Category: 2nd Amendment

Posted on

Something Different

I own a little revolver that is. . . different in several ways from the norm.

It’s a lil .32 ACP revolver that uses a round designed for .32 semi-automatics.

It is from a defunct maker of second-tier-quality knock-offs of other maker’s guns.

It’s a top-break revolver (semi-unusual nowadays).

It is one of very few the manufacturer made in this caliber with a six-round cylinder. By far, most of the .32 caliber revolvers made by this maker were 5-round.

Before it came to be in my possession, it had been fired only once, in 1929, by a man who committed suicide after the stock market crash. In the 84 years that intervened between that event and me coming into possession of the gun, no one else put a single round through it, and aside from two small spots of surface corrosion, the gun was in pristine condition, the bluing–apart from those two small spots–still perfect.

It’s a pretty good lil plinker, and ammo for the thing abounds, but I mostly just leave it cleaned, oiled, and in its case. I don’t really have a use for it aside from plinking, though I also have a nice lil IWB holster (that I picked up for ~$29 less than retail–$1–at my local “fell off the back of a truck” store) so I could, if I wanted, carry it concealed. . . if I wanted to, which–.32 ACP?–I do not.

Posted on

About that Missouri “Constitutional Carry”

Reading up on the new Missouri “Constitutional Carry” bill requires putting on my “legal eagle glasses” AND putting up with illiterate “booby-age” from Mass MEdia Podpeople (No, it’s NOT “county sheriff’s offices” dummy; it’s “county sheriffs’ offices”). The first, because the bill was written in such a way that it primarily just deletes portions of previous law, making understanding what lawmakers were doing more a matter of subtraction than anything else. The second because, well, Mass MEdia Podpeople: subliterates spreading their own misinformation/disinformation via sloppy, subliterate grammar and word usage.

It doesn’t help to have a few seriously illiterate “law enFARCEment ossifers” chiming in with lies, disinformation, and misinformation. (State HiPos who’ve been quoted have seemed to get things more right than not, though. Many local yokels–mostly from big cities–seem to be either clueless or simply liars.)

At any rate, I won’t rely on the law being in effect until January, not that it will affect my behavior one way or another. 😉

Posted on

Grammar Matters

Seen various places:

A well tailored suit, being necessary to the appearance of a sharply dressed gentleman, the right of the people to keep and wear clothes, shall not be infringed.

So, according to the “understandings” applied to the Second Amendment by (wilfully) illiterate leftards, only “sharply dressed gentlemen” have a right to “keep and wear clothes”? That would certainly chap a few misandrists’ gizzards. . . (not to mention leading to some interesting sunburns and other such things. . . )

Posted on

Cry “Wolf!”

“Man Profiles, Attacks Concealed Carrier”

I have a problem with these kinds of provocative articles from supposed “gun rights” advocates. The cited article clearly states that the person who was (wrongly) “tackled” for carrying a gun was a CCW permit holder. . . but was assaulted because some guy SAW HIS GUN. Most CCW state laws say it MUST be CONCEALED (no “printing” either) unless used in a lawful manner (self-defense, etc.). The assailant should definitely be charged with assault, but the CCW holder could be charged for failing to carry his weapon in a manner specified by his license as well.

And the linked post shouldn’t be hyperventilating about the incident and should note where the CCW permit holder was in error. The concealed aspect is pretty much to avoid this sort of thing–loony bin aspirants going off half-cocked and assaulting folks who are doing no harm.

BTW, the linked post wrongly states,

screencap-confused-post

The article the overblown, poorly-written post in the first link refers to clearly states that Daniels was the one assaulted and that his assailant was arrested and charged with battery.

Sloppy writing, sloppy thinking, bad, bad “pro-gun” article. Guy who wrote it should be spanked with a loaded, 30-round AR-15 mag.

Posted on

Getting “The Vapors” at Boise State University

*head-desk*

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5689

“Boise State University’s Young Americans for Liberty chapter invited Dick Heller, whose lawsuit allowed citizens of D.C. to buy and own handguns, to speak on campus.

 “BSU forced YAL to hire three extra guards and two city police officers at the last minute for $465 to patrol the speech.”

District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark 2nd Amendment case. Heller had been invited by YAL to speak @BSU. Approved by admin, then last-minute admin decided Heller speaking on 2nd Amendment was an “elevated threat” environment. Idaho “higher” ed: filled with Neo-Victorian shrinking violets? Not exactly, in later updates to the story BSU flacks revealed that BSU had assessed “elevated threat” environment evals at other times (75% of those were “conservative” type meetings. Of course). So, not “Neo-Victorian shrinking violets” but “Lefties with their panties in a bunch because of a speech on individual rights.”

Elevated threat level at a speech about Heller/2nd Amendment? Now just who might pose a threat there. . . and to whom? (One might suspect the real threat was to leftist pussies* in the college administration. . . in their own “minds”.)

“Higher” ed has long since been infiltrated, darned near everywhere, by leftists. This looks like just one—of many—more example of lefties with their panties in a bunch.

Dog bites man. Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

 

*N.B. “pussies” is used here in an understanding that the word “pussy” used in this context was likely evolved as a reference to “pusillanimous”—cowardly, timid. Of course, my understanding of the etymology may be flawed, but that’s how I’m using it, so there. 🙂

 

Posted on

Teaser Over-promised, Under-delivered

Yesterday, James O’Keefe twitted *heh* about “hidden camera” video of Piers Morgan on gun control. *meh* Yeh, yeh, a few non-committal seconds of Morgan and loads of other nobodies (from the Hivemind left, apparently, though) on the topic.

(*heh* You did catch that, right? “…and loads of other nobodies” :-))

Posted on

I Am. . .

pro-choice

(BTW, I am also pro-choice on abortion. I believe that once a woman has made a choice to have intercourse and conception occurs, the next choice is rightly the baby’s. Let it become at least 18 before asking it to choose whether it wants to be killed.)