Not just the guns, but all the stuff that goes with them
This is one of the better comparisons between the .45 ACP and 9mm Europellet, because the targets are actually similar to the intended targets in self defense.
Quote of the day: “Guys who support gun control have wives who have boyfriends.”
Also:
“I learned one thing today… ”
“What?”
“I’m going to continue carrying 10mm.”
Fucking Millennials. I nearly did a little wee in my pants.
But food for thought, nevertheless. Me, I’m going to go for .45 ACP with lighter bullets.
Before I talk about the gun, I want to talk a little about something that was once the only option, then fell by the wayside, and now is practiced by only a few hardy people: hunting with a single-shot rifle.
To see that this type of hunting has not disappeared altogether, one only has to see the perpetual fascination for single-shot rifles in sales of guns such as the Ruger #1 (with its derivation of the Farquharson action), and the Winchester / Browning 1885 High Wall (with its “falling block” action).
I cannot describe the satisfaction one gets in working these exquisite actions. Mr. Free Market, after our most recent Schutzenfest, confessed to me that of all the dozen-odd different rifles he fired, the one that gave him the most shooting satisfaction was my 1885 High Wall in .45-70 Govt. Yeah, that one-at-a-time thing feels so cumbersome compared to the slick semi-auto and even bolt-action rifles of today — but there it is: a single rifle is the bee’s knees, and certainly if that’s what you’ve just used to fell a deer, buffalo or bear, your chest swells with pride — and so it should.
So with that said, allow me to present to you the venerable BSA-Martini Cadet rifle:
This is hardly an unknown gun: the old BSA has been used as a training rifle since the Stone Age, and is most commonly found in .22 caliber. (It’s what we used back at St. John’s College for our musketry classes, and was capable of astounding accuracy — far more than I for one could achieve.)
The BSA Martinis were also chambered for the silly .310 Greener (“Rook”) cartridge, which is a decent training caliber, but useful for nothing else except hunting rooks. Luckily, a large percentage of these rifles have been rechambered for other .30 cartridges such as the .32-20 and even the .357 Mag. The action handles the heavier loads with ease, and the rifle’s lighter weight makes carrying in the field less problematic than with its heavier cousins.
Which brings us to today’s rifle, which is chambered for the wonderful and very much underappreciated cartridge, the Winchester .32 Special. Most often compared to the .30-30 (.30 WCF), the .32 Win Spec is perhaps best described as the .30-30 on steroids. One acquaintance told me of a black bear taken with a single shot in Pennsylvania, fired out of a Marlin 94 lever action with a 20″ barrel.
Now take that same bullet and fire it through the BSA-Martini’s 28″ heavy barrel… and I think you can all see where I’m going with this one.
Just practice, and get really good — because you only get one shot.
Oy. As if Hanoi Jane hasn’t been enough of a festering pustule on society’s buttocks long enough, the tired old tart has to weigh in once again:
Left-wing actress and activist Jane Fonda suggested America “redefine vaginas as AK-47s” in response to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
In her case, and by her own admission, her well-trodden vagina is more akin to a rusty old Brown Bess musket, but that’s not what I wanted to talk about.
As an AK owner myself, let me say that the AK rifle works perfectly as designed, seldom requires much in the way of cleaning and maintenance, can be shared among friends as often as desired, and as such is about as far from a vagina as one could imagine.
So this unwarranted slight on Mikhail Kalashnikov’s excellent device is simply off base — not that this is far from Fonda’s norm, though.
And one last thought: a new AK-47 costs about a thousand bucks — and I’ve known many men who have paid a lot more than that, just for part-ownership of a vagina.
I actually liked this article by Naomi Wolf:
“The last thing keeping us free in America, as the lights go off all over Europe- and Australia, and Canada – is, yes, we must face this fact, the Second Amendment.”
And if that’s how it starts, can it get any better?
It does.
I remember back when Connie and I first moved in together, I used to refer to her as my Liberal Rubbish Girlfriend (LRG) because she was pro-abortion, hated guns — I mean, she was from California, what did you expect?
Her first epiphany was about guns. I used to keep the old Charter Arms Bulldog next to the bed because .44 Special revolver. She hated that.
Then I had to go out of town for a couple days and she was alone in the house with two small kids, when one night she heard a noise downstairs.
It turned out to be nothing — maybe a raccoon trying to get inside, perhaps — but after I got back, she made me teach her how to shoot. All the time she was huddled up under the blankets, frozen with terror, she couldn’t help thinking: “I am so stupid. There’s a gun not three feet away from me, and I don’t know how to use it to protect myself and the kids.”
A couple of years later, with a little coaching from me, she’d turned into the conservative firebrand we all knew and loved. And she loved shooting.
If Naomi didn’t live in a gun-hating state like California, I bet she’d be the same.
After the Supremes finally decided that the Constitution (and its Second Amendment) is, after all, the supreme law of the land, the Scumbag States are scurrying around, trying to find loopholes.
New York and a half a dozen other states with similar laws now must decide their next steps. As with New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have legislatures controlled by Democrats who could propose measures to ensure that guns will not be allowed in certain places.
Of course, “blood will run in the streets”, “violence will increase” (like it hasn’t already, even with those earlier laws in place), and my favorite: “The epidemic of gun violence sweeping our nation demonstrates daily the folly of introducing more guns into this boiling cauldron.” All the usual scare tactics, and all the usual disregard of actual facts — that carry laws haven’t caused any such thing.
Still glad to be living in a state which isn’t afraid of its citizens being armed.
Afterthought: by the way, the article states that the Supreme Court’s decision was “an expansion of gun rights”, which is a total lie. What the decision did was reaffirm gun rights, rights which should never have been infringed in the first place.
Remember the old (not so funny) joke: “If guns are banned, can we use swords?”
Seems as though the Kiwi criminals and sickos, like their Brit compatriots, have taken this to heart:
Four people have allegedly been stabbed after a knife-wielding man went on a rampage on the beach in New Zealand.
The rampage is believed to have come to an end after a local construction worker hit the alleged stabber with a walking crutch.
My takeaway from this is that had I been the construction worker, I’d probably have beaten the scumbag to death, thereby becoming the bad guy.
Here’s a graphic account:
One woman had headed down to the beach to take her dog for a walk when she was confronted by the man and his ‘big knife’. She said the man had started walking towards her but then broke out into a run.
‘And – fight or flight – I turned away and ran the other way and I looked back and he had a big knife, running at me,’ the woman told the NZ Herald. ‘I was screaming, calling out for help because he was chasing me with this big knife.’
The woman managed to get away from the man unharmed, and immediately called police.
The police arrived far too late to do anything of value, of course, because by the time they got there Our Hero had stopped the attacks.
It would have been far easier for the woman above just to pop a couple of .45 bullets into the goblin’s chest, of course, but the Kiwis aren’t allowed to do that. It seems that for the New Zealanders and their elected politicians, the alternative — helpless victims slaughtered — is preferable.