Further reason to state "Google Sucks"

Chris over at Anarchangel got this from Google:
"Hello Christopher,

Our specialists have found that your account is not in compliance with
AdSense program policies. As a result, we have disabled your account.

We continually review all publishers according to our Terms and
Conditions and program policies, and we reserve the right to disable
publishers or sites that are not in compliance with our policies.

Sincerely,

The Google AdSense Team

Nothing about why or how, just 'not in compliance'. So he sent them this:
"Sirs,

Can you tell me how my account is not in compliance with your policies?

I sent that one question to you initially, and recieved no response. Now I am expanding my question.

I have reviewed your ad-sense policies, and I cannot find any point at which I am in violation, unless a subjective reviewer of the site found my content disagreeable politically.

If my account has been suspended because I present a different political view point than the reviewer of my site... well then you might have a small problem.

If you say that I am a hate site, a violent site, or a racist site, I can refute that conclusively; and will do so for anyone who asks. If you say that I have inappropriate content, I can refute that and will do so as well.

I will also point to many sites that present anti-semitic, anti-american, and in general vile and disgusting propaganda; and yet they have ad-sense ads. I can show you sites that depict burning of american flags, and bibles, that have ad-sense ads. I can show you sites that are unapologetically pronographic, and have ad-sense ads.

I can only conclude that this action is motivated by political bias. It is my hope that suspending accounts that are politically opposed to a reviewers viewpoint is the action of a single employee and not general corporate policy.

You are of course a private company, and you may choose to allow your political biases to determine who you do business with; but if you do, be prepared to have all of your conservative and libertarian customers do the same.

If you cannot provide me with a legitimate reason for this account suspension, that is not motivated by a bias against my libertarian politics, my staunch advocacy of free speech regardless of it's potential for offensiveness, or the right to keep and bear arms, then I will be going to the blogosphere and the media with this.

Finally, if you insist on closing my account, please forward the remaining outstanding balance due me. As I cannot log in to my account I can't confirm how much it is, but when I checked yesterday it was only about $40.

Thank you,

Christopher J. Byrne IV

Nice, polite, covers everything, right?

And no response. None.

So Google plays footsie with the PRC, and screws people over on AdSense.

As a bunch of people have already put it, screw Google. And their little suckass dog, too.

While I'm at it, Jimmy Carter really IS a waste of skin

to borrow from Glenn Beck. On top of his other crapping in the street over the years, he does this at a funeral. Apparently just because he can and he can't help himself.

As Dax says, just Damn!

I shall now step into the pile of religeous dog poo

Moved by various things, a while back I started reading about Islam. No, I haven't gotten around to the Koran; probably will later. One of the things that got me started(kind of like researching HIV/AIDS) was a post at Dean's World. Couple of days ago he did this one. Basic content: anyone who thinks Islam doesn't have tolerance for other faiths and calls for violence toward them is a: bigoted and b: ignorant and hasn't actually studied it.

Well, I've been studying it, and one of the problems I've found with the 'tolerant Islam' idea is this: there were, in the early writings of Mohammed, various bits about 'tolerate the other people of the Book', i.e. Christians and Jews. This didn't keep him from sending people to murder and torment them when it suited him, but pass that for now. Problem is the lastbook of the Koran, Swords(I believe; not digging the book up now to find it). I calls for all unbelievers to be given three choices; convert, pay the tax(which also involved becoming- at best- a step above a slave), or die. Period. And from what I've read, pretty much every Islamic scholar agrees that this last book abrogates every contrary statement in any earlier book; in other words, giving 'tolerance' to other faiths is no longer allowed, the three choices is it.

And giving various quotes from the Bible and saying "See?!? Christians are of a hate-mongering religeon, too according to this!" doesn't cut it. A: nobody except a few nutcases, condemned by everyone else, uses these bits to justify harming others and b: from what I recall(long time since I actually read the thing) these are generally speaking of particular fights. "We're about to fight the Amalekites, after what they've done show them no mercy", type stuff. It never, to my knowledge, calls to go out and kill everyone who doesn't convert.

And that last is the problem. I know there are a lot of Muslims out there who do NOT agree with that. They'll argue the merits of their faith, and if someone is interested try to talk them into converting; no problem. They consider their faith the 'proper' one; no problem. Problem is, there are a whole lot, maybe a majority, who either fully agree with the three choices or aren't willing to publicly disagree with them. And they believe they have the privilege of telling every other society how they will be allowed to speak and act, in particular when it touches on their faith. And that doesn't work here, and it damn well shouldn't.

Side point: One of the things that's been disgusting in this is the double standard shown by many places, Britain in particular. It's been pointed out that(among others) when a bunch of people peacefully protesting the banning of fox hunting showed up to demonstrate, they were flatly attacked by police. No threats of death, no 'we will destroy this country' signs, and they were abused. Nutcase mooselimbs march threatening death and destruction, specifically calling for the murder of people, and all the cops do is take pictures and stand around. Besides the general problem with this, the people pushing this crap see it as weakness that the Brit government doesn't even try to enforce the law against them. And it is..

Getting back to my point, the unpleasant fact is that to probably a majority of the Muslims in the world, the 'three choices' and 'death to anyone who we think offends against Islam' teachings are their True Faith, and they want to enforce it. Against everyone. And calling anyone who points this out a bigot or ignorant or islamophobe doesn't cut it.

Rimfire Roundup

Mr. Completely has started a Rimfire Roundup. All cartridges, handgun and rifle. First edition is up here. Go give it a look.

Range day, Martini Model 6 (see end)

Went to the range last night, and aside from some pistol practice, put about thirty rounds through one of my favorite rifles. This is a Birmingham Small Arms Martini Model 6 in the wonderful .22LR cartridge:














Mentioned something about the history of these little rifles before, but being too lazy to hunt through my archives for it, I'll repeat: a man named Peabody designed a single-shot breechloading rifle with an exposed hammer, called (who'd have guessed?) the Peabody. Few years later a Swiss named Martini decided he could improve it and did some redesign. Got rid of the external hammer and used an internal striker powered by a coil spring was the big change; he both simplified the action and made it stronger. When the Brits were looking for their first manufactured breechloader(the Snider being a modification of their Enfield rifle musket and intended only as a stopgap), the Martini action was one tested, and it won. Coupled with a barrel with Henry-style rifling it became the Martini-Henry. It served as a military rifle in both the original .577/.450 and the .303, and the action was also used to make everything from shotguns to match and hunting rifles. It became justly famous for strength and reliability, and they kept making them, in large and small actions, until the 1950's(much more history here).

There were a number of different small-action rifles made, and deciding what model one actually is ain't easy; BSA did NOT mark the model on them, there were no serial number breaks between models, etc. Sometimes the width of the action tells you, other times the combination of action size and barrel, etc. From what I've found, this one is an 8.

The action is a 'tilting block'. To load, pull the lever down,














(take note of that screw on the receiver and the round piece above it; we'll get to them later)
and the breechblock tilts down















to expose the chamber


















That groove in the top of the block guides the round into the chamber. In the shot above, notice a piece between the block & chamber? That's the extractor. It's an eccentric 'L' shape; when the block rotates down, it pushes down on the lower arm which pivots the top arm back. As it's cut to hold the rim of the cartridge, it pulls the case back. Ease the lever down and it eases the case back; give it a smart pull, and it'll kick the empty out.

This rifle has the original open rear sight base and ladder on the barrel, but the elevator piece is missing, very common on these because with the match sight down low for close range it got in the way. Speaking of sights, this one has Parker-Hale match sights, an aperture rear and tube front. The rear is fully adjustable for windage and elevation, out to a long damn ways out. The eyepiece is separate from the sight itself, and you find everything from different apertures that individually screw in to adjustable like this Hadley. It's got a wide dish for the body, with a wheel that rotates to let you choose among six different size holes depending on conditions.


















That bump midway along the breechblock? Cocking indicator; up means cocked, gone means uncocked.
Very handy, especially since most of them had no safety.

The front sight is a tube(or tunnel) sight. There's a threaded insert that fits in from the back, and a slot at the top about midway. Back the insert out a bit, and there are a number of different inserts that drop into the slot. Tighten the threaded piece back up to lock your choice in. They made/make rings, posts, and crosshairs in different diameters/thickness. The old ones tended to be quite thick in outline and mostly post or rings on a post. This is a newer insert, a thin-edged circle held in place by crosshairs.


















Remember that screw I told you to take note of? Day is done and you want to give it a thorough cleaning, unscrew the threaded section and pull the pin, and the entire works rotates down and out of the receiver:


















And yes, that IS the entire works. Frame, lever, block, extractor, trigger, tumbler. Push out three pins, one each, and the lever, block and extractor come out. A screw/pin holds the trigger and is the pivot for it. There's a screw that holds the trigger spring, and the only other spring is for the striker inside the block. A threaded piece holds the spring and striker in place and the spring under tension, and a screw locks the threaded insert in place. And you can clean the barrel from the breech; in the picture of the sight two shots above you'll see a slot below the eyepiece. It matches up with a hole through the back of the receiver. Earliest models didn't have this, but this mod was made a long time ago.

Remember the piece above the action screw? Not all had this. Look on the left side and you'll see another screw


















This one is a tapered pin for takedown models. Pull the pin, open the action(otherwise the extractor won't let the barrel turn), and the barrel unscrews


















Makes it very handy for travel. Reassembly is screw the barrel back in and line it up by eye, then insert the pin and tighten it down; the barrel notch and far side hole in the receiver were reamed on the taper so the pin both aligns them exactly and locks them in place.
(See that box on the stock about halfway back? It's brass, and unscrews from the base, and holds inserts for the front sight)

There are a lot of these old rifles in various models out there, used for hunting and target shooting, from short, light ones like this to heavy models intended for prone competition.

How's it shoot? Wonderfully. I've tried this one with a number of different ammo brands/types, and it seems to like two best: Federal Lightning(now Champion) and Eley Sport. Shoots better with these than the match ammo I've tried. 'Shoots better' meaning I've shot half-inch groups at 50 yards with them, the match brands at best equaled that. And since they cost $.69/box and $1.25/box respectively... The trigger is light and clean, couldn't ask for better. For a rifle built- best I can tell- in the 1920's that's had a hard life, very nice indeed.

Personal history on this: several years ago a friend and I went to the range, and he had this interesting little rifle he'd just got to try out. Exterior looked pretty bad- hadn't been cleaned up yet, all he'd done was wipe out the bore so he could shoot it. He got it sighted in a 50, and said "give it a try". And I was hooked. He was using Aguila subsonic ammo, and we were breaking a clay pigeon, then breaking the pieces. So I went looking, and found first a model 12/15(post to come later). Then, about a year after that, the same guy he'd bought his from had another one that looked identical. He promised the bore was pristine and the action tight, so I gave him my credit card number and transfer info. A week later, it was mine. In those with a similar history, you'll find similar appearance; lots of pitting on the exterior, especially on the barrel along the edge of the forearm, and the action was horribly cruddy with old oil and grease and fouling. But the bore was indeed lovely, not a spot on it. It had been lined at some point, which was common; Parker Hale advertised their liners and installation and promised a rifle relined by them would be at least as accurate as the original bore, and I believe them.

In the case of my and my friend's rifles, their hard use came at a school. The same school, as it happens. Both have the school's name and location and their number in the rack stamped into the right side of the stock. And you bet your ass I was very careful cleaning and refinishing the wood. Degreasing, sanding with steel wool only and then rubbing in multiple coats of TruOil brought out the grain of a lovely piece of walnut and made the markings easier to read.

This is one of those I look on as my responsibility to care for until it's passed on. Besides the general history, there's this: my friend managed to get hold of the school, and wrote back & forth with the guy who had last managed the range; according to him, the government regulations for storage, use, and the range finally got so bad that the school closed the range and sold the equipment. Which led to these rifles winding up across the Atlantic and now in our hands. I don't doubt there are a lot of these out there that spent years training kids to shoot; and after long, useful lives there they were sent away due to government BS(in this case) and socialist jackass headmasters who hated guns and closed the ranges(other cases I've heard of). They're now here in the Land of the Free(still, despite the actions of various clowns), and doing what they were designed for; delivering accurate fire on targets from paper to cans to small game.

Some have been relined or rebarreled for everything from .17M2 to .357 Magnum, most still in .22 or .310 Cadet(depending on model); but the keep working. You get a chance to try one out, do so; I think you'll like it.


Added 8/14/10 Originally I thought this was a Model 8; some further checking since has me thinking it's a 6. Whichever, I still like it.

Well, crap, all at once?!?

I just looked at Books a Million and found that David Drake has four new books either out or coming out. Dammit, and it's tax time and I'm already short... grumble, grumble.

The Geek speaks truth

In this case, about that idiot 'study' that said people who carry guns are more prone to road rage. Money quote: "While they repeatedly claim that "that riding with a firearm in the vehicle appears to be a marker for aggressive and dangerous driver behavior.", they also admit that "we do not know whether there was a gun in the vehicle at the time the road rage incident(s) occurred.", and that "Our study had only two measures of road rage – making obscene gestures and aggressively following – and these have not been validated." Got that? As I recall from my science classes back in the dark ages, this is a fancy way of saying "We don't actually know crap, but this suits our political views so we say it anyway". But this is what passes for 'research'.

The Geek has a very good story about a science teacher he once had and 'studies' that aren't what they're made out to be. Which fits in with something I've been thinking about for a while. Namely, the HIV/AIDS equation.

Sometime last year I was looking through Dean Esmay's site and found a piece he did on the subject that basically said "Can anyone tell me of a study that actually shows that HIV causes AIDS?" Lots of responses, but nobody could answer the question 'yes'. Looked through some other stuff he'd posted on it, and it got real interesting. So I started doing some other reading, including the book Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg. And it's both scary and disgusting. Scary that lots of scientists and doctors just fall into line behind the 'approved' theory, and disgusting that a lot of people were/are being a: scared to death without reason, b: medicated without reason and being given medications that literally will kill you. And let's not skip the fact that a bleepload of money and resources and time have been, in many cases, flat wasted so as to keep in the 'approved' pathway of research and treatment. That is NOT how science is supposed to work. But it so often does, and if you criticize it even people who doubt the mess you're doubting will pile onto you. Especially if you're not a doctor and/or researcher yourself; after all, you're not of the priesthood so how dare you criticize them?

And that, when it comes out, makes people less trusting of the sciences in general, because if you find out they've lied about something this important just to CYA and protect the priesthood, why should you believe them about other things? The medical profession has been whacked by this repeatedly, in that all too often it's been seen covering for incompetent doctors instead of throwing them out of the profession, which helps lead to "You should get a lawyer and sue because otherwise nothing'll be done" which leads to BS suits as well as good ones, and we're in the mess that causes now. Clowns like John Edwards get rich, and good doctors leave the profession because they're tired of being sued for any and everything.

Back during the Clinton administration there was a study released that said "if you have a gun you're 46 times more likely to shoot a relative or friend than a crook". That number was challenged, and the guy revised the number down. Drastically. That number was challenged also, and he revised it downward again. People were arguing that number when it turned out that this clown was giving lectures on this 'study' and using whichever number he thought would go over better with the audience. Turned out the Centers for Disease Control had paid either 1 or 200,000 dollars to do this study(can't remember which offhand). First, what the hell were they doing paying money for such as this? Second, considering they were screaming and crying that they didn't have enough money to study and fight emerging bugs, where did this pile come from? Which brought up that they were apparently willing to use money to push political purposes when they should have been studying microorganisms, which feeds into a whole lot of other BS.

As the Geek says, I have great respect for the scientific method; damn little for the clowns abusing it in the name of money and/or politics.

As Tim Blair puts it,

"As more European newspapers reprinted the cartoons, what started off as a row between Denmark’s press and its Muslim population has grown into a full-blown “clash of
civilisations”.
No; that would require two civilisations. "

Oh, God, I've GOT to get over here more often!

AK vs. AR, with a little MN thrown in

Julian Bond is a friggin' idiot, AND a fool

And a number of other things, but I'm trying to be polite, here.

I first heard about this on radio today, Sean Hannity came on and mentioned it, then had as a guest some clown("Civil Rights Activist") defending Bond. Hannity did something that makes up for some of the ways he irritates me; he asked the clown if HE thinks Bush is a Nazi, and kept after him until he actually answered the question.

Which took a while. This idiot kept going off on "Bush lied", "Bush this", etc., but after telling everyone how Bond is a wonderful man, "I've known him for years, we're losing what we've worked for because of Bush" and so forth, Hannity hit him about seven times with the same question and demanded an answer, and he finally said "Yes, Bush is a Nazi". This was after having accused him of some crime(kind of busy, didn't hear all of it) and when Hannity asked for proof clown says "I'll show the proof when I need to". Which means "I have no proof of ANYTHING, but I'll make these charges anyway because I'm used to getting away with crap like this and how DARE you make me answer?!?"

Wankers.

And the Carnival is up!

Considering the crap happing around the world, just in time, too. Right here.

To be serious about this,

Look at the damn things. Just basic cartoons. No anvils falling on heads or whatever.

























Then look here. Calls for death and destruction, calls for atrocity, over the bloody cartoons.

In one book of The General series, Raj Whitehall looks at what some people he's fighting have done and says something like "A bunch of f#(*@!@)! vandals that have never grown up!". I think that about covers it. Their holy book says they should be ruling the planet, no worship other than that of their deity should be allowed, and they should kill anyone who they think doesn't fall on their face fast enough. And they believe it. Put any PC "that's just a few radicals, they don't really mean it" crap out of your mind. They do mean it. They can't stand the idea that their way hasn't swept all before it, and lots and lots of them would be happy to kill you and your family and your little dog, too, if they thought it would help them bring their "House of Peace" to rule the world.

Few days ago I found this over at American Digest about the way a lot of people seem to want us to lose the Terrorist War. I know these people are out there, but I might as well try to understand the thoughts of a bug on a rosebush as to try to understand that state of mind. Do these people not realize that they'll only have the three options, convert, dhimmi or death? Is it that they just cannot believe it? Or do they hate themselves and western culture so badly that they're willing to suicide?

We're in this, people, and those three options are the only ones the other side will give us. Either we win, or we get to pick one. That's assuming they allow a choice, of course; looking at some of the history I've been reading, I doubt they will.

Update:
Everyone else is stealing this showing this from Boortz, so,

"Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

• Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
• A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
• Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
• Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
• Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
• Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose."

Ok, is anyone surprised CNN has no balls?

Or NBC?

Anyone?

I didn't think so.

Unless you suffer a permanent overdose of estrogen,

I can't imagine most women finding this crap a surprise. But then I have a hard time believing the amount of 'advice columns' like this.

Ladies, do you actually need some columnist to point out that telling your lover his equipment doesn't measure up will piss him off? Or that he doesn't give a rat's ass what Nick and Jessica or whoever the hell are up to? Good God, do YOU really care?

Found this through Rob; go check out his take on the matter.

Ok, here's mine

Various people have been posting on M1 rifles lately, and Publicola had his Carnaval de la Garand- along with the other neat M1 stuff he puts up- so I thought I'd put up another shot of mine.


















Yeah, it's not a real good shot; I'm going to take it outside one day so I'll have more even light. In any case, it's a Springfield made rifle, the serial number says late December 1943 for the receiver. The stock may or may not be the original, it's got the 'P' proof mark on the underside of the grip, but no other cartouche remaining, it's been refinished at least once in the past. When I got it, it had a 1950-something barrel that was salt & pepper pitted. Still shot pretty well, but...

I had part of an M1 parts kit, including what appeared to be a brand-now barrel, also 1950's. So it went to the gunsmith for replacement. Yeah, I'd rather have done it myself, but I have no action wrench or headspace gauges. That done and function tested, stock work.

Didn't want to remove a lot of wood, so I went through a real cleaning and degreasing of the wood, which took about a week. Then I just gave it a light sanding to take off the worst of the rough spots; this stock has had a lot of use, but it's sound, and once the old crud was off/out, it turned out to have a real pretty grain. All I've done as far as finishing has been to rub in a couple of light coats of Tru-Oil finish; I've been holding off on further. I found some interesting tips over at the Fulton Armory site,(I recommend you look it over, they've made a lot of good information and links on the M1 and M1A available), and I think I'll try it. They say a coat of Minwax Natural Stain to seal the surface, then Minwax Tung Oil Finish; it's supposed to give the appearance of the military finish while sealing and protecting the wood better. I get a chance I'll try it and see.

Wood cleaned up, I went to the trigger. Fulton has their Garand Information Place which links to 'How-To Guides for the M1 Garand', including a very good guide on smoothing out the trigger. Note I did not say 'lightening' the trigger; because of the design this system needs a minimum of a 4.5lb pull, lighter than that is not safe. Period. Not a big deal, as I've found the biggest problem with a trigger is not weight(unless it's real heavy) but a clean break, and the M1 trigger can do that very well. They also have the standard warnings about working on triggers, and I'd suggest you read them carefully. This is a remarkably strong system with a safety you'd have to work at real hard to make fail, and remarkably easy to smooth up, but if you try to make the trigger lighter than it should be, you ARE asking for trouble. That said, their instructions worked very well for me. The trigger had been a bit rough and had some creep; after the cleanup and lubing, it breaks right at 5lbs and clean, no roughness or creep. Much better.

The front sight/gas tube assembly did not fit tight on the barrel, and it only takes a tiny bit of play to mess with accuracy, so on recommendation from some folks who know the matter I tightened it up. The assembly slides onto the barrel from the front, and the barrel has three splines machined into it, splines inside the front ring of the assembly matching up. I took a punch and my 2 oz hammer(yes, that is 2 ounces; wouldn't trade it for anything) and very lightly peened both edges of the top spline, and the outside edges of the other two. I emphasize very lightly; you want it to need a bit of tapping into place with a mallet and wood block, but you don't want to have to beat it into place. I got it a bit too tight, so I took a riffler file(small, curved file, very handy things) and reduced the peened surfaces just a touch, which gave me a perfect fit.

These things definately improved accuracy(quite happy), but one other thing made the difference. With the M1 the stock is one unit, the receiver/barrel/forend/handguard is another, and the trigger group locks them together. Over time the wood where the floorplate bears can compress a bit, which means things aren't locked in place as well as they should be, which means things can shift just a fraction when you fire... You can glass-bed to get the fit of everything as perfect as possible, but not having some good illustrations of exactly where & how, I didn't want to mess with that right now. I've done it on bolt-actions, but I knew what I was doing there. Happily, easy way to see if this will help. You know those imitation credit cards you get in the mail with applications? I save them; good for mixing epoxy on, coasters, and spacer material. Carefully selecting a card in a tasteful blue color that seemed the right thickness, I cut two shims, stuck them on the stock(non-permanently) and assembled. Much tighter lockup, and the next trip to the range showed an improvement.

So this here's my Garand, and it's one of my favorite rifles to shoot. With it's weight and gas system recoil is no problem with standard ammo, and I've been getting quite good accuracy. I've got some tips on handloads, so when I can I plan to pick up some Sierra match bullets and IMR4895 powder and see how they work.

I have to point out one of the joys of shooting it: being around people who haven't seen one fired before. Since Band of Brothers not as many are surprised by it, but you do get comments after the empty clip ejects: "Hey, something came out of your gun!" Even better when the clip lands on your hat brim; extra points if you slowly reach up, grab it, look at it, shake your head and sadly say "I wish it'd stop doing that".

Add-on: I almost forgot to mention books. There are lots of books on the M1 out there, from history to accessories to shooting. One that covers the development and teething problems very well is Book of the Garand by Julian Hatcher. If you've got access to the tooling, it has very nice illustrations of how the Marine Rifle Team touched up the trigger on this beast.

More on 'Buy Danish'

Michelle Malkin has a bunch of links to Danish products to look for. Also tasteful photos of gentle, tolerant Islamist jerks burning flags and pictures of Bush because their feelings are hurt that they cannot command the world.

This should get interesting.

Oh yeah, it was Bush and the Fed's fault

those people died and were stranded in NO. Never mind people in other areas getting along, never mind anything but IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!!!

Except...

Over at Wuzzadem, there's this interesting piece. Remember the people who drowned in that nursing home? " A ranking Louisiana health official turned down federal offers to help move or evacuate patients as Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans, a newly released document shows. ... Two days before the Aug. 29 storm, HHS was told by the state's health emergency preparedness director that the help was not needed, according to an e-mail released Monday by a Senate panel investigating the government's response to Katrina."

So, let's see, a mayor who ignored his own damn emergency plan, a governor so busy playing games she couldn't make a decision, a police chief so apparently crooked and stupid he couldn't get the job done, an offer to evacuate people on the last train out of town turned down, and now we find the incompetent bastards turned down an offer to evacuate patients two freakin' days before the storm hit. And the lies and ass-covering and rights violations and bullcrap since...

At this point, unless the people down there throw every one of these clowns out of office(I'm hoping the folks who had their arms stolen, especially the lady, get their ten pounds of flesh from every jackass involved, from the mayor and chief down to the officers and National Guardsmen who helped), screw sending money down there to rebuild. I'm sick of this crap coming out and the vile people involved still standing there with their damn hands out.

Yeah, I'm pissed. People died, often miserably, and these bastards just keep playing games.

Jeez, like I need another reason to buy those cookies.

The Danish butter cookies. They're good. And now, buy getting a can(or two) I can help to piss of Wahabi BPMs by screwing with their boycott of Danish goods.

Short version if you haven't heard about this crap, some Danish cartoonists did cartoons of Muhammad and a Dane newspaper printed them. Queue up the outraged screaming of Islamist weenies all over, demanding the cartoons destroyed, the cartoonists and editor and Danes in general fired, destroyed, etc., for having the temerity to not do what they're told by their Islamist masters. So some countries have announced boycotts of Danish goods, so some folks have said, "Let's buy Danish!". Which sounds like a fine idea on several levels.

To get the idea across to these clowns: People? There's this thing called 'freedom of speech' in much of the western world. It exists to various levels, and some PC-minded idiots are constantly trying to limit it in the interests of 'fairness' and 'sensitivity'(by their standards), but it is a good thing. Whether the Koran allows for it or not. You don't like it, and we don't care. Freedom of Speech includes, HAS to include, people you don't like and ideas you don't agree with or it isn't. The most of us like it. We put up with assholes who call themselves artists putting a crucifix in a glass of urine and founders of this country being insulted and denegrated; and WE can point out- loudly- that Che' was a murdering cowardly buttmonkey to castro and that Islamist rule is a blight on mankind and that said artists ARE assholes.

And, no matter how much you scream, it means we do NOT have to live by your rules. Lair can do 'Ask Mohammed' to his hearts' content, Chris can do Team Infidel and Steve can say "Tell me I'm not wonderful. I'm sitting by the pool with my Koran, half in the bag, smoking tobacco, drinking beer, cooking swine, and listening to a Jew play the piano." and wonder about the level of wife-beating appropriate- according to the Koran- for burned toast. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to say "That's not nice or sensitive!" and they're free to reply "Bite me".

And it's been pointed out before, every time you call for nukes in D.C. or smallpox in Kansas City, you really, really don't know what you're messing with. This First Terrorist War has been played with great restraint on our side. Piss us off enough, and 'restraint' will become "Well, we don't have to kill all of them". And while you may think we wouldn't use, for instance, nukes in any case(I think you're wrong), do you really, actually believe that people like Putin and Chirac won't? They've proven in the past what they'll do if it'll maintain their power and prestige; they will wipe a city and then demand their foot be kissed for acting 'as necessary'. Iran has actually caused Chirac to speak of how France can and will use their nukes 'if needed', you think a former KGB bigshot would be any less willing?

But that's off the subject, which is "We can say/speak/write/draw what we want, and if you don't like it that's too bad. We'll keep doing it, and if you think a few casual beheadings and torturings will stop it... well, there are some who'll wimp out, but in the end there's an awful lot of people who'll come after you. And won't stop.

So you can kiss our collective ass, grow up, and act as civilized beings, which means understanding that everyone isn't going to live the way you tell them to. No matter what Mohammed wrote.

Remember the bunny-huggers the bear ate a while back?

Was over at The High Road and found this post on the finding of the bodies, and the killing of the bear. Interesting reading.

One thing that catches me is the fact that the bear, which almost got the pilot who reported the incident and went after the rangers, did not put on any threat display or warnings; he was moving quietly and fast. He was hunting, not showing. As someone said, an animal that's putting on a show doesn't want to fight; one that's not intends to kill. And with the rangers, four men on alert for trouble, the damn thing got to within 20 feet before one happened to spot him; three guesses what would have happened if that guy hadn't looked back?

Guy I used to work with spent time in Alaska at an Air Force base out in the boonies, I can't remember the base name. He told me there were two big rules about going outside the fence: first, in winter it was a court martial offense to go outside the fence alone, since if you got hurt you'd probably be dead before anyone found you and second, in every group that went out at least one man would be armed. The bears never forgot they're the apex predator up there. While he was there, two guys went camping and never came back. Turned out they'd pitched camp near a bear trail without realizing it. They found the camp torn up, but never found either of the men. Never found the bear/s, either.

More tool box

Range box, this time. This is the basic; contents added to as necessary:


















Set of files
2oz. hammer
brass & steel punch set
screwdriver w/assorted bits
breakdown cleaning rod
precision screwdrivers(also known as damn little ones)
set of hex keys(not visible, under the files)

The rod is part of a Swiss cleaning kit for .30 cal machineguns


















Rod w/jag end, handle, bore brush, chamber brush, bottle of good oil, extra bottle for grease or whatever, and a small mirror. Picked it up from (I think) Cheaper Than Dirt for about $5.

With this I can file a sight, drift a sight for windage, loosen/tighten screws, which for the most part is all I try to do at the range. If I'm shooting corrosive-primed ammo, I add in a bottle of GI bore cleaner and a bag of patches; that way I can run a couple of wet patches through the bore while it's still warm, then dry and oil it.

Ideally, I'd have a good full-length cleaning rod along instead of a jointed, and when I don't forget it I do, but this way I've always got one along. And the hex keys were added after the previously mentioned M1 sight incident.

Like I said, the basic kit, contents vary according to what's on the schedule at the time.

Armor update

While back I wrote a bit on modern body armor. Remembered something I'd read about an updated version of scale, found it here at Anarchangel.

Neat stuff

The carnival I didn't mention

because of the company and general busyness, I present

The Carnival of Cordite (entirely) .45 Caliber Version!

General thoughts

Week or so ago was on my way back from the range and was listening to the Sean Hannity show. Not my favorite, but sometimes interesting. Had James Carville on, interviewing him about a book he just had published; basically "How Democrats Can Take Over Again", whatever the actual title was. Now, I have never, never liked Carville. He's always struck me as an abusive, insulting bully who treats anyone who either disagrees with him or won't be driven guided by him as being too stupid to pour water out of a boot. Listening to him, two thoughts occurred: first, I still don't like him and second, I felt a certain amount of pity. At the risk of sounding like Rush, he kept hammering, over and over, that the Democrat party just isn't getting the message out, isn't staying on the message, isn't actually making people understand what they think. Hannity asked if it was just possible that people did understand those things and didn't like them? and Oh, no, couldn't possibly be that.

Is there any possible way that anyone could NOT understand their message? What, they haven't called for impeachment and filibustered and threatened and insulted enough, maybe? If the image of John 'effin Kerry calling for a filibuster on the Alito vote, from a bloody resort town in Switzerland doesn't get the message across, what will?

Connected to that, remember the Dixie Chics and the crapstorm they pulled down on themselves? Thought you would. I wonder if it ever occurred to those geniuses that if they'd made their statements here in the U.S., before a local audience, that the reaction wouldn't have been as bad? People would still have been pissed, but not the way they were by these twits waiting until they were in a foreign country with a presumably sympathetic audience to mouth off. 'Course, then they got to pose naked on a magazine cover and whine about how they were having their freedom of speech abused, so maybe they really didn't care.

Og is a lucky man. He doesn't just have back trouble, he gets a chance to be hurt in a more interesting way while having it worked on.

He's got a post up on his Dad, and how he misses him. Reading it made me think of mine. I'm lucky, both parents still kicking and showing signs of continuing to do so for a good while. I'll read something like this, and think- again- of just how damned easy I've had it compared to him. Grew up in a small town in southeast OK with his sister(she's still around, too). Woodburning stove in the kitchen which was his job to light winter mornings before he did his chores(and if he hadn't cut and prepared the wood the night before, he had to do it now), chores, clean up and breakfast, then school. Then afternoon chores and a job when he got older. You wanted to go somewhere you walked or- if lucky and had one- rode a bicycle or maybe caught a ride from someone with a car or truck who was going the right way. He's worked damn hard all his life, and earned every bit of whatever he & mom have. Yeah, I've had some nasty crap over the years; what really pisses me off when I think about it is how, when I actually did have it so much better in so many ways, I didn't take advantage of the chances I had. Sometimes it brings up the hope that someday your kids don't come up with something like "Just how did you mess up so bad?" or something. Overall they've turned out well, but it's hard to compare some of what I've done and not done with his life and not feel I've really messed up in some ways.

In any case, he & Mom are still around, and we can still talk and work on things, and for this I'm damn glad.

Speaking of tool boxes, which Og and others have been, I've almost always had some tools in the vehicle. For quite a while it was a small metal box, about 5x5x12". I'd wire-brushed it and painted it to get rid of the rust, and had some loose wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, a roll of electrical tape and a battery terminal cleaner. This last item in particular came in very handy over time, sometimes for myself and sometimes for others. When second child was on the way we had my Ford Courier pickup for transport, and needed bigger. Guy we knew had a Pinto station wagon in the driveway that wasn't running be which he swore would run, and offered to swap it for some help with yardwork around his house. Trade done. He towed it to our house, I got it running, and it mostly kept up for about two years(worth a post all its' own). The one thing it kept doing was, for some reason, the battery cables would crud up just enough that you'd come out, turn the key, and it wouldn't start. Out came the box and ten minutes later you're moving.
Fast forward some years. I was divorced, we were both in better vehicles, and I only put the box in the truck when I was taking a trip. Until one day on the way to work I stopped at the store, and when I came out it wouldn't start. I'd come back from out of state two days before and the box was, happily, still in, and it was dirty posts, so I made it to work on time. From that day, there has always been a toolbox in the vehicle. Now it's one of the low, arch-top ones about 15" long by 8" wide by 4" high. Right now I'm not going outside to dig through it, but as I recall it contains:
pair of Vise Grips
wire cutters
electrical tape
mixed cable ties
screwdriver with multiple bits
shorty screwdriver with reversible phillips/straight bit
tire valve tool
spark plug gapper
12" thin-wall steel pipe for extra leverage
battery terminal cleaner
pocket knife
roll of flux-core solder(just got left in there)
set of standard and metric combination wrenches.
And yes, it's stuffed. Right next to it is a flat box containing a 3/8" ratchet, 1/4" ratchet and a mix of standard and metric sockets, most on socket holders with a few small ones loose. You know, the odd sizes that on rare occasions are the only damn things that fit? And fitted in under them is a four-way lug wrench.
Crap, lest I forget, a set of hex keys. So far the only time I've actually needed these was at the range, when it turned out that none of the bits in my screwdriver set fit the lockscrew on my M1 front sight. Very glad to have them.
Not nearly as complete as what a lot of folks carry, but it's taken care of a lot of problems over time, my own and relatives and folks I've found broken down for some minor thing. Sometimes I have to take something out of the truck box to use, but it goes right back in there. Which is why when a guy in the Wal-Mart parking lot couldn't get his battery out(buggered screws for the side-connecting battery) I had the Vise Grips that could get a grip on the head and break them loose.

You know what's also handy to have along? Paper towels. A roll of them. Don't leave home without. And baby wipes. Especially if there's a baby around, but even without.

I think I'm done for now

More on Britain

From Say Uncle went to here, which led to here and here. Another of Uncle's posts led to here. Put it all together, and you remember that big fork sticking out of the island?

Short version, with all handguns and most shotguns and rifles banned, those not banned highly restricted, the crime rates in Britain, including gun crimes, are still going up. "As much as 50 percent" in some areas. Right now I'm taking their 'reduction' in gun deaths with a large grain of salt; couple of years ago, as I recall, a reporter had to basically sue the government to get the true numbers of how bad it was(they were saying "things are improving" then, too). And one thing that came out recently- can't remember where I read it- is that they still play with the numbers; for instance, if somebody is killed but it's plea-bargained down to manslaughter or something, it doesn't go on the books as a 'murder', and so forth. So someone explain to me again just why the example of Britain is a good thing to follow?

And remember this from Alphecca's post when someone talks about 'safe storage laws':
"Hargreaves admits to being "devastated by the news" that the gun had been involved in a homicide and almost as devastated by the fact there is now a warrant out for his arrest for unsafe storage of those weapons -- despite the fact they were stored in a 771-kilo concrete-and-steel safe and that it took the industrious thieves two days using blowtorches and sledge hammers to gain access to it.

"I went far and beyond what was legally required," said Hargreaves, indicating the vault was so heavy "that the elevator dropped 15 cm when the safe was loaded on."

"It was hardly unsafe storage," he said."
Except to the Canadian police. If a vault like that cannot be considered 'safe storage', what do you think Schumer and Feinstein and the VPC would like to force you to buy? With surprise inspections to make sure you're using it right, of course. Wankers.

And be sure to check out the street prices for guns over in 'gun-free Britain'. If I'm remembering the conversion right, you'd be damn happy to find prices like that on legal guns over here on some of them. Except that I thought those weren't allowed in peaceful Britain? At all? A pump shotgun for less than $50?

Add it all up, and it just points it out again; if you let the government disarm the honest people, and make the few arms you're allowed to keep be restricted this way, and the government takes over all power over your safety... this kind of crap is what you get.

Update: Over at Kim's, I found a link to this piece of crap. It's enough to sicken you; the hoods have taken over the place, and "Despite plenty of witnesses, and evidence, no arrests were made because the police wanted to catch the suspects in the act."
The obvious question would be "THEN WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON, YOU USELESS BASTARDS?!?" Good God, I bet since no arrests were made this counts as some of the 'better news' from the British government. Or something. I'm afraid of the answer, but my question is just how bad is it going to get before the good people tell the government to fuck off and do something about it themselves? And what happens then?

Well, crap

The white ferret of the bloodthirsty duo I posted on the other night died this morning. From what my daughter says, it was simple age; she'd been weakening the last few weeks and losing weight, but no sign of sickness.

They buried her with a small bottle of Ferretone, because she loved the stuff. She was a good critter, and she'll be missed.

Proof a big fork is sticking out of Britain

Check this out from Kim. From the last Olympics held there: "Shooters were escorted from Heathrow under armed guard and their guns were taken in an armoured vehicle to the national shooting centre at Bisley. Spectators had to watch events behind screens, and shooters were guarded by armed officers even during training.

This is exceeded only by the crap in Japan. Every gun had to be locked in a vault as soon as the event was over(no time for cleaning, etc), was only allowed to be checked out just before an event, and each competitor had to find and turn in every fired cartridge case. Apparently the idiots thought some yakuza would find them and reload them. Oh, that's right, the bandits just use guns smuggled in. Never mind, they couldn't let those evil bits of brass lay around where some innocent might find them! Etc.

I wouldn't even be able to remember what sport was on...

If all meds worked this well,

I wouldn't be so picky about the damn things. Started the stuff the doctor prescribed yesterday afternoon, and my back is better than it's been in almost two weeks. And the elbow I banged up before that is better, too.

It's a anti-inflammatory and a steroid. I read the warnings and 'watch out for this' stuff, and between those and the 'possible' side-effects, it's enough to scare you off taking anything. So far no bad signs, though. And the steroid has a warning that you CANNOT(yes, they emphasize it) just stop; you have to taper off. The directions are 4/day for three days, then 3/day for three days, then 2/day for two days, then one the last day.

Only bad thing is the anti-inflammatory has this sticker on the bottle: Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages when taking this medication. So I'm on the wagon for a bit. Don't drink that much anyway, but it's still annoying. But if it works this well, it's worth it.

One more reason to hate lawyers

Found a link to this earlier today:
"An Army judge advocate general (JAG) temporarily banned Army and Marine Corps snipers from using a highly accurate open-tip bullet. "

You're probably aware that the Geneva Convention or some other agreement we never signed on to forbids the use of bullets designed to mushroom or upset upon impact. Well, a long time ago Sierra bullets started making a match grade that has a small hollow point. Not for expansion; if you read the box, it specifically says NOT to use this bullet for hunting as it will NOT upset. These bullets are specifically allowed for military use because of that. Part of their manufacturing process uses a small rod to hold the bullet for part of the shaping, when the rod is removed it leaves a hollow. What happened here is some JAG lawyer heard 'hollow tip' or 'hollow point' and had a fit without bothering to find out what they were talking about.

There ought to be some kind of regulation that before some REMF(to borrow a phrase) can make a ruling on equipment/actions, they have to run it past somebody who actually knows their ass from a hole in the ground. Won't happen, but it should. And please note in the article that the sniper who blew the whistle was screwed over for making noise, even though it corrected a real problem. Idiot bureaucrats in uniform are still idiot bureaucrats.

On a side note, I read years ago that when the U.S. first began using the .223 cartridge in the M16(ok, 5.56x45mm if you're going to be picky and metric) Sweden had diplomatic fits because the little 55-grain bullet will sometimes, if velocity is high enough, not only yaw and tumble after impact but break apart at the cannelure(the grooved band running around the waist of some bullets), thus causing worse wounds. Turned out that while they were bitching at us, the .30 caliber machinegun ammo they were making for their forces was specifically designed to do just that.

The JAG lawyer had the same attitude that kept many police departments from using hollowpoints for many years; screw whether it stops the bad guy better, we think they're mean. Difference being that the cops were wanting actual designed-to-mushroom ammo; the snipers were using already approved ammo that this idiot couldn't bother to find out about before taking fingers to keyboard.

Just because I'm tired, and the new meds are working,

I give you a friend's imprisoned predator pack:



















Not the glinty eyes, the barely visible tips of the flesh-tearing fangs... Scary little beasts, aren't they? I'm told they answer the Vashka and Puck. The third of the pack is sleeping off the effects of the kill napping. Sneaky little beasts, they manage to escape from damn near everything except this high-tech holding facility.

'Fluffy Bunny' syndrome

I can't remember where I first heard that, but it does cover it; Peter Capstick called it 'Disney syndrome' as I recall. 'It' being the "the nice animals won't hurt you if you're nice to them", "the bear will happily graze and not hurt you/the other animals unless provoked" type attitude.

Little earlier this evening was watching a Nature episode on PBS about the Monteray Bay aquarium having kept a small Great White shark for some months. Of itself, a neat thing, and a lot of people got to see it. But the narration and the attitude was annoying. They kept hitting on "will it stay calm or will it start hunting/killing other fish in the tank?". Finally, after it had attacked two other sharks, killing the second, and was 'actively hunting/stalking' other animals in the tank, they decided they couldn't risk it and released it at sea.

Question for you; if you had the apex predator of the sea in a tank, why would you be surprised when it started hunting? Why would you not expect it to? If these biologists actually thought that having it in a tank and feeding it would keep the base instincts from ever coming out, they're not as smart as they're made out to be.

It's like what happens when a bear whacks somebody, and especially if it eats them. Animal lovers come out of the woodwork telling how it must be the fault of the digested, they must have done something to provoke it, etc. Well, bullshit. Bears are big, powerful, omnivorous predators that will eat pretty much anything they can find or kill; sometimes that turns out to be some human. Doesn't make the bear evil, it's just being a bear. Same with cougars, when they don't have any fear of humans some are going to notice that these two-legs are easier to catch than deer. A book that came out a couple of years ago, The Beast in the Garden, covered it nicely. It's about the buildup to the first modern maneating by a cougar in CO. When the cats started coming into town, and eating pets, things got split between the "Shouldn't we make them scared of us so they'll leave us alone?" people and the "The cougars were here first! You don't like it, then leave!" people. These Aquarium people were apparently hoping the hunting instinct wouldn't come out in the shark; to quote Jayne from Firefly, "Nice move, dumbass".

Side note: after California banned hunting of cougars, the game department wound up killing more 'nuisance' cougars than were killed by hunters. The screaming when this was pointed out and some asked why not allow hunting again? told everything; the screamers didn't care how many they game department had to kill, they just didn't want anybody hunting them.

Other side note: in the year they had this shark(roughly 8 month old female), it grew by something like 17" and 100 pounds. Impressive, I'd say.

And while you're at it,

go congratulate Jawa for his part in getting a bin Laden buttmonkey thrown out of the country.

Don't you just love how this stuff works? I started at

Curmudgeonly & Skeptical, which led to Mean Mr. Mustard which led to Relapsed Catholic which led to this place from which I found the Mark Steyn piece that started it all. Damn, by the time the year's out I should be back in fine fettle as a tracker.

Basically, Steyn points out that feminism should be very damn interested in the war on terror as it has freed a hell of a lot of women to do something other than either wear a tent and be escorted to go to the market or be easy prey to be dragged to a rape room. Doing so with his usual humor causes Murney to have a bad case case of the vapors; it seems that Steyn made mock of holy Feminism and was downright racist to boot. As someone once said(or should have) "If this be misogynism and racism, kick it up a notch, boy!"

Said vapors leading to statements such as "It is obvious that Steyn is a misogynist, and hates feminism, which means he opposes gender equality. How barbaric.", and, referring to the 'torrent of hate' directed at feminists, "That hate will climax when the United States Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, which will likely be in the not too distant future."

Never mind that if Roe vs. Wade is thrown out, that will not outlaw abortion; it will put the issue back in the individual states. That's not putting a matter into the hands of the state's voters, it's 'hatred for feminists'. To quote the Catholic, "This man actually publicizes the fact that he's a Women's Studies minor at the University of Regina (insert Beevis "heh") and has something called a Certificate of Administration in Continuing Education Development.

Meet the future of Canada, folks.

And the kicker: He calls himself a Libertarian. Kids, you can have 'im. Kate, I insist that you distance yourself from this Saskatchewan libertarian!"

No more need be said.

Carnival of Cordite #44

Up over at Gullyborg.

The bin Laden tape

Assuming it's him and not dummied up(I'm still wondering why, if he's still in operation, no video?), lets see... You're not hurting us, we're gonna get you, we're winning but we'll offer a truce to rebuild Iraq.

Translation: "We're getting stomped, every time we come out to play you kill us, we haven't been able to pull off a real operation in America in years, so please accept our 'truce' offer and stop killing us. Don't you know you unbelievers are supposed to LOSE?"

I know it's an estimated time, but damn!

FedEx was supposed to be delivering a package today. Checked the tracking data last night, showed estimated time of delivery 10:30. Ok, great, I'll be home then.

I get home from work at 9:15 to find the "you weren't here" note on the door; they'd been here at 8:10.

I understand 'estimated time', but dammit...

Oh, the wonders of the ACLU

You know, that wonderful organization that defends civil rights? As long as they're approved of civil rights and/or plaintiffs, of course. Well, they've filed suit against the U.S.G. to stop the wiretapping of al Queda-related phone calls. Aside from the bullshit about 'widespread bugging of American's phones', there's some problems with the people in the ACLU doing this. Found this at Debbie Schlussel's blog:
"I'm not referring to the famous Plaintiffs about whom you've heard: For example, Christopher Hitchens, the well-known Vanity Fair writer who is tight with convicted felon lobbyist Jack Abramoff's money launderer Grover Norquist. (Norquist's receipt of thousands from Saudi charities raided by Customs for billions in Al-Qaeda money laundering is well-known, and Hitchens wrote glowingly of Norquist's efforts on behalf of radical Islam)." and goes from there:
"I'm referring to ACLU lawyers Noel Saleh, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad, the ACLU Plaintiffs named in the yesterday's Complaint, attorney William Swor, a member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Nazih Hassan--all named in the lawsuit. They are exactly the kind of people whom the federal government SHOULD be watching, but probably isn't. One of these men admitted to funding Hezbollah, one was accused of tampering with a witness, and a third signed a document contradicting statements he made in the lawsuit. Not to mention, one of these men engaged in exactly the same "spying" (on me) that he now opposes when done by the NSA."

Yeah, some people in some branches of the ACLU have done some good things; and many people in many branches have done bad things. If the ACLU actually cared about justice and honesty, they'd throw these clowns out of the organization.

Further, check this out at Stop The ACLU for more information.

I need to put this up at work

Rendezvous!

Not the black-powder kind this time. Well, mostly not. Mr. Completely is putting together a meet in Reno NV in November, details here.

Damn, I'd love to go, but this far out I have no idea if I can get the days off. Hoping, hoping...

Did I mention pain hurts?

My back is easing off, but not fast enough. I'm beginning to feel like a dis dyks dyslexic pirate; every time I bend over or stand up I go "URRRRRR".

Ah, the wonders of 'gun control' laws

Or, as Jeff Cooper refers to them, 'personal disarmament laws'.

Got a notice from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership(JPFO) about this article from San Francisco. Short version: abused woman thinks her husband may have found her, so under a CA law that "waives the permit requirement for anyone who "reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order.'', she starts carrying a gun. Accidentally leaves purse at store, gun found & police called; she went to jail because it turns out the restraining order which she thought was permanent had expired two months before.

She understands leaving her purse, especially with the piece inside, was bad; she now, because of the conviction, cannot even have a firearm in the house or pick one up for self-defense.

Joan Ryan, the writer, doesn't like guns. Here's the last paragraph:
"The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense. But so many women every year are killed by their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Restraining orders, as we know, can't stop them. The police often can't stop them. I don't know what the solution is. But something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal."

As I said in the e-mail I sent her, Joan, you can't have it both ways. If someone has the right to self-defense, they also have the right to the means with which to defend themselves, and for most people that's a gun. Firearms are not magic wands, you can't wave one and make troubles go away; they are damned effective tools for repelling boarders who come through the window at night, or attack you in a parking lot. But it doesn't matter how skilled you are or how great your need for it, if you don't have it with you when you need it, you're screwed. And the law you think makes such good sense has now prevented this woman from even owning this means of defense, ever again.

Meanwhile, at Smallest Minorty...

I wrote a few days back about when the personal disarmament people really got my attention. Kevin read it and asked the question, and got a lot of comments.

You ought to go read them.

What I'd like to find...

Xavier was writing about what he'd like to find next. Here's what I'd like to run across:


















This beast is the Webley Mk VI revolver, in .455. Friend of mine got hold of a target model a few years ago and I had the chance to shoot it. And immediately lusted after it.

It ain't small; it was adopted by the British army- and lots of people who went out around the world- as a self-defense weapon that would put an attacker down. Big heavy bullet at moderate velocity. Easy to shoot. If you've never been around one, it's a top-break; there's a thumb lever(you can see it in front of the hammer) that you push down to unlock it. Rotate the grip section down and the ejector kicks the empties out, then you drop six more in, close it and continue.

A lot of these were modified during WWII to fire .45acp cartridges. They milled a few thousandths off the back of the cylinder and used half-moon or moon clips to hold the cartridges. Here's a moon clip from a Taurus Tracker:


















Bad thing about this: can't pick out a couple of empties and reload those chambers. Good thing: fast reloading. The other thing about this is that a .45acp bullet is a touch undersize for this bore, so it's not as accurate.

So, what I'd like is an Mk VI, with an uncut cylinder if possible, for $350-400. Which is the real problem. These pistols are out there, but with uncut cylinders tend to go for $450 and up, often going over $600; far more than I'm willing to spend. I'd settle for one with a cut cylinder; I think an unsized .45 bullet would work nicely, and handloading is no problem. I found one in my price range a while back, but close examination showed a slight ring in the barrel, about an inch ahead of the cylinder; bad juju, guys, I decided not to chance it. May not have affected shooting with appropriate handloads, but I'd worry 'bout it. So I'll keep looking.

By the way, if you've read some of my earlier stuff you'll have seen the piece on testing a later model, and Enfield .380:














Very similar design, but smaller and chambered for the .380/200, basically our .38S&W(NOT .38 Special) with a 200-grain round-nose lead bullet. This cartridge was reported to do a very good job of stopping fights; but after they decided a lead bullet violated the Geneva Convention the changed to a 170-grain jacketed bullet and results were not as good. I mentioned I found a Lyman mold that throws a 195-grain round-nose bullet, almost identical to the original for these. Dug around and- at The High Road, I believe- some suggested loads.

DISCLAIMER: This load works very well in this revolver, it might not in yours! Start lower and work up if you try this!

What I wound up using was 2.4 grains of Unique powder and a Winchester Small Pistol primer. According to what I read that gives about 650 feet per second, like the original. Good accuracy, and the bullet hits where the sights are at ten yards.

I love these old firearms.

Speaking of tyranny,

Chris had a link to this. Among the good parts:
"Give us a leftwing dictator, and soon enough every rightwing wacko would be up in the hills with his rifle collection and enough ammo to sink the Titanic. (Not that the Titanic needed any help sinking, but you get the idea.) If things got worse, it wouldn't take long before the wackos were joined by their center-right comrades. The only difference between them would be the price of their guns.

Given a rightwing dictator, the results would be much the same, only more urbanized. Instead of ragtag bands of wanna-be soldiers hitting government convoys on isolated stretches of interstate highways, it would be our cities that would become ungovernable. And don't even try to tell yourself that liberals are too limp-wristed to put up a fight. Set your Way Back Machine to 1968 and think again."

I would argue that left or rightwing tyrant would get all the people in the middle pissed. And I think it would be a BIG middle. Question would become who'd actually be willing to take up arms, and who'd keep talking until it was over for them? Socialist/communists have shown a great willingness to slaughter and imprison "for the good of all/for the revolution!"; far right types the same "for the good of all/for the leader!" So would the people in the middle be ready/willing to stomp on both extremes?

Seems like both extremes want control over everything. Difference seems to be the left wants everything including your thought processes controlled, their opposites often don't care what you think as long as you don't actually oppose them, and don't actually hate the idea of private property. Simplified, yes, but seems to cover much of it.

More armor?

With all the arguing about body armor for the troops, I remembered something. This is from David Drake's book Fortress:

"The thing that nobody who directed war movies understood- and why should they? It would come as news to rear echelons in all the various armies as well- was that the guys at the sharp end carried it all on their backs.

The irreducible minimum for life in a combat zone was water, arms and munitions, and food. In most environments, heavy clothing or shelter had to be factored in as well; exposure in a hilltop trench would kill you just as dead as a bullet.

Helicopters were fine, but they weren't going to land while you lay baking on a bare hillside traversed by enemy guns; so you carried water in gallons, not quarts, and it was life itself. If you ran out of ammo, they'd cut you apart with split bamboo if that was what they had... so you carried extra bandoliers and extra grenades, and a pistol of your own because the rifle you were issued was going to jam at the worst possible time, no matter who designed it or how hard you tried to keep it clean.

Besides that, you carried a belt of ammo for one o f the overburdened machinegunners or a trio of shells for the poor bastard with the mortar tube on his back. You were all in it together; and besides, when the shit hit the fan you were going to need heavy-weapons support.

And the chances were that, if you were really trying to get the jump on the elusive other side, you had a case of rations to hump with you as well. Ever time a resupply bird whop-whopped to you across hostile terrain, it fingered you for the enemy and guaranteed that engagement would be on the enemy's terms.

So you didn't move very fast, but you moved, and you did your job of kicking butt while folks in strack uniforms crayoned little boxes and arrows on acetate-covered maps, learnedly discussing your location. That was the way the world worked; and that was why Tom Kelly felt subconsciously better for the equipment slung on his body as he shuffled into combat."

I'm all for better armor, but if you just keep adding plates and panels, you wind up with something that may technically give better protection, but is so damn heavy and/or constricting that troops wind up taking pieces off. Yeah, we need better armor, not just add-ons to the current stuff. There's been stuff posted about some real interesting ideas(I think Anarchangel had some but I'm too lazy right now to dig it up), and I don't doubt there's stuff being worked on we don't know about; but it will still boil down to a balance between protection and comfort and mobility. And if it doesn't balance out that trifecta, it won't work for people on the sharp end.

Ok, this is getting confusing

First time I looked I was a Flappy Bird; then I was a Floppy Fish(never did hear from Sondra...). Now I'm a Slithering Reptile.

I don't know if I'm evolving or devolving.

Remember the 'upset kid suicide by bomb' outside the stadium?

Went over to Random Nuclear Strikes to see of Prof. Booty had been by(yeah, yeah, I'm a guy; deal with it) and found note of this at Mark Tapscott's place, noting a possible connection to the terrorist arrests in Italy. You know, the ones where the clowns were planning to bomb, among other things, stadiums? The arrests that several people have noted the major media has taken damn little to no notice of?

We've been assured by various officious- that is, official people that he was just a lonely kid who decided to end it all. Problem is, all the bits and pieces don't add up to that. Add this into the mix, and it becomes even more worrying.

And no, I don't trust the officials who said not to worry; they've lied too many times before.

Ok, I started out not liking Swimmer Kennedy,

but the pieces of the Alito hearings I listened to were kind of painful. Whatever he may have once been(and I've never been fond of him), he's become a great big damn joke. I'd say the only joke bigger is the people in MA who keep reelecting him, but that they do is pretty damn scary. I'd have to agree with Rush on this, some of the idiot things he came up with were from notes handed to him by a staffer who got them from some raving left-wing type without bothering to check them out. Either that, or his brain is flat gone. One's stupid, the other's pitiful. And he's pretty well both nowadays.

Biden? I don't hate him(hell, I don't think I've ever actually hated anybody), but I despise him. This just reinforced that.

Feinstein I also despise; at least she didn't make a point of showing her ass to buy votes from her moonbats back home. Though asking a judge to say how he'd rule on a future case... she's GOT to know that no capable judge would do it. And unless her staff is completely stupid, she knows he's capable.

Blah.

Additional: found this over at Rob's place:
"Times change. Two new verbs may emerge from the Alito hearings. Consider “To teddy.” A working definition might be “to decay like Dorian Gray, except do so during live, televised Senate hearings.”

Biden may yet become a verb. “To biden”: to shoot onself in one’s own foot using one’s own mouth."--- austin bay

Carnival #43, the Zombie Edition!

Lots of tips on dealing with zombies, the the poor souls and idiots whose brains have already been eaten. Go here, quickly!

I dislike pain

Especially back. Yeah, while screwing around with the chipper & yardwork yesterday I pulled something, badly enough that I stayed home today. Better this evening.

I took the time to work on repairing my favorite pocket knife. It's a CRKT lockblade marked 'Mirage' on the blade; half-serrated blade and pocket clip. Discontinued, of course. Problem was the two screws at the pommel end that hold the scales on; they fell out a little over a year ago, and I found replacements, but these somehow stripped their threads on the one scale. No, I don't know how, I put them in with threadlocker and aside from checking them every once in a while have not put a lot of torque on them.

What I wound up doing was a: find some screws that would work, b: drill out the hole on one scale and the liner plates to fit the screw, c: drill out the threaded scale a little smaller than the new screw and use one of them suitably modified, to cut new threads, d: profile the head of the new screw to fit in nicely, e: cut that screw to length and finish the end, f: install it with threadlocker.

I only did one of the two; the drill bit that fit the purpose died while trying to drill the liner for the second. So there's one new screw, and I'll do the other later when I can get a new bit.

Just another day in my whirlwind life.

Well, I share some attitudes with Chris.

Surprise, surprise. You can take the test here

Curvy and Naughty Raw score: 70% Big Breasts, 72% Big Ass, and 56% Cute!

Thanks for taking the T and A and C test! Based on your selections, the results are clear: you show an attraction to larger breasts, larger asses, and sexier composures than others who've taken the test. Note that you like women overall curvier than average. My third variable, "cuteness" is a mostly objective measure of how innocent a given model looked. It's determined by a combination of a lot of factors: lack of dark eye makeup, facial expression, posture, etc. If you scored high on that variable, you are either really nice OR you're into deflowering teens. If you scored low, you are attracted to raunchier, sexier, women. In your case, your lower than average score suggests you appreciate a sexier, naughtier look. Kudos! Recommended Celebrities: Supermodel Laetitia Casta and Actress Angelina Jolie.

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 81% on tit-size You scored higher than 90% on ass-size You scored higher than 57% on cuteness

Link: The Tits, Ass, and Cuteness Test written by chicken_pot_pie on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

If his mouth is the only thing in the way, we're really in trouble

Joe Biden, that is. Senator Joe Biden(musn't forget the title, he'll get the vapors). Was over at Instapundit and found this article with the title Loose Lips Sink..., subtitle Biden's Leadership Is Lost in All His Talk. Ok so far, it's about Biden huffing and blowing at the Alito("the humorless Supreme Court nominee") hearings. Read it through, and my first thought is that if Cohen thinks his mouth and not his record is the 'only' thing in the way of his becoming president...

"Biden occupies the sensible center of the Democratic Party", hmm? Evidence is his support of the AWB and his "centrist--and defensible-- position" on the war. Ok, the AWB was, by the admission of the people at the Violence Policy Center and other groups who pushed it, worthless as far as cutting crime; it mainly served to help demonize 'assault weapons' and get people use to the idea of a ban on types of firearms 'for the common good'. And Biden, as I recall, hasn't met a gun ban, restriction, tax or licensing scheme that he didn't vote for. And his 'centrist' position on the war has consisted of loudly criticizing and bitching and moaning, and not having the guts to actually vote to cut and run. Maybe these things are the 'sensible center' of the Democrat party now, but it doesn't fly real well with an awful lot of people.

And I've got to take note of this: "But even before that vote, Biden was urging President Bush to seek international support for the Iraq effort, not to move precipitously, and to have a postwar plan. Bush, listening to you-know-who, did what the voices told him." This is so much bullshit it's amazing. I guess wasting all that time at the U.N. asking them to actually, you know, enforce the U.N. measures doesn't count. And the 'postwar plan' crap; "He didn't know beforehand exactly what he'd do when, so he shouldn't have done anything". And we have the obligatory "Bush talks to God" knock("The President listens to voices, obviously he's insane"). Cohen is a jackass.

He does take note that part of Biden's problem is how long he's been in the Senate, and that he's come to think "...that he and his colleagues are the center of the world." You think maybe? Cohen thinks the seniority his time there confers is one of his good points. I'd argue that it's one of his problems. We've got far too many people in the Senate and House both who think that having 'Senator' or 'Representative' as their job title means they're far above the common scum they rule. And far too many of them DO think they 'rule', or should.

Ending with this: "Biden ran for president once before -- and then, too, his mouth went off on its own. (In 1988, his stump speech was perilously similar to the one used by Neil Kinnock, Britain's Labor Party leader.) This time seems no different, except the loss is greater. Foreign policy, Biden's specialty, is the number one issue. He has much to say -- and then too much to add. He is an anatomical disaster. His Achilles' heel is his mouth." If I remember right, "perilously similar" meant he actually took whole sections for his own. And if foreign policy would suffer from Biden not being in the Oval Office, bring on the suffering.