So, you think you know everything there is to know about the 1911?

Quiz: How well do you know the M1911 Pistol? - Guns & Ammo:

I have been shooting the 1911 for the past 50+ years, and I thought I knew everything that was important about the iconic semi-automatic pistol frame.

As it happens, I was wrong.

VERY wrong; I got 3 out of ten questions wrong.

Go ahead, take the test.  You may discover that you're as ignorant as I am!

Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away!

Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away - The Daily Beast:

 Why don’t gun-control advocates like Hillary Clinton talk about the one gun control solution that could actually fix the firearms problem in America?

Sometimes I love The Daily Beast, sometimes I hate it.  But you got to admit, there's often content that makes you go .... "Hmmmmmm ...."

Contributor James Kirchick  (herein: "The Author") uses big words that I had to look up to examine why Total Confiscation Of All Guns would be the ideal "solution" to the "Gun Control Problem",

But it will probably never happen.

Why not?

UNIVERSAL FIREARMS CONFISCATION!!!

(there, I've said it)

The perennial “national conversation” about guns is predictably stale because its contestants—those favoring a largely unfettered right to personal gun ownership and those opposing it—are talking past each other. Prevarication characterizes the debate, as each side adheres to a core principle that, for reasons of propriety and political calculation, it is unwilling to admit publicly. 

In other words, everybody lies.  Liberals say they don't want to take your guns away; Conservatives say YES YOU DO!
 Liberals say 'oh, no, of course not .. we couldn't, because you would shoot us!'

Liberals think they're making a talking point.  Conservatives think this is a Nuclear Option.

The core principles The Author talks about are this:

• Gun Control People: if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths
• Gun Rights People: if there were no LEGAL guns, criminals would still have them and honest people would be defenseless victims

There are some truths to each side.

If in an imaginary "perfect world" (as the author describes):

.... the United States would never have had the Second Amendment. But such a country—one not forged in armed revolution against arbitrary rule from afar and founded upon the principle of individual liberty—would not be the United States, with all its virtues and vices.

Well, perhaps.

On the other hand: the handicapped, women and old people would be at the mercy of brawny men who are physically stronger than their victims.   Speaking for the "old people" contingent, I know that if somebody broke into my home (Liberals insist this rarely happens, regardless of dailynews reports to the contrary) I would be unable to physically resist them.

What was that quote?  Oh yes ..

“Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal”. 

The author of the article holds an opinion which seems to be that the world would be much, much better if there were no guns.

There's a old saying, to the effect that "A Liberal is a man who has been arrested; a Conservative is a man who has been mugged."

I'm not saying anything about the author's legal past, of course.  It's just an adage, which is obviously not applicable to anyone specifically.

I'm sure the author doesn't REALLY believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without guns.

... (thinking, thinking, thinking ....)

Okay, I'm not at all sure about that:
I think the author is a total dork who has a completely unrealistic concept of what predators will do when the defensive instincts of nature are removed, and the lions are asked to lie down with the lambs ... and the lambs agree.   The author constructs his postulations so exquisitely that it is often difficult to understand exactly what he is saying.

Short interpretation: the author thinks that firearms owners are rabid chipmunks with machine guns and absolutely NO sense of Societal Responsibility .. because guys with guns only think about themselves, not about The Greater Good.

How New California Gun Laws Are Calculated To Screw You, if you own a gun

California Lt. Gov. Takes Detour on Pot, Embraces More Gun Control - Reason.com:
(October 30, 2015)
 [California's Democratic Lt. Governor Gavin] Newsom and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence have yet to release the language of the proposed statewide initiative, but the group has announced the basic parameters of the proposal. It would prohibit the possession of large-capacity magazines – thus forcing the owners to surrender something they had acquired legally.

Other factors of Newsom's initiative:

• Requires licensing of ammo vendors
• Point of sale background checks for ammo purchase
• Confiscation of firearms owned by people under a restraining order or crime conviction
• Requires immediate reporting of lost and/or stolen firearm
• Provides "... a process for better sharing data with the feds"

Let's look at some of these 'provisions', starting with:

PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES:

Define "large capacity".  I'm thinking ten rounds, which seems to be the Gold Standard. May be eight, probably not less than six-rounds.  (Revolvers set the standard, y'know, and if not ..what about 8-round revolvers?)

The problem is not that you have to reload more often, but that you have to carry more magazines in order to provide adequate firepower in a defensive situation.

Obama vs LBJ ... no difference

Obama authorizes Special Ops Forces to deploy to Syria | Fox News:

The deployment marks the first time U.S. troops will be working openly on the ground in Syria. A senior administration official called it a "small" deployment, involving "fewer than 50" Special Ops Forces to northern Syria.

Oh, yeah .. THAT sounds familiar!

RVN .. December 28, 1969.

Bad gun! Back in the box!

Back to the drawing board: The worst firearms ever made - Photos - Washington Times: See the most ill-conceived weapons of ever made.

Okay, okay, I see your point, WaTimes.   A lot of guns built for 'special purpose' not only didn't prove appropriate for "general use", but didn't even prove effective for their (usually very limited) purpose.

The slide show is amusing and the author does a good job (mostly) of making his point.

But I do have a quibble with the second choice:

The FP-45 Liberator was a pistol manufactured by the United States military during World War II for use by resistance forces in occupied territories. The Liberator was never issued to American or other Allied troops and there is no documented instance of the weapon being used for its intended purpose, though the intended recipients, irregulars and resistance fighters, rarely kept detailed records due to the inherent risks if the records were captured by the enemy. The FP-45 was a crude, single-shot pistol designed to be cheaply and quickly mass-produced. It had just 23 largely stamped and turned steel parts that were cheap and easy to manufacture. It fired a .45 caliber pistol cartridge from an unrifled barrel. Due to this limitation, it was intended for short range use, 1–4 yards (0–5 m). Its maximum effective range was only about 25 feet (7.6 m). At longer range, the bullet would begin to tumble and stray off course.

As I recall, the "Liberator" was specially designed as a single-use assassins' gun.  It was dropped by airplane in occupied territories in hopes that on resisting civilian would pick it up and use it to shoot one unsuspecting Nazi.

I've read anecdotal evidence that it was used for its designed purpose, but I've never found any story which had been independently collaborated (excuse the expression) by reliable authorities.

Yes, the design was to make a cheap throw-away belly gun.  The lack of believable sights was a give-away ... nobody cared if the gun was inaccurate at any distance beyond a belt-buckle.

Perhaps the Nazi occupiers were aware that these throw-aways were being airdropped by the thousands and being picked up by resentful restless natives, and perhaps they weren't.

After all, as the Liberal Matra can permissibly be perverted here:

If it kills just ONE Nazi .....!

By The Way ...

There is a Wiki link to the gun,

Telling citizens not to have gun is like telling teens not to have sex

It's tough being a parent.

You can tell your kids about the dangers of sex, but if they think they want it (and they do), they're going to ignore you.

Australia is now trying to deal with this problem.  Yes, the same Australia that Hillary and Barak are holding up as the very model of a modern "reasonable, common-sense" nation.

October 28, 2015

'There hasn't been this much weaponry on the streets since the days of the underworld war': police: "Something obviously needs to be done about the guns out already out there. We need to look at harsher sentences. There's no justification for carrying an unregistered gun and we need to be harder on people that decide to, or there'll  be a lot more shootings," the officer said.

The thing is, Free Citizens and Teens have a lot of common; if they something they want, they're usually going to get it.

Enacting anti-gun laws is very similar to telling your child "NO!".

"Trust, Yet Verify" ???

FBI director on privacy, electronic surveillance - CBS News: FBI Director James Comey speaks with Scott Pelley about our lives online and the need for government electronic surveillance, but only with a court order

(October 12, 2015)

"Smiling People Tell Lies"* ... but I'm inclined to pay attention to this interview.

At least he seems sincere.  Time will tell, and I'm always too contrary to accept what's said just because it's what I want to hear.

For now, we'll give him a "bye" and hope that he really is more open than J. Edgar was.



*yes, I know it's not the Temptations version, but that's 12+ minutes long.  You can go here to see it.

Would you trust this man to babysit your children?

Man Arrested for Sexual Attack on 12-Year-Old Girl - Story | WTXF:

I wouldn't trust him to hold my coat.

According to investigators, Payne was left alone to babysit the 12-year-old girl and her four-year-old brother.  Investigators say Payne chased the 12-year-old through the home.  Broke down a bathroom door where she was hiding and attacked the girl in front of the four-year old. And investigators say the mother, who was at work, 

Some people are just born bad.  And sometimes (as in this case) they try to TELL us ... but we just don't listen.

There was a day when we were taught to trust our judgement; now the Liberals tell us to be "non-judgmental".

THIS us what happens when "feel-good" Liberal attitudes cause us to over-ride our common sense.

We can't know the whole story, but there is prima facie evidence that the man meant no good, right from the start..

It's written all over his face.