Shooting the .357 Magnum

That's my new toy. It's a S&W 686P, a seven-shot revolver chambered in .357 Magnum. I fired it for the first time today, putting 50 magnum rounds through the weapon.

The pistol is a 6" Combat model, which helps keep the felt recoil down considerably; it is almost comparable to a 4" automatic firing .40 S&W. The muzzle blast and noise, however, are considerably higher than .40, and, if one may say so, far more satisfying. This can be seen in the following video, in which I fire my last six cartridges, three in single action, three in double.

This was my first cartridge revolver, and I am quite satisfied with the results. The 686P has the option to fire in either single or double-action mode. In double action the trigger pull is relatively heavy, but not unmanageable, and in single-action mode pull is negligible. Loading is easy and quicker than might be expected. Ejection is extremely satisfying. A light push of the ejector rod drops seven empty magnum cases. This rain of brass is far more enjoyable, in my experience than the shell-per-shot ejection of automatics.

The revolver fired 50 rounds in a row with no misfires; it is a revolver, so this is to be expected. There was fair amount of lead buildup in and around the cylinder and barrel, and I have not, at this time, purchased a .357 caliber bore brush. After today, it is most definitely on my list of items to purchase.

The best aspect of the 686 is the power of the .357 Magnum cartridge. I fired it from a concrete platform into the ground downrange, causing chunks of dirt to fly literally ten feet into the air. During another fun test, the .357 completely destroyed a water bottle. (The camera jumps at first, as my brother was startled by the initial blast. I apologize on his behalf.)

All-in-all, the .357 is easily my new favorite firearm. That doesn't mean, however there wasn't time to experiment with old favorites, like the Remington 1858, a .44 caliber blackpowder revolver; a bullet fired from this weapon lodged in a block of wood, resulting in this interesting photo.





The only downside to the .357 is the cost. I fired 50 rounds at a cost of $22, and that ammo was difficult to find, with the recent ammo shortage in full effect. Together with the cost of the gun, the total cost was almost $800. This was unfortunate, but, I feel, with a government as devoted to the taking of property, particularly firearms, as ours, an expenditure worth every penny.

Who is John Galt?

Today, the government nationalized a major U.S. automaker. CNN covered it, and on that channel, a commercial was featured which urged voters to vote for universal healthcare and "blow away the competition."

I am reminded of Ayn Rand's classic novel, Atlas Shrugged. The novel depicts a United States in which the government slowly eliminates competition, to the delight of big business, and eventually nationalizes those businesses, when the lack of competition has caused them to fail. As a result, the economy crashes, a process quickened by the capitalist industrialists, who withhold their gift of production from the world, thereby hastening the inevitable end.

The results of the economic crash, of course, are violence and terror in the streets. CNN reported today, in addition to the bankruptcy of GM, three people killed. One, a late-term abortion activist, the others two recruitment officers. These events, seemingly unrelated, are the inevitable result of a people losing faith in their government to solve social problems, and seek to solve the problems themselves.

Atlas Shrugged, written in the 1950s, is happening now, but with one exception. We have no John Galt. We have no Ellis Wyatt, Dagny Taggart, Henry Rearden.

I am a capitalist, a position I never dreamed I would have to defend. However, with General Motors turning into Government Motors, and blatant commercials calling for the abolition of competition, it seems I must take the unnecessary action of defending what amounts to the perfect system of economics.

Capitalism is, first and foremost, the absence of force. It is a system in which people are free to enter into voluntary exchange with others for their mutual benefit. Put simply, everyone is free, and everyone wins.

It is said that capitalism is at fault for our economic problem. It is said that the current situation is a "failure of capitalism." But, have you ever examined what it is that has failed?

Under capitalism, bad companies are allowed to fail, without aid from the government. Is is capitalism that has failed when the government bailouts do not save a company?

Under capitalism, a company belongs to an individual, or individuals, not the government. When auto parts from a certain company, recently nationalized, are expected to become less accessible, and those cars are expected to devalue faster than if they had remained private, is it a failure of capitalism?

Under capitalism, force or fraud is prohibited by the nature of the system. Companies who attempt to use force or fraud in their endeavors will fail, as customers will not stand to be treated in this manner, and will withhold the lifeblood of any business: money. When a company uses an entity which states that your wealth is subject to confiscation to fund failing businesses, is it a failure of capitalism?

Or is it capitalism at all?

In one sense, of course, it is the failure of capitalism, or, more accurately, the failure of the capitalists by conceding, negotiating or compromising with government force. Capitalism failed because it strayed away from itself.

Democrats are at fault for the so-called failure of capitalism, by their naive belief in "good government," as if any entity whose sole function is theft could ever be good, no matter what its intentions. Republicans are at fault for the so-called failure of capitalism, by their refusal to buy the best product at the lowest price, instead embracing the mantra, "buy American," as if the fact that a product was made within the borders of a certain state made it an objectively better deal.

Under times such as these, when capitalism is failing not from any inherent flaw, but from not being capitalism any longer, the divide must not be between Democrats and Republicans, but between capitalists and socialists. There are those that think a compromise between these ideals is possible. They are wrong. What we are now witnessing is the result of a compromise. Socialism, being an inferior system, benefits most from such a compromise, tainting the purity of capitalism and slowly leeching its health and vitality, like a parasite on an otherwise healthy human being.

The economy will not reverse itself through any means but unbridled capitalism. Unfortunately, the intellectual leaders of today are not willing to adhere to those ideals. The flaw in Ayn Rand's classic is that it fails to take into account a situation in which there are no John Galts. In order to combat socialism and the failure of American society, it is up to us, the capitalists, to be John Galts.

In these times, when the perfect system of economics is being corrupted, and denounced as a failure by those who have corrupted it, some must stand in defense of our economic system. We, who believe in freedom and wealth for all who are willing to pursue it by their own means, and not on the backs of their neighbors, cannot compromise. We must support capitalism as it should be, or not at all.

Capitalism is the perfect economic system. It is the system of economic and civil freedom. Forces which seek to destroy it are parasites, and like, parasites, must be dealt with before they become too dangerous. I do not know by what means these parasites must be destroyed; I know only that they must, before it becomes impossible to buy a quality product, before it becomes impossible to earn a living, before there is violence in the streets, before it becomes impossible to speak out against government oppression, before it becomes illegal to say what I am now saying.

It can happen. It happened in Russia, in Cuba, in North Korea, in China. It happened in a novel once, a novel whose content is quickly becoming true. If we do not wish to see the plot carried any further, we must reverse the trend we see in America today, by defending capitalism to our last breath, a figure of speech which, if we do not do so, might become literally necessary.

Who among you will stand in defense of capitalism? Who is John Galt?

Gun Control: Legalized Theft

I'm doing something unusual today in that I'm linking to another post, specifically, A 3 Percenter Tells It Like It Is, by the Conservative UAW Guy.

Said post, in turn, links to a letter to the Attorney General of the United States government, which you can read at your leisure.

It's an interesting letter, with some controversial points. In today's world, the sender could probably be, and probably already is, labeled a domestic terrorist.

So, do I agree with it? Well, yeah. Why not?

I own a gun, and I'm saving up for two more. If you think I feel even a little bit creepy, ashamed, or socially unacceptable saying that you are completely, 100% wrong.

Let me be clear here. I love guns. I love firing guns. Firearms are precise, accurate, well-designed machines, and when I have one in my hands I feel competent, comfortable, and self-assured, not because of the gun, but because of my own skill with it.

I'm capable of hitting a stationary target with relative ease, and am familiar with the operation of a variety of firearms, including revolvers, muzzle-loaders, bolt actions, pump-actions, break-actions, semi-automatics, machine guns, and assault weapons.

In terms of practical knowledge I've fired a bolt-action .22 rifle, a .45 blackpowder revolver, a .22 semi-automatic rifle, and three semi-automatic handguns in .22, .40, and 9mm, and I intend to buy a 20 gauge double-barreled blackpowder pistol and a .52 Sharps blackpowder rifle in the near future.

I've also never hunted, or, in fact, shot at any living thing whatsoever. I don't believe in the use of force except defensive force, and I've never had a gun-related accident.

Once again, if you think I feel even a little bit creepy or socially unacceptable relating that, think again. I know guns, so I know how safe they are, and how responsible gun owners act. The ones that clamor loudest for gun control are often those who have never fired a gun, and have never learned, and yet, they're the ones that think they know best for my safety when it comes to firearms.

Let us examine exactly what gun control is. It is the use of force by a group through a more powerful entity to take the property of another group. Ironically, the entity used for this purpose, the government, uses a variety of the world's most advanced firearms, from high-quality Italian pistols to advanced German submachine guns. Unlike their victims, however, the government uses the threat of these weapons aggressively, to take weapons from those who use them only defensively. Simplified, gun control activists believe that guns should be solely in the hands of those who use firearms aggressively, instead of those who use them in defense only.

Such a concept cannot possibly be conducive with a free country. The government, however, has a weakness, which is simply that it operates on the fear of its citizens. Therefore, the government is helpless against those, such as the author of this letter, who refuse to be afraid of it.

Gun control is legalized theft, and I admire and support those who refuse to pretend it is anything else. For this reason, I see little fault with the letter mentioned here, and, if anything, feel as if such a response to government force was a long time in coming.

Back in the PRC

What if I told you I no longer saw a difference between this flag:

and this one?

Fact is, I don't.  Not after today.  And here's the reason why.

Shortly before the Beijing Olympics in 2008, the government of the "People's" Republic of China decided they needed more buildings for the coming games.  Unfortunately for the Chinese government, the land they wanted to build it on happened to belong to citizens of the "People's" Republic.

The government, however, decided that it needed the land more.  It was for the glory of China that that land be used not for housing, but as a stadium.  To achieve the greater good of the nation, the "People's" Republic, therefore, took over the land, forced those who owned it out, and built a stadium over their homes.

To the Chinese government, the property rights of its citizens held no value, because it was in the interest of the nation that the stadium be built.  The Chinese government refused to acknowledge the property rights of its citizens, and took their land against their will, forcefully and without remorse, because their purpose was, in their eyes, great enough to do so.

Such is the nature of the communist Chinese government.  And such also is the nature of the government of the United States.

If you, reader, think such a travesty cannot happen here, think, as they say, again.  The Federal government of this country, the United States of America, is planning to "condemn" the land of private landowners, and build a memorial to the passengers of Flight 93.  It does not matter to "our" government, government of, by and for the "people" that that land happens to belong to someone else.  The greater good of the memorial, according to the people's republic of the United States, overshadows the property rights of its citizens.

"We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things," said park service spokesman Phil Sheridan.

In this, of course, Mr. Sheridan is perfectly correct.  Sometimes, you just can't agree on certain things. (Like when one is being mugged, for instance.  The mugger would, of course, prefer to get the money from a willing donor, but sometimes the mugger and the man being mugged just can't come to an agreement.)  Of course, what Mr. Sheridan chooses to omit is that when the government and the owner of a property can't agree, the government chooses to take the land by force.

I'm almost certain it was difficult for the citizens of China to come to an agreement when their government wanted their land as well.  However, the decision was made there the same way it is being made here - at the barrel of a gun.

The Chinese government, however, was at least direct.  They simply kicked the citizens off their land without any kind of a trial.  Why bother?  The government of the PRC viewed this as a simple matter.  They wanted the land, others owned the land, so the government forcibly took the land away from its rightful owners.

The government of the PRUSA, however, is a bit squeamish about this kind of thing.  It is not yet so desensitized to the evil it is committing that it simply commits it.  Instead, it must appease itself, and convince itself that what it does is just and proper - though its knows full well the nature of its action.  To achieve this goal, to achieve an uneasy guiltlessness for itself, the government of this country files a "complaint," against the landowners, in its own courts of course, and then forcibly removes the land.

The government files a complaint.  A complaint!  About what is it complaining?  About someone daring to own land it wants?  About someone daring to own personal property where it wishes to build?  When a government is allowed to use its own systems to file a complaint about its citizens owning their rightful property under what kind of system do those citizens actually live?

Not a free one.

No free system on Earth could ever deny the right of a citizen to his land, any more than it could deny him a right to his life, or his freedom.  No free system does this - but ours does.

It is for this reason that I see no difference between the Chinese flag and the American flag.  They are symbols of a despotic and oppressive government, basically the same in nature.  Government is force legitimized, and I do not believe that force used not in defense of one's rights can ever be legitimized, no matter what name we give it.

I write this now using my laptop, sitting on my bed.  I write it with my hands, transposing the thoughts of my mind.  Is there a difference between my laptop, my bed, my hands or my mind?  When a government takes one's physical property, the taking of one's body and mind are surely the next to go.

The government draws no distinction between what it wants, and what is mine.  But I do.  My property belongs to me, no matter who wants it how badly or for what reason.  One thing which is not mine, however, and never will be, is that government which seeks to take what is mine, the government of the People's Republic of the United States of America.

Now That It's Too Late...

I'd like to thank Republicans for picking up on the economic wisdom of Ron Paul.

But why now?  I've noticed that spending and taxes have become real issues only recently, even though they've been problems for the last eight years.  I wonder why that might be...

I'll take a wild guess here and say it just might have something to do with the fact that the current president is an ass - as compared to an elephant.  But the thing is, the last president was an ass too, and I think it's time someone sat down with the Republicans and had a little talk.

See, the only thing that apparently stirs you people to action is the party to which one belongs.  Bush spent needlessly, on a variety of unnecessary expenditures.  The war, of course, is the main offender, but even if you're pro-war, we could discuss the millions of dollars he sent to Africa, spending which often aids no one, or the economic bailouts which, as I recall, many Republicans supported initially.

Oddly enough, however, the outcry over spending and taxes came in recent months, when Obama was in office.  It surprised me, to say the least, to see Republicans throwing modern day tea parties (an idea originally conceived by Ron Paul supporters), flying the Gadsden flag (a symbol used early in the 2008 election by Ron Paul supporters) and suddenly talking about lowering taxes and curbing spending (an issue brought up primarily, in the 2008 campaign, by Ron Paul supporters).

These actions were, a few short months ago, considered wacky, outrageous, insane and unnecessary.  Also naive, and unimportant.  Suddenly, there's a Democrat in office, and the issue becomes immediately noteworthy?

Wouldn't it have been a good idea to curb spending before Obama took office, by say, demonstrating against the Bush bailouts, or, I don't know, electing a certain someone who ran on this issue, among others?

Of course, Republicans will generally argue that the reason they didn't support Paul was because he didn't support Bush's "security" policies.

Like this one.

You should be so proud.  Arresting 16 year old kids.  I feel so much safer now.

I sincerely hope the child in this report learned his lesson about patriotism, and the mother hers about not believing in guns.  Seems to me if we had a lot more skepticism of our country's actions and a lot more guns, the government would be the one fearing us, not the other way around.

So now that we've made the United States less safe by allowing our government to arrest us whenever they feel like, are you finally going to reverse yourselves on that one?  That'd be great, because, even if you trusted Bush, do you really want Obama to have this kind of power?

So good work trying to undo what you've created.  It's a good start.  But it would really help if you'd stay consistent and take an anti-government position on everything all the time, not just when a Democrat is in office.  If you did, I could actually be persuaded to vote for your candidates.  But, because they care only for party affiliation and votes, not about resolving issues, I don't honestly see that happening.

You'll be Working on the Railroad

Due to massive spending on unnecessary wars and social programs and the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve, the United States government is now approximately $10 trillion in debt. Give or take a few billion. I wouldn't actually care, as the government of the United States has nothing to do with me, except that it, for some reason, thinks that stealing my money is an appropriate way to pay the interest of said debt and spend more money it doesn't have on the very things that got it into such deep debt in the first place.

Of course, the newly elected Democratic regime will "change" nothing. Democrats and Republicans are both avid believers in the spending of other people's money, and there is no reason to believe that the debt will shrink over the next four years. In fact, Obama has just unveiled a brilliant plan to waste your hard-earned dollars.

Trains.

That's right, trains. Specifically, high-speed trains that will cost $8 billion. To start.

Obama, of course, makes the move look peachy. A high speed rail system will "lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come," said Obama.

Wait. Really? We're spending $8 billion dollars to make the environment cleaner? While we're in the middle of a reckless war and an economic crisis? Don't we have better things to worry about?

Proponents of a national high-speed rail system will argue that such a system will save commuters money, as they will not have to drive, and will so save money on gas. Such an argument is foolish and naive, not to mention immoral.

Dealing strictly with the practicalities of such a system, let's take a minute to remember that the United States already has a national rail service, Amtrak, which has been losing money for a number of years. The reason for this is simple. Mass passenger rail service is not profitable anymore. If it was, more lines would exist, as entrepreneurs would have built such lines to make money. It seems irrational to replace, or augment, the current national rail service, which is already a drain on taxpayers, with a new one, which, given the government's track record (no pun intended) is sure to lose money as well.

This, of course, raises an interesting question. If Amtrak has been losing money for years, why is it still solvent? The answer is obvious. The government, unlike private industry, does not have to provide a superior service, or run it responsibly. After all, if they lose money, all they need to do is steal more from the taxpayers.

Which brings us to the morality, or lack thereof, of a national rail service, or, in fact, national "service" of any kind.

Imagine for a moment that an organization explained to you that they intended to built a railroad, and that you were going to work on it, whether you would use it or not. If you refused, they would kidnap you and keep you imprisoned until you cooperated.

This, of course, would be slavery, which, though outlawed in 1865, still exists in the United States in the form of taxation. You work, and your money is taken from you. If you resist, you are imprisoned. Call it taxation. It's still slavery and theft.

I will probably never use this railroad. The government does not see this as a reason why I should not pay for it. Proponents of a national railroad, or any other "public" expenditure, would, I expect, be slower to embrace it if given the gun themselves and told to extort money from others for "the common good."

Be that as it may, don't expect anyone to condemn the railroad for what it is: the latest in a long line of wasteful acts of theft. No politician in Washington would be politically stupid enough, or morally strong enough, to oppose it. (No politician but one; but no one wanted to elect him.) Obama has pulled a brilliant move (stolen from the Lincoln platform incidentally) in that he has proposed a populist plan which would be politically unwise to oppose, and appears, to the majority of Americans, to be beneficial.

The real cost of the railroad, while much less than the wasteful expenditures we already make, and will continue to make, is much more, as government expenditures always are, than the majority of people are smart enough to comprehend.

The Charade of Inauguration

Most of these people are idiots.

It's a bit sad really, to see so many people turn out for something so silly as a presidential inauguration, but this is America, and we really like to feel as if we're part of something important, even if nothing important has actually taken place.

I would, of course, be a hypocrite if I proposed that today's presidential inauguration was not historical. I will admit that while I hold nothing but contempt for Obama, I arrived late to Servo (our school's dining hall) because I was busy watching his anti-climactic swearing-in in my dorm room. And they were serving tacos today.

I did this because the moment was historically important. However, in terms of my life philosophy, tacos are of vastly more value. I enjoy eating tacos; I don't really care who the president is, because in the world of my political philosophy, they don't have presidents.

But anarchism aside, I found the inauguration silly and overrated. If nothing else, it demonstrated the ignorance of the American people of truth and reality. The prime example of this was the swearing-in of the first black president on the Bible of the same man who once wrote, "Negro equality? Fudge!!"

Yes, the Great Emancipator, was, in fact, a racist. Don't believe it? The above quote is found in James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, which, for those of you out of the Civil War loop, is the book to read on the American Civil War, and is highly, highly reputable. It goes on to describe Lincoln's early days of campaigning, and how he repeatedly denied that he believed in making black men equal to white men.

Good choice Barack.

And before we get ahead of ourselves and bring up the Emancipation Proclamation, I'd like to point out that CNN mentioned it already, which is silly, seeing as it actually did nothing for slaves. Lincoln essentially says, in the Proclamation, the slaves are freed, but only in the areas where I currently have no practical jurisdiction. (i.e. the Confederate States of America.)

One can argue that the Proclamation was symbolic, tactical, and allowed for the freeing of slaves in captured CSA territory, which is more or less true, and this is all well and good. However, it would have been nice for Lincoln to free the slaves in, say, Kentucky. He didn't, however, because he didn't want border states to join the CSA. As a result, many blacks in border states remained in servitude until 1865, when slavery was abolished nationwide - and after Lincoln was dead.

So comparing Obama to Lincoln is actually a bit insulting, and historically inaccurate. I'm betting that Obama knows this. He's well-educated, after all, and most well-educated people are aware of Lincoln's serious flaws on the issue of race. If Obama wanted to swear on the Bible of a real advocate of black equality, he could have used a Bible belonging to John Brown (if one still exists), who was probably the least racist person in American history.

So why Lincoln's Bible? Especially if Obama knew better (which, let's face it, he probably did)? Well, I'm betting that he swore on Lincoln's Bible for the same reason that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation: politics. Just because you and I and the president know that Lincoln was a racist, doesn't mean all those people watching did. It doesn't actually matter that Obama swore on the Bible of a man who denied in speech and writing that he was for the equality of blacks; it only matters that Obama swore on the Bible of a man who is known, in legend, if not in reality, as 'the man who freed the slaves.'

Disgusting isn't it?

Speaking of disgusting, what was Aretha Franklin doing at the inauguration? And, I'm really not being racist here, why the focus on skin color? Yeah, I get it, Obama is the first black president. Big deal. Does that mean he's only the president of black people? I think not.

In fact, I think it's highly insulting to the president that we continue to celebrate his skin color. He was not voted in on the color of his skin, or at least, I hope he wasn't. After all, we theoretically choose our presidents based on their merits, not their skin color. So Obama was elected, theoretically, because he was the best speaker with the best ideals. (In actuality, he was elected because John McCain was an idiot.) He was not, I would hope, elected because his skin is darker than a white man's. To say that he was is denying any merits those who support him think he might have.

Furthermore, Obama is the President of the United States. Not the president of the black population. I honestly don't care how much melanin is in a person's skin; I care that people are essentially good, and worthy of my respect (no pun intended), so hiring Aretha Franklin and making a big deal about race is in incredibly poor taste. It accentuates the color, not the man, and a race, rather than a nation.

Consider the inauguration as two strange events which reflect on the American people: the swearing-in of the first black president on the Bible of a racist, and the highlighting of a man's skin color as evidence that Americans aren't racist anymore. This is why I prefer the company of tacos to the company of those in the National Mall today. The tacos, at least, are reasonably intelligent. And damn tasty to boot.