San Francisco Furry Parade denied permit: 'too weird'
San Francisco, CA - San Francisco is the City of Love for some, but it had little love for the Furries when they asked for a parade permit. Not only did the authorities deny permit, they told the furries that they were demented and should never visit the city again. It came as a surprise to all of us that they would respond with so much hostility to something so progressive.
Currently, San Francisco city are sued by FENEC Adventures, Anthrocon Inc, and Anthropomorphic Arts and Education, Inc. for civil rights violations.
Mayor of San Francisco, Ed Lee, explained: "We have our limits. It applies to people who think they are animals and engage in bestiality. These people are freaks and should be dealt with accordingly. If I had the power, I would put them in the nuthouse. San Francisco is going through some wild times already; we don't want to make it way too wild. There's plenty of existing diverse groups they can join instead of creating yet another freak show.”
One area resident opined, "We already have weird gay orgies at Folsom Street Fair with people dressed up as animals and acting like animals. How is this any different?”
Of course, it was an April Fool joke, as Furries are an important and respected part of the pantheon of progressives, unless of they're rubbing up against you and they're all icky-sticky like. But who am I to judge? They're certainly not nearly as weird as Chelsea Clinton.
Oddly, I was driving to Boulder one day a few months ago and right in the middle of some ranch land, where I expect to see the resident flock of wild turkeys, a group of Furries were having what appeared to be a tea party. It was very Alice Through the Looking Glass, not something one sees on the fringes of Cowboy World. Of course, Furries may actually be a political party in Boulder, whereas a few miles north in Wyoming they'd be a food source.
I considered stopping, since I am nothing if not the soul of diversity and I figured your average Furry could make a wicked pot of tea. But, upon reflection, I decided to check my privilege and roll on.
I expect more of this sort of thing as American continues circling the Great Drain of History, life being a cabaret, ole chum, and all that.
Talked to Hamilton Bowen yesterday ("talk" being a euphemism for "email"). He's got one of my 2 1/2 inch .44 Magnum Redhawks he'd been doing a little housecleaning on. One of the hold-ups has been while he searched for a manufacturer for extra-long firing pins for Redhawks. A typical issue with the ingenious single spring system that operates for both the hammer and trigger (unlike the Super Redhawk, which went back to the more traditional mainspring/trigger spring system) which makes tuning the gun problematical. Sometimes reduced power springs work perfectly; sometimes they introduce the occasional light strike, which is not good for a gun designed as back-up for dangerous game…really really needs to go bang when you need it to go bang.
Hamilton's solution [Ruger Redhawk Ignition Problems] was to install a longer firing pin and, paradoxically, a heavier spring.
For all of its utility, however, the Redhawk has a Achilles heel in the form of weak ignition due to its unique main/trigger spring arrangement, firing pins and the transfer bar safety system. It is not unknown for box-stock, brand new guns to suffer from weak ignition in certain circumstances, even with factory ammunition. For a gun that is often carried afield as not only a primary hunting weapon but a back-up gun, this is a serious shortcoming and must be addressed.
The dual-action spring system, while ingenious, is often part of the problem since, to reduce felt single-action pull weights, owners have employed reduced-pressure mainsprings instead of tuning the sear surfaces for improved trigger action and weight. Using any sort of reduced mainspring in a standard Redhawk is inviting trouble. The Super Redhawk, on the other hand, has a separate trigger return spring which can be changed for a reduced-pressure part without jeopardizing actual ignition power through the hammer. For this reason, the Super Redhawks are viewed as more dependable and easier to tune. Properly handled, standard Redhawks will still tune very well but one should be mindful of the potential for ignition trouble and be especially careful.
There are several interrelated considerations. The usual industry standard (if there is indeed such a thing) for firing pin protrusion is around .050--.055. Few Redhawks will achieve this unless the transfer bar clearance in the hammer is minimized which will help. Even then, many simply don't have adequate protrusion Long firing pins will usually make up the difference and give guns dependable ignition. In rare instances, even this is not enough, no matter how close to minimum is set cylinder endfloat and headspace or how late the DA cycling drops the hammer. More spring tension is necessary. Bowen Classic Arms produces both 30# and 40# springs to replace the factory 20# part. While these springs rates may seem high, due to the compounding of leverage in the Redhawk action, this is necessary to achieve appreciable increases in hammer velocity. Even with the 40# spring, neither the single nor double-action modes will increase in weight a great deal and will be well within acceptable limits for field use. Some reduction in SA pull weight is possible with simple sear tuning typical of most proper tune-ups.
Eventually, all my Redhawks will be "Bowen-ized," just to be sure.
You guys know that I'm a fan of Redhawks, because all-in-all they're the "blunt trauma" of the revolver world. They lack the grace and the superb trigger pulls of my Smith and Wesson .44s, or the packability of single actions. But they have the singular appeal of a sledge hammer, the tool that works when all others fail. I have more rounds through my 4-inch .44 Magnum Redhawk than the snub, and I've just started shooting the .45 Colt/.45 ACP moon clip version.
I've always thought that if you were traveling in troubled times, there was a 2-handgun solution if you chose not to carry a rifle (I think I wrote about this 4 or 5 years ago). The first gun would be your EDC piece and EDC holster. Second gun would be something like a .357, .44 Magnum or .45 Colt revolver with a vertical shoulder holster. If you had to kit up, your EDC would be on your strong side and the big boomer under your left shoulder. Make sure you have a backpack for essentials and extra ammo, a heavy duty "tactical" belt and a set of suspenders (Kyle Lamb's are excellent).
I thought abut this for the simple reason that if we have had a loss of civility sufficient for you to carry an rifle openly, the Schumer has seriously hit the fan, and possibly you should have considered driving, maybe a Bearcat loaded with gear and Mike Seeklander. The advantage of the 2 handgun system is that you can stay reasonably "gray," especially if you avoid the "Choice of Operators Everywhere" backpacks. There's plenty of choices these days.
My personal gun choices would be a G19 and a Redhawk .44. The backpack would include spare mags for the Glock (either the factory 33s or the Magpuls) and a box, maybe 2, of .44 Magnums, half 240-gr JHP, half Garrett dinosaur killers. The advantage of the Garretts is they'll penetrate…probably tank armor. Gives me firepower or longer range, more heavily penetrating options.
Thinking out loud…