Even some of the liberals get it

Incredibly, Yahoo - which I use for my email base, preferring it slightly over Google - has just posted a news release not only critical of Obama's damage to our economy and the job market, but also speaks of the damage that eco-extremists do to our economy and the functioning of our society.

"The six-month delay was ordered to allow for time to study the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. The Environmental Protection Agency has stacks of studies and monitoring reports on the practice dating back to the 1950s. President Obama's move to satisfy a fraction of extreme environmental groups fearful that fracking would harm waterways shattered the economic hopes of an entire state.

Planned drilling in multiple Ohio regions offers more than direct drilling and transportation employment. A steady paycheck for shale and natural gas industry workers would be spent in towns across the state providing funds for non-drilling businesses. Communities would benefit from increased sales at local businesses, delinquent property taxes would get paid helping public levies and struggling homeowners would be able to prevent foreclosure.

Anti-drilling rhetoric by some environmental groups opposed to drilling in the national forest is juvenile and not based in fact. Ohio Environmental Council spokesman Jack Shaner said drilling in the Wayne would turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley. There have been a multitude of oil and gas wells pumping in the forest for years without causing a harmful impact on either the environment or muscle-powered recreational opportunities."

Although I don't read much of Yahoo News, being disenchanted with their liberal slant upon most issues, from what I have seen, it is quite unusual to see Yahoo publishing anything either critical of Obama or less than completely supportive of the "green" eco-extremist camp. The clear and rational treatment of this particular issue by the writer, Tara Dodrill, is refreshing, and seeing it presented on Yahoo News is simply amazing. Please read the whole thing, and consider contacting Yahoo to thank them for "printing" such an accurate portrayal of the damage Obama has been doing to our country, a thing routinely ignored by the mainstream media.

A beautiful artifact, along with some introspection

The wife and I have been a bit busy. A 7000 mile trip East and back, visiting family and friends. A stop at Oklahoma, where we had the unfortunate experience of discovering how thin blood can be, along with some unpleasant work emptying out an old house we owned (sold now to a neighbor) of the last of our belongings we wished to keep and transport into storage here in Montana. The trip lead to a new acquisition, which we will come to, anon.

I wish my insight was equal to my willingness to be introspective, but alas, it is not. Somehow, in spite of the best of intentions, my character is faulty enough to alienate many of the people I would have chosen to remain friends with, had I the wit to behave in a more acceptable fashion, whatever that might be. (This is true of relatives, as well as acquaintances.)

A former friend in Baton Rouge, who I still think well of, once made the statement that a true friend was someone he would "take a bullet for". For those of you who are not members of the gun culture, or supporters of our Constitution, in which the Second Amendment reiterates the natural right of self-defense via firearm (and how a free country requires that the general populace be willing to train and equip - be "well-regulated" - in the use of arms if it wishes to remain free), my friend meant that quite literally. He would step between a bullet fired and someone he considered a friend.

That is a laudable stance to take, and shows how strongly he values true friendship, but it falls short for me. Yes, I would take a bullet for those I love well enough to call "friend" (to include many of my relatives), but for me, a true friend is someone who takes you as you are, warts and all. Since some of my warts seem to be as large as the Rock of Gibraltar, I can count the number of my true friends on the fingers (and thumb) of one hand. People who have seen me be foolish, or self-involved, or forgetful of the needs of those around me, or hurtful without intent, but hurtful nonetheless. For that (literal) handful of stalwarts, those saints willing to continue to value me in spite of my shortcomings, I say a heartfelt "thank you". Those few are indeed friends. My two uncles in Connecticut, who we visited this trip, are in that category. One is conservative, the other a loving and compassionate liberal who remains dear to my heart even though he consorts with those who have damaged, and who wish to further destroy, my very liberty (Democrats and other liberals).

For my wife's sister and brother-in-law who live a half-mile from the property we just sold, sayonara, baby. They are still upset because we will not join their brand of Fundamentalist, Holy Roller, lie on the floor and speak in tongues brand of Christianity. They were very helpful while we were there, but when we stopped by to pick up a few items we had left in storage at their farm, they insisted on also returning every single gift we had ever given them in the last ten or so years. I think it was meant to be a slap in the face. I won't miss them, but my wife is sad that her only sister could be so cold.

Now for the fun part, which I hope you will enjoy much more than my rambling introspection. I do not understand the operation of this blog site well enough to insert photos where I might like in the text, so what you saw at the start of all of this - a photo of a replica 1874 Sharps rifle - is what we will talk about next.

I'm certain the folks at the Shiloh Rifle Company of Big Timber, Montana get down on their knees and thank Tom Selleck and the producers of Quigley Down Under every night before they go to sleep. As so many of us have told them, seeing his rifle in that film has caused a longing that could only be requited by the purchase of one of their gorgeous rifles.

Now, the company was well known amongst shooters for the high quality of their rifles long before the movie, but it has generated such an interest and increase in customers that I know they will always be thankful for that exposure of their excellent craftsmanship.

I actually had no intention of buying one of their rifles at this time. My wife and I were returning to Montana when we stopped at a truck stop just west of Butte, MT for fuel. As the pump at the RV part of the station wouldn't take my credit card for some reason, I went inside to leave it while I fueled up. The gal at the counter insisted I needed to pick a particular value to spend, in spite of the fact that I wanted to fill up, and had no idea what that would cost. I wasn't willing to guess and have to leave with a tank less than full, so I left without buying any. About twenty miles further west, we saw signs for a station at Big Timber, MT. While I was pumping the tank on the UHaul truck full, I noticed a building across the street labeled "Shiloh Rifle Company".

Knowing this was the maker of the "Quigley Down Under" Sharps rifle, I just had to go look. My wife was excited to see it too, as she is a fan of the movie and Tom Selleck. Understand that I knew I was perfectly safe, as there is a twelve-month waiting period for the making of one of these rifles. No worries that I would spend $1800 up on a rifle. When we got inside, the various models were sitting on pegs on one wall, and we were told we could pick them up and handle them all we wanted. They were gorgeous. I especially liked the Quigley and the Long Range Express models. Absolutely gorgeous.

When I spoke to the wife/co-owner Lucinda, she told me about the waiting period for a custom rifle. When I spoke of liking the Long Range Express model, she pointed to a rack behind the counter, and said they had several Montana Roughrider models there, which were identical to the LRE, except that they had the cheek rests sanded off (for those wanting a more traditional look, or at least no cheek piece). Then she hooked me - these rifles were "pre-made" and for sale right now. Oh, no. I picked up two of them, and was instantly lost, as needful of one of those rifles as a junkie needing a fix.

The base price of the Roughrider was $1900. The cost for my rifle, with the extra custom additions, was just over $2900 (with an extra $175 to re-chamber from 45-70 to 45-110). It should be noted that $223 of that was for Federal Excise Tax. Yes, they tax the entire sale, custom extras and all. Eleven percent. It's a crime. If some portion of it is due to the Pittman-Robertson Act, I wouldn't mind so much. Restoration of wildlife habitat can be a good thing (if the eco-freak liberals don't go overboard with it), and the fact that the funds cannot be diverted the way Social Security funds have been is good, too. But I'm not certain that is where the money is actually going. Anyway, $3200 for a rifle was way, way more than I had any intention of spending, but as we had just sold the Oklahoma property (for a slight loss) and could easily afford it, my wife told me to go for it. She didn't have to say it twice, for sure and for certain.

Sorry I couldn't seem to get a better overall photo, but this is the Shiloh Montana Roughrider model, chambered in 45-110. It has a number of upgrades: semi-fancy wood (you should see what "fancy" entails!), "pack harden" finish (absolutely beautiful bone and charcoal case hardening), a lovely pewter fore-end tip/escutcheon, double set triggers, full-buckhorn rear sight, a case hardened shotgun style buttplate, and a 34" heavy full-octagon barrel.

The second shot shows the locking block lowered, the breech face exposed, and the chamber open. Next is the pewter fore-end tip, then the right side of the lock work, with the lever down and the triggers exposed, then a closer shot of the pack harden finish, followed by a still slightly out-of-focus overall shot to include that 34" barrel.

The barrel is the heavy full octagon, which I believe weighs 16 pounds all by itself. I don't know what the total weight is, but I do know I will be glad for it when I start touching off those 45-110's loaded with a 535 grain Lyman Postell alloy bullet at around 1400 fps. For those of you who are not shooters, the heavier the bullet (in any particular caliber), the heavier the recoil. A heavy firearm (due to the physics involved of mass vs momentum) will deliver less felt recoil than a lighter firearm. The forces actually remain the same, but when the same amount of energy has to move a greater mass, the mass moves less (a shorter distance). So the "shove" feels significantly less when the weapon is very heavy.

The pictures do not do this rifle justice. It is a work of art, with the wood-to-metal fit being excellent, the case hardening superbly beautiful, the lock work smooth and solid in operation, the set trigger so light I will either re-set it a bit heavier or simply not use it. I am hoping the brass and loading paraphernalia arrive tomorrow so that I can start loading some rounds to fire. (I will be using the afore-mentioned Lyman 535 grain Postell pushed by about 60 grains of a new black powder substitute called Blackhorn 209. It is sold by the Western Powder company (the Accurate Arms powder company) , and it is supposed to be clean burning, non-corrosive, and very accurate. I intend to load 100 rounds, to take with me on my trip to St. George, Utah, where my wife and I will be spending the winter months in our fifth-wheel.

We plan to visit Bryce Canyon, Zion National Park, the Canyonlands, the Arches National Park outside of Moab, Mesa Verde in nearby Colorado, Canyon de Chelly (and other sites such as Kiet Siel near Kayenta) in Arizona, and whatever else we come across. We have been to Tuzigoot, Montezuma's Castle, and a bunch of other locations, but may hit some of them again. The Four Corners area is replete with amazing ruins, rock formations, and incredible landscapes. We are looking forward to it.

While we are in that area, I intend to find some place where we can shoot at 1000 yards, to try the Shiloh Sharps out, as well as my 7.62x51 with some 175 grain BTHP rounds that simulate the old M118 long range military cartridge. I read an article where some forensic scientists who thought the 45-70 couldn't reach out to 1500 yards tested it and some 45-110 rounds. Firing at a 35 degree, the 45-70 landed a heavy bullet (675 grains, heavier than most people normally shoot, but a duplicate of an historic long-range cartridge used back in the 1800's) 3600 yards away. [ Correction: This was a round fired from a 50-90, not a 45-70. Billy Dixon used a 50-90 Sharps, and that is what was being tested, along with a 45-110 they brought along as well. I am including a photo of a 45-110 round next to a 45-70 round for comparison.] The 45-110 was fired with a standard load in common use, and it landed over 3500 yards away. For you engineers out there, the 45-70 round reached an altitude of 4000 feet in its trajectory. We pilots should take note, as well. I hope the folks at ATF who acquired some aircraft are listening, too.

America: the Republic that we were, but no longer are

The content of this video should be taught to every student in school, beginning in grade school. It should be repeated and reinforced in high school. The study of the spectrum of government and its various forms - which indeed can be reduced to either an oligarchy or a republic - should be a mandatory class in college as well. Instead, most of us have been brainwashed into believing that we are supposed to be living in a democracy, that we should prefer to live in a democracy.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=player_embedded

Robert Anson Heinlein, a great author and wise libertarian, should be mandatory reading, too. A science fiction ("speculative fiction") writer, he wrote a book called "Starship Troopers", in which the government of Earth's future placed a requirement of military service upon suffrage, the right to vote. I realize the many liberals of today abhor the military (just as the Clintons did and the Obamas do), but the full investment of one's very life in service to our country perhaps should be a requirement for the ability to cast a vote. (I would love to see it as a requirement for public office as well.) He also wrote a novel called "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", about a time in the future when the moon is used as a penal colony, perhaps as a metaphor for Australia, but also one for the Thirteen Colonies that became America. Revolution takes place, and those residing there become free of the abuses of the government on Earth.

A very bright historian named Alexis De Tocqueville wrote a book back in the early 1830's called "Democracy in America". In this book he states that every democracy (as opposed to a Republic) has ended badly, followed by a dictatorship (actually an oligarchy, even though some of them appear to be rule by one individual). He was quite accurate, as America has become a country ruled by an elite, an elite that says we must accept laws and legislation that is written by Congress even if we don't want it, even if no one has read the full document  to know what is in it. "We need to pass it before we can know what is in it," if you accept the irrational dictates of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Our country was created as a republic, as noted in the famous exchange of Ben Franklin with a lady curious as to what the Constitutional Convention had settled upon as a form of government: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution is "democracy" mentioned, as  the united States (they didn't capitalize "united" back then, because the Federal government was meant to be subservient to the States and the citizens of those States) was never intended to be a democracy.

It is only in recent history - and in the revision, the perversion, of history that is taught in most of our public schools - that people have come to speak of America as a democracy, and to talk of bringing democracy to the people of other countries who suffer under repressive rule by tyrants. The old adage states that "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner". The rights of the individual, especially his right to own property (including the fruits of his own labor, which is economic property, ever bit as real as intellectual, physical, or "real" property) are not protected in a democracy.

Look at the Kelo decision in the Supreme Court, where any property may be taken from an individual if it will benefit a federal, state, or local government to do so.

Consider also that you only rent the house you thought you bought and paid for. Even real estate which has been completely paid for can be taken from you if you fail to pay taxes upon it. Not only may you be imprisoned for failure to pay taxes (debtor's prison, anyone?), but your property can be confiscated and permanently taken from you if the taxes levied against it have not been paid. How can you be said to actually own something that some other entity can take from you for taxes owed (a minuscule fraction of the property's value) at will, or simply at the whim of government? When someone holds the paper on your debt, say for a car which has not been completely paid for, it can be repossessed by the bank or agency which has loaned you the money to buy it. Once you have completely paid for it, it cannot be repossessed. Your home and your land can be. Can you see how totally wrong that is?

Democrats in Congress (and most Republicans, for that matter) want democracy instead of a republic, because that is the way they can insure that the oligarchy, the elite, our "representatives" who all believe they are so much wiser than us and wish to make our decisions for us (i.e., they themselves), will remain in power. They all want a very strong and dominating central government which will allow them to wield the power to decide what is best for us simple folk, while it also enriches them monetarily. They have arranged it so that they are not subject to the very laws they create to control us, have arranged to be able to draw a full pension after only one term of service, and receive benefits that none but the most wealthy of our society - most of whom have actually earned their wealth - can possibly afford.

So. Do you wish to live in a democracy, where your needs can be ignored or your property taken from you at the whim of a majority - even the tiny majority of a town council, consisting of perhaps four or five people - or in a republic, were law and government properly protect your rights and property? Learn the difference here and try to choose wisely. We have already lost our Republic, but a concerted effort by enough Americans might somehow be able to turn things around and get us back to a republic, and the Rule of Law that was meant to protect each and every one of us.

H/T to WRSA and Small Dead Animals for posting the video.

islam and sexuality

A great series of videos by Ann Barnhardt on how islam deals with sexuality. It is in four parts, but they are each short and concise. They are very well done, and it doesn't take long to view all four. It is well worth your time, as this is material that everyone should know about islam and should share with everyone they know. I can't impress upon you how important these are in describing reasons why we must not let islam gain a greater foothold here in this country.

islam is a cult. It is a totalitarian political system that masquerades as a religion, but isn't one. It merely pretends to be one because that advances its agenda, which is to rule the world via Sharia law and the ravings of a pederast and murderer.

Part 1  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCfbYkXtHuA&feature=player_embedded

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mZPIbz-n_c&feature=player_embedded

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKAuJewbXg&feature=player_embedded

part 4  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfqNPJVWzpw&feature=player_embedded

Honor and the cult of islam, aka: the definition of oxymoron

I should have done as Lever Action did on his blog, and advise those few folks who visit here (less than his blog, I'm sure) that I would be away from the 'Net for a while. The "missus" and I have been traveling around the country visiting friends and family, and have not had easy access in some of the locations where we have stayed.

Currently, I am in a town near Dallas called Gun Barrel City - great name, isn't it? - visiting my best friend from high school (not to diminish my other best friend, from grade school and junior high. Sad to say, I don't really have many close friends who value my weird - if interesting - friendship. Frequent readers here probably aren't surprised ;-)

My friend, Glenn, showed me a poster which I simply had to post. We all have failings as individuals, and some cultures and societies have failures as well (we seem to be heading that way, presently), but some - such as islam - exhibit the worst features, the worst failures of human spirit possible.

Those who deny American "exceptionalism" are worse than fools. They are traitors to what our best people do to help others across the world. They betray the young men and women who place themselves in harm's way to protect the helpless. When our own President bows to those who embrace a cult which demands the death of those who do not believe as it does, he demeans both the office of the Presidency and all that America stands for. He shows himself to be a fool, or worse.

Where is the honor in using human shields, as the muslims do? In making living bombs out of their own retarded children? In stoning women to death for the crime of being raped by a male relative? In cutting off the noses and ears of young girls who have dated an unapproved boy? In causing the death of over a dozen school girls because they couldn't be allowed to leave a burning building without their burkas? In using young "beardless boys" as sex toys for the gratification of their own perverted urges?

I am quite certain that some of my relatives believe I am way out in left field on the subject of islam (yes, I refuse to capitalize it anymore, as I have been refusing to capitalize "muslim" for some time now). Understand that most of my relatives are either Roman Catholic or formerly so. They are loving, compassionate people who care about others and many of them have gone far beyond the norm in donating time and money and even their own homes, taking in foster children and adopting children. Unfortunately, though, some of them are Democrats, and end up supporting politicians who think the ends justify the means. Politicians who do not care that islam is a cult of death, not a peaceful religion that we could actually co-exist with (don't you just love the "Co-exist" bumper stickers that include the symbol for islam, which prescribes death for any muslim who converts to a different faith?)

I would hope that even left-leaning people (who still have their wits about them) could take the simple concept offered by this poster on Honor and conclude that islam is not honorable. That islam is about death, not love of our fellow humans on this earth. That islam will only permit life if that life is muslim, and is especially harsh toward those who have renounced it. That the very books (quran and haddith) that are the foundation of islam declare that lying and deception (taqqiyah), are perfectly acceptable if they advance the cause of producing a universal caliphate, a world where islam is the only permitted religion or mode of government.

Let me say it for the cheap seats:   THERE IS NO HONOR IN ISLAM.

A Culture in Regression

 My perceptions aren't especially erudite or deep, but sometimes I get a glimpse of what appears to be significant phenomena occurring in our country and our world. For some years now, the last twenty-five at least, I have been telling the few who would stand still long enough to listen that we have reached the "bread and circuses" stage of the Roman Empire, our version being Oprah and Mc D's (was Oprah on back then? I can't recall). That our society is in a decline indicated by what the majority of people across the country seem to hold dear, believe to be valuable.

Television is something I stopped watching back in 1987. At that time I had been watching cable TV in order to see the Discovery channel and one or two other channels providing educational information. When I bought a little 40 acre ranch outside of town, the choice was either satellite dish or nothing. I chose nothing, and it has remained that way since 1987. I enjoy watching videos now, but I have no connection to any form of television programming, nor do I wish any. Books and the Internet have been my mainstay, including books available on the Internet. (Speaking of which, check out Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road and then go to smashwords.com, deactivate the adult filter, and download all of his novels. Some are free and all are cheap. He is a superb writer, very entertaining, and is a strong libertarian. He is also a religious individual, so that directs some of his writing quite strongly, but it actually enhances his work. He does not proselytize or beat a drum, merely informs some of his stories with strong Christian values and a connection to Judeo-Christian morality and philosophy.  I speak as a moral atheist who does not believe (by definition) in G-d or any "Supreme Being". Porretto's religious leanings add nicely to his stories when he displays them.

[Be advised, he is not a prude, however. His collection "A Dash of Spice" is quite erotic, done in a nice way. Perhaps not what you want your twelve-year-old to be reading, but it wouldn't be harmful if he or she stumbled across it.]

OK. This is all in service of an essay written by Fred Reed at Fred On Everything called, "A Culture in Regression". It is an excellent look at the state of our society today, with its trivialization of those things which are/were important, replaced by "social networking", immediate gratification, and a loss of manners, consideration, and true civility (not the pretend "civility" of the liberals, which is actually their insistence on censorship of anything they don't want you to say). The sorry state of education, and the fact that - if you really want to spare your children a lot of agony and wasted time (not to mention keep them from being twisted into little "progressive clones") - home schooling is almost mandatory for parents who wish to have children who are not the barbarians so many of them are these days. At one point he says,


 "If you correct a high-school teacher's grammar, she will accuse you of stultifying creativity, of racism, of insensitiviy. If you reply that had you wanted your children brought up as baboons, you would have bought baboons in the first place, she will be offended.

Home-schooling, it seems to me, becomes a towering social responsibility. I have actually seen a teacher saying that parents should not let children learn to read before they reach school. You see, it would put them out of synch with the mammalian larvae that children are now made to be. Bright children not only face enstupiation and hideous boredom in schools taught by complacent imbeciles. No. They are also encouraged to believe that stupidity is a moral imperative.

Once they begin reading a few years ahead of their grade, which commonly is at once, school becomes an obstacle to advancement. This is especially true for the very bright. To put a kid with an IQ of 150 in the same room with a barely literate affirmative-action hire clocking 85 is child abuse."


This is so true it almost beggars the imagination. The complaint I have so often heard mentioned, that children home-schooled will lack "socialization" is absurd. Would you want your children to become socialized to pre-teen sex and drug abuse? To learn how to suck up to the most popular children in their school, willing to submit to any misbehavior or indignity in order to belong, to fit in? To be willing to beat up children who don't fit the "norm" of the group they have attached themselves to?

Fred goes on to say,

"In an age of blinkered specializaton perhaps we should revive the idea of the Renaissance man. Today the phrase is quaint and almost condescending (though how do you condescend up?), arousing the mild admiration one has for a dancing dog. A time was when the cultivated could play an instrument, paint, knew something of mathematics and much of languages, traveled, could locate France, attended the opera and knew what they were attending. They wrote clearly and elegantly, this being a mark of civilization. I think of Benvenuto Cellini, born 1500, superb sculptor, professional musician, linguist, elegant writer, and good with a sword.

If there is any refuge, it is the internet. Let us make the most of it."

I have an ex-brother-in-law (thankfully for him - my sister is a total bitch) who is a modern-day Renaissance man. He was in the small group that left Xerox to start up Adobe. A software engineer with post-doctoral work in mathematics, a superb chef who demonstrates during some of the culinary conferences at the Awahnee Hotel in Yellowstone, a man who sings and plays musical instruments, does fine woodworking including furniture, builds houses for Habitat For Humanity, is very well read and quite funny. (Dr. Richard Sweet is an extremely nice man who deserved so much more than to be deceived into marrying my gold-digging, money-grubbing sister.) He is a complete gentleman, and although I don't believe he has ever wielded a sword, I would gladly have taken him in hand and introduced him to the fine art of gunnery if our friendship had been able to withstand the damage done by my sibling.

Read all of Fred's little essay, and understand that our culture truly is in decline. Short of a full sea-change in the direction we have taken (including the firing of all the socialist drones currently infesting our educational system right now, which will never happen), I am afraid we will not recover. The best we can do is attempt to better-equip our children via home schooling and teaching them the moral qualities that were once prevalent in our society. Instilling an appreciation for good manners, consideration of others, and a good work ethic - along with a hunger for the written word - will serve them well. Teach them to shoot and be able to defend themselves, and they may prosper even in these times.

Various and sundry thoughts

Tonight (this morning, as it is currently 0140 MST ?) I believe I am going to ramble a bit.

While "zoning out" (a little zen, perhaps, or dharma yoga?) at my reloading bench earlier in the evening, it occurred to me that those of us who reload are the new alchemists: turning lead into gold. Even if you don't sell your reloads (and I do not), they sure feel like gold, sitting on your shelf or in your safe. Should we be reduced to a barter economy in the not-too-distant future, they may become more valuable than gold. When food and other necessities become scarce, would you trade gold for food you need to survive? Sure. Would the fellow who has the food be willing to take gold in exchange, if it were winter and the possibility of obtaining more food was questionable? Maybe not. Ammunition that could be used to hunt and kill an elk, a moose, or a deer would be pretty valuable though, as would ammo needed to protect and defend your self and your family from marauders or gangs. So, loading hundreds of rounds of .45,.44 Mag, .40, .357, 9mm, .308, .223, and .45-70 feels even better than putting gold into the safe.

If you are a shooter, it is possible to get into reloading fairly cheaply at the start, with better equipment possible if and when you are able to spend a little more. Customizing your ammo for your own particular needs (say a hard-cast 405 grain flat nosed .45-70 bullet loaded to 1800 feet per second to deal with bear or moose in the brush) is fun, a lot less expensive than in the sporting goods store or even Walmart, and will continue to supply you when the stores don't have your ammo available (and maybe stop selling it altogether?). Learn to cast your own lead bullets and save even more. Learn how to anneal your brass cases, and make them last for many, many reloadings. Plus there are good sources for all of the specialty bullets - soft-nosed, hollow-point, full metal jacketed, etc. - that you may wish to load for self-defense, hunting, or target shooting for practice. Lots of good info on the Internet on reloading and bullet casting, and many good books on the subject are available as well, some at your local library.

Tonight I read a post by Francis W. Porretto at his web site, Eternity Road. It concerned socialism and the sort of "thinking" that goes along with leaning in that direction. One of his points, if I may restate my understanding of his point, is that even people who are otherwise conservative in outlook have gotten suckered into believing things which aren't true, but have been stated and repeated so many times - as well as being taught by left-leaning teachers and professors - that they appear reasonable to said conservative. Like "taxing the 'rich' ". At the end of his post, Francis says,

"The point of all this, of course, is that even people we think of as solid conservatives of unquestionable allegiance to Constitutional principles and the free market have adopted some socialist assumptions. All such assumptions will display the defining mark of any sociopolitical assumption: the word "should."

Watch for that little word. When a normative statement -- that is, a statement that asserts a particular condition or policy as a "should" -- is offered to you as if only a lunatic could disagree, the speaker is attempting to assert that you and he share it, and any assumptions that underlie it, beyond question.

Some normatives are completely incompatible with freedom and the prerogatives of free men. When someone with whom you agree on most specifics of public policy comes out with a clinker of that sort, inform him, as gently as possible, that he's spouting socialism. He might not understand. Indeed, he might take offense. But he's revealed a chink in his argumentative armor. If you can convey the vulnerability it imposes on him, and if he's truly a devotee of freedom, eventually he'll thank you for it. 

They who are staunch in maintaining a bedrock socialist principle as a premise are, of course, unreachable by argument. But by their premises -- their "shoulds" -- shall ye know them. It will save you the effort of arguing with them in the future."

Unfortunately, the "he'll thank you for it" isn't likely. There are a lot of folks out there who like to believe they are devotees of freedom, but simply cannot accept that some of their thought has been shaped by liberal, socialist memes. A fellow who moderated a list I was a member of for almost fourteen years took serious offense to my informing him of a socialist assumption he was making (although I tried to soften it by calling it "liberal"), and said fellow then proceeded to hold all of my posts until he had approved of their content. After his numerous complaints about my comments on a number of topics, I stopped commenting on the articles and essays I was posting. Then he decided to require me to explain, for each and every post, why the other members should or shouldn't be interested in what I was attempting to share with them. As he was requiring none of this from any other member of the list, I took the "hint" and retired. 

Francis would, I'm sure, simply say this fellow was definitely not a true devotee of freedom, but he certainly thought he was, as did some of the more vocal members of the list. I'm afraid that those who are big enough to accept the fact that some of our thinking has been warped by socialist memes are fewer than might seem likely. I experienced that myself in my belief, for a period of over twenty years, that the NRA stood for freedom, and supported the Second Amendment. It took a Russian immigrant to our shores to demonstrate to me, factually and logically, that the NRA exists simply to fund their own salaries and perquisites. When I discovered that every piece of gun control legislation since the Gun Control Act of 1968 (and actually some before that) was written with the assistance of the NRA, it woke me up to the fact that the NRA makes a living off of working with the gun control crowd in order to stimulate its members into donating large sums of money. Like two attorneys working together to bilk their divorcing clients of as much money as possible before finalizing the divorce. 

Examine some of your beliefs and assumptions from time to time in light of whether or not they truly support freedom, the rights of the individual, and the free market economics that have been responsible for all of the good years this country has experienced in the past. You might be surprised, especially when you find yourself using the word "should".