walls of the city

According to The Tennessean, the judge assigned to that infantile lawsuit to stop Restaurant Carry is Claudia Bonnyman. She'll hear it on Tuesday at 3pm.

She was appointed in 2003 by Bredesen. I wonder which Bredesen appointed her, the one that supports the second amendment or the one that showed up last month?

A good sign is that she is the same judge that refused to stop a referrendum because it was politically unpopular. A bad sign is that she had previously stopped it from being on the general ballot last November.

Another bad sign is that she chose to hear this case.

She also dismissed a lawsuit a couple of years ago where some parishoners had been expelled from a church for asking questions about the church's finances. The parishoners were suing to be allowed back in church, and Bonnyman basically said "Hey, that's none of my business."

From the quick search I've done, it looks like she isn't a political hack. But she is a Bredesen appointee.

My prediction? She throws out the case, but doesn't point and laugh.

In 1903, the Pistols Act forbade selling pistols to anyone who did not have a license.

The 1920 Firearms Act repealed the Pistols Act of 1903, but also expanded the licensing requirement to the purchases of all all firearms and ammunition. The license specified not only the weapon the person was eligible to purchase, but also the quantity of ammunition, and in order to procure a license, applicants had to convince their local constables that they had a sufficiently compelling reason for the license, and did not have "intemperate habits" or an "unsound mind".

The 1937 Firearms Act expanded the purchase licensing to include shotguns, effectively banned all fully-automatic firearms from civilian ownership, regulated firearm dealers, allowed constables to add conditions to individual licenses, and mandated that "self-defense" was no longer a sufficient reason for requesting a firearm license.

The 1968 Firearms Act codified all of the previous firearm-related laws into one document, and included licensing for long-barreled shotguns, allowed constables to stop and search anyone who the constable suspects of having a firearm, and allowed constabulatory inspections, at any time, of firearm licenses (and if licenses are not provided, constabulatory confiscation of all firearms and ammunition at the premises).

The Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 prohibited all pump-action and semi-automatic rifles other than those chambered in .22, any pump-action or semi-automatic smooth-bore firearm not chambered in .22 but with a barrel less than 24 inches or an overall length less than 40 inches, smooth-bore revolvers that were not muzzle loaders nor chambered for 9mm rimfire ammunition, any firearm "not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988", and any firearm that meets that date requirement but is "specially dangerous". Additionally, registration and secure storage of otherwise legal shotguns was required, shotguns were required to have fixed magazines capable of holding no more than 2 rounds, and further leeway was granted to constables concerning firearm licenses.

The Firearms (Amendment) and Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act of 1997, when combined, effectively banned almost all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of caliber. The only permitted handguns were antique and muzzle-loading black powder guns, firearms of historical interest, and air pistols. Expanding ammunition was banned, and even more leeway was granted to constables when issuing firearm licenses.

Simultaneous to all of this firearm-related legislation, knives and the carrying of knives have been gradually outlawed, culminating in the Criminal Justice Act of 1988, which banned all pocket knives with blades exceeding three inches. Furthermore, there have been movements to ban any knives with points, including kitchen cutlery.

After all this time, and all this legislation, and all these registrations, regulations, restrictions, bans, and confiscations, there are those in who would proclaim that all of these various and sundry laws should have made England (this is the country we are talking about, after all...) into the safest place in the world. After all, all of the supposedly "dangerous" tools have been outlawed in that country, and the country is, after all, an island - enforcement of these bans should not be difficult.

Unfortunately, the ban has been somewhat difficult to execute and maintain, though most English subjects abided by the word of the law. At any rate, forcibly disarming the law-abiding populace of England may have had some unintended consequences:

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it is revealed today.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

(Emphasis added.)

The article goes on to provide these numbers: The violent crime rate, per 100,000 people, in England is 2,034, while the violent crime rate here in America is 466.

England has banned handguns, banned rifles, restricted the hell out of shotguns, and is starting to ban knives, and yet their violent crime rate is over four times America's. Is there a better indication that banning inanimate objects does not stop criminals?

Potentially worse than the bans, though, is the societal attitude that has accompanied them. England has gradually demonized firearms, firearm ownership, firearm sports, self-defense, and self-reliance over the years, to the point where defending yourself from criminal assaults is almost likely to wind you up in prison. And just as the subjects of England have been trained not to fight back, the criminals know their victims will not resist, which makes them them that much more daring, and their lives that much easier. Hell, even England's own Olympic shooting team has to practice out of the country, on their own dime, because they would be committing a crime if they dared hone their skills inside England.

Unfortunately, the totemists, gun-grabbers, and other hoplophobes in England will only use this unfortunate situation as backing for their endless "do it again, only HARDER" mentaliy, as if continued bans and regulations will stop people who do not care about bans or regulations. Thankfully, we Americans have the opportunity to learn from our once rulers, and not succumb to the idiocy of pointless and ineffective bans that, in reality, only serve to aid and abet criminals in their illegal activities. We, as a country, have no reason to follow in the failed footsteps of once-Great Britain, and I will do my damnest to ensure we never do.

(Courtesy of Say Uncle and Newsalert.)

(And now, I disappear for the weekend. Toodles.)

Our biggest disadvantage in the civil rights fight is the way the news media presents our views. The TFA and it's Executive Director, John Harris, are going on a media blitz to get the facts out. A few minutes ago, I received notice that there will be a radio roundtable in a couple of hours.

We (Bob Pope and TFA) are doing a call-in talk radio show July 2 with purchased - no commercial airtime. The show guests will be - Sen. Doug Jackson, Sen. Jim Tracy, Rep. Ben West, Jr., Nikki Goeser, John Harris and, perhaps, former metro councilman Adam Dread who was invited but has not committed to show up.

Sen. Jackson introduced and carried the restaurant bill in the Senate and Rep. West introduced one version of the bill in the House. Adam Dread is a former Metro Councilman and a local attorney who is opposed to the restaurant law and asserts that the local governments not the Legislature should be making these types of decisions. He is also one of the attorneys representing the restaurant owner on the lawsuit.

Please tell ALL your friends to listen in to the show Thursday July 2, 11am-1pm, WAMB radio 1200am and 99.3 fm. The show is 2 hours with NO COMMERCIAL BREAKS. The show call in number is (615) 889-1960. For those who are not in the Nashville area, we are trying to get a live feed set up on TFALive - accessible through the TFA web site's main page in the upper menu - so that the show can also be heard live with chat but that will depend on whether the station is able to finalize arrangements for a sufficient internet feed by airtime.

This is a special broadcast. It will also be available July 10 bobpopegunshows.com in the click on guest archives.

We are planning another live callin show with another of the plaintiffs' attorneys and John Harris on Tuesday, July 7, on Newschannel 5+ Openline. That will air between 7pm and 8pm CST and should be available live from the Newschannel5+ web site.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a live internet stream.

Also, Nikki Goeser has done some interviews with ABC and the BBC which will air later this month.

As previously alluded to, Better Half and I are headed for the hills tomorrow afternoon, and if we somehow manage to not turn on a computer for the entire weekend, I think that will be ok. You all have fun, have a great Fourth of July, and try to come back with all of your digits still attached (singeing is optional).

Ways To Tell Someone Has Conceded a Debate, #49568: The individual in question uses the term "assclown" to describe non-criminal, licensed, background-checked, responsible, adult citizens who tend to be more law-abiding than average.

Granted, the individual in question never stood a chance in the debate to begin with, but when someone resorts to name-calling for the sake of name-calling, they have admitted to the world that they lost.

Color me unsurprised.

Just to clear up some misconceptions that are being forcibly propagated by an idiotic lawyer here in Tennessee (and piggyback on the news WizardPC beat me to), it is a fact that there are currently 40 states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry their firearms into establishments that serve alcohol. For the ease of understanding, please refer to the following map:

Unfortunately, those states' laws make that allowance in a variety of ways... Tennessee, for example, had to pass a law expressly stating that concealed/open carry is now legal in all establishments that serve alcohol. Virginia, on the other hand, mandates that open carry is required for any individual carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol. Texas, Missouri, and other states, on a third hand, only allows for carry into establishments that derive at least 51% of their income from non-alcohol sales. On the fourth hand, Washington only keeps legal firearm carriers out of "age-restricted" sections of establishments that serve alcohol, but licensed concealed carry and unlicensed open carry is legal anywhere else in the establishment. And on the fifth hand, some states (like the may-issue states of Kalifornistan, Hawaii, Alabama, and others) simply do not address the topic of firearms in establishments that serve alcohol, and if something is not prohibited, it is, by definition, legal.

Some states actually use the term "bar"; most (like Tennessee) do not. Some states use a "51% rule"; some (like Tennessee) do not. Some states use age-restrictions as a guiding path; some (like Tennessee) do not. A few mandate open carry; most (like Tennessee) do not.

But no matter how you cut the deck, shuffle the numbers, or squint your eyes, 40 states currently allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into businesses that serve alcohol for consumption on the premises... just like Tennessee will on the 14th.

In other news, it would be just great if anti-rights activists did not lie so often...

Not only no, but hell no:

The year is 2020 and the gasoline tax is history. In its place you get a monthly tax bill based on each mile you drove — tracked by a Global Positioning System device in your car and uploaded to a billing center.

What once was science fiction is being field-tested by the University of Iowa to iron out the wrinkles should a by-the-mile road tax ever be enacted.

Basically, some authoritarian nanny-statists... er... sorry... "transportation experts" are getting concerned that increased fuel efficiency in vehicles (you know, something our government has been demanding for about a decade now) might result in a decrease in tax revenues from gas sales (well, duh). Their response to this is not to bump up the tax rate, but rather add a whole new tax that just happens to have the cute little side-effect of installing a government-tracked GPS tracker in your car.

Uh, no.

I completely understand that roads are not free, and their construction and maintenance can be an inordinately expensive undertaking... but there is no way on God's Green Earth (TM) that the federal and/or state governments are going to stick a GPS tracker in my car without a court order or warrant. Bump up the gas tax... institute tolls... but this GPS plan is not going to work.

(And yes, I know that the government does not need a GPS device to track me in this day and age of cell phones... try not to remind me.)

Democratic Party control of the White House? Check.

Democratic Party control of the House of Representatives? Check.

Democratic Party control of the Senate? Check.

The only check-and-balance remaining on both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch is the Supreme Court, and it is currently more-or-less split 5-4, right-left. Thankfully, Sotomayor's likely appointment to the Supreme Court will not change that balance, but God help us if one of the right-leaning judges decides s/he has had enough.

Our country was never intended to be run by one political party or ideology; while our Glorious President has always viewed his election as permission for him to rule by fiat, and whether or not he should have that ability, he basically does now.

Does anyone remember what the job of the President was actually supposed to be?

The wizardpc on Twitter? Not me.
The wizardpc that plays warcraft? Not me.
The wizardpc that used to help run phreakNIC? Me.

The legal complaint is here.

Some highlights:

• They state that no other state allows carry in "bars," then in the footnotes list 23 states that do.


• Their entire argument seems to be that writing an exemption for carry permit holders equates to specifically allowing guns in bars, and no other state specifically allows it.


• They falsely state that Carry Permit Holders can carry while drunk


• "Petitioners aver that the law violates due process and amounts to a taking of property that exposes bars and restaurants that serve alcohol to guns with no effective deterrent to carrying guns on posted premises and increases civil liability for shootings." Hoookay, then.


• The new law is somehow an abuse of police power.


• The new law somehow violates workplace safety laws.


• The new law is unconstitutional, because it is "for the benefit
  of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land." I don't think that means what they think it means.


• Bars are "sensitive places," in reference to Heller. They think bars and Federal Buildings are the same thing. Interesting...


• Bars are really, really dangerous and violent places without guns.

Pardon the pun, but they seem to be taking the shotgun approach here. It should be struck down because its dangerous, no one else does it (even when they do), it only applies to carry permit holders, and bars are special.

More later, maybe.

One of the favorite dodges of hoplophobes and other anti-firearm activists throughout America is to proclaim how they are "quite liberal"... right after or before saying that all they want is "more gun control", as if being liberal were somehow vindication for that stance, or gave that desire more weight or meaning. Unfortunately, the English language has been sufficiently bastardized over recent history that meanings of words have been forgotten, if not intentionally buried and obfuscated... But words have meanings still, and let us examine the nature of the word "liberal":

- a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
- showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
- tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
- favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties
- favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
- free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant

(Emphasis added.)

So how can someone who claims to "protect civil liberties" simultaneously want to strip his fellow citizens of their natural right to self-defense? How can someone who claims to be "broad-minded" simultaneously exploit and perpetuate stereotypes and outright bigotry? How can someone who claims to "not be bound by authoritarianism" simultaneously want more government control over law-abiding citizens' lives? How can someone who claims to want the "maximum individual freedom possible" simultaneously want to deny certain freedoms (such as the freedom for someone to protect himself and his family) to his fellow citizens? How can someone claiming to be "tolerant" simultaneously try to paint anyone who disagrees with them about firearms as a "redneck", "extremist", "whackjob", or worse?

The simple answer is that they cannot.

The basic truth is that someone who is honestly "liberal" cannot be against firearms, a person's ability to own firearms, self-defense, or anything else that the hoplophobic anti-rights community so often fights against. Doing so would directly contradict the individual's claim to being a "liberal", rendering the individual in question ignorant, a liar, a hypocrite, or any combination of those three.

And, in some people's case, all three definitely apply.

So the situation in Honduras has gotten... interesting. Most of the news sources out there are decrying it as an "illegal coup", and even our Glorious President has come out condemning the individuals and groups who (peacefully) overthrew the previous President. However, a little bit of a background always makes the story more interesting.

Bits and pieces of this story are being pulled from here, here, here, here, here, and here.

So, our story starts not too long ago, when ex-President Manuel Zelaya was, indeed, legally elected at an appropriate and legitmate free election in Honduras. Since then, however, his popularity has been steadily declining, to the point that his approval ratings hover somewhere around 30%. As with all politicians, though, the reason he took the job was not to keep people happy, but rather to secure power for himself, so he called for a referendum to bypass a law in the Honduran constitution that limits him to a single, four-year term. This bypass would effectively allow him to remain President indefinitely.

Small detail: the Honduran constitution specifically states that the Presidential term-limit law is one of eight that can never, ever be amended. Interesting...

Second small detail: according to the Honduran constitution, only their congress can call for a referendum.

Those two details taken into account, basically every governmental agency from the Honduran Electorial Tribunal to the Honduran Supreme Court said, "Uhm, no." Ex-President Zelaya's reaction? "Sunday's referendum will not be stopped." ... and, oh, by the way, I will tell the military to "distribute" the ballots.

The Honduran Supreme Court stepped up to the plate, and declared that the referendum was unconstitutional and unlawful. The military refused to distribute the ballots, so Zelaya fired its boss, General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez (what a name). Their supreme court again stepped up and ordered that the General be re-instated.

Simultaneously, the Honduran Attorney General made a request to their congress to out the then-President, and their congress named a commission to investigate the then-President.

The ex-President apparently got bored with trying to work things through the appropriate channels, so, on Thursday of last week, he lead a mob that broke into the military base where the ballots were stored, and tried to distribute them in defiance of their supreme court. Oddly enough, the Honduran Congress (backed up by their supreme court) ordered the Honduran military to remove then-President Zelaya "for repeated violations to the Constitution". Ambassadors from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua were also arrested. Ex-President Zelaya was exiled to Costa Rica, the old president of the Honduran Congress, Roberto Micheletti, has replaced him, and elections will be held, as scheduled, in November.

End summation? President wanted to illegally modify the Constitution. Appropriate authorities told him no. President threatened to use military force to illegally modify Constitution. Appropriate authorities told him no again. President actually tried to use miliary force. Appropriate authorities told him no again, military told him to pack sand, and appropriately sent him off to Costa Rica.

Our Glorious President's reaction? He has joined the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel and Raul Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Rafael Correa in decrying this so-called "coup" as "not legal". Yes, you heard me right - President Barack Hussein Obama declared that it was "not legal" for a country to try and defend its constitution from someone who was hell-bent on perverting, undermining, and bypassing it in order to secure himself more power. Furthermore, our President has sided with some of the most totalitarian, controlling, oppressing, socialistic, authoritarianistic, and corrupt officials in Central America.

Is anyone seeing a problem with this? Well, anyone aside from the lefties of our country, that is? Ironically, the same people who were absolutely horrified at the mythical and specious threat of "President-for-Life Bush" are now adamant that ex-President Zelaya has every right to be President-for-Life himself. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...

The rule of law always has the implied threat of force behind it - it cannot exist any other way. If someone does not obey a law, and if that someone further does not obey the various non-violent sanctions and punishments that are brought to bear against them, then the time for words is over (and probably long-since so). At that point, the rule of law requires the implementation of force, otherwise the someone in question will just go on ignoring the law, and there might as well not be a law. This has always been the case for serfs, subjects, and other "citizens", but it always seems as though the politicians of whatever age we are referring end up being above the laws by which they supposedly govern.

Our Glorious President's condemnation of this legitimate overhthrow of a governmental usurper shows, very clearly, how he feels concerning politicians being held to the constitution and laws of their respective countries, and it must scare the gos-se out of him to see real, live, honest-to-God evidence that politicians are not above the law, and, in fact, are just as accountable to the country's laws and constitution as anyone else is. Given the dim view President Obama has for our particular Constitution, it is no great surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that he is decrying and denouncing the legal, appropriate, and constitutional dethronement of a would-be dictator.

And here I sit, having once taken an oath to do just that, should the situation call for it, wondering if we Americans could ever follow the example laid down by our Honduran bretheren... and I find myself doubtful.

It seems that Randy Rayburn doesn't like the fact that restaurateurs can make a different business decision than him, so he's suing to prevent restaurant carry from becoming law.

You know, it's one thing if you want to engage in bigotry. It's quite another if you want to sue to require everyone else to engage your discrimination.

Stupid-assed headline of the day: "Court ruling offers little guidance on fair hiring".

That ruling offers you all the guidance you should need - if you set up a test to determine who should be promoted and who should not, and some people pass the test, promote those people, and do not promote those who did not pass.

How gorramed hard is that? Really?

I really did not know that all of these various scales existed for my new Kershaw RAM... Or, rather, my wallet did not... Especially not these Bois de Rose ones...

It is looking like Better Half and I will be headed to a small town in North Carolina for the Fourth of July weekend, and like all law-abiding handgun carry permit holders, I took it upon myself to research and understand the local laws concerning my carrying my firearm in NC. Unfortunately, the NC government's webpages are... somewhat disjointed, and more than a little disfunctional, but I will try and post the important parts here.

Disclaimer: This weblog post, and the information contained therein, is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate, and should not be considered legal advice. You are responsible for your own understanding of the laws of the state and country you are in, and I would strongly suggest you do your own research - I only provide this information here as a courtesy.

First, the question of reciprocity - according to what appears to be the North Carolina's Department of Justice webpage, North Carolina has reciprocity with the following states:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia

Basically, North Carolina honors the permit of any state that honors their permit. Fair enough, though I am not entirely sure how that works with Alaska not having a permit, but that is not really my problem...

Ok, now that we know North Carolina honors my Tennessee permit, how can I go about carrying my firearm? Well, concealed carry is legal, as is evidenced by the NCDOJ webpage's reference to it, and open carry... well, open carry is kind of fuzzy. There appear to be no state laws dictating that open carry is illegal, so under the theory that "if something is not specifically prohibited, it is legal", then open carry is good-to-go... HOWEVER, local governments can and do pass prohibitions against the "display of firearms", and these prohibitions do not need to be publicly posted. Likewise, "going armed to the terror of the people" is a common-law offense in NC, and the NC Supreme Court has already ruled that firearms fall under that concept. Simply put, if you know exactly what the laws are in your exact region of NC, and you are willing to risk a "man with a gun" phone call to the police, open carry might work. Maybe. Me, I do not open carry anywise, and would not in NC.

Permit honored, concealed carry highly encouraged... so where, exactly, can I actually carry? Unfortunately, NC's prohibitions are close enough to TN's to be similar, but different enough to cause problems. Prohibited places include schools or any school-sponsored event, any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission, any establishment where alcoholic beverages are both sold and consumed, financial institutions (like banks), state or federal buildings, any law enforcement or correctional building or facility, events occurring in public places (like parades, funerals, picket lines, demonstrations, etc.), areas of emergency or riot, and any business that has any kind of sign banning concealed firearms (differences between TN and NC italicized, with the understanding that TN's laws concerning establishments that serve alcohol will be changing on 14JUL09). And, as with TN, one cannot carry a firearm in NC while even the slightest amount of alcohol is in your system. The bank bit is not a significant problem for me, the restaurants are no different than TN is now, not being able to carry in a theater (a fee was charged for admission) seems silly, but the two important ones for this visit are the parades (the town we are visiting, like all good, small, American towns, will be throwing a Fourth of July parade) and the fact that all signs are binding. Bit annoying, those two.

While it does not relate to where you can carry, one important point is that handgun carry permit / CCW holders have a "duty to inform" in NC. Basically, what this means is that, if a police officer approaches you (for the purposes of questioning/arresting/etc.), you have to tell him that you have a permit and are carrying (if you are, of course). If you are in a car, you must place both hands on the steering wheel, and not remove them until directed to do so. This is effectively 100% different from TN, where informing is encouraged, but not required.

Alright, anything else one should be aware of? Buying a firearm in NC appears to be complicated, but that will not be a concern. It is illegal to carry a "Bowie Knife, dirk, dagger, slingshot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shurikin, stungun, or other deadly weapon of like kind," which basically boils down to "fixed blades bad", at least in my mind. Pocket knives carried in a closed position are allowed, with "pocket knives" being defined as "a small knife, that is designed to be carried in a pocket or purse, which has its cutting edge and point entirely enclosed by its handle. The knife must not be capable of being opened by a throwing, explosive, or spring action." I am not sure whether "spring action" means "automatic knife" or "assisted-opening knife", but I will be carrying my non-assisted RAM, regardless. Also, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, automatic anythings (and any device that can make a firearm automatic), and silencers all appear to be illegal in NC (amusingly, and erroneously, those items are categorized as "weapons of mass destruction" by the state). Teflon-coated bullets are also a no-no (thanks to pointless and specious hysteria surrounding them).

Whew. Anything else? Well, if it is out there, I do not know about it, and did not dig it up. Feel free to leave additional concerns and regulations in the comments, if you are aware of them.

More firearm and weapon information for North Carolina can be found here.

I went to the RK Show in Smyrna, TN, this Sunday for a couple of reasons. I worked the TFA booth for a little bit, I wanted to try to sell that green laser, and I wanted to sell my high-cap WASR-10 before prices dropped.

One outta three ain't bad, I guess. I worked the TFA booth, but the other two were a bust.

Prices on AKs dropped about $200-$300 since the last show I went to so it looks like I missed the boat on that one. I had a dealer offer me $650 for my WASR with the thumbhole stock at the show in May and Sunday I saw a NIB WASR with a standard stock for $479.

I only saw one dealer with green lasers, and his were $99 marked down from $129. Looks like people have figured out that either a) they can get them cheaper or b) the lasers aren't really that good for weapon mounting. Probably a bit of both.

Now for my bleg: I want to put a cheap-but-not-horrific 3-9x scope on the AK. I bought the mount a bit back so I just need a scope. I don't plan on engaging anything past 200yds because this is just going to be a range toy. It's just for fun. It's not like an AK is some super-accurate sniper rifle that I need to put $700 glass on. I'm looking in the under $50 range but I don't want it to look like I'm aiming through the bottom of a drinking glass. And I want it to hold a zero :D

I was thinking something along the lines of this or this, but I can't really tell if they're rifle scopes or airgun/rimfire scopes.

Unsurprisingly, the "Control and Tax"... er... I mean... "Cap and Trade" bill pass the House early Friday morning last week. Even more unsurprisingly, the bill passed even before our duly-elected Representatives had a chance to read all 1390-odd pages of it. I say that is unsurprising because our duly-elected Overlords... er... Representatives and Senators never bothered to read the "stimulus" bill either. Given the importance and future cost of that particular bill, why would they bother reading this new one? Why break with tradition?

Oh, and both of those sign-but-do-not-read evolutions came after our Glorious President promised the "most open government" ever... You know, the kind of government that adds a 300-page amendment to a bill at 0300, and votes on it a few hours later.

Even better, the House voting for the "Cap and Trade" bill comes after evidence surfaces that the EPA suppressed studies indicating that "global warming" is not working the way certain organizations have projected. So much for science taking the driver's seat in our Glorious President's new administration... Or, rather, so much for science-that-disproves-pet-projects-that-just-happen-to-give-the-government-more-power-over-its-subjects taking the driver's seat...

Finally, and as the icing on the cake, everyone needs to remember what President Barack Hussein Obama said a little while ago:

"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
- President Barack Hussein Obama

Yes, he said your electricity rates will "skyrocket". As will your natural gas rates, your food prices, your gasoline prices, your shipping prices, your consumable goods prices... the prices for all of those things, and more, will also "skyrocket". Do people really understand that? It does not matter if our Representatives/Senators/President do or not - they are just passing this bill because it gives them more control over the unwashed masses. But do we, the American citizens, who allow ourselves to be governed by the professional power-mongers in D.C., understand what they are doing to us?

I think not... and our willful ignorance will cost us dearly.

Well, it would appear as though another one of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's cases was overturned by the Supreme Court. For those keeping score at home, that five cases of hers reversed by the Supreme Court and two upheld, though in one of those upheld cases, the Supreme Court unanimously faulted Judge Sotomayor's reasoning. But, apparently, in our Glorious President's new administration, a 71% (or 86%, depending on how you count it) failure rate is good enough to get you to the Supreme Court. Hell, I guess she is about as good as an average baseball player...

Oh, and the case in question? Basically, a fire department had promotion exams. No black firemen passed the exam, and only two hispanics passed the exam. The fire department's answer? Throw out the exam and promote no one. The white firemen who passed the exam rightfully sued, but the District Court in question dismissed the suit before it even went to trial. The case then moved up to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, where Sotomayor and the other two judges unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court turned around and indicated that intentionally discriminating against one group (the white firemen, or the firemen who passed the test - however you want to look at it) is not permissable, even if it was done in order to avoid potentially discriminating against another group.

On the other hand, our probably-next Supreme Court Justice believes that discriminating against white men is perfectly acceptable, even if the white men in question passed an exam that everyone had to take. After all, we cannot allow whitey to gain the upper hand, can we? And neither should performance be a metric when it comes to things like promotions, right? Apparently the four Justices who dissented against this recent Supreme Court decision feel the same way... the good news is that Judge Sotomayor will be replacing one of those morons.

So I went to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen over the weekend, and good movie or not, the Transformer series continues to be one of the best advertisements for the United States Armed Forces - damn near every shiny toy we have, and some we do not, was put on display beating on, and being beaten on by, really big robots. Apart from that, the movie was comprised of amazingly detailed battles, a questionably-coherent storyline, and material that was far from suitable for the 4-year-olds who were in the audience with me. For me, though, the movie worked.

Fair warning to my fellow Magic: The Gathering players: On 11JUL09, the rules change (simultaneous with the pre-release of the new "Magic 2010" core set, which is not the "tenth edition", despite its misleading set icon). A quick summary of the rule changes follows:

1. Simultaneous Mulligans: Its name says it, and, honestly, most people will not notice.

2A. Battlefield: The "in-play" zone is now called the "battlefield". Fine. Wizards has been reducing multi-word effects, abilities, and/or descriptions to one word or phrase for years now (see "deathtouch", "shroud", "haste", etc.). Nothing new here.

2B. Cast, Play, Activate: Spells are cast, lands are played, and activated abilities are, well, activated. For us old players, this is actually a return to the way things were.

2C. Exile: Any card that would be "removed from game" is now, instead, "exiled". This is only relevant for those few cards that allow you to manipulate cards "outside the game" - those rare cards can no longer affect "exiled" cards.

2D. Beginning of the End Step: Interestingly, "at end of turn" and "until end of turn" effects did not resolve simultaneously before this change. The end step is just like any other Magic step (untap/upkeep/draw, etc.), and the former category actually resolved at the beginning of that step, while the latter resolved at the end of the step, and thus the end of your turn. Now, the former is being rephrased to "at the beginning of the end step". I guess that makes it more clear.

3A. Mana Pools Emptying: Mana pools now empty completely between every phase and step - no more carrying mana from upkeep to draw, no more carrying mana between declare attackers and declare blockers. It probably should have been this way the entire time.

3B. Mana Burn Eliminated: As in gone. If I really wanted to, I could drop a Swamp on my first turn, play a Diabolic Ritual, and then play a Foul Imp, and that extra mana floating around would not hurt me, but would just go away. I am sorry, but this rule-change is gorramed stupid, and I get the feeling they are going to regret it. Counting is part of the game, and if you are incapable of actually doing 1+1 addition, then you need to learn, and strategize appropriately.

4. Token Ownership: Unless you were a power-player, or a real stickler for the rules and ways to exploit them, you will not notice this one.

5. Combat Damage No Longer Uses the Stack: So, this one looks all complicated and stuff, but here is the basic, boiled-down definition: Mogg Fanatics can no longer kill two 1/1s on their way to the afterlife, and you cannot Unsummon a creature after it deals its damage. Attackers are declared. Spells and abilities can be played. Shiny. Blockers are declared, with the addition that if an attacking creature is blocked by more than one creature, the attacker can numerically order those creatures as he or she deems. Now is your last opportunity to play all stack-based abilities, spells, and whatnot. Shiny. Combat damage is assigned, and if things die, things die, and nothing stack-based can save them. While this ruins the utility of Mogg Fanatics and Unsummons and other similar cards, my biggest concern does not revolve around them, but rather how damage is assigned: Wizards says, ""lethal damage" is the amount of damage necessary for a creature to be destroyed, ignoring all abilities and damage prevention effects," and that you only need to assign, at minimum, "lethal damage" to the first creature blocking an attacking creature, before moving on to the second blocker, if there is one. If the attacking creature is green, and the blocking creature is a 2/2 with "Protection from green", you only need to assign 2 damage to it. So what happens with trample? If the attacking creature is a 10/10, does the other 8 damage roll onto the player? We have been playing, and I am fairly sure that it is right, that the pro-green creature absorbed all 10 damage, since it never actually took damage. But now? Now I am not so sure. As for the rule-change in general, just remember that if you are going to regenerate a creature (or do some other thing to buff/save it), you have to do it before damage is dealt.

6. Deathtouch: This rule-change was basically precipitated by the previous one, and allows creatures with Deathtouch to assign their damage however they see fit, regardless of the "must assign lethal damage to the first blocker, before moving to the second blocker" clause of the previous rule-change. Also, since Wizards changed the description for "Regeneration" since the last time I looked (Regeneration now reads: "The next time this creature would be destroyed this turn, it isn't. Instead tap it, remove all damage from it, and remove it from combat."), all you need to do is regenerate a creature once to have it survive Deathtouch (or lethal damage), but in accordance with the previous change, this has to happen before damage is dealt. In most cases, the vast majority of players will not notice the difference, apart from the way damage is assigned under the previous rule-change.

7. Lifelink: Honestly, we have been playing the way the rule proposes to change the scenario anywise, so I guess we will not notice a difference. And I do not really understand or care about the difference, so go read about it yourself if you do.

All said, all of the rule changes basically boil down to Wizards identifying where confusion about the rules exists, and rather than making people actually learn the rules, they are simply changing the rules to agree with those who were not playing with the old ones. While some of those old rules were confusing and potentially quite exploitable, if Wizards had explained that they were changing the rules because of those reasons, I would have no significant complaints. However, changing the rules simply because people are not obeying them? Yeah, that is... what is the word... stupid.

Who knew that wallabies were extraterrestrials who needed poppies to stay alive? One would think that they would have found a better organism to fail at emulating than a kangaroo, though...

A while back, I picked up a Kershaw Speed Bump, and have been very happy with it ever since - despite being a right-hand only knife, it has been riding around in my left pocket for the past six months, and the assisted-opening technology combined with the blade protrusion make opening it with my off hand a breeze. Now that our goverment is considering banning all knives that can be opened by one hand, I figured it was time to expand my collection, and the following post is a comparison of my current sharp-and-pointies.

So, for the purposes of this post, we will be comparing a Kershaw Speed Bump, a Kershaw R.A.M., and a SOG Trident TF-3 (TigerStripe). Coincidentally, these will be good to compare, given their roughly-equivalent prices. (Just jump to the end if all you want is gratuitous knife porn.)

Cost:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: $66
- Kershaw R.A.M.: $65
- SOG Trident: $63

Closed Length:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: 4.88 inches
- Kershaw R.A.M.: 4.31 inches
- SOG Trident: 4.94 inches (with bayonet clip, 4.81 without)

Open Length:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: 8.5 inches
- Kershaw R.A.M.: 7.34 inches
- SOG Trident: 8.56 (with bayonet clip, 8.44 without)

Edge Length:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: 3.63 inches
- Kershaw R.A.M.: 2.81 inches
- SOG Trident: 3.38 inches

Weight:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: 4.63 ounces
- Kershaw R.A.M.: 3.5 ounces
- SOG Trident: 3.5 ounces

Blade Material:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Sandvik 13C26
- Kershaw R.A.M.: Sandvik 13C26 coated with Tungsten DLC
- SOG Trident: AUS 8 hardcased in TiNi

Blade Profile:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Recurve drop point, no serrates
- Kershaw R.A.M.: Clip point, no serrates (can come with serrates)
- SOG Trident: Clip point, 1.38 inches of serrates

Handle Material:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Akulon with Santoprene over-mold (with internal metal frame)
- Kershaw R.A.M.: 6061-T6 anodized black aluminum with G-10 overlay
- SOG Trident: Zytel

Assisted Opening:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Yes (Kershaw SpeedSafe)
- Kershaw R.A.M.: No.
- SOG Trident: Yes (SOG Assisted Technology)

Opening Method:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Blade protrusion or ambidexterous thumb studs
- Kershaw R.A.M.: Flipper or ambidexterous thumb studs
- SOG Trident: Ambidexterous thumb studs

Locking Method:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Stud Lock
- Kershaw R.A.M.: Hawk-Lock (spring-loaded slider defaults to locked)
- SOG Trident: Arc-Actuator and blade safety

Pocket Clip:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Removable (T6 torx); right-hand carry, tip down
- Kershaw R.A.M.: Removable (T6 torx); right-hand carry, tip down or up; left-hand carry, tip up
- SOG Trident: Removable (5/64 hex key); right- or left-hand carry, tip up

Special Features:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Patented stud lock, recurve blade, assisted-opening, lanyard hole
- Kershaw R.A.M.: Patent-pending Hawk-Lock, one-handed closing, designated index- and middle-finger choils, lanyard hole
- SOG Trident: Blade safety, assisted-opening, 3/16 inch cutting groove in handle, lanyard hole

Warranty:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: Limited lifetime, original-owner only
- Kershaw R.A.M.: Limited lifetime, original-owner only
- SOG Trident: Limited lifetime, original-owner only.

Awards:
- Kershaw Speed Bump: None
- Kershaw R.A.M.: Blade Magazine's 2007 Most Innovative American Design
- SOG Trident: NTOA Tested and Recommended (overall score: 4.51/5.00)

As for subjective comparisons, I have owned the Speed Bump for almost six months now, and have only had the other two for about three days. My biggest gripe with the Speed Bump is that the pocket clip is not reversable, and since I carry it on my left side, that is occasionally awkward. I have found that, rather that using my thumb in my pocket to pull out the knife, using my index and middle fingers in my pocket to pull out the knife will work just as well, but that takes practice, and is still a bit awkward. Otherwise, the blade fits my hand nicely, and while the stud lock takes some getting used to itself, it becomes more natural and easy to use than even a liner lock, and has the added bonus of not requiring you to stick your fingers between the blade and the handle while the blade is folding.

The RAM is not assisted, which I initially thought would be a bad thing, but the "flipper" mechanic makes it more than easy to deploy, and just as fast as an assisted knife... which is a good thing, since the thumbstuds are smalll enough to be effectively useless. However, thanks to not being assisted, and thanks to the peculiar Hawk-Lock, you can close the knife one-handedly. Unfortunately, that Hawk-Lock takes some practice to use properly, and unless you slide its toggle all the way back, you are out of luck when it comes to folding the knife. The good news is that it will not accidentally fold, but the bad news is that it takes some effort to intentionally close. The G-10 inserts add a substantial amount of grip to the knife, the frame feels quite solid, and I really, really like the choils.

The Trident surprises me in that it is the only knife of the three not to have a full metal skeleton in the handle - there is some metal up towards the pocket clip, and some more metal back by the blade (probably as part of the Arc-Actuator), but the actual handle is mostly Zytel. It may be that Zytel is sufficiently strong not to worry about it, and the lack of metal helps the Trident with its weight, but it still is something to note. Also of the three, the Trident is the only one to have a pocket clip that is designed to make the knife disappear in your pocket - only the tip of the clip will show. However, the real reason for getting the Trident is its cutting notch - from my old Jeep knife, I can assure you that little notch is quite useful. A word of warning, though - when using the notch, be sure to engage the blade safety lock. I have no intentions of using that safety otherwise, but given that this blade is assisted, it could very easily pop out while using the notch, leading to potentially bad things.

End summation? The RAM is probably going to end up being my every-day carry knife, but all of them are outstanding blades that can be opened by one hand. If I could take the cutting notch and Arc-Actuator from the Trident, the recurve blade from the Speed Bump, and the size, design, weight, frame, and flipper system from the RAM, and roll them all together, I would pretty much have my ideal knife.

And now for the part you all have probably been waiting for: the pictures (click on any of them to make them bigger).

Some overall comparison shots:

A relatively normal-sized hand, I suppose:

Length measurements less than 6 inches provided by my Spievak ruler, and measurements over 6 inches provided by my measuring tape. Weights provided by my Salter electronic kitchen scale. Thanks to Two Point Enterprise's SOG and Kershaw stores - decent prices and four days order-to-door is pretty good in my book. Additionally, thanks to Minstrel for finally nudging me into buying the knife I have had my eye on for a while, and for recommending TPE.

Oh, and to the United States Customs and Border Protection folks: Bite me.

If I ever get to the point where I have sufficient spare change to replace my old-and-defunct laptop (unlikely, given the firearm and firearm-related market prices these days), and if I ever actually see the need for having a laptop again, this might be a good choice. Granted, it is a Linux-only platform, but for a netbook-style computer, that really is not a significant problem - web-browsing, word-processing, and basic image editing are all more-or-less the same, no matter which OS you use.

A few interesting features on the platform, though, stood out. First, its onboard memory is an integrated, upgradeable 8GB SD card. Interesting. Also, the touch screen can not only be separated from the keyboard and used by itself, but you can also buy it by itself, if you want. Of course, the keyboard has an additional battery in it, so it would not seem like such a bad idea. Onboard wifi and bluetooth are kind of the norm, but an onboard accelerometer is interesting... and I have no idea what to make of "internal" USB connections.

Anywise, as I said, an interesting alternative to current options... as if there was any shortage of those these days.

Well, it turns out that our Glorious President's administration decided to rescind their July 4th cook-out invitations to the Iranian diplomats:

The Obama administration has decided to rescind invitations to Iranian diplomats for July Fourth celebrations overseas due to violent crackdowns against protesters in Iran, the White House said Wednesday.

"July Fourth allows us to celebrate the freedom and the liberty we enjoy: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble peacefully, freedom of the press," White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. "Given the events of the past many days, those invitations will no longer be extended."

Of course, this only comes after various parties expressed their outrage that the invitations were ever extended - it is not like Iran spontaneously started doing something any more atrocious than what they were originally doing when the invitation was initially extended. When or Glorious President first sent out the invitation, the Iranian government was still rigging elections, they were still oppressing their people, they were still using excessive force in response to protestors, they were still suppressing people's freedom of expression... All of that was going on then and now.

The only difference is, now the American public is upset at the invitation being extended.

"Mercurial" does not do our Glorious President justice... God help him if someone *shock* does not like him...

Yesterday afternoon, a 22 year veteran of the Metro Nashville Police Department was shot multiple times by a convicted felon who had escaped from prison earlier that day. It is unclear how he was able to approach the officer's car from the front without being seen or if the officer, Sgt Mark Chesnut, was able to return fire. Sgt Chesnut is in critical condition this morning but is expected to make a full recovery.

Remarkably, the suspects were captured alive after a short standoff.

The escaped felon has confessed.

Remember that myth that 90% of the firearms being used by criminals in Mexico came from the United States?

Oddly enough, it continues to be nothing more than a myth:

One important figure differs from what we had in our story, though it doesn’t change our conclusion about Obama’s statement. According to the GAO report, a total of 29,824 firearms were seized in Mexico in 2008. That number comes from CENAPI, the Spanish acronym for Mexico’s Planning, Analysis and Information Center for Combating Crime, GAO said. We had great difficulty pinning down the number of guns recovered, and eventually relied on an account citing Mexico’s attorney general, who reportedly said that nearly 30,000 guns had been recovered over the years 2007 and 2008 — a two-year period. The new data mean that Mexican officials are submitting an even smaller percentage of the firearms they seize for tracing by ATF than we had previously believed.

But if the total number of guns seized in Mexico last year is greater than the figure we found, the bottom line remains the same: The 90 percent figure applies to the number of guns seized and submitted to the U.S. for tracing. It may also apply to all the guns seized, but there is no data to support that.

(Emphasis added.)

After all, why would the Mexican government turn over firearms to the American government if those firearms are not actually in the American government's database? It would make absolutely no sense to hand over all of the firearms the Mexicans recover that do not have serial numbers on them - you know, the ones that are being smuggled in from countries other than America - simply because the ATF would not be able to do a darned thing with them. And thus the dataset from which the 90% myth has been derived is already suspect, and the myth is already unprovable before it even starts out of the gate.

Now, if we had some hard-and-fast numbers as to how many firearms the Mexican government has recovered from crimals in the past few years, if the Mexican government actually turned over all firearms that could possibly be traced through the American system, and if the ATF was able to execute successful history searches on all of those firearms, then we might have sufficient data from which to draw a conclusion, and generate some believable percentages. But we do not have the first, we have no way of guaranteeing the second, and the third is the sole basis for the entire 90% myth.

If there is one thing to be said for the way hoplophobes abuse statistics, it is that their abuse is typically obvious, clumsy, and blatant, and thus quite easy to call out. The "90% Myth" is no different.

(Courtesy of Say Uncle.)

My parental units are visiting this weekend. Expect posting over the next few days to be light (at least on my part).

Engineers would never do something like this:

Never...

Huh:

The patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia says he will announce to the world Friday the unveiling of the Ark of the Covenant, perhaps the world's most prized archaeological and spiritual artifact, which he says has been hidden away in a church in his country for millennia, according to the Italian news agency Adnkronos.

Abuna Pauolos, in Italy for a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI this week, told the news agency, "Soon the world will be able to admire the Ark of the Covenant described in the Bible as the container of the tablets of the law that God delivered to Moses and the center of searches and studies for centuries."

You will have to excuse my lack of faith, Patriarch, but I will believe it when I see it, and possibly not even then. Given that all written records of the Ark, and all depictions of the Ark, all disagree on some level concerning its construction, design, and just about everything else, fabricating a convincing duplicate would not be terribly difficult, and, in fact, the Patriarch admits just that:

"The Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia for many centuries," said Pauolos. "As a patriarch I have seen it with my own eyes and only few highly qualified persons could do the same, until now."

According to Pauolos, the actual Ark has been kept in one church, but to defend the treasure, a copy was placed in every single church in Ethiopia.

Also, why now? Sitting on the Ark is kind of like sitting on an acccurate Universal Field Theory, but apart from that, why release it now?

Lastly, I sincerely hope Ethiopia has far better military and private security forces than I think they do... That hunk of finely-crafted gold has significance in both Christian and Muslim religions, not to mention the value it has to private collectors around the world...

(Courtesy of Pax Parabellum.)

Could this be a view of our own future?

On socialized medicine, from a friend and physician: "I recently returned from Canada, where I practiced medicine for many years until I finally, in disgust, immigrated to the United States. The state of socialized medicine there is now even worse (if such a thing can be imagined) than it was when I left. The national government created seventeen 'Regional Health Authorities,' that pay no attention to provincial boundaries. Each is responsible for ' managing' health-care decisions in their geographic area. When it became clear that didn't work, the government responded by creating a health-care ' Superboard' that dictates to regional boards. Government's solution to messes it creates is, without fail, 'more government!' The net result has been fewer doctors, fewer nurses, but an ever-expanding army of ignorant bureaucrats, none of whom deliver any health care to anyone. Hospitals continue to be chronically understaffed, and waiting times for even simple medical procedures has now increased to the point where they are, for all practical purposes, unavailable. Who can afford it, come to the USA to get done what needs doing. The balance of Canadians tolerate this disaster, even as they watch their own family members languish in pain and die needlessly. They have been indoctrinated by the liberal media who tells them that they, as individuals, are insignificant. Only the government, and those in it, are important. Americans who look to Canada as a 'shining example' of socialized medicine are like investors who buy junk bonds, because their broker tells them, with a straight face, that junk bonds are actually better than blue-chip stocks. Those brokers, like socialists in Washington and the media, are no more than cheap hucksters, talking endlessly about the precious-few good points, while deliberating hiding the multitude of horrifying issues with national health systems like Canada's. What ever happened to 'full-disclosure?' It's time to shout down these lying con-men. The alternative will be a medical meltdown that defies the imagination. Believe me, I've seen it!" Comment: Is this what we thought we wanted? /John

Well, the good news is that no matter how you cut it, this could never be a prognostication of our own future - if we go down the socialized/universal medicine path, there will be nowhere left in the world to go to actually get things done, even if price is no object. We are one of the last private medicine countries in the world, and certainly the last I would actually trust, so when our Glorious President and his sycophatic lackeys... er... I mean "Congressmen" finally get around to signing the Universal Healthcare For the Good of the Homeland and Its Subjects Bill... privatehudsonv("Game over, man. Game over!");

We Americans were once proud of our individuality, and how that individuality made ours one of the best countries in the world. Now we are rapidly trying our damnest to be like every other country out there... much to our detriment, I fear.

(Courtesy of Stuff From Hsoi.)

Put this in the Mall Ninja category.

For the last couple of years, I've been seeing green weapon lasers on eBay and at gun shows. On eBay, they used to go for about $80. Now they can be had for $45. I found a supplier in Hong Kong selling them for $38 and change, shipped.

Gun show vendors still have them at $150+. For purely capitalistic reasons, I bought one from Hong Kong and it arrived today.

I have one thing to say about this laser. MY EYES! OH MY EYES! This thing is freaking bright. View image

On the left, the green laser. On the right, an Insight M6 that I carry on my Glock. The camera is not so good, but you can clearly see how INSANELY BRIGHT the green laser is.

It comes with 2 mounts. One is a barrel clamp, the other is a rail mount. Both mounts are clamped with hex-head screws and all the hardware (including hex keys) is included in the box.

It also comes with 2 switches. One is a pushbutton switch like you would see at the end of a tactical flashlight. It is on/off, not momentary. The other looks like a standard pressure pad switch, but mine has a rocker-like function. Push the top of the pad and it clicks on, push the bottom of the pad and it clicks off. I don't know if this is by design or if I just got a flakey one.

I have no intention of keeping this laser. As I said, I bought this for purely capitalistic reasons. There is a gun show this weekend and if those dealers are still selling this laser for $150, I'm putting a sign on my backpack that says "Green laser--$100" and see if I have any takers. If not, then I have a blindingly bright laser that also happens to function as a flashlight. Seriously, this thing lights up a room like you wouldn't believe.

If I happen to keep it, I'll be interested to find out how well it keeps a zero.

As usual, Joe Huffman continues to make a lot of people (myself included) very happy that he is on our side:

Suppose you were to drop Dennis Henigan and Sarah Brady in the woods with all the guns and ammo they can carry. And a half mile away you drop in an Army Ranger or Navy Seal completely naked, one hand tied behind their back and a patch over one eye. If you tell them only one side can leave the woods alive I'm betting that by the next morning, despited being outnumbered 2:1 and out armed, the warrior will be walking out of the woods fully clothed, armed, and wearing Sarah and Dennis's ears as a necklace.

Gun are tools used by people. Without the people the guns don't kill, with or without guns people can kill. Guns just make violence against people easier. Sometimes that violence is for good and sometimes it is for evil. Most of the time guns are used for good. Reducing the access of guns to good people enables evil.

In my four years in the Navy, I never met a SEAL, at least not to my knowledge. I did, however, stand many a watch with a SWCC Chief (who had some very interesting stories), and I talked a little with the officers from the MARSOC detachment that hitched ride on my amphib during my last deployment.

From that limited exposure, I can say the following and be almost guaranteed of its accuracy: You could tie both their hands behind their backs, and possibly their feet together, and the end result would still be the same. Hell, you could outright hog-tie those guys, and I would still bet on the same end result. Those men were weapons, pure and simple, and they certainly do not need a firearm to kill someone. A firearm makes them more efficient, absolutely, but it is still nothing more than a tool for a warrior to wield.

Also, as an amusing, and slightly-related aside: certain MARSOC officers really suck at Call of Duty 4, and get... shall we say "annoyed"... when squiddy JO's kick their Marine arses, despite having less than half the experience with the game they did. Also, grousing about "real world physics" does you no good in a video game...

Did anyone else see a Random Bag of Crap show up in yesterday's surprisingly-short Woot-Off? I surely did not...

Well, it would seem as though Mostly Genius took a little exception to my previous post concerning modifying and accessorizing firearms. That, in and of itself, I do not mind, and in fact I encourage it - after all, everyone is free to disagree or agree as they see fit, and everyone is also free to modify or not modify as they see fit. However, what irked me initially, and what, unfortunately, continues to irk me in reference to Mostly Genius' post, is the condescending, holier-than-thou attitude of those who choose, for whatever reason, to leave their firearm stock. So, with no further ado, on to the show!

The general rule regarding firearm modifications is: “Don’t” This is because every modification and gadget has a liability associated with it. Generally if you change something the gun does not work as well as it did before. Yes, there are exceptions and yes there are things that guns really need to have that don’t come stock. I am sure that I am going to get some comments about performance optimization from the competition shooters, so let me temper that a little bit: I am a defensive shooter. I have shot competition occasionally, but when I do, I shoot it with my regular equipment.

So I am not sure where Mostly Genius received his firearm-related education (honestly, I do not), but I cannot recall any of my various military or civilian firearm instructors or trainers ever telling us to never modify our firearms. I mean, they were not exactly encouraging us to start attacking our guns with Dremels, but neither were they proclaiming our firearms to be sacrosanct temples that should never be violated, ever, on pain of death. Dunno.

As for the question of liability, here is a little hint: Those of us who do dare to modify our firearms are already aware of the potential problems associated with the proposed modifications, and are comfortable with those potential problems (if they even exist). Insinuating otherwise is rather insulting, to put it mildly.

It seems strange to me, though, that "generally" modifications make firearms "not work as well" as they did before. Of the five modifications I performed on my home-defense shotgun, none of them seem to have any form of detrimental impact on the firearm's operations, accuracy, or efficacy... Mostly Genius goes on to say that there are exceptions, but with five modifications on one firearm, one would think that I would have found one of those "generally evil" modifications...

For clarification, the five modifications I added were a fiber-optic front sight, a side-saddle shell holder, a railed fore-end/pump, a flashlight mount and flashlight, and a Knoxx stock. The sight weighs almost nothing, clamps directly onto the barrel, and gives the shotgun's user a much better indication of where the barrel is pointed, especially in low-light situations. The shell holder effectively doubles the shotgun's onboard ammunition count, and I cannot ever recall anyone involved in a defensive shooting ever complaining about carrying too much ammunition (but the other way around...). The railed fore-end was a requirement for the flashlight mount, but in and of itself, it was almost a null-game - the mass is no different from the original piece, and while it is railed, the plastic is beveled well enough that the rails actually increase grip without causing discomfort. The flashlight is an absolute must for home-defense firearms, as it allows for positive identification of a target (something we are all responsible to do) when turning on a room's lights may not be possible/adviseable. And while the Knoxx stock weighs more than the original, it offers a threefold bonus - first, the collapsible stock makes the firearm usable by my 6'2" frame, and my 5'6" wife; second, the pistol grip gives us both better control over the firearm, and thus better accuracy; and last, the recoil-reduction makes the firearm much easier to control, and makes it that much more likely my wife will use it without flinching.

So, please, educate me: how, exactly is my shotgun not working "as well as it did before"? Speaking as the owner and operator of the firearm in question, I can personally attest that it is, in fact, working better than it did out of the box, both as a recreational-shooting shotgun, and as something I can rely on in the middle of the night. Yes, it does weigh a little more than it did (I did not weigh it before, and I have not weighed it after, so I cannot give specifics), but I firmly believe that the added weight has contributed more than its share of added functionality to the firearm.

If you are comfortable relying on your bare-bones-stock firearms for defensive uses, knock yourself out, and more power to you. But coming out with a blanket statement that "generally" modifications make a firearm run worse? Reality tends to disagree.

What does this gadget do for me? That is the one question that people seem to have so much trouble parsing. As an example: a barrel shroud will keep you from burning yourself on your shotgun barrel, but the manufacturer didn’t see the need to put one on. Maybe that is because burning yourself on the barrel of your shotgun is not a problem: there are no operator controls on the barrel (so there isn’t any reason to be handling it) and you have to be doing heck of a lot of shotgun shooting in a very short period of time to make this an issue.

Ok, nothing personal, but that has to be one of the most stupid arguments against modifying a firearm I have ever seen: "It did not come with X from the factory, so there is obviously no need to put it on yourself." So I guess there is no reason to install Crimson Trace laser grips on a 1911 (or any pistol) that did not come with them from the factory, despite their being indications and testimonies that lasers help with target aquisition and accuracy when under high-stress situations? Likewise, I guess there was no point in me installing the side-saddle on my shotgun... I mean, if I run out of shells in a home-defense situation, the bad guys are obviously going to understand that I had to work with what the factory gave me, and they would certainly give me a chance to get to my ammunition stash and reload.

*headdesk*

Even if we just want to narrow the topic of conversation to the infamous barrel shroud, from personal experience, the barrel of my 870 becomes uncomfortable to touch within one to two full tubes (six to 12 rounds) shot in relatvely short order (2-10 seconds between rounds, plus reload time). That amount of shooting is not uncommon for me when I take the 870 to the range. Now, there may not be be reason to handle the barrel of a firearm, but when one is at the range, and moving around equipment, or letting people have a turn on your firearms, or packing up to go home, grabbing the firearm by its barrel is not terribly uncommon on shotguns. Even if it were uncommon, barrel shrouds add a scant 8 ounces of weight to a firearm you are not exactly going to be humping to Timbuktu, and, in no way affect the actual operations of the firearm.

So if a barrel shroud makes the operator more comfortable with his firearm (by alleviating some nagging doubt that he might burn himself, foolish though that doubt might or might not be), and thus probably more accurate and effective with the firearm, and if the operator is agreeable to adding an extra 8 ounces to his shotgun, who is really in any place to disagree with him, or tell him he should not? If it costs $30-odd and a little extra effort to get a gunny comfortable with his equipment, I would think that all other gunnies would be all for it.

Speaking personally, I have not installed a barrel shroud, simply because I am not that worried about potentially burning myself, and thus I cannot rationalize the $30 expenditure. But the lack of my having one does not mean I think no one should have one... and I might get one eventually, just to piss certain politicians off.

In any case, manufacturers are not the end-all, be-all of firearms. Hell, even the best of firearms can sometimes be improved by a basic "fluff and buff", and removing burrs, smoothing out roughness, polishing surfaces, and other such things certainly count as "modifications"... and something that the factory obviously left out. Gun manufacturers build their firearms to a certain demographical/ergonomical range, and if you are outside of that range, or are not satisfied with the QC/QA at the manufacturer's factory... well, tough noogies, I guess, huh?

You will have to excuse me for not hanging out at the "one size fits all" kool-aid fountain. If options exist for customizing any equipment (not just firearms) to our particular, individual needs and desires, it would be negligent of us to ignore those options.

Am I going to use whatever added capability I am gaining? I could put a bipod on my rifle, but it isn’t going to make my rifle any better for my intended role of self defense. It might make it easier to be accurate from the prone on the range or in the field, but it’s not going to help me to shoot the bad guy that is in my house – in fact the added weight and bulk on the front of the gun is going to make it more difficult to operate.

Right. And since bipods are obviously useless in home-defense situations, all modifications are likewise useless.

Would you like a clay golem to go with your strawman, there?

You can justify anything. To yourself. If you want to trick out your gun with every cool gadget under the sun, more power to you, just don’t expect me to buy into your reasoning for why something is a must-have. I have seen a lot of guns with a lot of gadgets over the years and I have seen very few trick guns that both work reliably AND that the owner can operate. In generally I find most accessories and customizations to be technical solutions to training problems. Personally I assign far more cool points to those that can quickly and efficiently hit the target than those that have latest and greatest gizmo.

Fine - I do not exactly recall asking for or expecting your approval or support. What I do expect is your consideration for people doing as they damned well please with their own firearms. Yeah, there are a whole lot of silly-assed modifications and additions to firearms out there, but if people feel more comfortable with their firearms after slapping them on, then who are we to argue? So it is a placebo effect - so what? If they are sanguine with whatever costs (if any) required to achieve that placebo effect, and if the effect more than balances out the cost, then more power to them.

Your "buying into their reasoning" is rather immaterial if an individual shoots better with a firearm modified a certain way because he thinks he will shoot better with the firearm modified in that certain way.

Do I think nifty gidgets and doo-dads are any replacement for honest-to-God training? Of course not. Do I think that nifty accessories make up for training deficiencies? Of course not. But neither do I think I should have to conform to whatever the firearm manufacturing industry thinks is a "good" design, simply because FIREARMS SHOULD NOT BE MODIFIED!!!111!!

For that matter, I know of no training program that will make my wife's arms longer, or me more comfortable with a firearm that puts the breech right under my nose. I know of no training program that will improve my low/no-light vision. I know of no training program that will allow me to effectively engage and shoot 7+ targets (an improbable possibility, but so are home-invasions, when you get right down to it) with 6 rounds (especially when I intentionally use rounds designed to reduce overpenetration). Do you?

So believe as you like, and advise as you like, but presenting those beliefs and advice as "THE ONLY WAY... BECAUSE!" is just a little narrow-minded.

Observe the pros. If there is a consensus between what the top people in the field are using then that is probably a good choice. This is not an appeal to authority, but rather an attempt to skip reinventing the wheel, and rediscovering a bunch of stuff that is detrimental for your intended application.

Now there is a funny, given your dislike of shotguns for home defense, and given the number of "top people in the field" who approve of them.

Moving on, I find myself wondering if you have ever paid attention to firearms used at things like 3-gun matches or the like... those are not exactly the most bare-bones of firearms.

And, all that said, the simple fact is this: What works for them may not necessarily work for all people. While he is a target shooter, and that aspect of shooting is apparently outside the scope of this discussion, Mr. C uses some crazy-assed "taco" grip on his guns when taking out steel plates - and it works. Me, I could never figure out how to do that, and would probably hurt myself trying. Learning from the experts is definitely adviseable, and we would be fools not to... but taking their choices and decisions as our own, simply because they chose them... well, that is just about as bad as using some gadget simply because it looks cool.

... Whew.

The simple reality is that there is no such thing as a perfect firearm for all people. In fact, for any given individual, there is a good chance there is no such thing as a perfect firearm for just that person, unless they fall into a manufacturer's idea of an "average" person. Given that admittedly annoying reality, who is in any place to tell that individual that he or she should not modify their firearm such that it is not more comfortable/usable/user-friendly/etc. for their own purposes? My satisfaction and efficacy with my firearms is not dependent upon your approval, and if I end up shooting better thanks to how I feel with/about the firearm (possibly thanks, in turn, to things I have attached to the firearm), then the argument really is moot.

But disdaining all modifications and accessories for all firearms used by all people, just because you think firearms should never be modified? Yeah, that is just plain silly, more than a little haughty, and, ironically, the same "logic" used by those who would strip us of those firearms (after all, "Who needs modifications when the factory gives us all we need?" sounds a lot like "Who needs firearms when the government gives us all the protection we need?").

Come on, Mostly Genius. You can do better than this - I have seen it before. But laying logical fallacies all over the place, coated with a healthy dose of saccharin condescension, is not going to prove a bloody thing.

I have been largely silent on the situation in Iran, simply because I am a jaded, cynical bastard. Yeah, we all know that the election was rigged, and thus is one hell of a travesty. Yeah, people are being oppressed, subjugated, beaten, assaulted, and controlled, and their natural rights are being forcibly abridged left, right, and center. Yeah, it sucks all manner of hardcore.

But do you honestly think it is going to change?

First off, the populace of Iran is completely disarmed, or near enough that the point is still moot. The only people who have firearms are official state representatives... and you and I both know what side of the fence they will be coming down on. When it comes to "guys without guns" against "guys with guns", it is going to take a lot more of the former than we have been seeing, and I just do not expect that to happen. Second, the protestors, while numerous, are outnumbered by the vast majority of Iranians who would very much prefer it if those hot-headed folks just went back to their lives, and let the good Ayatolla take care of them like they are supposed to. Third, they are protesting against decades of governmental power-consolidation, and frakking millennia of religious power-consolidation, and I have some very significant doubts as to the efficacy of such a protest. Finally, no matter the outcome, or the probability of those end results coming to pass, this mass protest / revolution / whatever you want to call it is something that the Iranian people have to do on their own. We already took a turn around the dance floor to the tune of "Revolution in Iran", and, personally, I think once was enough for our country. The Iranian people (or at least some of them) are, indeed, fighting for freedom, and self-determination, and everything else we Americans hold (or held, in some cases) dear... but it is not our fight.

More power to them for trying, I sincerely wish them the best of luck, and I wish success was in the realm of possibilities for them... but I will not be holding my breath.

However, when it comes to the American government's reaction, or lack thereof, to the Iranian government's oppression of its citizens... well, that I can comment on, and I have to admit to this particular piece of news making me all manner of sick:

The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.

President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

"We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran," Kelly said. "We tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now."

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Iran's election was rigged from just about every direction possible. Iranian women are being shot in broad daylight for daring to object to their government's election fraud (if you have not watched the video, you should, but only if you are prepared to watch a woman die before your eyes). The protests in Iran, and the governmental crackdown on the protestors, are getting more and more energetic and violent.

And our Glorious President invites Iranian diplomants to a Fourth-of-July cookout. On the day when we established our freedom from the tyrranical control of an oppressive empire, our government's leaders will be breaking bread with representatives from one of the most totalitarian, despotic, and authoritarian regimes in the world - a regime that is actively and violenting crushing opposition as we speak.

Words cannot express how disgusted I am. I can only hope that someone "accidentally" cooks up a batch of All-American hot dogs for our ever-so-important Iranian guests...

Hoplophobes love to point to Canada as an example of their idyllic rights-free environment - firearms are heavily regulated, requiring licensing for purchasing and ownership, and also mandating complete registration of all firearms... though current numbers estimate that only 2/3s of the firearms in Canada have actually been registered. Granted, for most hoplophobes, this kind of scheme is only the beginning before they move on to bigger and better dreams, but our northern neighbors are still a favorite example for them to point at.

Or are they?

As Parliament breaks for summer, the opposition is mobilizing to stop a private member's bill to scrap the long gun registry. Yet there is no convincing research showing that the gun registry has saved a single life.

The homicide rate had fallen impressively before 2001, when the long gun registry started, but has remained relatively stable since. In 1991, the homicide rate was 2.7 per 100,000, in 1996, the homicide rate was down to 2.1 and by 2000, it had slid to 1.8. By 2005, the homicide rate had risen to 2.0.

The gun registry had no impact on suicide rates either, even if Canadian suicide rates have declined both before and after 2001. The national suicide rate was 12.6 per 100,000 in 1991, 13.3 in 1996 and 11.7 in 2000. Since 2001, the suicide rate has declined very little; it was down slightly to 11.6 in 2005.

It is time to pull the plug on the long gun registry. The present Canadian firearms program was misdirected from the beginning. It focused exclusively on normal law-abiding people who happened to own firearms, rather than on violent criminals. It should come as no surprise that it hasn't been effective in either saving lives or in combatting criminal violence.

(Emphasis added.)

The last two sentences of the article pretty much sum up the entire problem with any registration/licensing scheme - all such ideas are predicated on the irrational belief that, for some reason, criminals will obey those laws. Anyone with half a clue understands that criminals are called criminals exactly because they do not obey laws, but apparently that small detail has escaped the attention of hoplophobes both here and in Canada.

But, then again, Canada's failed firearm-registration scheme was never about the criminals, was it? It was always about controlling the law-abiding citizens by making it more and more difficult and more and more onerous to actually be law-abiding. As Ayn Rand once said, the government has no power over innocent men, so it will do its best to make them into criminals, despite there already being more than too many criminals to deal with already.

Oh, and this pointless program that has had no impact on firearm-related murders or suicides, and has successfully made criminals out of between 3 and 5 million Canadians? Yeah, it has been costing that country $80,000,000 a year. Talk about a pathetic return-on-investment...

(Courtesy of Free in Idaho.)

ACORN is changing its name to Community Organizers International.

A pile of gos-se, by any other name, smells just as...

At the same time, they are threatening to sue people for daring to use the "ACORN" name:

In a letter dated June 11 an attorney for ACORN advised top whistleblowers that their unauthorized use of the organization’s name could make them liable for monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Dissent will not be tolerated.

(Courtesy of RNS.)

For most of the past eight years, all manner of individuals have been decrying the USA PATRIOT Act (I will have to admit to never knowing that its name was an acronym.) whenever and wherever possible. A lot of those dissenters came from the left side of the political fence, but there were also a fair number of conservatives, and a whole lot of libertarians, who ranged from "not too sure" to "adamantly opposed". Personally, I confess that I am none too happy at sacrificing freedoms in the specious pursuit of "safety" (I believe Ben Franklin had something to say about that), and I was just as "not happy" about the situation when the bill was passed as I am now.

However, this post is not about me. A lot of the complaints about the Patriot Act revolved around its exploitable nature, and that it could be misused, abused, targetted against American citizens, and generally taken advantage of to expand our government's control over its subjects... er... citizens. Thinks like wiretaps and secret lists of "dangerous" individuals were decried until people's faces turned blue, and the incessant background hum of, "ZOMG, the Patriot Act is going to let the government take over the WORLD!!11!!" was... well... pretty much incessant.

Then we elected a new President.

And now certain individuals are advocating that those secret lists be used to strip rights from people without due process or the right of a trial. Coincidentally, some of the same people supporting this current misuse of secret lists were also some of the people screaming about how those secret lists could be abused not a few years ago... I guess it must be nice to fulfill your own prophecy.

We discussed this movement before, and how the "No-Fly List"/"Terrorist Watch List" has effectively no oversight, how the you can be added to the list and never know, how being removed from the list is effectively impossible, and how the list is fraught with all manner of errors and records that should not be there. No trial is necessary to be added to this list. No real cause is necessary to be added to this list. No due process is exercised when being added to this list. Five-year-old children, multiple "Robert Johnson"s, Senator Kennedy, and countless other people have been erroneously added to the list without any notification or justification.

And some of the same people who were saying that this list could be used to abridge Americans' rights are now trying to use this list to abridge Americans' rights. That much irony could sink the QE2.

So are you on the list? Do you know? How would you know? How would you challenge it? Apparently, in the past five years, 800 gun-purchase-related background checks were executed on individuals on the list - as Sebastian points out, how do they know? What does it take to get on the list?

And who wants to start making bets as to the number of "rightwing extremists" (i.e. military veterans, individuals concerned about illegal immigration, those who dare speak up for their rights, Tea Party attendees, firearm owners, etc.) added to the list in the coming months...?

Earlier this week I mentioned that Civil Liability for Posted Properties was on my wish list for 2010. I'd like to expand on that.

In Tennessee, there is a provision that allows businesses and government entities "to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person otherwise authorized" by the Handgun Carry Permit law. They must post a sign with specific language at every entrance in order for the prohibition to hold up. Places that post these signs are called "posted properties." There are relatively few posted properties in Tennessee, but I avoid them if at all possible.

Now that restaurant carry has passed, there is a full court press to get restaurants to post. One of the reasons mentioned is "concerns over what liability restaurants might have if they don't [post] and a shooting occurs."

Well that's an easy one. TCA 39-17-1359(b) states "Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property." As a business owner, you are just as liable for shootings if you post that sign than you are if you don't. I mean, it's right there in black and white.

I think that should change.

If you tell me I'm not allowed to protect my family while I am in your establishment, it says to me that YOU are taking that responsibility. I want that written into the law. You post a sign, you are specifically liable for anything that might happen to anyone on that property.

I think that's fair. You aren't liable for the "innocent bystander shot by carry permit holder" scenario that has never happened if you don't post, but you are liable for the convicted felon that murders an employee over a $10 drug debt if you do post.

That's on my wish list. I doubt I'll ever get it. In the meantime, I'll continue not giving my money to people who don't want my business.

A commenter over at Say Uncle's asks the following question of those of us who dare to modify our firearms for comfort and/or usability:

How will you answer when the policeman asks you, “Did you pimp this up especially to enjoy shooting that 15 year old kid in your hallway? What’s with the folding stock and pistol grip? It looks like a drug dealer’s gun. May I have permission to search your home?”

Given that this hypothetical conversation will probably be taking place after you just shot someone in your own home, the last question seems to be somewhat superfluous - your house is now a crime scene, and subject to being searched, with or without your permission (at least that is my understanding). Furthermore, a police officer at the scene has no business asking those kinds of questions, and I would, in all likelihood, refuse to answer them without my lawyer present.

However, assuming I was of the inclination to answer those questions, or assuming that those kinds of questions came up during a trial and my lawyer did not object to them (in which case I need to find a new lawyer), my answers would be relatively simple:

"No, I modified this firearm to make it easier and more comfortable for my wife and I to use. The collapsible stock is there because her requirements for length-of-pull are different from mine, and I wanted us both to be able to use it accurately. Likewise, the pistol grip affords us better control of the firearm, while simultaneously being part-and-parcel of a recoil-reduction system built into the stock - another requirement for my wife's use of the firearm, given she is much smaller and lighter than me. Finally, the flashlight allows me to confirm my targets before I pull the trigger, decreasing the probabilities of shooting the wrong person."

In the end summation, I am simply on the other side of the fence from this other commenter on the same post:

I’ll never understand why folks think they have to attach all kinds of crap to a firearm. I can see a minor modification like what I did with my Bushmaster carbine, I just changed the grip and trigger guard. Otherwise it’s exactly as it was when I got it brand new out of the box, it puts the rounds where I want them very nicely as is.

Every other gun I have is the same way, no fancy (and unnecessary) do-dads.

I will just never understand why folks think they have to conform their own bodies to the ergonomics of the firearm, rather than the other way around. I will just never understand why folks think all modifications are unnecessary. I will just never understand why people would not want something customized to them - after all, are you in the ergonomic range the firearm manufacturers built the equipment to?

My wife and I have very different body construction, and the ranges of our comfortable lengths-of-pull are very, very different. When ti comes to the Knoxx stock I have on my 870, while I can use the shotgun at all settings (though my nose might be beat up on the lowest two), I still prefer it out at the last two settings and find my shooting to be more accurate there. My wife, on the other hand, can only comfortably, and, more importantly, accurately, use the shotgun at the lowest setting. Would you have us own two separate firearms just to avoid "unnecessarily" modifying them? Or would you rather us own a single firearm that one or the other (or both) of us is not 100% comfortable with, especially when that lack of comfort may also result in a lack of accuracy?

"But, we were not talking about those kinds of modifications!"... I can already hear people saying it. Yeah, so which ones were you talking about? Laser sights? Help some people with accuracy and target aquisition. Flashlights? Help with target identification in dark areas (you know, like houses after dark). Pistol grips? Increase some people's control of (and thus accuracy with) firearms. Folding stocks? Decrease the amount of storage space a firearm takes up, which can be important in apartments. Forward vertical grip? Can provide a more comfortable and controlling grip on the firearm for some people. Barrel shrounds? What, do you want to burn your fingers? Extra magazine/shell holders? Well, I cannot think of a time anyone ever said, "Darn, I wish I was not carrying this much ammunition..."

If we let our lives be dictated by public perception, none of us would even own firearms. Likewise, if no one ever bothered to try out new and different ways of putting lead on targets, we would all still be using single-shot bolt-action beasts... or worse. And for those of you who think that might be a good thing, cut the pointless condescension already. Sure, believe as you like, and do as you like with your firearms, but guilt tripping people into believing a similar way, or using boogey-men-built-from-straw to scare them into thinking your way? Give me a break.

Small addendum: After saying all of that, I would still recommend against investing too much money into any firearm you plan on using for self-defense, should a situation call for it. That firearm will end up being evidence, and may be confiscated for a very long period of time... and, in reality, you may never see it again. If you are comfortable with losing a $1300 Wilson Combat Uber-Shotgun to a police evidence room, more power to you. Me, I am going to stick to a mundane 870... admittedly with a few "fancy, unnecessary doo-dads" attached.

This has got to sting just a little:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 33% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -1. Today is the second straight day the President’s rating has been below zero (see trends).

Our Glorious President's approval rating has hit 0 previously, but it has never before been negative... and certainly never for two days in a row. For a smug, self-absorbed egotist like our President, "breaking even" has to be all manner of aggrivating, but it could not happen to a better man.