Second Amendment
GrantCunningham.com - Revolver Liberation Alliance blog

Monday meanderings.

Monday, December 14, 2009

GETTING THE MESSAGE: I've been harping on the failures of "Rule #1" for some time now, and it seems that the attitude is catching on. Slowly, but at least progress is being made.

IT ISN'T JUST ME: I've recently expounded on the issue of dogmatic teaching in the self defense world, and I'm not alone in my criticism. Check out this post from Roger Phillips over at warriortalk.com, then read the entire discussion. (I've never met Roger, don't know him from Adam, but he makes sense. Can't say that about everyone.)

POCKET COMPANION: no, not a J-frame! From Dustin's Gun Blog I learned of a new iPhone/iPod Touch app called Legal Heat. It's an interactive version of their printed guide to concealed carry and gun laws in all 50 states, written by attorneys and instructors. It' a great idea, and something that's needed. Unfortunately, despite the viability of the concept I cannot in good conscience recommend this particular app.

There is a big issue with Legal Heat's usability. The pages are just images of the book, which means they're pictures and not text. This sounds inconsequential, but it's not. When you bring up the laws on a state, because it's showing the whole page the text is tiny; unreadably small. To read it, you need to magnify the image by pinching. (The usual double-tap doesn't work, because it doesn't work on full-frame images!) Once you magnify the image to read the text, you have to continually scroll back and forth because images don't wrap text. Finally, the app doesn't support screen rotation; it only displays in portrait orientation, which exacerbates the scrolling issue.

Frankly, iPhone users are accustomed to a higher level of application quality than Legal Heat delivers. If they would simply make their pages actual text and enable screen rotation I'd be comfortable recommending it. As it stands, even at $1.99 it's not worth the hassle.

DEAL ALERT: My background in commercial photography has left me more than a little anal retentive with regards to optics, particularly when it comes to binoculars. I'm a fan of porro-prism designs, as they a) have better three-dimensional perspective, b) are brighter, and c) cost less than roof-prism types for any given level of optical quality (resolution/contrast.)

Minox makes some of the best porro-prism binocs. The optical performance is exceptional, and the build quality matches the glass. They make an 8x and a 10x version, and at a street price of roughly $550 they are something of a bargain; you'll need to spend roughly twice as much to get a roof prism of comparable performance, and you still won't get the perspective advantage that the porro-prism design gives you.

Despite their advantages, porro-prism designs are distinctly unfashionable these days and don't sell well regardless of brand. Roof prisms are what people buy, and Minox has bowed to the market: they've discontinued the 10x model. SWFA is closing them out at $299.95, which has to be classed as a screaming good deal. You won't find anything even approaching their optical performance for that kind of money. (Yes, I grabbed a pair - for that price, I wasn't about to pass them up!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: , , ,

|

Monday meanderings.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Is it just me, or does anyone else smell something fishy in the sudden rash of mass murders involving firearms? I'm not one to latch on to conspiracy theories, but as someone once told me: "two is a coincidence, three is a pattern."

---

Speaking of recent shootings, it seems the police in the Binghampton incident waited more than an hour to make entry, despite the emerging protocol of immediate engagement upon arrival. Their Chief is now busy making excuses for the delay; one is reminded of the "Blues Brothers Gambit": "I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT!"

---

The gun prohibitionists, realizing the the Mexican Argument for U.S. gun control isn't gaining any traction, have jumped on the chance to use the blood of the innocent to further their ambitions. Their latest planted story is that of the former newspaper editor who "almost went postal" once upon a time. Naturally, he blames the wide availability of guns (and specifically his "hunting rifle") for contributing to his supposed mental instability. (See if you can spot the egregious gun terminology error in his story...)

---

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: ,

|

Monday meanderings.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Sometimes it's hard to understand the mindset of gun prohibitionists, because they come from a different perspective than those of us who hold the opposite view. Unless you can relate to their perspective, you will always look at them in the same way one might look at the monkeys in the zoo.

From ManiacWorld comes this enlightening video. Watch it and learn what you're up against. (I wanted to embed it here, but couldn't find a way to do so. Sorry.)

---

Steve over at The Firearms Blog posted this superb analysis of Remington's new triangular barrels. I had thought that the tensioned upper and compressed lower ribs would serve to reduce barrel flex, but didn't have the engineering background to verify my belief. Steve's correspondent does. Great information.

---

From The Anarchangel comes this cartoon with implications for the CHL holder:

security

The lawfully carried firearm doesn't necessarily make you safer, folks - it simply gives you a means to resist initiated force. Without awareness and a basic understanding of the nature of violent attacks, all of your painstaking preparation can be rendered moot by a simple blow to the head.

If you carry, but aren't truly aware of your surroundings, you aren't as safe as you think you are. The bad guy can still come out of your blind side and achieve the same result. I've met lots of gunnies who profess to always be in "condition yellow", yet stare straight ahead while crossing a parking lot to their car. When was the last time you looked under your car as you approached, or flashed a light in the back seat before unlocking the door? Do you understand why you should never take a parking space you have to back out of? Do you know the difference between "looking" and "seeing"?

Just as having the most expensive kitchen won't magically turn you into Wolfgang Puck, carrying the currently fashionable handgun in your guru's favorite caliber won't automatically make you safe. (I've often thought about teaching a class on self defense from the basis of situational awareness, but sadly the topic isn't sexy enough to sell.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags: , , ,

|

Monday meanderings.

Monday, February 02, 2009

I wrote last week (one of the lost posts, sadly) about a shooting that happened just north of me in Portland. One of the local stations ran some aspect of that story as their lead every day for a solid week, referring to it as a "shooting rampage."

It's not surprising, though. This is the same television station that was the corporate sponsor of a gun "buyback" event last November, and even did a live remote during their morning news show.

Jerks. I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.

---

A buddy and I have had an email exchange regarding the engine failures on the Airbus which ditched in the Hudson River. As I told him: "I've never flown on an Airbus, and never will. I've owned a French automobile, and the thought of traveling above the earth in a device built by a committee containing engineers from Peugeot (let alone Citroen) scares me to death!"

---

Thanks for all who expressed concern over the data loss I experienced last week. I have recovered the lost posts, and as I get time will be formatting (links, pics, etc.) and reposting them.

---

Last Friday, Uncle brought us the story of a protest against ROTC arms training. The group's web page reveals a startling fear of inanimate objects, including what they refer to as "high powered pellet" rifles.

I wonder what it's like to travel through life being scared of everything around you...

---

Coming up in the next few weeks...I'll have some thoughts on CNC machining, women & guns, facing demons, and more. Stay tuned!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tags:

|

I'm not gloating....

Monday, July 07, 2008

...quite the opposite, in fact.

A client sent me this link to the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department's FAQ regarding handgun ownership. As you know, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Heller case struck down the handgun ban in DC. However, it did not address the ban on semiautomatic handguns in the District, which still stands.

The result is that the only handgun DC residents will be allowed to own is a revolver.

As you are no doubt already aware, I'm a big fan of revolvers. I'm on record as saying that there is no job a good revolver can't do; I originated the phrase "the world isn't flat, your gun shouldn't be either." I believe that owning a revolver displays innate good sense and good taste, and an appreciation of the finer things in life.

Still, people shouldn't be forced to own one by limiting their freedom to choose something else.

It's great that the District's residents may now own a handgun; it's not so great that they won't get a choice in what kind of handgun. I'm hoping that someone will take the District back to court and have that part of their ineffective laws struck down. At that point, residents will be able to decide for themselves what they'd like to own.

If you're in DC, I support your right to decide for yourself which to own: a beautiful, graceful, efficient revolver - or an ugly, ungainly, unreliable, ill-fitting, bottom-feeding, ground littering, reciprocating monstrosity.

(Not that I'm biased, you understand!)

-=[ Grant ]=-
|

BREAKING NEWS: DC v. Heller decision affirmed!

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just announced their decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case: the lower court decision, striking down the onerous firearms laws in Washington, D.C., has been upheld.

The Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Hooray! On the downside, there is only a single majority opinion and at least two dissenting, so it's not a slam-dunk. Still, it's good news.

UPDATE: The full text of the opinion is available at this link. (Note: it's a .pdf file, not a webpage.) Quote from the decision: " possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

You will see this phrase often: "traditional lawful purpose."

-=[ Grant ]=-
|

Supreme Court update

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce their decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case tomorrow morning, commencing at 10:am EDT. The best place to follow their announcement is the SCOTUS Blog, which has live coverage of every Court decision.

Regardless of which direction the Court takes, tomorrow will be groundbreaking in the history of the Second Amendment.

-=[ Grant ]=-
|

A funny thing happened on the way to the Supreme Court

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Everyone with access to a keyboard is blogging about Heller v. D.C. today. The level of insight varies from brilliant to "yesterday I couldn't spell blogger, today I iz one."

Lest I be thought in the latter category, I will refrain from commenting on the proceedings. I will, however, leave you with this quote from Gun Law News:

No matter what the outcome from the Supreme Court, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center will declare victory. Then they will initiate fund raising based upon their "victory".

That, folks, is the only certainty in this whole case!

-=[ Grant ]=-
|

In case you haven't heard

Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (the case is better known as Parker v. District of Columbia, wherein five other D.C. residents seek to join Mr. Heller's suit. Heller, then, is the base decision that we are most concerned with.)

There is much hand-wringing about this case. A certain segment of the firearms fraternity (I'll call them the Not Ready Alliance, or "NRA" for short) doesn't want the case to be heard, because "we might lose, and then what will happen?!?" The other side, which I'll call "Gung-ho Order of Allegiance" ("GOA", in case you don't get the joke) is proclaiming "this is GREAT! Now we'll get rid of all those unconstitutional laws all over the country! Let's go get 'em!"

My position? Simple: sooner or later, the SCOTUS is going to hear a Second Amendment case. That much is sure. It might as well be this one.

From my standpoint, it's best if they hear Heller and not something else. Why? Because we are unlikely to find another case anytime soon that has a better chance of coming out on "our side." It is as close as to a "slam dunk" as we will probably ever see, and I'd rather they look at Heller than some other, less solid, case.

What's more, this court is probably the best relative to individual rights that we'll have in a long time. Don't get me wrong: this court is no friend of the Constitution, and has shown so time and again, but it's about as good as has existed in my lifetime.

(Given the field of likely Presidential nominees - of either party - they aren't going to get any better, either. Only one candidate holds out hope of real change in this matter, and unfortunately he's not getting a lot of support from the "gun culture." More's the pity.)

Again, it's not about the downside if we lose or the upside if we win; it's about timing. This battle has always been inevitable, and the smart warrior chooses to engage when he is strongest and his opponents are weakest. For us, that is now.

Let the chips fall where they may.

-=[ Grant ]=-
|
© 2010 Grant Cunningham Click to email me!