It sounds like I get to help in the shaping of young minds this weekend. My brother is coming over to sight in his Remington M-700 ADL in .243 and he's bringing his 3 kids along.
He's taking the right path with them, teaching the 4 Rules and starting them off with air rifles before taking the next step up the chain with .22s. What he wants to do this weekend is show the destructive power firearms are capable of. We'll probably fill some gallon jugs with water and get some watermelons to use to show the kids what happens when things get shot.
On a side note, the kids were up last weekend with G'Ma to go school shopping. My mother will not allow her grand kids to wear clothes that are from the bargain bin at the Salvation Army. Their Dad told them that if they asked nice, I would show them my collection. Well they did, and I did. Talk about awe struck. They really liked the Tiger and NDM-86, as well as the Saiga 12. The Saiga .308 was a little too heavy for them, and they thought the AKS-74U SBR was really neat.
They can't wait to come up this weekend. If they're up to it, and my brother allows it, they may get to shoot something out of my collection.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Gotta Love That PayPal
Seems the ijits over at PayPal shut down the donations of a non-profit veterans website the other day over an on-line raffle to support Project Valor-IT which gives voice actuated laptops to injured and disabled troops.
Gotta love PayPal.
Gotta love PayPal.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Quote of the Day (My First!)
Seems a goober with a holier-than-thou attitude tried to stand 200 yrs of legal theory, at least 3 Supreme Court decisions, and millions of man-hours/days of research on its head by claiming the 2A doesn't protect and individual right at all, and he has "irrefutable" evidence to back up his claim.
In steps Robb Allen, followed by Kevin Baker at TSM who handed this dude his proverbial behind as only he can.
Reading the email Kevin received from the dude in question in the piece linked above, I think I agree with Miss Tam:
"Seriously, he should sue whatever school system handed him a diploma for criminal negligence and deparved indifference."
In steps Robb Allen, followed by Kevin Baker at TSM who handed this dude his proverbial behind as only he can.
Reading the email Kevin received from the dude in question in the piece linked above, I think I agree with Miss Tam:
"Seriously, he should sue whatever school system handed him a diploma for criminal negligence and deparved indifference."
Even The Russians Are Catching On
I happened across this today and it kind of took me a minute to fully digest just what it was that I was reading.
Seems the residents of Mother Russia are themselves becoming fed up with the criminal element and are arming themselves at a greater and greater rate.
They're even buying "self defense weapons", and the city's Militia Licensing Administration is considering relaxing requirements and prohibitions on what citizens may purchase. (As an aside, it is interesting to note the Russians have a militia licensing bureau. Wonder what else the Ruskies have over there in the Motherland that we here in the supposed 'land of the free' aren't allowed to have/own?)
Seems the residents of Mother Russia are themselves becoming fed up with the criminal element and are arming themselves at a greater and greater rate.
They're even buying "self defense weapons", and the city's Militia Licensing Administration is considering relaxing requirements and prohibitions on what citizens may purchase. (As an aside, it is interesting to note the Russians have a militia licensing bureau. Wonder what else the Ruskies have over there in the Motherland that we here in the supposed 'land of the free' aren't allowed to have/own?)
Ahhh Boy
What starts out as a seemingly balanced article about guns and their usage in public quickly devolved into a hatchet piece by the Richmond Times Dispatch. I'm sure the guys over the Virginia Citizens Defense League are quite familiar with this brand of fish wrap, but this is the first time I've had experience with them.
Our intepid columnist quotes everyone involved on the anti-freedom side, but nothing from anyone from VCDL or anyone else on the pro side.
I really like the part at the end where Brady Puppet says "A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense has already lost the battle."
I almost made this my inaugural post in a Quote of the Day category I've been kicking around for awhile. As good as this one was, the best is yet to come.
I have to take exception to that little statement there, bucko. See, if worms like you didn't work to undermine the prosecution of criminals by throwing everything that can be wrong with a person at the wall and watching to see what sticks, maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem. I mean lets get real here. We are told time after time that we should give the criminal what they want, in this case it was everyone in the store dead. Which I guess comports with what the anti-gun/freedom crowd secretly wants. Mass shootings in which no one could defend themselves so they can dance in the blood of the victims to shout for even more controls on people who by their very nature will not be controlled expcept through return violence.
Our intepid columnist quotes everyone involved on the anti-freedom side, but nothing from anyone from VCDL or anyone else on the pro side.
I really like the part at the end where Brady Puppet says "A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense has already lost the battle."
I almost made this my inaugural post in a Quote of the Day category I've been kicking around for awhile. As good as this one was, the best is yet to come.
I have to take exception to that little statement there, bucko. See, if worms like you didn't work to undermine the prosecution of criminals by throwing everything that can be wrong with a person at the wall and watching to see what sticks, maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem. I mean lets get real here. We are told time after time that we should give the criminal what they want, in this case it was everyone in the store dead. Which I guess comports with what the anti-gun/freedom crowd secretly wants. Mass shootings in which no one could defend themselves so they can dance in the blood of the victims to shout for even more controls on people who by their very nature will not be controlled expcept through return violence.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
A Small Hiatus
Sorry about the lack of posting for the last couple of weeks, my muse went on vacation for awhile and I followed suit.
A little update is in order though. Since my last post on my wife, the New Shooter, we have gone out two more times to the range. The first time after that post, she fired not only her little Sig Mosquito, but also a .25 ACP pocket pistol and is getting quite good given the limited amount of shooting she's done.
The last time we went out, this last week, I took my Mother's Lorcin .25, my CZ-50, our .22 pistols and a pair of AKs (SA-M7 Carbine and my '71 Izzy AKM). Wife shot the snot out of the .32 and the .25 and even wanted to try the Arsenal.
She complained about the recoil the whole time she was shooting it, but wanted to shoot it (and the Izzy) again before we left. I'm thinking the recoil thing doesn't really put her off as much as she'd like me to believe. Hmmmmm.
On a related note, while we were out there, I tested a couple of the new TAPCO Fusion AK mags for function. The black ones worked flawlessly, but the Dark Earth ones kept sticking the follower in the mag body. Happened on both of them. When I got them home and disassembled them, I found something rather curious. The springs in the DE mags were smaller width-wise than the ones in the black mags. While that might be part of the problem with them hanging up in the body, it ain't the whole problem. I think the follower is just a bit too wide for the body and is rubbing too much on the sides. I think a little rub down with some 320-grit sand paper might fix the problem.
A little update is in order though. Since my last post on my wife, the New Shooter, we have gone out two more times to the range. The first time after that post, she fired not only her little Sig Mosquito, but also a .25 ACP pocket pistol and is getting quite good given the limited amount of shooting she's done.
The last time we went out, this last week, I took my Mother's Lorcin .25, my CZ-50, our .22 pistols and a pair of AKs (SA-M7 Carbine and my '71 Izzy AKM). Wife shot the snot out of the .32 and the .25 and even wanted to try the Arsenal.
She complained about the recoil the whole time she was shooting it, but wanted to shoot it (and the Izzy) again before we left. I'm thinking the recoil thing doesn't really put her off as much as she'd like me to believe. Hmmmmm.
On a related note, while we were out there, I tested a couple of the new TAPCO Fusion AK mags for function. The black ones worked flawlessly, but the Dark Earth ones kept sticking the follower in the mag body. Happened on both of them. When I got them home and disassembled them, I found something rather curious. The springs in the DE mags were smaller width-wise than the ones in the black mags. While that might be part of the problem with them hanging up in the body, it ain't the whole problem. I think the follower is just a bit too wide for the body and is rubbing too much on the sides. I think a little rub down with some 320-grit sand paper might fix the problem.
What's Going On in Omaha?
I don't know if it's the proximity to liberal Iowa or what, but the city of Omaha is now mandating that fingerprints be taken from anyone who sells a gun in the city.
It seems that some ninnies in the City Council are esscared that someone might try to sell a stolen gun. Surprise, folks, bad guys typically don't sell the firearms they steal to pawn shops for a little pocket money. No, they typically sell them to other criminals.
What this little law is designed to do, I have no idea. Will it get some idiot with the IQ of scrambled eggs who kifes a gun from a break in and thinks he can hock it at a pawn shop?* Maybe, but will it cut down on 'illegal' arms trafficking? Not a chance.
* A couple of years ago, I was headed into a pawn shop here in RC and there was an overwhelming police presence just leaving the parking lot. When I went inside to check to see if they had anything I might be interested in, I asked the guy behind the counter what all the po-po was doing in the parking lot.
It seems there were some goobers from Nebraska who had robbed a gun store and tried to sell the ill-gottenly gained loot at that particular pawn shop, not a half hour before I got there. Evidently, they didn't know about the database that tracks stolen firearms by S/N. The staff kept them (I can't think of any more suitable adjectives to describe just how stupid these guys really were, sorry) busy whilst they called the cops. I happened to come at the tail end of the incident as they were finishing up. Dang the bad luck, anyhow.
It seems that some ninnies in the City Council are esscared that someone might try to sell a stolen gun. Surprise, folks, bad guys typically don't sell the firearms they steal to pawn shops for a little pocket money. No, they typically sell them to other criminals.
What this little law is designed to do, I have no idea. Will it get some idiot with the IQ of scrambled eggs who kifes a gun from a break in and thinks he can hock it at a pawn shop?* Maybe, but will it cut down on 'illegal' arms trafficking? Not a chance.
* A couple of years ago, I was headed into a pawn shop here in RC and there was an overwhelming police presence just leaving the parking lot. When I went inside to check to see if they had anything I might be interested in, I asked the guy behind the counter what all the po-po was doing in the parking lot.
It seems there were some goobers from Nebraska who had robbed a gun store and tried to sell the ill-gottenly gained loot at that particular pawn shop, not a half hour before I got there. Evidently, they didn't know about the database that tracks stolen firearms by S/N. The staff kept them (I can't think of any more suitable adjectives to describe just how stupid these guys really were, sorry) busy whilst they called the cops. I happened to come at the tail end of the incident as they were finishing up. Dang the bad luck, anyhow.
What's the Matter, Paul?
Seems that Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership is a little PO'd that there aren't very many gun laws on the "federal level".
He enlightens us on the three big ones, NFA '34, GCA '68, and the Brady Law of '93. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a couple more he missed: the Hughes Amendment of 1986 which banned civilian ownership of newly manufactured machine guns after the effective date of the law-ensuring that owners of transferrable machine guns had a nice little nest egg as it put layman ownership of these weapons effectively out of reach for those without the disposable income to afford them.
Another law Paul forgot to mention at the federal level was the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996. This little gem made even misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence a no-go on ye olde form 4473. It also was (and continues to be) an ex post facto law, making people who were convicted of MDV before the law was enacted a criminal overnight.
And lets not forget the most famous one of the last 15 years, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, otherwise known as the "Assault Weapons Ban". This piece of work banned an arbitrarily defined classed of weapons based completely on their cosmetics. It also limited the capacity of rifle and pistol magazines to only 10 rounds and shotgun magazines to 5 rounds. Thankfully, this abomination on the books of law was allowed to expire after its renewal in 2004 failed.
Evidently, Paul thinks the 20,000-odd state laws aren't enough. Laws concerning how many guns you can buy a month, a ridiculously short time period to report lost or stolen firearms, microstamping, dictates mandating 'smart gun' technology, limits on where/when firearms may be carried and used, and outright bans on possession of firearms are 'inadequate'.
Of course, Paul and his lackeys, along with the Violence Policy Center and the Joyce Foundation who funds them will tell you all day long they are only interested in 'sensible' gun laws. Their definition of 'sensible' is that you shouldn't have them, period. Naturally, their definition differs greatly from mine, as my idea of a 'sensible' gun law is a lack thereof.
He enlightens us on the three big ones, NFA '34, GCA '68, and the Brady Law of '93. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a couple more he missed: the Hughes Amendment of 1986 which banned civilian ownership of newly manufactured machine guns after the effective date of the law-ensuring that owners of transferrable machine guns had a nice little nest egg as it put layman ownership of these weapons effectively out of reach for those without the disposable income to afford them.
Another law Paul forgot to mention at the federal level was the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996. This little gem made even misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence a no-go on ye olde form 4473. It also was (and continues to be) an ex post facto law, making people who were convicted of MDV before the law was enacted a criminal overnight.
And lets not forget the most famous one of the last 15 years, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, otherwise known as the "Assault Weapons Ban". This piece of work banned an arbitrarily defined classed of weapons based completely on their cosmetics. It also limited the capacity of rifle and pistol magazines to only 10 rounds and shotgun magazines to 5 rounds. Thankfully, this abomination on the books of law was allowed to expire after its renewal in 2004 failed.
Evidently, Paul thinks the 20,000-odd state laws aren't enough. Laws concerning how many guns you can buy a month, a ridiculously short time period to report lost or stolen firearms, microstamping, dictates mandating 'smart gun' technology, limits on where/when firearms may be carried and used, and outright bans on possession of firearms are 'inadequate'.
Of course, Paul and his lackeys, along with the Violence Policy Center and the Joyce Foundation who funds them will tell you all day long they are only interested in 'sensible' gun laws. Their definition of 'sensible' is that you shouldn't have them, period. Naturally, their definition differs greatly from mine, as my idea of a 'sensible' gun law is a lack thereof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
