Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Tuesday Worse Than Monday...

...sort of sprinting toward SHOT. I now have enough meetings to fill up about 2 weeks...maybe 3. Can you believe that field mice ate the wiring harness of my poor Honda Element? Maybe I need a small cat to live in the engine compartment. Tomorrow I have to get my finger x-rayed...I broke it about 3 months ago, and since them I've been pretending it'll heal up all by itself. Apparently, this is just another of my self-delusions. At least it's on my left hand, which hasn't affected my shooting.

I have a couple of good articles for you today. This one from law professor Nicholas J. Johnson, a scholar on Second Amendment law:
The implication that modern semiautomatics are a distinctly dangerous category is a pure canard. Consider this from an 1862 report assessing Winchester’s lever-action Henry rifle: 
"187 shots were fired in three minutes and thirty seconds and one full fifteen shot magazine was fired in only 10.8 seconds. A total of 1,040 shots were fired and hits were made from as far away as 348 feet at an 18 inch square target with a .44 caliber 216 grain bullet [compare the .22 caliber 55 grain AR-15 round.]" 
This was common nineteenth century technology when the Fourteenth Amendment trumped state laws denying citizens of United States the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Read the whole thing. You have contacted your two Senators and one Representative, haven't you?

This one is from Dr. Harry Wilson, published on Fox News:
Individuals who are intent on committing mass murder won’t be deterred by any of the above measures. Seung Hui Cho used two legally purchased handguns, which he accumulated over months, to kill 32 and wound 17 people at Virginia Tech. Timothy McVeigh used only fertilizer and racing fuel to kill 168, including 19 children, and injure 450 others at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
BTW, I note that Magpul Dynamics have lowered the costs of their training classes and are allowing students to use .22 LR (or pistol caliber) AR-15s...GOOD FOR THEM! We are all going to have to deal with a hellish sort age of ammunition for the ext year at least regardless of whether we  win this war. Battle aside, we need to keep shooting, keep training, and if that means running .22s, so be it. I talk about that al to on tomorrow's podcast, which I finished about half-an-hour ago. Yes, there are downsides to training with a .22, but it beats the heck out of not training at all!

10 comments:

San Diego Wedding Photographer said...

It's okay to have a gun or purchase a gun as long as the person is responsible enough and not mentally ill. It is proper to perform a background check to those who purchase a gun.

Anonymous said...

Dryfire is a great training tool as well.

Anonymous said...

Good luck trying to find 22lr ammo around my part of the woods!

Anonymous said...

Dry fire is one of the great myths of the shooting world. Without the ability to see exactly where the gun was pointed when the trigger was pulled, dry fire can simply cement in bad practices. With live fire you get feedback about your skills. With dry fire, you are literally shooting blind. Now, if you use Crimson Trace laser grips with dry fire, that is a whole different story. Then you CAN see exactly where the gun was pointing at the moment that the trigger was pulled during dry fire.

Also, a historical note: With muskets, troops unaccustomed to live fire at targets tend to shoot too high, over the heads of their opponents. The British did not have enough supplies to do enough live fire training with their troops. The American militias always practiced with live fire. Just some food for thought from a historical standpoint (in today's shooting, un-trained shooters tend to shoot too low, at the ground or at the feet of their opponents in short to medium distance confrontations -- dry fire practice without lasers will weld bad practices into your brain and that can get you killed).

Tom from Roanoke said...

To San Dego Wedding Photographer:

Background checks are already mandatory, mental illness and a criminal record are already reason for exclusion. A gun ban, as any other law, affects only those who obey laws. Instead of banning guns to prevent mass shootings, what if we make murder illegal? Oh wait, nevermind.

Gary Boncella said...

Michael, You know that any one of us would gladly trade our humdrum existences for the exciting, thrilling life of Michael Blane, even for a day!! Did not comment to rag on you, just to say keep up the great work!! Since the Newtown murders your podcasts have been great. You have been focused, forceful and persuasive, even if your listeners don’t need persuading: it helps us persuade others. Thank you, hope to meet you at NRA in Houston and let you buy me a beer. gary

absolutebs said...

For the year and maybe more I have been looking into a SIRT training pistol to assist with my dry fire practice. At shot show this year I plan on finally ordering one. The current situation makes it more justifiable.

http://nextleveltraining.com/content/new-sirt-performer-110-student-redred-training-pistol-red-slide

Anonymous said...

You are an excellent spokesperson for the 2nd Amendment. We need more people like you that aren't afraid to say they support our constitution. I'm tired of the way the media refers to the NRA. I try but I can't say it near as eloquently as you do. A suggestion, has anyone thought of treating the other Amendments in the same way they want to treat the 2nd? For example, if you want the right to free speech, then you need to get a license, and you can only say 3 sentences at a time. If you get caught speaking your mind without a license, your going to jail. Oh, you want to plead the 5th? Did you pay your 5th Amendment fee? If not sorry. I think the 1st Amendment one might catch some peoples attention to what is really going on. Not that I want them to do that but maybe some people will realize what is really going on.

Another thing I have a problem with. Weren't all thee people in Washington sworn to uphold the constitution? How can they be upholding it when they are spending all their time trying to change it? Seems lie a conflict of interest to me.

But I have wrote the Colorado reps. I'm thinking about sending them another email saying after the fiscal cliff fiasco, I'm not voting for any incumbents. The only thing that will change my mind is if they support our entire constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Here's another one. The 1st Amendment doesn't not apply to the Internet because it wasn't around in the 1700's and the 1st Amendment only applies to using a quill, paper and a courier because that's what they had back then.

JohninMd.(help!) said...

The Constitution also mentions issuing Letters of Marque to Privateers to support U.S. policy on the High Seas, so we know they were Cool with the idea of privately owned WARSHIPS..... €BD} III