We had the fortune of stumbling across some relatively nice-but-inexpensive bed and breakfasts during our shopping trip last weekend, and one of the innkeepers had a pink pistol on her "to buy" list.

Or, rather, it was on her husband's. She and he had just recently acquired their concealed weapon license in North Carolina, and he took her to a gunshow this past weekend. The conclusion? She does not really care what she carries, so long as it comes in pink, and has laser sights. Well, I put my two cents in for Walther (since I seem to recall seeing a Walther P-22 in pink... which would lead me to believe other frames might come in that shade), and Crimson Trace just announced a new line of pink laser sights. Their selection is somewhat limited at the moment, but I am sure it will grow.

Oh, and her demographic? About mid-40s-ish, married, children out of the house and on their own, independent business owner, generally conservative (given her dim views of Senator Barack Hussein Obama), and relatively quiet and unassuming. Either way, I am certain her husband (who is an NRA member and a firearm collector, both of modern and historical varieties) will steer her in the right direction.

Well, these folks' votes were pretty much already a given, but there they are.

The Highland Green beauty is still at the dealership, though they have not come down in price agian yet. Oh the choices, the choices.

If this comes as a surprise to anyone, they are either bleeding morons or legally dead.

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

And the mainstream media wonders daily why their credibility is continuing to tank...

So, apparently, way back in the day, all American-made furniture was made in the vicinity of Hickory and High Point North Carolina, and the towns around them. These days, those same companies that used to exclusively produce in the area still maintain clearance centers, outlets, and a variety of other stores in those towns, and whether the furniture is made in good old US of A or in some itch-mongering factory in China, you can get it at a pretty darned good price in the area.

So, for the sake of re-equipping our living room and some other minor pieces of furniture throughout the house, Better Half and I took a jaunt over to western North Carolina this weekend, and spent most of it poking around the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of square feet of furniture marts. Talk about information overload... And, honestly, one would think that that much absurdly ugly furniture in one place would cause a rift in the space-time continuum or something.

A few hints for future furniture shoppers headed to that district... First, if you are looking for something with relatively clean lines, no overstuffing, no "pudge factor", no recliners, and not looking like it came out of a victorian museum... you are looking in the wrong place. Second, if you are looking for a living room set that will set you back less than about a grand or even a grand-and-a-half (for a couch, loveseat, chair, and ottoman), boy are you in the wrong spot, overstocks, discontinueds, or not. Third, furniture shopping is definitely a you-get-what-you-pay-for situation - if you want reversable cushions, you are going to pay for it. If you want good foam, you are going to pay for it. If you want eight-way hand-tied springs, boy are you going to pay for it. Fourth, if you see it, and want it, buy it. This is only really applicable to clear-out stores, where what they have on the floor is all they have, and where quantities may be limited to just one, but I am speaking from experience. Better Half and I found what could have been our couch, but we were not 100% about the color, so we slept on it, went back to the store the next day, and it was gone. Unfortunately, that was the only luck we had (our search parameters are somewhat narrow), but we did use the weekend to learn a great deal about the furniture market, our tastes, and how no one is really making anything that matches them these days. Fifth, Broyhill makes some decent stuff, at a reasonable price - as long as you can catch it on sale or discounted for some reason.

Yeah, we are pretty cheap. And I just cannot see paying a grand-and-a-half or two for a single couch. But, at the same time, we want quality... which is why we came home with nothing yet - we have not yet found an acceptable intersect between cost and value.

However, one of the nights we spent over in North Carolina was in a little place called Statesville, and Better Half and I stumbled upon the most fascinating collapsed business front. We could not really decide what it was - judging from some of the wide doors, we initially thought it might have been a car shop, but then we got farther in and realized the floor was set up for a surprisingly large number of toilets and showers. In the end, we concluded we had no idea what it was, and just took pictures. The best (in my opinion) are below, though you will have to forgive me for abusing Picasa's photo-editing capabilities. Overenthusiastic I am.

Enjoy!

Considering my blatant abuse of the LinkFest system over the past two days, I figured I woud put up one of these by way of appeasement. The general premise is that you are free to ping this post (and every other post in this category), as long as you link back to it. Consider it free Google PageRank inflation, or something.

Behold: the commercial Senator Barack Hussein Obama does not want you to see.

Yes, his presidential campaign (specifically, a character by the name of Robert F. Bauer) has sent a cease-and-desist letter to news channels in Pennsylvania and Ohio, threatening their FCC broadcast licenses if they do not comply.

Yes, the letter has been thoroughly debunked.

Yes, the Democratic Party has proverbially shot itself in its proverbial foot with this move.

Yes, the commercial has gone viral (did you really expect it not to?).

Yes, Senator Barack Hussein Obama is attacking First-Amendment-protected rights, blatantly, obviously, and disgustingly.

Yes, the claims made in the comercial are true - every last one of them (as if there was really any doubt).

Yes, Senator Barack Hussein Obama has already threatened to attack Second-Amendment-protected rights, no doubt in a similar manner.

Yes, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Remind me why people want this man to be President? If he shows this little regard for the Constitution as a Senator and ex-Constitutional law teacher, what makes his devotees so sure he will suddenly do an about-face once he achieves Presidency? Senator Barack Hussein Obama is systematically attempting to destroy the First Amendment as we speak, and has already proclaimed plans to work on the Second. Why would he stop with only the first two?

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

So before I embark on a long weekend of furniture shopping (longer story), here is a fun little question for my fellow People of the Gun:

Should the worst happen and Senator Barack Hussein Obama is elected President, what would be your purchases between November 4th and January 20th?

Sadly, the extent of my plans is nothing more than a couple normal-capacity magazines for my M1A, and a case or two of 9mm and .308 ammunition. I have not really decided what, if any, .22 rifle I want, but if it is a semi-automatic variety that can accept magazines with more than 5 rounds in them, I would have to purchase it as well, before Obama's reign. Of course, from that angle, I am leaning more towards a Henry repeating rifle, mostly because lever-action is cool, and partially because the name causes hoplophobes all manner of discomfort, I am sure. If I had more guts and more knowledge of the market, I might actually convert a portion of my savings into investments... in Evil Black Rifles. Senator Barack Hussein Obama has already indicated he will support a permanent "assault weapon ban", so buying them now for future sales/trades/arrangements (should even that be legal under his proposed ban) would almost definitely be a profitable enterprise. Assuming the ban is not a ban on ownership as well - certainly would not put it past him to at least try.

So what are your plans? And just how bad do you think the run on AR-15s would be after November 4th, should Senator Barack Hussein Obama actually be elected?

A worthy cause? Check.

A famous man? Check.

A cunning piece of headgear? Check.

Complete and utter geekery? Uber-check.

Cannot say as though I can swing $1259.56 (at the time of this post) for a hat, especially when there are a variety of ways to make or buy your own replicas... But it being up for auction, as well as Adam's desire for almost all of the proceeds to go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation - yeah, that is just undeniably shiny.

In some of my mindless stumbling about the internet today, I happened across this piece by Patrick Dorfer, hosted at We The People Politics. Patrick is a senior at Mount Saint Mary College, and the site was created "to provide an opinion, a perspective, and a rationale for anyone in search of reason in a time of great political debate, so that every citizen can become more informed about the issues that affect our country and our world," to quote its "about us" page. The website is not updated terribly often, so I cannot say a great deal about it, but I will say this much for Patrick - he is horribly misguided.

I am honestly going to skip most of his article, unless I have some extra snark left over by the end of my currently-planned typing - really, it just repeats most of the standard talking points of the anti-gun-rights lobby over and over and over again. Instead, I am going to focus on his five primary points, which are just cribbed from two hoplophobic organizations: the Students for Gun-Free Schools and Protest Easy Guns (the disgusting blood-dancers responsible for the 32-person "lie-ins" in "rememberance" of the Virginia Tech murders - can you get any more morbidly offensive?). Cannot say as though I am terribly surprised - original thought has long since abandoned most colleges in the United States.

At any rate, off we go (and boy do we go... this post got a little larger than I had initially planned).

Concealed handguns would detract from a healthy learning environment.

Ok, the immediate question is "Why?" Simply saying something does not immediately make it so (though politicians' lives would be so much the easier if it did). The entire nature of concealed carry is that the firearm remains concealed - in fact, in some states, you can be cited, fined, arrested, or even have your license revoked should your firearm so much as "print", much less actually be exposed. So if the firearm is remaining concealed, and no one except the wearer is aware of it (excluding those s/he may have told, granted), then what is the problem?

Ah, yes. If we go to check one of the "sources" Patrick uses, we come to the core of the problem:

In order to foster a healthy learning environment at America’s colleges and universities, it is critical that students and faculty feel safe on campus. If concealed carry were allowed on America’s campuses, there is no doubt that many students would feel uncomfortable about not knowing whether their professors and/or fellow students were carrying handguns.

What undiluted nonsense. Forgive me for the brief profanity, but screw "feelings". I do not give a flying squirrel's left ear if people "feel" safe - I want them to actually have the opportunity to be safe, or at least more safe. Feeling safe, when that feeling is based on a frameless, supportless facade, is completely meaningless, and more than a little dangerous. When you feel safe, you will let your guard down, you will be less observant, you will be more submissive, your reaction time is decreased drastically... the list goes on and on. And if there is anything that the shootings at Virginia Tech and every other school and "gun-free zone" has taught us, it is that "feeling" safe is completely and utterly meaningless.

And, to repeat a previous transgression, screw "uncomfortableness". I am "uncomfortable" now that students at colleges around America are left without means to defend themselves. I would wager that some of those same students feel just as "uncomfortable", if not moreso (in fact, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus now claims over 30,000 members - students, faculty members, parents, and concerned citizens). So why is it that the "uncomfortableness" of those who choose to live in fear should outweigh the "uncomfortableness" of those who would choose to defend themselves, if capable?

Oh, and here is a scary thought - you do not know now whether professors and/or students are carrying handguns. As previously mentioned, the operative word in the phrase "concealed handgun" is "concealed", and I can guarantee you that there are people out there who carry on a daily basis, and no one would be the wiser - ever. I can equally guarantee you that there is at least one professor and at least one student out there who consider their own safety to be more important than their jobs or education, and are currently carrying to their respective colleges... and I certainly do not blame them. So explain to me how permitting concealed carry on campus would change the uncertainty of whether or not someone is carrying a firearm in a concealed manner? Yeah, it is against the schools' rules. Yeah, it might even be against the law. So are underage drinking, and drugs, and everything else you and I and anyone with a clue know happens at colleges.

More guns on campus would create additional risk for students.

So I guess college campuses across the country will be outlawing alcohol on campus, passing rules banning vehicles from campus, requiring students to hand over their drivers' licenses upon enrollment (they can have them back when they graduate), installing metal detectors and security guards at every entrance to campus and any buildings, and doing a host of other things that will mitigate any possible "additional risk" for students.

Yeah. Sure they will.

After all, alcohol will be a contributing factor in countless deaths, injuries, assaults, rapes, burlgaries, accidents, and God alone knows what else over the coming year, and yet very few colleges across the country are "dry", despite a considerable portion of those incidents having been committed by underage students. Furthermore, over 5000 college-aged individuals will die this year in car accidents, and another 400,000+ will be seriously injured. And yet, for some reason, I do not see any major pushes to move the driving age later, to limit the driving privileges of college students, or anything of the sort. And, finally, most college campuses in America are open - anyone can walk onto the property, and, depending on the security systems installed at the campuses, into the buildings. And, considering the densely-populated areas that a lot of colleges are found in, that "anyone" could include murderers, rapists, thieves, burglars, and who knows who else... and yet no one is screaming about securing our campuses.

Instead, they are crapping their pants over the statistical improbability of people randomly/negligently shooting one another for no good reason... you know, like hoplophobes have been screaming about for years. This, in reality, is nothing more than an extension of the "blood in the streets", "Wild West", and other specious arguments that those organizations and individuals are so fond of, describing possibilities that still have not come to pass.

Accidents do happen. Life is uncertain. But you just like you cannot legislate away stupidity, you cannot legislate safety - Murphy always shows up, entropy always wins, and you never know what will happen. But limiting my ability to defend myself just so you can fool yourself into "feeling" unprovably safe... that, ladies and gentlemen, is wrong.

Shooters will not be deterred by concealed carry permit holders.

Well, I can tell you this much: "No guns permitted here" certainly ain't workin' either. History is replete with criminals and murderers ignoring "gun-free zones", to the detriment of the unarmed, defenseless occupants and victims within.

For the sake of good will, I will actually grant the hoplophobes this point (despite evidence obviously to the contrary). Surprising, eh? But I am going somewhere with this... The problem is, deterrence is not the only factor.

Imagine how much lower the bodycount would have been at Virginia Tech if a student in one of the classrooms the murderer visited was armed. Imagine a situation where valiant professors did not have to act as body shields, but instead could keep the murderer from killing any more innocents.

You see, deterrence is not everything - it is a damned good start, that is for sure, but if deterrence fails, you have to be able to back it up. And if you are already deterring some criminals with the threat of an armed school population, there are at least a few students in that population who would be able and hopefully willing to back up the promise with action.

I am not trying to say that every mass shooting situation can be shortened or disrupted by the presence of armed and willing individuals - take the recent shooting at the Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville. But there are some that can be, and those alone should be more than sufficient weight to provide stronger reasons to allow students and professors to carry firearms in a concealed manner while they are at school. Furthermore, if there is even one mass-murderer who thought twice about attacking a school because he knew at least some of the population was armed, that, my friends, is distinctly a victory. As it is now, every single nutcase, copy-catter, and whackjob knows that college campuses (along with a disturbingly large number of other locations) are nothing more than a shooting gallery, and past events have certainly proved them right.

Concealed carry permit holders are not always “law-abiding” citizens.

Ah, yes, now we are going back to the comment made by Daniel Vice, a senior attorney at the Brady Campaign - "Just getting a concealed carry permit, all that means is that you haven't committed a crime yet."

Well, to begin with, concealed carry permit holders have to start out as law-abiding gun owners, otherwise they would never get past the background checks required by most states. That said, the background check system is not perfect (especially because it is based entirely on a disfunctional, ineffective, and hole-ridden judicial system), and criminals have been able to procure licenses due to failures in the system - on the order of about half a percent in Florida, for example. Half a percent. And hoplophobes are decrying this as a "faulty system". Guess what folks - ain't no system perfect. Computer bugs happen. People forget to enter data. People forget to delete data. Have you, for example, seen a copy of your credit report recently? Granted, I would be tremendously happier if the background check system were considerably more accurate than it is, but half a percentage point failure rate? That is almost statistically irrelevent.

So how about law-abiding concealed carry permit holders after they receive their permits?

Well, one of Patrick's sources makes a big deal about how Texas concealed carry permit holders were arrested for 5314 crimes between 1996 and 2001. Honestly, I could not find those numbers, but I did find a different set, compiled in 1999. This information does, indeed, indicate that concealed carry permit holders were arrested for 672 felonies and 2041 misdemeanors, coming to 2713 total offenses. However, only 135 of those felony arrests resulted in convictions, and only 538 of those misdemeanor arrests resulted in convictions, totaling to about a 4:1 arrest-to-conviction ratio.

You see, folks, this is still America, last I checked, and there is still that whole, annoying "innocent until proven guilty" thing (I blame the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as well as Coffin v. United States). And, in light of that presumption of innocent, an arrest, and only an arrest, means precisely squat. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil. Accidental and erroneous arrests are made in America on a daily, if not hourly, basis, and it is really no fault of the police. People see things, think one thing happened, and then the true (or as close as we are going to get to "true") story comes out in the course of the court trial, and no convictions are handed down. However, without a conviction, an arrest means absolutely nothing. Hell, depending on what state you are in, if you were to shoot someone in an absolutely clear-cut case of self-defense, you stand a pretty damned good chance of being arrested. After all, you shot someone. Does that mean you committed a crime? Of course not. And yet here the hoplophobes are, gleefully dancing in the blood of murdered innocents, and warping and twisting statistics and words to meet their fear-filled desires. Nothing new.

Oh, and for the record, those 673 convictions totaled to approximately two tenths of one percent of the concealed carry permit holders in Texas at the time (1.62% of about 20 million). Yeah, that is significant (yes, it is still a problem, but not the system-shattering one it is made out to be).

On a related note, a study performed by the National Center for Policy Analysis shows that Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, 14 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, and 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder. The simple truth is that the vast majority of us who go to the time, effort, and cost of pursuing and achieving our concealed carry permits are not simply going to throw away that opportunity for the rest of our lives over something nonsensical. There are exceptions, but there always are in life - deal with it already.

Concealed carry permit holders are not required to have any law enforcement training.

And, for a third time, forgive me, but this comment rates a "No shit, dumbarse!" exclamation. Why? Because concealed carry permit holders are not law enforcement officers. In this instance, I am going to rely on the words of Jeffrey Snyder, mostly because he debunks this comment far better than I could ever hope to, and partially because this argument is so asinine that it really does not warrant much attention:

Permit holders need concern themselves with only one thing: protecting themselves from a sudden, violent assault that threatens life or grievous bodily injury. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation, great book-learning, or a stint at the police academy to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, 'You're coming with me,' her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error.

Police, by contrast, do not carry arms solely for the purpose of defending themselves, but also for the purpose of enforcing the law. They deliberately inject themselves into potentially dangerous and violent situations, responding to calls for assistance, investigating crimes, intervening in domestic violence, and making arrests.

Simply put, if someone walks into a classroom and shoots the first person he sees, you do not really need "law enforcement training" to realize that you should probably disable this murderer before he gets around to you. 'Nuff said.

Alright folks, now that the five primary points of this academics screed have been more or less shamble-ized, it is time to get down to brass tacks. What I am and a large number of other people are proposing is not that radical. Professors and most students (the age of concealed carry permit eligibility depends on the state) are already legally capable of carrying firearms in a concealed manner. In fact, when some of them walk across the magical demarcation separating "college campus" from "real world", some of those same professors and students might actually carry a firearm on their person in a concealed manner to the grocery, to the gas station, to their house, to their neighbors' houses, to Wal-Mart... to wherever. The same exact people could and possibly do carry firearms outside of school... why should they have to disarm themselves when they are at school? What difference is there?

None at all. But there is a difference to murderers, because they have realized that college campuses across the country are defenseless. The students are defenseless. The professors and academics are defenseless. Most school's security officers are effectively defenseless, being unarmed and basically only able to call the police. And many students and professors have paid the ultimate price for that imposed defenselessness. Why? So people can have a vapid and meaningless "feeling" of safety? Yeah, that would really be a comfort if I was confronted by an armed and determined murderer with no recourse save my own hands, feet, and head.

Patrick, I know you mean well (at least I hope so), but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Disarming people for their "safety" is but one of the many cobblestones along that particular path, and I would just as soon not have to travel it with you.

Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , third world county, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Well, with just under two weeks left before the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, Para USA has announced that they will donate a pistol of unknown make or model to the convention. Of course, while we do not know what the firearm will be, exactly, I honestly doubt any attendees would mind the addition to their armory of any product Para USA makes.

Given how much this is costing me to actually attend (which is considerably less than it would have been, thanks to Traction Control), though, and other possible financial... hurdles... in the future, I cannot say as though I will probably be purchasing very many of the $10 raffle tickets. However, given that there are only 100 tickets (at the moment), and the current prizes are the Para USA firearm, a Hi-Point 9mm, and a $2000 four-day training certificate at Front Sight Institute (along with rumors of other little goodies like a range bag and who-knows-what-else), I would strongly recommend that the rest of you take advantage of my shortcomings and purchase as many tickets as you can yourselves. Hey, my being chintzy increases your probabilities of winning, right? And, when you get right down to it, whether you win a prize or not, everyone involved with the raffle wins - all proceeds, every last dollar (since all of these prizes were donated), goes to Project Valour-IT, which is certainly a deserving organization.

You are getting kind of close to the deadline (especially for flights, from what I understand), but you can probably still register if you are planning/hoping on coming.

Current attendees include: Mr. Completely (the orchestrator of this event), USCitizen (my flight benefactor), Phil and David, DirtCrashr (you bloody well better come!), RideFast, Kevin Baker, KeeWee, JimmyB, Lou, Chris and Mel Byrne, Derek, and Larry Weeks... oh, yeah, and me.

Guests/sponsors/swag-bearers include Ashley Varner and Glen Caroline from the NRA, Dr. Ignatius Piazza himself (possibly), Crimson Trace, and Hi-Cap Gun Works.

Furthermore, this little shindig is open to anyone - gun blogger, gun shooter, commenter, milblogger, military members... really, we would probably welcome just about anyone. So get your reservations in, send in your monies, and I will see you there. I mean, where else can you shoot a firearm that costs more than a car (a Hyundai, granted, but I guess those count as "cars")?

I honestly had no idea that Oleg Volk founded The High Road forums, but that gunny-ignorance is only outshined by the fact that I do not really frequent those forums... at all. Ignorance or not, and visitor or not, however, I have nothing against supporting him in his current predicament:

In December 2002, I founded The High Road forum dedicated to the advancement of responsible gun ownership. Recently, it was discovered that in 2006, the volunteer forum systems administrator, Derek Zeanah of Statesboro, Georgia, changed domain registration to himself. After he was confronted, Derek locked out all other staff from accessing the Web server administration and would not share even backup copies of its content. After failed attempts to peacefully resolve the dispute, it has become necessary for me to initiate a lawsuit against Derek Zeanah for the return of thehighroad.org domain name and the forum database.

I am seeking and would greatly appreciate donations to help with the cost of litigation. You can use Paypal (olegvolk (at) gmail.com) or send a check to:

Oleg Volk
3112 Chambley Ct
Hermitage, TN 37076

All donations shall be returned if the lawsuit is ultimately avoided. You can also aid me by re-posting this appeal on your blog, forum or web site. My legal position is already endorsed by almost all of The High Road staff as well as Rich Lucibella, the founder of The Firing Lineforum.

Not knowing the situation at all really, and not being privy to its finer details, I honestly should not comment much. But speaking as a website administrator, reappropriating a website's registration to yourself, when you do not intellectually or legally own the content on it... yeah, that seems pretty damned shady - and apparently illegal to boot.

Don Gwinn has some more, but I will be buggered if I understand what it means.

*settles in to wait with the rest of the peanut gallery*

From Senator Barack Hussein Obama's very own webpage (by way of Traction Control):

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

(Emphasis added.)

So, please, lie some more, and tell me that Senator Barack Hussein Obama and his lap-dog lackey Senator Joe Biden are pro-guns. Tell me they will respect our Second Amendment-protected rights. Tell me that they do not want to ban firearms. Tell me that they do not want to make my life as a law-abiding gun owner more miserable, more expensive, and more constricted.

Tell me all that, because I obviously do not have enough bullshit in my diet already.

I know I focus a fair bit on firearm-related politics here, possibly to the exclusion of other varieties... I do that mostly to focus what little interest I have in politics on one particular point, and get the most bang for my attention-span's limited buck. However, consider this: if this stuffed shirt and pit-bull-with-all-four-paws-constantly-stuffed-in-his-mouth have such a low regard for one of our Constitutionally-protected rights, our natural rights, and our very lives... what makes you think they will have any higher regard for any of the rest of our protected and inherent rights... or even our lives?

America simply cannot afford to have Senator Barack Hussein Obama in the Oval Office.

I already know I disagree with Senator Barack Hussein Obama on just about every count under the sun, but I went ahead and took this little test out of morbid curiosity. It turns out that I do not disagree with him nearly as often as I might like:

You DISAGREED with the Barack Obama position on 48 of the 51 test questions. This means you disagree with the Obama position 94% of the time.

Well, at least it is just the kind of "I feel dirty" that can be removed by washing one's hands... not a full-body steel-wool-scrub.

A tip of the hat to Uncle.

I can live with second place.

Oh, and by the way, they still suck.

Yesterday, a shooter (who will remain nameless in this post - murderers have given up the privilege to have their existences remembered) killed ten people in a small college outside the town of Kauhajoki, in Finland. This, just like every murder, is indeed a tragedy, and my condolences and thoughts are with all the people influenced by this recent attack.

Apparently, the killer posted a variety of threatening videos on YouTube, and now it seems as though he has followed through on the promised threat. Unfortunately, the Finnish police questioned the murderer after he posted the videos, and decided that he did not pose a significant-enough threat to warrant disarming or other actions... However, despite all of the finger-pointing and blaming and name-calling, I find myself in complete assent with the comment made by Roland Noble (the secretary-general of Interpol), "It's unfair to expect police to be able to be clairvoyant like the movie Minority Report." This is, after all, quite true - we are venturing very close to the real threat of "thoughtcrime" if we start arresting people simply because we think they might commit a crime in the future. Yes, what the murderer said on those films was a threat - there can be no doubt about that whatsoever. But a threat against whom? While it was a threat, it fails the "who/what/where/when/why/how" battery. Could the police have done more? Certainly. Should they have done more? In retrospect, probably. However, at the time, armed with the information they had, I honestly doubt they should have done any more than what they did.

However, as was almost 100% predictable in a situation like this, Finnish politicians are already considering banning firearms as a result of this most-recent attack:

Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre) said at a government press conference on Tuesday that the shooting incident in Kauhajoki will influence the drafting of planned new firearms legislation.

Minister of the Interior Anne Holmlund (Nat. Coalition Party) Also said that the government will look at the possible need to tighten the law.

Interviewed on television news on Tuesday evening, both ministers indicated that changes might be made in the availability of handguns. Vanhanen said on a TV news broadcast of the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) that a total ban on private use of easily-concealed handguns would be considered.

Well, let us be honest with one another, eh? All handguns are easily-concealable, given appropriate clothing, body type, and environment. Hell, given that we are talking about Finland, consider how easy it would be to hide just about anything underneath/in layers of sweaters, fluffy coats, and other keep-your-fingers-and-toes-not-blue garments. I imagine even I could manage some method for completely concealing the presence of a Desert Eagle on my person, given the right clothing. So what Prime Minister Vanhanen is actually trying to say is that he is open to a total ban on the private use of handguns. Period. May as well not beat around the bush, and you may as well be honest with your constituents.

What does this boil down to? Well, nothing more than the standard hoplophobic reaction to any crime perpetrated with the assistance of a firearm - make more laws. Well, I am going to go ahead and guess that most of the things this recent murderer did were already illegal, but let us check, just for the sake of thoroughness.

Laws against murdering other people? Check.

Laws against carrying a firearm, except from their place of storage to their place of use (i.e. range) (said firearm must also be unloaded and kept in its case/container). Check.

So he already broke at least two laws I am aware of... what difference would adding more laws to the "rap sheet" make? The murderer obviously did not plan on coming out of the experience alive (given that he shot himself in the head and saved anyone else the trouble), so how would more laws have stopped him? "But new laws would make it harder for him to get a firearm!" the anti-rights folks will proclaim... Yeah, that obviously worked so well in our very own D.C. during the years where its absolute ban was in place. However, more-topically, Finland has between 50,000 and 500,000 unregistered firearms... that they know of. Yeah, no black market / street-corner deals there. Furthermore, firearms are already difficult to obtain in Finland. First, you have to provide cause, with acceptable reasons being hunting, sports, profession related, promotion or exhibition, collection, souvenir, and signaling - defense of self and defense of home are not seen as "valid" reasons in Finland. Then, the applicant has to provide proof that he or she will use the firearm in the declared manner, such as letters of recommendation, membership of a shooting club, etc. Finally, the applicant has to go through a background check, where even citations for speeding can be sufficient to deny the purchase permit. And all of this, every last ounce of it, is left to the local police's discretion - if they do not like you, they do not have to permit you. These are the kinds of laws the people like the Brady Campaign, the hypocritical American Hunters and Shooters Association, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, and other anti-rights, anti-firearms, and anti-self-defense organizations and individuals would have us adopt here in America. And, unsurprisingly enough, they do not stop crime. They did not stop this murderer, nor did they stop the last murderer who chose to target a school in Finland.

So what would more laws accomplish? Well, they would make the lives of law-abiding folks miserable. They would make current law-abiding folks potentially criminals, if they do not abide by the newer, more constricting laws. And, if past history with half-baked gun-control laws across the world is any indication, they will not do a damned thing to prevent firearm crime, much less crime in general.

What was the definition of insanity again?

Even David Drake is taking a chunk out of Biden's most recent lies these days. I have to admit... Biden is a hell of a lot worse at painting himself into a corner than any other political candidate I have seen in a while... I mean, at least Clinton had some semblance of style. This guy is a complete doof.

In other news, who knew David Drake had a weblog?

So this is my linky-no-thinky post for today.

The "American Hunters and Shooters Association" is NOT pro-gun, pro-gun-rights, or pro-self-defense (or even really pro-hunters or pro-shooters). Anyone claiming that they are is either maliciously deceiving you, or willfully ignorant at this point. Period. Full stop. End of story.

Now, back to doing dishes.

I think I just failed as a gun-nut.

For our move, some things I just left in the containers they lived in normally. For instance, all of my firearm cleaning supplies remained inside the .50-caliber ammunition cans they are generally stored in. This worked perfectly fine (those cans will win arguments with most things), except in one, noteable exception.

The can that just happened to be holding all of the various solvents, oils, and other cleaning liquids one would find near any firearm stash.

Oh, the can came out just fine. Unfortunately, one or more of the liquids inside, however, came out. Literally.

Accidents happen, and that is not where my failure occurred. Rather, when I opened the can, and was confronted with the wonderfully pungent smells of copper cutter, lubrication oils, and God alone knows what else, the first thought going through my mind was not, "Hm, I need to hit up the range," or, "Maybe one of my firearms could use some cleaning after the move," or something like that. Nope, my thought was, "Gosse, this is going to be a beast to clean up."

All I have to say is thank God ammunition cans are not only water tight, but also apparently fume-tight... otherwise I might not be here to be writing this.

Yes, you can take away my gun-nut membership card now.

But not yet, God, not yet.

In the week since I test-drove it, the bloody thing dropped $3000. They are very rapidly reducing the distance between my desire to keep my money and their desire to take it...

I mean, stylistically, this is what a Mustang should be:

No flashy chrome nonsense. No useless, non-functioning scoops, No pointless "racing stripes" or "trim" (you know every sticker makes your car gain 5hp, right?). No unnecessary wings/flaps/spoilers. All function, and, in this case, all form. And with a custom-buit 315hp engine, a 0-60 time of 5 seconds, and a perfectly tuned exhaust that Ford apparently spent $10 million on to ensure it sounded like the original Frank Bullitt Mustang...

The interior is a bit disappointing... but, honestly, I would rather my money was spent on making the car go fast than making it pointlessly plush. Comfortable, I require - never much understood sports cars without A/C, or with uncomfortable seats. Functional, I require - a useful trunk, and, God forbid, a useable back seat (not one that you would necessarily go cross-country in, but at least one you can stuff your in-laws in for a drive to a restaurant). But flashy trim, a satellite radio, gidgets and gizmos and doo-dads all vying for my attention? Not so much. The gas mileage... yeah, that sucks. It is a shame they could not have integrated some manner of variable cylinder management... Granted, for a car like that, it could not be automatic, but how hard could it be to stick a switch by the steering wheel that would activate and deactivate it? That said, God those copious amounts of fuel being burned sound beautiful... inside the car, and most especially out (and definitely with the 3.5" exhaust tips installed). And, as previously noticed, the power from the fuel is obviously not wasted.

I was never really one for muscle cars, instead preferring the light-and-lively approaches of the Mini S, Mazdaspeed 3, Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru WRX, and other things like that... But this Mustang Bullitt just works for me.

Godwin's Law:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Linoge's Adaptation:

As an online discussion about the 2008 American elections grows longer, the probability of the invocation of "racist" approaches one.

By a show of hands, anyone else getting tired of that?

Random question for today: I cannot be the only law-abiding gun owner who regularly rides a bicycle (yes, I said "bicycle", not "motorcycle", though if the answers for both are more-or-less equivalent, feel free to weigh in). With that in mind, what do you all carry, and where do you carry it? I have been carrying my PPS in its IWB holster under an untucked t-shirt (Better Half and I are just casual cyclists, so no spandex concerns), but given how one bends over when riding a bicycle, that hardly seems ideal. Any thoughts/suggestions/comments?

One of the byproducts of our most-recent move is that Better Half and I have realized just how little we have in the way of furniture. Two dressers, a bed, two futons, an arm chair, a desk, a desk chair, and three particleboard bookshelves (only 2ish of which actually survived the move) is about it - collectively. Not a whole lot to stock an apartment with, that is for sure.

Well, like any good Irishman, I had one priority in mind - I had to find someplace to put my alcohol. Our kitchen is on the smallish side (the ironic thing is that we are pretty sure the kitchens in the one-bedroom models in this complex are significantly larger), so that rules that out, and we do not even have a pantry. After doing some shopping around, we came to the conclusion that commercially-produced liquor cabinets simply were not in the cards - they ranged in price from "just" $200 up to $2000 and beyond, very rapidly. Considering that we do not even have a "real" couch, this simply was not an option. Time for alternative solutions.

As fate would have it, a few days later we stumbled across the perfect item, pictured below:

Some of you might be able to identify it right off the bat... others will not. I might get around to telling you. Unfortunately, this particular piece of furniture was not in the best of shape... its finish was coming undone, the doors were... functional, but barely, and it did not really fit into our decoration scheme. On the flip side, it cost all of $10. It is all trade-offs, right? Well, after about another $20 in supplies, and about four hours out of my time (hey, I was unemployed... my time was effectively free), the end result is featured below:

As a brief aside, Krylon spray paint is not nearly as durable as I had hoped. Easy to apply, relatively run-free (though the third picture betrays me on that point), and it stuck to bloody everything (including my toes - note to self, no sandals when spray painting in the future). However, after it had dried for over 48 hours, we went to stock the cabinet, and set a bottle on the inside (also painted). A few minutes later, we picked up said bottle to move it, and it took a ring of paint with it. Not good. And this was after multiple coats, to boot. The inside is now lined with bar towels, which is slightly annoying/disappointing.

However, any way you cut it, I figure it is a fairly good second life for an RCA Victor LP cabinet. We had to replace its slider knobs as well as paint it (the original knobs had some funky verdigris growing on them that absolutely nothing would remove), but the new ones work pretty damn near perfectly, if you ask me. The cabinet is large enough to handle even the largest Absolut bottle (purchased before their assinine commercial campaign), and its style is unquestionable.

And it cost about 30 bucks. I can live with that.

Something every bachelor needs: A crock pot.

1. It is almost easier to use than a TV dinner, and makes food that is several orders of magnitude better.

2. It is a great way to show off to girlfriends that you do, indeed, cook... while doing so at a minimum of effort.

All fourteen episodes of Firefly.

All online.

And all free.

Granted, they are slightly out of order, but what better way to introduce the uninitiated to the shininess that is the Firefly 'verse?