We’ve discussed over my blegs before, things like Quik Clot, gauze, bandages, tourniquets, aspirin, etc.  But this article makes some interesting points and I’m glad I read it before outfitting mine.

• Moleskin
• Blister Foam
• Orthopedic Felt
• Duct Tape
• Surgical Tape
• Krazy Glue
• Small Scissors
• Alcohol Wipes 
• Gel Toe Sleves
• Scalpel, Pin, or Needle (for popping a blister)
• Ibuprofen

This is for blisters.  He also deals with frostbite, deep cuts and burns, all of which are common in the bush.

But I think his point is that an injury such as deep blistering can be debilitating and can prevent effective movement.  I’ve seen some awful blistering before.  In the book “Awol on the Appalachian Trail,” the author deals with blisters so severe that they required a doctor’s attention to press and drain puss, followed by several weeks of recovery.

Needless to say, he didn’t move those few weeks.  All he did was bed rest and heal.

Anyway, for what it’s worth.  Feel free to fill in the details of other things you would put in your med kit.

Not for precision shooting – for hunting.

I think I agree with one of the comments.  His final bullet was probably due to shooting slightly uphill.

Retarded.

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in a closely watched guns case, the discussion won’t start with the last landmark ruling on firearms from 2010, or even with the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791.

Instead, attorneys on both sides will likely reach back to a 700-year-old English law – and a debate over the influence it had on the framing of the Constitution.

[ … ]

That has drawn both sides of the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, into an intense battle over a statute from 1328 that some historians say informed the Framers’ views of when people may carry their guns in public. The Statute of Northampton regulated the carrying of “arms” in public places.

Briefly, I couldn’t care less what English common law says about anything.  The colonists fought a war over many things, including gun control (see Kopel, “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution“).

The colonists fought a war against the government to overthrow tyranny.  It’s ridiculous and sophomoric to pretend that they ever assumed that men wouldn’t engage in RKBA, or that they wouldn’t turn those guns against tyranny.

Presuppositions.  This is the stuff of life.  The 2A makes no sense unless seen in the light of the lives of the men who wrote it and their own assumptions, value judgments and world and life views.

Any lawyer who begins with, discusses or ends with English common law isn’t worth his weight in salt.

A Lot.

Kavanaugh pressed Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone on the prospect that the legal machinery of the new abortion law could be used against other freedoms, referring to a brief filed by a gun rights group.

“We can assume that this will be across the board, equally applicable as the Firearms Policy Coalition says, to all constitutional rights?” Kavanaugh said, later asking Texas’ lawyer to imagine a law that let anyone sue a person for using an AR-15 rifle and hold them liable for $1 million.

Did they say something like that?  Oh to be sure, they did.

The importance of this petition is not about any debate over the existence or scope of any constitutional right to abortion. Indeed, Amicus takes no position on such questions, which are before this Court in other cases. Rather, this case is about access to the means of enforcing individual constitutional rights, as determined by this Court’s cases, and protecting against their infringement, regardless of the particular right involved. Texas’s novel scheme for infringing upon and chilling the exercise of the right to abortion under this Court’s Roe and Casey decisions while seeking to evade judicial review, if allowed to stand, could and would just as easily be applied to other  constitutional rights. That result is wholly anathema to our constitutional scheme, regardless what one thinks of abortion or, indeed, of any other hotly debated constitutional right, such as the right to keep and bear arms.

See also here.

But you see, there is no constitutional right to destroy a company because someone used their product to injure others, any more than there’s a constitutional right to kill babies.  Those things are just made up out of whole cloth.

FPC is scared that 2A rights will be violated if we disallow the killing of babies.  But if you make your bed with the devil, don’t be surprised when he kills you.  There is no basis for the belief that this argument won’t be used to kill the Texas law and then summarily ignored when a state or individual bankrupts a firearms company (with the black robed tyrants ignoring the case).

Justice has been sacrificed for expediency, because in the eyes of the FPC, the only thing standing in the way of the obliteration of the 2A is SCOTUS interpretation.  Then where are you?

To me, the same place we were.  God grants a right, man does not.  Breakage of the covenant of the 2A means that the government is illegitimate and must be divorced, not that we lose a right.

The FPC could have done a much better job with their brief.  They’re on the losing side of one issue, and they may end up on the losing side of yet another.

Fear is a vicious monster and should not be tolerated.

Here is the sad story.  See all of her Twitter entries.  It tells an evolving story.

But apparently she isn’t convinced enough of the problem yet.  Today someone sent me this.

He wants to do some custom things to the gun that I would not choose to do.  If I am ever able to purchase this gun, I will leave it as is, except for installation of optics.

Readers seemed to like the gun when I posted previously, so I thought this would be a good update.  I haven’t seen any negative reviews of this gun anywhere.

Also, Shooting Sports USA has a review up.