ceremony and More

I finally got to St. Louis. I couldn't get out of work and Yosemite Sam drove here without me. I flew here this morning and we managed to locate each other in all the craziness of the convention center (what did we do before cell phones). I got here just barely in time for the opening ceremony.

This year's opening ceremony was marked by a political event. Chris Cox directs the lobbying arm of the NRA. He introduced a number of Missouri state legislators, then the state's Lieutenant Governor, and finally Governor Matt Blunt. The legislators had just passed a law that forbids any state or local police department from confiscating guns or ammo in an emergency. Blunt affirmed his support for the Second Amendment. He then set at a desk and signed the bill into law.

Governor Matt Blunt Addressing the NRA Convention

Now to the festivities. Ty England provided the entertainment at one time crooning to Sandra Froman (NRA President) on stage. He's an ardent gun supporter who gave up a recording contract when he refused to go on the Rosie O'Donnell show some years ago. He now has his own label.

Hamming it up on stage

Finally, we see that Sebastian mentioned that the American Hunters and Shooters Association paid people to hand around with signs. Here's a picture if Sebastian can't find one.

"Protestors" for AHSA

We explored the exhibit hall for awhile and then I crashed in the hotel. I'm not the world's best flyer.

We're staying about a block from the convention center and enjoyed a soul food buffet spread. I even stayed awake.

Hello St. Louis

After a long day of driving through rain, gale force winds and sleet, I have arrived at the NRA convention in St. Louis. With some snow forecast for tomorrow, it seems more like December than April. Despite the unseasonable weather, it is nice to be here and it is actually sunny right now. After checking into my hotel, a historic hotel called the Roberts Mayfair, I went out and looked around the convention center.

The center is really nice and looks to be a good place to hold the convention, and unlike last year, everything is in one area, so we won’t have to walk across the street.


Here is a picture of the entry to America’s Center with its NRA bunting:



Unfortunately, even though this is a NRA convention, concealed carry is verboten inside:





Here are the registration booths:




After my walk around the convention center, I walked around the downtown area and there seems to be plenty of bars and restaurants. I had dinner at a place called the Downtown Cantina and had a huge plate of Mexican food and a glass of Schlafly (a local microbrew) Hefeweizen. Excellent. The staff was friendly and the beer was cold and the service was fast. What more could you want.
I’m taking one of the NRA tours of St. Louis tomorrow with stops at the Gateway Arch and the Budweiser Plant. I’ll meet up with Denise afterwards and then we will go to the welcoming ceremony.

More then.

Telling the Truth About the Second Amendment

I’ve been quite open about my former liberalism. I am dismayed at today’s liberals with their whiny hypocrisies, their belief that the only good person is a victim, and general childishness. I certainly resent their opposition to the Second Amendment. It wasn’t always thus, but it’s true now.

Their media is worse on Second Amendment issues. Every gun use is evil, statues with guns in them are evil, and gun owners are white and male and redneck and evil.

Every now and again, though, someone makes a statement in a liberal forum that bears repeating. Camille Paglia is a liberal and libertarian at the same time. She is published in Salon magazine, a very left-wing institution. She writes a column that periodically answers readers’ letters. A man from Brooklyn wanted to know her stand on the Second Amendment. Here is what she had to say in total:

As a Salon columnist (dating back to the founding of Salon in 1995), I have tried to provide a forum for defenders of the Second Amendment to make their case. The Northeastern major media, which remain heavily liberal, rarely permit these voices to be heard.

I do not own guns and have no interest in them. (Swords, those Homeric and chivalric emblems, have always attracted me more.) But as a libertarian, I read the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as granting to private citizens the right to bear arms against the potential abuses of a government turned tyrannous. Furthermore, should police authority evaporate after a cataclysm of storm, flood, earthquake or terrorism, citizens have a right to defend their families and property against criminals and looters. If food and water are in short supply over a protracted period, expect predators and violence.

The horrendous problem of illegal guns now rampant among the urban underclass cannot be solved by depriving all American citizens of their Second Amendment rights. Major cities must address their internal problems, which include improving public education and vocational training, creating job-rich public works projects, and instituting on-the-street neighborhood policing. The major media, concentrated in their metropolises, should stop extrapolating their local issues to the nation as a whole.

I don't know if her solutions to urban violence would work, but I would have a lot less problem with liberal media if they could say the TRUTH about the Second Amendment.

Japanese and Their Interest in Guns

James Rummel of Hell in a Handbasket talks about anime and how Japanese illustrators really got the guns right. Japan severly limits private ownership of all guns and virtually bans handguns. Despite that, many Japanese have a great deal of interest in guns. As Rummel points out this is a bit of the "Forbidden Fruit" syndrome.

Sometime ago, Yosemite Sam and I saw just how much guns interested at least one Japanese man. We went to a commercial indoor range for a little target practice. It's a range that also rents submachine guns and sells ammo. As we were signing up for a lane a man and a woman came to the counter to check out. She told me, "I hope you don't get the lane we had. There's a scary Japanese guy in the next one."

We entered the just vacated lane and, sure enough, there was a Japanese guy in the next lane. He was using one of the range's HK MP-5 fully auto guns. He wasn't scary to us, but he was intense and dedicated in his practice.

The area around was feet was covered with spent brass. I don't mean sprinkled, I mean covered like snow. Brass was piling up in corners and cartridges cases were sitting on top of another. It wasn't ankle deep, but I've never seen that much brass in one place shot by one person before.

While we were there, he kicked his way out of his brass pile and safely returned the MP-5 to the counter. He came back with a handgun and several boxes of ammo. He was hitting his target and taking his time with each shot. At one point while Yosemite was shooting, I complimented him on his shooting. He thanked me in polite but heavily accented English.

We went through six boxes each ourselves and then we left. He was still there shooting round after round and spending dollar after dollar. In fact, I can't imagine how much he spent there.

That's dedication and desparation all at the same time. Dedication to shooting and desparate to shoot all he can until he returns to his country where he can't shoot at all.

Gunnie Book Review: Point of Impact

I haven’t seen the movie Shooter, but I’ve read reviews. They seem schizophrenic to say the least. (By the way, Les Jones liked it.)

Some reviewers called it a right-wing fantasy full of vigilantes with guns. Others describe it as a left-wing movie and point to bad guys with pictures of Republicans in their offices. One of the good guys wears a Che Guevara tee-shirt. The man leading the evil-doers is a western Senator with a Dick Cheney vibe. The hero wonders about 9/11conspiracies.

Shooter is based on Stephen Hunter’s 1993 novel Point of Impact. I just finished reading it and it’s full of gunnie goodness. For some reason, I’d never heard of it and I’ve been a gunnie since I was eight years old. Maybe it’s a girl thing—wasting all that time on chick lit.

The book is about a disaffected Vietnam War master sniper named Bob Lee Swagger—gotta love that name. He retires on a service-connected disability to a mountaintop home in Arkansas with his dog and too many guns (as he describes it). A group of men led by a former colonel convinces Swagger that they need his help.

NOTE: Spoilers below.

They tell him about a plot to shoot the President and they need a sniper’s advice to foil the plot. They hook Swagger by telling him they have identified a Russian who is a former Soviet sniper, now turned contract killer. They convince Swagger that this man wounded him years ago and killed his spotter. So far as we know, the Russian never existed.

To make a long story short they set Swagger up as a patsy. However, the target isn’t the President, it’s an El Salvadoran Archbishop who apparently embraces liberation theology.

Swagger is helped by Nick Memphis—an FBI agent and former agency sniper—after Swagger saves Memphis’ life. In movie stills, Memphis is dark-haired and slender (he’s the one wearing the Che tee-shirt). In the book, he’s heavy-set and blond and Swagger nicknames him “Pork.” There’s no mention of a Che shirt. Together, they put a hurtin’ on the bad guys. It’s a good read for that alone.

Here’s the interesting thing. The book is politically as schizophrenic as the movie. It shows Swagger as a man who’s capable of violence, but in the service of justice even if he’s the one deciding what that is. He’s a shooting master and Hunter obviously knows guns. He wrote a beautiful elegy on the passing of Winchester as an American company (our post is here and the article is still available at the Washington Post). The book is full of gun knowledge, a love and respect for guns, and what it takes to hit a small target at 1,000 yards.

The book’s bad guys are a group of former military men. They work with a spook who’s attached to the CIA, the State Department, or both. The former soldiers are part of a “military-industrial complex” business that funnels weapons, training, and advisors to South American martinets among others. One El Salvadoran general massacred a village. The Americans helped lead it even though they didn’t condone it. All are trying to keep it covered up and the Archbishop becomes too nosy to live.

If you’re as old as I am, you’ll recognize that this political background is straight from the left-wing playbook of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Reagan’s administration funneled arms to the Contras in Nicaragua. There were Americans on the ground who probably helped right-wing dictators in South America.

I don’t know what Hunter’s politics are like. But, it doesn’t matter. He’s apparently a shooter and sympathizes with gun owners. That’s enough for me.

The movie updates the political environment in ways that I don’t necessarily like, but gunnie-ism shouldn’t be just for people who vote Republican. It transcends political agendas. Any man or woman who can shoot is most often a person who’s self-reliant and can protect his/her freedom and honor.

NRA Convention and Buy A Gun Day

Once again, Yosemite Sam and I will attend the NRA convention in St. Louis. My work has been an omnipresent, calculating, and time-gulping bitch lately. So much so, that I can’t get enough time off for travel. Yosemite Sam will drive out there and visit his family along the way. I’ll fly out on Friday and meet him at the convention and then we’ll drive back together.

On our way back, we plan to Support Buy A Gun Day. Yosemite Sam chose a few stores in Ohio to visit and we intend to add to our collection if the right gun at the right price presents itself--sometimes that C&R license really comes in handy. If you have any favorite gun stores in the Eastern Midwest (if there’s such a thing) just let us know.

We’ll blog about the convention (complete with pictures), Buy A Gun Day, any notable events or visits, so keep watching this space.

(Oh and just an event of note: This is my 500th post. I tend to write essays rather than make small news-oriented posts, so it took me awhile to get there.)

Of Cars and Guns and Parking Lots*

(*Apologies to Lewis Carroll)

There’s a gun issue that I haven’t discussed yet. Some businesses are banning guns on their premises even if the guns are locked up in the cars of their employees. In cases such as Weyerhauser in Oklahoma, people have lost their jobs when their employers discovered guns in their cars.

I’ve been of two minds about the issue, but when the New York Times editorializes about it, I guess it’s time to make up my mind.

My earlier ambivalence stems from multiple issues of property rights, gun rights, employee vs. employer rights, and my little-l libertarian distaste for government regulations. On one hand, an employer has a right to impose certain rules on their property and on their employees. If an employee doesn’t like it, find a new job. On the other hand, there are certain rights that should never be infringed and in some communities getting a new job isn’t that easy.

Then I read the New York Times editorial and the scales fell from my eyes. Here are samples: “…common-sense right to workplace safety…” and a quote from one of the ubiquitous scary studies “Workplaces that tolerate guns are five to seven times more likely to suffer homicides than job sites that ban firearms….”

Then there’s hyperbole designed to put gun-owners in the worst possible light, “The notion that self-defense mandates keeping guns in office drawers or out in parking-lot glove compartments is a dangerous fantasy.” Besides, what is a “parking-lot glove compartment?”

Here’s what I believe after a good think. An employer can tell you that you cannot bring a gun inside their buildings that are under their control. A parking lot is another issue entirely.

The employer allows the employee to park their private property (a car) in a lot. My car is mine to do with as I please. An employer can tell me I can’t put a statue of the Virgin Mary or the Horned God in my cubicle, but they can’t order it out of my car (yet). They shouldn’t be able to tell you what else you may have in your private property particularly if it is hidden from public view.

The corporate world can infringe on our rights as surely as government. They can’t jail us, but they can fire us for breaking any of a myriad of rules. An employer shouldn’t be able to prevent me from exercising my right keep and bear arms and defend myself away from home.

Obviously gun banners aren’t winning in legislatures and even courts. They could win by making concealed carry and gun ownership almost impossible. What if businesses posted their public parking lots with no gun signs, just like it’s illegal to have a gun in a Post Office’s parking lot? If that happens, your right to carry a self-defense tool just became impossible to exercise legally.

They could make it so that you carrying a gun on your person or in a car would be so inconvenient to do legally that most of us will either ignore the law or stop bearing arms. If gun banners convince businesses that they are only protecting their employees and customers with “common sense” controls as well as limiting liability you’ll see more of this. What’s the difference it government or corporations are our nannies?

In an ideal world, government shouldn’t have to regulate businesses, but this is a case when they need to step in before we lose our gun rights because of the actions of private business. What a world.

Gun Laws and Life Choices

Yosemite Sam and I are not big fans of gun laws, as you might have gathered. But there are times when they’re more onerous than others. Yosemite and I left Texas for me to accept a dream job in Massachusetts. It paid almost double what I was getting before and I’ve had raises every year since then.

In other words, career-wise it was a great move, but we lost a lot of freedom when we lived in Massachusetts. We changed that by moving to New Hampshire. I have a 40-mile one-way commute and Yosemite’s drive’s even longer. Our rights to enjoy shooting, collecting, and owning guns without fear outweighs the inconvenience of the commute.

Now I’m facing another decision complicated by gun laws. I know anti-gunnies would say, "Don’t own guns and you won’t have these problems." Owning guns is a human right and I won’t give it up. That’s all there is to it.

My decision revolves around my career again. There’s a job opening that’s right up my alley and it pays slightly better. More importantly, its main duties are the things I enjoy most about my career. I’d love to apply for the job, but there're quality of life issues revolving around hostile gun laws. The job’s in Maryland and I know that their gun laws are draconian and likely to get worse. They’re not as bad as laws in Massachusetts, but I no longer live there.

Yosemite Sam and I could live in Virginia and commute. But it’s a butt-breaking commute. I know the Capitol Beltway is congested and miserable. The Metro is a possibility, but I would need to look into that further. Also, housing in Virginia within commuting distance of D.C. and Maryland isn’t exactly cheap.

We’ve played around with the idea of me telecommuting part time and flying down for three days of the week (if the employer would allow it). Given the cost of flying and then staying overnight for three nights (or renting a studio apartment), I doubt that would be possible on anything but a short-term basis.

I’d love to be able to take that job, if offered, but I don’t want to live in Maryland and face the same problems with gun ownership that we faced in Massachusetts. Why can’t these damn states just let up live in peace?

Parker Foe's Hypocrisy

You know, I used to call myself a liberal. I believed in certain things that fit more into that camp. I stayed the same, but liberalism kept getting stranger and more, well, leftist. They left me behind and thank God they did.

Partially for that reason, I've been following the rants on the Parker decision with interest. You know the decision that, if not reversed, will strike down Washington, D.C.'s draconian gun laws.

There's no one particular rant I can point to; it's more of a cumulative thing. The rants that interest me most tend to fall into two groups:

• Complaints about activist judges who strike down laws;
• Complaints that the majority of D.C. voters support the laws and are being ignored.

First, many leftist victories were won with legal decisions passed by "activist judges." Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but it has become settled law (and I don't want to argue about this issue one way or the other). The same with gay marriage in my neighboring state of Massachusetts. I could give more examples, but you're with me on this one I do believe.

Second, the majority of D.C. voters might support the District's gun laws, but similarily in many states voters might support bans on abortion, gay marriage, and vote prayer back into public schools. The left would be aghast at what might happen if they truly supported government by plebiscite.

That's what has stuck me most about the left recently: their hypocrisy. No wonder they left me behind.

Does a Smoking Habit Ever Really End?

This is not related to guns in any way that I can think of right now. It is a life issue shall we say. I stumbled on an article in Salon while following a link. Rebecca Traister quit smoking a few months ago. She doesn’t regret her decision, but she’s had all sorts of minor health problems since then; flu, pinkeye, weight gain, clumsiness, head lice, etc.

I used to smoke and I enjoyed it. I decided to quit because I feared it would affect my health eventually. Let’s face it, putting a tube of burning plant matter in your mouth and lighting it on fire is not something that God and/or evolution designed us to do.

It’s been years now and I still miss it. I forget how many years since I quit smoking, but it’s been more than twenty. Quitting was the right thing to do, but every now and again I still want a good smoke.

I’ve backslid over the years. Right now, I could find two maybe three packs of cigarettes at home. Each has one or two cigarettes missing. The remaining cigs are so old now that touching a match to them might be like igniting flash powder. Poof, and the cigarette is gone. Magic!

Yosemite Sam smoked cigars, but he never developed a habit. It was just something he tried out. Don’t tell him, but he’s missing a couple of cigars from his old stash.

I find that if I’m at a casino, in a bar, or if I have to really think about something I’m writing for work, I want to smoke again. The writing thing is left over from college and graduate school. Smoking got me through both.

As far as casinos or bars, part of it is all the other smokers around me, but there’s the feeling that they’re the perfect places to smoke. I can imagine Rick's Cafe' Americain in fictional Casablanca. Humphrey Bogart is squinting his eyes against his cigarette’s smoke as he leans over to light Lauren Bacall’s cigarette. It just seems right.

I do recommend that people quit smoking or never take it up. I’m sure it’s bad for you, but I think I’ll always miss it. I wonder if the urge to light up ever really ends.

What I'm Watching Now

If I haven’t said it before, I’ll say it now. I like to watch TV. I’m not indiscriminate in my TV viewing mind you. I have to enjoy a show at least once before I’ll spend anymore time with it. And, if it gets silly, boring, or too politically correct--there’s always a good book.

Unfortunately, being able to buy entire series on DVDs has complicated my life. For instance, I really like Joss Whedon’s Firefly, but didn’t get into it until I bought the series. I have a guilty girly pleasure as well, Buffy the Vampire Slayer also by Whedon. Then there are the shows that I liked years ago, but couldn’t see all the episodes or that I want to see again.

I recently bought The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr., which started in 1993 and ended 27 episodes later. I’d seen about two episodes of it when it was on broadcast TV and wanted to watch more, but it was on at a bad time for me then.

If you’re not familiar with it, Brisco County, Jr. is a Harvard trained lawyer turned Old West bounty hunter. His father, played in a couple of cameos by fellow gun owner R. Lee Ermey, is killed by an outlaw gang. Brisco vows revenge and seeks to lock up or kill the bad guys. Meanwhile, a mysterious golden orb in various episodes gives people supernatural powers. The outlaw gang’s chief wants it for himself.

While a Western, it’s a strange mix of horse opera and science fiction. Also, the episodes are somewhat uneven. Some are gripping, some are boring, and others are simply okay. But, it does have guns in it. Brisco and his reluctant sidekick. Lord Bowler, are armed with single-action six shooters. Bowler also carries a sawed-off double-barreled shotgun. Perhaps I should call it a Boomstick.

You see, Brisco is played by Bruce Campbell who gave life to the line, “This…is my Boomstick!” from Army of Darkness. Campbell does a good job here, but then it’s to be expected because he’s one of the best B-movie actors out there.

While I can't recommend each episode, it’s been a fun way to kill time while dinner’s cooking. And it's a fun show. It never took itself too seriously—for instance the writers threw in lots of anachronisms like a sheriff who talks like Elvis. Some of the shooting is silly. For instance, Brisco’s in a shooting contest where he must ricochet his bullets several times before hitting a small target. Not exactly possible. It’s not meant to be serious, so keep that in mind if you watch it.

Also, if you’re a fan of Lost (I’m not although I watched most of the first season), you’ll see that Carlton Cuse produced Lost and co-produced Brisco.

So, if you’re tolerant of a little un-seriousness, Brisco County might entertain you for awhile. Besides, did I say that it has guns and Bruce Campbell in it?

D.C. Is Free at Last (Maybe)

It’s already old news on these Internets, but the US Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. District struck down D.C.’s restrictive gun law. Of course, there’ll be numerous appeals, foot dragging, new laws, and everything else that will delay any celebrations. But, it’s a major victory for gun rights.

This is not to say that it restores an absolutist view of the Second Amendment to the District or the nation at large. The court notes that there may be exceptions to the practice of carrying concealed weapons or banning felons from owning guns.

According to the decision, “These regulations promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised.” It also finds that registration could be reasonable as part of maintaining a well-regulated militia as well as proficiency tests, etc. (see p 54 pdf).

These are possible regulations that should be resisted, but I don’t find the mention of them surprising.

Even though the decision would allow some infringements, it provides so much more than what District citizens already have. It recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, it uses the Miller decision appropriately, and does indeed take the District to task for infringing on gun rights.

It is an important step in rolling back other state and city guns laws that are almost as onerous as those in the District. Let’s hope stare decisis work for us.

A Day at the Range (Sort of)

As mentioned earlier, I went out shooting this weekend. But, it didn’t go quite as planned.

First, Yosemite Sam couldn’t make it. That means we couldn’t compare targets or just feel that warm glow of companionship. Sigh. I prepared the range bag and went through my careful mental checklist: at least one box of ammo for every gun; zip my guns into gun rugs, place them in my range bag, make sure my ear protector is in the bag, get an appropriate number of targets. You know the drill.

I’d decided to shoot a self-defense pistol I’ve been known to carry, a carbine, and my bullseye pistol. The gun is equipped with a red-dot sight and I brought a little box of tools and a spare battery just in case I needed to fiddle with anything. Like I said, I was ready.

I packed three boxes of ammo for my bullseye gun, because I need the practice. I’m a little rusty. The bullseye league isn’t meeting this winter (the club’s indoor range is being upgraded).

I got to the commercial range, checked in, and set up. I shot a box of ammo out of the carbine, then practiced drills with the self-defense pistol. I was ready to do some intense bullseye shooting now. I placed the appropriate target on the carrier and operated a switch to move it out to 25 yards.

I placed a box of cartridges on the shelf in front of me out and started to load my pistol. No magazine in the grip. No magazine in the range bag. They were both home in my gun box. And, can you believe it; the range didn’t have a loaner.

I bought another box of ammo and practiced more with my other pistol. Next time I’ll remember the $(%*$ magazines. It was still good to get some range time in.

Support Our Sport

I saw this article on Bitch Girls. My first impression is that there's surprisingly little anti-gun yapping. Sure, the VPC (Violence Policy Center) gets a quote in, but it’s pro forma almost like quotes most other articles get from NRA spokespeople.

The article discusses gun industry attempts to get more young people into the shooting sports including hunting. In mentions high school programs that teach skeet shooting and hunting and many others programs. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) coordinates much of this activity.

The NSSF is making headway with young people, enough so that the VPC spokesman described skeet as “a gateway sport” designed to entice more youths into shooting. I hope the VPC is right and many more kids get into shooting. It’s the future of our sport.

I also found an interesting statistic in the article: “The average hunter, according to NSSF data, spends $17,726.59 on hunting equipment in his or her lifetime.” I don’t know how they calculated that number, but it’s not that large of a number.

Average shooters might spend more on their sport than a hunter who may not shoot much. Still, I bet that amount isn’t all that large either. I’ve never sat down and added up how much Yosemite Sam and I spend on shooting and how much we spend on hunting. We’ve bought hunting gear and also spent a lot on ammunition for our target (rifle, pistol, and shotgun) activities and our guns.

I also collect older firearms and I know I’ve spent more than $17,726.59. However, a gun company doesn’t make a profit when I buy a 75 year old gun. On the other hand, ammo companies make a profit when I but cartridges for an old gun, particularly those like Old West Scrounger that sells obsolete ammo. I’ve also made several gun store owners very happy.

I guess my point is, if I have a point, is that we hunters and shooters are all part of one family. We end up supporting pretty much the same companies no matter what discipline we shoot. Those companies in turn support our sport through NSSF and other organizations. They need our money in return for their products in order to increase the number of shooters and hunters out there.

I think Yosemite Sam and I will be spending more money this weekend in support of our favorite ammo company.

Ignorance Leads To Bigotry

The entire Zumbo affair can be summed up in one word, ignorance. As we know, ignorance often leads to bigotry. As the panoply of outdoor writers gird their loins and march forth to defend Zumbo, we are seeing a lot of ignorance on display. Here are some highlights:

1.) The fascist NRA destroyed poor Zumbo.

Bullshit. The NRA had nothing whatsoever to do with the Internet based grassroots opposition to Zumbo’s comments. In fact, the NRA only reacted when Zumbo has already lost his sponsors, his TV show was suspended and the dust was already on the ground.

2.) Nobody should hunt with those "assault rifles", "assault weapon" things.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions out there in the hunting world about "black rifles".
They are not assault rifles. An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon that is heavily regulated. New ones are not for sale to civilians. No one is seriously arguing that these should be used for hunting. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

An assault weapon is an arbitrary construct by Congress in which certain features were considered to be "bad". The defunct assault weapons ban only allowed two of these scary features and also banned certain firearms deemed too scary. All of these firearms were functionally the same as any other semi-automatic firearm ie.) one pull of the trigger for each round fired.

I’ve seen a lot of comments about black rifles being underpowered for hunting. I would agree that in most cases, the .223 round is underpowered for deer hunting, but AR rifles are a system that allows for multiple calibers. An easy change of the upper assembly and you can have a rifle in many different calibers that are suitable for larger game.

Therefore, these firearms are perfectly suitable for hunting and have a lot to recommend them due to their light weight and ease of conversion between various calibers.

3.) Those rabid gun rights extremists were too hard on poor Zumbo.

As far as I’m concerned, Zumbo has paid enough. He has made a reasonable apology and I think he is trying to make amends. I think that as he learns more about black rifles, and his ignorance fades away, his bigotry will fade as well.

But, I do not think that gun rights activists overreacted. Calling black rifles, terrorist rifles is a slap in the face to the many thousands of law abiding gun owners who use these firearms in competition, target practice and yes, for hunting. We are not terrorists and it angers us and hurts us when someone who is supposed to be on our side displays his ignorance and bigotry.

4.) Those gun rights extremists are paranoid about the government taking their guns.

I saw this in several comments to editorials by outdoors writers. People who really believe this and who are actually gun owners and not bearers of false flags must be some new mutation of man and ostrich. I am only in my early 40’s, but I distinctly remember the time in my youth when guns were a part of this country’s culture. Since then, I have seen bans, background checks, and in states like Massachusetts, registration and bans of entire classes of guns.
Gun owners are treated worse than sex offenders in Massachusetts and have to register every firearms purchase with the Criminal History Systems Board. When they move, Massachusetts’s gun owners have to inform this Board and their new and previous police chiefs. If we are paranoid, IT IS FOR GOOD REASON.

5.) Zumbo’s First Amendment rights have been infringed.

I’ve seen this comment in several places and it saddens me that so many are ignorant of the Constitution. All the First Amendment does is limit the government from infringing on our liberty to speak freely. No government agency got Zumbo fired, the government was not involved AT ALL. Private individuals reacting to Zumbo’s speech by pushing for boycotts is not limiting Zumbo’s free speech. You may speak freely, but if you decide to call me a terrorist, don’t be surprised if there are repercussions.

In conclusion, I bear no ill will towards Jim Zumbo. I wish him future success and I hope he learns about the "black rifle" community and that he gets his sponsors and television show back. Hunters, target shooters, tactical tommies and all of the shooting community need to work together. The gun banners want to ban all of our guns, including your hunting rifle. They will just demonize it as a sniper rifle, run it through the media and then Turn it in Mr. & Mrs. America. Remember, we must hang together, or we will most surely hang separately.

Gun Bans, the Numbers Don't Add Up

I had a little time to kill at work (hush, don’t tell the boss) and I used it to look at Representative Carolyn McCarthy’s bill that would bring back the “Assault Weapons” ban if passed. This time it would be new, improved, and ban even more guns.

First off, I know there’s no malice in the bill number, but come off it, HR 1022, the model number of one of the most popular .22 caliber semi-auto rifles ever made, the Ruger 10/22. Talk about serendipity.

The bill is masterful in its obfuscation. Here’s a bit that boggles logic as I know it: “…a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

Then there’s the ever-popular definition of a pistol grip: “The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” So if the wood has a pimple-sized bulge behind the trigger, would that be a grip? Come on our bureaucrats can write better definitions than that.

The bill concentrates on rifles as did its now-sunsetted predecessor. A few handguns are listed and fewer shotguns are mentioned. However, if the pistol grip language were improperly (properly?) interpreted many more shotguns and rifles would fall under the bill’s sway.

For people who support crime prevention, there’s a serious problem with “assault weapon” bans. Most murders are committed with handguns, but these bans aren’t focused on handguns. Let me be clear, that I oppose bans on handgun ownership. I’m a handgun enthusiast, collector, and shooter.

That said, I looked up murder rates and found, courtesy of the FBI, an interesting table. It lists statistics on murders committed in 2005 and shows how they were committed. I downloaded it as an Excel spreadsheet and ran some percentages. Here are the highlights:

There were 14,860 murders and 67.9% were committed with firearms proving that firearms are the weapon of choice for most murderers. Still, 32.1% (or 4,760) were committed with other types of weapons. Thus, even if guns were successfully banned, we would still have murders and probably many more more than 4,760.

Looking a little deeper we see that handguns were used in 50.8% of all murders. However, only 3.5% of murderers used shotguns and 2.9% chose rifles. This number includes all rifles, not just “black” ones. (Note: 10.7% of murders were committed with firearms, but of unknown types).

So, fewer than 3% of murders were committed with the guns McCarthy’s bill would most restrict. By contrast, 6.0% of all murders are committed with hands and feet (that includes pushing).

The numbers speak for themselves. Don’t let anyone tell you that gun banning is about reducing crime, it’s about control of you and me.

A Need to Educate the Dedicated Hunter

Yosemite Sam and I stumbled on yet another "hook and bullet" writer who doesn't understand why so many people were angry at Zumbo. Mark Henckel of the Billings Gazette says:

As I wrote to an outdoor writer friend of mine as this was blowing up, 'You know, that could have been me. I could have written much the same as Zumbo did. I wouldn't have worded it that way. I wouldn't have called for a ban on those guns. But I know exactly what Jim was getting at in what he wrote.'

For one thing, Zumbo writes from the standpoint of being a lifelong hunter - not necessarily a target shooter. There are differences between hunting and both competitive target shooting or simply target shooting for fun.

He then went on to say:

If people are doing that [getting clean kills] with ARs and AKs, that's fine, but I'll admit that it's a surprise to me, too. Those wouldn't be my first choices for hunting rifles either.

Granted, Zumbo's choice of words was inflammatory. He didn't spell out what he meant as well as he could have either, in terms of hunting guns and shooting guns for the range. And to talk of a hunting ban was stupid. Instead, he should have simply said there are far better rifle choices out there to accomplish hunting tasks.

Henckel makes assumptions about black rifles and the AR platform in particular. He assumes that black rifles are not accurate enough and come in calibers unsuited to hunting. We know that's wrong, but the hunters don't. Zumbo and his compatriots aren't educated about the rifles. I suspect, though, that many don't want to be educated.

I then read comments whose writers even more clearly show their ignorance black rifles. A few grudgingly agreed with the idea they might be useful in prairie dog or coyote hunting, but never for big game. Some thought that they should be left to target shooting only. At least one commenter called for an outright ban so anti-gunnies would be happy and leave his guns alone.

Along with ignorance, we might be seeing a technological paradigm shift. People can get devoted to a particular technology and disparage something new that comes along. For instance, some people were hesitant to give up fountain pens in favor of ball-point pens, or typewriters for computers.

Hunters who decry black rifles (remember not all hunters are Fuddites) need to understand that times are changing. Gun technology has advanced beyond the Mauser action. Also, veterans coming out of training are comfortable with an AR-type gun. When they become civilians some may not want to carry such a rifle a again, but most gravitate toward the ARs.

Further, from everything I've seen, target shooters outnumber hunters by large percentages. A few commenters decried Remington's decision to drop Zumbo. They don't realize that Remington made a canny business decision that also happened to be correct.

Apology accepted Mr. Zumbo

Jim Zumbo has apologized to the shooting community and it seems that he finally gets it. Here is the apology from Ted Nugent's forum.

The last few days have been an educational experience, to say the least. My ill-conceived inflammatory blog, as all of you now know, set off a firestorm that, I’m told, has never before been equaled. I’m not proud of that.

Let me say this at the outset. My words here are from the heart, and all mine. No one can censor me, and I answer to no one but myself. And I have no one to blame but myself. Outdoor Life, a magazine that I worked for full-time as Hunting Editor for almost 30 years, fired me yesterday. My TV show was cancelled yesterday. Many of my sponsors have issued statements on their website to sever all relationships. This may cause many of you to do backflips and dance in the streets, but, of course, I’m not laughing, nor am I looking for sympathy. I don’t want a pity party.

They say hindsight is golden. Looking back, I can’t believe I said the words “ban” and “terrorist” in the context that I did. I don’t know what I was thinking when I wrote that. I can explain this as sheer ignorance and an irresponsible use of words. What I’ve learned over the last few days has enlightened and amazed me. As a guy who hunts 200 days a year, does seminars on hunting, wrote for six hunting magazines, had a hunting TV show, and wrote 20 books on hunting, how could I have been so ignorant and out of touch with reality in the world of hunting and shooting?

But I was. I really can’t explain it, maybe because I just summarily dismissed the firearms in question in my mind when I saw them in magazines and catalogs. I saw one “black” firearm in a hunting camp in all my 50 years of hunting, and I shot one last year off a boat when fishing in Alaska. To tell the truth, it was fun and I enjoyed it immensely, but I never considered one for use in hunting. I have to tell you that I have had a revelation. I’m learning that many of my pals own AR-15’s and similar firearms and indeed use them for hunting. I was totally unaware that they were being used for legitimate hunting purposes. That is the absolute truth.

My biggest regret is not the financial impact of all this. I’m almost 67 and retirement is an option. The dreadful impact here is that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most…America’s gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people have succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges. I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I’ve ever done. But what’s different now is that I’ll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about “black” rifles and the controversy that surrounds them. My promise to you is that I’ll learn all I can about these firearms, and by the time this week is out, I’ll order one. The NUGE has invited me to hunt with him using AR-15’s, and I’m eager to go, and learn. I’ll do all I can to spread the word.

I understand that many of you will not accept this apology, believing that the damage has been done and there’s no way to repair it. You have that right. But let me say this. I mentioned this above, and I’ll repeat it. I’m willing to seize this opportunity to educate hunters and shooters who shared my ignorance. If you’re willing to allow me to do that, we can indeed, in my mind, form a stronger bond within our ranks. Maybe in a roundabout way we can bring something good out of this.

Jim Zumbo

I'm heartened by the fact that he has apologized for calling other gun owners, terrorists and for advocating a hunting ban. This was the crux of the matter for me. I have no problem that he personally dislikes AR's and AK's. To each his own. But to advocate for any kind of ban is just pure Brady Bunch rhetoric.

One question I still have for Mr. Zumbo, is: Would you support the use and ownership of "black rifles", even if they had no hunting uses?

He really needs to understand that the right to bear arms is not about hunting. This right transcends hunting or any sport.

I hope that he learns from this experience and if he still dislikes "black rifles", then fine. But maybe, just maybe, he will have learned to respect the shooting choices of others.

Final (Maybe) Zumbo Thoughts

I hope all the best for Jim Zumbo in the future. I hope that he understands why his blog post caused such a blogstorm and that he learns from it. I hope he goes hunting with Ted Nugent and understands that an AR-15 is a valid gun in certain hunting applications. Maybe he could even regain our trust. But, that doesn’t mean I agree one whit with what he said, beyond the note that he has the right to say whatever he wants to.

Let’s revisit Zumbo’s post for just a moment. He said of AR-15s and AK-type guns, "I call them ‘assault’ rifles…" and "I'll go so far as to call them ‘terrorist’ rifles" and "As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons." He then called for a ban on them in the hunting fields.

You can’t get much clearer than that, but the very first comment on his post said it even better. "If you don't care who you intimidate by the look of your firearm (or you secretly enjoy looking like Rambo), you are not caring enough about the public perception of our endangered sport."

Zumbo and this commenter see no place for black rifles in their sport. To me that’s much more harmful than having him call black rifles terrorist weapons. Most gunnies don’t like "sporting use" as a test for guns. That is, a gun is only appropriate for people to own if it can be used in a valid "sport" such as hunting. But, the concept is enshrined in laws and even in the anti-gunnies' promise, "We don’t want to take away your hunting guns."

Black rifles are gaining a place in the hunting fields as many other bloggers and comment writers have pointed out. They are excellent platforms for prairie dog and coyote hunting and can be good deer rifles depending on caliber. In other words, they have a sporting use beyond target uses. I've never heard anti-gunnies say they don't want to take away our target, plinking, or whatever guns.

When a noted gun owner and hunter like Zumbo publically says that black rifles have no place in the hunting fields, it's tantamount to saying they have no use in any arena. It goes to the heart of the "sporting use" issue and gives anti-gunnies one more string to tug on in hopes of unraveling our gun rights.

Still something very good may come of all the pixels that have been spilled about Zumbo. Michael Bane makes some very good points about where the firearm market and community are going now. Be sure to give it a read if you haven’t already.

Calling People Fuddite

The dust is settling from l’affaire Zumbo. Cooler heads have spoken. They point out (in comments to my last post) that words like Fuddites and Elmer Fudd wannabees are hurtful.

Bitter has argued that we should have taken the opportunity to educate Jim Zumbo and those who might agree with him. Comments to Tam’s recent post said similar things.

Maybe they’re right and then again maybe not.

Here’s the thing; there are gun owners out there who cry out for terms like fuddite. Think about it for a minute. John Kerry is a hunter. He went out during the 2004 campaign, shot a goose, and did other huntsman like things. He proved, at least to me, that he could handle a shotgun. Yet, I wouldn’t trust him to protect my gun rights.

There are other gun owners who are hunters first and gun owners second. There are hunters and shotgun sports enthusiasts who look down at handgun sports, repeating shotguns, and especially black rifles.

Yosemite and I have ran into range curmudgeons who’ve disparaged our pump-action shotguns and that post was inspired by a similar experience of SayUncle’s.

I’ve received an e-mail saying my posts are well-written and well-reasoned, but too long. For the sake of brevity, I'm going to break now and take up this idea a little later. But, the upshot is there are some gun owners who simply must be described in a term like fuddite. If you can think of more polite, but descriptive term, then be my guest.

More Zumbo-Dumbo Thoughts

My, my, my. What a blogswarm. You've seen what Jim Zumbo, now forever called Dumbo, said. If not, here's Yosemite Sam's post on the matter to bring you up to speed. If you want to read Zumbo's blog, be forewarned that there are well over 2,000 comments and it could load slooowwwwlllllyyyy.

Zumbo said that AR-type rifles were not hunting arms. That there is no place in the hunting sports for them. He said he'd never seen anyone hunt with them although they're used a lot in prairie dog and coyote hunting.

If I take him at face value then I have two thoughts. One, he is (was) an elite hunter who's (former) sponsors ensure he had the best hunting experience far from the madding crowd. Or, he has blocked out the sight of hunters using the dreaded evil black rifles.

He states he's a traditionalist and prefers the dedicated hunting rifle. Well, I'm a traditionalist and that doesn't stop me from owning, shooting, an enjoying an AR-15. I like guns. I like 'em with synthetic stocks, I like 'em with wood, I like 'em with blued metal, I like 'em parkerized. You get the idea. I'm an unabashed gun nut although I prefer some guns over others.

That's the problem. Hunters, shotgunners, and others aren't gun nuts. Some hunters may shoot a box of 20 rifle rounds a year. They come to a range, sight-in, take a few practice shots, and then go hunting the next weekend. Fuddites (Elmer Fudd wannabes) one and all.

The same is true about shotgun sports enthusiasts who don't support other gun sports. John Rosenthal owns shotguns and uses them in skeet and/or trap shooting. He would gladly support bans on your black rifles, your handguns, maybe even your pump-action shotguns. I suppose I could make an argument about Cowboy Action Shooters who may think black rifles are evil, but you get the idea. With gun owners like these who needs enemies.

Gun owners like Zumbo and Rosenthal don't understand that we're all in this together. Gun banners don't want us to have guns period. They're dedicated to this idea and they're satisfied though not happy to move in baby steps. They're incrementalists who know they cannot win today, but they might chip away at gun rights.

They're satisfied to bans guns one type at a time. If they can ban black rifles, they will move to handguns, they will move to repeating shotguns, and finally go after the fine Purdeys that only the elites can afford.

Then again, maybe they'll stop at the truly fine guns because only their kinda people can afford them. That way the disgusting hoi polloi will be disarmed and the elites can then have a truly great society to shape as they will.

Reason 2345323 why I hate Fuddites

So much for a quiet, peaceful, carefree, Sunday. I decided to check out the Intertubes and click over to Instapundit and see a link to a post by some fuddite. I click over to the post and read it and do a double take.

Did he just call AR-15 owners, terrorists?

"I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles."

He did.

Now I’m getting pissed. I start to read the comments to this post and begin to realize that there must be thousands. I skim through them and realize that the whole Internet gun-owning community is pissed, really pissed.

Then I read Mr. Fudd’s CYA apology( he even drags out the Nuge man himself) and if anything I am angrier. No real apology for calling AR-15 owners terrorists. The sense I got was that he was apologizing for the shit storm he released and not his original post, which I think shows his true feelings.

Now, I’m clicking all over the gunny blogosphere and everyone(Tam, Smallest Minority , War on Guns and Pistolero ) is taking him to task. Be sure to click over to this post by Michael Bane and read his comments. I guess that there is a lot of mumbling about boycotts and the owner of Remington is saying to please cool this talk since they will take out the trash.

As I read in a comment on one of the multitudinous posts covering this issue: Mr. Fudd needs to spend the rest of his life sitting on the porch eating oatmeal. With friends like this………

Just as I was finishing up on this post, Michael Bane and Smallest Minority have posts up about how the Bradys are already crowing about their new friend. We'll be years undoing this travesty. Zumbo(Dumbo) has got to go.

Surprise from VPC

I never thought I would agree with the VPC (Violence Policy Center) on much of anything other than the color of grass or that the sun was out on a cloudless day.

If you’re not familiar with the VPC they’re about as anti-gun as you can get. For instance, they oppose “smart gun” technology (a gun that can only be fired by its owner through biometrics or similar unproven gadget). They oppose it because they believe more people would buy a gun if it were “safer.”

I stumbled on an argument that they made against Firearm Licensing and Registration. It’s a fact sheet that gives pros and cons of such schemes. Given VPC’s sponsorship you’d expect that the pros would far outweigh the cons. Surprise!

VPC’s pros include better tracing, knowing the types of guns a criminal (or a citizen having a bad day—my paraphrase) possesses, discouraging casual buyers etc.

Their cons are a good argument against licensing and registration: they’re expensive and they use Canada as an example, have little impact on must gun violence (there are a few assumptions here that I might argue with, but won’t right now—i.e., “most gun murders are between people who know each other” like drug dealer vs. drug dealer maybe), and political opposition.

They point out that automobile licensing and registration didn’t save lives. Instead improvements in roads and cars saved lives. This is where they most reveal their true colors. They want regulations on guns and their makers.

You knew there had to be a twist somewhere.

One From the Vault

Walther P-38

It’s impossible to really talk about Walther P-38s without mentioning Lugers as you'll note when you read this post. You may want to glance at this "One From the Vault" about Lugers.

The German military knew they needed a new service pistol well before World War II. The Luger is a fine pistol, but it was too expensive to make in quantity. Its parts are machined from steel and then hand fitted. Further, it wasn’t really made for the muck and mud of a battlefield. Mud could jam in finely spaced parts (especially the partially exposed sear) and turn the pistol into a clumsy club.

The Germans faced a problem when it came to inventing new weapons. The Treaty of Versailles ending World War I forbade them from doing so. Well, secrecy is always an option and the German military commissioned research into a new design to be developed on the sly.

Walther created prototypes that eventually became the Walther-P38 (P-38 means pistol [pistollen in German] adopted in 1938). By 1938, secrecy was less of a concern and the pistol was adopted into service.

My Walther P-38 Made in 1943

Walther used some of its old concepts, but fielded a surprisingly modern design, much more so than the Luger that it officially replaced. The gun is double-action for one thing. You could chamber a round and then flip the safety decocking the hammer. (Given the state of Germany’s wartime production, I recommend that you don’t try this feature unless you’re at a range with the muzzle pointing in a safe direction.) The gun even has a loaded chamber indicator, something to cheer the heart of anti-gunners who think gadgets prevent all sorts of gun accidents.

Even though the pistol officially replaced the Luger, many officers continued to carry the older pistol. For some, it was tradition and for others it was due to wartime shortages.

Wartime Walther P-38s are marked with codes. The Army Weapons Office, the Heereswaffenamt, insisted that military goods should not be marked with the manufacturer’s name. The reasons include the Nazi penchant for not letting the left hand know what the right was doing. Also, there was some strategic value in disguising the maker so that allies wouldn't learn where goods were made and bomb the plants (they did anyway).

Walther developed the pistol, but they couldn’t keep up with wartime demand and licensed their patents and design. A few companies made P-38s although most were made by either Walther or Mauser. Heereswaffenamt codes for P38s include "ac" for Walther’s Zella-Mehlis plant, "byf" and "svw" for Mauser’s Oberndorf plant, and"cyq" for Mauser’s Spreewerke.

A few complete guns were made in Turkey ("mke") and in Czechoslovakia ("jvd"). Most Czech manufacturing, however, was limited to parts like barrels and FN (Fabrique Nationale) in Belgium, which made frames and slides.

The French assembled a few P-38s from captured parts after the allies liberated France. The total P-38 production for Germany was about 1,200,000 pistols. Production resumed in the 1950s originally for police weapons. Walther sold some in America and ended production in the 1990s.

Walther made my gun in 1943. It has all matching serial numbers and the appropriate proofmarks. The plastic grips with deep grooves were a wartime concept. They believed a gun so equipped would be easier to hold onto in mud than if it had wooden, checkered grips. I’ve never tested it—something about tossing my guns into mud hurts my collector’s heart. In case you're wondering, the magazine holds 8 rounds of 9mm Parabellum (aka 9mm Luger) ammunition.

My gun’s finish leaves a little to be desired, but that was standard in German production after 1941-42. By 1945, even metallurgical standards had eroded, so don’t trust safeties on any late war gun. In fact, use but don’t trust safeties at all—practice the four rules of safe gun handling.

I’ve fired the gun and it is very reliable and quite accurate. Its recoil is very manageable and is a joy to shoot. I guess maybe there is something about German engineering. P-38s are still available although I’ve noticed rising prices. They’re an interesting part of history.

A Gun, A Mom, and a Murder

Gun-banners always decry the availability of guns. They don’t explain how the vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime with their guns—tools really. (Shane quote redux, “A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”).

As Shane said, it all depends on the user. I wonder what the gun-banners say about a mother who gives her teenage a gun so he can extract revenge for a fight he lost. Her son shot the person who won the fight and he died in the hospital.

How do you stop gun violence when a person’s mother encourages it? You can’t take away guns because you can’t un-invent them or make them impossible for criminals to get (look at England, which has a rising rate of gun violence despite banning all handguns). The mother could also give her son a baseball bat just as easily.

The only thing you can do is stand in amazement at the depravity of someone who encourages and enables a murder and make sure her and her son never walk free again.

Guns, Mayors, and Hard Issues

This is hardly news now, but another mayor has defected from New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s group. You know, the group that wants to stop “illegal” guns, even if it hurts the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage, Alaska wrote a letter to the local paper (second on page) saying that while he’s concerned with gun crime in Anchorage, he realized Bloomberg’s ideas conflict with the right to bear arms. He was also dismayed that pro-gun groups were not part of the discussion.

I’m not writing this post because another mayor has left Bloomberg’s phony coalition. No, I’m posting to remind people that anti-gunnies can fool even our friends. Bloomberg and his ilk discuss law and order. They point to the real problem of teenage hoods with guns. They say they want to stop the killing and the wounding.

The only thing they will examine is banning or making guns harder to get. They look at ways of getting guns away from law-abiding gun owners knowing that they are the only ones who will obey anti-gun laws.

They refuse to look directly at several problems. They won’t look at the role of an armed citizenry. They ignore or discount any evidence that civilian use of guns could reduce crime. They won’t look at making sure teenage thugs spend hard-time in prison if they abuse a gun. They don’t look at the fact that too many young black men are killing too many young black men.

These are hard issues. Instead of dealing with them, they would rather figure out a way to register your guns, so that they could confiscate them if they think they could get away with it. Failing that, they would make it illegal for you to buy more than one gun a month. They would support total handgun bans in cities.

Mayor Begich was taken in by Bloomberg’s platitudes, but Begich finally saw the light. Make sure that you aren’t fooled by anti-freedom words disguised in law and order rhetoric.

Weekend, Taxes, and Shane

Bill and I had a languorous, lazy weekend. It’s cold here now and we didn’t go shooting, didn’t take long walks in the moonlight, or much of anything else. Still, it wasn’t totally uneventful and we did a few things that affect our gunnie lives albeit in minor ways.

I updated Ten Ring’s blogroll and will try to do better with keeping it up to date (as I look up and to my left, and slowly cross my fingers). A big welcome to new bloggers. If anyone else wants to exchange links, just let me know.

Bill and I did a rough draft of out Federal income tax. Grrr, such a pain in the butt that is. Our first pass ended up with us owing around $7,000.00! A little more checking, a lot of head scratching, and then finding that we hadn’t subtracted a large deduction, led us to a more accurate guess of a $35.00 refund.

I guess that’s good planning, but I’ll miss not getting a decent-sized refund—even though I know it’s like giving Uncle Sam an interest free loan. I usually use it to buy a gun and most often on April 15, BAG (Buy A Gun) Day. Plus, our condo association is trying to hit us up with an assessment for new roofs, Grrr.

We also watched the Super Bowl. No real observations. A couple of funny commercials, but most of them were blech. Bill and I actually liked Prince’s half-time show. I was set to not like it, but I have to admit Prince is talented. It couldn’t have been easy performing in the pouring rain.

We watched a movie or two and for the first time each of us saw Shane. Speaking for myself, I’ve seen pieces of it on television, but never the whole thing. Shane is usually named in the top three of four Westerns ever made. It deserves its accolades. The guns were accurate and the western clothing looked authentic (except for some of the female star’s clothes and hair styles).

Bill and I sat up straight when the main character said something that we both believe in and which we’ve argued many times here; “A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

As I said, we had a quiet weekend, but discovered a quote we'll need to put on Ten Ring somewhere.

Boston, Mooninites, and Terrorism

Bill and I live and work near the site of the latest “terrorist” attack. The Mooninites “attacked” Boston the other day when Cartoon Network through intermediaries used one of these ill-tempered cartoon characters in a poorly planned viral marketing scheme.

It's been in the national news, but here it's all the radio talk show hosts and reporters are talking about. A very quick synopsis: two slacker-type performance artists got a gig to build and install some flat LED signboards that are about 1.5 by 1 foot in size. Other artists in nine other cities did the same thing.

Someone in Boston noticed and reported one near a transit station. Boston and State Police called out the riot squad, bomb squad, SWAT Squad, and every other squad imaginable. They shut down the city for most of the day.

The signboards proved harmless, and ended up being the talk of the town—that and an impromptu press conference in which the two artists talked only about hair (one has a set of dreadlocks that must be seen to be believed).

In some ways, the police response was proper. The signs had batteries and wires and needed to be checked. In other ways, the police went overboard. Authorities in other cities, including New York City, examined the signs and realized they were just signs. Boston leaders explain that Boston is sensitive to terrorism because two of the 9/11 planes left from here. Still, Boston cannot be more sensitive than New York is about this issue.

There were no winners in this idiocy, but it points to freedom in a post 9/11 world. We’ve already turned air travel into a statist’s dream. All that searching, patting down, magnetometers, government agents, baggies for toiletries must make someone happy. It doesn’t put a smile on my face.

Are we going to get so worried about terrorism that we close down cities when someone hangs up a sign that remotely looks like an “unattended package?” Are we going to fear that a garage-sale flyer is a coded message to a sleeper cell, that a gun club meeting is a militia gathering, that a truck parked too close to a building will explode?

It’s a dangerous world. Terrorists, foreign and domestic, want to attack us again. They could do so with a soda bottle full of a biological agent. They could turn a car into a bomb even more easily than they could make a bomb look like a small signboard. We have to be vigilant, but let’s not turn our cities and our lives into something like our airports.

And, I promise not to flee from every unattended soda bottle I see.

Bring On Your Links

Well, the “New Blogger” (unsure about “Old Blogger”) has been down for most of the day. I even had a short post ready, but lost it somewhere in the ether. Oh well, I’ll try and reconstruct later. I can’t even complain about it being down. I don’t pay anything for it.

Anyway, through referral logs, I’ve noticed people getting to Ten Ring from new blogs. I get set in my ways and don’t read enough of the new bloggers.

Because of that, I’ve been remiss in keeping our blogroll up to date. Therefore if you have a blog and would like a link on Ten Ring, and if you link to here (reciprocity is a good thing), I’ll blogroll your blog this weekend and/or the next. Just leave a URL in comments or send me an e-mail to the address on your right.

(Note: I reserve the right though not to link a blog that is truly racist, anti-gun [unless you can give me a very good argument], that tends to think discourse begins with “doodiehead” and ends with “fuck off,” or is otherwise unlinkable.)