A New Take on Date Night: We Had a Blast

I woke up this morning with an amazingly, astoundingly pounding headache.  I took Tylenol for it after the kids left for school, and lay down for awhile.  But although the pain subsided, the headache left me feeling a little disoriented all morning.  My eyes felt puffy and heavy, and my thinking was a bit clouded.  So mostly I got nothing done all morning, and instead rested on my bed while playing spider solitaire and checking my facebook.  I really did try to sleep, but sleep would not come for me.  I looked over at the book sitting on my "nightstand" (aka pile of bins and other detritus of trying to keep up with a household this busy).  I looked at that book and contemplated picking it up to read it.  But I just didn't feel like I had concentration enough for it.  Ugh.  I hate mornings spent like that.

Shortly before lunchtime, Joe came in to see how I was doing.  On a whim, I asked him whether he would have time in the afternoon to do a little shooting.  We have many handguns and I am allegedly supposed to be learning to use them and become comfortable with them.  But here's the rub.  I don't like paying for the ammo.  It feels very indulgent and wasteful even to spend our very limited money that way.  So Joe shoots more often than I do.  He has the carry permit and I have decided to just let my husband protect us if the need should ever arise. 

But I do like to shoot now and then.

We got a new gun over the winter.  A Ruger SR22.



Some might wonder what we are doing spending so much money on guns when we live on such a fixed income. And I think that's a valid question. But my husband has developed a little system. His system started, I think, when he was given a gun in lieu of an honorarium for performing a wedding. That got him to thinking...He is frequently given honorariums for performing weddings, funerals, or various other unexpected pastoral duties. These are unexpected moneys that area not budgeted. They are a bonus. So Joe has decided that these extra, unplanned dollars will go toward the purchase of any guns we hope to add to our collection.

Ruger SR22

Our new Ruger was a bit of an impulse purchase. But a very well-liked one. I had gotten an e-mail from Impact Guns announcing a promotional price on the new Rugers. So of course I had to find out what all the hoopla was about. I did a google search on them and followed a few links and eventually got to the Jeff Quinn video I posted above. He made this gun sound awfully fun. And when one is worried about the cost of ammo, a weapon that uses .22LR is a good choice because it is cheap, cheap, cheap compared to the other, larger loads. I have had a Ruger Mark III on my wish list for quite some time, for that very reason, but when I saw the SR22, I thought that it would certainly do just as well if not better for our plinking needs.

I posted about it on facebook, just kind of off-handedly. A few days later, Joe was feeling a bit antsy and couldn't concentrate on any of the many things he had to do now that Lent was upon him.  So he made a few phone calls, and headed to Bemidji's Gander Mountain to buy me the Ruger.   Isn't that sweet?  Who would have thought that all I had to do was post about a gun I like and he would run off to get it for me?  I bet it wouldn't work every time, though.

Bersa Thunder .

Now, Joe calls this gun mine, but I call it ours.  So far, of the guns we have that we call mine, this is the third.

I have a Bersa Thunder .380, which I really love.  I also have a Smith and Wesson Airweight, a snubnosed revolver in a lightweight metal, which I don't like at all.  Because of its light weight and short barrel, the recoil really hurts my hand.  And the trigger pull is very stiff, so after a few rounds, it hurts to both pull the trigger and afterwards. But now I also have the Ruger.

S&W Airweight

But until today, I had yet to shoot the Ruger.  I hoped that looking forward to getting out in the springtime air and doing something that I don't generally allow myself to do would help to clear my brain of the last vestiges of this morning's headache.  

So I got some lengthier youtube videos loading for the girls for a treat for quiet time, in the hopes that would keep them occupied for awhile.   (Did you know that many episodes of the PBS show, Zoom are on youtube in two parts each?  They take awhile to load, but they are about 15 minutes each so they keep the kids busy for awhile, if you need an occasional electronic babysitter.  And if you have a fast enough connection and computer, one video can be loading while the kids are watching the other.)

Joe was ready to go out first, so he did a little bit of setting up targets, and gathering the ear protection and the various guns and ammo.   I got the kids settled and did a quick pick-up of our lunch mess.  Eventually we both got outside to enjoy out date.  We went through maybe 150-200 rounds of the various calibers.  I think I loaded the two magazines of the Ruger four or five times, and for my Bersa about the same.  I only fired one magazine of Joe's 9mm Springfield XD. 

Joe did several magazines of the Ruger, too, and then also did a few of the Bersa.  He also shot his .17 HMR; and several revolvers.  He has a Taurus 64 and a Cimarron cowboy action that shoots .357.  And he also shot an S&W .44 that is on loan from Forrest M., an older member of one of Joe's churches who is a fellow gun hobbyist.  Forrest had at one time sent over his Desert Eagle for us to try out.  He also has a .50 BMG which we have not happened to use.  We've been told it costs about $5.00 a round.  When seen in that light, I don't think I ought to complain about the cost of my .380 rounds.

All in all we had a successful afternoon, with time spent together doing something we both enjoy.

Major Logical Disconnect

I feel really bad about the shooting of Mt. Rainier National Park Ranger, Margaret Anderson.  Please do not take the following rant as in any way an attitude of disrespect for the deceased.  In fact, the reason I've been following this story is because of the way the story pulled at my heart strings.  Ms Anderson had two young children; it is a tragedy when any young children are left motherless.  It is also hard when any law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty.  Certainly a two-fold tragedy!

However, a quote included in the Huffington Post article by Mike Baker, portrays a major lack of cohesive thought. I can't see why Mr. Baker even included it unless he was hoping the Huffpo readership is so anti-gun that such readers would not stop to think about the content.  I suppose to be fair, I could imagine that he only wanted to highlight the stupidity of the anti-gun crowd, ... but ... somehow ... well ... it is Huffpo ... sorry if I have trouble stretching my imagination that far.

Let me set the stage here, according to the information included in Baker's article.

• Benjamin Barnes was under a restraining order, because of his violent tendencies, thought to be due to post traumatic stress disorder related to his military service.
• Barnes was released from his army service due to driving under the influence and transporting private weapons illegally.
• Barnes appears to have fled to Mt. Rainier National Park to escape investigation regarding a shooting at a house party south of Seattle at which four people were injured.  The article stops short of alleging Barnes was the shooter, but only just.  It is certainly implied.
• Barnes disregarded the Park Ranger checkpoint set up to enforce vehicle chain requirements.

So, we already know Barnes was given to violence.  He didn't respect weapons laws. We are lead to assume he had recently shot several people.  And he blew through a Ranger checkpoint in the moments preceding the shooting.

And yet according to the article, this tragedy is refueling debate over a 2010 law that allows legally permitted gun carriers to carry their weapon in national parks.

As proof of this refueled debate, Baker found Bill Wade, outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.  Hmm.  Already I'm convinced.  Nothing against Mr. Wade; I'm sure he's a decent guy.  But by including this big long position title, "outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees," the author calls upon readers to listen carefully to the quote.  To respect the opinion.  But instead, I think to myself  sarcastically,  "Oh, a prestigious position, indeed! Kind of makes me wonder how long Baker had to search to find the opinion he wanted." 

(For any couch logicians out there, Joe just informed me this is called the fallacy of appeal to authority.  It actually has a name.  The gentleman has been the chair of a reitree group.  He is a former Park Service Employee. The title says nothing about his knowledge of guns, gun laws or gun crime statistics.  But the man's title is included to give credence to the assertions being forwarded.)

According to Mr. Wade, as quoted in the article, "The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now."

Mike Baker continues the article with more of Mr. Wade's opinion, "Wade called Sunday's fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010."

So, in spite of Barnes' violent tenancies, a previous firearms citation, the fact that he was fleeing a crime scene at which numerous people were injured by gunshot, and the obvious disregard he showed for Park officials by ignoring their checkpoint, we are supposed to believe that were it illegal to bring weapons into a National Park, Barnes would have stopped somewhere along the way to deposit his guns for later pick-up.  Or perhaps he would have turned around when he got to the park entrance.  Or maybe, if he simply forgot about the law until the checkpoint, when he got there, instead of racing through it, he would have stopped, apologized for having weapons in his vehicle, and surrendered them at that time.

But sadly, history shows people are swayed by such arguments.

Reminds me of the Gun Free Zone parody that circulated a few years back.

Brainstorming National Defense

As the title states, this is brainstorming.  I've not had time to research this topic, but it's been on my mind for several years.  Please share with me any further knowledge or opinions you hold.

The Congress shall have Power

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;          

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution

 And also, 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.      The Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I've on occasion thought that the idea of a standing army is not in accordance with Constitutional principles.  I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative.  And as such, I've wondered whether a standing army is somewhat inconsistent with a strict constitutional outlook. 

However, many people who likewise consider themselves constitutionalists, and have studied Constitutional history more so than have I, consider a standing army as necessary to national defence, which is one of the few constitutionally assigned responsibilities of our federal government.  My understanding, again with little personal study, is that a standing army became the norm very early in the history of our country, and therefore through very early precedent, is considered legitimate.  If I have it straight, the idea of a standing army was the source of one of the original disagreements between those known as Federalists and those known as anti-Federalists, in the struggle for ratification of the Constitution.  Since those same statesmen were involved in the continuing debate after our Constitution’s ratification, and since as soon afterwards as the early 1800s we've had a standing army of sorts, that although not part of the constitution, strict constitutionalists consider a standing army as consistent with the founding principle of national defence. 

Does that make sense?  Have I represented the history accurately? Really, I admit, this is poor scholarship.  I'd love to do a bunch of reading today to figure it all out, but I simply have other callings. 

However, I did want to get these thoughts down and hopefully elicit some discussion.

Mary's thesis for today,

Whereas  throughout the history of this sinful world, it's been shown time and again that the more a civic institution does for its citizenry, they are increasingly less inclined and eventually less able to do for themselves;

and whereas our founders had some very specific reasons for fearing a standing army;

and whereas the founders did provide us with an organized way for the states to take responsibility for their own defence and to contribute to the national defence, through the maintenance of a well regulated militia;

and whereas there is an inverse relationship between the growth of a standing army and the dwindling of state militias (which one might argue is a corollary of the first "whereas");

perhaps we who consider ourselves Constitutional Conservatives ought to find a way to justify our stance more closely to that which the founders intended. 

Is not our military structure, the way it is today, a bit like socialism, in that the more the government does for us, the less we do ourselves, and then the less able we become to do for ourselves?

I came to these thoughts this morning while reading The King's of Clonmel, Book 8 of John Flanagan's, The Ranger's Apprentice series.   Will, for whom the series is named, is a former apprentice who is now a full fledged Ranger.  He is now working with the other apprentices at the Rangers' annual gathering.  The Rangers in the fictional Araluen kingdom, are primarily an undercover and intelligence gathering group in this feudal system of Flanagan's world.  But as such, they also assist the various Lords and battle masters with strategy when the need arises.  Will's assignment is to guide the apprentices in developing a strategy for a tactical exercise, according to the assets listed in the exercise.  As I read today, Will reminded the apprentices of their unstated assets, such as the trained archers each village of more than 100 citizens is required maintain.

This put me in mind, once again, of the militia system originally included in our founding documents, and my persistent questions about national defence and a standing army.

The way I understand it, militias were to be maintained by the states; each state in its freedom was to set up their militia according to their own needs and assets.  But the states were not allowed the freedom to neglect this responsibility.  I think I've read that not only were the citizens required to own firearms, they were responsible to know how to use them, and how to act together as a military force when needed.  Part of the states' responsibility was to call periodic musters to train and to test the militias for readiness.

I've heard some say that the national guard is the modern rendition of the state militias. I don't buy that.  Again, this is speaking off the cuff, because I've not researched it.  Perhaps readers could comment?  But the the primary way in which the militias are autonomous is that they have to be called out at the command of the state governors, and led by the command structure within such a state.  Is that right?  In case of some state disaster or national military need, must they be called out by their governor and assigned under the auspices of the particular military structures from within that state?

Further though, I believe the National Guards are set up uniformly throughout the nation, and their operation is subject to federal authority.  And they certainly do not involve the broad societal training in firearm use and military tactics.  Only those who choose must participate.

Are there still militias in the original sense?  Groups of citizens who gather to maintain skills in firearms and military skill?  I've been told there are.  I've even been accused of being a militia type, since our family owns and practices the use of firearms both for putting food on the table and for maintaining the ability to defend ourselves and those around us.  But we certainly don't participate in any military training exercises. 

It seems as though the idea of "militia" today has become a dirty word and those who strive to maintain such skills are perceived as crazies.  I've never known anyone who is part of a militia group, that I know of.  Therefore, I can't defend or criticize such activities.  All I know is the rumors, which seem to span a broad spectrum as far as the legality of activities, but also as to the veracity of the rumors.

But perhaps we need to explore the possibility of renewing the state militias.  Perhaps there is a place for a lessening of the national military, and stronger state run militias.  Could it work?  Is it conceivable?  I don't know.  But I am interested by the thought that we've become locally weaker as our national defence is provided for us by the federal government.  We've become so dependent upon the national military that many people aren't even aware of the many ways our military contributes to and defends our freedoms.  We tend to just float through our days, complaining about one thing or another that is wrong with our country, with little or no thought for how peace and order are maintained both at home and abroad. 

This seems to me to coincide with an attitude of, "Well, the government will do it.  I probably won't like their decisions, but what can I do about it?"  This is a typical symptom of dependency in all manner of nanny state issues.  I believe an argument could be made that this attitude of dependence puts us at a higher risk of ever increasing federal encroachment on our individual and states' rights.  I believe the founders would be appalled at the amount of freedom we've thoughtlessly conceded.  And I wonder if the demise of the state militia system is an important facet of states' rights and limited national government.  Not only are we ambivilent about our national defence and critical of it, we also have forfeited any ability to defend ourselves against any tyranny that would arise from within our borders.

How theMom is Indulged

Yesterday was my birthday and it started out as a blustery, cold, and gray day.  I know one ought not to let the weather effect one's mood, but I was sorely tempted yesterday toward a slightly brooding mood.  I read my book all morning.  It was a pretty good book, but really, Mary, all morning? 

I wasn't paying much attention to the kids, but the middle aged kids seemed to be somewhat absent all morning.  They have a little garden space behind our willows, so I assumed they had been busy out there.

After we ate our dinner, I rallied the troops to get the kitchen cleaned up quickly, while the little ones were in quiet time, then I went out and wandered around my yard, looking at the bushes, trees and other new plantings.  I noticed that there were some cars at church, but since there periodically are people in and out, I didn't really think anything of it.

As I approached the end of the yard nearest the church, one of the neighbors, Shirley, came out to visit me a few minutes.  This also is not unusual.  I often wander down to church to visit whoever is there, or if they see me out and about they come up and visit with me.

After we visited a few minutes, Shirley asked me if I was ready for my party.  Party?  She suggested I get my shoes on and come down to church.  I was just in my grubbies, so I hurried in and changed quickly, and I even took time to run a brush through my hair and brush my teeth.  Then I hustled down to church to see what awaited me.

My kids and a couple of the neighbor ladies had arranged a little surprise party for me.  It all started, I'm told, on Saturday when Clara and Sophie worked for Connie for a little while, picking up sticks in her yard.  That is when the plotting began.  Connie's husband, Kelly, has a birthday the day before mine, so she often thinks of me on my birthday, and brings over a cake or a little something.  But apparently she and my girls went whole hog this time.

Connie, Annabelle, Muriel, Shirley, Lori, and Lana, along with my kids and a couple of Lana's grandkids, and Joe came to celebrate my birthday.  They had coffee and lemonade, angelfood cake with strawberries and whipped cream, dougnuts, and some leftover cake from the church confirmation celebration.  The ladies had cards and gifts for me.  My girls had made a banner with birthday wishes, and a guest book with space for comments.  I felt very spoiled and loved.

Last night, Joe and Clara had to run off by 5:00 or a little after, for the final class of the current session of fire arms safety training.  Joe teaches for up to three sessions a year.  Apparently the DNR is moving toward on-line training only, with a range day being the only time the kids actually handle a weapon around the instructors.  (Joe is not in favor of this, even though it will be less time commitment for the instructors.)  Thankfully, Clara got in on a classroom rendition of the class, before they become obsolete. 

So our evening here was quiet yesterday.  I did some work outside and then on the computer; most of the kids watched a movie.  Louisa made a nice fried rice supper for us. 

Today, I walked with my girlfriends, worked in my flower beds, and helped Joe fix the church swingset.  I lifted sod off another 4x6 foot area for the new flower bed I'm making.  Then I had space to plant the dahlias that Lana gave me.  I've never planted Dahlias before.  I tend to not do things that have to be dug in the fall.  But since Lana has so many, she said to just take them and enjoy them for this year, and if I didn't dig them up, it was no great loss.  Schwoo!  I'm off the hook for that, I guess.  So I got the sod moved; Joe moved the last three rolls for me.  And I got the dahlias tucked in nicely.  I hope the kids leave that nice black dirt alone long enough for the plants to come up.

Louisa planned a special birthday dinner for me tonight, when we could all be home for supper.   She made two chocolate cheesecakes this morning.  This afternoon, she made garlic Parmesan bread.  And for supper she made a sundried tomato pasta and a fancy salad.  It all turned out wonderfully, especially considering that all the items were gluten free, which takes a little more thought and effort than traditional baking. 

It was a treat!  About halfway through supper, Louisa said we should have a fancy wine with it.  I think she was just kind of joking, but it reminded me that we had one more bottle of wine our friend, Jaime, had made.  Joe got it out and gave everyone a little bit.  The bigger the child, the bigger the "little bit."  It made everything seem all the more festive.  We all came up with toasts to various things we like or are thankful for about each other.  It was great fun.

And we didn't forget to toast the chef, Louisa, for her excellent fare.

A Spring Junket

Our neighbor kids spent the afternoon here today.  Since it was a balmy 40F out, they decided to take a walk around the neighboring fields to pay a first spring visit to all their favorite haunts.  Since the pasture surface is a mix of snow, ice, water, mud and tufts of grass, deciding how to dress for the occasion was a bit of a challenge.

Finally most of the kids decided upon winter wear, complete with snowpants and boots, gloves, hats and coats.  But in case they got dry, they also took several water bottles.

Elsie and Holly chose the eastern route, toward the north end of Kimball's woods and what has sometimes been called The Beach.  (More on that later.)  On the way there, the girls had to traverse an area of mostly frozen slough.  When we had our warm days a few weeks ago, a large amount of snow melted and left a very large area of standing water which since has frozen solid.  Because of the warm temperature again today, the edges were starting to melt and break apart.  But for the hardy souls who brave the initial dash, the ensuing ice field is a wealth of fun.  Perfect for sliding and falling and occasionally breaking through.

Clara, Stella, John, and our neighbor Matt went south to the fort they call Mosquito Coverage.  The name is from long ago, I think Jeremy came up with it.  He had names for all his favorite places, but most have fallen out of use.  This one, however, has remained Mosquito Coverage.  It's straight south of our house, past the edge of the hayfield and into the corner of CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) land in this section.  Mosquito Coverage is a little hillock, formerly, I think, a pile of rocks that has filled in with dirt and grass and the oddments of farm cast-offs such as rolls of barbed wire, old fence posts and the remains of tree branches and roots.  In this land that is largely without visual landmarks, this little hillock makes a destination of mystery and adventure.  This time of year, although the top of the bushes is showing above the melted snow, there is still quite a large drift along the north side.

Mosquito Coverage is about 1/4 mile south of the house. It is the first "fort" to which our youngest children are allowed to adventure, since we can see it clearly out our front window.

I was supposed to have the neighbor kids home at 4:00, so as the hour neared I was keeping an eye out for the various explorers, watching for their return home.  Elsie and Holly returned home in good time and even had 1/2 hour to spare.  But I could see neither hide nor hair of the younger set.  I had seen them near the fort just a little while earlier.  Holly and Elsie had seen the others while they were walking home.  But now that they needed to be heading in, the younger group had disappeared.   Joe got out his field glasses and surveyed the area.  No children.

Joe then got out his Mossberg 500 12 guage, and fired two shots safely at the ground. We've trained the older kids to listen for shots when they are out and about.  It is supposed to mean, "It's time to come in."  I started out several years ago with a referee whistle, but the sound doesn't carry far enough.  Each year as the snow melts and the kids are once again able to gad about the neighborhood, we review all the roaming rules so that each group of kids learns the rules for the newer freedoms they enjoy as they grow older.  But I didn't mention any rules to the kids today.   Bad Mom!

As 4:00 approached and we still didn't see the younger kids anywhere, Joe went out driving around the SW corner of the section.  Because of the flat land and the open spaces, we can usually see most everything, so it was just a bit unnerving when he returned and hadn't seen them at all.  By the time he came back, I was dressed for walking.  It was a nice day, and I knew they had to be somewhere.  As we were debating which direction I should start out, we spied them in the periphery of the woods southeast of us.  Louisa wanted a little walk too, so she came along to direct me around the worst of the slough.

By the time Louisa and I got out to the pasture, the kids were heading out of the woods toward The Beach.  This is a little manmade rise next to a cow pond.  In this part of Minnesota, since our water table is pretty high, a cattle rancher will dig a pit in the pasture and put the dirt off to the side, making a slight rise.  The pit fills in and, voila, a watering pond.  This particular pond is, thankfully, not deep.  The cattle are confined elsewhere during the winter months.  So in the spring, when the world is fresh and new, my girls have been known to sunbathe on the south facing slope of the rise.  And yes, they have even on occasion sneaked swimming suits under their clothes, and frisked around a bit in the pond.   Hence the name, "The Beach."

When Louisa and I got near the other kids, we soon realized that we were separated from them by the partially frozen slough.  Louisa, being only a bit more than half my weight, was able to get across the ice without getting her feet too wet.  I stayed safely on the dry tussocks of grass, well away from the deeper portions of the wetland.  (Chicken!)  Louisa called the other kids over and continued on across to help Stella, who was too afraid of falling through to make any significant progress.  The other, older kids were fearless.  They ran and slid and crashed their way over to me.  Mostly it was frozen and they slid along making good time.  But Clara had one good break through which caught her off balance and sent her front side first into the icy brew.  She got up laughing and hooting about how fun it was.

As we gradually made our way home, I was struck by the realization that spring had come.  It may have been a mere 40 degrees out.  The snowcover was still at about 30%.  The ice was thick enough that the kids mostly walked across just fine.  But even so, spring is here.  The kids were having a blast.  They were outside without huddling into their scarves at each breath.  Some were even carrying their hats and gloves.  I had on only a hooded sweatshirt and boots.  Most of the kids were wearing snowpants that dripped with icy water.  And yet they were warm.  We were all warm.

Spring has come to northern Minnesota once again.

The Logic of Ridiculous Quotes

I've been thinking lately about logic and how we misuse it.  I only took one logic class in college and I don't think I was really committed to learning yet at that point.  In fact I remember almost nothing about it.  Sadly.

But I've read up on logic and rhetoric since that time and tried to learn what I can.  I still can't always get a fallacy tagged with the proper name (ad hominem, post hoc, begging the question, red herring, slippery slope...), but I'm trying.

I realize now how important to society is the skill to present information in a coherent, systematic manner.  Alongside that is the flip: the ability to analyze the information coming at us in order to determine it's validity.

Two recent quotes highlight the need for the ability to test the information coming at us.  I discovered both of these today, within a few hours of each other.  Congresswoman Harman's quote is from Thursday, this week, I believe.  The quote from Frances Fox Piven is from December, probably old new to some readers.

From Jane Harman, Congresswoman from California's 36th district, in an interview with The Last Word's Lawrence O'Donnell,  "Every responsible law enforcement person in the country supports this."  (At 34 seconds in the linked video).

This quote follows the Congresswoman's claim that there are too many guns in the hands of ordinary Americans, that there is too much ammunition available, and that clips for rapidly fired weapons hold too much ammunition.  In context I believe the quote refers only to the capacity of what she calls rapidly fired clips. 

Regardless of for or against what Congresswoman Harman is arguing, her argument is rendered useless by her use of the adjective, "responsible."  What defines responsible?  It is a relative term.  Who gets to decide the opinions of which law enforcement persons ought to be deemed responsible.  It tells us nothing about what real proportion of law enforcement people support the law.

Besides the logical gaff, the comment is a huge insult to the many hard working law enforcement people who do not support the Congresswoman's ideals.  It labels any law enforcement person who does not agree as irresponsible.

From Frances Fox Piven, professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York, "You know I don't have data on this, but I am absolutely sure..."  (at the 1:27 minute mark).

In the entire video clip, Ms Fox Piven pigeon holes and insults those Americans who attend TEA parties.  She knows all about what make us poor naive Americans tick.  The whole scant 4 minutes of the video clip is one slam after another against this segment of society.  She starts with a variety of labels: older, white, well-off, unhappy about the direction of America.  (This last one is a surprise.  Is that why people got involved in political activism?  In context, she means that they are naively clinging to "the good ol' days".  The way she describes it comes across as very patronizing.)  She labels us with being unable to deal with the idea of an African American president and an increasingly darkening populace.  She doesn't call us racist.  The accusation is much more patronizing that that.  We are just so, so shaken up by all the changes.  We (us white, old, well-off Americans) just can't function.  

The quote itself is followed by her opinion that the s**ual revolution has so disenfranchised this older, white, well-off demographic that they are fighting back in the from of "their crazy rallies".  That is the WOW point for which she has absolutely no data and yet is absolutely sure. 

OK, so to get beyond the ever so maddening tone of the clip, and back to the logical fallacy,  I don't really think I even have to say anything about it.  I'll just repeat the idiocy, "You know I don't have data on this, but I am absolutely sure..."

I know she doesn't have any data on anything she said in the speech.

I've been to three TEA parties.  We live in a primarily white area of Minnesota.  So yes, our TEA parties are pretty white up here.  Unless we bussed SIEU members in and paid them to hold signs for us, I wouldn't expect anything different in that regard.   Most TEA party patriots find busing people in for rallies and paying them to demonstrate a little disingenuous.

But we are definitely not mostly older.  We are definitely not mostly well-off.

And I don't have any data on this, but I can absolutely guess that if I pulled up some footage from the many TEA parties that have occured around the country, I'd see young people, I'd see Americans of a variety of color, and ethnic backgrounds.  I probably wouldn't be able to tell by looking, but I could absolutely guess that they would live within a wide variety of income levels.

Insensitivity and Argumentation

Yes,... well,... I didn't go through sensitivity training at UW Madison.  The University started that requirement during my time there, but it was only mandatory for incoming freshmen, one of which I was not. So I have an excuse; I was never taught, by the correct governmental entity, how to be a sensitive, caring person.

"Where is she heading with this post?" you may ask.

It just dawned on me this morning, that because of the recent tragedy in Tucson, it may seem inconsiderate of me to post two gun related posts on these particular days.  And that may be true.

One might make such an argument.  In all honesty, I did not make the correlation until after the posts were done.  That said, I can't exactly come to apologize for them, or my timing of them, either.  And here's why.

Gun rights did not cause this tragedy.

My enjoyment of the safe and legal use of firearms did not cause this tragedy.

And Steve Lee's music certainly did not cause this tragedy.

Jarod Laughner caused this tragedy.  Blame his mental illness if you want.  Blame his "handler",  the mysterious missing person, if you want.

But as much as I am saddened by the shooting; as much as I feel for those injured and for the families of the dead, you can't blame me or my views.

I pray for the comfort and healing of all involved.

I pray for the healing of our national conversation.

But perhaps my timing of the most recent post might even be put to some good purpose.  The video clip I included portrays well the difference between articulated arguments and angry, attack speech.  It seems to be a popular analysis, that somehow the angry tone of our cultural conversation is to blame for Jarod Laugner's reprehensible behavior.  I don't think anyone ought to make that link, until he has, or until something can be found in his life and writings, that might connect the two .

I'm finding conversation after conversation on the main Stream Media (MSM), on Conservative Talk Radio (CTR), and on the blogosphere either implying (or defending against those implications) that somehow CTR and its said affiliate, the TEA party movement, caused Jarod Laughner to try to kill Gabrielle Giffords.  (And as an aside, why is she consistently seen as the target, anyway?  Has everyone in the media forgotten that a Federal Judge was shot dead.  How do we know he was not the intended target?  But that's another conversation.)

Last I checked, reports were that Jarod Laughner was not political.  There was no indication he listened to talk radio.  He does not claim to be a TEA party patriot.  He does not appear to be aligned with what some might want to call the "extreme" right.  So don't blame us.

Please, no matter upon which side you find yourself politically, or if you prefer to not have a side, as you listen to or read your choice of current events coverage, please remember that there is a difference between senseless name calling or personal attack speech, and a well articulated argument.  An effective argument will include facts on which you will be able to check.  It will include history that is documented.  It will tie its premises together into a logical conclusion.  It is designed to teach or persuade.  Senseless name calling or personal attack speech, are sometimes linked to facts that cannot be checked, or that upon further checking don't hold up.  Sometimes those facts are valid, but they are strung together in a way that is not logically conclusive.  Often attack speech is phrased in such a way to compel the reader or listener feel a certain emotion strongly.  Often it makes a listener or reader feel smug satisfaction.  Mostly, it is just noise.

Our country is at a time of strongly differing opinions.  But difference does not have to be violent.  Discussion does not have to be fighting.  Well made arguments can build consensus.  But only if we listen and think.

And only if we perceive the noise for what it is.

Fun Future of Hunting Clip

The vitriolic name calling in the letter Kevin Hoyt reads, exhibits well how difficult it sometimes is to discuss issues with people from an opposing viewpoint.  I hope I never cling to my stereotypes with such vehemence and senseless attacks against a person. 

But in spite of the silliness of it, or perhaps because of it, the letter makes me laugh every time.

I like the brief statements kids make that add up to a simple but pretty well articulated answer to the ad hominem attack of the letter writer.

Besides the historical, economic, constitutional, and practical arguments presented by the kids, Keven Hoyt finishes up by saying simply, he likes guns.  As a fitting finale, the clip ends by including Steve Lee's "I Like Guns" video. 

Another Steve Lee Winner

"She Don't Like Guns" is the third song from Steve Lee's I Like Guns album, for which he has released a video.  I love the age related pun and the guns as instruments scene.  I like seeing more of Steve's wife and her frequent smiles toward him.   And as with the Lee Family videos I've watched, they all seem to really enjoy what they do.

Apparently this song has a dual role, being featured in both the family album, Welcome Road, and in an acoustic version on the Guns album.  If you, too, like guns and haven't seen the original I Like Guns video, be sure to check it out.

Gun Related Contests

Impact Guns is running a series of giveaways in the months to come.  In order to enter the current one, a person must post a comment on a gun related site or a gun related comment on a personal site.  The winner will receive a .45cal Smith & Wesson M&P pistol.   Jeff Quinn at Gunblast has a thorough review of the S&W M&P.

Thank you impact guns.  I look forward to winning.

I've recently been introduced to Australian folk rock singer, Steve Lee.  He's come into widespread fame in America due to his recent youTube hit, I Like Guns. 



According to his website, Mr. Lee decided that there haven't been enough songs of late celebrating the manliness of guns.  "When had grown men stopped singing about shooting and started singing about love?"  So he produced an entire album celebrating guns and gun ownership.  Some songs are original; some are covers of old gun songs.

The second video from the album, I'll Give Up My Guns, is also up on youTube now.   This song is more political, a musical commentary on loss of freedom.

I've checked out his family's albums and their web site, too.  I'm intrigued by this guy; he exhibits what appear to be conservative values.  He is obviously very patriotic and family oriented.  He loves freedom and at least acknowledges his Christian roots.  I don't want to presume too much on that point. They homeschooled their kids.

But here is the thing I think is cool.  He and his wife raised their kids on the road.  Singing in small venues throughout Australia.  I suppose it appeals to my somewhat rebellious nature and wanderlust.  Here's a family who marches to the beat of their own drum.

The Lee's are talented singers with an engaging, friendly style.

In line with the contest theme of this blog post, the youth hunting organization, The Future of Hunting, is sponsoring a guided whitetail hunt for a lucky youth hunter and attending adult.  But wait, there's more.  Fellow participant in the giveaway hunt ... the aforementioned Steve Lee.  Walker Hollow Whitetails in central Ohio is donating the hunt.  So register your youth hunter to win now.  No, wait, don't.  I know I have more youth hunters than some, which increases my odds of winning, but still, don't enter.  Ohio is so far away, isnt' it?

Food for Thought

I pulled this off a comment by robert108 at sayanthingblog

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

“The goal of socialism is communism.”

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ”

“Crime is a product of social excess”

“It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed”

-Vladimir Lenin quotes (Russian Founder of the Russian Communist Party, leader of the Russian Revolution of 1917, 1870-1924)

Again Ms Plum; this Time on Novice Firearms Use

And again, also in Two for the Dough, Stephanie is on stake-out with Grandma Mazur. The bad guy they are seeking sees them at the side of the road as he drives by.

...Kenny had U-turned at the intersection and was closing ground between us. There were no cars parked behind me. I saw the Suburban swerve to the curb and told Grandma to brace herself.
The Suburban crashed into the back of the Buick, bouncing us forward into Morelli's car, which crashed into the car in front of him. Kenny backed the Suburban up, stepped on the gas, and rammed us again.
"Well, that takes it, Grandma said. "I'm too old for this kind of bouncing around. I got delicate bones at my age." She pulled a .45 long-barrel out of her tote bag, wrenched her door open, and scrambled out onto the sidewalk. "Guess this will show you something," she said, aiming the gun at the Suburban. She pulled the trigger, fire flashed form the barrel, and the kick knocked her on her [bottom]....
...She had her hand to her forehead. "Hit myself in the head with the dang gun. didn't expect that much of a kick." ...
..."Where'd you get the forty-five?"
"My friend Elsie loaned it to me," Grandma said. "She got it at a yard sale when she lived in Washington, D.C."..."I guess I'm not so tough as them television people. "

This episode kind of summarizes how I felt when I first shot clay pigeons with my cousins on top of Badger Mountain in Washington state. I have no idea what gauge shotguns we were shooting, but the first time I fired I was knocked over. I had no idea what I was doing. The instructions went something like this. "Put this on your shoulder. Hold here and here. Then when we release the targets, pull the trigger." Since my cousins Chip and Dale had grown up shooting, they didn't think to warn me about the kick. Or perhaps they just wanted to laugh at the city girl. I don't know.

Later I fired a few rounds from various weapons belonging to another friend in Madison. I don't really remember any details about that episode. Later still I shot a bit with my husband's .22 revolver.

And finally, I got my own Bersa Thunder .380. Having a .380 caliber round in a semi-auto handgun really took me by surprise. It bounces around a bit more than the twenty-two. Unlike Grandma Mazur, I did not, however hit my forehead. But I can imagine doing so when shooting a forty-five without previous practice. Had the gun I first fired with my cousins been a forty-five handgun, I probably would have ended up with a lump front and center.

I have also learned that not only caliber, but also the weight of the gun and the length of barrel effect the kick. My husband has a 9mm Springfield XD. That one seems to kick less than my .380. I'm not sure which factors are primarily responsible for this difference.

I am still learning about all this ammo stuff. A 9-mm and a .380 have nearly identical diameters. My .380 rounds are just a hair over 7/8" long. The 9mm rounds are 1 1/8 inches. Just the bullets themselves are also nearly a quarter inch different in length. Mine say they are 95 grain and Joe's say 115 grain. I think that is the mass of the bullet itself. But I also know that different rounds use different amounts of powder, too.

In the weights of the pistols themselves, there is also a difference. My Bersa is only 23 ounces. The barrel is 3 1/2". Joe's XD weighs in at 28 ounces with a barrel length of 4".

Whatever the differences are, his was much easier for me to shoot accurately with less practice than was mine. But I like my little one for other reasons. And I have gotten better with practice. I still would like to see more improvement.

I think it would be fun to take a course through The Site or Blackwater or Front Site or something similar. I think the discipline and routine that these courses instill is something to be worked toward. But I think that will remain a dreamed about vacation for awhile yet.

Ms Plum, Guns, and Urban Living

This is from Two for the Dough. Our heroine, Stephanie, is getting a manicure in order to get some scoop from the beauty parlor regulars that she hopes will help her find her man. While there she runs into her archenemy, Joyce.

"You know what I do for a living now, Joyce? I'm a bounty hunter and I carry a gun, so don't [tick] me off."
"Everybody in New Jersey carries a gun," Joyce said. She reached into her pocketbook and pulled out a 9-mm Beretta.
This was embarrassing because not only didn't I have my gun with me, but my gun was smaller.
Bertie Greenstein was under the dryer next to Joyce. "I like a forty-five," Bertie Greenstein said, hauling a Colt government model out of her tote bag.
"Too much kick," Betty Kuchta told Bertie from across the room. "And it takes up too much room in your pocketbook. You're better off with a thirty-eight. That's what I carry now. A thirty-eight."
"I carry a thirty-eight," Clara said. "I used to carry a forty-five, but I got bursitis from the weight, so my doctor said to switch to a lighter gun. I carry pepper spray, too."
Everyone but old Mrs. Rizzoli, who was getting a perm, had pepper spray.
Betty Kuchta waved a stun gun in the air. "I've got one of these, too."
"Kiddie toy," Joyce said, brandishing a taser.
Nobody could one-up the taser.

When I read fiction, I am often left wondering about certain aspects of life portrayed and how realistic a given portrayal might be. I grew up in a suburban area. Nice family oriented neighborhoods. No one I knew carried a gun. Or at least I didn't know it if they did. In fact, the only weapons I ever heard about were small pellet guns used for shooting neighborhood pets when they strewed trash from someone's garbage cans.

Later, after Joe and I were married, we lived for a year in Chicago. Actually in the near west suburb of Oak Park. But we were right on the Chicago-Oak Park border. Our apartment was across the street from the west side of Chicago. Within a few blocks of some not-so-nice areas.

We often took walks around our immediate neighborhood. And also ventured into some of the not-so-nice ones. I never felt endangered. I even walked the mile or so to church once with Jeremy in the stroller, and Matt not having yet made his appearance. But after getting chewed out by congregation members, I didn't try that again. Apparently I had passed by some crack houses unawares. I still walked nearly to the church on occasion, because there was park with a nice playground along the way to church. But I didn't tell the church members. Nor did I walk in the immediate vicinity of the houses of ill repute.

We noticed that although located in a purportedly crime-ridden area, the shop owners took pride in their little bit of sidewalk space. Although sometimes a lot of wrappers, cigarette filters, dust and other urban waste would build up during the day, each morning, the shop keepers would be out sweeping and cleaning up the space in front of their store-front.

But we also couldn't help noticing the apparent potential for crime exhibited in the gated doorways and barred windows.

Once there was even a shoot-out about three blocks from our apartment.

Comparing illegally concealed weapons was not a part of the normal conversation I encountered. Joe was privy to a few such conversations, however. As was Pastor Steve Schmidt, who served the same congregation after we left there.

So although the afore-quoted passage at first seems totally unbelievable, an excellent use of hyperbole, I know that such conversations do, in fact, take place.

Mitford on Guns

From the third book of the series, These High Green Hills, here's the context.

Mitford is the idyllic "Currier and Ives" type town. The regulars at the the local cafe, Episcopalian rector Father Tim and buddy Mule, have been coaching the newspaper man and avowed bachelor, J.C., regarding his new sweetheart, a lady officer for the local police department. J.C. is bemoaning the fact that he doesn't really know where things stand with his lady friend.

The rector swigged his coffee. "Sounds pretty typical to me."
J.C. leaned forward. "It does?""
"Sure. One day you know, one day you don't. Pretty soon, if it's right, you really know."
"Oh."
"But how do you know if you really know?" asked Mule.
The rector looked slightly dazed. "I don't know," he said, meaning it.
Mule sighed. "We're kind of rusty at this."
"How come she wants me to get off coffee and axe the fats and lower my cholesterol if she wouldn't go out with me last night? I mean, what's the deal?"
"Maybe she had to work," said Mule, wanting to help.
"No way. She was home cleaning her gun."
"How do you know?"
"Because I called her up and that's what she said she was doing."
"Where had you offered to take her?" asked the rector.
"To Brendle's, they were having a sale on Tri-X film."
"No wonder she stayed home to clean a gun," said Mule.
"Have you sent her flowers?" asked Father Tim. "That's a good thing to do."
"Flowers? To a woman who carries a nine-millimeter?"
"Whoa, Buddy," said Mule. "You're sounding mighty macho there...."

Isabel Dalhousie on Texans and their Guns

Isabel Dalhousie is a philosophical sleuth. She is the creation of Alexander McCall Smith; who also created Precious Ramotswe, of The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Series. I have read the three Isabel Dalhousie books, and really enjoyed them.

I tried to get into the Ladies' Detective Agency stories, with no success. Perhaps I should give it another try; they seem to be very popular. But there is no shortage of books in the world that I really enjoy. Sometimes I try to challenge myself to read things with less interest to me, but I always have a good long list of those waiting for me, so it could be that I will never get to Precious Ramotswe.

Returning to Isabel Dalhousie, she is a Scottish lady, independently wealthy. By education she is a philosopher, by profession she edits The Review of Applied Ethics journal. These books are interesting to me because Ms Dalhousie enjoys Scottish poetry, orchestra music and art. I always come away from one of these books feeling like I have learned something and there is always something in the books I end up doing a little further research on. (Isn't that a great thing about the internet? Everything from William McTaggart to Arthur Waley at your fingertips.)

The other interesting thing about these books is that as McCall Smith walks you through the storyline, Ms Dalhousie is always thinking. Any given situation may trigger an episode of philosophical musing on her part. So the reader is constantly called upon to examine his or her own stand on any number of ethical situation. Makes for some good practice at applying ones' belief system to everyday situations.

Not all of Ms Dalhousie's musings take much work to think through however. In the following paragraph, from the third book in the series, The Right Attitude to Rain, she overhears a conversation in which a woman from Texas is telling about a woman murdering someone.

Why, Isabel wondered, had she shot him? And who was she? Women shot abusive husbands, in desperation, or husbands who went off with other women, in fury. It seemed unlikely, but she was talking about Texas, where guns, shamefully, were part of the culture. And that was an absurdity, she thought, and such a blot on American society, this little-boy fascination with guns and toughness. Something had gone so badly wrong. (p. 118)

I thought this stereotype of America and specifically Texas was pretty funny. I'm curious to know whether this is McCall Smith's opinion or only the opinion of his character, Isabel Dalhousie.

Our Christmas Presents

For Christmas this year I got a Bersa Thunder .380 semi-auto pistol. And a nice Bianchi holster to go with it. If you want to know why, see my Nov. 27 post. Joe got a Springfield Armory XD

Although we are in the middle of a Northern MN winter and have had lots of sickness among our kids, we still have gone out to shoot several times a week. And we have had fun showing our guns to our friends.

But on Sunday, Barb and Kim came over to visit and plan a brunch the LYS (Lutheran Youth Society, ie, youth group) is hosting. So of course, after we had finished the plans, we had to get out our guns and do a little shooting with Kim. Barb stayed inside to visit with Joe's grandparents who were here for the weekend and to hold a fussing Donna. Thanks, Barb.

We use paper plates for targets; Joe draws a black circle in the center of each for a bulls-eye; we tape four onto an 18" x 4' piece of ply wood and stand it on end in a snow bank. Then several of us can shoot without changing the target. Those of us of lesser abilities do not always come clean regarding which of the four plates we meant to hit.

I am still getting the hang of it, but I had a pretty good day on Sunday. I figured out I not had been aiming consistently. Sometimes with one or another eye or sometimes both eyes open. On Sunday I concentrated on using only my right eye and it made a huge difference.

I think I hit all seven of my shots on the plate for which I aimed. At least six, but maybe all seven. Now this is standing only about 8 yards away, so obviously I still need to practice lots.

But it is fun to see progress.

A Recently Aquired Interest

I am not a gun nut. I do, however, strongly support our Second Amendment.

I did not grow up around guns. I lived in urban areas and I think my dad had a pellet rifle to shoot stray animals, but that is about it.

I currently live in a rural area. We keep a few weapons in the house to use against pesky beasts. In the time we have lived here we have had skunks and mangy foxes in the yard where my children play. We have a .22 to use on small varmints if necessary. Also in the area we have coyotes, timber wolves, linx, cougar and bear. Some of these animals we or others have seen on or adjacent to our property; others we see within a few miles. We have a shotgun to use against these if necessary.

My kids are of an age to learn to hunt. Two of them have taken firearms training and my 13 year old, Matt, has purchased his own shotgun and was given one by his great-grandfather. If my children are handling weapons, I want to have more than a rudimentary knowledge of what they are doing.

So I have decided to learn about guns. This is something I have wanted to do for as long as we have lived here, but never knew where to start.

But thanks to the fictional Stephanie Plum and company I now have a starting point. In these humorous books that are set in Trenton, NJ, everyone carries. All the old ladies in the beauty salon haul out their guns to compare what they are carrying. The various other characters' guns are mentioned. But when I began reading these books last spring, things like semi-auto, .38 special, .9mm, .40cal. and .44magnum, meant nothing to me. Smith and Wesson, Glock, and other company names were just names.

But one thing I like to do while reading, that is so easy with internet access, is to check up on those things about which I am in ignorance. I started looking up each gun that was mentioned.

And lo and behold, pretty soon I had an adequate base from which to branch out. I have found a few web sites that are especially helpful for someone who is totally green with regard to weapon stuff. My favorite is Cornered Cat. It is put together by a woman who has many of the same thoughts I have. She addresses concerns regarding weapons safety in a family home and how to raise kids with guns. These are things with which I have no experience .

Soon we are going to purchase handguns. Both Joe and I have our permits to purchase. We have done our homework and gone to lots of gun stores handled many guns. We have spoken to handgun users. We have talked to friends and acquaintances with military and law enforcement experience. We are ready.

It is fun to start a new hobby.

But since beginning the research on this new topic I have become more aware of how guns are portrayed in the popular media. I will periodically post on something I've read. I feel like I should start with something from the Stephanie Plum books, but I don't have the books here for either of my favorite quote. They will have to wait.

Instead, here is a much different quote from the book, Final Jeopardy, by Linda Fairstein.

I never had a gun when I was in Hollywood. I always had gofers to handle my drug transactions. I never carried. But I moved to Maine when I detoxed--it was easier for me to stay dry in a new environment. Now I live on one of those primitive little islands off the coast--no highways, no airports, no police department. Just beautiful vistas and lots of wild animals. The island is crawling with moose and deer and woodchucks and skunks. I started hunting with the guys who live around me--not for sport, but when the animals got destructive or like the time a rabid woodchuck attacked my golden retriever.

I had to chuckle when I read this, because the kind of gun use the speaker engages in would hardly be called hunting in my book. It would fall under pest control or even self-defense depending on the situation.

And the other thing that got my attention was the contrast alluded to between this pest control thing that is viewed as acceptable, and all other hunting which is apparently merely for sport. I guess if you killing wildlife to eat is ethically inferior to killing a an animal that is bugging you.