Random Ramblings of a Republitarian

Gun Safety

2009-01-25T20:30:00.000-08:00

Today, while I was trying to explain that the most important safety is between your ears, a nearby woman exclaimed that she didn't want to hear any of that crap, because she'd had a husband who shot himself in the hand, and he knew about guns. It took 9 surgeries to get his hand fixed, and no matter how safe you are, you need as many safeties as you can get.

I held my tongue, though I wanted to ask her whether he pulled the trigger with the muzzle pointed toward something he wasn't willing to destroy. I knew the answer, of course, and she would not have been pleased to provide it.

How many safety devices would it take to keep that gun from going off? Just one--keeping the finger off the trigger. No grip safety, trigger safety, or manual safety work to prevent misuse.

Sure, buy a gun with several safeties. It won't hurt anything, and you might just feel better. Or buy one without so many extras. It'll work, too. Just remember to point it safely, keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, etc.

Libertarianism

2009-01-23T19:58:00.000-08:00

I don't know why it still surprises me to be met with disdain just about every time I call myself a libertarian. If it weren't for our insistence on sticking with two parties, it might not carry such a stigma, since it's largely comprised of principles almost everyone would like applied to themselves.
Of course, the Republicans think of Libertarians as lost votes, and Democrats see libertarianism as conservatism. Conservatives dislike ideas like drug legalization, and liberals dislike free capitalism.
Oddly, though, I've heard people claim such bizarre things as libertarianism being anti-freedom, which confuses me. Often, people don't understand libertarianism. Here's a very simplistic rundown:

People should be free to do as they wish, so long as they do not hurt others.
People should be allowed to amass as much wealth as they'd like, and they should be allowed to trade it freely.
If someone uses force or threat of force to take from others (be it life, liberty, or property that is being taken), responding with force is justifiable. Otherwise, it is not.

Yeah, I know it's far from thorough, but I'm often made fun of for my somewhat verbose explanations, so I'm going to leave it at that for now. Besides, most of my possible readers are probably familiar with libertarianism.

A trade?

2009-01-17T21:51:00.001-08:00

A coworker has offered me an interesting trade recently--he has a Smith and Wesson MP15 with a detatchable carry handle for my FN Five-Seven. On the one hand, I don't have an AR, but the Five-Seven is harder to replace. The values are approximately the same, and it's really a fair trade. I have been considering an AR, but I haven't considered getting rid of the FN.
It WOULD cut down on the number of calibers I keep on hand, but it would also rid me of an amazing little gun that I do enjoy and would like to have in a SHTF situation.
The funny thing is that the coworker just bought the S&W, hasn't fired it, and could theoretically have purchased an FN instead.
I'm not going to make the trade, though I'll admit I was tempted.

Bar fights

2009-01-10T18:34:00.001-08:00

While there's a lot that I do not (and will never) fully understand about people, one thing in particular has been bothering me of late. Why do people seem to want to get into bar fights?

Lately, I've been trying to get out more, and I've been spending time at a kind of divish karaoke bar. They have a pool table, and I spend a bit of time figuring out how to play pool (the geometry is easy enough--it's the actual performance aspect I just can't get down). Seems there are some people who want to fight over their turn in line or something that goes down during a non-betting game. Even those things are almost understandable, when compared to the people who want to fight over a pool cue pointed at them or something they saw while not playing.

Bar fights are stupid for a number of reasons--you may not be welcome in the bar afterward; arrest chances increase in a bar; you never know who'll pull what; you can't always be sure who'll be on which side; while your reflexes are almost certainly impaired, not everyone has had as much as you (or, sometimes, any). There are other reasons, but bar fights are pretty stupid, at least around here.

Also, shattering a glass over someone's head may seem like a good idea, but you will end up cutting yourself and being charged with aggravated assault. Pick something more defensive, if available, and you'll do a lot better.

In any case, please don't fight in my bar. It ruins my good time. Thanks.

A goal of writing for 2009

2009-01-04T01:19:00.000-08:00

Yeah, it's been a long time since I've posted. This year, I'm going to try to write at least:
1 blog post per week
1 attempted poem per week
1 page of fiction each month
1 letter or electronic letter (no, short, pointed emails won't count) per month.

Yeah, I'm aware that I'm making a promise I haven't even come close to last year, and I know that a Christmas season of retail (again) and a computer that decided it's done really don't count as reasonable excuses, but we'll see if I can keep this up at least for a while. And I am counting this post as part of what is technically last week, so I'll have a real post this upcoming week, as well.

Blogging will remain sparse...

2008-10-04T21:44:00.000-07:00

At work, they've decided to offer the "opportunity" for overtime. Translation: "We'll pay you overtime, just as long as you bail our asses out of the tight spot we've created by not hiring enough people." A stubborn, childish part of me wants to tell them to go screw themselves and refuse to work extra time. Another part of me, though, needs the money because the pay is terrible.

My boss has also decided that the behind-the-scenes work that keeps things going is not important enough for the overtime. He told me that the overtime should be spent working directly with the customers, not helping with the things that keep the feds from shutting us down. Now, I am well aware that poor customer reviews will hurt us, but they can't shut us down.

And those of us getting tired of working for peanuts aren't being offered a raise, just this temporary overtime. If only we weren't hurting financially, we might be able to refuse the extra time on principle. Then, they might actually see what we're worth.

But I doubt it.

In short, sorry I haven't been blogging. It'll stay sparse until we get a few more people hired again. Assuming we don't continue hemorrhaging employees at the pace we have been.

Self-censorship

2008-09-29T16:33:00.000-07:00

Recently, I've been thinking about the possibility that potential employers might find the things I've written and judge me by them. This is a very real possibility, especially considering the possibility I'll soon be applying to the Teach for America program. Now, the things that they'll find with my last name attached are mostly political articles, some Facebook stuff, and a couple things from high school athletics. And the things that have my full first name aren't even attached to me, mostly. I'm not horribly concerned, but the thought of censoring myself for the sake of a career sickens me a bit.

Of course, many career choices bother me, as well. I don't like a job that has no variety, nor one that seems futile. I dislike the idea of going to work for someone else every day, never getting ahead, never doing anything the way I want to. I like freedom, change, and meaning, and those sometimes seem so rare that combining them seems impossible. In a way, the reason I dislike self-censorship is because I know it only leads to doing things for someone else, in their way, every futile day.

Over at xkcd, there's a pretty good commentary on the subject of self-censorship, and I think it'll do better than I would for saying everything else I'd like to say on the subject:

Linguistic entropy

2008-09-23T22:18:00.000-07:00

Please, for the good of future generations, do not allow encourage the decline of the English language. Broaden your vocabulary, don't succumb to texting abbreviations, and learn to use semicolons correctly.

You may wonder why I would suddenly rant about the ever-deteriorating state of the common vernacular. Well, the laws of entropy should not apply to language. It is not a closed system. Also, a collapse of language is a collapse of intellect. If you can no longer communicate ideas, you can no longer test them, and you end up with fewer and fewer valid hypotheses.

Of course, those are the distal causes. What, you ask, is the proximal cause? (Okay, so you may have used the term "immediate" or the phrase "this time," but that's just splitting hairs.)

At work, I recently had to explain what I meant when I used the term "infeasible" (not the first word I've had to define, just the most recent). I thought it was funny to define it as "not feasible." I then tried using "viable" in my definition, and finally had to sum it up as "not readily possible or practical." This particular college student told me that I was only causing myself problems when I use "big words." I told her that she shouldn't mind expanding her vocabulary. She seems vocally opposed to such a practice, which baffles me.

People are actively choosing to regress, be it in the consistently lacking spelling and grammar on these vast interwebs, the texting madness, or deciding to actively oppose expanded vocabulary. We are pushing ourselves toward Orwellian Newspeak. Of course, I'm guessing that Newspeak doesn't factor all that prominently into the Cliffnotes, and that's most of the Orwell reading of these opponents of intelligent discourse.

To put it into the terminology we seem to be heading toward, this is double-plus ungood.

Stem cell ads

2008-09-17T20:17:00.000-07:00

Gregoire's newest ad points out that Rossi is against embryonic stem cell research. A man with Parkinson's tells us his hope lies with embryonic stem cell research, and he couldn't vote for someone against it.

Of course, no one mentions adult stem cells or the progress made with them. Nobody mentions how uncontrollable the embryonic stem cells have been thus far. But, then, why would they? It's not about help, but political gain. Has Gregoire done anything to promote stem cell research? Will Rossi ban it? No, it's a non-issue. But it's an issue you can get people excited about.

I guess it's just easier. And it may be more effective than talk about balancing budgets. After all, people seem to forget whose pockets the government's money comes from.

Tangible investments

2008-09-17T18:21:00.000-07:00

On the radio today, they started talking about investing in a turbulent time. One of them pointed out that those wishing to invest in gold should get the actual gold, rather than certificates. The other two were astounded by this. They didn't know why anyone would want to invest in gold, though they did recognize that paper promises could be rendered meaningless. They wanted to know about buying gold bars and the sort of people who buy gold.

Investing in tangibles is a safe route, for the most part. Gold and silver have value that isn't linked to the performance of any particular economy. They tend to go up in value, rather than losing value to inflation. Governments can't just print more gold or silver. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you should convert your savings to gold bars. No, investing in some gold coins gives you some wealth that'll still be there if the dollar (or other currency of your choice) bottoms out.

The only way gold will be worthless is if we end up in a situation where survival is the only priority. Gold, at that point, will be heavy metal that has little use. Hopefully, though, you have some investments that are of more use. Guns, ammo, tools, food, and other supplies with inherent utility are going to be the only things with value in a survival-based society. But once things calm down, gold will almost invariably be a standard of wealth again. And, hey, if you had enough of the necessities, you probably got some gold for almost nothing during the bad times.

Yep, tangibles are nice.

Election options...

2008-09-14T19:03:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been thinking about the options in this election. McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate makes him almost palatable as a candidate. Obama and Biden, of course, are not an option for me, and I can't stomach Barr, even with Paul on the ticket.

I've heard people encouraging Libertarian votes simply for national recognition, but I don't think I can vote Barr. I've even heard rumors of a write-in campaign for Galt. Yes, John Galt, the fictional character who led Rand's strike of the mind.

Still others are choosing not to vote to protest the lousy choices. Of course, that'll be considered voter apathy when everything's tallied, and it won't make any sort of actual statement. At least the John Galt write-ins will be seen, if only by those tallying votes. If enough votes are cast, those who know who John Galt is will at least hear that some people made a statement. Whoever is elected, though, will still be elected.

Sure, things look pretty bleak, but you have to decide whether to speak to that or attempt to choose the lesser of two evils. Hell, if we had a good write-in campaign for Cthulhu, we might be able to show just how evil the lesser evil seems, or at least how ridiculous it is that we feel forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

I can't tell you how to vote, nor am I willing to tell you how I'm voting. You vote how you think you should, and I'll vote how I think I should. Or something like that.

Denial

2008-09-12T22:16:00.000-07:00

I had an odd experience with a customer's answers on a 4473 today.

A fellow employee came to me and asked for some help, since he had a customer who'd answered some questions in a way that would prevent the sale. As I got to the customer, he was filling out the state pistol application, so I turned to the 4473. I immediately stopped the man, who was a bit confused. I told him that we would be forced to deny the sale.

He asked me why, explaining that he must not have kept up with gun laws as of late. I pointed out the first disqualifying answer: he said he had been convicted of a felony. He said that he understood it, and he had been convicted. I asked whether he'd had his record expunged. He said he was now eligible, but hadn't gotten around to it yet.

Well, I explained to him that it would be in his best interests to get his record expunged, and I moved on to the next problem.

I pointed out that he'd claimed that he had been adjudicated mentally defective, and I said that it might also go away if it was related. He said that it was separate, but it was against his will. I told him that being committed against his will is something that I couldn't really tell him how to remove from his record. I suggested he check with the courthouse.

Finally, I arrived at his third and final disqualifying answer. I asked whether the domestic violence may have been related to either of the other problems, but he said that it was even older. I suggested he try to get that expunged as well.

He then asked why these were disqualifying him from purchasing a black powder revolver. I explained that our state no longer differentiates between cartridge handgun and powder handgun. He told me that his relative was also a felon and hunted black powder. I explained that our particular company was playing it safe and applying the fairly recent change in handgun law to long guns, as well, and some places might not. I encouraged him to check with a game warden and find out his options.

He may've gone to buy a bow. He was probably the nicest person ever about his denial, and was extremely grateful for my patient explanations, which astounded me.

Of course, if I had it my way, anyone allowed to interact with the public without a custodian present should be allowed the rights afforded everyone, especially given that those rights are preexisting.

2008-09-11T23:13:00.000-07:00

So far, the Large Hadron Collider has not caused the end of the world. It has, however, inspired quite the amusing rap.

9/11

2008-09-11T22:37:00.000-07:00

A few of my customers were surprised to realize that today was 9/11. It's been seven years, and we no longer hear as many reminders, which is natural. How many people remember the anniversary of Pearl Harbor's bombing? As time passes, memories fade.

But seven years is a far cry from ancient history. People can easily recall, if reminded, the images of the billowing smoke, the people jumping, and the collapse of the towers. People can easily recall the anger they felt that some terrorists with box cutters were able to wreak such destruction.

The anger and hurt may not be as fresh, but the memories can awaken them. The main problem is finding a clear target for that rage. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, there were clear sides. The Germans and Japanese were our enemies. This attack left us with terrorists as our enemies. Terrorism has no city, no country, no convenient target. It's hard to keep people angry at a nebulous group such as "terrorists."

Now, I don't pretend to have a solution. Terrorism is a difficult target. I just ask that people try to remember what was done. And remember that we don't want it to happen again.

Mechanical Bull Stalker

2008-09-10T20:44:00.000-07:00

Per Hammer's suggestion, I figure I'd better tell the mechanical bull stalker story in its entirety.

For a period of time, I was a regular at a bar that had a mechanical bull a couple nights a week. The drinks were priced fairly and the bar staff learned who I was and my drinks: Long Island, Killer Kool-Aid, Absolut double screwdriver, and then we go from there. But this isn't really overly relevant.

The bar had ladies night every Friday, which included the bull, a DJ, and free cover for the ladies. Well, I started realizing that some of the girls liked to root for me when I rode the bull, and it made for a decent conversation start. (For those who might not have guessed, I'm not really all that good with the ladies, so I need all the help I can get.) After enough alcohol, it didn't even hurt all that badly. (Yeah, I know...it's not a real bull by any means, but the guy running the thing can really make that thing go if he wants to, and it can hurt.)

Well, one Friday, the DJ held a bull-riding contest. Everyone who wanted to participate gave the DJ their names, and the bull was to be turned to full speed immediately. The goal, of course, was eight seconds, but no one was expected to meet that lofty goal in this bar.

Considering the DJ knew me and he normally played hip-hop, I asked him to play something country for my ride. Of course, he made a big announcement about how he was playing it per my request and that I was the regular bullrider in the bunch. This, of course, increased expectations.

I lasted about two seconds, which was disappointing, but still longer than anyone else. The DJ declared me the winner and I won a free drink. Now, I was probably a little beyond the point that I needed another drink, but I'm not gonna pass up another double screwdriver. I'm up at the bar getting said drink, when a girl who's starting to look a little attractive walks up to order. While I still had enough of my wits about me to know that she wasn't fantastic when she walked in, so I didn't really flirt or anything. I just warned her not to impale her hand on the receipt nail, which she found really amusing.

Well, I continued to hang out for awhile, but decide that I'd better go before it gets too close to closing time. The hand-impale girl and her friends happened to leave at the same time, and I heard her yell, "Good night, Drew!" Thrown off-guard, I responded "Well, I guess I'm at a disadvantage, since you know my name, and I don't know yours." She introduced herself as Brenda, mentioned that she got my name from the bullriding and told me that she'd probably be back and asked if I would be. Since it was obvious I was a regular, I didn't deny it.

I figured that I might see her there again, but I wasn't overly worried. Well, one day I hopped onto MySpace and had a new friend request. From Brenda. She had learned my FIRST name from the bullriding contest, gone onto MySpace, and looked for people based on the bar. Considering I think I was in a different zip code than the bar, I've wondered quite a bit how large a geographic area she had checked.

More disturbing, though, might've been the fact that she had no friends on MySpace. It appeared that she had made the account just to find me...

Now, I had been forcibly acquainted with internet stalking before, so you'd think I would've learned not to have too much info on MySpace. She found my AOL Instant Messenger screenname, though, and managed to be on whenever I was. Now, I try not to be too blunt sometimes, so I would talk to her, but avoid going to her place or meeting her anywhere.

One day, she told me that she'd been divorced and asked whether that would be a problem. Well, I tried to explain to her that I had no problem with anything she'd done, since it did not affect me at all. I tried to explain that we were not, in fact, starting any sort of relationship, but she was having none of that. Finally, I started avoiding her.

Before I started ignoring her, her MySpace had gained a friend or two. They disappeared. THen most of the pictures. Then the profile. And I never heard from her again.

I believe that she was my final internet stalker, and that's been alright. But I don't think I changed my habits online.

Yep. I don't learn and I attract the strangest sorts of people.

Sentence meme

2008-09-09T22:45:00.000-07:00

You finish the first part of the sentence in red with your own unique response. I stole it from Hammer.

1. My uncle once caught me being fairly unsafe at the lake with his kid.

2. Never in my life have I been to another continent.

3. When I was five I had taught myself to read, I'm told.

4. High school was worthless, but I miss football and wrestling.

5. I will never forget to lock my doors.

6. Once I met a fairly famous musician who was a decent guy (John Nolan).

7. There’s this boy I know who is a bit more than I can put up with.

8. Once, at a bar, I won a mechanical bull-riding contest and apparently earned a stalker in addition to my free drink.

9. By noon, I often feel like I could use a drink if I'm going to continue dealing with people.

10. Last night I was at my parents' house, kept awake by the pets.

11. If only I had a better job, I might stop my recent tooth-grinding.

12. Next time I go to church, I'll realize why it's been so long.

13. What worries me most is the theft of individual rights.

14. When I turn my head left I see a wall.

15. When I turn my head right I see the television.

16. You know I’m lying when I say, "I enjoy my job."

17. What I miss most about the Eighties is the cartoons. Yeah, so I'm a youngster.

18. If I were a character in Shakespeare it would be some minor role. Shakespearean ways are not my ways.

19. By this time next year I damn well better be making more money.

20. A better name for me would be David, I guess. A lot of people seem to mistake me for one.

21. I have a hard time understanding why people are so stupid and dependent.

22. If I ever go back to school, I'll get at least enough education to teach at the college level, I think.

23. You know I like you if you aren't stupid.

24. If I ever won an award, the first person I would thank would be the person who helped me the most toward earning said award.

25. Take my advice, don't take a break in the middle of your education.

Craigslist shot someone? Oh, wait, no...

2008-09-06T09:26:00.000-07:00

Last I checked, Craigslist doesn't allow firearms to be sold on its site. That's one of the reasons I don't have too much use for it. What I don't understand is why this guy is suing them for allegedly hosting an ad that sold a gun he was shot with.

Even if the ad lasted long enough on Craigslist for the gun to be sold, it violated their terms of service. Also, if you were hit by a drunk driver whose car came from Craigslist, you'd have no suit. But this similar misuse is worth a ten million dollar lawsuit?

The only person at fault here is the shooter. You could try to make the argument that the seller knew he was prohibited, but it would be a hard sell.

I can only hope that this suit gets a decent jury. If this guy wins any damages from Craigslist, it'll be bad juju for anyone who will actually allow gun ads.

More on jury rights

2008-09-05T22:24:00.000-07:00

It's easy to see why people are misinformed about jury rights. Judges instruct juries very carefully, avoiding mention of such practices as jury nullification. People passing out pamphlets to would-be jurors are arrested and charged with jury tampering. TV, books, and movies show juries following these orders, but having the tough decision as to whether the evidence is strong enough. And, of course, we've tried to develop such a sense of deference to authority, no one wants to stick their neck out in the courtroom.

Judges and lawyers alike hate jury nullification, because it's a wild card. They don't like juries to do anything like declare a law unjust. They want a jury to weigh the evidence and decide whether they believe the law was broken by the defendant, whether they believe the law is just or unjust.

Other than just the evasion of the subject of jury nullification, judges often choose which evidence juries may or may not hear, as well as which arguments will be allowed. For example, gun cases aren't generally argued on a Second Amendment basis, mostly because judges get squeamish about juries deciding the Constitutionality of a law.

Juror selection, too, involves attempts to avoid jury nullification. Someone well-informed of their rights as a juror is generally not chosen, because they'll tell other jurors. If a jury knows their rights, they might exercise them.

As with any right, a right you don't know is a right you don't exercise. And a right unexercised is lost. Read up on your rights sometime.

Jury Rights Day

2008-09-05T12:10:00.000-07:00

I remember thinking as a kid that jury trials were a little odd, since the jury would be swayed by arguments other than the law. Well, I looked into it, and I began to understand. Jury nullification is an important part of our legal system, though many judges abhor it.

Today is Jury Rights Day, the anniversary of William Penn's jury refusing to convict him for preaching a Quaker sermon. The judge refused to let the jurors read the law themselves, as judges like to do, and the jury decided that they could not, therefore, find him guilty.

The jury was denied food and water, then thrown in jail, but they did not relent.

I just wish more jurors were informed.

(I may blog a little more on this subject after work.)

Gun owner for Obama, huh?

2008-09-05T01:05:00.000-07:00

Letters from people who feel the need to point out that they are gun owners are often unsettling.

"To the best of my Internet research, that kind of attack on Obama's "Second Amendment" position is too extreme for even the National Rifle Association." Well, I'd almost have to agree with you there, given the ratings they like to dole out like candy to undeserving politicians.

"The NRA has, admittedly, created its scary profile of Obama's position from the people who support him (guilt by association) and his voting record." And they were supposed to use his empty promises, instead? If there are two ways to predict a politician's moves, it's to look at what he might do to pander to his supporters and look at what he's done in the past. And, when those two intersect, you find that it's not difficult to make predictions.

"It has extrapolated, from any indication contrary to their wishes, that Obama wishes gun owners total harm." Well, if you're looking to ban "assault weapons," make it harder to purchase guns, or keep people from selling their privately owned guns, you DO wish us total harm. Every step is a step toward total disarmament. We have far too many gun laws now.

"But, then, their 'official' articles qualify (as I paraphrase): 'Well, he must believe that, because some of those damn liberals we fear most believe that.'" Again, it's more like this: "He's forced to believe that, since his support base wants him to." Also, you seem to have stopped talking about his voting record, which shows that he's more than willing to vote against gun owners.

"The NRA doesn't like Obama's voting record." Oh, you brought that back up. Yeah, it's too bad they seem to forget McCain's record, but of course they don't like Obama's record.

"The NRA has set their first line of defense so far forward of any noticeable effect on law-abiding gun owners, that their hair trigger goes of at any mention of 'law' and 'gun.'" Actually, if you've been keeping score at home, you should know that the NRA is often stepping forward to promote laws contrary to their purpose. We've seen them push for stricter mental health guidelines (which would disqualify many a vet, or caused them to avoid psychiatric treatment they would need). We've heard them promote victim-disarmament school zones. They are not nearly as hard-line as, say, the JPFO. Or myself.

"It's classic paranoia." Hmm...every time a gun law's passed, it adds another restriction against the right to bear arms. Therefore, we should embrace them? This is like saying that it's paranoid to avoid sticking your hand in a fire. It might not burn this time, right?

"According to the candidate, himself, 'Barack Obama ... recognizes the great conservation legacy of America's hunters and anglers and has great respect for the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport.'" What about self-defense, homeland defense, target shooting, or home defense? What about resisting tyranny? Oh, yeah, and whatever happened to judging someone not by their words, but by their actions? Tell you what, I'll punch you several times, then tell you that I'm a peaceful and non-aggressive man. Then I'll draw my fist back again. If I did this, would you expect another punch, or my newfound peaceful self?

"Will the NRA believe Obama's moderation on the issue?" I hope not. Also, I believe that your "moderation" is still in direct violation of the Constitution. Both in the President's scope of powers and in the right to keep and bear arms. This brand of "moderation" means taking away my rights.

"Paranoiacs don't believe anything that doesn't fit their dark fantasies." And optimists don't believe anything that fits their bright ones. Obama's record, his party, his running mate, and his voters all seem to line up with my "dark fantasies," though, so I think the sun in your mind's eye has a blinding effect.

"So, they inflame rather than inform." First, the NRA is hardly expected to provide a simple, objective look at the facts. Like your letter, they editorialize. Secondly, in this case, the information is enough to inflame. Finally, it is sometimes better to inflame. An unmotivated man is apathetic, while a motivated man will work for his cause. You sometimes need to motivate. In this case, too much gushing talk is heard about Obama, and we need to let the people see the reality to motivate them to disbelieve his lies.

"No one is coming to rural Oregon to take away your gun." No, not yet. They'll expect you to come turn it in. They want you to beg them to take it. After all, they'll only have your best interests in mind, right? When they come to take your gun, they'll want more than that. After all, you will have been a disobedient little servant, and you might be telling others, too.

"I'm a gun owner." You might be the guy with a shotgun OR a rifle, but certainly not both, since that's only for us crazies. Or you might be one of the folks who pretends to be a gun owner to attempt to gain trust. In any case, you are, at best, a gun owner that has not yet felt freedom slipping away.

"I once enjoyed shooting up many rounds of free government ammunition as part of an NRA program." The civilian marksmanship program, huh? And it's funny how this seems almost like it was eons ago when you last shot. The point of the program, which you missed, was to keep the armed citizenry prepared, not for hunting, but for the possibility of defending against tyranny from home or abroad.

"American Rifleman comes to our family post office box." Yeah, it's hard to get the NRA to quit sending stuff, huh?

"And, you can tell, I'm not afraid of reasonable gun laws." By this, you of course mean the ones that don't yet affect you. You probably don't own handguns, "assault weapons," or more than one or two guns. You probably don't realize that a hunting rifle could be considered a "high-powered sniper rifle," or that the shotgun might be banned due to the inability to do ballistics matching. Yeah, they can come up with justification for anything, but they'll wait until they've almost completely disarmed the public before they attempt a full-on ban on firearms.

"I am afraid that polarizing nonsense like this 'ten-point' fabrication will let the ballistophobes paint legitimate gun owners as lunatics." Ah, the old "we'll look like lunatics" tactic. Except that no one's advocating rebellion (well, no one writing for the NRA, at least, no matter how much it might be necessary in the not-too-distant future). All they did was tell their members what Obama might mean for gun owners, based on his past actions and his present supporters (many of whom expect favors in exchange for their support). That's not a lunatic move, and it is almost impossible to pretend it might be.

"Then you could have really oppressive legislation." That's always the scare tactic: don't stand up to the inch-by-inch assault, or they might try for yards at a time (which, you might note, is the exact opposite of the old addage "give an inch and he'll take a mile"). You realize, though, that consistent inches make for consistent yards. If those who try to write these laws try something big, then maybe the gun owners will finally see that they can't just worry about the guns they like. Giving inches is worse than defending yards. Hell, we should be retaking some of those inches, feet, and yards we've already let them take.

Arsenal?

2008-09-03T23:44:00.000-07:00

A story like this disturbs me.

'''Police hit the jackpot. I stopped counting after 18 shotguns,' Prewitt said Tuesday morning from the driveway of her Iona Avenue home." Shotguns, last I checked, are perfectly legal. And there is no limit to them, either.

"Prewitt said she watched as officers also confiscated what she described as grenades from the home of Benjamin B. Terril, 50, a Buchtel High School science teacher." Grenades? I love the sensationalized reporting here. Somebody getting jumpy over shotguns thinks she sees grenades, and the reporter jumps all over it.

"Terril is in the Summit County Jail on charges of possessing explosive materials, carrying a concealed weapon, having weapons under disability and drug abuse." A science teacher is bound to have "explosive materials." Heck, every household probably has some chemicals that we could classify as explosive. And someone with a lot of guns is likely to have reloading components. I don't know the state laws there, but it sounds as though he was on his property, so the concealed weapon charge is ridiculous. Not that I think there should be any restrictions, but I don't think that a weapon on one's person is illegal on a person's own property. The "weapons under disability" charge is where they start to have something, though it's disgusting that it is possible. The problem, though, is that a teaching background check would've probably kept anyone legally ineligible for a gun from teaching. And the drug abuse is mentioned without any possession charge, which really makes you wonder.

"Police spokesman Lt. Rick Edwards said Akron police received an anonymous call around 7:45 p.m. Monday, reporting Terril and another man were arguing and pointing guns at each other. Police said both men appeared to be intoxicated." I always love "anonymous tips," since they can be used to justify just about anything. Later in the article, we're told the gun was found in his pocket, not his hand. And the other man isn't mentioned again. Makes a person wonder about some of the facts.

"Terril gave officers permission to search his home, where they said they found an 'arsenal of weapons' and an array of explosive material." "Arsenal," huh? And "array?" These are relative terms, and we're given no basis on which to judge them.

"A half-dozen empty beer cans, a plastic bag of fruit, two crumpled dollar bills and another 78 cents in change were strewn across the front porch of Terril's home Tuesday morning." Beer, fruit, and pocket change are hardly evidence of anything, and the fact that they were there Tuesday morning may only be a testament to the search. Cops tend to make a bit of a mess.

''I was surprised and shocked. You have to wonder what he was up to. It looks like he was getting ready for World War III,'' Again, we hear from the panicky neighbor. Hell, I probably have a neighbor or two who'd say the same about my "arsenal."

'''Ben was always a good guy who kept to himself,' said Swaidner. He said he had no idea that there were so many weapons in the house." A good man with guns is not problematic. Nor is he criminal.

"Akron schools Superintendent David James said Terril, a teacher in the district since 1996, has been placed on paid administrative leave while the case is under investigation." And the school is out a teacher.

"It then goes through their Office of Professional Conduct and they will determine whether that person will be able to retain their teaching license." And we can guess what they'll say. I hope they don't, but I'm guessing they'll strip him of his license.

"'My biggest concern is that that person is not around our kids,' James said." Yeah, he might teach them to be self-sufficient and free...we can't have that.

"In 1992, Terril was arrested in Stark County for carrying a concealed weapon — a felony — and driving while intoxicated, a first-degree misdemeanor, according to court records." And he ended up pleaing no contest in the DWI and not guilty on the weapon. Not a big issue, as far as I can tell. He also attended the court-mandated course. We're done, then.

We're then told that he said he'd never been convicted of anything more than a minor traffic violation, which a criminal record check backed up. And we're then supposed to believe he's a horrible person.

"According to the resume in Terril's personnel file, he served in the U.S. Army from 1975 to 1991 and achieved the rank of captain. He graduated from the University of Akron in 1996 with a bachelor of science degree in secondary education and was certified to teach science and biology." A former military man who owns guns. No surprise there. And he is a science teacher. Nothing big and scary about any of it.

Sure, there may be more to this than we're told, but it really sounds like he made a mistake inviting the cops in, and it sounds like there's a lot of hype here. I wonder which, if any, charges the DA will actually pursue.

Reasonable? McCain? In the same sentence?

2008-09-03T11:07:00.000-07:00

People seem so willing to believe McCain...

"All of Obama's big-name supporters are anti-Second Amendment activists like Mayors Daley of Chicago and Bloomberg of New York." Yes, we know that Obama is anti-gun, but why should we vote McCain?

"On the other hand, Sen. John McCain met with the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre and pledged to support the Second Amendment and to appoint conservative judges to the courts whenever he has the opportunity." Oh, I see. Because he backpedals just enough to get some face time with LaPierre (who is more than willing to gut the Second Amendment himself), we're supposed to believe he won't keep trying to keep private sellers out of gun shows, and we're supposed to ignore his previous votes (only 4 of 15 were on our side, according to GOA).

"McCain's views are much more reasonable and just one reason I support him fully. I urge others to do so." I cannot, in good conscience, support McCain, nor even call his views "reasonable."

On the other hand, some people are paying attention and urging others to do so.

New acquisition

2008-09-01T18:17:00.000-07:00

A few people told me to be wary of a recent purchase. They looked at the gun and figured it might be unsafe to fire. Of course, they had their reasons to doubt.

The barrel is a bit rusty...
It's not pretty, but it'll send shot downrange.

The receiver, too, has some cosmetic problems:

And the buttplate is a bit banged-up:
The parts may be crap, but you put it all together, and you've got a Firefly...erm, I mean, you have a Beretta AL2. (Sorry...I couldn't resist abusing a Firefly quote.)
And, really, for a $35 shotgun, it's pretty amazing.

It's kind of a funny story, too. A guy sold it to the Gun Library, and they gave him $25, since neither he nor they could put it together (they only bought it because he was selling several guns all at the same time). One of the guys then offered me the gun for $35 if I could put it together. I looked at it for a second, flipped one part around, and had it together in a moment. He cursed a bit, but there'd been witnesses to the promise, so I got it for $35. The wood's in good condition, everything is definitely functional, and a little work'll even make it look pretty decent.

Fixed choke, 3" capable, and semi-auto. I wasn't looking for it, but I definitely got a good gun.

Bringing up Columbine?

2008-08-29T18:22:00.000-07:00

Those who would take our guns are still bringing up Columbine.

"We are nine years removed from the mass murder-suicide that happened here, and 10 miles south of a national political gathering at which the quieting of America's guns has never been mentioned." Well, it might be due to the facts, or due to common sense, but it's more likely due to the knowledge that it would be political suicide. I went to a high school that had a parking lot full of pickups with rifles in them, and a school shooting was never a threat. Studies have shown that the areas with fewer gun restrictions have less crime, too.

"No one halts me as I enter the spotless, suburban, painfully infamous campus; no apparatus scans me for a pistol or a knife. There are cameras in the ceiling, but at the Home of the Rebels, a faith in human goodness -- and the odds against a second strike of fateful lightning -- is the shell that keeps a thousand children safe." Well, the cameras and whatnot will allow them to monitor a situation. And it's not like they'd equip someone to stop a threat, so it's hard to figure that scanning people would help.

The article goes on to talk about the drug-addled racists they conveniently caught with guns. Everything added up too conveniently in that case...and the guns were traditional hunting rifles. It seems to me like a segway for suggesting a ban on "high-power sniper rifles." I might seem a bit paranoid, but it all seemed a bit too convenient. Political statements by drug addicts, hunting rifles, and the attempt to pretend it was a plot...it just seems like too many things were going just right for the Dems.

"'If we would have had metal detectors, they would have just killed the people running them,' the witness said." And you figure they'd stop there? Of course not. And I'm certain that the quoted individual doesn't believe they would either. Arming people would allow for defense. An armed victim is much harder to victimize. Arm teachers, and there will be someone fully prepared to resist.

"'What could have prevented Klebold and Harris from committing those murders on that particular day?' I didn't really have a good answer. The guns that they used were bought legally. An 18-year-old student went to a gun show in Colorado Springs and bought these weapons and gave them to Klebold and Harris. " The guns were purchased legally by someone who illegally transferred them to those who wanted to kill others. You aren't going to keep criminals from finding, buying, or making weapons. But, had teachers been allowed to bring guns in, they might have stopped the murderers.

The article then talks about mindset and copycats. The unimaginable creatures that would perpetrate such crimes are said to do it to achieve a sort of immortality.

Then, we're suddenly back to the politicians' near-silence on guns. "So there is no looking to the candidates to end the carnage." It's not the fault of an inanimate object. it's the fault of the subhuman creatures that perpetrate the violence and the creatures in power who refuse to allow people to defend themselves.

"'I would like to think that if we had tougher laws there would be less murders and violent crimes,' Frank DeAngelis said. 'But the criminals would still find ways to get guns anyway. What Klebold and Harris had in their basement was unreal. They could have engaged with the police for four hours that day.'" Sorry, Frank, but I don't follow. If you know that criminals will be criminals, why would you like to think that gun control would work? It won't, and it will disarm those who would be able to defend themselves against the criminals.

We then hear that Columbine's principal endorses Obama, and that the nearest gun shop is anti-Obama. The owner points out that he wouldn't be at fault if a gun he sold were used in a crime. Also, we're led to believe that the meth addicts' guns could make good assassination weapons, and we're told that a .22 is a "powerful" "varmint gun." Of course, the big quote that we're supposed to remember is a defensive one, which leads me to believe the author made the gun shop owner angry. I take from this that we're supposed to see him as an angry, horrible person. If I had a reporter asking pointed questions that implied that I was a criminal, I'd get a bit testy, too.

"'It's safe here,' their principal tells them. In a land of rage and rifles, that may be the most hopeful audacity of all." Again, we're told that anger and rifles go hand-in-hand, and we are supposed to believe that safety is impossible to achieve when the citizenry is armed. In reality, a disarmed citizenry is a defenseless citizenry.

It's funny how the interviews are supposed to lend credibility to the article, but the only one advocating gun control is the author. Also, there is not one ounce of reasoning to the call for disarmament. The entire article is supposed to play to our emotions, and there isn't even a rationale given for the proposed course of action. It's a little telling when you propose action without reason. Logic is the tool with which we can determine the utility of a course of action. When you ignore it, you do so at your peril.

Not Surprising

2008-08-28T19:38:00.000-07:00

The areas in Canada with the highest levels of gun ownership have the lowest levels of gun crime. It's the same pattern we've seen over and over.

"That's one gun for every 7.2 people, the highest ratio of guns to people of any province in the country." Well, it's far from ideal, but it's the best Canada has to offer, I guess.

"Statistics Canada's most recent numbers on gun crime also reveal the province has the lowest annual rate of victims of firearm-related crime in the country, with just 11.4 victims for every 100,000 people." Like I said, this doesn't surprise me. It's the usual pattern.

"Leyton was a vocal critic when the Chretien government initiated the long-gun registry. While he applauds some of the provisions of the registry, such as mandatory firearms training, he's still worried the registry is a mechanism for the government to eventually outlaw certain firearms." Canada already has severe restrictions on guns. Leyton is right to fear the registry--the Canadian government likes to restrict and control guns. If they know where they are, they know who to take them from.

On a positive note, the numbers show that the most armed areas in Canada are the safest. While we see these sorts of numbers a lot, it's great to hear them coming out of Canada.

Property rights?

2008-08-28T18:05:00.000-07:00

Well, I've run across yet another article against the arming of Harrold School District teachers. Well, it mostly focuses on property rights, which is confusing, since the school's policy hasn't been forced from above.

"Saturation coverage of isolated school shootings has created the false impression that children aren’t safe at school. They are." While school shootings are not common, by any means, they are devastating. Police response takes time, while an immediate armed response could stop a shooting long before the cops arrive.

"For another thing, the proliferation of concealed guns raises the possibility of firearms accidents, thefts and vigilante-type actions that short-circuit the legal process." Actually, a concealed weapon kept on a person is very unlikely to be drawn, and virtually impossible to steal. As for "vigilante" actions...what if those actions save YOUR child? Further, self-defense is not a vigilante act. It is an act of survival, and perfectly within the legal system.

"These are reasons why a host of entities including businesses, churches, schools and college campuses post themselves as gun-free except for law enforcement." Actually, they generally cite imagined liability. It disarms those who would be able to protect the business, and it won't disarm those who would rob it.

"That should be their prerogative." Yeah, I'm all for property rights. If a racist wants to run a whites-only diner, he should be able to, just as those who would disarm people should be allowed to post signs prohibiting weapons. In either case, people can choose not to do business there. On the other hand, you'd force the racist to allow blacks, so it's a bit hypocritical to permit a business to deny service to self-reliant individuals.

"Gov. Rick Perry has said he’d like to have it so that people with concealed weapons permits can have guns in any of the above settings and more. Not surprisingly, this idea is opposed by the Texas Association of Business. It says that proprietary matters should trump the concerns of people who want to have a loaded gun on their persons at all times." Well, my concerns about self-defense are very important to me, as are property rights. A pistol on my person is really my business, and I think we've already covered the fact that we already limit property rights.

"A group of college students is promoting conceal-carry on college campuses." Contrary to the author's assertion, they've been fighting for this for longer than just since Harrold teachers had their right to self-defense affirmed.

"Granting that most individuals who have conceal-carry permits are well-suited for the responsibility, it’s a troubling notion that individuals would arm themselves out of fear or would appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner." Neither fear nor a desire to judge and sentence are the main reasons to be armed. It is responsible to provide for one's own defense. I don't expect to need my weapon, but I carry it because self-reliance is about taking responsibility for one's self, including defense.

"The term 'law enforcement' means what it says. Certain individuals go through exhaustive training and certification to arm themselves in the public interest. Not only are they trained in the use of a deadly weapon, but they are also trained in due process and crowd control." Yes, "law enforcement" does mean what it says. Cops enforce the laws. They are not here to protect you, but to respond to crimes already in progress. They go through some training in firearms, a little training in law, and a lot of training in procedure, but that does not make them guardians, nor gods. It makes them men (and women) who are trained to apprehend criminals, much like prosecutors are trained to make a case against those the police apprehend. Self-defense is an individual responsibility, not a communal one.

"Businesses, churches, college campuses and others should be able to say “no firearms” just as rightfully as they say 'no solicitors' and 'no trespassing.'" Again, I must ask, can they say "no whites," "no Jews," or "no cops?"

"Places that invite employees to arm themselves face a daunting task in making sure that the armed individuals are doing so in the public interest." No. Places that allow people to defend themselves do not take on that task. Each individual takes on the responsibility for his/her own defense, and for any actions s/he takes.

My right to self-defense shouldn't end when I enter a business. I am responsible for my own actions, just as everyone is, and the business that strips me of my means to self-defense is one that won't have my business. It is irresponsible to create a target-rich environment for those who'd do harm to the clientele.

Property rights are all well and good, but why does my right to self-defense give way to the property rights of someone who opens a business to the public?

One issue voting

2008-08-26T19:38:00.000-07:00

As we near the Presidential election, I'd like to point out the one litmus test I rely upon in choosing a candidate. I'll give you a hint: it's not abortion, immigration, or even taxes.

As my regulars may have guessed, my test of a candidate's integrity is the ever-present gun issue. A candidate who won't trust me with my own defense won't trust me to make any of my own decisions. A candidate who would disarm me would control me.

By controlling the means to self-defense, you create a world in which you can control everyone via your monopoly on force.

"But wait," you say, "there have to be other issues you care about!" Sure, I'd prefer not to be taxed too thoroughly, and I have my preferences when it comes to foreign policy. The problem is that these are secondary concerns, at best, and very much influenced by my right to bear arms.

In a gun-free society, the monopoly on force allows the government to demand whatever portion of your wealth they'd like. In a society where free men might stand up to the threats of the government, there are limits to what can be accomplished by threat of force.

A society that is truly free has the tools to remain free. A "free" society that removes these tools from the reach of the public removes the safeguards of freedom.

I vote based on freedom. The right to bear arms is the right to remain free.

What's enough?

2008-08-25T20:35:00.000-07:00

According to this op-ed, concealed carry should be plenty of freedom.

"The ability to conceal a weapon is all that is needed to protect yourself and your fellow classmates from a targeted attack. It might be a pain and not as comfortable to conceal your weapon, but it is effective and efficient." It isn't just about comfort or convenience. It's about restrictions and hiding. A visible weapon can be a very effective deterrent, and it can show the world that people who carry guns are not unstable or aggressive.

And while we're deciding what is "enough," I wonder if you have specific weapons in mind. Or maybe you'd like to tell me how many times per week I can exercise my freedom of religion by attending church. Or which churches are acceptable.

"Utahns should be thankful they are allowed to have guns on campus and quit trying to push the system." Oh, yes, we should all be good little subjects and be happy with whatever scraps we are thrown. And we shouldn't push the system, because someone may decide we don't deserve our scraps. Or, y'know, we could point out that we are allegedly free.

"'The problem with carrying open is someone wanting to take your weapon away from you,' said Sergeant Arb Nordgren of campus police. 'It's the biggest concern for a police officer.'" Just a little bit of awareness and the tiniest bit of retention technique will prevent a gun-grab. And a criminal doesn't want to grab your gun. As an armed citizen, you're a hardened target. He'll pick a softer target. The reason cops have to worry about gun grabs is that they will be grappling with criminals who've already been caught. This not only puts the gun in a more grabbable position, but it also means that there is no moving on to another target and there is less to lose.

"The requirements of being allowed to conceal carry are much more stringent than open carry. To receive a concealed weapons permit you must be 21, have a valid driver's license, be fingerprinted, have an extensive FBI background check conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Identification and pass a written and shooting range test." So jumping through hoops is a good thing? It isn't wrong to want a means of defending yourself, even if you haven't spent the time and money to jump through the hoops.

"The BCI reports that only about 2 percent of permits are revoked each year. This helps guarantee that people who obtain and keep CWPs are mostly law-abiding citizens who, unlike open carry individuals, have proven their worthiness to carry concealed guns." I'm not willing to "prove I'm worthy" to exercise a God-given right to self-defense. And how many OCers are arrested each year for various crimes? I'm willing to bet that you can't cite any statistics on that one. Your logic is extremely flawed.

"Most people don't like guns." Funny, then, the number of gun owners out there. And why is popularity a proper metric to use. If I told you that most people don't like dissent, would you advocate a law saying that you cannot publicly announce dissent with anything? Of course not. You'd realize that people don't have a right to be exposed to only that which they find comfortable.

"It's wasted energy to attempt to change their minds. Trying to force acceptance by openly carrying will not change their opinions. It will only create a hostile environment and increase their efforts to eliminate guns on campus." Actually, the best therapy is exposure. If a child is afraid of dogs, you have the child spend time with a friendly dog. If a person fear guns, then, what better therapy than exposure to peaceably carried firearms. In my personal experience carrying openly, I've changed far more minds than I've hardened (which isn't to say that no one will steel themselves against believing that guns aren't necessarily evil--some people have made up their minds and will not be changed). People fear the unknown. If they see that reasonable people carry guns without killing people, they will realize that guns don't cause violence.

"When you conceal carry, nobody is the wiser. People who are anti-gun don't have to get nervous, and permit holders still have their weapons with them on campus." You miss the opportunity to change minds and you don't have that visible warning to would-be predators. And, most important of all, you have made a concession, which leads toward other concessions. If you show that you won't fight for this right, they'll find another one to pick at. Maybe it's "assault weapons," or maybe it's standard-capacity magazines, or it might even be concealed carry. People who are against guns do not come to accept them because those who conceal them are willing to bend to the will of those who won't carry.

"Concealed carry is a perfect scenario and something many other states can only dream about." Actually, most states have concealed carry laws, and many have open carry as well. As far as perfect, the only scenario I can think of that'd be perfect would be the ability to carry whatever I choose, however I choose, wherever I choose, without having to bend to the will of those who disagree with me. The Second Amendment would be as thoroughly revered as the First. The perfect scenario is one where each person is free.

"Let's just allow open carry to rest in peace." Well, if you mean the gun resting peacefully on my hip, then that's generally what'll be happening when I OC. But you mean as in dead, gone, and forgotten, I'll continue to disagree with ANY limitation on ANY of my inalienable rights.

Every time I hear someone tell me what's enough for me, I cringe, whether they say I should be content with hunting rifles, concealing my sidearm, or being searched without a warrant. Every "reasonable" restriction is, at its heart, still the application of force to produce a set of behaviors someone else chooses. It is wrong to initiate force, whether against a common behavior or a rare, unpopular one.

Sporting arms aren't welcome, either

2008-08-24T22:54:00.000-07:00

Hunters are apparently unwelcome when the DNC is in town.

"He says he had just picked up his rifles from the Sportsman's Warehouse and had them in a locked gun case when he checked in at the Grand Hyatt. The clerk checking him in noticed the rifle case and called security." A locked gun case that he didn't try to hide was enough to get the police to search his luggage and find his handguns, which will lead to the charge of unlawful carrying of weapons.

Sadly, though, he said, "Would this affect my choice as a candidate? No. There's more important issues than this." More important than harassing a man who is simply attempting to check into a hotel? I'm not saying he's entirely wrong, though...the only other party people think of on the national level is the GOP, and it's not as though they're too much better right now.

We're then told that "the Grand Hyatt General Manager says he was not a registered guest at the hotel. Considering that he was trying to check in and was stopped, it's no surprise that he didn't manage to become a registered guest.

"'We don't know why he was walking through our hotel,' said General Manager Ed Bucholtz." If someone attempting to check in is unexpected, you might want to double-check your business practices.

The police also searched the man's car and towed it, and once they were sure the man was behind bars and his car was off the scene, Pelosi was brought back in. Y'know, for a party that sometimes claims that they are only trying to get rid of the "bad" guns, they sure didn't like the hunting rifles this guy had locked in a gun case. Imagine what would've happened had I worn a gun on my hip and visited that hotel.

The most concerning thing is that the response of arresting a man for the hunting rifles he has locked up is called "professional." What would they think of me carrying a loaded gun for my own defense? They might figure it appropriate to shoot me on sight.

Utility is un-Christian?

2008-08-22T23:39:00.000-07:00

It's funny what some sources will say and do sometimes. This article in "Relevant," a "progressive" Christian publication targeting youth, has a very odd agenda and very little substance.

It starts out with an Oscar Wilde quote and an extremely brief definition of aestheticism. It then contrasts the "art for art's sake" with the stark description of utilitarianism, which praises that which creates the most happiness or does the most good. The author goes on to say that the sacrifice of the one for the many is clearly unscriptural, citing the parable of the lost sheep.

I'm not going to argue on that point, since I, too, am against the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the individual. After that, though, the attack on utilitarianism becomes less certain. The author speaks of speeding up death to harvest organs (which actually risks damaging the organs in most cases, but the author won't mention that), saying that it is or will be done to help those who could get better use out of them. The author says that "resources spent at the end of life are viewed as wasted," though many utilitarians would probably believe that the attempt to cure someone could help cure others and that the wisdom of one person could be passed on to several.

Still, though, the points are partially valid. What if we start killing people because they aren't making the most of their life and we think handing out organs will help? It almost makes sense if you believe that utilitarians are ruthless.

After that, though, the argument descends into the final stages of madness. " Yet, utilitarianism's creeping influence can be even more subtle than all this. For utilitarianism is an economic approach to life; it is quantitative rather than qualitative." In other words, it uses a more standardized measure, so it must be bad. If something can be measured, why not measure it? Just because you want to believe that a system of measuring value can be inherently subjective does not mean there aren't objective measurements to be made.

"Even well-intended people and programs that accomplish much good can get caught up in this sort of thinking." Results count for something, don't they? If a program was designed to help the poor, you wouldn't really want a guy to come in to utilize it wearing a three-piece suit and a Rolex. It wouldn't do him any good, and therefore would not be utilitarian. A utilitarian charity would give to those who had objective needs, and it's hard to say that's wrong. Accomplishing the most good possible is very utilitarian.

"Architecture emphasizing function and sacrificing appearance," is the next gripe. Sounds a bit like The Fountainhead, doesn't it? If I want a sturdy building to suit my needs, I would prefer it be built to emphasize function. If you're moving a lot of stuff, you'll pick the ugly U-Haul over the pretty Porsche. If you want to make it look good, do that after designing for function.

The next supposed problem is "Bible studies centered on 'optimizing' relationships." Y'know, the Good Book does have some advice on how best to work with, live with, and get along with your fellow man. Having the occasional Bible study that has some focus on that can't hurt.

Next up are "'value added' approaches to education." I'll admit, I had to look this one up to be sure I wasn't wrong about what it is. It seems that "value-added" education means that you test students, monitor their progress, and use the data to monitor the programs at a school. Y'know, make sure kids are actually learning. I guess I'm just not "progressive" enough to understand why it's so bad to make sure Johnny learns to read.

Last on this list are "ministries designed to attract quantities rather than cultivate quality." While we do want the flock to become more Christ-like, I'd say that actually attracting people to the Church might be a worthy goal. Multiple sorts of ministries can work together. You attract a bunch of people, encourage them to attend other ministries, and pretty soon, you're teaching them all sorts of quality Biblical truths. If you just go with the "quality" folks, you're missing out on the tax collectors, prostitutes, and other sinners. I seem to remember someone in the Bible hanging out with that crowd from time to time, but I just can't remember whose son he was...

"As Wilde's reaction shows, utilitarianism makes no room for 'useless,' unquantifiable things such as art, beauty, or human relationships." Actually, art creates happiness without taking any (or much, at least) away. Almost the definition of utilitarianism. And human relationships are the ultimate form of utilitarianism. If two people gain happiness from interacting with each other or making a deal with each other, there is little to be said against it.

Yes, I know, when we think of utility, we think of the hammer, the plow, and the other emotionless tools of necessity. Utilitarians, though, know that there is nothing wrong with the simple house that does exactly what it was intended to do, nor the painting that reflects the spirit of that worker, evoking exactly the response for which it was intended. "Art" like a crucifix in a jar of urine is not utilitarian. It does not create a net gain of happiness; it is mere antagonism.

Art, by utilitarian standards, is okay if needs don't go unmet because of it, causing more suffering. Not necessarily encouraged, but not reviled above all. No, the useless man is the one whose art says nothing, whose hands take without trading, whose structures are so focused on aesthetics as to become unusable.

"Yet, aestheticism is an extreme response to its polar opposite. In contrast to these extreme philosophies, God reflects in his creation a perfect balance between usefulness and beauty." Wow, that's the extent of the bashing of this side, huh? I guess it's hard to bash a side that's comprised entirely of the useless. If it's pretty, it's good. It kind of mocks itself.

"There is, however, one area in which God upsets the balance. And when He does, it is significant to note that the balance shifts toward not utility, but beauty. That is, the beauty of His grace." His grace is not simply beauty. It, in fact, is far more tilted toward utility, as it is the way for fallible beings to get to Heaven. If it weren't for grace, Hell would be the only afterlife for the unpure, which pretty much encompasses all of us.

"In its etymology, the word 'grace' means 'free' and 'unearned,' or 'pleasing.' It shares the same root word with 'gratuitous,' which means 'without reason or cause.' Truly, there is nothing more gratuitous, more unreasonable, more uneconomic, more 'useless'—or more beautiful—than the grace of God." Yes, it is free and unearned...and though sins pain God, He allows the sinner to be purified through grace. He wants to be with his creation, and this is the only way. There's a net gain for everyone who chooses to accept grace, and there's a net gain for God (though He has to feel the pain of man's disobedience). Sounds pretty utilitarian to me.

Mind you that I'm not much less guilty of oversimplifying both utilitarianism and aestheticism than the author of this bizarre article, but I stumbled upon it and could not believe that someone was arguing so fervently against utility. I am a utilitarian, except that I don't believe in the sacrifice of the one for the group--I believe that the most useful thing of all is free association among free individuals. People will make the deals most valuable to both sides, and both will benefit.

Also, don't mind the religious overtones. I'm not going to turn this into any sort of religious debate if I can avoid it. I simply chose to engage some of the religious arguments of the article's author.

Hammer's new meme

2008-08-19T22:46:00.000-07:00

You just won the mega powerball jackpot to the tune of 150 million dollars (after taxes)

1. What would be the very first thing you would do? Buy some land.

2. Where would you choose to live? I'd like to live on enough land to build a decent range, have some space, and build a home large enough to raise a family in (though I suppose the house might get depressing if I never do start a family)

3. What kind of house would you live in? It'd be something simple, livable, and made by an architect, rather than erected from a preexisting blueprint.

4. What kind of car would you buy? I'd probably go for a reasonable family car and a reasonable pickup or SUV.

5. Where would you vacation? If I don't have a family, I might travel if I feel like it, but I'd likely be content to stay local. If I have a family, we could have nice, relaxing, domestic vacations, and maybe one or two trips abroad (though quite possibly not).

6. Would you have anything on your body fixed? No. I'm used to it as-is. Why renovate?

7. What kind of hobbies would you engage in? I'd keep shooting, but in my own range.

8. What charities would you donate to? I like Hammer's idea of a very low interest business loan, and I'd donate to folks like JPFO, who help fight for our rights.

9. Would you give money to your relatives? No. Not unless there was an actual need.

10.Would you run away from your current life? Only my job and apartment, and they hardly comprise a life.

11. Would you continue to work? I'd write, maybe teach, or maybe start a business. I wouldn't be in retail ever again, though.

12. Would the money change you in any way? It might ease my stress levels, but I dislike pretentious people and places, so I wouldn't become one of those people.

I don't generally tag, but I'm sure Hammer would be okay with anybody borrowing his meme. So feel free.

Sense, common or not

2008-08-18T22:25:00.000-07:00

Well, Hammer and Kelly got me to thinking about common sense. Being (I assume) younger than either of them, I'm of the generation that has lost all ties to common sense. It's sad that it's gone, but what's more disturbing to me is what's replacing it.

A little background: I'm from a small town, where many people had lived their entire lives, and where values are different from city values are these days. Now, it was far from perfect: meth showed up with our lack of police, and there are, of course, always problems between people any time you get two or more people in one place. And there were people without common sense there, too, but they didn't really matter one way or another.

I didn't realize how much common sense was worth until I left there. I had always thought city folks were often odd, but I didn't realize how bad it was until I started college and ended up surrounded by them.

My hometown was fairly free of crime, but I knew to lock my door in the dorms. Other kids had lots of stuff stolen, complained about it, and didn't learn. I wonder if there's any way they could ever learn common sense. I could understand the ones who locked themselves out: there was always someone to bail them out, so they didn't learn. Having a bunch of expensive stuff stolen should teach a person something.

Unlike Kelly, I'm not so sure that the lack of common sense is due to lack of common experience. There is an active reprogramming of society, it seems. Common sense, in my experience, includes many things you can learn without the experience of others.

If I touch the stove and it burns me, I know not to touch it again. Our society has been rewarding this sort of behavior, instead. You can get money for spilling coffee on your lap. If your dietary habits are poor, sue fast food. You could argue that this comes from the inability to experience the people behind the corporations, but I think it's something far more sinister: we are being duped out of our common sense.

Warning labels are put on everything. Laws make us wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. We are promised services that the government will pay for, and many forget that government money is dipped from their own pockets. We are willfully ignoring the lessons we should learn because we wish to remain unaccountable. We are trying to remain children, putting others in charge of our lives.

I could be wrong, but it seems like we're actively squelching the common sense we should hold dear. If it seemed that people could at least learn the basic lessons, like not destroying their own belongings, not living beyond their means, or any of the other things I'd think you could realize through only the inherent consequences, I might be more convinced that it's not an active decline.

Ratner's Rant

2008-08-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

I hate to link to this, but it's just so insane.

"[...]the Supreme Court voted by a one-vote margin to uphold an imaginary 'private' right to own handguns." Oh, are you a Constitutional expert? Shall not be infringed means something different than we've thought? Oh, no, I guess you just don't like people who choose not to be sheep.

"Now the Harrold Independent School District in Texas will allow its teachers to show up for first day class with books, pencils, rulers – and six shooters." First, I don't think they're limiting them to revolvers, like DC. Second, they are actually requiring guns be carried by those they put through training. After all, there's no point spending the time and money to train someone, only to have them decide not to be equipped.

She then tries to be incredibly snarky, talking about students wearing kevlar and becoming an "infantry unit." A defensive shooting is far from a war zone. A teacher prepared to defend the students and staff does not cause mayhem and destruction, but a safe learning environment. But there's no way a panicked crackpot will see it that way, so I may as well just leave it alone for now.

"State laws usually allow people to defend themselves with lethal force if they have a reasonable fear of bodily harm from an assailant. If a student makes a sudden move to reach for a calculator in math class, couldn't this be construed as reaching for a weapon?" Y'know, I think I see why you're so afraid of this: you would construe everything as a threat, so you assume others do, as well. Yes, state laws generally allow lethal force when there is a reasonable fear of bodily harm. A teacher is accustomed to seeing students pull out calculators and such, and would not be as jumpy as all that. Paranoia does not suit you, Ms. Ratner.

She then tries snarkiness again, telling a story of teachers using shootings as learning tools. What they should do, in reality, is use the fact that they are carrying to help teach gun safety. Too many kids, such as your children, Ms. Rat, are no longer learning gun safety at home. If children respect guns and know how to properly handle them, they likely won't become as paranoid as you, nor will they have as high a risk of accidentally shooting themselves or others if they find the forbidden fruit.

"In all seriousness, this is just a first step in the decivilizing of America." Actually, it's been said that "an armed society is a polite society." You'll find, if you look into our history, that we become a less civilized country as we impose more restrictions, not as we remove them. We were once an armed, civil country.

"If the argument is true that we've had guns in this society since before it's founding, it's just as true that the idea of teachers arming themselves in classrooms would have left Washington, Adams and Jefferson stunned in disbelief." Okay, so you wouldn't find what I was talking about in history. Our founders were accustomed to being around arms, as were their children. The only thing about this that would stun them is that it isn't regular practice in all schools.

"When Jefferson designed the University of Virginia, I don't recall his plans including gun lockers for professors." No, as David Codrea has mentioned, Jefferson would've been shocked at teachers locking up guns. They'll do no good in a locker.

"Our society is becoming more beastly and worse, with official sanction." If it's "beastly" to protect children, I must be a beast. If it's "beastly" to want to stop attackers from killing me or mine, I guess I'm a beast. In fact, we could use some more beasts, I guess.

"It's beginning to resemble one of 'those places' in the Middle East or Africa where people carry AK-47s and settle their marketplace disputes accordingly." Somebody's been watching too many movies. In most of "those places," there is constant war. The guns aren't for disputes, but for actual battle. Also, in many cases, they are illegal in the hands of those groups without political power.

"I suppose it's easier to quell student outbursts with a well-placed head shot from a .45 caliber than actually having to deal with the kid – counseling takes too long and costs too much." Again with the attempt at snark...

"And since Texas parents can already carry guns, the whole idea of the parent-teacher conference takes on a new meaning." They can't carry them in schools, and even if they could, your dire predictions are similar to those voiced when Florida started issuing CC permits. And it's just as insane to believe it'll happen now.

Also, your comparisons to the "Wild" West are way off-base. The West was far less wild than we now pretend. High-noon shootouts, every gun being carried by someone itching to use it...it just didn't happen that way. Sure, there were shootings, and they were generally outlaw-on-outlaw, rather than the murder of sheep in a crowded mall. Which time was really more civilized? I say it was the time people were armed. And I say we should protect ourselves, our families, and those children the state puts in our classrooms.

Annoyances, mostly.

2008-08-17T20:30:00.001-07:00

Some random things I feel like ranting about (warning: may not be coherent):

If you want to complain about the service you're receiving in a store, an employee doesn't want to hear it. Sure, you may be complaining about someone else, but the employee will be apathetic about it, at best. If the employee likes his/her job, s/he will want to avoid badmouthing. If s/he doesn't like it, s/he doesn't care what you think of the place.

Women's footwear bugs me. Sure, the strapped heels may look good with that outfit, but a sensible pair of shoes could look just fine and not destroy your feet. Don't you want to avoid deliberate destruction of your own feet?

Yes, I appreciate the fact that you want to share the noise pollution you call music. I do not appreciate the fact that you ARE sharing it with me. Please, don't rattle my SUV and my person with the heavy bass that's pumped out by your ridiculous stereo. It can't be good for your hearing, car, or heart rhythms, nor is it good for my nerves.

If you've been put in charge of a group of people, please don't rock the boat just for the sake of exercising authority. People don't like to be screwed with just because you want to be sure you're in charge. If you think you have to make changes, either find actual ways to improve things or make minor changes people won't ignore or be tempted to willfully violate.

If you're going to cut me off, treat me like "the help," or otherwise cause me problems, you do not have the right to get pissed at me over it. If you cut me off, don't yell obscenities and flip me off. If you're going to berate me because you screwed up in your choice of purchase, ask yourself whose fault it is.

Wendy's commercials bother me. They are simply annoying. I never thought anyone could ruin the term "meatatarian," but they have.

Finally, quit telling me that you don't think I, as a civilian, don't need a particular gun. Don't act offended that one of the available options seems scary and don't tell me that you'd never own it as a result. I, like many gun-sellers, would rather see fewer restrictions, not more. Also, if you bothered to learn about some of the guns, you'd realize their utility in situations other than resisting tyranny.

Not that the tyranny-resistance aspect isn't reason enough.

Clubbing?

2008-08-17T00:54:00.000-07:00

One would think I'd be well aware that I don't belong in the club scene. I don't like hip-hop, I can't dance, and I prefer talking to dry-humping as a communication medium. I don't like crowds, nor do I like my drinks to be overpriced.

Tonight, I started my night at a quiet little dive bar, as is my style. I karaoked, I had a beer and two or three Absolut screwdrivers. Then I got stupid. As one might expect, there was an attractive female involved, but that is more of a lead-in to my talk of clubs.

I get to the club and have to wait in line. Luckily, I remember talk of pat-downs and metal detectors, so I leave my knife in the car. I wait my turn, patiently get checked for weapons, and pay to get in. I'm not big on paying to go somewhere I'll be spending money, but I may have said I'd be there, and I don't go back on my word.

I spot the girl I'm meeting, and she's playing pool. In my sort of bars, the hustlers will let you win once or twice, then increase the bets. In this club, a guy is playing pool with her, and it looks like it could be a way to pass the time, except for the number of quarters he's put on the table. Apparently, he notices my suspicion or just realized I was not the sort who'd sit back and allow him to play his little game, so he tells me "friendly game--just friendly game." After his next shot, he realizes I'm not convinced and says "we're all friends--just a friendly game." Well, that's pretty much the easiest way to tell he's a hustler, since anyone else would be less worried about convincing me.

Turns out, near the end of the game, he decides to make a wager. The girl on the other side of it doesn't go for it, and she even has someone else make her final shots. Later, he tries to apologize, but she sees through that. After seeing him try for a few moments, I wait for him to be out of her earshot (in a loud club, that could actually be inches). I tell him that he'd be better off leaving her alone if he wants to hustle any more pool.

In the bars I go to, a hustler who tries to impose a bet on a near-finished game wouldn't be hustling long. And he certainly wouldn't be hanging around trying to hustle the same people twice.

Also, the bars I go to charge about as much for Absolut as this club did for McCormick, and they aren't so full you touch people everywhere you move.

The icing on the cake was when a bartender saw me come over to her little beer/jello shots portion of the bar with two ladies, sold me three jello shots she saw me divvy up, and she asked whether I was with anyone or just hanging out. I told her I thought I was with those two, but I wasn't so sure any more. She was nice about it and said that sometimes things are different in that sort of setting. I left shortly thereafter, since it was obviously not my scene, but their scene.

Whatever happened to music that had a melody rather than just a bass line? What happened to hustlers who make bets before a game starts? What happened to walking into a bar and not being searched? What happened to music just loud enough that it would drown out others' conversations, but not those at your table?

What went wrong when we decided bars should become clubs?

Leaders

2008-08-15T19:16:00.001-07:00

As a society, we have been conditioned to follow orders, beg for permission, and ask for guidance in any situation. This is not limited to situations in which there is an obvious authority figure present. No, it's well-documented that people will follow orders from a cop, a scientist, or some other clear leader. What's less known is that many people will follow anyone to avoid leading.

My coworkers are an excellent example of this. Even when we have plenty of people working and business is slow, my coworkers ask permission to take breaks. In the absence of someone who might be authorized to grant such permission (not that it would be necessary, given that people are willing to cooperate to be sure they get their breaks), they'll ask permission of someone else. Since I don't beg permission, they beg me for permission.

The same people will ask me for guidance on what should be easy judgment calls or even things we've been given clear instructions on. They'll even page me while I'm at lunch for such questions.

Sure, it may be good for my ego, but it's bad for my stress levels. I take on enough based on my inability to beg for permission, constantly second-guess myself, or hold myself to only what those above me order. Taking charge isn't generally my thing, but if it's asked of me, I generally do it. I far prefer to be neither leader nor follower.

People seem to need someone to tell them what to do, even when they know. It's the reason fads come and go. Someone (often someone famous) does, says, or wears something (often something stupid). Others decide to follow suit, since that first person must know something they don't. Pretty soon, a lot of people are dressing, speaking, and acting the same way, until someone else (or the same person) starts something else. It's not because people see an inherent value in following, but that they are afraid not to. And that's why companies make sure their products are seen in the hands of stars. People are afraid of being the odd duck out.

It's also why people are afraid of guns--they aren't exposed to them. People conceal their carry pieces, also afraid of standing out, and the only time people see or hear about guns, it's generally related to bad things going down. This, among other things, is why I'm a big proponent of open carry. People follow. If people see others taking their safety into their own hands, not being scared of an object, they may just decide to follow suit. And personal responsibility doesn't go out of style.

Sentimentality

2008-08-13T22:41:00.000-07:00

Well, my parents just sold my first car. It'd been sitting awhile, so it was moldy, didn't run that well, and had a dead battery, but it was still a little odd to see it go. A part of me wanted to keep it, but it wasn't about the car--hell, I am much happier with my current vehicle.

It was about the feeling of going as fast as the V-6 in that old Citation would take her. I never did know how fast that was, exactly, since the speedometer only went up to 85.

It was about yelling at drunk friends not to moon people or security cameras.

It was about being pulled over many times, but never ticketed. My next car garnered me a ticket pretty quickly.

It was about laying claim to a parking spot at my old high school. When a kid a year or two younger than me tried to take that spot, I gathered a few people to move his little Metro. Turned out it was unlocked, so it was a one man job. And it was, since others saw him coming and bolted. I, however, kept moving it, replying to his yelling with a brief response: "It was in my spot." (Yeah, I know, as a proponent of property rights, I probably shouldn't reminisce about screwing with someone's stuff, but it didn't hurt a thing.)

Most of all, it was about freedom. When my great-grandfather gave me that car, I was no longer tethered so strongly to my tiny little hometown. Sure, I'd had friends who could get me places, but I'm not the sort to ask, and I AM the sort who wants to take off when he wants to take off.

I hadn't driven the old Citation in a few years, but she was still the same car under the grime. She still liked to be revved, she still idled hot, she still had the same steering wheel cover, and a helmet decal from my football days still clung to her bumper--I don't think that decal will ever come off; it outlasted two or three bumper stickers before I finally decided I didn't need anything but that decal back there.

More attack ads

2008-08-11T22:54:00.000-07:00

The anti-Rossi ads are at it again. This time, a bunch of "regular" people show up on screen talking about some of the things he's done.

"Why did he vote to freeze teacher's salaries?" Well, like many of us, he believes in performance, not longevity, as the best reason to increase wages. If we had performance-based salary increases, we wouldn't reward those who cling to mediocrity for so many years.

"Why did he vote against smaller class sizes?" It would've cost a lot to pull the maneuver. It wasn't a guarantee of increased learning by any means. It would've been throwing more money at the problem.

"He voted against women's contraceptives." No, he voted against forcing insurance companies to pay for them. Insurance companies should provide whatever coverage they promise when you sign up. If that does not include aiding you in having casual sex, you can see whether another company would like to offer such benefits.

"He voted against negotiating drug prices." Yeah, probably because the government does not do well in changing the laws of supply and demand (for proof, look up the results of price controls on gasoline).

The sad thing is that these ads probably work fairly well. People forget that the government's money comes from their pockets.

Iron Pig?

2008-08-10T22:02:00.000-07:00

Groups such as the Hell's Angels and the Iron Pigs have a bit of a tendency to clash. When You put members of both groups in the same bar in Sturgis, things can go bad. In a recent case of this, an off-duty (read: vacationing) Seattle cop (member of the Iron Pigs) shot a Hell's angel.

He's been "detained" pending investigation of the incident. He's a bit outside his jurisdiction, so one wonders why he was even carrying a gun in a bar. Oh, wait, we don't wonder. He's an "Only One," subject to a different set of standards. After all, an off-duty cop having a beer is less intoxicated than you or I. Of course, several of his buddies will probably say he hadn't had a drop, anyway--he wasn't the only "Only One," nor even the only one from Seattle PD.

He and his buddies are on administrative reassignment and relieved of duty pending the investigation. This likely means they're getting paid to relax and wait for the conclusions of Seattle's crew of investigators. Sure, they might be a little anxious to get back to work; they do love their ~~power~~ jobs.

I figure there'll be little fuss over this. Just imagine the uproar if it had been the other way around.

To some customers

2008-08-10T21:43:00.000-07:00

A few notes to some of the sorts of customers I end up having to deal with:

Please refrain from drawing your weapon in a crowded store. No, I don't care that you're offering me ample warning. If you want to see if it'll fit a holster, please bring it in unloaded and check it at the door.

If you don't know what gun you're looking for, vague generalities will not lead me to find it. Yeah, maybe some magazine ran some story on it awhile back, but I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Especially if you call a gun that's been out for several years new, don't know the brand, and aren't sure of the caliber.

Likewise, please don't get annoyed when I don't know exactly which gun you want to see if you ask to see that youth gun (we have them all in one section), that black one, that Glock (there are quite a few), that .45 (again, one section), or that left-handed gun (once more, one section). I'll try to grab the one you are vaguely gesturing toward, but it's not always easy.

If you ask me which gun I'd pick, keep in mind that I am not you. I do not have the same hand size, budget, taste, or needs as you. When I give my opinion, I do not mean that it is better for you, just that it would be my choice.

Don't use me as your only research tool. Yes, I'm am often aware of which models are available in which calibers, but the best choice is the manufacturer. They generally know what they make.

If I am not entirely familiar with gun A, don't get mad at me. I'm certain I could find a few guns you aren't familiar with. Let me do a little research and I can tell you more about gun A. But you probably don't want me to know as much as you.

If you have been patiently (or not) waiting your turn with a number, you WILL be helped in numerical order. Do not ask me to help you because I'm near you or "it'll be real quick." That guy with the number before yours wants help just as badly, and he grabbed his number first.

If you aren't happy with a price, don't buy it. Yeah, I know we match prices and I know you think that the used gun should be cheaper, but don't come in and just complain about the prices. I don't care. I didn't price them. I'm not going to give you a deal. That used gun may be nearly as expensive as a new one, but it's in like new condition, so what do you expect? And the guy who sold it to us wanted a decent deal, too.

Finally, I don't like being treated like "the help" or your best friend. I am doing my job, you are hoping to buy something and get good advice. Let's keep this businesslike.

Concealment

2008-08-08T21:38:00.000-07:00

There's a lot of hype regarding the Ruger LCP and other tiny weapons designed for deep concealment. This is nothing new, of course: the pocket .25 was once an extremely popular choice for the same purpose. The .380 is a round that is better suited to defense than the .25, but it is still a concession.

Yeah, the LCPs and the Kel-Tecs fit into a shirt pocket without really showing, which makes them appeal to people who want a deep concealment pistol. They seem ideal to many of these folks, who often think that the smallest pistol they can get will be the best choice for a carry gun.

But why do you want a pistol this small? They're uncomfortable to even hold. Firing them must be even less comfortable. They're less accurate than slightly larger pistols, and most .380s are pretty finicky. Since you likely won't practice much with your pocket gun (due to the discomfort), that makes the accuracy issues even worse.

Some people say they just can't conceal a bigger pistol. It's not hard. Here are some quick tips to get you started:

1. Buy a gun you will shoot, then worry about concealment. You can conceal just about anything. I have a medium build, but I carry an XD45 with shorts, a T-shirt, and an inside-the-waistband holster and it conceals very well. I find it hard to believe most people couldn't conceal at least a smallish 9mm.

2. Know your body. If you hang over the sides of your jeans, you should probably get new jeans. If that's not the reason for it, then you should note that an IWB holster under that overhang is going to be very uncomfortable and visible. If that's the case, don't find a smaller gun to carry that way--find a new way to carry a gun you're comfortable with. Small-of-back, belt, or shoulder holster are all viable options depending on what you plan to wear.

3. Know your wardrobe. If you wear a business suit all the time, your options are different from those of someone who wears jeans and a T-shirt. Depending on the type of carry you find most comfortable, you may want to change your wardrobe. Don't forget, though, that you'll have to stick with the changed wardrobe. As such, if you choose jackets, you'll probably want to switch to an unbuttoned, untucked shirt for summer, since you really won't appreciate a jacket.

4. Buy a decent holster. I don't know how many people have told me that they were getting a smaller gun because their current one wasn't concealing well, only to admit that they had about a $5 holster. Personally, I like Crossbreed for IWB, but you may have a different opinion. A cheapo Uncle Mike's or some such is great for deciding on cant angles, but you'll need to invest a little bit more to get a quality holster. You need one that won't move around too much, holds the pistol close to the body, and keeps it right where you want it. A great way to find holster is gun shows--you can get great deals on holsters others didn't care for, and you can actually handle them, unlike the online deals.

5. There are alternatives. If you just can't seem to get your gun to conceal comfortably, there are options that may conceal well and be comfortable. Purses, backpacks, fannypacks, vests, and the Utili-Kilt are all available with holster options because of people for whom traditional carry options aren't going to work that well. Smart Carry markets an inside-the-pants holster that keeps the gun in front, minimizing grip protrusion. If you don't find a solution right away, ask around. Somebody's bound to have had a similar problem.

If you really can't hide your gun, one has to wonder what the problem is. Maybe the choice of a 7.5" .500 S&W wasn't the best call. Maybe that Desert Eagle was a poor decision. Maybe you should let go of the notion that you have to find an option for pocket carry of a 5" 1911. Whatever the case, try to figure out the root of the problem. If you do determine that you need a smaller gun, don't go to the smallest you can find--get something you'll actually practice with, figure out how to conceal it, and be happy with your choice.

Welcome DoJ!

2008-08-07T16:52:00.000-07:00

This time, unlike several others, you seem to have sent a person to check out my blog. I know, it was only because I was linked to by David Codrea in reference to Mike Vanderbough, but even taking a few moments out of your hectic schedule to let me feel like I'm worthy of their shadows honors me.

Yeah, it was a short visit, but it was far too long to have been a webcrawling bot, which means you really care.

In reality, I should be welcoming all the rest of the traffic I've gotten, but it's not often the DoJ sends a person. It's flattering, really, to think that they might consider my little posts a threat to the status quo. Of course, all the readers who've been coming over from War on Guns are the more heartening side of things--you folks might be part of that threat to the wolves circling the flock.

Sorry, DoJ, your one person was far outnumbered today (and would still be outnumbered even on a much slower day). Why don't you try feeding on other wolves?

Great Literature...

2008-08-06T11:39:00.000-07:00

I sometimes think about the books I've loved. No, strike that--the books I love. The past tense is unfair. Even if I haven't read the book since my childhood, it's still in the present tense. I don't think you can love literature in the past tense. If you loved it, but do no longer, can you truly say you ever really did?

There was a time I thought I loved books which were written well. Truly, though, that is not enough. Florid prose without substance is just as trite as poorly written trite. The books I still cling to (whether I own them or have read them in years) have substance. One of my favorite books when I was younger was The Giver. I haven't read it in years, but it still sticks with me. In it, even color has been removed by the government. The protagonist, as he slowly learns what once was, learns how to see color again and learns to want freedom. It isn't the best dystopian novel, but it sticks with me because of the powerful metaphors--lost color, a collective memory protected by only those few who are still capable of learning the past, and the final scene all stay with a person, or did with me.

Ayn Rand's works, of course, also stay with a person. Universal truths are revealed in the struggles of Reardan, Roark, and Taggart. You see the same world today in computers and jetplanes as she wrote about in the time of steam trains and newspapers. When Microsoft was split up because it had an "unfair advantage" because of the ability to market two profitable programs (Windows and Office) together, it calls to mind the distribution of railroads in Atlas Shrugged. Or, I should say, it calls that image to the minds of those who aren't swept up by the "public interest." Every day, you can look around and see those who believe Toohey's preaching of selflessness and collective thought. There is no individual Toohey running around to pinpoint, of course...or, really, there are several. Every "spiritual leader" who wants to control his followers uses Toohey's tactic of making sure the followers strive for collectivity and aren't happy.

Louis L'Amour, too, sticks with me. His protagonists are sometimes outlaws, but they know what's right and they do it. There is no thought given to the idea of subjective morality. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and men don't let other men rule them.

Great works do not change minds. They reinforce the truths already present in the minds of the readers. Great works are only great to those who can recognize them. A strict communist would never allow himself to recognize the truths or value of Ayn Rand. Great works are individual--communism has no great works to its credit because it stifles the individual, forcing him to collaborate, to compromise, to settle for that which is far too common.

2008-08-05T21:42:00.000-07:00

There've been commercials advertising the Forests and Fish Law, telling us that "private landowners" are "working to keep our forests and rivers clean."

The law is on the books, private landowners are compelled to "protect" the habitats and whatnot on their land. Why, then, must the law be advertised? There is no public vote to be had, so one would think there's nothing to be gained.

On the contrary, there is everything to be gained by wasting taxpayer money on an ad campaign for a law that is already on the books. You see, the government, be it federal, state, or even more local, has everything to gain by being not only legitimate, but adored. Obedience through fear, consequences, or sheer order is no match for obedience through blind trust.

Sure, it seems like you can get people to do a lot if you slowly raise the temperature, but you will hit the boiling point sometime, and you just hope it's too late for the frog to jump out. If you convince the people it's a hot tub, though, and crow about how you're raising them temperature to help them, they'll not only thank you for it, they'll ask that you keep raising it.

This is why the gun control requires convincing a large portion of the people that guns are bad. Sure, if you slowly whittle away at the right to bear arms, there is a good possibility you'll get pretty far without too much incident, but there comes a point that the weakened few will resist. It's costly, so you try to find another way. If you can convince most of them that they'll want to get rid of them--tell them that they're more likely to be used against them; tell them the guns will be stolen and used in crime; tell them they'll accidentally shoot themselves--you can't lose anything. If it fails, you continue in small steps. If it succeeds, people not only give up their guns voluntarily, but they beg for the very steps you would take anyway.

This, of course, can be applied fairly universally. You speak of tolerance to stifle free speech, and people start to ask for restrictions. You talk about religion and you can stifle the freedom of the press. You talk about conspiracies and public safety, and people will beg for restrictions on the right to assemble. You convince people that the laws are the only reason the forests still stand, and they beg you to stop the loggers (who, by the way, have good reason to replant the forests, anyway, since trees are their livelihood). You convince them that you know better how to build on their land, and they beg for permits and report people who don't believe the government controls their land.

The government has everything to gain by running an ad campaign. After all, we buy the products we see, and we think we need those...why shouldn't we decide that we'll need more government?

Mike Vanderbough's repost

2008-08-05T21:21:00.000-07:00

Mike Vanderbough reposted a great article of his, along with some updates. It's a very good read.

I don't have much to add, except to remind everyone that Mike's allegedly extreme beliefs are far less shocking than a belief that there would be a rebellion every 20 years. And that's the belief of at least one of the founders (and most likely more).

Just read it.

Paint

2008-08-05T20:57:00.000-07:00

When I got home today, my upstairs neighbor greeted me with "I heard WD-40 will take spray paint off cars." I looked at him for a second, went around to the passenger side of my car, where the word "loser" had been prominently written above my rear wheel well.

What does something like this hope to accomplish? If I don't know I'm a loser, will I believe it when it's painted on my car? And if I do, what good does a reminder do? If you're trying to advertise it to the world, a run-of-the-mill SUV really doesn't necessarily get linked to me, unless someone happens to see me getting into or out of it. Did the vandal know I was a loser, or was it just a guess based on the vehicle? I guess I just don't know much about the minds of vandals.

It turned out not to be too damaging, though. It was some sort of acrylic paint or something, and I was able to take it off with a rag and some dish soap.

The unending capacity debate

2008-08-04T22:29:00.000-07:00

While I'm sure I've commented on this before, I was reminded of the capacity debate again today. A girl bought a Five Seven and commented that the "other guy tried to sell me a revolver or something. I just don't feel comfortable with 5 shots."

I told her that 20 rounds could only be useful in very limited situations in which a person had found cover. I think I had her regretting her decision until I said with a grin, "But I have to admit they're cool; I even have one on layaway." It made her feel better, and she left happy with her purchase, though I think I may have given her something to think about, too.

On one side, the capacity debate seems clear-cut: no one ever lost a gun fight by having too much ammo. On the other, things are a little fuzzier: stopping power, good accuracy, and awareness should mean that a two-barrel derringer is plenty, if you know what you're doing.

A few people start to look at the different goals of different weapons. If you're looking for a self-defense weapon, the derringer side is right: you won't need more than a couple shots. On the other hand, in a survivalist's view, a high capacity means that you can hold a lot more rounds in a more ready, contained, packable package. With one mag in the Five Seven, two in a mag pouch, and one in the chamber, you are carrying 61 rounds without much effort. That makes it easier to pack more equipment.

As far as I'm concerned, the defensive shooter needs little more than a .45 or .357 derringer, but that's no excuse to limit yourself to revolvers and below for defense. Besides, you're more likely to actually get good with something you don't mind reloading enough to practice plenty.

Bomb?

2008-08-01T22:17:00.000-07:00

On the news tonight, they were making a big deal about a bomb found on a released felon's porch. An apartment complex was emptied when the discovery was made, and they didn't let people back in for quite some time after.

The bomb was a pipe (of some sort--details were sketchy) with some black powder and a green fuse. (Yes, they repeatedly mentioned the fuse's color.) They took the device into a field and used a sort of guillotine to cut it open, which diffused it.

The most interesting part is that the main claimed it was probably a leftover firework that his son had left on the porch. The police responded to this claim with a counterclaim that was at least as bizarre. The fact that it had a fuse and gunpowder meant, in their opinion, that it was not a firework.

I don't know what they've been lighting every Independence Day, but it sounds like it may have been a bong. Every firework I've ever lit has had a fuse (for those who are perhaps newscasters or the police in question, that's the part you light) and gunpowder (y'know, to create the effects of the fireworks).

I wasn't there, so I don't know whether this was a pipe bomb, a firecracker, or something else, but I certainly wouldn't jump to classify it based on the fact that it has a fuse and gunpowder.

Business

2008-08-01T21:46:00.001-07:00

In business, employee behaviors and attitudes are sometimes put into three categories: actively engaged, (passively) disengaged, and actively disengaged. Actively engaged employees are the ones who do more than is asked of them and do their work well. Passively disengaged employees are those who do enough to get by, but no more, and not necessarily as well as they should. Actively disengaged employees undermine the company, actively avoiding doing their job and sometimes actively doing poor work.

A common goal is to engage the disengaged and get rid of or engage the actively disengaged. The problem is that many companies don't have a plan to keep the actively engaged employees. They take for granted that these employees will continue to do everything they can for the company and they try to track down the problems others have.

Unlike those running corporations, most of us can see where this leads. Your actively engaged employees are willing to put in a lot of effort, but when it seems they aren't getting recognized and, in many cases, the disengaged are getting extra benefits to entice them, they will become disillusioned. Actively engaged employees who don't quit often become actively disengaged employees. It's easy to take all the extra energy you've been wasting on the company and use it against the very same company.

Some especially problematic practices are time-based raises, such as those that schools are forced to use. Performance-based raises, of course, make some of the disengaged even more disengaged, since many of these folks will cry foul rather than putting in effort, but they're not going to be really engaged, anyway.

The worst thing to do is to allow your employees know that there is a moratorium on raises. People who know there is no benefit will have trouble justifying work. And when you tell them they can't get overtime, and make sure they get less than the allowed number of hours, you have to figure they'll have trouble doing extra if they wanted to.

But what do I know about business?

.50 BMG

2008-07-30T23:36:00.001-07:00

We get a lot of questions about the two .50 BMG rifles we carry. I know that few, if any, of my customers will read this, but I'm putting it out here: the answers to some frequently asked questions regarding the .50s.

Q: What are those?
A: One is an Armalite AR-50 single-shot .50 BMG rifle. The other is a Bushmaster 10-round bolt-action .50.

Q: Are those for sale?
A: Do you really think we'd be putting them out here if they weren't?

Q: Are they legal?
A: Well, we're willing to sell them. You tell me.

Q: But you have to go through a special background check, right?
A: No, it's the same as any other rifle.

Q: But why would anyone need one?!?!
A: Well, the most common use is shooting farther than all your buddies, though it could be useful in defending our liberties if it ever came to that. Besides that, you could also be the only one among your friends with a .50 BMG.

Q: Well, what kind of special permit would I need for one of them?
A: Oh, you're interested? All you need to do is fill out this 4473 and pay about $2850-4500, plus whatever you'll end up spending on optics.

Q: No, I'm not interested. Why isn't there any more background check than that?!?
A: Well, it's bad enough that there's a background check at all.

Q: GASP
A: Really, you should try breathing and/or being logical.

Q: But there's more of a background check on handguns.
A: First of all, that's because small, concealable handguns are more likely to be used in crime than shotguns or rifles. Secondly, there really isn't much more checking. That form I send to the state gets called in to the same folks, just by different people. They only check to see if there's anything local that hasn't hit the feds' database (if they even bother). Also, since I've assigned you the role of Q, you should really phrase things in the form of a question.

Q: But it's a sniper rifle!
A: What did I just tell you about phrasing things as questions? Also, yeah, you could call it a sniper rifle, but do you really think no one's going to notice the guy with the .50 going to the roof or up the hill? There are far more compact, lightweight, discreet guns out there that'll do the same job. And they'll do it cheaper. I'm not advocating getting rid of things like my .30-06, but a hunting rifle will be much more practical than a .50 in most situations.

Q: What about the DC sniper?
A: He didn't use a .50, nor could he have. It was a cramped situation.

Q: But they say the .50 can shoot down a plane at 2 miles.
A: Again, questions. Also, this is a myth. Airplanes are moving very quickly through very different air currents than you find near the ground. A 2 mile shot on a stationary target is extremely difficult for an experienced shooter with a very experienced spotter. Sure, a plane is a large target, but you wouldn't hit it. Even if it were somehow manageable, where do you hit a plane to disable it?

Q: Well, I don't see why you'd sell them. Who needs something like that?
A: Do you NEED most things you own? I don't need a computer, old mil-surp rifles, a television, my Wii, or any number of other things I own. At least the .50 could be useful if it ever came to resisting tyranny.

Oddly enough, people don't tend to ask why the bolt handle is on the left side on the Bushmaster. That's so you can keep your trigger hand on the pistol grip and keep the gun steady. It's definitely a bipod gun.

Safety and Money

2008-07-29T23:57:00.000-07:00

When I drive, I'm so glad the government keeps me safe. Here in Washington, they're smart enough to know that I can't be trusted to go 70 on most of the freeway. I know they don't just want to write tickets--they only care about my safety.

If I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I get fined over $100 dollars because it's dangerous. The state, of course, doesn't want to make any money off it, just like they only want to prevent alcohol abuse by taxing it heavily and opening several liquor stores 7 days a week.

If I talk on a cell phone while driving, I need to use a hands-free device, since it's far more dangerous to hold the phone than to be distracted by that stinking bluetooth thing hanging from my ear and not working properly. Also, I tend to drive one-handed whether I'm hanging onto a cell phone or not, but I'm sure it's actually more dangerous to have the phone in my hand.

If I run a red light, there's a chance it'll have a camera. If I pay the fine, it'll prove that I learned my lesson, so they'll have punished me enough. It won't go on my driving record, no matter how many tmes I learn my lesson. Sounds like they really care!

Y'know, I really need to care about people more. Turns out, there's a lot of money to be had making sure people stay safe.

DC gun rights?

2008-07-27T23:31:00.000-07:00

With DC allowing revolvers in the homes of the ~~subjects~~ citizens, it's still hard to defend yourself there. You can't buy a handgun, and the only ones currently legal are revolvers that have been registered with the police. There is no legal way to carry a gun, and it's still supposed to be unloaded in your own home.

If a DC resident wishes to take advantage of the ability to legally protect himself or herself, s/he has to wait until someone is willing to sell handguns or serve as the dealer for the transfer of them. S/he also must apply for a license and register the gun. The gun can't be a semi-automatic, so s/he has to pick out a revolver and a speedloader (after all, if you're going to have to keep it unladed, you'd better figure out how to load it quickly). And after only several weeks of attempting the feat, the DC resident may now be the proud owner of a legal handgun, assuming all goes well.

See, it must be easy and fast--it only took a paragraph!

Free men do not have to beg the government to allow them to exercise their rights. In Alaska, you can carry a gun concealed or unconcealed with no license or registration. They do offer a concealed weapons permit so as to help Alaskans carry in other states, but it is not required in Alaska. In Vermont, there is no permit, which can be an annoyance for Vermont residents who travel. Unfortunately, many gun owners like to use the hoops they jump through for their permit as a badge of honor--"Oh, well I had to take a three-day course including several firing exercises. Only three of us managed to pass all portions. We really have to know what we're doing to carry in [home state]."

Every gun owner should take it upon themselves to learn their weapons, but it should not be government-mandated. As a free man, I have the right to carry tools for my own defense. If I misuse these tools, I likely won't be a free man much longer. Murder, assault, and the like are already illegal. We don't require a license for a typewriter, pen, or computer because of the risk of libel, nor should we. Heck, look at the trash that's written online--we certainly don't require a literacy test before we can write things for the world to read. Rights are rights. It's clear-cut, whether we're looking at the First Amendment or the Second. I sincerely hope that DC will somehow remember that and stop the nonsensical registration and ridiculous restrictions.

Above and Beyond

2008-07-27T17:34:00.000-07:00

Not all that long ago, there were a couple changes in policy at work. First, IDs absolutely have to match the address you write on the form. Second, we stopped selling handguns without a proceed from the state and delayed long guns without either a proceed or such a long wait as to make it ridiculous to expect one.

The first requirement might make sense if it weren't for the ability to change the address attached to your license via phone or computer. The state says it's official if you write the new address on the back, but we send these people to go get new driver's licenses (and they'll have to pay the corresponding fee--I'll bet the state loves it). What's great about this policy is that anyone aware of it will think nothing of lying about their address, I'm sure. If the goal of the feds is to have a proper address for these gun buyers, this policy doesn't align very well.

As for the requirement that we get a definitive proceed...well, the state imposes a five-business-day waiting period on those who don't have CPLs. If we have faxed the paperwork to the correct agency and they haven't responded in that time frame, we can legally hand over the gun. As a CYA move, we won't sell the gun until we have a definite response. I don't know if others have had better luck with police agencies than I have, but they sometimes don't like to get around to things. And they sometimes lose things.

My coworkers don't seem to understand why I'm upset that these customers are being forced to wait. They'll throw things out like the fact that they don't want to go to jail. That's all well and good, but how far do we have to crawl, trembling in fear of repercussions, no less, before we stop and rise?

I'd love to sell guns without paperwork at all, just as it should be, but companies keep helping the government get farther from that. If we get customers used to it, they won't even notice when the law changes to what we've been doing. On the other hand, if dealers follow the exact minimums, they won't get shut down and customers won't become accustomed to anything more severe.

Maybe I see a slippery slope that doesn't exist, but every extra step or restriction also makes it harder for citizens to arm themselves, so each restriction is wrong in and of itself, too.

Why Mike Vanderboegh is right

2008-07-25T20:40:00.000-07:00

I should've commented on this yesterday, but it slipped my mind until I had cause to reread it. Mike is saying something we've been saying for years: if you want to disarm the populace, you should be willing to do it yourself, or at least have some plan in place to actually attempt it. Sending the government boys to take them is not only endangering them, but it is a complete cop-out by those who wish to have us give them up.

Unsurprisingly, some in the blogosphere immediately denounced such talk as unnecessarily violent, crazy, and extreme. They make the point that many people seem to already believe gun owners are crazy. They say that this sort of talk reinforces that belief, since it seems more extreme than the views many would like us to espouse. (I'm not going to point to any specific blogs, but I'm sure you can find some.)

Some of these people would even be uncomfortable with comments like "from my cold, dead hands." At least that means those people are only naive, rather than hypocritical. Do you think that phrase can be uttered with any truth by someone who isn't willing to defend his (or her) rights against those who would take them? There is no room in that phrase to follow it up with "unless those nice boys in uniform are ordered to strip me of my rights, in which case, I guess I'll become a slave quietly."

We've been surrendering rights slowly because we tend to shy away from "extremism." The problem with "extremism" is that it's easy to confuse clear-cut with extreme. If we were having a discussion on the sum of two and two, would you call me extreme if I continued to suggest it was 4? Insisting that the right to bear arms is a God-given right that the government has no right to limit is not extreme--it is simply correct. Pointing out that there are still many gun owners with the spirit of the Founders in them is not extreme, nor is the declaration that those people will resist tyranny. Jefferson figured for occasional rebellions to prevent tyranny from taking hold. A bloody rebellion about every twenty years certainly seems more extreme than saying "if you want them, come and get them."

Mike wasn't saying that he was going to start killing cops because of the ridiculous number of restrictions already in place. In fact, he did not say he would start killing cops. He simply explained that there are consequences to coming for our guns. He challenged those who would ask the government to grab our guns: if you're so gung-ho about taking the guns, would you try it? Of course these people wouldn't--why would they ask others to do it for them?

Then again, many would consider me an extremist. I don't believe there is any way to justify machine gun bans, background checks, or any of the other so-called "reasonable" restrictions. Incidentally, I also oppose bans on blogs, which allow rapid-fire freedom of the press, or background checks when attending church. Well, I guess "reasonable restrictions" on other freedoms don't really seem reasonable to anyone.

News hype

2008-07-24T20:42:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, I just don't understand why the news does the "We'll tell you on the news" hype thing they do. Especially with the ease of getting the same information online, it just seems silly to try to hook viewers by teasing them with just enough info to find out on their own.

Sometimes, this teaser just makes me laugh. Tonight, for example, they're trying to scare people into watching, since there have been confirmed rabid bats in Washington. They promise to tell you how to protect yourself and your family if you watch the news. Well, here are a couple hints: try not to get bit by bats. If a bat bites you, seek medical attention, including a rabies shot. If a bat is exhibiting unusual behavior, you should avoid it and/or attempt to kill it. Of course, these hints are generally the sort of advice you want to follow anyway, but most of the news-viewers who are going to worry are already likely unaffected, but a little too easily scared.

My favorite scare tactic is the "Which popular product may kill you or your family?" angle. It's not always that extreme, but it is about the mystery of something you could have being a possible danger. In many cases, "popular" tends to be rather undefined, and it's often a small portion of the supply that has been affected. "If you Washington residents have been traveling to Vermont to buy your electronics, you may be alarmed at the amount of radiation one batch of televisions have been producing. Affected serial numbers are XG100500-XG100513. If you have a 14-inch [company name redacted] TV with an affected serial number, you should call this hotline immediately."

People are shown on-camera panicking despite there being approximately zero chance they have the affected item, and someone on TV says it's an outrage. People watching at home suddenly feel they could've spent their time more wisely or they panic, too, since they once looked at one of the televisions by that brand, and they don't know how much radiation they may have absorbed.

Of course, the most effective is probably the "Which celebrity [got married/died/got arrested/burped on camera]?" People eat that up, even though there's no reason to give a damn what some celebrity does in their free time. If we quit salivating every time a celebrity came on, maybe the entertainment industry would improve--I'm sick of the "Scary Movie" Pavlovian test: referencing pop culture rather than writing a script.

In any case, if the news spent as much time researching their leads and reporting the facts as they do hyping themselves, I might actually stomach some of it.

Downhill...

2008-07-22T16:25:00.001-07:00

I was in the mall today and a 17-19 year-old kid was in the GameStop (or another game store--they all look the same). I don't make a habit of listening to the conversations of others, but I overheard him getting upset that there was supposed to be a certain game coming out today. The store didn't have it in stock, and the kid was getting a little agitated. He kept repeating that the game was supposed to come out today and that he'd been waiting for it. The clerk then made the mistake of telling the kid that she thought the other stores in the chain got the game, just not this one. He started asking whether they had any in stock. I thought he was going to cry.

Eventually, the clerk refunded the money the kid had put down on the game and sent him to another location. This kid was ridiculously desperate to get some game on the day it came out, and I thought he would've broken down had he not been able to get it today. It probably wouldn't have bugged me so much if I thought it was an isolated incident. This kid was probably about par for the course.

Also, while I was shooting today, a couple came to the pit and started shooting a pistol. This is not abnormal, but they didn't seem to know anything about gun safety. They had one pair of earmuffs for the two of them, which all my readers should know is not proper safety procedure. They also couldn't seem to understand why I would stop shooting when they'd randomly decide to go out to their target. Sure, I wasn't shooting near them, but there are certain instances in which the range is cold--person(s) anywhere on it is a prime example. I'd like to think there was a time in which this was common knowledge.

Then, as if to remind me that things are headed downhill, the radio decided to play George Jones's song "Who's Gonna Fill Their Shoes," which just reminded me that no one's really filled the shoes of the folks he mentioned in that song. And, with the way our language seems to be drained due to the prevalence of texting abbreviations and the increased reliance on spell check, we won't have any outstanding lyricists in the foreseeable future.

Bicyclists...

2008-07-22T00:47:00.000-07:00

Bicyclists bug me. No, it's not because of the smug sense of self-importance they seem to get from getting places without buying gas (at the minor cost of arriving sweaty, dirty, and or soaked by the rain). Heck, I rarely deal with bicyclists once they've gotten somewhere. No, bicyclists bug me because I have to deal with them while they are en route. Bicyclists in Washington are, in theory, supposed to follow traffic laws. There are quite a few places with bike lanes to help them do this without interfering with traffic or being run over.

The problem is not with the bike lanes, but with the tendency of bicyclists to do as they please. Some will ride on the sidewalk in areas where there is a bike lane, some will switch back and forth between following vehicle and pedestrian laws, and some will ride the wrong way down a one-way street.

Occasionally, some news channel or newspaper will run a story about how many deaths and injuries result from "motorists not being aware of bicyclists." Conveniently, they forget that many of these bicyclists are darting from the sidewalk into the lanes of traffic, assuming that motorists will be willing and able to avoid hitting them. They won't see any problem with talking to the bicyclist who wants to tell them about how bicyclists follow the same traffic laws as motorists and should get the same respect and following it up with the story of someone riding across a crosswalk being hit by a car. With a straight face, the reporter will tell you that the driver should've been more aware, and they'll pretend that you didn't just hear that bicyclists need to follow the rules of the road.

Last year (or maybe a little longer--I can't remember for sure), one news team did actually address the issue of inexperienced bicyclists trying to use "fixies" (fixed-gear bikes), and thus causing themselves issues, including some injuries and a death. Considering some of the steep hills in Seattle and Western Washington, "fixies" are a bad idea unless you really know what you're doing (and, heck, if you know what you're doing, you should know to get a mountain bike).

That's the closest I've seen any news crew get to actually encouraging bicyclists to take responsibility for their own actions. Last I checked, motorcyclists are generally well aware that the others on the road are surrounded by steel and they are protected only by whatever they're wearing. As such, they are very careful. Bicyclists, being even less protected (they wear less protective gear and they don't have an engine to help them get ahead of the heavier vehicles), should probably think the same way, but they've all (well, a lot of them, anyway) let themselves believe it's everyone else's job to watch out for them.

Remember, being a free man means taking responsibility for your actions. If I dart into traffic, I should fully expect to be seriously hurt or killed, bicycle or not.

More random buying habits

2008-07-18T23:51:00.000-07:00

Well, I found a great deal on a very lightly used Five Seven, so I decided not to get the Desert Eagle. A coworker was overjoyed, since he loves oddball guns and wanted the DE. I figure a lightweight gun that can hold 20 rounds of a pretty efficient caliber is a lot more justifiable than a heavy gun that can hold 7 rounds of a much larger caliber. Besides that, I can afford a lot more 5.7x28 than .50 AE.

Yeah, the Five Seven is still an oddball, but I already have some .45s, some shotguns, some .22s, and some good rifles. I am no longer looking for just the most utilitarian guns. I may even end up passing on a very nice Eddystone 1917 Enfield, since I really don't need a bolt .30-06 that I know I'd never put a scope on. On the other hand, it's a piece of history, and it'd go well with my Mausers and my .303 Enfields. The bow I'm looking at buying, on the other hand, would be an easier thing to drop, even though $220 seems pretty darn good for a lefty bow with the quiver, split limbs, limbsaver inserts, fiber-optic sight, tec riser, and whisker biscuit. After the $220, I'd still need arrows, a release, a target block, and a few other things that are probably slipping my mind right now. And all that would probably only get me spending more on archery as I figured stuff out, anyway.

In any case, it's hard to pass up a good deal on a Five Seven that has the hard case, three mags, and little to no wear. Utilitarian or not, it's a fun one.

More governor race stuff

2008-07-18T23:25:00.000-07:00

I heard a radio ad attacking Rossi, and I guess I hadn't realized just how hard they try to link him to Bush--against socialized healthcare, so he's like Bush; tried to decrease the transportation budget, so he's like Bush (yeah, I'm not sure why thinking the WA DOT is a financial black hole makes a person more like Bush, but whatever); he doesn't want to throw government dollars at stem cell research, so he's like Bush; anti-abortion, so he's like Bush.

In case you didn't notice a pattern, he's pretty much a typical Republican on several issues, so he's like Bush. Imagine, one Republican espousing many of the same party-line values of another--it's almost shameful!

Directly after that commercial was a Rossi commercial talking about how he's been the target of attack ads, and he is an above-the-fray sort of character. Never mind that it's mostly an attack on those who put out the attack ads: it's a pretty tame one. I don't think I caught the ads that were mentioned, since some of them had to be modified because they were offensive or slanderous.

I hope Rossi wins, since I'd like to see a smaller state budget, but I'm not holding my breath. If there's one thing Gregoire likely learned from the last time, it's that there are always more votes out there. She might even throw some extra boxes in off the get-go this time. Also, being the incumbent is bound to help her, especially among the groups that don't realize there's a connection between increased state spending and increases in the various fees and taxes they have to pay.

Also, I'd like to welcome the crawlbot from wa.gov. I noticed that there was no referring link from a search, and the only page hit was my post on the governor race. Most crawlbots at least have the decency to be referred by a search engine. Also, I'm not entirely sure why the WA Legislative Service Center is checking blog posts about the governor's race. If anyone's reading the compiled data, I'd love to hear what purpose this serves and how much it's costing the state.

Governor race

2008-07-17T22:39:00.000-07:00

I just had the local news running and heard something funny. Obama's wife was helping to campaign for Gregoire and had a very odd message. She told Washingtonians that we have something that works and shouldn't want to change. It's an odd statement, coming from the Presidential campaign that has based everything on change.

Gregoire has also decided to link Rossi with Bush as much as possible, since she knows there are quite a few Washingtonians who'll be turned away from anyone linked to Bush, and she certainly doesn't want to lose again. It was a lot of work for her to get her loss overturned last time. She said that Rossi's dog is even named Dubya. It's true, but only because of the story behind the dog. He told his daughter that she could only get a dog if the President told him to get his family a dog. She wrote Bush a letter and got a response--he said they should have a dog. Well, Dino Rossi is a man of his word, so they got the dog and named it Dubya in honor of the order from the President.

In any case, Rossi has little to no connection to Bush, and it wouldn't really matter--state politics are a different arena, and the biggest complaints about Bush are generally focused on the war in Iraq, which isn't really in the state's agenda.

On another related note, I enjoy hearing the ads against Rossi. They'll point out that he voted against healthcare for children, among other high-dollar items. If you don't want to face continually higher taxes, his position makes sense. The anti-Gregoire ads, on the other hand, seem more damning. They point out the money her campaign ended up with money from Native American casinos, and that she stopped non-Indian casinos from coming in. Sure, some people are anti-gambling, but it's hard to look at that and assume she just didn't want gambling in Washington.

Oh, well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.

Homeland Security 2

2008-07-15T20:09:00.001-07:00

Well, the second day of the Homeland Security seminar was exhausting. The woman whose only qualification was the death of her son was emotional and illogical. I looked at her biography again and noticed that she sued the gun manufacturer(s) that made the guns used. Luckily, she didn't talk about that part of her crusade.

It was odd to hear the logic she had for her anger at it not being a federal case. She said that it was a civil rights violation because the man used a derogatory term toward the young Jews he attacked and it was in federal jurisdiction because it happened on an interstate highway.

She also claimed that it was international terrorism, since Hamas was proud of the shooter and he was trying to kill an influential Rabbi because a Jew had shot up a Mosque. First of all, Hamas loves the limelight in these sorts of things. Second, she never proved any link to any organization. He was originally from Lebanon, and he had buddies help him who weren't US citizens, but it is hard to make it a federal case and NY had no terrorism laws at the time. The shooter was sentenced to something in the neighborhood of 140+ years in prison, and his helpers were put on probation, fined, and eventually deported.

She didn't know anything about preventing or catching terrorism, nor did she seem to know anything about law except the little she learned from hanging out in courtrooms for awhile and hobnobbing with politicians.

We did hear from a man whose experience in NYPD and in Israel made him much more interesting to hear from. One thing to note was that he freely said that he had no idea why the Israelis carry without a round in a chamber--he said he wasn't judging them, but I noticed that none of them spoke up to correct him, and his tone clearly specified that he was judging them. Of course, he was talking about behavioral profiling and praising the constant searches and checkpoints in Israel. I pointed out to another participant that I felt out of place, being the person in the room who was at least somewhat familiar with the Fourth Amendment. He didn't believe in it. His thoughts were that people could be "inconvenienced" if it made things safer. I stopped arguing with him because there was a presentation going, but I was pointing out that they'll tell us they're only doing it when there's a threat, then it softens people to allowing it all the time. And even if it were only when there is a credible threat, that still doesn't make it okay to search everyone without any probable cause. But try explaining that to a bunch of cops who think they'll make everyone safe.

The last presentation of the day was a long advertisement for training. It was long, pointless, but necessary to provide the free seminar. Oh, well, at least one of the Israeli speakers had a good quip: "In Israel, our bombers strap on a belt or vest. In the US, yours strapped on a whole fucking plane."

Homeland Security?

2008-07-14T20:23:00.000-07:00

Today, I spent a large portion of my day in Homeland Security training. Some of it was supposedly confidential (odd, considering we private security types were allowed to attend, though virtually everyone was an actual LEO of some sort or another), but a lot of it wasn't.

We spent a lot of time learning about what an IED is, and how it can look like just about anything, since a person can hide explosives virtually anywhere. We saw their effects, some of the possible triggers, and basically learned that any terrorist attack can have multiple independent secondary and tertiary devices. This is the sort of stuff that's been common knowledge for a while now.

We also learned about radical Islam, which was refreshing in that it didn't get so PC as to apologize for not being Muslim, as is popular now. They even showed examples of countries that Islam is trying to take over violently which don't even have a history of attacking ANY Muslim countries or persecuting Muslims in any way. No new info, really, but it was nice to see some honesty in one of these terrorism talks.

We saw video of attacks in Thailand, where they lack the equipment to protect the bomb squad. Basically, the bomb squad there is a guy in a police uniform with some wirecutters. They are surprisingly effective, and every tool they get helps. Several of their units apparently even have signal disruption equipment, but no protective gear. It was terrible to see one of them burning to death because he lacked the basic gear our bomb squads strap on before they even think about approaching a bomb.

We also learned about some of the reactions terrorists and their supporters have when questioned. Anger, they said, is most common. Considering their beliefs and the videos they release, I'm not surprised.

We were also told about Israel's experience, both with suicide bombers and rockets. One gentleman who'd been a high-ranking cop over there told us how odd it seemed not to have guards searching people at every mall, school, and other potential target. He implied that we'd get there as soon as we had a couple attacks similar to some he's seen, which was worrisome, but it's not as if he can make policy.

They also talked about waging the war in the media and how important it is that the spokespeople for the "good guys" get as much time as possible on the news, making sure everyone sees them as the good guys and people don't hear as much of the other side

On a more interesting note, since I was there as an unarmed security officer, I was one of the very few without a sidearm. I'm okay with everyone carrying, but I sure don't like to be the unarmed guy (sure, they were cops, but that's no reason to trust them with my safety). Surprisingly, I noticed several single-stack 1911s. After I pointed that out to my boss, he noted that one of them was carrying *gasp* cocked and locked. I pointed out that all of them were and that this was the proper way to carry a 1911. He said he didn't want to risk a failure, and he didn't think it was necessary in this setting. I tried to explain the number of simultaneous failures required for a 1911 to go off while securely in the holster made it impossible, but I finally had to give up before we got into trouble for disrupting the presentation. I was just glad to see some cops don't feel outgunned when carrying a single-stack.

Tomorrow, one of the guests is supposed to be a woman who started crusading against terrorism after her son was killed. I tend not to take these sorts seriously, and I'm guessing she'll be no exception. One of the laws it said she's fighting for bans the sale of "gun kits." I don't even really want to think about what might be included in the scope of that. Heck, AR uppers and lowers, T/C Encore barrels, and unbarreled receivers are all possibilities, though I'm guessing they'll try to convince me that it's only going to be the unbarreled receivers, and they'll cite the lack of a ballistic fingerprint, even though those are notoriously unreliable and difficult, since the rifling will change with wear, dirt, or, if a criminal thinks it'll help, a little filing.

Oh, well. I can only hope she's one of those people who'll burn out her spotlight pretty quickly. And I hope she doesn't speak too long. I may end up arguing, and a lot of these cops will be all for her side of things.

Republitarianism

2008-07-13T22:01:00.001-07:00

Over the few years I've called myself a Republitarian, I've tried to justify the term in different ways. At first, I didn't want to be considered "one of those crazy Libertarians."

The idea, I thought, was to not be so liberty-oriented as to just allow pretty much anything. The problem, though, is that I couldn't really think of any "reasonable" restrictions I could back. Sure, I dislike Scientology, but I don't endorse outlawing it. Just because L. Ron Hubbard created a huge con doesn't mean we should keep these people from letting themselves be duped. I think they enjoy it. I'm not into drugs, but it's hard to justify a continuous war on drugs while legalization would likely calm the drug problems down. It's incredibly hard for me to limit freedom of speech or the freedom to assemble, even for Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, or any other unpopular group. Especially unpopular groups.

David Koresh was a little out there, but the government was incredibly wrong to lay siege to his compound in Waco. Every limitation on the right to bear arms, especially those biased against certain groups or social classes, has been wrong.

Heck, the only place I might disagree with the "crazy" Libertarians is abortion. I don't know when life begins, but I'm against one person taking the life of another. Also, our legal system can call it double homicide if a pregnant woman is killed, but that same woman choosing to kill the child is simply having a medical procedure.

Well, even well after I had realized I was a "crazy" Libertarian, I decided the term Republitarian only denoted my grudging utilitarian voting habits, which tend to involve holding my nose and voting for GOP candidates, even though I desperately want Libertarians to be widely accepted.

Now I simply cling to the term out of convenience. I haven't had this blog for so long I couldn't change, nor was I truly feeling like a Republitarian when I started it, but the alliteration made a good title, I thought.

It just wouldn't seem right to change it to Libertarian, and the URL would seem pretty out of place. Oh, well; we all know my feelings on liberty.

Crotchetiness

2008-07-13T21:14:00.000-07:00

This weekend, I dealt with the same crotchety old customer both days. I'm used to customers being generally irritable, incredibly demanding, and increasingly annoying. This guy was just unbelievably crotchety.

He came to the register (which, by the way, I hate having to work) and started out upset that we hadn't already mounted the scope onto the gun he hadn't paid for. His son, who drives him everywhere and works in the store, tried to calm him, but he'd have none of that. I explained several times that the gun needed to be paid for, which he couldn't understand, and he demanded to know what kind of payment I wanted. I told him credit, cash, or check were all acceptable, and he demanded to know if I preferred check. Eventually, I calmed him enough that he got out his checkbook, though he was too agitated to write, so his son had to do everything but sign.

After the gun was paid for, I asked what sort of bases he wanted, offering the idea of Leupold. He became more agitated, saying he hated those and wanted Weaver. I flagged a coworker to mount the scope, and the coworker asked whether the customer wanted Leupold bases, causing said customer to launch into a tirade about how he had already explained this and shouldn't be forced to explain it again.

My coworker tried his best to find Weaver bases, but we just didn't have them for this particular rifle. He explained the options and sent the customer away. I figured he'd order the bases he wanted and might come back in a week to get the scope mounted and boresighted.

Instead, he came back today, bringing along a different son. His son came to the counter and asked for Weaver bases for a rifle purchased by [customer] recently. I started explaining that they simply weren't available and they'd have to order them, which started to agitate the customer, who hadn't been the first to speak. Finally, I suggested the Leupold QR system, since the main problem he had with Leupold was the in-base windage adjustment (one of the nicest features).

He started telling me I was the only non-idiot in the store and making up stories about how stupid my coworker was. He also suddenly remembered the case he'd wanted, which I knew he hadn't taken because he couldn't test the fit with the scoped gun, and he told me how it had "disappeared" even though he wanted it. I finally got everything put together for him, and got him out of the store, but it took a lot of willpower to make sure I didn't send him out in a way that would discourage a return visit.

At least mounting a scope in the back gave me a brief respite from the horde of customers outside.

Archery

2008-07-12T23:03:00.000-07:00

Recently, I've been strongly considering getting a bow. My coworkers seem to assume it's for hunting, except for the one who has the same attitude I do.

I found a Reflex bow that seems pretty good. It has a tek riser (I think that's the spelling for these things), split limbs, sound dampeners in the limbs, a 70 pound draw, a quick-release quiver, and a decent fiber-optic sight. Until recently, I hadn't shot a compound bow, so the things like releases and attached quivers are new and strange.

Some of you may wonder what need I have for a bow. Sometimes, a quieter approach may be necessary. I may not end up getting the bow, since silence isn't a big thing for me. I just like options, but the bow will cost some money--arrows, a target block, arrowheads, a release, and, of course the bow itself.

I know and trust guns. I don't know bows, but I have no reason to distrust them. It could be useful, but I should probably focus on improving my supply of firearms, ammo, reloading equipment, and other accessories.

buying habits

2008-07-12T22:40:00.000-07:00

I enjoy odd guns. I'm about to pick up an Enfield No. 5 Mk 1 (a.k.a. the jungle carbine--I actually had a customer trying to buy it out from under me, too, snce I tend to put some money down to mull things over), I just ordered a Desert Eagle in from another store because of the price, and it looks like I'll buy it (It's blued, with wood grips, has the ability to swap out the barrel, and is in like new condition), and I have an XD-M on layaway.

Just to recap, that is a rare .303, a ridiculous .50 handgun, and a pretty good .40. Not to mention the other random stuff I already have. I may not get the DE, since there is absolutely no logical justification for it beyond the fact that I'd be able to get more than I paid out of it when I get bored of it. And that's no reason to buy a gun. Well, not to buy that particular gun, at least. If I can make that argument for a more utilitarian purchase, maybe.

Y'know, something cool, like a Five Seven.

Spider day

2008-07-11T23:29:00.000-07:00

Today was apparently the day of the spider invasion of my home. I woke up early this morning, only to find a large spider on the wall above my face. Now, this may or may not come as a surprise, but I'm a bit arachnophobic. I looked up at the spider, crawled out of bed, and grabbed my vacuum (this keeps the spider from being splattered or mushed into anything--I'm not a big fan of spider bits, either). The spider clung to the wall valiantly, but there's only so much a small critter like that can do to resist a large vacuum cleaner.

I put the vacuum cleaner away, then noticed the spider's living room counterpart. I vacuumed him down, too, and then couldn't go back to sleep. I didn't have that long to kill, so it wasn't too bad.

By the time I got home from work, though, they'd sent in a specialist. I don't know how he got in, though, since I didn't give the bastard a key. He was certainly too big to have come in any way but the door, so he must've been the first spider locksmith. I thought of shooting him with my .44, but I figured he'd just shrug it off and might even get mad that I shot him. His body was a little longer than the width of the vacuum tube, which looked like it might pose a problem. Luckily, spiders are very malleable, so this big wood spider (or whatever sort of spider he actually was) is in pieces in the vacuum bag.

Hopefully, this will serve as a warning to the next wave of spider invaders.

The trifecta

2008-07-11T11:49:00.000-07:00

I have a lot of customers looking for the one gun that will do everything they'll ever need. As most of my readers know, that's impossible. You can get away with limiting yourself to as few as two guns if you choose the right ones and do things in specific ways, but most gun people would recommend at least three, preferably the rifle-handgun-shotgun trifecta. This does leave out the .22 most would suggest, but we're talking minimums here.

Depending on your personal view, there are two ways to go with this--concentrate on one readily available caliber in each category, or attempt to have a wide range to prepare for as many possible options as you can. Since we're talking minimums, we'll go ahead and talk readily available.

For a single rifle to do what you'll want for both hunting and SHTF situations (and, actually, hunting IN SHTF situations), semi-automatic is preferred, especially if higher-capacity mags are available, as opposed to hunting magazines. Most people will choose .308, .223, or 7.62x39. Depending on your state, the .223 may very well be illegal for hunting, but that's alright if you won't be hunting until the SHTF situations; it'll do, as long as you know what you're doing. 7.62 is probably the most affordable rifle, since the SKS and AK are both readily available at reasonable prices. There's also a lot of ammo out there for it. The AR platform, though, is probably the platform of choice due to its weight, readily available parts, and widespread use in police and military agencies. The .308 is also commonly used, but will be the most expensive option (it's also the most practical choice for a hunting/battle rifle, since it will work very well for both purposes).

Since we're talking about the guy who simply wants one gun, they probably want to save money. Let's find them something in an AK. WASRs are commonly available and cheap, but probably not the quality I'd recommend. Saigas, on the other hand, are also cheap, and they can be quickly adapted to accept AK mags. They are also some of the better ones out there (though the AK accessories and pistol grips aren't usable without serious modifications, the Saiga that can accept AK mags should very easily suffice).

As for the shotgun, we don't have to get too fancy. It's mostly for home defense or close combat and good for some hunting. I'd recommend something simple, like a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500/590/835. A short barrel is great for defensive use, while you may want a longer barrel for hunting. If you want to get fancy, you can get something like the Benelli M3.

A suggestion here: the 870 is going to have the most widely available parts, and you can often pick up a used one for a pretty decent price.

The handgun is going to be a sidearm. You will want it for carry, and it'll do just fine for home defense as well (this is how you cut yourself down to two--cut out the shotgun). You will want something in a common caliber, reliable, and accurate. You also want it to be something you will actually carry. That Desert Eagle may look badass, but even the .357 or .44 versions will be heavy (and notoriously unreliable), and the .50 AE is going to be a pain to find. 9mm, .40, and .45 will be great choices, and .357 will be your best choice for a revolver. Some of you might be saying that you'd prefer a Five Seven, since it is incredibly light, very accurate, and has the best capacity you'll find. It is a good choice, except for the ammo concerns. Your best bet is a Glock (though I loathe them so), a Springfield XD, or a Smith & Wesson M&P. Personally, I like .45, so I generally carry an XD or a 1911. The XD is probably your better bet, carrying 13 rounds (as will the Glock 21), giving you quite a bit of firepower with only a couple mags. The new XD-M is probably going to be the best bet for most people, as .40 is incredibly popular among police agencies, and it has 16-round mags.

Something to think about here--9mm is in common use in the military, and .40 is probably the most common police round. In a SHTF situation, there are two things that could happen--most available ammo in those calibers goes to those agencies, leaving very little, or you can end up acquiring ammo from these groups, increasing your supplies.

If we've got a cheapskate trying to get all set up here, there's probably a Saiga, an 870, and a Taurus (although there was a Glock 21 that looked almost unfired pretty cheap at work the other day, so maybe there could be an upgrade on that front). That's a respectable trio, and a good start. Make sure to stock up on ammo.

Another consideration is whether you'll be with others in a SHTF situation. If you will, you may want to talk to them about the plan. If you all bring ARs, you can share ammo and parts. If you bring a long-range weapon and others bring shorter-range rifles, you'll play different roles. On the other hand, if you will likely be alone, that single-shot .50 BMG really won't be as much help as a high-capacity AR.

My choices are a Remington 7400 in .30-06 and a Saiga 7.62x39 (I keep thinking I'll add an AR, but I don't really want to spend that much to add another caliber). I also have Mausers in 8mm and Enfields in .303, so I have some bolt guns that would probably end up as my hunting rifles if the SHTF. I have a Mossberg 835 and a single shot Survivor in 12 ga. I have some .45s and a .44, and I'm going to be picking up a .40 (the XD-M). I also have some .22 rifles, so I'm fairly well-set. Unfortunately, I'm low on .303 ammo right now, but that isn't something I should be relying on in a SHTF situation. I also have the equipment, powder, and bullets to reload in .45, .44, .30-06, and 8mm Mauser.

Over at TSLRF, Ryan has (or had, as he may've changed his mind since then) a different take, I see. He says you can cut out the rifle. It's true, but I wouldn't. The rifle plays an important role, since the shotgun won't have the capacity and neither the pistol nor the shotgun will have the range. In any case, no one firearm can truly fill all the necessary roles.

I'm probably smarter than a fifth grader

2008-07-10T20:28:00.001-07:00

I rarely watch these sorts of shows, but every time I turn on "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader," it sucks me in. I have trouble believing the questions contestants can't figure out. A contestant tonight couldn't figure out whether burning wood causes a chemical change (it does), and she decided the river along the Texas-Mexico border was the Colorado River (it's the Rio Grande). She then figured that, because the sun is really hot, her best guess as to its temperature was 35 million degrees Fahrenheit (actually 10,000--and her other choice was 1 million).

This wasn't quite as bad as the guy in another episode who arrived at the proper conclusion through ridiculously faulty logic--"True or False: Chickens are warm-blooded animals." Rather than basing anything on their status as birds or the fact that they don't heat themselves on flat rocks on a sunny day, he based it on the fact that they live on land.

Tonight's other contestant announced that he knew the answer and would answer the question. He proceeded to claim with certainty that the Rocky Mountains are located entirely within the US. He was, of course, wrong, proving that traveling the world requires little to no knowledge of geography. Shortly after that, I managed to turn off the television.

I understand that television and the annoying children would make it a stressful situation, but they fail some hilariously easy questions sometimes and make the ones they do get look a lot harder than they are. Once in awhile, there's a question I don't know the answer to, but not often enough to end up on the show (after all, they need someone who'd do a lot of hand-wringing and use up all the "cheats" if they're going to win). I can't stand how they try to convince us that the contestants are really smart people--it makes me wonder if they're supposed to take a dive so the saps at home feel smarter.

Meh. I should really just avoid watching this crap.

LOWER gas prices?

2008-07-10T19:43:00.000-07:00

Like many others, I have a Facebook account. It's almost a shameful secret. On Facebook, users can create "groups" (it needs quotes because these don't really involve any actual interaction among those involved). Many of these champion various causes, such as global warming, the return of facial hair to political candidates, being the largest group on Facebook, various political candidates (both real and fictional), or helping the creator of the group with some sort of ill-defined psychology project s/he thought would be the easiest way out of doing something loosely based on actual research.

I was recently invited to join a group called "15,000,000 for lower gas prices." The way I figure it, the group envisions the following scenario:

Halliburton rolls out of bed and gets onto Facebook. There's an invitation to the group, which arouses a certain level of curiosity. Halliburton says, "15,000,000? They can't be serious...there's gotta be like fifty or sixty people, max, who want lower gas prices." The group hasn't met the 15 million goal, of course, but the numbers are allegedly nearing two million members.
Halliburton, of course, is shocked and has to text BP. "bp chk out fbook--i snt u a link" BP gets on Facebook, sees the group, and immediately calls Halliburton. "Really, there's that many people who wanna pay less for gas? We should totally lower gas prices! It'd be awesome!"

Of course, things won't play out that way because we live in a world of supply and demand. There are two ways to lower prices: increase supply or reduce demand. Most people can't really go find and refine oil (especially with the laws we have restricting oil refineries), so that's pretty much out. That leaves two choices: suck it up and pay or suck it up and use less gas. The thing that gets me about this odd Facebook group is that it suggests no solution. At least the people advocating a one-day strike or fueling only at certain stations are positing solutions, even if they are completely useless and uninformed solutions.

Oh, well. I suppose inaction means nobody's doing anything stupid that will have a negative impact.

Call to service?

2008-07-09T00:14:00.000-07:00

Mover Mike has a great post about Obama's "call to service." It seems Obama would like to tell us that our aspirations aren't as good as those he has for us. He'll give us permission to pursue our dreams, but only if we're serving a higher purpose. Forgive me for being Randian (actually, don't forgive me--Ayn Rand was one of the greatest political philosophers of all time, in my opinion) for a moment, but if I want to attempt to be the world's richest man because I want the money for myself, I should be free to do it. Hell, I'd end up providing work for many others, as well as buying and selling goods or services that others obviously want.

I guess you could argue that the greediest person might well be a better influence on society than the most generous volunteer. After all, if I feed 100 homeless people a month, I influence far fewer lives than Microsoft, which employs many, buys goods and services from other companies, and sells products that make all sorts of things much more manageable for others who then, directly or indirectly, may do good in the world. (Also, I'm aware Microsoft has a charitable side, but that isn't relevant to this conversation.) If you spend a thousand dollars feeding the homeless, you may see the same faces coming back for handouts repeatedly. If you invest that thousand dollars in a company that can hire some of those faces, maybe they'll be able to grow and hire more employees.

I'm not saying there's no place for charity or service--Obama has a good point when he honors the military, teachers, cops, and firefighters. Compelling people to serve and to perform community service, though, is not the answer. Imagine a teacher draft. Would you want your child taught by someone compelled into the career field and probably unqualified? No. You would much prefer that person who has a passion for teaching. Telling people they "must" serve a "higher purpose" doesn't help anything. I happen to think janitors and sanitation workers serve one of the highest purposes--they keep things clean. It's a dirty, thankless job, and no one ever tells people to serve a higher purpose by becoming a garbage man or janitor. But imagine the world without them.

What I'm saying is that there's a place for every job, from CEO to infantryman, President to janitor, and stockbroker to nanny. People will do whatever works for them, and it will, in turn, work for others. Mutually beneficial arrangements end a lot better than government-compelled interactions, perhaps especially when the government means well.

Freedom.

2008-07-06T00:07:00.000-07:00

Working on the Fourth and going immediately from there to my parents' house, I didn't have a chance to write any meditations on Independence Day. I hope you'll forgive me for my tardiness, but here are some brief thoughts on the subject of freedom.

A free man (or woman, if you so choose, but I'll be using "man" as a generic term) should have the authority to do as he wishes with his person and property, so far as his actions do not interfere with another's right to life, liberty, and property.

A free man has the right (and the responsibility) to defend his life, liberty, and property should anyone else threaten it.

A free man does not have the right to take another's life, liberty, or property, nor does he have the right to ask another to do so on his behalf. This still applies when there are many free men taking the property of one. It even applies when those many petition the government to take the property of few, or even one.

A free man has the responsibility to earn his own way. He has no right to expect anyone else to make his way for him.

A free man has the responsibility to preserve his freedom, as well as the freedom of others.

There are those who would tell you that a man should submit to those who would take his property by force. They'll talk about the "greater good" and the "needs of the many," but a free man should not be forced or coerced into giving up his property. Socialism is wrong because it forcibly removes the fruits of the labor from those who have created them and divides them indiscriminately among those who have created wealth and those who have not. Just because other nations are socialist, some will tell you it is a just system. This is not true.

America may have some unjust and socialist practices, but we're still a free country at our core. And that's what makes this country great. If we could work on whittling away the bloated government, it could be even better, but we can't expect perfection, can we?

Coworkers and self-control...

2008-07-02T23:32:00.000-07:00

My coworkers are a bad influence on me. I already have very little willpower when I find a good deal on an interesting firearm, and my coworkers urge me to buy things.
Normally, these are things like an Enfield jungle carbine, an Eddystone 1917 Enfield, or other interesting semi-historical finds. When I found that one of the XD-Ms was one of the first 5,000, the same coworker that urges me to buy the old military rifles told me that I'd better not pass it up. He has also tried to get me to buy a Kimber on multiple occasions, but I will not own one due to the fact that they continue to design firearms for California law enforcement (the SIS, in particular) despite those same LEOs keeping their subjects from owning similar firearms.
Today, I was looking at a used Taurus Raging Bull in .454 (I don't know why--I had actually been checking the case for a double-action .44 to go with my recently acquired Super Blackhawk) and a different coworker started telling me how much I'd love a .454, especially with the porting on a Raging Bull. It's a fairly good deal, at just under $600 for a nearly new .454, but I can't think of a possible reason for me to need a .454. And, yet, I put it on hold so I could mull the idea over.
I need a new job and some willpower.

Having done a little reading...

2008-06-27T22:20:00.000-07:00

Well, I actually read the Heller opinion. I must say that Scalia has written one of the most entertaining and interesting decisions I've seen. Very few Justices would insult the dissenters quite as directly and strongly as he has. He derides their faulty conclusions with such choice phrases as "bizarre" and "worthy of a mad hatter" (and uses a good lead-up for that one, saying that "A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass").

One of my favorite parts reads:

Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.

I also enjoyed the citations of Joseph Story, one of my favorite Justices, and the lengthy discussion of the grammatical side of the Second Amendment. Yes, that probably makes me a history nerd and grammar nerd, but I do enjoy these things.

I must admit, though, I was disappointed by the bit on the Miller case. Scalia mentions that the NFA ban on machineguns would be unconstitutional under a reading of that decision, were it not for the "common use" portion, implying that only those weapons good for personal protection and home defense would be acceptable. I have to say that this reading leaves a lot to be desired, since the common military weaponry is outlawed, and therefore impossible to have in common use, no matter its utility. There was a time when privately held weapons were generally superior technologically to military weapons, but we have legislated common use to the point of keeping the citizenry from having the means to defend against oppression from within.

Scalia also makes sure to mention that this should not "cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." I would have much rather had him remain silent on this, since there is no reason for comment. There were, to my knowledge, no arguments on these restrictions, so he shouldn't be affirming them, even if they were all just (which, mind you, is not my opinion of them).

In total, the decision is mediocre--banning an entire class of weapons commonly used for defense is unconstitutional and requiring legal weapons to be rendered inoperable is similarly unconstitutional. While it's a fun read, the scope of the decision is limited and it affirms some restrictions (full-auto, commercial sale, etc.) that should have been struck down or left alone (the latter would, of course, be more likely, considering the arguments put forth in the case).

Heller decision

2008-06-26T22:41:00.000-07:00

Friends and customers have mentioned the landmark Heller decision in a congratulatory way, knowing that I'm big on gun rights. It's a landmark decision, of course, and the correct decision.

Forgive me, though, if I am a bit disappointed by the fact that fundamental rights can even be brought into question. Forgive me for being disappointed in this country for holding its collective breath waiting for the Court to decide whether our rights are, indeed, inalienable. I may seem a little overly dramatic, but what happened to a government afraid to trample its people?

Sure, they made the right decision, but what if they hadn't? Cities all over the US might be trying to disarm their citizens, and people in other cities would be loathe to intervene until it was their guns on the line. Or maybe I'm wrong, and people would've drawn the line at the Court's decision.

For now, we've been handed the proper decision, but I have to wonder whether they'll decide that cities can restrict or deny other rights next time. Maybe the next time, we'll get a city that requires citizens to practice a certain religion or that owns and controls the only newspaper. Or maybe I'm a little paranoid. I hope that's all it is.

Ear protection

2008-06-25T19:44:00.000-07:00

I went out to the pit to shoot today, and when I arrived, I was the only one. After a little while, a couple young guys showed up with some ARs, AKs, and other similar guns, as well as a Sig 9mm and a Beretta 92. They didn't set up any targets, which was fine, since there's always junk to shoot at the pit.

I had only taken my XD45, my 10/22, and a newly acquired Ruger Super Blackhawk .44. That's not really the sort of arsenal that impresses that sort of guys, generally. These guys, though, really noticed the .44, and they wanted to try it. I let them, and didn't realize until they were shooting that they had absolutely no ear protection.

Now, it's better to have ear protection for 7.62, .223, and other rifle rounds, but it's not deafening if you forget. A .44 magnum revolver, on the other hand, is pretty darned loud. After I explained exactly what I meant by single-action, they tried firing. I think the noise made them jump and think the recoil was worse than it really was. With the Hogue grips on it, it's really a smooth shooter.

Luckily, I carry a box of earplugs, so I gave them some. I think they learned the value of adequate protection, but I can't be sure. Some people won't learn their lesson.

I still haven't read enough...

2008-06-25T19:43:00.000-07:00

"The Big Read reckons that the average adult has only read 6 of the top 100 books they've printed."
1) Look at the list and bold those you have read.
2) Italicize those you intend to read.
3) Underline the books you LOVE.
4) Reprint this list in your own blog so we can try and track down these people who've read only 6 and force books upon them

1. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
2. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
3. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
4. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
5. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
6. Ulysses by James Joyce (Y'know, I oughtta read this one again...it's been awhile)
7. Beloved by Toni Morrison
8. The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
9. 1984 by George Orwell
10. The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
11. Lolita by Vladmir Nabokov
12. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
13. Charlotte's Web by E.B. White
14. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
15. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
16. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
17. Animal Farm by George Orwell
18. The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
19. As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
20. A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
21. Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
22. Winnie-the-Pooh by A.A. Milne
23. Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston
24. Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
25. Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison
26. Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
27. Native Son by Richard Wright
28. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
29. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
30. For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
31. On the Road by Jack Kerouac
32. The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
33. The Call of the Wild by Jack London
34. To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf
35. Portrait of a Lady by Henry James
36. Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin
37. The World According to Garp by John Irving
38. All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren
39. A Room with a View by E.M. Forster
40. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
41. Schindler's List by Thomas Keneally
42. The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton
43. The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
44. Finnegans Wake by James Joyce
45. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
46. Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf
47. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
48. Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
49. A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
50. The Awakening by Kate Chopin
51. My Antonia by Willa Cather
52. Howards End by E.M. Forster
53. In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
54. Franny and Zooey by J.D. Salinger
55. The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie
56. Jazz by Toni Morrison
57. Sophie's Choice by William Styron
58. Absalom, Absalom! by William Faulkner
59. A Passage to India by E.M. Forster
60. Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton
61. A Good Man Is Hard to Find by Flannery O'Connor
62. Tender Is the Night by F. Scott Fitzgerald
63. Orlando by Virginia Woolf
64. Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence
65. Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe
66. Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
67. A Separate Peace by John Knowles
68. Light in August by William Faulkner
69. The Wings of the Dove by Henry James
70. Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
71. Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier
72. A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams (Over and over...)
73. Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs
74. Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh
75. Women in Love by D.H. Lawrence
76. Look Homeward, Angel by Thomas Wolfe
77. In Our Time by Ernest Hemingway
78. The Autobiography of Alice B. Tokias by Gertrude Stein
79. The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett
80. The Naked and the Dead by Norman Mailer
81. Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys
82. White Noise by Don DeLillo
83. O Pioneers! by Willa Cather
84. Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller
85. The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells
86. Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad
87. The Bostonians by Henry James
88. An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser
89. Death Comes for the Archbishop by Willa Cather (though Fr. John was always fun, this was the worst thing he ever forced upon a class.)
90. The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame (It's been far too long)
91. This Side of Paradise by F. Scott Fitzgerald
92. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (I've only read it a couple times.)
93. The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles
94. Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis
95. Kim by Rudyard Kipling
96. The Beautiful and the Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald
97. Rabbit, Run by John Updike
98. Where Angels Fear to Tread by E.M. Forster
99. Main Street by Sinclair Lewis
100. Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie

Under New Management...

2008-06-11T13:33:00.000-07:00

They shuffled management at work recently, which brought a new manager to my department. At the same time, we're interviewing for a "lead" position, which he is conducting the interviews for. While I held my tongue in the interview, I know we'll butt heads. I dislike hypocrisy and corporate shills.

He told me that we would no longer have schedules posted in the department, since company policy states that the schedules are to be posted only near the break room. I wanted to ask him to justify keeping us in the dark, but I knew the answer: company policy. He's also big on making sure we stick to our assigned schedule. All well and good, except that we end up having to come in early and stay late in order to keep things flowing correctly. This is against company policy, especially if we get overtime. And, of course, some of the interview questions were things like my future in the company. I said I didn't have any interest in moving up to corporate and would rather stay in the store, which is true, since I don't plan on staying with the company long enough to go up the corporate ladder.

He's also a bit of a hypocrite. He said he didn't want anyone shopping for used guns out of the vault (a lot of our employees like to catch deals before they hit the floor). If it weren't for the fact that he was one of the first to grab one back there (before it was even processed), I might respect that.

I'll butt heads with him because I'm all for doing things that'll work for the store I'm at, not what somebody who sits in a desk in Nebraska might say. If there's no justification for a rule, why follow it? I just hope I'm not there long enough to really run into issues.

Another one of those days...

2008-06-08T00:52:00.000-07:00

Some of the random people who just aren't bright astound me:

A girl walked up to the counter and said, "I think your number-thing is broken" (number-thing being our system for helping customers in order). I raised an eyebrow and asked why she thought this. "Well, it's been on 5 for a long time now." I paused to take a dramatic look down the counter. "Well, I've been helping number five with these scopes and rifles for a bit. As soon as one of the two employees can help another person, we'll help number 6." "Well, will I have to wait for you to call number 16, then." *Pause* "Yeah. You'll have to wait for your number to be called."

Another one was a guy who came in and thought he'd brought his PCS orders (gotta prove Washington residency to get a handgun). He had forgotten them, but figured his authorization to drive military vehicles on post would suffice. It, of course, would not. I offered a computer to allow him to retrieve his records, which would have all the info we needed (and a helluva lot more). After repeated attempts to get it to work, he finally reset his password. Once logged in, he couldn't find the right link. Finally, he found it. He pulled up his records and was shocked to find that he was in Air Recon--he thought he was in Cav!! Turns out, as a UAV mechanic, he'd somehow missed the whole possibility he might be in an aerial reconnaissance unit (Cav was technically correct as well, but he was more specifically assigned to Air Recon).

Then, of course, are the coworkers...one of them threatened to quit because he and one other guy were closing, and that just wasn't going to be enough help. Then again, this was far more reasonable than the time he was quitting over the NICS check delaying him. Being someone who calls them in AND someone who regularly gets delayed, you'd think he'd know better than to blame the store, but he stormed out. He came back about an hour later and still had his job, so I guess he won that round.

Movies...

2008-05-27T17:00:00.000-07:00

I've been watching a lot of DVDs lately, and I had forgotten just how anti-gun some of them can be. The Lethal Weapon series really surprised me. I knew that it had been rather cop-sided, but I'd forgotten just how strongly they pushed the victim disarmament. Anti-gun and anti-NRA posters are often visible in the precinct, they blame guns when they get shot at by drug-dealing kids, and they even throw Pesci's character's gun off the boat in the 4th movie...and he's one of the non-cop good guys. That, of course, also violates his property rights, and is even worse than just keeping him disarmed, but they thought it would make a great gag.

I had also forgotten that Die Hard 2 perpetuated the myth that Glocks are "porcelain" and don't get caught by metal detectors. Sure, I knew that it was cops and bad guys that had guns in the DIe Hard movies, but at least the other good guys are given guns once in awhile (though the third one has Samuel L. Jackson's character fail to utilize it, but that's a blatant plot device).

Mind you, I know Hollywood's not really big on facing the reality of armed citizens, but they are big on appealing to any group they think they can profit from. What about those of us who choose to protect ourselves? With the ever-growing number of people who own guns, you'd think they'd see a market for it. About the only movies in which the non-cop, non-criminal citizen gets to be armed are westerns. And most of those are just about lawmen and outlaws these days, too.

Eh, I'd better just throw Tremors in...they may call Burt crazy, but no one questions his right to own his arsenal. Maybe it won't annoy me.

Broken XD45

2008-05-22T22:39:00.000-07:00

No, not mine.

A customer brought it in to exchange it, saying it was defective. I opened the box expecting to find that he had accidentally tried to reassemble it with the mag in or with the takedown lever down.

What greeted me inside that case, though, was far from what I expected. The slide was jammed about halfway back, with no movement either way. The feed ramp on the chamber was wedged into the chunk of metal the little feed ramp on the internals is carved out of. I could not move the slide, barrel, or guide rod a bit. Not only had the 6'4" 300 lb soldier forced the thing into place, he had also taken a mallet to it. I took it into the vault and grabbed a mallet. Unfortunately, we only had brass mallets, which I'm not entirely comfortable with using to hammer the slide out of that position. A coworker took out the pins in the frame, but the takedown lever was stuck, so we couldn't move the internals (of course, that was the first one I had tried to tap out, so I saw no point in removing the pins).

Eventually, I took it to a manager who also fancies himself a pseudo-gunsmith. He was upset that we would dare try taking the pins out and told me to "try" to get them back in "as much as [I] can." Well, knowing the gun pretty well, I put them back in, tossed the thing on his desk, and went back to helping customers.

Turns out, he had a plastic mallet, and he hammered away until things broke loose. He then pronounced the guide rod the wrong one for the gun. I looked it over, turned to him, and told him I was pretty sure it was right. He showed me how it stuck out a little when the gun was in battery. I told him it was an XD. They do that. It wouldn't go back to the locked slide position, though, so something was indeed wrong. I checked another guide rod, but that apparently wasn't the problem. The manager then huffed something about "well, I don't know what to tell you then," and I put the gun in the pile of defective guns and those in need of repair.

The lesson here: If you need a mallet to reassemble your gun, don't touch it. Let somebody else put it back together so I don't end up having to deal with your "defective" gun. Or, hell, look at the damned thing again. I'm sure he didn't have the guide rod in there appropriately, which is what stopped it up, and then he bound it up entirely when he forced it.

Throw a fit, get a discount

2008-05-17T21:09:00.000-07:00

I don't understand people sometimes. When you go into a chain store and tell the employee that another employee quoted you a price well below the company's cost, do you really think that the random employee will be able to nearly halve the price to meet that quote? And do you think telling said employee about your practices in your own business will get you what you want? Yeah, you can choose to take a loss. An employee at a chain store can't take a loss. It's not his loss to take. Finally, don't get upset when that person goes to find someone above him to figure out the best possible deal available. It's the only way you'll come anywhere near getting what you want.

The worst part is that other people will make similar scenes knowing they'll get to speak to managers. And they'll get what they want. Repeatedly. And they don't seem to feel even a little guilty.

Meh.

Constitutional Republic

2008-05-08T22:35:00.000-07:00

Law Dog has an good post up about the depressing willingness of the American public to entrust the President with far more power than the Constitution allows. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to change in the near future.

The funny thing about it is that none of our so-called "Constitutional scholars" worry about the document they're "interpreting." Go to your nearest college and talk to some professors in the political science department. They'll cite case law that backs whichever stance they'd like to defend on whichever issue is big at the moment, but ask them about the Constitution and see what happens. Many of them will tell you that it's a "living document" and "open to interpretation," but they'll very rarely even dust off a copy of it and look at what they're interpreting.

I had professors who routinely called our political system a democracy and would not accept a correction. If, heaven forbid, I brought up a point regarding the Constitution, they would simply spout precedent, if they bothered to present a reason for the disagreement at all. "Why is this done this way?" "Well, they've been doing it since it was first done by..." "But what about the Constitution?" "It's a living document, and the founders couldn't have foreseen our world. That's why we have to rely on precedent."

It's my experience that, for everything that changes, human nature never does. Sure, we have different technology, but people still want to pursue their individual dreams without interference. People still want to protect their own interests, property, and families. Sure, the internet and television have largely supplanted the printing press, but it's not a new concept, just a new media. Our Republic was designed with the unchanging aspects of humanity in mind, though you'd never think it with the modifications that've led to the current state of affairs.

Sorry about the wait...

2008-05-03T05:08:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry to have let this blog die. I've realized just how important it is to choose jobs you don't hate. Not necessarily jobs you love, but jobs that don't drain the life from you. Big box retail, for me, is one of those life-suckers. I still haven't quit, but I've stopped waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel to get brighter. It's a damned cave, and that light bulb's burning out, so I'm going back to the surface.

That aside, working in the corporate-controlled world has taught me a few things about myself. In college (and for a time thereafter), I felt like I could make a difference. Not because of the Republican Club, the Libertarian Club, the school newspaper, or any of the other things that students often think might have a lasting impact. No, I was already cynical then. I knew the school paper was a joke that no one read, though I put a LOT of work into editing it. (It seems literacy is not a prerequisite to taking journalism classes.) I had fun with that one, writing opinion pieces and never trying anything seriously.

It was an underground publication that let me make a difference. My senior year, a new president took over at my college (which was dubbed a university at the same time). Some would say that I seemed to dislike him from day one. It's probably true. Right away, I knew he and I weren't going to see eye to eye, and I did not like the direction he was going to be taking the college. The first freshmen to come in under his regime were greeted with a speech including such key lines as "at any university, there are parties every night of the week. But you shouldn't party every night. You should pick two nights a week that you can party, and stick to just those two nights." I quickly opened MSPaint and created a quick comic. It was poorly drawn, but it became the centerpiece for the first issue. (There were a few more issues after that, and they all had similar stick figure comics)

People thought that I went into the school in the middle of the night to distribute the paper, but I did something less conspicuous. While evening classes were still in session, no one paid much attention to a guy sliding a couple papers under teachers' doors. After all, it was probably late homework. And they certainly didn't notice a few papers being left in various accessible areas where they'd be discovered by students killing time before class the next day. From the beginning, I was the prime suspect. The fun was letting everyone go on accusing me without letting them have their proof.

It was fun seeing the reaction and watching the administration try to trick me into taking credit for my work. It was expensive, but it was worth every penny and more.

By the end, I was getting sloppy. A few supporters learned who I was because they happened to be in their offices when I was delivering. It just made me even more brazen. The final issue was delivered while quite a few offices were occupied, and I was caught by someone who had no love for the publication. She didn't end it, though. She told the head of security who had done it, and he told me to keep my head down. It didn't matter. I knew it was ending. I had finally found the story that would be impossible to top: a letter from the faculty to the president, outlining the various problems they had with him. After that was public, the local newspapers picked up on it and the president resigned. Though it was nothing on even a statewide scale, it was a massive event for the college. The paper ended because it couldn't top that. It had done its job.

Even when I was working on a larger level, things looked brighter in those days. When I wrote about wasteful government spending in Washington State (things like unaccountable gas spending by the state, building a rehab facility that didn't actually make residents sober up, or painting a plane like a salmon), I saw my stories picked up around Washington and even in other states (in small doses, and never really changing things). When I wrote about Michael Idland, a state trooper who was still receiving pay while imprisoned on charges of molesting women he'd pulled over, I had the satisfaction of knowing the State Patrol knew who I was. Sure, they dodged a lot of my questions and only partially answered some, but I knew they were getting nervous. And the judge made him pay for his incarceration, though the plea deal left him pretty much unscathed. (Of course, that wasn't really my doing, but it was good to see some sense on the bench.)

In the corporate-controlled world, I find myself just keeping my head down. If a policy is terrible, I complain to those above me and never see a change for the better. I can't subvert the process, since the head honchos don't want to listen and aren't around to be forced to listen. In the short time I've been in this world, I've seen them change to an automated scheduling system, which means no one gets a decent schedule; I've seen the employee discount range cut because their research saw that the average was 25%, so that should be the new top of the scale (instead of 40%); they've given customers ridiculous discounts and free meals to make amends for things that the customer screwed up or made up; I've had to return guns that I KNEW the customer had broken; and I've seen that they don't give people better pay for having more responsibilities or even for the risk of felony charges (after all, a screwup at the gun counter could really bit a person in the ass).

That was kind of a long post just to complain about work. But I think I'm going to be starting this blog back up fairly soon. And I'll get back to regularly reading some of my favorites, as well.

Presidential Ponderings

2008-02-04T06:42:00.000-08:00

The more I think about the next Presidential election, the more annoyed and depressed I get. Ron Paul has been written off as a loon, Fred Thompson's not in the race anymore, Mike Huckabee isn't looking overly electable, and McCain and Romney are the GOP frontrunners. And, to make matters worse, Giuliani looks to be McCain's running mate, should McCain get the nomination.
On the Dem side, it's Obama and Clinton, both of which are incredibly repulsive choices. I would guess that the ticket will end up being the two of them, though they'll fight bitterly to decide who'll get top billing.

In other words, the two-party choices look incredibly bad. Some folks have talked of heading to another country should Hillary win, but there aren't a lot of good choices for that, either. The problem is that the Dems are looking to turn America into the same sort of place much of the rest of the world is. And that's not where I want to be.

Some hunters...

2008-01-15T20:57:00.000-08:00

I'm constantly astounded by the level of ignorance many hunters can exhibit regarding guns. AR variants are "people killers," handguns are useless, and the magnum calibers are the best thing in the whole world, no matter what you're hunting.

AR variants are commonly used by other hunters due to their adaptability. You see, changing the upper on an AR will give you the same trigger pull, the same feel, and the same controls while adapting the weapon for another purpose. The typical caliber, .223, is a varmint caliber, good for coyotes and such. And it's not the best for killing people, especially if you use military ammo. You see, the military isn't allowed to use efficient hollowpoints. FMJ rounds leave clean holes straight through a person, wounding them. And really, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are protections for weapons with military purpose, not those with a "sporting purpose," so military-style weapons (though not actually as functional as their military equivalent) should be more prevalent than hunting rifles.

Handguns, of course, are great for personal protection, since they are easily carried. That's enough for me.

As for the caliber stuff, I'm sick and tired of people telling me that the best thing for hunting everything from grouse to elephants is any sort of short mag. My .30-06 works for both deer and elk, but it's just not the "in" caliber these days. I don't tell people it's the only caliber to use, though. The short mags are good rounds, but that doesn't make them the only game in town. I know it's a minor thing, but it gets really annoying. Not quite as annoying as the insistence on .300 ultramag for deer and elk. That's just unnecessary.

Coworkers

2008-01-08T21:06:00.000-08:00

It's funny to hear the reactions of my coworkers to any number of stimuli.

One employee looked at an AR and remarked that there should be a waiting period on it like WA has on handguns. I told him that I figured there should be an IQ test for general existence. He didn't seem to notice that I was directing the comment not toward customers, but him.

A political discussion somehow began, and I made a comment about being a libertarian. A fellow employee made a comment about how libertarians want to control people. I was too busy with other stuff to give him a basic political lesson...so I just kind of outlined the simplest basics.

Another employee (a very nice guy, mind you) is under the mistaken impression that you can't open carry with a round in the chamber. No matter how much I show him about the law, which he seems eager to look at, he keeps returning to his mistaken belief.

On a more directly work-related note, I also have at least a couple coworkers who'll try to pawn off customers on me because it's "10 minutes to quitting time." They don't appreciate it when I refuse to take over until they actually have to quit. You see, I'm also doing things, and I generally end up stuck at the counter until AFTER my quitting time. All I ask is that you do whatever you can do to help the customer, then quit at your assigned quitting time, not in time to have a smoke or two before you clock out.

Oh, also, not being a manager means that my coworkers should not clear things through me, be they breaks, price negotiations, or procedural issues. I know that there's nothing I can do to stop this, but it's annoying. If I got the manager pay and perks, I'd have no problem with it. I don't, so I'll whine about it, but still answer your questions and okay your breaks. So this one's just because I'm stupid enough to let it happen.

Customers and such

2008-01-07T15:43:00.000-08:00

Sorry about the prolonged absence. It turns out that the new rule about there being no overtime just means that those above me will make ME work all the overtime. And I'm the sort of sucker who agrees to it.
But I do have a few random short diatribes related to and addressed to customers.

If you're looking for a part for a rare gun that's been out of production for many years, why would you call a place that doesn't even stock parts? I know you're desperate, but the only way you'll find the part is desperate internet searching. On a related note, don't ask me to special order you a gun that's no longer in production. I can't convince them to make some more, no matter how great it may have been.

I know you want to handle all the expensive guns, but that guy next to you knows what he wants and will actually buy it. I can't help him, though, if you're going to keep making me hand you every gun in the store.

Also, I don't care if every other customer's touched that display gun. They didn't break it. They didn't scratch it. It's tough. You don't need either a discount or one fresh from the factory. If we'd had one in the back, we would let you have it. You want the last one. That means it's popular. Buy it.

I understand you want help right away. So do all the other customers. And there are only so many gun salesmen. You will have to wait.

I don't care if you're a dealer, cop, or even a fed: when I ask you to fill out a certain form a certain way, I'm not asking for you to tell me what our policy SHOULD be. If you can't spell things out or don't think that the DOL was right when they told us we have to consider black powder revolvers the same as any other handgun, you don't need to buy the gun from us. I'm not just making things up to punish you.

No, I don't know everything about every gun, cartridge, and scope we have. If you'd like to figure out the velocity of this bullet out of that barrel, buy a chronograph, the ammo, and the gun. I will not know it offhand.

I cannot cut you a deal, be it throwing in a holster or cutting the price. We don't mark them up all that much, so the deal is the price. I'll throw in anything the gun came from the factory with, but that's it. Also, I'm working at a chain store. I don't have the authority to do a whole lot of wheeling and dealing.

Yeah, that used gun's price is high. It has a low serial number/rare marking/other feature. If that doesn't mean much to you, look at a cheaper used gun.

When your buddy gets delayed by the FBI, you can't buy the gun instead, no matter how far you drove. That's a straw purchase, and we can't know whether he'll be approved, so we have to figure he might be denied. We can ship it to an FFL in your area if you can't manage to be in the area in about 3 days.

Finally, I know you like to talk. Talk to a fellow customer and you'll be far less likely to anger the guy who's waiting for you to stop talking to me.

If just half of the problem customers would heed these diatribes, we'd still have a hell of a lot of people causing trouble. But it'd be better.

My new toy

2007-12-03T21:12:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure if I still have any readers, much less a reader who knows anything about 1911-A1 values, but I could use a little bit of help. I recently acquired a GunSite custom Springfield 1911-A1. It looks as though it's seen very little use. When I picked it up, I noticed the custom guide rod, night sights, brushed feed ramp, and very little wear. The rosewood (I think) GunSite grips just made me think it had been owned by a fan of the company. Once I took possession of it, though, I noticed the GunSite logo on the slide and on both mags (which are also numbered I and II).
I have no idea of the value of it, except that I got it for less than it's worth. I'm considering selling it, but I don't want to ask too much or too little. Also, I do like the gun, so this interest in selling it is something that may pass when I figure out the value.

I would've posted pics, but I couldn't seem to take any that turned out well--the logos glared up, the details didn't show, and I just am not a photographer. Sorry.

Yet another long conversation

2007-12-02T22:15:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been over a month, but I now have at least one day off each week, it looks like. And I conveniently have something to write about.

Last night, my roommates decided to have a party. And it was a dressy sort of party, so I took off my XD and put on some dress clothes and my new 1911. It's my dress gun, I decided. Well, this drew the attention of those already used to me carrying, as well as those who were new to it (who were a surprise to me...). Of course, a few people had to see it, so I unloaded it and let folks look at it. One girl thought it was a "pretty" gun, while one guy freaked out as she held it. I didn't give him a second thought, since she pointed it in a safe direction and double-checked to see that it was unloaded.

Later, after he'd done some drinking, he insisted on confronting me about my choice to carry. His argument kept revolving around the "fact" that he's a second amendment guy, but he doesn't see a need to carry a pistol. He also said that he'd been on the wrong end of one before, and it's the scariest thing he figures he'll ever see.

He decided to explain to me that seeing the hammer back on the 1911 made it look like I was ready to snap and kill someone. I, of course, explained that A. the 1911 was designed to be carried that way and B. any gun you carry should be carried in a ready condition.

The argument he gave against this was based on his fear of a cocked hammer and the way cops carry. This threw me off a bit. I reminded him that cops generally carry with a round in the chamber, and he told me that his brother-in-law was a cop, so he "knows" that they don't. At that point, I really knew there was no arguing the point, since he was going to be damned sure no matter what I said.

Every time I tried to make a point, he'd tell me that he knew I wasn't going to snap, but that's the way it looked to anyone who didn't know me. I would then point out that I'm generally friendly and have really warmed some people to the idea of guns, and that the natural response to any fear of me snapping would be to arm others. That way, the threat could be neutralized much more efficiently. His response, of course, was that those people weren't going to arm themselves.

Finally, after 45 minutes of patiently explaining gun rights and preparedness, I finally asked his opinion on property rights. He failed to see the correlation until I pointed out that I wasn't going to do anything in his home without his permission, but that I was not going to ask his permission to carry in any manner I please in my own home. If he is uncomfortable with it, I'm not forcing anyone to come over (in fact, I'm not even encouraging it, truth be told).

I don't know if he'll come to any parties my roommates host from now on, and I don't really care. Most people who show up learn to accept my sidearm, and I don't even really like the guy. Wasted about an hour of my life talking to him, and walked away knowing that he'd probably never accept what I was saying, but at least he should know that I'm not going to give on this.

Apologies and whatnot

2007-10-30T19:30:00.000-07:00

Okay, it's been far too long since I posted. I recently got a new job, and I had to work my old job for awhile. And we're stocking shelves and trying to get the store to open on time, which makes for long days and no time off.
Also, it's Cabela's. Which is awesome. I can't wait to buy things.

Higher ground?

2007-10-19T04:11:00.000-07:00

According to this article, the right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed...unless it's to keep "unqualified" gun owners, criminals, and crazies from getting guns. Or to keep everyone else from getting bullets. Or if it is just a three-month wait. Or she doesn't feel comfortable with you having a gun.

Besides the spelling (than/then confusion caught my eye), grammar, punctuation, and word misuse (condone means to encourage, not discourage), the article lacks solid reasoning.

At one point, the author tells us that training is critical. Later, she says that guns owned for self-defense do not justify ammunition purchases, since you shouldn't be shooting in self-defense very often. She also completely misses the protection from tyranny side of the Second Amendment.

She cites gun laws and crime stats in other countries without citing sources or telling us the actual statistics. She tells us that the difference is in attitude, and that the American mentality is problematic. No evidence, of course. She even cites a Jodie Foster movie as proof of our problematic mindset. (By the way, for those who are unaware, Jodie Foster is very anti-gun.) A movie about vigilantism is her proof that Americans think that the solution to every problem is a gun.

The biggest argument in the article is that people "may not need a gun." Y'know, because you're certain to be safe everywhere you go. Because people aren't ever robbed, beaten, or raped by those who have no qualms with doing harm.

The worst part is that there are almost certainly people who will buy into this crap.

Thanks to War on Guns for pointing this out.

Increasingly irrelevant

2007-10-14T12:45:00.000-07:00

Can we cause problems with something even more irrelevant? Why should Congress be making determinations as to which past events were genocides?

While I generally like meaningless debates in Congress, since it keeps them too busy to do much real damage, but this is ridiculous. Almost 100 years ago, many Armenians were killed by many Turks. It's a bit late to punish anyone, actually fix the problem, or do anything else of value. And with libs whining about how our policies make the world hate us, you'd think that they'd be more careful.

Uncommon knowledge

2007-10-14T02:41:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that there is a dwindling supply of common knowledge. I could be wrong, but the more I talk to those only a bit younger than me, the less commonly known are the facts I had assumed everyone knew.

I can't make reference to Rorschach tests, Schrodinger's Cat, Atlas Shrugged, any Constitutional amendment after the first, or various other things without several quizzical looks and the need for long explanations. Spelling and grammar are lost arts, it seems. The apostrophe has invaded plurals and the semicolon has virtually disappeared.

If I start to talk about my favorite authors, some may have read the notes on a work or two; they are more interested, though, in whether I caught the latest episode of whatever's on TV. I'm far more likely to run across someone whose parents read Grisham than I am to run across someone who has ever read a book by choice.

It wasn't that long ago that I thought most people had been exposed to physics, math, literature, biology, history, and politics. Turns out they know a little about gravity, some addition and subtraction, how to read the TV Guide, enough about anatomy to reproduce, what happened in reruns of their favorite shows, and that Bush is President. Beyond that, I can't really assume much.

I may just be far more cynical than is necessary, but it's getting ridiculously frustrating to have to explain references I had once thought everyone knew. Newspeak, Alexander Hamilton's famous duel with Aaron Burr, and special relativity should all be at least familiar to college students these days, right?

I sure hope that working away from a university environment won't exacerbate this problem...

Nobel-worthy?

2007-10-12T03:37:00.000-07:00

I think I'm going to be sick. Al Gore apparently has a Nobel Peace Prize under his belt now. I didn't realize they handed them out for lying to the public and trying to induce hysteria.

You know his damned supporters will start throwing out the fact that he was awarded this prize. I can see it now:
"You do realize that NASA corrected the data, which now shows that the 1930s were the hottest decade on record, right?"
"Well, why did Gore when a Nobel Peace Prize, then?"
"That's irrelevant. His data has been proven flawed repeatedly."
"Do you have a Nobel Prize?"
"Also irrelevant."
"I believe the guy with the Nobel Prize."
"And I believe that you're going to be in intense pain soon."

I had already figured that it was kind of a joke at times when Carter got one, but I had hoped that was some sort of fluke. That hope is now broken.

As for the article, it doesn't surprise me that the NY Times would so readily pretend that this doesn't demean those who have actually deserved recognition.

It's kind of funny, though, to read such passages as "author of dozens of works from short stories to science fiction" (about the winner for literature). I wouldn't really consider this a range of works...in fact, I've read enough sci-fi short stories to believe that it's possible for this range to encompass the smallest variety I've ever seen encompassed by this sort of wording. You can't really define a range by a style and a genre...Were it defined as sci-fi novels to historical short stories, it would encompass something. Oh, well...the Times can't be bothered to actually learn about writing anything other than propaganda.

Lacey CItizen's Academy

2007-10-12T02:57:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine is taking a citizen's academy from the Lacey Police Department. Most of it sounds as though it's the basic stuff--watchful eye, mark your possessions, write down serial numbers, etc. Apparently, though, they recently discussed guns.

I groaned when he told me this, then let him tell me what he had learned. They apparently went over the difference between automatic and semi-auto, as well as the difference between centerfire and rimfire (not the sort of thing I would expect). They learned how to unload a gun and check the chamber.

Best of all, they learned that open carry is legal in the state of Washington. Sure, it's only one cop that was telling them this, but the fact that he did so means that Lacey PD is coming around. He did, of course, make a comment about it being the "Wild West" around here, which leads me to believe he's not happy with open carry, but he admitted that it was entirely legal.

He also mentioned Opencarry.org, according to my information. He talked about how the group is fighting to make open carry a socially acceptable choice. My friend was surprised that he'd mention that, since I was the only person he'd ever heard of it from before that.

Sure, it's not going to stop people from being shocked by my gun, but it means I'm less likely to end up forced to fight a legal battle over it. It's a start.

Not quite the Taggart Comet

2007-10-11T04:01:00.000-07:00

The Amtrak line that runs near my house (between Seattle and Portland) makes me really think about our views on mass transportation. It apparently broke down at least twice yesterday. In one case, they apparently paid for taxis to transport the passengers up to Seattle. In the other, a train that was scheduled to depart at 1930 hrs (I believe--it may have even been a 1900 train) didn't arrive at the station until about 2105.

The liberals would say that this means we should pump tax dollars into mass transportation. They'd point out that the trains can't be expected to run on time unless we keep them in good repair. "Think of those people who paid for a ticket and had to wait so long!" they'd cry.

I do think of those people who paid $60 for a trip from Olympia to Portland. I think that a train asking that kind of money for a ticket should be able to afford to stay in good repair. I think those people are being hosed by something that isn't held accountable. And subsidies have only made the problem worse. Any time you supply an income that isn't tied to actually providing goods or services, you have lessened the motivation to provide the highest possible quality in those goods or services. And when the solution to poor service is to increase that subsidy, you create incentive to provide only enough service to avoid being entirely shut down.

I guess I rant about this plenty, but today just made me think of the Taggart Transcontinental. I know that our monopoly lawsuits against anyone who provides the best product they can are even more like that, but the fact that my example for the day was a train really made it hit me even more profoundly. If only I had the courage and talent to attempt to be John Galt.

Memories

2007-10-11T03:15:00.000-07:00

Whenever I reach a point where I have to change something major in my life, I get a bit more sentimental than I probably should. Things that weren't all that great start to look like they were good, and I find myself kind of regretting the change, even if it is 100% for the better. The job change I'm about to go through is no exception to this.

At my current job, which will soon be done, I have had to put up with constantly being expected to come in at a moment's notice, be scheduled by someone with an active grudge, "adjust" my time card so as not to end up with overtime, perform all sorts of extra duties with no extra compensation, take work home with me despite signing on to do security work, be passed up for the only title with a raise because my boss thought I didn't want it (I don't go whining for more money often), have low (for WA) wages with no benefits, and my grades suffered when I was a student because I was constantly called in for extra night shifts.

But I focus entirely upon the good sometimes. I've been able to blog at work (doing so right now), people can keep me company for a good three hours of the shift, everyone knows me, my boss sometimes buys me breakfast, work is the most social I ever get, I have some fun work stories, and I wouldn't know where to meet a decent woman outside a college setting.

I'm moving to a position with better pay, some benefits, and the chance to be around my favorite hobby all day long. I shouldn't wonder whether it's a good move. But I keep weighing the good of my current job against an imagined and arbitrary definition of the new. Oh, well. I guess it just means that, with all the bad, the last few years haven't been a total mistake.

Edutainment

2007-10-08T04:54:00.000-07:00

I sometimes read MSN articles if they happen to catch my attention. My favorites are the ones that give dating tips psychologists offer. Not because they're useful, mind you...they are full of such inane and worthless minutiae.

If you want to know whether the date's going well, these articles say, watch where the other person puts her/his jacket, look at foot angles and positions, watch for leaning over or straightening up, and check where they've chosen to sit. If they've got a drink to stir, are they stirring the same way they would if they were alone?

Whatever happened to just going with the flow? Do we really need to watch feet, stirring, and hand positions? Can't you just ask whether the person would like to see you again?

Ah, well, it still kind of amuses me, and I get bored. I guess these articles serve a purpose.

Anger

2007-10-08T04:06:00.001-07:00

Why can't women just get anger out of their system? Guys will punch each other, tell each other off, yell, or whatever else, and the anger's gone. Hell, I've seen guys physically fight and immediately go get a beer together. Women, on the other hand, sit there and seethe. They'll do the silent treatment, the sulking, and anything else that doesn't actively address the problem, and they'll keep it up for days.

The worst part is that they won't just direct that anger at the intended target. They get into a bad mood, and everyone's supposed to suffer. The target may be the focus, but anyone else is fair game for the anger, especially if they had the misfortune of being friendly with the target.

The funny thing is that the target would often be willing to atone and change, but women won't just address the issue, generally. They hold a grudge for awhile, and everyone suffers. Sure, guys don't generally fix the actual problem, but we focus our anger, get it out, and move on.

Yes, I'm aware that I've generalized this issue and there are more complex things to consider, but it just gets me every time...especially when I can't even figure out what has a woman so pissed off.