Quote of the Day

...courtesy of Tam (of course - she's always good for that).

"If you have a T. Rex running loose in the Jurassic, damned skippy you've got some peril; somebody's lobbing theropods across millions of years to where they don't belong."

"Lobbing theropods across millions of years." Now there's an image I'll take with me 'till my dying day.

Random Discovery

It's been a while, hasn't it?

Tonight, while doing a little internet research for responding to a comment in the Roanoke Times editorial blog, I discovered something interesting. I can't quite decide if it's amusing or disturbing that this law is still on the books in Massachusetts.

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN [sic] CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

You know, if anyone actually got charged with this, it would get thrown out on 1st Amendment grounds so fast you'd hear the sonic boom in Alaska.

ZOMG!!!! - Mexican Gun Canard on NPR

NPR is trying to resurrect the Mexican Gun Canard now. There was a segment on today's Morning Edition claiming two-thirds of the guns seized from the Mexican drug gangs are traced to the US. Not even two-thirds of guns traced, just an absolute two-thirds. They didn't even slip it in quietly, like most MSM reports have done.

Remember, to kill a zombie, you have to destroy the brain.

[Edit: Maybe we should see if Robb can do a graphic for this. I'm picturing a zombie in a sombrero holding an AK-47, maybe standing on a mountain of "assault" rifles.]

The Mexican Gun Canard Rises Again

We thought it had died, as it should. But like a zombie, it's lifeless corpse keeps rising from the grave. Yet another example at the Roanoke Times:

Legal gun sales in this country facilitate this illicit trade.

According to federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives data collected over the past three years, more than 90 percent of firearms traced after being seized in Mexico are from the United States.

It's hardly a mystery where many of them come from. The ATF agent in charge of its Houston division noted in a New York Times story in April there are about 1,500 licensed gun dealers in that area alone.

No mention of the fact that 90 percent of firearms traced is not 90 percent of firearms seized. That little fact is not mentioned, and left for the observant reader to figure out on his own - probably in the hope that the majority of readers won't notice it.

No mention of the fact that it doesn't make economical sense for the Mexican drug gangs to find someone who can pass the background check who would be willing to do a straw purchase, and front the approximately $800-$1000 the average "assault weapon" costs at a legitimate dealer, when they can send someone to their south and buy the same weapon for only a couple of hundred dollars on the black market there.

No mention of how many of the weapons traced to the US were sold to the Mexican government, or another South American government first. (How many governments or revolutionary movements did we prop up during the Cold War, anyway?)

This was an editorial, so there's not the obligation to present an unbiased summary, but this smacks of a deliberate twisting of the facts. Even in an editorial, this is irresponsible and unethical behavior for a newspaper that wants to claim journalistic integrity.

Something we tend to forget

Atom Smasher over at Men are Not Potatoes mentions something that tends to get forgotten in the 2nd Amendment debate.

"I think the Framers would have been far more comfortable with the locals having an Abrams and a Mark 19 and an F-22 than with the government having one. Hell - they didn't even want a standing army, let alone one that could run roughshod over the citizenry." [emphasis mine]

That's important to remember when someone throws out the old "it only applies to the militia" argument. The founders did not want a standing army. This is mentioned in many of the constitutions of the original 13 states. For example, Section I, Article 13 of the Virginia Constitution:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." [emphasis mine]

The founders had a deep distrust of standing armies, and they didn't want one - they wanted a militia made up of ordinary citizens, that could organize into an army if a war occurred, because they knew it a militia made up of the people could not be easily turned against the people.

So why would they restrict the right to keep and bear arms to a select few in a standing military?

(On another note, Men Are Not Potatoes has been added to my blogroll. Welcome!)

Memorial Day

Remember

Memorial Court atop War Memorial Chapel at Virginia Tech.


Cenotaph honoring Virginia Tech Alumni who have received the Congressional Medal of Honor.


Each pillar is engraved with the names and class year of VT alumni who have died while in service. This is the most recent section.

Remember

Range Report - The Ruger Mk III, and Reinforcing the Basics

Today was the first day at the range with the new Ruger Mk III. The verdict?

I love it. Just like I thought I would. The trigger is crisp, clean, and surprising (like it's supposed to be). This pistol performs better than I will ever be capable of. Having grown up on my dad's Mk I, I expected the Mk III to be a superb gun, and it actually surpassed my expectations. It was worth every penny - especially when you consider the fact that a brick of 500 rounds of .22LR costs less than a box of 50 rounds of either .45 or .380.

This trip, before I fired the Ruger, I took the opportunity to test the Hornady Critical Defense carry rounds I got for the Kel-Tec. My main concern was that they feed and fire reliably. I don't have enough for real practice with those, and they're expensive ($22 for 25 rounds). With only 25 rounds, I had exactly enough to shoot 2 magazines and have enough left to load 2 magazines and have one in the pipe for carry. So that's all I shot - 12 rounds. I had no problems.

I did, however, notice that I was shooting extrememly low. I had printed targets on regular paper, and while I was aiming at the bullseye, I was only just hitting the bottom of the paper at 10 yards (well, 10 paces really, but close enough). This confused me, because last time I took this pistol out, I was grouping right around my point of aim at 7 yards (it was a big group, but that's just me, and why I need to practice more - thus, the Mk III purchase).

Once I had run a few magazines through the Ruger, I got the Kel-Tec out again, and loaded up with the Winchester white box ammo I picked up last week, and tried to figure out what was going on. The first round surprised me - the recoil was noticably heavier with the Winchester than the Hornady. Then I realized, the FMJ rounds are more massive than the JHP, so recoil would naturally be stronger. Somewhere in the second magazine, I realized something:

I had developed a flinch.

It was a #6, actually. I was dipping the muzzle downward just before the trigger break. I also realized that I had been doing the same thing with the Ruger, but had corrected it without even realizing it at the time.

You should understand something. I have been shooting since my parents decided I was old enough to do so safely - around 6 or 7 years old. So when I realized I had developed a flinch, I saw it as a personal affront. How dare my neuromuscular system do that to me? I was determined to fix the problem, right now!

I spent the rest of the evening - and the rest of the box of .380 - working my way through that. By the time I got towards the end of the box, I was once again clustering my shots around the point of aim. I also learned that 10 yards may be better than 7 for reinforcing the basics - it seems to make me work harder to compensate for my essential tremors, and therefore makes me more successful at doing so. I was actually getting better grouping than at 10 yards than at 7.

On the other hand, the longer I shoot, the worse the tremors get. Towards the end of the box, I had a couple of flyers, one of which was fairly devastating (click to embiggenate):

If you can't tell from the crappy cell phone pic, one of my shots cut the wooden upright I staple the cardboard to (and yes, that's an old pizza box - it was convenient, and, most importantly, free). It wasn't low, though. Here's a close up of the damage. You can see there were actually 3 shots that hit the upright - one clean hole, one graze, and the killer shot:


I took that as a sign that it was time to go home.

A Seducers Foiling

Post title courtesy of the Internet Anagram Server.

Other anagrams of my blog title:

A Disclose Gunfire
A Discoursing Feel
A Fluoresced Gin Is (good to drink?)
A Diligences For Us
A Regicide Fun Loss
A Recognised Flu Is
A Coifed Sirens Lug
A Fecund Glossier I
A Focused Rile Sign
A Secluding Foe Sir

(h/t to Robb Allen)

New acquisition and Gun Pr0n

Well, I did it. Like I said in my last post, I was leaning toward the Ruger, and I got it.


Nice, isn't it? I got a brick of 500 rounds of .22LR for less than a box of 50 .45ACP or .380ACP. This should make practicing a lot cheaper, and therefore more frequent. Hopefully, I'll be able to get to the range in the next couple of weeks. A range report will be forthcoming when I do.

Score!

I figured I'd join the crowd. We get regular bonuses at work, and since I just got one, I went out to my local gun shop to take a more in depth look at some of the toys I've been eying for a while. Well, the two model 1898 Mausers I'd been eying for the last two months had, of course, been sold (this morning, too, dang it!), but they do have a Lee-Enfield rifle that looked interesting. It looks like a No. 4, Mk. I. I could use a good rifle. I've also been debating between getting either a Rock Island 1911 that they have had for a while, or a Ruger Mark III. I need a .22 pistol for practicing the basics without breaking the bank, but I really want a 1911.

I didn't buy any guns today, but while I was there, i got this:


I like my local gun shop. They have apparently started holding back a few boxes of .380ACP off each shipment for customers who bought .380 pistols from them, and to sell to customers when they buy a new .380 pistol. That last part's just good business sense. It keeps them from losing a sale when somebody might otherwise decide not to buy that Kel-Tec (or whatever), because it's no good without ammo.

This gives me both carry and practice ammunition for the Kel-Tec, and twice as much practice ammunition for my PT145 as I usually get. Of course, this purchase set me back $118.00.

I was leaning towards getting the Ruger anyway - need over desire, and all that - but this helped push me even further in that direction. The Ruger is cheaper than the 1911 (about $345 for the Ruger, $425 for the 1911), and I tend to get frugal after I lay out a bunch of money on something.

And I really do need a .22 to practice with. Sigh.