Not a Tango, nothing to see here

December 20, 2012

Make this their last Huzzah!

Filed under: 2A, guns, rights, self-defense — antitango @ 7:22 am

I had the below post submitted to a friend’s FB post where he’s very much in favor of limiting our 2A rights “for the children”.  I just thought it was worth reiterating here, after the break:




December 14, 2012

Protect Your Children

Filed under: 2A, family, guns, self-defense — antitango @ 2:53 pm

In this world, you have but one purpose.  Your sole job is to protect your progeny.  What happened today in Connecticut was a disgusting, vile act.  Lives were WINKED out of existence by a monster.

Obviously, the world wants to prevent this.  I think that’s a wonderful idea.

Let’s look at what happened.  Someone who appears to have had no criminal background went nuts.  I haven’t seen tales of mental history, yet so I’m going with the assumption that he had a clean bill of health upstairs.  It should be illegal to take a gun onto school grounds.  Oh, it is in most cases.  It should be illegal to kill people.  Check.

So, it’s illegal to do what he did, but it didn’t stop him.  Already the cries for more gun control are deafening.  The idea is that if you make it more illegaler, it can’t possibly happen.  I think that’s wonderful.  Let’s make meth illegal, then nobody can smoke it.

No.  You protect your children.  It’s what you do.  Step up to the damned plate and take some responsibility for your charge(s).  You will not prevent a tragedy by telling him he’s not allowed to use a specific implement.  You prevent a tragedy of this magnitude by TRUSTING your teachers.

Teachers already go through background checks.  In fact, it’s the same FBI background check that firearms purchasers go through.  Train them.  Teach them viable tactics.  If they so desire, ARM THEM!  Teach them to be teachers and not just people that repeat a text book.  Give them the freedom to raise your child.  Your child already spends over 6 hours a day with this person.  You are trusting your child’s life with them.  That’s a HUGE responsibility!  If you are going to trust them, TRUST THEM.

It may not have stopped this tragedy, but it sure as hell would not have hurt to put the odds against the gun man.

December 6, 2012

Fedex lost a gun

Filed under: guns — antitango @ 7:12 am

Personally, I like UPS, but not by a large margin.  Fedex is convenient in that there’s one that lives right next door to my employer.

When you need a firearm repaired, you are legally able to ship it to the manufacturer and they manufacturer can legally ship it back without involving an intermediary FFL.  One of the guys over on utilized Fedex’s services to send and receive their firearm so Taurus could repair it.

I am extremely upset at the moment. I sent my Taurus 94 revolver in for a repair. The barrel needed to be replaced, and Taurus said to send it in and they’d fix it.
I never received any contact from Taurus, but was tracking the status online. A week or so ago I checked up on it and it was marked as “shipped”. Having not had it arrive yet (or receive a tracking number) I decided to call them today…..

Turns out the gun was delivered by Fedex on Nov. 23 and LEFT ON MY DOORSTEP. The guy from Taurus said that they ship everything signature required and does not know how it got left like that. Taurus said they will file a complaint with Fedex, and try to track it down, but beyond that I’m not sure what they will do. I was too upset to ask.

The way I see it either a Fedex employee decided he wanted a new gun, or they really did leave it on my front door and one of my neighbors walked away with it.

(Emphasis mine)

Obviously he must have screwed up.  He’s just someone that probably shouldn’t be able to ship guns, being an average Joe.  Right?

Utah CFP instructor ~ NRA Pistol Instructor

So he’s a RESPONSIBLE average Joe.

So who screwed up?  I dunno…  you tell me.


So FedEx says they delivered it to the front door.  Taurus specifically demanded an adult signature be required.  According to the tracking receipt, either the FedEx driver was cutting corners to save time and changed the delivery type to not require a signature, as indicated by the top most annotation, or FedEx as a whole cut corners to save the driver some time.  It looks to me that a person named “Signature not required” signed for this and was written in by the driver.  Thoughts?

There’s one thing that seems odd with this, though.  The section that says “Hold at FedEx Location service is not available for this shipment.” seems odd.  There should be a colon in here.  Either it should say “Hold at FedEx Location: service is not available for this shipment” or “Hold at FedEx: Location service not available for this shipment.”

Now, if I had to ship some firearms, Id think very carefully which service I’d use.

Blog at