Pajama Pundits

Ace of Spades comments on President Bush's speech to the Joint Armed Forces Officers' Wives' group:

Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement. It's what the left offers. It's all it offers. If we would only make ourselves more amenable to those who would murder us, maybe they'll stop being so angry.

Do any lefty speakers at Vagina Day rallies ever suggest that a battered woman ought to just "try to be nicer" the man smacking him around, maybe put out a little more, maybe make dinner a little tastier, in order to defuse his wrath?

I don't think they do.

(note: I'm waiting for clarification if that should read "to the man smacking them around", but proceding on the assumption it should.)

My first thought was in agreement. Of course they don't! As I thought about it more I realized that there is considerable common ground in advice to battered women and the way that some would like to handle terrorists.

Remember how John Kerry's instinct of "Where's my gun" and "This is war" on September 11, 2001 devolved into "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance" via controlling terrorism through law-enforcement techniques.

That is analogous to the restraining order method of reducing domestic violence. Maybe it can even be strained to comparing the takedown of BCCI to financial punishment of the abuser in a divorce court.

Re-reading Matt Bai's column today, I've got to think that had Kerry been able to turn "The war on terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos, of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future." into a plan, he would have won the election.

But I digress... back to domestic violence. After the restraining order, the battered wife is advised to withdraw. Run and hide. If she has an instinct to defend herself, it is quickly smothered. Especially if that instinct involves arming herself and fighting back.

The cognitive dissonance here is not with the pacifists. Where would a battered wife receive the advice that Ace mocks? The most likely source is her church.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the more "fundamental" a church is, the more likely this is the advice the woman will get. If her husband attends the same church, I think it's even more likely. Wives are to submit to the will of the husband.

Just how far apart are the far right and the far left? The left will not allow her to arm and defend herself, the right promotes the "Christian" value of submission, and the middle is... where? Is there any political ideology other than Libertarian which is willing to give to women, married or single, the full right to self-defense, including arming herself?

(Side note: Quell is a synonym for appease. That kind of appeasement would work.)

I've had an America Online account since 1993. I've kept it since broadband became available in my neighborhood for two reasons, a way to access the internet from anywhere there's a phone line, and this one little message board I got addicted to - originally called something like "How Important Is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?" It's now simply called "The Gun Control Debate" and has been relegated to AOL's unmonitored (and relatively unsupported) section.

Over the years, various AOL monitors tried to keep the board "on topic" preventing forays into side issues. Always difficult, that proved impossible after September 11, 2001.

One of the reasons topic control was difficult is that a person's stance on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is sort of a litmus test revealing the process used to formulate political and social opinions.

It was discouraging to find out that so many people didn't have a process beyond 'whatever my friends think, I'll think', never bothering to even try to figure out whether the position had merit or from what ideological plant it bloomed.

Beyond those, I learned that many came to a conclusion then formulated reasons and twisted facts (or manufactured them) to support that conclusion - Humpty Dumpty thinkers. These people exist in every hue of the ideological rainbow and they annoy the hell out of me.

The rare individual is the one that looks at facts first and then comes to a conclusion without being influenced by ideology.

Most of us, being human, are a hybrid of the three processes. Regardless of that, we can and should expect better of those we elect to represent us. I consider it their job to use that rare process of considering facts before coming to a conclusion that something should or should not be law.

Today I am again disappointed in too many of our legislators, though I am enjoying watching my Democrat husband yelling at Democrat Senators and the fact that my Democrat brother is in wholehearted agreement with me concerning Senate Bill 397. Passing it will not harm the ability of citizens to bring valid suits against gun manufacturers. For a Democrat, who is also a lawyer with product liability experience, that's a pretty strong endorsement.

I have to wonder if some of them (including a few of the Republicans) have read the bill. My husband thinks they have and their ignorance suggests that passing a reading comprehension test should be a requirement to run for office.

As Eric from Classical Values puts it:

I'm getting a bit tired of opponents of this bill saying that it would protect manufacturers and gun dealers against ordinary negligence actions.

In fact, the bill specifically preserves the right to sue when a seller or manufacturer is negligent or in violation of laws governing the sale of firearms.

One has to wonder if the real objection some of the pontificating Senators have is that it also states as a Finding that "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that it "...protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

Perhaps they also object to this stated purpose:

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

The Brady Bunch and VPC are screeching.

Now, go read the rest of Eric's post and find out why it's the fault of the South that crimes with guns happen in New York. And then wonder why I want to add a logic test to my husband's reading comprehension test.

One Happy Dog Speaks is hosting the Carnival of Recipes. I don't know why he's so happy, because I don't think are going to be any leftovers.

The unrepentant swashbuckling Baboon Pirates is hosting the 22nd Carnival of Cordite.

... is here with Food & Guns.

Carnival of the Recipes at blogoram.

Carnival of Cordite at Resistance is futile!

Check it out at Resistance is futile!

The discussion question this week is:

As we celebrate the 229th Birthday of the United States of America, what does Independence Day mean to you? And for those of you reading this from another country, what are your perceptions about this holiday?

Friday the 13th Edition

In some ways, the debate over the 'big 50' can showcase, not just what is wrong with the approach regarding violent crime, but government's approach to... well... really quite a few things.

Consider: The 50 BMG round has been in circulation since just after WWI and has seen extensive service in many different venues. It was initially designed as an aircraft mounted machine gun, but was quickly adapted to ground use as well. They were everywhere in WWII; aircraft, (the P-47 'Thunderbolt' mounted 8, one variant of the B-25 medium bomber sported no fewer than 14) armor, (as the coaxial gun on tanks) with the infantry, light recon vehicles, (remember 'the Rat Patrol'?) in multiple mounts for anti-aircraft work, and heavily utilized by the Navy. In Korea, M2 machine gun barrels were fitted with receivers, sights and manual bolts and used as long-range sniper rifles to engage targets at up to a mile.

That trend continues to this day, with a sniper team from Canada resetting the mark for a long-range kill, using a rifle chambered for the BMG round. (2400 some meters, you do the math) They are still in use in the military, both on the ground and in some few (generally rotary wing) aircraft.

The load is impressive: a 647 grain bullet at roughly 3000 fps muzzle velocity. (750 grain bullets are also used) Just for reference, there are 7000 grains to a pound, which means that payload is well over an ounce of jacketed lead, moving somewhere around 2000 miles per hour. However you want to figure energy, there's a lot of it.

Now, while this is unquestionably a very powerful round, one should not forget that 'big game' rifles have long been chambered in such things as the colossal 700 Nitro Express round, a full .7 inches in diameter and a very common big-bore for dangerous game is the .458 magnum that can push a 600 grain payload. The reality is that there is no shortage of rifle rounds that have a LOT of downrange energy. They tend to share a few attributes; punishing recoil, a lot of bulk and a very hefty pricetag.

This, then, is the 'big 50'. A few companies have chambered rifles in 50 BMG for the sport shooting market. They are, in a word, massive. While there are so many variations that it's impossible to list even the available range, for the sake of argument, consider that a 'basic' 30-06 'deer rifle' will sport a barrel generally between 18 and about 24 inches. Lighter versions weigh in at 5 1/2-odd pounds, 6 1/2-7 isn't uncommon for many and they can go well up from there. Contrast this to the 'big 50' rifles, with barrels up to 33 inches and beyond, and an extremely light one is 13 pounds. (there are doubtless companies offering variations of which I am not currently aware and I welcome new information, but I sincerely doubt anyone makes a 'little' one) When they first hit the market, they quickly were dubbed the new 'weapon of choice' for those ever-so-useful 'gangers and drug dealers'... until people started looking at the real-world concealability of a 4 1/2 foot long, 25 pound rifle and decided to relatively quietly set that attempt aside.

Fast forward a few years. The 'big 50' becomes more popular at sport shooting venues all over,,, and the ban advocates set their sights on it again. The format is instantly recognizeable, only the names have changed. Like last time, they trot out the 'reason du jour'... Terrorism.

Yep, you guessed it. These rifles, with destructive power unheard of anywhere but the artillery corps are now the 'weapon of choice' for terrorists. (terrorists, you see, are more useful than 'gangers and drug dealers', because you never actually have to catch one doing what you claim they want to do) You remember those terrorists, don't you? They're the ones who were coming to gun shows in the US so they could buy semi-auto 'assault weapons' and ten-round magazines for upwards of $1,000, instead of the full-auto versions and 30 round mags available overseas for $18.50 US; only now they want the 50s. (no one accused them of being bright terrorists)

Out comes the big lie. Actually, there are MANY of them all built into the same incrementalist move. Ronnie Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms has a few things to say on the subject. He has something of a personal interest, since his company is under direct attack by the fabrication machinery of the Brady Bunch and the State of California. Among other things, they like to complain that Osama bin Laden and his gang have 50 BMG rifles manufactured by Barrett's company. They keep forgetting to tell people that those rifles were provided to bin Laden et al by the US Government to help against the Soviets when Afghanistan was invaded, but apparently details are for wimps.

So now 'we' are supposed to be deathly afraid that terrorists will buy these rifles and create havoc at our airports, refineries, power distribution stations, government offices and other assorted critical infrastructure venues. (if certain congresspersons would quit diagramming how to do exactly such a thing on television, the danger might be lessened, but maybe I'm just picky) This danger is apparently so great that law-abiding citizens should be permanently denied the recreational use of these firearms in perpetuity. The danger is so immediate that it should be done now, if not sooner. I have a question...

Am I honestly expected to believe that 'terrorists' are going to walk into a legitimate firearms dealer, fill out the required paperwork, go through a background check and pay $1500+ dollars for a single shot rifle? (they go up to well over $10k)

Well, okay, I was supposed to believe similar stories about semi-auto 'assault weapons'... so I guess they really do think I'm that stupid... but this brings up another point.

... why are we simply trying to (marginally) affect the tools these terrorists might employ? IF the danger is so immediate and so clear, why are we concentrating on the possible tools these terrorists might purchase, knowing that, to do so, they must pass a background inquiry at a federally-licensed dealer? Wouldn't it be much better for the American people if someone actually did something about the terrorists? I mean, I'm no criminal psychologist, but it just seems to me that a real 'terrorist' isn't going to decide to pack up and go home simply because he can't plunk down $8,000 for a rifle.

While we're at it, can someone explain to me why people are so busy trying to get rifles out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that they can't find time to do something about a national border which has shown itself to be remarkably porous? I'm disenchanted enough with the soul-selling grandstanding which is the sum total of the efforts most congresscritters expend that I don't want to look up how many of the people looking to ban 50s are the same ones complaining bitterly about the 'Minuteman' project along the Arizona border. (don't remind me, I know George bitched about them, too; and yes, that annoys me no end)

That, and it annoys the hell out of me that now, we're not only supposed to give up the legitimate sporting use of a class of firearms, due to a few awful, but statistically vanishingly rare occurrences; but of another whole class of them, not because anyone has misused them, but because someone, somewhere, might.

Maybe I'm just easily annoyed... but more likely, the government is showing itself to be very good at not impressing me.

The AnarchAngel is gun-shopping for an "All Rounder".

I need to build myself a rifle; and I'm not looking for some deer specialty gun. You know me; if it aint versatile, I'm not really all that enthusiastic.

I want an all'rounder. A gun that will reach out for medium game to say... 400 yards or thereabouts, and punch pretty little holes in paper to 600 yards or so.

It can't break the bank; even with accessories; and it has to be light and packable, even with optics, and a bipod.

I like this one:

EuroHacker Magazine is a European webzine dealing with hacking, technology, guns, libertarianism, survival, science fiction and general crazyness, published by an 18-year-old Swede. Several articles may be of interest - an interview with libertarian geek Eric S. Raymond in Issue #1, and a review of the JPFO's anti-gun control documentary "Innocents Betrayed" in Issue 2. It should be interesting reading from the perspective of European pro-gun viewpoint.

Tyler D. of 45-Caliber Justice has an A-Z 2nd Amendment Refresher Course.

Entrees (you have to clean your plate before you get desert)

California Ammunition Serial Number Stupidity from The Auto Prophet, has a powerfully short list of four reasons why this is a dumb idea.

From Cogito Ergo Geek in Kalifornia: Bullet coding scheme clears first political hurdle, Jerry the Geek links to the text of the bill, analyzes it in depth and tears it to shreds, "...it's even worse than the newspapers described it." Even with my limited understanding of the technical items addressed, there are some frightening administrative gems in there.

Mich at Tonecluster reminds us:

It was not that long ago that Jews couldn't carry guns, that we were denied the means to defend ourselves against those who would see us butchered, burned, gassed, annhilated. If it could happen in enlightened, civilized Germany, it can happen anywhere. And yes, I do think that anywhere includes Canada and the US.

For a little history on previous bad policy and bad laws pertaining to guns, Pajama Pundits' own SemiOnager returns to the fray with Federal Regulatory prowess and other myths. (Welcome back, you've been missed!)

Josh Poulson says Gerald Nunziato Deserves None of Your Attention. Why, you ask?

He doesn't understand that so long as people are using them for lawful purposes it's none of his business that they buy one or a hundred.

Josh has more... go see.

El Capitan from Baboon Pirates has a paradoxical, insoluble, difficult question: 2nd Amendment Conundrum: How Much Is Too Much?

Naturally, the conversation turned to our common desire for belt-fed armaments (in my case, just 'cause I hate to reload after 20-30 rounds) and then onward to bigger weapons. Somewhere along the line we got around to discussing the magnificent 16" rifles that grace the (sadly) decommissioned Iowa Class battleships.

Rockhauler wanted to own one. I scoffed a bit, asking "Where would you store it, or shoot it?" He replied that that was not the point. If he could swing the coin for the purchase, he ought to be able to own one, in full workable condition, not a dewat or disabled piece.

Now click on over there for the rest of the story.

How are "evil sniper rifles" different from a good hunting rifle? Gullyborg, Resistance is futile! explains in Sniper Rifles. I oughta quote Shakespeare here, but I won't. I won't. The hell I won't!

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."

--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

SemiOnager weighs in again explaining how gun control isn't about crime.

He's Mostly Cajun and he's a handloader offering some excellent advice:

Handloading isn't for everyone. If attention to detail isn't your thing, then take up golf or something. An improperly assembled handload can result in the high velocity disassembly of a firearm in close proximity to your face, a definite downer.

Just Deserts

And now, a double scoop from Owen:

Slugz Roxors!!

poor Wilson...

Gun Etiquette from the Conservative Cat. I'm not sure this is what Miss Manners had in mind.

If you go to Ravenwood's Universe, there are more Machine Gun Shoot photos like this one... lots more.

Kim du Toit: I want this rifle:

The icing on the cake: Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog

After Dinner Mints

Other links from around the web that might be of interest to Carnival readers thanks to Dave of Resistance is futile!

2nd Amendment phone service - you really can put your money where your mouth is!

Dave got a free DVD from Front Sight in the mail and while it’s mostly just an infomercial trying to get you to pay lots of money for gun training, it’s fun to watch and has some good pointers for winning pro-gun arguments. You can get a copy of the free DVD here: Front Sight firearms Training Institute.

That should be plenty of gun nutrition to hold you until the next Carnival of Cordite. Send submissions to:

c a r n i v a l o f c o r d i t e A T h o t m a i l D O T c o m

Or, you can use the Carnival Submit Form from Conservative Cat.

Thank you for visiting!

This week's Carnival of Cordite is up at Resistance is futile!

And in other news around the world, Pajama Pundits (Hey... that's ME!) will be strapping on the hosting holster next week - May 6. Send your submissions to

General info and announcements can always be found at the official Carnival of Cordite Blog.

Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Bias is up. Just for kicks, compare it with with the bias check from one year ago.

And then read Republican Insanity. I think that our lawmakers possibly have too much time on their hands.