To help the economy, I bought an Assault Weapon!

I am the proud owner of a Ruger Mini-14 .223 cal semi-automatic rifle. I purchased it today, and I spent an early afternoon sending over 100 rounds down range. It included a 3-9x40 scope, which I will be changing, as it seems to be having a problem holding zero. I bought it, because I can.

The Clinton era Assault Weapons Ban did not specifically include the Ruger Mini-14 by name. And it did not meet the other requirements for definition of Assault weapon. That is, it did not have a folding stock, threaded barrel, pistol grip, grenade launcher, or bayonet mount. But, Senate Bill H.R. 1022 introduced in 2007 took care of that, by specifically listing it as an assault weapon. Luckily, it was defeated.

The Mini-14 is sold with two 5 round clips. The FAWB, and HR 1022 limited the magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Larger capacity rounds manufactured before the ban could still be sold. After the ban expired, large capacity magazines were again manufactured, and I am ordering two 20 round magazines for my rifle.

Ruger classifies the Mini-14 as a Ranch Rifle. The .223 caliber, identical to the 5.56 military round fired by the military M-16, is a relatively small round. Historically, the US Military has subscribed to the tactic of using large caliber rounds for maximum effective stopping power. The Springfield 1903 Bolt Action Rifle of World War I chambered the 30.06 round, as did the M1 Garand of World War II. The predecessor to the M1, the M-14 chambers the NATO 7.62x51. This ammo is heavy, as is the weapons used to fire them. This became an issue during the Vietnam war, and efforts to reduce the weight of both weapon and ammo resulted in the fielding of the M-16 with its 5.56 round. Lighter ammo, with much less recoil meant more ammo could be carried, and placed downrange with greater accuracy. Though the round is smaller, with less stopping power than the 7.62, more rounds accurately placed would have the same effect. (Well, that's the theory, anyway.)

But that makes this round a lousy deer hunting round. Although it can be successfully used to take down small White Tail, more than likely it just result in a wounded animal being lost, or needing an additional shot to dispatch, which kind of goes against the ethics of most hunters. You certainly wouldn't want to hunt Mule deer with it, and if you get caught out in the woods by a Grizzly, you better have a 30 round clip loaded. There are some states which have regulations against hunting deer with the .223 cartridge.

But, it makes a great Varmint rifle. Coyote, rabbit, fox, raccoon, and even wolves where legal can be successfully hunted with this rifle. And that is why Ruger has marketed this as a ranch rifle.

But I don't own a ranch. I'm not a farmer. And for deer hunting, I have a British Enfield .303, and a Mosin Nagant 7.62. And I generally don't hunt varmint. So why did I buy it? Because I can.

Recently, the city of Hardin Montana made inquiries into housing Gitmo detainees in its empty 460 cell jail facility. Hardin lies about 4 hours south of me, which means our community lies in the path of any escaping inmates who may choose to head to Canada. Thus my target practice this afternoon included silhouette targets at 100 yards. You can guess what the silhouettes were.

Since I posses a Concealed Weapons Permit in the state of Montana, a documented background check, including fingerprint check has already been done on me. So when I purchased this rifle, my gun dealer simply referenced that when running the background check on me. Basically this means I am a law abiding citizen, with the right to bear arms, any legal arms, as afforded by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. So I have a right to own this rifle.

Gun Control Activists would like to keep these types of weapons out of the hands of criminals. Noble. And I support that noble idea. But to do so, they would prevent any citizen from the opportunity to purchase such a weapon. There thought process relies on the flawed notion that by making the sale of these weapons illegal, they will not fall into the hands of criminals. They ignore the fact that any criminal who is able to circumvent the law and obtain a weapon that is legal, will also be able to obtain a weapon that is illegal. Gun control is not crime control.

The simple fact of the matter is, most gun crimes are committed with pistols, not semi-automatic weapons. Banning semi-automatic weapons is a knee jerk reaction to isolated tragic incidents. Indeed, the Columbine massacre occurred in 1999, during the previous ban. And the North Hollywood Bank Robbery shootout occurred in 1997, also during the ban, and with automatic weapons, not semi-automatic weapons. Since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, only one school shooting incident involved an assault weapon, when a student opened fire with an AK-47 imitation rifle in Joplin Missouri. There were no injuries. As for the Virginia Tech massacre, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people. With two handguns.

The only thing banning semi-automatic weapons accomplishes, is keeping them away from law abiding citizens. Like me.

Maybe Obama should win in 08

Part of me hopes that Obama WINS this election this year. Now before you tree-hugging, Tofu-Farting liberal nutcases wet yourselves, it’s not because I think your Messiah is the answer to all of our problems. Far from it. I still believe he is bad for America, and America will suffer under his regime.

But I am becoming disillusioned with the conservative movement of late. Or should I say lack of movement. We sat by in 06 while the Republican congress shifted to the Democrats. Most of us were not fooled by their pledge for change, their cries for a chance, their promises to “Change the course of this Nation”. No, we knew the course didn’t need change. We knew they had no intention of governing the people. Their only concern was to discredit, embarrass, and harass the Bush White House. And since they have been in power, that is exactly what has happened. In fact, in the last couple of weeks, one democratic congressman admitted that they said anything they could to get the votes to gain power. Basically, they lied to us to gain control, not to govern, but to investigate. But we sat by and let it happen.

Within 100 days, they launched over 300 investigations, and over 600 oversight hearings. Tell me, when have they had time to govern?

They promised us relief at the pumps from rising gas prices. Since they have been in power, prices have gone up at a steady rate. Where is the relief? What have they done for us? Nothing. Goose egg. Zero. Zilch.

So part of me wants Obama to win, to punish the conservatives. WAKE UP you dumbasses! Are you going to set back and let this happen? Do you like your individual rights, or do you want the government to rule your life? Do you want a choice in health care, or some government regulation as to what you have to have? Did you like the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on the 2nd amendment? How many of you realize that most of our democrat congressmen are NOT happy with it. And it is far from safe. A bill can become a law in a matter of hours or days. Think about how long it took to pass the original Patriot Act. Do you know how long it takes for courts to overturn a law? It took 5 years for the Heller lawsuit to be argued before the SC. And that was fast by most standards.

This is what troubles me. If Obama does win in November, and we Conservatives deserve it if we don’t get off our asses and fight, will the punishment be too severe? Will his presidency, with a democrat congress spell irrecoverable harm to our nation and our very way of life?

Consider this scenario. Obama wins. He pulls the troops out of Iraq. Iraq sinks to civil chaos without our support. Iran moves in whether overtly or covertly. Obama wants to talk. Iran, now stronger, starts rattling swords at Israel. Obama wants to talk. Hezbollah, with Iranian and Syrian backing, turns the heat up on Israel. Obama wants to talk. Best case, Muslim unrest in the area leads to OPEC being politically hijacked, and a barrel of oil now costs $300. Of course, we the people pay for this, because the democrats won’t allow drilling offshore, or in Anwar. Worst case, an Iranian nuke gets detonated somewhere there or over here. Obama wants to talk.

Because it is not in a democrat’s nature to commit troops to prevent this. Read your history. WWII only drew us in with an attack on Pearl Harbor. The Isolationists movement, lead by prominent democrats like Kennedy, would have had us abandon England, just as we abandoned France. Look at Somalia. A few soldiers die, and Clinton tucks his tail between his legs and pulls us out. Up until then, the Somalis saw us as a force to be reckoned with. But when we ran, we told not just them, but the whole world that we do not have the stomach to fight. Never mind the countless acts of bravery (2 Medal of Honors, Delta Force running the Mogadishu Mile). Even Osama admitted that was the turning point in his plans for attacking America.

Now, if this scenario occurs, and we conservatives finally wake up, how much work will we have to do to correct this?

We deserve to loose in November. But can we afford it?

I have a firearm.

I have a firearm. I have a gun, but, well let's just talk about the firearms for now.

I actually have several firearms. I have a 7mm Mauser rifle, an old shotgun, and a Springfield Model 1911A1 45.

The shotgun was my grandfathers. I was given it when he died. It is a simple single shot weapon he used to hunt small game in the hills of Tennessee as a kid. It was my fathers when he grew up, and now it's mine.

The Mauser is a bolt action that my father bought when we lived in Alaska many years ago. It was a German military rifle that has had the stock cut down for sport shooting.

But it is the 45 I want to talk about. When I bought it, I also got my Concealed Weapons permit here in Montana. Now let me address this permit for a moment. Montana law is a little different from what I was used to in Georgia. As best I can remember, in order to carry a loaded weapon concealed in my vehicle in Georgia, I would have to have a concealed carry permit. Not in Montana. The requirement to have a permit in Montana only applies to your person. Montana does not restrict the carrying of a loaded weapon, concealed or otherwise in your vehicle.

Notice how I said that. Montana does not restrict. I could have said "Montana law does not require", or "Montana has no law....", or any one of a dozen other ways. But I chose those words to make a point. The recent Supreme Court ruling solidified what many of us have held to be true for so long. That we have an individual right to Keep and Bear Arms. Individual Right. To Keep and Bear Arms.

The ink was barely dry on the Supreme Court decision when the Leftists Pinko Fascists Tofu-Farting Liberals started wailing. The same whining little wussies who just last week applauded the SC decision to grant terrorists rights, turned 180 degrees and called the court a bunch of activists! One editorial in a Chicago newspaper opined that we should repeal the 2ND amendment. Hey dumb-ass, how about we repeal the first amendment too? You don't want me to have a gun, I don't want you to have pen and paper.

But let's get back to my statement about RESTRICT. One lawmaker stated that the SC established that it is a right, but now we have to see how much we can restrict that right. RESTRICT THAT RIGHT. Because when it comes down to it, that is what these liberals want to do, restrict our rights. Restricting rights equates to government control. And we all know that the liberals are all about government control.

In Montana, the requirements for a concealed carry permit are pretty simple, and understandable. There is the requisite background check (which has ties to the federal Brady Bill). Fingerprinting. Picture. Short application with the standard are you a felon, are you crazy, do you have sex with farm animals (okay that question wasn't on there, but I would have still been okay with it.) The most restrictive (there, I said it) part was the requirement for firearms training. This includes Military training, Peace Officer Training, or even Hunter Safety courses. A minimal application fee, and one week later I am every liberals nightmare: a permit toting individual right practicing angry white man.

Why this blog

I must give credit for this nickname and this blog where it is due. While reading the daily dose of Neal Boortz (http://boortz.com) one day in February, he linked to an editorial from the Aspen Times. Written by Gary Hubbell, February 9, 2008, it is simply titled "In election 2008, don't forget Angry White Man."

Originally from the South, any time I see something with the words "White Man" in it, I cringe, expecting some kind of racist or racial pining. This article was neither. As I read it, I realized that it hit the high points of just about everything that pisses me off these days. When I finished, I realized it pretty much summed up how I feel about many things in America.

His column has made the rounds of the Internet, as well as talk radio. Sean Hannity featured it, and Rush read the entire thing on the air. Being published in a liberal paper like the Aspen Times was somewhat shocking, given that most liberal rags tend to shy away from equal time to conservative views.

I won't print the article here. (Copyright rules and such). But here is the link: http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324&parentprof...

That's the basis for my blog. If you like it, keep coming back. If you don't, exercise your freedom of choice and move on. I don't care. I'm not here to please you.