Friday - February 10, 2012
I Hate Being Patronized
The Fast and Furious story broke early last summer. It’s now nearly Valentine’s Day, and the news story, among the networks who even consider this news, is that a former agent says more government agencies were involved than LLPO Eric Holder admits to (LLPO = Liar Liar Pants On Fire). Well, no kidding. Tell us what we don’t know, m’kay?
While criticism surrounding Operation Fast and Furious has so far focused on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, three other federal agencies knew about the operation and some of their agents tried to stop it, according to the former chief of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in Tucson.
Tony Coulson, the DEA’s agent in charge of Southern Arizona during Fast and Furious, says many federal field agents knew the ATF was walking guns to Mexico, but supervisors told them to back off when they objected.
Coulson’s remarks jibe with what is already known about the operation. The DEA, the FBI and ICE, also known as Immigration Customs and Enforcement, all played roles in the investigation.
Coulson said those agencies share the blame since top officials knew, but did little to stop, the gunrunning effort. Coulson is among the first senior public officials, current or former, who admit knowing about the botched operation.
This is really annoying. And patronizing. Because anybody who can think and who realizes what a Velcroed clusterfuck of buck passing ass coverers the federal government is, can immediately see that this “revelation” is still not even half true. FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE involved? Sure. And the list goes on ...
Gun shops being strong-armed to make bulk sales to strawmen. That’s the ATF.
Guns sold to criminals. That’s the FBI.
Guns along the Rio Grande. That’s DHS.
Guns walking across the border? That’s ICE. And the Border Patrol perhaps, though so far it looks like they may have been patsies.
Several other similar programs, some in the Caribbean islands. That’s CIA and State.
Guns sold to criminal gangs of drug dealers. That’s DEA.
Gangs that are big enough and well armed enough to be a threat to the government of Mexico? Absolutely CIA and State. Can you say “junta” without a who?
Six or more law enforcement agencies working together? You know damn well DOJ is in it up to their eyeballs.
And who do they report to? No guesses necessary. The top end of the Executive and Legislative branches. Which means The White House, and probably several super select committees in Congress. It probably also involves some Spy Boys and their Costly Toys too, but that will never surface.
This stink sting operation was running in several states, so it’s a no-brainer to realize that any number of state law enforcement agencies and elected state officials were also in the know, at least to some extent.
And not one reporter ... reporters who orgasmically splooge themselves over those Watergate movies, look how we the Press connected the dots and brought down a president ... wants to lift a pen to connect dot one to dot two.
Not one of them has looked at the weapons themselves, and followed that lead. Were they actual fully automatic M16s? If they were, and they were new ones, then who approved the production run for several thousand for private sale? Machine guns are almost as tightly controlled as the Ebola virus on Plum Island. Were they military issue weapons? If so, then from where? Actual surplus, or did they “walk” off base in the middle of the night? That would bring the services into it, and yet another criminal element if those were current military guns that had been stolen from several bases. Hidden behind all the smoke and mirrors is the ugly fact that it wasn’t just guns, fully automatic or not, that walked. Grenades were involved too, and anti-aircraft weaponry. How does that not drag in the military? Is there some special branch of government that watches over the war munitions and isn’t in uniform?
This is one of the biggest boondoggle in American history, with dirty tentacles spread everywhere. In a just world it would bring down the government. No, not just Obama, but the heads of the House and Senate, the top levels of a dozen major agencies, a boxful of judges perhaps, perhaps some top military brass, and a truckload of state officials. And an army of pencil pushers and badge flashers. It would be Purge Time In Moscow, 1937, all over again. Only with real trials for good reason, in public, and the screaming hordes of citizens with torches at the gates. Because F&F is blatant proof that a secret cabal existed. A hidden government within the government, out of sight and above the law, with secret political intentions. And the housecleaning ought to be horrendous. My point is that everyone knew, from the very top to the bottom, and not one of them had the integrity or the common sense to speak up. And for that, they should all fry. ALL OF THEM.
Instead, all the average Joe Stupid on the street knows is that poor old Eric Holder is getting hassled by some committee all the time because he’s black.
Posted by Drew458
on 02/10/2012 at 05:19 PM
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Corruption and Greed • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (0)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - February 02, 2012
Rlly? Srsly?
New report released by GOP lawmakers suggests top Justice officials had extensive knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious
Top Department of Justice officials had extensive knowledge of and involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, claims a new report released Thursday, hours before Attorney General Eric Holder’s scheduled testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The report released by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, top lawmakers investigating the botched gunrunning operation, claims Justice Department officials in Washington and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were involved in the coordination in the early stages of the operation.
Justice headquarters “had much greater knowledge of, and involvement in, Fast and Furious than it has previously acknowledged,” the memo reads.
The memo, which contradicts claims by the Justice Department, is based upon interviews, documents and emails involving key players of the operation run by the ATF. The operation allowed some 2,000 weapons cross the border into Mexico and into the hands of cartel members.
Gak, why is this even news?
Is it finally, finally becoming obvious to even the willfully blind that F & F had to be run from the very top, with the involvement of all the major players and all the LEO departments? We figured that one out 7 months ago, and then a short essay by a DC insider on how the system works (meetings, sign-offs, emails, CYA when things are ‘above your pay grade’, etc ) drove the point home. No kidding. It could not have been any other way. DHS, BATFE, FBI, DOJ, and the whole alphabet of agencies probably even including the CIA are in this up to their eyeballs and have been since the beginning. State Department too in all likelihood, right up to the very top (HRH HRC) and that strongly implies White House involvement. “We’ve got something in the works, under the radar” quoth Fearless Reader back in the day.
The media is only starting to bay about Eric Holder. They haven’t even begun to think about Janet Napolitano. It might take them a century to have the epiphany that at least a handful of Senators and Congressweasels are also involved, along with quite a number of top state officials. Fast and Furious was not an accident and it did not operate in a vacuum.
We The People aren’t stupid, and we figured out the obvious months ago: that a large chunk of our federal government and some of our state governments were knowingly involved in a wide ranging action that was this close to being an act of war against a neighboring sovereign nation, all done to further their Alinksi plans to fracture society and to serve as the ultimate example for shredding the keystone piece of the Constitution that protects the rest of it.
It failed. The word leaked out. And now DC is furiously blowing smoke and twisting mirrors as fast as they can. Needless to say, the media is fairly complicit, since this has never been more than a bit of a small scale back burner sidebar story for just a few of the networks. If this shit ever really hits the fan, Holder will be left holding the bag ... and nobody will ever connect the dots to all the other players involved.
Fast and Furious is 1000 times dirtier than Watergate. This should have toppled the whole government. It is the prime example of the hubris in DC and their above-the-law elitist mentality. And for the most part, the mindless sheeple ignore it or are completely unaware of it, because the media doesn’t want to splatter any mud on their masters.
Posted by Drew458
on 02/02/2012 at 09:48 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Corruption and Greed • Guns and Gun Control • News-Briefs • No Shit, Sherlock •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - February 01, 2012
A Simple Solution
It’s February!
It’s going to hit 60°F here today. Unreal.
Tomorrow is Groundhog Day. If that little fatso sees his shadow, we get 6 more weeks of winter, even though we haven’t had any yet. I think not Phil. I think you need to move on ...
The standard .22-250 is a bona fide 700-800 yard varmint cartridge, which means it’s accurate enough to hit critters the size of a bottle of shampoo at those distances and turn them into mincemeat. A long standardized wildcat version called the .22-250 Ackley Improved takes a lot of the body taper out of the round and gives it a steeper shoulder angle. This gives the reloader a bit more room for more gun powder, which in turn gives slightly higher velocities. But this is a custom made rifle, so you would be smart to also get a top quality barrel with a faster than normal rifling twist and a slightly longer, tight and parallel throat built in. That lets you seat big (for the caliber; eg 80-90 grains) a bit further out for even more powder capacity and thus velocity, and it all adds up to make the Ackley version a 1000 yard squirrel gun. Also suitable for eliminating pesky groundhogs, even in the “dead of winter”. In some parts of Texas, I hear they use the .22-250 to hunt deer with. Wisconsin too? I hope those that do so are good enough hunters to go for the head shot on still deer at close ranges; I’m not positive that even the heavier non-frangible bullets (60gr Nosler Partition)are enough for a body shot but they might be.
For just about everything you’d ever want to know about this cartridge, go here. And here is a “white mist” .22-250 video that’s safe for tender stomachs.
Posted by Drew458
on 02/01/2012 at 12:27 PM
Filed Under: • Animals • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Monday - January 30, 2012
In My Inbox
Posted by Drew458
on 01/30/2012 at 07:41 AM
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control • Humor •
• Comments (6)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - January 26, 2012
Failure To Think Is Inexcusable
Let’s Get The Stoopit™ Out Of Government
We Could Start in Denver Colorado
Failure to think. Not jut circular logic, but spiral logic. Death spiral logic. Toss ‘em, start over. You ought not to be allowed to be this stupid or this dishonest and hold a job in government.
DENVER—A proposal to let Colorado residents carry concealed weapons without a permit failed Monday over concerns that it would make it easier for criminals and the mentally ill to have guns in public places.
A Senate committee rejected the bill on a 3-2 party-line vote, with Democrats voting against it. It’s the second year in a row the proposal has failed, but identical legislation is still running in the Republican-controlled House.
The bill would allow anyone legally able to have a gun to carry it concealed in public places, including colleges and private schools. Law enforcement officials testified against the bill, saying that removing the need for a concealed-carry permit would eliminate a safeguard authorities have to prevent some people from having weapons.
Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle said every year he denies conceal-carry permit requests from people who are mentally ill, are suicidal, or have substance abuse problems.
“These are people who otherwise are legally able to carry a firearm, and under this bill could carry a concealed firearm. These are people who are sometimes psychotic,” he said.
Stop me if I’m wrong, but the basic definition of a criminal is one who does not obey the law, right? So how is a permitting process going to even slow these people down?
Let’s not forget the purchasing process is still in place, and it’s still run by the feds, with that NICS system and all. Which, by LAW, disqualifies proven hard core criminals and the mentally ill already. Which means that they can’t legally buy a gun to begin with. Well, at least they can’t legally buy a gun from a gun store. Not sure how the disqualifications extend to personal sales, but I bet they do. Guaranteed, right?
PS - the Sheriff ought to be horse whipped, shot, and then fired. Nervy mother fucker, ain’t he, carrying out his own laws? Last time I checked, Colorado is NOT a “may issue” state, it is a “shall issue” one. Run this corrupt badge the hell out of town ASAP.
Republicans argued that they are trying to protect Second Amendment rights and that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit would increase public safety because people could more easily defend themselves.
...
Sen. Bob Bacon, a Democratic member of the committee that rejected the bill, said he worried about people being able to have firearms on college campuses, and he questioned Republicans’ argument that law-abiding citizens would be the ones taking advantage of the law.
“For me, law-abiding citizen is not a permanent condition,” he said. “All of us, on certain occasions, can snap,” he added.
And boy howdy, if the above quotes aren’t the clearest example of the core differences between the two parties, I don’t know what is. The Repubs want to pass the bill to increase your freedom and safety, both of which are your responsibility. The Dems don’t want to pass it because you can’t be trusted; you are a criminal in waiting and must be overseen by your masters in government. For your own good.
h/t to OCM
Posted by Drew458
on 01/26/2012 at 08:42 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - January 25, 2012
Welcome To America
A city girl recounts her introduction to firearms, from fear to fervor, in this essay in Elle magazine.
at first -
I’d never seen an actual gun, except in the holsters of police officers. To my mind, guns were verboten, menacing, violent. They were unpredictable contraptions beloved of white supremacists or paranoid meth heads in creepy desert hideouts.
And then a fair number of paragraphs recounting several nasty situations she had either just missed or been involved in ...
and later on -
The daylong class I opt for, called Women on Target, is sponsored by the National Rifle Association and is so popular that the first time I try to register, all the spots are full. I’m forced to wait another three months. When the day finally comes, I arrive at the range at 7 a.m. to find approximately 35 women of various ages, from twentysomething to 60-plus, sitting at the sort of long fake-wood tables on which bingo is played in church basements.
and eventually -
My hands start shaking. All that’s left to do is shoot the damn thing. I’m intimidated—I’m petrified!—but people are watching. Peer pressure always motivates me. I squint, hold my breath, and…fire.
Fuck.
My first thought is, I can’t believe how loud that was.
...
My next thought is, I want to do that again!
A revolver now rests on my nightstand. It’s small and sleek and black, a Ruger LCR. Weighing 13.5 ounces and no bigger than a half-sandwich, it’s easily slipped into a purse. I’ve tucked it not quite out of sight, among books I hope to read but maybe never will.
She’s getting there. For more information about the NRA’s Women On Target program, go here; for more information about a variety of NRA programs for firearms training, including their First Steps and Basics classes, go here.
via Insty
Posted by Drew458
on 01/25/2012 at 09:08 AM
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Tuesday - January 10, 2012
Building A Better Mousegun
A “mousegun” is a very tiny pistol, made to fit in your pocket. Usually they are chambered for the diminutive calibers; .22LR, .25 ACP, and .32 ACP. Lately several have come on the market that use the .380 ACP. None of these cartridges is a powerhouse, but when the foo hits the shan they are better than no gun at all. First rule of gun fighting: bring a gun.
It used to be that semi-automatic pocket pistols all used a blow-back action, like the Beretta Tomcat. A blow-back action is one without any kind of breech locking mechanism; the action is held closed by spring power alone, and held somewhat closed during firing by the mass of the pistol’s slide. Although such guns are easy and inexpensive to make, this kind of design is limited to cartridges that generate very low chamber pressure, and in a stubby little mousegun that always means low velocity. And low velocity means low muzzle energy, which is another way of saying they don’t have much killing power, and they certainly don’t have much of any stopping power.
(Huh? Killing power is just that. If you shoot something in the vital organs with a bullet that can penetrate deep enough to puncture those organs, and can dig a hole at least half an inch wide while doing so, the critter you have shot is going to die. Eventually. Doesn’t matter if it’s a squirrel or an elephant, although the required penetration depth varies with the size of the critter. Stopping power is the ability of a bullet to shatter, destroy, and permanently displace internal organs and nerve pathways enough so that the creature stops in its tracks, stunned. It stops running, stops attacking, and hopefully falls over. Stopping power is more of a concept based on observations, and is often given the colorful label “hydrostatic shock”. All animals are essentially bags of water. Smack the bag hard enough and it bursts, or at least gets pushed out of shape. Put a big enough hole in it and it quickly leaks out. And that’s the “science” of killing things, without going into too much graphic detail ... look up “wounding theory”, “terminal ballistics”, “temporary vs permanent wound channel” if you want to know more.)
With nearly the entire USA now being allowed by the States to exercise their God given right of self-protection, a vast number of people have taken to carrying a pistol on their person. “CCW” we call that. While some folks prefer and would argue for “open carry” (ie a pistol in a holster on your belt) most of us would prefer to not advertise the fact, and elect to carry a pistol in our pockets, or somewhere out of sight. The problem is that a pistol small enough to drop in your pocket and light enough to carry around without pulling your pants down is almost always chambered for one of the earlier mentioned puny cartridges.
Things have changed, somewhat. In the past few years there have been a plethora of very tiny locked breech .380 ACP pocket pistols brought to the market. So many that .380 ammo was darn hard to find for a couple years recently. For semi-auto mouseguns the .380 is about the best choice you have; while the 9mm Luger (aka the 9x19, 9mm Parabellum, or just the 9mm) is a far more powerful cartridge, it has not been available in any very tiny pistol at all, ever. Ok, you can get a 9mm from Boberg these days for a bit over $1000. And there’s that one from Rohrbaugh or however you spell it, also over $1000. And both of those pistols weigh more than 3/4 of a pound and are nearly an inch thick. Small, but heavy for their size and a bit thick to go in your pocket without leaving a big old bulge. But most other 9mm pistols are quite a bit bigger although they usually cost a lot less.
The current generation of lightweight .380 pocket pistols are all about 5” long, 3.6” tall, 3/4” thick and weigh in around half a pound. That’s pretty tiny and pretty light. And most of them (Ruger LCP, Kel-Tec P3AT, the Taurus model) cost $350 or less. And they all have locked breech designs these days, which makes for a much stronger and safer pistol.
The problem is still with the .380 ACP cartridge. And with the lawyers. And with SAAMI, the industry firearms governing board. And to point it all out, I have to build a table or two. Damn.
| Cartridge | bullet dia. | case base dia. | case mouth dia. | wall thickness | case length | overall length | SAAMI max pressure, PSI |
| .380 ACP | 0.355” | 0.374” | 0.373” | 0.009” | 0.680” | 0.984” | 21,500 |
| .38 Auto | 0.356” | 0.384” | 0.384” | 0.014” | 0.900” | 1.28” | 26,500 |
| .38 Super | 0.356” | 0.384” | 0.384” | 0.014” | 0.900” | 1.28” | 36,500 |
| 9mm Ultra (9x18) | 0.355” | 0.389” | 0.381” | 0.013” | 0.709” | 1.004” | 26,100 |
| .9mm Luger (9x19) | 0.355” | 0.391” | 0.380” | 0.0125” | 0.754” | 1.169” | 35,000 |
| .9mm NATO (9x19) | 0.355” | 0.391” | 0.380” | 0.0125” | 0.754” | 1.169” | 38,500 |
| 9x23 Winchester | 0.356” | 0.392” | 0.381” | 0.0125” | 0.90” | 1.3” | 44,000 |
| .38 Special | 0.359” | 0.379” | 0.379” | 0.010” | 1.155” | 1.55” | 17,000 |
| .357 Magnum | 0.359” | 0.379” | 0.379” | 0.010” | 1.29” | 1.59” | 35,000 |
Ok, several things pop right out here. The .38 Special and the .357 Magnum are revolver cartridges. Not only do the cases have rims, their OALs (overall lengths) are a bit big to fit inside the handle of a semi-automatic and fit comfortably in your hand. It’s been done, but those guns don’t fit everyone. For all extents and purposes, all the cartridges listed here use 9mm bullets. The revolver cartridges are speced for lead bullets, so they are a tad oversize. The .38 Auto and the .38 Super Auto date back to John Browning’s day, and are the exact same cartridge but loaded to two very different pressure points. Which can lead to disaster if you put the wrong ammo in the wrong gun. Oops. A difference in spec of 2 or 3 one thousands of an inch is meaningless, given production tolerances. So a .389” case diameter is really the same as a .391” case diameter, although a .355” diameter bullet is not the same as a .356”, .357”, or .358” one. But they’re all 38s ... or 9s ... that’s just how guns are: confusing.
But you can easily see that the .380 Auto is a much smaller case made with thinner (weaker) walls and set to a much lower pressure standard than the 9x19, whether we’re talking Luger or NATO. Yes, the Army made the Luger a far more effective round by jacking the pressure up 10%. Almost all 9mm pistols can handle it, but to be safe I’d look for one specifically chambered for the 9mm NATO, like the Beretta 92F, which is the pistol the Army uses. For now.
The 9x23 Winchester is to the 9mm Luger what the .357 Magnum is to the .38 Special: it’s the same case, just longer, and set to run at a much higher pressure. This is a specialty cartridge used mostly by metallic target shooters, but I put it in to show that pistol cases in this size range with 0.0125” thick walls can handle quite a bit more pressure than even the 9mm NATO. The .357 Maximum (not listed here) is similar; it’s just a stretched .357 Magnum and it also runs at 44,000 psi. Which is the same pressure bracket used by the .30-30 rifle (43,500 psi); rather hot for a handgun, but not impossible.
So the Gun Nutz argue that the .380 ACP isn’t enough gun, the modern 9x19 is, but the .357 Magnum is usually too much gun. Go figure. But what they are talking about is stopping power and killing power, and those two are inextricably linked to bullet weight and velocity. More equals better, but too much is too much. Especially in a dinky little half pound pistol the size of the palm of your hand that you can only hold on to with 3 fingers, 1 of which is pulling the trigger.
How do the lawyers come in to play here? Because SAAMI, the regulating group, sets the cartridge pressure standards as a Maximum Probable Lot Mean, or MPLM, and that means that no cartridge that meets their spec (and they all have to) can ever exceed the maximum allowable pressure. Translated into lawyereese, that means all commercially available “factory ammo” not labeled as being designed to be over standard pressures actually runs a bit less than maximum pressure. Sometimes a lot less, and the trend is that the older the cartridge is, the lower the maximum becomes. And most of these cartridges have already been around for about 100 years. This is why folks load their own ammo, see? And why ammo brought in from Europe is so “hot”. No, it just isn’t as watered down lawyered up.
So is there a solution? Yes! But then again, no! That’s guns, and they’re confusing!!
Many pistol cartridges have an unofficial variant, a hot rodded version called a “+P”. There is no exact specification for what “+P” means, or furthermore what “+P+” means, but both of them mean “somewhat more than SAAMI pressure”. Or in lawyereese, “actually runs at SAAMI pressure”. Probably. And all the +P types of ammo should only be used in modern guns so chambered, of which almost none are. Or else it’s all on your head, m’kay? So there is a .38 Special +P, a quarter of the way between regular .38 Special and .357 Magnum pressures, and there are actually revolvers sold marked as such, because the original .38 Special runs at such anemic pressure that even a cheap pistol is more than strong enough for it. Remember that the Special started life back in black powder days, before the advent of chrome or moly steel. So any old crap steel these days is strong enough, and almost all the gun companies build them with really first class steel anyway, because they aren’t completely stupid. And while no +P designation exists for the .45 Colt or the .45-70, the loading manuals are full of “Ruger only” loads for them that are +P level or more, because that gun company builds really strong guns. But you may have trouble finding almost any other gun labeled as being chambered for a “+P” anything. (Confused yet? No? Good. Because almost every single rifle made for the .257 Roberts cartridge in the past 50 years has been labeled as a .257 Roberts +P. With guns, there’s always, always an exception or two.)
Of the 3 latest generation .380 ACP pocket pistols on the market, 2 specifically tell you not to use +P ammo. 1 of those guns will break if you do so. Maybe. The 3rd company says you can use the +P stuff, but not all the time. Because it will wear your gun out, and quickly. Why? Because super tiny lightweight pistols are engineered more towards the minimum than the maximum. They have to shave every last possible gram, and that means their parts are smaller, lighter, and thinner than those of bigger pistols. Therefore not as overly excessively robust. So the lawyers get involved ... and you know how that song and dance goes.
Right. So standard .380 ACP ammo is better than nothing, but not really quite enough. And .380 +P is a lot better, though still on the low powered side. Full powered 9x19 ammo is enough (and may over-penetrate), and even lame-o factory .357 Magnum ammo is far too much. For personal defense, we’re talking. Which means shooting people at close ranges who are trying to kill you. Let’s look at what the numbers are, and try and hack out that “just right” Goldilocks solution before the apocalypse gets here, m’kay Drew?
| Cartridge | Bullet Weight, grains | Sectional Density | fps Velocity, 2.75” barrel | Muzzle Energy, lb/ft |
| .380 Auto | 95 | 0.108 | 1000 | 200 |
| .380 Auto +P | 100 | 0.113 | 1060 | 250 |
| 9x19 | 124 | 0.140 | 1180 | 384 |
| .357 Magnum | 125 | 0.141 | 1300 | 470 |
| 9x18 Ultra | 100 | 0.113 | 1065 | 252 |
| 9x18 Ultra +P | 115 | 0.130 | 1150 | 346 |
I’m kind of giving away the surprise. The solution is the 9x18, and the better solution is the 9x18 +P. Which doesn’t yet exist except in my ballistics software calculations. But my numbers are realistic, and I can even tell you what bullet and what powder to use. The 9x18 has quite a number of names, but 9x18 Ultra is one of the more common ones.
The 9x18 is not new. It was developed in the late 1930s as being the most potent 9mm cartridge that could function in a cheap blow-back action. It is a big enough cartridge to seat a decent weight bullet with good sectional density; that means the bullet has enough mass to penetrate well and enough body so that it can expand enough without turning itself inside out. The OAL of the cartridge is small enough so that the thickness and width of a pocket pistol’s grips will still be fairly small and fit just about all hands. In its normal pressure form it packs as much energy as the iffy +P .380 ammo, and in its own +P form (36,000 psi) it has almost as much wallop as the modern 9x19 NATO, using a slightly light bullet for a bit less recoil. It’s the best middle of the road, and is just about completely unknown in the USA. It’s a European cartridge, and for a little while was what the euro-cops carried. These days they’ve all “up gunned” and carry the 9x19. So, where did this little wonder come from? It was designed back in the day by those wonderful leaders in science and technology of their age ... the Nazis. Oops.
Today’s generation of micro pocket guns, all of which have locked breeches, could easy be made to chamber the 9x18 +P. It would take an extra ounce of steel, perhaps two, and perhaps an extra tenth of an inch of length. But it could be done, and they’d be strong enough and then some. The lawyers and the marketing guys would have to get together though, and decide to make the case 0.002” longer and the OAL 0.005” longer and then give it a new name, probably something like “the all-new mid-size 9mm All American” and then never, ever breath a word about its history. Because nobody says the real “N” word, ever. Not that one. Sales killer, guaranteed. Even for certain insecticides which happen to be soooo so close to certain other poisons that have a vile and horrid history. And it would be just as bad with guns. Worse maybe. So don’t breath a word. Better yet, let Glock do it, and they’ll call the round the 9mm GAP ... especially since this one actually fills a gap, unlike their slightly silly .45 GAP cartridge from a couple years ago.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/10/2012 at 12:49 PM
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (6)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - December 22, 2011
Mulligan?
a couple days ago ...
Eric Holder doesn’t have a good answer for his involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal, but he has come up with an explanation for why he is the target of so much criticism. It’s because he’s black, which he says is also why Barack Obama gets criticized, too.
Holder says he’s a convenient two-fer for Obama critics. People identify him with the President because “you know, the fact that we’re both African American.” He also says those people who take exception with him or with Obama are part of the “more extreme segment” of America.
Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
Today ... it never happened, it was all in your mind?
The Justice Department decided to respond to Attorney General Eric Holder’s deployment of the race card with a statement that essentially pulls the Jedi Mind Trick and informs us that we did not hear what we heard.
...
Everyone capable of understanding simple conversational English was able to follow the plain meaning of these words.
...
[ the response of the Justice Department:] “That is a complete distortion of the attorney general’s comment. His comments both in the article and elsewhere made clear that he believes much of the criticism is launched against him are unfortunately the typical Washington gotcha game. A simple reading of those comments show he was referring to how he is identified with the president given their close relationship and all they share in common including their ideology.The position of the attorney general has been a target for partisan attacks, and given the critical work that this attorney general he is doing at the Department of Justice, it’s no surprise that some are engaging in such tactics. His critics rightly view the attorney general is a progressive force, and given our current political environment, there will those who use any opportunity to score political points.”
Sure. Holder said that he got grief because he was Obama’s stand-in because he was black. And because he worked for him. The black part was half of his stated reason.
The parts I really like best:
This statement is much more effective if you print it on a piece of paper and spin it rapidly, forming a hypnotic pinwheel, while chugging eggnog. It’s possible the resulting trancelike state and/or nausea might make you forget what Eric Holder actually said, or the abundantly clear context of his remarks.
The idea that Holder remained in office for one single day after the program came to light is absurd.
...
And now the nation’s top lawman plays the race card to save his hide… and his department produces the lamest, clumsiest attempt at spin to come out of Washington in living memory?
Once again, nothing to see here, move along. These are not the droids you are looking for. Hey, how about that weather we’re having? It’s almost Christmas and I’ve got the heat off and the windows open. It must be 55° out; feels like spring.
Posted by Drew458
on 12/22/2011 at 12:34 PM
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Guns and Gun Control • Racism and race relations •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Friday - December 16, 2011
a stand-in post
Unfortunately, Bert’s first time at a Cowboy Action Shoot was also his last.
Posted by Drew458
on 12/16/2011 at 11:58 AM
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control • Humor •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Sunday - December 11, 2011
Silly Foreigners
UPDATED UPDATED UPDATE: Still trying. Getting tired of going around and around with the emails. And I was wrong that both pictures had been sent to me to use. Only one was. The other—I’m only guessing here --- must have been attached to the original email I received, along with a full pasting of the text from my post. Because I wouldn’t recognize one of my own posts by it’s title just a couple days after posting it, nor would I be able to follow a hyperlink onto my own blog. Whatever. It doesn’t matter. That picture no longer exists on this blog, nor does the quotation that went along with it. I think everyone should be happy now.
I think this is about the last time I try and cover anything about any book anyone writes. It’s too much bother. I’ve been down this road several times before and I’m tired of it. In the future I’ll just be lazy and do a GR* and give you a link to somewhere else. Free publicity is getting too expensive from my end.
( * = I don’t want to write “Glenn Reynolds” or “the puppy blender” or mention “Instapundit” because I don’t want to hear from him ... or Frank J (who coined the ‘PB’ moniker I think, and who I hear from once every 3rd blue moon anyway, hope the baby’s doing great Frank.) for mentioning them without their prior approval. Who needs the hassle? )
UPDATED UPDATE: I think we’re OK now. I’ve heard back from the publisher and I’m using the pictures they provided, and a short excerpt from some of the text provided. Always nice to have a bit of official blessing.
Um, Drew, those are the same pictures you had before! Uh, um, no, they only look the same. These were provided with permission, instead of being harvested from somewhere else where they may not have been used with permission. Highly nuanced, but that’s how the world is these days.
UPDATE: I got an email from the publisher asking for the picture to be pulled. They say they are willing to supply an approved picture. Guess they’re pretty busy - I’ve seen the pictures on a dozen web sites at least. So I’ll play nice, and see what they send me instead.
In the mean time, reader Dan has written me a couple of times with information about women with guns on one of more of the Outdoor Channels. Seems there’s this reality show, Wildgame Nation about this family who work as hunting guides? And they also happen to host a beauty pagent that also has a hunt-off or something as part of it. News to me, I don’t watch that channel. I think Dan’s point was to show that pretty girls do exist who are no strangers to weaponry, not just posing with a rifle or a shotgun. Good point. Granted, that isn’t the point of this book. And I’m sure the Euro-wienies have all sorts of twisted theories about why American guys like to look at pictures of pretty American girls shooting guns. Or even regular looking women holding their own guns. Psst, EU: We aren’t afraid of strong women. Armed or not. Heck, they’re a blessing. Does carrying a gun make a woman (or a man) strong? No, but the attitude that grows alongside owning and responsibly using firearms does. It isn’t blood lust, and it isn’t homicidal intent. But it is a very American thing ... y’all over there just wouldn’t understand.
It’s often either humorous or irritating reading examples of American stereotyping in the foreign press. Sometimes it’s both. In the UK they apparently believe we’re all a gun mad lot, armed to the teeth and running about just hoping we’ll get the opportunity to shoot someone. Anyone. Everyone! It’s such a wrong idea that it’s laughable, but they keep right on believing it, year after year.
Here’s the latest ... ‘Chicks With Guns’ a new photo essay book that looks at the “often unsettling” relationship between American women and their own firearms. It’s been covered in a fair number of the British papers. Watching Americans is like watching a horror movie to them I think, or a slow motion train wreck. They’re badly frightened, they form the completely wrong opinions, but they can’t look away. Here are a couple excerpts from the book:
Alexandra and Truitt, Texas
This is a downsized and cropped picture of a woman, her baby, and her shotgun. Sent to me by the publisher with explicit permission to use it. It is in the book. The book tells her story. It must be a good story because every other web site on the planet that is covering this book is running this picture and telling you all about the woman and her story. I, however, will tell you only that one of the digital newspapers in the UK misidentified her double barreled shotgun as a rifle. Don’t get on their case too hard for that, because in the the UK the upper classes who own firearms often own double barreled rifles. They are very expensive. They look quite a bit like shotguns, except that they have sights on top of the barrels.
******************
My take? Another Strong Mom picture. I wouldn’t mind having the shotgun. I think it’s an Ithaca, in 20 or 28 gauge, which means it isn’t super expensive, and a 28 gauge doesn’t recoil very much. I’m sure that the naked baby and the empty shotgun will give the Brits apoplexy, making them foam off about Dick Cheney, ‘Elf & Safety mandated pre-natal infant hearing protection, or something. Silly foreigners.
Greta, California
“Many weekends were spent on hunting trips and I loved waking up early to begin the adventure. As I wanted to be a true part of the shooting parties, I studied hard with my dad’s help and completed the Hunter’s Safety Course at the California Department of Fish and Game so I could receive a Lifetime Hunting License. I was so proud when the certificate arrived in the mail three weeks before my tenth birthday!
As I got older and became more familiar with guns, I graduated to a beautiful .22 Winchester automatic rifle, which I am still using for target shooting.”
Based on polling research and gun-sale statistics, an estimated 15million to 20million U.S. women own their own firearms.Ms McCrum, who does not own a gun herself, chose to document some of them in her book, saying that while the numbers of gun-toting females may be high, their profiles are low.
In ‘Chicks with Guns’, the women photographed talk about why they own a firearm and what doing so means to them.
Some work in law enforcement, some on ranches. Others relish the excitement of hunting big game, while several are accomplished competition shooters.
Some are fiercely concerned about protection and self-defence, while for others, such as Mrs Knight, the guns have been passed down for generations and become cherished heirlooms.
...
Lindsay McCrum’s ‘Chicks with Guns’ is graced on the cover by Greta, a young woman who received her first gun as an infant and earned her lifetime hunting license before her 10th birthday.
******************
My take? I find this shot, which is the cover picture, quite interesting. Not a single one of those antique firearms was made in America, from the early schutzen matchlock rifle on top to the two left handed flintlocks in the middle down to the Danish blunderbuss at the bottom. Her pistol is an English Forsyth system* scent bottle pistol, ca. 1820. [thanks for that info, publisher lady!] And I’m pretty sure that the deer is a Red Stag, the kind that only grows over there. Hey, Americans can own nearly any kind of boomstick, but this seems an awfully European looking picture for a book about American women and their firearms. Nor was I aware of any states that had lifetime hunting licenses available to minors.Update: Guess I’m wrong about the lifetime licenses; you can get one in California. And while I’m right about the guns and the stuffed animal in the picture, the young lady is from California. I gather her family collects antiques, including antique firearms. Greta got to play a young Annie Oakley in a PBS American Experience Special. They liked her shooting ability so much that they expanded her role and used her in more shooting scenes than she’d originally expected. Cool.
I guess I should be fair to the UK press. They do actually present the information about this new book in a pretty straightforward manner, at worst saying the images are “unsettling” but the public can comment on the article, and comment they certainly do. Both Wired Magazine and Huffington Post here in the US have covered the book, and even at those not-exactly-Red-State-America kind of blogs the reader reaction has been generally positive. About the worst they can come up with is that the women in the pictures aren’t always beauty queens, and perhaps they’re being exploited for profit by the photographer. Or that there aren’t enough/any black women in the pictures shown online. The Brits, on the other hand, pretty much loose their marbles and start foaming at the mouth, linking to US crime statistics and calling for world disarmament. I guess they just can’t handle it, but I’m not sure which “it” I’m referring to: the guns, or the strong and capable women who are carrying them?
In Chicks with Guns, Lindsay McCrum has created a cultural portrait of women gun owners in America through photographs that are both beautiful and in a sense unexpected. The book examines issues of self-image and gender through the visual conventions of portraiture and fashion, but the guns are presented here not as superimposed props but as the very personal lifestyle accessories of the subjects portrayed. And it defies stereotypes often associated with aspects of the popular culture of both guns and women. Like the 15-20 million women gun owners in this country, the women we meet in Chicks with Guns ( their portraits are accompanied by their own words), reside in all regions of the country, come from all levels of society, and participate seriously in diverse shooting activities. The women here are sportswomen, hunters, and competition shooters. Some use guns on their jobs and some for self-defense. They may not all be classically beautiful, but in these photographs they all look beautiful, exuding honesty, confidence, poise, power and pride. They are real women with real guns that play a part in their lives. By focusing her camera respectfully on this particular aspect of the American scene, gun-wielding women and girls, Lindsay McCrum sheds new light on who we are in America today.
See Peiper, I do read my mail. It sometimes just takes a while for me to do anything about it!
Posted by Drew458
on 12/11/2011 at 08:35 PM
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control • UK •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - December 08, 2011
Old News Is New News Again Yet Again
Holey cheese and rice! Is today Time Warp Day or something? What kind of hermetically sealed rock have these jokers been living under?
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
“Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”
Well, perhaps it is actually new news here in the middle of December that BACK IN JULY a document surfaced that certainly seemed to support the conclusion THAT THE ENTIRE RIGHT WING BLOGOSPHERE FIGURED OUT quite a number of months before that.
At this rate, CBS will run the “news” that this operation was also used to launder vast amounts of money ... sometime in the Spring perhaps? And they’ll get around to calling for Mueller’s, Holder’s, Napolitano’s, and Obama’s heads in about 2017. Melson and Burke are already long gone, but they’re just the fall guys. This goes all the way up the ladder, right to the very top. Chop chop. Chop.
Posted by Drew458
on 12/08/2011 at 09:25 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - December 03, 2011
Retail Surge
Not sure how I missed this one, but better late than never.
Gun dealers flooded the FBI with background check requests for prospective buyers last Friday, smashing the single-day, all-time high by 32%, according to bureau records.
Deputy Assistant FBI Director Jerry Pender said the checks, required by federal law, surged to 129,166 during the day, far surpassing the previous high of 97,848 on Black Friday of 2008.
The actual number of firearms sold last Friday is likely higher because multiple firearms can be included in a transaction by a single buyer. And the FBI does not track actual gun sales.
Some gun industry analysts attributed the unusual surge to a convergence of factors, including an increasing number of first-time buyers seeking firearms for protection and women who are being drawn to sport shooting and hunting.
Larry Keane, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said 25% of the purchases typically involve first-time buyers, many of them women.
“I think there also is a burgeoning awakening of the American public that they do have a constitutional right to own guns,” Keane said.
The FBI has not yet released the NICS numbers for November, but so far 2011 is on track to surpass the record setting numbers of 2009 and 2010. Looks to me like about 2.5 million more guns per year during every year of Fearless Reader’s regime, and a fat surge in late 2008. Way to go. Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson say thank you.
Posted by Drew458
on 12/03/2011 at 10:47 AM
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - November 26, 2011
is the russian army kissing off the new kalashnikov?
Well finally, I’m able to get to what I originally started on.
New on the ‘new’ Kalashnikov.
I am not even close in any way to the knowledgeable folks at bmews, starting with Drew, on things that go bang. I appreciate them, I’m pro gun, but haven’t the technical savvy to carry on a discussion or offer advice. However, once in awhile I find something gun related I stumble across, and think others will be as interested as I am. With that understanding I offer the following.
Kalashnikov manufacturer targets Russian army with new rifle
By Shaun Walker
The latest model of the legendary Kalashnikov rifle is due to be unveiled in December, with leaked reports in the Russian press suggesting that its key feature will be that all major functions can be performed with one arm.Other details about the rifle are sketchy. The owners of the factory in the Urals that produces the guns hope the new model will meet approval from the Russian army, which earlier this year said it would stop buying the rifles. But there are already mutterings that the military is not impressed.
The first weapon in the series was designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov, a Red Army tank commander during the Second World War, and entered mass production in 1949. Mr Kalashnikov is still alive and lives in the city of Izhevsk, where the rifles are still be produced.
A newer version, the AK-74, was introduced in the 1970s, followed by a number of updated versions. More rifles based on Mr Kalashnikov’s design have been produced than any other gun in military history and it has been copied by factories around the world.
Earlier this year, the Russian army said it would no longer order Kalashnikov rifles until the plant developed a new model. Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the General Staff, said the army already had too many of the guns stockpiled complained that the technology was out of date.
At the time, members of the designer’s family said they were not telling Mr Kalashnikov about the decision for fear of upsetting him. “It might kill him,” said one.
There may not be better news to give the weapon’s inventor. A source in the Russian General Staff told the newspaper Izvestia the new version is unlikely to impress the military. “From the models we’ve seen, there is nothing principally new there,” he said. He added that the rifle would have the same kickback, which meant it moved from side to side after the first shot, reducing accuracy.
Immediately after the announcement in September, the manufacturer Izhmash announced it was designing a brand-new, “fifth-generation” Kalashnikov, which it hoped to have ready by the end of the year. The rifle will be given to the Russian army for testing in the coming weeks. Izvestia said the new gun will have a unique feature allowing the user to flick the safety catch, pull the trigger, and even change the magazine using one arm, meaning fighters can continue to shoot even if injured.
What the weapon will look like and whether it will feature other upgrades from the AK-74 remains uncertain.
But the newspaper said the weapon would be “recognisable”.
You would think I found this article in one of our two somewhat conservative papers today. But no. I found it in, of all the unlikely places, in a lefty (by and large) liberal (not so by and large) newspaper.
Hey .... at least I’m not reading the Guardian.
Posted by peiper
on 11/26/2011 at 12:22 PM
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control • Military •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • the blunderbess (blunderbuss) as eye candy and some history
H/T Military Factory.com
I think this may turn out to be one of those busy blog days due to unexpected finds. Funny how that works.
I came across what I thought was an interesting article in one of our morning papers. Had to do with the Kalashnikov of much fame. A new version of which I’ll post soon.
Somehow and I don’t even know how, I found myself HERE, at military factory dot com. And proceeded to lose myself among all their interesting articles on weapons and history of same and of course, photos. Lots of those. I LOVE this site, and have already learned quite a bit.
So, before I knew it, I (temporarily) abandoned the Kalashnikov story to post this. And there’s tons more at Military Factory.
Unfortunately, the web site made it impossible for me to do a normal copy/paste routine. So I did a screen shot and can only hope it plays well on your computer.
If I’ve managed to foul things up, just go the link above. It really is a good site for info and education about weapons and war and things military etc.
Due to the screen shot for the text, I am unable to move things around easily but it’s still readable. I hope.
Posted by peiper
on 11/26/2011 at 10:31 AM
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Five Most Recent Trackbacks:
LAAR She Blows! Part One
(2 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Planes Ideas Blog
[...] CABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEB [...]
On: 07/12/11 01:57
The Tactical Cowboy
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Sights Service Blog
[...] E LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE [...]
On: 07/10/11 08:30
Nasty Dirty Money
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Money Reviews Blog
[...] ONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLES [...]
On: 06/17/11 08:31
Amazing aerial images taken by daring Allied pilots on secret missions during WW 2
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Hookers and Booze
peiper over at Barking Moonbat EWS found some absolutely kickass aerial photos from WWII. I grabbed this one because I’m a big fan of the movie A Bridge Too Far.…
On: 11/23/09 04:14
Clear Thinking and Straight Talk
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at baldilocks
Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home Read all of it--and tell every American you know to do so. (Thanks to BMEWS) UPDATE: The author of the above blog is…
On: 10/02/09 09:29
DISCLAIMER
THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.
Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.
- Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
- Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
- Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
- Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.
Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner
Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
RSS 2.0 
Atom 
