Guns

Extra ammo carrier for a Mossberg 500 Bantam?

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

TacStar makes these great SideSaddle® mounts. I have a 6-shot model on my Mossberg 500 12 gauge.

However, I also have a Mossberg 500 Bantam (model 54210). This is the “youth model” 500, and is in 20 gauge. While TacStar makes a model that holds 20 gauge, they don’t have a model that will work with the Bantam (I asked them). The issue is when the Mossberg’s foreend is pulled back, it overlaps the receiver and thus right where the SideSaddle would go.

My question to readers is: can you suggest a solution to this problem? Ideally I’d like to have a “drop in product”, but I can do a little home-brewed stuff if needed. I’ve tried Googling but there’s too much chaff to sift through and so far I’ve not come up with any definitive solutions.

A few things I don’t want:

  • No bandoliers. This shotgun will/can not have a sling.
  • No buttstock sleeves. It’s what I’m currently using but isn’t ideal if you have to switch shooting positions (e.g. shooting right-handed then switching to left-handed).

Please leave suggestions in the comments. Thank you.

I still hope they can change

/ hsoi

Reading blogs this morning and I see that Breda is no longer willing to take “liberals” to the gun range. I can’t say I blame her.

She’s right:

The Second Amendment is only one part of that freedom. It is freedom’s last resort, its guarantee.

Former Texas State Representative Suzanna Gratia-Hupp said:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

I find it fascinating that people scream left and right about needs to protect our 1A freedoms, especially freedom of speech. But when it comes to 2A, many of those same people would prefer to see that one cast away. Do they not realize that it is 2A that preserves 1A? If you don’t understand that, look back at civilizations throughout time or even countries today. Look at those with strong 1A-like behaviors and see where their 2A-like behaviors are. Look at those with problematic 1A areas and see where their 2A are. 

Which would I rather use to defend my rights? Well, I’d rather use my 1A rights (one reason why I started this blog). Long ago I was of the ilk that didn’t quite get it when it came to 2A. But after emotional experiences I came to rational and reasoned understanding — I changed. And I’d like to hope that others can change too. Isn’t that what it’s all about these days? Hope and Change?

So yes, we all need to get and stay active. I didn’t obtain my NRA Instructor Certification for the snazzy patch, I did it to help others learn. I still hope they can change.

Just Give Them What They Want

/ hsoi

I was reading an article at the Austin Gun Rights Examiner about how concealed carry saved lives again. Some may jump to say the individual was a law enforcement official. While true, that person was not on duty, had no legal or professional obligation to carry or do what they did. For all intents and purposes, it was just another Joe Citizen that opted to live the life of a sheepdog and protect the sheep from the wolves.

But what moved me about the article was this:

At a 2006 National Violent Crime Summit, attended by police chiefs and mayors from around the U.S., the Cincinnati, Ohio police chief stated: “There’s almost a different code on the street, that it’s not a robbery unless you shoot somebody.” This is due, in part, to the fact that “robbers, especially juveniles, are more likely than ever to shoot victims, even when they do not resist” and that young gangsters shoot people to gain “respect.”

Indeed, a sad commentary on society. But what’s even more sad is the advice given on how to deal with this behavior. Hecate apparently lives in Omaha and has a justifiably flabbergasted reaction to the advice. So, go ask the wolves how they like their sheep to behave. Then we should wonder why the sheep keep getting picked off and the wolves grow numerous and fat?

*sigh*

 

Update: Xavier tells a story of an old friend.

Just one child

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I love my children. I’ve apparently been blessed with a talent for teaching, especially with children. I take my work with children very seriously, especially when it comes to protecting them: both my direct protection of them when they are within my care, and teaching them how to care for themselves.

A common line of reasoning you hear these days is “if it saves/helps/protects/aids/etc. just one child, then it’s worth it.”  No, I’m sorry but that’s not a sound line of reasoning. Is abridging the rights of millions of people the right thing to do if it might save just one child? So injure millions to save one? I’m not saying it’s welcome to injure the one, but life isn’t perfect and without pain, and I just don’t believe it’s right to save one and injure millions… the math doesn’t add up for me.

The past few days the gun blogging community has been talking about this particular blogger and their interactions with her. Here’s one of her posts, and as an example of gun blogger responses, I give you SayUncle’s response to her particular posting.

I agree with Catherine. That is a horrible story, and it breaks my heart that an innocent 2 year old child was killed through negligence. And what’s worse, it appears the negligence is on the part of the parents. I agree those parents should be held accountable for their actions.

What I don’t agree with is Catherine’s final statement:

I could show hundreds of statistics on why tough gun control laws should be strictly enforced, but the best argument is that one child’s death is too many.

(And I gotta agree with SayUncle, show those statistics, and be sure to answer Just One Question while you’re at it). The thing is, there are already laws on the books about this (e.g. Texas Penal Code §46.13). But how is enforcement going to prevent such things? The law is now only going to apply after the fact. This isn’t to say the law shouldn’t be enforced, but passing more laws won’t stop more death. What will stop more death? Call for increased responsibility. Call for education. Accept no less.

Take a look at the NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe program. This is a fantastic program that teaches children if they come across a firearm to:

  1. Stop
  2. Don’t touch
  3. Leave the area
  4. Tell an adult

Drill that mantra into your children. Even if you detest guns above all things, don’t leave your child ignorant; they may encounter a gun at some point in their life – give them at least the minimal knowledge necessary to keep them alive. If you wish to go above that, teach them the basic rules of gun handling safety (source: Jeff Cooper, Commentaries, Vol. 11 No. 4, 2003):

  1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
  2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1).
  3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60% of inadvertent discharges.
  4. Identify your target and what’s behind it. Never shoot at anything you have not positively identified.

This doesn’t mean you have to teach your child how to handle a firearm, but safety rules are always good things to teach (e.g. walk on the left side of the road, facing traffic; keep your fingers curved back when slicing vegetables). And teaching respect for the power of a gun is worthwhile — they are tools, not toys. We agree that education is so important, we teach our children the dangers of strangers, drugs, alcohol, sex, but for some reason our society accepts ignorance about guns. How does that keep our children safe?

But on the same token, we have to accept that the world isn’t a perfect place. We have to accept there are and always will be people that are going to do stupid and irresponsible things, or just make mistakes (and I believe each and every one of us is guilty of this in our past and will be again in the future… such is being a human; if you’re perfect, please drop me a line!). But we don’t have to be complacent with this either. Instead of abridging people, why not teach them? educate them? lift them up?

 

Updated: For those that like statistics, here are some.

AWB – Rebuttal

/ hsoi

From the Orlando Sentinel, an editorial calling for a renewal of the “assault weapons ban”.  (hat tip to Murdoc).

First, who wrote this? There’s no name attached to it. All I know is “we think” and I’d like to know who this “we” is. Maybe it’s the same “they” that call him Vader (obscure reference).

There’s no need for ordinary citizens to be armed with such lethal firepower. Hunters don’t need them. Gun-toting urbanites don’t need them, either.

So what should us ordinary citizens be armed with? spitballs? kinda-lethal? things that send strongly worded letters to the guy breaking into my house that might kill my children and rape and kill my wife? But apparently, there’s no reason for me to need such lethal firepower. So please tell me, just what do I need? just what will you allow me to use?

Those who say that outlawing these lethal rifles will only mean that criminals will have access to them are flat wrong. All that legalization does is make it easier for crooks to get them, and make it necessary for police to play catch-up in a costly city-street arms race.

No, we’re flat right. You see, a criminal by definition doesn’t obey the law. So if you outlaw these “lethal rifles” then certainly the law-abiding citizen is going to continue to obey the law and will now not have access to them. However, the criminal will still go about their merry law-breaking ways and can get whatever they want. And as it is, a criminal cannot obtain a firearm through legal means (go look up the BAFTE 4473 form), so how are the criminals today obtaining their firearms? They’re sure not going down to the local sporting goods store like Joe Law-Abiding Citizen is. So pass all the laws you want… it doesn’t stop a law breaker since, by definition, that’s what they do. But it sure stops us law-abiding citizens, and that’s why we don’t like this – it’s not right to punish the good guys and put them at a disadvantage.

No one is trying to trample on Second Amendment rights.

How is calling for a renewal of “the assault weapons ban” not a trample upon Second Amendment rights? Have you read the text of the ban? Have you read the SCOTUS DC. vs. Heller ruling? have you been able to reconcile the two?

But there do not seem to be many examples where honest citizens stopped a crime, or caught a criminal, by brandishing an AK-47 or some similar brand of assault rifle. However, there are too many examples of the opposite — criminals using these weapons to kill people or law-enforcement officers.

Here we agree. But why does this happen? Some may say media bias in selecting what to report. I think it’s also because the stopping of a crime doesn’t instantly become a newsworthy event. Someone staves off a mugger in a dark alley, that doesn’t mean we need to call Channel 4 and get a news team down here stat. This is one place where statistics and perception are skewed, because what you mostly hear about and gets reported are when things get heavy, police are involved, someone got shot. But believe me, law-abiding folks defend themselves every day.

 

What gets me about these things is that the object is demonized. We want to ban guns, we don’t look at the behavior. Do we need to ban alcohol because people drink then drive? We tried that and it didn’t work very well. Should we ban TV because our children don’t go outside and are getting fat? Should we ban sex because people commit adultery?  Why do we demonize the inanimate object? Why aren’t we working to deal with the behavior? A gun itself isn’t a good thing nor a bad thing, it’s just a thing. What is done with the gun determines if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. If I’m able to use a gun to keep my wife and children from being injured or killed by an attacker, I’d say that’s a good thing — but then, it was my actions that were really the good thing, the gun remained just the gun.

I don’t like violence. I agree with the article that when senseless death happens it’s an unwelcome thing. But how is banning guns going to stop that violence? Look at the UK where guns are essentially banned? Violent crime is rising, especially with knives. So what next? ban knives? Ok. Then the criminals will just find something else to use (pointed sticks?). The article speaks of “a city-street arms race” but that will never go away, only shift. So truly to solve the problems we need to attack the problem, not symptoms, not accouterments. But in the meantime, there are still bad people out there and I’d rather they didn’t have the advantage over me.

So once again, we come back to Joe Huffman’s “Just One Question“. Still waiting on an answer.

On a home defense tool

/ hsoi / 25 Comments

What follows is my take on this particular religious war. 

When it comes to defending your home, there are many things you can do. Exterior lights (cockroaches don’t like light), dogs, alarm systems (and using them), keeping your doors and windows locked, trimming back the bushes from exterior windows, and things like that. All of these things are good things to do and add to your layer of home security. I would also say that a firearm of some sort is another layer.

When people think of home defense firearms, what typically comes to mind is a shotgun. When I first thought about a home defense firearm a 12 gauge with 00 buckshot was the direction I headed. But recently I’ve encountered some thinking that has changed my mind, and while a 12 gauge is still part of my home defense battery, it’s no longer my go-to gun.

Continue reading →

National Reciprocity

/ hsoi

From SayUncle.

Here’s the text of S.371. 

I have to say that the notion of national reciprocity is a bit of a mixed issue for me. On the one hand I like it because I think it clears up a lot problems, but on the other it feels like it starts to infringe upon a State matter. But then one can also argue that there’s no problem in honoring the marriage licenses from other States, the drivers licenses from other States, and various other licenses. So why should concealed carry licenses be any different? And I’d have to agree with that.

I like the wording of Sen. Thune’s bill. It clears up problems yet still allows States to have control.

Time to drop a line to Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Hutchison.

Why I’m (now) a gun owner. (Part 4)

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Back to part 3

So how did this become political for me?

I think the thing is that since the most pivotal day in US history — September 11, 2001 — it’s changed the entire landscape of this country. The whole “we will not live in fear” was and is bullshit because that’s all we do. It’s how our government conducts itself, it’s how things are being robbed from us… all in the name of keeping us safe. I really refuse to fly on an airplane now because it’s ludicrous to have to prove myself innocent and not a terrorist before I’m allowed to ride on an airplane. It’s just unreal. And the so-called security measures are a joke. Constantly violated, selectively enforced, and a load of bunk. I don’t feel any safer, I just feel more violated, more restricted, and a lot less free — but no safer.

I read something from Brian Enos’ website:  Freedom is letting things be.  Think about that. It’s quite true in so many ways.

But we’re Americans and we can’t let things be. We have to be busy-bodies, we have to stick our noses into everything, and we just can’t leave anything be — especially other people. Think about how little freedom we have, because we don’t let things be.

And politically? Well, since I originally wrote this the DC vs. Heller case decision was handed down by the SCOTUS and yes, it’s an individual right to keep and bear arms. The victory seems almost pyrrhic tho. Look at how much has been lost and will continue to be lost, because people just don’t let it be. But in a way, it’s a start because well… moreso to think what would have happened if they said we individuals did not have a right to protect ourselves. What could that mean?

I look back now at all the various anti-gun reasonings and I just can’t get it. Maybe 15 years ago those would have resonated with me, but they don’t any more. I Googled on “NRA” and found a set of political cartoons that positioned the NRA well, as you typically might expect anti-NRA folks to portray it. And feel that in my prior ignorance I would have agreed. In my current more enlightened state, I just can’t. 

Pass more gun laws… that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. How? Criminals don’t adhere to the law (by definition) so how will more laws keep guns away from them?
Ban guns, that will do it. Look at countries like the UK or Australia. Criminals still get and use them.  Or if they can’t, they find something else, e.g. knife-based violence is high. Banning anything won’t stop the thing you want to stop (e.g. violence, killing, death, hurt, pain, suffering), it just finds another avenue to get to the destination.
We ourselves seem to already understand this to some extent. We allow police to carry guns. We allow the military. We seem to understand that to stand on at least equal footing we’ve gotta be equal, or maybe a little greater. Look at how the US builds up our military… we’ve got nukes. That keeps people in their place. Imagine if the US got rid of all their nukes and dismantled the military tomorrow… how quickly would we be attacked on our own soil? No, we can’t stop the problems, we can’t 100% eliminate them from the face of the Earth, but keeping ourselves armed keeps things fairly quiet.  So why can’t that parlay down to a smaller scale? To the individual?  If you want to commit a crime, you only do it if you’ve got either 1. zero care about consequences, and then that’s a bigger issue to deal with or 2. you only do it if you believe there’s a good enough chance of not getting caught or things backfire or whatever. So if you could figure this Joe is armed, are you really going to mug them?
The sad thing is, evil people exist. They always have, and they likely always will. If you aren’t aware of this, you live a far too insulated life — and if you don’t believe me on that, then go find the “bad part of town” where you live and go walk around there tonight… alone. Now what do you think?
Note that self-defense is far more than just having a gun. It’s being skilled in empty-hand combat. It’s having knowledge and awareness to avoid problems and not get in trouble in the first place. They say things like you shouldn’t do anything different with a gun that you do without one, e.g. if you wouldn’t go into that part of town without a gun, then don’t go there with a gun either. First rule of a gunfight? Don’t get in one. But the thing is, ultimately things may come to that… and wouldn’t you rather have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it?  Ask folks in LA in 1992… ask folks in New Orleans after Katrina hit. 
Why have a gun? Are you paranoid? Are you afraid? Well, if I am, is that not a good enough reason to have one? Tell the woman with some man stalking her…. she’s afraid, is that not enough of a reason?  Do you have a fire extinguisher? Do you have a first aid kit, or at least some Band-Aids? Do you wear your seat belt in a car?  What are you worried about? Are you afraid of a fire? or a cut? or a collision? Aren’t they the same sort of thing? Wanting to be prepared in case something horrible happens? Slim chance as it may be, we’re all willing to take a little extra precaution to protect ourselves and preserve our lives… why would being capable of defending yourself be any different?   

It’s about hunting and sports. Well, perhaps in part, but ultimately no it’s not. It’s about protecting ourselves from tyranny.

Yeah yeah, Homer Simpson said “If I didn’t have this gun the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around.  Do you want that, well do ya?” But really yes that’s what it’s about. We’re getting to a point where our government is forgetting who it is to serve. The culprit? Ourselves. We refer to those people as “our leaders” but they are not… they are not to lead us, they are to serve us. Of course the best leaders know they serve: Tao Te Ching 68: “The best leader follows the will of the people”. (also see #57). We as a people have given up too much control to a few, and have meddled and fiddled and continue muck with things. We manipulate too much, we mess with the natural order of things, we’re just too much busy-bodies in some ways and too apathetic in other ways. And it comes back to bite us.

Look at any country in the world throughout history. When someone comes to power what’s the first thing they do? disarm and weaken the people. If the people are in equal footing and there’s injustice, the just will rise and conquer. If there’s injustice, the best way to keep injustice going is to weaken the opposing side… keep them oppressed, disarm them. Note that we can’t have unequal footing and justice, since unequal itself is unjust. So the only way to be just really is to be on equal footing. Difficult to achieve, sure, but not impossible. My Taoism is showing I guess. 🙂

But the more “the state” and “others” try to control us, try to force power over us, the less equal we will be. If the state can have massive power and control over us, what will happen? What’s the net consequence of this? How just will things be? We cannot allow for that to happen. The founders of this country knew that if government could become corrupt and need to be overthrown once, it’s well possible it could have to happen again. They did it, they wanted to leave the door open to do it again, should it be necessary. The only way? Arms. So it’s not just about hunting or sport (in fact it’s barely about that… that’s just a side-effect). It’s mostly about protecting ourselves, primarily from government and “rulers”, corruption, and anything else to defend our freedom.

To defend our ability to just be.

But hey, if everyone else just let things be… then we’d all be free, and wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.

 

The crazy thing about this? I originally wrote this back in mid-2008. It’s now the start of 2009, and we’ve had massive government bailout after massive government bailout. An “economic stimulus package” is in the works. There are many things on the horizon that signal massive government growth and intrusion and control into every facet of our lives. Is this good? Is this how a free people live? 

 

So as you can see, I’ve changed. Years ago I was one way. But the past some years I’ve changed. I consider myself a logical person, and as I went through my life experiences and learned about how to take care of yourself, I found my old prejudices and ignorance fading. There’s just a sound logic to taking responsiblity for yourself, be that in providing for yourself or defending yourself and what you believe in. I just listened to all sides of the issue, and I just can’t find logical faults… which is how I’ve ended up where I am now.

Why I’m (now) a gun owner. (Part 3)

/ hsoi

Back to part 2

So why a gun? I think it’s just been a natural progression. While traditional emtpy-hand martial arts are nice, I can’t dodge a bullet. I can’t reach more than 3 feet in front of me. I can’t throw a rock at 3000 feet-per-second. My hands and feet just aren’t much of an equalizer to someone armed with merely a stick. Weapons always give you an advantage, and without one you’re at a disadvantage. So, there’s nothing wrong with a little cross-training in modern martial arts. And so again we come back to some great things about Texas, having concealed carry and also Castle Doctrine.

It was just a couple years ago that I actually started off thinking just about home defense, shotguns and the like. You see, while we live in a good neighborhood and have good neighbors that look out for each other, things still happen (no neighborhood is immune). You’ll have people breaking into cars at night. A few homes get broken into. Thing is, those things tend to happen in the middle of the day! Makes sense. At night, people are home and a burglary will be more difficult than during the day when they’re away at work and most everyone else in the neighborhood is too. But the thing is, we’re home all day. Wife and kids are home, schooling. I’m at home, telecommuting. I know my house has been cased numerous times over the years we’ve lived here. We have our alarm system but well, I know it’s only a mild deterrent. Call the police, call an ambulance, call for a pizza; see which arrives first. I recall in our first house our friend was taking care of the house for us, we forgot to give her the alarm code, the alarm went off and she waited for 30 minutes and the police never arrived. So if we’re home and someone opts to break in — a real possibility no matter where you live and how nice your neighborhood is — there’s no way we’re going to be victim.

Let me touch on something I mentioned: the police. I have nothing against them, but I know they are not here for my protection. To a degree they offer deterrence, but only when they are around (yet a day doesn’t go by without fark.com posting a story of some genius committing a crime right in front of a cop). There just aren’t enough cops to be everywhere to deter everything (and I’m not sure I’d want such a police state either). Furthermore, countless court rulings have made it clear that the police are under no legal obligation to protect you (if you don’t believe that, the truth is just a Google away). You also put a lot of faith in the 911 system. Back when I originally wrote this “why I’m a gun owner” in May 2008 I had read two stories in the news. In one story a store owner in Columbus, Ohio found someone that broke into his store. The store owner, having a CHL, held the burglar at gunpoint and called 911. Not only did it take at least 5 minutes for the police to arrive (and then the first on the scene was a retired deputy that happened to live by the store and heard the local alarm), but the 911 dispatcher was treating the store owner like HE was the criminal. In another story a college student in Madison, Wisconsin died from 911’s lack of response. Apparently the victim of a random crime, someone broke into her apartment, stabbed and beat her, she called 911 for help but not only did 911 not respond they apparently didn’t believe a crime was being committed. If you really want to believe that help will come, we can always try an experiment. You pick your way of wanting to call for help. I’ll give you a head start and let you start calling for help (dial 911 and give them all the details, yelling to those around you, whatever). While you wait for help to arrive I will hit you repeatedly with my fists until help arrives. While help may arrive, consider the damage you will take while you wait. And consider that it’s just my fists — what if I had a club? knife? gun? Not that I would really undertake this experiment, but consider the situation in your head. So if there’s no one around to protect you and even if they are they don’t have to, and even if they want to how long will it take for them to arrive, who is going to protect you and your loved ones? Only you.

It’s disgusting to me how modern society believes you should not fight back. That if someone wants your wallet, you should just give it to them. Who is to say they won’t also take my life along with my money? And I’m to just take it? So, what if instead of wallet I put sexuality. That is, rape. Are you supposed to just give it to them? just lie back and take it? Oh, then it’s ok to fight back? So if there’s apparently some line somewhere where it’s ok to fight back and where it’s not, please tell me just where is that line and what justification you have for drawing it there. For me, if you try to take something of mine that I don’t want to give you, I’m not going to be happy with you and will somehow fight you for it. It might be a fight of words, or maybe using lawyers, or maybe my fists. But I fail to see why I should just lie back and take it. If that’s the way you want to be with things, then please just hand over all your money to me now. No I’m not mugging you, but if you see no reason to fight back then you might as well just give up now.

So coming back to the guns, it’s about fighting back. It’s about deterrence. DC v. Heller and Texas’s Castle Doctrine codifies in the law what God has granted to us: that we are able to defend ourselves when we have reason to believe our lives and property are in danger.  If you know there’s a 12 gauge on the other side of that door, are you going to break it down? I would reason most criminals would move along looking for the easier target. So, I would say that I carry a gun not because I want to use it, but because I hope by carrying it I won’t be in a position where I’d have to (Syd sums it up well). Which brings me to concealed carry. While I still believe shotguns and rifles are good for home defense use, I believe that a concealed handgun will provide me with the most options. The main reason? I can always have it with me. What good is something if you don’t have it when you need it? What about the Boy Scout motto to “Be Prepared”? That’s what this all comes out of. I may not have earned my Eagle Scout (got to Life rank), but the teachings of Scouting are very much a part of me.

I also think that carrying a gun forces me to live to an even higher standard. To obtain a CHL in Texas there are a lot of strict laws to follow: you must be able to legally purchase a gun (and all the legal that brings to the table); can’t have felonies or even misdemeanors on your record, even pending criminal charges; no chemical or alcohol dependencies; must be of sound mind; no restraining orders; not default in your taxes or child support or student loans; must have a background check, fingerprints taken and checked against the FBI database. Furthermore you must attend a class that spends most of it’s time talking about ways to resolve issues without violence, ensures you are familiar with the law, and pass a shooting proficiency test. So to first obtain a license you’ve got to be a very well-behaved member of society. Now if you want to keep your CHL, not only do you have to renew every 5 years and thus must continue to adhere to the original guidelines, but if anything happens to you (e.g. you receive a DUI) your CHL is revoked and you won’t be eligible to reapply for many years. You’ve got a great incentive to carry yourself at a higher standard than the rest of the citizenry, if you want to keep your CHL. So basically, CHL holders are a cut above your average citizen, both originally and must continue to be to remain a CHL holder. So, personal responsibility gets taken even further.

The one thing that I didn’t intend to come out of this was something political.

On to part 4