coonan on the nraam floor

So, I met Coonan. 

Both the company Coonan, and the man Mr. Dan Coonan. 

Which was pretty awesome. 

What is also pretty awesome is this: 

DSCN1497

Yup, that is a 4” Coonan .357 with a full-length dust cover, and, yes, it is brand-spanking new as of the NRA Annual Meetings.  Personally, I love the brushed finish on the sides and the matte finish on all the curves. 

More pictures coming at some point, but headed back out for now. 

cz-52s and tt-33s, quick thoughts

If you have hung around firearm-related weblogs or communities very long, you have probably heard of the CZ-52 (more properly known as the Vz.52) and the TT-33 (or just TT, for Tula, Tokarev); both pistols are typically amongst the first firearms purchased by people who get their Curio and Relic license from the BATFE, which is hardly surprising, given their still-inexpensive-but-slowly-rising prices. Both pistols are functionally interchangeable, at least superficially – they carry the same number of the same cartridge, are both short-recoil operated, have locked breeches, are single-action only, and are arguably dangerous to carry with a round in the chamber – but they differ considerably on the specific details: the former is Czechoslovakian, the latter purely Soviet; the former employs a crazy roller-and-cam locking system borrowed from the German MG-42, the latter borrowed the swinging-link system from the venerable 1911; the former wraps its recoil spring around the barrel (which, unfortunately, is no help at all for its bore axis height), the latter employs the more-standard recoil spring guide rod system.

I had the opportunity to shoot both side-by-side this weekend (the CZ was mine, and unfired until I shot it; the TT was a friend’s), and I have to admit, while they are both markedly different, I would not go so far as to say one was better than the other. In fact, if the CZ-52 had a normal, functional magazine release and a decocking lever that was not prone to setting off chambered rounds, it would not be a bad little firearm at all… And if the TT had a safety that could be operated by, well, anyone (yes, I know the safety has to be added for importation purposes, but that does not make it any easier to use), it would be a decent, classic firearm as well.

And I do not think anyone can argue with the efficacy of 7.62x25mm out of a handgun… especially not now that Wolf is producing hollow-point loadings as well.

In fact, now that I just discovered the M57 variant of the TT-33 (one more round in the magazine and a 1911-style manual safety, without a huge increase in price), I may have just found my next C&R purchase… The only hitch on those is that the specific magazines are hard to come by / expensive. In any case, I had harbored masochistic dreams of running IDPA/IPSC with a CZ-52, but after trying to change out magazines in anything approximating a reasonable amount of time, I dare say the TT family would be a better choice…

For what it can do, it is a bit unfortunate the 7.62×25 round has been left by the wayside.

so you want to assemble your own 10/22, the receiver

So where should we really start this post series? Well, at the most-logical spot: the actual part of the gun that is legally the "firearm".

Without going too far down the rabbit hole of legalities and idiotic restrictions, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (hereafter referred to the BATFE when necessary) is really only concerned with one single part on your gun – the piece that carries the serial number for the entire firearm. If you were to strip everything else off that piece, that one piece would be the thing you would have to have a background check executed on you to purchase from a gun store. In the case of AR-15s, it is that "lower" you always hear about (the full term is "lower receiver", since ARs also have an upper receiver); on bolt-action rifles, it is the tube (but not necessarily the barrel) the bolt slides around in; for 1911s, the serialized part is the "frame"; on Ruger Mark I/II/III pistols though, the BATFE only cares about the part with the barrel on it (which has to be a pain in the ass).

In other words, the definition of a "receiver" is fairly arbitrary, but it generally boils down to, "the serialized part that holds all of the other parts of the firearm together, in the right orientation to function properly". Arguably, an AR-15 upper would work just fine without the lower so long as you had a hammer and fairly long punch handy, but the BATFE "had" to pick on part as the actual firearm, and here we are.

So how about the 10/22? What constitutes the serialized "receiver" on those things? Well, in AR-15 terms, it would actually turn out to be the upper receiver – the part that holds the bolt and that the barrel is inserted into:

Image(12)

That part, and that part alone, is the actual "gun"; everything else on the 10/22 can be shipped straight to your door, no questions asked, but to take possession of that part from a firearm dealer, you will have to show up to the store in person, present your identification, undergo the required background check, and pass it. It is a bit wierd when you think about it like that, is it not?

With all those legalities covered, you have approximately two-and-a-half options when it comes to the receiver in your assemble-it-yourself 10/22.

First, you could just buy an existing 10/22:

Image(13)

This route has a number of advantages:

1. You will always have a fully-functional, actual firearm; not just a single machined piece of metal that is not good for much by itself except holding papers down.

2. Anything you replace on the rifle will always have a spare part, in the form of the original.

3. Depending on what you plan on replacing, this could be significantly cheaper than assembling from the ground up.

4. You do not have to buy the little fiddly bits that all guns have, like the receiver pins or v-block screws.

But there are also a few hitches:

-1. Certain features are all-but unavailable on standard receivers; specifically, a cleaning hole on the back of the receiver and rails along its top. The former only matters if you use a cleaning rod and want to clean in the "right" direction, and the latter is fixable with screw-attached rails, buying the apparently unavailable Tactical 10/22, or going with an SR-22 (which is just a 10/22 in a special body), but if you want a unibody rail or that hole, you are probably going to have to go aftermarket.

-2. Depending on what you plan on replacing/attaching (specifically, if all you plan on keeping is the bolt and receiver itself), this could actually turn out to be more expensive.

-3. Ruger 10/22 receivers are universally die-cast aluminum, though I cannot seem to find what type. If you want a billet receiver, or a stainless steel one, you are going to have to look elsewhere.

-4. I have been hearing that Ruger’s quality has been sliding of late. If their stock bolts are any indication, I would tend to agree with that assessment, but mine is only one data point.

-5. Aftermarket receivers supposedly have better tolerances, meaning tighter fits of all of your various parts and, in the end, potentially better functioning and accuracy. Of course, "tighter fits" can also mean "binds up", and I am not entirely sure how you can have better dimensions than the people who set the standard, but that is what some non-Ruger companies claim.

Alternatively, you could buy a virgin 10/22-clone receiver:

Image(14)

You can go with ones that are virtually identical to the original, all the way up to custom-fabricated, specially engineered rigs, or even options that include such oddities as AR-15-style charging handles or the "dual-arm straight pull" actions our biathlon competitors use (which is functionally bolt-action, by the by, in order to circumvent stupid European laws).

Really, the only upper limit on those is your budget; depending on company, features, materials, and other options, you could easily spend more on a receiver than you could on a nicely-built direct-from-Ruger all-up rifle. But if that is what you want, and you have the budget, it is there.

One final thing to bear in mind with aftermarket receivers, however, is that they are aftermarket and are not from the original manufacturers. While Ruger does publish specifications as to what the dimensions should be for a receiver, it is entirely likely that aftermarket producers decide they know a better way to do things, or that their tolerances are too tight, or not as tight, especially since Ruger only really specifies the important dimensions (whatever those are in a 10/22’s case) and leaves the rest up for artistic license. More on this in a bit.

So what about that half-an-option? Well, in addition to purchasing an aftermarket receiver, you can also purchase something that you make into a receiver:

Image(15)

These are commonly referred to as 80% receivers, and the interesting thing with them is that they are not legally defined as "firearms". Due to not having certain holes punched out of them (specifically the receiver cross pin holes, the bolt stop pin hole, the barrel hole, and the v-block screw holes), the BATFE does not define these lumps of metal as "firearms", and, as such, they can be shipped to your door without a serial number, registration, or background check. They are, however, somewhat useless in their current form.

Which is why the same company will sell you the jig to line up all of those holes, and with the help of a drill press, you could have yourself your very own 10/22 receiver that exists on no books anywhere. The complete kit is a bit expensive, especially with the required drill bits, but it is guaranteed to give your average “gun control” extremist a raging case of hoplophobia. (Note: once finished, you cannot sell that receiver without first serializing it and registering it with the BATFE.)


So what did I do? The middle option – I got a finished receiver from Tactical Machining. Since I would only end up keeping the receiver, bolt, and various fiddly pins and screws from the original rifle, and since I would have to end up mounting some kind of rail system on the receiver regardless, this actually turned out to be marginally cheaper than buying an off-the-shelf rifle and modifying it appropriately, especially with a $10 off "LIKE10" coupon code (which may disappear shortly after me posting this – it is only a year old – so use it fast if you want it). Additionally, it bemused me to try to build a rifle designed by Ruger without using any actual Ruger parts (my budget did not quite allow me to accomplish this, as we will discuss later). Finally, I will freely admit that a not-screw-attached rail system on the receiver gives me a warm fuzzy; I know screws can be tightened and secured to the point where it does not matter, but the fewer removable interface points, happier the engineer side of my brain will be.

I am going to hold off reviewing the individual parts (if I ever get around to doing so) until after I get a chance to put this all together and actually shoot it, but here is a brief comment to tide you over for that future eventuality: My Tactical Machining receiver required a surprising amount of gunsmithing to work with the parts I purchased. The barrel I bought was an impressively tight fit requiring somewhere over an hour of sanding on the barrel shank to get it fitted into the receiver (almost completely consuming the emery cloth the barrel fabricator provided), but I expected that, and it is not such a big deal. However, the stock I purchased required fitting to be able to mount the TM receiver, and a bone-stock Ruger bolt hangs up on the rail that projects inward from the ejection port. I have contacted the company, they agree this should not have happened, but they have not provided potential solutions for the problem yet.

Now it is time to clear up a few misconceptions.

Yes, I bought this receiver online. I placed my order with Tactical Machining through their webpage, paid with my credit card, and handled the entire transaction electronically.

No, this receiver could NOT be mailed to my door. It was the only part I could not, personally, receive, but this receiver, useless by itself though it may be, constitutes a "firearm", and thus could not be sent to me directly.

Yes, I had to go to a Federal Firearm Licensee to pick up this receiver.

Yes, I had to undergo, and pass, a background check to pick up this receiver.

This is the same for functionally all online firearm transactions. Unless you are purchasing the firearm from a person who is not a dealer but who is in you state and is willing to meet you face-to-face (in states where face-to-face transactions are legal), all online firearm transactions must go through an FFL and involve a background check. I know, idiots, useful and otherwise, are going positively apoplectic over the notion that law-abiding citizens can purchase firearms from the intertubes, but much though I wish it were the case, it is not nearly as simple or uncontrolled as they make it out to be.

(Bare Ruger 10/22 receiver image borrowed from this GunAuction.com listing. Wood-and-blued Ruger 10/22 carbine image borrowed from Ruger. Virgin 10/22 clone receiver and 80% receiver images borrowed from Tactical Machining.) 

leadership fail

Back on my last deployment, I had the… pleasure… of having to attend the Department Head’s meeting every night, which consisted of the aforementioned leaders/managers (depending on the person…) of the various departments of the ship (Deck, Operations, Engineering, etc.) getting together with the Executive Officer (the second-in-command for the ship, generally abbreviated to "XO") and talking about what they accomplished today, what was on the agenda for tomorrow, and discussing long-term goals. Once we embarked our Marine detachment, the commander of our particular MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) unit – a colonel in charge of a Force Reconnaissance element – also attended the meetings, mostly as an observer since the Marines were generally just marking time below decks (when they were not stabbing themselves in the legs… another story for another time).

But, as soon as our ship got northwest of 10N 68W, something about the Marine colonel changed – he started carrying a sidearm.

Now, for you civilian / non-squid types out there, I guess I should clarify – once a Navy ship is underway, pretty much no one carries firearms. If we were in a certain area (say, the Persian Gulf, for example), then some topside watches were diverted to manning a few of the fixed weapon emplacements on the ship (just .50 M2s, in our case), and if we were to go to General Quarters ("Red Alert", for you Star Trek aficionados), then the rest of the emplacements would be manned and a few other folks would be sent topside with firearms, but even then, 90% of the crew would remain unarmed. Even in-port, only the topside watches carry guns, and not many at that (and mostly in Condition 3, which is yet another post for another time).

So, yeah, a firearm on a person on an underway ship was something a bit out of the ordinary, especially since the firearm in question was a 1911 clone of some type, and not the military "standard" M9 (it was probably a MEU(SOC) M-45 upon which the Kimber Desert Warrior is loosely based). But the officer in question wore it damned near everywhere I saw him on the ship (I never saw him carrying it while on liberty (taking a break in friendly ports), but, obviously, that does not mean he was not), and no one really cared because he was a Marine, he was in a designated Combat Zone, and that is just what Marines do. I mean, seriously; I am not going to say all Marines are automatically above reproach, but you would have to be an idiot to ask a Marine to surrender his weapon in a combat zone.

Which, I guess, says a lot about Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:

Around 200 troops who had gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck were told "something had come to light" and asked abruptly to file outside and lay down their automatic rifles and 9mm pistols.

"Somebody got itchy, that’s all I’ve got to say. Somebody got itchy – we just adjust," said the sergeant who was told to clear the hall of weapons.

Major General Mark Gurganus later said he gave the order because Afghan troops attending the talk were unarmed and he wanted the policy to be consistent for all.

"You’ve got one of the most important people in the world in the room," he told the New York Times, insisting that the decision was unrelated to Sunday’s killings. "This is not a big deal."

However, US troops often remain armed even when their Afghan colleagues have been asked to lay down their weapons and the incident is believed to be the first time they were stripped of guns during an address by their own secretary of defence.

Hell, we were on a ship, in the middle of the ocean, outside of even the most optimistic cruise missile ranges in the world, and our full-captain Captain trusted the Marines with their own weapons. SecDef Panetta, however, does not appear to trust the Marines.

And regardless of whether or not he actually does trust the Marines and regardless of whatever his motivations were for wanting the room cleared of weapons, that appearance is exactly what will be driven home to the troops – the second-highest individual in their chain of command does not trust trained and experienced Marine Corps veterans with their own firearms in a hot combat zone. As OldNFO (the person who brought this to my attention) said, "This crap is going entirely TOO far, if they don’t trust our own troops, the stay the F**k away from em…"

insultedusmc

If there were a better way to destroy morale and the troops’ faith in their leadership, I will be damned if I know what it is.

Of course, the Secretary of Defense seems bound and determined to piss of the military, what with his blatantly unconstitutional belief that all he needs for military actions, up to and including war, is "international permission". Never mind that pesky "Constitution" thing, or that whole "Congress shall have the power… to declare war" bit.

"Who allowed the inmates to take control of the asylum?" is becoming an increasingly poignant question…

beats "practicing" on a controller

Thanks to the weather, I did not make it back out to the field this weekend (I finally got tired of tromping around in ridge-to-ridge mud), but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the airsoft community is one that we are pro-rights advocates are overlooking to our own detriments, primarily through the perpetuation of pernicious stereotypes. While those generalities do have a basis in fact (like so many of them tend to), writing off thousands (millions?) of potential firearm enthusiasts / owners / shooters simply because they happen to recreationally associate with some honest-to-God posers is… well… stupid, especially when the airsoft world has an increasing number of things to offer the "real steel" world.

For example, there is this:

A few days ago, my manager, Tim, handed me a Glock like airsoft pistol and told me to write a review for it. Immediately, I noticed it had the Lone Wolf Timberwolf frame. I was surprised that the Echo 1 Timberwolf is fully licensed by Lone Wolf Distributors. Since I cannot purchase a real Timberwolf frame for my Glock 17, the Echo 1 Timberwolf will do just fine.

And this:

Just like John Browning, KWA USA created the best performance line of airsoft gas pistols. The 1911 Mark Series is by far the best gas operated blow back 1911 in the airsoft market to date. The 1911 Mark Series are also the P.T.P. (Professional Training Pistol) line, which have better performance than the normal N.S. 2 line.

Thanks to the marvels of modern manufacturing, you can now procure airsoft pistols that, externally, are functionally identical to their "real steel" parents – dimensions, weights, slide releases, safeties, sights, serrations, triggers, and so forth are all as close as one can possibly get, and thanks to the airsoft magazines having onboard gas reservoirs, the slides actually cycle every time you send a BB downrange. Sure, the recoil is nowhere near as rough as a full-house .45ACP, but neither are the kicks of the .22 training kits people have been buying up for firearms like these.

So why does this matter? Well, on the one hand, kids out on the airsoft field invariably grow up to be adults, and it is pretty much inevitable that they are going to look at their gas- and spring-powered toys and wonder what the real versions are like. Personally, I would prefer that the step from one world to the next be as seamless as possible to ease the transition, but for lack of a better phrase, you can almost consider airsoft to be a "gateway drug" for "real steel" firearms… only without the whole "shooting at other people" bit (unless, of course, those kids have military aspirations, which most of the ones on the fields I play on seem to have).

And speaking of kids, an arguably good way to break young children safely into the shooting sports – and the safety rules that surround them – is with something that as closely mimics a "real steel" gun as possible without the danger of negligent perforation. Go over the Four Rules. Go over operation. Go over maintenance. And then start punching holes in paper. Then work your way up to a .22 and beyond.

On the other hand, that holster you have for your Glock 17 or your hand-hewn 1911 will fit that airsoft toy just fine, letting your practice your draws, your first-shots, your response times, and all the rest of that good stuff in the comfort of your own home, without having to worry about obnoxious things like setting up a monstrous ventilation system*, hardened backstop, or sound dampening. And while the actual speeds and forces involved are radically different, ballistically speaking, airsoft toys generally perform about equivalent to their "real steel" counterparts out to the 7-yard distances a lot of practice takes place at, and given that good BBs cost all of $0.005 a round (yes, that is the right number of zeros), you can see where I am going with this*.

I would never go so far as to claim perfect 1:1 equivalency between live firearm practice and airsoft practice, but if you, like me, live in an area where no ranges will allow you to practice from the holster, it beats doing nothing.

And speaking of safety:

Like I have mentioned before, safety and respect are Airsoft GI’s primary concern. Over the years, I have seen many airsofters (even real steel shooters) neglect the basic firearm safety rules. I have heard statements such as “oh, it’s unloaded,” and “calm down, it’s only an airsoft gun.” Since we are creatures of habit, if we neglect the basic safety rules on airsoft guns (or any replica firearms), those bad habits will transfer to real firearms.

With the airsoft sport growing, along with the replica gun tragedies happening across the nation, there are going to be stricter laws to regulate airsoft. It is up to us (the airsoft community) to inform all airsofters (and their parents) to promote and practice gun safety. It does not matter if it is an airsoft gun, real gun, or even a transparent water gun. Treat all gun shaped objects as if they are real firearms. There are 5 basic life safety rules that all airsofters and real steel shooters must follow.

(They throw in a rule about keeping your safety on until you are on-target.)

We "real steel" folks may not be aware of it, but the airsoft community is under legislative threat almost as often as we are, what with states trying to define airsoft toys as "firearms" and idiot kids getting shot because they threatened police with a pellet gun, so the stress on safety, safe handling, and safe play is almost as strong there as it is here. Ideally, that stress will carry over into the "real steel" world when people make the transition, and we will be the better for it.

Yes, airsoft is just a game – just like IDPA, USPSA, Steel Challenge, etc. – and I certainly will not deny that there are, indeed, overweight bastards who have never seen the inside of a military base getting all kitted out in "high speed low drag" gear and getting read to "take that hill". However, every game has its real-world application and value and, at the field I play at at least, the majority of the adults have prior military or police experience, with the majority of the former being veterans. And, really, who cares about the dress-up aspect of it? Damned if I am going to make fun of Cowboy Action / SASS folks for going all OK Corral on us.

In other words, get out and have fun. You may not necessarily learn anything at all from airsoft, but if it gets you out of the house and running around rather than slugging out on your couch playing Modern Warfare or whatever the most-recent game is, personally, I call that a win.

(* – You still have to feed airsoft pistols "green gas" or "red gas" which apparently boils down to "propane with a little silicone lubricant mixed in". This is an additional cost, though small (and not being a pistol shooter myself, I have no idea what the cost actually is), and for obvious reasons I would recommend doing your practicing in a well-ventilated area away from any sparks or heat sources.)

competing guns

I am not above admitting I am wrong. Such admissions are exclusively born out of conclusive evidence proving my error, but if that data is there, it is there, and it would be intellectually dishonest of me to ignore it.

As such, I was mostly wrong – “American Guns” is a demonstrably “better” firearm-related show than “Sons of Guns“, but that does not necessarily make it good television, or good publicity for the firearm-owning community.

How did I make that determination? One thing that has always annoyed me about “Sons of Guns” was their now-non-existent tagline of “If you dream it, we can build it.” Well, that is great and all, except we never once saw the folks at Red Jacket actually building firearms. Oh, sure, they reconstructed a few demilled kits, and they sure as hell know how to bolt all manner of whatnots, gadgets, and accessories onto pre-existing receivers for various firearms, but when it comes to taking a blank piece of metal and turning it into a shape that would have to be registered with the BATFE as an actual “firearm”, they fell squarely on their faces.

On the other hand, “American Guns” has done that almost every other episode now. Want a “knuckle duster” that has not been produced in over a century and for which there are no plans? They did that, and milled all of the big pieces of out of solid hunks of metal. Want The Gun That Won The West customized to your specific competitive shooting style, and dressed up how you like it? They did that, again, starting from blank metal. Want an original, Mark 1 Mod 0 hand-cannon? They did that, and broke out the blacksmithing tools to make sure it looked right. Sure, the preponderance of their business seems to be basic customization and modification (like the hunting rifle for the wounded veteran, or Shotgun Willie’s side-by-side) – things that just about any competent gunsmithing shop could accomplish – but every once in a while Mr. Wyatt theatrically slams that block of iron/brass/aluminum on the table, and they go at it with the CNC/drills/files/etc.

“Sons of Guns”? Yeah… they bought a multi-tens/hundreds?-of-thousands dollar CNC mill and have no idea what to do with it. Like “caveman” quality cluelessness. There are these great things called “schools”…

So, yeah, when given the choice between watching a show where the meat-and-potatoes is bolting accessories onto pre-existing frames, or a show where they literally mill functional devices out of featureless blocks of metals, being an engineer, it is no wonder I will automatically gravitate towards the latter.

Moving beyond that single point, however, “American Guns” features significantly less swearing (As in none? After my time in the Navy, I do not really pay attention to such things…), very little of “Sons of Guns”‘ idiotically poor management (i.e. no “we can get this done in a week, even if it means I have to verbally assault my shop workers every five minutes”), a fair bit more discussion (in my opinion) of the ins-and-outs of gunsmithing (like how to get a 1911 perfectly smooth, or how to “antique” metal, etc.), and an actually open shop (though I feel certain the customers featured in the show are still staged in some fashion). Sure, Mrs. and Paige Wyatt tend towards the pink guns, low-cut tops, and short-shorts, but as Better Half herself said, I think they just are that way, rather than it being an act for the camera – they may be accentuating that, but no one could accept the travesty of a 1911 with as much enthusiasm as Renee did if she did not actually like it to some degree.

So does that mean “American Guns” makes for good television? Eh, almost. The Wyatts almost come off as caricatures, the “massive stacks o’money” negotiating technique is a bit cheesy (and arguably effective, thought it may just be Mr. Wyatt’s schtick), the female members of the family do nothing to break away from the stereotypes perpetrated by certain folks (see above), and some of their notions of “safety” give me a raging case of the heebie-jeebies (but on a smaller magnitude than Sons of Guns); however, all of that aside, it makes for entertaining television, which is more than I can say any more for “Sons of Guns” -being an Industrial Engineer by education, I can only take a manager yelling at his employees for his poor (and reportedly artificially constrained) planning so many times before I get royally annoyed.

So, yeah, if you have an hour to kill, give “American Guns” a chance – they are nowhere near what I would consider to be “ideal”, but they are probably about as good as we are going to get these days.

On a somewhat related note, I am interested to see how this goes; I understand the Wyatts (or, at least, their handlers) sounded very interested in the idea of a modern LeMat resurrection using modern cartridge calibers. While I still really want a fully-operational Moses Brothers Self-Defense Engine Frontier Model B, I could live with Jayne’s sidearm.

Update: And just to add icing to this all-too-entertaining cake, it would appear as though Will and Stephanie Hayden have lost their FFL and Red Jacket is currently run by Vince – you know, the gunsmith Will routinely verbally abuses, even though Will routinely turns out to be wrong. *snicker*

Update 2: And just to keep the dramallama running, the FFL flag has moved to Joe (the explosives guy at RJ), and, more interestingly to me, Vince has left Red Jacket. Good for him. Given the verbal abuse he has received and the skills he has, were I him, I would have left years ago.

(Note: The Discovery Channel provided me absolutely nothing to write this post, and it would not have mattered if they did. Piss off, FTC.)

how we win

Remember how my father decided to join the NRA and buy a Remington R1 1911* on the basis of a particularly deranged editorial by an anti-rights cultist (and hopefully some encouragement from my scribblings here)?

Remember how he got his carry permit?

And remember how my mother has a carry permit now too?

Well, over the weekend, I discovered that not only has my father purchased a Talon holster from Dragon Leatherworks**, but my mother just picked up her very own Walther PPK/S, and is shopping around for some leather herself. Oh, and my mother is encouraging my father to purchase any other firearms he might be interested in before Our Glorious President goes and does something stupid with regards to “gun control”.

This is me, doing a happy little dance.

“Freedom” and “liberty” are both infectious, communicable mental diseases, and I am very glad to see that my entire family appears to have been afflicted. This is how we win, folks – one person at a time, one family at a time, one community at a time, and so forth, so on, all the way across the country… That tactic has worked in the past, it is working now, and we will steadily move on to the victory we desire – where individual rights are respected and honored throughout our great nation – so long as we keep up the trend.

* – Review will be forthcoming eventually – it had some warranty issues, and I am waiting to see how the factory handles it.

** – And in an amusing stroke of internet humor, I actually found out from Dennis before my father told me…