Category: Born again Cynic!

Categories
All About Guns Born again Cynic!

10 Pre-1988 Pump-Action Shotguns Worth a Fortune!

Well a man can dream can’t he? Grumpy

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic!

The Race in Texas for Senate seat

James Talarico wants a seat in the U.S. Senate, and the National Rifle Association is making sure Texas gun owners know what he wants to do with it: ban commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines.

The NRA has released a new 30-second ad targeting the Democrat’s support for so-called “assault weapons” bans. Titled “Yes Absolutely,” the spot uses Talarico’s own words to put his gun-control positions before voters ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

The Texas ad is part of the NRA’s broader multi-million-dollar investment in congressional races nationwide, aimed at protecting and expanding pro-gun majorities in the House and Senate.

Talarico’s Own Words Make the Case

According to the NRA’s announcement, the ad features a video in which Talarico endorsed banning “assault weapons” and commonly owned magazines. It pairs that footage with a more recent NewsNation appearance.

Asked whether an “assault weapons” ban remained “on the table,” Talarico answered: “Absolutely.”

For Texans who own the firearms and magazines targeted by those proposals, that answer leaves little room for comforting campaign spin. Talarico supports federal restrictions on arms that law-abiding Americans choose for defending themselves and their families.

“James Talarico has been coming for our guns for years,” the ad states. “He would outlaw the most popular firearms in Texas.”

The NRA has dubbed Talarico “Beto 2.0,” invoking another Texas Democrat whose gun-control agenda became a defining feature of his political identity. Talarico’s continued embrace of firearm bans gives gun owners ample reason to take the comparison seriously.

The Second Amendment protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It does not give politicians authority to reduce that right to a list of firearms they find politically acceptable.

NRA Makes Texas Senate Race a Priority

NRA-PVF Chairman John Commerford said Talarico’s support for a federal ban should disqualify him in the eyes of Texas gun owners.

“By vowing to vote for a so-called assault weapons ban if elected to the Senate, James Talarico kicked a hornet’s nest. Nearly half of Texas households have guns, and millions of law-abiding Texans own the very rifles and standard-capacity magazines he would ban. Gun owners will decide this election—and Talarico just gave them another reason to vote.”

The NRA’s release also points to Talarico’s legislative record, including his vote against constitutional carry and support for stricter gun-control measures.

Taken together, those positions show opposition to both carrying firearms without a government permission slip and owning categories of arms targeted by gun-ban advocates. Texas voters deserve to weigh that record when considering who will represent them in Washington.

Gun Bus Tour Backs Advertising With Grassroots Outreach

The NRA is pairing its advertising campaign with its Gun Bus battleground tour and traditional get-out-the-vote operation.

The organization says the bus will make multiple Texas stops, giving members and gun owners opportunities to learn about candidates’ records, receive issue updates, and participate in local voter outreach.

The broader operation includes millions of NRA Orange Cards, targeted text messages, and door-knocking efforts across Texas and other battleground states.

Commerford said the organization is combining advertising with “boots-on-the-ground outreach” to mobilize gun owners while control of the Senate hangs in the balance.

Talarico has supplied the central issue himself. Asked whether banning commonly owned firearms remains an option, he said “Absolutely.” Gun owners should take him at his word. Electing a senator who supports those bans would give Washington’s gun-control bloc another vote against their rights. Texans have every reason to remember that when they cast their ballots on November 3.

Related: Talarico Pushes the ‘Assault Weapons’ Hoax Despite the Facts

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.Duncan Johnson

Categories
Born again Cynic! California EVIL MF Grumpy's hall of Shame Paint me surprised by this You have to be kidding, right!?!

The secret Cold War bioweapons test that exposed millions in the Bay Area By Katie Dowd,

US Army leadership decided the best way to protect the nation from a bioweapons attack was by attempting to poison the American people first
Aerial view of industrial areas and piers near the Embarcadero neighborhood of San Francisco, with the San Francisco Bay and Alcatraz Island visible, likely taken from Coit Tower, 1950. 

Aerial view of industrial areas and piers near the Embarcadero neighborhood of San Francisco, with the San Francisco Bay and Alcatraz Island visible, likely taken from Coit Tower, 1950.

Morse Collection/Gado/Getty Images

The story spoke of simulated biological attacks on San Francisco that took place over a few days in 1950. No one in the city knew the test was happening, and at least one civilian, a 75-year-old man, died after being exposed to the bacteria. The man’s name was Edward Nevin.

That article was how the Nevin family, scattered across the Bay Area, learned about what actually killed their beloved patriarch decades earlier. And although largely forgotten today, the story set off a firestorm of anger and fear about the U.S. government treating its citizens like a laboratory full of guinea pigs.

The American government has done many evil things in the name of national security, but few were as nefarious as its human experiments during the Cold War. Ordinary people were drugged with LSD, subjected to psychological abuse and pushed to the breaking point and beyond. With paranoia about the Soviet Union at a fever pitch in the 1950s, the government was obsessed with the threat of attack.

In 1950, U.S. Army leadership decided the best way to protect the nation from a Soviet bioweapons attack was by attempting to poison the American people first.

They identified eight cities across the country that were possible targets, among them San Francisco. To see how far deadly particles could spread through the air, scientists suggested the Army use a bacteria called Serratia marcescens.

Serratia first caught the attention of scientists in the early 1800s, when the people of Padua, Italy, saw something unusual: Their polenta kept turning red. Paranoid villagers brought in priests, fearful of a devilish influence on their dinner, but scientists discovered the organisms weren’t satanic. They were bacterial.

A Serratia marcescens colony is seen in a lab. The bacteria is known for its distinctive red color.

A Serratia marcescens colony is seen in a lab. The bacteria is known for its distinctive red color.

Sinhyu/Getty Images

In a healthy individual, Serratia marcescens exposure normally isn’t a problem, but for people who are immunocompromised, and especially those hospitalized, a seemingly harmless infection can become fatal.

Those infected can develop pneumonia, heart inflammation called endocarditis, meningitis or blood poisoning. Serratia marcescens is also largely resistant to antibiotics even today, making successful treatment difficult. But none of this was known to the military officials about to dose San Francisco with the bacteria.

In late September 1950, a warship normally used as a minesweeper was outfitted with commercial spraying equipment. Inside the sprayers was a slurry of Serratia bacteria. As the minesweeper sat a few miles offshore, the sprayers sent the bacteria wafting onto the wind into the city.

On Sept. 27, the final day of the test, like so many mornings in San Francisco, clouds drifted low over the water. A cool wind blew off the ocean, ruffling the hair of bankers hurrying to work in the Financial District, families grocery shopping in the Mission, and tourists taking in the view at Fisherman’s Wharf.

According to a declassified Army report, almost every person in San Francisco that day inhaled 5,000 or more particles per minute over the course of several hours. “San Francisco residents were inhaling millions of bacteria and particles every day during the week of testing,” Leonard Cole wrote in his book “Clouds of Secrecy.”

Government records would later show the bacteria dispersed much farther than the city of San Francisco. Clouds reached Army monitoring stations in Colma, Daly City, Sausalito and across the bay in Albany, Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro.

‘The scientific method gone mad’

Within days, Stanford University Hospital in San Francisco began seeing a spike in unusual cases: Illnesses caused by exposure to Serratia marcescens. In the history of the hospital, they’d never had a single case. Now, they had 11.

Among them was a 75-year-old retired PG&E employee named Edward Nevin. He’d recently had a procedure for a prostate condition, but there had been no complications and he’d returned home.

Suddenly, though, he took a turn for the worse, experiencing what his son called “intense pain and suffering.” Nevin was rushed back to the hospital. Whatever ailed him didn’t respond to antibiotics, and Nevin languished for three weeks before dying.

A view of the urban skyline of downtown San Francisco on a sunny day, likely taken from Coit Tower, 1950. 

A view of the urban skyline of downtown San Francisco on a sunny day, likely taken from Coit Tower, 1950.

Morse Collection/Gado/Getty Images

“The doctors insisted on an autopsy,” his son Edward Nevin Jr. said. “They apparently were as perplexed as we were.”

The autopsy found Nevin had died of a heart infection caused by Serratia marcescens. The San Francisco outbreak was so sudden and mysterious that a group of Stanford physicians wrote up the event for a medical journal.

But although the Army now knew their experiment had likely killed a man, the tests continued for another 16 years in cities across the nation. One so-called “vulnerability test” involved secretly dropping a light bulb filled with bacteria from a New York City subway train. Samples found traces of the bacteria in tunnels spread from 14th to 58th Street.

In 1976, the experiments burst onto the national consciousness as some reports were declassified. The impacts, doctors and scientists feared, were long-ranging.

At San Francisco General Hospital, two dozen patients since 1969 had been diagnosed with endocarditis caused by Serratia marcescens; 13 of them died. A staff physician at the hospital told the Chronicle the cluster was 5 to 10 times the national average, and it was possible the uptick was linked, even years later, to that Army test.

The Embarcadero is seen from a photo taken near Coit Tower in 1950.

The Embarcadero is seen from a photo taken near Coit Tower in 1950.

Morse Collection/Gado/Getty Images

After learning about the likely cause of his grandfather’s death, Edward Nevin III spoke with the Chronicle. “It is just incredible — the scientific method gone mad — Dr. Strangelove, but it is not fiction,” he said. “The Department of the Army completely disregarded the dignity of the individual.”

Nevin III, who worked as a lawyer, sued the U.S. government on behalf of his family. By then, many of the leaders of the experiment were retired, aging but unrepentant about what they’d done.

The technical director of the government’s biological warfare program during the 1950s testified that “the Bay Area populace should be pleased” that they’d been unknowingly sprayed with bacteria in the name of Cold War safety. Another scientist said if he was put in the same position, with the knowledge he now had, he’d still run the test.

A jet plane from the Naval Air Reserve flies directly above the huge Oakland Naval Supply Center in 1950.

A jet plane from the Naval Air Reserve flies directly above the huge Oakland Naval Supply Center in 1950.

Bettmann Archive

With some government documents still classified — and the only contemporaneous account of Nevin’s death coming from Stanford’s medical journal article — there wasn’t enough evidence to prove the test had definitively caused his death.

A judge ruled against the Nevins, ending their legal quest for justice. But in the court of public opinion, history has joined their side. Nevin is regularly cited as a victim of the test, a death that the government apparently chalked up as a necessary evil to win the Cold War. When his son, Edward Jr., died in 2017, his obituary called it “one of the government’s darkest secrets.”

The long-term impacts

Then, there are the test’s ripples through the 21st century.

In 2001, a Bay Area UPS driver with chronic back pain went to his healthcare provider for a cortisone shot. Two days later, he died of bacterial meningitis. Within weeks, three deaths had been linked to contaminated cortisone shots prepared in a Walnut Creek pharmacy; the shots had all been tainted by Serratia bacteria, which can cause meningitis if injected near the spinal cord.

Much like the 1969 outbreak of Serratia-caused endocarditis cases, scientists wondered whether the 1950 experiment had done something fundamental to the Bay Area ecosystem. An infectious diseases professor at UC Berkeley said scientists could not dispel the theory that pumping millions of bacteria into the air had permanently changed the Bay Area’s microbial ecology.

To prove it one way or another, scientists needed samples of the Army’s 1950 strain of Serratia to compare with modern-day outbreaks. The government has never handed those over, if they were preserved at all.

Although Edward Nevin’s death devastated his close-knit family, his life has reverberated across the generations. He immigrated from Ireland, raised seven children in the Mission with his wife Mary and watched their children and grandchildren become nurses, teachers, police officers, lawyers and even the mayor of Daly City. His life was cut short, but his legacy remains.

Nevin is buried among family in the Holy Cross Catholic Cemetery in Colma. On summer days, soft fog rolls through the graveyard in waves. But now, it carries only the cool mist from the sea, fresh and clean.

Categories
Born again Cynic! Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom

Surprise ? No not really

Nazi Muslims? Seriously? You betcha…
Islam’s Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a 22 year old Muslim who admired Hitler’s hatred of the Jews and persistently wrote to Hitler to express his admiration and his desire for Hitler’s Nazi Party to collaborate with Islam.
When Hitler rose to power, his Nazis supported al-Banna, a school teacher, to grow the Muslim Brotherhood into its ally in the Middle East; by 1938, the membership of Muslim Brotherhood topped 200,000.
During World War II, members of the Muslim Brotherhood spied for Hitler’s Nazis in the Middle East and fought for Hitler as Nazi troops in two specially formed Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar Divisions (see Religion of Peace). ‘Handschar’ is German for scimitar, the curved saber used by the Islamic troops of the Ottoman empire.
Above is Hitler with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and a close ally of al-Banna, in Berlin, where he lived as Hitler’s VIP guest from 1941 to 1945 before joining al-Banna in Egypt in 1946. 

Bosnian Muslims of the 13th Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS Handschar at prayer during their training at Neuhammer, 1943.

Categories
All About Guns Born again Cynic!

1986 VS 2026: Guns And Ammo Pricing (I beg to differ on a few things but it’s up to you to decide! Grumpy)

The price of guns and ammo has always been unstable. Inflation, political changes, new laws, international conflicts, supply chain issues, and changing public opinion on gun ownership all contribute to this volatility. As Ecclesiastes 1:9 says, there’s nothing new under the sun.

In some ways, the story is surprising. While the prices of most goods, such as homes, cars, and fuel, have skyrocketed, some types of ammunition have actually become more affordable in real terms. At the same time, firearms themselves have seen significant price increases, often caused by regulation, higher demand, and manufacturing changes.

Let’s take a closer look at the changes and economic factors behind the pricing to understand the full story.

The Big Picture: Then vs. Now

Before diving into firearms specifically, it’s important to understand the broader economic backdrop.

1986 vs 2026: Cost of Living Comparison

Median Household Income

  • 1986: $24,900
  • 2026: $84,000 (Projected)

Cost of the Average New Home

  • 1986: $111,900
  • 2026: $445,000

Price of the Average Used Home 

  • 1986: $92,000
  • 2026: $398,000

Average New Car Costs

  • 1986: $12,650
  • 2026: $49,000

Price of Gas (Per Gallon)

  • 1986: $0.93
  • 2026: $3.50

At a glance, most major life expenses have increased roughly 3x to 4x over 40 years. This sets a baseline expectation: if guns and ammo followed the same trend, we’d expect similar increases.

But they didn’t, at least not evenly across the board.

The 1980s: A Different America for Gun Owners

a photo of an 1980s economic chart

Handgun ammo prices were higher in the 1980’s due to lower volume and demand.

To fully understand firearm and ammunition pricing in 1986, you have to look beyond the numbers and into the broader cultural and economic environment of the 1980s.

This was a fundamentally different era, both politically and culturally, especially when it came to guns.

A Strong Economy with Different Priorities

Under President Ronald Reagan, the 1980s were a time of economic growth, lower inflation, and higher consumer confidence after the 1970s were a time of trouble.

Some important things about the decade were:

  • Lower cost of living in general
  • Wages were going up compared to the cost of living
  • The U.S. economy had higher manufacturing
  • Supply chains were less globalized

People who bought guns more often saw them as useful tools rather than risky or politically charged purchases.

Gun Culture in the 1980s

In 1986, gun ownership looked very different from what it does today.

The typical firearm owner was:

  • A hunter
  • A rural homeowner
  • And/or a recreational shooter

Self-defense was part of the equation, but it wasn’t nearly as dominant as it is today.

Popular firearm categories reflected this:

  • Revolvers like the S&W Model 19
  • Bolt-action rifles like the Remington 700
  • Shotguns like the Remington 870

Semi-automatic pistols, like the Glock 17, were just gaining traction in the U.S. market.

The Rise of the “Wonder Nine”

a photo of the glock 17 handgun 1986

The “Wonder 9” Glock 17 began entering the U.S. consumer market in 1986.

The mid-1980s marked the early adoption of high-capacity 9mm pistols, often called “Wonder Nines.”

The introduction of the Glock 17 into the U.S. market was particularly significant:

  • Polymer frame construction (revolutionary at the time)
  • Higher magazine capacity than revolvers
  • Lower manufacturing cost

Law enforcement agencies began transitioning away from revolvers, a shift that would later drive massive civilian demand for 9mm pistols and ammunition.

This shift is one of the key reasons why 9mm ammo became so dominant (and eventually so affordable) by 2026.

Regulation Was Present, But Less Visible

Although gun laws existed in 1986, they weren’t as central to public discourse as they are today.

The passage of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) reflected a moment where:

  • Gun owners pushed back against federal enforcement practices.
  • Lawmakers sought to clarify and standardize regulations.

At the same time, the Hughes Amendment quietly introduced one of the most significant long-term pricing distortions in firearms history by freezing the supply of transferable machine guns.

No Internet, No Instant Panic Buying

a photo of a retro computer

In the 1980’s, you could buy guns and ammo in stores, over the phone, or by mail order.

One of the biggest differences between 1986 and 2026 is how fast information, and fear, spread.

In the 1980s, there were:

  • No online retailers
  • No social media
  • No real-time news cycle

As a result:

  • Buying patterns were more stable
  • Shortages were less frequent
  • Prices were less volatile

Contrast that with today’s market, where a single news event can trigger nationwide demand spikes within hours.

Ammo Was Expensive Because Volume Was Lower

Another overlooked factor is that ammunition production in the 1980s was far less optimized than it is today. There were:

  • Fewer large-scale production facilities
  • Less automation
  • Lower civilian consumption of high-volume calibers

Economies of scale didn’t exist in the same way they do now.

Why the 1980s Still Matter Today

The 1980s laid the groundwork for many of today’s firearm market dynamics:

  • The shift from revolvers to semi-autos
  • The rise of the 9mm as the dominant caliber
  • The regulatory framework shaped by FOPA
  • The early stages of modern firearm manufacturing

Understanding this era helps explain why some prices rose steadily, others stagnated, and a few, like 9mm ammo, actually dropped over time.

Firearm Prices: How Much Have Guns Increased?

Firearm prices have generally increased over time, but not always at the same pace as housing or vehicles. Here’s a direct comparison of some popular models:

Gun Price Comparison (1986 vs 2026)

Firearm Type 1986 Price 2026 Price
Glock 17 $249 $649
Colt 1911 $499 $1,199
S&W Model 19 $349 $1,119
Ruger 10/22 $79 $349
Colt AR-15 Carbine $499 $1,099
Remington 700 $179 $499
Remington 870 Shotgun $149 $499

What This Tells Us

Most firearms increased between 2x and 4x, which roughly tracks inflation and general consumer goods trends. However, some models, particularly revolvers and classic designs, have increased more sharply due to:

  • Collector demand
  • Reduced production volumes
  • Higher labor costs
  • Premium brand positioning

Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 platform have remained comparatively accessible, largely due to mass production and market competition in the modern era.

Ammo Prices: A Very Different Story

Unlike firearms, ammunition pricing tells a much more complex (and surprising) story.

Ammo Price Comparison (1986 vs 2026)

Ammo Type 1986 2026
12-Gauge 00 Buck (25 Shells) $4.00 $19.99
.22LR (100 rounds) $5.49 $13.99
.223 Rem (20 rounds) $11.99 $12.99
.308 Win (20 rounds) $15.99 $19.99
9mm (50 rounds) $22.50 $10.00
.38 Special (50 rounds) $16.99 $28.99
.45 ACP (50rounds) $12.99 $22.99

The Biggest Surprise: 9mm Got Much Cheaper

In 1986, a box of 9mm cost $22.50, or about $0.45 per round.

In 2026, it averages $10.00 per box, or $0.20 per round.

Even without adjusting for inflation, that’s a dramatic decrease. When adjusted for inflation, 9mm is significantly cheaper today than it was in the 1980s.

Why Did Ammo Prices Diverge?

Several key factors have influenced the price of guns and ammo:

  • Globalized manufacturing
  • Improved production efficiency
  • Mass civilian adoption of certain calibers (especially 9mm)
  • Military and law enforcement standardization

At the same time, less common calibers (.38 Special, .45 ACP) have become relatively more expensive due to lower production volume and niche demand.

The 1986 Turning Point: Firearm Owners’ Protection Act

a photo of a megaphone

In 1986, the Hughes Amendment banned civilian ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic firearms.

One of the most important legislative milestones affecting firearm pricing was the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), signed into law in 1986.

What FOPA Did

FOPA was designed to protect gun owners from overly aggressive enforcement of federal gun laws. It:

  • Limited ATF inspection powers
  • Protected interstate firearm transport
  • Clarified definitions for dealers vs private sellers

However, it also included a critical last-minute amendment:

The Hughes Amendment

The Hughes Amendment banned civilian ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic firearms after May 19, 1986.

Impact on the Price of Guns and Ammo

The Hughes Amendment created a fixed supply of transferable machine guns, which led to explosive price increases over time.

While this didn’t directly affect semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s, it demonstrated how regulation can instantly reshape market pricing.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban & Its Aftermath

Another major event was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was in effect until 2004.

Key Effects 

  • Restricted certain rifle features (flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, etc.)
  • Limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds
  • Created a divide between “pre-ban” and “post-ban” firearms

Impact on the Price of Guns and Ammo

  • “Pre-ban” rifles and magazines skyrocketed in value
  • Manufacturers adapted by producing compliant models
  • After its expiration in 2004, prices normalized, and supply increased

This period showed how temporary legislation can create artificial scarcity and price volatility

Panic Buying & Political Cycles (2008–2024)

a photo of an 2026 economic chart

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) records that U.S. prices have risen by roughly 200% since 1986.

From the late 2000s onward, firearm and ammo prices became increasingly tied to political events.

Key Demand Surges

  • 2008 Election of Barack Obama
  • 2012 Sandy Hook shooting
  • The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest
  • 2020–2021 election cycle

Each of these events triggered waves of:

  • Panic buying
  • Ammo shortages
  • Price spikes

During peak shortages, 9mm prices temporarily ranged from $0.80 to $1.00 per round, far above historical norms.

Long-Term Effects

While prices eventually stabilized, these cycles:

  • Increased baseline demand
  • Expanded the gun-owning population
  • Encouraged stockpiling behavior

It’s easy to see why firearm prices have remained elevated even after the supply recovered.

Manufacturing Evolution: Why Some Guns Stayed Affordable

Modern firearm manufacturing has changed dramatically since 1986.

Key Advancements

  • CNC machining and automation
  • Polymer frame technology (popularized by Glock)
  • Modular platforms like the AR-15
  • Global sourcing of components

These innovations allowed manufacturers to:

  • Reduce costs
  • Increase output
  • Maintain competitive pricing

This is the main reason why rifles like the AR-15 remain widely available and relatively affordable compared to other goods.

Cultural Shifts in Gun Ownership

a photo of a VHS video tape

A major shift in American gun culture happened in the 2000’s with the demographics of gun owners changing.

In 2026, owning a gun is very different from owning one in 1986.

Then (1986):

  • Mostly hunters and hobbyists who shoot for fun
  • Revolvers and bolt-action rifles were the most common
  • Localized trap & skeet shooting clubs
  • Laws about carrying guns in public were limited

Now (2026)

  • More people are buying guns for the first time
  • More states are allowing concealed carry
  • People are increasingly interested in guns for personal defense
  • More people are getting into competitive shooting sports

The move toward self-defense and everyday carry has led to a huge demand for:

The high demand for 9mm ammo is one of the main reasons it has gotten cheaper.

Real Affordability: Are Guns Cheaper or More Expensive Today?

When you compare raw prices, guns are clearly more expensive in 2026. But affordability depends on context.

Gun Example: Glock 17

  • 1986: $249
  • 2026: $649

That’s about a 2.6x increase, while home prices increased nearly 4x.

Ammo Example: 9mm

  • 1986: $0.45/round
  • 2026: $0.20/round

That’s quite a decrease in nominal cost, and an even larger drop when adjusted for inflation.

Recap on the Price of Guns and Ammo

  • Firearms: Moderately more expensive, but roughly in line with inflation
  • Ammo (common calibers): Often cheaper than ever
  • Ammo (less common calibers): More expensive due to lower demand

Final Thoughts: 40 Years of Change

The evolution of gun and ammo prices from 1986 to 2026 reflects more than just inflation; it tells a story about legislation, culture, and technology.

Historical Takeaways:

  • The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act permanently reshaped parts of the firearms market
  • Political events and media cycles have driven repeated demand spikes
  • Technological advancements have kept some firearms affordable
  • Mass adoption of 9mm has made it cheaper than ever

Perhaps the most interesting guns and ammo takeaway is this:

While nearly everything else in life has become dramatically more expensive, shooting, at least with common calibers, has become more accessible in many ways.

At the same time, regulatory pressure and cultural shifts ensure that firearm pricing will remain sensitive to political and social forces for years to come.

Useful article

Categories
Born again Cynic! COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Points of Contention by T.L. Davis

There’s a couple of issues where I might run into opposition among the readership and that’s all right, we can disagree and one might even enlighten the other. No harm, no foul.

First of all: data centers. I’ve already registered my complaints against them, not theoretical, political complaints, but issues that directly affect myself and my property.

So I question the need for the vast amount of the data centers being built and the incredible amount of debt being racked up to get them into place before the public has a say in their construction.

As a capitalist, it’s hard to deny that corporations that buy land have a right to build on that land whatever they want. However, a corporation should not be able to buy a parcel of land straddling a river and block the river with a damn to generate electricity, if it floods land they don’t own.

In a typical situation the corporation could do whatever it wanted and the people could explore their options once they found their property or rights being damaged. This is the same argument for the second topic: Flock cameras and government operated cameras of all sorts.

In a privately owned store, a person has a right to install security cameras to provide evidence of a crime committed against it. The hard drive of which would probably be purged to make room for more recent recordings, so that there is no ability of the government to subpoena months and months of footage, but could use that recent footage to provide evidence of a crime committed within the establishment.

The problem arises when these cameras rely on the cloud to store the footage. This is where Flock cameras and their ilk run afoul of the 4th Amendment rights of those who are not suspected of crimes, but simply moving throughout the area.

Cameras connected to WiFi or use cloud storage (data centers) are eminently hackable. In fact, one source claimed that while the police departments were accessing the Flock cameras (sometimes illegally), others of a non-law enforcement nature were too. This provides other security services, like private investigators, the ability to gather information to be used in a divorce proceeding.

Maybe, it would allow for groups to monitor and target individuals. How advantageous would that be to someone planning a terrorist attack or assassination?

The cumbersome nature of having to follow someone around to gather information in a divorce proceeding, or to plan a terrorist attack exposes those doing the surveillance and prohibits these activities to a rarified few. The expansiveness of it, the ease with which it can be obtained is the danger.

Once a camera is available to the cloud, it is no longer a security camera, but a surveillance camera and that’s where I find fault with both the Flock camera and the data centers available to house that data. The question to me still comes back the amount of the data centers.

People say, “we’ve had data centers for decades. What’s the problem? You’re being manipulated by the CCP.” I was never a fan of those data centers either, because what need is there, but to store information gathered through internet connections, cell transmissions and other modes of expected private communication?

The connection between data centers and AI seems rather tenuous and a bit of a distraction designed to allow for the surveillance state while seeming to inspire economic activity and beneficial use.

The data centers represent, to me, the ability to store data surreptitiously accumulated through passive spying on all human communication. When there were only a few, the limited number defeated the ability to store enough to impinge on individual rights of privacy to a great degree.

Not completely, but it was at a much better ratio than when there are 5,000 data centers and more being built all the time. The admonition that it’s necessary to keep up with China falls a little flat when China has 385 data centers and the US has 3,600-5,000.

Localities and states are sold on the idea of high-paying jobs in construction and operation, increased tax revenue and an invigorated economy. From a government perspective, there’s no downside. The people have to pay more in electricity. So, what? The people have to pay higher property taxes due to the imagined “invigorated economy.” So, what?

These government entities claim that the tax revenue from the data centers will reduce or eliminate property taxes. I’ll believe that when I see it. What I do suspect is initially some of the increased tax revenue might be used to offset some property taxes, if just to reduce opposition, but surely that will be obliterated when the counties get used to that increased income and come looking for more.

When it comes to terrorist activity, I can’t imagine a more beneficial weapon against the West than it’s own technology. A terrorist cell able to track a specific individual or target by hacking the Flock cameras and others, while never leaving the mosque, exposing themselves to observation and suspicion, seems to be a gift.

I know I’ll lose this argument. Americans are too addicted to convenience to deny themselves the advantages of perpetual spying.

They already take their personal surveillance devices with them wherever they go. They see, especially in the entertainment industry, the advantages of AI as a cost-reduction practice, despite the fact that anything coming out of AI already stinks, looks and feels too easy to give it value by the consumer, who rightfully thinks to himself: “Why should I pay to watch something I could create myself for $25 and share with my friends?”

The concept of using AI in warfare is too compelling to deny it simply because there’s a downside. “There’s good and bad in everything.” Yes, but the surveillance state we’re building will not be constrained to the military or law enforcement. It can and will be used by political and terrorist organizations. It’s being used right now by individuals in law enforcement to track romantic interests, romantic rivals and social enemies and we shrug.

A local police officer was just fired for using the Flock system over 100 times to track a romantic interest. How often is it happening where there is no consequence, where no one is monitoring?

On the other hand, a person who had been destroying Flock cameras, several of them, was arrested and put before a grand jury and subsequently set free, because they would not indict him. If the majority are willing to allow this, those having a stake in the privacy of the individual have a right and a duty to prevent it. The state can make whatever law they want, but people can reject it and refuse to indict.

All of the usual methods of operating a republic are gone. The constitution is ignored; radical judges are frustrating the will of the people to have legitimate elections and to deport illegal aliens; a surveillance state is being erected using our own taxes; our resources are being devoured against our interests and no one in congress is listening to our pleas for sanity. This is a classic example of when the people have to fend for themselves and do what is right, not just what is legal.

Categories
Born again Cynic! EVIL MF

The moment when it is pretty clear to me that this nation is going to die soon!

Yeah I know! There have always been evil and crazy folks out there, Also there has never been in short supply of them especially in my former state of California.

BUT

The “woman / mother” freely admitted in court under oath. ” Yeah I killed them with my bare hands” and these folks are basically cheering her for offing her small children?

Of course if it had been a man or an animal. Hopefully the mob would be forming for the “Necktie” Party outside the cell. Also the guards would go out on an extended coffee break.

BUT because she’s an “oppressed and has some mental problems” woman. Well she gets a get out of jail card.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Anybody out there want to bet that she gets off in the next trial. If the DA has the balls to try again. As I am willing to bet a nickel or two that

A. Will be no trial

B. If there is a trial she will get off and She is then named Mother of the Year by Planned Parenthood.

C. She shows up on the TV Show “The View” as the brave woman who took a hands on position to her problems.

Grumpy

PS It’s a bad day to quit drinking! Also how about this little nugget of info?

Lindsay Clancy supporters donating to her parents’ fundraiser have raised more than $1 million with contributions rolling in almost every minute amid a newly increased target.
On Friday, the fundraiser shared an update after Clancy’s trial collapsed stating that its new goal is $3 million. They are supporting a woman who has confessed to killing her own children. That should shake you to your core.
Categories
Born again Cynic! California Paint me surprised by this

California Passes Conditional Ban on 3D Printers Without Firearm-Blocking Software by John Crump

A 3D printer producing an unfinished semi-automatic handgun frame on its build plate.
California AB 2047 could require 3D printers sold in the state to inspect digital files and block print jobs involving firearms or machine-gun conversion devices. Credit: AI-generated editorial image created for AmmoLand News.

California has passed AB 2047, the California Firearm Printing Prevention Act, and the bill is now on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk.

The measure, authored by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would eventually require consumer 3D printers sold or transferred in the state to include “firearm blocking technology” intended to identify and stop print jobs for firearms and certain illegal parts, including machine-gun conversion devices. After weeks of amendments, the Legislature sent the enrolled bill to the governor in the closing hours of the 2026 session. Newsom has until the end of September to sign or veto it.

The version that reached his desk is far narrower than the bill that first cleared the Assembly in May. The Senate stripped several of the most aggressive enforcement tools after lawmakers and industry groups argued they were technologically infeasible or overbroad. Gone are the original criminal misdemeanor for disabling the software, the $25,000-per-violation civil penalties, the mandatory manufacturer self-attestation process, and a public roster of “compliant” models.

The final text keeps an exemption for printers used exclusively to make entertainment-industry props and lets the California Department of Justice create additional exceptions by regulation. It also shields people who share digital firearm files solely to test or develop blocking software.

What remains is a delayed, contingent mandate. Beginning no later than July 1, 2027, the DOJ must check quarterly whether ASTM International has published industry standards for firearm-blocking technology on 3D printers. If ASTM issues qualifying standards, the department then has 24 months to publish its own written guidance or regulations describing minimum performance requirements. One year after those state standards appear, it would become unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or transfer a 3D printer in California that lacks compliant blocking technology. If ASTM has not published standards by July 1, 2029, the department is relieved of further duties under the act, and the sales restriction may never take effect.

The bill does not operate in a vacuum. California already prohibits unlicensed people from using a 3D printer or CNC mill to manufacture a firearm under Penal Code § 29185. Separate statutes restrict machines whose “sole or primary function” is to make guns and create civil liability for distributing “digital firearm manufacturing code” to unlicensed persons. AB 1263 and related 2025–26 measures further expanded definitions of firearm manufacturing machines and accessories effective January 1, 2026. AB 2047 tries to move one step upstream by making the printer itself refuse certain files.

California is not the first state down this path. New York enacted a similar blocking-technology law earlier this year. Sacramento modeled AB 2047 on that approach, then made the California version more conditional after the Senate rewrite.

Critics say the concept still fails on both technology and law. 3D-printing companies, the ACLU of California, Hollywood prop shops, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and gun-rights groups argue that detection algorithms are easy to evade with slightly modified files, offline machines, older printers already in circulation, or out-of-state purchases. They also raise First Amendment concerns about treating design files as something the state can force hardware makers to censor, and they warn that unreliable software would burden schools, small businesses, and hobbyists. Several analyses noted that the Senate rewrite left the actual sales ban hanging on a private standards body that may never act.

Supporters, including Everytown for Gun Safety and the bill’s author, frame AB 2047 as a response to recovered 3D-printed guns and unfinished frames. They describe it as a way to cut off a pipeline for untraceable weapons before a file becomes a firearm.

Even if Newsom signs the bill, nothing changes at the store counter tomorrow. The mandate is years away, if it arrives at all. The practical fight now is whether ASTM writes a standard the state can adopt—and whether software that must inspect every print job can ever work well enough to survive both evasion and a courtroom.

Categories
Born again Cynic! Darwin would of approved of this! Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom

The Berlin Trap That is Still Destroying Africa Today

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Well I thought it was funny!

Reality sure can be a B*tch at times huh?