Quick Guide to D-Frame Colt Revolvers

This is an incomplete (work-in-progress) list of Colt's postwar D frame revolvers. Colt's D frame revolvers are larger than the Smith & Wesson J-Frame, but smaller than their K Frame. The benefits of this is that it fits a little more security in your hand, and has six rounds. Colt revolvers carry a substaintial premium to their S&W counterparts.

 

• Police Positive Special ($400 -$1,000) - all steel blued version, D frame .38, usually with a 4" barrel. Many pre-war models are on the less expensive end.
• Detective Special ($900 - $1,000) - similar to the Police Postive Special, but  with a  2" barrel
• Colt Diamondback ($2,000 - $2,500) - Same frame as the Police Positive Special, but nice finish. Barrell lengths of 2.5", 4" or 6"
• Colt Cobra -($1,100) Has an aluminum frame, available in 2", 3", or 4" barrel
• Colt Agent - ($900 - $1,000)  a budget version of the Cobra Cobra, featuring a less highly polished blue finish and smaller, simplified grips

Guide to Smith & Wesson Model Numbers

 

 

Smith & Wesson models can be extremely confusing. This is amplified that prior to 1957, the revolvers had names, not numbers. You can break it down by frame and version. Many models are the same weapon with variations in material, sight adjustibility, or caliber . This is an incomplete list, focusing on the more popular variants that are seen.

 

J-Frame (small)

 

Chief's Special

• Model 36: (.38 Special)  aka the Chief Special. Blued subnose
• Model 37: Airweight Chief's Special. An aluminum frame/barrel version of the Model 36. Aluminum barrels were replaced with steel for safety.
• Model 637: A model 37 with a stainless steel body.

  

Model 60: All stainless steel snubnose. Introduced as a .38 special, models starting with the 60-9 in 1996 had .357 magnum versions. Starting with the 60-14, there is the internal lock.

 

Bodyguard

• Model 49: (.38 Special) aka the Bodyguard, is a shrouded hammer snubnose
• Model 38: an aluminum frame, carbon steel cylinder version of the 49
• Model 638: an aluminum frame, stainless steel cylinder version of the 49
• Model 649: all stainless steel version, chambered in either .38 or .357

 

Centennial

• Model 40: (.38 special) concealed hammer snubnose
• Model 42: aluminum frame verson of Model 40
• Model 640: (.357 magnum) Modern aluminum frame, Stainless steel model
• Model 642: .38 Special version of the Model 640
• Model 442: Aluminum frame, carbon steel barrel version of the 640

 

 

K-Frame (medium frame)

 

Military & Police

• Model 10: (.38 special), formerly known as the Military & Police model. Usually 4" barrel. The internal lock started at model 10-14.
• Model 13: (.357 magnum) magnum version of the Model 10
• Model 14: (.38 special) aka K38 target Masterpiece. Has adjustable sights and longer barrels.
• Model 15: (.38 special) Has adjustable sights, but shorter barrels than model 14
• Model 19: (.357 magnum) aka Combat Magnum.   Has adjustable sights
• Model 64: A stainless steel version of the Model 10.
• Model 65: A stainless steel version of the Model 13
• Model 66: A stainless steel version of the Model 19
• Model 67: A stainless steel version of the Model 15

 

L- Frame (medium large) - These utilize the same grip as the K-frame, but the barrel is beefied up and it can hold 7 rounds

 

• Model 581 ·
• Model 586: Blue steel version of the 686 
• Model 619
• Model 620 ·
• Model 646 ·
• Model 681 ·
• Model 686: (.357 magnum) - Can hold 7 rounds

 

N-Frame (large frame)

 

• Model 22 ·
• Model 27: Originally known as the Registered Magnum, this is the original .357
• Model 28: Originally known as the Highway Patrolman, this is a budget version of the Model 27 (has less HQ finish) 
• Model 29 · The Dirty Harry Gun. A .44 Magnum
• Model 57 ·
• Model 610 ·
• Model 625 ·
• Model 629

 

 

Ohio State Knife / Car Attack by Islamic Terrorist

This story is going to get dropped like a hot potato now that the media has found out the guy is Muslim, and he used a knife and a car.

We will be instead deluged with stories about how Muslims Fear Backlash.... because they are always the victim.




In the August 25th issue of the student newspaper Lantern, the same killer was playing the victim card. :
"On Monday afternoon, the Ohio State Department of Public Safety released the name of the suspect involved in the violent incident near Watts Hall — Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a third-year in logistics management. The Lantern had interviewed Artan as part of Humans of Ohio State, a print-only feature in The Lantern’s Arts&Life section. Below, The Lantern has reproduced the same interview that appeared in the Aug. 25 issue of the paper. The text below is a direct quote from Artan.
“I just transferred from Columbus State. We had prayer rooms, like actual rooms where we could go pray because we Muslims have to pray five times a day.
“There’s Fajr, which is early in the morning, at dawn. Then Zuhr during the daytime, then Asr in the evening, like right about now. And then Maghrib, which is like right at sunset and then Isha at night. I wanted to pray Asr. I mean, I’m new here. This is my first day. This place is huge, and I don’t even know where to pray.
“I wanted to pray in the open, but I was scared with everything going on in the media. I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. But, I don’t blame them. It’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re just going to have it and it, it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable. I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went over to the corner and just prayed.”




So if people looked at him, and thought "he'd drive his car into a crowd of people and then start knifing them, they would have been spot on.

Thoughts on the Election

• Wow, Trump won. After all the final votes get tallied, it’ll be interesting to do some analysis about how Trump in states compared to both expectations and against previous elections. Trump won in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin: pipe dreams in the previous elections, but the margin of victory in previous Republican strongholds was diminished. Ohio went for Trump by 8.6%, but Arizona was only 4.3% (it went for Romney by 9.1%)
• Trump wasn’t my #1 choice for President, but he was still better than Hillary. My primary reason for wanting Trump was for the future of the Supreme Court. Trump has floated potential names for justices and by all account, they are reasonably originalists. Hillary clearly stated she would appoint justices that would ignore the Constitution and decide important issues that should be left to the people via the 10^th amendment. Our country suffers when a democratic debate turns into a mandate from the Supreme Court, no matter how unpopular. Who knows what 7 liberal justices would do to gun rights, perhaps buying into the conventional liberal arguments that the 2^nd amendment is about muskets or only if you are in the National Guard. There is nothing to prevent them from overturning Heller. Concepts like stare decisis (precedence) are often touted by the media if a liberal ruling is in jeopardy, but they wouldn’t bat an eye to overturn Heller and impose strict gun laws.
• Liberals I know on Facebook were gloating so much before the election. If they won, they’d be taking victory laps. Now they are in meltdown mode, cursing all Trump voters. Liberals demonize their opponent and then wrap themselves in a cloak of moral superiority. My reaction is a mix of schaedefruede and annoyance.  Republicans didn’t become unhinged when Obama won.  We were forced to sit silently while everyone did victory laps around “the first black President.”
• A Clinton victory would have been a victory for the media. Almost all of the news and coverage was heavily slated to Clinton. Sure, they were able to push in the inexperienced Obama, but at least they couldn’t push someone under constant FBI investigation.
• When Democrats win, the talk is how Republicans need to change their policies to be more electable. When Republicans win, the media talk is that Republicans are angry, or at worst, a stylistic complaint about their candidate, e.g. People didn't like candidate's clothes. The fault never lies with their policies.
• Trump won’t be as great as his ardent supporters claim, nor will he bring about the calamity that his detractors fear. He is more of an old-school Democrat like Al Smith or Harry Truman. Even if he does just a decent job, he will cruise to re-election (if he chooses)  because the fear-mongering about him “being racist, sexist, xenophobic bigot, who will go house to house to deport anyone who isn’t white” will prove to be grossly false. Then the liberals will be left with nothing.
• The market is up tremendously despite all of the negative stories about how the market would react if Donald won.

Election Eve: RealClearPolitics Historical Accuracy

RCP gives Clinton a 3.2% advantage in the popular vote and a 301-237 edge in the electoral college. 3.2% nationally is a healthy margin, but RCP was only off by that much in 2012, to Obama's favor. If you drill down on a state-by-state level, it is much less clear. Two states, FL and NH,  which would deliver Trump a victory are within 0.2% and 0.6% chance. State polls are routinely off by 2% or more.

The below table is a comparison of final state polls in 2008 & 2012 versus their actual. I only examined polls where the lead was less than 5%, as those states would have more frequent polling. Polling is a lagging indicator.  National polls are more frequent, so state polls can be supplemented with national trends. Both times, national polls showed late momentum for Obama and the results broke for Obama. Last nationals polls have broke slightly for Clinton.

The results are uncertain but I think Trump is in a better spot than Romney was. For Romney to have won in 2012, he would have had to pickup five states, three of which Obama was leading by 2% or more. Trump has to win two states where Clinton is ahead by 0.6% or less.  The outlook is certainly worthy of 31.5% chance of winning that FiveThirtyEight gives Trump.

One misconception is that margin of error is absolute - i.e., if a poll has a 4% margin of error, and the poll shows candidate A down by 3.7%, many pundits will say that is a complete tossup. The 4% likely represents three standard deviations, so a 3.7% deficit really means about a 5% chance of winning, not a 50/50.  Being down by 0.2%, however, is very close to 50/50.

2016 Data

 

For comparison, Electoral-vote.com gives NC and ME#2 to Clinton for a 317-221 edge.

 

2012

Realclearpolitics was the least accurate for the popular vote, being off by 3.2%. For the electoral college, they only called Florida wrong, which they had a 1.5% margin for Romney, but it went for Obama by 0.8%. Virgina was correctly called, though they called a 0.3% margin for Obama when the actual margin was 3.8%.  Electoral-vote.com had the same for Obama (303), but put NC as a tossup.

 

 

 

 

2008

The 2008 race was quite accurate: They were off 0.3% on the popular vote in Obama's favor, and put two states, Indiana and North Carolina, in the McCain column, when they ultimately went to Obama. McCain lead Indiana by 1.4% and went for Obama by 1.1%. McCain lead North Carolina by 0.4% and it went to Obama by 0.3%.

 

 

 

2004

The 2004 race, the popular vote err'd in Kerry's favor by 0.9%. Realclearpolitics didn't have a electoral state map which I was aware of, but I was following electoral-vote.com at the time which gave the edge to Kerry. The err'd on Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and completely missed the mark on New Jersey.

Ithaca Model 37 - 18.5" vs. 28" Barrels

I test fired my Ithaca Model 37 shotgun using Remington reduced recoil 00 buckshot ammo with both my 18.5" barrel and my 28" barrel.

 

I wanted to see what the spread was for the different barrels. When do you start seeing a noticeable spread. I also want to see what the difference in recoil between "reduced recoil" and standard shells were.

 

A little background: I've never owned a shotgun prior to this, and has shot one less than 10 times in my life. This was my first outing with it, and my first usage of a shotgun in 2-3 years. I have substantially more experience with pistols and rifles.

 

The targets largely speak for themselves. My takeaways:

1. Noticeable spread won't happen until starting at 10 yards.
2. If you have home defense shotgun, the myth of pointing anywhere is bunk. There inner cicle was about 5 inches in diameter. Since nowhere in your house will there be anything longer of a shot than 7 yds, there is a small amount of forgiveness for inaccuracy, but that's about it.
3. The forgiveness from a shotgun comes from the fact that if you are off the mark, the force would be so huge, that you have time to follow-up. Take the 18.5" barrel, lower left shot. I was aiming for the center of the circle, but the result would be have hit an intruder's shoulder. It wouldn't likely be a fatal wound, but the stopping power allows you to have a follow-up action.
4. I can say I have poor aim, as I generally shot high. Having only a front sight takes a little getting used to. Practicing is key.
5. I don't like the results of the 15 yard try, and would like to go back with a fresh shoulder and some clean targets. I am a bit surprised the change in spread from 10 to 15 yds, but I think a reshoot is required to make any real conclusions.
6. Reduced recoil is marginal - 1200 fps vs 1275 fps, which is 5% less energy. I shot both, and you could tell that the difference was only marginal). While I likely need a new recoil pad (who knows how old this one is), my shoulder is sore after 9 shots of reduced recoil, and 1 of  standard. I'm also 6'2" and 200 lbs. I

 

 

 

Additional Barrels for Older Ithaca Model 37 Shotguns

The beauty of the Ithaca Model 37 (and some other models of shotguns) is the ability to attach different barrels for it. Leave the short barrel on for home defense and then put on a longer barrel for skeet or birds. However, barrels for older Ithacas (pre 855,000)  are not interchangeable. One option is the new Ithaca Gun's option:

Ithaca Gun Company: Model 37^® firearms with a serial number below 855,000 have barrels that are fixed and non-interchangeable. If your M37 was made before the 855,000 mark (which occurred in 1963), we will be able to furnish you with a replacement barrel for it, but you must send your gun to us for the barrel to be fitted. The process includes machine removal of existing threads, insertion of adapter and re-threading of receiver and re-bluing. Please note that once this is completed you will not be able to reuse your old barrel. Cost for this process is $180.00 for the adapter, plus cost of barrel. Includes re-bluing at no charge. Model 37s^® with a serial number above 855,000 have interchangeable barrels (except for some Deerslayers), but often still require some custom fitting by our gunsmiths.

For me, and perhaps others, I don't like the idea of ruining the original barrel.  This is another solution: First you call Ron Sharp at Sharp's Guns in Canada. You can buy a new-old-stock barrel from him, as he has many. (He purchased inventory during one of the Ithaca bankruptcies).  Ron is very nice and very old school, so he only uses the phone and accepts payment via bank money order. If he doesn't have the desired barrel length in stock,  he will cut the barrel to any length specified. I chose 18.5" as it matches the new self-defense guns from Ithaca (which have fixed barrels, btw.)

 

Ron then will ship the barrel to Les Hovencamp of Diamond Gunsmithing, who will fit the old barrel to your gun. You, of course, ship your gun, without original barrel, to Les. Les was a long time gunsmith for Ithaca. He is the go-to guy that everyone trusts.


The whole process takes about a month or so, depending on how busy everyone is. However, for the cost of ~$250, you can have an additional barrel. This is a very economical way to add flexibility to your existing shotgun. It also saves space for those of us have moderately size safes.


In comparison, the "new Ithaca option" would be $180 for the adapter, $275 to replace your existing barrel and then $250 for the new home defense barrel.

 

 

Time (all are approximate and will vary with workload):

• Receipt of Payment: 6 business days
• Barrel adjustment: 5 business days
• Barrel transit time (to Diamond Gunsmithing): 10 business days
• Fitting period: 5 business days
• Shipment home: 6 business days

 

Costs (may vary due to inflation or demand):

• Cost of Barrel $100
• Shipment of Barrel to Les: $25
• Cost of Fitting: $75
• Cost of Shipment home: ~$45

 

Addresses & Phone Numbers:

Ron Sharp

RR4

Dunnville Ontario

N1A 2W3

Canada

(905) 774-6368

 

Les Hovencamp

Diamond Gunsmithing

211 Dey St.

Ithaca, NY 14850

607-273-4510

 

The Department of Obstructing Justice.

Well written article on why the Clinton emails matter:


http://observer.com/2016/10/james-comey-and-loretta-lynch-should-be-impeached-for-whitewashing-clintons-crimes/




The Clearest (No Spin) Summary of FBI Report on Hillary Clinton Email


https://sharylattkisson.com/the-clearest-no-spin-summary-of-fbi-report-on-hillary-clinton-email/

Ethics: Trump vs. Clinton (re John Oliver)

Regarding John Oliver's take on Trump vs. Clinton


While I agree that both Trump and Clinton have their lies, it is hard to see how Trump spending $10k a picture of himself from his Foundation funds is worse that selling a massive amount of uranium reserves to Russia after getting $Millions in donations to their Foundation through several sham outfits. (Just because other gov't agencies approved it, doesn't mean it was ethical. Who wants to cross the Clintons?)


Oliver lays out every charge against Trump, but ignores some of Clinton's old ones, including making 1000% trading cattle futures within a year. He makes up a scandal instead, and talks about the most ridiculous of the internet accusations in order to distract from legitimate claims.


I agree with Oliver on Trump's taxes, but if Trump was doing something illegal, the IRS would prosecute him. Was that not the standard that Oliver set for Hillary? So he's not releasing his taxes because he either a) doesn't make as much as he purported ... or b) he doesn't give that much to charity. It's a lie, but not to the level of setting up your own server so you can hide emails about getting payment to the Clinton Foundation.

She lied about so much, well documented in this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Certainly if Trump lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, it would have been given a royal treatment by Oliver, but in this case, it is ignored. Let's not forget that Brian Williams got fired from his anchor position, because of a similar lie, but Clinton can be President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...


Oliver gets indignant over Trump's blind trust remark, but it was no different than when Hillary said Chelsea would run her Foundation if she gets elected. The Clinton Foundation took in $140 M in donations in 2013 (last available year), making it a huge conflict of interest.
While Oliver details Trump's Foundation's misgivings, he leaves off many key facts on the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton foundation spent only 6% of it's income in 2013 on Charity work. Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. Almost all of Hillary's personal charitable donations were to her Foundation. She's donating to herself!

When Police Officer Get Killed

Police officers, in their training review, instances like these. That's why people need to listen, then complain after the fact. Police are 100% correct, but they do want to return to their families.




Here are a couple examples for the memory bank.






In January 2015, Officer Tyler Stewart was shot and killed by a suspect refusing to take his hands out of his pocket, when he was responding to a call for domestic abuse






Back 1998, Officer Kyle Dinkheller was killed at a traffic stop who returned to his car and retrieved a gun.


In 1991, Officer Darren Lunsford was killed at a traffic stop when marijuana smugglers all got out of a vehicle, tackled and killed him.

Recent Terror Attacks

In the last year, terror attacks in Western countries are becoming a frequent occurrence, so much so that if it doesn't kill 20+ people, the mainstream press may not cover it.






Nov 13, 2015, Paris, France: Gunmen and bombers kill 130


Mar 22, 2016, Brussels, Belgium: Bombers kill 32
Jul 14, 2016: Nice, France: Truck attack kills 84
July 18, 2016, Wurzburg, Germany: Axeman injures five
July 22, 2016, Munich Germany: Shooting rampage kills 9
Jul 24, 2016, Ansbach, Germany: Bomber kills self, injures 15
Jul 24, 2016, Reutlingen, Germany: Machete wielding man kills woman
Jul 26, 2016, Roeun, France: Priest executed during Mass
Jul 26, 2016, Berlin, Germany: Doctor Shot dead
Aug 6, 2016: Chareloi, Belgium: Algerian man wielding machete shouted 'Allahu Akbar' as he attacked two female police officers
Aug 13, 2016: 27 year old "Swiss national" doused 6 in petrol and set them ablaze. One died, 5 are very injured.
Aug 20, 2016: Istanbul, Turkey: 12 year old ISIS bomber kills 51 at wedding.
Aug 23, 2016, Roanoke, VA: 20 year old, US citizen, Wasil Rafat Farooqui tried to behead a man, and stabbed a woman while shouting "Allahu Akbar"
Aug 24, 2016, Australia: 21 year old woman was stabbed by French national yelling "Allahu Akbar", while another man was badly injured.

Liberals re the 2nd vs 14th Amendments

I find it funny how liberals can't find the right to own guns in this: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"..... but can find a right to an abortion in this: "..... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

The State of the Race

The Presidential Election is 90 days away and Trump is struggling against one of the worst possible candidates. During the primary, he was considered "Teflon Don" for his ability to make criticism not stick. Of course, that was before he had the full force of the media pounding against him. Any off-the-cuff remarks now are hammered, repeated nationwide, and blown out of proportion. ... but they are also self inflicted. (.e.g, the 2nd amendment kerfuffle). I knew this was coming. A candidate like Ted Cruz would have been much more disciplined....but here we are.

 

The bad news is that right now Trump is trailing by 7.7% in the national polls according the Real Clear Politics average. FiveThiryEight's simulation gives Hillary a 85.1% chance of winning. The RCP's no-tossup electoral map indicates a 362-176 Hillary landslide. 

 

There are some reasons not to feel so dour.  In the RCP average, there is a distinct difference between the polls which look at Likely Voter and Registered Voters. Clinton is +9 in the nine polls that look at Registered Voter, but Clinton is only +3.6 in the three polls that look at Likely Voters. As polling companies start polling likely voters as the race continues, you'll get a clearer picture. (All the RCP polls are LV in the last measure prior to election day (e.g., 2008)

 

 

Clinton is ahead, but not as much as Democrats wish to believe. The election is still 90 days away. In 2004, from August 10th to September 9th (30 days), the polls in 2008 and 2012 were:

 

August 10, 2008: RCP Average: Obama 46.6%, McCain 42.2%, Obama +4.4%

September 9, 2008: RCP Average: Obama 45.6, McCain 48%, McCain +2.4%

That's a 6.8% swing within a month.

 

August 10, 2004: RCP Average: Kerry 47.5%, Bush 45%. Kerry + 2.5%

September 9, 2004: RCP Average: Bush 50.4, Kerry 42.8: Bush +7.6%

That's a 10.1% swing within a month.

 

 

Trump has been bombarded with attacks over the last two weeks. His opponents are throwing the kitchen sink at him. The media runs ten anti-Trump stories a day. He is still only behind 3-4% nationally when you look at polls of likely voters. Hillary has more potential to lose ground,  and this could be Hillary's high water mark. There are still three debates to be held, which could change the media narrative.  You don't know what could happen in the polls if a big story really gains momentum. There are several stories:

• The murder of the DNC staffer who may be the leaker of DNC emails,
• A leak of Hillary's missing emails
• Pay-for-play at Clinton Foundation, 
• Hillary's health.

My primary worry about the election is the future of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has garnered too much power. The leftists on the Court find rights that are not there and take away rights that are clearly spelled out. The case, District of Columbia vs. Heller was only a 5-4 vote.  Four justices did not believe there was a Constitutional right to own firearms. The left will crow on about "precedent" if a ruiling the left like is being challenged. However, that concern will go out the window if Heller or Citizens United is challenged.  There is no guarantee that Trump won't appoint another David Souter to the Supreme Court, but it is guaranteed that Hillary would appoint another Sotomayor or Kagan.

 

Trump has flaws, but the left & the media would demonize any Republican nominee. Back in ~2006, the media fawned all over McCain as he frequently critized Bush. Prominent liberals in the media proclaimed that "McCain is a Republican I could vote for." However, once McCain was the nominee, they declared he would be Bush's 3rd term, called him crazy, old rich white guy, etc.  No matter who was nominated, the Republican nominee would be one or more of the following: evil, rich, old, white, racist, crazy, bigot, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, anti-women, or dumb.

To not be homophobic, xenophobic, etc, you have agree 100% with whatever the left currently demands wihtout compromise. Back in 2004, Howard Dean was lauded by the left for his support of homosexual civil unions with the rights and privileges of marriage, though he opposed calling it marriage. If you took the exact same position today, the left would call you a bigot.

 

 

 

Clinton - Trump, Where it Stands

The RCP Average shows Clinton up by 7.7% right now. However,  in the RCP average: there is a distinct difference between the polls which look at Likely Voter and Registered Voters.

• Clinton is +9 in the polls that look at Registered Voters (9 polls)
• Clinton is only +3 in the polls that look at Likely Voters. (3 polls)

As polling companies start polling likely voters as the race continues, you'll get a clearer picture. (All the RCP polls are LV in the last measure prior to election day, e.g.,2008 : )

Clinton is ahead, but not as much as Democrats wish to believe. The election is still 90 days away. In 2004, from August 10th to September 9th (30 days), the polls went from Kerry +2.5% to Bush 7.6%, a swing of 10.1%.

The state and future of Republicanism and Conservatism

Vox: "The work of conservative intellectuals today, he (Avik Roy) argues, is to devise a new conservatism — a political vision that adheres to limited government principles but genuinely appeals to a more diverse America."

The desire for freedom is universal. Laws and principles should be colorblind. To be "appeal to a more diverse America" is drivel to divide America into a bunch of different socio-ethnic groups, assume they all think monolithically, and then using the power of government to pick winners and losers. To believe that all Latinos or all gays want the same thing is inherently racist.

We've seen the opposite of conservatism (limited government, free market economics) in play in many countries around the world. The most prominent recent example is Venezuela. How's that working out for them?



The Republican party has its difficulties, but at least the primary was a democratic process. There is something to be said of the fact that the nominee wasnt the favorite of the party leaders. Flawed as a result as it may be, democracy triumphed over aristocracy. The same cannot be said about the Democrats. In addition to the DNC openly colluding with Hillary, the whole notion of super delegates is undemocratic. The idea that several rich well-connected people, each has the voting power of over tens of thousands of "peasants" reeks of aristocracy. Democrats had a pretend vote, to give the "little people" the allusion that they had a voice.

Kareem Abdul Jabar at the Democratic Convention

CNBC— The NBA's all-time leading scorer had some harsh words about Republican nominee Donald Trump's views and ideas pertaining Muslims on Thursday night.
"Donald Trump's idea to register Muslims and prevent them from entering our country is the very tyranny [Thomas] Jefferson abhorred," Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said at the Democratic National Convention

Not letting a foreign citizen from a dangerous country come to your country is not tyranny. Tyranny is shooting up a gay night club. It’s driving a truck through a crowd of people. It’s knifing a priest during church. It’s blowing yourself up at a bar. Tyranny is ISIS. ISIS is.....?

 

Maybe Kareem should focus on how he personally treats other people:


"Thank God Kareem was my teammate, because I used to cringe at the way he treated people….Sometimes he’d have people in tears. It’s hurt him now that he’s done playing.” - Magic Johnson.

2016 Electoral Map Predictions Using Primary Results

 

 



One measure of who might win the key swing states is how many total people voted in each party in their respective Primaries compared to previous elections. (Yes some Cruz supporters may not vote for Trump, nor will some Sanders supporters vote for Hillary. However, it is a measure of voter enthusiasm. )



Real Clear Politics: Base "Create Your Own Map"



I compared the primary totals to the general election votes in 2008 & 2012. Then I looked at 2016 primary totals and extrapolated based on a pro-rata share. This method couldn't be used in a couple states because the 2008 and 2012 republican nominees were effectively decided by the time the primary hit their state (shown in orange below).  Some caucus states (in purple) are too messy to be able to extrapolate data or lacked in a popular vote (such as the infamous Colorado vote in 2016 for Republicans).

I had to combine the primary enthusiasm data with common sense. For the remaining states, I had to make judgment calls based on what data was available. So here are my calls and the rationale behind them.

Arizona: This is probably a good example of the extrapolation method. Both Republicans and Democrats had declines in their primary totals, but Republicans should hold easily.

Colorado: Republican totals for 2016 were not available but enthusiasm from Democrats was quite high.

Florida: This is a flaw in the extrapolation method. Republicans got more votes in the general in 2012 than 2008 but managed more general election votes. If you extrapolate based on 2008 data for Republicans, then Democrats pick up this state.

Indiana: The Republican nominee was effectively decided by the time Indiana's primaries wrapped up in 2008 and 2012, but what is striking is the decline in Democrat turnout.

Maine: Maine has too muddy of a primary process to consider, but given the levels of victory in 2008 and 2012, I think it remains in the Democrat column.

Michigan: Michigan for the Dems in 2008 had the issue where Obama wasn't on the ballet, so that data isn't helpful. For the Republicans total votes could be 2.75M or 3M depending if you extrapolate based on 2012 or 2008 data, respectively. I think Democrats hold it, but it will be surprisingly competitive.

Minnesota: Poor data to evaluate on, but I would be really surprised if it didn't go for Clinton.

Missouri: Turnout for Republicans was huuuge compared to previous years. Democrats have weak numbers.

North Carolina: Huge decline in Democrat turnout. Stay Republican.

New Hampshire: A rare state with declining Republican turnout, coupled with increased Democrat turnout. I think this is going to be solid blue.

Nevada: There is no real Democrat data to go on, but the increase in Republican turnout should have Democrats nervous. I think this one flips.

Ohio: Even though  I don't think Republicans will win Ohio with 75% of the vote, the fact that 69% more people voted in the Republican primary in Ohio in 2016 than 2012 is surprising. By contrast, Democrats only managed 52% of their 2008 total. Given that both contests were competitive until the end, I believe that the results are informative. 

Pennsylvania: While this state was actually competitive for Republicans this year in the primaries, the fact that more Democrats voted in their primary than Republicans is bad news. Democrats tend to turnout higher percent of people for the general than compared to the primary.

Virginia: Increase in Republican turnout combined with decline in Democrat turnout should be sufficient to overcome the general election deficits.

Wisconsin: I should have extrapolated based on 2012 data (I don't feel like re-uploading the photo), but Virginia should still flip to Republican.





The Focus on Gun Violence is misleading

Why is the focus on “gun violence” instead of violence in general? The complete ban on guns will not eliminate gun violence or violence in general. More to the point non-gun violence could increase. When criminals know the population is unarmed, they can effortlessly target the weaker in society. That’s why home invasions (especially when the homeowner is present) are much more common in the UK than it is in Texas.

 

An elderly woman with a bat is no match for a 24 year old man with a bat when he invades her house at night. However, a trained elderly woman with a gun has a reasonable chance of defending herself. Guns rights are rights for the weak, disabled, and elderly. Guns rights are women’s rights.

 

Owning  a gun is not a risk if you are responsible and trained. These silly aggregate statistics that say “a gun is more of a risk than a benefit” are irrelevant if you don’t plan on commiting suicide and are responsible enough not to leave it where a child can find it






http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/gun-control-survey_b_11194910.html

The Forgotten Man

 "As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. “C” is the forgotten man, a kind of everyman who falls into no category: “He works, he votes, generally he prays—but he always pays—yes, above all, he pays.”


William Graham Sumner

On Ken Burns and Trump

Ken Burns made a commencement speech at Stanford, very critical of Trump.

I've always enjoyed his documentaries, but found his comments to be a bit of farce, given the alternative candidate.

While I was not a Trump supporter, when he says, "a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn’t seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment; who insults veterans," - I almost started laughing as Trump is an amateur liar while Hillary is a professional. None of Trump's lies have ever result in the death of Americans or the compromise of classified information. (btw, when has Trump ever insulted veterans?)

Burns goes on to say, "powerless people who have flocked to his campaign in the mistaken belief that – as often happens on TV – a wand can be waved and every complicated problem can be solved with the simplest of solutions. They can’t." That's the Obama playbook. Where was Burns when mindless "Hope and Change" was being spouted? 

 

The lack of details won Obama many votes, all thanks to the anti-intellectualism that Burns decries. The "sophisticated media culture that requires you – no, desperately needs you – to live in an all-consuming disposable present, wearing the right blue jeans, driving the right car, carrying the right handbag, eating at all the right places, blissfully unaware of the historical tides that have brought us to this moment, blissfully uninterested in where those tides might take us." But who controls that media?

Despite what we wish the election to be, there will only be one of two people as our next President. It will be Trump or Hillary. Make no mistake about it. Once again, we are left with the better of two evils. (No, Gary Johnson doesn't have a chance.)

Trump's Children

It's not the first time I've thought this, but Trump, despite his flaws, does have solid kids.  I believe that the measure of a man’s success in life is judged at least partially by the success of one’s children. For example, if there is a great business man but all of his children are chuckleheads, then his greatness is severely diminished. There is no legacy to pass on. Your success dies with you.

The Orlando jihad vs Gun Control

Last week, a US born jihadist, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people in a gay nightclub in Orlando. He called TV stations and the police to pledge his allegiance to ISIS.

All of the headlines are about mass shootings, not the fact that they guy was a Muslim who hated gays. They words Muslim, Islamic, or terrorism are absent. The identify of the shooter is buried in the article, while the focus is on guns.   Let's compare this to when the young white guy (Dylan Roof) with confederate flags (who turned out to be a leftist), shot up a black church. What was the conversation about? Everyone wanted to ban confederate flags.

The media and their Democrat allies are desperate to spin this into a story of anything besides Islamic jihad. There is stories on guns, or the AG, but not ONE story on the mosque he attended?! Not ONE story about how many gays have been killed in Iraq by ISIS. Their execution of choice is throw them off the top of a tall building.   Of course this is the clash that the left doesn't want. They apologize for Muslims though they kill gays, yet the demonize Christians whose chief complain is against gays marrying. They can't pick sides, so they ignore the religious element and attack the guns.

 I find it interesting that in the period from the end of WWII to the early 1980s there was only one major mass shooting, despite the wide availability of semi automatic rifles. While I am not opposed to any gun control at all if it would be effective, I don't the think the availability of guns is the driver of these mass killings. There are too many flaws in the theory.  Why is Switzerland have a high rate of gun ownership but low crime? Why does Idaho have low gun crime despite high levels of gun ownership and why does Illinois have high levels of gun crime despite strict gun laws? France and Belgium have strict gun laws yet still were victims of mass killings. Why didn't  the laws stop them?


Mass Murderers switch to other weapons Boston Marathon was a pressure cooker, Belgium airport was a bomb, Oklahoma city was fertilizer. A knife welding man killed 29 in China in 2014. Someone killed 6 with a knife in Chicago earlier this year. In Chiyoda in 2008 a guy drove his car into a crowd of people, got out and started stabbing people. Mostly in the US, people have used guns because they are available, but in the absence of guns, people will switch to other weapons if they want to kill. There are also would be negative side effects from the banning of all guns, e.g., the US has a very low rate of home invasion at night, compared to other countries.


The left often cites statistics of "gun deaths" or "gun crimes." Logic would say to look at overall crime, but this is spin. They ignore that criminals switch to other weapons while law abiding citizens are defenseless.  Do they not consider that low burglary rate is due to gun ownership levels? Statistics like "gun deaths" also include suicide and people intent on suicide find a way.


If we don't find the real causes, we will be playing wack-a-mole banning one thing after another as murderers switch to other weapons. First we will ban AR-15s, then other black guns, then pressure cookers, then swords, then gasoline, etc.

Media Bias in Islamic Jihad Mass Shooting on Gays

Notice all of the headlines are about mass shootings, not the fact that they guy was a Muslim who hated gays. They words Muslim, Islamic, or terrorism are absent. The identify of the shooter is buried in the article, while the focus is on guns.

Let's compare this to when the young white guy with confederate flags (who turned out to be a leftist), shot up a black church. What was the conversation about? Everyone wanted to ban confederate flags.

On Hiroshima and Apologies for the A-bomb

With Barack Obama traveling to Hiroshima, there has been media talk over whether he'll apologize for dropping the atomic bombs.

Why should we apologize for Hiroshima? Even with two A-bombs dropped, many in the Japanese hierarchy still didn't want to surrender. Those that did want to surrender, never wanted war in the first place, such as Prime Minister Suzuki and Admiral Yonai. There is no way the militarists would have surrendered without the intensive bombing. We had 100,000 causalities in Okinawa. How many would there be in a Japanese invasion – 1,000,000 was estimated by the War Department, and I believe that is a fair assessment

Of the POWs not already executed or starved to death, more would have been killed. Many were on the brink of death when they were rescued. How many POWs would have met the fate of Jimmy Dye or Floyd Hall… POWs who were bayoneted, beheaded, and then EATEN by their Japanese captors. War is a terrible thing and almost all of the Japanese who suffered due to the atomic bombs were not part the decisions to go to war or to violate the Geneva conventions.  However, the alternative was more American dead. How many America lives would have you been willing to sacrifice? What if it was YOUR family?

Incarceration Rates in America

              

"America now incarcerates a higher rate of its population than any other country in the world" is a common phrase the media will trot out as if it is a bad thing.

Why is it important? Maybe we are just better at catching criminals? Maybe not releasing murderers after 5 years is a good thing? Maybe we don 't ignore petty crime?

If you crime rate is high but your incarceration rate is low, perhaps there is a problem.... like South Africa or the Philippines.

Some countries, like Singapore, have a low crime rate and a low incarceration rate. That's because criminals are caned there. You don't go to jail - you get a beating.

What Fuels Terorrism?

A common theme by the global socialists is mirror by an OpEd by David Petraeus:  "Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamic terrorism"


The theory is that if we were just over-flowingly welcoming of all-things Muslim, they would be nice to us. However, there are many things about the USA and the West that fuel Islamism more that prejudice. Look at their propaganda materials: things like unabashed homosexuality, gay marriage,  trans rights, rampant pornography are much more the focus of their propaganda materials.
Yet, none of the global leftists seeks to curb any of those activities.


In fact, women's rights aids the jihadis. Jihadis don't care much for Christians and Jews, but they really hate atheists and agnostics. That aids them. Anything short of rescinding women's rights and converting to Islam (and the right branch of Islam at that point) will actually mollify the jihadis.


They aren't looking for appeasement. They are looking for unconditional surrender.

Takedown Survival Rifles

A takedown rifle would be a fun addition for camping, travel, hiking, etc. Key purposes would be hunting game and/or defense against bears or bad guys.

 

Key Considerations

• Caliber: A .22 LR is inexpensive,  you can carry a lot, but it wouldn't take down a deer. Larger calibers are costly, more bulky, and could destroy any meat on a small game.
• Reload speed: Options include semi-automatic, lever action, or single shot. Semi-automatic is nice of course, though it is something else that can break.
• Complexity of Takedown: The shorter and simpler the better. Do you need special tools? Any tools required is something else to loose.
• Weight, Size: Every pound or cubic foot of rifle is one less pound or cubic foot of anything else that you can carry.
• Cost: What comparison excludes cost?.... especially for a rifle that may see little use.

Potential Options - Every list of potential rifles has several of these, but not ALL of them. There have also been new releases in the last several years.

1. Henry AR-7 - Completely takes apart and fits in the shoulder stock. It's definitely the most compact and lightest of the group, weighing in at 3.5 lbs. Henry supposedly has made updates to improve the failure to feed, failure to fire, and failure to eject issues. Buy new from $220
2. Ruger 10/22 takedown - Classic semi-automatic .22 with magazines that hold 25 rounds. 4.6 lbs, $350
3. Marlin Papoose - Officially the Model 70PSS. Requires a barrel wrench to tighten the ring on the barrel to the receiver.Weighs 3.25 lbs and costs $330.
4. Chiappa M6 - An update of the M6 survival rifle. It's chambered in .22 LR / 20 gauge. Most comparisons of the AR-7 and M6 are comparing against the original M6 chambered in .410 bore. The ability to get that M6 was rarer since it wasn't in production. The stock is foam, which makes me question how long it will hold up. New at $390.
5. Savage Model 42 takedown - This is the new kid in down. A over/under combo, it can be chambered in 22 LR /.410 or .22 WMR/ .410. The advantage of the .22 LR is cheaper, lighter ammo, though the .22 WMR will pack a bit bigger punch. It would have been really nice if they had designed the .22 WMR such you could shoot a 22 LR in it, like you can the .357 or .38. However there are a lot of bad reviews on the non-takedown version.
6. Kel-Tec SU-16 - Chambered in .223, it looks like a takedown AR without a pistol grip, though it's a long-stroke piston design.
7. TNW AERO - An AR-style carbine shooting pistol calibers in a blowback design. Weighs 5.5 lbs and costs $800
8. Chiappa Alaskan Takedown- A takedown lever action in .357 or .44. It's a little heaver than some at 5.5 lbs. Not many are made so they are expensive - $1200.
9. Browning BLR Takedown - A takedown lever action. Available in many larger calibers, it is the heaviest at 6.5 lbs and costs $1200

Financial Motivation for Climate Scientists?

When we hear the term “scientist” we want to believe that the person is intelligent, impartial, and altruistic. Sadly, they are still humans. Climate scientology was a dull, low paying, and thankless field until the sudden invention of a crisis. Global warming, err climate change, has delivered fame and fortune to climate scientists.  They now get grants, speaking fees, book deals, TV appearances, and profiles in national magazines.

 

Many say that pharmaceutical companies are not interested in finding cures as there is too much money in just “helping you live with the disease.” Why is global warming any different? How can we be so certain that climate scientists are altruists, while chemical and biological scientists are mean and greedy?

On Free Trade and Import Taxes

Last night's debate included a lengthy discussion on free trade. Trump is for heavy import tariffs. One key point I felt was missing was that, to an extent, goods being made overseas helps those economies be free from having to beg for foreign aid. Should Americans really be makes socks and underwear?


Overall, I'd advise candidates to advocate the following:


1. Punish those that abuse Intellectual Property - China will buy one tractor, reverse engineer it, and then start selling it at a lower costs. They don't have to pay for capital required to develop it.


2. Lower our corporate tax - Incentivize Americans to make stuff at home by changing the tax structure. This is more effective than trying to levy and import tax.


3. Get the EPA and other government beaucracies off the backs of industry! - Just try opening a factory in the US and see how much cost is added by the EPA. Pollution is real in China. I've been there; it's gross. However we don't need to go to the extremes. There wasn't a pollution problem in the 90s, yet the EPA has since gone off the deep end. Instead of requiring a 97% reduction in pollution, they want a 99.99% reduction. Yet that last 2.9% costs billions of dollars. What results actually hurts the global environment. Instead of producing a good with 97% reduction in pollution, the EPA demand 99.99% reduction, so the manufacture goes to China where there is 0% reduction. How does that actually help the global environment?

Prediction on Outcome over Hillary's Email Scandal

Short Answer: Nothing will happen


Long Answer:
When Biden said he wasn't running, I knew she wouldn't be prosecuted. There is no way the Dems leave the election to Bernie. Obama leaked info on the FBI investigation in order to put pressure on Hillary to cut a deal with Obama. He'll make the case go away, and Obama will get something wonderful - perhaps a foundation that gets a lot of government money to study global warming, or perhaps a nomination to be a Supreme Court justice.



The only way any real pressure is brought on Hillary is if Comey and other FBI personnel resign in protest. That is unlikely as Obama will make it clear that he'll make life very very difficult for Comey and his family. IRS audits would just be the beginning.

                   

The Brouhaha on Cruz

On the night of the Iowa Caucus, CNN reported: "“We should say that our Chris Moody is breaking this news that Ben Carson is going to go back to Florida to his home, regardless of how he does tonight here in Iowa. He's going to go there for several says, and then afterwards he's not going to go to South Carolina; he's not going to go to New Hampshire." Cruz's campaign tweeted out that Carson was dropping out. He wasn't and now there is brouhaha that Cruz stole the election.




Carson was polling at 7.7% before caucus according to the Real Clear Politics average. He finished with 9.3%. You really think a tweet by a campaign surrogate swung that many voters?.... and you would have to assume they all went to Cruz, not Rubio. Cruz beat Trump by 3.3%.

How many Carson supporters are even on Twitter, much less religiously follow the Cruz campaign Twitter accounts to catch a last minute tweet?

DIY Improvements to Make Gun Safes More Secure

Anyone in the market for a gun safe and who has done some research can come across a wealth of information that may lead you to believe anything less than a $2,000 safe has the strength of a paper bag. This video on YouTube purports to show how people break into a ~$1,000 safe using crowbars in two minutes. They did, but they also were able to tip the safe over and use body weight for leverage. In a similar video on a smaller safe, while the safe is bolted down, he's able to work the crowbar from all angles.  Other sites on the net show a safe being successfully attacked with a fire axe.  Apart from security, another concern is fire protection.   

There are partial solutions to each of these issues:

• Crowbar attack – a thief needs leverage
• Axe attack – a thief needs room to swing
• Fire protection – need more insulation

The key decision is where to put it. There is a certain tradeoff between accessibility and places that a thief may look. A bedroom closet is accessible but will be one of the first places a thief looks. I liked this closet space, and purchase a safe that best utilized the dimensions. 

There were some gaps between the closet walls and the safe, which I used to add fireproofing. I used cement board which I cut to fit using a scoring knife. Make sure you cut it in a well-ventilated place (outside) and wear a mask because it can get dusty). I’m not sure how much time each 7/16” thick piece of cement board will add, but it is likely long enough to warrant the $40 for the four 3x5 sheets.  

Cement Board

Scoring Knife

Measure and start scraping

Once it is well cut, you can bend it in two and cut the other side.

The build in shelves required a lot more cuts

The back is 2 sheets thick

The shelf on top is then bolted down. In order to remove the screws, you have to remove the safe first. The thief will then have to chop his way through.

The safe is bolted to the floor and to the back. I drilled through the hardwood floor and into the concrete. Drilling to concrete is very tough even with a hammer drill. 

The last potential idea if I’m going to be away for awhile, is to place a piece of drywall over the front here, which will help to hide the safe. It won’t look that out of place, so it has the potential to fool some thieves.

As an alternative safety measure, if there is any valuables that do not need protection from fire or children’s prying hands, consider hiding it elsewhere.  Back in the 1800s, the British found the the 3,106 carat Cullinan diamond in Africa and needed to transport it back to Britain. They put a fake in a big safe guarded by lots of people, while the sent the real diamond in a wooden box via normal post.

Will these steps make the safe theft-proof and fireproof? Absolutely not. However, it will make it harder for a thief to break in. With an alarm blaring, there is only so much time that thief will have.