archives

economics

This category contains 42 posts

Is Trump Causing a Slowdown in Gun Sales?

Politics works in mysterious ways. The more firearm regulations former President Obama tried to push through Congress, the higher gun sales became. Obama himself was lampooned as “the best gun salesman on the planet” by some industry insiders.
Obviously, the threat of overbearing regulation has faded in the era of the Trump administration. While one may think that a loosening of the reins would encourage more gun sales, the exact opposite has occurred. Gun stocks are down, and so are profits.
What is the explanation?
For all of his bluster, Obama was actually able to do very little about regulating firearms during his time in office. Yes, he was successful in bolstering the amount of total background checks processed. However, the Congress blocked all of his traditional legislation on the issue, and his Executive Orders addressing the topic have been all but completely overturned.
As it turns out, Americans were buying more guns on the threat of gun regulation rather than on any actual policy. Because Americans thought that certain types of rifles and add-ons such as sidearm silencers would soon be difficult or impossible to get, they stocked up. With Trump, there is no talk of gun regulation. Second Amendment rights advocates are no longer in a frenzy thinking that gun rights will disappear in the near future, so the new additions to the cache can wait.
The second factor that may account for a drop in gun sales is a level of satiety in the market. When Americans stocked up on guns during Obama’s term, they really stocked up. Contrary to popular belief, the modern American under Trump believes that they have enough guns – for now.
The Trump slump is a serious issue for the firearms industry. Mid America Armament gun show sales have dropped 50%, with total sales down about 25% from Obama administration years. The former Smith & Wesson, now known as the American Outdoor Brands Corporation, had its stock price drop significantly on election day. Sturm Ruger faced similar losses in its stock price.
Financial analysts predicted firearm sales would take a hit as far back as November. Learn why in the video below.
~ Firearm Daily

“When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout!”  (from a 1920’s Naval Academy magazine)

We political gun folks seem to become apoplectic when those in power even suggest possible gun control legislation.  But we become complacent when the people in power seem to support gun rights.

Not so fast, there, Bucko!  Historically, there have been a number or Republicans (Conservatives?) in power who signed in legislation which was antithetical to the Constitution, and that which is near-and-dear to us.

Tried to buy a newly-made European machine gun lately?

We must remain vigilant and (if we are able) support the marketplace.

Lest more of our rights whither or be taken away!

About The Raising Of The Minimum Wage…

Here’s what that bastion of liberal thought, Harvard University, has to say about it:

(from the Daily Wire)

Harvard Study: Minimum Wage Hikes Killing Businesses

Erik Mcgregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty ImagesA rally in New York City for hiking the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Feb 13, 2017.

A new Harvard Business School study found that minimum wage hikes lead to closures of small businesses. “We find suggestive evidence that an increase in the minimum wage leads to an overall increase in the rate of exit,” the researchers conclude.

The study, titled Survival of the Fittest: The Impact of the Minimum Wage on Firm Exit, looks at “the impact of the minimum wage on restaurant closures using data from the San Francisco Bay Area” from 2008-2016.

Researchers Dara Lee Luca and Michael Luca chose the Bay Area due to their frequent minimum wage hikes in recent years. “In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, there have been twenty-one local minimum wage changes over the past decade,” they write.

The Lucas found that lower-quality restaurants (indicated by Yelp scores) were disproportionately affected by wage hikes, increasing their likelihood of closure relative to higher-quality, established restaurants.

“The evidence suggests that higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants. However, lower quality restaurants, which are already closer to the margin of exit, are disproportionately impacted by increases to the minimum wage,” says the study. “Our point estimates suggest that a one dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating), but has no discernible impact for a 5-star restaurant (on a 1 to 5 star scale).”

While “firm exit” was the focus of the study, the researchers also noted that there are often other consequences from wage hikes, such as worker layoffs, increased pricing and hour-cuts for existing workers:

While some studies find no detrimental effects on employment (Card and Krueger 1994, 1998; Dube, Lester & Reich, 2010), others show that higher minimum wage reduces employment, especially among low-skilled workers (see Neumark & Wascher, 2007 for a review). However, even studies that identify negative impacts find fairly modest effects overall, suggesting that firms adjust to higher labor costs in other ways. For example, several studies have documented price increases as a response to the minimum wage hikes (Aaronson, 2001; Aaronson, French, & MacDonald, 2008; Allegretto & Reich, 2016). Horton (2017) find that firms reduce employment at the intensive margin rather than on the extensive margin, choosing to cut employees hours rather than counts.

Such findings were backed up by Garret/Galland Research’s Stephen McBride, who highlighted in March the “minimum wage massacre.”

“Currently, rising labor costs are causing margins in the sector to plummet. Those with the ability to automate like McDonalds are doing so… and those who don’t are closing their doors. In September 2016, one-quarter of restaurant closures in the California Bay Area cited rising labor costs as one of the reasons for closing,” McBride wrote in Forbes. 

“While wage increases put more money in the pocket of some, others are bearing the costs by having their hours reduced and being made part-time,” he added.

As noted by Red Alert Politics, the Bay Area is headed for a $15 minimum wage in July of 2018, though they’ve already seen over 60 restaurants close since September.

While it would behoove the Bernie Bros picketing for $15 an hour to take a look at this study, it’s entirely unlikely that such evidence would deter their entitled attitudes.

I posted regarding this phenomena before, but I obviously don’t have the gravitas of Harvard (nor, apparently the other sources I borrowed stole from!)

It’s basic economics – businesses expect X dollar profit to be profitable – having the gov’t mandate paying their employees more money lessens profit.  Something has to give.

We’re seeing many more kiosks on restaurant tables and counters these days.

They cost less.

Q.E.D.

“Come With Me If You Want To Live!”

Harvard ‘Shock’ Study: Each $1 Minimum Wage Hike Causes 4-10% Increase In Restaurant Failures

When I was making minimum wage, I changed jobs when I saw I couldn’t make rent and eat on that income.  This was in the 70s, when I began making $1.60 an hour, and moved up to $2.10…

 

Okay, So Mr. Suarez And I Disagree On Some Things

I’ll begin by saying I’ve admired Gabe Suarez and his works for many years.  Long-time blog readers of GiA will also know I am a disciple of Jeff Cooper.

Having said that, I am not inflexible.  Of course, I do not have the financial means to make changes to my armament and ammunition at a moments notice.

Here is what Mr. Suarez had to say recently regarding how he differs from Col. Cooper’s teachings, and their history together  (from Facebook):

THE SUAREZ SYSTEM – HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Thursday, June 08, 2017

I was asked how the Suarez material differs from the Modern Technique invented/codified by Jeff Cooper. Here it is…a long read, but it sets down the historical context.

I attended Gunsite in 1990. Cooper was there as were a few of the current “stalwarts” for the modern technique, a couple of SEALs and an entire group of LAPD SWAT with 1911s. I was running my issued weapon, as crappy as it was, a Smith & Wesson 5906 that had been tuned up by Steve Deladio in Long Beach, CA. While I was open minded, I did have some ideas about what was what since I had been working around criminals, gang members and killers for five years.

I had not been in a gunfight yet, but I was around alot of guys who had. In the end, I got top score and won the shootoff, against all of those guys. Cooper and I became friends, and I attended Gunsite every year until 1995. So one could say I became well versed in the Modern Technique. In Cooper’s words in the Intro to Tactical Pistol he described me as, although I would never use them to describe myself, “a master pistolero”. I say that only to illustrate my understanding of the modern technique.

The Modern Technique was born in the competitive field, not the battlefield. I didn’t read this…Cooper told me. The exercise was a man versus man shootoff, involving a draw from the holster, at some ten yards. In that sense, the competition was in fact open. And for that problem, some trends began to emerge. Below eye level shooting, or any moving while drawing – while quite popular with men like Askins, and Bryce, and other accomplished killers for close up shooting – didn’t work so well in that interval.

And since the goal was to hit before the other man hit, there was no need to move or use cover. What won was standing at ease, bringing the pistol up to eye level with both hands, and using the sights. When one man won, others emulated his method and also won.That is the over riding problem with sporting events derived from martial pursuits.

And Cooper, ever the academic, studied and identified the trends, duplicating it in his works.

Now, I respect Cooper’s memory and was proud to call him my friend. And I will say that he was not as close minded as his followers are. I shared the gunfight where I discovered “getting off the X” with him and he said that under those circumstances, it was a brilliant move. I still have that letter somewhere, and I know he mentioned it in his newsletter.

Between my intro to the Modern Technique and the height of my teaching career, I had the good fortune to be in a few gunfights…as the primary shooter. I also investigated a great number of shootings between bad guys and a few with good guy versus bad guys. I began to see trends that the modern technique did not address. As well the gunfight I told Cooper about where the concept of moving off the target line while drawing and shooting was crystallized for me, revealed many shortcomings in the MT methods.

In those days there was no internet or Google. Knowledge was passed on either via scholarly articles in police journals (forget getting anything of value in the gun rags of the day) – or via word of mouth.

In that gunfight, my third I think it was, although alert, I was in a reactive state. I moved to avoid being shot and shot back without a perfect sight picture and killed my adversary. I noted all of this and sought answers. Eventually I came across the works of John Boyd and the OODA cycle which explained in detail why my tactic of movement had allowed me to prevail in a situation where we otherwise would have shot each other. The study continued and by the close of my police career I had used that same method several times with success.

There was no force on force back then. There was Simunitions which was extremely expensive and being a UK company, they despised the idea of lowly civilians using their equipment. Some guys basically stole the gear (I actually mean borrowed for a lengthy period) from their agencies to train, but that was rare…and still is.

As well the anal-retentive range practices precluded anything other than a stationary stand and deliver training system. Eventually however, we brought in Airsoft and worked the training, simulating gunfights over and over and over. We determined that the initiative (who had started things) would determine the successful tactics of each party. We determined that moving kept you safe, while standing, or ceasing movement lead to you getting shot. We also determined those weaver stances, isosceles stances, or any hold on the weapon that was “stance dependent” was untenable in a close range reactive gunfight.

In 2004 or 2005 we had a Force On Force class…the first one, in Las Vegas. I set guys up facing each other at five yards. Armed with airsoft pistol analogs to their real weapons, and suitably protected with face masks, I told them to “GO”. This simulated a true gunfight to a far greater degree than any range exercise these men had ever seen before.

We had extremely accomplished Modern Technique guys totally change their perspectives on gunfighting after that class. We had “Combat Masters” from Taylor’s and Front Sight get their asses handed to them by first time attendees, school teachers, doctors, and students who understood what we were teaching.

And we have been developing it more and more and more ever since. I will tell you and anyone on earth that the gunfighting system taught at the Suarez School is by far the best system to keep you alive in a gunfight, and to help you kill your enemy at the same time. That was the beginning of “our system”.

Now to differences –

Specifically the Modern Technique relies heavily of being alert. In the modern world that is not always possible, and we know that while we try to be thus, the distractions of modern life will impede our incessant “Yellow”. We differ in that we understand the natural inclination, as well as the fact that if one is alert, he will often avoid/evade most problems.

Gunfighting is for when you were taken by surprise and so, a strong reactive understanding is essential. So MT is proactive, which happened maybe half the time. We do not ignore it, but we do not fixate on it either. Our system begins at reactive since that is where most lone operators will be when they realize they need to kill the other man.

Secondly we have the Weaver stance. Perhaps men are stronger today than they were in those days, but we have found in proactive shooting there is no need for the dynamics of the weaver stance with a moderately developed upper body and hand strength. All one has to do is look at what the world’s champion shooters use and you will not find weaver stances there. Often times what is needed is simply getting the weapon out quickly and punching it forward, working the trigger as you do so. Watch a force on force event and you will not see any weaver or isosceles stances. You will see a great deal of one handed shooting.

Next is the matter of Flash Sight Picture. This is but one step in a long continuum of visual references with regard to the handgun. On one extreme you have the pistol just clearing the holster, and the operator relying on pure body index and proximity to the threat. Midway we have meat and metal…the meat of the bad guy surrounding the metal image of the slide. And eventually, arms at full extension, eyes fully on the front sight or red dot, and pure marksmanship at hand. So we do not ignore the “flash sight picture” but it is not a complete use of the sights, or the body indexes either.

The next MT component is Compressed Surprise Break. Again, like the issue of the sights, working the trigger is far more involved with respect to the dynamics of the fight than merely a compressed surprise break. There are times when mashing the trigger just as fast and as hard as you can is called for. Other times we work it like a sniper rifle. All of this, and the way we work the sights is based on distance interval, and the degree of initiative you have in the fight.

Finally, the Semi-automatic pistol in a large caliber. Cooper and his men were very fond of the 1911 in 45 ACP. I don’t carry one of those. I carry a Glock 9mm. I have seen men shot with modern 9mm anti-personnel ammo and have never seen the failures we hear about in the old articles. We have several ER doctors who report that there is virtually no difference between 9mm and the other calibers. So I feel well armed, as do those who know, with a modern 9mm pistol. As well we do not subscribe to the “controlled pairs” or “hammers”. We shoot them to the ground. We rely on bursts. A burst is three to five rounds. Our school solution is a burst to the chest and a burst to the face. And of course, in proactive events, we shot for the face and head exclusively.

That is it in a nutshell. As well, our working of the pistol is vastly different. We are goal driven and focus on the state of the operator in the gunfight. Having been in some, my staff and I realize that analytical academic based weapon manipulations will fail. We also know the physical state one will likely be in. Not one of terror-filled defecation, but certainly one of excitement and adrenaline driven actions.

For example, the malfunctions we have seen discussed here. Rather than the analytical method taught at traditional schools, we understand that if your pistol malfunctions you have just been interrupted in killing the man who was trying to kill you. At such times, and often in low light, you neither have the luxury of examining the weapon, nor often the light to do so.

So we follow a flow-chart process bereft of any decision on the operator’s part other than “did it fix it and can I keep shooting”. So given a stoppage of any sort, the first reaction is an immediate and thoughtless tap rack. If that fixed it, keep killing. That maneuver will fix a failure to fire, as well as a failure to eject (known to traditional students as a stovepipe). It will not fix a feed way stoppage (not really a double feed), or an empty gun. If the initial maneuver fails to remedy the problem, the operator manually rips the on board magazine out and discards it. That will in fact instantly remedy the feed way stoppage in most modern handguns. (We have alternatives for those who must use Beretta M9 or 1911). The operator then loads a fresh magazine on board and manually cycles the slide, fixing either of the last outcomes…feed way stoppage or empty gun. We have students solving malfunctions dynamically and on the move in less than an hour.

Well, there you have it. There may be other things I haven’t thought of. We also favor appendix carry and training from concealment exclusively. We prize hand to hand combat ability and train with knives as well. We like red dot sights on our handguns, and put a premium on physical strength and conditioning.

But we firmly acknowledge our roots.

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and outdoor
I’ll be the first to say that I am not the experienced professional Mr. Suarez is.  I have received funds for my teaching, but I teach mostly The Modern Technique of the Pistol, as distilled by Col. Cooper.  Of course, I do teach one-hand shooting and Isosceles, as these items might be needed.
Taken point-by-point:
Alertness. 
I try to keep in condition YELLOW.  Yes, I am NOT an operator or an assault-team
member.  Alertness may not keep me from being attacked, but it couldn’t hurt?  My personal motto is ‘Pay Attention’.  I contend much of my Life might have ended differently, had I paid attention or perhaps MORE attention.
Weaver Stance, Flash Sight Picture  and Compressed Surprise Break.
I am old, infirmed and generally set-in-my ways.  Weaver has worked for me for 43 years.  And now I am weaker and have less muscle mass.  (Perhaps, if I were 20 years younger, and in better condition?)  I will continue to operate in these manners, unless the situation warrants otherwise.  I’m old fashioned and old-school.  Remember my use of Bruce Lee’s teachings.  Repetition (as with kata) can bring vertical death.  Or, in the case of gunfighting, horizontal death.  Drill, but vary your drills.  Don’t just punch holes in paper, endlessly.
The semiautomatic pistol in a large caliber.
Despite the Pentagon’s recent findings regarding 9mm hollowpoints, I prefer to rely on Physics rather than magic bullets.
And, of course, I always intone the great Jim Cirillo:  “Stopping power BEGINS st 12 gauge!”  Why do I carry a .45?  Because they don’t make a .46!
Red dot sights
Col. Cooper said optics are for rifles.  Mr. Suarez is selling pistol slides with red dot sights.  Perhaps, for the well-trained spec ops guy(?)  But, as an almost-elderly citizen, they are not for me.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to train under Mr. Suarez, and again own 9mm pistols.
But. given my current circumstances, I don’t see that happening…

Public Debt, Then and Now

(courtesy of Free North Carolina, in part)

 It’s the Debt, Stupid, Clyde N. Wilson, Chronicles, February 2016, excerpt pg. 16

Abraham Lincoln was a devotee of the Alexander Hamilton/Henry Clay “American System” of public debt, tariff protectionism, government subsidies and a national bank. To finance his war in 1861, Lincoln turned to an income tax, and then succumbed to printing money. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the federal government authorized to make paper money legal tender. By 1865, the public debt was $2.6 billion, and the direct/indirect cost of Lincoln’s war would reach $8 billion by 1900.
http://www.Bernhard Thuersam, http://www.Circa1865.com   The Great American Political Divide

Public Debt, Then and Now

“Contrary to official capitalist wisdom, debt does not create economic growth. This idea is a swindle. Interest to the very rich . . . does not produce anything. It does not multiply creatively into new enterprises and jobs; it merely diverts ever-greater proportions of earning that might be fruitfully invested.

The proof is all around us. How could the vast unpayable federal debt, which absorbs much of the government’s income just for the interest bondholders, foreign and domestic, possibly be an economic stimulus? How can the immense and near universal burden of personal mortgage and credit card debt possibly indicate a healthy economy and commonwealth?

The matter is simple, obvious to anybody except a politician, a captive economist, or a media flack, and it ought to be conveyed to the people at every opportunity. Debt is killing us. Every wise man in recorded history has affirmed that debt is not a good thing. Debt can destroy a family, a government, a society.

Alexander Hamilton, an upwardly mobile immigrant bastard with a Napoleon complex, declared that “a public debt is a public blessing.” Troubled, but not surprised, Jefferson noted a connection between debt cruel taxation that undermined the independence of the citizens, warning that “we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

Weighed down by government debt, the people would have to labor ever harder to pay the debt-holders, leaving them “no time to think, no means of calling the managers to account.” Jefferson avowed as a core principle that “the earth belongs in usufruct to the living,” but the living had no right to consume the earnings of posterity.

Antebellum statesmen like John Taylor of Caroline and John C. Calhoun and economists like William Gouge and Condy Rageut made the same case. After the War Between the States, so did William Graham Sumner, Thomas E. Watson and countless other public men and thinkers.

Republicans (and their predecessors) have always been the party of bankers and bondholders, service to the rich being for them a natural and essential function of the federal government. Opposition to the federal debt was long a plank in the Democratic platform, but Democrats today are just as guilty as the Republicans in regard to the issue.

Lip service to the virtue of “low public debt” continued until Franklin Roosevelt discovered Keynes and declared that debt is no problem “because we owe it to ourselves” – “ourselves” being a conveniently vague and collective being.

The bipartisan bailout of misbehaving bankers and brokers that we saw a few years ago, and the failure of a multitude of presidential candidates to mention the matter, is not promising.”

Posted especially for Dave.

Cash Issues

Not the usual not enough (although I suspect that applies to most of us…)

Wisdom from Peter

So much for the “cashless society”

There’s been lots of talk lately about doing away with bigger banknotes and moving towards a so-called “cashless society”.  To name just a few recent articles:

However, when banks start charging you for the privilege of keeping your money in their vaults, that changes the picture.  The Wall Street Journal reports:

For years, Germans kept socking money away in savings accounts despite plunging interest rates. Savers deemed the accounts secure, and they still offered easy cash access. But recently, many have lost faith.

“It doesn’t pay to keep money in the bank, and on top of that you’re being taxed on it,” said Uwe Wiese, an 82-year-old pensioner who recently bought a home safe to stash roughly €53,000 ($59,344), including part of his company pension that he took as a payout.

Interest rates’ plunge into negative territory is now accelerating demand for impregnable metal boxes.

Burg-Waechter KG, Germany’s biggest safe manufacturer, posted a 25% jump in sales of home safes in the first half of this year compared with the year earlier, said sales chief Dietmar Schake, citing “significantly higher demand for safes by private individuals, mainly in Germany.”

. . .

Germany’s love of cash is driven largely by its anonymity. One legacy of the Nazis and East Germany’s Stasi secret police is a fear of government snooping, and many Germans are spooked by proposals of banning cash transactions that exceed €5,000. Many Germans think the ECB’s plan to phase out the €500 bill is only the beginning of getting rid of cash altogether.

There’s more at the link.

We’ve already seen calls to eliminate the $100 bill in the USA, and high-denomination bills elsewhere.  They’re never made out of concern for our interests – always to benefit Big Brother or the banks.  Every time I hear such calls, I check, double-check and re-check my cash reserves (and expand them, if possible).

The anonymity factor is certainly important to many people, including yours truly.  In an era when certain purchases (e.g. firearms, ammunition, etc.) are ‘politically incorrect’, I much prefer making private purchases whenever possible, paying cash instead of using credit cards or checks.  (For that matter, some vendors such as PayPal and Square specifically forbid using their systems to buy such items, limiting one’s options.)  Also, if electronic payment and/or processing systems should go down for any reason (such as the infamous EBT ‘outage’ a couple of years ago), cash will instantly be king once more – so it pays (literally) to have some on hand.

I repeat my earlier recommendation.  Try to keep at least one months’ expenditure on hand, in cash – preferably in smaller bills such as twenties.  If you can stretch that to two or three months’ worth, it’s not a bad idea to do so.  You never know when that cash might come in very handy indeed.

Peter

While I respect Peter for his wisdom and sage advice, not unlike the ‘preppers’ , there’s only so much a ‘person of limited means’ can do.
There are months I run out of funds before they are magically replenished (being on a meager disability income), many times a week or 10 days before they appear.  Things haven’t gotten better, since my roomie has had additional health problems and must work less, putting more of the burden on my shoulders.
We cannot save a month’s worth of expenditures; forget two or three!  And, months of prepper goods?  Fuggedaboutit!
I suspect we shall be relying on our wits and few firearms for survival, when TEOTWAWKI limps ashore our community.
SIGH…

It’s BA-ACK! (Almost)

There are a number of items that have come and gone during my adult life as a ‘gunnie’.  The Snik holster, and The Randall (Mirror-Image) Left-Handed 1911 are two examples.

A third would be the Auto-Mag.  An early effort to put revolver-powered cartridges into a semiautomatic frame.  With a larger capacity, of course.  🙂

As with it’s revolver counterparts (the S&W Model 29 and Colt Anaconda) it’s designed primarily for hunting.  But you know some fools (and larger folks) will carry them concealed.

Because they can!

The Firearm Blog had this, recently (in part):

automag1

If you’re even passingly familiar with Clint Eastwood’s portrayal of Dirty Harry then you’re also familiar with his trademark .44 Magnum (the – at the time – so-called most powerful handgun in the world). And if you’re familiar with “Sudden Impact”, the fourth movie in the Dirty Harry series, maybe you also know about the Auto Mag. Or perhaps you know about the Auto Mag because it’s a badass pistol we’ve been promised another chance at more than once since its movie heyday. So where do things stand as of now?

First, a little company-related background. The original Auto Mag went out of production more than three decades ago. Manufacturing costs apparently outweighed sales profits which eventually led to the pistol’s initial demise which led to a revival as a collector’s item complete with higher price tag. Many attempts were made to keep the gun on the market but in 1982, it all came to a grinding halt. Then, last year, a private investor decided to get involved. They purchased the rights, plans, and even leftover components before setting to work bringing back the Auto Mag. Now, as we edge into the fall of 2016, it looks as though progress has indeed been made.

As of August 2016, Auto Mag is an officially registered trademark. The company is offering the lucky devils who already own Auto Mags their refurbishing services and caliber conversion kits will be offered soon as well. What calibers? We don’t know yet, but you can be sure we’ll let you know when we do. As for future Auto Mag owners, your day will come once the prototype is complete. Firearm manufacturing has come a long way since 1982 in more than a few ways, meaning the new company has to take everything into consideration from metallurgy to machining.

One good move Auto Mag has made is the choice to bring Laura Burgess Marketing (LBM) in to handle the media and marketing side. Marketing matters far more than many people realize – more than even some companies even seem to comprehend – and LBM is a solid choice. LBM will undoubtedly do their part to spread awareness of the pistol’s impending resurrection and will also keep us in the loop regarding future developments.

I don’t expect to see this pistol hit production-ready status until year’s end, but it’s worth the wait. I, for one, am looking forward to trying my hand at the Auto Mag. Who’s with me?

You can keep an eye on the Auto Mag by visiting this link: https://read.automag.com/

Some years back, Jeff Cooper was asked what would be the purpose of making such a firearm.  His answer?  To sell, of course!

How To Lose Business Without Really Trying

(from The Firearm Blog)

hogue4

“THIS JUST IN: We were just informed that Wells Fargo Bank would not do business with us, refusing to provide their services based on the fact that we manufacture “weapons” (aka knives). Incredibly, this refusal came after THEY initially pursued us to gain our business. Once we had decided to go with Wells Fargo, they then pulled the plug saying they could not provide their services since we manufacture weapons…Needless to say, we are shocked and confused – considering their logo is a stagecoach and driver with a shotgun too! We felt we needed to inform the firearm and knife community of this discriminatory stance Wells Fargo has taken. Please share.

There has been a serious increase in the number of banks refusing to do business with firearms industry companies. It’s too bad the industry doesn’t have its own banking institution. I’m sure they’d do phenomenal business both within the industry itself and by opening up to personal banking accounts. What do you think?

Visit Hogue’s website (and maybe give them some business) at www.hogueinc.com

This reminds me of the short-sighted thinking of folks who boycott Chik-Fil-A, because their founder is an unabashed Christian who closes his business on Sundays, but who will promote Muslim businesses in the name of inclusion – even though the Koran preaches killing gays.

And, my credit union, who actively promotes new customers who are illegal aliens!

And, those businesses who put up the ‘No Guns Allowed’ signs.

And bakeries who refuse to bake cakes for gay couples.

I believe businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as their refusal conforms with the law.

Of course, some laws are egregious.

Businesses who refuse to serve certain customers are simply cutting their own throat, in their pocketbook.  BUT, it’s their choice – or should be.

I’m also a believer in choice – if you don’t want to support a business, don’t support them.  If you don’t wish to patronize a business, don’t go there.

If you want to – go ahead.

FORTUNATELY, these businesses with ‘guns be bad’ signs don’t know whether or not I’m carrying.  And I’ve been known to let management know my feelings politely on the way out…

ccw card

Regardless, I  A.C.E. – Always Carry Everywhere

Cross Your Fingers…

Light a candle, knock-on-wood, something…

As The Old Man posted

Oh Yeah!

I am so liking this underlying sentiment of one of the LA “What-Time-Is-It?” editorial:

The European Union just lost a sixth of its economy, roughly akin to Florida and California seceding from the United States.

Sounds like a good idea to me. but there is no chance of existence for state/nation that Charlie-Foxed.  Fortunately  England proper will rediscover the spirit of te Blitz.
as veritas.
I don’t see us getting that lucky.  If New York  and Illinois joined the succession movement,  the American homicide rate might halve.  If we could add Joisey, DC and Oregon…..The mind boggles.

But as usual they bugger it up.  (This is my shocked face…)  It’s amusing how many TPs/hotDemocritter talking points are nailed..
As usual, the little guy is shafted.

We can dream, can’t we?
Alaska, Texas…?

51% – ers

from Brock Townsend:

Socialism’s False Promise

Via Billy

Given its track record, one wonders why socialism is gaining in popularity in the U.S. and what appeal it has to a generation that, apparently, knows little about it.

A recent survey from Harvard University has found that 51 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 do not support capitalism. Just 42 percent support the economic system that has allowed even the poorest American to live better and to have more opportunity for advancement than most of the rest of the world. Thirty-three percent of those surveyed support socialism.

Why does socialism receive such strong support among the young? I think it’s partly due to what is being taught in too many public schools and universities and it is partly due to ignorance and human nature, which would rather get a check than earn one.

Three quotes about socialism sum up both its false promise and its danger.

Back-in-the-day, when I was going to college, I paid all my own tuition, bought my own books, and worked full-time.  At minimum wage or slightly more than minimum wage jobs.  No student loans for me!
This is not to say I wouldn’t have considered a loan – I didn’t think I’d qualify and didn’t know I’d a choice!
What changed, wherein young people cannot work and afford college on their own? 
(I suspect the government is involved!)
(In the interest of full disclosure, I barely make it on SSDI today, and sometimes borrow (or am gifted) money to pay my auto insurance, or to make groceries.  This is not a bleg, but just a statement-of-fact.  What changed, when I could once afford to pay my own way, and now cannot?  I suspect the government is involved.)

Did You Ever Notice…?

(With apologies to Sixty Minutes’ Andy Rooney)

Did you ever notice, when a ‘large’ crime, or terrorist act occurs, that The Left immediately (before the ink or blood is even dry) screams to have guns, all guns, some guns, evil-looking guns, ‘high-capacity’ guns, military-styled guns, ‘assault’ weapons, Saturday Night specials, ‘assault clips’ (etc.) BANNED?

Regardless whether or not the aforementioned firearms were even used in the heinous attack?

AND, The Right usually responds by screaming at the Left for their attempts to restrict individual rights, and purchases as many of the potentially banned firearms as possible? And the many gun rights organizations demand request we send letter of protest and as many dollars as possible to their lobbying arm to thwart the Left’s attempts at restrictive legislation?

(Of course, this doesn’t work as well when the gun restrictions are mandated by executive fiat!)

BUT, rarely does such legislation ever see the light of day(!)

While I support efforts by gun rights groups to help us keep our freedoms, I am reminded that many such organizations would cease to exist (or in the least be downsized) if money was not proffered by us.

Not unlike The American Cancer Society, The Jerry Lewis MD Telethon, Party X, Party Y, yatta, yatta.  If we didn’t send money, they would dry up.

But gun rights would not be extinguished.

Because we, as individuals, would have to pick up the gauntlet.

And perhaps that’s WHY they exist – our laziness as individual citizens(?)

Please visit the links on my humble sidebar (or, make an effort to find those with whom you agree on your own!) and join, make a contribution (or contributions).  Write letters and emails.  Call politicians and bureaucrats!

TAKE ACTION to support those causes near-and-dear to your heart!

Because being an ‘armchair adventurer’ is one thing.  Being an ‘armchair citizen’ is something altogether different!

 

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…