Kim du Toit bids his readers farewell.

A review: it was literally standing room only.

Over at insty’s, a reader writes:

So you think that ordinary citizens armed with handguns would slow down a surprise attack by trained paramilitary forces armed with automatic weapons, grenades and who knows what else? I’m curious how you see that scenario playing out.

Obviously, people should be armed with rifles, then.

Seriously, the unarmed didn’t stand much of a chance. I figure the armed would have done better. I mean, 10 guys savaging East TN probably wouldn’t last long, would be my guess. And since armed citizens have a decent track record against mass murderers, I’ll probably go with those odds over the unarmed alternative.

And the police there didn’t seem to be much help:

But what angered Mr D’Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything,” he said. “At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”

I mean, who cares if it’s unconstitutional?

Is it that or the bitterness and clinginess?

Translating catalog-speak into English:

“Drop In” Installation: Some fitting required.

Some Fitting Required: Better take it to a good gunsmith.

Gunsmith Installation Recommended: …and bring money.

A native version.

Camp Perry 1911.

A phone gun? From a phone with a 1987 vintage.

IDF Sniper Rifles.

A couple of MP5s.

Para GI Expert.

To you and yours.

And now, I must bake.

Update: Mmmmm, deer head.

I’m all for it. I think people should be allowed to adopt them.

Seen at Volokh’s:

U.S. v. Luedtke (E.D. Wis. Nov. 18, 2008) upholds against a Second Amendment challenge the federal ban on possessing firearms while under a domestic restraining order, and offers more analysis than most district court Second Amendment decisions have provided.

Robb in comments here:

My treatise on economics is going to be overshadowed by a poo-phemism.

Seen at ARFCOM:

[Link] to Outdoor Life’s Website where there is a vote going for the the most Influential Person In the Gun Industry this year. Our President Randy Luth is up for this vote. It is very important to us that someone from the black rifle side of the industry wins, especially in the light of the election our new presidents view on these guns. It has taken years for people to become comfortable with these weapons that are only different from bolt action guns because they are semi automatic.

I would really appreciate it if you would take the time to place your vote for Randy Luth. On the link above click the link that says, “Ready to vote? Click Here and vote for OL 25’s Person of the Year” then select Randy Luth.

In honor of the coming ascension, I’m pondering a couple of AR-15 builds. I really want to build an AR-15 pistol to scare gun controllers err for use as a truck gun. Where does everyone get those little neoprene covered pistol buffer tubes? I can’t find them.

Also, any issues with the 7.5 inch barreled models?

I’m digging the RRA pistol. Any other suggestions?

I did, in fact, have a little gash on my palm from racking the Para 45 slide. I was certain everyone heard my whining about it.

Remember, you’re just nuts to think having a gun in a church might be a good idea:

Police have not figured why the suspect showed up with two samurai swords and began attacking three security guards. One of those guards shot and killed the man, and police said Monday the shooting probably saved many lives.

I am remiss in mentioning that the National Shooting Sports Foundation has launched a Blog to Address Inaccuracies Surrounding Firearms.

In this piece, Ted notes that the Media Gets it Right on Lead Ammo.

Looks like more of the samey.

It’s like Clinton’s third term only not as predicted.

Update: A little Bushy too.

Impressive shooting from Catfish, who has more.

HS Precision endorsed by Lon Horiuchi? Yes, that Lon Horiuchi.

I answered 32 out of 33 correctly — 96.97 % on this test, which is making the rounds. I missed question 30 because I assumed that the .gov in this scenario was smart.

Via everyone.

For $34K, it better shoot all by itself.

From Kevin. I got my DVD in the mail but my shoot house vid didn’t work.

I guess I shouldn’t mention yankees when discussing, err, yankees. Quite a bit of mail about how so and so is a yankee but so and so is not. And apparently there are various qualifiers that distinguish one particular yankee archetype from another.

So, I didn’t mean you, I meant the other guy.

Is owning a gun embarrassing?

Only if you’re a Democrat:

According to gun shop owners, Democrats buying guns are on the rise.

Pretty anecdotal but, if true, cool.

The Sig P250. It was in this month’s American Rifleman. And Rusty has a video on it here. I really don’t see the point of a receiver that can transform calibers, etc. It’s a Sig and, for their usual prices, you could just buy another gun.

I received my calendar and DVD from ParaUSA today. Haven’t had time to go through it yet.

Robb has posted his shoot house video though.

Tam reviews her Para Gun Blog 9.

For cellphones here. From Joe Huffman.

Discussion of M4 replacements.

Mr. C. is back in the hospital. Here’s hoping for a speedy recovery.

Actual education and not pants shitting hysteria.

Speaking of, Ted Novin of the National Shooting Sports Foundation blogs on telling the truth about assault weapons.

Pittsburgh passes a law to punish only the law-abiding.

We’ve returned safe and sound. Blog resumes sometime.

Miss anything important?

One thing to notice about Sarah Palin in this video here.

Notice how she’s not a pussy?

Safely arrived. You can tell when you’ve hit yankee country. When the gas stations stop calling it “soda” or “soft drink” and start calling it “pop”.

Update: The offending state was West Virginia. PA is worse. And Pittsburgh drivers suck. That is all.

Publius does a nice job summing up what’s at the heart of the liberal/conservative divide on “social conservative” issues:

The social conservatives’ positions tend to empower government over individuals. If they got their way, the public would be forced to submit to the government’s decision-making. The more liberal position, by contrast, allocates power to individuals – no one is forced to do anything. (Admittedly, this is not really a constitutional argument – just an additional explanation for why the Christian Right tends to scare people).

Take, for instance, the granddaddy issue of them all – abortion. The Christian Right position would require every single person in a given jurisdiction to give birth. (Yes, some would argue that it’s simply about letting the states decide – but still, they prefer this position because many states, and virtually the entire South, would ban abortion). Thus, the decision-making power here would belong to the government. Individuals would no longer be free to decide.

The pro-choice position, by contrast, ensures that individuals – not the government – will ultimately make these private decisions. Individuals remain free to have, or not have, abortions as they and their God see fit. And everyone remains free to persuade their fellow citizens of the values of bringing all pregnancies to term. But in the end, the individual – and not the state – would make the final call.

This pattern repeats itself across a number of issues. For example, gay marriage doesn’t require anyone to do anything. It merely allows consenting gay adults to be married. Gay marriage bans, by contrast, grant that decision-making power to the state.

Similarly, rights to contraception don’t require anyone to do anything – the ultimate decision remains with the individual. Contraception bans, by contrast, allocate the decision-making power to the government.

Same deal with school prayer. Banning school prayer in public classes doesn’t prevent anyone from praying privately at the school. But allowing public prayer, by contrast, would force non-Christians to sit through prayer sessions in a publicly funded school. Again, the decision to participate in prayer would be made by the state, not the individual.

The larger point is that these examples illustrate why many people fear social conservatives – simply put, many of the latter’s preferred positions would use the state to intrude on people’s lives and dictate very private and personal decisions to them.

Now, I think this is largely true. But at the same time, if you expand beyond the so-called “social conservative” issues, there are plenty of places where it’s the liberals who would be doing the forcing. Environmental issues, for example, or gun control.

That said, I think the fact that compliance is somehow enforced is not, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing. It depends upon your view of the thing being enforced.

Ridefast:

Some, a small minority, may have jokingly called you Fudds, or maybe mocked you. Your guy, Zumbo, called me a terrorist. Who’s the nasty bastard now?

Read the whole thing.

15 images you’ll think are photoshopped but aren’t.

More from David Kopel.