"For the best part of my adult life, Congress and the various Presidents of this Union have, at best, ignored the Constitution, and, at worst, actively crapped on it.
And I am Sick. And. Tired. Of. It.
No more. My line is here.
You want Government-run National health-care? You do it right -- you get the Constitution amended to allow Congress that power.
Until then -- go to h***."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
"Scout" Rifle Pic
Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media has been pondering the possibility of a scout-style rifle made from a mil-surp rifle. Normally, I wouldn't bother with putting up a pic of one of my rifles "just 'cause" but as I have one of the variations he's been considering, I figured I'd go ahead.
This started life as a Yugoslavian Mauser (late '50s vintage if I remember correctly). I had the barrel shortened to 20", replaced the stock with a Butler Creek synthetic stock (was listed as military barrel contour but was actually a sporter barrel contour that required inletting), affixed the XS Sight Systems scout mount, and attached the Burris scout scope.
All told, this ended up costing me around $400. Further work I'd like to do is to replace the trigger with one of the sporter-style trigger replacement packs that includes a modern design safety lever to replace the huge safety lever that currently resides on the back of the bolt.
This started life as a Yugoslavian Mauser (late '50s vintage if I remember correctly). I had the barrel shortened to 20", replaced the stock with a Butler Creek synthetic stock (was listed as military barrel contour but was actually a sporter barrel contour that required inletting), affixed the XS Sight Systems scout mount, and attached the Burris scout scope.
All told, this ended up costing me around $400. Further work I'd like to do is to replace the trigger with one of the sporter-style trigger replacement packs that includes a modern design safety lever to replace the huge safety lever that currently resides on the back of the bolt.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Computer Woes, Part Deux...
Well, it looks like my desktop has joined the bleeding choir invisible. The power supply was indeed gone but, apparently, it took the motherboard with it. Guess I'm now in the market for a barebones kit to add my components into.
I'll need a motherboard that has an AGP video slot and I may need new ram chips as my old comp used DDR ram as opposed to DDR2. Fortunately, the new power supply and hard drives are fine. Might as well add a DVD Rom drive while I'm at it.
Any suggestions?
I'll need a motherboard that has an AGP video slot and I may need new ram chips as my old comp used DDR ram as opposed to DDR2. Fortunately, the new power supply and hard drives are fine. Might as well add a DVD Rom drive while I'm at it.
Any suggestions?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
One Set Of Computer Woes Down...
...one to go. Yes, I'm actually posting this from my recliner. Now I'm going to lug my desktop up to my folks for the weekend and see if we can't get it up and running again.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Computer Woes
Computers hate me.
That's really all there is to it. Day before yesterday, I went out and picked myself up a new Acer Aspire One netbook. Last night I sat down and decided that I would break out the old wireless router and do some surfing from the comfort of my recliner.
No sooner do I shut off my desktop to remove the cat5 cable and try to restart than my power supply decides to take a dump. At least, I think that's what it is. It's still down, waiting for one of my coworkers to get me a spare power supply he may have lying around.
Okay, fair enough. This computer has had issues with power supplies in the past and the current one is almost 3 years old. No biggie. I'll just connect my new netbook to the modem and away we'll go.
Wrong.
It won't connect. Not through the wireless card and not through the NIC. Dad and I spent two hours on the phone trying to figure things out and I finally gave up in disgust for the night.
Needless to say, yes, I finally got my netbook connected though I'm still hard-wired to the router as I still can't figure out what I'm doing wrong with the wireless. So, it's not like I'm doing without or anything. But not having access to my desktop's files is going to be a real pain if it turns out that it wasn't the power supply after all.
That's really all there is to it. Day before yesterday, I went out and picked myself up a new Acer Aspire One netbook. Last night I sat down and decided that I would break out the old wireless router and do some surfing from the comfort of my recliner.
No sooner do I shut off my desktop to remove the cat5 cable and try to restart than my power supply decides to take a dump. At least, I think that's what it is. It's still down, waiting for one of my coworkers to get me a spare power supply he may have lying around.
Okay, fair enough. This computer has had issues with power supplies in the past and the current one is almost 3 years old. No biggie. I'll just connect my new netbook to the modem and away we'll go.
Wrong.
It won't connect. Not through the wireless card and not through the NIC. Dad and I spent two hours on the phone trying to figure things out and I finally gave up in disgust for the night.
Needless to say, yes, I finally got my netbook connected though I'm still hard-wired to the router as I still can't figure out what I'm doing wrong with the wireless. So, it's not like I'm doing without or anything. But not having access to my desktop's files is going to be a real pain if it turns out that it wasn't the power supply after all.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Too Right!
From Marko:
I aspirated a little soda because of that right there...
I aspirated a little soda because of that right there...
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Probably Going To Catch Flak For This...
...but this is the way GI Joe should have been done. GI Joe: Resolute
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
DHS Report On Rightwing Extremism
Man, has it really been almost two months since I posted anything? I'm such a slacker.
My only excuse is that I hate to keep posting almost nothing but crap like this.
H/T to Mrs. Malkin via Caleb.
My only excuse is that I hate to keep posting almost nothing but crap like this.
H/T to Mrs. Malkin via Caleb.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Knew It Was Coming...
Just didn't think it'd be this soon.
I'm not going to comment further. Not here, at any rate.
H/T to Tam.
I'm not going to comment further. Not here, at any rate.
H/T to Tam.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
WANT!
The image at the left is from the Kel-Tec Owner's Group bulletin board. Those who hang out with me know that I've been drooling over this for a while now. However, I've gotten just a teensy bit more rabidly obsessed over the last month or so ever since KT announced that these would be shipping sometime this month. I'm not exactly certain why I want this particular rifle over a tried-and-proven design like the FAL which I could get for around the same price point.
I guess it just turns me on.
HB1237 In Senate Judiciary Committee
HB1237, the bill to remove churches from the list of prohibited places under Arkansas' concealed handgun licensing law, has passed the House and is now sitting in the Senate Judiciary committee. I read somewhere that Governor Beebe has stated that he will sign the bill if it makes it to his desk. Unfortunately, I'm now coming up with a blank as to where I saw that bit of info.
Additionally, Robb as Sharp as a Marble has a nice rebuttal to some of the uninformed hysteria that has arisen concerning this bill. The only thing that I would add to his reply is to the "ministers" who are making the local media with their opposition to this bill. From what I have seen, every one of you represents a denomination that holds as one of its beliefs that the church is the people, not the building. It's the people who gather together that are holy, not the place where they sometimes gather together. Yet all I'm seeing is talk of "preserving the sanctity of the church" and "the church is a place of peace". If it's wrong in God's sight for a Christian to carry a gun into "church", then it's wrong for them to carry at all, seeing as how they are an integral part of the church!
Y'know, it really makes me wonder if you've put any thought or study into this subject at all or are just reacting at a gut level. I'd suggest you take a look at 2 Samuel, particularly the story of Uzzah, as to how God responds to his people reacting at a gut level without thinking things through.
Additionally, Robb as Sharp as a Marble has a nice rebuttal to some of the uninformed hysteria that has arisen concerning this bill. The only thing that I would add to his reply is to the "ministers" who are making the local media with their opposition to this bill. From what I have seen, every one of you represents a denomination that holds as one of its beliefs that the church is the people, not the building. It's the people who gather together that are holy, not the place where they sometimes gather together. Yet all I'm seeing is talk of "preserving the sanctity of the church" and "the church is a place of peace". If it's wrong in God's sight for a Christian to carry a gun into "church", then it's wrong for them to carry at all, seeing as how they are an integral part of the church!
Y'know, it really makes me wonder if you've put any thought or study into this subject at all or are just reacting at a gut level. I'd suggest you take a look at 2 Samuel, particularly the story of Uzzah, as to how God responds to his people reacting at a gut level without thinking things through.
Monday, February 9, 2009
I Just Don't Understand. And Neither Do They, I Think.
"For someone who carries a gun, you sure are awful concerned about not breaking the law."
This (or something reasonably close to it) was said to me today by a co-worker. The only thing that I can think in regards to why he should say this is that he believes that if I were caught breaking a law, I could shoot my way out of the situation. This is not the first time that others have implied that they think I should have a more cavalier attitude toward certain things simply because I carry a pistol. I believe it's not likely it'll be the last time I hear that opinion, either.
What puzzles me is why someone would think that carrying a pistol entitles a person to behave more recklessly. At best, such behavior would be punished by a fine or imprisonment and the loss of the right to own a firearm. At worst, it would result in someone's needless death.
I can only assume that most people who offer these opinions are either joking or simply haven't thought things all the way through. Whichever the case, it's really rather unnerving to hear people talk like that.
Coworker: "You don't have a rebel bone in your body."
Me: "I've got a pretty good idea under what circumstances I would be willing to break a law."
Coworker: "I'd like to see that!"
Me: "No. You wouldn't."
This is another example of things I don't understand. As stated above, I have a respect for the law that some others find to be a little on the extreme side. As such, I would think it obvious that I am also fervently opposed to anyone attempting to circumvent or corrupt the law. I have absolutely no qualms about ignoring or breaking an illegal law. This does not mean that I will flagrantly flout the law. So long as I find such a law bearable, I will tolerate it. However, once it becomes unbearable, it becomes of no concern to me.
The reason that I told my coworker that he would not want to see me break a law is because I am usually an easy-going fellow. It takes quite a bit before I decide that something is unbearable. And, usually, once I get to that point, things have already gotten rough for everyone involved.
This (or something reasonably close to it) was said to me today by a co-worker. The only thing that I can think in regards to why he should say this is that he believes that if I were caught breaking a law, I could shoot my way out of the situation. This is not the first time that others have implied that they think I should have a more cavalier attitude toward certain things simply because I carry a pistol. I believe it's not likely it'll be the last time I hear that opinion, either.
What puzzles me is why someone would think that carrying a pistol entitles a person to behave more recklessly. At best, such behavior would be punished by a fine or imprisonment and the loss of the right to own a firearm. At worst, it would result in someone's needless death.
I can only assume that most people who offer these opinions are either joking or simply haven't thought things all the way through. Whichever the case, it's really rather unnerving to hear people talk like that.
* * *
Coworker: "You don't have a rebel bone in your body."
Me: "I've got a pretty good idea under what circumstances I would be willing to break a law."
Coworker: "I'd like to see that!"
Me: "No. You wouldn't."
This is another example of things I don't understand. As stated above, I have a respect for the law that some others find to be a little on the extreme side. As such, I would think it obvious that I am also fervently opposed to anyone attempting to circumvent or corrupt the law. I have absolutely no qualms about ignoring or breaking an illegal law. This does not mean that I will flagrantly flout the law. So long as I find such a law bearable, I will tolerate it. However, once it becomes unbearable, it becomes of no concern to me.
The reason that I told my coworker that he would not want to see me break a law is because I am usually an easy-going fellow. It takes quite a bit before I decide that something is unbearable. And, usually, once I get to that point, things have already gotten rough for everyone involved.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
HR1237 Passes!
According to the House Legislative Journal, HR1237 has passed the Judiciary Committee. It stated that there was no roll call but the vote was not unanimous. Of course, it's not law yet, but it's one step further...
Monday, February 2, 2009
ARCCA
I've become a member of the Arkansas Concealed Carry Association. I highly suggest fellow Arkansans do the same.
Nice Of Them To Let Us Know...
It seems that the Arkansas State Police have decided to add extra legal burdens on CHL holders. Under Rule 3.2 of the DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE, ARKANSAS CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE RULES which was put into effect on January 1, 2009, if a concealed handgun license holder interacts with a law enforcement officer in an official manner, the licensee now has the responsibility to present the officer with their CHL if the officer requests identification and the licensee is in possession of a handgun.
Based upon emails with the ASP by one of the posters on THR, this rule does not carry the weight of law and there are no penalties that can be invoked for not following the rule. However, as this document is provided to officers and CHL instructors as being in compliance with AR law, there are two distinctly unsavory possibilities: 1) An officer believes that there is a legal duty to inform and arrests a CHL holder for not informing and 2) CHL instructors will promulgate this information as having the weight of law, further muddying the waters for those licensees/prospective licensees who are less informed.
Also included in the THR thread was the fact that the ASP apparently posted, in both newspapers and on their website, a public hearing regarding these rules. I did not see either of these notices and I am fairly certain that my CHL-holding friends did not see them, either. Therefore, I will, from now on, do my best to check ASP's website on a regular basis in an attempt to catch further rule-making hearings. I will post any activity in that area on this website.
On a more positive note, HB1237 (allowing CHL holders to carry in churches/places of worship) and HB1097 (allowing allowing CHL holders to carry in schools) are scheduled to go before the Judiciary Committee, HB1237 as early as tomorrow morning. Three of the members of this committee are co-sponsors of HB1237.
ETA: HB1097 evidently is only concerned with allowing the CHL holder to keep the firearm in their vehicle. It's still a step in the right direction, just not as big a step as I'd previously thought.
Based upon emails with the ASP by one of the posters on THR, this rule does not carry the weight of law and there are no penalties that can be invoked for not following the rule. However, as this document is provided to officers and CHL instructors as being in compliance with AR law, there are two distinctly unsavory possibilities: 1) An officer believes that there is a legal duty to inform and arrests a CHL holder for not informing and 2) CHL instructors will promulgate this information as having the weight of law, further muddying the waters for those licensees/prospective licensees who are less informed.
Also included in the THR thread was the fact that the ASP apparently posted, in both newspapers and on their website, a public hearing regarding these rules. I did not see either of these notices and I am fairly certain that my CHL-holding friends did not see them, either. Therefore, I will, from now on, do my best to check ASP's website on a regular basis in an attempt to catch further rule-making hearings. I will post any activity in that area on this website.
On a more positive note, HB1237 (allowing CHL holders to carry in churches/places of worship) and HB1097 (allowing allowing CHL holders to carry in schools) are scheduled to go before the Judiciary Committee, HB1237 as early as tomorrow morning. Three of the members of this committee are co-sponsors of HB1237.
ETA: HB1097 evidently is only concerned with allowing the CHL holder to keep the firearm in their vehicle. It's still a step in the right direction, just not as big a step as I'd previously thought.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Norton Security Scan
Recently, I've noticed a new program that popped up in the background on my computer. Norton Security Scan had initiated itself and began scanning my computer. I stopped the process, uninstalled NSS (as I hadn't intentionally installed it to begin with) and figured that was that.
The next day, the NSS shortcut was back on my desktop.
Long story short, I uninstalled this program several times and it continued to install itself. After a little Google-fu, I found that Symantec had begun bundling their software into the latest update of Adobe's Shockwave (v. 11) and if you simply updated rather than manually installing, you did not get the option to decline the installation of NSS. Further, there is an issue with a scheduled task stub being left behind that causes Windows to attempt a scheduled scan, recognize that NSS is not installed, and automatically install it!
I have removed the NSS program and stub from my computer using the technique detailed in the last post in that thread. Additionally, because I find their bundling programs without the benefit of an opt-out feature to be unacceptable, Shockwave has been removed from my computer and will not be reinstalled until they apologize and rectify the issue.
The next day, the NSS shortcut was back on my desktop.
Long story short, I uninstalled this program several times and it continued to install itself. After a little Google-fu, I found that Symantec had begun bundling their software into the latest update of Adobe's Shockwave (v. 11) and if you simply updated rather than manually installing, you did not get the option to decline the installation of NSS. Further, there is an issue with a scheduled task stub being left behind that causes Windows to attempt a scheduled scan, recognize that NSS is not installed, and automatically install it!
I have removed the NSS program and stub from my computer using the technique detailed in the last post in that thread. Additionally, because I find their bundling programs without the benefit of an opt-out feature to be unacceptable, Shockwave has been removed from my computer and will not be reinstalled until they apologize and rectify the issue.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
AR Upgrades
Dick and I got in a little trigger time this past Friday. I shot my AR, Saiga .308, and Puma .357. The Saiga and Puma both gave me feeding problems. The Saiga exhibited the same tendency to stovepipe that it always has. The Puma was tending to let the nose of the rounds come up too far and jam against the upper edge of the chamber. It was jamming about every third round.
Afterward, we installed the YHM AR-15 free-float handguard that I've had ever since I bought the AR parts kit from Del-Ton. It was actually significantly easier to install than I imagined. The most difficult part was breaking loose first the flash hider and then the barrel nut. I'm really pleased with the handguard so far.
I went ahead and pre-ordered the Burris AR-332. After doing a little more research, it appears that SWFA are scheduled to get these in around February 11. I'll do a review once I get it in and get a chance to shoot with it (the latter of which may take a while since I can't seem to get rifle time in too often lately)
I've decided to scrap the idea I had for suppressing the Puma since it's obviously not as reliable as I'd like for enjoyable plinking and the work to get it both reliable and set up for the suppressor would be extensive and expensive. Now I'm toying with the idea of suppressing my AR. The AR is already threaded and can be suppressed by either threading directly onto the barrel or by using a quick-detachable flash hider. Right now I'm leaning toward the YHM Stainless Phantom. It's rated for full-auto fire as well as being made from stainless steel which should make it more durable as well as being easier to clean. It looks like it retails for about $460 for direct barrel mounting or $535 for the QD flash hider mount option. And, of course, the $200 government-mandatedextortion fee NFA tax stamp.
Anyone have suggestions for which mounting option to use? I doubt I'll be using the rifle for hunting, which is the only reason I can think of for removing the suppressor. But it might be nice to be able to take the suppressor off without resorting to using an upper receiver vise.
Afterward, we installed the YHM AR-15 free-float handguard that I've had ever since I bought the AR parts kit from Del-Ton. It was actually significantly easier to install than I imagined. The most difficult part was breaking loose first the flash hider and then the barrel nut. I'm really pleased with the handguard so far.
I went ahead and pre-ordered the Burris AR-332. After doing a little more research, it appears that SWFA are scheduled to get these in around February 11. I'll do a review once I get it in and get a chance to shoot with it (the latter of which may take a while since I can't seem to get rifle time in too often lately)
I've decided to scrap the idea I had for suppressing the Puma since it's obviously not as reliable as I'd like for enjoyable plinking and the work to get it both reliable and set up for the suppressor would be extensive and expensive. Now I'm toying with the idea of suppressing my AR. The AR is already threaded and can be suppressed by either threading directly onto the barrel or by using a quick-detachable flash hider. Right now I'm leaning toward the YHM Stainless Phantom. It's rated for full-auto fire as well as being made from stainless steel which should make it more durable as well as being easier to clean. It looks like it retails for about $460 for direct barrel mounting or $535 for the QD flash hider mount option. And, of course, the $200 government-mandated
Anyone have suggestions for which mounting option to use? I doubt I'll be using the rifle for hunting, which is the only reason I can think of for removing the suppressor. But it might be nice to be able to take the suppressor off without resorting to using an upper receiver vise.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Burris AR-332 Prism Sight
Burris has announced a 3x Prism sight intended specifically for the AR-15 series of rifles. It's unclear to me whether this is a red-dot style sight or if the reticle can simply be illuminated (the latter is the direction I'm hoping they go). The reticle is a "donut"-style with .223 bullet drop compensator built in. The base appears to be interchangeable for carry handle or picatinny mounting. There are also picatinny rails built into the scope body itself. I'm not sure what they're supposed to be used for since this is being marketed as a CQ-style optic but I'm sure someone will find something to bolt on there.
SWFA is currently offering these on their website (obviously a pre-order) for $209.95. At that price, I may just have to try one.
ETA: Based on a mini-review I read from a SHOT Show attendee, the reticle is indeed of the illuminated variety rather than a red-dot style. *Happy Dance!*
SWFA is currently offering these on their website (obviously a pre-order) for $209.95. At that price, I may just have to try one.
ETA: Based on a mini-review I read from a SHOT Show attendee, the reticle is indeed of the illuminated variety rather than a red-dot style. *Happy Dance!*
Monday, January 19, 2009
Federal Takes Judge To New Level
Federal ammunition has introduced a new personal defense shotshell specifically tailored for the .410 handgun, the most popular of which is the Judge by Taurus. Taurus has also announced a new model of the Judge named the Public Defender.
This makes me ponder...
H/T to Caleb and Steve
This makes me ponder...
H/T to Caleb and Steve
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
