Apparently, these cars are going to disappear (or at least cease production) in 2019, and I can’t say I’m going to miss any of them. The only one I’d accept as a gift would be the VW Touareg (unkindly nicknamed “Toe-rag” by the Top Gear morons):
…and that only because the Touareg is essentially a larger version of the Tiguan.
…and as any fule kno, I’m a longtime VW devotee (nine VWs in my life so far, and counting).
My current Tiguan is my second, and unless something unforeseen happens before then, I’ll just replace it with a similar model when the time comes.
When you have a winning formula, why mess with it?
Once again, I hear the whines: “Oh Kim, those purty lil’ sports cars are fine an’ all… but they’re plain useless if’n you want to haul a load or sump’n. So give us more Murkin eye candy.”
I serve to please:
…and that’s it for this series, as 2018 draws to a close. Next Sunday there’ll be something totally different.
There is something (okay, several things) about shooting an old-fashioned single-action .22 revolver that I like. Take Ruger’s excellent Single-Six (and its modern -Nine and -Ten variants), for example:
The most common complaint about this kind of revolver is that it’s a royal pain in the ass to load and reload, in that you can only load one round at a time through the loading gate, and then, when the cylinder has been emptied, you have to push the spent casings one at a time back out of the gate with the ejector rod.
That’s not counting the PITA of only being able to fire the thing by re-cocking the piece manually after every squeeze of the trigger, of course.
To me, this slowness of operation is a feature, not a bug. I like the slow, deliberate aspect of shooting as much as — or maybe even more than — the rush of sending as much lead downrange as quickly as possible.
It also satisfies the ingrained “make every bullet count” aspect of my shooting philosophy.
I can understand why shooting larger calibers like .357 Mag, .30 Carbine or .44 Mag ammo slowly through a bigger Ruger single action is defensible; those big boys are expensive compared to .22 LR, after all.
But let’s be honest here, and compare shooting to fishing for a moment. Is not one of the best parts of fishing the quiet relaxation of it, and would not the experience be a little spoiled if you hooked a fish every 30 seconds for the entire day?
I think that shooting single-action revolvers has a similar attraction.
Maybe it’s just part of getting older, but I’m starting to prefer an activity taken more slowly over something done in a frantic rush. And I no longer own a Single-Six, mine having disappeared in the Great Gun Sell-Off Of 2015.
Which leads me to my final point. I’m prepared to trade my new Ruger Mk IV 22/45 semi-auto (plus four magazines) for a Ruger Single-Six (and preferably a “convertible” with interchangeable .22 LR / .22 WMR cylinders). I’m agnostic about blue- or stainless steel finishes and indifferent as to barrel length, just as long as the gun shoots accurately and the trigger is decent.
So if any of my Texas Readers is interested in getting a Mk IV and has a Single-Six gathering dust in the safe, let me know via email and let’s get together.
Update: A Kind & Generous Reader has come forward. We’ll be doing the swap sometime in the near future.
The late (and much-missed) Col. Jeff Cooper once said this about violence:
“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”
[pauses to let the applause die down]
So when you set yourself up as a “saboteur” — of a perfectly-legal institution, mind you — and part of your modus operandi is violence, do not be surprised if violence is visited on you in turn. Such as in this instance:
Hunt saboteurs claim they were attacked after one suffered a bloody eye as violence broke out between supporters and placard-wielding protesters during traditional Boxing Day hunts around the country.
Riders with packs of hounds – following scent trails laid in advance to comply with the 2004 Hunting Act forbidding the hunting of foxes with hounds – set out under cloudy skies this morning in order to maintain the tradition.
But scenes of chaos erupted in Elham, Kent, as a saboteur was hospitalised after allegedly being thrown in front of a passing car ‘that deliberately swerved’ before being punched and kicked by a group of hunt supporters.
A hunt saboteur posted an image of his bloodied eye after allegedly being ambushed by ‘two or more men’, according to the Hunt Saboteurs Association.
A spokesperson for the group said: ‘A group of drunken hunt supporters attacked the saboteurs and their vehicle as they tried to leave’.
And the group claimed a 19-year-old female demonstrator was allegedly punched in the face by a hunt supporter in Tenterden, while a band that had turned up to play reportedly had their equipment damaged.
And we have this as evidence:
But let’s make sure that we don’t just see pics of the loonies. Here are a couple of the hunt supporters:
And for my Murkin Readers unfamiliar with the ancient custom, let’s make one thing perfectly clear about all this protesting: it has nothing to do with protecting foxes, although that’s the pretense.
It has everything to do with with abolishing an activity largely enjoyed by the upper- and upper-middle classes — in other words, it’s a class issue.
The very fact that hunting was originally banned by a Labour government headed by the loathsome Tony Blair is sufficient proof thereof.
And all I can say to the hunt supporters is: keep up the good work of thrashing the “sabos” at every opportunity.
This was written in 2014. I sincerely doubt whether it could be published today without an outbreak of total mass hysteria.
Which is why I’m posting the link, as well as a representative sample:
The Constitution allows a defendant to make three crucial decisions in his case. He decides whether to plea guilty or not guilty. He decides whether to have a bench trial or a jury trial. He decides whether he will testify or whether he will remain silent. A client who insists on testifying is almost always making a terrible mistake, but I cannot stop him.
Most blacks are unable to speak English well. They cannot conjugate verbs. They have a poor grasp of verb tenses. They have a limited vocabulary. They cannot speak without swearing. They often become hostile on the stand. Many, when they testify, show a complete lack of empathy and are unable to conceal a morality based on the satisfaction of immediate, base needs. This is a disaster, especially in a jury trial. Most jurors are white, and are appalled by the demeanor of uneducated, criminal blacks.
And then there’s this:
This inability to see things from someone else’s perspective helps explain why there are so many black criminals. They do not understand the pain they are inflicting on others. One of my robbery clients is a good example. He and two co-defendants walked into a small store run by two young women. All three men were wearing masks. They drew handguns and ordered the women into a back room. One man beat a girl with his gun. The second man stood over the second girl while the third man emptied the cash register. All of this was on video.
My client was the one who beat the girl. When he asked me, “What are our chances at trial?” I said, “Not so good.” He immediately got angry, raised his voice, and accused me of working with the prosecution. I asked him how he thought a jury would react to the video. “They don’t care,” he said. I told him the jury would probably feel deeply sympathetic towards these two women and would be angry at him because of how he treated them. I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me what I suspected—what too many blacks say about the suffering of others: “What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”
As so many have said before of this attitude: “You can take the African out of Africa, but…” I prefer to think of it as “Africa Wins Again; Just Not In Africa.”
Read the whole thing. The observations made by the writer are based on years and years of experience, and are not his opinion.
Afterthought: Just so we’re clear about the whole thing: this attitude isn’t confined to Blacks (see here); it just seems to be more prevalent.