The AnarchAngel

Tale of the Tape- Week 1 - Updated

I stepped on the scale at the gym, and weighed 379, with all my gear on. I then weighed all my gear separately at 10lbs, so I weighed 369 not 364 as my home scale said yesterday.

An aside: Yeah that's the MINIMUM of what I wear every day. Often I've got another 5lbs stuck on me in various locations, and that's jsut in my pockets and belt.

Oh and 24 hours later, after having had some chicken strips, french fries, and a 2 liter of soda last night around 8pm, and nothing else sense (but having gone to the bathroom a couple times), my scale says I weigh 374, 10lbs more than it read yesterday.

No, I don't believe that either.

So I'm'na reset my week 1 starting point to be 369, and see if I can find a home scale thats accurate over 350lbs; and doesn't cost a fortune.

Crime, Punishment, and Poverty

"What's wrong with Canada? Please educate me.

I was under the impression that it had a higher standard of living by many measures than the U.S."

For a long time Canada was ranked fourth in standard of living, but recently the fell to 27th, primarily because of the rapidly increasing crime rate.

The Canadian per capita overall crime rate is higher than the US (again this is a recent thing). The Canadian per capita rape and murder rate are higher than the U.S. as well, when take as a whole. Of course there are areas where the U.S. rates are VERY high, and we'll get to the reasons in a minute.

The problem in Canada is mostly due to relatively ineffective court and prison system, and excessive social welfare support for the criminal underclass.

Please note, that doesnt mean all the underclass are criminals; but that most criminals are in the underclass, which is supported extensively by social welfare systems.

When criminals are not effectively punished, and in fact effectively supported by the state, then criminal behavior will be the easist path to "success" (as determined by material gain) for the underclass.

The biggest impact of welfare reform, and the rise of concealed carry permits in the US has ben a radical decrease in violent crime per capita all around the country, except in heavily urban areas where such permits are rarely if ever issued, and where state and local social welfare systems prop up the criminal underclass.

The violent crame rate in Florida was among the highest in the nation; the combined effect of CCW and welfare reform (which took effect in the same couple of year period) was to reduce violent crime by more than 20% in less than 10 years.

One might have noticed that as the welfare states of Britain, Australia, Canada, France, and other places have grown, so has their crime rate. At the same time their educational achievement, economic growth, and standards of living have all fallen, in some cases dframatically.

One might also have noticed that the less private firearms ownership there is, the more crime there is. Violent crime in the UK since the effective gun ban has more than doubled.

Why is that? Simple, and cliche but true "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns"

Where everyone has guns, people don't generally shoot at each other; because they know that guns arent some magical penis extension. They are tought from a young age that a firearm is a tool, and like other tools it can be dangerous, and must be respected and properly handled. There is no mythology of power or manhood surrounding the gun, as so many liberals assume (because they dont understand, and have no experience with guns, except as an adjunt of criminals).

Not only that, but people dont shoot others, because they know they'll get shot right back.

The fact is, the vast majority of violent crime is caused by poor morals, poor upbringing, poor education, and poor people. Not any one of these things is sufficient, you need to have most, if not all of them at the same time for a culture of violent crime to rise.

Guess what, social welfare systems almost deliberately cause these factors. Social welfare encourages (and sometimes requires) the abdication of personal, and parental authority and responsibility to the state. It provides significant counterincentive to self improvement, and to personal responsiblity. It discourages real parenting, and certainly discourages the strong presence of fathers, because if you have a father, you get no benefits. It discourages education, because why do you need when when the state will pay for you; it's jsut wasted effort.

Straight up, social welfare is the single most aggravating factor in the rise of violent crime.

The only factor mitigatitig these tendencies, is the presencee of arms among the potential victims. The firearm is the great equalizer, and when firearms are easily and lawfully available, no criminal can feel safe in their crimes.

In new york city recently, a repeat violent offender held a woman at gun point while his associates collected the belongings of her companions. The woman is reported to have said "what are you going to do, shoot me"... He did.

If the criminal hadn't been safe in the ssumption that he was the only one armed in that situation, do you think there might have been a different result?

You over notice....

I have managed to get more done in the last two weeks than I have the last .. I dunno since Christmas probably.

Sometimes you just get stuck in something and you need that painful application of boot to head (NYAH! NYAH!).

I always was better in a crisis, and under pressure. Something about my personality I guess.

This week I got most of my bills paid at once (thank you everyone for your help there), started losing weight, joined a gym, fixed some things around the house, and fixed some things on the car.

Tomorrow I'm going to the final spring training game between the Redsox and Diamondbacks with my brother,; who BTW, makes the Jimmy fallon character in the (guaranteed to be horrible) American re-make of Nick Hornbys "fever pitch" (what the hell were they thinking there I'll never know) look like a piker... or a white sox fan.

This weekend I'm renewing my CCW. I didnt have time to get it done before until the grace period expired, and so I have to take the whole thing over again (16 hours, plus a range session, usually $110 + $65 to the state for the permit fee); but I got a half price deal on the course from a guy I did a favor for (Dan Furbee of Ultimate Accessories, good guy), so off I go this weekend.

Not that I would ever carry illegally. I obviously willingly disarm myself during this time when my permit has been expired.

I've still got more to go, and I still have the job situation to work out, and all that weight to lose; now I just need to sustain that motivation.

One More Sales Pitch

I'm still in the squeeze, but I have some breathing room now; from the sale, and from your generous donations, and I really appreciate it.

Ok now for the part that makes me feel a bit slimy, I still need to bank a bit more to make sure I dont go bankrupt before the end of the month.

So, I'm still selling the following items:

1. Smith & Wesson 686P : 7 shot, 2.5" barrel, boot grip. Almost brand new, with box and paperwork. Less than 100 rounds fired. Some very light surface scratches (from firing). Retail $669. Guns America prices vary from $420 to $575

2. Rado Sintra Platinum Chronograph which I have worn, but is in basically perfect condition because the thing is absolutely scratchproof. It's a titanium ceramic composite construction with a quartz crystal, platinum face, and saphire hands and markers. I don't have the box and papers for this, though I do have the extra links. Retail $2500, ebay and other auction prices vary from $1300-$1700.

Thankfully I won't need to sell any more guns, or any of the other stuff. If I can get these two items sold, hopefully I'll be worry free into next month, in case it takes a while longer for the new job to get going than they've been promising (I'm a bit paranoid after what I've had happen in the last few months).

Carnival of Cordite Submissions

This week I've got at least one thing up there, and aI may have another.

http://gullyborg.typepad.com/weblog_archive/2005/03/reminder_1.html

Why bullpups are a persistently bad idea

I'm an engineer and a firearms expert, both by training and by inclination (if not by employment), I have a great appreciation for good engineering, and let me tell you, bullpups are poor engineering.

The bullpup rifle only has one real advantage; in that bullpup designs allow a longer barrel for a given overall length of arm.

On the other hand, the bullpup has MANY disadvantages:

• Bullpup designs are mechanically more complex, requiring a long trigger linkage, and control system linkages. This seriously degrades both control feel, and reliability, and increases bulk and weight.

  
  

• If a bullpup has a catastrophic failure, instead of the explosion being six or 8 inches in front of your eyes, its right at your eyesocket, or touching your cheekbone or ear. The only good thing is if the bolt flys back, it doesnt end up in your eye socket. They also tend to eject hot brass, and vent hot gasses in the vicinity of your eyes and ears

• Mag changes on a bullpup are much slower because they require more repositioning, and are difficult to see (if necessary) without fully dismounting the rifle.

  -- A conventional rifle allows you to see your mag changes, and is more easily maneuvered with your dominant hand, which makes mag changes easier in general. More importantly a human being can naturally bring their hands together in the dark. Magazine wells should ALWAYS be either in your dominant hand, or just in front of it, because it is far more difficult to manipulate anything dextrously that is located behind your dominant hand.

• Because of the positioning of the mag, bullpups can be difficult, or impossiple to fire while prone (though this is common with some other rifle designs as well). Note in the pictures below, the magazine is by far the lowets point of the rifle, and being located behind the dominant hand, it will tend to strike the ground forcing the muzzle downward. This also causes problems with mags being warped or ripped out of the magwell, or the rifle itself being ripped out of the users hand when hitting the deck; that a conventional rifle doesnt have (the muzzle will just bounce up)

• Charging the rifle and manipulating the operating handle is often more difficult, and sometimes can't be done without dismounting the rifle, or reaching over with your support hand.

• Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way; the balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted. The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this wont make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point). This will tend to make a bullpup shift unless it is tightly mounted to your shoulder, and especially will tend to shift during rapid fire. This tendedncy is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel, but not sufficiantly so.

  -- A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands; and there're reasons for that. A human being natually handles things better that balance in the palm, or in front of it.
  

The only good thing about a bullpup is the short overall length in relation to their barrel length; and that is not advantage enough to outweigh the disadvantages for most missions.

Well, that and the fact that they look cool, which is the real reason so many people are enamored of them.

A lot of folks have watched a lot of stargate (they use the FN-P90 PDW which isnt exactly a bullpup, but follows the same concept), and they do jsut look kind of futuristic.

Several countries have adopted bullpup designes as their primary service arm, notably Austria, and Australia (the AUG above), France (the FAMAS),

Here's the thing, every study that the British did showing that the Enfield design was ergonomically correct, or that the reliability issue was solved, has over the past few years been proven to have been "Unjustifiably optomistic", or some other such euphemism for fraud.

Both the Enfield, and the FAMAS have proven to be rediculously unreliable, though at least the SA80 is quite accurate when it functions properly.

The enfield in fact is so poorly designed, that mounting it on your left shoulder will give you a black eye (and can break your cheekbone) and send hot brass and gasses flying into your eyes. You also cant fire the thing from the left side of cover without exposign your whole head and torso.

I am by just about anyones defniniton qualified to judge small arms quality; having fired weapons in anger, lugged various weapons through the field, jumped out of airplanes and helicopters with various weapons, been shot, trained people with various weapons, repaired and altered various weapons, and sold various weapons professionally.

I have tried the P90, the Enfield, the Steyr AUG, the Bushmaster M17, the FAMAS, and the IMI Tavor (the latter two held but not shot), and I haven't found any of them to be remotely comfortable, or anything but awkward. I've tried a couple of bullpup conversions from other weapons as well, same thing.

Until someone has shot thousands of rounds through them, had to change mags in the dark, and in cramped conditions, had to clear jams under combat condtions etc... they can't know how unsuitable they are as anything other than a niche weapon, to be used only where OAL is the most critical factor, but an SMG or collapsible or folding stock are inappropriate choices.

I can't actually think of any such niche, but I'm sure one will come to me eventually....

People say "Well the designs jsut arent good enough yet, I'm sure as they mature they'll get better, isnt it the natural way to go eventually?"

Engineers aren't miracle workers. We can refine a design until it's mechanically perfect, but
the point I'm trying to make, is that there is no way to design an ergonomic bullpup, because their design is inherently un-ergonomic.

A reader suggested building a .45ACP bullpup carbine as a great weapon for tankers and support personnel.

The only real advantage of the bullpup is OAL, and the longer barrels allowed by the configuration. Given conventional .45ACP ballistics, there is little or no significant benefit to having anything more than a 16" - 18" barrel (even for .45 super).

Given a 2-3" action length behind the breech face (about the minimum depending on exact design), and an 11" length of pull (common for carbines), the minimum overall length for a conventional carbine would be something like 32".

By allowing for an action that cycles into the stock (as in an AR) you can reduce the OAL by the length of the action for a minimum length of something like 29".

The kel-tec carbine, which has a 16" barrel, and cycles into the stock, just happens to be 29" with an 11" length of pull.

For comparison, the shortest normal version of the MP5 has an 8" barrel, and is 27" long with the stock extended.

The minimum length of a semi automatic bullpup design, given the same 16" barrel, 2-3" action length, and 11" length of pull, with a 2" buffer between the back of the action and your shoulder (about the minimum, no-where near the ideal ergonomically as it would vent hot gasses into your ears and hair) is about 20-21" or thereabouts.

Please note, that at 20", the gun would be extremely unweildy, and just plain uncomfortable. Your hands would be touching each other, with the muzzle just 2" or so in front of your support hand.

For comparison, the shortest bullpup I can find is the walther G22, (in .22lr) at 28.5" with a 20" barrel. Take off the extra 4", and you've still got a 24.5" gun. You might be able to cut a couple of inches off the stock (the normal configuration includes a 1.1" butt pad, but that's not included in the 28.5" measurement), but I don't think you could cut 3.5". Also a .45acp action might be able to be as short as a .22lr, but that would take some gyration. Given that, I think my 21" number as an absolute minimum is solid.

Now, extrapolating to assault rifles, let's do another comparison:

The OAL of an AR-15 (which has an 11"-13" length of pull depending on the stock) with a 16" barrel and the stock extended is 34" (collapsed is 30.5", and the A2 stock is 3/8" longer).

The OAL of a Steyr AUG (which has a 14" length of pull), with a 16" barrel is 27" (This coincidentally is the same length as the MP5)

There is a 7" difference between the two, which is about the same as the difference between the minimum length of a conventional carbine, and the minimum length of a bullpup carbine.

They are both about 5" longer than the minimum of a .45acp of the same configuration.

The difference in nominal OAL between the two calibers is only about 1", so I wonder if we couldn't trim a few inches off of either design, even accounting for the vastly different energies involved. I would guess we could trim maybe 3" off the length of a .223 carbine or bullpup, given the absolute ideal design.

Anyway the whole point of this analysis is to show that at the minimum lengths of their designs, the difference in length between conventional and bullpup designs doesn't really produce any real difference in handiness or maneuverability.

Now, try a little experiment. Take a yard stick, and cut it off to 22", put it up to your shoulder, wrap your support hand around it with the back edge at 14", and make a fist like you were holding a pistol grip jsut behind your support hand. This will simulate a 22" long bullpup carbine with a 16" barrel as described above.

You might notice that your elbow actually sticks out further than the muzzle of a 22" shoulder mounted long gun would. In my case its about 4" more. Now move the stick around, aim, bring your eye into aiming position etc...

You might notice that for comfort, you really want something at least 27" long. It will let you move your hand out to about 13-14", and move your support hand about 2-3" forward.

Now take a tape measure out, and measure the length from your fingertip to your shoulder seam.

Guess what, for an adult american male its probably somewhere from 24-27" (mine is 30", but I'm a pretty big boy).

Importantly, for comfort and control; you arm should be bent out to no more than half that distance, and no less than than half minus the distance from the center of your fist, to your first index knuckle when it is in trigger position.

So for most people the maximum length of pull should be no longer than 13.5", and no shorter than about 9.5", a fairly broad range (note this is ergonomics not tactics, a tactical crouch requires a shorter length of pull. as does body armor and LBE).

For your personal proper length of pull, make a fistwith your index knuckle in trigger position, then tuck your arm in and bring it up to the center of your chest, and measure the distance from the center of your fist, to the inside of your elbow. Most people will be 9-10" here, I'm at 11.5 (which is the LOP of the A2 stock)

It is worse to have a longer LOP than shorter, because as your reach is extended, you become less dextrous, and begin to lose some squeeze strength and steadiness in the hands (though the difference isnt very noticible till you are several inches too far out); though if the LOP is too short you will not be able to properly hold the weapon in the mounted position, and your accuracy will also suffer.

note: there are two ways to measure length of pull, from the butt to the center of a pistol grip, or to the face of the trigger. For conventional rifles it is generally measured from the face of the trigger, but for assault rifles it is generally measured to the center of the pistol grip.

Now here's a fun little piece of ergonomic science thats a couple thousand years old, and has to do with natural balance, and body mechanics.

The shortest end of the ideal length range of a long arm for a human to wield two handed; is the length from your index finger tip to the center of your shoulder joint, which as I mentioend above is between 25-27" for most.

Note:

This is also the longest an obejct intended to be wielded with one hand should be from the center of your grip to the tip. The ideal , is the distance from the tip of your index finger, to the center of your elbow, which for most is 14-16"".

The ideal length of an item to be wielded in the fist, like a handgun, is the distance from the tip of your finger to the crease of your wrist and palm, which for most people is 6-7". The object itself should be measured from the center of the grip to the end sticking out past the fist. Funny enough a Commander length 1911 is a little over 7.5" long, and about 6" to the center of the grip. Gee... I wonder...

The "ideal" length is the distance from your index finger tip to the center of your chest. On the average adult american male it's from 32-35" (mine is 39")

So for the average adult male, for natural balance the ideal length of a shoulder arm would be somewhere between 25" and 40", with the absolute ideal falling between 32-35".

Funny enough that's about the same length range as the rifles above, and of most assault rifles and carbines of the past 60 or so years. Even funnier, the 16" AR-15 is... wait for it... 34" long, dead in that range....

Hmmm, I wonder... Interesting how that works out really.

This little measurement scheme, in somewhat less precise terms; has been used for Bows, staffs (double the measurements), and swords since we started making them.

So, bullpups are only slightly shorter than their conventional counterparts (maybe 7 or 8" in the case of an assault rifle), nothing to sneeze at, but not a huge advantage in most cases considering thte missions they are intended for; they are unreliable, they are ergonomically incorrect, and they are more likely to injure their user.

I'm not denying there are situations where a bullpup is appropriate (some .50cal and/or sniper rifle designs for example, where the primary balance point is a bipod instead of your hand, and the cupport hand will ofetn be used as a support on the stock), but I can't see any conventional situation where a bullpup assault rifle is the right tradeoff to make.

But they look cool...

Why did you join up?

A few months ago, Kim Dutoit asked, (referring to the men and women serving in Iraq) "where do we find these people", to which a reader responded"we make them" and another responded "we dont find them, they find us".

In the last few days, a lot of the high school and college aged posters on the Nation of Riflemen forums hasve been talking about enlisting, or applying for a comission. I gave them the advice I always give (which I'll post if anyone wants, but like I said, I think most of you already know), and it got me to thinking about this again.

So for my fellow active duty, reserve, guard, and retired service members (did I miss anyone?);
I ask why did you join up?

I've thought this through before, and distilled it down a bit. Sure I wanted fun, adventure, brotherhood, college money, and a challenge, (and I got all of that in spades), but there was something much deeper under all that.

I wanted to serve.

I had (and still have) a deep need to serve my country, and to protect it. I know in my soul that whatever it's faults we live in the greatest nation on earth, that we truly are the last best hope for mankind, and I feel it was and is my duty as a citizen to try and protect it.

It's why I went into the security business when I got out. I knew I still wanted to serve, but I also knew I wouldnt be able to put up with the bullshit of being a cop (or a teacher. or an EMT both of which I was qualified to do as well), so that was the next best thing. I got into the computer side of things because I already had the skills, and the money was good (late 90s especially).

It's also why I still feel guilty that I'm not in the sandbox right now. Yeah my knees are shot and I'm overweight, but you can damn well be sure that if I could pass a PFT, I'd be there right now.

What I'm drinking right now

Start with a 24 oz tumbler, and as much ice as you feel like (or a 32 oz if you like a lot of ice)

12oz 7 up (or halfway with the ice, to make it stronger)
4oz Dekuyper Sour Apple Pucker
4oz lime juice
4oz of Bacardi 151

I think you can see why it's called a high pucker factor. We mixed it up as a joke after an ... incident ... involving entirely too much of the aforementioned spirit, some unlawfully acquired government property traveling at a high rate of speed, and various scantily clad females of questionable moral persuasion.

Oh and if you dont get the inside joke, what the hell are you doing reading me? Not that I dont want you as a reader, I'm jsut wondering how on earth you managed to find me.

It has variations:

Substitute Vodka for a "Fucking James Bond Motherfucker Pucker Factor" (another inside joke)
Substitute Tequila for an "MFF pucker factor"
Substitute Gin for "The full english pucker factor"

Oh and when in the presence of anyone who has spent 13 weeks of fun in the sun with a gun, peach liqueur must be added for the "Huah pucker factor"

Blogus interruptus

Hopefully this little shorty will go.

Wehn blogger stops vomiting, the bullpup post will be up.

Tale of the tape - week 1

I've slowly eased into to the supplement stack over the last three days, and I'm up to full dosage as of this morning. When you start a supplement stack you need to load your system up to a maintenance level, or you won't absorb them properly.

I haven't deliberately changed my eating habits, but my appetite has fallen off CONSIDERABLY. I've probably eaten about half my normal intake over the last three days, and doubled my fluid intake (mostly water, but also diet soda), without really being more than a little hungry.

My energy is way up, with little stomach upset though there is always some; you wouldn't beleive the amount of sludge your body desides to dump when you go on a stack.

I've also been doing the calisthenics, and any time I have spare eneergy I'm going pushups.

Lemme tell you, my arms and chest are sore, but in a good way. I know how far to push, and when to back off. What's amazing (though I've experienced it before) is just how quickly you see an increase in tone. Literally overnight your body starts rebuilding your muscle tissue stronger, and I'm able to do more pushups without a problem.

What I'm really diappointed in, is how far I've let my stomach go. Even when I gained that first 60 pounds, I maintained a lot of muscle tone in my stomach (it's a martial arts thing), and when I'm doing my pushups it's a little depressing how the gut hangs. Ahh well, nothing to do but fix it right.

Tale of the tape:

03/25/2005 - Weight 370, waist 52", chest 56", neck 21" - 34% bodyfat

03/28/2005 - Weight 365, waist 52", chest 56", neck 21" - 34% bodyfat

I'm going to do this update every week, and we'll see how I do over the next year.

Have you ever...

The James bond thing

The comic book villains things

The various X-files debates

The various star wars debates

The invisibitly argument

Also, have you ever been watching Buffy and been strongly reminded that Joss Whedon is a MAJOR fan of Neil Gaiman, Frank Miller, James Robinson, Warren Ellis, Tony Harris, Garth Ennis, John McRea, and Mike Mignola.

Enhanced Battle Rifle

I've mentioned before that I own an M14, and that I love it; well, here it is:

This is the exact rifle (but with a different stock) the SEALs are using in the DM/SS role, as the Enhanced Battle Rifle; and is in fact built by the same guy (Ron Smith is the contractor for the EBR action rebuilds), to the same standards and specifications. Actually, mine is built on a forged, specially heat treated reciever with a TRW bolt and hardware, and a NM spec barrel, so it may be just a bit better (except for the stock, the current EBR has a McMillan job, and they are switching to the SAGE chassis).

I love this gun. It's accurate, reliable, soft shooting (to me anyway), fast mounting, and just beautiful to shoot.

I have mentioned in other postings that the main physical disadvatages of the battle rifle are it's size, and weight (the final issue being recoil of the major caliber). What most people don't realize, is that the M14 itself is actually quite a compact weapon, as shown in this picture:

In fact, the reciever is significantly shorter (in both length and height) than the AR, as you can see in this picture placing the barreled action, next to an AR (upper only):

Now, the 18" barrel is the absolute minimum length for an unmodified M14 action (there are companies converting the gas system to be 2" shorter); and the AR can be made with a 10.5" barrel; but realistically, the AR's performance degrades rapidly in barrel lengths under 18", and especially under 16".

As to weight; as I said above, the basic weight of the 18" barreled action on the M14 is only 6lbs, the weight of an 18" barreled action on an AR is... about 6 lbs (depending on the exact configuration).

Of course all-up weight is another story. As I list above, the all up weight of the 18"m14 with scope and a loaded 20rd mag is 14 lbs. The 18" AR is going to weigh about 9 lbs with optics and a loaded mag.

The big differences in all up weight:AR stocks are very lightweight, and M14 stock are, to say the least, not; and a loaded 2ord M14 mag weighs twice as much as a loaded 20rd AR mag.

But 5lbs of extra weight for double the effective range and power...

Okay so we've got the length and weight thing out of the way, what about versatility? Thats one of the biggest selling points of the AR, it can be configured in so many different ways.

These next pics are going to make M14 lovers very jealous:

And again put up against a shorty AR (this time with a full A2 stock):

The M14 is one of the easiest weapons systems in the world to switch stocks on. Since the barreled action system lifts out in one single unit, and has metal lugs to mate up with the stock, you can swap the stock on an M14 faster than you can swap the upper on an AR.

Now this won't change calibers or barrel lengths for you, but still, it give you a lot of options; and some of those options are very versatile indeed.

When fitted out, the rifle looks something like this:

There are other M14 stock systems out there with similar features, but this is the first one that I found interesting; the reason being, that chassis is going to be EXTREMELY stable. The entire length is machined from a solid block of aluminum, and the M14 action locks into the chassis, just like an Accuracy International sniper rifle chassis does with an accurized Rem. 700 action.

This means no more worries about bedding, clamping pressure, stock crush, deflection, and action block fit; all of which are the main difficulties in keeping an M14 in top precision and accuracy (an M14 is relatively easy to make accurate and precise, but it's a bitch to keep it that way).

The things I don't like at all about it: the butt stock and pistol grip.

I DO like a collapsible stock with a cheekpiece and pistol grip; I just don't like THAT stock and pistol grip; and this is where the other great feature of the system comes into play; in terms of modularity, this thing actually puts the S.I.R. system to shame.

You see, every piece of the chassis except the bedding block itself is modular. You can unbolt and change each piece to suit you; even better, the stock and pistol grip are set up to accept any stock set for the most common shotgun in the world, the remington 870 (including fixed stocks).

This means that there are literally hundreds of different stock and grip options from dozens of manufacturers, and in every configuration.

Hell, you could put a traditional pistol grip stock on there if you wanted to (the kind used with most shotguns, not the kind used on an AR); or going the opposite direction, you could put an AR pistol grip and stock using one of the many adapter blocks sold for the Rem 870, which opens you up to the entire world of AR accessories.

Oh, you might have noticed, the system has a lot of rails. Well they can all be removed, or you can add more on... again with all those AR accessories....

The only real problem with the thing is, it aint cheap (well, that and the kinda ugly thing, but function has it's own beauty). The system is available from Fulton Armory for $499, but that's just the bare stock pictured above; figure another $250 for the rails, sling mounts, rail covers etc... (If you didnt think a buttstock could get more expensive than the Crane LMT, you were wrong.)

Of course, a McMillan glass stock, before it's properly fit and bedded, is actually going to run you just as much; and it wont be adjustable or collapsable, or have all those rails. Add in the cost of a good fitting and bedding job (about $400 for top quality work), and it's actually a bargain.

Actually, I'm willing to bet that with a good fixed butt stock attached to it, this chassis will produce better precision than the McMillan will; and for longer, in rougher conditions.

The EBR rifle itself as delivered runs about $2200-2350 depending on your exact details, and the reciever supplied (About $450-600 for the action, $1750 for the EBR conversion including heat treating, machining, bolt, NM bush barrel, NM trigger, NM gas conversion, sights, parkerizing and bedding); That's of course IF you can get Ron to build you one, and you can't because he's busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Fulton does a similar package for pretty much the same price ($1799 plus the donor rifle)

Given the price of the rifle itself; and that, as I said above, a brand new McMillan stock will run you $600, plus another $300-400 for bedding job; it's not unreasonable to spend $500-750 on a stock setup like this.

I love my E2 stock, it's gorgeous; but if I had to deploy with my M14, this is the system I'd want for it.

Now, that brings us back to the advantages disadvantages thing. We've addressed length, versatility, and handiness; the only issues left are weight, and recoil.

The SAGE system is reasonably lightweight; a SAGE Mk. 14 EBR rifle will be about 3 lbs lighter than an M21 with the same length barrel (standard is 22"), and loses 2-4 oz per inch of reduced barrel length (depending on profile), for a maximum of a bit over 4 lbs weight reduction, to about 9.5lb total weight (without optics or mag). Since the biggest issue the M14 has is controllability with the heavier recoil of 7.62 nato, you really don't want to go much lighter; and again, in comparison to an 18" standard profile AR, theres only a 1.5-2lb difference.

Of course there's still the difference in ammo weight, and that's definitely a big deal.

I have said before, I consider 7.62NATO the ideal battle rifle caliber. It is accurate and hard hitting out to about 800 yards, and certainly to 600 yards. The only real problems with it are the bulk and weight of the weapons chambered for it (which we adressed above), the bulk and weight of the ammo itself, and the heavy recoil.

I'm a very large, strong, and well trained man who has no problem controlling an M14 in long rapid fire strings. I can empty a mag as fast as I can pull the trigger while keeping my hits on a torso at 50 yards; and make normal rapid fire (1 shot per 2 seconds or so) torso hits out to 300 yards (with optics), with no difficulty whatsoever.

There is always going to be a tradeoff with recoil and weight, but the extra power and range of the 7.62 definitely compensate for it; in roles where full auto fire is not required, individuals of reasonable strength can be selected, and proper training is available (such as DM/SS)

I suppose the best thing I can say about the M14; is that if I had to deploy again, this is the rifle I'd want with me, and this is the configuration I'd want it in.

Self Defense Stories

This quote struck me:

"You can compress the handle against the meat of your hand with four fingers and flick the torsion bar out and up with a thumb fairly easily, and this opens the knife faster than my eye can follow. Throw in a little wrist action and it's near-instantaneous, and very sure. "Authoritative" was a word I've read describing the action, and that just about does it justice."

Anyway it reminded me of some stories I'd posted up on the Nation Of Riflemen forums about self defense, and I thought I'd share them here:

A little problem I'm having

Take a look at these pics:

I asked him about the finish, specifically the abrasion resistance and the thickness, and he came back with this:

If applied properly and allowed to cure fully, Alumahyde is the same as Gunkote. I've had the stuff of a beater SAR-1 for 5 years and over 20K rounds, multiple cleanings and lots of abuse, it even melted to a truck bedliner once because it was tossed hot into the truck bed. Alumahyde never failed. Abrasion resistance specifically, I don't know if you mean crawling through gravel or abrasion like slide against frame?

Its very thin maybe like a light coat o paint, thicker than molycoats but not as thick as such horrors as high temp engine paint. Think of the paint on an HK rifle, it is a perfect match. Doesn't affect moving parts at least on an AK. I don't spray the bolt itself and mask the breech area, while thin it is still a coating and I don't want to have headspace issues.

It sounds like this might be an interesting solution to a problem I have.

I have ridiculously corrosive sweat (I dissolve stainless watches and eyeglass temples over time). My EDC piece is a first generation Kahr K9, and I carry in a Kydex IWB.

The slide is stainless, but the finish on the corners is gone at this point, and if I don't wipe it down with oil after I take it off for the day, the bare spots will rust overnight pretty thoroughly.

You can see the results here in this pic of the Kahr superimposed over a G21:

I've tried cold blacking the piece a couple times, and it works for a few holster draws, but wears off too quickly; no matter how many coatings I use, which formula, and how long I let it cure.

I dont want to hardchrome the piece (I dont like the color), and black chrome over stainless can flake or chip, plus both are a bit pricey.

So what I'm looking for is a spray on finish that is somewhat self lubricating, corrosion resistant; and will stand up to being presented from, and carried in Kydex.

For a while I've been thinking about using Brownells GunKote , but I'm wondering if this might be a better option. I've seen a few gunkoted guns, I like the results, and I'm wondering which finish might be the better choice; so if anyone out there has experience with both, especially in hard use situations, drop a comment.

The Carnival of Cordite #6 is up

Speaking of military weaponry:

Chris of The Anarchangel has a lot (more) to say about military small arms. His post comes complete with a LOT of high-quality photographs of the arms he writes about, so be sure to check it out. Regular readers will know by now that when it comes to small arms for military, police, and personal defense, Chris know his stuff.

Good Friday

We've been avoiding this for so long
Luxury is temporary than it's gone
I thought that we would happen
I guess I'm wrong
Well say hi on the street,
Then well move along
I know this will be awkward
But not for long
Cause soon you'll have a new boy
To sing you songs

I will not forgive you
Nor will I accept the blame
I will see you on good friday
On good friday

I'm sorry I couldn't do this yesterday
And tomorrow I am busy and what
It is I can't say
And saturday's no good
I got a show
So it's got to be good friday
Then it's so long

I will not forgive you
Nor will I accept the blame
I will see you on good friday
On good friday

You, you come and go when you please
I know unfulfilled heads
I know you do too
But i, you know I never see
Things through,
Never paid attention to you
But honey I tried.

I will not forgive you
Nor will I accept the blame
I will see you on good friday
On good friday

Expressions that irritate me.

"Irregardless" : A conflation of irrespective and regardless. Common in the northeast, especially Boston, it's not a word, but if it were it would MEAN THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SAY!!!!!!

"I could care less" : No..... you COULDN'T care less genius, if you COULD care less, that means you actually care MORE.

"Needless to Say" : Needless to say? ... So DON'T FUCKING SAY IT!!! (honestly, 'm guilty of this one too).

"Accuracy Vs. Precision" : Most people think they are the sme thing, and use them interchangeably... NOT EVEN CLOSE

Accuracy is the tendency for something to be correct, or to perform to a minimum deviation from the desired result.

In gun terms (where it is most frequently mis-used), accuracy is the ability of the gun to put the bullets where the sights say they are going to go. If the sights are lined up with the X, the bullet hits the X.

Precision is another ball of wax entirely. Precision is the measure of consistency; the ability to preform the same action in the same way every time.

In gun terms precision is the ability of a weapon to group well.

What we want are Accurate shooters, and Precise guns.

An accurate weapon is a nice plus, but that's what adjsutable sights, or kentucky windage are for. The accuracy of the weapon itself isn't all that necessary to good maksmanship if the shooter is well trained and accurate. Precision (both that of the weapon, and the shooter) on the other hand is critical to good marksmanship. If a weapon doesn't put the bullet in the same place if you shoot it at the same place, it doesn't matter how well trained you are, you will not shoot well with that gun.

And finally...

"Proactive" : This is the ultimate no-no to me. It's become such a buzzword, and people have NO ACTUAL IDEA WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.

It's not a word. It's a prefix and a suffix with no root. People assume the root is act, or active, but in the definition used here, active is actually a suffix. If active WERE the root, the prefix pro would make the statement redundant, making the meaning active-active.

Proactive is a pseudo word that people take to mean the oppostive of reactive, but this isn't the case; the opposite of reactive is ACTIVE.

What people really MEAN to say is active , preventative, or pre-emptive, which means acting on existing information or supposition to prevent forseeable undesireable outcomes, or to ensure desireable outcomes.

Whenever someone says "proactive" to me, I know they are full of shit (at least on whatever they are talking about).

UPDATE: One more thing; I despise the current usage of multiple sentences where multiple clauses are more appropriate. Apparently; the proper use of the comma, the semicolon, and the parenthetical expression, have been forgotten by most.

Some have accused me of writing run-on sentences; but this is unjustified. I write sentences that use proper clause structure, and correct punctuation. The semi-colon is the proper punctuation mark for the separation of clauses; commas are the proper punctuation marks for separating phrases or subclauses within a clause; and the parenthtical expression is the proper punctuation set for digressions from, or asides to the main text (as well as annotation of abbreviation, or for references when a document is not footnoted).

(Yes, I deliberately wrote that paragraph so as to use many semicolons and commas as a demonstration)

In colloquial writing (as I most often use), this division is made relatively clear by the length of the pauses that would properly be used in speaking the text (and the parenthicals of course would be used for the asides). Colons are used for ordered lists, or to terminate the preface of lengthly external quotations; semicolons are used for long pauses, and to separate multiple clauses that have comma separated subclauses (if you could substitue " ,and ", or " ,but " , you should probably use a semicolon); commas are used for short pauses, and to separate subclauses within a clause. There are many cases where there is ambiguity in proper punctuation for a sentence, or a clause; and in such situations it is generally accepted (in colloquial writing) that the less formal mark should be used.

I may be dyslexic as all hell; and I think formal grammar is silly, as is the formal and stilted clause structure it enforces ; but I know my vocabulary and punctuation damnit. Formal punctiation serves a useful purpose; it allows you to read aloud in your head as the author intended; and it should be properly observed.

Some Overdue BlogRoll additions

First, I've read the AAAARGH! (AHA thedonovan )for quite some time, but never bothered blogrolling. Well I've been getting a lot of traffic from them lately so I figured, hmm, I should probably blogroll them.

www.thedonovan.com

Fixed

Next, Says Uncle, same thing. Read forever, lots of traffic, you're blogrolled

www.saysuncle.com

Fixed

Next up, snugg harbor. Hom is the sailor, home from the sea, and writing good stuff

www.snuggharbor.blogspot.com

Fixed

David and Cheries new freedom blog started shwoing in my log,s so I started reading, and havent stopped

jeffersoniantoo.blogspot.com

Fixed

And finally I'm adding heads bunker, the firehand, because I think they's cool'n stuff

www.headsbunker.com
elmtreeforge.blogspot.com

Fixed.

I'm pretty sure Im missing some folks, but I've been up since this time yesterday, and they arent in my logs right now.

Oh I know who Im thinkgin of but I cant remember his blogs URL right now, the frequent commenter, Robert.

UPDATE: That would be robertopia.blogspot.com

Going on the Pill

This is how you cheat when you want to lose weight, especially when your diet has been shitty for a year or two, and this is why:

I've been a very large man for more than half my life. I stopped growing when I was 13, at 6'2" and 265lbs. I spent the next about 10 years between 265 and 285 at around 12% bodyfat. The maximum allowable weight for my height is s'posed to be 218, but I was never on that chart, they always had to tape me, and I NEVER recieved a conditional.

A few minutes ago I got on the scale; 370 and I don't even want to think about my actual bodyfat. I stepped off the scale and took that picture. This is the heaviest I have ever been in my life.

The difference? I expended 3500-5000 calories per day for 8+ years, then I had a severe knee injury and didn't walk more than 6 feet without a cane for six months. I gained 60lbs of straight fat, and lost a lot of muscle in that time (which of course was replaced by, more fat). That was more than 5 years ago, and the lowest I've been down to since is 295, about 18 months ago, and of course that was without gaining back all that muscle mass.

I am an immensely strong man. I can easily take my bodywight over my head, even today, and I haven't seriously worked out in years. I can still leg press more than 4 times my body weight (I tried it again last year), even with my knees.

Unfortunately strength doesnt equal fitness, or clothes that fit properly. My health is OK; my blood pressure is low, and my choleterol is fine etc... but what it comes down to; I'm not happy with my weight, my shape, or my fitness right now. I used to run 2 miles in 12 minutes, today I get winded with too many stairs. When I was 19 I did 74 pushups in 2 minutes; I just timed myself, and I did 28. I used to do 68 crunches in 2 minutes, now, 38.

A few years ago (the month before my 8 years ran out) I was recalled to active duty. I didn't find out about the recall for a few months, because I was living in Ireland at the time and failed to notify the AF. I came back to the states that christmas to be closer to my mom, and soon after I got back, I went down to the Social Security Administration to get a new card. A few days later I got a registered letter telling me to report to my nearest armed forces recruiter, national guard armory, or enlistment processing center (I forget the exact wording) within 24 hours of recieving the letter or I would be subject to immediate arrest.

So I go down there and find out that I had been issued a recall order, and that I had been recalled to extended active duty. Of course I hadn't responded to the order because I was in Ireland at the time and didn't receive it. I got torn a new asshole, and I was threatened with all sorts of charges (I was seriously in the wrong, without doubt), and reduction to my permanent enlisted grade of e5 (I hold a reserve commission as a Captain which can be revoked), and they said that I was going back in. One little hitch, I was 345lbs, and had a 50" waist and 21" neck, for their bodyfat standard of 32%.

They said that I wasnt going to get off that easy, and that I would need to come back in and restest every six weeks until I made the weight, or until I turned 34.

Ouch.

After three months I made it to 295 and a 46" waist with that same 21" neck (it doenst get any smaller, jsut bigger when I bulk up), for a 26% bodyfat, then I levelled off and didnt change at all. After few months they decided that I only had to come back once a year. I think they accepted I wasnt going to make the weight, and the press about people not showing up for duty had died down.

The air force PFT standard is 1.5 miles in 9:36, 55 crunches, and 62 pushups, and a maximum of 20% bodyfat.

You can figure the military bodyfat measurement using some basic measuerment (its innacurate, but it's what they use) as shown here: Body Fat Standards

My measurements in the pic on the left:

Weight 265, waist 38", chest 52", neck 20.5" - 13% bodyfat

My Measurements in the pic on the right:

Weight 370, waist 52", chest 56", neck 21" - 34% bodyfat

The last couple years have not been kind to my weight, or my size. I've rollercoastered all over the place with my work involving so much travel, then my mother ... anyway I'm jsut not where I want to be.

Let me say this right now, if I thought I could EVER make PFT again, I would be doing it right now. I would be working for whatever it takes to get down to 20% bodyfat so I could serve again. The second biggest regret in my life is leaving the Air Force (I left because of Clinton. The biggest is marrying my ex-wife). It was the right decision at the time, and I wouldnt have missed the experiences I've had since then, but I miss my service every single day.

At my weight today, my knees are getting worse, faster than they should be. I'm worried about diabetes. My clothes dont fit right or look right.

This was me last september, about 20lbs lighter:

Enough breast beating, enough whinging, enough bullshit, I'm going to change this. I'm tired of it, I'm not going to stay this way. I'm going to change this.

My birthday is April 27th; On April 27th 2006, 13 months from Sunday, I plan on weighing a maximum of 285lbs, with a maximum 46" waist, 52" chest and a 21" neck (giving me a 26% body fat score, and most likely a lower actual bodyfat).

Funny thing is, if you take the bullshit BMI calculation, that would still make be Obese with a BMI of 37 (26 is overweight).

I have an ideal goal of 265lbs, a 42" waist, 52" chest, and 21" neck. This would bring me down to 20% bodyfat by Air Force standards, and I plan on being able to pass all but the run section of the PFT. Honestly there's very little chance I will ever be able to run 1.5 miles again given my knees, but I can definitely bike instead, and I will. Hell, there's even a chance I'll make the new Air Force PFT standards (which are a little easier than they were when I went in). Since 2004, they allow people who can't run for medical reasons to ride the bike instead. If I do make it, then maybe 14 months from now I'll be back in uniform, I don't know, let's see.

So, how am I going to do this?

Well as I outline in my post "Fit, Fat, and Thermodynamics" it's not all that hard to lose up to 10% of your bodyweight, which in my case could be 37 lbs, and it's not shatteringly difficult to lose the second 10%, which would bring me down to jsut under 300. The last 15-35 lbs are going to be the real btich, in fact I expct theyll take up the last six months of that 13 month period by themselves.

The "secret" to maintaining or losing weight is thermodynamics. Eat whatever the hell you want, so long as you burn as much, or more calories than you eat. In terms of bodyweight, your body can't tell the difference between eating 1lb of fat (3500 calories) and 2lb of sugar (about 3500 calories).

If I want to lose 85-105 lbs, in 56 weeks, I'm going to need to average about 2 pounds a week.

Not only that, but because of my muscle structure (pretty damned massive), I tend to actually gain weight to start as I work out, because I gain lean muscle mass very rapidly, and lean muscle mass weighs 1.7 times as much as fat.

Really, I want to lose 145 lbs of fat, and gain 40 lbs of muscle, so in effect I'm going to need to burn 2.5 lbs of fat every week. Thats an extra 8000+ calories per week that I'm going to need to burn, and I'm going to need to get drastic to do it successfully.

My first step, I'm going back on the supplements. This supplement package is specifically designed to make MY body burn fat, and gain muscle (you need to get a professional to figure out what you need, everyones body is different). Every day I'm going to be taking the following

Morning afternoon and evening:

5 grams of creatine
100 mg 1-Androstene-3beta, 17betadiol (1AD)
600mg 19-nor-4-Androstenediol (Norandrodiol)
35mg guggelosterone
200mcg chromium picolinate
50mg ephedrine
65mg caffeine
100mg asprin
A broad spectrum muscle performance oriented multivitamin

Before Meals:

120mg Xenical (blocks absorbtion of up to 35 grams of fat)
500mg chitosan (blocks absorbtion of up to 10 grams of fat)
2 cblocks (Blocks absorption of about 35 grams of complex carbohydrate)

Overnight:

3 ZMA (hastens muscle rebuilding, and allows sterones to metabolize better)
A broad spectrum muscle performance oriented multivitamin
5 grams of creatine
200mg of Ester C

After a month I'll run out of the 1AD and the Norandrodiol because the FDA regulated them last year under new rules for supplements, which made every manufacturer drop these products for fear of liability suits. That said, it's the first month they'll be most effective.

I'm going to regulate my caloric intake to below 3000 a day, though I'm not eating much mroe than that now, in fact most often I'm eating less, but more importantly I'm going to be reducing both fat, and sugar in my diet. Protein protein protein; I'm not going to restrict complex carbs like on atkins, thats not good for you, but I am going to focus strongly on protein.

That means lots of chicken, nuts, and beans, some cheese, some pasta, some rice, a lot of broths that sort of thing. I've done it before when I was in hgihschool weightlifting and wrestling.

What I'm NOT going to do is stop eating the foods I like. I'm just going to tweak my habits a bit.

The most important thing I'll be doing however, is excercise.

My Condo is right across the street from a gym. I get a free month there. That month stats Monday, and I'll be in there at least 1 to 2 hours a day, every day but Sunday.

Every morning, and every night, I'm going to do 50 pushups, 50 crunches, 50 side straddle hops (jumping jacks), 50 leg lifts, and 50 flutter kicks.

I'm going to pick up a cheapass slant board, a weight bench bench, and some free weights (yard sales I'm thinkin) and stick it them in my home office, and instead of just sitting on my ass watching tv while I surf the web, I'm going to be doing random excerscise.

I'm going to buy a bicycle (another yard sale item), and ride every night, for at least 30 minutes (it gets too hot here during the day), in addition to the 30 minutes or more I'm going to do on the excercise bike in the gym.

I'm going to have more sex; No I'm not kidding, the more sex you have the better, it's great excercise, and great motivation. Even at my heaviest, getting sex has never been a problem for me, it's finding someone I actually want to stay with who isnt psychotic that's the problem.

I have a girlfriend, and we have lots of sex already (though not the last two months), we're just going to have more. I'm reasonably certain she'll be 0pleased with the idea as well.

Ok, sure, I'm going to fuck up. I'm going to miss days, I'm going to overdo it some and have to stop for a few days, I'm going to get lazy, but I'm going to keep going at it, until I'm where I want to be, and even then, I'm not going to stop.

At that point I should be burning 4000-5000 calories per day, and only eating 3000. Take that across a 6 day week (one day of rest), plus the 3000 for the sixth day, and I should be able to burn 4 lbs of fat per week under ideal conditions, which means I might be able to average half that, and that's about what it will take to get me to my goal.

I'm going to have to get used to being hungry, tired, and sore. but damnit, I'm tired and sore half the time now as it is, at least then I'll be tired, sore, and looking good.

I'll update the story as it goes along.

Comics Lovin

How many times I have had this conversion I can't tell you; "You said this, but what you really meant was this" No, I really meant what I said "No, I know you think you meant what you said, but actually what you meant was..." Man I jsut want to shoot those people.

The central joke of this oen...yes, yes you can indeed. I stop crackers for a living, and "Hackers" has nothing to do with hacking (except the fun in jokes and references inserted by the "technical advisiors"), but its got everything to do with style, and I love it for that.

I wrote it before, but oh how the mighty have fallen.

The Carnival of the Recipes is up

http://pajamapundits.powerblogs.com/posts/1111756861.shtml

Great stuff.

Thank ME? No, thank YOU

I've been having a rough couple of weeks (read the post immediately below for why) ... actually a rough year really, and I've notbeen in the best of moods today especially (my battery died, then after I recharged it, I spent 9 hours at my mothers re-fixing the computer I just spent three days fixing as of monday)....

Anyway, as I was saying, I just got an email that made my night.... errr morning (it's 0537, i've been up since 0900 yesterday, what exactly would you call that). A reader thanked me for writing this blog, and for the stuff I write over at the Nation of Rifleman forums (where I'm the moderator as well). She thanked me because I make her think about things a bit differently, and I make her laugh.

Folks I can't tell you how great that makes me feel, because that is exactly what I want out of life... or at least out of my writing.

I've been writing professionally since I was a teenager. I had a few magazine articles published, a couple of poems, and some supplementary materials for role playing games. Unfortunately I stopped writing a few years ago because of work, and family, and life in general.

Let me tell you, things build up inside for a guy like me, and I have to let them out. I'm a pretty intense guy in some ways, and a pretty laid back on in others. I'm easy going, I don't get angry or mad like other people do, I'm not a yeller, but I get very... forecefull when Im passionate, or I get VERY sarcastic or jsut humorous, but it has to come out somehow.

A lot of things in this world strike me as absurd, or funny, or sad, or appalling... hell, a lot of things just strike me. I look around, I notice things... mostly I notice other people NOT notcing things, and that bugs me.

I love the free and open exchange of ideas. I love debate. I love argument. I hate PC bullshit that stifles these things. I hate when people look at conversation as a competition that has to be won. I hate that people take disagreement personally.

I want to talk about things. I want people to think about things in new and different way. I want to be contentious, and to stir people up, because then, you're actually think about things, rather than jsut going though the motions.

If I can do that, then maybe those things can change, or get better, or the good things stronger, and maybe people will give a damn a bit more. Yeah, it's corny, but if each of us, one at a time, starts changing peoples minds about things, then eventually the good guys CAN win.

If I can do that, than anything else I do wont matter, and I'll be damned happy, and consider myself damned lucky (emphasis on the damned part I think).

I feel profoundly grateful that I am able to express myself in this way; that I have both the capability, and the forum; and that I have people who want to read what I write.

Well, don't thank me boys and girls, I need to thank you.

Beg, Borrow, and Sell

I left my regular full time consulting gig last year because of a disagreement with my bosses boss. My boss was great (I've got great references), his boss was a slimy little fuckweasel.

Anwyay...

Just a few weeks earlier, I had bought a house with my mother; really for her, though I planned on living there too. I had about 10k left over in cash and my cashed out mutual fund, so I figured all was well.

A few weeks after that, my mothers health took a dramatic turn for the worse. As I noted in comments she's been going through multiple cancers, and various problems that arose from the treatment of them. She had over the course of a few weeks 5 aneurysms (actually we dont know how long they were ther, but they were discovered over the course of a few weeks).

Basically the result has been her partial paralysis, limited mobility, and the loss of some co-ordination and mental function. She's still the smart, funny, stong lady I love, but she forgets things, drifts off in the middle of sentences, forgets youre in the room with her, that sort of thing.

Well, as I said, I bought the house with her, and I was helping with things, and still paying my expenses as well (they total out about $1600 a month, not huge, but not nothing). With her downturn, expenses grew pretty rapidly.

Heres the thing though, my mother refused to live with me during this time. Everything woulf have been sustainable if I only had one mortgage, cable, electric etc.. instead of two. I understand her reasoning though, she is a very proud woman.

One thing was very clear though, she needed me more than my normal jobs would allow. Most of my gigs involve months at a time of traveling all around the country, and the world. Even when I'm in one spot, it tends to involve 80 and hundred hour weeks. Obviously that wasnt going to work, so I decided I was going to limit my work.

A friend of mine was closing up his gun shop, and he needed the help, so I worked there for a couple months, inventorying, pricing, prepping for auction etc.. Actually it was pretty tough work, but great fun (especially since this is one of the bigges Class 3 dealers in the state of AZ. You would not BELIEVE some of the things we found that no-one had any idea... anyway thats another story entirely). He couldnt afford to pay me in cash, so I got merchandise instead, including a few guns, and tons of ammo and accessories.

I've also done other short term gigs in between (a week here, three days there that sort of thing), and for the first time in my life I actually collected unemployment.

Things got more complicated around christmas when my brother moved back from North Carolina, broke... It took him til a month a go to get a job, and I was covering him until then (he's paid me back some, which hes never done before, maybe theres some hope for him yet.)

January rolled around and my brother was back, so I decided I could let my brother handle the load (and he's been doing ok with it since the end of Jan.) and I started looking for full time gigs in earnest.

Well in february, actually about a week before I started this blog I think, the unemployment and my savings both ran out at the same time. So I sold a couple of guns (lord I hate doing that), and a friend loaned me some cash, so I could get through till I had a job. I was still doing some short term stuff, a few hundred coming in hear and there so all should have been good.

I got a job offer after a few weeks, and then a couple days later the company told me they wouldnt be able to hire me (broke, position put off, changed etc...). I mean I literally had a verbal offer not jsut dancing around, and they came back a bit later and said, sorry, we can't. So far this hasnt happened to me once, or twice, but THREE TIMES.

I'm not bitter, really I'm not.

At the end of february I got a firm job offer, but they wouldnt be able to start me until the middle of April. I said I'd think about it, and call me if anything changes, or when you are ready.

A week later I got the exact same deal somewhere else.

I still had a couple hundred coming in every couple weeks, I figured I could probably hold out til april.

Three weeks ago I got another job offer, this time I got the whole benefits package, laptop requisition, everything but siignature on the dotted line, because the start of the gig ws going to be two weeks off. After a week of not hearing from the guy I started calling.

Today, two weeks ater I started calling him, he finally got back to me. The job is mine, but it wont be starting til mid April.

In the last three weeks I have had three of my temp gigs either not happen, or not be able to pay me, or just disappear (without payment), and I've only had one of my gigs pay (and thank you very much, I ertainly needed the money). Because of the other job I had expected to get a paycheck by the first of April, so I payed some bills that I needed to pay, but maybe could have put off.

My insurance renewal jsut came due 7 days ago . I have 8 days left to renew it or I lose my registration. I live in Scottsdale Arizona, and I'm a consultant.

What it comes down to is, I'm in deep shit.

What I'd really like, is to be working again (and not be screwed around by potential employers). I'm good at quite a lot of things, and I'm a professional at several others. My IT resume is here (my physical security resume isn't distributed publicly), and if anyone would like to employ me, temporarily or permanently, just drop me a line.

UPDATE: A couple of people have emailed me asking if they could just send me some money. I am a man of pride, and of honor, but I am a realist. There is no dishonor in taking help when it is needed, and offered. So if you wnat to give me money, I'll take it (dont be surprised if you recieve odd gifts in future however). i've also set up a donation link, jsut below my profile.

UPDATE: I've made my rent and bills for the month, so I've taken down the forsale links, but I'm still leaving a couple items for sale , to give my self a little more breating room in case something goes wrong.

!£$%&$!£$%'@; Bushmaster clinton crippled mags

My mags are getting filthy and I want to clean them, but I cant figure out how to get the damn thing off without drilling it out.

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate Democrats, and especially Motherf***ing Bill F***ing Clinton?

Oh, and I already tried popping the follower out between the lips and trying to get at it from the inside. No dice, take a look:

"Not easily modifiable to hold more than 10 rounds" actually meant something to Bushmaster I guess; that stupid plastic block is part of the baseplate, and takes up half the mag body.

Colt OTOH made it kind of a joke. With my colt mags all I did was pop the baseplate off, and pull the sheetmetal spacer out, instant 20rd mag.

Oh and yes, now that the follower is out it's gonna be a bitch to get back in. I'd rather just drill the damn thing out. I've got half a dozen of these things to do as well YEARGH!!!

How the hell did they ever expect to be able to replace springs, or followers? This is an AR, followers break, and wear out.

Again with the Clinton hating.

The Instructive Value of Fuck

Expletive - An excited utterance
Imperative - A command or instruction
Interrogitive - A question
Expositive - A declaratory statement, description, or account

I was thinking about language commonalities, differences, advantages and disadvantages, occaisoned by me re-reading ot the excellent Bill Bryson book "Mother Tongue".

Specifically I was reading about Noam Chomsky, and there came to me a realization: fuck is one of the few words that can be all four.

Allow me to demonstrate

Expletive: Fuck!
Imperitive: Fuck Off!
Interrogitive: What the fuck?
Expositve: This is fucked up

As so many have pointed out before, Fuck is possibly the most useful word in the english language, but until just now, I hadn't realized its potential scope of applications in the field of linguistics instruction.

Perhaps I should write a FUCK YOU note to Noam Chomsky.

Y'ever wish you had thought of something first?

Anti-groupthink

I'm a genius (by the numbers anyway), I have two degrees, I was born and raised in Boston, and my family was in Massachusetts politics. I write poetry and magazine articles. I've read everything they have. I'm not a christer.

They expect me to agree wholeheartedly with their liberal socialist groupthink, but I hate everything that they stand for.

Here's the thing, I actually know that theres a difference between right and wrong, that judgement isn't a bad thing, and that thinking for youself is a very good thing.

I know that collectivism, "progressivism", marxism, maoism, and communism in all it's forms is EVIL.

I know that enviromentalism, as practiced by the environmental movement is nothing but fear mongering and class warfare; or worse, it is the subterranean agenda of a death cult that believes all human life should be destroyed, exept the priviliged few who can "live in harmony with nature".

I know that feminism achieved all it's real substantive goals in the 70's, and has been taken over by socialist man-hating harridans who teach women that all sex is rape, and that only lesbian love is legitimate; So legitimate in fact that "The Vagina Monologues", which glamorizes lesbian rape (14 year old girl with 30 year old woman, that's rape) has become the seminal cultural expression of the feminist movement.

I know that the only path to freedom, and to real equality, is through equality of opportunity, the cornerstone of which is equality under the law. Setasides, quotas, preferences, minimums, maximums, incentives, extra credit, and eased standards are ALL WRONG.

I know that coerced diveristy is a completely llegitimate concept, exclusively designed to promote those wrong preferences in a more pallatable way. No matter how you clothe it, it is WRONG.

I know that western cuture is the greatest that earth has ever seen, and will continue to be so for the forseeable future; that in fact if we were forced to live in the other cultures being pushed on us by socialists, most of us would die, which I believe is what they want.

I know that the constitution says exactly what it says. It is not a living document. It doesn't change to suit the needs of society every day.

I know that the constitution does not grant rights, it affirms them, and restricts government form infringing on them. I know that those rights our ours by nature, and cannot be taken or limited; but by force, or by willing consent.

I know that I, and only I, am responsible for myself, and for my actions. The government isnt responsible for me, my parents arent responsible for me, society is not responsible for me. If I fail it's my fault, if I succeed it's my achievment.

Most importantly, and most aggravating to the collectivist, I know I'm right. I don't think it; I don't have an idea about it; I dont have a consensus of my peers supporting it; I know it.

I'm right, they're wrong, that's it.

Nothing More, Nothing Less

Heres the thing; you don't need to see why someone could have "an arsenal" or a sub-machine gun, because limitations on rights aren't about justifying why I should be able to do something, they are about you justifying why I shouldnt.

Oh and what exactly is "an arsenal" (no I dont want to get into the legal definition, I know it already, I'm talking about what the anti-gunners think an arsenal is)? One man can only shoot one gun at a time, how is it more dangerous that they have several? How is it more dangerous that someone has a lot of ammunition?

Disregarding that as the irrelevancy it is, why should a law abiding individual be treated like a criminal because his possesions could be used in an unlawful way?

The last time an automatic weapon (which is what a Sub-machine gun is) was generally avialable to the civilians outside of law enforcement was 1934. Since the passage of the National Firearms act of 1934 there have been extremely strict restrrictions as to who can buy or own an automatic weapon of any kind. ALL Firearms, from single shot to fully automatic, were restricted even further with the gun Control Act of 1968 (conventionally known as NFA and GCA'68 respectively).

Most new machine guns of any kind were banned in 1986, and the rest were banned by 1994 (actually back-banning items that were already here before '86, but somehow missed being banned before), except for the most strictly limited purposes... or of course for the military and law enforcement.

You can still own the machine guns made before '86, but you have to go throuh a 1 year FBI investigation and background check as well as a background check and approval from your local senior law enforcement official (police chief or sherrif generally).

Again, this is true unless you are in law enforcement. Ironically, since 1934 there has only been one murder commited with a legally owned machine gun, and it was a police officer who used a department owned weapon to kill his wife.

Stepping away from automatic weapons, the department of Justice estimates that approximately 70 million people legally own firearms in this country, out of a population of 295 million. Of those, one in 140,000 will commit a crime with that legally owned firearm.

1 in 140,000.

Almost all crimes commited with firearms are commited by prior felons who have been banned from owning firearms since 1968 federally, and in most states long before that.

Of all fatal shootings, at least 25%, and some estimate as much as 40% are one criminal killing another. Another notable statistic, 50% of all deaths from gunshot wounds are suicides (or more, considering some are reported as accidental). Further restriction of guns isn't going to change the number of deaths here, it will jsut change the means; actually it probably wont even do that, because in many states it is FAR easier to purchase a gun illegally than legally. I can go jsut about anywhere in this country and get a gun for $100 in an hour.

Restricing legal gun ownership wont in any way change these problems; putting people who commit crimes with guns in jail will.

Justifying gun restrictions "for the greater good" is nothing but illogical rhetoric.

Thats just like saying that because 44.5% of all prisoners are black, and 28.5% of all black men in America will spend some time in prison, that black men are a menace and should be locked up.

Sure, not all black men are criminals, but given the percentage, isn't it worth doing, for the greater good of society?

(statistics from human rights watch)

Please note again, the percentage of law abiding gun owners who commit crimes with those legally owned guns is ridiculously small. 1 in 140,000 is .0007%, and amounts to about 500 actual criminal acts performed per year with legally owned guns out of the 70 million owners of 200 million or so legally owned guns in this country.

Guns don't make people into criminals, nor do they make them more likely to be criminals. A gun is a tool, a piece of metal, an inanimate object. Guns have no inherent danger; the danger is in the intent (or negligence) of the user.

Those who would restrict, or ban guns are simply saying that no-one but the state is responsible enough, or adult enough to own a gun. They are convinced that guns are the cause of crime, and that they must be controlled by the government. This is risible on it's face. If you subscribe to this logic, let me point you to this:

Sensible Penis Control

What guns ARE to those who would misuse them, or who would ban them, is a symbol. To the immature and criminal, they are a symbol of power. To hoplophobes (people who are afraid of weapons), they are a symbol of hate, and fear, and evil.

But neither of these is a rational evaluation. Symbology is not reality.

Guns are tools which allow you to extend your reach and power. They allow the weak to defend themselves against the strong. They are a fine mechanical instrument, and skill in them is personally gratifying.

Used rationally, and responsibly, a gun is far less dangerous than common houshold chemicals, or your car (both of which kill far more people every year than guns do, especially if you factor out suicides, who will find a way to die whether they have a gun or not, and even more so criminals killing criminals).

People who want to ban, or restrict gun ownership are actually saying they dont believe that people are capable of being rational and responsible.

Of course they dont see it that way, they see themselves as "helping to reduce the danger", but this is completely facetious. The danger exists in mens hearts, and minds, not in a piece of steel.

All they are doing is assuaging their emotions; fear, doubt, and irresponsibility.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Haloscan is barfing

Good news is, I have a copy of all the comments. THey arent lost, I can still see them in my admin interface, you jsut cant get to them from the main page.

I'm hoping they fix it soon. I don't mind a free service going down eveyr once in a while, but I'm a pro memeber. I actually paid for the privilige of not having ads, and to get a 10,000 word limit. It's kind of irritating when paid services dump like this.

UPDATE:Haloscan fixed the problem (mostly). Seems a server went down for about an hour, knocking a bunch of folks out. Not sure what's up with the message count, but at least the comments are back. Oh and reader AceGarp left a comment that was accidentally deleted, sorry about that.

Airplanes and Women

Airplanes can kill you quickly; a woman takes her time.

Airplanes can be turned on by a flick of a switch.

Airplanes don't get mad if you 'touch and go.'

Airplanes don't object to a preflight inspection.

Airplanes come with manuals to explain their operation.

Airplanes have strict weight and balance limits.

Airplanes can be flown any time of the month.

Airplanes don't come with in-laws.

Airplanes don't care about how many other airplanes you have flown.

Airplanes and pilots both arrive at the same time.

Airplanes don't mind if you like to look at other airplanes.

Airplanes don't mind if you buy airplane magazines.

Airplanes expect to be tied down.

Airplanes don't comment on your piloting skills.

Airplanes don't try and make you crash and burn.

Airplanes don't whine unless something is really wrong.  

However, when airplanes suddenly go quiet, just like women, it's a bad thing.

And thus, I ruin my social life even further, but hey, it's funny.

I have GOT to get me one of THESE!

And for you more traditionalist types there are other versions, like this original style tanker carbine:

Some may ack "why bother, when you can already get a boltie in more effective calibers".

Well theres a few reasons:

1. I love the enfield action, but I dont care for .303 british.

2. I don't own any other .303 guns, and I don't plan to, but 7.62 russian? oh yeah. It's the ideal companion piece to this:

3. 7.62 russian is CHEAP.

4. AK mags. It will take the 10 rounder single stack, and can take the doublestacks with modificatiation. Theres just something useful about sharing your ammo, and your mags with your assault rifle (I want a Kel-Tec SU-16 for the same reason)

HT: The Mad Ogre

UPDATE: Reader Brad Tyler writes "I like my 7.62mm NATO FR-8 for the same job. Not as smooth an action as a Lee-Enfield but I can shoot cheap, accurate and powerful .308 instead of 7.62x39."

Oh you mean like this Brad?

What are Your Useful Skills

Basically he was aksing folks whet their useful skills and experience amounted to, and I thought it was an interesting topic, because my interests and experience are all over the damn map. When people ask me what I'm into, I usually say "everything".

As a 12 year old my first job was as a professional office cleaner for one of my uncles (I have 16 aunts and uncles; Irish family). There are actually a lot of things to learn to do the job well, and a lot of basic tricks to do the job quickly without injuring your knees and back.

Next I worked in an antique furniture restoration and refinishing shop where I learned carpentry, cabinetmaking, and finishing. I also learned some luthiery, and shipwright skills (I built or repaired, and finished or refinished a couple of guitars. I helped build a 32 foot wooden ocean sloop with my uncle, and I built and restored a few small wooden boats, a small aluminum boat, and small fiberglass boat), and of course I had to move a lot of expensive furniture.

Then I worked in a small custom bicycle factory where I learned to weld and fabricate metal. This would also be the first time I deliberately violated ATF regulations (gee, it's really amazing what you can do with the materials in a bicycle factory, and some manuals from palladin press).

I've been flying since I was 13, and I got my private pilots license on my 17th birthday. I'm also a licensed amateur radio operator (KB1DXJ), an International Radiotelephone Operator (all pilots are), and a High Frequency Radiotelephone Operator (all pilots who fly trans oceanic flights have to be).

My mother was not enthusiastic about my flying... not in the least actually (she's deathly afraid of airplanes, she flys, but she gets... mental). I'd been cooking since I was a little kid (during one of her bouts with cancer I tought myself how to cook, at around age seven), and I was pretty damend good at it. Well I wanted to be a pilot, and she wanted me to be a chef, so we compromised. She would help pay for my flying lessons, if I would take professional cooking classes, so I did both.

I headed into the Air force, and went to college for aerospace engineering.

I also had side jobs as a nursing assistant in a nursing home, an oil change and brake job mechanic, a security and audio installer, a convenience store and gas station clerk, and an autoparts store manager.

Since the Air force and college I have worked as a body guard, a driver, various physical security work, a self defense instructor, and I also played semi-pro football (not a useful skil that, but fun). Unfortunately I aggravated a training injury a few years ago, and I can't really do that work anymore.

My primary job since the re-injury of my knees has been as a security consultant, for both physical security, and electronic and information security (computers, networks, and communication systems, policy and procedure, and investigation and forensics). In connection with that, I design and implement high performance and/or large scale networked computing architectures.

I also develop training and educational materials for security (both kinds), and during the dot com boom I used to write for some technology and internet magazines and websites (the only one still around that I was a regular contributor to is techrepublic)

I've used all of these skills in my hobbies.

I have always built lots of stuff out of wood, metal, and leather as a hobby.

I've been into the martial arts since I was 5, and I've collected swords and knives since I was 13. I have other hobbies like the SCA, shooting, and R/C cars, boats, and aircraft.

I build some of my own furniture, I do chess sets, I've made bondage and fetish gear, I've made LOTS of armor.

I've done some gunsmithing, and made some siege weapons, bows, crossbows, catapaults (and other weapons of the type, ballista, mangonel etc...). I've also done some amateur bladesmithy (a blacksmith trained me on the forge while I was in college after some creative begging), and some bladecrafting with premade blanks.

I'm a transportation nut, and I've built or co-built boats, cars, airplanes, motorcycles, and Karts. I've done a LOT of tuning stuff on cars and bikes.

I also make little electronic gadgets and I've built a couple of robots.

I play guitar (badly), and I sing, (pretty damned well), mostly classic rock, blues, and soul; also some folk and Irish, and of course filk (an SCA pre-requisite). I was in a showband varying in size from 8-16 members depending on the week, and the gig, and we had some fun. I was the lead singer, and we did a lot of blues and soul classics, a couple of classic rock hits, and even a few hard rock and metal tunes, rearranged for our guys to have fun with (I do a mean set of AC/DC).

This is why I say my interests are pretty much everything. A lot of these things Im barely a journeyman at, but I'm an odd sort of fellah. When I get interested or involved in something, theres jsut some drive in me that forces me to gecome an expert at it or to absorb as much info I can, or to be the best I can. It's amazing how much of that crap is still floating around.

Of all the things I've done, the only one I wouldnt feel confident doing again without retraining is the medical work. You jsut dont mess around with peoples lives. That said, I still remember a hell of a lot of it, which helps when I'm dealing with my mothers illness, and especially in dealing with doctors, nuses, and recalcitrant peristaltic IV pumps thatmy mother keeps fouling and that the nurses dont have time to fix.

I should also mention that I'm an insomniac with eidetic memory, which is NOT photographic memory. True photographic memory is total retention with total instant recall. I have the total retention part, but I have something called highly associative recall. Its not instant or total, but it's still pretty damned useful.

I also read like a maniac, and obsessively watch history, science, and trivia shows (I love the 70, 80s, 90s etc..), and the hitler channels (history, discovery, military, biography etc...), so I have a truly vast store of useless knowledge in my head.

Fun stuff eh? How about you post your lsit on your own blog, trackback to me, and/or leave the permalink in comments, and spread the meme.

The Ultimate Road Trip - Part 2

I once did the 2748 road miles from Prescott, AZ to Boston in 54 hours, for an average speed of 51mph. I've also taken 12 days to do it.

I'll take the second option if given the choice.

The best way of crossing the country to my mind would be a piper malibu, but he did specify a road vehicle.

The best road vehicle for a long trip where you can't stop at motels or hotels, is a semi-compact or mid-size SUV (like a chevy trailblazer). They get decent mileage, have big gas tanks, enough space for you to stick everything you need to go non-stop with, and most importantly they have enough space to sack out in the back. Oh and if you kit one out, you can have some fun off roading, and maybe stick a couple of quads or dirtbikes on a trailer.

Thats fine if you feel like camping out, but Joes question involved all expenses paid. To me, that means decent hotels nights, and some time to see the sights, and have some fun.

The best long distance highway cruiser where you can actually stop when you feel like it, is a BMW M5 (though the E55AMG is a close second). The M5 is almost universally recognized as the greatest sports sedan in the world, and is quite literally designed to cruise all day at 155mph. It's a frikken balst to drive, and it has plenty of room for you, your companion, and all the stuff you could want on the trip (including long guns, and plenty of ammo).

That being, said, if I were limited to a road vehicle, and had all the time I wanted to make the trip, I'd take a brand new aluminum CSX 4000, which is modern production Shelby Cobra, with state of the art brakes, suspension and amenities. One of the fun bits about the CSX is that you can choose any powerplant you want, and I'd go with a supercharged Dove aluminum 427, pumping out about 700hp, which in a 2400lb car gives you a 0-60 of under 4 seconds, and a 10 second 1/4 mile.

For this trip I'd fit the thing out with a multiband ham rig (KB1DXJ here), a CB, a valentine one, a Sirius sattelite radio and MP3 jukebox, a semirigid soft top with glass rear window, slide up windows instead of the usual roll down side curtains, a le mans trunk lid (which gives a lot more cargo room), and a tail trunk (doubling the cargo room). I'd also build a thermoelectric cooler into the center console (for a couple of genuine cold ones).

Next to me would be my best friend of 21 years, Jim. He's never been west of the misissipi, or anywhere south of D.C. except florida, and I think he needs his horizons broadened.

In the trunk would be a case of good whiskey, a couple of broken down AR's. a couple of folding stock shotguns, and half a case of ammo for each; leaving us with just enough room in the trunk and tailpack for the soft top, and our clothes.

So, on to the details of the Ultimate Cross Country Road trip....

Okay we'll start at San Diego, and then start to make the PCH run, stopping in 'Bu for a couple hours (hit the pier), then up to Santa Barbara for the night.

From Santa Barbara take the PCH straight up into Monterey. it's one of the best drives in this country. Overnight in monterey, and then up to great america for the day, and then drive up to SF late night.

First weekend, we party in San Francisco, then make the run over to Yosemtie, which needs at least three days.

The last day in Yosemite, we drive up to tahoe. Stop for one night in tahoe, and then the next day and night in Reno; then it's on to vegas, a night there, and then we flip over to the canyon for a day and a night.

From the canyon, we hit Zion and overnight there, then make the run up I-15 through Utah, into Wyoming and Yellowstone. Take 3 days in yellowstone, then take the small roads through wyoming, and down to steamboat, and overnight there (some incredibly gorgeous driving there)

After the overnight in steamboat, take the back roads down into vail, the up through the Eisenhower and down into Denver, then Co. Springs for the next overnight.

Head down tje 25 to QQ, and pick up the 40, then over to Amarillo for dinner at "The Big Texan". Let's see if Jimmy can eat the 72 ouncer (I've done it twice).

Next day we head over to OKC, then down to Badlands tactical for the week long SWAT/Sniper course (I've done gunsite, and Thunder Ranch moved to Oregon).

Head down to Dallas, visit friends and do some shoointg (oh did I forget to mention, we'll be doing some shooting all along the way), then head down to Austin for a night of Blues and BBQ, and head over to Corpus Christi in the morning, and take the night to party a bit, but not too late so we can get up early to start the gulf coast run up to NoLA

I think it goes without saying, this will occaison a few days stop to party, then we resume the gulf coast run, all the way down to key west which should take two good days.

Key west needs at least three days, maybe five just to chill out.

From the keys we cruise up to Daytona for an overnight, and up to Savannah for the next night, then cruise on up to Myrtle Beach for another overnight, then on to DC, taking the long way around, crossing the chesapeake twice, including through the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel, and then through Annapolis.

I hate DC, but it has some great stuff to see at the Smithsonian, especially the national air and space museum.

From D.C. it's a straight shot up to Atlantic city, and that needs a good solid two days to enjoy.

We run up from AC to Boston (about 8 hours), and party in the old home town for a weekend.

Finally we run up to Mt. Washington on a tuesday through thursday (to avoid the tourists). Actually we'll stay at one of the places on Lake Winnepesaukee overnight, then get up early, and get to the Mt. Washington auto road so we can be first in line, ahead of all the idiots in minivans.

If you havent driven it, it's one of the most fun drives in the world... unless you get stuck behind an idiot in a van.

I've done every segment of this trip at one time or another (though not at once) and let me tell you, it's worth every second. I figure the whole thing would take between a six weeks and two months depending on just exactly how mch fun we stopped to have along the way. If I had the cash, and the time, I guarantee you I would be doin it.

The Ultimate Road Trip - Part 1

The basic premise is this:

You have the opportunity to go back in time, arriving on the east coast of North America circa 1650, and your goal is to cross the North American continent, taking as much time as you need. When/if you reach the Pacific coastline, you’ll be transported back to the present day.

Your equipment for this journey will be as follows (taken back in the time capsule with you):

-- enough gold to buy provisions for the first five days’ travel
-- a small backpack containing some clothing essentials
-- a winter coat, raincoat and boots
-- waterproof sleeping bag
-- an axe
-- a box of 1,000 “strike anywhere” waterproof matches
-- a modern topological map of North America, binoculars and a compass
-- and a U.S. Army First Aid kit.

Weapons:
-- ONE long gun (and 800 rounds, but no scope)
-- ONE handgun (and 1,000 rounds)
-- TWO knives.

Once there, you’ll be given a horse, a mule and a dog—and apart from that, you’re on your own. Remember you’ll be traveling through deep woods, open prairie, desert and mountains. You may encounter hostile Indian tribes and dangerous animals en route, which should be considered when you answer the following questions (and only these):

1. What long gun would you take back in time with you?
2. What handgun?
3. Which two knives?

The Carnival of the New

I happen to be in it.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Ballistics

Lets talk about ballistics, and numbers. In particular I want to talk about alternative chamberings to the big 3 (9mm, .45, and .40s&w) in service and defensive pistols, the numbers they push out, and specifically how the external ballistics relate to terminal ballistcs.

First I want to talk about a couple "super calibers", the .357SIG, the 10mm, the .45 super, the .460 Rowland and a couple of others. The commonality between them is that they are all near the limit of what an automatic pistol of reasonable size and weight can chamber.

I specifically recommended that we adopt a sidearm capable of chambering .45 super in "The Right weapon for the Job" and "Getting Down to Specifics", because a .45super chambered weapon can aslo chamber .45 acp, and because it offers excellent performance against soft body armor at short range with hard penetrator loads.

I have two .45's that are rated for .45 super. I don't bother with it because it doesn't seem to give me enough advantage over my +p acp in the barrel lengths I shoot, but I load high performance hollowpoints or frangibles. In a military application where we are limited to hardball, or penetrator loads; or with ANY load in a carbine or SMG; the difference in stopping power could be huge.

I figure the .45 super is the most sensible up-powered option for a .45 frame, and more importantly to my current thinking, for a pistol caliber carbine or SMG.

Just for versatility, I really like convertible firearms; in addition to my two .45 supers, up until a month ago when I sold it, I had a SIG P229 in .40. One of the best thing about that gun; a simple barrel and spring change, and its now a .357.

Of course the starting point for the .357 SIG, was the .40 s&w, and that in turn was based on the the 10mm auto. Unfortunately most people found full powered 10mm a bit unwieldy in most of the weapons chambered for it, so the .40 S&W was developed by cutting the length, reducing the charge, and lightening the bullet (basically its a compromise cartridge, with a standard .40 performing about the same as a +p 9mm, and a +p .40 performing a bit better than a standard pressure .45acp).

I really like the 10mm as a cartridge. Its a powerful and efficient design, that allows for more cartridges in the same space as the .45 acp, and can be comfortably downloaded to the same power levels as the .45, or comfortably uploaded into .41 magnum territory.

I have two 1911s, and a Glock 21, either of which could be converted to 10mm with an upper change (slide, barrel, springs) and some new magazines, as the G21 and G20 use the exact same frame, and the 10mm OAL is within range to feed properly in a ramped 1911. 10mm is also very well proven in SMG's and carbines, and is in fact the most powerful chambering curently offered in the MP5 platform.

The wildcard of the group I lsited above is the .460 rowland. The only thing I know about this caliber is the numbers, which are pretty impressive, and that it will feed in a standard 1911 frame, and is a bit shorter than a .45 win mag.

Some would also include the .400 cor-bon, but honestly I jsut dont find it interesting. It seems to offer no advantage over the .45 super. 10mm on the other hand, and .460, are both serious magnum level calibers (or can be).

Here's some numbers from Winchester, Federal, Cor-bon, Black Hills, and Triton who offer a full range from low pressure practice loads, to about the hottest factory loaded ammo you can generally buy in most places (that said, there are .41, .44, and 10mm loads at up to 50% over the standard factory energy numbers listed here).

So here's the baseline, a +p .45 acp

45 ACP +P Factory Ballistics
165 grain at 1250fps 573ftlbs
185 grain at 1150fps 543ftlbs
200 grain at 1050fps 490ftlbs
230 grain at 950fps 461ftlbs

And a couple of magnums and common revolver chamberings etc... for comparison

.45 COLT
200 grain at 1100fps 537ftlbs

.41 MAG
170 grain at 1275fps 614ftlbs

.44 MAG
240 grain at 1260fps 848 ftlbs
240 grain at 1350fps 971 ftlbs
300 grain at 1150fps 879 ftlbs

.45 WIN MAG
200 grain at 1450fps 934ftlbs

Finally here's the calibers we're interested in:

.357 SIG factory loads
115 grain at 1560fps 621ftlbs (the fastest load I'd found, and I think over spec pressure)
125 grain at 1350fps 506ftlbs (the default standard spec load)
125 grain at 1480fps 608ftlbs (max spec pressure load)
135 grain at 1320fps 522ftlbs
145 grain at 1180fps 448ftlbs
145 grain at 1250fps 503ftlbs
147 grain at 1050fps 360ftlbs (this is a heavy compressed tungsten subsonic frangible for use in aircraft)

10mm (in theory the full power loads, but they seem light)
135 grain at 1400fps 588ftlbs
150 grain at 1325fps 585ftlbs
165 grain at 1250fps 573ftlbs
170 grain at 1360fps 698ftlbs
180 grain at 1220fps 595ftlbs
200 grain at 1200fps 639ftlbs

.45 Super
165 grain at 1.400 fps 718ftlbs
185 grain at 1,300 fps 694ftlbs
200 grain at 1,200 fps 639ftlbs
230 grain at 1,100 fps 618ftlbs

450 SMC
165 grain at 1,450fps 770ftlbs
230 grain at 1,150fps 675ftlbs

.40 Super
135 grain at 1,800 fps 971ftlbs
165 grain at 1,600 fps 938ftlbs
200 grain at 1,300 fps 750ftlbs

460 Rowland
185 grain at 1,550fps 987ftlbs
200 grain at 1,450fps 934ftlbs
230 grain at 1,340fps 917ftlbs

.400 Cor-Bon
135 grain at 1450fps 630ftlbs
150 grain at 1350fps 607ftlbs
160 grain at 1200fps 543ftlbs
165 grain at 1300fps 619ftlbs

.38 Casull
124 grain at 1,800fps 892ftlbs
147 grain at 1,650fps 889ftlbs

One thing is certain, most of the loads listed are pretty potent, and even the "weakest" of the high performance calibers have better numbers than the strongest of the standard pressure .45 acps (400-450 ftlbs depending on load) and most of the +p's.

It surprised me that the 10mm and .45 super loads were so close. I thought for sure that the 10mm could be loaded much heavier, but at right around 700ftlbs, both max energy loads I listed are supposed to be max pressure loads (meaning you cant load them to be more powerful without exceeding the spec - more on this later).

The .460 Rowland, as I said before, is pretty impressive, at least according to the numbers. There's some serious energy in those cases; and from what I understand the .460 is basically a slightly shortened and downloaded .45 win mag, so that's not surprising.

It also surprised me how much energy the .38 casull and .40 super are, in theory, delivering; but the fact is, at those 16-1800fps velocities, those lightweight bullets will probably be disintegrating on impact.

Also, it's kind of pathetic how mild the standard factory .41 and .44 magnum loads are. I've seen .44 loads at 1200ftlbs, and .41 loads at 900ftlbs. These lower level loads are far below the peaks loadings that have been offered in the past, but companies are wimping out on liability. They really just dont want someone blowing their gun up and suing them.

More on that: It seems that the 10mm loads listed are a bit watered down, and there are hotter commercial loads available, but not from the majors because they are all apparently exceeding, or at least bumping real hard on the max SAAMI spec.

Winchester offers a 175gr load at 1290 fps and about 650ft/lbf, and thats about the highest energy full weight load (there are some ultra lightweight 10mm's loading 125gr and 135gr bullets which are loaded to insane velocities) that the major manufacturers are pushing out.

Small companies like Doubletap Ammo, are going a little hotter, and apparently exceeding SAAMI specs. That doesn't mean they arent safe, (SAAMI is full of pansie asses) just that the SAAMI spec is low. The same could be said of the .45 super (the only one of the other uprated calibers that is a SAAMI standardized offering); and of the .357SIG. The manufacturers of .357 sig pistols are already going to SAAMI with a much higher pressure spec than initially adopted because the pistols and the cartridge can be uprated by as much as 20% over the current "max" spec loads without any excessive pressure issues.

Hunting around online, I found a chart listing these 10mm loadings. According to the site, all are over SAAMI max pressure specs, but still appeared to be safe in a G20.

165 grains at 1400 fps 718 ftlbs
150 grains at 1476 fps 726 ftlbs
220 grains at 1335 fps 792 ftlbs (yipes)

Here's the loadings doubletap is offering.

135grains at 1600 fps 767 ftlbs
155grains at 1475 fps 750 ftlbs
165grains at 1425 fps 744 ftlbs
180grains at 1330 fps 707 ftlbs
200grains at 1270 fps 715 ftlbs

On the extreme end, some lunatic worked up the following:

13.4 gr blue dot, 155gr hornady XTP at 1618 fps 900ftlbs

which is heading into .44 magnum territory, but which apparently produces no signs of excessive pressure from a Glock 20 (which because it is the most common 10mm pistol in public hands, has become the standard testing pistol for the caliber).

The original "proof" load for the 10mm (which is supposed to be the maximum load used to test the gun to see if it will blow up) was 170gr at 1400fps and 740 ftlbs (though it never actually hit 1400 from a real gun, that number was from a pressure barrel ), which was the load that SAAMI set their original max by backing down 10% from.

That's plenty stout for any human target, through a car door and heavy clothing, which is why the FBI loved it (by the numbers anyway).

Personally would think 13.4gr of blue dot behing a 155gr from an unsupported, and relatively loose chamber (in a G20) would be pretty close to suicidal, but the guy says that after testing to max pressure, it's what he backed off to, to the point where there were no signs of excess pressure. Also he was using a 24lb recoil spring, a tungsten guide rod, and a titanium firing pin.

In that same realm of slightly insane loads, here's a fun load out from a 5" .45 super

255 grains at 1180 fps 788 ftlbs

That is by far the heaviest load I've seen for .45 super, and I don't think I'd want to push that far, but there are a bunch of loads right around 700ftlbs that I would be comfortable with.

What's real fun though; is when you scale up from a 5" barreled pistol, into a 10-12" barreled SMG, or a 16" barreled carbine. From a 16" barrel, that same 255gr load is pushing 1650 fps and 1540ftlbs. The 185gr max velocity load listed above, will clock in at 1940fps and 1545 ftlbs.

Okay so I've been throwing around a lot of numbers, but what exactly are they, and what do they mean?

First, they were derived from the standard energy calculations:

Energy = Mass in grains * (velocity in fps)e2/450400

Heres an online calculator

http://www.cruffler.com/BallisticCalculators/BallisticCalculator.shtml

Unfortunately, while muzzle energy is easy to calculate (as are retained energy, and momentum), they dont necessarily mean very much. They are just numbers.

You would think that given the amount of raw data available, someone would be able to write a computer simulation of terminal ballistics that had relevance to killing power, and more importantly to stopping power, but we still haven't figured that one out.

An aside: Not only is muzzle energy not a useful measure of stopping power, but muzzle energy isn't even a reliable indicator of recoil, because there are quite a few factors determining how much recoil is felt. Just off the top of my head, the weight of the bullet, the composition of the powder, the hold (or mount), the grip or stock shape and material, the total energy, the speed of the recoil impulse, the length of the barrel and the weight of the gun all are major factors in felt recoil.

As an example of how these factors interact, the 500 s&w is the heaviest recoiling standard pistol cartridge out there, even at the almost 5 lb weight of the gun. Out of a 7 lb carbine, the same cartridges recoil is comparitively mild.

Historically the .357 magnum is the best manstopper out of a carry pistol, but its energy levels are a lot lower than some other calibers with worse stopping records. Penetration, bullet construction, expansion etc... are all important considerations.

These things are just too complicated for anything other than real world experience, and maybe high end computer modeling. Of course the problem with that is, you have to have good data, and know how to weight each factor etc... and we just don't know how to weight things.

The best numbers we have are from Marshall and Sanow, and while their methods were sound by actuarial standards, they certainly werent scientifically sound.

My personal favorite numbers only solution is that preffered by the mad ogre (a reader of this site)...

Defensive Power Factor

Bullet Weight in Grains, Times Caliber, Times Velocity, Divided by 1000 = Defensive Power Factor or DPF for short.

For 9MM and such you of course use its actual measured Caliber .355 or what ever your bullet is actually sized at. 10MM is .40 cal etc.

Example:
A 230 grain .45 load: 230*.45= 103.5 *900/1000 = DPF 93.15

Actually, I really badly need to qualify that statement. I said it would rank loads in about the same order as real world data; this is only true when the velocities are close to each other.

Let me calc out some examples to show what I mean:

Calculating the DPF of the superhot 10mm load listed above comes out like this:

200gr * .40 caliber * 1778fps /1000 = DPF 142.4, 1404ftlbs

The .30 carbine come out like this:

110gr * .30 caliber * 1990fps /1000 = DPF 65.67, 967 ftlbs

Okay that looks like it's probably pretty close to the real world effectiveness of the two by comparison.

Where things get interesting in when velocity differences are more than a few hundred FPS.

MadOgre suggests scaling rifles by 100 instead of 1000, but that's not really all that useful. Theres no scienctific justification for the arbitrary scaling factor, and even from rifle to rifle its not that useful. The problem is that energy is an exponential function of velocity. When there are relatively small differences in velocity the disparity is relatively small, but when you are talking about 1000+ fps differences in velocity, the energy differences are pretty huge.

Lets take the standard M193 5.56 NATO, and M80 7.62 loads as an example:

55gr * .223 caliber * 3250fps/1000 = DPF 39.8, 1289 ftlbs

147gr * .30 caliber * 2700fps/1000 = DPF 119.07, 2380ftlbs

I don't think anyone would argue that the .30 carbine was 50% more effective than the 5.56 nato, as the DPF would indicate, nor would I argue that the 5.56 was 50% more effective than the .30 carbine.

I also wouldn't try to argue the 7.62 nato was 3 times as effective as the 5.56. I might, say twice as effective, but not 3 times, and no-one on the planet would say that a 10mm carbine would be 20% more effective than a 7.62 nato as the DPF would indicate.

Sooooo, how do we deal with the disparity?

Lets look at the example of the standard .45. 10mm, 5.56, 10mm carbine and 7.62 nato:

.45acp WPF 152.1
10mm WPF 279.2
10mm carbine WPF 561.6
5.56 nato WPF 386.7
7.62 nato WPF 714

If we change our criteria from caliber to surface area we get the following:

.45acp 34510
10mm 54793
10mm carbine 110214
5.56 nato 31323
7.62nato 108052

It would seem the surface area numbers weight caliber too highly, putting the standard .45acp as more powerful than the 5.56, and the 10mm carbine load as more powerful than the 7.62 nato.

By these same numbers a .454 casull would be more powerful than the 300 win mag.

Toad came back with...

There's a reason why I'm an insomniac.

There's a huge logical hole in Toads suggestion there. All the results would still be proportional.

Okay lets run the numbers again as an example.

45 acp would go from 34510 to 478, which is 3.14 times my original WPF number of 152.1

7.62 nato would go from 108052 to 2242 which is 3.14 times my original WPF number of 714

Clearly the size hole made is important, and yes there are substantial differences in area vs caliber proportionality.

Some maxmims:

• Killing power increases as the velocity of bullets of the same caliber and mass increases.
• Killing power increases as the mass of bullets increases at the same caliber and velocity.
• Killing power increases as diameter increases at the same mass and velocity.

Leaving out bullet construction and shot placement here, and assuming a bullet doesn't fail catastrophically, how do we figure out what is the most important. How do we weight them?

We know that bullet energy is a real measurement of power derived from mass and velocity, but that it is not directly indicative of killing power.

A higher velocity load at the same mass and caliber will have significantly higher in killing power (i.e. .38spl vs .357 magnum).

A higher mass load at the same velocity and caliber will increase killing power, but not all that much unless the animal is extremely heavily structured. The heavier the animal, and the more penetration required, the more important mass becomes. Lets assume we are talking about a human.

A higher caliber load, at the same mass and velocity (thus the same energy), will have more killing power than the higher mass load, but its non deterministic in relation to the higher velocity load.

So mass would seem to be the least important factor, but how do you rank the others?

Well if we take a look at the .454 and the .500 S&W, and we load both to the same mass and velocity, the .454 would have more killing power due to it's higher sectional density, rather than the .500 with its higher caliber, though the differences would be pretty small.

That would seem to indicate velocity is more important than mass, however it requires a larger proportional change in velocity vs caliber to produce a proportional change in killing power i.e. a 25% increase in caliber at the same mass and velocity will produce more killing power than a 25% increase in velocity in the same caliber and mass.

Oh and to physics folks, yes I know that momentum and impulse are more relevant, but most gunnies aren't used to talking in those terms, besides which momentum is a dreived dimesnion from velocity and mass anyway.

That means the curves cross, possibly at multiple points, and cant be figured with simple arithmetic, though we may be able to estimate it.

I'm jsut not sure how to do that, and neither is anyone else, though it will never keep us from trtyin (and then from writing, or bitching about it at the range, and in gun shops and hunting camps).

It's none of OUR DAMNED BUSINESS

To all of you out there who are saying that we have a moral obligation to "save terry":

It's none of our god damned business, and we should stop acting like it is.

Point one, the law is clear, and has repeatedly sided with Michael Schaivo. He has the legal right to do this under every law associated with the matter.

Point two, no law can be made, no subpoena can be issued, no executive order can be signed that will "save" this woman. Congress has no authority, the president has no authority, republicans have no authority, the governor of florida has no authority over this womans life.

If you want the government to do something you are opening the door to them controlling your life in the same way. "Saving Terry" by some trick of the law would be completely unconstitutional, and any attempt to legitimize it would be a constitutional disaster.

If you advocate laws such as this you are a traitor, because passing un-Constitutional law is traitorous. Even if you do advocate such laws, and they are passed, they would not legally be able to "save terry", because ex-post-facto laws are generally not constitutional (never in criminal cases, sometimes in civil). The decision has already been made, and unless the federal courts can somehow come up with some jsutification for claiming jurisdiction and then take it up to the supreme court and over turn that decision finally, the decision based on earlier law would apply.

Point three, it's not "all about the money". Do you know how much money is left? About $50k. Michael Schaivo was offered first 1 million, then 2, then 4 million to sign over his rights to the parents and go away. He didnt take it. Some say that's because he didnt want public opinion against him, but you might have noticed, PUBLIC OPINION IS ALREADY CRUCIFYING HIM.

If hes such a scumbag out for the money, do you think he would have even cared what the public thought?

Not only that, but over 4 million has been spent "fighting for terrys life" according to estimates I heard today.

Point four, she's dead, she's been dead for 15 years. She's meat. It's a lie to say the tests haven't been performed, they have been. If you say "she needs more tests" you are just justifying your own pre-existing conclusion. She has been given various involuntary response tests, which she sometimes passes, sometimes fails. She has never yet had a proven voluntary response. She was given a swallow test a few months ago. THe parents said that if she failed the test they would stop fighting. She failed the test. Instead of giving up they rationalized it by saying "well shes had the tube down there for years, of course she cant swallow, if she jsut had time and therapy I'm sure she'd be able to". No amount of therapy is going to help this woman.

None.

She's dead.

And you don't care, because you dont think she should "be killed" anyway.

Her parents are suffering from a grief delusion, and have been for 15 years. All you are doing is strengthening and enabling their delusion. She's never going to wake up. She's never going to speak, or walk, or eat, or drink without machines.

Oh sure theres a chance, it's something like 20 million to one, but theres always a chance.

Even if I grant that she's not dead (and I dont) then she is living quite possibly the most horrible nightmare I can imagine, an active living brain trapped in a non responsive body. Personally I'd hope someone would blow my brains out first.

To all you libertarians out there saying "the state shouldnt have the powert to kill her", it doesnt and it isnt, the decision if Michaels, and she's been dead for 15 years. Not only that, but do you really want to give the govrenment the right to decide to stop you?

I don't care what kind of romantic notions you've attached to this womans life, or what right to life cause you are promoting, because that's really what youre fighting for, and not Terrys "life".

"Terrys supporters" arent supporting terry, they are supporting their cause, or their own weak sensibilities.

Terrys life doesn't matter to you. You dont know the woman. You have no stake in her life. You would not be hurt by this womans death, nor will you be helped by her living. There will be no emotional, personal, or financial impact to you, unless the outcome effects your cause in some way. Terry is nothing but a symbol to you. You have no right to even have any input on this decision.

Neither does George Bush

Neither does Jeb Bush

Neither does congress

Neither does the senate

Neither does Bo Gritz (and people should really think twice about holding this guy up as an example of anything except a white supremacist separatist fanatic hatemongering publicity hound. He may have earned those medals, but hes been nothing but a disgrace since).

She's dead, and you are using her as a horse for your cause.

Now, your cause may be just, and right, and good, I dont care. You have no right to use this woman, or what's left of her, for your cause.

It's none of our god damned business. It's none of the governments god damned business. According to the law, it's nobodies business but Michael Schaivo.

Oaths

I took that oath almost nine years ago, and the enlisted mans oath two years before that; and though I don't wear the uniform anymore, I have not renounced that oath. I consider it to still be in force (and so does the government by the way, if I recieve a lawful order from my properly constituted chain of command, I am still legally required to obey it.)

I repeat it to myself on the 4th of July, Veterans Day, and Memorial Day.

It means something; something more than I can ever explain.

The framers pledged "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor", and I have pledged no less.

If you haven't taken the oath, I don't think you can understand; It is both a heavy weight, and a sturdy frame. When you take the oath, if you really understand it, you know it means you have accepted a duty, more important than any other you have taken before, to protect those around you; even more than that, you have taken on a duty to protect our principles, and our way of life. It also means that you know, truly know with absolute certainty, what you should do when presented with certain very critical questions.

"...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

All enemies foreign and domestic...

That passage is there for a reason; The framers of our government, who first set forth this oath in 1778, knew that there would be challenges both from within, and from without.

I believe that in these days, we face a greater challenge from within, than we have faced since April, 1861.

The people who have become the establishment of the state, have taken upon themselves more and more of those powers, rights, and priviliges reserved for the states; and for the people; and they are reaching for more every single day.

They have taken upon themselves the power to limit, or to abrogate those rights protected by the constitution.

They have taken upon themselves the power to limit, or to abrogate those rights inherent to us as men.

And we have let them.

It is my duty to support and defend the constitution of the united states, and I have failed in that duty.

If you are reading this, it's very likely you have failed as well.

Every elected official in the federal government has taken a similar oath.
Every federal law enforcement officer has taken a similar oath.
Most state governors have taken a similar oath
Most elected officials in state governments have taken a similar oath.
Most Police officers have taken a similar oath.
Many appointed officials of federal and state governments have taken a similar oath.
Many officials of state and local governments have taken a similar oath.

They have failed their duty, and they have forfeited their honor.

We have all failed, because we have allowed our government to supersede our nation, and our constitution. We have failed because we are not doing everything in our power to reverse these transgressions. We have failed beacuse we have supported, and promoted these transgressions when they serve our own petty interests.

We have failed because we have known what had to be done, and we have not done it.

We have failed, because we are weak, because we are human, and because we have not stood together in our duty.

We have failed in our duty, and in failing we have forfeited our honor.

We have forfeited our honor, because our friends, and our neighbors, and our families all accepted that it was allowable to do so.

We have forfeited our honor because it was easy, and our duty was hard.

I wish to have my honor back.

I wish to do my duty.

I am weak, but I will be strong.

I am alone, but I will not be alone long.

We are weak, but we will be strong.

Let me say this again, loud and clear:

Getting Down To Specifics

I wanted to mostly stay away from that in the general posting, but I thought I'd go into it here.

So, I laid out the need for the following

The all HK solution would look a little something like this

(I'm'na put on my asbestos pajamas here for a sec).

I'm honestly not sure what is more controversial, the pistol, or the assault rifle. Of course those that are most vehemently against our current choices are mostly advocating moving back to the 1911, and the M14 (or even the M1 garand). To those people... just go away, I'm going to piss you off too much and probably just ignore your comments anyway. Its 2005 not 1945 or 1955. The days of your youth are gone, and just because it worked for grandpa doesnt make it the best choice today. That doesn't mean it doesnt work, lord knows more bad guys have been killed with m1's and 1911's than any other weapons, just that there are better choices available today.

First, the pistol...

Let me say first, I am a big fan of the 1911 pistol. I own two of them, I typically shoot 200-500 rounds per week through them, and I carry one on a regular basis. The 1911 is the finest auto pistol ever devised.

That said, we are never going to go back to a 1911 for our service pistol, and I don't think we should. Even in commander form, the 1911 is heavier and longer than it needs to be. It is a large pistol (in both length, and height, though it is nicely thin) for it's caliber and barrel length by modern pistol standards. More importantly, it's a single action pistol, which is not the right choice for a military sidearm today.

I think we need an SA/DA, DAO, or safe-action type pistol. I prefer one with a safety, though that's not absolutely necessary, and I personally want a safety, or a safety and a decocker, not just a decocker. It should have either a polymer or alloy frame (for weight and corrosion resistance), and I'd prefer a stainless slide, though with the right finish it isn't absolutely necessary.

As to caliber; I noted in the other piece, I think we should move to .357sig, 10mm, or .45 super, and I prefer the .45 super because you can also chamber .45acp. I choose these three, because they are the best options in auto pistos for stopping power and the ability to penetrate soft body armor (with hot loaded penetrator cored hardball), while still being controllable in a leightweight, and reasonably sized package for daily carry.

SIG, HK, Glock, Kahr, and Ruger all make suitable pistols that are, or could be, chambered for these rounds, and offer these features(as do others, but I don't consider them strong competitors).

A lot of folks would suggest the G21 (or the G20), but I don't think it's a good service pistol option. I own one, I like it, but it's not right for everyone. I like having the safety option, Glock triggers are pretty bad out of the box, and it's quite thick and unwieldy. I have very large hands, and STILL the G21 isn't a very comfortable gun to hold and carry. All that said, if Glock made a single stack (or narrow double stack), commander sized .45, capable of handling .45 super, with an 8-10 round capacity (like the USP compact), I would say it was a great choice as a new military sidearm (and I'd buy it for myself in a heartbeat).

I don't personally care for Rugers offerings in this class. The Ruger designs just dont feel great to me, and their quality is inconsistent.

I make the same statement about Kahr's as I do about Glock: If they made a single stack (or narrow doublestack), commander sized .45, capable of handling .45 super, with an 8-10 round capacity, I would happily choose it for a new military sidearm, and I would happily buy one myself.

On to the assault rifle...

The assault rifle picture is a bit simpler, because there are fewer options, and there has been a lot of recent developement in this area.

Basically, the major options today are as follows:

1. Keep the AR platform, but rechamber it in a more effective caliber
2. Keep the AR platform, rechamber it, and convert it to an op-rod system
3. Move to the HK XM-8 system, and rechamber it
4. Move to the FN SCAR, and rechamber it
5. Move to the Robinson Armaments XCR, and rechamber it

We could easily rechamber the AR for 6.8 with a bolt, carrier, barrel, and spring change (and probably a different gas port diameter), and it would be a far more effective rifle; but I have said before in "The Myth of AR unreliability" that while the direct gas system of the AR isn't as big a problem as some believe, it isn't the ideal. If we are going to have a significant modification or upgrade of our service arm, it would make sense to move away from direct gas, and convert to an op-rod or tappet system as with Armstech or Kurts guns. This would allow us to maintain our current base of knowledge and training with the AR platform, retain our accessories, and greatly reduce our transition costs, because almost all the parts of the current rifle system could be retained.

Despite all the reasoning above, I don't think either of those options are likely. For political reasons, I think it more likely we will simply adopt an entirely new rifle.

The advantage of the three new rifle platforms above, is that they are all modular systems. Two of the three are directly convertible to multiple calibers, and all three can be converted from assault carbine, to assault rifle, to battle rifle, and to LMG configurations with various parts changes.

More important than any of that however, is that from all testing reports it is the better weapon, but Robinson is a small manufacturer and they couldn't offer the same purchasing perks as FN. FN has the advatage of being the current primary military rifle contractor, and they could both offer better terms on the new rifle, and penalize us on existing contracts for the M16, which apparently they did.

According to some reports FN has held up some M16 and M249 rebuild contract fulfilment while their products were under evaluation, and back channel threatened other slowdowns if their products werent selected. I wont link them here because, firstly I don't know how trustworthy the reports are (though I trust the sources), and second, because the people who've said this could get in trouble.

The current frontrunner in the XM/M program, to replace our current issue assault rifle, is the HK XM-8

Again, it is a modular system, designed to be convertible between basic assault rifle, assault carbine, battle rifle, marksmans rifle, an almost SMG, and squad automatic weapon configurations. There've been a hell of a lot of articles written about this gun lately, so I'm not going to go into it deeply, Ill just point you to the writeup from world guns. Also, I'll say I think it's a decent rifle, and it's accessories are great, but I also think it's a bit gadgety. I don't really believe one rifle can cover every need, and HK is trying to sell the system that way.

Of all these options, I think the XCR is the best weapon; in fact I plan on buying one, with the 5.56, 6.8, and 7.62 kits for it when they become available some time later this year. That doesn't mean it's the best rifle to issue to our armed forces however. While I think RobArm could have supplied enough rifles for the SCAR contract, I don think they would be a good company to provide the general issue rifle. They really are jsut too small, and they know it, which is why they didnt put an entry in.

Realistically, I think we should keep the AR, convert it to a gas tappet/op-rod system, and rechamber it for 6.8; but like I said above, I don't think that's going to happen. I think we are going to choose the XM8, and HOPE that our selection people have the balls to chamber it in 6.8.

Carnival of Cordite #5

http://www.technogypsy.net/March2005.htm#Cordite5

I've got two posts in there, and for some reason the picture from a third.

St. Patricks Day

Nations

I love my country and my country
my states and my counties
of purple mountains and four green fields
of pigskin and patriot games
of Stars and stripes and green and white
of micks and taigs
of my mother and my father
One world and another

I am a genuine Irish American. Not some guy who's grandmother on my mothers fathers side stopped in limerick on the way over from france.

I’m born to an Irish father and American mother, lived in Ireland for years, and moved there permanently after I got out of the AF. I only came back to the U.S. a couple years ago because my mom was sick (still is, but she's stable).

While in theory Ireland’s most important holiday is St. Patricks day, other than the UNGODLY HORDES OF AMERICAN TOURISTS, it’s not really that big a deal; unless of course you’re uber catholic; in which case, the day sucks for you anyway, especially if you have bad knees.

Everybody gets off of work and school, and it's a big family day for a lot of folks, maybe the best comparison would be to American Thanksgiving, but that's not really right either... maybe like thanksgiving combined with memorial day.

1.We don't punch people for not wearing green, but wearing orange today IS profoundly offensive to about 5 million people (and only half of them live in Ireland); though most of them don't make a big deal about it. Unless you live in Boston, or in the Shankill road, in which case you deserve the beating you are going to recieve just for being such a muppet.

2. Between a quarter and half of those people don't drink anything but sacramental wine.

3. Potatoes ARE still a big part of the Irish diet, a part of most every meal, but most of the potatoes arent actually grown in Ireland

4. We don't eat corned beef and cabbage. Thats a welsh thing that became associated with the Irish in America, because corned beef lasted longer before going off, and was cheaper than high quality beef. The Irish in America (and in Ireland) were historically pretty poor, they ate whatever they could.

5. We do eat boiled bacon or boiled pork shoulder and cabbage; also potatoes and parsnips or turnips. Or at least the Irish as a whole do, I hate cabbage, and I hate turnips.

6. Yes, in general Irish food sucks. The Irish have this amazing ability to take wonderful fresh meat, cheese, and produce, and produce bland, mushy, greasy, flavorless crap.Irish breads and baked good on the other hand, are fucking incredible.

7. Ireland is a VERY small country. It's about the same size as Indiana, and of the 4 million or so people living there, more thna half live within 30 miles of Dublin. Guess what though; Half of all Irish born live outside of Ireland. We are as much a diaspora as jews.

8. Yes, just about everyone in Ireland say "fuck" jsut about all the time. Little grannies say fuck, 9 year olds say fuck, priests say fuck (hell it was the central joke of "Father Ted"). Fuck is like fucking punctuation. Also fucking popular are shite and arse.

9. Guiness sucks everywhere but Ireland. The futher away you get from Dublin, the worse it is. Guiness doesn't travel well. Everywhere else in the world guiness is pasteurized, has preservatives added, and is nitrogen boosted. It's just not on.

10. Brilliant!

My basic thought on Paddys day goes something like this…

St Patricks day: When everyones an Irishman, and EVERY Irishman gets pissed.

Now in honor of all the phony Irish assholes, and real Irish scumbags singing "The Men Behind the Wire" and "The boys of the old Brigade" in bars all over Ireland, Boston, New York, and Chicago...

Written by Dominic Behan following the death of 16-year-old Fergan O'Hanlon
during an IRA attack on Dungannon barracks in 1957

Come all you young rebels, and list while I sing,
For the love of one's country is a terrible thing.
It banishes fear with the speed of a flame,
And it makes us all part of the patriot game.

My name is O'Hanlon, and I'm just gone sixteen.
My home is in Monaghan, where I was weaned.,
I learned all my life cruel England to blame,
And so I'm a part of the patriot game.

It's barely two years since I wandered away
With the local battalion of the bold IRA,
I'd read of our heroes, and I wanted the same
To play out my part in the patriot game.

This island of ours has for long been half free.
Six counties are under John Bull's tyranny.
So I gave up my Bible, to drill and to train
To play my own part in the patriot game.

And now as I lie here, my body all holes
I think of those traitors who bargained and sold.
I wish that my rifle had given the same
To those quislings who sold out the patriot game.

Uisce Beatha

Bad Irish Whiskey is horrible awful shite, best used as paint thinner. Paddy (powers) is the canonical example of the breed, and god knows how people choke it down.

Currently in my cabinet I have the following

1 Jamesons gold reserve 24yr
1 Jamesons 12yr reserve
1 Bushmills 16yr three wood
1 Macallan Fine Oak 21yr
1 Laphroaig 15yr
1 Glanmorangie 15yr
1 Famous Grouse (for mixing)
1 Knob Creek 9yr old small batch
1 Makers Mark distillery anniversary special
1 Gentleman jack
1 Jack Daniels

Of them all, the Macallan is the best Whisky overall, and certainly the best Scots whisky. I love a good Scotch, but honestly, scotch is something I only want every once in a while.

For my every day drinking whiskey, I'll take Irish. I like the smoothness of the triple distilled whiskeys. Of what I have, the Bushmills is the best whiskey; the Jamie Gold is great stuff, but the three wood is just a bit better. There's some middletons 50yr old reserve floating around that's even better, but I've never actually seen it in the states, and it's ungodly expensive.

In terms of American whiskeys, the knob creek is a decent bourbon, but I'll take the Irish malt three wood any time over even the best bourbon.

Oh an Jack Daniels isn't bourbon, it's tenessee sourmash, and in my case, the Jack is just as a mixer, and for company who don't know any better.

To my mind Jack is oversweet without any counterbalancing flavor, and has an astringency in it's vapor I find unpleasant. JD just isnt something I want to drink straight; however, those same factors make it a great mixer in sodas, and fruit juices. It also makes a decent whisky sour, if you like your whisky sourmash style (as most Americans, especially southerners do).

I personally prefer an oaked rye whisky, or a pure traditional Bourbon (which is only made in KY). I got the Makers Mark at a special anniversary distillery tour a few years ago. They only sell a few barrels worth every year, and it's wonderful stuff.

Unfortunately, I don't think there ARE any affordable, drinkable, pure rye whiskys anymore. It's pretty much the old maxim; "good, fast, cheap, pick two" translated into the beverage world.

Jim Beam Straight Rye, is drinkable, but it's not cheap; same for Wild Turkey Rye (Oh, and if you like wild turkey, the wild turkey liqueur is an interesting honey flavored bourbon cordial). Sazerac is great, but it's both expensive, and hard to find. Old Rip Van Winkle is also decen, expensive, and hard to find. I've heard that Rittenhouse is decent, and relatively reasonably priced, but I've never seen it. I believe it's only distributed in PA.

Remember, a pure rye is going to be a lot smokier and maltier than a bourbon. It is more grainy and less sweet. This makes it more like Scots and Irish whiskies (though like most American whiskys it's still only single distilled rather than double or triple), which is why I like it.

Also, to my mind, the best whisky sours are made with pure rye.

A Righteous Rant

The Right Weapon for the Job

Of those people, probably half just don't care for the caliber, and we'll definitely address that. Another quarter just hate black plastic guns, or the design of the AR specifically (the gas system especially), which I disagree with, but I understand their aesthetic issue, and the gas system IS a pain to clean.

It's the rest of the AR haters I want to talk about. They don't like the AR/M16/M4 either because they don't like the entire concept of the assault rifle, or because the assault rifle was the wrong weapon for the job they were trying to do with it (by choice or otherwise).

So let's get into that; what does our military need in it's individual weapons, and why?

First, we need to limit our scope somewhat: When referring to military individual small arms, it is primary infantry weapons that we are most concerned about; which of course means the infantry rifle. Additionally, there are also secondary and tertiary weapons that we must consider, either for non-infantry missions, or for infantry missions not suited to stasdard long arms. Also important to note, special operations forces will always have needs that will not be met by standard general issue weapons.

One other important distinction: In terms of casualty creation, the primary small arm of the infantry is in fact the full machine gun (either LMG/SAW or MMG/GPMG), but machine guns are limited in number to perhaps as high as 20% of troops. Given this, and the fact that they are used in the fire support role, full machine guns are not properly seen as individual weapons, even if they are capable of, or designed for individual uses , such as our M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW).

Part One - Primary Individual Infantry Weapons

Since world war two, there have been two dominant concepts of primary long arms for infantry operations; the assault rifle, and the battle rifle.

The battle rifle is the evolution of several hundred years of war fighting long rifles. It is designed to be effective out to 600-800 yards, both in caliber, and in the weapon itself. This means a longer barrel, a full and supportive stock, and a high powered cartridge, generally firing a fairly heavy bullet at fairly high velocities.

The battle rifle is highly accurate, and very powerful. It is the ideal tool for a single infantryman, engaging targets at long ranges, and moving in the open field or light cover. In other words, it is the ideal weapon for wars as they were fought up until WW1, and in some theaters of WW2.

The modern battle rifle; as exemplified by the M14, the G3, the AR10, the FAL, the CETME, and the Sig 540 and all their variants; is the best tool for the individual rifleman ever devised.

There are some disadvantages to the concept though: Battle rifles are heavy, long, and have very high recoil. They are not very controllable under rapid fire, and they are awkward to move through tight spaces. Also their ammunition is heavy, and bulky.

More important than these basic physical factors however, is that we don't fight as individual riflemen anymore, and we don't generally fight in the open field.

The way the infantry fights and maneuvers today is in small groups, moving from cover to cover, and rarely engaging in the open field. We cover open terrain by riding in light armor or fast soft vehicles. We often fight in dense cover or in urban environments. Our engagement ranges rarely exceed 300 yards, and when they do, we generally fight with artillery and air support. We also have a combined weapon squad structure that uses light machine guns as integral components. The LMG's are the primary base of fire weapons, making one of the fuctions of the semi and/or fully automatic battle rifle redundant.

This is not to say that battle rifles are obsolete, they certainly have a place on the battlefield, as they are excellent individual killing machines. But we need a primary arm that is appropriate to the majority of infantrymen, and another arm that is appropriate to those who fight in the rear, or who fight from a vehicle, where a full size rifle would hinder their mission.

The assault rifle is a very different beast from the battle rifle. An assault rifle is designed to be effective out to 300 meters. It will fire a medium power round, with low recoil, and if designed properly will be reasonably controllable under rapid fire, and even automatic fire. The ammunition itself will be light, and easily packable. Not only that, but the lower powered round and shorter range means the weapon can be lighter, shorter, and more easily packed and maneuvered.

There are a lot of people out there who really HATE the whole IDEA of an assault rifle. They want a full powered, individual weapon. They want the ability to reach out that 800 yards (whether they need it, or can use it; which most don't and can't). Often they don't like the entire tactical doctrine that the assault rifle is designed for.

Combine this dislike of the assault rifle concept, with decades of bullshit about AR reliability (which was originally born of horrible experience, and yes, it does suffer in comparison to the AK), and the admitedly marginal 5.56 nato caliber, and you get some of the most amazing vitriol.

Here's the thing, the battle rifle concept requires a very highly trained individual of relatively high physical strength and reasonably large size for maximum effectiveness. Even assuming we can build and maintain such a force, it would require entirely different tactial doctrine and training.

And guess what, even then, the full power 7.62n STILL DOESN'T WORK ON TODAYS BATTLEFIELD; or, at least not as the general issue infantry arm.

The battle rifle was born out of the civil war (and in fact the earlier Napoleonic and Crimean wars), was mostly obsolete as a general issue infantry arm by the end of world war 1, and totally obsolete for that purpose by the end of World War 2. There is no place in modern warfare for mass formation of men engaging at more than 300 yards, and therefore, there is no need for a rifle designed to do just that to be in general issue, or for you to carry a weapon like that into combat at all, unless you are a DM, scout sniper, or spotter (which I believe there should be more of).

Let me explain.

The battle rifle is an instrument of individual fighters, engaging other individual fighters at long range, in relatively loose but coherent lines, and light but hard cover. If it helps you to visualize, think of each rifleman as a tank in an armored battle. As different as the medium are, the tactical concepts as relate to targeting and engaging the enemy with fire are similar. The thing is, tanks have armor, and people don't (or at least not very effective armor).

This type of infantry warfare was almost entirely over by WW2, and I don't see it ever coming back as the pirmary infantry warfare mission again.

Infantry warfare since WW2 (with the exception of some Korean War battles) has been almost entirely maneuver war with meeting engagements occuring at 80 yards or less. Soldiers as a group no longer engage at over 300 yards with rifles (though individual marksmen MAY); Tactics have moved on. If a modern soldier sees a 500 yard open space he doesn't cross it unless he can't avoid it. He goes around it, looks for cover, gets armor or artillery, or hops in a softie, puts his cheater plate under his balls, and dashes it.

Yes there are exception (some types of desert warfare for example), but you choose your primary weapons for the general case, not the exceptions. When the exceptions occur, you either adapt your primary arm, you issue alternate arms, or change you tactics to compensate.

There will always be a place for individual marksmen on the field, and there should be a minority element of long range marksmen in any formation, but the age of the majority of the army being long range riflemen is long over.

Unfortunately the era of romanticising individual rifle fire as a form of combat action is FAR from over. It is this unrealistic romance that motivates so many to hate the assault rifle concept (please note I am referring to assault rifles in general, not the M16, or the 5.56n chambering specifically both of which at least have some valid justification for ill will).

We now organize most units into mutually supporting pairs, further organized into fire and support elements containing medium and heavy weapons (LMG/SAW and grenade launchers; possibly recoilless rifles,MMG's, and/or light-medium vehicle mounted weapons). The largest infantry formations you will EVER see Americans in on a modern battlefield are company level, and even then they will be broken up into maneuver elements at the platoon or squad level. These elements generally WILL NOT engage at more than 300-500 yards if they can avoid it; they will maneuver for advantage, they will call in air, or arty, or armor.

Some say we use these tactics because our weapons demand it, and if every soldier had a 600yd gun, he would be more effecive, but this is entirely untrue. Even if you gave every soldier 600 yard capable rifles, they wouldn't use them, because this way WORKS BETTER. Mutually supporting pairs, grouped into 4-24 man fire and support maneuver elements engaging at under 300m works better. This is how we fight today, and this is what we need our general infantry arm to do. Guess what; that sounds to me like that's the very definition of an assault rifle.

Again, this is not to say there aren't situations where 500 and 600 yard shots arent called for, or can't be made, but with a properly structured balance of weapons and training, these situations can generally be handled by the designated maksmen role, not the basic infantry soldier.

Heading down from the abstract for a moment, in todays American military, the AR is our assault rifle. The AR isn't perfect, but it's design is fundamentally sound, and it is a decent compromise weapon for the purpose. The AR is the best example of the American conception of the assault rifle, and its damned good at just that (though it needs a better chambering).

The AR isn't a battle rifle, and it isn't an SMG, and if you try and use it for either, you'll be at best pissed off, and at worst, dead.

Part Two - The caliber question

The primary concerns in designing a cartridge for an infantry arm, specifically for an assault rifle are as follows, and in rough order

1. Stopping power and range (out to 300 yards)
2. Killing power and range (out to 300 yards)
3. weight and packability
4. Controllability under rapid fire
5. Accuracy at range (out to 300 yards)

Unfortunately, experience has shown that while the .223 is a good killer, it is not a good stopper. One properl placed shot from the .223 is just as likely to kill someone as any other major caliber rifle, but it will do so slower, and leave the subject more functional while they are dying. This is unnaceptable in an infantry weapon. Also the performance of the 5.56 against light cover is unpredictable at best and unacceptable at worst.

So what does that indicate? We need a much heavier bullet.

Honestly, I think 7.62n is a great battle rifle caliber, and given a choice in battle rifles it's what I'd carry (I own an M14, not an M1a, and I love it), but that same experience that indicates the 5.56n is a poor battle choice, has shown the 7.62n is far more than necessary for a man sized target at less than 300yds, and is not very controllable in rapid fire.

Really, the 7.62n, and the weapons chambered for it arent all that useful in CQB situations, and the main advantage they provide over lighter calibers is at ranges in excess of our target for assault rifles.

Combine these two lessons and what do you get?

For the mission facing our soldiers today, the primary infantry arm should be in a caliber with a much larger and heavier bullet than the .223, but with a lower powder charge and shorter case than the .308.

This makes the various .243, .250, .260, .270, 6.5, 6.8 etc... solutions look pretty good to me, but even some of them may be more than necessary.

Personally I'd prefer to see a short cased 7 or 8mm round be the primary infantry arm caliber.

Good quality 7.62x39, is to my mind the ideal assault rifle round around today, but I'd like to see it's performance maximized for modern metallurgy and powder technologies to give it some more speed and power. Not a lot more power, but another couple hundred FPS should give a useful power boost, and possibly an accuracy boost, wthout losing too much controlability. Maybe a 125gr pushed up to 2450 fps?

Even in stock form, I think it's a decent choice. Yes you give up accuracy and range to both the 5.56, and the 7.62n, but at 300yds or less, and especially at 50 yds or less I'd rather have the heavier bullet at lower velocity. When 7.62x39 is chambered in a good gun, and manufactured to US/NATO standards, it's just good a round as any of the other proposals, and it has the added advantage of allowing us to standardize on one single bore size for accessories like cleaning jags and brushes, across our entire line of individual weapons.

The thing is though? This is NEVER going to happen. The chances of the US adopting a soviet caliber are essentially nil. There may be a possibility of adopting a short cased version of the 7.62n, say 7.62x39 or 7.62x45, based on the 7.62x51 case and firing shorter OAL bullets, perhaps in the 140gr range; unfortunately as far as I know, no-one is developing this concept as a serious military cartridge (though there are a couple of hunting cartridges of a similar concept).

So what looks good out there right now? Well the 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.8 SPC are probably the best fit with the needs of todays infantry, and our current generation of infantry arms. This is borne out by the Armys repeated flirtation with the 6.8, and it's pilot use by various special operations groups. It's a decent compromise between weight, velocity, and recoil, and it chambers in existing weapons very easily. It's also a far better choice as an LMG round than the .223 (though some say the 6.5 is an even better one).

The priamry effect of these choices would be to increase the effective range and stopping power out from the current 100 or so yards at high percentage; and 300 yards at low percentage, to 300 yards high percentage, and 500 yards low percentage, neatly bridging the gap between the assault and battle rifle platforms.

(A funny aside, for years I've been thinking in meters, but the last few months I've been thinking in yards again as I spent a lot more time explaining gun stuff to non-military types on various online forums).

Part Three - Secondary Individual Weapons

There is another category of long arm entirely, and that is the intermediate arm, sometimes called a secondary weapon.

The intermediate arm is a very short, very light, and maneuverable shoulder arm, with a short range (100 yards or thereabouts), intermediate power, and preferably full auto capability. The intermediate arm is what you arm those non-infantry folks I talked about above with; the loggies, the techs, the tankers and the rest.

There are two common incarnations of the intermediate arm, the assault carbine, and the SMG.

The assault carbine is in essence a shortened assault rifle (like the M4). It will fire the same round as its larger brother, use the same acessories etc... it will just be shorter. This has it's advantages and disadvantages; the weapon will be easy to train on and supply for, since the main infantry long arm is essentially the same weapon; and in theory will retain much of the power and capability of it's parent weapon. Unfortunately, there are performance issues; mostly because the very short barrel of the assault carbine results in poor performance with intermediate rifle calibers.

The M1 carbine was the first American example of the assault carbine, and it was a very good concept, but the execution left a little something to be desired. It proved mostly unsuitable for full auto fire (the M2 variant), and the .3o carbine cartridge is marginal for an assault carbine, being more suited to an SMG. That being said, second line troops loved the thing, as did smaller stature troops, it was only when it was substituted as a primary infantry arm that it developed a poor reputation.

Moving to the case of our armed forces today, the M4 has a 14.5", very light profile barrel, and the 5.56n caliber has what could be charitably called suboptimal performance with barrels shorter than 16", and really with barrels shorter than 18-20" depending on the load used. Even worse, the M4 has become the general issue arm, so when soldiers are in situations requiring a rifle rather than a carbine, they are left short (literally). We started to make this same mistake with the M1 carbine, but caught ourselves before major disaster.

The real problem with the M4, is that it is a compromise gun. It isnt really useful at much over 100 yards, and it isn't as short or handy as an SMG. In the effort to be more versatile, the compromise has gone too far, and I cant think of a single situation where either an SMG, or a full rifle wouldnt do a better job in general issue. Under 100 yards, from a long barreled SMG a good high powered pistol cartridge will be almost as effective as a .223, and under 50 yards it will be more effective, with less recoil, muzzle blast, weight, cost, really everything all down the line. Over 100 yards you dont need the compactness offered by the M4, and the factors working against its accuracy and stopping power add up very rapidly (especially the short light profile barrrel)

Which brings us to the SMG, which is specifically designed to be used by support personnel, by those who move in restricted spaces, and by those who fight at short ranges. It will generally shoot a standard pistol round, but it will have a barrel long enough to take full advantage of the round, resulting in 40-50% higher velocities than from a pistol. Also being shoulder mounted, and heavier than a pistol, a well designed SMG can be easily controlled in full auto. Even with the longest useful barrel (10-14" depending on the chambering, or 8" for some suppressed models), an SMG will generally be shorter than an assault carbine. Additionally the ammunition for an SMG will be smaller, lighter, more packable, and often has the added advantage of being compatible with sidearms. Additionally, SMG's are more easily suppressed, for signature reduction and covert operations.

Really, the only disadvantage to an SMG, is it's reduced power and range due to chambering a pistol cartridge (thus the preference for the assault carbine in general issue). My contention is that for many troops, the SMG is precisely the weapon they need for their mission. which doesn't involve engaging the enemy on foot at over 100 yards.

Part Four - Tertiary Individual Weapons/Personal Weapons

The final weapon type I want to talk about here are personal and/or tertiary weapons; specifically, sidearms, and shotguns.

A sidearm is there for you to fight at the shortest ranges, to fight where you can't maneuver (enclosed spaces and the like), and to fight back to a situation where you can call in aditional supprt and/or bring your long gun in to play. If you are in a situation where you KNOW you are going to be in tight quarters, you should have an assault carbine, or preferably an SMG as your long gun; the pistol is only a weapon of last resort.

Shotguns are a specialty weapon in military terms. There is no more effective close quarters weapon than a short, light, and handy shotgun. They clear a room, and bust a lock better than anything short of explosives. Also, shotguns are often mountable as a secondary weapon under the barrel of a primary (as in the master key system), and are light and handy enough to be slingable or packable as a secondary weapon.

Though the military value of the shotgun in conventional battle is limited, in urban combat, and general CQB, the shotgun is a devestating weapon, and an advantage not to be taken (or discarded) lightly. I don't believe we put enough value on the shotguns use in combat in our forces today. It is primarily relegated to being a security detail weapon, and to entry gun duties. I believe it is the ideal weapon for those soldiers who have serve in areas with lots of short range open spaces, and it's the ideal support weapon for CQB.

Part Five - The Right Weapon for the Job

Ok, lots of exposition so far about the roles and funtions of various military weapons, let's translate this into practical terms. What is the right weapon for the job?

I've been coming to the opinion over the last few years that we need to revamp our small arms structure, training, and qualification in the armed forces.

I believe we need to have a hierarchy of arms something like this (some of this is already in place, or is being developed now):

• We need to up the number of MMG/GPMG gunners in our larger formations and support elements.

• We need to increase the percentage of accurized battle rifles in our infantry squads. Each fire team should have at least one, and preferably two. It would be useful if this weapon had a similar method of operation and ergonomics as the assault rifle, the SAW, and the SMG, but this is not necessary.

• Our battle rifle, and MMG/GPMG should share the same chambering, and function adequately with all loadings available for that chambering, in all configurations of both weapons.

  
  

• We need to increase the percentage of LMG/SAW gunners in our formations, and chamber the SAW in a more effective, and longer range round, hopefully without very much more recoil.

  Ideally this new SAW will be lighter in weight, and less complicated than the current M249 so that it may be carried by one or more men on each fire team. It should have an easily adjustable gas regulator system, and a gloveless quick change barrel system. It is not necessary for the weapon to feed from the same magazines as the assault rifle, but this would be useful. It would also be useful if it could share ergonomics and basic operating controls with the other infantry weapons discussed here, but it isn't necessary.

• We need a larger and more effective caliber primary infantry arm, with a non- direct gas impingement operating system (op-rod, tappet, or delayed blowback). This infantry arm should be convertible from a full assault rifle, to assault carbine configuration in no more time than it takes to details strip and clean the weapon. This weapon should have good aperature/diopter type sights with tritum inserts , and be readily convertible to use various optics. It would be very useful if this weapon had a similar method of operation and ergonomics as the battle rifle, and the SMG.

• Our primary infantry arm and LMG should share the same chambering, and function adequately with all loadings available for that chambering, in all configurations of both weapons.

• We need a lighter weight, and more effective underslung grenade launcher (HK has a fine example). This launcher should be able to be detached, and have a stock and grip attached, and used as an individual support weapon.

• We need a short barreled (14-16"), 4-6 shot, 12ga pump shotgun with a pistol grip and effective folding or telescoping stock. This weapon should have tritium ghost ring sights. This weapon should be modular in nature, and be able to be dismounted from it's stock and underslung on the basic assault rifle with the proper bracket. It would be a plus if the weapon were fed by a detachable quick change magazine (box or tube), but that isn't absolutely necessary; however if there is no quick change, it should be at least six shot, and speedloader compatible.

• We need to standarize on a sidearm capable of firing either .357SIG or .45 super, or something with similar performance. Some folks have suggested the 10mm is an appropriate solution, and to some extent I would agree. I am a fan of the 10mm in general but there aren't many suitable arms in that chambering right now (I can only think of one, the G20). High pressure, hard penetrator loadings of any of these rounds should defeat most soft body armor at 15-25 yards (which is why the .40 is unsuitable), but to my mind the .45 super is preferred as it both has a higher basic wounding potential (especially in hardball), and it carries the inherent ability to use .45 acp, which is easier to control, easier on the weapon, and easier to suppress.

  Small caliber hypervelocity rounds such as the FN5.7are entirely unsuitable for sidearms. They have excellent performance against armor, but against unarmored individuals they have extremely poor wounding and stopping performace (they are suitable for SMG's however, as a large number of small wounds from a controllable full auto weapon is a decent wounding mechanism if youn dont mind expending lots of ammo).

  This sidearm should be DA/SA, with a three position safety (Safe, Fire, Decock) allowing for all modes of operation. Some say they would prefer a DAO (or safe action such as in Kahr and Glock pistols) with no safety, however I prefer the flexibility and operating feel of traditional DA/SA pistols.
  
  I believe this weapon should be a "compact" pistol, which conventionally means a 4-4.5" barrel; and a slightly smaller grip circumference and frame height than a "full size" pistol or current service pistol, with a capacity of 8-12 rounds. This will make it more flexible for carry, and less intrusive in most missions. Importantly this will also make it more confortable for those with smaller hands (a major problem with the M9), while only giving up a few rounds of capacity. This pistol should have highly visible, snag free, low profile sights with tritium inserts.

• We need an SMG in the same caliber as our sidearm. It should be capable of both three round burst, and full auto fire (as well as semiauto of course). It should have a 20-30 rounds capacity, a barrel length in excess of 8" (I would prefer 10-12" to take full advantage of the cartridge), and an effective collapsible or folding shoulder stock. It should have good aperature/diopter type sights with tritum inserts, and be readily convertible to use various optics.

• In an ideal world, all of these weapons would be provided by a single manufacturer, to maintain a commonality of parts, suppliers, maintenance techniques etc...

The Army apparently agrees with me in this, because HK is looking like the front runner for the new SAW contract, the new assault rifle contract, the new .40 and/or .45 pistol contract (depending on what sources you believe), the underslung shotgun and grenade launcher contracts, and they already supply the SMG's.

Part Six - Training and Qualification

In addition to the material changes we need to change our training and qualification systems. I believe we need to transition to a forces training doctrine that focuses far more on small arms; and on close quarters battle, and personal defense/force protection.

In this day and age of fluid combat, behind the lines engagement, and the constant need for vigilance, I think everyone should qualify with, and be issued a sidearm. Our standards for qualification and training should emphasize that the pistol is a 15-25 max yard weapon, and that it should only be used to fight your way back to an effective weapon, a radio, or in last ditch personal defense.

All personnel should recieve basic instruction in the pistol, SMG, shotgun, and assault rifle during induction/basic training. Once basic instruction is given, they should be required to qualify with the pistol and basic rifle

Those personnel who score in the top 25% (or perhaps as high as 35%), and have an infantry, or infantry related MOS should be offered designated marksmen training on the battle rifle, or if they are physically strong enough for the weight of the weapon and ammo load (which are considerable, believe me), SAW training.

Once they have recieved basic qualification and training, they should be requried to select (or be assigned based on MOS) the shotgun or SMG for an alternate weapon. All DM and SAW gunners should qualify with the SMG as their alternate weapon.

Very important, ALL personnel should be required to qualify, and maintain currency with the basic rifle, and sidearm, as well as their alternate weapon. This should apply to non-combatant personnel as well as combatants. In the case of DM and SAW gunners, they should be required to re-qualify with their individual weapon, the basic rifle, the SMG, and their pistol.

Essentially what I've described is treating the entire army as I would a special operations force. Each operator is expected to know at expert level, their primary and secondary operational specialties, their primary and secondary wepons, and their personal weapon/sidearm.

This method, and philosophy has proven itself to be extremely effective, no matter what the soldiers occupational area is; in that this much practice with all these types of small arms reinforces proper marksmanship and weapons handling, and just general combat alertness and readiness; more than any other single method we can use in training. Yes, this is about four times the current level of small arms training and qualification we do currently, and yes it will be extremely expensive and time consuming, but I believe it is what we need to have the most effective fighting force reasonably possible.

UPDATE: I discuss more specific choices on weapons in the next part of this series "Getting Down to Specifics"

Why I Like the AR

The AR system is incredibly versatile. It can be built in any caliber up to small magnums, or down to .22lr. With the AR system, you can buy any quality AR, and in five minutes, (and with $300-$1500) you can change the thing into just about anything you want with a change of upper.

Right now I have a Bushmaster Superlight carbine, M4 and A2 stocks for it, plus rails and optics (pictured here all tarted up just for fun with the major accessories. I usualy take it out with a red dot and no bipod).

Of course with a barrel that light, and that short, thats as good as I can reasonably expect. I like the thing in this config, because it only weighs 5lbs, not because it's super accurate.

But here's the thing, I dont have to settle for that. Without a gunsmith, without huge expense, and with almost no time at all, I can have a match rifle.

$200 gets me a drop-in match trigger, no major gunsmithing needed. When the money allows (about $600) I'm going to pick up a 24" ultra heavy barreled upper; probably a 1-in 7" 1" diameter stainless with a deeply recessed crown, and maybe a muzzlebreak (for the harmonics, not the recoil). Using 77-82gr match loads, and decent optics that can easily be a 600 yard gun for varmints or for punching holes in paper. If I were to buy a whole new match or varmint rifle, it would cost me two to three times that.

What about a practice weapon? $275 gets you a target quality .22lr or upper and magazine ($40 for each additional mag usually), that lets you practice with el cheapo .22, while retaining the same controls (and optics if you want) as your match and assault rifle. Oh and .223 is the ideal first centerfire rifle caliber to train people with (the main reason why it's so popular).

For those who hate the 5.56n for serious social purposes (and I'm not a huge fan myself) for $450-550 you can grab an upper in 7.62x39, opening you up to some of the cheapest and most easily available ammo. If you don't like the commie caliber, for about $550, you can grab a 6.8spc or 6.5 grendel upper; which, if the ammo ever gets to be more commonly available, should be great performers.

For the most fun, and around $1000-1500 there are a number of companies producing .50bmg uppers for the AR. Considering most .50bmg rifles sell for upwards of $2500, that's a pretty good deal, as long as you have a decent forged reciever (I'm not so sure about the cast ones standing up to a .50 for too long).

Hell, grab yourself one of those shotgun set cases (four foam sides, 36" long, designed to take four broken down shotguns), make cutouts for all your uppers, your lower, optics etc... (well, except the .50, which is HUGE) and get all mission impossible with the thing if you want.

The point is that the AR is a great system, versatile, reliable, accurate, lightweight and packable. Just remember, the AR is an assault rifle, not a battle rifle, and for non-social purposes it's a target and varmint gun, not a hunting gun . Use it for what it's good at, and you'll never be unhappy with it.

The Liability of Self Defense Gun Modifications

Some folks are concerned about the liability of modifying your trigger system, either in defensive usage, or from AD/ND (accidental or negligent discharge) with the lighter trigger.

I carry a Custom Springfield Champion when I have apropriate cover garments (I live in AZ, you might have noticed it's hot down here) or for open carry. Yost did the trigger and action job, and my pull is just about 3lbs; about the same as the modified Glock (but of course much crisper).

I do sometimes carry the G21 (like I said it's a bit bulky, and I use an IWB), and it has a 3lb release on the trigger, and a very short takeup. Before I sold it, I regularly carried a G19 with the exact same things done to it, and with the same 3lb trigger.

My S&W 686p .357Mag has about a 3lb pull as well, and is so crisp that it releases with a hard thought.

I'm not worried about accidental discharges with any of them. I've defended myself, and others with firearms. I know what it's like; the stress, the loss of co-ordination etc... and I'm still not worried about AD/ND.

Proper trigger discipline, and the four rules are drilled into me so strongly that they are pure instinctive reflex. Like I said in the referenced post, guns aren't for the stupid, immature, or irresponsible; and to my mind having a lighter trigger pull makes no difference in this, so long as the trigger is safe and reliable (meaning it will NEVER release without a deliberate action).

I DO think of the liability issue, but that's life. Unfortunately, in our current legal environment in this country, actions that are clearly in self defense, or the defense of others are often taken by those who are ignorant, fearful, or who have a political agenda; to cause problems, either legal or social, for those who commit those acts.

Many of us in the gun world know folks who have been prosecuted improperly for defending themselves, wheterh with a gun, a knife, or their bare hands. Prosecutors have ENORMOUS discretion in choosing who to charge, and what to charge them with. A prosecutor looking for healines, or looking to get out from under tham (especially if they are generated by antii-gun groups in anti-gun states), can pretty effectively ruin a mans life.

All I can say to that is, at least we aren't in england.

In my case, I'm reasonably certain that any time I defend myself, I will be arrested, and may be charged. Let's break this down a bit:

• I load with Glasers, which have no purpose but to inflict maximum tissue damage with a reduced risk of collateral damage (I don't recommend them for others unless you can afford to shoot a couple hundred of them like I have).

• I make no bones about my shooting practice, I train to shoot human beings, two to four hours at a time, firing several hundred rounds just about every week. Other than the time when I lived in California and Ireland, I have done this almost every week since I was 18. I do this so that I can kill people better. Sure I compete, but I primarily shoot for defensive purposes, and as indelicate as it seems, that's about killing people who are trying to kill you or yours.

• I am a veteran. The very idea of military experience makes some civvies go apeshit.

• I'm a graduate of several advanced firearms training schools, all of them defense oriented

• I hold multiple black belts in martial arts specifically designed to rapidly and effectively disable and/or kill without being injured yourself (R.Brown freestyle Jiu Jitsu, Aikido, Ninpo, and Ken Jitsu).

• I've worked in principle protection and I'm a professional security contractor (both physical and information security).

• I am an active participant in several online forums where I talk specifically about defensive shooting techniques, and I use no euphemisms. I talk about killing people as quickly as possible while not being injured yourself.

• I have a history of defensive violence. When I was 13 I killed two junkies in self defense, in a fight where my younger brother and I were jumped. A few years ago I put a guy into the hospital for a week when he came after my friends and I with a box cutter (he's in prison now, another fucking junky).
  

Given these factors, no matter what I do, no matter what gun I shoot, no matter what I'm loading, if I shoot someone outside of Texas, Montana, or Arizona, I'm going to court even if the guy had a gun to my head. Hell, even in the good states unless a cop or a judge seems me take the shot, I'll probably catch a charge; I'll just have to get a good lawyer, call Mas Ayoob, and take it as it comes.

But honestly, none of that is important. What it comes down to is this:

When it comes down to speed, accuracy, and wounding capability in the tools I use to defend my life; I'll take any advantage I can get without regard to the potential consequences. Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

...

Recipes for REAL men, Volume 4

How to Make a Glock Not Suck

I own a Glock, and I probably always will, if for no other reason then if I ever have to give somebody a gun in an emergency, chances are they'll know how to operate a Glock.

Right now I own a G21 (full size .45acp), and it's a decent gun ( and I have owned a couple others). It's reliable, and it's accurate, but in stock form it is quite frankly uncomfortable to hold, even for me, a man with huge hands. More importantly, its a Glock. Glocks have horrible triggers.

But there's hope for those of you stuck with Glocks, for whater reason, or those who like them. I confess, other than the stock trigger, and the chunkiness (for concealed carry), I LIKE Glocks. I don't mind that they are ugly, because functionality and engineering excellence has a beauty all it's own. They are dead reliable, easy to maintain, easy and cheap to fix, and generaly quite accurate.

So here's what you need to make your Glock not suck.

1. Dremel moto tool of some kind
2. Hard polishing bits (pads and cones)
3. jewlers rouge
4. 000 Steel wool
5. A fine, japanese stone, waterstone, or ceramic slip stone with a flat edge and sharp angle
6. A 3.5lb connector
7. A reduced power striker spring
8. A reduced power trigger spring
9. a Glock buttplug

10. An A-Grip, decal grip, handall, or Glock Sock

Oh and two optional items, a lighter weight recoil spring, and a "tactical" slide stop.

One final item; near infinite patience. This process needs to be done slowly and carefully with very fine abrasives and very fine compounds or you WILL ruin your gun.

Now heres the disclaimer bit. If you do this, and then shoot or kill yourself or someone else, it's your own damned fault you fucking moron. If you break your gun doing this, HA HA, it's a Glock, you can fix it for $50 or less I can almost guarantee you. If your gun blows up, hell, I guess it REALLY sucks to be you. If you ND into the ground because you overstoned the connector, you'll deserve whatever you get. Guns are not for the stupid or the irresponsible.

Honestly, you should really just call Ben Paz at Glockmeister, or Matt Burkett at CGR and pay them to do this for you, but ehy, I'm a glutton for punishment.

Ok, now that that unpleasantness is over with, let's get down to business.

The first step is to detail strip your Glock. Note, I said DETAIL STRIP. If you need me to explain how to do this, stop right now, pack up your Glock, and give Ben or Matt a call. Trust me, they do great work. CGR makes Glock triggers that are almost as good as a 1911.

Like I said, Glocks are easy to maintain, and easy to fix. I broke the ejector on this G21, ordered a new action block with ejector (it comes as a single part) for $8.50, and I replaced it within 5 minutes.

Ben has been nice enough to put up step by step instructions on how to take a Glock apart (with pictures), and I'll link to them here.

1. Field Strip
2. Reciever Strip
3. Slide Strip

The second step, once the weapon has been detail stripped, is to replace the striker and trigger spring with the lighter versions. You should have no reliability issues so long as you replace BOTH springs, doing one without the other could cause problems. Even with the reduced power spring, the striker should have no problem igniting hard primers. These springs by themselves significantly improve the feel, and weight of the trigger pull.

Now what we're going to do, is debur, smooth, polish, and cut the edges on every functional spot of metal to metal contact on the pistol.

Heres a picture blatantly stolen from the web because I'm too lazy to take one myself

The most critical bits here are the rounded end of the trigger bar, the trigger connector, the striker ramp, and the "sear" at the end of the trigger bar.

You are now going to have two different connectors, the original (5.5 or 7.5 lbs depeding on how and where the weapon was purchased), and the new 3.5lb connector. You may want to practice this on the 5.5lb connector first just to get a feel of how to polish this metal properly.

First, use 000 steel wool, dry, on all of the surfaces circled above. Then using the edged japaese stone, anywhere there is a sharp metal edge, square it up perfectly, remove any burrs, and make the edges "crisp". You want the edges to be perfectly abrupt, but not so sharp that the corners will break or dent. It's important you use an ultra fine grit japanese stone, or a ceramic rod here, so that you dont induce more grittiness than you remove.

Once the edges have all been prepped, use the dremel and jewlers rouge to smooth and polish all the metal to metal contact points. You will also want to lightly smooth the ramp in the center of the slide. There doesn't need to be a mirror finish, but using your fingernail each point should be COMPLETELY smooth. Pay special attention to the squared off , bent up angle on the back of the trigger bar that acts like a sear, the rounded end of the trigger bar that slides along the connector, the underside of the connector itself, and the wedge shaped block at the end of the striker. These point really should be polished almost to a mirror finish with the crispest edges possible. The firing pin plunger, and the section of the transfer bar that rides against it are important, but no matter how smoth you make them, it wont make TOO much of a difference (or course ever bit helps).

Next, your polishing will have broken the edges, so go back over them with the ultra fine stone very lightly, just to make them crisp again.

Between the connector, the polish job, and the springs, you should now have a trigger with a 2lb takeup weight and a 3lb trigger break, a much lighter initial takeup (Which makes the pull feel shorter), and little to no creep at the breaking point. Most importantly though, you will be rid of all the grit and stacking that are common to Glock triggers. The pull is smooth, light, and short, with a crisp break at the end. No, it's not ther proverbial glass rod break, but its pretty good.

If you are worried about the WEIGHT of the trigger, you can keep the stock connector, and still do the polish and edge cut job, and you will get most of the same benefits (especially with the springs). In fact the trigger itself will feel much crisper because of the extra tension.

I've done this on the NYT, and it works with the 7.5lb too (though you cant use the soft springs with the heavier connector, and the NY2 trigger is just beyond help), greatly improving the feel, and making the break actually measure close to the 7.5 lbs it's supposed to, rather than the 9-12 that it usually measures out to.

Remember, with pistol accuracy, a crisp and predictable release with little creep and no stacking is more important to accuracy than a lighter trigger.

Finish up with a good quality medium weight lube (thicker than CLP, thinner than grease. I like Tetra) on the points GLock recommends.

Now on to the drop in bits:

Altering the recoil spring changes a lot of things about the way the gun feels. A lighter spring can give you a faster cycle time, and an easier pul, but can cause function problems. A heavier spring, can also cause function problems, and increase muzzle flip. If you are going to change, see if you can experiment with a few different weights for what is reliable AND feels good.

Oh but don't bother with the special guide rods unless you want to increase muzzle weight by changing to tungsten. This can increase your smoothenss and reduce muzzleflip, but it will slightly slow your transitions.

If you choose to install it (and I HIGHLY recommend it), the extended slide stop lever gives a more positve disengagement of the slide stop, especially with heavy weight recoil springs. The stock lever has very little friction to it,. and can be difficult to disengage. If you dont like the extneded relase you can rougen up the surface of the stock release, then glue a piece of grip tape over it.

The butt plug helps keep debris out of your glock, and also speeds reloads because your mag doesnt try and go into the empty space in the backstrap rather than the magwell; plus it jsut looks better.

The final step is to apply the grip of your choice. I personally like, and recommend the AGrip
, because it doesn't make an already chunky grip any thicker, and gves a really great, comfortable grip even when wet or oily. Just be careful when you apply it to get the edges stuck down right, or they will peel. If they do, use a rubber cement type adhesive to restick them.

So that's about it. I have, or have had all these on my Glocks, and I recommend them to anyone. They don't cost much, and you have a much better gun when you are done.

UPDATE: Added the section on using the full power connector prompted by reader comments. Also, writing another post on the liability issue.

Tests

What Famous Leader Are You? personality tests by similarminds.com

Yeah, I can see that. Not the politics, but some of the personality, the sexual compulsiveness, the risk taking, tempered with responsiblity and preparedness... Yeah, among American presidents I guess I'm most like JFK, or TR.

I have a lot of cowboy in me, but I'm alway ready for what could happen. I've always got the gear, the knowledge, the training etc.. People tell me I'm paranoid, but I just like to say I'm prepared. I'm not expecting trouble, but when it happens, I want to be ready.

The one thing I really hate, is not understanding whats going on. Not being on top of things. I dont mind the new and different, in fact I love it, it's challenging and interesting, but I have to figure things out, and get a handle on them. If I dont, I'll work at it until I do.

Yep; I'm an engineer, I'm a warrior, I'm an adventurer, and I'm a bit of a control freak (though not so much in romantic relationships) .

My personal philsophy; take every opportunity that comes by, and make every opportunity that you can.

Maybe this one is more appropriate:

You belong to the un-winged Nephilim!
You are the result of the angels of Heaven smiling
upon the daughters of Eva, though your
existence is offically denied in Heaven. You
often possess great strength in many ways, you
are well respected, though sometimes a little
feared among humanity. You are a born leader
and you posess the capability for great good as
well as for great evil. The choice is yours.

What kind of supernatural being are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

HT: Joan

Blogiversary

In the last month, I've had just under 10,000 uniques, and 18,000 page views. I've got 79 external links on TTLB, putting me 1925th by links, (a Marauding Marsupial); and 618 daily unique visitors (avg. 584 according to sitemeter) putting me 563rd by traffic, out of the 16,000 or so blogs that TTLB is tracking.

My two peak days were around 1500, and 2200 unique visitors respectively. The first was a secondary instalanche off of the Gullyborgs second carnival of cordite, and a front page link from Kim Du Toit on the same day. The second was from an instalanche on the Carnival of Cordite I hosted t'other day.

Let me just say thank you to everyone who's been reading me. I'm going to try and keep up the good work (or the bad depending on your point of view). I've been having a great time venting my spleen on the world, and hope to continue long into the future.

You might have noticed, I don't shy away from difficult and/or controversial subjects, my opinions are quite strongly held, and I'm pretty vocal in expressing them.

Heres a list of the titles that I'm currently working on (they're in the stack):

My Guns
Favorite Television Shows
Favorite Movies
Favorite Music
Favorite Books
Sleep Deprivation (something with which I'm intimately familiar)
The Most Dangerous Words in the English Language
Anarchy is Stupid and Dangerous
The Code Culture
The War on Boys (and Men)
Laws and Taxes
A couple more recipes for real men

I don't much care for writing to the headlines, though I'm often inspired by them (or more frequently inspired by someone else who was inspired by them). I've written a few pieces at the suggestion of readers, and I have a HUGE stack of things already written in another format that I'm going to put up, about geeky stuff, guns, and politics (my bread and butter so to speak).

So for now, I'm asking my readers, what would you like me to write about next?

A Citizen or a Subject

Very simple. A citizen has rights, a subject has priviliges.

Some believe that one can be free in a monarchy, if the laws are structured properly. That in fact, their societies can be more free than more democratic ones, because the head of state can overrule any law that would violate the freedoms of the peope.

Others believe that since no government, no matter how it is structured, can be depended upon to not vote itself more power, more money, and more control; that anarchy is the solution, and in fact only under anarchy can people be free.

I have to make clear, both of these thoughts are entirely mistaken.

There is no monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy, where the people are truly free. It comes down to the difference between a citizen, and a subject.

There is no way that anarchy can exist without the weak becoming subject to the strong.

It is as citizens, participating in a free state, where we are subject to none but ourselves, but where we are citizens bound by justifiable laws, that we are most free as a people.

As individuals we may be more free under anarchy for a time, but as a people, the strong will dominate the weak, and our society as a whole will suffer for it, as will each individual member within it eventually; But that's a second order effect that anarchists dont tend to see. They don't follow their argument to its eventual end.

It all comes down to the difference between a citizen, and a subject.

Even though our government has overreached greatly, and grown into the monster it is today, we are still at core free men, different from almost all others in this world.

Taking as an examle Britain; as a subject of the queen, technically speaking you don't have any rights, you have whatever priviliges the queen allows you.

Though the royals haven't ruled that way since the early 19th century, and their absolute control was curtailed by the manga carta, and again after the failed republic (and the somewhat disastrous but thankfully short Stewart restoration) the freedoms of the British peoples are entirely a matter of tradition, not of law.

Britain is often referred to as a constitutional monarchy, but this isn't actually true. There is no written guarantee of either the limitation or structure of government, nor of the rights of the people.

Britain is governed according to the principle of common law, where tradition and precedent are the primary means of enforcing structure and shaping legislation; but that's all there is. The only real limitations as to what parliamant can or cannot do are tradition, prior acts of parliament (which can always be changed or repealed), or the will of the crown.

Americas governmental structure is radically different. In America we have a constituiton which defines the form, and structure of our government, and very stricly limits how that government can restrict our liberty as free men. The constitution iteslf makes explicitly clear that the governments powers are limited, and that power rests in the people.

We are not subject to anything, or anyone but ourselves, as free sovreign men.

As free men, we have no obligation to comply with laws, or regulations that are unconstitutional.

Sure, there are situations where folks disagree(or pretend to disagree) about what the constitution says, or how it says it, or what it means. Here's the thing: Nuance and subtelty are not in the language of the constitution.

Let me say this again, there is no nuance in the language of constitution. If you think there is read the federalist papers for reinforcement. The constitution was written quite painly. There is without a doubt both subtle and profound genius in the concepts of the constituiton, but it's only because it is written in 18th century high cant that anyone can legitmately see any ambiguity. Again read up, you'll figure it out.

Of course lots of folks pretend, or convince themselves there's real ambiguity, but they are either mistaken or they are lying.

Oh and the spot in the constitution that says we shouldn't follow any laws that are not explicitly authorized by the constitution?

Well you can't get more explicit than the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government cannot under any circumstances make law that is unconstitutional. If they do so that law is not legal, valid, or binding.

In most countries, you are only alllowed to do what the government lets you. Almost all countries in the world other than the U.S. are like this (even Australia, the second freest country in the world).

In America we can do anything we like, so long as it is not specifically limited by the government, and the government can only restrict us in ways that are in the constitution. Thats a pretty radical concept, and when it was first instituted, it had never been tried before. In fact everyone predicted it would fail quite spectacularly. Instead, some 230 years later (I'm from Boston, we remember the revolution started on April 19th 1775, not july 4th 1776), we have the most stable and long lasting government since the roman empire.

Of course the government has taken upon itself to intrude, and to regulate far more than the constitution explicitly allows, both for good and for ill.

The vast majority of federal law and regulations flow from a few basic statements in the constitution, which I'll paraphrase here: The federal government has the authority to promote the general welfare, secure the peace, negotiate with foreign powers, make war, ensure the full faith and credit of articles (licenses, marriages etc...) between the states, to resolve disputes between the states, and to promote and regulate interstate commerce.

The problem lies with that last one, promoting and regulating interstate commerce. It's a pretty vague clause, ad it can (and has) be stretched to encompass almost anything. This isn't really in the constitution as such, but if a judge allows it...

As our government was concieved, the states were for most purposes their own independant entities. The states had all the power to tax, and control of all laws and jurisdictions within their states, except in matters that would conflict with other states, or with the consitution. The federal government had EXTREMELY limited power and authority.

Even up until the early 20th century, the average citizen in America would have no contact or interaction with the federal governement in any way their entire lives, except perhaps through the military, or during wartime.

Then, as a result of the growing tensions between the states, and several wars, there were a series of rulings by the supreme court in the 19th and through the early 20th centuries that were very questionable as to their constitutionality, but very clear in their intent to grant the federal governement ever increasing authority and control.

During and just after the civil war the president and the out of control congress did many things that were blatantly unconstitutional. They also packed the supreme court with justices that would allow them to do so, or simply igonored, or didn't allow to go to court, issues they didnt like. After restoration things calmed down significantly (though not back to where they were before).

It wasnt until World War 1 that the federal government layed any sort of regular permanent tax on citizens. In fact their authority to lay this tax was successfully challenged (several times), and they had to pass a constitutional amendment to get the right to re-instutute it.

The last straw as it were for our original intended system of federal government was Franklin Roosevelt, who used the circumstances of the great depression to multiply the size, and power of the government by quite literally a factor of 10. Before 1934 most people never heard or saw the feds in their entire lives, afterwards, the feds became the dominant force of government eventually relegating the states to near irrelevance.

This continued apace through the second world war, then Korea, and into the 60's; until by the time Lyndon Johnson was done, the federal government was over 20 times the size it had been before 1934, for a less than doubled population. In this time frame the number of federal laws and regulations expanded to over 1000 times it's original size.

Almost all of these things were in fact unconstitutional, but they were done while the country was reeling through 40 years of continuous crises; from the great depression through the cold war. Anyone who challenged the government during this time was totally marginalized as a cook, or their point was acknowledged and ignored because "these things have to be done for <-- insert crisis of the day here -->".

By the time anyone thought to mount serious challenges, there was a huge bulwark of time and precedent surrounding the changes, and we've been trying to chip it down ever since. Anyone who has protested too vigourously has been declared crazy, made illegal, harrased, or even been killed (Randy Weaver was a racist POS, but he was deiberately targetd for being anti-government, and what they did to his family is wrong in every way).

Meanwhile the sheep continue to munch away; but even with all this intrustion, we are still free men, subject to none but ourselves.

A very graphic, and simple illustration of the structural differences between America and Great Britain, and what that means, to be free, and not be a subject:

In America all elected officials, and all military officers and enlisted men swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. They do not swear to the president, or even to the constitution. They swear, to THEMSELVES, and to their fellow men, that they will uphold the code that is the constitution.

In Great Britain elected officials and military officers serve at the pleasure of her majesty, and officers commisions are granted by her majesty. Each man swears his oath to the sovreign, who he is subject to. He is not a free man, but a subject.

All prison sentences and court decisions are at her majesties pleasure as well. The final recourse of justice is in all cases a petition of right, which supercedes all courts, where one directly appeals to her majesty for a decision, and that decision has the force of law.

So heres where we stand. The British, most liberals, anarchists, and some conservatives seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding, and make some improper assumptions about American government.

The Britsh are subjects. They have been raised as subjects, and do not percieve how any government can be any other way. They are bewildered by our talk of unconstitutional law, and limitation of government, or of the thought of disobeying the law not being wrong, or not being a crime.

So are many liberals. They have the mentality of subjects.

Anarchists belive that one cannot have any government without being a subject.

We are not subjects, we are citizens. We do not have prviliges granted us by the government, we have rights inherent to our nature as men.

A subject is required to obey all laws propagated by those he is subject to. A citizen is able, and perhaps morally required to disobey, and in fact to actively resist all laws that infringe against his fundamental rights.

A subject is raised to believe that government is ultimately in power. A citizen knows that it is himself, and his fellow men who are in power, and he is answerable to none but his own soul.

Liberals want us all to be subjects. I wish to remain a citizen, and I will die before I am made a subject.

From the declaration of independance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The Carnival of Cordite, Week Four

Welcome to my first hosting of "The Carnival of Cordite", let's hope that it isn't the last.

First, thanks to the Gullyborg from Resistance is Futile for starting up this carnival. He's a bit busy this week, off somewhere assimilating law knowledge so as to become that most dangerous beast, the lawyer. He is Locutus of The Bar.

Yeah... I know... A lawyer... but at least he likes guns. Maybe he'll be a 2nd amendment lawyer or something. Hell even better, join the DA's office in "Liberal Eugene Oregon" and refuse to prosecute people for self defense shootings. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Aaaanywy....

I have been blatantly flogging the carnival all week, and we've had some great response, in fact more than I can comment on without this turning into a full magazine. Because of the volume, I may not be able to highlight your post specifically, but I am going to list all of the links at the bottom of the post.

And into the thick of it we go...

Wilson gave his life to protect those around him. I can think of no finer thing to say of a man.

The article is from Marks friend Robert Langham, and isn't up online yet, but will be appearing in the next Texas State Rifle Association monthly magazine. We'll be posting the whole thing here at Roberts request.

David Arroyo Sr. killed his wife, shot his son, critically wounded a
deputy and blown the glass doors out of the East end of the Smith County
Courthouse before Mark Wilson lined up the sights of his 1911.

Mark had heard the boom of gunfire from his loft apartment overlooking
the Spring Street side of downtown Tyler. When Mark moved into the
apartment, he told friends that he expected a shootout sooner or later on
the street below. A glance out his windows would have shown the scene
completely: the gunman advancing, the victims sprawled on concrete. Mark
grabbed his Colt, bounded down the staircase to the sidewalk, crossed the
corner intersection and sprinted to cover behind the first vehicle on the
end of the block.

Though Wilson couldn't have know it, the extended cab truck parked head
into the loading zone belonged to David Arroyo who was at that moment
stepping forward to finish killing his own son on the courthouse steps. Arroyo had followed his wife and child to the courthouse, or waited there
until it was time for their child support hearing, then intercepted them
on the courthouse steps. Mark lined up the sights on the gunman's bulky
back. He shot once, perhaps twice. The range is inside 20 yards. Less
than 60 seconds had passed since he heard the first shot.

In the streetside restaurants and shops people were running for back

exit s. Waiters and cashiers were locking doors and dialing 911. Arroyo
was burning through 65 rounds of 7.62X39 ammunition. Over 100 witnesses
were listening or watching. Bullets began to tick in the window glass of
lawyers offices, splinter through woodwork of shops, and whine off
plaster walls. In the courthouse judges locked themselves in their
chambers. Witnesses and juries huddled while deputies and bailiffs
scrambled to secure the building and return fire.

Mark Wilson was in street, firing.

The courthouse security camera shows Arroyo turning away from his son
bleeding on the steps and running back to his truck. In the truck was
more ammunition, a loaded Remington 243, and escape. On camera, three
sheriff deputies in the courthouse door began to fire steadily. Mark
shoots again to no effect. The gunman is wearing an army flak jacket
over body armor. Pistol shots will not penetrate. Mark is wearing a red
pullover sweatshirt and jeans.

Wilson and Arroyo exchange shots across the truck bed popping up and

down, perhaps three shots each before Mark falls to the red bricks, face
down. Arroyo walks around the end of the truck, steps over him and
shoots repeatedly. He starts his truck and backs out, stopping at the
corner stop sign and looking both ways before driving north on Spring
Street. A Tyler police car sits at the intersection. Michael Mosley, a
uniformed security officer assigned to the US Attorneys Office chases the
truck on foot, unfired pistol in hand.

Tyler Police will intercept and kill Arroyo with his Mak-90 in his hands

two miles up highway 271 North.

Mark Wilson was a shooter and an athlete in many sports. He
enthusiastically held a Texas CHL. He was the former operator of a
state-of-the-art indoor gun range in Tyler. He believed in the Bill of
Rights. His family and many friends in Tyler will miss him.

Donations to: Children's Village
P.O. Box 6564

Tyler, Texas

The Anti Gun Male - Julia Gorin

Let's be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I.
But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to
masquerade squeamishness as grand principle--in the interest of mankind, no
less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as
a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York
girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing
with his uncle's gun.

But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as
many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to
the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the
benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is
quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are
men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How
is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun
effectively to defend the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't
touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve
his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for all men
who are against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are
genuine, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy
solutions to teenage vacuousness and aggression, and to parent and teacher
negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor,
psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one
thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or
bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.

People are suspicious of what they do not know--and not only does this man
not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do or the people who
have defended themselves from injury or death just by brandishing a gun. But
he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men
out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're also able to handle a
firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear for the
anti-gun male.

Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer
than he might on his own in a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet
street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that
would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he
finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.

The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some
assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the
house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of
him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I
could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace
with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the
perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it
otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a
fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he sleeps with your wife.

Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest to not admit that owning a
firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff
with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without
peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his
life--even if to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and
has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his
own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the
sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting
of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or,
should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of
equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha
breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his
freedom lies in this other man's containment.

Of course this ties in nicely with collectivist mindsets in general,
which assume that all people ARE irresponsible as individuals, and
therefore require the coercive power of the state to act responsibly,
thus abdicating the role of parent or adult to the collective.

Amazing how these things fit together so nicely isn't it.

The Money quote:

"Why, really, do governments want to control what sort of weapons citizenry can, or cannot, own? If you think the answer is some altruistic version of protecting the citizenry from crime then you have mistaken your individual beliefs with the institutional drives of a government. Governments want to control your rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, because armed citizens are a threat to the control and power of the government, whether that is their ability to control whether you commit a crime or their ability to control whether you overthrow the government."

"gun control advocates are often fearful of what other people might do if they had guns. If I had a gun, they think, I would find the person who caused me to feel this way and shoot him. It is thus not at all difficult for them to imagine that otherwise normal people are also on the verge of committing murder."

The important point:

"Local laws can rip away your rights faster than an early bird jumping on a worm. Faster than an ACLU lawyer ripping a cross off the courthouse wall. Even faster than a Democrat reaching for your wallet."

Josh Poulson talks about how the recent assault on the FN-Five-Seven is in fact just a backdoor way to ban ALL guns, in his post "A Useful Handgun Ban"

Pertinent info:

"Any handgun capable of defeating IIA armor is now under attack… Now, what do we know also penetrates IIA? 9mm FMJ at speeds greater than 1100fps, .357 Magnum at speeds greater than 1250fps, .44 Magnum, .50AE, .500 S&W Magnum, etc. etc.

IIA is the minimum recommended level of body armor if you are going to bother wearing it. It'll stop 00 buckshot, and a lot of other little things, but not 9mm Silvertips, for example. It is definitely not what you wear if you're facing rifle or submachine gun rounds."

" Liberty, and the means to defend it, are not "special interests." They are human rights."

I tend to agree

First up, the aforementioned heartless libertarian submits his entry for "Buy A Gun Day", just a bit early

Actually I the WASR hes got here, but I think I like this picture from a few months ago better:

Meplat of Wisdom:

"The biggest confusion folks generally encounter in ballistics discussions concerns the difference between kinetic energy and momentum. This is understandable, since they both describe similar properties of projectiles. However, momentum and kinetic energy are very different things"

Head from Says Uncle has been building his own AK 74 from the ground up. Here are the links (and a couple of pics) from the process:

Building an AK-74M, Part 1

This is what he started out with

Building an AK-74M, Part 2

Starting to look like a gun

Building an AK-74M, Part 3

Just about ready

Oh and for the real thing, the inimitable photoblogger SondraK has some SERIOUS boomage goin’ on. God I do so love a good panoply of destruction set to bombastic nazi opera, and agressive heavy metal.

Further proof (as if it was necessary) that the Ogre gives it straight:

"No matter what gun you choose, it does you no good if you don’t have it on your person. This is why I made these two lists. (that and a lot of people asking me to) Find a gun that you can have on you ALL THE TIME. Don’t give me that “I carry a 1911 Government Model all the time” bravado if you don’t really carry it all the time. If you do – fine. But really, smaller guns are a lot easier to carry all the time than bigger ones"

"Some people say that the gift of a knife severs a friendship. Others, myself included, see the gift of a knife as a symbol of trust, of guardianship, and of strength (it's a visceral paganish thing really).

Of course that's only if it's a good knife, and most knives aren't. Perhaps there SHOULD be some credence to that whole severing a friendship thing, because I know I'd be pretty irked with a friend who gave me a $20 chinese knife, or worse, bought me one of those $100 "collector" knives off of QVC."

Oh and to get us back to the gun thing, I dashed off another post this morning about the materials used in Firearms Frames, that y'all might be interested in.

One more post of mine, blatantly abusing my position as host, but this is more than a little relevant to us gunnies.

A few weeks ago I was denied warranty service on my HK USP Compact because it had aftermarket sights installed by the original authrized HK retailler. I sent them this letter , and have recieved no response as of yet. If anyone reading this knows someone at HK, or thinks they can help, please get in touch.

Kid looks pretty damned happy to me there, whaddya think?

The love of hunting was set deep that trip and it may be why so many families that hunt seem to pass thro the teens with less anguish than others. The experience of hunting with a young son, especially the blind type hunting in West Texas, the being out in the wilderness, the working together as a team, of a son learning to be a partner with his father in a shared task, all this leads to an opening up about things in a child's life he normally doesn't tell. Especially as he learns what is said in the deer camp, stays there.

Lets slide over to Kim Du Toits place, where there are two posts I want to talk about.

First, on the serious side, Kim talks about what it means to be in the Nation of Riflemen

The first point:

1. Any citizen who has taken the trouble to arm themself, has learned how to use their firearm appropriately, and is prepared to use that firearm in defense of themself, their family, their community and their nation, is a member of the Nation of Riflemen.

• Here we have firehand talking about Serious Accuracy from a .22
• And more about how Jeff Cooper is getting increasingly irritating about the Steyr Scout
• For some more gun pR0n, Analog Kid is testing out his Boomershoot Rifle
• Gunner at No Quarter has been collecting contest were you can Win Guns and Gun Gear
• Denise from The Tenring has a great Assault Weapon Parody
• James Rummel has a post on Protecting Yourself from Animals (wild or otherwise)
• Jay G has a quickie about The One that Got Away
• The Middle Class Mom write up a Recent Range Trip
• T.F. Stern writes on the Wild Side of Gun Ownership

To submit your firearms, firearms rights, firearms politics, firearms porn, and firearms stuff related posts; write them up on your blog or web page and link to them in the comments on his post, trackback them, or email them to carnival of cordite ( at ) hot mail ( dot ) com.

Oh and guys, jsut as an aside, it's a little easier on us hosters if you don't do all three.

Whether or not you have a post, please remember to post a link to the Carnival, so your readers know we exist; to quote the Gullyborg "More links = more readers = more support here and abroad for guns and gun-owner rights. And that's what the Carnival is all about".

Oh and if you haven't already, check out

Carnival of Cordite week 1
Carnival of Cordite week 2

Carnival of Cordite week 3

Framing the Issue

A common question for those new to the gun world, or even those who've been in it forever but have little experience with newer guns is; "what are the advantages and disadvantages of various frame materials"?

There are five materials most often used for firearms frames (and recievers):

1. Carbon steel
2. Various titanium alloys
3. Various aluminum alloys
4. Stainless steel
5. Various polymers

In terms of cost, polymer is very definitely the lowest production cost, and the lowest material cost. They are also lighter, and although they aren't as strong (though they can be close) because of their elasticity they can actually be tougher in some ways then the metal frames. Oh and of course they dont corrode with normal sweat or precipitation.

The disadvantages of polymer? Well they have to be made thicker and chunkier to be strong enough. This means they tend to fill the hand more, and they tend to be bulkier in general. Also they CAN crack at very low temperatures, or with very sudden shocks (like an out of battery fire). Finally, they generally don't offer a great grip, and most of them dont have changeable grip panels, so the best you can do is sleeve them, which makes them bulkier, or put adhesive grip tape or something similar, which can tear your hands up.

Titanium is by far the most expensive material, especially the titanium scandium alloys that S&W and Taurus are using. The advantage, they are strong, and light, so you can make a 1911 thats 4-6oz lighter than a carbon steel framed gun. The disadvantage? Titanium is expensive to buy, difficult to cast or forge, difficult to machine, difficult to finish etc... That means EXPENSIVE guns. Also Titanium work hardens and cracks far easier than either steel or aluminum. This isnt to say it's going to crack under normal use, jsut thats it's mroe likely tha with steel or aluminum.

Aluminum alloys are relatively inexpensive (though still more expensive than steel), and are a very common material for long gun recievers (especially shotguns), but are relatively rare in handgun frames other than .22's, with the notable exceptions of SIG, Ruger, the Colt Commander (and Officers ACP) and its clones.

Aluminum is a bit easier to forge and to machine than steel (though actually more difficult to cast, but its a well understood and mature technology so it makes little difference). The problem is, aluminum isn't very strong for it's volume; i.e. a piece of aluminum machined into the exact same shape as a piece of steel, will be a hell of a lot lighter, but not nearly as strong. This means you make it thicker, or you treat the metal in some way (generally by using a good solid forging in the first place, then specially heat treating it, and giving it a very hard finish). Also aluminum is prone to scratching unless it recieves a hard finish. Finally, aluminum wont last as long in high impact applications as steel; peening, cracking, or warping long before steel will, and at lower temperatures and pressures.

Stainless steel has become the material of choice for many firearms aplications, because it is corroison resistant, and slightly scratch resistant. It's a fair bit more expensive than carbon steel both in material cost, and in machining cost because stainless stell tends to be harder than carbon steel. Also because it is harder it can gall against plain carbon steel surfaces, and it is a little more likely to crack. It's also more difficult to finish stainless, so most stainless guns are left in the white, either polished, media blasted, or brushed.

Finally you get the traditional material, carbon steel. It's strong, it's resiliant, and it's cheap. Unfortunately its also heavy, and it corrodes very quickly. Since it's the tradtional frame material, it's characteristiics are pretty well understood, and theres reall not much special to talk about.

Oh, there's one more disadvantage to polymer: It's ugly

And...

There's one more advantage to a nicely finished piece of carbon steel: It's pretty

Well finished aluminum, titanium, and stainless can look great, especially on a high end meltjob where the metal itself is rendered into almost a work of art; but there's just something pretty about a deep mirror blue, a rust blue brown; or my favorite for classic arms, color case hardening.

Rights, Penumbras, and Emanations

I happen to be of the opinion that this distinction is quite simple: A privilege is something which is granted, a right is something that is inherent to a man by virtue of his existence.

The problem is, lots of people don't understand what a right is. Their heads are filled with, in the words of various constitutional scholars; "the vague penumbras and emanations of the government and the judiciary".

Rights are not granted by the government, or constitution, they are inherent to man.

Fundamentally, there are two types of what people call rights: Inherent rights, and constructed rights.

Inherent rights are those rights we posess by virtue of being sentient beings; constructed rights, are all other things, taken as rights, which are not inherent rights. They are rights by law, but not by nature

For example, inherent rights would include, among others:

• The right to not be attacked or killed out of hand by your fellow man.
• The right to own and hold property
• The right to defend ones life and ones property against others.
• The right to determine the course of ones life through free choice
• The right to be judged fairly by ones actions(that ones a bit fuzzy)
• The right to think those thoughts that you wish to think
• The right to speak those words that you wish to speak; presuming they are not, in effect, actions infringing the rights of others.

Inherent rights cannot be taken, or limited; but by force, or willing consent.

Constructed rights would include the right to privacy, the right to vote, the right to marry (civily), and others.

While the articles of the U.S. constitution define the form, and structure of our government; the first ten amendments (and most of the rest of them) are primarily concerned with the strict limitation of how government may limit, administer, or restrict inherent rights.

When it comes to the constitution, I am pretty much a strict constructionist; a group of people who for the most part do not believe in constructed rights (yes I know that sounds wrong, but trust me, its correct).

A constructed right is a right by consent or by consensus, not by inherence, and therefore is not truly a right, but a construct of the society in which one lives. It may be limited or removed by legislative action, or the will of that society at any time. That's not a right, it's a privilege.

Most of the time we recognize this principle directly in law e.g. It is always lawful for someone to defend themselves against attack. It is not lawful in most states for felons to vote. This is because voting is a constructed right that can be limited or removed without force or consent, but self defense is inherent, and cannot be limited.

Lets muddy the waters even further...

There is a compelling constructionist argument that voting IS an inherent right, because in a society such as ours, voting is an inseperable component of the right of self determination.

There are also compelling arguments that privacy rights are in fact inherent rights; as an extension of property, and self determination rights.

Rough ones those.

I contend that the rise of the valuation of constructed rights, is essential to the core value of collectivism, and the single greatest cause for the decline in personal and moral responsibility that has occurred in our society since the mid 1960’s.

Constructed rights like voting, fair housing, health care (lord knows why people think thats a right) etc.., have become the "rights" that many people value, while they no longer believe in their basic property rights, or the rights to defend themselves

In allowing, and in fact encouraging people to escheat responsiblity for their own inherent rights to the sate through the practice of social welfare, the value of those rights is nullified. In fact, as long as one accepts state control over ones means of existence,and ones protection, one has no inherent rights, because one has willfully consented to their removal.

The fundamental principle of political collectivism is that the rights of the individual are subsidiary to the rights of the collective, as administered by the state. In order for this ideology of the supremacy of the state to succeed, the percieved value of inherent rights must be destroyed, to be replaced by those rights granted by fiat of the state.

Once the populace is conditioned to accept this as the natural order of things (as they have been in Europe for generations) the eventual descent into collectivism, and from there to totalitarianism seems, to me, to be inevitable.

This is not to say that constructed rights are invalid, simply that they are not truly rights; They are rights by fiat Clearly rights by fiat cannot be granted the same status as true rights in that by accepting that any core value of liberty can be created by fiat, one must also accept that it can be destroyed by it. If one accepts that, one is simply saying that rights are not, they are privileges.

Ok, so this is a hell of a lot of fancy language, on a subject that I stated above, was quite simple - and this essay is actually about half the length I originally wrote; I just cut everything extra out.

So here it is, the simple facts:

Rights cannot be taken away. No law, no regulation, no government, can take away my rights, or yours. Not only that, but no-one can limit my rights, except to prevent me from limiting others right unjustly (see my post "The Politics of liberty").

No government gave me my rights, and no government can take them away. No man gave me my rights, and no man can take them away. They are mine, and I will excercise them, and I will defend them.

The only way I will ever have my rights violated is looking down a muzzle, and let me tell anyone who would try: I'm a better shot than you, I fight dirty, and I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

In Honor of Skippy

35. Not allowed to sing “High Speed Dirt” by Megadeth during airborne operations. (“See the earth below/Soon to make a crater/Blue sky, black death, I'm off to meet my maker”)

High Speed Dirt - Megadeath

Do it if you dare
Leaping from the sky
Hurling thru the air
Exhilarating high
See the earth below
Soon to make a crater
Blue sky, black death
I’m off to meet my maker

Energy of the gods, adrenalin surge
Won’t stop til I hit the ground, I’m on my way for sure
Up here in the air, this will never hurt
I’m on my way to impact, taste the high speed dirt

Paralyzed with fear
Feel velocity gain
Entering a near
Catatonic state
Pressure of the sound
Roaring thru my head
Crash into the ground
Damned if I’ll be dead

Energy of the gods, adrenalin surge
Won’t stop til I hit the ground, I’m on my way for sure
Up here in the air, this will never hurt
I’m on my way to impact, taste the high speed dirt

Jump or die!

Dropping all my weight
Going down full throttle
The pale horse awaits
Like a genie in a bottle
Fire in my veins
Faster as I go
I forgot my name
I’m a dirt torpedo

High speed dirt... High speed dirt

Oh and here's another one that I'm intimately familiar with:

189. Do not dare SERE graduates to eat bugs. They will always do it.

I know at least one of my regular readers is a track toad, do they have any inspring songs besides "and she wore a yellow ribbon"?

Gamers are a Security Risk?

I'm an AF vet, 2 years EM, 6 years as a reserve officer (actually jsut under three, jsut over 5). The last security clearance I held was TS with the full alphabet soup (it's been inactive the last two years). I can neither confirm nor deny that I have been in the presence of special ordnance and materials, and that's all I can say about that. I'm sorry sir you'll have to speak with the public information officer. I'm sorry sir you'll have to step behind that line. Now sir.

Okay, bad inside joke, feel free to ignore.

I've been playing SF/F-RPG's since I was seven, and I'm a member of the SCA. I'm also an avid SG/WG/BG.

Let me translate that: SF/F is "Science Fiction and Fantasy", the largest subcategory of RPGs. The SCA is the Society for Creative Anachronisms, a medieval recreation and recreation socity. SG is strategy gaming, WG is war gaming, BG is battle gaming.

ALL the airmen and officers around me had similar clearances, and every last one of them was into RPG and SG in some way. Hell, most of them went to fighter practice with me.

You have to understand, military life when you aren't actually in training, or on a deployment is PROFOUNDLY boring. Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and officers will do literally ANYTHING to occupy their time. If you dont believe me take a look at this: http://www.soupsandwich.net, and this http://www.skippyslist.com

One of the most popular hobbies in the American military (at least the Air Force and Navy anyway), is gaming. It's a mentally engaging hobby, that requires creativity, problem solving, and team skills to do it well (no, that asshole troll munchkin from the 7th grade isn't doing it well). It doesn't take up much space, or special equipment other than a dice, a tabletop, and some books. Trust me on this oen, the smarter you are the more you have to engage your brainto avoid going insane. Most importatnly to those of us who've served, gaming takes up a phenomenal amount of TIME, with your bbrain in gear. Time that you would otherwise have spent staring at the walls in the dayroom, or reading the same paperback over and over again.

A lot of folks in the military are into a particular (and particularly extreme to the outside world) sub section of this hobby called Live Action Role Playing (LARP), either through the SCA, or other LARP groups. In fact the article linked above has a picture of some LARPers in the included picture (not D&Ders as in the caption).

The single largest group of people in the SCA? Active duty military. The next largest? Military veterans. Every major U.S. military installation has an active SCA contingent. The aircraft carriers Enterprise, Nimitz, and John F. Kennedy all have at times been independent baronies or principalities within the SCA, which means that out of their 4-5000 crewmembers, at least a couple hundred were in the SCA.

The funniest thing here though; the smartest people in the military are generally the ones working in the jobs with the highest clearances; these are the same people who are most likely to be active gamers in some way or another, because as I said above, smart folsk need to keep their minds occupied in their off hours.

Trust me, if we tried to pull these policies, half our Air Force and Navy would have to resign because their clearances would be insufficient to do their jobs.

UPDATE: Just read this on slashdot, which had this lovely link. Where would we be without the self parodying genius, Jack Chick.

Fit, Fat, and Thermodynamics

"In most of Europe, the dinner meal is a long process. American culture has long been one that is always on the move, always racing to finish a meal to get on to other things, and has never understood why those Europeans would want to sit down for a 3-hour dinner.

Bear with me a moment here. Think back to when the American hustling car-culture took hold. People were always in a rush, always in a hurry to finish meals. As such, we would consume our food in a very short period of time. Since the body takes a while to feel the effects of being "full", it was often that people were done with their meal before that feeling set in. Thus, restaurants worked hard to provide bigger and bigger portions (and American's wealth, another consequence of the GO!GO!GO! culture, easily financed this), such that people would never finish their meal and still feel hungry.

What happened next is no surprise. People would overeat and stuff themselves on a single meal, consuming far more calories in one meal than their body would ever need. This grew into our culture, and we continued to just grow accustomed to large portions. The large portions offered no reason not to continue eating too much, and now we're all fat as pigs."

The cultural ideas about our meals, menus, and portions were all set while Americans, on average, were expending from 2400 to 3200 calories per day, often in hard physical labor.

It takes 16-24 calories per day, per lean mass pound; and 6-8 calories per day, per fatty mass pound, at "room temperature" to keep lean body mass at 98 degrees. For most people this averages out to about 11 calories per pound per day, just to maintain their body temperature, to breathe, and to keep their heart pumping (oh and yes, that means most people have WAAY too much fatty mass).

These days the average American is primarily sedentary, and expends from 1600-2400 calories per day just sitting still and walking around. Unfortunately that is really just about all most of us do.

That extra 800 or so calories per day add up to somewhere between half a pound, and a pound a week in extra body weight, until your calorie consumption is balanced out by your extra calorie expenditure from the weight gain, some 60-70lbs down the line.

This is coming from a guy who weighs 365lbs, and who at his lightest was 265-285 at 7%-12% bodyfat. I maintained 265-285 from the time I was 13 (when I stopped growing), til I was 23.

The difference? I expended 3500-5000 calories per day for 8 years, then I had a severe knee injury and didn't walk more than 6 feet without a cane for six months. I gained 60lbs of straight fat, and lost a lot of muscle in that time (which of course was replaced by, more fat). That was 5 years ago, and the lowest I've been down to since is 295, about a year ago, and of course that was without gaining back all that muscle mass.

I'm a guy who can lose 20 lbs in a week if I work at it, and maybe 40lbs in a month without much difficulty. I can even lose 10lbs in a single day if I excercise a lot, but most of that will just be excess water, and I'm talking about losing real weight at that point, not just water weight. Just about everyone who isn't a professional athlete, dancer, or bodybuilder carries between 5% and 15% of their body weight as extra water, over and above their actual weight. When people see one or two pounds variation in a day, thats almost all water.

By the way, just about anyone can lose that much, at least in percentage terms, if they REALLY work at it, but it's a bit easier for me because of my muscle mass. Remember, that's only 10 percent of my bodyweight, which most people can lose in one month if they work at it (though doctors recommend you dont lose more than 5% a month).

Also remember, the bigger you are to start with, the faster your initial weight loss will be. If you limit your intake, and excercise properly, this will work for about three months, during which time you can lose from 10-20% of your bodyweight. Yes I said you could lose that much in a month, but it takes hard work, and your weight loss will slow down qick after the first 10%.

After that first three months, you need to do more. You'll probably need to take vitamin and other nutritional supplements, and you'll need to focus your excecise and your diet more, but really it still just comes down to basic physics.

The "secret" to maintaining or losing weight? Thermodynamics. Eat whatever the hell you want, so long as you burn as much, or more calories than you eat. In terms of bodyweight, your body can't tell the difference between eating 1lb of fat (3500 calories) and 2lb of sugar (about 3500 calories).

Now importantly, this is just about weight, not health. Obviously eating 1 lb of fat per day is a BAD thing for your heart. It's also not about muscle, because you need to balance your fat and protein intake or you're going to lose lean mass, which you want to keep, instead of fatty mass.

In my case, because of my muscle structure (pretty damned massive), I tend to actually gain weight to start as I work out, because I gain lean muscle mass very rapidly, and lean muscle mass weighs 1.7 times as much as fat.

If you manage it properly you can lose fat, and gain muscle at the same time; and the more muscle you gain, the more fat you lose, and the faster you lose it (remember that difference between calorie expenditure for fatty mass and lean mass).

Oh and apropos of nothing whatsoever, you may not lose weight right away, but you will get stronger, faster, better looking and healthier, which is really why most of us want to "lose weight" anyway.

Now, entirely contradicting everything I just wrote, try out some of these Recipes for REAL men.

Superheroes

I swear, I answered all the questions honestly. I wasn't trying to get this one, it just chose it for me.

I did have a friend tell me once: "You're like Frank Castle combined with Hank McCoy, only sane... and not furry or blue"

I guess this is what comes of being a 6'2", 350+lb powerlifter, martial artist, vet, and weapons expert; with a keen sense of vengence, a couple of tech degrees, and an IQ 6.x times my age.

Huh, I guess that IS kind of a cross between Frank and Hank.

But I swear, I am neither furry nor blue.

Customer Dis-Service Volume 2

Sirs,

I am writing to you to descirbe a poor customer service experience.

I am a professional security and law enforcement trainer, security consultant, freelance writer, and a long time HK customer. I own or have owned several HK products, including several models of USP, an MP5, a G3, and others. I frequently recommend HK products to my clients, and my friends and family, because of their excellence; and prior to today their excellent customer service and lifetime warranty.

In October of 2004 I purchased an HK USP Compact .45 from an authorized HK retailer, new in the box, with trijicon night sights installed. I use this gun in my training classes, as a demonstrator to law enforcement, and in daily carry. In fact it is one of my favorite carry guns.

A few weeks ago I was having my gunsmith adjust the sight, when he came up to me and pointed out a small crack in the back of the slide. I didnt think much of it, as it appeard to be non-structural, and I decided to keep shooting. Unforutnately the crack opened significantly,
and appears to be opening further. The weapon is functional, but a wideing crack is disturbing.

I decided to send my pistol in for warranty service, and did so a few days go, at a cost to me of $60. Today, your service person called me up and said there would be a $300 charge to have the slide replaced. When I asked him why, he said it was because there was an un-authorized
aftermarket sight installed, voiding the warranty.

I explained to him that I purchased the weapon with the sight already installed, by an authorized retailer and he suggested that I take it up with the reatailer. Unfortunately this store has since gone out of business so I have no recourse to the retailer.

I asked him if he could honor the warranty, as the weapon was purchased new, from an authorized retailer, in this configuration. Not only that, I had my gunsmith (also an authorized HK retailer) examine the pistol, and he assured me the crack wasnt due to the sights, though when the sights were adjusted, by tapping with a soft brass punch that may have widened the crack, it had to have been pre-existing. The soft faced punch left brass marks on the sight. The gentleman from service insisted these were from excessively hard hammering, causing the crack.

I explained all of this to your service person, and asked if there was anything he could do for customer relations purposes, or anyone I could speak to and he said no, that was it, and that they couldnt do anything about it because an unauthorized aftermarket part was used.

Even given the unauthorized part, I purchaced the weapon in this configuration from an authorized retailer, as new, and I would expect the warranty to be honored under these circumstances.

At this point, I can no-longer recommend HK unreservedly to my clients, and my friends and neighbors, and I am very disappointed in this. I believe that when one pays a premium for the very best, which I believe HK to be, one should recieve premium service, and a helpful and accomodating attitude. Unfortunately this seems not to be the case.

Thank you,

Chris Byrne

I don't have the spare $300 lying around to get the gun fixed, and even if I did, there's still the principle involved. Not only that, but they would only send me back a weapon with standard sights, not night sights, a $75 extra cost, added to the $60 I've already paid for shipping. For $435 to fix this thing, I might as well just buy another Glock.

If anyone reading this happens to know someone at HK who can help resolve this issue, or can get me any phone numbers, or emails for senior managers, directors, press reps, or VP's please contact me. I'm generally a pretty resourceful guy, but I havent been able to find any useful phone numbers, and no-one has responded to my emails.

Customer Dis-Service Volume 1

I ordered some coffee and a “free” coffeemaker from Gevalia Kaffe (a division of Kraft Foods) two years ago.

During the 2003 State of the Union address I was making a pot of coffee, and my coffepot (a vacuum carafe) exploded, showering me with scalding hot coffee and spraying glass shards into my face. I escaped blinding only because I was wearing glasses, which were pitted and scratched by the flying glass.

I recieved moderate burns all over the front of my body, some small cuts on my face, hands, and feet from the glass (I was barefoot). In the accident, about $200 worth of clothing was destroyed, as was a $750-$1500, difficult to replace antique watch (I collect them, and that particular model is HARD to find), and my $350 glasses.

Honestly, I wasn’t all that upset. I've been shot, I've been stabbed, and I've been in explosions, I can take a coffeemaker going pop. I was a lot more upset about the watch (a vintage Hamilton air crew cronograph) being ruined by the hot coffee, and my sweater and glasses being ruined.

Anyway, I cleaned up, patched up, changed my clothes, and then called the Gevalia customer service line to report what had happened. I told them specifically at this time that I didnt want to sue, that I just wanted compensation for the damage.

Anyway they had me go through this “process”, where I would fill out a report, have a phone interview, and they would “forward my case to...”, each step of which would take a week or so.

They “lost” my case twice.

But here’s the fun part, THEY BILLED ME FOR THE COFFEE, AND THE EXPLODING COFFEEMAKER.

Yes, they actually attempted to bill me for this coffemaker that exploded in my face.

Of course I refused to pay, called in on this one to EVERYONE they had given me to talk to, and they said “Oh of course sir, we’ll take care of that right away”.

Six weeks later, I’m getting a dunnage notice.

Same thing, “Oh I’m so sorry sir, we’ll take care of it. And we’ll send you a years worth of free coffee”.

I got my “free coffee”. Guess what, now I’m getting dunning notices on the original order, AND on the 24lbs of coffee.

Oh and my “case”?

Well I finally got fed up with peons “losing” my paperwork setc… over and over again, and I called and emailed the senior VP of customer relations, and the senior VP for corporate communications for Kraft foods.

Well it went to the insurance company, who sent it to their lawyers, who sent it back saying that it was actually the manufacturers insurance company. THey then sent it to the manufacturers insurance company, who assigned a “client advocate” to the “case”. This client advocate ALSO said he would fix all the billing problems etc…

The insurance company forwarded the claim to the parent company in Taiwan who went to THEIR lawyers etc… then back to the insurance company, then back to the advocate etc…

Anyway I hadn’t even bothered with the claim for months, it’s been two years, I’ve moved twice, and guess what happens? I start getting the damn dunning notices again a couple months ago.

The last time I got one was a few days ago, and man, I’m just about ready to kill someone.

Cultural Currency

"Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs" -- Weird Al Yankovic in UHF

The biggest difference culturally between my generation, and everyone who will come after?

UHF TV

No, seriously. When I was a kid I grew up watching WLVI Channel 56, WSBK Channel 38, and WXNE Channel 25. There was no UPN, or WB, or Fox yet, and basic cable didnt have the programming to draw my attention til years later.

I think maybe you can tell how strong an impression these stations made on me by the fact that I can remember their call letters 20 years later.

UHF TV was the realm of the re-run, and the bad movie. All the UHF tv stations ran cartoons from the 60's and 70s in the early morning, then again after school. After cartoons they ran reruns of "classic" shows from the 50's through the 70's. Then, starting at 8 o'clock, they ALL ran cheezy movies, mostly comedies and horror movies from the 40's through the 70's.

The thing is, every UHF station around the country ran pretty much the same stuff. Sure different stations ran different shows, but in pretty much eveyr town across america kids were watching the same shows that their parent s had watched as kids and teenagers.

I'm 28; The Brady Bunch was produced from 1969-1974, ending its run a couple years before I was born, but "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha" is as much a part of my childhood as it was the childhood of the generation before me, and the early adulthood of the generation before that. Certainly the cheaply produced cartoon classics of the '60s like Yogi, Woody Woodpecker, The Flintstones, The Jetsons, Top Cat and Josie and the pussycats were in there as well. Hell, even Andy Griffith, Pettycoat Junction, Mr Ed, My Three Sons etc... were all part of my cultural currency, because of re-runs.

Oh and the movies... man those movies. I remember, all in one week, watching "Cheaper by the dozen", "Yours Mine and Hours", "Them", and "Salems Lot".

Honestly it didn't matter if the shows, cartoons, and movies were bad or good, the common thread between them was that they were all CHEAP to rebroadcast them; but there was an unintended consequence to this.

You see these were the same cartoons, the same sitcoms, and the same movies the kids of the sixties grew up with, and then the kids of the 70's and 80's after them. These were, in effect, shared cultural experiences between us kids, and our parents, and to some extent our grandparents.

The syndication boom didn't really start until '87, and it was this boom, combined with the rise of basic cable, that brought about the end of traditional UHF television.

In 1986, WXNE was bought out by Fox and a few months later became the first FOX affiliate in the northeast WFXT; but even then, FOX programming didnt start til 7pm, with "Married with Children".

At the same time, the re-runs during the day started being replaced by DIY/Home improvement shows, and the proliferation of daytime talk shows.

Sure the Oprahs and Phil Donahues, were on the major network affiliates forever, but when Richard Bey, Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, Ricki Lake etc... got their shows, they were all syndicated out to local UHF stations. All of these new options were offered at the same cost as classic re-runs, but they were capturing higher ratings.

Also at the same time, basic cable was broadening to include specialty channels like discovery, history, the DIY/Home and garden channels, and of course all day news.

The UHF stations couldn't keep up with basic cable, and they either became superstations like WGN, or they started folding. This was happening all over the country at the same time, and it created the opportunity for the syndcation companies, and the content warehousers like Time Warner/Tribune, Fox, and Paramount to start buying up, or networking, local stations all over the country.

Finally, in '94-'96; with the Tribune-TimeWarner gigantosyndicate-network the WB, buying at least one UHF station in every major market in America (including WLVI 56), traditional UHF TV was fully and finally dead.

Coincidentally, "Married with Children" ushered the mega syndication era in, and the WB finished the job, ushering "Married With Children" out as it became a market force. With it's final episode in '97, the last vestige of the cheezy rerun based networks was gone, and the slick Dawson Creek/PartyofFive/7th Heaven/GenericFamilyTeenDramedy became the dominant entertainment for kids and teens.

What really died when the WB came in however, was that shared cultural currency, and cultural continuity provided by the three generations of re-runs that I had grown up on. I know the monkees and the Brady Bunch as well as (or probably better than) my mother does, but how many 18-24 year olds do? And how many of the shows that the 18-24 year olds know do I know, or does my mother know?

And I'm only 28 fer chrissakes.

We've lost these common cultural touchstones. Even though these are infinitely cheesy shows, they gave us a point of reference across generations.

I miss the cheezy re-runs, not because of the shows themselves, but because of that cultural connection. There really is no replacement for this in todays pop culture, and unfortunately, I don't see anything like them coming in the future.

Strip Clubs and Spy TV

Watching televison these days, one get the sense that taste, decorum, and shame have all fled somewhere, never to be seen again.

The Mrs. has said it best:

"...it isn’t about dramas or comedies anymore. It’s about peeking into people’s lives. These programs started out innocently enough—talent competitions and game shows, but they quickly dissolved into something more than that. Now the talent competitions aren’t about the talent, but about the contestant. The talent component or the contest is just a façade. It isn’t about who wins. We follow the participants from dressing room, to bathroom, to living room. We peer into their hearts and souls—their private conversations and inner thoughts. It’s blatant voyeurism. It’s truly disgusting. The fact that people gossip the next day about what he said, she said in offices and lunch tables makes me want to vomit."

Avery tooley suggests:

"At this point, we live in a strip club culture. Nearly everything we do seems to be geared towards the lessening of inhibitions and towards a gratuituous displays of sex and/or sexuality. Look at what comes on television. I'm not so much talking about instances where the characters show skin. I mean, that's one level, but that's not where it really gets deep. The number one type of show these days is the surreality show. That's regular people who choose to live in front of the camera. That's level 1 exhibitionism right there. Sadly, people about 10 and under will have grown up with this as a norm. Most of them will grow up with a very different concept of what privacy is than the one I grew up with. Or maybe privacy isn't quite the word I'm looking for. Maybe what we're currently short on as a society is shame."

To my mind, it's not so much that we are missing shame (although we certainly are), but more that we have raised a generation (or maybe two) of people with very little sense of the apropriate.

This doesn't just apply to television, and music videos. I'm 28, and a small business owner, and I have conducted many interviews for professional positions where applicants just out of college (or around that age) have shown up wearing board shorts, a slogo t-shirt and a baseball cap.

They really didn't understand what was wrong when I refused to even consider them for the job.

Young women are even worse. What we wouldn't have accepted on Madonna 20 years ago is now worn by young women (really overaged girls) to the workplace, the mall, and even to two and three star restaurants.

Let me be clear, there is no environment other than the beach or the gym, where shorts or track pants with a thong sticking out, flipflops, and belly shirts are apropriate.

Unfortunately this trend even extends to language. If someone doesn't understand that the word bitch has no business in a job interview, how can you hire them?

As a culture, we have torn down the barriers between the personal, the impersonal, and the professional spaces, and young people just dont seem to understand what behavior is appropriate where and when, or even what appropriateness is at all.

The Gift of a Knife

Of course that's only if it's a good knife, and most knives aren't. Perhaps there SHOULD be some credence to that whole severing a friendship thing, because I know I'd be pretty irked with a friend who gave me a $20 chinese knife, or worse, bought me one of those $100 "collector" knives off of QVC.

I'm a serious collector of working blades. I appreciate beauty in a knife, but first and foremost a knife is a tool; in fact mans most basic tool, and still among his most useful. I know I never go anywhere but inside an airplane or courthouse, without a good knife. I have maybe 30 very good quality knives, and a few premium knives, that I use and carry for different purposes; every one of my knives is, and always will be used. All of my good friends will also recieve a very good working knife from me at some point.

Given this, I have learned over the years how to pick out a good knife, for myself, or for my friends.

There are ten points to knife selection, and I'm going to cover them here.

1. Purpose
2. Person
3. Steel

4. Blade length
5. Blade design
6. Grind
7. Finish
8. Hilt construction
9. Hilt design
10. Hilt Materials

About 4000 more words in the extended entry...

The first point of knife selection, and the most important, is: what are you going to use the knife for? Different steels, blade designs, and grinds are used for different tasks. If you're going to be cutting boxes and rope, and carrying it in your pants all day, you want a different knife than if you're going to be skinning a deer.

I'm not going to go into choosing a style of knife, because there are far too many variables. There's a different type of knife for every job, and every hobby.

The only thing I will say is, make sure you choose the right knife for the job. Having the right knife makes the task much easier, and much more fun, while the wrong knife can make it a hell of a lot more difficult, if not impossible.

The second point is, the person who's carrying it: What size are they, what do they wear, how hard are they on their gear, and what is comfortable for them. Also important, how will they carry the knife (sheath, clip, on a lanyard), how often will they carry the knife etc...

Again, there are way too many variables for me to go into here, every man is different, and there's a different knife for everyone. Oh and yes, again, it's crucial you choose the right knife for the man. If it doesn't fit their life, and their body, it won't be used.

With these two factors analyzed, you can them make a decision about all the other options you have in picking a knife.

Moving into the actual physical factors of the knife, you have to choose your steel. This choice is determined entirely by what you want to do with the knife, and of course how much you want to spend.

There are two factors in choosing your steel, the alloy, and the heat treating. Good heat treating won't make bad steel decent, but it can at least make it servicible. Conversely bad heat treating (or the wrong teatment for the purpose) will ruin even the best steel.

The better the grade of steel, the more difficult it will be to machine, and the more expensive the blank will be, so the more expensive the knife will be. The higher end high speed tool steels are EXTREMELY hard, and take an edge very well. The more chromium in the steel the more corrosion resistant it is, and the more vanadium, molybdenum, and cobalt in the steel the better it will hold an edge (and the more expensive it will be).

There are two problems with the high speed tool steels: One; they are extremely hard, so they are extremely difficult, and expensive, to work with; after all they are designed to use in machining other steels. Two; the high speed tool steels are often somewhat more brittle than the normal tool, file, spring, or bearing steels at the same level of heat treatment. Those "lower" grade steels don’t harden in the same way, or hold an edge as well, but they are VERY tough and resilient, flexing where other blades might snap or shatter; not insignificantly, they are both cheaper, and easier to work with than the high speed tool steels.

For a general purpose hunting or fighting knife, I like a good high carbon steel, hardened from 56-60. Look for tool steels like D2, M2, O1, A2, W2, or some of file steels like W1 or 1095, spring steel like 5160, or ball bearing steel like 52100.

NOTE 1: Metal files are often hardened to well above rc60, but when used in knives, file steels aren't hardened as much. Often a worn out file will be used as a knife blank, but it must be de-tempered first or it will shatter.

NOTE 2: Cold Steels Carbon V is believed to be 52100-b modified bearing steel. It is some very good steel, tough, and well hardened, but very susceptible to corrosion. Also most folks think Lynn Thompson (the propietor of Cold Steel) is both an arrogant asshole, and insane. Those people are right; but he's also pretty damned good at what he does.

For a pocket knife, a knife that’s going to see a lot of use in a wet or humid environment, or a knife that will be stored away in a trunk or a tool kit; I recommend a good high quality stainless or stain resistant knife or tool steel. Cheap stainless won't hold an edge for anything, but modern high performance stain resistant steels can have close to high carbon edge holding (though not its toughness). Look for AUS8, 154cm, ats34, S40V, CPM440V, CPMS30V, CPMS60V, VG-10, and Stellite or Talonite (which isn’t steel at all it's a cobalt alloy, but its damned good stuff).

As I mentioned above however, more important than the alloy used is the heat treating. A properly heat treated blade (for most alloys) should have a very hard, but not brittle edge, to hold a finer cutting edge; and a softer, more resilient back edge, choil, and tang to resist breakage. This is called differential heat treatment, and is used in better quality knives.

Generally speaking, on the grind, you want Rockwell hardness from rc55-60, with extremes of from rc50-64 depending on the alloy used. Below rc55 and most steel alloys won’t hold an edge properly; above rc60, and most steels become too brittle for hard use.

The reason a harder edge holds longer, is two fold. Dullness is primarily the rolling of the fine edge of a knife over to one side or the other, which presents greater thickness and duller angles to the material being cut; harder edges resist this better. The second element of dullenss is dents in the edge caused by harder materials digging into the blade itself. With a harder edge, you have less tendency to roll over, or to dent, but you trade off a greater tendency for the edge to chip or crack.

Ok so now that we've decided on our steel, our next question is length. Again this comes back to what the knife will be used for, who’s' carrying it, where, and when.

For a general purpose belt knife you want a blade of no less than 4", and no more than about 7". This allows you to have good heavy cutting performance, while still keeping control; in most situations.

For a fighting knife, or a wilderness knife, you may want something up to 9-10" to give you extra reach and chopping power (though there can be a tradeoff in controllability) . For skinning knives you may want as low as 3". Heck, in heavy growth, you may even want something like a Kukri , which is more than halfway to a machete, and can measure up to 18".

Folders are another story entirely. My personal thought is to carry as much blade as you are comfortable with on an every day basis. Personally I generally carry folders from 3.5" to 5" depending on what clothes I'm wearing, and what I'm doing that day. I have three every day carry folders, a Kershaw Ken Onion Blackout, a Benchmade auto mini-reflex, and a Mel Pardue Ambush, all three of which are one handed, fast opening designs with very positive locking mechanisms, and blades from 3"-4".

Once you have your length figured out, we need to talk about blade design. There are literally hundreds of different types of blade shapes and styles, but you can break the blade design into pieces to make classifying and choosing a style easier.

The basic components of a blade are the point, the spine, the foot or choil, and the edge.

The clip point is the classic bowie knife style point. They curve sharply down from the back edge in a concave hollow curve, and may have a sharpened false edge. Clip points allow a very sharp point with a lot of penetrating power on an otherwise broad bladed knife, but as a tradeoff, the point tends to be relatively weak.

Drop points take the spine of the blade, and curve it down very gradually in a shallow convex curve, to a point above the midpoint of the blade. This allows for a much stronger point than the clip point, with some sacrifice in penetrating power and controllability.

Spear points take the spine of the blade into a sharper convex curve to the mid point of the blade, like a single edged spear. This is an extremely strong point, but not a very fine one, and unless the false edge is also sharpened, or the blade spine is very thin, penetrating power is poorer.

A dagger point is similar to a spear point, only it is thinner, with a shallower and longer bevel to the point, and both edges are sharpened, preferably symmetrically. This results in an extremely weak point, but one that is very sharp, with excellent penetrating power. A dagger is intended as a thrusting weapon, and the strength of the tip itself isnt a high priority; in fact the tip on some daggers is inherently sacrifical; designed to allow penetration into hard muscle and bone, and then breaking off to allow withdrawal.

A tanto point blade has a gently curved, or straight edged main blade, with a sharply (45 degrees or more) angled secondary edge, cutting directly up to a point that is ground directly into the spine of the blade.

A modified clip point, or modified drop point combine the two point styles, with a bias towards one or the other. This is the most common point style on modern combat knives, and is generally expresses as a straight, or very shallowly curved (either convex or concave for drop or clip point respectively) angled drop from the spine of the blade to the tip, just slightly above the midpoint of the blade.

There are also modified tanto points common in American tactical fighting knives that have a gently curved main blade section, a shallower angle on the secondary edge, and a point dropped from the spine as in a modified drop point. The point could almsot be described as a modified clip point or drop point mixed with a tanto.

This style has been popularized by Emmerson and Benchmade, and Microtech knives, and is often called the american tanto, or the tactical tanto (because the styles of knife it appears on are often referred to as "tactical"). In theory this point type is a compromise in strength and penetrating power between the clip and tanto point styles, but in honestly the reason for this point type is style.

Moving on, the spine of the blade is it's backbone, and is the primary element of it's strength. The spine on most knives is generally pretty plain, but the thickness of the spine has a huge impact on the overall design of the knife. A thicker knife will be much stronger, but will generally have less cutting and penetrating power, and will be more difficult to machine and grind. Oh and of course, a thicker knife will be much heavier as well.

The choil or foot of the blade, is the spot where the tang or hilt transitions into the cutting edge. Sometimes the cutting edge continues all the way into open air (skinners and chefs knives), or directly up to the hilt (slicing and carving knives). This increases the slicing power of the blade, and in a deeply curved knife with a lot of belly to the edge, can increase the control. Some blades have a deep choil, and may have a ricasso (an unsharpened area between the hilt and cutting edge) from 1/4" all the way up to 2".

Most fixed blade general purpose, hunting, and fighting knives have some kind of choil, and some ricasso, as a side effect of the blade and edge grind. A deeply ground blade with a thick spine will generally have a very deep choil, which retards the cutting ability, and increases difficulty in sharpening, but increases the strength and safety of the blade.

Which brings us to the next factor for consideration, the blade grind and edge grind.

On most knives, the blades grind starts somewhere below the spine. Exactly where the blade grind starts is generally referred to as the grind line, but is sometimes referred to as part of the choil, and the part of the choil at the foot of the blade (which I referred to above as just the choil) is called the bit. The blade grind, and edge grind are critical to the performance of the knife, and are directly determined by what you want to use the knife for.

There are three basic types of grind: hollow ground, lenticular (convex) ground, and flat ground. There are also three modified grinds, the chisel ground, saber ground, or dagger ground blades.

A hollow ground blade has a concave surface from the spine, or the grind line, to the edge. This reduces the thickness of the blade greatly towards the edge, and allows for a much thinner, and therefore sharper edge on a thick spined blade. Hollow ground blades are the most common for classic pocket knives, and for traditional straight razors.

Hollow ground blades are the best for making shallow cuts, for slicing thin materials, and for shaving. A deeply hollow ground blade will have a weak edge as compared to its spine, and as compared to all other grind types; Also the curved wedge shape can retard cutting power in thick and tough materials because the angle of the grind changes sharply as the material being cut approaches the spine of the blade, which can stall the cut.

Lenticular blades are the opposite of hollow ground. They have a blade grind like a lens (thus the name), gently curving from the spine, down to a sharp curve at the edge. This allows for a very strong edge, and a very strong blade in general, but it won’t allow for as fine an edge as hollow or flat ground, and as the angle is very sharp and the blades aren’t thinned as much, it can be difficult to push through materials. Lenticular blades however are very good at slashing and chopping without hanging up in material being cut, or damaging the edge.

A flat ground blade is just like it sounds. From the spine (or the choil) the blade is ground flat to the edge. This is a compromise between the strength of the lenticular, and the fineness of the hollow ground edge. Flat ground knives are sharp, but can’t be as sharp as hollow ground blades without being ground too thing. They are very strong, but can’t be as strong as the lenticular blade without losing slicing power.

The flat ground knife has the greatest slicing power in thicker or tougher materials, because the angle of the blade is a constant, so the knife won’t hang up; Notice almost all chefs knives are flat ground for this reason. Flat ground knives also have excellent slashing power, but they are more likely to hang up in the material during a slash or chop.

The combination grinds are just what they sound like. A chisel ground blade is generally a flat ground blade, which is only ground on one side. A dagger ground blade is hollow ground on both sides to make a star or diamond shape. A saber ground blade transitions from flat to hollow ground, or is a multiple angle flat grind, and it may have a ground back edge, with a false edge.

After blade grind we need to talk about edge grinds; there are two main edge types, plain(or fine) and serrated, with many subtypes of each.

Plain edges are better for push cuts, fine cuts, and thin slicing; also, in general, fine edges give you more control over your cut. Serrated edges are better for pulling, sawing, and tearing cuts, especially in fibrous materials. Serrated edges generally produce a rougher cut, and give you less control, but the edge will generally last longer, because there is actually up to three times as much cutting edge being applied to the material being cut.

There are also four edge shapes to consider: The curved, recurved, hooked, and straight edges.

Most knives have a shallow curve starting at the point, and sweeping into a straight edge section about a third of the way back from the tip. This curved section is called the belly, and is used for slashing, curved push cutting, turning in a material being cut, and skinning.

The straight section of the edge is used for straight push cutting, and some pull cutting. It is also used for very fine slicing, as you have more control of a straight edge, close to the hilt. Straight edges are best for controlled push cuts, and for chopping, because they split the material away from the blade better.

The more curve you have, the more curved slicing power (slicing maneuverability and dirctionality) you will have. This is critical in skinning an animal, where you have to follow the contours of the animal. Curved edges are also best for slashing, because the curve of the blade is at an angle to the motion of your hand, which pushes the cutting edge deeper into the material, giving the edge more bite. This is reinforced with recurved edge, allowing the belly of the blade to bite very deeply, and continuously exposing a new section of the edge to the material.

The final blade related factor is the finish.

The finish of a blade isn’t entirely cosmetic. Corrosion resistance is critical in a working blade, and the finish of the blade is an important part of that corrosion resistance. There are also some finishes that reduce friction in a cut, or make it easier to clean a blade up after you're done working with it.

The common finishes are listed here:

1. Polished metal
2. Brushed metal
3. Bead blasted, tumbled, or media blasted metal
4. Black chrome, black Teflon or other chemically bonded blackening
5. Nitride
6. Powder coat
7. Epoxy finishes
8. Parkerizing
9. Blueing
10. Plating (nickel, gold, chrome, others)

My personal preference is for brushed metal finishes on all my knives. This allows me to buff out scratches, and not worry about a shiny polish, while being non-reflective, and if I'm worried about corrosion I'll generally go for a good quality stainless rather than depending on the finish.

That being said, there are certainly some good finishes to choose from.

The epoxy and powder coats vary in toughness from Glock, Ontario and Cold Steels "tougher than the knife itself" finishes, to buck's horrible blackened finishes that scratch with a light breath.

A good black chrome finish is nearly indestructible, as is a black-t Teflon, or a good nitride finish. All of the finishes I mention here are actually somewhat self healing (light scratches will tend to disappear over time).

Unfortunately most blackened finishes don’t stand up to tough use. Benchmade has used some great blacking, and some horrible blacking in the past. The same goes for Buck, and Ka-Bar.

Bead blasted finishes may look cool, but they scratch easily, and they stain, and rust easier unless they are oiled properly, because the micro-roughened surface retains moisture and salts.

Oh and with regards to finish, there are two important things to remember: stainless steels aren't, and even with a corrosion inhibiting finish, a carbon steel blade should always be kept lightly oiled.

Next up, hilts.

The most important factor in hilt design is the hilt construction. There are too many folder variations to get into here, so I’m not going to, except to say make sure you choose a positive locking mechanism with strong pins, buschings, and bolsters.

In fixed blades there are really three knife construction types worth buying, and well talk about those here:

The three basic hilt types are one piece, full tang, and full length tang.

One piece is just like it sounds, the entire knife, hilt and all, are one piece of steel. When properly done this results in an extremely strong, tough knife. There’s really nothing to break. That said, they are surprisingly difficult to make both strong, and comfortable at the same time. One piece hilts may be covered with rubber, leather, wire, or cord to increase the grip, and comfort.

In a full tang knife, the blade blank extends the full length and width of the hilt. It will have scales of some material attached to the sides of the tang, or will be wrapped in cord or leather to improve grip and comfort. It is easier and cheaper to make a high quality, strong, and comfortable full tang knife, than a one piece or full length tang knife, because the blade blank stays the same thickness the whole way through, simplifying machining. If something does break, it's going to be the scales or wraps, and those are easy to replace. Even with a broken handle, the full tang knife is still usable.

In a full length tang blade, the blade blank is greatly narrowed behind the hilt or foot of the blade into a rattail, or a shaft. This is where the style gets its other name, the rattail hilt. This is somewhat misleading, because a rattail is actually not a full length hilt design, but as many knives were made from rattail files, the name stuck. Just be sure that if the knife has a rattail tang, that it is full length.

Most full length tang knives will have a seperate quillion (cross piece or finger guard), a handle, and a pommel of some kind. This pommel will generally be pinned or screwed into the tang, with the handle material slipped, molded, or wrapped over the tang, with the pommel as a retaining nut. Some designs do not use a pommel; they widen out, hook, or flatten the tail of the tang, and then mold the handle over it, or thread the end of the tang, and screw the handle on directly without using the pommel as a nut.

The full length tang gives you anything from about the same strength, to a lot less strength than the others, but usually still sufficient for almost all purposes. The advantage of this tang type is that it allows for the best ergonomics, with handles that can be made to fit the hand more comfortably than most full tang or one piece designs. This is by far the most popular hilt design for general purpose fixed blade knives of the past 50 years, but the full tang design has been making a comeback over the last few years with "tactical" knife designs.

In terms of hilt materials and shape, those are really up to comfort, aesthetics, and durability.

If you want a very tough hilt, use leather, or micarta. If you want non slip, use kraton. If you want beauty, use micarta or wood etc... etc... etc...

The options are endless.

As to makers, I own or have owned, and very much like the following:

Factory

Benchmade
Cold Steel
Microtech
KA-BAR
Boker
Blackjack
Camillus
CRKT
Kershaw
Katz
SOG
Spyderco

Custom and Semi-custom

Emerson
Al Mar
Allen Elishewitz
Randall
Dozier
Pardue (either one)
Ken Onion
Loveless

Finally, given all these options, what should you buy?

Well for a general use belt knife, here’s what I recommend.

A 4-6" modified drop point blade, plain edged with a good belly, in a high speed tool steel with a brushed finish, a full tang, and sculptured micarta scales.

Alternately, the same knife with a full length tang and a comfortable wood, micarta, or rubber hilt, depending on whether you want more beauty, or more comfort.

Now, that was easy wasn't it?

Protesting Truth

A lot of folks, libertarian and conservative alike call the Democratic party the "demonrats", or the "dhimmicrats". It's garbage like this that prompts this sort of rhetoric:

"[A]s a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen."

"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."

Lets repeat that: Democratic policymakers, and thinkers are actively hoping for, and in some cases working toward the defeat of Americas efforts around the world. They do this not because they are philosophically opposed to democracy, but because they wish to deny the credit for this success to republicans. Democrats realize that if this project succeeds, it will permanently harm their political position, and though it would be an unqualified boon to the world, their personal political calculation is far more important to them.

The truth is that the Bush administrations ideals, if not necessairly their operations in detail, are succeesing over the ideals promoted by democrats. The democrats refuse to acknowledge this truth, and everything they do is simply railing against it.

They are protesting truth.

This is what happens when you follow the collectivist dictum, "the personal is the political, and the political is the personal". Every bit of life becomes politicised. Every position you hold, every idea you have, every stand you take is now judged against some invisible standard of ldeological purity, and god help you if you are found wanting. In this climate it is not possible for you to appreciate facts or results that are contradictory to, or even neutral towards your position, all data must either be supportive, or it must be discredited.

This stance is most visible, and most violent, in the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. I equate these issues with each other, because both their emotional context, and their rhetoric are similar.

This is a territory where everyone speaks in code, or if they don't they are castigated, attacked as insenstive, racist, sexist, homophobic, and the like. Further, it's a territory where facts, and data are irrelvant to the issues. No facts can be accepted, or even discussed, if they in any way less than wholeheartedly support the position being taken by the group, unless the soul purpose of that discussion is to refute or discredit those data. Contradictory data are to be taken as, and publicly treated as, lies and propaganda, no matter the source, or the credibility.

I should also note, the far right can be just as bad, if not worse, but their stupidity and perfidy shows itself in different ways (equating opinions, values, and morals with facts and truth), and what I'm writing about here is the tendency to protest truth because of agenda.

I have three examples for you: Lawrence Summers, Jada Pinkett Smith, and B strain AIDS (Oh and please don't think I'm singling out women or gays specifically in this, I just couldnt find a good example of blatant race baiting in the last few weeks. I'm sure one will pop up shortly).

More in the extended entry...

Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, is a moderate liberal. He was President Clintons final secretary of the treasury. He has lead some of the most "progressive" hiring, and admissions practices at Harvard, and he has given a great deal of support to liberal causes. Summers however, is also a scientist (well, a doctor of economics actually), an intelligent man, and a man who apparently doesn't take his politics personally enough, or seriously enough for many on the left, where this is a grave, possibly fatal flaw.

Mr. Summers gave a speach recently where he was lamenting the lack of women in the hard sciences, an undisputed fact; and where he talked about the current scientific thinking on some of the reasons behind it. This was not unfounded speculation, but a thoughtful, if shallowly treated (because of time constraints) review of certain research in the cognitive sciences; which suggests there are specific gender related traits which appear more often in men and less in women, that would tend to make men more able, at the top of the standard distribution and above it, in the hard sciences.

This speach wasn't a value judgement, or a condemnation of women, or even a statement that women are less intelligent than men, it was simply talking about a group of scientific studies, presumably without political agenda, presented by someone favorable towards "womens issues", but also someone who has a great respect for truth, and for results. It is those least two traits that really caused the "offense" in question.

Note: According to the best sets of statistics I have seen the average woman is more intelligent than the average man; there are more women at the top end of the standard distribution of intelligence, and more men at the low end of it. However there are more men at the top end outside the standard distribution (though more out of the top 100 known most intelligent people are women) ; the standard distribution for men is somewhat broader than for women, and in that breadth skews a bit higher; Thus the data also say this is true by a very slight margin; a very unpopular sentiment indeed.

Well, the response to this was predictably political, and entirely driven by agenda. MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, told reporters "I felt I was going to be sick," that "my heart was pounding and my breath was shallow," that "I just couldn't breathe, because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," and that she had to flee the room because otherwise "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."

This type of high level (or low level depending on your point of view) emotional rhetoric is considered sensible discourse in this arena. A grown woman; a scientist no less, saying that she was made physically ill near to the point of unconsciousness, and bolting away from an idea that offends her. In any other environment this would be considered immature and silly (and in fact feel free to feel that way now; I certainly do). I personally think this woman does nothing but add weight to some peoples worst prejudices about women.

Mr. Lawrence has been roundly criticised, and thousands of leftist agenda activists have called for his resignation, but hundreds of serious, and reputable scientists have rallied to support him. Cognitive researchers, many of them women, agree that what he said is what they believe to be true right now, and that in fact the differences may even be deeper and more significant.

This scientific belief (we can't yet say it is certain fact, or even a concrete theory) is unnacceptable to agenda politics, so they protest against it; but how can you protest fact?

Which brings me to the B strain AIDS issue.

Recently a substrain of B strain AIDS, originally only found in southeast Asia, but now making its way across Asia and africa, has started to appear in New York and San Francisco.

B strain is remarkably more dangerous than A strain, the dominant form of AIDS in the west. A strain is actually a relatively weak and fragile virus, dying quickly when exposed to air or sunlight, and requiring a signficant number of virus particles to be introduced directly into the bloodstream to infect. It is quite possible for you to have normal unprotected sex with someone who has active A strain AIDS hundreds of times, and not be infected (please note, this is obviously an INCREDIBLY bad idea, it's just the truth), especially if you are male and it is your female partner who is infected. Female to male infection is relatively rare with A strain.

If you are infected with A strain HIV, with modern treatement regimens you can expect to live indefinitely. It was once believed that the mortality rate for AIDS would be 100%, that it was simply a matter of extending time, but there are people who have lived with AIDS for 20 years or more now. For these people, AIDS has become a chronic disease rather than an acute one.

The same things cannot be said about B strain. B strain is a far more hardy virus, surviving for hours in hostile environments, and requiring far fewer live virus particles to produce infection. Notably, B strain appears to be able to produce infection with a far lower volume of body secretions and a lower count of virii in those secretions. Where blood infiltration from small vaginal or anal tears is the primary infection vector for A strain, with B strain, there can be enough virii present in vaginal secretions to cause infection without open wounds. There may even be enough in saliva, and there certainly is from breast milk. The fact that this strain is so virulent, allows it to sometimes survive, and potentially infect, from the residues of vaginal and anal fluids that are left on the gentials or in the mouth after sexual intercourse with condoms and dental dams. This has lead to B strain being the primary cause of new infections for heterosexual men outside the U.S. , and to far higher rates of infection among gay men and lesbians.

Worse, with this particular substrain of B strain, infections proceed far faster than A strain, which typically takes from 6 months to two years, and can take from 10 to 20 years to begin showing symptoms.With treatment and the right immune system, active AIDS infection can sometimes not appear at all (as in the case of Magic Johnson). Conversely, B strain infection can become apparent within weeks, and the progress of the virus from there is extremely rapid. B strain resists all known treatments, and is known to cause death within 6 months in some cases, and 20 months in almost all cases.

So why don't more Americans know about B strain AIDS? It's existence has been known for well over a decade, and this substrain was identified more than 5 years ago, why hasn't this been more widely reported?

Some suggest that it is because reporters and news organizations dont want to inflame a large anti-gay backlash that may occur if this information is discussed publicly. In fact, when stories recently appeard on CNN, and in Time, USA Today, and the New York Times discussing B strain AIDS, gay advocacy groups protested. They did not dispute the facts of the stories, or even their presentation (note, these are all very liberal news organizations, unlikely to treat this issue as an anti-gay issue), but the mere fact that people were talking about this at all. They want us to stop talking about it, because it might make people angry with gays.

They are protesting the truth.

How can you protest the truth?

The truth is that this is an incredibly nasty and dangerous disease, and the information that it is here in America is important to save lives. The information that it can cause infection even with condom use is important to save lives. The information that you can't treat it is important to save lives.

They are protesting the truth, because it interferes with their agenda.

They're right by the way; it probably WILL make people angry at gays. It will probably male people angry at the promiscuous as well. It may produce a reaction, a backlash if you will; similar to that which occurred when AIDS was originally publicised in the early to mid 80's. I think that would be a regretable thing, but it doesn't change the fact that by trying to suppress the truth, these groups are making it far more likely that people will contract, and will die from this horrible disease.

To the agenda protestors, these facts can't discussed, because they might endanger homonormalization, the process of changing the ideas and mores of our society so that homosexuality is accepted as normal. I have no problem with this idea, as far as I'm concerned your sexual preferences are jsut that, yours; what I have a problem with, is that any time something comes out that is negative towards gays, it is forbidden to speak about it, for fear of threatening the goal, no matter how important it may be. There are those who would call me homophopic just for bringing this whole subject up.

Which brings around to my final example (and coincidentally back to Harvard) Jada Pinkett Smith.

Mrs. Smith (the wife of rapper Will Smith), recently gave a talk about her life and her experiences (as a 34 year old straight black woman), during the "Cultural Rythyms" festival at Harvard. The closing of her talk included this quote:

"Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career," she said. "They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it."

"To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open," she added.

The day after the talk, a letter of protest was written to the administration of Harvard, from the "Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations" (boy that's a mouthful isn't it). Some time later a press release was issued, and an article has appeared in the Crimson saying the following:

"The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith’s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to “take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,” according to the release.

Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation’s “Artist of the Year” at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.

BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ’06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.

“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.

Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

“Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.

Margaret C. D. Barusch ’06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.

“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship—a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”

In order to discuss these concerns and ensure that such a misunderstanding doesn’t occur again, Paulus said the BGLTSA and the Foundation are planning a joint breakfast later this week as well as a general discussion forum for all of the SAC member groups.

Paulus added that the Foundation will issue a letter later this week apologizing for any offense the show might have caused and encouraging concerned students to attend the planned discussions."

Heteronormative

It's not really a word, it's a term of art promulgated by the activist industry. Its purpose is to put forth the idea that any favorable discussion of, or endorsement or conventional heterosexual relationships is in fact directly oppression of homosexuals, because it makes them "uncomfortable".

When did being uncomfortable, become oppression? For that matter, how does one have the right to be uncomfortable about someones normal personal relationships? How does one have any right to be uncomfortable about someone speaking of their marriage, or their children?

Let me jsut get this straight, they don't want people to be uncomfortable talking about gay relationships, but they DO want people to be uncomfortable talking about heterosexual relationships?

They are saying that the mere fact that a 34 year old, straight, black woman is talking about her personal experiences, her life, and her ideas is offensive, and is in fact oppression and prejudice.

Honestly, I have nothing useful to say about this. There is no useful way I could respond to or debate this idea, because t's risible on it's face. There is nothing I can say that can indict this idea more than this:

They are protesting truth.

Civil Disobedience

Dear Sirs:

Should you attempt to overthrow the First Amendment on the internet, I will disobey.

I will not answer the court.

I refuse to pay fines.

I will organize civil disobedience against your Communist style election rules.

I will never, ever, submit to this attempt to destroy American liberty.

With utter enmity and ill will,

Dale Amon.

Live Free or Die.

The McCain Feingold campaign finance law is unconstitutional, and another step on the road to tyranny. It is, in present form, just able to be born; If the congress should attempt to extend it's powers even further, it is our duty as free men to disobey.

Let me explicitly state what this flag should make clear. Any attempt made to silence my political expression will be met with force, if necessary lethal force. I will accept the consequences of these actions, with the constitution, and inherent right as my defense.

Carry Daily, Apply Sparingly

Im a big fan of Life Liberty Etc... They do some great tshirts, stickers, mugs and other various tchotchkes, about a dozen of which I own .

They also make some damn good looking black and red MOLON LABE hats, one of which I will buy when I have some spare cash handy.

Anyway, this sticker pretty clearly deliniates my carry philosophy.

Superiority complex

To wit:

When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.

...

When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen

...

I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.

Responses from the left have come in many varieties, most often I get the arguments "Why do you need a gun", "Wouldnt the world be a better place without guns", and "arent you worried you'll shoot someone". Further, many insults are directed my way, calling me immature, accusing me of needing a gun as a phallic replacement, saying that I was clearly psychotic, and asking how I can possibly have such a superior attitude because of something that is so obviously wrong (carrying a gun that is).

The basic thread running through all of this, is that there must be some special jsutification for having, owning, or carrying a gun.

Here's the thing, pro-gun and anti-gun people are arguing from a different set of first principles. There can be no useful debate betwen two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.

More in the extended entry...

ProGun people believe that the gun is a useful tool with no inherent motive, and no inherehnt dangers, excepting misuse. Additionally, guns are examples of elegance in mechanical engineering, which many take pleasure in. Finally they are a source of enjoyment through the practice of the skill of marksmanship. But guns are jsut inanimate object; dangerous if muisused, but so are knives, screwdrivers, chainsaws, cars.. well really just about anything. A gun is an inanimate object, just like any other two pound chunk of metal.

Anti-gun people operate from a completely different principle. They believe guns are inherently wrong. They equate guns with assault and murder, and conflate a causal relationship. They believe that if anyone would have a gun, they must have a valid justification for it, and that they (the anti-gun people) must judge the validity of this justification. They believe that the desire to carry a gun is in iteslf a pathology, and therefore no-one who wishes to carry a gun should be trusted to do so.

Personally I think this position is ridiculous. It's an inanimate object. It has not intent. It has no will. It has no magical properties. Picking up a gun does not turn you into Rambo, or Gary Gilmore.

I have asked a girlfriend to pick up a gun and hand it to me from my work bench, and they actually shrunk back from it, as if it would hurt them.

I carry a gun because I can, and because it is a useful tool. I never explicitly stated that a gun is a useful tool in my original essay, because anyone who isn't an idiot, or blinded by their emotional reaction to an inanimate object should be able to see that a gun is useful. I also carry a pocket knife, a flashlight, and a multitool, because I can, and because they are useful tools.

Does carrying a gun make me feel better? More secure? Absolutely. I know that no matter who might try to harm me or those around me, I have an advantage in stopping them. I know that I won't necessarily have to rely on the police, or the people around me to help. I know that by merely having a gun I am more likely to be able to stop an assault from happening because most defensive uses of guns do not involve any shots being fired.

Am I supposed to feel bad because carrying a gun makes me feel better?

Do I take pleasure in the fact that I can kill someone with it? Of course not. I can almost as easily kill someone with my bare hands, or a knife, or even easier with my car.

Only those that impute some mystical power to guns could ever make these arguments without realizing how ridiculous they are.

What I do appreciate, is that carrying a gun is a greater responsibility than not carrying one. I have a greater capacity for harm with less effort, (though no greater responsiblity to not harm), and should act accordingly. THis is no different than a large and strong man appreciating that he must be more careful than a small man in how he moves, to avoid breaking things around him.

Does this somehow make me feel superior to everyone around me? No of course not, but I do feel superior to those who believe they are not responsible enough to carry a gun, because I AM superior to them. I have control of myself, and I do not impute irrational properties to inanimate objects. I dont think that merely posessing an object will make me a killer.

Damn right I'm superior to those who do not have the moral courage to simply own an inanimate object.

Damn right I am superior to those who feel that since they aren't responsible, neither is anyone else.

Damn right I am superior to those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety.

I am superior to them, because I am not dependent on them, or anyone else, to defend myself; and yes, I feel contempt for those people who do not have the will to do so. It's not about ability, its about will.

Saying you don't have the physical ability to defend yourself is nothing but an excuse, because weapons are the great equalizer. What you really don't have is the will necessary. You are saying that if someone tries to kill you, or rape you, will do nothing to stop them but flail your arms and scream. Worse, you are not only saying it isn't your responsibility to stop them, but that it IS everyone elses responsiblity.

Yes, I have contempt for you, and I pity you, because no matter what age you are, you have wilfully reduced yourself to no more than a helpless child.

Why We Fight

I've had some questions from readers as to why I, as a libertarian, believe in a strong standing military, and specifically why I supprt the current Gulf War.

The dogmatic Libertarian will say to this, "War is the health of the state", and to some extent this is correct, but it is also correct that to provide for the defense of individuals, a society must sometimes act in the collective. When it does, it must do so with great decision.

As I've said I'm a muscular minarchist. I believe in the minimum amount of government necessary to the running of a free society, and I believe in a strong defense. Sometimes, a strong defense requires a strong offense. In this day of assymetric warfare, it isn't sufficient to build high walls, and man them well. We must venture into the wilderness and bring the fight to those who would bring it to us.

But honestly, that isn't why I believe in what we are doing in the mideast today, or rather it isnt entirely why. Yes, I think what we are doing is in our best interests, but theres far more to it than that...

I have a confession to make, I hate Ayn Rand. Actually I hate objectivision in general. I find pure objectivism to be morally and spiritually hollow. Of course a pure objectivist would say "Thank you" to that, because it's SUPPOSED to be that way.

I believe in liberty, and in freedom, and I believe that others should be given the opportunity to live free, and at liberty. When there is no free choice in government, I believe that must be fought against (Hell, I almost think we need to do it here in the U.S. but that's another story entirely).

That fight can come in many forms, political, philosophical, military; but when a peoples liberty is being suppressed entirely by armed tyrany, they need military help from the outside.

Just because they need it however, doesnt mean we have to be the ones to give it. Do we have an obligation to free these people... I dont know.

From an objectivist standpoint the answer would certainly be no, but what about from a spiritual standpoint. Morally we certainly have an obligation to support their freedom, but what about more material assisitance. And if one people, why not another? Why free Iraq but leave Iran, and North Korea.

One can fall back on game theory, and make it into a classic tit for tat, and that's would suggest that freeing an oppressed people would be in the long term good for us, because they would be less likely to try and oppress us later, and may be inclined to help us should we fall under tyrany.

Except that game theory isn't all that pragmatically useful when it comes to international relations.

If not us, then who?

Clearly the fight against global tyranny is something that should continue, but why does it have to be us?

If not us, who?

Liberals with guns - More Blatant Bandwidth Theft

I think they grabbed this one from Oleg Volk, but it's still a great image:

Here's an organization I wholeheartedly support, The Pink Pistols:

Recipes for REAL Men, Volume 3

I was bored, hungry, and had some random food lying around the house a few nights ago, and I felt like hardening my arteries even more, so I threw this together.

Ingredients:

1lb Hickory smoked black pepper bacon, extra thick cut
1lb boneless chicken breast
1/2lb loose meat breakfast sausage (the kind you make patties out of)
2-3lb your favorite frying potatoes (more or less, depending on how meaty or starchy you want)
1 large onion diced large (optional)
1 green pepper diced large (optional)
1 hatch or habanero chili diced fine(optional)
1/2lb shredded mixed cheese (Optional)
4 tblsp butter

Seasoning:

2 tbsp finely grated parmagian cheese
1tbsp chili powder
1tbsp Black pepper
1tsp ground mustard seed
1tsp onion powder
1tsp garlic powder
1tsp powdered sugar
Juice from 1/2 lemon

For this recipe you are going to need a very large oven safe skillet. When I say very large, remember we are talking about 5lbs of meat and potatoes here. Your normal 10" or 12" x 2" deep skillet can only handle maybe half this much food. You really need a 16"x4" skillet for this. Either that, or you can use a very thick bottomed pot (thick so the grease wont burn).

Crumble and fry the sausage till about halfway browned, then add in the onions, peppers, and chilis. Finish by frying til the onions have started to carmelize.

Drain the sausage back into the pan using a large slotted spoon and pressing the grease out with the back of another spoon. Be careful not to burn the grease.

Cut the bacon into 1/2" sized chunks, and fry it in the sausage grease until lightly crisp, then drain back into the pan as above, being careful not to burn the grease.

At this point you should have a pretty full skillet of hot, and very fragrant grease. If you are going to make bacon-grease biscuits and cream gravy, as I HIGHLY recommend you do, you should drain off about a half to 3/4 cup of the grease.

With a 1/2 to 3/4 cup you can make 4-6 biscuits, and enough gravy to cover them depending on how big and greasy you like your biscuits and gravy. Oh and you'll want to save a couple tablespoons of sausage bits for the gravy.

Cut the chicken up into 1/2" to 1" chunks, dust them with salt, pepper, and chili powder, and fry until golden colored, then drain them back into the pan as described above.

Dice the potatos into 1/2" or smaller chunks. Splash lemon juice evenly over them. Combine the dry seasonings together, and evenly coat the potatos with them. For stronger flavoring make 50-100% more and shake the potatoes in a plastic bag to even coat them.

Add the butter to the grease, and fry the potatos to a medium golden brown.

The butter added to the bacon grease adds a bit more flavor (as if it needed it), and also aids in producing the right color in the fried potatoes.

Drain the potatoes thouroughly back into the pan, and let drain on brown paper (like shipping bags), but not to cool down.

Drain the remaining grease off from the pan, and filter it through a fine strainer to save for later use (nothing better for frying than bacon grease).

Deglaze the pan with 1/2 cup of milk. If your skillet is large enough, toss the potatoes, chicken, bacon, and remaining sausage back into the skillet, and liberally toss the mix over the heat, mixing throughly.

If your skillet is not large enough for all the ingredients, combine in a large bowl, and pour the deglaszed drippings over, mixing thoroughly, then reheat in the pan as you are getting ready to serve.

If you've made biscuits and gravy, at this point you're done. Just put a few large spoonfulls of the hash mix on a split biscuit (pile it high, come on you know you want to), and cover with the cream gravy.

If you dont have biscuits and gravy we'll do it up with cheese. Shut the heat off the pan, and toss in half your cheese with the hash, then sprinkle the rest of the cheese over the top. You can serve like this, or add some more cheese and stick the whole think in the oven under the broiler to melt and brown the top of the cheese.

Actually one of my favorite things to do with this is to use it as an omlette filling.

Finally, you can make a combination yorkshire pudding/pot pie with this by making your biscuit dough and cream gravy, but instead of making up biscuits, you mix up all the filling with the cream gravy, and make a skillet pie with the biscuit dough. Remember to bake the skillet pie with tin foil over the top of the skillet til the biscuit top is about halfway to nice and crusty. That way the bottom will cook along with the top.

If you know you are going to make a skillet pie before hand and you like a potpie style dinner, you can use about 50% more chicken, and a little less sausage and bacon. Make about 50% more gravy, cut the potato chunks a bit larger, and only fry them til they are soft. THis will give you a less greasy pie, with potatoes that soak up the gravy.

Serves about 4 of me without Biscuits and gravy, and 6 with. For normal people increase that by about 50%

Be sure to check out:

Recipes for REAL men, Volume 2 MuscleCarbonara

Recipes for REAL men, Volume 1 More Beef than Stew

Blatant Bandwidth Theft

It's all about the Grovers

Thanks Sondra and Roger.

Dunno if I've climbed in the TTLB rankings yet, they're still updating the database this morning.

So uh.... those articles that I've been promising for the last few days..... well I'm promising them again for today. Or rather I promise that they are all at least started, and I'm'na finish them as soon as I can.

Now some good real world news, it looks like I've got a new gig, or at least a temp to perm contract. I haven't recieved the official offer yet, but by the end of the interview yesterday afternoon we were talking about when I'd be coming in etc...

UPDATE: Whenever TTLB's update completes (N.Z. Bear is having DB problems), I will be firmly in the middle ofthe adorable rodents. In fact, I will be right around the popularity of BabyTrollBlog, which amazes me.

Blind or High

Idiot:"But my friends say it looks good"

Cbyrne: "Your friends are either very kind, or high; I am neither"

Just thought I'd share.

Sensible Penis Control

I've recieved some TRULY fascinating responses from collectivist anti-liberty activists to "Why I Carry a Gun", and other liberty oriented posts I've made.

This one here, from Canadian RDK, absolutely takes the cake:

Come off it.

You are saying that you carry a gun because it gives you the power to kill someone and you get off on that power. That is sick.

How long until you use that power?

Are you sure that in the heat of the moment that you will use it properly?

If an innocent person or worse a innocent child dies because of he power that you are getting off on, can you live with that consequence?

End the culture of carrying a gun, have the USA join the ranks of civilized nations and eliminate or at least severely curtail handgun ownership by private individuals.

__________________
I always find it strange that only reasonable people agree with me.

My response in the extended entry...

RDK,

You are a child molester who cannot control his urges to rape young boys because your penis compels you to it. I realize you haven't actually raped any young boys yet, but clearly, it's only a matter of time.

Because your penis is of course the cause of your horrible pedophilia, we are going to cut it off. In fact, because penises in general can cause people to be rapists and pedophiles (not to mention that nasty overpopulation thing), we are going to cut off all penises except for those specially licensed to own them, the police, and the military.

Although the police and the military will also be subject to this overwhelming urge to rape young boys because they have penises, they of course recieve special training from the government, which then certifies them to not be pedophiles.

For all others however, your penis will be removed, unless you recieve special permission from your local police, who will ensure that you have also recieved the special training necessary so that your penis does not force you to uncontrollably rape young boys.

I think we can all agree, its best that we do this for the children.

Civil Rights

Kim DuToit has a lovely little angry rant about the Illinois anti-liberty activist who was recently arested for having a firearm without a license. In illinois this is a felony (you must have an FOID card), complicated in this case, because the firearm was illegally modified by having the serial numbers filed out. Best of all; the weapon is also believed to be stolen.

Anyway, it is indeed a great rant, but I wanted to highlight something specifically. In one of the quoted responses to this story Alan Gotlieb had this to say:

More in the extended entry...

"Annette Stevens may now understand why so many law-abiding people are fed up with the kind of gun laws that are promoted by the Million Mom March and other extremist gun control organizations. Ironically, the law against filing serial numbers off firearms is one that gun rights activists and organizations have long supported. Yet here she is, this ‘poster mom’ for gun control, acknowledging that she has kept an illegally-altered handgun in her home while she’s been campaigning to deprive other citizens of their firearms.

“In the kind of Draconian anti-gun society Stevens and her cohorts are trying to create, it wouldn’t matter if she were innocent as she claims. Under the laws her group supports, gun owners are essentially considered guilty until they prove themselves otherwise. That’s everything from background checks to waiting periods, and certainly the Illinois requirement that gun owners have a Firearms Owners Identification Card. Stevens has no FOID card, so there’s another gun law violation. There are thousands of local and state laws across the country that the Million Moms support, none of which have done anything to prevent a single crime. All they do is chip away at the gun rights of law-abiding citizens.

“If Stevens is so convinced guns don’t belong in society, then why didn’t she immediately turn that gun over to the police when she found it more than two years ago? Why did she keep it? What’s wrong with this picture? Ms. Stevens is about to learn that supporting gun control is like keeping a vicious dog. They sometimes bite the hands that feed them."

I have only one problem with Mr. Gottleib’s statement, and the statements that a lot of folks make about rights, especially when it comes to guns.

"There are thousands of local and state laws across the country that the Million Moms support, none of which have done anything to prevent a single crime. All they do is chip away at the gun rights of law-abiding citizens."

What they chip away at are not just gun rights, because gun rights are civil rights, and ultimately human rights.

Hell of a day

Thanks to a front page link from gun blogger in chief (and friend)Kim DuToit, an instalanche on the Carnival of Cordite, and new front page links from maybe 10 other libertarian bloggers (thanks guys, glad you liked it), I hit just under 1000(994) uniques yesteday. That's about four times my average, and I went from the bottom of the flappy birds, to the top. I just need four more links to get into the mammalian categories as an adorable rodent.

Kind of a funny thought, a guy my size being an adorable rodent, but I'll be in good company.

More in the extended entry...

Unfortunately neither sitemeter nor blogger can tell me how many of you listened to the audio, but I hope at least a few enjoyed it. Obviously I'm pretty passionate about what I believe.

Oh and equally obviously I need a new telephone headset. That headset sounded like crap.

So now I need to grab hold of my newfound audience and not let go. I guess that means I'll have to keep the quality up, which is gonna be pretty tough considering how much effort time it took me to write "The Politics of Liberty" (about 12 hours in fits and starts, for 2200 words), but I'll do my damndest. I finished cranking that one out about 9:30 am yesterday, having been awake since 8 am the previous day, during which times vast quantities of both coffee and whisky were consumed.

As I mentioned before, I dont think quantity will be an issue. I would write that much stuff every day no problem. Of course if I did it would probably all be bitching about socialists liberals and pop culture....

Wait a second... There's an idea...

Coming up today, a little bit about just taxation, a new recipe for real men, hopefully an update on the job hunt (wish me luck, the next interview is at 11:30), and other random blather, not necessarily in that order.

Thanks for reading, and remember, linkwhore me to everyone you come into contact with, because I would do it for you.

The Politics of Liberty

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:

I want to talk about what I believe in.

I'm a small "l" libertarian, but a lot of people don't know what that means. In the header of this blog, I describe myself as a "disgruntled constructive anarchist". Considering that anarchists (actually anarcho-socialists) are active and in the news today in my home town of Boston, I thought it might be an opportune time to explain what I mean by that.

"I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a constructive anarchist. Basically what that means is that I believe that all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as no one is getting hurt who isn't paying extra"

Actually, calling myself a construcive anarchist is kind of a joke, or rather a mechanism for catching your attention. People hear the word anarchist, and it tends to make them at least raise their eyebrows.

I am in fact, not an anarchist. What I call myself when I am seriously trying to classify my beliefs is something else entirely:

I am a Muscular Minarchist. I believe in an absolutely minimalist government that provides a strong defense. I want a government that stays out of my wallet, out of my bedroom, and out of my business.

I'm going to break this out into four parts. Fundamental Philosophy, Foundations of Government, What Government is NOT ,and Participation in Society.

Now down to the squishy stuff...

More in the extended entry...

Fundamental Philosophy

My beliefs on government are rooted in three core tenets.

• The coercive restraint of human liberty is inherently evil. Control of ones person, property, and behavior should be the exclusive province of the sovereign man.
• The only legitmate limitation of liberty is that which prevents transgression on the liberty of others, or which compensates those transgressed upon.
• Without a disinterested arbiter, maintaining a monopoly of legitimate force with which it resolves disputes and enforces compacts between men, the liberty of the weak will be abrogated by the will of the strong.

Government is only good at two things: stealing, and killing. When you boil it down, that, at core, is its job. Government enforces the rule of law through the threat of force (killing), and administers and perpetuates itself through the seizure of assets (stealing, which it achieves through the threat of force, a.k.a robbery).

See here's the thing; All earned compensation is in exchange for time out of your life. This is time that you could have used for something else... look up opportunity cost if you arent familiar with the concept.

(note for economic wonks: this is NOT the Labor Theory of Value, though it is a core element of it. LTV is a gross simplification of reality. Nor is this a refutation of Marginalism. When it comes to the value of labor, and wages, Adam smith got it mostly right but said it didn't apply, Ricardo got the concept right but the consequences entirely wrong, Karl Marx got it mostly wrong - at least partially because of Ricardo, and Ludwig Von Mises disagreed with them all so much he either ignored it or pathologically refuted it. All I am speaking of is wages, income, and opportunity costs)

You are given money in exchange for some of your time. The more commercially valuable your skills, labor, support, presence, looks, or body are, the more money you are given for that time. When you pay for goods, you are compensating those who sell the goods for their time (and opportunity costs), who are compensating the distributors for their time, who are compensating the manufacturers for their time and so on. Even when you are paying for a raw material or commodity like iron or gold what you are really paying for is the time (and opportunity cost) it took to find, and extract, and refine etc...

That's pretty basic economics, but there's an important social and political implication there. If income is taken away from you (direct taxes) time is being taken away from your life. If property, assets, or money are taken from you without compensation (indirect taxes), time is being taken away from your life. You have just spent however long it took to earn that money, or acquire those goods or assets, in involuntary servitude to the one(s) who took it.

Involuntary servitude has another name: Slavery

Yes, I'm saying that direct taxes are slavery (actually, more on that later). Indirect taxes (tarrifs, sales taxes, excise and property taxes etc...) are closer to theft, but really, this is also slavery, because it's all time out of your life, which you have in effect spent involuntarily laboring for the government without compensation.

If that isn't slavery, what is?

Many people consider this concern for property and money to be venal, trival, irrelevant, or shallow, but when you think about what money really is, time out of your life, money (or property, which is interchangeable here) takes on a different meaning. Because compensation must be made for property acquired, and all compensation is in exchange for time out of your life, property rights are fundamental to liberty.

Ok so, with me so far? I'm making some HUGE generalizations, and simplifying things more than a little bit here, I just wanted to get some principles out there before y'all start saying "you just don't like paying taxes". There's actually some philosophical foundation to this other than my irritation at not being able to buy more guns and pizza.

So, we've established how I feel about taxes, what about that other thing, the rule of law.

In an ideal society, there would be no need for any laws other than "you have to do what you say you will", "you can't take or destroy anything that isn't yours", and "you can't hurt anyone who doesnt want to be hurt", but lets face it, that aint gonna happen. A functioning society consisting of more than just family (and if it's my family... well...), must have a government.

Notice, I never say that all government is illegitmate, just evil. It is sometimes necessary to do evil things, so that other evil will not be done. Killing somone is a bad thing, but not killing someone can be a worse thing. Someone shoots and kills grandma, bad, someone shoots the guy trying to shoot grandma, good. The problem comes when government exceeds those legitimate purposes which I will describe in the next section.

Foundations of Government

So, some agency must exist to enforce those basic principles I list above if a governed society is to function.

NOTE: I am using the term agency in this document in the sense of a mechanism, process, or structure, not explicitly a beaurocracy or constructed entity, though that me be the practical result.

Let's enumerate just exactly what we need for legitmate government.

• We need a neutral arbiter for disputes. This function is served by civil courts.
• We need to keep people from commiting crimes (the strong harming the weak). This function is served by police.
• We need to catch people who do commit crimes, to ensure they can be punished, and that restitution can be made. This function is also served by the police.
• We need to have a system for determining who is punished, how they are punished etc.. This function is served by criminal courts.
• We must prevent those from outside our society who would harm us, and our vital interests, from doing so. This function is served by the military, and to an extent by diplomats as part of the executive office.
• There must be an agency for negotiating and concluding agreeements with other nation states in support of our vital interests. This function is served by the executive office.
• In the united states, or any other federal entity, there must be an agency for settling disputes between the states. This function is served by the federal courts and particularly the supreme court
• There must be a system for creating and defining legislation. A written code of laws is essential to a free society. This function is served by the legislature.
• There must be an agency for selecting those who are given authority by the government, whether in police, military, court, legislative, or executive roles. In our society this is served through the franchise, as adminsitered by the states, counties, and precincts.

• There must be the systems and infrastructure in place to enable and support these functions. This function is served by the bureaucracy of civil service.
• There are some functions which are best served through collective action, such as public works. Though much of these can be privatized, there is a legitmate claim for functions such as roads to be provided by the government, as it is not possible to perform the basic functions of government without them. When not served through private contract, these functions would also be provided through the civil service.
  

None.

No really, none.

Make the laws, enforce the laws, enforce contracts, settle disputes, protect the citizens, protect the country.

That's it.

Although that's a pretty short list, it's actually longer than many libertarians would agree to. As I said, I am a muscular minarchist. I think that any state without what I list above could not succeed, because it would be conquered (from within or without) by the darker demons of human nature if nothing else.

What Government IS NOT

Government is not your friend
Government is not your keeper
Government is not your master
Government is not your teacher
Government is not your creator
Government is not your babysitter
Government is not your conscience
Government is not your paymaster
Government is not your moral compass

Most importantly...

GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION

Societal Participation:

If a free man is to participate in society, and obtain the benefits thereof, he must acknowledge his responsibility to obey the laws of that society, and to contribute to the maintenance and support of that society. A debt is incurred for these benefits, and must be paid through service to society, both indirectly, and directly through the payment of reasonable taxes.

Service to society takes many forms. Every time you don't break the law, you are serving society in some way (as well as yourself, which in a properly constructed society should always be the case, but so often isn't). By holding productive employment you are serving society. By helping the police, executive office, legislative office, courts, and military to preform their functions, be it through working in them, voting, training, acting as a witness, or whatever other form it may take, you are serving society.

All that said, taxation is the primary direct contribution from citizens in the service of society. Taxation is necessary for a governed society to function, as there must be some means for the government to preform the functions enumerated above, all of which have direct costs, and require compensation to those who preform these essential functions.

One may say that this is internally inconsistent with my argument above, but truly it isn't.
Taxation in and of itself is not evil; as I say above, when one obtains benefit from society, one has voluntarily incurred a debt, which must be paid. What is evil (and I don't use that term lightly, or in jest), is taxation in excess of this incurred debt. This is involuntary redistribution, and it is evil in all it's forms.

Involuntary redistribution is NEVER justified under any circumstances, no matter how deserving one believes the benificary to be, or how little impact one believes it will have on the benefactor. Involuntary redistribution, is nothing more than slavery.

It doesn't matter if those whose assets are being redistributed "can afford it" or "dont need it", because you are stealing time from their lives. You are forcing them into involuntary servitude, WHICH IS SLAVERY.

So how does this fit into society today?

I am reminded every day that my ideals are just that, ideals. We live in a society, with a government that does everything that I believe legitimate government should not do.

Over the past 70 or so years (since the new deal), and especially over the past 40 years (since the great society), we have developed a culture where the abdication of personal responsiblity to the government (or it's agents) is not only accepted, but often, encouraged.

I find this fact profoundly offensive, but I also have little power to change it as an individaul.

Here's the thing: Societies are made up of many many individuals, and by changing minds one person at a time, we CAN grow back into a society of individual liberty. If I change just one mind, and in doing so inspire that person to change other minds, eventually we can, and we will free ourselves from the coercive limitation of human liberty.

This is my goal, and it is far too important to ever give up.

Frivolous disaster

Well I was a little tired of the crashtop (aptly named, it crashes constantly due to hardware problems), and I felt like listening to some of my vast and varied music collection.

Well here's the thing, my brother lived with me for about a month, and spent most of his time here downloading music and playing online poker. During that time he managed to multiply infect my computer with jsut about every type of spyware there is, and mroe than a few viruses. I THOUGHT that I had taken care of all of that, and that the dammage was minimal.

I was wrong.

More in the extended entry...

I started collecting MP3's in 1997 or '98 (whenever winamp 1.0 came out), eventuall amassing about 20,000. I've gotten rid of almsot all of my cd's becuase I've moved maybe 10 times in those 8 years, and I've lsot them, or theyve been stolen etc...

Anyway, theres a lot of music that was very difficult to find, amass, and organize.

And It's gone

Actually not all of it, only about 20gigs worth, some 4,000 songs. All of the songs in my main MP3 directory, and all my playlists, deleted.

The directories my brother stored his in, and the temp directories where I stick the songs in waiting to edit them (I'm anal about organizing my m3's. I like all my titles in the same format with correct id3 tags) are fine. All in all, about 2000 files left, but a lot of them are dupes or partials etc... Probably about 1000 actual songs.

My only hope for the rest of my collection is salvaging them off my MP3 player, which is on the fritz, and I don't remember if you can copy back off my player or not. Lord I hope so.

Playing right now: KRS one and Boogie Down Productions - My Philosophy

Jake Stonebender, you're welcome any time

Fresh ground Costa Rican and Tanzanian peaberry blend, brewed with a dash of salt, served in a big blue china mug, with raw cane sugar, a generous dollop of real cream, a shot of Bushmills Irish Cream, and a shot of Bushmills 16 year old three wood.

I really need "the machine".