Captain of a Crew of One

Women On Target

2009-11-21T17:01:00.010-05:00

As usual, click all pix to make bigger

It's no surprise to those who keep up with community news that the shooting sports are catching on with more and more women. Whether it's as a means of self-defense and empowerment, a way to get out of the "comfort zone" and challenge themselves, an interesting, rewarding and exhilarating hobby, or just a matter of learning a new skill, women are an integral, important and growing segment of the shooting community.

On November 14th, Airfield Shooting Club played a small part in this growth by hosting an NRA "Women on Target" shooting clinic.

The ground still wet from the Nor'Easter formerly known as Ida, having ended a scant day before, 21 women of all ages, backgrounds, statures and experience levels, some from as far away as Washington State, braved the soggy, chilly weather to get a taste of the basic shooting disciplines: rifle, pistol and shotgun.

The experienced and able ASC corps of NRA certified instructors covered the rules of safe gun handling,

range rules and etiquette,

gun components and operation,

and basic shooting techniques,

for each of the disciplines.

And, before long, shells were flying, clay birds were breaking,

metal plates were pinging and the air was tinged by the sweet, sweet fragrance of smokeless powder.

Over the course of the morning and into the early afternoon, the ladies rotated through the three disciplines so that they could get a taste of each of them.

The chill and damp were quickly forgotten as the budding shootists engaged in the sports with eager enthusiasm.

After a long morning of learning and shooting, the group adjourned to the Airfield 4H center's dining hall for a wonderful buffet of salad, fried chicken, ham, and all the trimmings. The facilities available at the 4H center that hosts the Airfield Shooting club are impressive and very well managed.

Senior Instructor and all-around good guy Dale, handed out certificates of completion and smiles were the uniform of the day.

After a wonderful lunch and good fellowship, back to the range we went. This time, the new shooters were able to choose their favorite discipline(s) for further instruction, practice and fine tuning of their newly acquired skills.

A few of the ladies brought personal firearms to practice with.

And the opportunity was not to be passed by.

Even though Ida did her best to waylay us, we persevered, and the clinic was a great success. The ladies seemed very satisfied with the experience and many expressed an interest in further training at future clinics and classes. It was a long day at the range, it was chilly, damp and a bit muddy. But a bad day at the range is better than a good day almost anywhere else, and this was no exception.

And, finally, I actually thought to take my video camera with me this time, so, for your entertainment and edification...Women on Target at the Airfield Shooting Club:

Rule number 1 for home defense:

2009-11-16T11:10:00.002-05:00

Have a gun and know how to use it.

Because the bad guys don't necessarily need one to kill you.

YORK - A York County man died Sunday as a result of injuries he suffered during a morning altercation with an intruder inside his home.

A gun isn't a magic talisman that can ward off evil, but it can give you a fighting chance when faced with a stronger, more physically capable attacker.

Kids and guns

2009-11-16T10:56:00.002-05:00

11 year old kills bear in Idaho in defense of home and sisters.

Classic

2009-11-16T00:27:00.004-05:00

I haven't written anything about this lately because I just haven't had any idea which way things were going and I didn't have anything constructive to add.

All during this "crisis", Honduran ex-president Zelaya has been demanding his return to power.

The legitimate government of Honduras has stood by their decision to remove him from office per their Constitution, and I believe they feared that, should they reinstate him, he would have tried any number of shenanigans to try to delegitimize the upcoming elections, foment some sort of crisis and attempt to name himself "president for life".

I think that, based on the reason for his ouster (unconstitutionally attempting to initiate a referendum regarding him staying in office beyond his term), and the fervency with which he was demanding a return to power, even if it was, ostensibly, only for a matter of weeks before the elections, their fears were well founded.

I think Obama realized he'd screwed the pooch with the position he'd taken re Honduras; but, being The One, he couldn't just say "I was wrong" and change tacks. He needed some cover.

The deal brokered by the US representative...the agreement that Zelaya signed, was basically the same agreement that Micheletti and the Honduran government had been offering as a compromise agreement for weeks if not months. Basically, that the Honduran congress would be allowed to determine whether Zelaya would be returned to power, and Zelaya would agree to support the upcoming elections and stop agitating for violence and revolution.

Zelaya signed this agreement...and then immediately started crowing that the agreement he signed was his path back into power...even though that's not what it said at all.

He now claims that he was promised in back room deals that, even though the agreement didn't stipulate it, he would be returned to power as a part of the "reconciliation government".

I have to admit that I initially feared that he was telling the truth and that the Obama administration would pressure the Honduran government into reinstating him, or would refuse to recognize the elections if it didn't.

Apparently, I overestimated the trustworthyness of the Obama administration. Silly me...and Zelaya...for believing that this administration would live up to any promises it made behind closed doors.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if those promises were really made...why else would Zelaya all the sudden sign an agreement that he's been flatly refusing for weeks? Obama needed an out, Shannon was told to get the deal done no matter what it took; so Shannon convinced Zelaya to sign an agreement that DOESN'T give him what he wants, with the understanding that (wink, wink), what he REALLY wanted would happen. "Don't worry about what the contract says, just let me tell you what you're gonna get".

Now that the agreement is signed Obama can pretend that his change of heart is a result of Zelaya's acceptance of the agreement and not have to admit that he blew this call from the beginning...and because the promises were made behind closed doors and weren't a part of the formal agreement (if they were, Micheletti would have never signed it), Shannon can simply conveniently fail to recollect any such promises being made and...viola...Obama's out.

But that's not what this post is about, that was just for background. I'm not exactly a genius, so if I can figure out that's what happened, I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to this issue.

What this post is about is the classic 6 year old response from Zelaya, the Kindergarten-level wanna-be dictator: "Fine...you're not gonna give me what I want, but I don't want it any more anyway, so I win! Nya!":

Deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said on Saturday he would refuse to return to the presidency as part of any deal to end the crisis sparked by his ouster, saying that to do so would legitimize a June coup.

I hate to break the news to him, but I don't think this declaration is going to break anyone's heart...especially since there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hades that he was going to be offered a return to the Presidency anyway.

Obama's got his out. You handed it to him on a silver platter when you signed that agreement. You've been had. Swindled. Bamboozled. How's the underside of that Obama bus look? Say "hi" to Reverend Wright, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, etc etc etc, while you're there enjoying the view.

With the US pledging to recognize the elections and the legitimacy of the Honduran Government, it simply won't matter what the rest of Latin America does. Of course, now Honduras gets to look forward to attempts to disrupt the elections, violent protests and years of terrorist attacks as Zelaya's Socialist and Communist followers exact their revenge, but no one ever said standing up for what's right was supposed to be easy.

This story hasn't completely played out yet so I hope I'm not jumping the gun, so to speak, but at the moment, it appears that little Honduras, stepped up to the line, looked the world in the eye and said "do your worst"...and the world blinked.

Good on 'em.

We used to have that kind of moxy here in the good old USA once upon a time. It's good to see the spirit still exists somewhere in the world.

Veteran's Day

2009-11-11T07:58:00.002-05:00

I'm not going to get all mushy about it. I'll just say thank you to all Veterans for your service and sacrifice. I'm humbled to be counted among your honored ranks.

Further on the 17% increase of machine guns in Chicago

2009-11-10T08:16:00.004-05:00

Let's look at the numbers a little bit.

I couldn't find a primary source for the numbers of guns recovered in Chicago each year, but I did find this from Anderson Cooper's blog:

Chicago Police confiscate an average of 1 assault weapon a day.
10 thousand guns are recovered from crimes in Chicago each year and traced by the ATF.

It's not safe to do so, but with the lack of verifiable information at my fingertips, let's assume that his numbers are correct. That post was put up in May of 2009 so let's assume the numbers are from 2008.

Further, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that the NBC affiliate "story" that I referred to in my last post was actually talking about semi automatic rifles that look similar to machine guns, rather than ACTUAL machine guns, and that THOSE are what increased by 17% this year.

Just having to make those assumptions makes both this post and the information that it's based on totally useless for any real purposes...which is pretty much par for the course for anything that comes out of the media...but this is just an intellectual exercise, so we'll go with it.

An average of one "assault weapon" per day is 365 per year. That means that of all the guns recovered by the Chicago Police (10,000+), 3.7 percent were "assault weapons".

A 17% increase over 365 means that 62 more scary looking guns will be recovered this year than last. So, the number goes from 365, to 427...and the percentage (assuming that the total number stays the same), goes to 4.3 percent.

Wow. So, with a completely and totally effective ban on scary looking guns (which are already banned in Chicago...along with virtually all other guns), and assuming that the criminals just don't go back to handguns, shotguns, non-scary-looking semi-automatic rifles or 2x4's, would result in a whopping 4.3 percent reduction of crime in Chicago?

Color me underwhelmed.

Never let a good canard die

2009-11-10T07:58:00.002-05:00

The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
-- Mark Twain

According to the local NBC affiliate, Chicago has seen a 17% increase in the use of machine guns in crime...machine guns that were purchased legally at gun stores in Indiana.

View more news videos at: http://www.nbcchicago.com/video.

OK...one more time: Machine guns have been tightly regulated by federal law since 1934. One CANNOT just walk into a gun store in any state in the Union, show a fake ID, plop down the money and walk out with a machine gun.

I could give the this story the benefit of the doubt and just assume that it's based on ignorance, but the involvement of the ATF and the fact that they blatantly depicted the firing of machine guns, even to the point of allowing the reporter to shoot one to demonstrate how difficult to control they are, leads me to believe that this was an intentional, bald faced, lie of a story.

They are AGAIN trying to convince the ignorant public that the "assault weapons" that were the target of the 1994 ban on scary looking cosmetic features, and that are the target of similar legislation today, are military, fully automatic, assault rifles.

And they are lying.

Well that's good news

2009-11-07T11:46:00.002-05:00

Organizing for America sent me an e-mail this morning saying that my representative's vote in the House is crucial for passage of the Health Care Reform bill being voted on today.

They urged me to call Mr. Nye and tell him what I think about it.

OK, OK...actually, they didn't seem to care much what I think about it, they just instructed me to call and tell him to support it. Unfortunately for them, I'm not one of their automatons that just mindlessly do what I'm told.

I did take part of their advice...I did call Representative Nye's office. I told them that, as a constituent, I'm urging representative Nye to vote against the bill as it is a boondoggle, too expensive and nothing more than a bald-faced power grab by the government.

The nice woman on the phone was happy to inform me that Representative Nye has already made up his mind and that he's voting against the bill.

Good on him. He ran as a conservative democrat so I'm happy that he's at least partially living up to his billing.

LAYERS of editorial oversight

2009-11-06T14:33:00.006-05:00

According to Fox.com, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood atrocity used a simply MASSIVE handgun in the attack:

The initial investigation shows that Hasan allegedly used only one gun during the attack — a 5.7-caliber semiautomatic pistol.

Hmmm. For some perspective, here are some empty shell casings from various size guns that I've collected over the years. From left to right click pix to make bigger:

.35 caliber (9mm) pistol
.45 caliber pistol
.223 caliber rifle
.30 caliber (.30-06) rifle
.50 caliber rifle
.79 caliber (20mm) anti-aircraft gun
1.57 caliber (40mm) grenade launcher

The silver thing is a standard 12" metal ruler for scale.

Unfortunately, I don't have anything in 5.7 caliber to compare with...but, as a remnant of my Navy career and many years I spent on Destroyers and Frigates, I do have an empty shell casing from a 5 caliber gun.

5 caliber is close enough to 5.7 caliber for comparison purposes isn't it?

Here you go.

Holy crap.

I wonder what the recoil from a handgun that shoots one of those things would be like?

I wonder if a 5.7 caliber handgun uses a single stack or double stack mag?

Isn't it a good thing those main stream media outlets, unlike we lowly bloggers, have LAYERS of editorial oversight? Without that, they might make ridiculous mistakes that make them look like fools.

Sqeezing Lemons

2009-11-04T12:21:00.003-05:00

Well, my anti-gun, big government, statist, incumbent delegate, Paula Miller (D), was re-elected to the Virginia House again.

I actually expected as much, but one can always hope. John Amiral (R) ran a strong campaign and he actually had a shot. My only real hope was that the lackluster support Deeds was getting in the statewide campaign would result in low Democrat voter turnout and give Amiral a chance.

Something that should give Ms. Miller pause (but probably won't) and gives me hope for the future...assuming that she continues to have credible challenges in the future by either the stupid party, or any of the viable "third party" options...she did win the election, by a margin of 57% to 43%. On it's face, that may seem like a pretty impressive margin of victory, until you consider the general political leanings of the area she represents.

Let's see, how did this district vote in some of the other races?

(The asterisk indicates who won the statewide race)

Governor: Deeds (D): 60%
McDonnell(R): 40%*

Lt. Governor: Wagner (D): 64%
Bolling (R): 36%*

Attorney General: Shannon (D): 61%
Cuccinelli (R): 39%*

Wow. Maybe that was an aberration. Let's look at the other local Norfolk Races where there was opposition, shall we?

Sheriff: McCabe (D): 76%
Jones (I): 24%

Commissioner of the Revenue: McDonald (D): 74%
Knack (I): 26%

Whooo boy, us Norfolkians love us some Democrats don't we?

Let's see: In the three state races, the Democrats carried the district by an average of 23% and in the local races, both Democrat incumbents won against their independent challengers by about 50%.

And Democrat incumbent Paula Miller beat her relatively unknown Republican challenger by a measly 14%? Kind of pales in comparison doesn't it?

Especially when you consider that the disparity means that some voters had to have run a straight Democrat ticket...except for her race, where they voted for the Republican.

I don't know that this district will ever have a Delegate with anything other than "D" after their name again, as entrenched in the liberal, victim-mentality, "gotta get mine" culture this area is...but as far as I'm concerned, this year's race shows that it's possible.

Common Sense and Taxation

2009-11-04T07:58:00.002-05:00

David, over at Artful Articulations posted about this paper this morning, which postulates about the tax rates necessary to close the gap between our government's spending habits and its revenues.

I started to leave this as a comment, but it got too long (surprise, surprise...as any regular readers know, brevity is not exactly my strong suit) so I decided to bring it over here.

I'm no economist, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...and besides: basic economics isn't exactly rocket surgery.

What the paper (and even they admit this) doesn't take into account is that human productivity and income are not constants in this equation...they are variables.

Increasing tax RATES does not equate to increasing tax REVENUES because as taxation increases, the rewards for a person's productivity decrease. A the rewards for productivity decrease, so do the incentives to engage in that productive behavior. People begin to deem their time to be more valuably invested in other pursuits.

In fact, a portion of time that would have been invested in the productive, income producing activity ends up being invested in actively working to AVOID the increased taxes on that income. Not only is the time lost from productive, taxable income producing activity, but it is reinvested in actively SUBVERTING the goal of taxation in the first place.

John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and others have all enjoyed the benefits of this phenomenon when they reduced tax RATES and enjoyed the benefits of increased tax REVENUES.

By decreasing the cost of each unit of productive activity, they encouraged people to engage more of their time in that productive activity. It's like the old sales axiom "making it up in volume". The government was taking less of each dollar of income, but with the incentive to work harder, more dollars were being made, resulting in increased revenues overall.

It's just common sense.

Of course, there is a "balance point". If the tax rates are set below that point, productivity can reach its peak and revenues will be below maximum. At that point, increasing tax rates will result in increased revenues...but our rates haven't been below that balance point in several generations.

The key is to find the most EFFICIENT tax rates...a concept wholly inconceivable to the current crop of would-be tyrants in Washington. Government efficiency is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one...as a result, the imbeciles in DC insist that they can just raise the tax rates on "the rich" to pay for all of their expensive boondoggles.

Tax rates on "the rich" are already over the "efficiency" tipping point. The top 5 tax brackets are already over 25%. I don't know what the most efficient tax rate would be, but being a Christian, I place a lot of faith in God's judgment. God set the rate at ten percent and I'd be willing to bet that the "sweet spot" for tax rates versus revenues is right around that area. Maybe as high as 15%. But I have no doubt that 25% and above is not the most efficient tax rate...which means that increasing those rates on "the rich" will actually drive revenues DOWN, not up.

There is simply no way to tax our way out of this deficit and debt...and I suspect that Congress is well aware of that. The house of cards that is our economy is going to fall at some point. They're just gambling on the hope that it won't happen until they're safely out of office, enjoying their lifetime benefits package and unearned income.

What I did tonight

2009-10-30T19:59:00.005-04:00

Got my Halloween decoration ready.

We used to do some decorating for halloween when the kids were still here, but now that they've moved away and have kids of their own...it just doesn't seem worth the hassle.

I do still uphold one tradition though.

When the kids were really little, I bought one of those pumpkin carving tool kits with the little saws and things, and a book of simple patterns. The kids helped me pick out the pattern and cut it out and it turned out great. They loved having a fancy pumpkin and a family tradition was born.

I still like having a nicely carved pumpkin and since I have no artistic ability whatsoever (doing a pumpkin with a pattern doesn't take any artistic ability...just the ability to trace a pattern, some attention to detail and patience), I can't even carve a simple jackolantern free-hand...so I still do the "kit" pumpkin every year.

Over the years, we bought more pattern books and I found and downloaded some from the internet and I have a pretty good collection going now. The hard part is figuring out which one to do.

I picked a fairly simple one this year and it only took me maybe 35 or 40 minutes from making the first cut to open the pumpkin to lighting the candle.

I did use my fancy camera to take some pictures of it lit. I had to set the exposure time to a couple of seconds and use a tripod to get anything worth looking at, but I think they came out OK.

I couldn't make up my mind which one I liked better. This one I overexposed a little bit. It made the candlelight more harsh, but you can see the pumpkin better.

Since I couldn't make up my mind, you get to see both.

What a bargain.

Anyway, I'm pretty happy with this year's product.

Happy Halloween all.

And don't eat too much candy.

Throwing out the Baby with the Bathwater

2009-10-28T21:16:00.005-04:00

Senator John "it wasn't my medals I threw away in protest when it wasn't cool to be a veteran of the Vietnam war...it was some other guy's" Kerry and Representative Howard "He.Could.Go.All.The.Way" Berman (Ok, not THAT Berman, but I thought it would be funny), are asking that the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service change it's determination about whether the removal of Ex-President Zelaya was legal.

The basis for this demand? Apparently, there is a mistake in the CRS' report. They included, in support of the Honduran Congress' power to remove the President, a Constitutional provision that was apparently repealed in 2003.

What they conveniently fail to mention is that this provision was only a supporting factor in their determination. There were plenty of other provisions to rely on that infer the same power.

From the Report:

III. Did the Honduran National Congress properly approve Articles of Impeachment of the President as provided for by the Honduran Constitution?

As stated above, the concept of the political procedure known as impeachment, previously contained in Article 205, Section 15 of the Honduran Constitution, was repealed by Decree 175-2003.29 The Constitution does not contain an express provision giving the National Congress the authority to remove a President from office. Nonetheless, the National Congress apparently used several other constitutional powers to remove President Zelaya from office. Among them are the following:

• Article 205, Section 20 of the Constitution gives the National Congress the power to “approve or disapprove” the administrative conduct of the Executive and Judicial Branches, the National Tribunal of Elections, and many other high officers of the State;

• Article 218, Section 3 reaffirms this power by stating that the decrees issued by the National Congress in reference to the conduct of the Executive Branch cannot be vetoed by the President;

• Article 205, Section 21 authorizes the National Congress to appoint special commissions for the investigation of matters of national interest;

• Article 208, Section 5 grants power to the Permanent Commission of the National Congress to receive complaints of violations of the Constitution;

• Article 205, Section 10 grants the power to the National Congress to interpret the Constitution;

• Article 218, Section 9 reaffirms the Congressional power to interpret the Constitution by stating that Congressional resolutions issuing constitutional interpretations cannot be vetoed by the President; and

• Article 205, Section 12 gives the National Congress the power to receive the constitutional oath of the President and Vice-President of the Republic and to fill their vacancies where any of the officers were absolutely unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office [falta absoluta].30

According to Kerry et. al, the entire conclusion of the report is wrong because it relied on a section of the Constitution that was stricken. I had to do a little research to find the details, but apparently, they are relying on this editorial as the basis for their contention:

Dubious legal reasoning aside, it is doubtful that the Honduran Congress has the power to interpret the country's constitution. In fact, one of the provisions the report cites to support the existence of such authority does not exist. The provision in question--Article 218, section 9 of the constitution--was struck down by the Honduran Supreme Court more than six years ago.

Basically, the entire editorial is based upon the author's opinion about what the Constitution allows, and hinges on the fact that the CRS mistakenly cited a provision of the Constitution that had been repealed.

If true, I would agree that the CRS should issue a correction and remove the references to Article 218, Section 9, but that hardly invalidates their entire point. In fact, the CRS report goes on to list the relevant sections of the Constitution to this matter, in order of importance.

Article 242 of the Constitution, which provides the line of succession for the Presidency, and Article 205, Sections 12, 20, and 10, and Article 218, Section 9, referred to above, are translated below due to their relevance (the order in which they appear is based on the relevance of the subject matter): [emphasis added -ed]

And where does Article 218, Section 9 fall in the order of importance? Dead last:

Article 242. In the temporary absence of the President of the Republic, the Vice- President shall replace him in his functions. If the absence of the President were permanent, the Vice-President shall exercise and hold Executive Power for the time that remains to complete the constitutional term. But if the Vice-President were also permanently absent, the Executive Power shall be exercised by the President of the National Congress, and, where the President of the National Congress is absent, by the President of the Supreme Court, for the time that remains to complete the constitutional term.31

Article 205. The following Powers are assigned to the National Congress:

Section 12: To receive the constitutional oath of the Office of President and Vice- President of the Republic [who have been] declared “elect,” and the rest of the officers for whom it chooses to grant leave and to accept or reject their resignation and to fill the vacancies in the case where any of the officers were absolutely unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office [falta absoluta].32

Section 20: To approve or disapprove the administrative conduct of the Executive Power, the Judicial Power, the Electoral Supreme Tribunal, the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Attorney General of the Republic, the Environmental Attorney Office, the Chief Prosecutor, the Ombudsman, the National Registry of Persons, and decentralized and auxiliary institutions of the State.33

Section 10: To interpret the Constitution of the Republic in ordinary sessions in a single term, with a two-thirds vote of all its members. Articles 373 and 374 of the Constitution may not be interpreted through this procedure.34

Article 218. Authorization [from the Executive] shall not be necessary, nor shall the Executive Power be entitled to veto the following cases and resolutions: ...

Section 9: In the interpretations to the Constitution of the Republic enacted by the National Congress.35 [emphasis added -ed]

The offending section, even if it is true that it was stricken from the Constitution, was only listed as a "reaffirmation" of a power previously established in other articles. It was a supporting article, not one that the CRS evaluation hinged upon.

Furthermore, the editorial completely ignores the role of the Supreme Court in this whole process, the fact that the Honduran Supreme Court accepted the legal case and found sufficient evidence to order Zelaya's arrest.

To contend that the opinion of the authors of an editorial, and the erroneous inclusion of one minor supporting article in the CRS opinion completely invalidates the conclusion of that opinion is the height of revisionism and political grandstanding.

Should the CRS revise the report to remove mention of the erroneously included Constitutional article? Certainly; but to demand that the CRS change the conclusion drawn as a result of that minor error is ridiculous.

Clayton's at it again

2009-10-26T07:42:00.003-04:00

Fearfully berating open carriers, that is. This time in Pajamas Media and in terms of defending his column on the same subject in Shotgun News.

His thesis statement:

Open carry in a number of states is not just legal, but protected by the state constitution. But just because something is legal, even constitutionally protected, doesn’t mean that it is wise.

Apparently, Mr. Cramer is a statist who believes that everyone should register with the government, undergo a background check, pay a fee and receive the permission of the government before exercising their rights lest we scare the sheeple.

Here's the comment I left in response.

“We shouldn’t allow mere untrained civilians to carry guns, there will be firefights over parking spaces and shootouts at the mall.”

“We shouldn’t carry openly because we’ll scare the general population and they’ll be motivated to make the laws stricter, not more lax.”

Those two statements have two things in common: They’re both based on emotion driven prejudices rather than objective fact and neither has come to pass anywhere that they’ve taken place.

Do a few very vocal GFW’s cry out in agony over the sight of a person lawfully carrying a firearm? Does the press lambaste the practice, try to paint it in the most unflattering light possible and draw comparisons to “the wild west”? Of course.

Do either of those things affect public opinion in the way they hope? Nope.

The non-hoplophobes sit back and wonder what all the hubbub was about, while realizing the real significance: Lawfully armed citizens openly carried firearms in a public place and NOTHING BAD HAPPENED.

The hoplophobes and media (but I repeat myself) are exposed (again) as harboring irrational fears and those unafflicted with unreasonable fears are again reminded that the vast majority of their peers are stable, law abiding people who pose no danger to anyone.

Evidence? Someone already mentioned Virginia, VCDL and the open carry dinners.

Yup, the media went nuts, the hoplophobes wet their panties in fear, we had a few high profile incidents where the police were called…and in all of those incidents the one thing that the general public noted is that the only ones remaining calm and unflustered were the open carriers. The general public realized that the citizens were harming no one and the over-the-top reaction was the problem, not the citizens exercising their rights.

And what’s been the result? Open carry is MUCH more accepted in Virginia than it was ten years ago when I first began doing it regularly…in one of the most anti-gun urban areas in the state.

The past two legislative sessions in a row, we’ve gotten laws passed overturning the “restaurant ban”, that have been vetoed by the governor and both of the incoming Gubernatorial candidates are pro-gun and have promised to sign the bill into law if it reaches their desks again.

In short…all the hissy fit doom-saying scaredy cats like Clayton Cramer are flat out wrong.

The only place that their fears are played out are in the media (which virtually no one trusts any more anyway) and the halls of the Brady Campaign.

Open carry is a great outreach tool for getting the “squshy middle” to think about the issue in terms that WE determine…in terms of law abiding citizens peacefully bearing arms and harming no one…rather than only thinking about it when the Brady Campaign and the Media sensationalize another crime and paint gun ownership in the light that THEY prefer.

Open carry CANNOT be demonstrated to harm public opinion about gun ownership and carry. And there is strong evidence in the State of Virginia and others that it PROMOTES general societal acceptance of defensive firearms carry.

Prognostications of doom and despair from Clayton and others are no more prescient than the the inevitable claims that blood will run in the streets every time another bill is proposed that would relax a restriction on civilian gun use and ownership.

To both Clayton and all the commenters who agreed with him, I have one thing to say:

Thank you for the suggestion. You are entitled to your opinion but I respectfully decline to follow your suggestion.

And what I find offensive is that some people think it’s perfectly acceptable to self-righteously proclaim which constitutional rights are “wise” to exercise and where. My rights aren’t subject to your opinion. Thank God.

Another productive Saturday

2009-10-25T12:40:00.007-04:00

I had the opportunity to help teach a boy scout troop about shooting at Airfield Shooting Club again this weekend. I took as many pictures as I could and still fulfill my obligations in helping instruct.

This time I helped out with the Shotgun part.

We had three groups of ten kids each and the Club's Lead Instructor, Dale, started out each group by going over the safety rules and proper gun handling...

...and the differences between shotgunning and riflery.

Although I grew up shooting shotguns and rifles, I must admit that the finer points of shotgun technique is my weakest area of the three disciplines I'm certified to teach, listening as Dale lead the classroom portion was as much a learning experience for me as it was the kids.

Then we'd split them into two groups of five. Dale and I worked with one group as a couple of other instructors worked with the other group.

First establishing eye dominance.

Then working stance.

Then working on some pointing drills to help them with following moving targets.

Then, on to the shooting.

I have to say that Dale is excellent with the kids...especially the younger ones...helping them with their stance and handling the guns and staying very encouraging and positive.

I don't think there was a kid out there who didn't break at least one target and some of them got quite good by the end of the session.

With a few of the kids who were hitting more consistently, I put my camera in auto mode and took some progressive pictures to get some action shots of clays being broken.

Some of them came out quite good I thought...on a few you could actually see the shot in the air at various stages.

And in this one, I captured it right as the shot was impacting the bird.

And the aftermath, this is the very next frame, about 1/3 of a second later.

It was a very fun day, I learned a lot of new things and got to pass on some new things to about 30 new shooters.

I can't think of a better way to spend a Saturday.

Finally, the grand finale: I put a bunch of the stills I took together as a video. it's only about a minute long:

Shotgun shooting tip

2009-10-22T13:07:00.004-04:00

UPDATE:Although the shooting tip below is still valid, apparently Field and Stream magazine (and myself as a result) have been had. The video embedded is a fake. It's a PR campaign by the NFL that uses special effects to create the illusion of their players doing improbable things. I'm a bit embarrassed that I took it at face value just because the source was a "reputable" magazine. Should have known better./UPDATE

One of the most difficult things to teach a rifle or pistol shooter about shotgun shooting is that you don't really aim in the same sense as aiming a rifle or pistol.

There are no "sights" (other than a bead) on a typical shotgun for a reason.

Shotgun "aiming" with moving targets is the exact opposite of rifle and pistol shooting in that you don't focus your vision on the sights, you focus your vision on the target.

Allowing for the relative motion between the target and the shot pattern so that they meet in the middle requires practice and experience. After a while, you just kind of get a "feel" for it. It's no different than hitting a moving baseball with a bat, or a tennis ball with a racket, or a running receiver with a football, as Joe Flacco ably demonstrates in this video:

When shooting moving targets with a shotgun, keep your eye on the target and let your instincts find your "lead". And Practice, practice practice.

Hat tip to Airfield Shooting Club senior instructor and accomplished shotgunner Dale Mullin, via e-mail, and by way of Field and Stream magazine.

Crossposted on The Sentinel.

Doing what we can.

2009-10-22T12:50:00.003-04:00

Fellow VCDL member Josh Kellogg has opened a fund raising page for VCDL over at firstgiving.com.

His stated goal is to raise $5 a day or $1825 in 12 months.

If you have any interest in helping the premier gun rights organization in Virginia, please swing by and drop him a buck or two.

I reiterate his plea that if you feel compelled to donate $25 or more and are not already a member, please, versus just donating money, join VCDL in stead. Out of state members are welcome.

I also want to throw out the caveat that firstgiving.com has fairly high transaction fees of 7.9%.

VCDL's donation engine uses Paypal which only incurs a transaction fee of 2.9%, but paypal is antigun and I refuse to use it. I'm working on finding VCDL an alternative for easy payments but there just isn't much out there.

If you choose to donate to VCDL you will have to make a choice between paying high transaction fees, or supporting an anti-gun business...or just write VCDL a check and mail it to:

Virginia Citizen's Defense League
PO. Box 513
Newington, VA 22122

Subterfuge and trickery

2009-10-21T10:34:00.002-04:00

It seems that the Brady Campaign and their ilk aren't the only ones who find it necessary to mislead the public in an effort to forward their agenda.

A while back, I signed up to get e-mail updates from "Health Care For America Now". I did it so that I could stay up to date on what the other side is up to.

I've thought about posting about some of their updates, but as this is primarily a gun rights blog, I've left it alone until now.

Today I got this gem of an E-mail:

Dear Supporter:

Meet Melanie Shouse.

A few years ago, Melanie was living the American dream when she transformed an old Dominos storefront into an expansion of her home business. But just as the store was opening, Melanie was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer and given months to live.1

Melanie's insurance company, WellPoint, is denying her the care she needs. WellPoint's CEO will be in Washington, DC tomorrow, and we're delivering a petition to her for Melanie. Can you sign TrueMajority's petition and stand with Melanie? Click here.

Melanie had insurance, and she went straight to the experts at Siteman Cancer Center in St. Louis. Working with the world-renowned doctors there, she's beaten the odds and stayed healthy for years. But now her insurance company, a subsidiary of WellPoint, is refusing to pay for the medication her doctors recommend.2

So Melanie got mad. And last week Melanie went to WellPoint's local office in St. Louis to confront CEO Angela Braly - who makes almost $10 million a year in salary and stock benefits, but defends dropping people like Melanie's insurance when they get sick.3

Braly refused to meet with Melanie, just like she had refused Melanie's medication. So Health Care for America Now and TrueMajority are following Braly to Washington, D.C. tomorrow, where she's attending a convention of the biggest insurance company executives in America.4 This conference is our best chance to give people like Melanie the opportunity to confront the insurance company CEOs who denied them care when they needed it.

Melanie and people like her will risk everything to demand that insurance CEOs stop dropping our coverage, stop denying us care and stop opposing real reform in Congress.

Can you back her up by signing TrueMajority's petition? Click here.

We've been keeping the pressure on Braly and other insurance company CEOs for almost two weeks now. We've banged on the doors of their mansions, run ads on TV, and held rallies in front of the offices of three of the biggest insurance companies in America.5 These companies - Cigna, WellPoint and UnitedHealth - insure millions of people, but they make their money by denying us care when we need it.3,6

Next week, all three companies' CEOs will be in D.C. to congratulate themselves on making record-breaking salaries and tell our Members of Congress to oppose health care reform.6 We can't let their visit go unchallenged, and you can help us send a message.

Our signatures make a simple demand: that the CEOs who make billions of dollars and deny us care meet the people they've hurt and consider doing business another way.

Sign now and we'll make sure your signature is delivered to the CEOs and to Congress tomorrow for victims like Melanie. Click here.

To your health,

Levana Layendecker
Health Care for America Now

1 - suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/articles/2009/09/03/north/news/0902flo-health3000.txt
2 - fox2now.com/news/ktvi-jaco-report-jobs-health-care-1000409,0,2545689.story
3 - aishealth.com/ManagedCare/CompanyIntel/ExecComp.html
4 - ahip.org/links/stateissues2009/
5 - commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/13
6 - prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/democrats-fire-back-at-insurance-industry-analysis-of-health-legislation/?hp

The thing that immediately struck me as misleading was the statement in the second paragraph: "Melanie's insurance company, WellPoint, is denying her the care she needs. "

No...Melanie's insurance company doesn't provide care, it provides insurance subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance company can't deny something that it doesn't provide in the first place. It didn't deny "care", it denied to PAY for care that apparently didn't conform to the terms of the policy.

Anyway, the charges sounded pretty serious so I clicked through to some of the cited material.

The first link gives even less information than the e-mail itself and was, therefore, useless.

The second goes to a local Fox affiliate news show called "The Jaco Report" that shed a little more light on the subject. The remaining links either had no direct bearing or, in one case, was broken.

In the Fox affiliate video, the "victim" of this egregious insurance company behavior claims that the insurance company sent her a letter with a "technical" reason for their denial of the claim, but she declined to elaborate.

The most important part of her story is when she revealed that, because of her reduced income, she now qualifies for medicare...WHICH IS PAYING FOR HER TREATMENT.

In other words, under the current "medical system" she is NOT being denied care, or even coverage of her care. She is receiving the care she needs AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

And this is somehow evidence that our "system" is broken and is in need of a complete overhaul?

I beg to differ.

The second example in the Fox "news" report (not mentioned in the e-mail) is a woman who doesn't have health insurance because it's "cost prohibitive" and probably wouldn't be covered anyway because her health problems are pre-existing.

Umm. The idea is to get health insurance BEFORE getting sick. Not after.

I think I'll wait until my wife dies (hopefully many, many years from now), and then, after she's passed, apply for a 20 million dollar life insurance policy. You think they'll cover her after she's already dead?

This is EXACTLY the same principle.

Furthermore, how does this lady plan to pay for her needed medical treatments? The same way she has in the past: Charity.

Hmm...charitable works being done without the intervention of government. Who'd a thunk it?

This entire issue is a scam. A swindle. A dodge. It has nothing to do with health care...which is being denied no one.

It doesn't even have anything to do with health insurance...which is a completely different thing from health CARE. If it were about making health insurance more accessible, proposals such as allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines wouldn't be dismissed out of hand. This has only to do with statists expanding their power and increasing the role of government in our personal lives.

This is going to get rammed through no matter what. You can take that to the bank. It is a PRIMARY goal of the statist administration and congressional majority we have right now.

Why? Because it is the next step toward the government assuming total control over our health care industry. And why is that important? Because EVERYTHING WE DO, can be related to health care. What we eat, what types of vehicles and how fast we drive, what "vices" we enjoy, how much we sleep, what we do for a living, what recreational activities we undertake, how much carbon we "emit"...EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES can be related to health care.

If the government has assumed responsibility for our health care...then it follows that they are responsible for doing all they can to ensure that we are as healthy as possible right? By ceding responsibility for our health care to the government, we are also ceding the authority to regulate anything and everything that can be related to our health.

In other words, we cede every aspect of our lives to government regulation and control.

And that's what this is about.

"whatever power you give the State to do things FOR you carries with it the equivalent power to do things TO you.
--Albert Jay Nock

"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
-- H.L. Mencken

Kriss Super V moves to Virgnia Beach

2009-10-20T21:10:00.001-04:00

Not much of an industry aficionado, but I saw this in the paper today and thought it was interesting.

A company that makes submachine guns for military and police use plans to hire 35 workers and spend $4 million to relocate its headquarters to Virginia Beach, the city announced Tuesday.

VCDL Freedom Rally Report

2009-10-19T19:08:00.002-04:00

My report is up over at The Sentinel.

A couple of teaser pictures:

A riddle:

2009-10-17T22:33:00.002-04:00

How do you finish in last place in a shooting competition, and still win?

Be the only competitor.

I was the sole contestant in the Airfield Shooting Club's M1 Carbine match and I won it handily...while simultaneously coming in dead last.

Yea me.

I think the weather had something to do with the...um...low...turnout. It was a bit chilly and it's been raining for three days. It didn't actually rain on us at the range, but it was cloudy and looked like it could have at any time...which probably prompted many potential competitors to just stay in bad this morning.

Anyway, the match director and I had a great time.

Did I mention that I won?

After that I went to the VCDL Freedom Rally in Glen Allen (suburb of Richmond) which I'll report on over at The Sentinel after I get some much needed sleep.

It was an eventful and enjoyable...but long...day.

Racism?

2009-10-14T12:19:00.003-04:00

In this article about "whitopias" (hat tip to Sayuncle), the author of the book being discussed makes the same old mistakes in the same old ways.

Not really surprising considering how unashamedly biased he is...

Although there probably is a bit of a natural tendency to associate more freely with those to whom we look similar, I don't think physical characteristics are nearly as important as culture.

I'm seriously considering moving out of my neighborhood because of some of the recent arrivals...the majority of whom happen to be black. Strangely, the most significant is the one that moved in right behind me. What's strange about it is that a black family moved in, but a black family lived there when I bought the house and owned it until a couple of years ago when the current family bought the place.

The problem isn't a racial one, it's a cultural one. I don't appreciate them having 5 to 10 kids in the back yard screaming at the top of their lungs all day long all summer long. I especially don't appreciate those kids throwing toys, trash, empty water bottles and other flotsam into my yard every day, even after I've repeatedly talked to them about it. If it were the occasional accident, that would be one thing...but I've caught them doing it more than once intentionally. On one occasion, it took the kid three tries to get the toy over the fence into our yard. Gotta give him props for persistence. BTW: Trash goes back over the fence into their yard. Toys go in the trash. They're not getting those back.

I believe they have someone living in their shed. It's a big shed, granted, but it's still a shed. They play their thump-thump-thumping music all day long. To their credit, they turn it off before it gets too late at night, so I can't complain about that, but it gets annoying to have to turn the TV or radio up loud enough to drown their thumping out every day. I work mostly from home so I have to deal with it all.day.long.

But it's not only them. The neighborhood has just gone to crap. Seemingly everyone who walks down the street these days drops some sort of trash in my lawn. That's always happened to some degree, but recently it's just gotten out of hand.

They walk down the street at night screaming and laughing and shouting as if this weren't a residential neighborhood where people are trying to sleep. Every other car that drives down the street has music thumping so loud it literally shakes the windows. I hear crotch rocket motorcycles and cars with those stupid coffee can exhaust pipes screaming down our street at what appears to be at least 50 or 60 MPH on a daily basis.

It's just gotten ridiculous. I don't even enjoy living in my own house any more. It's a shame too because I've always liked this house and there are still plenty of good people who live around here, of all races.

Crime isn't that bad around here...probably not in small measure because this is Virginia and self defense is not only accepted, but encouraged. There isn't a lot of vandalism or graffiti or stupid stuff like that. My complaints are all pretty minor...but they add up to someone who is no longer happy in the neighborhood.

It's not a racial thing. I couldn't care less whether the people causing the problems are black, white, or purple. It's a cultural thing. Too many people here were raised in the urban "thug" culture where they learn that no one matters but them. Where their comfort, enjoyment and ability to do whatever the heck they want at whatever time they want and whatever location they want trumps anyone else's rights, comfort levels or even common decency itself.

Majority white neighborhoods tend to not have these problems in my experience. And when you go over to a white neighbor's house and ask them to please stop their kids from throwing crap in your yard, most of the time (not always, but generally speaking), they don't act like it's your fault that their kids are ill-behaved little monsters.

Urban black culture is broken (in more ways than just this one). No one can fix it but them and until they do so (which will never happen until they themselves face the fact that it's broken and stop blaming all their troubles on everyone else), whites will continue to try to get away from it and congregate where others who share their cultural mores live.

As soon as we can swing it, we'll be moving out of here...probably to someplace a bit more rural, but possibly to one of those "whitopias". Not because of the racial makeup, but because there's less chance of running up against people who live in this culture that I despise so much.

OAS...

2009-10-10T14:32:00.002-04:00

asks for Zelaya to be moved from Brazilian embassy

The OAS Ministers, before leaving on Thursday, asked the Honduran government to authorize a transfer of deposed President Manuel Zelaya from his refuge at the Brazilian embassy in Honduras to a place more “worthy” of his status.

Believe it or not, I actually agree.

Zelaya should be moved someplace more befitting of his status.

Preferably someplace with metal bars in place of walls and doors.

Target practice

2009-10-05T14:02:00.008-04:00

One of the big challenges that I have with shooting high powered rifle competition is that I really don't have a good place to practice. There aren't any 500 or 600 yard public ranges around here and even the closest 100 yard range is almost an hour away and is prohibitively expensive...which is why I joined the Airfield Shooting club...much more reasonable financially but a little over an hour away.

Adjusting sights to compensate for weather conditions and range is an important aspect of high powered rifle shooting, but I really just don't have any good way to do that without hours of travel time to a distant rifle range.

There is, however, the indoor, 25 yard range at Camp Allen that is ten minutes from here.

Granted, it isn't a perfect solution and 25 yards with a rifle ostensibly isn't very challenging...however, I can get some practice with the fundamentals: positions, sight picture, breath control, trigger control, etc.

The thing is, at such close range, standard sized targets just aren't a reasonable facsimile of high powered rifle targets. I couldn't find any standard NRA high powered rifle targets scaled for 25 yards; they may be out there, but I couldn't find them.

Not much of one to let a problem languish without a solution, I created my own scaled targets.

I fit two of each target on a single 8 1/2" x 11" piece of paper. I included some space for recording the details of the shoot, placed the target on a minute of angle grid and included a scoring ring size key to help with adjustments.

The key to using this for effectively getting an idea of where your shot would have fallen on a standard target at normal range is to remember that the only thing that isn't scaled down are the bullet holes. You have to imagine a pinprick on the target at the exact center of the bullet hole to determine where your shot would have really fallen.

If you have a shot on the 600 yard scaled down target that straddles the 9 ring, but the center of the hole is just the tiniest bit to the outside...that was an 8...probably by several inches...on a real target at 600 yards.

But I think they will be useful to me and if you've ever read here before you know that I like sharing things that I find useful...so...

You could probably print out the 200 yard target from that above jpeg but I don't know that it would be sized correctly.

CLICK HERE for a printable, four page pdf file with the full set of 200, 300, 500 and 600 yard High Powered Rifle targets scaled for 25 yards. Please note the copyright. I'm providing these free of charge at the current time but reserve the right to delete the above link and start selling them at any time in the future. This free copy is only for personal use and is not for redistribution in any form. If you want to pass them on to someone else, please direct them to this post to download their own copy.

"I Can't"

2009-10-05T08:34:00.004-04:00

I do not think that term means what most people think it means.

As my kids would quickly confirm, that phrase was not allowed in our household when they were growing up. I simply didn't want to hear "I can't". If there was an obstacle to accomplishing a goal, and I was going to hear about it at all, I only wanted to hear what the obstacle was, and what their plan was to overcome it. Ideally, I would only hear about it in retrospect and get a report in the past tense: what the obstacle had been and how they overcame it.

Sure. There actually are some things in the world that as human beings we physically "can't" do on our own.

A human being "can't" lift a 2 ton block of granite to the top of a 480 foot pyramid.

A human being "can't" fly to the moon.

A human being "can't" make it from New York to LA in less than 48 hours.

But, as history and technology demonstrate, those are not limitations, but obstacles to overcome.

In common usage, when the average human being says "I can't", it doesn't really mean that they literally and physically cannot achieve their goal; what is means is "I choose not to."

Two completely different things.

"I can't" in this context is a cop out. By saying "I can't" they relinquish control of the situation and give themselves permission to quit. To give up. To not accomplish that which they know they should accomplish.

And that's a shame.

"I can't" is the most debilitating phrase known to mankind and it should be stricken from our language.

There are many things in this life that I didn't do, didn't accomplish, didn't achieve. But not a single one of them was because I couldn't. They were because I chose not to. I chose not to put the effort into overcoming the obstacles. I chose not to invest the time, endure the hardships, continue the struggle. I chose to invest myself in other priorities...or I just chose to quit...but every one of those was a choice. And it is my responsibility to live with the consequences of those choices...both good and bad.

The obstacles we face in life are irrelevant. There are ALWAYS obstacles. The only thing that is relevant is whether we have the determination and will to do what it takes to overcome them.

"Try not. Do; or do not. There is no try."
--Yoda