A peek behind the curtain
Aquarium filtration | 8/25/2016

Took this pic earlier to help illustrate an answer to a question on a forum, thought ... Read More

Re-reading an old story
Winter Wings | 6/30/2016

Want to share this with a friend... ... Read More

New tank shot
7 months in... | 6/ 6/2016

More Blog Entries

Sarah Brady

On the passing of an enemy | 4/ 6/2015

I'm seeing a bunch of pro 2A folks posting about how happy they are that Sarah Brady has passed.  Wrong, folks, just wrong.

In my opinion, she was dead wrong on the issue she dedicated the last half of her life to, but this is a person we're talking about.  Somebody's daughter, wife, mother... I don't care how much you disagree with her, dancing on anyone's grave is just wrong.

Her husband was permanently disabled by an idiot with a gun.

I've had a similar event in my life... my nephew and namesake, who I loved dearly, committed suicide with a handgun that I helped him purchase.  I assure you... something like that will make you sit down and really think through your position on guns.  I disagree with the conclusion that Sarah Brady made... strongly... but I can understand it.  

I'll continue to fight against the organization that bears her name, and any other groups or individuals who attempt to disarm the people of this nation.  You want to challenge the positions she took? Good.  I'm right there with you.  Celebrating her passing?  Nope.  Not going there.  Neither should you.

Common Sense

and why it's not... | 3/24/2015

Common Sense

Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

Noticed lately how every call for more gun control laws are labeled as ‘Common Sense’?  It’s the latest rhetorical device, designed to make all those who disagree look unreasonable.  By labeling their arguments as common sense, they are declaring that their argument is valid, without the tedious process of actually presenting their case. In high school debate, this would be called Informational Fallacy.

Gun control proponents can’t win on facts, so they rely on emotional arguments and intellectually dishonest tactics to promote their ideals.

Don’t let them get away with it.

You labeling something as ‘Common Sense’ does not make it so.  Common Sense was the argument used to prove that the earth was flat.  The verdict at the Scopes Monkey trial relied on the ‘Common Sense’ of 12 jurors.

If you look at the facts, none of their agenda items are anything of the sort.  There is no evidence that anything on their agenda will reduce criminal use of firearms in any way.  Over the last couple of decades, concealed carry laws have swept the nation… and crime rates have fallen drastically. As John Lott has been saying for 20 years now… more guns, less crime.

Those facts don’t fit the gun control crowd agenda, so… shut them up.  Call every draconian gun ban ‘Common Sense’.  Tell the world that a huge majority supports their ideas… never mind that it’s all a lie, doesn’t matter, nobody is going to call you on it.  Make the other side out to be nutcase, extremist, knuckle dragging cavemen.   Not true… the fastest growing segment of people purchasing guns today is women, but that truth doesn’t fit the agenda, so ignore it.

As the old saying goes, if you have facts on your side, pound the facts.  If you have the law on your side, pound the law.  If you have neither, pound the table.  The gun control crowd has lost the argument on the facts, they’ve lost the argument on the law, all the ‘Common Sense’ argument shows is that they have been reduced to pounding the table.

Lowering firearm death rates, a pro-2A perspective.

Response to an article by Jarvis DeBerry | 2/ 4/2015
According to a VPC report, Louisiana has the 2nd highest number of deaths by gunshot, per capita (19.15/100k). Jarvis DeBerry, a writer for the NOLA Times-Picayune, asked to hear from pro2A people on how to go about lowering that number. I don’t know how serious Mr. DeBerry is… many times, folks asking for input from the other side of an issue are less than genuine, but in this instance, Mr. DeBerry seemed earnest enough, and even if he’s not, it’s an interesting exercise. I’ll bite.
In the interests of full disclosure, here is some biographical data. I’m not a resident of Louisiana, and don’t regularly travel there. My home is in rural Missouri… number 13 on that list you refer to, so we’re not so far apart from that perspective. I am, as requested, firmly in the pro 2nd amendment camp. I’m an NRA certified firearms instructor, competitive and recreational shooter, gun collector, concealed carry permit holder, and member of a plethora of pro2A groups, both national and local. I’ve been politically active on pro2A issues for a couple of decades.
Before I talk about gun safety, I want to address the source of your statistics. The VPC is an anti-gun organization. To the VPC, there is no such thing as a positive use of a gun. Guns are themselves evil, and no civilized person should desire to own one. Data from this source is suspect, simply because of the source. For instance, you’ll never see information from the VPC showing that the gun homicide rate is down 50% since 1993, or that non-fatal violent crime is down 70% in that time, despite gun ownership rates rising dramatically. Trying to use their propaganda as a basis for a civil discussion is in itself problematic, but I’ll do my best.
The first step in solving any problem is in understanding the problem. 19.15 deaths per 100,000 people. Looking at Department of Justice statistics (, the numbers are a bit different. According to the DOJ, US average was 3.5/100k, with the south being the worst region, at 4.4/100k. The VPC is including accidents, suicides, police shootings, etc., and no doubt using the highest estimates they can find to support their pre-defined position. The DOJ is only counting homicides, as reported by police agencies.
A quick word on suicide: I have been personally touched by suicide, on more than one occasion. I have lost family and friends. On this subject, I would just say that guns don’t cause suicide. The highest suicide rate in the world is in a nation almost totally devoid of firearms in the hands of civilians. People who have come to the regrettable decision that their problems are so bad that there is no other recourse but to kill themselves will find a way to do so. I’d love to see suicide just go away, but I wouldn’t have any idea how to go about making that happen, so I’ll leave this tragic subject alone.
As I mentioned earlier, homicide rates have fallen dramatically since the 80’s. Continuing that trend is a noble goal. Personally, I don’t see any difference between someone committing homicide with a gun, and someone doing the same with a knife, baseball bat, hammer, or their bare hands. If I remember correctly from Sunday school, Cain killed Able with a rock. It’s simply not possible to ban every object capable of inflicting a fatal injury. I’m no expert, but it seems to me that the leading factor in homicide rates for a given area is probably poverty. Agreed? NOLA has its share, as does St. Louis, and every other city in this nation. The highest murder rates are, in fact, in locations where gun control laws are at their most restrictive. I believe Chicago is still at the top of that chart. Gun control, in my humble opinion, isn’t going to do much to reduce poverty, gang membership, illegal drug usage, etc. The only thing I can think of that might lower homicide rates would be punishment for those that have been caught.
The latest stats I can find for time served for violent crime is from 1995. ( According to that report, the average term of imprisonment for a convicted murderer is 71 months. Just under 6 years. I’d be interested in looking at more up to date stats, but I can’t find any. I have no reason to believe that the average time incarcerated has changed. Seems to me, if that average were higher, it might serve as a better deterrent.
Accidents: I have an 18 month old grandson living with me. We are well aware that, in a normal household, there are all sorts of things around that could injure or kill my grandson. Heck, we have a swimming pool… statistically far more dangerous to my grandson than my guns are. At all times, my guns are either (A) under the direct control of a competent adult, or (B) locked up.
While we’re on that subject, I don’t believe that so called ‘safe storage’ laws are a good idea. I’ve got teenage daughters and grandkids. We have friends with young children. Keeping my guns locked up is a reasonable precaution. If I lived alone, in a higher crime area, perhaps having a loaded revolver in my nightstand where I can get to it might be a good idea. It’s an individual choice, dependent on conditions, and should remain so.
So, how about accidents? Education. My wife and daughter are already educating my grandson on how to stay safe in this world. It’s called ‘parenting’. A recent lesson for him was that the stove may be hot. It was taught without burning the kid, and he seems to have learned the lesson. At this point, firearm safety education is more for the adults watching him. As he gets older, we’ll start educating him more directly. Kids see guns on TV, even the Bugs Bunny show… If a kid sees a gun lying around, looks like a fun toy to them… as does just about anything else they can pick up. Hiding them doesn’t work. I’m fairly certain that my parents didn’t have any hiding places I didn’t find while I was growing up… We must teach our children.
The current educational philosophy seems to be that, since guns are bad, no child will ever encounter one, so they don’t need to know anything about them. They live in a ‘gun free zone’, after all. Unsurprisingly, this isn’t working (look back at those statistics!). Guns exist. They’re not going to go away. Every person, including kids, needs to know what they are, and what they should do if they find one. It’s every bit as important as teaching our kids not to touch the stove. I would propose a very simple first step… add the NRA’s ‘Eddie Eagle’ program to every public school curriculum, grades K-3. (
You might note that I’m not recommending more laws. That’s because more laws can’t reduce gun violence. Laws are about punishing criminals. They only deter crime when the criminal weighs the possible repercussions of their actions and decides against committing the crime. All gun crimes are already illegal, with very serious penalties. Any criminal who picks up a gun and commits a crime with it
realizes fully that if they get caught, they’re going away. Extending the time they spend incarcerated may help, I honestly don’t know. I do know this, making something already illegal even more so does not prevent crime… unless of course, we were to make guns unavailable to the criminal.
It’s already illegal for a criminal to purchase a gun. They either steal them, or buy them from someone else who did. The whole ‘gun show loophole’ is a fallacy… you can’t buy a gun legally from a gun dealer, gun show or not, in this country without undergoing a background check. It’s a federal law. It’s also illegal for an individual to sell a gun to a felon… but there’s no easy way to verify that. I would support opening up the current NICS system to allow private citizens to verify that a person is allowed to own a firearm. I would not support making it mandatory… I don’t need NICS to tell me that it’s OK to give a gun to my daughter. If I were selling one of my collection to a stranger? Yeah, I’d run a NICS check, if I could. Current law won’t allow me to do so. If I want to do that now, I have to go to a dealer, and pay him for the privilege. Most of my gun-owning friends use a concealed carry permit these days to verify that a stranger has the right to own a gun.
Really, the only way to get guns out of criminal’s hands entirely would be to get rid of guns. Do you think, if we gave the VPC and their ilk exactly what they want: To quote Sen. Feinstein, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in.’ Could we possibly be as successful in riding our nation of guns as we have been in ridding it of illegal drugs? I doubt it, really… Drugs are a perishable commodity. They must be produced in huge quantities to feed the demand. A firearm made a hundred years ago is just as capable today as it was when it was new. Also, you should know that guns are not terribly complicated machines… given a moderately well-equipped workshop, I could build one from scratch in a few hours. Like it or not, the genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to put it back. Guns are here to stay. The only possible effect of banning guns would be to take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Even if that were not the case… say, for instance, that Harry Potter came up with a spell that would make anything capable of launching a bullet just disappear. Would that lower the violent crime rate? Probably not. If you look back at history, the era just prior to firearms becoming commonly available was not exactly a time of peace. Before firearms, the strong preyed on the weak. Women, being physically smaller than men, were particularly at risk. When the common weapons were clubs, knives, and swords, the big, strong, experienced fighter had a huge advantage in any conflict. Firearms, like ‘em or not, are indeed the great equalizer. It’s the only tool ever invented that gives a smaller, weaker person the ability to defend themselves against a larger, stronger attacker.
That brings me to my next point. The VPC and their cohorts would have us believe that guns are without redeeming value. There is nothing good that can come of owning one, no reason for civilized people to want one. They’re patently and demonstrably wrong. According to the latest CDC study, guns are used far more often to stop a violent attack than they are in committing one. (
Even discounting sporting, competitive, and recreational shooting, something which countless millions of Americans enjoy, guns have a net positive effect on our civilization.
Education is the key. Sticking our kids in a ‘gun free zone’, where even forming a pop-tart into the shape of a pistol is a grave offence ( is not helping to reduce gun violence. Ignoring a problem seldom helps to make things better, and an enforced head-in-the-sand attitude towards guns in our schools is doing a grave disservice to our children.
Original Article:

A case for Freedom

NYC Police ‘Slowdown’ shows some interesting data. | 2/ 3/2015

Because of the mayor’s lack of support, the NYC PD staged a very effective ‘work slowdown’ protest. Thousands of parking tickets went unwritten, minor traffic violations were ignored, virtually nobody was arrested for drinking in public, or jumping the subway turnstile… Claims are that NYC lost somewhere north of 5 million dollars in fines and court fees.  And the most important thing that happened was this…

Life went on.

According to Reuters:  “During the slowdown, there was also a moderate decline in reports of murder, robbery and other serious crime, the data showed.” 

That’s right, despite thousands of ‘crimes’ going unpunished, less murder, robbery, and ‘serious’ crimes.  People went on with their lives.  Society did not fall apart, despite all of those speeding tickets that never got written.

Now, Anarchist, I’m not.  I tend to side with the police on most issues.  If I had to guess, I’d say that most police officers would rather be chasing those ‘serious’ criminals than writing speeding tickets anyway.  Not the cops fault, really… they’re not the ones who make the laws, they’re just charged with enforcing them.  Seems to me, what this whole thing really shows, is that perhaps we don’t need all these laws in the first place.

Imagine that.

Jeb Bush for President?

Here we go again... | 12/16/2014

A few years back, I posted an article about why I could never vote for John McCain.  That primary ended with me having a choice of him, or BO… and, against my better judgment, I voted for ‘the lesser of two evils’.  BO won anyway… and I developed a more critical thought process.  I will never walk away from a voting booth with a sour taste in my mouth again.  Practicality can take a flying leap, I’m voting for the best candidate, regardless of his (or her) chances of winning.

Here comes the election cycle of 2016, and people are starting to talk about Jeb Bush.  Sorry, I’ll write in Mickey Mouse before I check Bush’s name on a ballot… and here’s why:

1: No way Bush would close the border.  We badly need to secure our borders, there are lots of folks in this world who would like nothing better than to come here and re-play 9/11, and keeping a two thousand mile wide hole along our southern border is a pretty dumb thing to do.  Add drug cartels to the mix, and it just gets worse.  Here’s my position on illegal immigration:  They’ll keep coming, as long as they can… and we’re making it easy.  Hey, I’m no Native American… and I don’t have anything against Mexicans… heck, if I were there, and dirt poor, I’d try and come here too.  We can debate until the cows come home over what to do with the millions of illegals that are here now… think it through.  If we CLOSE THE DARNED BORDER, the illegal immigrant problem will resolve itself in a generation, right?  Think Jeb is going to do that?  Think again.

2: Big Government.  Jeb’s an ‘establishment’ candidate.  High taxes, more and more regulations, government poking its nose into everyone’s personal business… Government controlled education, big business, special interests… he’s a Bush.  We’ll get much of the same thing we got from the first two.

3: He can’t win.  Hillary is coming, and we need someone we can really get behind to defeat her.  Another pro-establishment old white male isn’t going to do it.  Honestly, nobody on the current list is very exciting to me… Perhaps a solid, conservative woman? Jan Brewer?? Nikki Haley?? Heck, I don’t know, but Jeb Bush?  No chance.

Millionaires in politics

Koch -vs- Soros | 10/16/2014

I keep seeing outcry on the left over the Koch family giving money to the right… Let’s look at this with some balance.

Yeah, the Koch family has given lots of cash to the right.  To Republican and Libertarian candidates, as well as the Tea Party, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, etc.  I don’t have numbers here to quote, but I’m sure it’s a lot.

Fred Koch was an American chemical engineer, started an oil refinery business, and did very well.  His family is still running that business, and is still doing very well.  They give back to the country that allowed them to succeed.  I know oil isn’t a popular product at the moment, but it’s hard to argue that it isn’t an important one.

The left’s equivalent, George Soros, was born in Hungary, educated in England, came to the US in his late 20’s.  He made his money on investment speculation, much of it by selling short the British pound.  He made billions, the British people lost billions.

Now, I don’t know if the money donated by Koch bros and Soros are anywhere near equivalent, honestly, I’d guess that Soros has given far more to the left than the Koch bros have given to the right, but the fact remains… screaming about the Koch family, while ignoring George Soros, seems a bit dishonest to me.

So, which of these two would you rather associate with politically, an American family who made their money in the oil business, making a product that, like it or not, everyone needs... or an investment speculator who immigrated to the UK, educated himself on the public dime, and then got rich by destroying their currency?

Spent round


Found this after busting up a cinder block with my revolver... .500 S&W Magnum, 350g Berry's plated bullet, travelling in the 1700fps range.  Nice expansion, for something that was never designed to expand :)  Measures 0.935" 

SKS Rifle Customization

KR's 'Liberty Training Rifle' | 3/ 3/2014

Several years back, a good friend of mine put together a 'how to', on modifying a basic, inexpensive (or at least they were then...) SKS rifle into something more Rifleman friendly.  Since that friend isn't too tech savy, he then gave the document to me to make it available.  Still getting hits on that old document... as valuable today as it was when he made it.


Enjoy, and Thanks, KR!

Mandatory Firearms Training

As an NRA registered trainer, that can't be bad, right? | 3/20/2013


I recently read a facebook post, from Chester, a good friend of mine, recommending that gun owners undergo some sort of mandatory training in order to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.  Another acquaintance of mine, Christopher, jumped on the bandwagon.  ‘Training is good…’ they say.  Well, they’re right, training is good.  ‘Mandatory’ training, however, is most certainly not a good thing.

I’m going to strenuously disagree with my good friends Christopher and Chester on this one.  Applying this sort of logic to the 1st amendment, you could purchase a typewriter or computer, but if you’re going to publish your opinions, well, that requires a license.  Sound good to you?   “ …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Please explain to me how what you’re proposing does not infringe on the right to bear arms?   Can you give me an example of any other right that depends on training, licensing, or fees in order to exercise that right?  Who do you propose we trust to tell us how much training we need, how much is ‘fair’ in licensing fees, what other restrictions we might have… Nancy Pelosi?  Barack Obama?  Claire McCaskill? 

What benefits are going to come of gun owners accepting these restrictions on our right, acknowledging that our rights are subject to government approval, and therefore, not really rights at all, but privileges?  Chester proposes that “this type of law would probably save the lives of lot children who are killed every year in accidental shootings”.  According to the national center for health statistics, the annual number of deaths among children due to accidental shooting is down 90% since 1975.  1.1% of all accidental deaths are caused by firearms.  With all of the regulations, taxes, and fees applied to driving a vehicle, vehicles still account for 41% of accidental deaths in this country.  Do you really believe legislation requiring training, safe storage, licensing fees, etc. is really going to lower this number significantly?  There is no benefit, aside from making people ‘feel’ safer, in any such legislation.

Carrying a firearm for self-defense without sufficient training is stupid.  On that point we can agree.   Legislation banning stupidity is even more so.  I pray that you will both reconsider your positions.  Actively campaigning for additional restrictions on our rights is good for one group of people only, those who want to do away with the 2nd amendment altogether.  Right now, Obama is pushing some BS about 90% of gun owners who want universal background checks.  This kind of thing hurts… badly.

Divide and conquer works for them. In 94, Clinton used duck hunters to push his ‘nobody needs an AR’ agenda, and got his assault weapons ban passed.  In 86, nobody stood against the Hughes amendment, and the full-auto registry was closed, without so much as a whimper from pro-2a groups.  Now, you want to voluntarily divide us again, in to pro/anti mandatory training camps?  We MUST STAND TOGETHER.  No new anti-gun legislation, no new restrictions on the 2nd amendment, whatsoever.  If we don’t, it’s only a matter of time, they’ll all be gone.

Arm our school employees

Denial, ignorance, and fear are not working. | 12/17/2012

The tragic events in Connecticut last week have touched us all; my prayers go out to all involved in this horrific event. Over the weekend, I’ve seen no less than a dozen calls for new gun control laws, ranging from banning anyone who has ever been treated for mental illness, to another ‘assault weapons’ ban. Neither would have prevented this tragedy, of course, but still, the calls go out to DO SOMETHING. This idiot broke at least a dozen different laws in committing this act, and multiple counts of most of them. If he hadn't killed himself, no doubt he’d be looking at multiple life sentences, most likely in solitary, since his life expectancy in general population would be quite short. Needless to say, he wasn't discouraged by the thought of punishment for his crimes. Why would anyone think that adding a few new laws would have stopped him, or anyone who gets the same idea in the future?

LAWS DON’T PREVENT CRIMES, THEY PUNISH THE GUILTY. Law enforcement didn't do anything wrong here, it’s not their job to prevent things like this from happening; it’s their job to find and punish criminals after the fact. Since this guy killed himself, about the only thing law enforcement can do is to tell us exactly what happened, and clean up the mess. In order to prevent this sort of thing, something else has to change. The way I see it, there are 3 things that we could do to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

Option 1, the Brady bunch dream: Ban guns. If we threw out the 2nd amendment and passed a law that made all civilian ownership of firearms illegal… would that stop this sort of crime? How long has the ‘war on drugs’ been raging now, over 40 years? Do you think we might be as successful in banning guns as we have been in banning drugs? The last time we took a popular, widely available product and banned it completely was in 1919, with the 18th amendment, prohibition of alcohol. Everyone remember how successful that experiment was? Banning firearms in this country will not take guns out of the hands of criminals, who are already legally prevented from owning guns.

Option 2: Better security. We could build fences, topped with concertina wire, around our schools, with armed security at the gates. This might work… it’s been fairly successful in Israel. Of course, turning our public schools into prisons might not be very popular, and may well have a less than positive impact on educating our children, but the option is there. I don’t know what the cost would be… how many schools are there in this country? How much would it cost to surround each of them with a good security fence, outfit them with a guard post at all of the gates… I have no idea. Can’t imagine it would be cheap, but hey, they’re getting ready to raise the debt ceiling once again, what’s a few billion added to our current debt?

Option 3: Allow our school employees to arm themselves. This seems to be a very unpopular solution, but would it work? Violent crime rates fall in states with liberal concealed carry laws. Virtually every mass shooting that has occurred in this country has been committed in a ‘gun free’ location. Could an armed teacher prevent this sort of thing? Who knows? At a minimum, they could reduce the number of victims. Seems to me it would be much harder to wipe out classrooms full of kids when the teacher is shooting back at you. Properly trained teachers, administrators, and custodians at our schools are unlikely to injure a student on purpose. These school employees are already being screened, right? Cost to the taxpayer is near nothing... and schools don’t look like a prison camp. Seems the only reasonable solution to me.

Denial, ignorance, and fear. These are _not_ the weapons that our children should have to rely on for their safety.