I’ve been arguing with anti-gunnies for a few years now. And the one thing that strikes me about these people is they have no fear of being violently attacked. Whether or not this fear is rational is beside the point. The thing is that they are unable to understand why others don’t feel that way. But more importantly they see no need for others to have a means of self defense.

I’ve made the confession several times before that carrying is not one of my top priorities. Because like those anti-gunnies with their heads in the clouds, I too have almost no fear of being attacked. The closest I ever came was while in England, fearing not being mugged, but the legal and criminal repercussions of defending myself against the mugger. Like the silver spoon leftists I went to school with, I live in a very nice area almost devoid of any crime. Which no doubt contributes. But I do go to school and spend much of my time in as close to a ghetto as Oklahoma City has. And that’s where my youthful arrogance and over-reliance on size comes in. One of the funniest examples of not understanding the need for firearms in self defense I ever encountered was in a Canadian bouncer. The guy was close to 250lbs, and paid to be able to beat people up, of course he saw much less need for a gun than others. I’m a dark, well built guy with a little training in boxing, grappling, and tae kwan do. While I’d likely get my butt kicked by any similar-sized guy with even a moderate amount of more disciplined training, I’m simply not that worried about your average mugger. I’ve taken them down before, and would not be surprised if I had to do it again.

Like I’ve said since the beginning, I’m far more obsessed with the right than doing so myself. In Men Like Me I talked about my schizoid tendencies just a bit. And maybe that’s why I’m able to put myself in others’ shoes. I’ve known guys with my strength and intelligence who lacked a moral code; and the results were uniformly ugly. Sometimes a friend will make a joke or hassle me a bit and I’ll say “I could end you right here, right now.” And they’ll laugh, and I’ll laugh, and someone will probably say “You’re harmless” or “Nick, you’re just a great big teddy bear”. But I know my capabilities, and I’ve seen the results when I got just a bit too into it when I was sparring with a buddy, or when someone threatened a friend. And it isn’t that far from the truth.

I think about what it would take to stop someone like me, if he was determined. A tazer? Probably not. Mace? Hardly. A wooden bat? If swung right, perhaps. A gun? Every time. Tazers and other deterrents like mace rely on luck and an easily discouraged–rather than easily enraged–perp. Bats, batons, etc still pit the potential victim against the criminal in a contest of strength and fighting ability. Not to mention that many of those are banned in the same places that ban the carry of firearms for self defense. A gun is literally the only thing that completely negates an attacker’s size and ability. And if a loved one had to go up against a guy like me, I damn well hope they’re armed with one.

The silver spoon kids are unable to put themselves in circumstances where self defense may be necessary, where you’re outweighed, outnumbered, outmatched. Where a gun might make the difference between your life, your virtue, and your property, or the rape and theft of what and who you are. So they say things like “Well, there’s martial arts” or “That’s the police’s job.” What if I were like them? What if I said “Well I don’t really need it, so no one else should either.” What if I were so selfish, so childish, as to condemn people to suffer a horrible fate at the hands of a violent criminal, simply because I was unlikely to be one of those victims?

With the growing popularity of concealed carry licenses has also come a ballooning number of establishments that prohibit firearms upon their premises.

Employee and customer alike must obey these dictates. And–often angrily–they wonder why their ‘right to bear arms’ doesn’t extend to these places of business. The answer of course is that this is the essence of the right to own property. What good is owning something if you have no control over it? Much like the 1st amendment, you can criticize their position, but not their right to hold said position.

And just as entertainers and celebrities often pay a price for opening their mouths a bit too wide, these proprietors may pay a price for the positions they take. A guy on Kim du Toit’s forum shared a letter to the editor in American Handgunner with us that illustrate’s this point perfectly:

Thought this may be of interest to Handgunner readers. Today I received the following letter:

”Dear Mr. *****, Today, while in the bank, you were noticed wearing at your side a pistol. Unless you have some specific duty or reason to enter the bank with your pistol, we appreciate your leaving all firearms in your vehicle.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely John Parker
Vice President & Branch Manager
Troy Bank & Trust Company
Troy, AL 36081”

After receiving this letter, I immediately called the bank president and asked if he knew of the letter and agreed with it’s content. He assured me he did, saying there is not much crime in Troy and we don’t thin you need to be carrying a pistol. After a few words advising him of my position on the issue, and the fact Alabama has open carry, I proceeded to seek out local banks who would recognize my right to self protection and the exercising of my second amendment rights. Wachovia advised they would not permit any armed individuals in their bank. Colonial Bank never got back to me.
Regions Bank advised they would be happy to recognize my carry rights, my status as a retired LEO and would welcome my money. By close of business that day, I had closed several accounts at Troy Bank & Trust, with several more to go, and deposited over $480,000 in the Regions Bank. You just got to do what you feel is right. Oh, by the way, I’m also getting much better interest at the new bank.
Thought this would be of interest in so far as gun owners need to know where the gun friendly banks are.

Name withheld by request
Via email

This is pretty much a classic example of how things that are neither bought nor sold still have value. This man chose to make a statement about how important it is to him to be able to carry. And perhaps what he thought of a place of business whose idea of ’safety’ was to disarm the people who follow the rules, yet do little to make sure rule-breakers weren’t armed. Works for me, and maybe got the bank to think for a second or two. Certainly if a substantial portion of the 2nd amendment supporters in Troy followed suit anyway.

Not all second amendment supporters are classical liberals, but I certainly am. And the essence of our philosophy is that we should be free to act as we wish so long as we do not interfere with the freedom of others. Demanding that we have a ‘right’ to carry our firearms on someone else’s property is imposing our will upon them. But we can always make our displeasure known, as this gentleman did.

If you’re a firearms enthusiast you’ve probably heard of Norinco.

They’re a chinese manufacturer of a lot of weapon-related tech. What makes buying Norinco different from buying other Chinese stuff is that they are a profit center for the People’s Liberation Army. Who they’re liberating and who they’ve kept liberated I don’t know. But there you have it.

Buying exports sucks, but we all do it. But when you buy Norinco, you are directly increasing the coffers of the army of the world’s next big–probably inimical–threat. What makes it so tempting is that in several cases, Norinco offers clones of some interesting and highly sought after weapons.

They make the only forged M14/M1A receivers, Springfield et al. use cast receivers. And while they need a heat treat and some hand finishing, they are far and away the best new receivers available.

They also make a clone of John Browning’s Winchester 1887 lever action shotgun. Which is just plane cool. Also, Cowboy Action Shooting is fueling a resurgence of interest in clones of period longarms like the Taurus Thunderbolts. An 1887 would be a pretty cool piece to show up with at one of these matches.

They also do a clone of a Winchester 1897 ‘trench gun’, used in WW1 during the desperate and dirty fighting across the atlantic.

The M14 is the quintessential battle rifle and probably will always be regarded as such. The 1887 and 1897, while not exactly an improvement upon modern choices, remain interesting and fun (especially the lever-action) historical pieces and offer plenty in the way of desirability themselves.

Tempting, but worth it? To my mind no.

Most of us are well aware of all that. But a question I’ve seen come up time and again is “If it’s already in the store, then the PLA already has the money, why shouldn’t I buy it?”

Simple economics. It’s true that the chinese government has already benefited from this transaction. But importers and retailers typically decide what, how much, and how often to order based on prior sales. The faster those Norinco guns get bought off the shelves, the more of them importers and retailers will buy, and thus the more the PLA benefits.

There is one way to keep your conscience somewhat clear when it comes to these firearms, and that is to buy them used off of a site like gunbroker. The money changed hands long ago, and the person selling the firearm likely has no interest in selling more of them for a profit.

Still, this too can lead to increased sales of new weapons should these firearms become popular enough. Indeed domestic firearms manufacturers keep their eyes on sales of discontinued models, calibers, and options. When these used firearms become popular enough to start engendering a premium, manufacturers look into reintroducing these models.

You’re free to make your own choices when it comes to buying these products. After all, buying anything Chinese has a similar, but more mitigated, effect. I’m certainly not going to judge you for buying Norinco, just as I don’t judge my friends for getting drunk when I don’t. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

For people who are more nuanced and intellectual than men like me, with our benighted concepts of individual liberty, leftists sure seem unable to understand that a weapon is never solely an instrument of offense. In fact, many of the most popular martial art forms began as a form of defense. Kung Fu, brought to China by the Indian buddhist monk Bodhidharma, was intended as a defensive art which would confer upon them some immunity from the predations of Taoist militants then in power. And martial artists are generally known for their reserve and unwillingness to escalate the situation, this despite the fact that their bodies themselves are weapons. Just this past weekend I found myself in a situation involving a guy who pretty much needed an ass kicking–mistreating and harassing females always warrants it. And the only reason I didn’t hit him was because I’d trained–briefly and poorly–in a couple martial arts.

Lets for a moment consider the leftist proposition that the world would be better off without guns. Suspend your disbelief of the impracticality and impossibility of such conditions ever coming to fruition. And stifle the desire to remind them that firearms are more than just weapons; they are tools, they are hobbies, and they are objects around which strong communities have developed. There was violence before firearms. There was violence before the first terrestrial vertebrates crawled onto land. And there would be violence after firearms were gone.

How would you protect yourself from violent criminals? Most of them never having had to fend off an attack, leftists confidently assert that mace and a ’self defence’ class are enough. Having dropped paint stripper in my eye, rubbed habanero-soaked hands on tired eyes, etc, not to mention knowing several people who’ve been maced as part of demonstrations (or by their girlfriends by accident…long story), I can confidently say those sprays will not stop a determined attacker.

And what of self defense? Pressure points are easy to miss. I’ve missed in fights, and had people miss them on me. And many throws, blocks, and holds rely on the principle of leverage and mechanical advantage. Actual force developed is limited by the person themself. Back in college we used to wrestle around every once in a while. Couple guys in my house were ex-wrestlers. Pretty talented, both at right around 145. I was exactly 50lbs heavier, mostly muscle, but one of the most untalented wrestlers you’ve ever seen in your life. These guys were both state level competitors, both unable to pin me. Funniest moment of a fight was when one had me in a “hold” which I proceeded to turn into a throw that landed him several feet away from me. Not through any complicated and skillful reversal, but simply by overpowering him despite his leverage advantage.

And that’s the reason the handgun is called the equalizer. Short of severe nerve, muscle, or joint damage, just about anyone can wield a firearm with more than enough skill to get the job done. Size, martial art training, and speed are all neutralized.

Although feminists would die rather than admit it, the truth is that women are weaker than men at a population level. And any female as strong or stronger than a 200lb attacker is on steroids or some other anabolics. That’s just the way biology makes us (you’d think the self-proclaimed defenders of evolutionary theory would understand the evolution of sex differences). I used to let my female friends try their little throws and holds on me after they took the ‘womens’ self defense’ PE class. Less than 1 in 10 even shifted my balance, let alone stopped or slowed me. In a world without proper defensive tools which prevent attackers from closing with them, smaller people are at a disadvantage. They will be more preyed upon, they will be hurt more often, they will be the victims.

Leftists base their entire philosophy around the idea of the ‘level playing field’, whether it’s bonus points for certain brown people (but not others) in college admissions or redistributive tax and budget policies. They also insist that they are the party of womens’ rights. Why then do they deny the rights of equality and personal safety to the very people they claim to represent?

I’ve got a dirty secret. I don’t see the point in packing heat all the time. Or even most of the time. There. I said it. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a very strong second amendment supporter and the fact that I have to get a license to concealed carry pisses me off only slightly less than the fact that California still has an ‘assault weapon ban’. And don’t get me started on the BMG ban. I also believed that an armed populace is more important than jail sentences or a police cruiser as a criminal deterrent. But by and large I am and have always been far more interested in the right to keep and bear arms than doing so myself.

We were talking about it on the Life Liberty Property community’s mailing list after we got sidetracked from the initial subject of web traffic. Don’t ask me how. RG Combs was telling me about his experiences with the Guardian series, which I’ve been eyeballing after playing with (and enjoying) my Black Widow. I admitted that I’m simply not that worried about the personal safety aspect, expecting a torrent of distaste and angry statistic quoting. Instead it turns out I’m not the only one. Several in fact have never even fired a gun before.

And it occurred to me that the libertarians who make you feel bad for admitting the above are guilty of making the same exact mistake conservatives do. They forget that the important thing is the freedom to choose to carry, not that you yourself carry. As I’ve said before, I probably wouldn’t even own a gun if I hadn’t been attracted to the engineering aspects first, and the fun second. Granted, I’d still probably have a CCW license just so I could wave it at hippies and make them cringe in fear…

I’m a rather conservative man as personal habits go. Yet I support drug legalization and a host of other ’socially liberal’ things which I myself either look down upon or simply would never do. When conservatives hear that, they often make the mistake of assuming that I am somehow ‘for’ those things. Heh. If only they knew just how puritanical I can be. On the other hand, I hate seatbelt and helmet laws, but I always buckle up and wear a helmet on the rare occasions I ride. Which upsets the leftists, who claim I don’t care about people, unwilling to realize that I’m simply willing to give them the respect to allow them to make their own decisions about issues that only affect themselves.

What I’m getting at is that the biggest difference between classical liberals and both the right and the left is that the latter share the belief that personal opinion should be law. When we create an environment where other liberty-minded individuals feel like pariahs because they have little interest in firearms, we make the same mistake the mainstream does. The important thing is that–like us–they support the right to use firearms in defense, utility, and fun, not that they themselves do so.

I’ve been puttering around AR15.com for the last few days, getting ready to buy myself an Evil Black Rifle. And it just amazes me how Walter Mitty these guys get.

I mean, I believe in preparedness, I believe in knowing the layout of your house in the dark (mainly cuz i’m too lazy to turn on a light at 4 am when I get the munchies), and I keep a 36″ hickory axe handle under my bed, even though I’m usually the biggest, scariest, darkest man in the neighborhood no matter what time of day it is.

But these guys are just ridiculous. Someone posts a question about getting an AR-15 with a 20″ heavy barrel and the mall ninjas swarm out of the woodwork screaming “NOOOOOO. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CQB WITH A 20″?? IT’S TOO LONG!!!!”

My question is how am I going to CQB (close quarter’s battle) anyway. The ONLY conceivable situation where that would arise is a home invasion robbery. And a rifle is a poor choice for home defense, regardless. Especially one with as many levers, latches, and buttons as an AR-15. Shotguns and revolvers, on the other hand, excel at that kind of use. After all, an S&W revolver is the original point and click interface. So if you buy an AR-15, why not buy one with a nice long heavy barrel so it can actually put bullets where you tell it to?

“Dude if there’s a nuke, an EMP might knock out your red dot. You should have a backup scope!” Yes, since nukes are such a likely threat to any of the cities where you can actually own an AR-15. No. Wait. Probably not.

When the shit really does hit the fan (and I don’t doubt that it will), you are not going to go commando. You are going to get you and yours to safety, you are going to keep them safe. It’s a simple task that can be accomplished with a couple of relatively simple rifles, shotguns, and handguns. A few gallons of stockpiled fuel. And a well-put together kit to keep yall alive for a month or so.

These people just dumbfound me. I’m a live and let live kinda guy. If you want a four rail freefloat handguard, taticool adjustable stock with storage, flashlight, laser, nightvision, reddot, scope, and fancy BUIS adorning your rifle go ahead, but be honest and admit it’s just for fun. I like gadgets too, and some of those appeal to me. Not because it’ll make me more deadly on some imaginary battlefield.

Needless to say, I seriously doubt I’ll be posting pictures of my AR-15 when it’s done. Which will be about as un-tactical as you get. Then again, it’ll do all that you can ask of a target/plinking rifle. .5MOA groups (half an inch at 100 yards) with good yet economical ammo, the speed and convenience of a semi-auto with available 40rd mags, and ease of cleaning and modification. All for about 700 dollars. Few other guns can claim that combination (if any). That–and the fact that it’s Evil and Black and therefore scares lefties–is why I’m buying it.

People on the left talk a good game. About freedom and empowerment. About prosperity and harmony. Which is all fine and good until you realize that they intend this to happen by instituting government control of all aspects related to the above. But what really gets me about them is that they turn a blind eye to the negative (but all-too-often expected) consequences of their illogical actions. The gun control debate is a perfect illustration of both their disconnect from causality and their inherently statist outlook. Which is–perversely enough–the reason I became a gun owner.

While I’d always leaned to the right, I was rather Krauthammer-ish in my lack of respect for the 2nd Amendment and my indifferent-bordering-on-hostile attitude toward guns in general. Guns just never really meant that much to me. Not as a hobby, not as implements of self-defense, not as outdoor tools. In fact, the first time I ever shot a firearm I was in the socialist state of New York. And the first time I went to a real range I was in even more gun-fearing and even wussier England. This despite being born and raised in the southwest.

Nope, unlike most gun rights advocates, I kinda went through the reverse process. First I saw the stupidity of anti-gunnies and then I became a firearms enthusiast. I used to hang out on a forum called FocalJet. Being a forum devoted to the Ford Focus, many members spent most of their time engaged in political debate. It was there I was first introduced to the real statistics on violent crime (and defensive gun uses). It was there I was introduced to the illogical inanity that is the AWB. And it was there that a good chunk of my development from a vaguely conservative individual to a staunchly minarchist intellectual was made.

Among other things, I learned that the violent crime rate dropped wherever CCW legislation was enacted. I learned that home invasion rates dropped as gun ownership went up. And I learned that in areas where gun bans were in effect, criminals grew bold and citizens grew fearful. I learned that there is all too much truth to the adage that in a world where ‘guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ I later experienced the immunity with which criminals function among the unarmed sheep of a ‘progressive’ citizenry firsthand, both in India (communist ‘freedom fighter’s) and Britain. I learned that guns are involved in only about 20,000 injuries and murders a year (excluding self-inflicteds and suicides), yet are used defensively as many as 2.5 million times a year. In short I learned that speaking strictly pragmatically, guns in the hands of responsible citizenry is a far better proposition than the opposite.

Which led me into contemplating the philosophic and ideological basis for gun rights vs gun control. On the one hand you have the basic liberty-minded argument; what a man does and what he owns are none of anyone else’s business so long as they hurt no one. And it’s a pretty strong argument. On the other hand you have the equally basic (although wrong) argument that without guns, the jurisdiction will be less violent. Much weaker, since legislating guns away and actually taking and keeping all guns away is completely different matter.

But a more enlightening line of inquiry is the question of protection and defense. Now, as a 210lb trained boxer, I feel a bit silly asking the question “Who will protect me?” It’s something I oughtta be capable of doing myself. I am, and I’ve done it successfully on occassion. But this isn’t a question of capability but responsibility. The gun rights advocate believes that no matter what other forces are at work, ultimately it is his responsibility and his alone to protect himself and his loved ones. He prepares and arms himself for the eventuality that he might be required to discharge said duty.

But the ‘progressive’ simultaneously holds the views that a man can defend himself without a firearm, that it is the police’s responsibility to protect you, and that the police can’t be prosecuted for failing to do so. Which at every level is a strange position to take. Considering his willingness to give privileges to some but not others, and to hold back some for being ‘too successful’, it would seem odd that hear, when it comes to something as vital as one’s personal safety, he’s unwilling to allow the citizen an equalizer. A hispanic may need affirmative action to compete with an asian in college admissions. But a 105lb woman can effectively stop a much larger and highly motivated violent attacker with no weapon at all. And as for the absurdity of an essentially reactionary agency acting as a prophylaxis, I won’t even comment.

As I looked at a position that both ignores reality and denies the sacred autonomy of the individual, I couldn’t help but show my disdain. Not because I had anything at stake in the debate, but because the leftist side simply didn’t make any sense. So I took sides. First adding my own observations to the debate, and then by making the conscious decision to begin partaking in an activity I knew upset them.

I’d like to claim that I’m applying for CCW because I want to be fully prepared to defend my own. I’d be lying. I’m doing it for the simple fact that the ability to carry is a right enshrined in the constitution…and because it pisses off idiot GFW’s. I’d like to claim that the reason I’m buying an AR is for hunting or target shooting. But I’m really buying it because it’s evil-looking and black. And as for things like the ‘flare launcher‘, Barrett M82, S&W .460XVR, etc. that I plan on buying in about 8 years when I’m out from under my loans and out of indentured servitude, I’m not even going to attempt to justify as rational.

There are a lot of reasons I’m glad I was introduced to the firearms world. It’s a great place where my multiple interests and pursuits can come together. Mechanical nerdery, boyish obsessions with things that go boom, and development of hand-eye coordination, all in one. And I’m glad that soon enough I will have the option of one more tool to add to my belt, whether for defensive or outdoor purposes (come to think of it, most of my personal implements have those dual functions). But at the end of the day, the only reason I ever pulled a trigger was because living in a society where I wasn’t allowed to do so was unconscionable.

Introduction
I figured that the knowledge that the Founders were hardcore individualists, together with the understanding that milita by its nature means not tied to the government, would make the 2nd Amendment issue pretty damn cut and dried. I was wrong.

Intellect Impure, who’s probably just playing devil’s advocate, has shown how leftie minds work when it comes to the Constitution. Lawyering to destroy and otherwise undermine core principles of classical liberalism.

I have said before that the only way you could take the 2nd amendment as protecting only hunting and sport, or as a collective right, is if you personally want it that way and have no care what the intent of the law actually was. I have one word for you: Un-American. Don’t try to give me your BS about ‘evolving documents’ or ‘but it could be seen this way’ or ‘being American is about compromise.’ No, it ain’t. All that matters are the core principles of the philosophy upon which this country was built. That is what being American is all about.

So let’s go through this word by freaking word with the help of a fantastic resource I’ve used once or twice: The Online Etymology Dictionary, along with some supporting historical information. Not to mention a re-affirmation of the fact that the US was founded by individualists with a healthy distaste for government. Who wrote a document constraining rather than empowering the government they themselves founded. It’s pretty clearly a nonpartisan source. But the interesting thing is that OED has a specific entry for words that lefties attempt (and often succeed) at implying mean something other than the founders’ words.

The 2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well-Regulated - Surely this means controlled by government legislation. After all, this is what we tend to mean by ‘regulation’ when we talk about things today, huh? Only, diesel engines have regulators, as do the streets, according to Warren G. Now, I’m almost positive that the mechanical valve in a diesel engine’s air manifold isn’t a piece of government legislation, and I’m equally certain that Warren G wasn’t referring to mid-level bureaucrats in Washington DC…

Not to mention that the phrase ‘well-regulated’ certainly looks like an idiom. That’s the only reason I could think of that it would be used as an adjective in such a short clause. It must have a meaning of its own that goes a bit beyond two simple words. And, lo and behold, it does. It was used in all sorts of contexts which government control do not apply, including ‘well-regulated person’, ‘well-regulated mind’, and ‘well-regulated clock’. Sounds like ‘well-regulated’ means exactly the same thing it does when you’re talking about a diesel engine: running smoothly.

As Brian Halonen (who wrote the piece in the link above) says:

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

And OED provides an interesting take on the word ‘regulate’:

In U.S. history, applied to local posses that kept order (or disturbed it) in rural regions c.1767-71

A well-regulated milita thus means a militia that discharges its function in an ordered manner.

Militia
The National Guard is our militia… Nope, not unless sometime in the recent past a group that by definition is a part of the military, and thus the government, can also somehow be outside government control. What does a look at its etymology have to say?

Sense of “citizen army” (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, “the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not” (1777).

The word ‘militia’ as used by the founding fathers meant men who could be in the military but aren’t. As a member of the national guard, you are governed by the UCMJ and can be called into active duty without a draft. Not to mention that if you aren’t an officer, you’re enlisted. The National Guard isn’t much of a militia. In fact, members of the National Guard and Reserves, by the very nature of their appointment, are no longer members of the militia.

Civilian men (and women) are the militia. The militia is not a government entity. Pretty clear.

The People
This is the one that lefties love to pounce on. “The People” they say. Clearly that implies a populist/collectivist thing. The people as a single entity, rather than a collection of individuals

The etymology?
Meaning “body of persons comprising a community” first recorded 1292 in Anglo-Fr.; meaning “common people, masses” (as distinguished from the nobility) first recorded 1306 in Anglo-Fr. The verb is c.1489 (intrans.), c.1500 (trans.). The word was adopted after c.1920 by Communist totalitarian states to give a spurious sense of populism to their governments. b.

So the collectivist interpretation came about at the turn of the 20th century, as a specific invention of leftist/socialist regimes, as a propaganda tool. Throughout the Constitution the phrase ‘the people’ is used. With regard to all sorts of other rights, it of course refers to an individual’s right to life, liberty and property. But when it appears in the 2nd amendment, it refers to the right of some abstract known as ‘the people’s right, a usage that didn’t appear until close to 150 years later. Yup, that’s exactly how a reasoned mind would approach the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Keep and Bear
Keep of course means to own or otherwise be in possesion of. I don’t know that anyone has attempted to contest the meaning of this word (making it nearly the only one).

Bear means to wear or carry. Which would seem to imply that men could carry firearms upon their person. Concealed or unconcealed they don’t say. But tiny, concealable guns were in use in the 17th and 18th centuries. So they at least knew about the existence of the latter without remarking upon the need to ban them. And besides, the next part leaves little to the imagination.

Shall Not Be Infringed
Implicit in this phrase of course, is that if it looks evil (such as having no wood furniture and being painted black, or having a pistol grip), is a pistol, or fires a projectile larger in diameter than .5 inches, that it’s ok to ban it. An interesting take on an otherwise clear cut statement I might say. Not to mention that the Rifles used by the minutemen (an unlegislated militia that was nevertheless well-regulated) and the revolutionary war soldiers (who unlike the minutemen were enlisted and belonged to a formal military) used firearms that fired a bullet that was .69 inches in diameter. Their officers often carried flintlock pistols both under their coats and over them whether on foot or horseback.

Conclusion
What we’re left with is that well-ordered groups of able-bodied men outside of government employ in such capacity are important to the free state. Indeed, the writings of Thomas Jefferson indicate that one of the reasons for men to be armed is so a government does not take them for granted and thus cage them in tyranny: “No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

We’re also left with the conclusion that civilians should be allowed to carry and own firearms of all types and that government shall not be allowed to take away that right. As Patrick Henry said, “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Of course, what do they mean by ‘arms’? There are some libertarians who insist that this implies that we should be able to own anything we wish up to and including nuclear weapons. I left this for the conclusion to show that liberty-minded individuals can be just as self-serving when they read the constitution. Arms is the only word that the Founders used that was truly vague, even when viewed through the light of historical perspective. Artillery and bombs were of course known to exist by then, and were also referred to as ‘arms’. However, ‘Keep and Bear’ would be the key phrases here. I’m a strong guy, but I’d be hard-pressed to bear even a four-pounder cannon. And, I’m almost positive I wouldn’t be able to move more than 5 yards with it strapped to my back, if my knees didn’t collapse with weight in the first place.

Nope, very hard to bear something much bigger than a small arm (firearm). Not to mention that artillery and explosives were not (and for the most part still aren’t) individual weapons at the time of the writing of the Constitution. They are instead thought of as force multipliers and methods of projection of power. Even though there are individuals at the trigger, fuse, or button, they aren’t designed to protect the individual or harm another individual, but to protect and likewise damage larger bodies of men from the squad on up. Thus even though mortars, RPG’s, etc can be born and fired by individuals they aren’t really ‘individual weapons’. Besides, as seen by the Patrick Henry quote and the writings of others’, the Framers clearly meant firearms when discussing individual weapons.

The truth about the 2nd Amendment is as easy to see as anything else, once you wipe the grime of 230 years of linguistic corruption away. And once you apply a few techniques from the liberal arts. Maybe just a touch of nuance and sophistication as well. And a bit of honesty.

But I’d like to leave you with a few words that aren’t my own, a more general thought about the purpose of the constitution:

“No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words “no” and “not” employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution, and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”–Edmund Optiz

Added Two Hours Later:
Assistant Village Idiot and Intellect Impure bring up the point that we don’t have a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, for the most part. Valid point, but here grammar comes to our rescue. The implication of the order of the clauses is that without an armed populace, you can’t have a well-ordered militia (indeed, it’d be rather hard to field a fighting force if none of the force had weapons). And without a good militia, you can’t protect a free state. Referring back to the Jefferson quote, we must remember that the 2nd Amendment is the last defense of liberty, included in order for the people to overthrow a government that would eventually find its way to tyranny once again. While I’m not saying that the Michigan Militia separatists have the right idea (at this point in time anyway), I am saying that the militia needs to exist in potentia (not to mention that we’d be better off if the militia really did exist as a potential check against the current crop of legislators). And that militia can’t come to fruition without an armed people.

Again, there as both Intellect and Assistant point out is room for debate (particularly with regard to machine guns, the larger sniper rifles, and types of ammunition), but it remains hard to justify the banning, licensure, or other forms of control of semi-automatic firearms of just about any kind. Driving may be a privilege, but arming oneself is a right.

Sexy

Here’s a pic of the 2.5″ barrel version:

And the 6.5″ barrel:

Slightly awkward looking guns, but a neat concept nonetheless. I’m not sure what to do with these, but I do like strange and interesting firearms. And this and the Thunder-5 both qualify

As I mentioned, the .45LC/.410 concept has been tried before in a revolver:

also available with a .45-70 cylinder, which is a plus as far as this recoil masochist is concerned. But the Thunder-5 is just a bit too goofy looking, not to mention the fact that it’s way too hard to find information about who’s making it and what else they’ve done. I love the concept, love the availability of .45-70 cylinders, but I think I’ll have to pass.

It’s also been tried in derringers (from Bond Arms and American Derringer) as well. And the concept is a pretty cool one, but I finally got to heft one of those at the gun store the other week, and I gotta tell you, they ain’t the dainty little things you picture when you think derringer. Nope, these are big honkers in the same class as the Para Warthog and J-Frames. At that size, I’ll take the slight tradeoff in caliber and power to carry a .357/.38 snubbie instead.

Back to the Taurus, it can shoot 2.5″ .410 shells, .45LC (I don’t see why it can’t handle .454 Casull or .460XVR cartridges unless it just can’t handle the pressure), and supposedly even .44-40, a rifle cartridge. The latter is particularly strange as .44-40 bullets have a diameter of .427-.430 depending on who you ask, compared to the .454 for the Colt round. That’s a big enough difference that accuracy pretty much has to suck. Don’t know what’s at work there.

Still, cool gun. I’m anxious to try one out using both .410 and .45LC. And find out why I can’t fire .460XVR from it.

I recently picked up a North American Arms Black Widow.

I apologize for the lack of pictures. I’m too poor to afford a digital camera (I guess I’m one of those ‘leeches’ that pharyngula thinks I dislike so much). The Black widow is a surprisingly functional gun for something that looks and seems so toy-like. The thing is absolutely tiny; when placed in my palm it barely extends to my first knuckle.

Those goofy grips…

…are much larger in proportion to the gun than actually look good. That’s because the gun is so much smaller than the hand. However, thanks to that consideration, the gun points like an extension of your arm. Not exactly what you’d expect.

Mine’s the fixed sight model. The sights themselves are just fine quality Millett sights. But I’ve never been able to shoot plain old irons well. 3 dots are what I work best with. And are the only things I work well with. Either way though, this gun is great at unaimed ‘point and shoot’ and i could hit a ‘critter’ target from 5 yards with no problem whatsoever using that method. (Which is probably what it’ll be used for if ever in real life).

After lining up those sights, you encounter a nifty feature; notches in the cylinder wall between each chamber in which the hammer rests when you carry. This means instead of carrying hammer down on an empty chamber, you get a full cylinder full of shots (5). The hammer itself is in a good spot, and is reached and thumbed back in a fairly natural manner. And the spur trigger exhibits no creep or overtravel (doesn’t have room for it) that I noticed.

This gun will shoot. I have to throw out 1 or 2 of the 5 shot group due to my inherent crappiness, but the remaining rounds tended to be into one ragged hole or dang near close…offhand. This is a hell of a lot more than i expected from that little revolver at 5 and 10 yards. And also makes it the best performance I’ve ever had with a handgun, period.

It came with both a .22LR and a .22Mag cylinder, but I only shot .22LR. The conversion feature is nice, due to the high price difference between the two. One for carry, one for practice and plinking. Loading this little gun is a huge pain. Because of its size, it doesn’t have a conventional swing arm or ejector rod. You have to put it into half cock, pull the rod on which the cylinder spins entirely out of the gun, remove the cylinder, then poke the spent cases out one by one with that same rod. Putting the cylinder back in is a huge pain in the butt because you have to align everything perfectly. The good thing is that after a hundred or so rounds, the gun was loosening up and I was getting used to the procedure. I’m sure after a couple more range sessions I’ll have reloading down to 20 seconds or so (its around a minute right now).

The time spent loading is just the nature of the beast. To get a revolver that small, you have to ditch certain things. For me, the tradeoff is worth it. But there were a few ‘complaints’ to be had. Considering the Black Widow seems to be most often purchased as a BUG (backup gun), it would be prudent to include the smaller grips like those on the ‘regular’ mini mag. Don’t get me wrong, I like the big grips, but I don’t like the fact that I have to buy carry grips separately on what is when you get down to it a carry gun. Another thing is that I’m not a big fan of the cylinder retention pin. Because of the way its arranged, it’s nearly impossible to keep your hand from clearing the muzzle while loading or unloading. And there’s no trigger guard. I know Fitz cut the trigger guard off his specials, but it’s still a nice thing to have around. It’s a single action revolver, so a lot would have to get wrong to actually get hurt from either of those, it’s still something of a safety woe.

All in all, i’m completely happy with my purchase. It’s a good value for the money and there are a lot of times that the BW with the .22WMR cylinder installed could come in mighty handy whether out on the Texas Plain or lost in the concrete jungle.

Kim du Toit brings up a silly study in which it was shown that handling a firearm increases aggression and testosterone. Problem being, while it does show that there is a link between testosterone and aggression (duh?), it doesn’t say much about the role of firearms in either one.

This is just an extended version of the comments I put on Kim’s site. The thing about research, especially scientific research, is that you’re supposed to control for extraneous factors. They didn’t. Not in the least. In fact, if I wanted a biased result this is almost exactly how I’d go about getting it. Now, apparently one of the guys in the comments actually talked to the researchers, who had no intention of making this about guns, merely about aggression. If this is true, then they might think about changing the experiment to videos of UFC fights or something more unequivocally violent. I’ve never owned a gun that hurt anyone. Except the time I slammed the bolt on my own thumb. And if the reporter took a conclusion from the paper that wasn’t implied (as seems to be the case), the reporter needs to die. No, I’m serious. Anyway, some of the factors they didn’t control for were hoplophobia,

1. self-selection bias. Psych experiments in colleges are done by volunteers; usually from undergrads interested in psych. Psych is one of the most politically biased fields out there next to liberal arts academia. drhelen.blogspot.com talks about that a lot. In other words, these 30 boys were likely liberals and thus never held a gun. They also might have been scared to hold a gun. Fear increases testosterone drastically. I took my first college psych course when I was 15, three colleges and seven years ago. Since then I’ve met only two or three other non-leftie males involved in psych. Period.

2. familiarity. Remember the first time you held a gun? Acted quite a bit differently than you do now don’t you? I don’t mean outwardly, but inside. I remember the first time I shot a gun. A s&w N frame IIRC. Heart racing, huge high afterward, the whole nine yards. I’ve only gone shooting maybe 10-12 times since then. But now, my reaction is ‘meh’.

3. opinion of guns. This ties back into both 1 and 2. People looking at the same object can see two different things. When I look at a pistol, I see a tool and a toy, nothing more, nothing less. When a leftie psych metrosexual looks at that same plain jane 1911A1 he sees an evil black object of death. Clearly our reactions are going to be different when we pick it up.

4. the chicken-egg fallacy of thought vs. biochemical. Thoughts are the conscious perception of biochemical levels. In other words, it’s not a causative relationship necessarily but rather a truism. High aggression=high testosterone. So they can’t say ‘handling a gun increases testosterone’ but rather ‘thinking about handling a gun in a certain way increases testosterone’. Which is a horse of an entirely different color. I guarantee you my testosterone levels dont’ spike when I’m at the range. I doubt they do on your typical disciplined shooter and especially a sniper.

I personally love that BS like this can make it through to the mainstream media. Meanwhile, I can’t even get enough grant funding to defray my freaking travel expenses.

What I Carry
Rock and a hard place describes my concealed carry situation. Oklahoma legislation is actually pretty good, it’s not that. It’s rather the kind of clothing I’d tend to be wearing. For the forseeable future (roughly the next 8 years…blech), I’m going to be wearing either button-downs or scrubs when I’m in crappy neighborhoods. While scrubs are suitably baggy, they don’t exactly come equipped with beltloops. And while slacks and a button-down work for many people, they don’t for me. I’ve got that big shouldered/chested small-waisted thing going on. Which means my shirts have to be practically tailored if I don’t want to look like a douchebag. Apparently a 48″ chest means that I must necessarily have a 60″ waist, to look at the cuts on most shirts you can find (but that’s an issue for another rant). Having 28-30″ of extra fabric gathered around your waist makes you look like a tool. So my shirt won’t have much room either.

So neck, ankle and pocket seemed my most viable options. I wasn’t too happy with the quality of most of the pocket guns out there. And am not a big fan of DAO/No Safety because it tends to give me the shivers. I can shoot a .44magnum without flinching, but actually carrying it in a holster tends to turn me into a whimpering little girl. I, my friends, am a pansy.

Anyway, I’d skimmed an Ayoob article where he mentions that Bill Jordan had no problem with .22mag as a concealed carry round. As far as he was concerned it was more than good enough. I’d also heard about the mini revolvers from North American Arms. In addition to being neat looking little guns, they fit the bill for what I need perfectly; they’re the kind of guns I could throw on dogtag chain and hang around my neck, stick in an ankle holster, or just drop in a pocket.

I ended up getting the Black Widow

It’s a bit bigger than the ‘regular’ mini magnums

But it has real Millett sights and a one piece barrel/frame forging that lends itself to better accuracy. I’ve heard anecdotally that these will do an inch at 25 yards, which is a hell of a lot better than my nerve-damaged arm will ever do (or much more expensive revolvers for that matter). This makes it not only a good concealed carry gun but also a decent plinker, although the Mini Master would be better. I’ve handled, but not yet shot, this little revolver. The basic design comes courtesy of Dick Casull, creator of the eponymous magnumized .45 Colt. The quality of materials and craftsmanship is first rate, and it is a smooth little gun. NAA also has a great relationship with the customer, including a policy which makes repair work and upgrades very easy. Another factor in my decision. Also, they’re completely American owned and operated. Nothing against the furrin stuff mind you, just that when I can, I like to buy American. Especially when it comes to firearms, since apparently the US Government no longer will.

There are a couple of accessories I’ll probably get in the future.

I really like this folding holster grip:

But it seems kinda gimmicky, and the set of grips that the guns come with (shown in the 1st picture) are just too bulky for carry. So I’m getting a set of red wood grips just like the one on the regular .22mag in the 2nd picture. All accessories are interchangeable between the two. I mspainted something up so I could end up with a rough idea of what it’d look like, which is this:

Looks just a touch awkward, but it’ll get the job done.

There are other NAA products that interest me as well, though. My gun is convertible between .22LR and .22Mag. But the .22 Short gun is a must have when i’ve got money to burn:

Yeah I can fire shorts out of my .22LR cylinder (although it’d be pretty nasty considering it’s a revolver). That ain’t why the little short is so cool. This is:

And the design of the buckle is such that it’d actually be a pretty low-key think. People would have to look a bit to spot it. But if you wanted to go fancy (and shiny) there’s always this:

Now, there’s no denying that the .22 Short would be a total ‘mantoy’ purchase. But one option I might look into after I get over my DAO/no safety girlyman willies is their .32ACP pocket automatic that looks like the son of Browning’s Own Colt Vest Pocket:

Strangely enough, when I handled one of these at the gun store, it turned out to be the most natural fit gripwise I’ve ever had in a gun. Well, for the 2.5 fingers that actually fit on it. I thought this was pretty strange, given that my 9 inch long hands have never held onto a gun comfortably. Same logic for this gun as for my Black Widow purchase, just a bit more refined, a bit quicker to use, and a bit more capacity. And like the Black Widow, it’d be a pretty good plinker as well thanks to these 1o shot magazines:

Why I Carry
Ok, enough fanboyism. Why exactly do (will) I carry? As I conveyed in the thought for the day further down the page, just a matter of insurance. It’s stupid not to, honestly. I’m 5′10″ 210lb of mostly muscle, wrapped in a scary-looking minority face; not the kind of person that makes a good target. But I’ve already dealt with assault situations several times by the ripe old age of 22 (all in England or at parties). But myself? meh. I’m pretty stupid when it comes to self-protection no matter what we’re talking about. Family and friends on the other hand, are something entirely different. I feel it’s my duty to do what I can to protect them. Whether it’s walking them back to their place even if it adds a mile or two to my own journey, or stepping up to a thug, I tend to do it. I don’t think I’d ever forgive myself if someone I was with was hurt because I didn’t do enough to protect them. I don’t ever want to be in that situation. So I’ll carry.

But there is no denying that one of the major reasons I’ll do it is because it’ll upset the kind of person who’d ask why I needed to in the first place to. I could talk about practical reasons all day, but as I’ve said, I’m probably the last person that someone would be stupid enough to attack (unless I was in England where criminals have no fear thanks to their draconian policies on self-defense and their nonexistent punishment of criminals). No, the real reason I’ll carry isn’t for protection, it isn’t for insurance. It’s because I can. It’s because the right and ability to do so separates my great nation from the collectivist bullshit that other Western nations are founded upon. And it’s because the children in adult bodies who are scared by such things deserve to be needled as much as possible.

Hell, the truth is, the only reason I have an interest in guns is because of the GFW’s. I was your typically Republican slightly hickish kid for years, but simply had no desire to go shooting when I could have at just about any time or place back in West Texas. As I got older and started actually thinking about why I felt the way I did, that’s when I saw the ludicrosity of gun control. And only at that point, at the age of 20, in New York State, did I say “Huh, I should go shooting. Leftists don’t like that.”

You can tell a lot about a man’s political and personal ideology by the way he views firearms. It’s often enough a signal of how they feel about the role of the state and whether they ascribe to negative or positive liberty. I felt the way I did literally years before I ever picked up that first gun. And now I own a couple as a more visible testament to how I feel about leftists.

In about a week I’ll be taking my concealed carry class and applying for my permit. A lot of people like to ask why I A. need a gun. And B. why I need to carry. In response to question A, the answer is simple, because it upsets the kind of person that would ask such a stupid thing. Also, do you really want to start legislating us down to only having things we need? Goodbye black plastic frame ‘wannabe-Rivers-Cuomo-who-wants-to-be-Buddy-Holly’ glasses and ‘vintage’ t-shirts you poseur twit. In response to question B, something much simpler. How much did you spend on insurance last year? Car, home, health, life, etc? Probably several thousand dollars. My concealed carry permit, class, and gun together cost 300 dollars. Over the 60 years give or take I have remaining on this earth, we’re talking about a 5 dollar a year ‘premium’. When was the last time you got in a wreck, actually had more in health bills than insurance costs, or ever had anything happen to your house? So why do you need any of those things? This is just another form of the stuff. One that’s not only cheaper, but could very well prevent you needing to actually use that precious health or property insurance.

I know nothing about this interesting piece, save that an ad for it in Small Arms Review caught my eye. And if I had 3000 to throw away on a firearm, this would be on the short list:

I’m digging the vaguely Garand-ish stock with the distinctive swelling where the internal mag would’ve been (although this clearly doesn’t have one of those). The ventilated barrel shroud is a nice touch, and the look of that receiver is pleasantly mechanical and complicated.

And of course, there’s the whole aspect of belt-fed goodness with all that implies. And even in semi-auto, believe me I could pull that trigger fast enough to justify a 200 round belt.

Fun times.

Read about these cool little numbers in a gun rag the other day(click for larger):

The ‘gun’ portion is a breech loading .45ACP with a grip safety along the haft. A cool feature is that it also comes with a sleeve allowing you to fire .380ACP if you so choose. The review author (sorry don’t remember the title or the month) mentioned that the knifepistol’s actually pretty easy to instinctively aim by sighting along the blade, although with the non-existant barrel and 1 round capacity, I wouldn’t expect to see these things at IDPA matches.

A pic (clickable) showing the inner workings:

Why? Well to quote the website:

Combination “weapons” such as the “sword or knife pistol”, dating back to the sixteenth century, were used for dispatching and quartering wild boars. The penknife pistols of the mid-nineteenth century were created for emergencies and the Elgin cutlass pistol of the same era was designed for and authorized by an Act of Congress in May 1836 to be used by the United States South Seas Exploring Expedition.

Here’s an example of an accurate reproduction of the Elgin Cutlass from Dixie Gun Works:

These apparently gave pretty good account of themselves during boarding operations and attempts to repel pirates. However, cruise ships notwithstanding, pirate attacks and sailors swinging from yardarms and jib booms and stuff in ship-to-ship fighting doesn’t happen a whole lot. Neither does boar hunting from closer than 50 yards.

So, again. Why? It’s made of good steel and the shape would lend itself well to a general outdoor/hunting knife. And a shot of .45ACP is rarely inadequate for behavioral modification of beastie both two and four-legged. But there are probably better dedicated knives out there, and there are definitely better firearms to have on your person if the outdoors are your thing.

But it’s an interesting, innovative, and functional amalgam of both. And although at $1300 it ain’t a bargain, there are more expensive guns and knives out there.

Most importantly, though. Why the hell not? That’s the most persuasive reason for owning something like this. And it’s all the reason a guy like me needs. The money, on the other hand, is a different story.

This is a continuation of a piece I did for the last Carnival of Cordite. I lied about getting to politics this time. I wanted to spend a little more time on what ‘gun culture’ is. Again, this ain’t for us, this is for people who don’t understand us. If yall like it enough, pass the links on to hoplophobes

I wanted to come back to what ‘gun people’ are. A lot of us people in metro areas have very little exposure to guns, beyond seeing them in news flashes when another gang shootout occurs.
Well, that’s your first problem right there. Gangbangers look at guns in a fundamentally different way than the ‘gun culture’ does. For gangbangers, a gun is nothing more than a tool used to instill fear in others and kill them. Now, I think no matter how warped peoples’ perception of gun owners is, we can all agree that most of them don’t see firearms in quite that light.

Yeah, I think we can concede that. And we’ve talked a bit about how guns are as much a hobby as they are a means of providing for the family or a means of self defense. I think the number one thing that mystifies people like me is the way you can be so casual about such devastating and powerful weapons.
You’re making the mistake of equating familiarity with lack of respect. As an animal handler, I’ve been around, worked with, and annoyed things that could easily kill or maim any one of us. But I’ve become comfortable enough with them that I don’t spend my entire time jumping and running like a scared little girl. I’m familiar with them, and even comfortable, but not for a moment do I lose my respect for them. Doing that is a bad idea with a 300lb pig, a protective cow, or a male Patas monkey with his 3-4″ canines. That’s the same attitude we have with guns. We understand how they work and what makes them go bang, so we’ll handle them just like we would any other dangerous tool like a chop saw or an arc welder.

I’m not denying that there’s a few yahoos out there with no respect for firearms who pay no heed for safety, just that they are few and far between. And that they are outright shunned from the actual ‘gun community’. I’ve actually got a story for you that fits right in with just how well drilled into us gun safety is. This came when I was very new to shooting. I’d only been twice, actually. 3 of us were sitting on the porch playing with one of those little CO2 powered BB pistols–a fairly realistic looking one based on a real modern pistol–shooting at beercans after class. One of our pledges came up and wanted to try it out, so of course one of us handed it to him, showing how to cock it and how to line up the sights. He turned around asking a question, pointing it at us (accidentally), at which point all of us jumped over the rail shouting almost simultaneously “NEVER point a firearm at something you don’t intend to shoot.” So ingrained in our heads are the rules of firearm safety that we readily generalize them to anything similar, even very early in our shooting career. In fact, I was taught the rules of gun safety, forced to commit them to memory, and made to repeat them several times before I was ever allowed to pull the trigger the first time. And this was out in the backwoods on a friend’s farm with a bunch of 20-something yahoos. Not the most mature group you can find.

I guess you guys always seemed so gung ho and bloodthirsty because we automatically equate guns with violence. I can see the role politics plays in causing yall to support an organization whose President once screamed “From My Cold Dead Hands” considering the extent some people go to demonize it. Beyond politics what makes the bond of your hobby seem so strong to outsiders?
The political aspect has nothing to do with the strength of our community. Our community would be like this even if The Kalifornia Krew and the New England Elite weren’t trying to destroy it every waking minute. Now, I’m about to make a sexist comment, but bear with me.

Women bond over emotions. They bond by talking about their relationships, their fears, their desires. Men bond over things. Both doing things and playing with things. It’s just how we are. Casual acquaintances develop in the gym, admiring each others’ rides, or getting some help from your neighbor on the latest home improvement project. Guns are a thing to do like any other. And they offer a broad range of ways to make conversation while being manly. We can talk about anything from the beautiful wood grain of the stock to how big a boom it makes to the role of aerodynamics in bullet stability. ‘Gun culture’ isn’t any different in this respect from hot rodders or sports enthusiasts. It’s just men bonding over a common interest.

Now, I’m not saying women aren’t a part of gun culture or aren’t welcome, not by a long shot. Besides, every female shooter I know is a better shot than I am, although they probably don’t enjoy going through 100 rounds of 12 gauge as fast as you can pull the trigger, like I do. And one or two female firearms enthusiasts I know are just as good friends as any male shooter. Just as no matter what we do, there will always be more male woodworkers than there are females, there will probably be more male firearm enthusiasts. I do have to say there is something inordinately sexy about a woman who knows how to shoot a rifle, use a drill, or even better, both, though.

Tell me a bit more about the way yall use guns.
Well personally, I bought my little .22 to develop my skill level as a shooter, to hone the fine motor control and the mental state require to put a bullet where you want to, when you want to. I also bought it because I could. It’s an expression of my 2nd Amendment right as an American citizen. It’s also a political statement about my distaste for overbearing government, for another. But one of the main reasons for the gun is because I see a lot of road ‘nearly-killed’ living on the outskirts of town as I do. I’m a Hindu, and an animal lover. Nothing tears me up worse than seeing an animal suffer. And if you’ve ever seen an animal suffer like some of these guys do, you’d pull the trigger yourself no matter how much of a pacifist and hoplophobe you are.

At the most casual end you have ‘plinking’. Taking a .22 (decent ones can be had for 150-300 dollars) and shooting at tin cans in the back 40. The most practical is hunting. While some shoot for trophy alone, the vast majority I talk to eat everything they shoot. Others go ‘varminting’, which is taking out full fledged pests like prairie dogs at hundreds of yards (so you don’t spook them). Varminting is some of the most skilled real-world hunting done, being as the targets are tiny and the distances are extreme (up to 500yds).

And then there are the competitions. There’s things like bowling pin and silhouette shooting, which are a lot like plinking in that it’s often a much more relaxed atmosphere and guns can be plenty competitive without spending thousands of dollars on a rig. And then there’s ‘practical’ shooting competitions, that take into account real-world good guy/bad guy situations. These include IDPA, IPSC, and other things like 3-gun (rifle, shotgun, and pistol) matches and many others that I’m too lazy to mention. And then there’s more formal target shooting competitions, these range from NRA High Power matches to 1000 yard big bore rifle matches (these guys got talent. Some of them have put 10 shots into under a foot. I can barely do that at 300 yds). At the most ridiculous end of the whole thing is benchrest competition. These rifles can weigh up to 30 lbs (which even a big strapping lad like me wouldn’t want to tote anywhere. They often have hair triggers and other completely impractical equipment. And, to top it off, the gun is then strapped to a table and adjusted in a vice. Kinda defeats the purpose of marksmanship if you ask me. But, it does have its benefits. These guys are kind of the NASCAR of our hobby in a way. What works in the racecar on Sunday, comes to the dealership showroom floor…10 years from now. A lot of the refinements on modern rifles were made in direct response to benchrest-driven developments.

And then there’s defense. Self explanatory. Someone threatens you or your family, you rack the pump, thumb the hammer, or click off the safety. If necessary you shoot.

Finally, there’s the curiosity aspect. Some guns are fun to own just because they’re a piece of history. There’s something about holding an ODCMP M1 Garand in your hand, knowing that this gun was once held by a WW2 soldier, possibly in Normandy, or maybe in Southeast Asia. Some guns are just mechanical oddities. Like the French-designed LeMat pistol, a civil war era revolver that in addition to firing ‘normal’ pistol rounds, had a shotgun chamber and barrel integrated into the gun, giving it that little extra oomph a cavalry soldier might need. Me? I prefer guns which are both historical and curious. I’m too poor to collect anything at the moment, though.

An interesting and hugely growing new segment is the Cowboy Action Shooting crew (see here , here , and here as well). This is what happens when the Society for Creative Anachronisms and ‘gun culture’ produce a bastard child after a night of heavy drinking. Cowboy Action are all about nostalgia and history, while still being a competitive group. They even dress in clothing from the same era as the guns they shoot. Many of the guns (and some of the clothing accessories) you’ll see on this circuit are the real deal. Honest-t0-god 19th century weapons and accoutrements that might actually have been used by cowboys. CAS is one of the best examples I can offer of just how much more there is to firearms than violence.

Some people would say hunting is barbaric. Especially that varminting stuff. I hear you can kill hundreds in a day doing that.
I used to think hunting was barbaric too, and then I matured a little. I eat meat, you probably eat meat, more than 90% of us in this country eat meat. An animal had to be killed to get us that meat. I still can’t hunt though. I’m a wuss and an animal lover. If I had to kill to eat meat, I’d probably become a vegetarian. Which is why in some ways hunters are superior to you and I. At least they’re honest and forthright (and strong) enough to actually see the process through from start to finish. And many people don’t realize how ethical hunters are. It’s drilled into them from the youngest age that you do not take the shot unless it’ll be a clean kill. You do not want an animal to die in pain hours after the shot. Kids who take bad shots are usually banned from hunting for the rest of the trip. A crippling shot was even the spur of one of the most famous revolver shots in history. Elmer Keith, father of the magnum pistol, once made a 6o0yd killing shot with a handgun (more or less unheard of) because a friend had made a merely crippling one on an animal. Keith’s goal was to dispatch this animal as fast and as painlessly as possible. If it had gotten away, it would’ve died hours later suffering with every breath.

It took me even longer to agree with the practice of varminting. And unlike hunting, I still do have some moral qualms about it. Practically though, varminting is a necessary part of agriculture. Prairie dogs, groundhogs, crows, and other animals can eat right through a field as easily as a visit from an NFL offensive line can bankrupt an all-you-can-eat buffet. If we want to be fed, and we want to be fed cheaply, pests need to be controlled. As a practical side of it, though, it’s pretty clear that varmints are so many in number that this practice has little effect on their total numbers.

In some cases, it’s morally right to hunt. Feral cat hunts are one of the most widely decried and most misunderstood practices in the Western world. As we all know, cats like to get loose. And cats, unlike dogs, have kept a lot of their hunting instincts. Also, unlike dogs, they evolved to be solitary hunters. A single feral cat can kill literally hundreds of native birds in a year. There is no natural predators that wasteful or effective. Feral cats have been tied to the endangerment of literally tens to hundreds of species of local birds and small mammals. They’ve even doubtless caused a few to go extinct. Feral cat hunts remain the only way to destroy this invasive species and protect the natural world. By protesting these hunts, PETA is attempting to condemn the natural inhabitants of this country to extinction.

Death is a part of life. Many animals live by killing. This is true of us humans. How many truly virile, strong, energetic vegetarians do you know of? We’re built to eat meat. Killing these animals, so long as its done ethically, is not a moral issue. In fact, as I mentioned, in some cases, hunting is the only way to prevent even more damage to the animal world than we’ve already done.

I see what you’re getting at. Firearms are a hobby, and they’re tools. But there are lots of hobbies and tools out there, most of which people don’t get up in arms over [excuse the pun] when someone tries to ban them.
Well a large part of this has to do with just how many of us there are. Most homes in the US have cars in the garage or on the driveway. But very few of those cars belong to actual automotive enthusiasts. Many, if not most, homes in the US have firearms in them. But because of the nature of the way we treat guns (with respect) and the way we use them, most gun owners are hobbyists. But we’re far from the only local hobbyist group. As the EPA and CARB try harder and harder to make hot rodders’ lives hell, SEMA has spent more and more time, effort, and money lobbying for us. The BATF recently tried to declare model rocketry illegal by claiming that model rocket engines are explosive (they’re not). The response was swift, with activists getting the courts to strike down the regulation within months.

We just happen to be the only hobby that gun control activists see as full of bloodthirsty, wanton individuals who live to kill. It’s quite upsetting to more or less be the victims of character assassination that people like the Million Mom March, Violence Policy Center, and Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws (read: political activist douchebags who don’t understand the realities of the world and need to stick to medicine) perpetrate against us everyday. To give you an analogy. I trained as a heavyweight boxer. I’m not as strong or as fast as I used to be, but I’m still a big bastard, and the training didn’t disappear. Would you declare that just because I’m trained in punching that I’m therefore a violent man? And if you did, how would I feel about it? And would I be justified in my virulent response?

Good point. Till next week. Time for politics. You’re excessively verbose and pompous by the way.
I know.

I get asked a lot why I’m into guns. Some people contend it’s small penis syndrome. Some describe my hobby as ‘backward’. Some just don’t understand the appeal. And unfortunately most don’t understand the implications that one’s stance on gun control holds for the way they view the world and the way politics works. So I figured one way would be to have a fictitious interview between me and an ‘unbiased’ reporter who simply doesn’t understand the appeal, and who holds an opinion that certain gun laws are ’sensible’ *spit*. Today’s part will focus almost entirely on guns as a hobby, no politics.

So what kind of guns do you own and what kind of stuff do you do with them?
I only own one gun. A little bolt action .22LR Savage rifle. Basically it’s as small, uncomplicated, and anemic as firearms get. I use it for plinking–you know shooting at tin cans, overripe melons, eggs–and a bit of target shooting. I try to shoot once a month, although I’d like to go more often.

What kind of guns are you looking at buying in the future?
Well first thing I need to do is get a handgun, for home and personal defense.

I’m eyeing the Para Warthog. This gun shoots one of the more powerful rounds while being small and concealable.

Then will come a shotgun, probably something like the Remington 870. These guns don’t fall apart and are good for fun blasting away (just like my .22), and for home defense (something that little .22 isn’t so good at.

Then I’ll probably get a ‘tactical rifle’ like the AR-15, M1A, or AR-10, which are civilian versions of weapons currently used by the military. These are good all-around guns, that are fairly accurate, can hold a lot of rounds, and are light and packable. They’re the SUV’s of the gun world.

And probably after that will be a real target rifle of some kind. Something that’ll be accurate out to 600 yards. Something that’ll help me develop the discipline and skill that is required to send 5 or 10 bullets into a group no larger than your hand at distances of half a mile and beyond.

Finally, I intend to get a Barrett rifle firing .50BMG. This is the round that California just banned, for idiotic reasons. And I’ll be honest with you, the only reason I’ll be buying this gun is because Ronnie Barrett understands the importance of the second amendment and because I want to spit in California’s eye.

I’ll also probably start collecting various oddities and military rifles. Out of historical and mechanical curiosity.

Well, we’ll save the political talk for later. Why do you need so many?
It’s not a question of need, really. And it shouldn’t be. You don’t ask a guitarist why he owns 3 or 4 guitars (I have 4). You don’t ask a car enthusiast why he really needs more than one mustang (I’ll be getting a second one when I’m older). And you certainly don’t ask a girl why she needs so many different types of lotion and makeup (I asked a girlfriend that once, she nearly eviscerated me). Some of those guns are for functional purposes, like the pistol and shotgun. Some are for fun, like the target rifle and the .22lr. And some serve multiple purposes, like the tactical rifles (which would be highly useful should zombies come to kill us).

If we only bought and used what we needed, the world wouldn’t be a very fun place.

Good point. Now let’s move on to how you got into firearms.
Well, I suppose it was inevitable. I was raised in West Texas and am something of a hick. One summer in college we went off to a buddy’s farm and hung out with some of his high school friends. They encouraged me to try out the guns, something I was eager enough to do. First gun I ever fired was a .44Magnum, that big honking revolver that Dirty Harry used. Guy handed it to me and said ‘it doesn’t recoil very much.’ I’m sure they were snickering about handing me a gun known for its recoil and expecting me to scream like a little girl. Then I got to try out an AR-15. Then a shotgun. Since then I’d been shooting a handful of other times. About two years later, I bought my first gun.

So you talked about how you started shooting. Why do you keep with it?
Barring the political stuff, which explains a good portion of it, a whole lot of things. First of all, being a boy, I find things going bang fun. I played with model rockets and fireworks when I was younger. Guns are just an extension of that. I can’t explain just how fun it is to see a cantaloupe explode when a .223 round goes through it.

And then there’s the skill aspect to it. The first time I sat down and actually did anything but blast away, I lined up 5 eggs about 15 yards away and lined up the crosshairs on them. Rack the bolt. Bam. Rack again. Bam. 5 rounds. 5 eggs. 10 seconds. I was hooked. There’s a certain amount of dexterity needed to be able to move that bolt, line up your sights and then squeeze (not pull) that trigger, especially at such fast speeds. I enjoy developing talents, and unlike my complete inability with ball sports, I am something of a natural (although nothing special at all) with a gun.

My other hobbies include woodworking, music, and martial arts. Shooting well is something of a cross between the fine hand-eye coordination needed to play a violin well and the overall physical and mental discipline needed to excel in tae kwan do or boxing. Needless to say, it slots in very well with the kind of stuff I enjoy doing. Like the martial arts you need to develop a strong stable stance (especially if you shoot offhand, or standing, as I love to do), breath control, and total focus. Like the violin, you need to be able to move your hands by thousandths of an inch to put that bullet where you want it to go, and you need finesse to hit that trigger in such a way that it doesn’t disturb the gun as it fires. There’s something very zen about the whole thing.

And never, ever forget the mechanical aspect of it all. Boys love to tinker. I love my power tools, I love my Popular Mechanics, and I love those History and Discovery Channel shows about contrivances of all kinds. There’s a 300hp mustang sitting on my driveway that I can’t wait for the warranty to expire on so I can do all sorts of crazy things to the suspension and engine. You’ll meet guys who failed algebra in junior high but have no problem understanding the complex aspects of air flow in a carburetor. It’s just how we are. Guns are pretty complex, and we enjoy learning about and playing with these complexities, whether we’re talking about handloading your own rounds or tweaking the action of that Mauser to eek out the last bit of accuracy, power, and reliability in the gun.

Some people say that people who are into guns have control problems and suffer from fears of inadequacy. What do you think about that?
I think that those people are what we’d call hoplophobes. They themselves are afraid of weapons because they fear the power contained within and the ability of them to project force. From my limited forays into what some call ‘gun culture’, firearm owners tend to have good, strong heads on their shoulders. They’re self-reliant, stable people who are, on average, less fearful and less uptight than most. They are a disciplined lot who understand the nature of these implements and who never fail to treat them with respect.

Myself, well, I’ll leave it for those who’ve met me in person to judge.

There anything else you want to discuss before we move onto the politics of it?
Yeah. As I’ve been trying to get across, firearms should not be viewed solely as objects of wanton destruction and bloodthirsty violence. For most of us, that’s the smallest part of what they are. As I’ve said earlier, they’re fun, they require skill, they’re mechanical. And in addition they can help us put food on the table (I don’t hunt, but could if it came to life or death situations), and protect our families (some criminologists have estimated that guns are used in a defensive way 2-3 million times a year in this country alone). Like cars, they’re a source of both practical value and entertainment.

Guns are more than putting a big hole in something. They’re a nearly unique way to combine various aspects of life and living in a relatively cheap and fun way. As you can expect, they can thus provide a foundation of a strong community spirit. Because of the lessons we learn and the respect we have for the hobby and for our firearms, we share a common bond that can transcend age, background, economic situation, and yes, even language.

Interesting. I never saw it that way, but I can certainly see your points. You’ve given me a lot of food for thought and I can’t wait to get to the political stuff next time. Also, you mind showing me the ropes sometime?

Click for larger goodness

I’ve never once seen that little header up at a Wiki stub. Funny since I spend way too much time at Wiki, usually looking up political-type stuff. And usually noting quite a bit of bias. But of course, a thorough article on gun control in the US, discussing initial interpretation and current interpretation, efficacy of bans, logic or lack thereof, and their unintended consequences, mostly using undeniable statistics, is ‘biased’.

Also, now’s as good a time as many to mention that the libtards *made* me a gunnie. Their stance on guns showed me how they truly felt about liberty and freedom; that they aren’t really fans of it, since it takes power away from the state. Funny since a large part of the reason for the 2nd amendment was precisely that. An implied threat against tyranny. It was about this point (a couple years ago), that I figured out that libtards didn’t really respect the American Constitution or its principles.

Triggerfinger posted about an appeal challenging the ATFE’s decision to regulate model rocket engines as explosives. Read Triggerfinger’s entry, because he’s more insightful than I am.

All I can say is that I love scathing diatribes rendered in court opinion. Thomas’s dissent in Kelo v. New London should be considered a modern classic in political philosophy. But this one’s great just for its poignancy:

The problem in this case is that ATFE’s explanation for its determination that APCP deflagrates lacks any coherence. We therefore owe no deference to ATFE’s purported expertise because we cannot discern it.

Where’s the expertise in the expert opinion? OH so beautiful. Now if only this could be applied to the ATFE as a whole, I’d be a happy man.

Bureaucracies have a major problem in that they all fight for a slice of the same pie, due to almost invariably being run by officious and ambitious men whose sole concern is the amount of power they wield. And when they realize that there’s not enough pie for overlapping agencies (FBI, ATFE, DHS, Treasury, NSA) to share conveniently, they try to make more pie. Using my damned flour. Screw that. I was trying to make a pizza.

Model rocket engines, explosive? I’ve enjoyed model rocketry off and on for over 10 years, cobbling multistage rockets out of paper towel rolls and funnels, and once modifying a launcher into a shoulder-mounted ‘fire and forget’ kinetic weapon (it severely damaged a shrub’s careful grooming). They don’t explode anymore than the Shuttle does, Challenger excepting (yes, bad taste, I know). They burn in a controlled manner and in fact are almost identical in operation and theory to the Solid Rocket Boosters (the thin white ones) that the Shuttle uses. Dry slow-burning propellant.

This was a clear cut case of the ATFE deciding they wanted more to regulate. It’s not too different from the Brit tabloids and politicians labelling BB guns as ‘firearms’. I’ve owned a few BB guns, been shot by a few BB guns, shot at my best friends with BB guns, and you know, not once was fire or explosion involved.