Another Kind Of FUDD

The original Fudd is the person with the manually operated hunting rifle who cannot fathom the want for an AR or other black rifle.

Then there's the kind of Fudd who supports owning a gun and carrying a gun, as long as nobody knows they own, carry and shoot them.

Now I bump into the kind of Fudd who believes that licenses to carry are not only a good idea, but that the training and testing is already set too low.

Liberty is terrifying.

I heard about how there were slaves who, when freed, couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that they could just leave and do anything they wanted... except stay where they were and remain a slave.

I'm watching its psychological cousin at work.

"Constitutional carry?  You mean like Vermont?  Let just anyone carry a gun without first making sure they're responsible?  No training? No testing?  No licensing?"

Yup!

"I don't think I can support that.  It's already too easy to get a carry permit."

Wrote Me A Letter

My state representative has this in their inbox:

Hello!

I would like you to support, and cosponsor, HB273 introduced by Rep. Anthony Sabatini.

"Constitutional" carry is simply put, as the founders of the nation intended it to be.  Nothing more should be said about such a right.  Sadly, more must be said.

Constitutional carry was once known as Vermont carry, because before 2003 when it was joined by Alaska, Vermont was the ONLY state with such liberty.  Since 2010 14 other states have joined them.

Presently there are several cases of persons who have had their concealed weapons permits revoked because the department of agriculture cannot be bothered to differentiate between two people of similar names.  This likely stems from the office changing from Republican to Democrat hands.  The right to carry a firearm for self defense should not rest on the whim of whom has most recently won an election.  That power is not vested in the office of commissioner of agriculture and consumer services.

Because the commissioner has proven that the office can be abused to violate the people of Florida's rights, the ability to do so should be removed from the office.

Permitless carry makes it impossible for a vindictive commissioner from denying a law abiding citizen from exercising their legal rights as citizens.

Additionally Florida is one of only five states with severe restrictions on the open carry of firearms.  Again it is the abuse of governmental power which brings us to need legislative relief from such abuse.  Law enforcement is unaware of the legislative intent of 790.053 and are persecuting lawful citizens for a minor infraction as if they were deliberately and unlawfully open carrying.  Once again, making the practice completely legal removes the ability to abuse the rights of the citizen.

You will be inundated by cries of opponents to this bill that it will cause additional violence.  There are, presently, 16 states with no license requirement to carry a firearm and none of them have experienced any of the dire consequences predicted by the opponents of the respective bills.

You will be told by the supposed representatives of Florida's law enforcement community that it will make their jobs more difficult and they oppose such bills.  There are 16 states which show that their objections are groundless.

Many of the same objections were made in 1987 when Florida became one of the very few states to have "shall issue" conceal carry licenses.  In the intervening 32 years, none of the dire predictions came true.  Not one single thing.

Passage of this bill will not increase violence or crime, it will not unduly burden the law enforcement community and it will not have a negative effect on commerce or tourism.

This is a great bill to find out who our friends and enemies are.  Do they support or oppose liberty?

Love Death And Robots

Marv and I have started Netflix's show Love, Death and Robots.

So far it's been a hoot!

Kind of a CGI Animated Twilight Zone in some ways.

Worth your time if you like Sci Fi.

Sunny Optimism

Rather than spread doom and gloom and provide cover for the forces of evil...

Floridians could carry a gun without a license.

h/t Erin

Text of HB 273.

This has my wholehearted support.

It probably isn't going to get much traction, but it's something we can write to our local congress creatures to support.

Doing The TL Project

None of my TL Project characters has been made with a template.

Old fashioned character generation.

Come up with the concept, define the person, allocate the points.

It's GURPS, so it's time consuming.

Templates speed up the character generation process and make the game a bit more accessible.

A problem arises when a new player uses the templates from day one and then begins to think that you have to use a template to create a character.

It's amplified when you bring a self-generated character to fill a role where there's a template and this player has advanced to being the GM.

There will be fights about the aspects of the character which are missing from the template.

That said, I like templates as guidelines.

They're very handy for the player whom has no idea about what a character for a given role should have and they help establish what the GM expects to see on their character sheet.

But they're not a good long-term substitute for learning the details of character creation and knowing when to depart from the template.

The Sky Is Not Falling

It occurred to me why there are so few examples of rifle open carry which result in a law being changed to the detriment of gun rights.

It's perfectly legal in most of the country, so there's no open carry protesting going on.

Dark Green: Permissive Open Carry (26 states).
Light Green: Permissive Open Carry with Local Restrictions (6 states).
Yellow: Licensed Open Carry (13 states).
Orange: Anomalous (1 state).
Red: Non-permissive (4 states and DC).

Getting California out of the way: It's kinda permissive in rural areas, but not really but...  It depends on the attitude of the local chief LEO.  California had a spate of open carry protesting and the virtual elimination of open carry any place where you could see another person.  But the protests there were in response to legislation moving to eliminate open carry, not the cause of the laws.  Cart goes behind the horse; double check.

Texas got two open carry expansions since the "idiots at Chipolte" were carrying rifles.  First was licensed open carry the second is to allow open carry without the license in the period immediately following a natural disaster.  There have been no changes to the unlicensed open carry of long arms except for the addition of the 30.07 signage for a business whom wishes to ban open carry on the premises.  Anyone got a picture of a 30.07 sign without a 30.06 sign (which bans concealed guns)?

We've got Florida and Florida Carry's armed fishing events pissing off people in the blue corner of the state.  This one actually has a nominally Republican mayor asking an anti-gun Democrat state senator to expand the gun-free school zone law to ban open carry while hunting, fishing or camping if they are within the arbitrarily defined distance from schools and the like.  This only affects open carry and despite the doom and gloom isn't being widely reported outside of gun blogs who hate the idea of anyone doing something they wouldn't do themselves.  Moms Demand Action was invited to the pre-season committee meetings, the pro gun side was not.

And...

Minnesota and Target?  A corporation that supports Democrat candidates (and both parties generically) with a liberal interim CEO caving into the demands of the Bloomberg funded and supported Minnesota chapter of Moms Demand Action.  No laws changed.  By the way, the protests started because Minnesota Moms Demand Action was demanding Target ban open carry (and conceal carry because idiot conceal carriers leave guns in the shitter).

Aside: isn't it interesting that nobody pro-gun demands that conceal carry be banned because of stupidity; but jump right in on open carry for a much smaller level of stupid?

Anywhere else?  Pittsburg?  Moms Demand Action demanding assault weapon ban from the city because a criminal shot up a Synagogue.  Pittsburg had been trying to ban them unsuccessfully for decades, and despite the state preemption on such local laws the ordinance passed (which it was on the fast track to do before the protesters open carried).  Another lawsuit to get the preemption enforced has been filed.

In California and Pennsylvania the open carry protests were something of a hail Mary.  They didn't help, but they also didn't actually hurt because the laws were going to be passed even if they stood there in fine tailored suits and harrumphed audibly.

Texas may actually have worked on the "make it legal for us to carry pistols and this stupid shit will stop" level, but since it's not mentioned in the debates I think they were simply ignored by the pro-carry side and the laws were passed on their own merit.

Florida...  well we're among such shining bastions of freedom, liberty and gun rights as Illinois, New York and The District of Columbia with regards to open carry.  How do you get your voice heard over the flutter of millions of dollars of Bloomberg and Soros money?

Happily there's just no groundswell to widely punish gun owners because of people LEGALLY open carrying.  In fact the trend, nationally, is in the other direction.  The overall response has been a massive yawn.

Where there is a negative response, it's from people who've made it their life's work to get all guns completely banned and from "pro-gun" bloggers and publications who object to the practice.

The real effect of the "pro-gun" objection is to give the dedicated anti-gunner's a hook to present to lawmakers.  "Even the pro-gun people don't like this!" while they selectively cite a small list of blogs, "See?  This one wants machine guns made legal, but even they want open carry banned!"

No, I am not happy about it.  Beans referring to these bloggers as "Quislings" is kind of true.

But What About...

I am not taking a position on abortion here, not pro or con.

But an observation I've had over many election cycles.

The real third rail of politics is abortion.

I know of ten (10) women who are very much otherwise conservative who voted for Obama twice because Maverick or Mittens were definitely going to ban abortions.

This ties into open carry because the loudest voices of late who condemn OC will, without hesitation, talk about abortion = murder.  Check their blogs.

The pro-life stance gets Democrats elected.

Democrats then pass all kinds of anti-freedom stuff none of us want.

Democrats then nominate and confirm judges who rule on all kinds of anti-freedom stuff none of us want.

Democrats oppose reasonable expansions of all kinds of pro-liberty stuff we all want.

Democrats oppose the nomination and confirmation of judges who would rule on all kinds of pro-liberty stuff we all want.

So, tell me, who's doing more damage here?

Me with no advocacy, or you with a staunch Pro-Life stance?

If the order of the day is to not freak the mundane, there's nothing the mundane have taken to heart like abortion rights.  Why is it OK for you to freak them out so bad we lose elections but verboten for open carriers to maybe, possibly, could happen any decade now, change a law to the negative?

Especially with all the fairly liberal, pro-choice, people fleeing to Florida from places like New York.

Hypocrisy Defined

Condemning a lack of action in others for something that you, yourself, do not do.

If you're not going to show up, you don't get to berate others about not showing up.

Dammit Another Down

One less flying B-17 in the world.

Seven fewer people to enjoy them.

On one hand, they were made to fly.

On the other, every flight has a chance of a catastrophe.

Eventually, if you keep flying them, the odds catch up.

I am torn, but part of me thinks that, despite the deaths, that this is a better (and more fitting end) than to end up as sculpture.

TL 7

Andrew Hendricks is a pilot.

It's all he ever wanted to be, but he wasn't wealthy or willing to join the military.

But it's the early 1970's and how can one feed the need to fly without a college education, good job, rich parents or Uncle Sam footing the bills?

Turns out that there's an emerging demand for people who know how to stick and rudder and don't care what's riding in the back.

Andrew was put with George Jung and the rest is gaming history!

Andrew is good with people despite being a loner, and he adapts to where he finds himself.

He's ingratiated himself with the budding cartels in Columbia and works through George to deliver in Miami.

The good times, of course, will never end!

TL 0 is here.
TL 1 is here.
TL 2 is here.
TL 3 is here.
TL 4 is here.
TL 5 is here.
TL 6 is here.
TL 8 is here. 

Not Even Related

The Madsen M/50 and the Swedish K just look similar.

They are not even related to each other.

I discovered this when picking out a gun for my TL7 character for my TL project.

Madsen M/50:

Swedish K or Carl-Gustav M/45

They're close enough for GURPS to treat with the same stats.

My drug smuggling pilot has a Madsen, which was aptly enough an official gun of the Colombian Army.

It took forever for me to finish my TL zero through seven and TL7 was the hang up.  I'd had this character in mind from the very beginning and just never put pencil to paper until today.

Not So Simple

The tank filler hose I mentioned before is not a straight length of "rubber" hose.

It's got a gentle 's' curve to it.

I harvested this one from the new-to-me tank I bought just to get this part.

Because GM just cannot make things easy...

Despite being marked 1"...

It's 1" at the filler neck and 1-3/8" at the gas tank.

The captive hose clamps are even different sizes:

At the tank.  30-45mm translates from Godless Metric to 1.18" to 1.77"

At the filler neck.  25-40mm translates from Godless Metric to 0.98" to 1.57"

What GM has managed is to make it nearly impossible to use standard fuel line!

Well, not impossible.  Some 1-3/8" with a REALLY cranked down hose clamp at the filler neck would probably work just fine.

This problem is a double whammy.

First it's the mother-fucking greenies who have managed to crank down the emissions standards so tight that the permeability of the "rubber" to fuel vapors matters.

That's why this little length of hose cost $100 back when GM still had some.  The GM6289M printed on the side refers to a specification over permeability.

I am pretty sure that C.A.R.B. is responsible for this specification.

The second whammy is GM making the tank and filler neck different diameters.  That tends to lock the owner into the GM part or nothing when the "rubber" eventually deteriorates.

GM6289M has been supplanted by GMW15349.  I am willing to bet that some stupid law or treaty makes it illegal to manufacture new parts to the old spec because GLOBAL WARMING!  Or some such asinine reason.

The stocks of this part got slammed but hard with the recall over the fuel pump's outlet cracking at the bend and spraying the underside of the car...  Mechanics under recall tended to replace the filler neck and the crossover tube as a matter of course "just in case" and besides, "We're not the ones paying for it, Corporate is."

If you combine the massive demand and an inability to make the part like it was...  You get no parts from GM.  You also get no parts from the aftermarket later on, because who can afford the engineering on an ever fluid permeability standard?

Because The Service Manual Does Not Say

The o-rings for the fuel tank crossover pipe need to be in a certain order.

All the service manual says is:

During disassembly: "Important: Take care not to disturb the internal O-rings in the fuel tank connections."

and...

During reassembly: "Lubricate the crossover tube to fuel tank connection O-rings (1-4) with GM p/n 1051717 (Canadian p/n 5728223) rubber lubricant."

OK, what should I do if all the two big o-rings come out of the tank with the crossover's snout?

There's no way to take care to not disturb them because you can't see what they're doing or prevent them from doing it while you're pulling the crossover out.

Today I found my answer.

I've been chasing a fuel smell since I got the car back together.  Very frustrating.

I've been blaming the fuel filler hose (p/n 15814859, unobtaniun at any price) being cracked or damaged.

Not one salvage yard separates the filler hose from the tank when they sell the tank.  I've asked too.

Luckily, JT found a local salvage place selling the whole tank (less sender assy) for about what the dealer wanted for just the filler hose and it had the hose on it.  So I snagged it!

Inspecting things I noticed that the o-rings were NOT disturbed when this tank was removed.

In order, from deepest in the hole to closest to the opening:

1.  Green o-ring.
2.  Small black plastic ring.
3.  Yellow o-ring.
4.  Large black plastic ring with inside bevel.

DAMMIT!!!.

I didn't have mine in that order because they all jumbled out and were dangling from the jet-pipes.

The order I have mine in is:

1.  Green o-ring.
2.  Yellow o-ring.
3.  Small black plastic ring.
4.  Large black plastic ring with inside bevel.

Wanna bet that's where my smell is coming from because those o-rings aren't sealed without the small ring to spacer them?

UGH.

Probably have to drop the tank to get at them properly.

Historic Prices

In 1974 what was the average price of a used Cessna 310?

There's gaps in what the internet will provide when making a period GURPS character.

Moderated

So far the only people who've dared to brave comment moderation have been upbeat and positive about the controversial topics.

It even sparked poor Beans to write several long and detailed comments and then proceed to expand on his thoughts at Chant du Dèpart.

Despite a ton of hits from people linking in from the opposition, not one comment from them.

I want to be clear that comments get deleted for being a jerk, not for the content.

I didn't want to delete that last comment before I changed over to moderation, there were some excellent points and good information in it.  But it was delivered in the most demeaning and insulting manner the author could summon; because they apparently doesn't regard anyone who disagrees with them as entirely human.  This commenter had previously been warned about their tone and language before when they being jerks over LGBT issues.  Three strikes is more than you get here.

A note to the opposition, if you find yourself in agreement with Bloomberg's paid shills, you might want to look a lot harder at your position on a matter.

Especially since the vile insults and demeaning language you're throwing around so casually is a clear sign that emotions, not reason, are running the show; just like the gun banning mommies.

Did You Get Your Checks?

While trying to track down exactly where the open carry at Target picture took place...

I discovered something VERY interesting.

Aesop and Miguel are in complete agreement with Mothers Demand Action with regards to open carry.

The pride they must feel!

I Need A New Computer

The screen shots from the upcoming MS Flight Simulator 2020 are very impressive.

The details about flying in DCS are very impressive.

The flight-sim monkey on my back is chattering.

The Options Are Endless

The fuel filler hose, that might be cracked and venting vapor, on The Precious appears to be a relatively simple 1" rubber hose.

Picture taken from RockAuto.

GM wants $100 for p/n 15814859.

$100 for a 1" fuel line which has the hose clamps captive?

Searching around it appears that 1" "rubber" fuel hose is not a common thing.

What I have found is a clear fuel line for fuel cell vents, but I am having trouble seeing why it can't be used to fill the tank.

What the clear inspires me to do; is to put LED's around it so the fuel filler neck hole glows!

Wouldn't that be cool?  Or, at least, ricer?

I went searching for the number printed on the side of the 15814859 part in RockAuto's picture, GM6289M A7 and found a 2013 engineering document describing permeablity standards and that GM6289M has been supplanted by GMW15349 in 2016.

This makes me wonder if the fuel filler shortage is because a new part number to the new permeability standard is on the way and the existing part number, while not discontinued, had already stopped production to make way for a new, unreleased, part number.

Send A Birthday Message To Jimmy Carter

The local news has a link to a place where you can send a message to Jimmah.

He's turning 95.

Would sending, "Just die already!" be something the Secret Service take as a threat?

I don't want to kill him.  I don't want anyone else to kill him.

I just want him to know that he's done enough and can let go so he can say "hello" to Robert Mugabe.

I really miss the days where ex-presidents disappeared when they left office.

Hate When That Happens

Started to cook the pork for pork and rice last night and the cooking smelled... off.

Not "gone bad" per se, but off.

I aborted and changed to chicken and all was well.

Stabby Shotty

My old Remington 870 Express can now accept an M16 type bayonet!

It's been a dream for a good long time, finally realized.

Sadly, it doesn't count as a banned feature because it's a pump shotgun and because bayonet lugs were apparently safe on shotguns from 1994 to 2004 despite being extra deadly on rifles.

The kit is from S&J Hardware in Canada.

Getting the damn thing attached was a lot more work than it should have been.  The barrel side of the connector doesn't spread far enough to get over the Sage front sight.  That sight has been on the gun for close to 30 years and had taken something of a set.  Then, because of my heat shroud, everything has to be lined up at the same time before you start screwing the magazine extension back on.

Pretty fetching now, though, isn't it?

It's now totally unsuited for legal hunting because it holds too many rounds and it's not simple to just plop the old magazine cap back on.

Speaking of too many rounds!  It has the same 7+1 capacity with 2-3/4" rounds it had with the old Choate extension.  With 3" rounds capacity went up from 6+1 to 7+1.

Update:  Links!

The bayonet lug and magazine connector.
The magazine extension with spring, follower and sling mount. 
Cheaper, Remington, magazine extension with spring.

How I Became The Spokesman

All of this hullabaloo about open carry came about because I expressed doubt about how much harm people who were open carrying were doing to public opinion.

The reason I had my doubts was a lack of reporting outside of gun blogs.

One would think that if the level of harm was as high as it was expressed in such places, that it would be easy to point to journalism which the mundanes read and affected their opinions.

I noticed that several (many?) gun publications oppose open carry as a matter of editorial policy and that several gun bloggers were employees of these publications.

I began to notice that many trainers and instructors who were teaching that open carry was a poor tactical decision (and it really is) were shifting from, "this is why it's not a great idea," to, "you're a fucking moron if you do."  This change in tone doesn't appear to have an explanation.

But, what the trainers and instructors say tends to be repeated and their tone became the tone of the debate.

I changed from not caring much, one way or the other, when (despite promises to the contrary) after the amending of Florida Statute 790.053 in 2011 the practice of arresting conceal carriers who'd had some sort of wardrobe malfunction continued.

Attempts to get a definition for "to briefly and openly display" that did not depend on the arresting officer's opinion have met with fierce opposition from Florida's law enforcement organizations.  Many of Florida's jurisdictions hate that there's licensed conceal carry, let alone that such a person could be allowed to accidentally expose that they were carrying.

Hardly any of the people arrested for wardrobe malfunction have ended up in jail, but here the process is the punishment.  Money spent, time lost and property not returned.

The reasonable attempt to get law enforcement to enforce the law as intended by the legislature rather than their biased opinions on the matter failed.

"Fine," I said, "you don't want to be reasonable about this; then I want open carry so you lose all discretion on the matter."

What I wasn't expecting was the bile spewed at me from what I'd thought was my own side.

I have been insulted and ridiculed.

It certainly didn't change my mind on the matter.

Personhood

A person has rights.

People have rights.

So, to strip someone of their rights, what must you do?

Take away their personage.

This is called othering.

The first step in making someone the other is to demean them.

Call them names rather than to discuss the merits of your differences.

Insult rather than debate.

It's the lowest of the moral low grounds.

San Check

Grab an impartial person and ask them to read both sides:

Get this quote in reply, "I'm right because I'm right, and anybody who disagrees with me is therefore defective.  QED," about the other side.

I feel much better about how I phrased my side.

Yelling At The Wrong People

The open carry condemnation thing brings up another thing the pro-gun side does really poorly.

We're always angry with the wrong people.

"What about how the mundanes will react to this?  We must condemn and stop open carry because they might react badly!"

Is the problem the person who is carrying openly or the mundane who is frightened by something unfamiliar to them?

Whom should we be trying to educate?

People who condemn open carry must be terribly afraid of the mundanes because they go to great lengths to never expose them to anything which might scare them.

"Don't make noise, the herd will stampede!"

Hidden in this fear is the notion that the majority can rightfully take away our civil rights, so don't scare them!

But being armed IS a civil right.

Condemning open carry is akin to saying you can worship any God you like as long as you do it as a Presbyterian.  You can say anything you want, as long as you say this (or never say that).

I know that analogy just doesn't work for the condemners, so that was lost on them.

It's OK to be gay, as long as you keep it a secret; because people being openly gay freaks out the mundanes!

How did homosexuals get from freaking the mundanes to common acceptance today?

How did black people go from being murdered for the accusation of being attracted to a white woman to being able to openly date and marry them?

It wasn't by laying low and hoping it would pass.

There's about 13 million people we cannot ask if laying low and hoping it will pass is a good strategy (and now I've gone Godwin).

The key to securing civil rights is to freak the mundanes and show them that nobody even got hurt, let alone died, when those civil rights are exercised and respected.

Respect!  That's what's missing from the open carry condemnation side.

If the mundanes are not freaked, there's nothing for them to be educated about.  They don't have to learn about it or how to deal with it.

The derisively named Florida Carry Fashion Show has shown me one thing which is lost on the condemners...  Hardly a single person who's not participating even notices.  If they do notice, they don't care.

The mundanes are not freaked.

But I was promised they were a skittish herd terrified of the mention of a gun and would vote Nancy Pelosi to save them from the evol gunnies!

Or maybe it's just prejudice.

Since the condemners are fond of calling people names, I have a title for them: Sonderkondemmer.

First Rule Of Successful Debate

1: Always and without fail insult and belittle your opponent.

This shows your absolute authority and solid position of your argument and causes the audience to fall into an adoring thrall to your every word.

Or...

It entrenches the person making the opposing argument and turns people away from you.

Slow Clap.

But, thanks! for making it easier for me to make my case by appearing to be the calm, rational voice.

WOW.

LIberty IS Scary

Expressing, even a little bit, that there's nothing inherently wrong with open carry is yanking hard on a trip wire.

The people who don't like open carry, and think that nobody should, come out of the woodwork to condemn the very idea.

They insult anyone who does it.

They linkspam without checking to see if their links actually support their position.

They link to people who linkspammed.

A lot of them claim to support the right, but not the act.  Then proceed to condemn the act.

If you condemn the act you are condemning the right.  It's one thing to say that someone has a right to do something, but that you will not be doing it yourself.  It's quite another to say that someone has a right to do something; and they are morons for doing it.

One way supports the right.  The other doesn't through condemning the act.

I've tread this path before over helmet laws.

When I rode, I always wore a helmet.  I think it's an important, and essential piece of safety equipment and tried my darnedest to get others to wear one too.

But I never wanted to see the wearing of one mandated by law.

We'd go to "Let those who ride decide" rallies and be mobbed by the local press who were expecting us to condemn going bare pate and demand helmet laws.

We would always say that it's a decision that a person has a right to make and they need to make for themselves.

Right or wrong, it's up to them.

That's the thing about liberty and freedom.  You're free to fuck up, even if it kills you.  Yes, that's scary.  But don't put your fears onto others at, literal, gunpoint.  Another thing about liberty is when someone has the right to fuck up, you have to let them.

If there are consequences, then they will bear them.

But notice the difference in the advocacy?

We wore helmets to the rally.  We vocally, and publicly, stated that it was their right to go without helmets and they they had to make their own decision.

We did not show up and say, "while these morons can decide for themselves what they're going to do; WE'RE wearing helmets; like all intelligent people should!"

One way supports the right while not exercising it; the other condemns the act and the right.

If you're going to be an advocate FOR freedom and liberty you're going to have to learn this lesson; and live it.

Brace For President Cheese Sandwich

Judging by the amount of money that was donated of the past couple of days to the Republicans:

If Nancy and AOC manage to impeach and the Senate convicts...

The Republicans can run a cheese sandwich for president and enjoy a supermajority at least until 2022.

The joke will also be on them because there's not near the NeverPence momentum to get him impeached and convicted too.  At least not enough to get the job done before the election.  So no President Pelosi, sorry Nancy.

Living Rent Free

There's times when I get a burr up under my saddle and I just CANNOT change the subject until I've said all I have to say.

Often I'm reminded by others that there's still some more in there that needs to come out.

Once it IS out, I'm all better and can resume what passes for civil discourse with me.

While I'm working through things with the muse and her water Tabasco boarding; I provide rent free space in my head for those who keep reminding the muse that I had more bile to vent.

You're welcome?  I guess?

Smile You're On Candid (Body) Camera

Because commenting at Miguel's fails at random from something on my end...

I'll turn my comment to this post into a whole post here.

Prolly better here, because it's a bit tangential to him.

Where I live has body cameras on the deputies.

Our sheriff was one of the first to adopt them in Florida.

The deputies grumbled and put up mild resistance to them, at first.

What happened was complaints against deputies fell through the floor.

Did Deputy Dog really call you a racial slur?  What's the camera say?

Did Deputy Dog really hit you and cause that cut in your forehead?  My, Deputy Dog sure looks like a wall on the footage and he appears to be well outside arm's reach...

Did Deputy Dog plant those drugs in your pocket?  His empty hand go in, drugs come out...  His name is "Dog" not Penn or Teller; so...

The deputies have also found that the cameras are providing them evidence that's improving conviction rates.

Pro-tip: Don't commit a crime in front of a cop.  Doubly so if they have the means to record you committing the crime.

The Argument Against

It boils down to "criminals will do criminal stuff to you if..."

29 examples of where having a gun openly carried elicited a criminal to break the law.

I also expect that, like many mainstream media listings of sources, we weren't supposed to actually click on every link and read the article.

First thing that jumps out is several of these articles are run in magazines which are opposed to open-carry as a matter of editorial policy.  Confirmation bias is in play.  Some of the examples support their position, others do not.

In the same order as the link above:

December 26, 2017: Gun got stolen of OC'er's hip.  Lecture on how to better open carry.

October 8, 2014: Gun stolen at gun point from OC'er.

February 2, 2016: Gun stolen after being assaulted.

February 28, 2015: Gun stolen for failing at conceal carry, not actually trying to open carry. 

April 20, 2015: Gun stolen after it falls out of holster during assault BUT no mention of open carry or that the person was targeted for it.

April 19, 2012: Failed attempt to steal openly carried gun.

October 3, 2018: No mention of open carry, but implied.  Apparently the "pistol" in question was a cap and ball revolver.

October 17, 2016: Shot with own gun.  Conceal fail, not open carry attempt.

August 4, 2017: Conceal fail not open carry attempt.

April 20, 2017: While they say the victim was an open carrier, no connection is made between the shooter and the open carrying.  Especially odd since the victim was driving their car at the time of the assault, so even an openly carried gun would not be visible unless the victim was brandishing (and that would change them from being the victim wouldn't it?).

This link kills my browser.

June 29, 2016: Conceal fail not open carry attempt.

April 5, 2016: Open carrier assaulted for assisting someone else who'd just been assaulted by the assailant.  Assailant deaded by open carrier.  Open carry not a factor in the assault.

December 3, 2011: Open carrier targeted for gun and killed.

Repeat of the June 29, 2016 link.  Different, unrelated, headline.  copy-paste error

December 22, 2017: Gun stolen from open carrier.

August 17, 2015: Conceal fail, not open carry attempt.  There's even video showing no open carry.

October 7, 2014: OC'er robbed of gun at gunpoint.

October 17, 2016: Investigating a noise with your long arm isn't open carry!  This is more of a "ranged weapon, you're doing it wrong" than anything else.

December 3, 2018: THIS HAPPENED IN MEXICO!  Bar owner was CONCEALED carrying and lost his gun after drawing it from under his shirt.

December 19, 2018: OC'er gets handgun taken from a holster, but then uses long gun, also openly carried, to subdue the thief.

December 10, 2018: No mention of the victim being armed or not.

404 link

January 3, 2019: Gun stolen off the CORPSE of a motorcycle accident!  This is really what you're using to condemn open carry?

January 7, 2019: We are only told that the victim was shot and killed with his own gun.  Not a clear cut case of open carry.

February 18, 2019: Targeted for openly carrying... watch the vid.  HEADDESK on the carrier's response after he was assaulted.

March 6, 2019: Gun stolen from holster.

April 20, 2015: Not clear if the victim was targeted for open carry or if the assailant was simply nuts.

April 13, 2019: JAMAICA conceal fail not an attempt to open carry..

Green for supporting the idea that OCW is a bad plan.  Red where it doesn't.  Black where ambiguous.

Out of 27 examples with good links...  9 support the author's claim.  That means that 2/3 of the examples they chose do not.

Also, 27 examples over 8 years is not a lot of examples.  This is statistical noise.

I'm not going through the assaults on police.  People who attack the cops are in a different category of criminal.

You're Lying

While you claim that you support the right, but not the practice; you actively fight having that right restored.

That means you don't support the right.

That makes you a liar.

That also means I can discount anything you say from now on.

I'm going to try to explain it AGAIN.

The cops and government in much Florida have decided that "accidental and brief" exposure of a concealed weapon is the same as open carry.

Since you like links:  Here's one.

Showered in glory is the Citrus County Sheriff's Department.

Get this shit to stop and the problem will go away, I think.

I was going to look for other instances, but ONE is enough when our rights are violated.

Update at 1501:

Florida Carry says that there's about one instance of the police arresting a conceal carrier for brief, accidental exposure per month for the past 8 years since the law was changed to allow, "[someone] who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense." 

Good News Bad News

Bad News: Comment moderation is now turned on.

Good News: Anyone can comment now!  I only ask if you're anonymous that you sign your post at the bottom with some sort of name like "--Angus McThag"

Totally Stolen

Yanked from the comments at Old NFO's Facebook!

Almost From The Very Beginning

My very first GURPS character!

Mr Wilson is from the Car Wars universe and this sheet is dated December 26, 1986.

FuzzyGeff is to blame with his purchase of Man to Man and then GURPS 1e.  Then GURPS: Autoduel, which was the sourcebook for Car Wars for GURPS.

Not shown is my trike design, but it's priced on the sheet.

A Right Denied

Because of a right delayed.

NICS was apparently down today.

One FFL said it was down nationally.

It has resulted in Willard needing to drive all the way down to St Pete tomorrow to pick up a gun he paid for today.

This is the special Hell that universal background checks want for us all.

Be Polite

I'm getting sick of deleting comments because the commenter can't understand they're a guest here and be polite about it.

Especially since, mixed in the vitriol, is some excellent information.

The Funny Thing Is

I don't even really want to open carry.

What I want is a more comfortable option to carry, and that hazards brief exposure.

Outside the waistband under a bowling or Hawaiian shirt, for example.

The wind gets a vote.

Under the laws as written, if I notice in time, that might be "brief exposure" and I'd be OK.

The problem with the law as written is the legislature never defined what they meant by brief exposure and left it up to the local constabulary to decide.

Many have made it a matter of policy that any exposure is open carry.

That it was going to be this way was clear during the committee hearings and the statements of the Law Enforcement Officer organizations.

From their repeated statements, it was obvious that the only way for a person whom honestly lost track of their cover garment for a moment to be treated as the brief exposure law intended was for the law to actually allow open carry.  In Florida that would mean licensed open carry.

The skirmishes with the state congress creatures and the state's law enforcement organizations ended up making me more radical than I originally intended and my goal became getting unlicensed, unrestricted open carry of anything the carrier can lug just to piss off the police organizations who've been preventing my previous, reasonable, goal.

That it would also anger "don't rock the boat, my cats will fall out" Marion Hammer... bonus round!

Acting Like I Have Class

I have joined the class action suit against FDLE over being charged for background checks despite my CCW.

Link to join if you're affected and so inclined.

Dunno if anything will come of it, but it's something that Florida Carry generally gets right.

They go to court and win and they fish.

That's much better for me than anything I've seen GOA do.

The NRA, while they piss me off so very much, their job is to suck up attention so other groups can work.

I don't think SAF would have won near so biggly if the press wasn't laser focused on the NRA instead of the group actually litigating.

Which Is Scarier?

This:

Or this:

If you're scared by the first picture and not the second, I don't think you're paying attention.

If you're worried that the person in the first picture is going to cost you your rights because that's scaring people; stop yelling at your fellow gun owners and start convincing the mundanes that the second picture is a lot more scary.

Because the people in the second picture will sure as shit take away all of your rights as soon as they are ordered to do so.  How do I know that?  Because the cops enforce unconstitutional laws every day.  Because the police have obeyed those illegal orders every single time they've been issued.

History shows it time and time again.

That's the real problem.

People (the mundanes) don't understand that we own the government and not the other way around.

People (the mundanes) don't grasp that because of that ownership we cannot delegate a power to the government that we do not personally, and individually, possess.

Where does the power for the police to openly carry come from?

Where did the authority to bar you from carrying a gun come from?

The mundanes have become inured to seeing not just openly armed police, but militarily armed police.

The government and police, in the process of exceeding their mandates and authority have, repeatedly, demanded to be the only-ones allowed to be openly armed.  They have been so successful that the common person, with no knowledge of firearms and little awareness of politics, is terrified that someone without a badge be seen with a gun.

They have been so successful that even pro-gun people will step up to demand that monopoly remain intact!

Sadly, there's no way to get someone used to seeing a gun without them seeing a gun.

The panicky herd creatures that the common people are need to call 911 and be asked, "what are they doing with that gun?" and if the answer is "just carrying it" then the caller needs lectured.

26 states are doing just that.  By the way, that's up from 11 in 2009.
6 states allow some local restriction on open carry, down from 13 in 2009.
13 states allow open carry with a permit, down from 19 in 2009.
4 states plus DC outright forbid open carry, down from 7 plus DC in 2009.
California is so muddled that you cannot tell if open carry is allowed or not.

In 2009 43 states had some form of open carry.
Today there are 45 states allowing some kind of open carry, but the percentage of them being unrestricted is much higher.  Only California became more restrictive.

Open carry is spreading, not contracting.

UPDATE:

To everyone linking in from Racontuer Report:  Aesop doesn't mention that he's been deleted from commenting here before for being a dick about things.  He's cleaned up his language in his "recreation" of his comment here that got deleted.

Which was sad because there was a lot good in that comment, but he'd been warned before.

So far the people who're spending the most time being pissed off at open carry are mainly just being dicks and throwing insults and attempting to belittle anyone who disagrees with them.

Ridicule, as I've said before, only works when the recipient of the insult cares if the insulting party likes them.  I've also said before that I don't tolerate bullies, which he is.