Snowflakes in Hell

Clayton has discovered an 18th century antecedent of the machine gun:

Harold Leslie Peterson’s The Treasury of the Gun (1962), p. 205, indicates that 1722 London Journal accounts indicated that one fired 63 rounds in seven minutes in the rain. Okay, that’s not a machine gun, but nine rounds a minute is a major technological breakthrough compared to muskets that fired three rounds a minute, and not at all if it was raining.

It’s interesting, because we constantly hear “The founding fathers could never have imagined something like an Uzi.”  It’s becoming more and more likely that they indeed could have imagined it.  I seem to recall at some point, I think it might have been Dave Hardy, mentioning that if you had shown up at the constitutional convention with an M16, all the founding fathers would have recognized it as a firearm.  They would have thought you were pretty cool, but they still would have recognized it as something protected by the second amendment.

Looks like I wasn’t the only one who had to spend time at a car dealership today. Once I got here to Bitter’s, I noticed my car didn’t want to turn at the intersection, which is when I noticed it had stalled. Its idling rough, and at very low RPM. Check engine light is on. I’m figuring an O₂ sensor on the engine is acting up and the computer is running the engine too rich. The dealership I took it to hasn’t read the code off the engine yet. We shall see when they call me. Unlike Ahab, I didn’t bring a copy of American Rifleman, but the Honda dealership is right down the road from NRA headquarters.

UPDATE: Turns out the code indicates the computer wasn’t reading anything from the throttle body.  When the dealer tested the throttle body itself, it was fine.  They couldn’t get it to produce the code again.  I’m going to take it home.  If it happens again I’ll get the throttle body replaced.  Hopefully it was a bump in the night type thing.

The Anchoress has an excellent post talking about conservatives, including this quote from Ronald Reagan:

“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything. I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’ If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.”

– Ronald Reagan, An American Life

I couldn’t agree more.   Read the whole post.

Hat tip to Rightwingprof, who’s impressions of the race are also worthwhile.

ATF’s motion for summary judgment has been denied.  Red’s Trading Post will be headed to trial.  I have a lot of confidence, given ATF’s track record in court, that Red’s will be keeping their FFL.  That doesn’t help make up for the legal costs, unfortunately.  This is why ATF reform is vitally important.  Even if you win against the ATF, you still kind of lose.

Greg thinks the same way I do, and will turn down jobs with companies that locate in anti-gun jurisdictions, and are with companies owned by certain people that like to poop on the constitution. I would be up front with the employer as to exactly why you won’t relocate, “I’m a sport shooter, and I’d have to give that up to move to New York City. I’m not going to do that. I also don’t appreciate what your Mayor is doing to my second amendment rights in that regard.”

Once employers realize, especially in tech fields which are awash with People of the Gun, that they are losing out on good employees because of these laws, they might start locating in better places.

Massachusetts is considering a law to make it illegal, with a 5 year prison sentence, to have more than fifteen guns within the Commonwealth.  This is where one-gun-a-month and restrictive licensing will lead if we allow it to happen here.

Over at Call Me Ahab, Caleb, the blogger formerly known as Ahab, lamented that he wasted his 1000th post on talking about Sly Stallone endorsing John McCain.   Well, hopefully this post helps waste it a little less :)

Michael Nutter claims he will be enforcing Philadelphia illegal gun laws:

At the first regular meeting of the new City Council yesterday, Council members Darrell L. Clarke and Donna Reed Miller introduced the same package of gun-control measures that languished last year while the state legislature refused to authorize them.

But these bills have a new wrinkle - they don’t call for state-enabling legislation. The previous bills were conditional on companion state laws in recognition of a 1996 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said cities could not enforce their own gun laws.

But Nutter, Clarke and Miller, frustrated by the repeated failure of gun-control measures in the legislature, now appear ready to do just that.

“If these bills pass and if I sign them, then I expect to enforce them,” Nutter said. “If you believe we can have a safer city by putting these measures in place, I think as good public servants we are compelled to take some type of action in the face of no relief coming from anywhere else.”

Go ahead Mayor Nutter. Enforce them against me. Please. I could use the money I’ll make from the giant lawsuit I promise I’ll slap the city with. Pennsylvania needs to reconsider its preemption statue if Mayor Nutter is serious about crossing this Rubicon. Not to weaken it, but to impose penalties on cities and local municipalities who violate it. We have the power to do this in the legislature, and I really hope that City Council does not really want to bring this issue to a head.

UPDATE: I love this quote:

Kairys said the city’s action could set up a test of a new Supreme Court, now under Chief Justice Ronald Castille, the former Philadelphia district attorney who promised to depoliticize the court.

If the court is truly depoliticized, then Castille will uphold state preemption.  That is not a matter of politics.  The city home rule charter does not give the city the power to contradict state laws, and preemption is a state law designed to protect an enumerated fundamental right protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution.  If Castille votes in favor of the city he will be breaking his promise, and will be actively politicizing the court.

Man, I’m glad I’m not a cop in this town.  Apparently the fact that the police department purchased two AR-15 rifles is quite the controversy.  Officers should really have a decent carbine in their patrol cars in addition to shotguns, and the AR-15 is a fine platform for law enforcement use.

… aren’t going to do much to help the cause of getting shall-issue carry passed in Delaware.

Sen. Mike Brubaker is trying to get a marriage amendment onto the Pennsylvania Constitution:

Tom Shaheen, vice president for policy at the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said it’s important to protect marriage in the state’s Constitution — especially considering its proximity to Massachusetts, the only state to allow homosexual “marriage.”

Apparently Tom Shaheen thinks gay marriage is a strange disease we might catch by hanging out near Massachusetts. Are these people for real?

Why is it that anti-gun folks love pushing bills in response to tragedy that would in no way shape or form have even remotely prevented it? Latest from Nebraska:

The NRA is urging its members to fight a bill in the legislature that calls for, among other things, mandatory trigger locks. The NRA is convinced this latest gun control plan would have a “drastic effect” on law-abiding gun owners.

But Action Three News has learned that victims of the Von Maur massacre, some who lived, some who’s relatives died, are ready to fight for the bill.

The trigger locks would be required on any gun, rifle, or assault weapon. In addition once gun owners know a weapon is lost or stolen, they’d have 48 hours to report it. Finally no one found mentally ill in the last 10 years could buy a gun.

Do these people really think a trigger lock would have stopped this guy? And what kind of “assault weapons” is not also a gun or rifle? This is the usual panel of gun control being pushed by the anti-gun groups everywhere else. In this case, exploiting people who are mourning the loss of loved ones promoting a political agenda, that wouldn’t have prevented their tragedy. The shooter in the Von Maur shooting was already prohibited from owning a firearm by existing laws.

UPDATE Joe’s Crabby Shack, which is a local Nebraska gun blog, has a lot more detail about this.

Finally,  I managed to wrangle myself a pin for shooting ten chickens in a row.  I shot a 35 out of 40 overall for that set.  I came very close to getting a pin for rams, but by the time I was on the tenth ram, my pulse rate was so high I could see my heart beat moving the rifle, and I missed.  Damn!  But hey, I’ll take my chicken pin.  Turns out I don’t do well when I don’t eat before going to the match.  I do better when I eat first.  I’ll have to remember that.

It looks like county executives are eager to find out exactly where Mike Bloomberg and his cohorts buy their Bill of Rights toilet paper. Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano has started his own anti-gun coalition so they don’t feel so left out.

From GeekWitha.45:

The case of Fred illustrates for us, in living color, just exactly how far superior ideas go in the 21st century: They’re not worth much without an infrastructure to back them up.

In fact, as much as we want to believe otherwise, the man with the inferior ideas and superior infrastructure wins, and this pisses us off, it supremely offends our sensibilities.

This is one of the better observations of the situation out there that I’ve seen.  Read the whole thing.  There’s a lot of analogies that can be drawn between politics and the workplace, because the workplace is really a microcosm of how people react to each other in a society.  Fred was the manager everyone likes, has great ideas, but who could never get any of them done.  We all have seen executive types with the power suit and nice hair who lie, cheat and backstab their way to the top (Romney), and the quirky engineer who spends his days in his office wasting his time on crackpot designs that he always claims will save the company (Paul).  Then there’s the folks that just bully their way to the top by sheer force of personality (McCain), and who drive everyone batty because they don’t think they can do any wrong.

If I ever ask Bitter to marry me, I have found the perfect engagement ring!

Sorry for the light posting today. Too much having to earn a living going on this week, and tonight is my weekly silhouette match. I thought, though, I’d give an update on some things I’ve learned with respect to reloading:

1. You do yourself no favors with a cheap digital scale. They don’t hold zero well enough, and tend to measure underweight if you trickle powder into one. Stick with a quality beam balance or spend the money for a decent digital scale.
2. Case tumblers can really shine your brass up nice, to the point they look better once fired than new cases look. At first I thought a high sheen on the brass was merely aesthetic, but it actually makes your brass remarkably easy to spot and recover.
3. Powder dispensers don’t seem to measure all that consistently if you’re thinking about loading up to the maximum recommended powder load. I’ve had best results setting the dispenser to throw a bit under and then trickling up to weight.
4. A powder trickle is well worth the money.
5. My Alpha Chrony is very finicky on a low light range, and often can’t see small bullets like .223 and even 6.8 SPC sometimes. It never seems to have trouble seeing .30-06.

The main thing I’ll be looking to improve is my reloading speed. It can take me a few evenings to reload as much ammo as I can shoot in an hour at the range. Nonetheless, it’s a very fun winter time distraction, much the same way brewing beer is, except reloading isn’t quite as detrimental to health, well, except for the lead exposure risk.

Kim asks the question, Ahab has his answer.  Here’s mine:

I think overall, the country is more conservative than progressive.  But however any one of us defines conservatism, yes, we probably are a minority.  Don’t fear, because here’s the catch: everyone’s political views are a minority political view.

Gun owners are minority in this country, and gun owners who care strongly about gun rights are an even smaller minority.  Gun owners who care about gun rights enough to get as involved as many of us are, are a very small minority.  But you know what?  That’s the case of any special interest.   That’s why we form into associations, coalitions, and political parties in order to advance our causes, and why so often the compromises and vying interests along the political path often produce results and candidates that are less than we would desire.

Via War on Guns a quite good editorial taking The Administration to task for its brief:

Which raises the question:  What the heck was the Bush Administration thinking?  For decades, a critical component of the Republican coalition has been working class gun owners who are bothered by the Democrats’ embrace of gun control.  Republicans actually seem to have won that battle, with Democrats backing off of gun control legislation in the recent Congress.  Why after enduring so much hostile press would the Bush Administration sell out the NRA at this critical juncture?  And why make the reversal in a difficult election year, when the support of gun control opponents will be so critical to Republican fortunes?

What’s it have to lose selling anyone out at this point?  Bush is about as lame duck as they come, and I’ve never gotten the impression he’s all that concerned about his party’s fortunes.  The Bush family are wealthy New Englanders with no real connection to the gun culture.  As the article points out:

The less generous answer lies in the reality of the Bush Administration.  Contrary to the caricatures painted by liberals, there are precious few issues that the Administration has not sold the Right out on.  No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, monstrous budget deficits, McCain-Feingold, Patient’s Bill of Rights . . . all of these issues cross the gamut of modern politics, and all of them are issues where the Bush Administration’s Rovian plotting has placed it at loggerheads with standard conservatism.  Even on judges, where the Administration usually wins plaudits, conservatives forget Harriet Miers, and forget that two of Bush’s first ten Court of Appeals appointments were Clinton appointees.  Is it really that hard to believe that the Administration would lurch to the left on the issue of guns?

No, not hard to believe, but we still get to be pissed.

The Virginia Senate rejected the gun show bill 9-6.

In the Virginia SWAT raid gone wrong which resulted in a homeowner killing an officer. Over at Captain of a Crew of One.

I absolutely believe that Officers have every right to defend themselves and fellow officers, but “suppressive fire?” I don’t suppose any thought of innocent people living next door or walking down the street two blocks over should be any concern to Police officers now should it???

WTFO? Suppressive fire is something you use against an opposing ARMY, not something you use against one guy wh0 may be a criminal…or may just be a guy who thinks you were trying to rob or murder him.

It sounds to me like the cops who think they are an occupying force or invading army are the ones who need to “get their minds right.”

Am I wrong???

No, you’re not. Read the whole thing. I do hope the officer making that comment is unaware of what suppressing fire generally entails, and is merely talking out his ass. If that guy is on a SWAT team, that’s scary indeed.

UPDATE: Radley has more.  Go read.  I also agree about his comments about not making this about individual officers, or about the officer killed.  That an officer was killed because of these poor tactics is a tragedy.  This is a systemic problem in our society that goes beyond individual departments or people.

The Three Little Pigs is deemed “offensive to Muslims” by a British government agency, and was disqualified from winning the agency’s award.

Ahab has another story of a gun owner who forgets he’s carrying and gets through security, then proceeds to “do the right thing” and tell the TSA about it.

If you get past security at an airport with a gun, leave the secured zone immediately and count your blessings.  There is no get out of jail free card for doing “the right thing.”  The right thing for you is not to confess to the authorities about the crime you just committed.

Looks like Paul Helmke doesn’t have any problems with the Bush Administration DOJ filing. Helmke knows a gift horse when he sees it, and isn’t going to look this one in the mouth. The Brady Campaign has everything to gain and nothing to lose by fawning over this brief. They won’t mention that six years ago they were furious about DOJ adopting the individual rights view, which is identical to the one they are now applauding.

When your back is against a wall, you have nothing to lose. Bush has offered Brady two things with his brief. The first is a way out of their nightmare. An individual rights ruling that means nothing is something Brady can work with. Remanding back to District Court will likely preserve most of the DC ban, despite what the DOJ may actually think about it.  It’s not likely to cause state laws to be threatened in the circuit courts.   Incorporation will be far less likely.

Furthermore, Paul Helmke is aware that gun owners are furious with Bush over the brief, and that this situation puts NRA in a real pickle for 2008. With the gun vote furious at Bush, and with McCain or Romney the likely nominee at this point, NRA is in a very poor position heading into this election. That’s the icing on the cake for the Brady Campaign. Paul Helmke isn’t stupid folks, and what you’re witnessing here is a brilliant political move on the part of the Brady Campaign, compliments of the backstabber in the Oval Office.

Dave Hardy has the story.