(That's S-I-G-H-T, for those of you who spend too much time online, or work in architecture/construction.)

Dear Joy:

AR-15s and similar rifles are flying off gun store shelves these days. If you're one of the buyers, here's your chance to put a top-of-the-line red dot sight on your new rifle - and at the same time, help defend all your guns against anti-gun groups and the Obama administration.

Here's how it works: Aimpoint, Inc. and MidwayUSA will donate $100 to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action for every Aimpoint CompM4 electronic red-dot sight package purchased by NRA members from MidwayUSA through the end of 2008.

This is a great opportunity to get an Aimpoint CompM4 at a special price and help NRA-ILA defend our firearms freedoms. The Aimpoint CompM4 is currently used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force as the M68 Close Combat Optic. It is also in service with the Navy and the Marine Corps.

In an extra show of support, MidwayUSA will pay for a one-year NRA membership for every non-member who buys an Aimpoint through this program. So go ahead and forward this message - you can help a friend get a great scope and a free NRA membership at the same time!

This special package includes an Aimpoint CompM4, quick-release mount, spacer for AR-15 or similar rifles, killFlash anti-reflection device and MILSPEC rubber lens covers. The program ends Dec. 31, 2008, so to order your Aimpoint and support NRA-ILA, visit www.nraila.org/aimpoint today!

Posted by: Attila Girl at 08:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

Why would people be buying guns right now?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

1) Move to Nevada—preferably just outside Clark County, which has the virtue of a "shall issue" approach to carry permits, but the vice of handgun registration. (Why does the state want to know how many sidearms I have? What if I need several, because it takes me a while to get around to cleaning one after I've shot it? Or because it's important to me that my "defensive device" match my outfit? Do they make me register every scarf I own? No—they do not.)

2) Do not wear your MBT sandals for shooting. Just because you can adapt and drive in the "rocking shoes" does not mean that they will provide the optimal shooting platform.

And remember those times you went to the indoor range wearing high heels, so you could make sure you were able to defend yourself in business attire? The same philosophy does not extend to a long-stocked 12-gauge over/under, a .454 Casull, an Uzi, or a .50-caliber anti-vehicle rifle.

3) When the stock is too long on the 12-gauge, resist the temptation to forego placing it snugly against your shoulder, putting the stock slightly behind your underarm, unless you want that increased accuracy on a single shell at the cost of cutting your thumb. (And not in that spot in the web of your hand where you still sport very faint "gun nut" callouses.)

4) Before inviting yourself and your spouse to live in your new friends' future desert compound in Utah or wherever (in exchange for helping them to build a road to the property in question), remember to call your husband and check in with him first. Husbands prefer to know about this before you've sealed the deal and started drawing up plans for how far apart the different households' structures will be, how the solar panels will be set up, where the well will be dug, how the defensive perimeter be maintained, and what the patrol rotation will consist of within the various households in the village.

5) Next time, tell your brothers/sisters and arms that, yes—they should go ahead and bring the explosives. It is, after all, the only way to be sure.

6) Shorts are never ideal when you plan on lying prone in the dust to shoot a .50 with a tripod, and never mind that you forgot your jeans on this trip.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

starts with knowing what a gun is.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

They've got a new series of ads out to buttress their assertion that Obama might be "the most anti-gun President in U.S. history."

Here's one:

Two questions:

1) They actually identify themselves as the producers and disseminators of this political ad. Isn't that old-fashioned? I thought people didn't need to do that any more: isn't the new trend to "upload to You Tube, send it to Jesus' General, and hope it goes viral"?

2) They keep talking about someone named "Joe Biden," who's apparently a big gun-grabber. Name doesn't ring a bell, though. Apparently, he's linked with that far-left Presidential candidate . . . Obama-something.

For more, see the NRA Victory Fund's "Gun Ban Obama" site.

Via Marc Ambinder, via Conservative Grapevine.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

Most of my gunwriter friends have been talking about this for a long time: how do we save the shooting sports? Most of the time, the answer I hear is, "introduce women to hunting and shooting." (This is one of the reasons I've written several variations on "how to pick your first gun" for women, and "how to turn your wife on to shooting" for men.)

During the Clinton Administration the outdoor industry was feeling embattled; later, the gun-grabbing mania subsided for a variety of reasons, though getting urban people of either gender into shooting has been an ongoing challenge.

But it turns out that all the outdoor industry needed for its XX-outreach was the right face:

Via Insty.

For a list of "woman-friendly" hunting and firearms courses near you, call your local chapter of the NRA—and/or check in with your state's department of fish and game for other instruction resources. (Yes: even Rhode Island has a department of fish and game; take it from the chick who used to put together Hunting's annual guide to hunting seasons for all the states—and all the Canadian provinces. Every state or province, every species. Primitive arms seasons. Bowhunting days. All fees and permits required. In eight-point type. Helvetica.

You might also consider subscribing to Women & Guns.

The site for my former employer, Petersen's Hunting, is here, but please note that it's sound-enabled.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

It is a God-given right.

At least Britain is moving in the right direction.

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

"Look, I teach Constitutional Law, and I know that individual communities need to take illegal handguns off the street. If they do that by making all handguns illegal, so much the better. By the way, NRA = bad. Supreme Court decisions that strike down handgun bans = good. Now let me finish my waffle; they told me I could eat all I want—they'll make more."

h/t: Captain Ed at Hot Air.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, Professor: I do agree that when Scalia discussed the virtues of handguns over longarms for those with less upper-body strength, he probably had women in mind, along with the elderly and disabled. But the Kool-Aid consumed by orthodox feminist groups—and even readers of mainstream women's magazines, such as Family Circle and Women's Day—is powerful stuff: we have been told repeatedly for years and years that merely having a gun in the house puts us and our children in danger, and that handguns are terribly easy for potential attackers to turn against us. Because, you see, they often have greater upper body strength.

For more of the nonsense we've been reading about for decades about how women are "armed and in danger," skim through this discussion thread over at McArdle's place, and find those juicy bits that display how egregiously the gun-grabbers have been "lying with statistics" to women for years.

(X-posted at Right Wing News.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

And today, it really, really is: The palm trees stand out against the foothills. The hazy sunshine is just the right kind of hazy. The overpriced blueberry muffins from Ralph's seem slightly less overpriced.

The New York Times is focusing on how shocked, shocked the hoplophobes are about the Heller ruling: Dianne Feinstein is regurgitating her very best made-up "facts," and Mayor Daley is afraid that Chicagoans will attain the means to defend themselves from crime, which will, of course turn it into the Wild West all over again (without, of course, those pesky Chi-town typewriters).

It's all just music to my ears; turn up the volume, Baby.

Gun-control advocates across the country reacted with shock and outrage at the Supreme CourtÂ’s decision to strike down the District of ColumbiaÂ’s ban on handguns today, saying the ruling would threaten gun-control measures in other states.

If there was any doubt that other bans would be in peril, the National Rifle Association quickly put those questions to rest when it announced shortly after the ruling that it would file a flurry of lawsuits challenging restrictions in San Francisco, Chicago and several Chicago suburbs. The law in Washington, which spelled out rules for the storage of weapons and made it extremely difficult for most people in the district to legally possess a handgun, was among the strictest in the nation.

“I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of freedom,” Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the N.R.A., said in a statement.

In its 5-to-4 decision, the court ruled that the Constitution protects an individualÂ’s right to own guns, not just the right of the states to maintain regulated militias. It also said that the District of ColumbiaÂ’s requirement that lawful weapons be disassembled or limited by trigger locks was unconstitutional because it made them virtually useless.

In Chicago, Mayor Richard M. Daley, a staunch supporter of gun control, called the decision “frightening” and said he was bracing for a fight with the gun lobby, which has long criticized the city’s ban on the sale and registration of handguns for everyone but police officers and a handful of others. Enacted in 1982, the law was created in response to the murders of two police officers and the assassination attempt on former president Ronald Reagan.

“Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?” he said at a news conference. “If they think that’s the answer, then they’re greatly mistaken. Then, why don’t we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle in the streets.

“They’re changing the rules,” Mr. Daley said of the Supreme Court. “Why should we as a city not be able to protect ourselves from those who want guns in our society?”

Of course, the way the "rules" are being changed is by bringing them into conformity with that older set of rules, the Constitution—maybe Daley should read that thing someday. He might learn something.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, which also restricts the owning of guns, reacted strongly to the ruling, saying she was “viscerally affected” by it and worried for the nation’s safety.

“I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate,” she said. “And I happen to believe that this is now going to open the door to litigation against every gun safety law that states have passed — assault weapons bans, trigger locks, and all the rest of it.”

Next thing you know, citizens will have to take action themselves when they see a crime in progress, rather than allowing public officials to be slain every time some crazy person ODs on Twinkies.

The ruling was quickly seized upon by John McCain, who in recent months has tried to repair a fractured relationship with the gun lobby stemming from his support of regulations on gun sales at firearm shows and other restrictions. Mr. McCain praised the decision today, and used it to renew criticisms of his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama.

“Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today’s ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right — sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly,” Mr. McCain said.

Mr. Obama, however, was more careful and moderate in his statements about the ruling, saying it would provide “much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions” across the country.

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,” he said. “The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

Provided that those reasonable restrictions don't include doing bad things to any actual criminals, of course.

More coffee for me, I think. And a fresh peach—which, yes: I do dare to eat one. I dare, and I dare, and I dare.

Had I mentioned that it's a beautiful day?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 925 words, total size 6 kb.

. . . on the Heller case? Glad you asked. Via Insty, Mike O'Shea has some thoughts on the possible implications—in the form of a handy-dandy "top ten" list.

(X-posted on Right Wing News.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

I sure hope the revolution will be fabulous, though: I could use a Coach/Browning Hi-Power, myself.

(Darrell! That was a joke.

Um, I mean, unless you really do find one, in which case I at least want to know about it.)

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Rachel Lucas gets a giggle out of ignorant non-hunters. Actually, neither she or I have actually been hunting, but at least we're not as wildly ignorant on this topic as the average liberal suburbanite. (And, yes: after a few years at Petersen's Hunting, I do have an odd stash of arcane facts in the back of my tiny little brain.)

Anyway, Rachel is responding to a flotilla of letters on the subject of hunting that ran in "Dear Abbey" today—

I just love Walter M. From FloridaÂ’s very thoughtful expression of his knowledge of human history:

Before the industrialized age, people were forced to hunt to put food on their tables. Today, whether they consume the meat or not, the majority of hunters (I use the term very loosely) are not “hunting.” They are camouflaged, hiding in blinds or in tree stands waiting for the prey to wander by. Some even put out bait to lure the animals to their location.
There is no skill in hiding, waiting for an animal to wander by to be shot. These people are animal snipers. A true hunter would stalk prey using a bow and arrow for the kill.

Well all rightee then. According to Walter, all those millions of humans over the last 150,000 years who killed animals with any weapon other than a bow and arrow weren’t “true hunters.” I bet it sure felt like hunting to them, using spears and clubs.

It's worse than that, Rachel: not only is Walter an incurable romantic, but he also doesn't seem to realize that using bait to lure animals is not permitted in most areas, and for most species. Some areas that allow the hunting of bears permit this, but not many.

I'd still like to take a deer before I die, or some other diminutive form of "large game."

But I suppose if I'm going to take to the trail with a .30-.30 I should first acquire a freezer; most hunters I know either possess freezers, or relationships with Hunters for the Hungry.

One could take Walter's logic still further, and proclaim that not only is stand-hunting inauthentic, but so is bowhunting itself. The true hunter confines him- or herself to employing a very large rock. It should not have a point on the end, for that would give the weak, slow, physically vulnerable upright predator an unfair advantage. Spears are abusive; they should be outlawed.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

I almost forgot what day it is.

I'm off to buy a gun.

h/t: Double-Plus Undead

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . that ducks are generally taken with a scattergun? I mean, I understand that he wanted to use the "Annie Oakley" image as a sardonic reference to Hillary (by which, of course, she can only be flattered). And I know he was burned up by her anecdote about the duck blind, which could be true but more likely is not.

Conflating shotguns with sidearms, however, is hardly any way to prove he's not as out-of-touch with hunters and the gun-owning community as he looked last week.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . College Campuses.

Why can't we admit that there is no safety to be had without the use of force, and without the right to self-defense?

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

on gun rights as gay rights, and what SCOTUS should rule in Heller.

Self-defense is a human right. To deny this is madness . . . or English, at the very least.

(Extra credit question: Can anyone spot the error in gun history in Jonathan Rauch's article? Take home assignment: read Rauch's original "Pink Pistols" article.)

Time Magazine's Alex Altman gives us a rather dim and misleading summary of the issues at stake in Heller, but the accompanying photo is enticing.

I'll be in my . . . well, you know.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . on Heller.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 04:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

at SCOTUS Blog.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 06:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

SCOTUS Blog has a nifty little blog-gadget that automatically scrolls down as new developments occur, and keeps one apprised just about by the second what's going on.

So, go. This is big.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 10:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.