Snowflakes in Hell

Somehow I think our particular branch of the blogosphere is probably less likely to encounter these types of problems than others.

So it looks like the good Senator from Virginia had three loaded magazines worth of ammo snatched off his staffer. My main question for Senator Webb is: are you expecting that much trouble? If you are, them I might suggest you reconsider throwing a handgun in your bag, as we all know that handguns are really weapons of last resort.

For Senators who might be involved in a last ditch shootout with potential attackers, after the attackers have made their way through all the Capitol Police, I think we can all agree that this firearm is an excellent compromise between a pistol and a full sized rifle:

Of course, it’s a short barreled rifle, but you should have no problem with the NFA process as a Senator. (After all, it appears you have no problem getting around bans in federal buildings and in the District that apply to the rest of us peons.) It’s small, compact, and will even fit in a duffel bag, much like the one negligently handed off to your staffer.

I don’t want to discourage you from your gun nuttery, Senator, but if you’re figuring on two extra magazine’s worth of trouble, why not really be prepared? Besides, I’d be a lot more impressed if your staffer got caught with a P90 in you duffel bag going through the x-ray machine. We gun nuts are watching, Senator, and we don’t want you to let us down. If you’re going to get your staffers in trouble with the law by being careless about where you put your guns, at least make sure the gun is worth it!

From Instapundit, we discover that Congressmen’s lives are apparently more valuable than their lowly staffers.

Thompson was booked for carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL) and for possessing unregistered ammunition. According to congressional rules, congressmen and senators, not staff, are allowed to have a gun on federal property.

If I can’t carry a gun on federal property, Congressworms shouldn’t be allowed to either.

Clayton Cramer blogs about Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit”, but makes a rather curious observation:

This particular program is laced with vulgar language, but I suppose if you are trying to appeal to a vulgar audience–and one that is naturally prone to gun control, because they think Jon Stewart’s Daily Show qualifies as a news program, then this is probably quite effective.

Gun nuts, in my experience, tend to be more vulgar on average than your average college educated suburban liberal.  I think the demographic that Penn & Teller appeal to is young libertarians, who do, as a whole, tend to be pretty vulgar, but wouldn’t be inclined to support gun control.   I don’t know if I qualify as a young libertarian anymore, but while I can keep in clean when social decorum demands it, it’s certainly not a natural state.

Armed Canadian has a good screed on why gun owners need to fight licensing:

Personally, I find the idea of a license to possess a gun to be a bad idea. Solely for the prospect of abuse over time. Licensing a gun owner for the carry of a concealed weapon and licensing a gun owner for mere possession are the same thing to me. Both depend on the benevolence of the government and require absolute care in crafting such licensing rules to ensure they do not get cut off or be used to create a defacto denial of rights in the future.

The first problem with licensing is the tie to competency. Many people proposing such a scheme want owners to show they are competent. Ok, who makes the rules for competency? Who gets to evaluate them? Who has the authority to change them?

Read the whole thing.

Bitter noted to me that, despite her predisposition toward dating gun nuts, she has done more shooting with me in a few short months than all the previous Bitter Boys combined.

This is a trend I intend to continue, because I love to shoot, and get unhappy if I’m not shooting enough.   If anyone from Remington and Federal are reading this, I expect Christmas cards this year ;)

I’m past the age where I really care anymore, which would be 33 as of this morning.  Thirthy three is one of those ages where you’re not sure whether you can say you’re in your early thirties, or have to start saying mid thirties.  I think I’m OK with a rule that says 33 is early thirties, and 34-37 are mid thirties.  Having late 30s be only two years sounds rather acceptable.

Sometimes when you’re in West Texas with a lot of guns and ammo, you just have to get a few pictures of some Kalashnikov moments:

Read more »