Happy remaining Independence Day

Wow... no posts since May? I'm slipping. Or not slipping, and just heinously busy.

I can confirm it's the latter, actually. I'm in holding pattern; next week starts a different schedule for me, because I've elected to take myself down to one afternoon a week at the gun shop, and that only to keep "updated" and to give the top brass a night when they can both go home early.

What happened? Job #1 increased in activity and difficulty by a couple factors of ten. And, I'm enjoying it... I'm always up for a challenge. But there were so many days when I was busy enough to not get out until 6, and then a mad rush to the gun shop to work all of 2 hours, and the extra activity meant that when I got home I was so wired I couldn't sleep... weeks where there was at most 15 hours of sleep total, it started affecting my health, as well as driving me back into nicotine for a short while (hence stopped again, I thank the power above that I don't have strong withdrawal symptoms and only get the urge to smoke when I'm severely sleep deprived).

Result? Save for those Mondays, I'll have at least a couple free hours to myself at home daily, and they won't be wasted... I have a clipboard (soon to be an excel file) full of the kind of little home projects that leave you satisfied after an hour's work. Prime example: after a short hunt, I came home with some plastic garden hose shutoff valves yesterday. They were for the tanks on my dehumidifiers, which have always been right bastards to empty without spilling water everywhere. A little time with a 1/2" drill to the molded-in "sprue" on the tanks (they cast in a threaded hose blank, and left the ends closed), tighten the valve on, viola... instead of walking over to the sump pit and turning the tank over to dump, getting water everywhere and upping the humidity in the garage, I can neatly walk the full tank upstairs, park it next to the kitchen sink, flip a valve and walk off to do something else. PERFECT afternoon project, and I've got at least 30 of those marked down.

Firearm acquisition will suffer, unfortunately. That's ok, I have plenty, and still need to work on several of them (re: 3 complete AK kits with full complements of parts for 922r compliance are sitting jumbled in a plastic bin waiting for me, as well as a perfectly good .45 1911 slide assembly that needs a frame parked under it, sighting in the .444, degreasing some of the war horses, etc.) I'll save some money though, with time means I can cook again, though it'll likely be a wash. I may have enough time to me to sit down and draw out some ideas I've had, the ones I haven't been busy blabbing all over thefirearmblog.blogspot.com.

I'm probably going to re-assume my old schedule when the holidays roll around... by then the primary job will have settled a bit, and I should be well rested and recovered and ready to bust my hump again.

I just have to remember to not feel lazy because I've decided to not work a 60+ hour week for the first time in half a decade, you know?

Ruger's new offering....

Ruger apparently just introduced a new rifle to the world:

The Ruger Phaeton.

Oops, I mean the VW SR-556. No, I mean...

I mean someone's going to get fired over this, mark my words. Introducing a new product in an over-represented market at a price point out of sorts with the reputation of the manufacturer, where the casual buyer is either price-focused towards a general item (in this case, the SR556 is undifferentiated form other offerings) or name-focused on differentiated items with particular features (ex: the piston-driven fans, who have bushmaster, LWRC, et. al. as established marks)...

... that's a sure recipe for success, right? Right?

Fractal Government.

This was a long semi-researched ramble I made earlier tonight, somewhere else. I present it as a scratchpad, feel free to grab with attribution or present your own cases....

=======

Most of the issue that I see with our modern form of government is that the powers outlined to the congress in the later amendments, powers to "enforce by appropriate legislation", while not wholly wrong as borne out by a couple centuries worth of rulings, violates the spirit of the constitution. When there's a problem or a service to be rendered on a national scale, the traditional means of taking care of it was to have the federal government, by legislation or executive order, forms a department to create binding regulation that apply, if they so wish, universally.

A department formed in such a manner is staffed from the top... nominally by an elected representative, that top staffing is almost always an appointment, and while "vetted" by the house (an abuse of it's own by letter of law, it's supposed to be a confirmation), it's still an unrepresentative appointment. That appointment proceeds to fill out the department by hire; sub-appointments, internal committees... none of which are directly accountable to the people, except by the inbuilt "holes" in federal sovereignty, and legal fictions like the stripping doctrine.

The result of such top-down management is a concentration of power as far away from the citizenry as can be possible within the bounds of the constitution.

The solution: remove those departments from the control of the federal government which constitute regulating bodies controlling matters outside the constitutionally allotted jurisdiction therof. Amazingly, the mechanism for the alternative already exists within the bounds of the Constitution, though some improvements may be made later.



Firstly, satisfy Article 1, Section 10, Clause three... stating that no state may enter into a compact or agreement with another state without authorization by congress.

Let's make an example... the department of widgets. Created at the turn of the 20'th century, it's a classic federal department involved with the regulation of the numbers and types of productions of widgets and their authorized distribution overseas. It's a classic top-down run organization with an executive appointed Secretary.

To reform this organization without removing the benefits (should there be any) while removing the potential for abuse and heavy handedness, we need to move the control mechanism to rest upon a vehicle that's much more accountable and fast-moving. Congress would need to pass a bill that allows for each of the 50 states to form a compact, governing in parliamentary fashion, controlling the Department of Widgets. One or more representatives from each state would be assigned, by whatever mechanism the given state deems required but limited in number by the original compact agreement unless overruled by a parliamentary super-majority, a position in the management tower. Amongst them, they elect a "minister" to their parliament... the new Secretary of Widgets, who performs as an interface to the federal government.

If a state doesn't like the actions of the new Department of Widgets, it can act to change their representative vote by changing the representative to the department. If the citizens of the state don't like how the state is managing their interface with the department, the citizens can change the state government.... a much more responsive and granular control.

Look at the above. A citizen would have only TWO representative layers to a DIRECT change in the behavior of an organization. The federal government would have jurisdiction over the department only in the matters in which is has constitutional authority. States would have much better control over the environment in which they have to function. The capacity for overreach and abuse by the department is reduced by an incredible amount by this, because they're held, depending on the manner the state issues forth it's representation, either directly responsible or responsible through one or two layers of *state* government.

Now, we can take this a step further, perhaps into the twilight zone... taxation. It's a foregone conclusion that the federal government does perform duties and tasks essential to the health of the nation, and that takes money... and a direct taxation scheme in that manner would remain, as distasteful as it seems, appropriate. But if the IRS were broken down from a monolithic department into a state operated compact, the power of taxation for other matters shifts to the state, where it can be a much more fair and controlled method. In fact, the direct federal taxation of the people could be abolished altogether and replaced with a system by which individual states collect taxes to be collected and apportioned to the various other state compact departments and nonessential federal schemes by system of request and dispensation.

The shift of power to the citizenry would be near unprecedented, yet we haven't lost a single government service because of it. States could readily adapt their own taxation schemes to fit their own unique socioeconomic situations. Internal state departments of taxation would be much smaller and much easier to deal with than a single federal department. The level of efficiency could be outstanding, and while it sounds frightening, the effects of experimentation would be much reduced, only affecting the citizens of an individual state, who are more than welcome to vote up or down the new changes with ballots or even their own feet.

Now, this isn't a classic states rights argument... the 14'th amendment and incorporation are well ingrained into the national tort. But it is a re-imagining of the means of control of national government services. Some processes may move slower, this is true... but they move much more carefully, and after all the regulations and rules that come from these departments affect the everyday lives of the citizens.

=======

The improvements to the constitution mentioned above:

1 - an amendment nailing down the meaning of the commerce clause. That and that alone has been the source of more top-down, regimental abuse than anything short of prohibition (18'th amendment)

2 - Strike the 17'th amendment. Direct election of senators may *seem* to be in the interest of the people, but what it ends up doing is removing a check between the state governments and the federal government. At the moment, a state government has recourse against the federal via the judicial branch, which is a misuse; the state governments have no representation whatsoever against the federal government. This protocol could be demonstrated first in the above "fractal government" because in essence the senate itself would be one of the state driven departments, with the purpose to effect and affect federal legislation.

3 - Strike the second clause of the 21'st amendment. That's the one that reads "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." and is a prime example of losing the plot... the only other place in the constitution where the PEOPLE are directly restrained is the 13'th, which should stand, prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude (of which a draft *during a time of war* is not, several rulings...)

4 - changes outside constitution: with the striking of the 17'h amendment, remove capacity of senate to amend spending bills. Senate vote should be up or down only.

4b - changes to house and senate rules: all congressional bills must remain within a scope of a particular subject or single issue, and must be read aloud with 80% of the voting caucus in attendance before a final vote.

Clarity is not optional in front of a frightened crowd.

(This would have gone in a comment on the relevant page, but on said page the captcha system went insane, and locked me out. This is my recourse.)

(page in question: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/mccaffrey-on-mexico-23-march-2009.htm )


Now, I've very carefully reviewed both posts, and determined the problem here.

Mr. Yon, you are guilty of horrible timing. You see, today on the news we all heard Secretary Clinton invoke AmMex as a prime reason to reinstate the assault weapons ban. You turn this phrase;

"I have no plans to give up my hardware, but we must be honest here and help curb flows that are killing Mexicans and Americans. "

..without any corroboration or real explanation. In the mind of the reader, who has just had the world painted in terms of Mexico==AWB thanks to Hillary, you just said "Ain't gettin' rid of mine, but some's got to be rid of".

McCaffrey uses the same idea in his post, but a little clearer.

"We owe the Mexican people better protection of their security forces by effectively interdicting the huge US flow of automatic weapons and laundered drug money back south. (26,000 weapons seized last year.) "

Heuristically, exactly the same as your sentiment (I gather, as you are unclear). Interdiction of illegal arms trade does not equal AWB, and would likely be highly supported by the community of shooters.

There is nothing patently offensive to the "gun crowd" in McCaffrey's NJO writing. It's quite supportable. But the TIMING is AWFUL, particularly to bring it up in the midst of a vague and "buzzword" filled post, which paints the NJO article and colors it's tone by association. And yes, your post is rather vague and buzzy, given the "mood of the day".

And if that wasn't bad enough, Mr. Yon, I've seen your initial reply, even though it's off the site. It's offensive, both directly and indirectly to the intelligence of the reader.

"My work is misquoted around the world every day, but nowhere as often as on my own site. "

Fantastic. Unfortunately in this instance your work was misquoted because the definition and intent was not clear at all.

"If they invest only that minimal level of attention to the guns they are apparently packing, it's just a matter of time before they accidentally shoot themselves or someone else. Attention to detail is an important component of gun safety."

Oh, Mr. Yon. On the defensive, and antagonizing the audience. That's not a very wise move, particularly when the vast crowd who's disturbed by the original post consists of more than a few supporters... or ex-supporters. You shifted to a high-handed tone and patronized an angry mob of "hurt" people who thought you were "one of the guys".

It's a mistake, I'm telling you. And you'd best consider your next response to these people and make a clear, unequivocal statement on your stance and the intent of your post or they will, as they have already started, eat you alive in front of the altar of Zumbo.

I don't want to see that happen, you do good work.
Godspeed,
DrStrangegun

Suitably strange.

I haven't had a truly "odd" thought stream in a while. And then, one struck.

.38 S&W. 9mm Makarov. Has anyone ever really looked at how close these are?

1 - With a .002" swaging, you should be able to load ~95gr Makarov bullets in .38 S&W cases, and probably get close to the listed 1000fps ballistics (if you can get 800fps from a 158gr, you ought to be well within pressures with a 200fps rise on a bullet less than 2/3 the weight). If I had a ballistics simulation program I could figure what .361"@95gr FMJ into 14Kpsi ends up being, but I don't.

2 - With relatively little work, one could modify a makarov-based platform into a .38 S&W single shot and possibly still get reasonable accuracy of it. The .38 case is only 0.060 longer roughly, and the rim could be accounted for by filing the end of the chamber down... you may have the bullet stuck into the rifling but you're 0.002" undersized soft lead.

3 - With even less work, and some crossed fingers, it seems to me that one could, given a suitably strong pistol, shoot 9mm Mak out of a .38 S&W revolver. I AM IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM ADVOCATING ANYONE ATTEMPT THIS. .38 S&W is 14,000psi, Mak is 23,000PSI, halfway between .38sp +P and .357 Magnum. I'm just looking at the numbers here... if you stuck a .015" thickness C-clip into the extractor rim of a mak cartridge, you have a reasonable, though .002" oversized, approximation of the size of the .38 S&W.

You will very probably damage the gun beyond repair, but that's handy to know if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere during zombie apocalypse, and you have everything and the kitchen sink with you as far as "common" calibers, but someone in your party has Grandad's old Enfield tanker and no ammo. One zombie, two zombie, three zombie, four, *ping* there goes the top latch, gun's thoroughly toast but you're +4 better in the odds bank, better some help than none right?

Ramble ramble ramble...

I don't work at CCA for the guns or the money, no...



I work there for the incredibly stylish pens we get every year. I do seriously like this though :)

----

H&R handi-rifle SB2, in .357 magnum


LOOK at the beef around that chamber! I'm not particularly worried about *any* commercial load I can find ever wearing this sucker out.


And, I finally figured out how to take a photo of a reticle; this is a Tasco Pronghorn 2.5x with the diamond reticle. Works very well with this package.




The irony won't be lost on some folks... the pen photos were taken using the lovely robins-egg blue of the ATF's 2005 publication 5300.5, State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms.

Latelies

We have entered one of those periods of time where real life takes over and the outgoing data feed thins.

What's happened lately?

- I'm wrangling to figure out how to get a free car home, a '92 Lincoln with a bad transmission.

- I'm in posession of a new 10 gallon air tank to assist with such retrieval

- Friday I come home to find water flowing down my driveway. 4 hours and $575 later, I've installed a new 40 gallon "energy smart" water heater, and have a brace of new plumbing tools.

- Friday, being handy was demonstrated to be a wonderful thing.

- I just finished hooking up one used intel Mac Mini to my big screen via HDMI. I cannot express just how absolutely freaking *gorgeous* the picture is, and it plays fullscreen 1080i video without a hitch, even streaming TV episodes from NBC.com and upscaled DVDs. Now I just have to figure out the audio portion.... and as much as I'd hate to not route through the TV for this, I may have to bypass. I like to use as few user steps as possible, and I've got it set up now that audio switches with the video source on the television, and the surround reciever stays on one source. I do this because my ancient surorund reciever's remote has *teeny* tiny buttons.

- I will probably very soon need to find myself a new cellphone. The buttons are beginnning to stick on my old standby. Damned thing's only 6 years old, can't imagine what's wrong...

That is all. I now resume my previous activity of watching Patton in HD.