|
|
Wednesday, May 14th, 2008
| |
2:57 pm
|
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion on your walks.
-- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, May 12th, 2008
| |
2:30 pm
|
|
| Friday, May 9th, 2008
| |
11:09 pm
|
|
We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election. On one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, or a
lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer. On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with huge
boobs who owns a beer distributorship. Is there a contest here?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
5:30 pm
|
Maybe, but that argument could quickly find itself walking down the "fewer guns = less gun crime" path. If one just assumes Americans aren't any more prone to violence than Canadians or Europeans, then the only other explanation is the access to guns.
And my response...
Sigh...
What you forget is that gun crime in this country is not spread uniformly over the entire population. The ONLY reason we have more gun crime is because a single well identified segment of the population creates it:
I absolutely resent being lumped in to a national 'gun problem' when I have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Americans aren't any more prone to violence, AND access to guns is not the problem.
A well identified segment of the population killing itself off at an astonishing rate and inflating the statistics, is the problem.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Monday, May 5th, 2008
| |
3:42 am
|
In a convo regarding granholm's recent emergency surgery for a bowel obstruction, and the ensuing "Well, if there was any doubt she was full shit...", followed by those that wished her ill-will:
===
This applies to pretty much all politicians, now that I think about it...
Considering how her actions and political stunts (not in the name of what is best, but in the name of getting re-elected), have directly or almost directly affected important things such as livelihood and ability to defend those I love, it's fairly difficult to not feel comfortable wishing her ill-will.
She has tried to do things that would negatively impact me, and succeeded in some, seemingly on a malicious level, and now I'm supposed to pretend like none of it was taken personally?
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, May 1st, 2008
| |
11:43 pm
|
Amita Quotes:
Discussing whether to put priority on taking clothes or guns in the car to texas:
"Clothes. I like to be fashionable when I shoot my mugger."
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, April 30th, 2008
| |
1:09 pm
|
I took a lot of flack on arfcom from the tacti-dudes in the shotgun section, and finally in frustration, let loose with this:
I've been really surprised, and frankly sometimes dismayed, at the reaction to this build from the various gun boards.
Essentially what I've found is that unless a given gun has the top of the line gear and parts, despite statistically insignificant failure rates of 'lesser' parts and gear, it is useless.
Is this common among the high speed tactidudes? Am I mistaken in thinking that lead on target is lead on target, no matter the delivery system or its parts?
I've become acutely aware of a well entrenched orthodoxy based not on actual performance, but theoretical performance based on never ending internet conjecture.
I thought we had all gotten over the idea that the hardware of the system is somehow more important than the software, or that no matter how well developed the software is, nothing effective can be done without the Perfect Internet Verified Hardware.
Sheesh.
.........
And you know what? I'm going to keep it just the way it is, and keep track of how many rounds I put through it without failure. It'll be interesting to see how my personal feeling on the cheap ATI extension (after actually handling it) compares to the tacti-cool gun forum hype. 
I'm perfectly willing to possibly eat crow and be labeled a heretic in the name of challenging gun board orthodoxy.
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, April 29th, 2008
| |
2:14 am
|
You saw my recent pictures, and here are the patterning results at ~10m, about the longest distance I'll encounter in my house, out of the 18.25" fixed cylinder bore.
This thing won't be used outside the house, so I'm happy with the results, and I'll be going with the 16 pellet #1 load. It had a nice pattern and spread, with recoil somewhere between the full house 00 and reduced recoil 00.
All the talk of horrendous recoil had me curious, but none of it was even nearly uncomfortable, let alone unmanageable. That's either a testament to the stock's recoil pad, my lack of recoil sensitivity, or both.
Win 16 pellet #1
( 00 pics... )
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, April 28th, 2008
| |
11:04 pm
|
|
| Friday, April 25th, 2008
| |
3:23 pm
|
|
| Monday, April 21st, 2008
| |
12:14 am
|
|
| Thursday, April 17th, 2008
| |
5:55 am
|
Another project gun...
Started with a $190 used wood 26" 870 express:
Rail: $4.49 http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.5847 Cut down and refinished, then mounted to the forend with the included countersink nuts. Easier than expected to drill countersunk holes in the forend.
1" Light mount: $4.59 http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.1024 (already had the light) I was eyeballing the surefire forend, but decided that for what you get- a light you can turn on and off with your weak hand on the gun- my $40 solution worked just as well if not better than the $300 surefire unit.
Synthetic forend: $15- I'm sure someone will mention a short forend that doesn't overlap the receiver. Frankly, I've got short arms, and me short stroking the pump is WAY more likely than anything getting caught between the forend and receiver.
Mag extension with spring and follower: $18 Had to use a socket to bang out the dimples in the express's mag tube, as described below**.
Choate mark 6 stock: $60 I knew I wanted a pistol grip stock, but no side saddle, and nothing hanging off the sides. I like simple and streamlined. This stock took care of all of that.
Trijicon ghost ring sights: $84 - Not the ripoff wilson combat ones, but unbranded RE04 with tritium tubes in BOTH the front and back. (Never pay more than $92 for these.) Drilled and tapped the receiver with $2 worth of drillbit and tap, and the sight package came with the epoxy for the front sight.
Integrating the front sight with the rib was a lot of extra dremel/file work, but I love the way it looks and turned out. Barrel cut down to about 18.25".
Stoked with low recoil 9 pellet 00 buck mixed with 16 pellet #1 buck, and a couple slugs in the stock just in case.
Not a bad rig for $378 total, if I do say so myself.
( More shotgun pr0n... )
|
|
(10 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, April 9th, 2008
| |
10:23 pm
|
|
| Thursday, April 3rd, 2008
| |
4:22 pm - The Internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS
|
Remember, the internet can be a very scary place if you're not prepared.
-How can they prepare?
I don't know, try going to a middle school chess club, and hand out meth and guns...
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008
| |
9:00 pm
|
|
| Saturday, March 29th, 2008
| |
2:26 pm
|
|
| |
2:08 pm
|
|
| Tuesday, March 25th, 2008
| |
12:26 am
|
I've been accused of being a single issue _______, too. This does a great job of breaking it down into why, in this case, that is a perfectly reasonable way of functioning.
===============
http://www.lneilsmith.org/
http://www.lneilsmith.org/lns_lever.html
http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Sunday, March 23rd, 2008
| |
1:28 am
|
FYI...
This hand position:
Equals this:
(Distal half of his thumb severed by the jet of hot gases escaping from the barrel cylinder gap.)
|
|
(8 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, March 17th, 2008
| |
12:38 am
|
Very interesting perspective on how no matter what they say, some people are just absolute slaves to their emotions, and must be dragged kicking and screaming into any kind of good sense.
In this particular case, the moderator of a discussion starts out wanting to talk about a bill in the legislature, but then completely derails any productive discussion on that topic by focusing on the emotionally unstable folks, who no matter the facts surrounding guns, cannot help but run away screaming at the mere sight of a gun.
http://greatdivide.typepad.com/across_the_great_divide/2008/03/american-crossc.html
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
doctorogenki's journal
