reasonablenut

Pics I'm referencing to are posted below.

I did make it to the range yesterday and the wind was blowing about 50 mph. Thankfully, the zero-wind tunnel was empty. It was by no means, a full afternoon of shooting. I spent about 40 minutes out there and that may have been 20 minutes too long.

I was not exactly shooting great; the tunnel is dark and scary, and I'm not used to shooting alone. My groups were not exactly up to my usual standard.

What I established, though, is that the rifle/scope has an absolute windage zero.

We should be going back tomorrow (we meaning the old man will go, as well) and I'm thinking about doing the tunnel again and adjusting the zero to 400 and confirming it by what the bullet offset is.

Needless to say, our BAG day guns are ready to be posted, but we have 15 days to go.

And you bastards need to answer the question!

Best individual group 

Best bunch of groups 

As I mentioned earlier, I broke my cherry on iron sights, so I tend to compensate visually.

In long range shooting, this is not the common wisdom. Gene has stripped this argument down to a sheerly optical one, which I understand. It seems that you should be able to put your reticle at your POI, just like you adjust the blender when you're mixing margaritas.

I've spent time and thought on this argument and have finally caved.

Tomorrow I'm going to try the tunnel (scroll down to see the Zero-Wind tunnel in that link.) I will defer to the more senior, experienced shooters, of which Gene is definitely one. I've yet to use my tactical knobs, opting for visual compensation. The tunnel should give me a perfect windage zero, from which I can adapt to weather conditions.

And if you haven't seen Kirk's stock yet, or answered the Old Man's survey request, you should do so now.

Boomershoot is fast approaching and those of us attending are preparing in different ways.

This week I am going to try the windless tunnel at my range to guarantee a perfect zero.

AnalogKid has settled on a load that he is satisfied with, as have I (Federal Sierra Match King 168 grain .30-06.)

I think all of the bloggers attending have posted pics of their rifles. They range from jerry-rigged hunting rifles like mine, custom rifles like the Kid's, and dependable wood and iron like Kim's.

I may be premature in doing this, but I think Kirk ought to get the Boomershoot Blog Over-Achiever award. Check out why and definitely leave a comment.

Kirk and I have been discussing the benefits of adjustable mounts et al. in regards to long range shooting. I have always held that hardware has innate limitations. At some point your scope or sight system will max out and you have to be adjusting visually from there.

I don't think that tactical turrets can be twisted to give you a zero at whatever range you are shooting at.

My question would be, that given these limitations, what would you set your zero at if you are shooting from 400-800 yards?

And no, this has nothing to do with Boomershoot, rest assured.

This conversation/post was inspired by Gene's update here.

I’ve been loathe to discuss the Schiavo case online. The reason being, it is a wildly controversial situation that even libertarians can’t agree on. The old man posted on it and him and Kirk did a couple of rounds in the comments. I will start with an assertation.
I think this woman will die this weekend and, if and when she does, I will no longer trust our government. I’ve spent a long time trying to reconcile myself to the 2 party system and the balance of power between 3 branches, but obviously it is not working. I’ve always prided myself on not being an anti-government wacko, but I don’t think I can really get comfortable again in view of this.
First off, I believe both parties are acting in good faith (That being the parents who are pro-tube, as Mickey puts, and the husband who is anti-tube.) I think all parties are acting in accordance with their beliefs. I have no argument with them. It’s the government that has finally set me off.
As anybody who has paid attention knows, this has snaked it’s way through the Florida legal system for 7 years or so. Due to the federal intervention, it has been introduced to federal courts, all of which decline to hear it. The crux of this is the original judge’s "finding of facts". Greer (the original judge) went with the husband all the way. That may have been right or wrong, I don’t know. Appellate Courts are basically only allowed to review anything past the facts.
When Congress intervened, they intended a De Novo review by a federal court. From my understanding, this granted the courts some leeway in their adherence to the "fact finding" crap; i.e. they wouldn’t necessarily be reviewing procedural issues from the lower courts, but actually building the decision from the ground up.
As we all know, that is not what happened. Every Appellate Court has rejected the case with less than cursory review of the lower court’s findings. It’s Friday night as I write this and I don’t think a court is going to convene tomorrow just to sink their hook into shit like this.
In any case, I think the judiciary is completely out of control. I think the Congress and the President acted in violation of the Constitution. I think it’s wrong to kill people.
So while sympathizing with the libertarian faction that feels the Feebies inserted themselves wrongly (and even worse, couldn’t be effective at that) or the "right to die or kill" people, I haven’t really found a comfortable place to hang my hat with this one.
I’ll tell you this: If the government can decide what kind of speds live or die, they really don’t give a shit about the rest of your rights.
And now that I’ve seen them torture somebody to death, I will never trust any of them again.

Kim had a great post up today about his unwillingless to bend his philosophy to suit a particular event. I applaud him on his fortitude on issues like these.

In a somewhat weaker vein, I have tried to make a long-range rifle out of a feather-weight hunting rifle and the results should at least bring a smile. Unlike Kirk or the AnalogKid, I have not designed my rifle to the event, but rather taken an existing rifle and tried to make it fit the bill.

That is not to say that I didn't buy an extremely expensive scope to put on a .30-06 hunting rifle. It's just a bit weird that I'm going to be next to guys with custom rifles, and mine is a crappy MK-11 Ruger 77 or something or other, that I bought used because it was a left-handed rifle.

The other thing Kim mentioned today, was the Thompson. Kim states:

As much as I love my Marlin
Camp 45, it’s a modern rifle, whereas the Tommy is, well, old, with a
history longer than any other semi-auto rifle ever made. I don’t even care about
the 50-round drum mag—the 30-round stick would be fine. I nearly sold my Camp 45
to a friend a few minutes later, but I came to my senses: I’ll buy a Tommy in
addition to keeping the Camp carbine around, thank you very much.

Kim's sentiments are understandable. Rifles with history bring up inevitable conflicts of interest, in my opinion. They have a broad application because they were military weapons, but may not be the best candidate for your particular need.

He further states that:

I saw the modern incarnation of the wonderful old Tommy gun in .45 ACP (okay,
Thompson 19271-A1 for the purists, and the Thompson M1 for the super-purists, as
it’s the semi-auto reproduction):

My father owns one and it is a thing of beauty to behold. Given that, I guess he's a super-purist, as he considers the rifle (loosely defined, at best) as an M1 Thompson.

I don't like fully agreeing or disargreeing with people without the necessary facts. I will await future posts I guess.

In the meantime, you ought to answer the goddamn survey.

UPDATE: Looking at the source data, this pinhead was posting on a forum that had big banner links to shit like this:



These are also the shitbirds that Google considers a legitimate news source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will leave hard analysis and search for bias to others who are more adept than I at that sort of thing.

My question:

How can you be an Indian and a Nazi at the same time?

Or does nothing carry any meaning into the modern age?

I occasionally frequent Aryan sites, as well as Islamo-facist sites, Christian Identity sites; all of the strange and fascinating crap that is out there on the internet.

Additionally, I have actually read Mein Kampf; twice.

I'm sure there are people who would argue that this does not qualify me to respond to the die-hard, but at least it's an introduction into the vibrant enthralling culture that is white-supremacism (for those of you with no sense of sarcasm, that was tongue in cheek.)

I may be mistaken, but I think as far as Hitler's definition goes, dark skinned people, like Native Americans, qualified as "mud people." For those of you not familiar with the term, these are races that humanity would be better served by ridding itself of.

I saw a couple of photographs of the "alleged shooter" or "suspect" (I'm still trying to maintain my Reuters objectivity), and none of them showed him to be a towering blue-eyed, blonde-haired specimin of the Uber-race.

He wore a black trenchcoat and kept to himself. He was a Nativist. He said as much. How do we jump from that to Neo-Nazi?

Throughout the coverage the most confounding thing I've seen (outside of the Bradys bringing up the AWB, which is fucking ridiculous) is the fact that this kid was so confused, he thought that, regardless of his race or the color of his skin, he could be a Nazi. That is an philosophy that has never had race quotas.

If the current stock of children are this ignorant...well I'm scared anyway.

From the Old Man:

Specifically directed to Ben's Blogroll, but other feel free.

What State do you shoot in?

How many rounds rifle/pistol do you shoot in a month? (Best Month).

Do you shoot at a formal range or other?

How far do you drive to shoot?

Any other info you want to throw in, what you would like to have that you don't etc.

Never tried it before. I've benched, offhanded, and sat, but never lay down like "Come and get like a big funky sex machine" stance.

I tried it tonight after following Kirk's travails this weekend.

As some of you may know, the availability of my airgun range makes it a lot easier to try new shit out on a Sunday night. I set out my Dillon mat and my makeshift airgun rest (a pistol rest for the front, basically.) I was clocking about a 1/2" group but it seemed that a good sight picture usually meant a very uncomfortable shoulder/stock scenario. While the shots remained to be true, I couldn't accomplish a good shoulder position.

Another reason I like to try shit out on an airgun range is the fact that a .30-06 can break something while a .17 pellet ain't gonna do anything.

At this point I'm loathe to try a heavy caliber rifle in the prone position when I can't acomplish that end with an air rifle.

Am I doing something grossly wrong?

After the last shooting excursion, I've found I'm about where I want to be. Contrary to a lot of suggestions, I think I will be compensating with the mil-dot scope as opposed to utilizing the tactical turrets on the scope (this remains to be seen, as the turrets are one of the reasons I bought the scope. The appearance of the rifle hasn't changed, though I think the reticle is off by a hair. That should be resolved by the time I hit the range this week.

In other news, Kirk at Limpidity finally got his stock in and appears to be loading ammo now.

As Kirk has reminded me, I forget to keep up with all the wack shit Analog Kid gets up to with his Boomershoot rifle.

While speaking of Random Nuclear Strikes, I would like to welcome them, Triggerfinger and Americandrumslinger to the Blogroll.

Lazy post, I know; but screwing with the blogroll is an actual pain in the ass.

UPDATE: You can ignore my amateurish attempt to analyze this incident as Jack Dunphy at NRO has weighed in. I've been an avid fan of his for several years and will always defer to him on matters involving law-enforcement.

First off, the obvious. It is not a good idea to have a female guard who is half the size of a culprit accused of raping a woman over three days and who is twice the size of said guard. This may be considered sexist, but I'm of a small enough frame that I would rather a larger man take care of something like this.

What really shocks me, as it is something I never knew, is the fact that the state cannot put the defendant on the stand while wearing restraints, because that would prejudice the jury. I don't know if this is state or federal, precedent or law, but I will be looking into it. Apparently, certain forums stretch this law into the actual entrance of the accused, which is why said mutant had a free hand to subdue his guard and secure her weapon.

Last off, court security supervisors ought to be consulting with prison wardens on how to run their details. Obviously, it is a good thing for there to be armed guards in a courtroom. However, I don't think they should be close enough to the accused that there weapon is in sight and reachable.

It sucks to do the hindsight thing with a tragedy like this. However, the lackluster procedures that the court and law enforcement took made this even possible.

Here in the Land of Enchantment, no guns are allowed by anyone in the courtroom. My weapon of choice would be a spoon that I sharpened into a shiv.

Generally, I don't like bitching about fellow gun enthusiasts. Black Gun guys, Iron and Wood guys, old .22 guys I see at the range, who look like they have a load in their pants; they're all pretty cool. And they are all helpful and friendly.

Unfortunately, that cannot be said for Single Action Shooters or at least their elitist club. There are not a lot of single-action blogs that I can find. Denise over at TenRing mentioned that she would be interested in trying it. In the end, I think most people who are easy on this Single Action bunch just haven't experienced enough of them.

A friend of mine called up about a year ago and was all jazzed that our governor, Bill Richardson, had cut a deal with land management to give these people a shitload of land. The idea being, that the tourist dollars would offset any government cost that would be incurred. These guys have a lot of money, as they fly all over the country to shoot pie plates while wearing Halloween costumes. They spend money on motels, food, and buying crap for their wives and children.

Said buddy was adamant that a new range was a good thing (I agreed with him at the time) and that these guys only used it for "events" and us centerfire heathans would be able to shoot on it for a reasonable fee or whatever.

Now I guess we are going to pave the roads for them.

Well, it turns out that these assholes are going to use this range for maybe 9 DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR. And there is absolutely no thought given to local centerfire shooters. So a beautiful, pristine range is going to sit there for 354 days a year with absolutely nothing happening.

We have facilities for these wackos at the club I belong to, but they can't find it in their rich asses to do the same for us?

Well they've even shifted their main event to the Albuquerque area. 4,000 parking spots and a lot of goofy looking assholes in chaps. The Village People never drew a turnout like that.

The conclusion being, it's nice that my tax dollars are being used to pave roads for a bunch of lawyers in 10-gallon Stetsons who want to get away for a weekend. And I'm sure the tourist dollars help local businesses.

All that aside, do you have to be elitist exclusionary pricks about the whole thing when I'm footing the dollar? It's enough to make me want to show up with an AR, Glock and Mossberg just to scare the shit out these pie-plate killers.

I'll calm down now because this event is being held the last two days of April and first day of May. As luck would have it, I'll be in Idaho on Boomershoot.

From the Old Man:

I am sorry if this is out of place but I have been watching the Schiavo case and I am disgusted. The first word that started it all is LIFE. The idea that the government, the courts, the legislature, your husband or your wife can take that away is sickening. In the context, gun rights pale, blogger rights pale, mc cain and fineshit pale. I just do not understand how we, the people, can possibly allow this to happen.

My 2 cents.

Big hat tip to Publicola on this one (an he h/t's War Guns, who h/t's Wolfesblog, who h/t's someone else, but my blog etiquette is exhausted.) I had to mop up the pool of piss underneath my desk after watching this:

Cop teaching gun safety to children.

My only additional comment is that I think the dummy is referring to a Glock chambered for a .40 S&W not a "Glock 40."

This is one the lead editorials in todays edition. To be truthful, there is not much to comment on here, as it is the same tired pap about gun-nuts and Ashcroft (which never makes sense, because you die-hard libertarians think Ashcroft was Satan as well.) Just a choice sampling:

The good news for Americans concerned about post-9/11 preparedness is that 58
potential gun buyers were flagged in a nine-month period last year as positive
matches on a federal watch list of terrorism suspects. The bad news is that 47
of them were cleared to go ahead anyway and buy assault rifles, ammunition or
whatever else was on their firearms shopping list. Federal agents could only
watch as the crazy quilt of loopholes that passes for gun control in this
country enabled dozens of suspects to stock their personal or group armories.

First, the sensationalist claims about people on suspect lists; these are same people who bitch and moan that Mohammed-Whoever happens to have the same name as a hardcore terrorist but the Feds hassle him at the airport. Are we supposed to discriminate against those of Middle-Eastern descent (damn, that hurt to type) when it comes to gun sales?

And the "crazy quilt of loopholes that passes for gun control" is just so idiotic as to prove the author has never bought a firearm. I bought an H&K about 3 weeks ago and it was almost an hour of bullshit before they even started making sure I had the money to pay for it.

Welcome to the new world of homeland security, where all the national resolve to
be alert is clearly butting into the citizenry's near-almighty right to bear
arms.

Well, you condescending prick, it isn't "near-almighty" it is guaranteed. That may stick in your craw a bit, but, frankly, I don't give a shit. I'm beginning to think that people who live in NYC actually like being mugged. And if they want any sympathy from me, they came to the wrong place.

Warnings about terror suspects' easy access to combat rifles grew after 9/11
when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a gun rights zealot who was attorney
general at the time, had blocked federal agents from matching gun-purchase
records against the growing list of thousands of terror suspects. The privacy
rights of innocent gun purchasers were deemed paramount in the national
emergency. The policy was theoretically reversed, but federal agents complain
that they are still stymied by laws and by officials dedicated to the most
extreme agenda of the gun lobby.

John Ashcroft, "the gun rights zealot," was despised by the Pro-2A community as much as he was by the left. I think most of the libertarians would agree that abridging individual rights of "innocent gun purchasers" would be a gross violation even in a a time "deemed paramount in the national emergency." If anybody disagrees, let me know, but I think the ATF might be the last holdout when it comes to "the most extreme agenda of the gun lobby."

The alarming ease with which terror suspects can buy high-powered weapons on
Main Street was disclosed by the Government Accountability Office, the
investigative arm of Congress. This is an irony in itself since the
Republican-controlled Congress declined last year to renew the 10-year-old
assault rifle ban, which had helped keep battlefield weapons out of the hands of
mayhem-minded citizens.

This paragraph is so charged with bullshit rhetoric. Your average journalist doesn't know what "Main Street" looks like, nevermind a "high-powered weapon..." I've been waiting awhile, but I still can't purchase an M-16, which is a "battlefield weapon." It also might come as a shock to the editor that I shot a used .30-06, high-power rifle that I purchased through a private transaction (read No Brady) and is a caliber that can readily cut through most body armor, from what I hear. And I tried to shoot the hell out of some steel plates, which might also qualify me as "mayhem-minded." What a load of shit.

The study was requested by Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who
is proposing to keep the gun-purchase records of terror suspects on hand for at
least 10 years. Currently, purchase records must be destroyed within 24 hours -
another victory for the gun lobby that was obsequiously enacted last year by
Congress.

I'll leave off this issue with this: if Frank Lautenberg started a movement to encourage people to use toilet paper, I'd walk around with a dirty ass for awhile.

Unfortunately, we got out to the range to day and there were wind gusts of up to 50 mph. I realize that this a real-life shooting condition that may be confronted during Boomershoot, however it is not very conducive to getting your rifle sighted in at long range, which was the stated purpose of today's trip.

The range I shoot at has a 600 meter silhouette range (as previously stated.) The thing with steel targets is that you need to be able to hear whether you scored a hit. With the wind going as bad as it was, one could not hear shit. As such, I did not feel inclined to throw a bunch of expensive match ammo downrange just to hear the rifle go boom.

In good news, the old man's Henry was able to put a .44 magnum bullet about 400 yards down range, with some minor compensation with the iron sights. We also had his Garand out, but that was almost as futile as the .30-06.

Wind seems to be bitch all week, so I may give up and go for a pistol shooting day. It would be a welcome break from this obsession that has shackled me due to forces beyond my control.

Work-wise, I think I have become sufficiently caught up to actually shoot for 2 days this week. This makes me very happy, as there is only about 7 weeks left until Boomershoot, which is about my motivation for everything including getting out of bed in the morning. I am moving to the 600 yard range tomorrow and may try my hand at prone shooting (completely new to me.)

As such, I can try out my mat and toe bag and see how easy the Harris bipod is to attach to a Ruger.

Otherwise, it's a silhouette range with targets between 200-600 meters. I hate the metric system and won't even give those EUnicks the satisfaction of me attempting to translate those numbers. If I'm not mistaken, 600 metres (notice the twat spelling) is shorter than 600 yards.

I want to give the Mil-Dot Leupold a shot with the Ruger at long range, as that is what Boomershoot will be. Admittedly, I have little experience in this realm and tomorrow should hopefully be a realization as to my true aptitude. Then again, it may be a terrible disappointment.

Analogue Kid has the shit on his rifle.

Meanwhile, Kirk is trying to delve the recesses that have comprised the gummy "thing" story. Kudos for the kind of hard-hitting journalism we bloggers are known for.

It seems to abound these days. I was reading Brent Bozell's column about some show I've never heard about. He refers to it as evil and calls upon everybody who believes in God to insurrect. I don't believe in God, but have great respect for his followers. This sort of grandstanding about a TV show does not enrich the public's opinion. It hurts it. And it is a show I've never heard of so why should I care?

On the other hand, we have a blogger insurrection happening. The Geek is a good blogger but I disagree with him on this one. He makes his argument here.

I find it unconvincing and I think the story broke before any of the gummint types had even given enforcement a thought. If they decide to do it, bloggers will have several years before it is strictly enforced. They won't decide to do it though, because no government, federal or state, has figured out how to regulate the internet. Therefore, all of you who are loading magazines and loading up on MRE's can take a break.

Just as a matter of common sense, don't advertise that you are the kind of fellow who is waiting for a law or reg. so you can break it. That's just not a good idea.

Much of you will think I have knuckled under to the jack-booted thugs from the ATF. Not so. My point is that a harmonious society results from people trying to get along. Once you state you adversity to government as a whole, you've put into danger the rest of our freedoms.

The BBC has published this article about the upcoming FURTHER regulation of airguns, which are, as we all know, the scourge of civilized society.

Apparently an infant was killed with an airgun. The BBC does not offer reasons or circumstances to round out the article. Was the infant shot at close range? Was it an intentional act? Were there contributing factors? Who cares.

Here's the really good quote from the first minister of Scottland:

He continued: "As first minister, I do know that in irresponsible hands, an
airgun is a lethal weapon.

For the sake of argument, take out the word "airgun" and insert the following:

a) a frozen mackeral

b) a heavy piece of furniture

c) a fist

What do you end up with? It is very easy to kill infants. It is always a regrettable occurrence, but a government can't go about banning everything that is inherently dangerous.

"New laws on airguns are already in place, but if more are needed, we must not
hold back and the people of Scotland know that Labour will not hold back."

The question I'm left with is this: They say there wasn't any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Did they have airguns?

I generally try to keep this blog about guns, technical matters about guns, and politics about guns.

Tonight, I must deviate. Read the whole article and it will scare the crap out of you.

I generally side with SCOTUS that free speech is not an absolute right. Kiddy porn and the "yelling fire in a theatre" scenario seem to me to be reasonable checks on this right. However, this, in no means, voids the substance of the amendment. And while the Founding Fathers didn't even know what the hell a movie-theatre was, it was a bit difficult to anticipate; but they did.

If one reads background material, like the Federalist Papers, one understands that this right's intention was not muckraking or porn, but was deliberately geared towards political speech.

Two hundred years+, we don't know what the fuck we're talking about.

What rules will apply to the Internet that did not before? A: The commission has
generally been hands-off on the Internet. We've said, "If you advertise on the
Internet, that's an expenditure of money--much like if you were advertising on
television or the newspaper."
Do we give bloggers the press exemption?
The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's page be a problem? If
someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a
contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has already contributed the legal
maximum, or if they're at the disclosure threshold and additional expenditures
have to be disclosed under federal law.
Certainly a lot of bloggers are very
much out front. Do we give bloggers the press exemption? If we don't give
bloggers the press exemption, we have the question of, do we extend this to
online-only journals like CNET?

I figure that monitoring everything on line will increase the FCC staff 4-fold, at a minimum. That's a lot of jobs that need doing. Conclusion: Tax the internet.

The only reason the Fed has prevented states from taxing it is because they have yet to figured out a good way to do it. After all, If some lowly governor can't collect the green, how can the Fed?

Easy. Just regulate access, tax any imput (including pictures of my nekkid sister [check the archives]), MAKE DAMN SURE THERE IS NO POLITICAL SPEECH, and just kick back and watch some SCOTUS-approved porn that doesn't include the discharge of a rifle.

Shut up, give up your guns, and walk the line.

UPDATE:

While a lot of bloggers got pretty riled ( see here, here, and here for example), some people are taking a milder tone. Huffman has pointed out that a lot of blogs have unnecessarily gotten their panties bunched up about something that is, for all intents and purposes, unenforcable. The ability to enforce a law is central to its effectiveness and the governments control of the subject being regulated.

Given Joe's areas of expertise, my inclination is to defer to his opinion on this one. Maybe I got a bit lathered up about a rumor about a regulation that enacts a law that is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Americandrumslinger acknowledgdes my anger while focusing on the more important things in life, like guns and women.

Interesting email I received from the Old Man today. It started like this:

HAYWARD, Wis. -- Racism toward Hmong immigrants and a "frenzy" of publicity
would make it "nearly impossible," for accused hunter-killer Chai Vang to get a
fair trial in Sawyer County, Wis., his attorneys asserted in court documents
filed Tuesday.

When I pulled the article from the same source tonight, it read like this:

HAYWARD, WIS. -- Chai Vang's lawyers said in court papers Tuesday that
negative attitudes against non-whites in Sawyer County would make it almost
impossible for the Hmong immigrant to get a fair trial there on charges that he
murdered six deer hunters and wounded two others.

Bit of a different tone, I would say. Needless to say, the original verbage is locked into an email and the second version is the one that will be published tomorrow.

But let's look at the substance of both ledes. I've never been to Sawyer County or met the people there, but they appear to be real scum. They won't even acknowledge that non-white people are innocent until proven guilty and are probably forming lynch mobs outside the courthouse right now.

In his recorded confession filed in court, Vang said one of the other
hunters shot first after they surrounded him and called him "gook" and "chink."
Friends of the dead said they wouldn't treat someone that way, and survivors
said Vang fired first. Vang admitted shooting unarmed people.

Poor misunderstood kid...someone calls him some bad names so he has to kill them. It really sucks to be a minority in this hate-filled country.

Smith wrote that while intolerance may not be predominant in the area,
prospective jurors with such attitudes wouldn't likely admit it during jury
selection.

WOW. These people in Sawyer county really are the dogshit on the bottom of my shoe. They can't even be trusted with their "attitudes."

The county has had some racial tension involving the 16 percent who are American
Indian: There were racial taunts and rock throwing when Indians began exercising
treaty rights to spear fish in the 1980s.

This is an obscure, but potentially libelous rejoinder. What the fuck does spear-fishing in the 80's have to do with murder in the new century? It seems to me that the only people being slandered by this ordeal are the people of Sawyer county.

Now take a look:




This man is not embarrassing to the Hmong people for his race and he is not embarrassing for the gun-owning community because of his beliefs or previous behavior; he is embarassing as a human being because he is a piece of shit who has no regard for human life and I can't be asked to return the favor to a bottom-feeding shit like this asshole.