I am constantly frustrated by the number and type of individuals who are so ready and willing to dance in the blood of innocents (1755 UPDATE: It would appear as though Buck has taken down this post. Unfortunately, the internet never forgets. Collectively, the blockquotes below make up his entire post, verbatim.). These people (though I almost hate to use that word to describe them) seem willing to take any negligent discharge or firearm-related accident (both happen, though the latter much more infrequently) and use it as a basis for attacking the entire concept of firearm ownership, regardless of the circumstances, events, or victims involved.

In this particular instance, I am referring to Buck, an author over at "Blue Herald" (you know, the weblog run by nice, considerate, tolerant liberals who banned my IP just for having the nerve to disagree with them). Fortunately or unfortunately, my IP is still banned by their server, but I still stop by periodically, by way of a proxy server or two, to see what all they are up to over there. To Buck's credit, every time I happen to leave a comment, he not only handles them with the standard Reasoned Discourse (TM) protocol (in that they never see the light of day), but he also bans the IP of the proxy server to boot. If only he put forward that much time and effort into generating halfway-decent posts.

So let us start from where all stories should start - the beginning:

I’m sure there will be those that will stop by and defend the rights of this alcoholic to own and clean guns, whether or not the bastard has any more daughters around to bring him more weapons to clean… or more shots of vodka.

First off, what happened in Washington is undeniably tragic and unfortunate; however, the father in question deserves to be prosecuted and punished to the fullest possible extent of the law. I have always been a fan of plans where caught and convicted drunk drivers never, ever get to drive again, and if they happen to injure or kill another person while drunk, all bets are off indeed. This situation is no different - the father had absolutely no business handling any firearms while intoxicated, and that gross negligence resulted in him shooting his very own daughter. By some arguments, that would be punishment enough, and I appreciate the thought, but I would be just as happy if someone that incompetent never had the opportunity to endanger or end another life again.

However, good ol' Bucky-boy skips all of that, and goes straight for the generalizations, stereotypes, and blood-dancing.

The father must have been an alcoholic, since he was drinking double shots of vodka, right? Not so much. I would be among the first to admit that pounding back double shots of straight vodka might be a little excessive, but alcoholism is defined as "A disease or illness that includes alcohol craving and continued drinking despite repeated alcohol-related problems, such as losing a job or getting into trouble with the law. Symptoms include craving, impaired control, physical dependence, and increased tolerance." Can Buck, or anyone else not directly involved with this man or case, verifiably indicate that the father in question had a physical dependence, or craving for alcohol? Certainly his control was impaired after consuming the alcohol, but guess what? So is everyone else's. Wierd, that. And speaking anecdotally, I know with almost no doubt that, should I feel so inclined (and I never would - I hate the taste of straight vodka), I could easily drink two double shots of vodka and not really feel it. Would I be legally drunk? Dunno, never been breathalyzed. Would I be an alcoholic? Uh, no. Have I consumed that much alcohol in a night before? Absolutely. Does that make me an alcoholic? Nope. But, as usual, fear-mongering stereotypers never let annoying things like "facts" and "reality" get in their ways - perception is all that matters.

It would be nice if the stereotyping stopped there, but, sadly, it does not.

Wrapped up in the same sentence, Buckyball tries to make a wonderful, underhanded jab at gun-rights activists, somehow implying that they would come dashing to the father's rescue and proclaim him to be blameless and free. Or something like that. Funny, but the two gun-rights activists I have seen addressing this incident are calling for the man's head. In fact, I cannot think of a single person I know or read who is interested in Second Amendment rights who would continue to defend the father's ownership of firearms - he pretty much gave up that right when he decided to act like a bleeding idiot and shoot his own daughter.

However, some little nagging voice in the back of my head is trying to tell me that Buck is not only interested in taking away the father's firearms now, but also in ensuring that the father could never have had firearms in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, right? Sure, except, based off the information we have, the father has never committed a crime worthy of disarmament (depending on Washington's laws concerning handling firearms in your own home while intoxicated - I confess I do not know what they are), he has been able to legally purchase whatever firearms he has (given that he passed the NICS check and his 4473 forms have not been called into question), and there would have been absolutely no cause whatsoever to abridge this man's Constitutionally-protected rights - before this incident. As I have said before, senselessly killing someone somewhat changes the playing field - leave it to a moron to want the playing field beforehand to be equivalent to the one after.

What I don’t understand is, if he does wind up in prison for killing his daughter, will the NRA be there to fight to make sure he’ll be allowed visitation rights of his guns? I mean, it wouldn’t be fair to take his guns away, would it? The NRA fights for the rights of the mentally handicapped to keep their guns. Shouldn’t alcoholics and known killers be extended the same Constitutional protections?

Wow. Where to start? I mean, seriously... this paragraph alone indicates some serious unhingement and a completely disjoint-from-reality thought process.

Just to arbitrarily pick something out of the mess, what the hell is up with "visitation rights of his guns"? What about being in prison is so hard for Buck to understand? Furthermore, should the father be convicted of the first degree manslaughter charge the state is pursuing, that would make him (drumroll please) a felon, and thus incapable of lawfully possessing a firearm.

Oddly enough, last time I checked, the NRA has absolutely no problems with keeping firearms out of the hands of violent felons. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, feel free to let me know, but somehow I doubt it is out there. So much for that specious strawman, eh, Bucko?

As for the rest of the paragraph... holy crap on a crutch. Buck actually tries to draw a logical parallel between people with mental handicaps, and murderers, as if he was trying to make the two equivalent in the eyes of the law and the world. So, I guess, from his perspective, mentally handicapped individuals lose all rights to self defense, as well as whatever other Constitutionally-protected rights Buck considers inappropriate for them, just because they are handicapped. Oh. My. God. That just screams "DISCRIMINATION", in 20-foot tall, glowing letters with Twi'lek dancing girls dressed in targ-skin bikinis performing on top of them. By Buck's great and almighty decree, those people who were unfortunate enough to be born with mild cases of cerebral palsy have given up their Constitutionally-protected rights just by dint of being born a certain way... just like people who choose to unlawfully end the life of another person. Yeah, that makes sense.

Actually, no, not really, but it does remind me of something else.

So far as I know, the NRA is not, nor ever has been, working towards reinstating Second Amendment rights for convicted murderers. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. However, I do find it interesting that Buck used the word "killers" - does he possibly feel that people who use their legally-owned firearm in a lawful self-defense situation should be therefore disarmed in the course of their investigation and eventual trial? Somehow, it would not really surprise me. And I certainly hope the NRA is looking to protect the rights of those mentally handicapped individuals who are otherwise capable of and willing to own and responsibly, safely, legally, and competently operate a firearm - after all, that is pretty much the job description of the NRA. And, unlike Buck, the NRA does not discriminate against certain law-abiding citizens when it comes to defending and protecting their rights.

When you start putting limitations on who can own a gun, then your putting limitations on freedoms. If there had been a limitation of known alcoholics owning firearms, then that 6-yr-old girl wouldn’t have had the freedom to die. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

Apart from the homonymical error in the first sentence, I completely agree - after all, it is more or less axiomatic. And then Buck goes and ... Bucks it all up.

If there was a limitation of anyone owning firearms, then no one would have "the freedom to die"... right?

If there was a limitation of any house with a child in it having any toxic chemicals (you know, like the kinds you clean your bathrooms with), or live electrical outlets, or tubs, or cars, or alcohol, or refrigerators, or knives, or dryers, or anything like that, then no child would have "the freedom to die"... right?

I could go on, but suffice to say, that entire chain of reasoning is completely and undeniably asinine. As previously mentioned, we have no proof or indication that the father in question was an alcoholic. Further, barring any local laws concerning handling a firearm while intoxicated and in your own house, the father had not broken any serious-enough laws to be restricted from lawful ownership of a firearm - right up until he shot his own daughter.

Moving on, there is no quantifiable, speific, and exacting defintion of alcoholism, at least not that I could find online. It seems to fall under that nebulous, "I will know it when I see it," definition, and if you are applying that kind of logic to one right in particular, you had better stand by for having them all on the chopping block.

Almost-finally, people are going to be negligent. People are going to be stupid. People are going to act like raving idiots (take Buck, for example). And guess what? There is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent that. Sure, we can edcuate them. Sure, we can try (and fail) to legislate them in line. But none of that will be anywhere near effective unless the people in question decide to take an active role in their own safety, and actually think before they act. And, so far as I can tell, our legal system still operates on the premise of "guilty until proven innocent", and considering that the father in the story did not commit any illegal actions before shooting his daughter, on what basis would anyone decide to arbitrarily and whimsically abridge his God-granted and Constitutionally-protected rights? Oh, right, none of that matters when it is "for your own good", or "for the good of the children", or "for the good of society", or other fun nonsense like that. Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.

And now, at last, as for our esteemed Founding Fathers, the Buckster is probably right, though not for the reasons he thinks. If there is one thing I have learned about our country's constructors, it is that they valued two things above all: personal responsibility and personal liberty, and they valiantly tried (and arguably failed) to create a government that would protect and defend both. Those who argue the point are correct, though - personal liberty does need limits, and it has two: first, your liberties stop when they infringe on another person's; and second, you are at liberty to only do and say things you are willing to take responsibility for. The father in this news article feely chose to drink, and then handle loaded firearms. Those choices lead to a horribly tragic incident, and now it is time for him to take responsibility for that action, and face losing his own personal liberties for the rest of his life. And that, ladies and gentlefolk, is how the system is supposed to work - preemptive restrictions and rights and liberties takes us past the point of no return on the path to "thoughtcrime", and I doubt even Buck wants that kind of future. At least, I hope not.

Whew. This post got a little larger than I was initially planning. In closing, Buck displayed remarkable ignorance, bigotry, discrimination, stereotyping, and generalization, with a healthy helping of childish projection, malicious totalitarianism, and general-purpose pants-shitting hysterics. After a fashion, it is kind of amazing that he was able to accomplish all of that in a scant seven sentences... I am not sure whether to be impressed or weep for our species.

Oh, and Buck, you are not banned here, and you probably never will be. Unlike you, I am willing to give just about anyone a free forum here, to express whatever their little hearts desire (of course, I also reserve the right to respond accordingly, but that almost goes without saying). And, still unlike you, I am man enough to allow for disagreement, dissent, and discourse to be expressed on my weblog - who knows what I might learn from it? Here I thought it was you liberals who were supposed to be the tolerant, accepting, freedom-loving folks?

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Political Byline, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

You know what? I am getting really, really gorramed tired of the "need" argument coming up in reference to handguns, "assault rifles", and all of the other fun, "evil", nasty-looking firearms and equipments that are out there. You see it all over the place these days... "You do not need an 'assault rifle' to hunt/defend yourself/open a can of soda," "You do not need that kind of caliber to stop someone from attacking you," "Why do you need that many firearms?" Yadda yadda flipping yadda.

I am sorry, but who the frak died and made you grand bloody arbiter of what other people need and do not need? Piss off and mind your own gorrammed business, life, and matters.

I can guarantee you that at least 50% of the people driving SUVs on the road today do not "need" them.

I can guarantee you that a fair number of people in this country do not "need" houses as large as they have.

I can guarantee you that no child (or anyone else, for that matter) "needs" an XBox, Playstation, or Wii - books have worked pretty gorramed well for the past few hundred years, not to mention that wild and wooly "outside" thing.

I can guarantee you that few, if any, families "needs" more than one computer, or more than one television. Hell, a fairly decent argument could be made that no one really "needs" a television in general... how many do you have?

I can guarantee you that few people need as much heating and air conditioning as they probably pump into their overly large, not-"needed" houses... just put on or take off a few more layers if you feel uncomfortable.

I can guarantee you that few people "need" as much money as they make... oh, but wait - the great and almighty Obamamessiah has already seen fit to tend to that problem, has he not?

And that is what all of this comes down to it, is it not? Nothing more than a combination of abject jealousy and projection. On the one hand, we have a group of people being greedy little twits, approaching the world from a perspective of, "If they can have it, I deserve to have it too!" Well guess what dumbass - if you work as hard as they do, plan ahead as much as they do, and prove to be as productive a member of society as they are (or are otherwise extraordinarily lucky, depending), you can have all of their nice, shiny gizmos, too. And on the other hand, we have a (not-necessarily-distinct-from-the-last) group of people with the pathologically-childish mindset of, "If I do not need it, they do not need it either," or, even worse, "If I do not feel comfortable/safe/responsible with Item X, they are obviously not going to be comfortable/safe/responsible with it either."

With all due respect and politeness, fuck off.

What I "need" is a matter for me, and me alone, to decide. You can certainly provide input, you can certainly offer your own suggestions, and you can certainly help me if you want, but you damned well should not be able to limit me, just based on your own tastes and desires (insofar as what I decide I "need" does not infringe on anyone else's rights).

But that is not the direction our country is headed, is it? No, it unfortunately is not. Today, people do not "need" rifles that just happen to look like military equipment, so they shall be banned. Today, people obviously do not "need" as much money as they make, so it will be "spread" around. Today, people do not "need" to take risks with the stock market, so their retirement accounts will be "guaranteed". Today, poorly-managed and -run corporations do not "need" to fess up and learn from their mistakes, so they are being bailed out left and right (with your money, no less - if this was being done by the companies themselves, without the government acting as a middleman, it would be commonly referred to as "theft").

And, tomorrow, what do you not "need" that is going to be arbitrarily taken away from you?

Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady's World, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Allie is Wired, third world county, Faultline USA, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Rosemary's News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Ok, so I have spent a fair bit of time researching various options online, and I have come to the conclusion that the upper package for B.O.M.B.E.R. is going to come from the good folks at Del-Ton Inc. More specifically, I am looking at a 16" mid-length custom upper, with a few frills and fiddly bits added on for good measure. Which brings me to my question, for the two regular commenters I have.

I am planning on the forearm for this new monstrosity to be straight-up, certifiably tacticool, and complete with the prerequisite picatinny rails to ensure this. However, the dillemma is this: should I go with a carbine or mid-length forearm, or should I go whole-hog and get a "stealth" gas block and a rifle-length forearm?

Courtesy of Yankee Hill Machines (fabricators of fairly decent pieces of equipment), I have these images for comparison:

A carbine-length forearm on a 16" barrel:

And a rifle-length forearm on a 16" barrel:

The only real difference I have found between the two is that getting a rifle-length forearm is going to cost me about $20 more for the entire upper - and this is including getting both back-up iron sights for the rifle-length, or a flip-up sight gas block and rear BUIS for the carbine-length. As for mass, the rifle-length forearm is only about 2.5 ounces more than the carbine-length, and while that is not negligible, it is pretty small. Additionally, I suppose a rifle-length forearm will allow for a longer sight radius, but considering that I am not planning on this firearm being my long-ranger (it is shooting 5.56, for Heaven's sake), I do not think a few more inches of sight radius will matter that much.

So, given the option, and a basically zero-sum difference, what would you all propose? I confess to liking the look of the rifle-length forearm, but I know that the extra three inches would not really be used. Thoughts? I suppose aesthetics overriding functionality is the very definition of tacticool...

For those of you who were not already aware, today is National Ammo Day - an ammo BUYcott. I am not sure I agree with making an already hard-to-come by product even more sparse, and thus possibly driving up prices, but I certainly cannot disagree with people procuring more ammunition. Have at it, or not - your call. I am currently under a self-imposed buying suspension until my next paycheck, but something tells me I will be snagging a thousand or so of some piece of metal or another to put through B.O.M.B.E.R. when it is done.

*scratches head*

I think I am missing something.

Does anyone know why the Brownells flash hider/compensator would have its vents cut in a manner that would seem to impart an anti-clockwise twist on the barrel? They are not straight-out radial cuts, which is confusing me slightly... if not a spin, they would certainly shift the barrel slightly off-center, since the five vents would not necessarily counteract each other's emissions.

Or am I missing something completely obvious?

Given that there are indications that liberalism is a mental disorder, this degree of a reality disconnect really should not surprise me:

What the major media outlets overlook is that the Obama gun sale boom appears to be the result of a multimillion dollar effort launched by the National Rifle Association last summer to misinform voters about Obama’s gun policy proposals. As Politico reported in June:

The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year’s campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights. … This fall, NRA members will get automated phone calls, mail pieces and pre-election editions of the group’s three magazines making the case against Obama.

The NRA claimed of Obama, “[N]ever in NRA’s history have we faced a presidential candidate … with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms.” As FactCheck notes, however, the NRA’s campaign is based almost entirely on falsehoods. Indeed, FactCheck writes, much of the NRA’s campaign “dismisses Obama’s stated position [on gun rights] as ‘rhetoric’ and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret ‘plan.’”

The “political uncertainty” created by the NRA’s misinformation campaign may have more to do with making a sale than it does with shaping gun policy. The New York Times explained last week:

What is clear is that every gun seller — not to mention every advocacy group for gun ownership that depends on dues-paying members — has an incentive to stoke the concern that can prompt a gun sale. Political uncertainty, gun dealers say, is great for business. … “Clinton was the best gun salesman the gun manufacturers ever had,” said Rick Gray, owner of the Accuracy Gun Shop in Las Vegas. “Obama’s going to be right up there with him.”

Well, first off, FactCheck's "findings" on the NRA's campaign against President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama has been thoroughly debunked, and simply are no longer in play.

Second, President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama has supported a permanent "assault weapon" ban, on his own website. Twice (although one of those has disappeared down the memory hole). This is not "fear mongering". This is not the NRA speaking (Although, now that I am a paying member, just where are my wheelbarrows of cash, gorram it?). This is not misinformation. This is cold, hard truth.

And guess what happens when you ban something? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it becomes harder to find/buy. Therefore, those who were even vaguely interested in ever owning an Evil Black Rifle suddenly realized that now was as good a time as any, and better than most. After all, that is why I purchased B.O.M.B.E.R. Second, those somethings that are out there in the market increase in value. Evil Black Rifle lowers, normal-capacity magazines, and other pointlessly-banned items went for many, many times their original value during the first ban-on-guns-that-look-mean - this is why I purchased B.O.M.B.E.R.'s twin. Third, people like making gestures, and this one developing is pretty powerful - just about every major news source out there is reporting on the uptick of firearm purchases, which really should make the Obama administration reconsider before they start attacking what is looking like a sizeable cross-section of the American public.

Of course, when it comes to insulting that cross-section of America, liberals seem to have no problems with that as well (nor any problems with a healthy dose of Reasoned Discourse (TM)... still waiting to see if my comment concerning the author's bigotry and stereotyping surfaces).

At any rate, what we have here is not propagandizing by the NRA - in fact, they have been surprisingly less-loud than I expected them to be, given the elections. What we have here is not gun shops exploiting an unstable market - in reality, I have seen little to no advertising from my local shops, and there are four within half an hour of me. What we have here is not ignorant, back-ass-ward idiots being exploited for someone's financial gain, and any claims to the contrary only exposes the claimer's ignorance.

What we have here is simple supply and demand. Our next President has made it very clear he intends on drying up the supply for a certain product, and, logically, enough, the demand for that product has gone through the roof.

Only a mentally-ill liberal would miss that obvious reality.

What the Humane Society of the United States says the CDC says:

The Humane Society of the United States renewed a call for a nationwide ban on lead-shot ammunition after the North Dakota Department of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the results of a lead study last week. According to preliminary findings, North Dakotans who ate wildlife killed with lead bullets had higher levels of lead in their blood than people who ate little or no meat from wild animals.

“If there was any doubt about the urgent need to rid our country of lead ammunition, here is proof positive,” said Andrew Page, senior director of the Wildlife Abuse Campaign for The HSUS. “Extremist hunters have long contaminated watersheds and habitat, dooming animals to slow and painful deaths. Now that hunters know their actions are directly putting themselves and other people at risk, there are no more excuses to use the ammo that just keeps on killing.”

What the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually says:

While this study suggests that consumption of wild game meat can adversely affect PbB, no participant had PbB higher than the CDC recommended threshold of 10µg/dl—the level at which CDC recommends case management; and the geometric mean PbB among this study population (1.17µg/dl) was lower than the overall population geometric mean PbB in the United States (1.60 µg/dl) (CDC 2005). The clinical significance of low PbB in this sample population and the small quantitative increase of 0.30µg/dl in PbB associated with wild game consumption should be interpreted in the context of naturally occurring PbB.

By way of clarification, the National Shooting Sports Foundation provides this explanation:

The CDC report on human lead levels of hunters in North Dakota has confirmed what hunters throughout the world have known for hundreds of years, that traditional ammunition poses no health risk to people and that the call to ban lead ammunition was nothing more than a scare tactic being pushed by anti-hunting groups.

In looking at the study results, the average lead level of the hunters tested was lower than that of the average American. In other words, if you were to randomly pick someone on the street, chances are they would have a higher blood lead level than the hunters in this study.

...

For more than a century, hundreds of millions of Americans have safely consumed game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition, and despite there being no scientific evidence that consuming the game is endangering the health of individuals, special interest groups like the Peregrine Fund and anti-hunting groups are continuing to press state legislatures around the country to support a ban on this common, safe and effective ammunition.

These politically driven groups understand that while an outright ban on hunting would be nearly impossible to achieve, dismantling the culture of hunting one step at a time is a realistic goal. Banning lead ammunition is the first step of this larger political mission. We can only hope that with the conclusive CDC results concerning the safety of traditional ammunition, legislatures across the country will listen to science and not anti-hunting radicals.

The notion by some, that any amount of lead is a "concern," is scientifically unfounded rhetoric that runs contrary to nationwide, long-standing standards of evaluation. The NSSF is pleased that hunters and others can now comfortably continue consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition that has been properly field dressed and butchered, yet we remain unsettled that for so many months good and safe food was taken out of the mouths of the hungry as nothing more than a political gambit by special interest groups.

And the big take-aways from the study are:

1. Consuming game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition does not pose a human health risk.
2. Participants in the study had readings lower than the national average and well below the level the CDC considers to be of concern.
3. Children in the study had readings that were less than half the national average and far below the level the CDC considers to be of concern.
4. The study showed a statistically insignificant difference between participants who ate game harvested using traditional hunting ammunition and the non-hunters in the control group.
5. Hunters should continue to donate venison to food pantries.

Andrew Page, you are a liar. The Humane Society of the United States is lying. And, make no mistake, attempting to ban lead ammunition over fallacious and scientifically dispoven concerns of "lead poisoning" is nothing more than an outright attack on the traditions of hunting and the Second Amendment. Hell, you know why this CDC study got launched? Because the hunters had the nerve to go and donate meat to local food pantries - and here the Humane Society of the United States is trying to damn that act of charity, while simultaneously assaulting human and American traditions.

Thankfully, I understand that local chapters of the Society are not directly tied to their United States equivalent, but I can provide no evidence of that online. If anyone else can, I would greatly appreciate it, given that pounds across America really do a lot of good... unlike their parent organization, it would seem.

More at Say Uncle, Call me Ahab, Snowflakes in Hell, and Days of our Trailers.

Ladies and gentlepeople, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce you to the two new additions to the family - B.O.M.B.E.R. and his more-or-less twin brother (who is unnamed, and will probably remain so, given that his happy little ass will end up on the auction block whenever I get the urge):

Oh, and what, exactly, does B.O.M.B.E.R. stand for?

Surely you can figure it out for yourselves...

...

However, for the less-than-quick amongst you (like, say, me), I will give you the short and sweet of it: my new AR-15-platform rifle will be named the Barack Obama Memorial Black Evil Rifle - but "Bomber" is a hell of a lot easier to say.

So who makes good uppers/barrels these days?

Thanks to Mike W. over at Another Gun Blog, I now have a coincidentally useful link concerning the construction of AR-15s, the parts one needs, and the names/details one should look for. Granted, the author of the forum post is approaching it from a police duty rifle standpoint, but that certainly is not a bad place to start. If anyone has anything to add, feel free!

Part of me really hopes that President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama will be kept atrociously busy with the current American economic situation, the international emergencies going on around the world, the Russian threat of a new Cold War, the rising unemployment, and providing his promised flying unicorns and happy frakking bunnies to his adoring throngs... busy enough that he does not think about other things, like his promised "Assault Weapon Ban", or his other anti-Second-Amendment promises and past activities. But then things like this just completely destroy that happy little fantasy I constructed for myself:

President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.

"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."

That is right, ladies and gentlemen... the great Obamamessiah does not need to wait around for the Congress to do its thing. He will simply take the reigns of America and lead it, himself, to a better and brighter future! No cumbersome checks. No outdated balances. No useless due process. One man. One vision. One nation. Right?

God help us.

You know, I remember four years ago, when President Bush's use of executive orders came under some pretty heavy fire and scrutiny during his re-election campaign... the liberals were lambasting him left and right over his use, and possible misuse, of that strange and poorly-understood not-of-the-Constitution artifact. And here, we are, with (no doubt) those self-same liberals cheering on the next President and his already-compiled list of executive orders to be signed once he has the pen in his hands... For Heaven's sake, folks, this man is not even President yet.

However, given the reference to the "Bush administration", why do I get the eerie feeling that one thing was left out on the list published in that article... one thing that liberals still blame President Bush for. Sorry, folks, but President Bush had absolutely nothing to do with the expiration of the last "Assault Weapons Ban" - Congress did. You know, those folks you vote for periodically who are supposed to represent you and your state on the national level? Yeah, the people whose names you probably do not even know, much less care about? The folks who provide bills to the President to sign, not the other way around?

For some reason, though, something tells me that President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama will fix this time-consuming process with a sweep of his pen, and we law-abiding gun owners will be, once again, confronted with an "assault weapon" ban - or something as damn near close as he can get it - after all, he has already said he wants one (right before the webpage stating that disappeared, mind you).

And, what is worse is that the American populace will just stand by and let him do it... hell, some people will actually cheer him on for it, executive orders or not, abridgement of Constitutionally-protected rights or not. Robb has a great post up about his views of America and the people who seem to live in it now, and suffice to say that I agree with him thoroughly. We are not the country we once were, we are not the country we were wanted to be, and we are not the country we were founded as. And we are the worse for it, on all counts.

If this is what Democrats look like when they are "supporters of the Second Amendment":

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.

... I shudder to think what an antagonist of the Second Amendment would look like.

So let us take it point by point. First, the Tiahrt Amendment does not restrict law enforcement types from using gun trace information to solve crimes. Period. In fact, it helps ensure that the relevant information is still available for use "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution". What it does restrict is people running firearm trace data just for the shits and giggles of it... or, for, say, enforcing a gun "registration" system (or even a firearm find-and-remove-for-your-safety system). Furthermore, both the BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police oppose releasing any more trace data than there already is... so why does the upcoming administration support it?

Second, criminals already are not allowed to possess firearms. This is pretty much a no-brainer, and the National Instant Check System helps keep firearms out of criminals' hands... at least if criminals purchase their firearms from legal sources (which, of course, we know they do not). Regardless, a felon in possession of a firearm is already committing a crime - what are we going to do, make it doubly illegal? As for children, this is simply another realm where additional laws will not help, and the government has no business or place. What will help is responsible adults who talk to their children about firearms, and ensure their firearms are not accessible by those children. Ah, crap, but I just said the "r" word, did I not...?

Third... There. Is. No. Gun. Show. Loophole. Never was, never will be. Now, if they want to refer to it as a "reality loophole", I might actually agree with them... except for the "loophole" part. The fact is, I could go next door and sell one of my new lowers to my neighbor over there, and I would not have to do any background checks or anything of the nature on him/her. And, you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Firearms are private property, folks, and, last I checked, I could sell my car, my computer, and other hardware that could potentially do a lot more damage than a firearm with no background checks, and without asking for permission. Of course, in the next four years, that might just change...

Fourth, making firearms childproof is a frakking joke. "Childproof" bottles are not childproof... possibly seniorproof, but they sure as hell are not childproof. And, what, exactly, can you do to a firearm to make it "childproof"? Well, first off, the responsible adult owning it can secure it in a manner that is not accessible to the child. And secondly, the child can be repeatedly taught never to touch firearms, never to go near firearms, and to get an adult if it finds a firearm unattended. But when it comes to a mechanical system to "childproof" a firearm... give me a break. No such thing exists, and any addition of such a "feature" would only serve to make lawfully using the firearm that much more difficult... which, when someone is breaking into your home at 3am, is not exactly something you want.

Last, and far from least, read the final sentence of that quote one more time: "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets." Permanent. Eternal. Everlasting. No time limit. No "sunset". Nothing. The previous Assault Weapon Ban was a joke, but one without hope of reprive... that might be a little different. And, just remember... the politican's definition of an "assault weapon" basically boils down to "it looks scary", as opposed to, say, the actual definition - a firearm capable of firing automatically or semi-automatically, depending on its setting. And guess what? Those firearms are already strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Throw in the fact that "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crimes, and you really have to wonder about the need for the ban, eh? As an aside, if "assault weapons" have no place "on our streets", then why do the police, the FBI, and the President's own guards carry them? And, in most of those cases, they really are fully-automatic assault weapons. Interesting double standard, that.

What you will find sorely missing from the "Crime and Law Enforcement" section of the first-linked webpage is any mention of stronger, mandatory sentencing for crimes executed with the assistance of a firearm, reduction in parole chances, a stronger judicial system, actually prosecuting for the gun-related laws already on the books, or anything of the nature. Once again, this has nothing to do with criminals... and everything to do with the law-abiding citizen.

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, nn&v, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Courtesy of the wife:

Me: ...I could easily see them treating all of the recent sales as something along the lines of, "Oh my God! We have to do something about all of these guns on the street! In the hands of our children! And monkeys! Monkeys cannot be armed!"

Better Half: Monkeys? Is that in the rules?

Me: I think so. They would fail the instant background check, at least.

Better Half: True. Unless ACORN was involved.

... yeah...

I finally jumped on the bandwagon. Two bandwagons, in fact.

This evening, I purchased two of these from my localish toy store, Coal Creek Armory (for those in Eastern Tennessee, they still have two of those particular model, and two Spikes Tactical variants, as of two hours ago).

Only, my total cost, including an almost-10% sales tax and an instant background check fee, was only $290. Go figure.

Oh, and needless to say, one is for building, and the other is for paying for building the first, should the new "guns that look evil" ban come to pass.

So now that I have a DPMS lower laying about, looking all pathetic and bare (This is what the great-and-might ATF considers a firearm? Give me a break!), does anyone have any worthy suggestions for uppers, trigger groups, stocks, barrels, and everything else necessary and desirable?

(Sorry, USCitizen, but even you are out of stock... and since I delayed and dawdled and diddled for so long... it was finally after the time to act. You might be able to help me out with the various things necessary to turn this into a real gun, though.)

Being the responsible, law-abiding, freedom-enjoying firearm owner I am, I celebrated yesterday, Election Day, in style: I ordered two of these and one of these. I would have gone with what Shane suggested for the first option, except that they were out of stock at the time. Unfortunately, Brownells listed the magazines as "in-stock" when I purchased them, but I just received an email indicating they are actually backordered - something tells me I am not the only one who was interested in aquiring normal-capacity magazines before they might become a thing of the past.

I only hope they ship before it becomes a problem...

I had initially left this as a comment over at Sebastian's place (concerning the Dan Cooper situation), but he emailed me this morning and requested I make a full-fledged weblog post out of it. So mote it be (with a few additions, since I get to re-write-in-retrospect).

Why do liberals/democrats/"progressives" believe I must support someone or something I disagree with? After all, if that is such a bad thing, why do liberals/democrats/"progressives" do the same exact thing...:

Liberals boycott Fox.
Liberals boycott "Left Behind".
Liberals boycott South Dakota tourist spots.
Liberals boycott MSNBC.
Liberals just randomly boycott.
Liberals boycott "Crash" (huh?).
Liberals boycott the Salvation Army.
Liberals boycott Exxon/Mobil.

And, best of all, liberals boycott everything! (The website, Boycott This!, describes itself as "a publicly compiled registry of leftist/progressive boycotts".)

Nowhere have we told Mr. Cooper he cannot support whomever he wants. Nowhere have we infringed Mr. Coopers rights to free speech (and nowhere near as much as Senator Barack Hussein Obama wants to infringe our Second Amendment rights).

Mr. Cooper freely chose to take a stance contrary to probably the majority of his customer base, and now he is dealing with the consequences... and every action has consequences.

...You know, that has to be one of the biggest sticking points with liberals I encounter online - the complete and utter lack of understanding of how consequences and personal responsibility work. I guess that explains why they are so very interested in nanny-state "ideals"...

Over this weekend, I happened to leave a comment on a post entitled "Talk About Shitty People", regarding the Dan Cooper situation. Judging from the website's name ("Blue Herald"), I probably should have known better, but no one has ever really accused me of being intelligent.

Needless to say, the author of the post took offense at webloggers like me boycotting Cooper Firearms due to the professed political stance of its president, Mr. Dan Cooper. In fact, they took so much offense that the opening line of the post is:

I really do hate calling people “shitty”, but how the hell else am I to describe these people? They truly are shitty. There just isn’t a better way to describe them.

Why are liberals filled with so much hate?

At any rate, my comment expressed some surprise that they considered people freely expressing themselves (as guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment) to be "shitty", in a typically (for me) snarky way. This resulted in a conversation with the author of the post, as well as a few other people (I assume to be Blue Herald readers), wherein it rapidly became obvious that they had no idea how the First Amendment, free markets, or corporations work, and were really only interested in spouting the standard pro-Senator Barack Hussein Obama talking points when challenged. Wonderful, but expected.

This afternoon, I headed back to the site to see if they had left any more gems of liberal intellect laying about, and was confronted with a "403 - Forbidden" error. I checked my history to ensure I had the right site, and then checked the individual post's webpage, the webpage for the post's comments, and then the root webpage of Blue Herald - all three of them had 403 errors. Suddenly understanding what had happened, I booted up a proxy server webpage I know of, and directed it towards Blue Herald... and it loaded the webpage without a single problem whatsoever.

The administrators of Blue Herald have blocked my IP, simply because I had the nerve to disagree with them - this after they called me (and others like me) names for daring to disagree with a Senator Barack Hussein Obama supporter.

Talk about shitty people, indeed... I guess life is just easier when you stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating Obamamessiah talking points to yourself. Must be nice.

I am about to use Senator Barack Hussein Obama's words against him.

Well I, I, I, I continue to, I continue to uh, uh, support a ban on concealed carry laws.

- Senator Barack Hussein Obama

First, how can anyone say this guy is a good orator? If he does not have a teleprompter in front of him, he comes across sounding like a scared, lost, uncertain little six-year-old trying to give a first-grade report on geribls. Hell, even with a teleprompter, he sounds like that sometimes.

Second, where does Senator Barack Hussein Obama get off thinking that he would have the right, or the ability, or even the legal standing to impose a ban on concealed carry laws? Well, first off, banning "concealed carry laws" makes no sense whatsoever... what is he going to do, forbid states from mentioning those words within their state codes? Furthermore, where in the entirety of federal law does the federal government get the ability/right/whatever to regulate how individual states decide to allow their citizens to transport or carry firearms? And, hell, what about those two states that require no licensing system whatsoever?

Third, is this what we can come to expect when we hear that Senator Barack Hussein Obama "supports" the Second Amendment? (The obvious answer to that question being, "Well, duh!")

Unfortunately, I am fairly certain this election is already a foregone conclusion... God help us all.

Hm. I think we need a Sluggy-style recap:

Dan Cooper supports Senator Barack Hussein Obama - arguably, a man who would prove to be the most anti-gun President in history.

Gunbloggers express their displeasure with this decision, and let him know that they will no longer support him or his decisions by way of his company.

His company asks him to stand down.

Media gets involved (prompting no fewer than 2500 comments - pretty gorramed impressive, that).

Hoplophobes and Obama-supporters act like complete and utter asses.

An olive branch is extended (and I agree entirely with the sentiment, as expressed in my first quoted paragraph here).

Blame is misdirected by a false-flag, deceptive organization known as AHSA.

And some people just do not get it, while others disagree, but are remarkably rational and polite about it.

That about sum things up?

And all of this happened because a group of people exercised their Constitutionally-protected right to disagree with someone else, and their inherent rights as consumers to not support an organization with which they disagree.

Crazy, huh?

I recently penned this elsewhere:

Speaking as one of those people who will be boycotting Cooper Firearmsuntil such time as Dan Cooper steps down from being President of that company, I think it is safe to say that some of the people commenting on this post have limited to no understanding of the concepts of "consequences", "repercussions", and "voting with my dollar".