Hunter's Mark

Assault Weapons Ban III : The Return of... Pelosi?

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 00:21:00 +0000

I did a triple take on this one.

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban.

No. Really. It's not a link to the Onion.

"I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Wow.

Did Pelosi finally get a kick in the head of common sense? Does she understand that the second amendment is in the constitution for a reason?

Or... perhaps she realized if this AWB was floated right now, the Democrats would lose several seats in the House and Senate in the upcoming elections. Even if they only lost a few, that would be enough. Obama's presidency would be in trouble from that point on.

I think the Attorney General let the cat out of the bag too soon. I do think the democrats will try in earnest for the AWB, but only after the house and senate elections.

But Holder... just! couldn't! wait! to! tell!

Assault Weapons Ban II : The Democrats Strike Back

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:37:00 +0000

Well, that didn't take long! From ABC news...

Obama to seek new assault weapons ban

Wow. With all the other problems in the world, all the other burning fires to put out, this ranks up there enough to whip out in the first 100 days.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," (Attorney General Eric) Holder told reporters.

Tactics 101: Don't give any help or comfort to your enemies.

Banning "assault weapons" is going to bring any dissent in the Republican party under control real quick. You know they are going to present a unified front to attack this proposal as soon as it hits the floor for debate. And an angry, motivated and unified Republican party is the last thing Obama needs right now.

This ban should also pull back any moderates who believed Obama's "I won't take your guns" inferences during the campaign.

And add this quote of Holder's to the mix...

"Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border."

Waitaminute. I thought this was the Unites States Of America. Not UMexico.

So guns are being smuggled to Mexico? And what about all the drugs being smuggled into the United States? Why are we not holding Mexico and their rotten, filth ridden, corrupt government accountable for their complete failures to stop the drugs freely flowing into our country? Why are we not suing the Mexican government for every single child and adult in the United States directly or indirectly killed by the use of drugs? Banning assault weapons in the United States will stop the violence in Mexico.... how?

The cartels, with their dump trucks full of money, will still continue to purchase their SMUGGLED firearms ILLEGALLY even though they may cost more! What is a few thousand more dollars to those that stack money in $207 million dollar piles PER DEALER? Don't believe me? Take a look at the haul from just ONE bust: DEA LINK. BBC LINK. US NEWS LINK. DALLAS NEWS LINK. PHOTO LINK. ARTICLE LINK. ANOTHER ARTICLE LINK. (NOTE: All links are from the same bust. Just different photos and different amounts of detail per article.)

With resources like this, the drug dealers aren't going to give a damn about their firearms being more expensive. The only people this is going to hurt are Americans. Americans who do not have a large bedroom dedicated to $50s and $100s.

Once again, the democrats are actively solving the wrong problem!

Morons in Mumbai

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:00:00 +0000

I kept this image from a news site (MSNBC I think) about the Mumbai hotel massacre. I wanted to comment on it at the time, but out of respect for the victims, I thought a little time should go by first before I put in my two cents.

Its been long enough.

I saw a lot of photos like the one in this post. Some idiot, calling themselves a "commando", casually firing a full auto over their head. With no cover. And one handed. At no obvious or visible targets.

No wonder it was a massacre.

The police force responding to the hotel situation was a complete, total, wretched joke. Worthless. Far worse than pathetic. I saw a bunch of hapless morons so painfully obviously untrained in the basic and proper use of firearms it made me shudder. This was the best "tactical response" team in the country? For a national emergency, this is who they collected as their go team? What clustertwats trained them on suppressive and/or cover fire? Did their training regimen use too many big words? What crackerjack box did these nimrods get their badges out of?

I knew those people in the hotel were going to die. There was no way a loose bunch of idiots like this could pull off a wrapper from a stick of gum, let alone pull off "securing a center".

Which brings me to my point for today. Situations like this are why most law enforcement departments in America (and even individuals in the departments) go for training so often. Very often. And sometimes at their own personal expense. To be able to handle a real-world situation such as this. To give innocents caught by some random monster a chance to live.

Mumbai police are case exhibit A on what an untrained, unmotivated, and unrehearsed police force is capable of.

Absolutely nothing. Absolute failure.

The next time somebody in your hometown complains about the local police wanting a little more equipment, a little more training, or even the ability to send one or two officers to a special event, please consider sending a quick letter to the local newspaper. Or speak up at a city council meeting.

Like the old saying goes... hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

(Edit: Mirrored a week late to blogspot.com.)

Texas petition for open carry

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:35:00 +0000

Petitiononline has a link for people to sign up to request Texas allow open carry.

At this time, about 57,257 people have signed the petition. That's a lot of names, but not enough to overwhelmingly convince the state legislators to quickly adopt the bill.

All the points in the petition are ideas I agree with, and I signed the petition just now even though the idea of open carry doesn't personally appeal to me. But I do support the option of open carry and would like to see it made legal in this state.

The link to the petition is here.

The petition reads...

To: Texas State Legislature and Texas Governor Rick Perry

We hold that all citizens who may lawfully purchase a handgun be allowed to carry openly in public in the State of Texas except for those places prohibited by law. We also call for state preemption of all handgun laws concerning open carry in Texas.

1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend their self against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.

2. The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

3. Criminals are not deterred by rules, regulations, and laws forbidding the possession of weapons. A man bent on mass murder will not be stopped by a rule forbidding him to have a gun.

4. It is well known that the requirement to conceal a handgun for the purpose of protecting self, friends, and family can be difficult especially in Texas with our extreme heat since a person will usually have to wear a jacket to properly conceal a handgun and to avoid "printing."

5. The requirement to conceal a handgun can make it difficult to draw the weapon should the life of the carrier or the life of someone else be in danger.

6. A criminal will not open carry a weapon because he does not want to draw attention to himself. We believe that a citizen openly carrying a handgun lawfully will be a deterrent for crime.

7. Ten states including Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming all allow open carry of handguns without a license. Twelve states including Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Tennessee allow open carry of handguns with a license. In fact, Texas is one of only SIX states in the entire United States that completely bans open carry of handguns.

8. In these states, Open carry is very common and it does not alarm law enforcement or other citizens.

For the foregoing reasons, we residents of the State of Texas affirm and assert that all citizens who may lawfully purchase a handgun be allowed to carry openly in public in the State of Texas except for those places prohibited by law. We also call for state preemption of all handgun laws concerning open carry in Texas.

A challenge for those who want to ban firearms

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:35:00 +0000

I challenge all those people who want to ban firearms and say you can use an "alternative means of self defense" in case your home is burglarized to try a little experiment.

Get a month's worth of your salary in cash. Put it in your home. Anywhere you can get to it will be fine. (IE: Don't encase it in cement.)

Tell four or five of your very fit and in-shape friends they can have all of that money if they can take it from your home. Warn them about your "alternative means of self defense", but if they can get by that, all the cash is theirs.

Tell them to break in sometime between 1 and 6 AM. They have to find the money themselves. And you won't hold them responsible for any damages they do to yourself or to your home. In writing.

As a bonus, they can't tell you when they are going to do it. And you can't put a time limit on when they can try.

Don't forget when it finally happens, these are supposedly your friends steamrolling over you. See how long that "alternative means of self defense" holds up.

If you have a method that works, please let me know!

4 armed suspects recorded on home invasion

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:24:00 +0000

This is a terrifying video of four armed men charging a man's home this last week. What happens next is brilliant. The homeowner defends himself with his own firearm and sends the four armed thugs running.

I would like to take a moment to ask all the anti-gun activists a few questions based on the video.

1) What do you think these four armed men were intending to do, not only to the individual in the home, but to anyone who encountered them in the process of their morning exercise?

2) Since assault rifles are illegal, how do you think the first suspect in this video had one in his possession? EXTRA CREDIT: Do you think the individual was aware or cared if the possession of his assault rifle was illegal? What social situations may have driven him to obtain this illegal assault rifle?

3) If this was happening to your home, what would you have done to solve or avoid this problem? Would your response and the options you take possible and/or available for those with a low to middle class income level to enact in their own homes?

4) Explain why you believe these four armed men may have more and/or equal rights compared to the individual inside the home they were running into. Who do you think has the ability to sue whom? Who committed a crime in this video?

5) Construct a linear timeline based on ten second increments for the following two situations: (A) The time required for the individuals in the video to approach in their vehicle, exit, and run toward the home. (B) The time required to call 911, clearly inform the dispatcher of the situation and location of the incident in progress, and for the police to arrive at the scene. Which is timeline is longer? Which is timeline is shorter? Do you think this may be important?

Not soooo fast!

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:22:00 +0000

I just deleted my last post. It was a touch premature.

Hunter's Mark (the store) will re-open soon with accessories, paraphernalia, and gear for all your hunting and sporting needs.

If you are looking for a FFL to transfer your online purchase to, please visit auctionarms.com or gunbroker.com and look in their "find an FFL" section.

"In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield."
- Warren Buffett

No swords in England!

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:38:00 +0000

First no guns. Now no swords!

A outright ban on samurai swords in jolly old England became law recently.

With the passing of this law, the "selling, making, hiring or importing samurai swords in England and Wales" is now a felony. Those unfortunate individuals caught with a samurai sword "face six months in jail and a £5,000 fine."

As an added bonus, "anyone found guilty of importing samurai swords will face up to seven years in prison and an unlimited fine."

Isn't that just lovely?

I think the best part of the article is this paragraph...

"Eight years ago a councillor was killed by a man wielding a samurai sword in the office of Cheltenham Liberal Democrat MP Nigel Jones."

So let me get this straight.... murders were committed with firearms so the government decided to ban those. Murders were then committed with samurai swords, so the government decided to ban those.

But there are still murders being committed every day! Despite all the laws in place! WTF?

I know what's England can do to fix that.... more laws!

So what's next? Maybe steak knives? How about forks? Eventually I think we will see a ban on rocks! Not just the pointy ones, but the round skippy ones, the decorative ones and perhaps even those rocks you make when you squish enough clay together!

Oh wait... they really are going down that path. The article has a quote from Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker saying "Later this year we will launch a new advertising campaign aimed at preventing young people carrying knives."

Unreal.

As usual, the anti-gun idiots are solving the wrong problem. Evil people will still do evil things regardless of the laws in place. The problem always comes back to personal responsibility. If an individual does not have any sense of personal responsibility, or is denied the means and ability of being self-sufficient, no amount of re-regulation or laws or fines will change the fact they will still do bad things with whatever means they can find.

Anti- gun idiots think the problem is always with an inanimate object. But there's a lot of inanimate objects about!

How about solving the problem the right way? Allow the licensed use of firearms by the general public. Ban nothing. But have severe, medieval-style no compromise laws in place for the instances of firearm mis-use.

I've heard rumors that specialized members of the military can use one or two of their fingers as deadly weapons. Whatever you do, don't let England know about that. A ban on fingers would be next!

What's with the Creative Commons license?

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:47:00 +0000

Long story short... I caught some of my images and material being used as part of another person's website. They were "assuming" the credit for taking the photos and the posts around them. They did remove it when I asked them to, but it got me in a cranky mood.

I don't mind the material in this weblog being used and re-posted. What I do mind is not getting credit for it... especially if someone else has gone off and "assumed" it for themselves.

So I went to Creative Commons and got a license for my blog entries. Its posted at the beginning of the weblog menu and is pretty straightforward.

To sum up, everyone can download and share anything from here as long as they link and mention this weblog as the origin of the material. There can't be any changes to the material and nothing can be used in any way commercially.

To quote an old saying... A sudden rain finds the holes in the roof.

A barometer of rice and flour

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:46:00 +0000

Well, this looks like an interesting week. Sam's and Wal-Mart (which are really the same company) are limiting sales of rice and flour at all their stores.

Costco said it will start limiting some of its store sales of these items too.

It looks like the worldwide food shortages, whether they were actually going to affect America or not, are about to become the de-facto topic of May.

I'm investing a little more of my next paycheck in extra water, some ramen, a few extra boxes of cookies... nothing MRE or "its the big one" kind of things, but if the panic on the food market takes off, everything is going to be phenomenally more expensive in May and heading into summer. And thats going to snowball into other areas of the economy as well.

Oh yeah, and gas is going to be $4 a gallon soon.

Buy a little extra this month if you can. Stay a little less stressed later on.

Sneaking a ton of stupid under the radar

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:00:00 +0000

Wal-Mart recently announced they were making some changes in the way they handle firearm sales in their stores across America.

Usually when Wal-Mart does something across all their stores, others follow suit. So when Wal-Mart makes changes to the way they handle firearms, you can bet these changes are going to be on a politician's desk for a larger scale push before the end of the week.

Among the "new and improved" changes are...

"* Expanding background checks of employees who handle guns and expanding inventory controls."

Well, yes, that actually is a good idea. Every employee selling firearms needs to be "clean" in my opinion. When I get to the point where I need to hire staff, I'm doing a full background check on them as well. But that last section - "expanding inventory controls". What exactly were they doing before though? Ballpark-guessing how many firearms were in inventory? This is Wal-Mart. They should have barcoded everything for instant access. If I can do that, they should be able to!

Unfortunately, the stupid comes in pretty fast afterwards.

Another change is...

"* Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale."

Um... no.

Lets say Fred goes in and buys a .38 revolver. A month later, Fred's home is robbed and the thieves make off with the .38.

Wal-Mart is going to ban him for that?

In a more pleasant scenario, what if Fred just sells it at a gun show? Or on the side to a friend? Is it fair that forever and ever Fred is still red-flagged as the owner of the .38 in the Wal-Mart system, even though the firearm has long since left his possession? Where is the follow through to make sure Fred's liability ends when the firearm is no longer is in his possession?

But wait! There's more!

"* Retaining the recorded images of gun sales in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation."

Um... hell no.

I'm never a proponent of law enforcement "fishing expeditions". And this sounds like the great lakes of fishing trips. Having a film of everyone who buys a firearm opens a pandora's box of interpretative wrongdoing. Who will define who looks "shady"? Or "that fellow looks like he's up to something!"

Now if that recording is used in conjunction with a legal warrant obtained concerning one particular individual, that's a different story. That's fine and dandy. But I don't think the "dragnet" approach, as the new and improved change is worded, is a good idea.

Finally, this one takes the cake...

"* No Sales Without Background Check Results. Participating retailers would prohibit sales based on "default proceeds," which are permitted by law when the background check has not returned a result within 3 days."

Wait a minute. This is a Federal law you fellows are overriding here. Federal. Law.

The ATF says it is perfectly legal to transfer a firearm to an individual if the vendor has not heard back from the NICS operations center in 3 days. Usually the NICS operations center will call me back in 10 minutes on a "delay". I've never had to wait more than 2 hours for an answer on any case.

But the three day law has been implemented by the ATF as a valid, permissible number of days a vendor and customer need to wait for a response. On every 4473 background check form, there is a section where you fill out if the NICS call comes in after the three day period as well.

If you want to change the law, go to congress. Amend the laws as they stand. Do it in the daylight for everyone to see. Pushing things through the back door only for certain stores to abide by is not only underhanded, it shows what kind of weasels are sneaking around to get their personal agenda through.

Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns is sliding a lot of grade-A stupid underneath the public radar. They're just getting started with Wal-Mart, and I will not be surprised if soon they start to "request" changes across the board in all states to support their views.

US halts commercial Salmon season

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:47:00 +0000

I didn't see this article get much mainstream attention, but the federal regulators of the United States have "cancelled this year's commercial and recreational catch of chinook -- the prized king salmon of the fish market -- off California and Oregon."

That's the first time this has happened in 150 years.

The reason? There are not any more fish out there to catch!

The government wants to re-seed the population and give the few existing fish a chance to recover this year.

That would be a good idea.

Get your salmon now. Without the West coast, Salmon is probably going to be very expensive soon, and might not be available again until sometime in 2009 if the population recovers this year.

"Survivalists" sprouting in urban areas

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:12:00 +0000

A recent New York Times article believes more and more urban people are becoming "survivalists".

The article starts off with your typical misinformed idea of that a survivalist is...

"The traditional face of survivalism is that of a shaggy loner in camouflage, holed up in a cabin in the wilderness and surrounded by cases of canned goods and ammunition."

Ted Kaczynski, line one. Ted Kaczynski, line one.

The article continues on with a full panic-and-mayhem quote from a book written by a former global strategist at Morgan Stanley (Barton Biggs) as well as interviews with people who have "normal" lives.

“Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food,” Mr. Biggs writes. “It should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson. Even in America and Europe there could be moments of riot and rebellion when law and order temporarily completely breaks down.”

What is apparently shocking to the author is that apparently more and more "sane" people are buying into this new trend! A construction executive in Dallas even apologizes for thinking he is a "survivalist" by saying “I’m not a gun-nut, camo-wearing skinhead. I don’t even hunt or fish.”

I love these kind of articles by the mainstream press. To be a survivalist, you apparently need to meet certain criteria.

1. Beard

2. Paranoid, twitchy personality

3. Heavily armed with military-level ordnance

4. Live in a very isolated location

5. Be the outdoorsy type... in a "Grizzly Adams was a punk wuss" kind of way

Nope. All wrong.

First off, I believe people are changing. A little. And that little change is for the better, actually.

I think the term everyone is looking for is "self-reliant".

Long gone are the days when families all had a deep freezer in their garage with meat and assorted other foods to last the whole month. Even further long gone are the days when more than one member of an entire family's surname knew how to use a firearm in a proficient manner.

And not buying an item unless you have the real cash for it? Waaaay long gone.

Now that the global-political climate has become more turbulent, and more and more people see their government of choice may not be there to bail them out of a bad situation, a little self-sufficiency is creeping back.

Finally!!

I don't believe in the popular view of "survivalism". I do think everyone should know how to use a rifle and a pistol.

I think you do need to have a reasonable reserve supply of real food. Not MREs or anonymous food in cans you will never eat with joy. Just enough real food in your home so you don't have to go to the grocery store every week.

I believe you can have a corporate job, dress as a professional executive, have a nice car, and still know how to use a firearm.

Incomprehensible southern twang? Completely unnecessary.

If things go very bad... Katrina says hello from Beruit style... I do believe there will be an initial panic. And things will be chaotic for a brief and intense period.

But I also see there is a deep goodness in people.

Well, most people.

After the initial shock wears off, individuals will come together. Communities will re-emerge. Depending on the character of those individuals in the areas affected, the entire region will recover.

You're not a climatologist if you carry an umbrella for a rainy day. And you're not a survivalist if you are self-reliant.

Hillary Clinton flip flops on gun control

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:03:00 +0000

Hillary Clinton, once again, has flip-flopped on one of her key platform positions. This time, it's on gun control.

In an article on ABC News, Jake Tapper caught her sidestepping a previous commentary in favor of a new and improved point of view. In the article, Clinton is initially quoted in a speech given in 2000 to newspaper publishers as saying...

"I believe we need a comprehensive plan to stop gun violence, and it is one of the reasons I am running for the Senate." Part of this, she said, was "a national gun registry."

Fast forward to 2008. At a Democratic debate in Nevada, Clinton is quoted as saying...

"You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms, but I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."

Tim Russert then asked "But you've backed off a national licensing registration plan?"

"Yes," Clinton said.

Waaaaait a minute!!! Hoooold on one second!!!

Common-sensically ain't no word. At least it's not allowed in the Scrabble games I play.

Right. Seriously. Most people I know have a certain number of key beliefs. Things that range from the 'personal preference' level to the 'I believe the whole world should be like this' level.

On the 'personal preference' level, most people only change their mind after some struggle, or a forced compromise with their previous disposition. "I kind of do like broccoli... if my only other choice is cabbage stew." Things like that.

Color preference seldom changes. If you like red, you're gonna be a red-liking person for long stretches of your life. That's how we are.

My point is, the further you go out in those belief systems, the less likely they will be changed easily. On a 'world' level, if you believe communism sucks nards, you're going to need some heavy, industrial strength opposition to get you to move away from that worldview. Same thing with the laws, mores, and rules of society. If a belief affects more people than yourself, its harder to change your opinion of it.

So Hillary Clinton, with no motivational forces whatsoever, suddenly changes a major worldview belief of hers like a feather caught in the slipstream?

Not buying it.

Not voting for it, either.

Rape a child, pay with your life

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:17:00 +0000

Right into the deep end, folks.

CNN has an article about a rapist in Louisiana who is set on death row because he attacked a 8 year old child. Louisiana says he needs to die for it. He (of course) and his lawyer (of course of course) say he does not.

"Kennedy was sentenced to die in 2003 for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The crime occurred in a quiet neighborhood in Harvey, across the big river from New Orleans. Besides severe emotional trauma, Louisiana prosecutors said the attack caused internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery."

The article continues... "Kennedy's appellate attorney, Billy Sothern, argues, "When we look at what it means to be cruel and unusual, this is exactly the kind of thing that raises these serious concerns of the constitutionality of Mr. Kennedy's death sentence. The constitutional question before the justices is whether the death penalty for violent crimes other than homicide constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment."

First of all, regardless of the merits of this case, there is a really easy way around "cruel and unusual". Do 25 states agree with it? If so, it is not unusual. "Cruel" you can argue and argue and never resolve. Since the matter must meet cruel AND unusual, go for the "unusual".

But the heart of the matter in this case isn't the punishment. It's the crime committed.

"A lot of people think there should not be the death penalty [in this case] because the child survives," said Kate Bartholomew, a sex crimes prosecutor in New Orleans.

Right there. That's the whole damn problem. If the victim of a rape survives, regardless of their age, there is still a underlying mentality that "it wasn't so bad". That the rapist doesn't need to die for it! After all, "he's not a killer".

Really?

Ever been around a raped child? Have you ever seen what happens in their lives from that moment on? Or seen what happens to them as they grow into an adult?

Yes, they survive. After getting to crawl through the darkest caves of hell to get back home. How many years are wasted with questions that can not be answered? How many volcanic emotional upheavals await? How many other lives are ruined because of it?

The rape of a child is a apocalyptic deviation from the path an innocent soul was meant to travel. The abhorrent action was far and beyond the child's control and means to avoid. And the perpetrator will be free and clear to enjoy their misbegotten lives far far far before the child has begun to heal their soul.

The "its no big deal" mentality has to stop. And putting these rat bastards into the gallows is the perfect first step to making those perpetrators, as well as the general public, understand the seriousness of these crimes.

Meanwhile...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:17:00 +0000

Wait here! I'll go get help!

Well, it was something like that.

Anyhow, we now return you to the Hunter's Mark blog, already in progress.

HELLO 2008!

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:05:00 +0000

Welcome 2008! Another 365 days of opportunity!

In the last few weeks, I was very busy taking care of our recent inspection results by the ATF. The store passed, but with a few notations for improvement. But like the old saying goes, "any landing you can walk away from is a good one!"

I'm in the process of creating a searchable database of our items as well as some new specials for the new year. I moved all the 2007 blog entries to archive at the main site (huntersmark.com) and am trying out some more in-depth website design software to move away from what I am using now.

Oh, and before I forget, Happy New Year!

Google this...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:54:00 +0000

Never. Ever. Ask how things can get worse.

I got kicked off Google ads.

I already appealed their initial decision earlier this week, but got this reply today.

"After thoroughly reviewing your account data and taking your feedback into consideration, we've re-confirmed that your account poses a significant risk to our advertisers. For this reason, we're unable to reinstate your account. Thank you for your understanding."

Great.

We now return you to the blog, limping along, but still in progress...

Putin the blog back up

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:59:00 +0000

To quote a famous movie line, "I'm out of it for awhile, and everyone gets delusions of grandeur."

I saw this photo on a website called russianfun.net.

Mr. Vladimir Putin?

I think you're trying to send an image designed to scare some Segway-riding pinhead girly men on how tough you are. And hunting! That should do it!

Just one or two things though.

#1 - No shirt. Yes, it shows you're a tough man. Great. But hunting like that for any prolonged period is going to HURT the next morning. And for a week or so after that. The sun is always tougher than you are.

#2 - No vest. Hunters like to have extra ammunition. You know, in case they need to reload. And a vest is the perfect place to keep extra ammunition. Right now, it looks like the only ammunition you have is in in the firearm itself. This says you are either a fantastic shot, or you are hunting in a controlled location and someone else is handing you the ammunition. Oh, and vests are usually bright orange to warn other hunters in the area not to shoot you. That helps tremendously.

#3 - That sling is hanging pretty low. It's going to get caught on all that shrubbery pretty quick, and that's dangerous for both you and anyone in your immediate vicinity. Tighten it up a bit!

#4 - Maybe its me, but it looks like the part of the sling that connects to the stock isn't connected at all. Maybe that's a new tough-guy thing to do... use a rifle with only half the sling attached. But I don't recommend it.

On a side note...

Vladimir Putin is a serious judo expert. Seriously. He may make a mistake or two in a photo op, but he knows his personal self defense.

"One of Putin's favorite sports is the martial art of judo. It has been stated that Putin began judo at the age of 13 and he continues to study judo even today. Putin has won competitions in his hometown of Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg), including senior champion of Leningrad. Now he is President of the Yawara Dojo, the same St. Petersburg dojo he studied at as a youth. Putin co-authored a book on his favorite sport, published in English under the title "Judo: History, Theory, Practice". After a state visit to Japan, Putin was invited to the Kodokan Institute and showed the students and Japanese officials different judo techniques. Though he is not the first world leader to practice judo, Putin is the first leader to move forward in the advanced levels. Currently, Putin is a black belt (6th Degree) and is best known for his Harai goshi, a sweeping hip throw."

Yikes.

No posts for over a month...

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:12:00 +0000

I know. No posts for over a month.

I'll just say it was one of those seasons. The storm is still hanging over my head, but at least it looks like I'm in the eye of it.

Right. Back to it then.

Unloading and loading a break-action shotgun

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:45:00 +0000

Unloading and loading a break-action shotgun are very straightforward and only require a minimum of training to become accustomed to.

Opening a break action shotgun for loading or unloading is a very straightforward process. However, even though the process is simple, always follow the four rules.

#1 ALL FIREARMS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
# 2 NEVER POINT THE MUZZLE AT ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
# 3 KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
# 4 - BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

While all four rules are equally important, let me emphasize that while unloading a firearm, be certain to keep the firearm pointed away from any target AND your finger off the trigger at all times.

Now having said that, we can begin by pressing in on the BREAK OPEN SWITCH on the front of the trigger frame. When you press, you want to move it directly back toward the stock of the firearm as in the photo below.

Continue to press back on the break open switch until it can move no further.

Now you can easily break open the shotgun. Press down on the stock and down on the barrel while lifting upward on the frame. Like a upside down V. The shotgun will open along the hinge with a "click"

When you open a break action shotgun, a small piece of metal will push the existing shotshells away from the barrel of the shotgun. This is the SHOTSHELL EXTRACTOR. Unloading the break action shotgun is just a matter of pulling the shotshells free from the rim of the extractor.

Loading a break action shotgun is only a matter of placing the appropriate shotshell ammunition as far as they can go into the shotshell chambers so that they rest on the shotshell extractor. Then just close the shotgun by bringing the barrel and stock upward so that they meet and close with a "click". Nothing to it!

After every discharge of the firearm, repeat the process from the first step to unload and load the ammunition.

-end-

Break-Action shotgun terminology

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:29:00 +0000

Double-barreled break-action shotguns are still very popular today for hunting and target practice. Although limited in the amount of ammunition they can immediately reload, the double-barreled break-action shotgun is a mainstay in most hunting enthusiast's collection.

This particular model is a Savage Arms Stevens Model 9478 20 gauge. It is designated a "side by side", which means the double barrels are next to each other horizontally. If the double barrels were on top of each other vertically, it would be called an "over and under"

A break-action shotgun has some of the same parts and components as the previously illustrated shotgun.

The STOCK is a solid piece at the rear of the shotgun that adds stability and allows an individual to better handle the weapon. A stock can be made of many materials, but the most popular style is wood.

The HAMMER is used to strike the firing pin and discharge the shotshell in the shotgun.

The RECEIVER is the center piece of the shotgun and is sometimes referred to as the FRAME

The FRONT SIGHT is used in conjunction with the rear sight to align the firearm on target. The front sight on many firearms is a simple bead on the tip of the barrel.

The BARREL guides the shell as it is discharged toward the intended target.

The BREAK OPEN SWITCH (or BREAK ACTION LEVER or RELEASE BUTTON) opens the shotgun for reloading and unloading.

The TRIGGER discharges the weapon.

Notice what is missing from the shotgun previously mentioned?

The LOADING PORT, MAGAZINE, EJECTION PORT, PUMP, SAFETY SELECT SWITCH, and the CARTRIDGE DROP LEVER are not parts of this shotgun!

In a upcoming blog entry, I will illustrate why this is the case in this particular style of shotgun.

-end-

Ruger freebies still available!

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:10:00 +0000

Just a quick update on an earlier post...

There are still currently 20 promotional items remaining
(updated 10:05 AM 09/24/07)

100% absolutely free!

Click the link above or here to see what the free promotion is all about!

-end-

Broken chain!

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:47:00 +0000

Well, it looks like I broke the blogging chain. Nuts!

I think there's some bug making the rounds down here because this past weekend I was pretty sick, and now my family has started to get flu-like symptoms too. Not fun.

Making lemonade out of this, I think I will create two or three of those photo-intensive blogs a few days in advance and have them in reserve to post as needed. Making that two or three day reserve should cover any sudden problems like this in the future, and also keep the chain going until things get back to normal.

What's that old quote... 'experience are the oars you get after your canoe has gone over the waterfall'.

Well, there's more to experience than that.

-end-

Second shotgun sight - a bead

noreply@blogger.com (Hunter's Mark) — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:46:00 +0000

Yesterday I showed what my Benelli shotgun has mounted as a sight. Today I pulled an older shotgun out of my vault to show the sights most shotguns came with from the factory... a bead.

That little tiny bead, almost the size of a BB pellet, is what you use as a forward sight on your shotgun. Unlike rifles and handguns, though, the act of sighting a shotgun is a little different.

A fantastic article by Field and Stream, written by by Philip Bourjaily, discusses the purpose of a bead on a shotgun as opposed to a "regular" sight.

"To hit with a shotgun, you must keep your eye on the target while the barrel of the gun registers as a blurred smudge in your peripheral vision. That’s where the bead comes in. Don’t think of it as a sight; it’s more like the red handkerchief you tie on a long 2x4 sticking out of the bed of your truck. It serves as a reference, as a flag or marker, so you’re aware of the muzzle as you bear down on the target. You should never carefully measure leads, but the front bead can help you see in an instant when you’ve got the right gap between barrel and bird."

The Field and Stream article is a great summary about the bead on shotguns, and is worth the quick read if you are curious on the why it is also called a "miss-me" bead.

-end-