I am testing to see if I can post from my pda.
Seems to have worked.
Chain forwards
I can’t say this in an email to the person who sent me the offending forward, so instead I’ll say it here on the intertrons.
I hate getting forwards from people. I hate the ones that have a dire warning of some negative crap that will happen to me if I don’t send them, and I hate the ones that tell me that I will receive blessings and ponies if I do send them. I really hate the religious chain forwards as well; somehow I sincerely doubt that hitting the “forward” button on my email will really improve my walk with God.
But I have a special kind of hatred for the chain forward that combines all three of those categories. When you combine the “Religious” forward with the “dire warnings” forward, you get the “Dire Religious Warning”. Throw in some blessings, and you get the Dire Blessings of Warning Religion”, which if you forward it to me automatically makes me think you’re a retard. The following text is from a forward that some idiot at work sent me this morning.
The President of Argentina received this letter and called it “junk mail”, 8 days later his son died A man received this letter and immediately sent out copies…his surprise was winning the lottery.
Alberto Martinez received this letter, gave it to his secretary to make copies but they forgot to distribute: she lost her job and he lost his family.
This letter is miraculous and sacred, don’t forget to forward this within 13 days to at least 20 people. Do Not Forget to forward and you will receive ! a huge surprise!!
This particular piece of junk was attached to a picture of the Virgin Mary; which makes it really retarded. Basically, this piece of email is telling you that if you don’t hit the forward button and send this crap to a bunch of people, the God Himself will cause bad things to happen to you. How idiotic is that?
The moral of this story is that if you happen to be one of the people in possession of my email address; and you send me one of these forwards I will mock you incessantly. Not only that, but it will lower my opinion of your relative IQ by quite a bit.
What the hell?
The Green Bay Packers are undefeated and looking sharp, The Smashing Pumpkins and Matchbox 20 both have new albums out, and there is a Clinton running for the White House.
Did I miss a memo and it’s suddenly 1996 again?
Remind me to go to Peoria, IL sometime
So I can trade a cheap $80 H&R .32 for a $100 gift card.
The Peoria Association of Pastors for Community and Spiritual Renewal offered $100 gift cards in exchange for working guns.
Just look at the guns in that picture. It’s almost sad; I would say that nearly 90% of the “dangerous” guns collected by the authorities were 100 year old break top revolvers, turned in by little gray haired ladies who found it in their deceased husband’s sock drawer.
Which of course means that the police are going to gleefully destroy a bit more of America’s history.
I hate gun buybacks. There is no single method that is more based on silly emotions and absolutely no logic than a gun buyback.
Nationwide Concealed Carry
In the comments at this thread at Bitter’s, I mentioned that I support expanding nationwide reciprocity for retired police officers to carry concealed. A couple of people seem to think that I’m taking an “Only Ones” mentality, because I’m not championing nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry holders as well.
In fact, it’s just the opposite of that. I would love to have nationwide reciprocity for the X million CCW holders throughout the country. But it’s not going to happen overnight; and it’s really not going to happen if we can’t get certain jurisdictions (like New York) to even allow retired cops to carry there.
Here’s how I see it – I agree that a retired cop is no different from me from a legal standpoint. Now, when Suzy Soccermom is being told about a law that would allow retired cops to carry concealed in any jurisdiction, she’s much more amenable to that bill than she would to one that allows nationwide reciprocity for any CCW holder. The reason she’s more open to retired cops than she is to you or me is specifically an issue of perception.
The average Joe Blow perceives that cops are responsible individuals, and because they’ve had “training” with their firearms, it somehow makes them more able to not shoot themselves in the foot or something. So Suzy Soccermom thinks “Oh, well those retired cops have training, they’ll be fine carrying guns anywhere in the country.”
That’s step one – get the public acclimated to the basic concept of nationwide carry. Step two is a little more complicated, because it involves demonstrating that CCW holders are just as qualified to carry guns as retired police officers, and in some cases more so. However, the problem again is a problem of perception. Most people don’t realize that the average CCW holder has undergone a thorough background check, and probably shoots more with his carry gun than most cops do.
In the comments of that thread at Bitter’s, it was pointed out that not a lot of traction has been made since nationwide reciprocity for cops was originally passed. Well, who exactly do we have to blame for that? Who out there is pointing out that in those three years, that there have been no “wrong people shot” by off-duty cops, and in fact, off duty cops carrying concealed have actual assisted in stopping crime; such as the case of the Utah mall shooter.
These are issues that need to be brought up – once the public is aware that this is working, then we can ease into nationwide CCW for the rest of us. It’s not that the cops are the “Only Ones”, it’s that the public isn’t aware of the reality.
Because you asked
As Jay G. aptly noted in the comments on the post just below this, any thread about a new gun is “worthless without pics” and I wholeheartedly agree. So here you go.
Of course, I realized something as I was going through my guns – I have a lot of guns made my Taurus. Not a whole lot, but three of my guns are Taurus handguns. So, I also have a Taurus Tracker in .357 Magnum, which is easily my favorite magnum revolver.
Also, for Buy A Gun Day this year, I had picked up a Taurus Pt-92 9mm, along with 5 17 round magazines for it. I’m not a big fan of 9mm pistols, but I like this one. It reminds me of the Beretta I once carried, and it has a light rail – just in case I need to feel tacticool.
For comparison, here are the Two Brothers – both of my Tracker series revolvers.
And finally, all three of my Taurus handguns.
I suppose if you wanted to count all my guns that have Brazilian heritage, I should count my ’37 Brazilian Contract S&W. But I forgot to bring it downstairs.
New Gun!
I am a happy Ahab right now. The other day, while shopping for a carry gun for Mrs. Ahab, I happened upon a used Taurus Tracker, .45 ACP with 2 inch barrel and fixed sights. This has sort of been my “holy grail” of CCW revolvers, a five shot .45 ACP based on the Tracker frame. I have the 7 shot .357 Magnum Tracker, and it’s easily one of the best out of the box revolvers I’ve ever played with.
Needless to say, I picked up the .45 Tracker as fast as I could. Came with the original box and papers, and five star clips for loading the rounds. I cannot wait to get this thing out to the range.
Ignoring reality
The story about the teacher with the CCW permit in Oregon who has sued her school for the right to carry her gun is pretty much all over the place. Telling it quickly, a teacher has a CCW permit, and has a restraining order against her (apparently violent) ex-husband. Because she is concerned for her safety, she wants to be able to carry her firearm at the school district.
I actually got in an argument with a coworker over this; he thinks she shouldn’t be allowed to carry and I support her lawsuit and desire to carry at her place of employment. Unfortunately, I didn’t take notes during my discussion with my coworker, so I can’t reproduce it exactly here. However, this editorial in the Seattle Times reproduces the bulk of my coworker’s (and pretty much the rest) of the objections that I’ve heard to this teacher carrying at her school.
The school could beef up security. Or the teacher could be given a paid leave while sorting out her personal problems. The restraining order could be strengthened or broadened for maximum protection.
“Beefing up” security probably wouldn’t help, because the same problem that applies to law enforcement applies here; security cannot be everywhere at once. Since the teacher (by law) cannot bring her firearm even into the parking lot; the only “beefed up security” that could actually provide 100% protection would be a personal body guard. Now, giving her paid leave might work, as then she is still drawing her salary and can continue to carry her firearm; however it’s a poor solution. Sorting out her problems could take quite some time, and I doubt that the school board is willing to essentially place someone on a paid leave of undetermined length. Strengthening the restraining order will do nothing – if her husband has committed himself to doing violence, no piece of paper, no matter how strongly worded is going to stop him.
If teachers fearful for their safety can carry guns, what about other school employees, or students fearful of the playground bully?
Now, this part I don’t like, because the editorial author tries to equate two things that are not equal. Students fearful of the bully are not the same as adults with concealed carry permits. An adult with a permit to carry a concealed weapon has gone through a thorough background check, and in Oregon has to have undergone training. Obviously, a child bringing a gun to school is not an adult, does not posses the gun legally, has not had a background check, and hasn’t undergone training. Trying to equate the two things is absurdly false.
Oregon’s Jane Doe may fear she’s in harm’s way. But taking a gun into her classroom puts students in the same predicament.
I love the way the author ends their editorial – make a baseless appeal to emotion. How, oh author, does someone with a concealed carry permit put her students in danger? How is a gun that is going to stay in her purse, or holstered and otherwise concealed at all times present a danger to the students in that school? How does someone approved by the state government as mentally and physically competent to carry a firearm present a danger to the students?
I don’t expect answers to those questions; they can’t be answered without resorting to straw men arguments and appeals to emotion. Facts don’t lie – people who aren’t ignoring reality know that a restraining order won’t stop someone, they know that the only person responsible for your safety is you.
Senate version of H.R.2640 stalls
But probably not due to the reasons that you think it did. The version of the bill before the Senate has stalled essentially due to infighting in the Democrat party. I’ve come out in the past in favor of H.R. 2640, because I believe it’s a net win for the pro-gun side; as such I’m disheartened to see that it’s stalling before it can get to the president.
But the saga of the gun-records bill is something different: a self-inflicted wound for the new majority.
After the House bill passed in June, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) personally appealed to Democratic senators to pass it without amendments. “I wanted it to be taken up right away,” she said. “If it’s clean, it’s over.”
But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a turf-conscious Vermonter, insisted that the bill go through his panel and in the process reignited an old fight with his Democratic colleague, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Short version of the story, Sen. Leahy tacked on a couple of amendments to the bill; which if you read the whole story seem to be pretty harmless. The problem is that the aforementioned amendment steps on the toes of Sen. Kennedy, which has caused the bill to become bogged down. Apparently the Senate Majority Leader doesn’t want to devote floor time to the debate for this bill; I also find that pretty frustrating.
The biggest problem is that Leahy’s amendments to the bill are (in my opinion) a good thing, as they expand on the existing law that allows retired police officers to carry concealed all across the country. The amendments have the full support of the Fraternal Order of Police.
As I said, I supported H.R. 2640 when it was before the House, and I continue to support it now. I wish the Democrats would quit with their little turf wars and get this legislation through.
Update: Bitter mentions that it’s not what you’re thinking – they’re not adding more gun control to the bill.
E-Postal Match: Safari Update
The deadline for entries for the September E-Postal Match: Safari has been extended through Sunday October 7th at 10pm. Please have all entries emailed to me by that time.
Remember, it’s 2 rifle targets (10 shot total) and two of the “5 rhino” pistol targets (20 shots total) for a total of 30 shots.
Go shoot!