Was thinking about this in relation to the M1 Carbine, but it holds for a lot of firearms. There are two types of accuracy, which can depend on the firearm itself or the user or both.
Best accuracy is what you can get under ideal conditions; the best possible load for accuracy under the best possible firing conditions with the best possible aiming system.
Practical is what you can get with the best ammo for THAT USE with standard sights under field conditions. That's how I put it, anyway.
You can set a rifle up to get the finest possible accuracy; match sights or scope, load tailored for accuracy, solid bench with solid rests fore & aft, etc. It may be accurate as hell, but not much use for hunting or, if things go to hell, fighting. That's 'best' accuracy.
Practical is what you can get with, call it 'working' loads and sights and a stock you'd actually carry around, working from either a field expedient rest or shooting position.
The sights on the M1 Garand and Carbine both are NOT designed for match shooting; the front blades are thick to be easier to see in bad light and faster to line up, the rear aperture sized for the same(though for field use it could actually be a bit larger with no problem). They can deliver very good accuracy, but there's a reason people trying to wring the best out of a Garand use different sights; to get a more precise sight picture on targets.
I like shooting iron sights, especially on something like the M1's. I decided to try out the scope idea for two reasons: to get a better sight for testing loads, and to see how the idea would work out for field shooting. And fact is that on some indoor ranges the light makes it a bit difficult at times for me to shoot a rifle well; harder to hold a good sight picture in dim light. So far, I think this setup would work quite well for field use, the mount- with a tight-fitting handguard- doesn't shift, fast pickup, same things that have the military using lots of optical sights now.
I don't think this mount idea would work as well on an M1 Garand. The rear handguard, for best accuracy, HAS to have a bit of fore & aft play, maybe 1/10 of an inch, and that is not a good thing to mount a scope on. Especially on a hard-recoiling rifle like this. So I think the type that mounts directly to the barrel, replacing the handguard, would be better. I'll have to see how taking the handguard off & replacing on the carbine affects things, I think it should hold zero pretty well.
We'll see.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
I love it when an idea actually works
the way it was supposed to. Also, an ammo report.
Note: no pictures, as my daughter has borrowed my camera for the next week or so. I'll either update this or do a new post with pics when possible.
In this case, the homemade scout mount for the M1 Carbine. I took it to the range today to try out. Indoor range, so it's only 30 yards, but enough for a trial. And it worked nicely. I'd wondered if the handguard would be stable enough for a solid mount, but over about fifty rounds nothing shifted. Started off way high & right(no surprise) and a little trial & adjust put it on point of aim, after which tried for accuracy. I was using- in effect- three different loads. Main was some GI-spec I bought from GI Brass, the rest some reloads I put together using Lake City brass and 110-grain FMJ bullets. First group of five with the GI stuff produced one long hole less than 3/4" long and about one bullet-width wide; not what I expected from this little rifle. The reloads were made up of
(DISCLAIMER: These are loads I got from the Lyman manual. They worked in MY rifle; that's no guarantee they'll work in yours or with your reloading style. As with any loads, START at the minimum and work up from there. What you do with load info and the results you get are NOT under my control.)
Lake City brass and bullets, Winchester small rifle primers and 2400 powder. There are several recommended for this cartridge, 2400 being one of them, and since I already use it I started with it. The minimum load functioned with no problems, but the next step up I used both functioned perfectly and gave accuracy equal to the GI stuff. I'll need to try both the GI and handloads at 50 and 100 from a solid bench, I think both will give good accuracy.
So far, the only problem with the mount is what I mentioned before, that the scope sits higher than I like. I could either find/make a lace-on cheekpad, or find the lowest-rise scope rings I can and put those on. I think the low rings would make a big difference. This setup would also work very well with a red-dot sight, and a good one would make the not-so-good cheek weld less of a factor if it sits a bit high.
As to ammo, a while back I bought one of the cans of .30 Carbine from GI Brass; it's made with Lake City components, and of the two hundred or so I've fired there have been zero problems and- as noted above- good accuracy. And as I fire it it gives me good-quality reloadable brass. I used some of their bullets for the reloads, and they are of fine quality and worked beautifully.
The other ammo was with the Benelli, some Federal Tactical Low Recoil slugs I picked up at the gun show. They throw a 1oz. slug, no velocity listed on the box. I fired five rounds at 30 yards, just resting my left hand on the bench. Four produced one big hole a little less than 1.75" long and a little under 1" wide, measuring center-to-center; one called flyer landed an inch or so left of the bottom of the group and a little low. Recoil was noticeably less than the S&B 00 buck I fired before this. I want to try this stuff off a bench at 50 and 100, too; if this is any indication this Federal stuff is a winner.
Now, about the light. I tried a suggestion; painted the inside of the mounting clamp with contact cement, let it dry thoroughly and then clamped the light in. This is why I started the shotgun with the S&B buck, to try this out, and the idea didn't work. After five rounds the light had shifted a long ways forward, so on to the next idea. I'm thinking take a Dremel and cutoff wheel(got to get a new Dremel, mine died) and cut some grooves in the inside of the mount, then put something like a piece of bicycle inner tube between mount & light; that might grab on both enough to hold it in place. For home defense this shouldn't be a real big factor, but I don't like having a setup that I don't KNOW will hold steady however many rounds I fire. The light itself, by the way, still works perfectly.
Note: no pictures, as my daughter has borrowed my camera for the next week or so. I'll either update this or do a new post with pics when possible.
In this case, the homemade scout mount for the M1 Carbine. I took it to the range today to try out. Indoor range, so it's only 30 yards, but enough for a trial. And it worked nicely. I'd wondered if the handguard would be stable enough for a solid mount, but over about fifty rounds nothing shifted. Started off way high & right(no surprise) and a little trial & adjust put it on point of aim, after which tried for accuracy. I was using- in effect- three different loads. Main was some GI-spec I bought from GI Brass, the rest some reloads I put together using Lake City brass and 110-grain FMJ bullets. First group of five with the GI stuff produced one long hole less than 3/4" long and about one bullet-width wide; not what I expected from this little rifle. The reloads were made up of
(DISCLAIMER: These are loads I got from the Lyman manual. They worked in MY rifle; that's no guarantee they'll work in yours or with your reloading style. As with any loads, START at the minimum and work up from there. What you do with load info and the results you get are NOT under my control.)
Lake City brass and bullets, Winchester small rifle primers and 2400 powder. There are several recommended for this cartridge, 2400 being one of them, and since I already use it I started with it. The minimum load functioned with no problems, but the next step up I used both functioned perfectly and gave accuracy equal to the GI stuff. I'll need to try both the GI and handloads at 50 and 100 from a solid bench, I think both will give good accuracy.
So far, the only problem with the mount is what I mentioned before, that the scope sits higher than I like. I could either find/make a lace-on cheekpad, or find the lowest-rise scope rings I can and put those on. I think the low rings would make a big difference. This setup would also work very well with a red-dot sight, and a good one would make the not-so-good cheek weld less of a factor if it sits a bit high.
As to ammo, a while back I bought one of the cans of .30 Carbine from GI Brass; it's made with Lake City components, and of the two hundred or so I've fired there have been zero problems and- as noted above- good accuracy. And as I fire it it gives me good-quality reloadable brass. I used some of their bullets for the reloads, and they are of fine quality and worked beautifully.
The other ammo was with the Benelli, some Federal Tactical Low Recoil slugs I picked up at the gun show. They throw a 1oz. slug, no velocity listed on the box. I fired five rounds at 30 yards, just resting my left hand on the bench. Four produced one big hole a little less than 1.75" long and a little under 1" wide, measuring center-to-center; one called flyer landed an inch or so left of the bottom of the group and a little low. Recoil was noticeably less than the S&B 00 buck I fired before this. I want to try this stuff off a bench at 50 and 100, too; if this is any indication this Federal stuff is a winner.
Now, about the light. I tried a suggestion; painted the inside of the mounting clamp with contact cement, let it dry thoroughly and then clamped the light in. This is why I started the shotgun with the S&B buck, to try this out, and the idea didn't work. After five rounds the light had shifted a long ways forward, so on to the next idea. I'm thinking take a Dremel and cutoff wheel(got to get a new Dremel, mine died) and cut some grooves in the inside of the mount, then put something like a piece of bicycle inner tube between mount & light; that might grab on both enough to hold it in place. For home defense this shouldn't be a real big factor, but I don't like having a setup that I don't KNOW will hold steady however many rounds I fire. The light itself, by the way, still works perfectly.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
An experiment
Ever since Jeff Cooper started the scout rifle noise, you've been able to go to any gunboard and write "What do you think of this?" and start a fight. Responses will range from "Greatest thing ever!" to "Idiotic idea".
I'm in the middle. Not the best of all worlds, but it definately has its uses. A red-dot is very nice, but at a distance some magnification can be good, and I think, despite what Kim says, a low-power scope out front on a .30-30 is a wonderful idea for hunting.
While back had a chance to shoot a M1 Carbine, and- despite expectations- fell in love with the damn thing. And had a chance to buy one a while later, and grabbed it(seeing what prices have done lately, I'm damn glad I did). So I've got a batch of ball ammo for it, and I've been enjoying shooting it, and I had the thought this would be a fine rifle for the scout-mount concept. You could use the same mount for either a scope or red-dot depending on which suits you.
Looking around I found Sportsmans's Guide has this Carbine Tactical Tri-Rail Forearm Mount,
which replaces the handguard and clamps directly to the barrel. That was the only one I saw; it would do, but a: I don't need the tri-rail setup, just wanted one on top and b: being cheap I didn't want to spend that much without knowing if I'd like it. So, the experiment.
At the gun show over the weekend I found an old carbine handguard. Took a piece of walnut(it's hard, and I had a scrap piece) and rounded one side to match the groove in the handguard top, then sanded it so the top would be level. I had a short piece of scope base, so put this guard on the rifle and marked the centerline, then took it off and drilled two mounting holes. Screwed the base on, stuck on a scope I had on a .22 pistol with some rings I'd picked up a while back(nice to have spares), and here 'tis:
It sits a bit high; lower rings would make a big difference there. And there's the possibility the mount being on the handguard as opposed to the barrel may not be as solid as I'd need, it only taking a tiny bit of shifting to make a big difference. However, this is not a 200-300 yard rifle, it a 150 at most(no matter what the sight says). In any case, it's a good testbed for this. If I really like it, I can do things to sit it lower or lock it a bit more solidly, or if the concept is good but I need a mount on the barrel, I can get one of the units from SG, idiot side rails and all.
Times like this I wish I had some machinist training and access to a milling machine, I could make a base that locked solidly to the barrel and mounted the scope nice and low. Maybe later, for now I'll have to see how this works.
I'm in the middle. Not the best of all worlds, but it definately has its uses. A red-dot is very nice, but at a distance some magnification can be good, and I think, despite what Kim says, a low-power scope out front on a .30-30 is a wonderful idea for hunting.
While back had a chance to shoot a M1 Carbine, and- despite expectations- fell in love with the damn thing. And had a chance to buy one a while later, and grabbed it(seeing what prices have done lately, I'm damn glad I did). So I've got a batch of ball ammo for it, and I've been enjoying shooting it, and I had the thought this would be a fine rifle for the scout-mount concept. You could use the same mount for either a scope or red-dot depending on which suits you.
Looking around I found Sportsmans's Guide has this Carbine Tactical Tri-Rail Forearm Mount,
which replaces the handguard and clamps directly to the barrel. That was the only one I saw; it would do, but a: I don't need the tri-rail setup, just wanted one on top and b: being cheap I didn't want to spend that much without knowing if I'd like it. So, the experiment.
At the gun show over the weekend I found an old carbine handguard. Took a piece of walnut(it's hard, and I had a scrap piece) and rounded one side to match the groove in the handguard top, then sanded it so the top would be level. I had a short piece of scope base, so put this guard on the rifle and marked the centerline, then took it off and drilled two mounting holes. Screwed the base on, stuck on a scope I had on a .22 pistol with some rings I'd picked up a while back(nice to have spares), and here 'tis:
It sits a bit high; lower rings would make a big difference there. And there's the possibility the mount being on the handguard as opposed to the barrel may not be as solid as I'd need, it only taking a tiny bit of shifting to make a big difference. However, this is not a 200-300 yard rifle, it a 150 at most(no matter what the sight says). In any case, it's a good testbed for this. If I really like it, I can do things to sit it lower or lock it a bit more solidly, or if the concept is good but I need a mount on the barrel, I can get one of the units from SG, idiot side rails and all.
Times like this I wish I had some machinist training and access to a milling machine, I could make a base that locked solidly to the barrel and mounted the scope nice and low. Maybe later, for now I'll have to see how this works.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Basic Training update
They qualified with their M16s, and he missed Expert by one point. Which I'm confident he'll make up next time. Training with night-vision sights and CCO(Close Combat Optics).
Speaking of CCO, anybody recognize which one this is?
I know I've seen it before, but can't think of the name/maker to save my ass.
From what he's said, the worst day so far- no including the gas chamber- was the day on the range when, at 112 degrees, the odd late-summer storm blew through and soaked everyone; the next few hours in soaked clothes and armor in 100+ temps were fairly miserable.
Apparently big advances have been made in military cooking, as he says the food is pretty good.
No sick call, no "WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO?!?" reported, I'd have to say so far, so good. Whether from his preparation and expectations or their having toned it down, he still says Basic is a lot easier than expected, which is a bit worrisome. It SHOULD be tough; if it's not tough enough, will it get the training through to the class?
In any case, life continues.
Speaking of CCO, anybody recognize which one this is?
I know I've seen it before, but can't think of the name/maker to save my ass.
From what he's said, the worst day so far- no including the gas chamber- was the day on the range when, at 112 degrees, the odd late-summer storm blew through and soaked everyone; the next few hours in soaked clothes and armor in 100+ temps were fairly miserable.
Apparently big advances have been made in military cooking, as he says the food is pretty good.
No sick call, no "WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO?!?" reported, I'd have to say so far, so good. Whether from his preparation and expectations or their having toned it down, he still says Basic is a lot easier than expected, which is a bit worrisome. It SHOULD be tough; if it's not tough enough, will it get the training through to the class?
In any case, life continues.
The Crocodile Hunter bites the big one
in a truly strange fashion.
A stingray barb through the heart? How the hell do you manage that? At the risk of being overly insensitive, considering some of the crap he's done it was pretty obvious when he bought it it would be messing with some animal; it just caught up with him.
If by some chance a member of his family reads this, you have my condolences. No strings, no exceptions. Losing a family member almost always sucks.
I can't help it, though; can anyone think of a more oddball way for a guy who works with animals to buy it?
A stingray barb through the heart? How the hell do you manage that? At the risk of being overly insensitive, considering some of the crap he's done it was pretty obvious when he bought it it would be messing with some animal; it just caught up with him.
If by some chance a member of his family reads this, you have my condolences. No strings, no exceptions. Losing a family member almost always sucks.
I can't help it, though; can anyone think of a more oddball way for a guy who works with animals to buy it?
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Gun show
Had a nice one at the fairgrounds this weekend. Lots of stuff to look at and people to talk to. Picked up some ammo and parts, and courageously walked away from some things I really, really wanted... dammit.
One man had a National Match M1 Garand, that on closer inspection turned out to have a Krieger match barrel. And he wanted $1000 for it. Let's see, the barrel alone costs $400, and a rifle with the match sights, trigger, etc... damn, I need more money.
At least they didn't have one thing. Few days ago I went by H&H range to look around and take another drool at the S&W 1911PD I mentioned before. And Will, the bastard, had to show me something. They make a full-size 1911 with the Scandium frame. Heavier than the compact size but not by much, and that extra weight out front would be real nice when shooting heavy loads, and it only cost a few dollars more than the compact. Will is an evil man, I must warn you: "Who can afford anything? Since when is that an excuse not to buy it?" So I didn't have to look at one of those again, at least until I go shooting at H&H again.
One thing I've noticed is that the shortage of 7.62x39 is well and truly over, and so are the prices that you used to find. Best I saw worked out to about $3/box and a lot of it was higher. Made me glad I bought some when I did. A while back Sportsman's Guide had some listed for a decent price, and I had a $10 off coupon, so I ordered. And at the checkout they had a deal: join the Guide Club and get double the usual discount a member gets AND free shipping. I'd been thinking about joining for a while, so went ahead, and it wound up with the cost of the ammo being about $2.40/box. By the way, one thing I've noticed about their shipping: on a case of 1000 rounds it's listed as a 'heavy/bulky' item they tack an extra shipping charge onto, but ordering two cases of 500 did NOT have that added on. Odd, but handy.
One thing I've noticed at shows is a lot fewer shotguns with pistol grips on the tables. Never really understood why the damn things were popular. I don't mean the pistol grip on a stock, I mean a pistol grip only with no shoulder stock. Recoil on a 12 guage being what it is, I cannot imagine wanting to fire one of them. Chris at Anarchangel has written on them and notes that as big as he is, he can't handle more than one or two rounds with one. I guess a few of the people who bought them told friends how they wound up with their wrist in a brace and word got around.
All in all, a good show.
One man had a National Match M1 Garand, that on closer inspection turned out to have a Krieger match barrel. And he wanted $1000 for it. Let's see, the barrel alone costs $400, and a rifle with the match sights, trigger, etc... damn, I need more money.
At least they didn't have one thing. Few days ago I went by H&H range to look around and take another drool at the S&W 1911PD I mentioned before. And Will, the bastard, had to show me something. They make a full-size 1911 with the Scandium frame. Heavier than the compact size but not by much, and that extra weight out front would be real nice when shooting heavy loads, and it only cost a few dollars more than the compact. Will is an evil man, I must warn you: "Who can afford anything? Since when is that an excuse not to buy it?" So I didn't have to look at one of those again, at least until I go shooting at H&H again.
One thing I've noticed is that the shortage of 7.62x39 is well and truly over, and so are the prices that you used to find. Best I saw worked out to about $3/box and a lot of it was higher. Made me glad I bought some when I did. A while back Sportsman's Guide had some listed for a decent price, and I had a $10 off coupon, so I ordered. And at the checkout they had a deal: join the Guide Club and get double the usual discount a member gets AND free shipping. I'd been thinking about joining for a while, so went ahead, and it wound up with the cost of the ammo being about $2.40/box. By the way, one thing I've noticed about their shipping: on a case of 1000 rounds it's listed as a 'heavy/bulky' item they tack an extra shipping charge onto, but ordering two cases of 500 did NOT have that added on. Odd, but handy.
One thing I've noticed at shows is a lot fewer shotguns with pistol grips on the tables. Never really understood why the damn things were popular. I don't mean the pistol grip on a stock, I mean a pistol grip only with no shoulder stock. Recoil on a 12 guage being what it is, I cannot imagine wanting to fire one of them. Chris at Anarchangel has written on them and notes that as big as he is, he can't handle more than one or two rounds with one. I guess a few of the people who bought them told friends how they wound up with their wrist in a brace and word got around.
All in all, a good show.
Forced conversions
There's been a lot of stuff written and said over the forced conversion of the two Fox news people. It really seems to point out that the 'Religeon of Peace' noise is just exactly that: noise.
Here you have people being told "You will convert- on camera so we can broadcast it- or we will kill you". So they do the 'conversion' and(may have been the idea the whole time, who knows?) are released. Guess what? The fact that they were forced into it doesn't matter, by not living up to it they are now considered apostates and subject to being killed for it.
Christianity has had its share of idiots who thought forcing people to convert was a good thing. There was a book written a few years ago about how it used to be a somewhat common thing in Italy for a housekeeper or some other christian working in a Jewish household would tell a priest that they had 'baptized' a baby or child, upon which the authorities would take the child to be raised as a Christian; I believe it was actually illegal for a 'Christian' child to be raised in a Jewish home. Well, that crap ended a long time ago. Oh yeah, there are those who still think it's a good idea, and they are a small minority that everyone else looks on as a retarded fool. A 'conversion' attained by force means NOTHING. Lots of Jews were put in that position during the Inquisition, and those who chose 'conversion' were watched closely for years because they were not trusted. The bastards who did this knew that most didn't mean it, they just didn't want to die in some horrible manner; and the vile excuses for men figured that if they kept parents acting like Christians out of fear, their kids would be raised as Christians so it didn't matter that the parents were doomed to hell for lying about converting; a few less 'official' Jews and some more kids raised in the church. A more contemptable, disgusting mindset is hard to imagine. And this was at a time when many, in many places, had written specifically that forcing someone to convert was a travesty, meant nothing, and was to be condemned. Zealots aren't known for seeing the holes in their thoughts, or caring about them when pointed out.
So what we're dealing with is an attitude the civilized world dumped a long time ago(barring the few idiots) that is the reigning attitude for much of Islam. They have the attitude of the bad guy in The Shadow: "Join me; or die". Don't care if you were forced; hell, that's part of the rules for them! If you say you are/act as moslem for any reason, that's it. If you ever then say you're not, that the conversion was not true, you're under a death sentance. Which is one reason so many people are pissed at places like that CA school that had students dressing and acting like muslims for classes; according to the idiots, that makes them muslim and subject to sharia law. Period.
I've given up on the 'moderate muslims' of the world. With a few exceptions they won't speak out against it. They either believe that's the way it should be, or defend it because "Hey, they're of the umma(sp?) so I won't say anything against them", or are in fear of other muslims. So we've got muslims in the U.S. who know people planning terror operations, raising money for terrorists, etc., who won't report them because "they may be jihadi assholes, but they're our jihadi assholes". Which means, for all practical purposes, they are the enemy.
That's about as blunt as you can put it, and I'm sure it would piss various people, especially the usual suspects, off. I don't care. I'm sick of it being avoided at all costs by the major media, I'm sick of politicians who care for nothing but sucking up to some group who might get him votes actively ignoring it, and I'm tired of being called a racist or bigot for saying it. By the way, 'muslim' is not a race, it's a religeon. And I won't plead guilty to being a bigot for recognizing a threat to our civilization. I really don't give a rats ass what religeon someone practices unless their practice of it makes it- and them- a threat to me and mine. At which point my tolerance goes out the window. Whena religeon sees forced conversions as a good thing, and wants everyone who won't convert dead(dhimmi will do in some cases, but death is better according to the BPMs), and their sincere belief says they have to conquer the world for their religeon, they are a threat. And those members of that religeon who really don't agree with it but won't speak against it, well, they're part of the threat.
This has teh potential to get monumentally more ugly than it is now, and I'm afraid the only thing that would prevent it is naked violence; taking Syria or Iran, maybe both, and stomping the place flat. Figuratively speaking would be better; decapitate the governments and stomp the armed forces that enforce their rule. The aftermath would be messy as hell. But not nearly som messy as having President Tom(as Glenn Beck calls him) of Iran getting nukes to hasten the return of the 12th Imam.
Additional: Malkin points to this by Diane West on the subject, well worth reading
Here you have people being told "You will convert- on camera so we can broadcast it- or we will kill you". So they do the 'conversion' and(may have been the idea the whole time, who knows?) are released. Guess what? The fact that they were forced into it doesn't matter, by not living up to it they are now considered apostates and subject to being killed for it.
Christianity has had its share of idiots who thought forcing people to convert was a good thing. There was a book written a few years ago about how it used to be a somewhat common thing in Italy for a housekeeper or some other christian working in a Jewish household would tell a priest that they had 'baptized' a baby or child, upon which the authorities would take the child to be raised as a Christian; I believe it was actually illegal for a 'Christian' child to be raised in a Jewish home. Well, that crap ended a long time ago. Oh yeah, there are those who still think it's a good idea, and they are a small minority that everyone else looks on as a retarded fool. A 'conversion' attained by force means NOTHING. Lots of Jews were put in that position during the Inquisition, and those who chose 'conversion' were watched closely for years because they were not trusted. The bastards who did this knew that most didn't mean it, they just didn't want to die in some horrible manner; and the vile excuses for men figured that if they kept parents acting like Christians out of fear, their kids would be raised as Christians so it didn't matter that the parents were doomed to hell for lying about converting; a few less 'official' Jews and some more kids raised in the church. A more contemptable, disgusting mindset is hard to imagine. And this was at a time when many, in many places, had written specifically that forcing someone to convert was a travesty, meant nothing, and was to be condemned. Zealots aren't known for seeing the holes in their thoughts, or caring about them when pointed out.
So what we're dealing with is an attitude the civilized world dumped a long time ago(barring the few idiots) that is the reigning attitude for much of Islam. They have the attitude of the bad guy in The Shadow: "Join me; or die". Don't care if you were forced; hell, that's part of the rules for them! If you say you are/act as moslem for any reason, that's it. If you ever then say you're not, that the conversion was not true, you're under a death sentance. Which is one reason so many people are pissed at places like that CA school that had students dressing and acting like muslims for classes; according to the idiots, that makes them muslim and subject to sharia law. Period.
I've given up on the 'moderate muslims' of the world. With a few exceptions they won't speak out against it. They either believe that's the way it should be, or defend it because "Hey, they're of the umma(sp?) so I won't say anything against them", or are in fear of other muslims. So we've got muslims in the U.S. who know people planning terror operations, raising money for terrorists, etc., who won't report them because "they may be jihadi assholes, but they're our jihadi assholes". Which means, for all practical purposes, they are the enemy.
That's about as blunt as you can put it, and I'm sure it would piss various people, especially the usual suspects, off. I don't care. I'm sick of it being avoided at all costs by the major media, I'm sick of politicians who care for nothing but sucking up to some group who might get him votes actively ignoring it, and I'm tired of being called a racist or bigot for saying it. By the way, 'muslim' is not a race, it's a religeon. And I won't plead guilty to being a bigot for recognizing a threat to our civilization. I really don't give a rats ass what religeon someone practices unless their practice of it makes it- and them- a threat to me and mine. At which point my tolerance goes out the window. Whena religeon sees forced conversions as a good thing, and wants everyone who won't convert dead(dhimmi will do in some cases, but death is better according to the BPMs), and their sincere belief says they have to conquer the world for their religeon, they are a threat. And those members of that religeon who really don't agree with it but won't speak against it, well, they're part of the threat.
This has teh potential to get monumentally more ugly than it is now, and I'm afraid the only thing that would prevent it is naked violence; taking Syria or Iran, maybe both, and stomping the place flat. Figuratively speaking would be better; decapitate the governments and stomp the armed forces that enforce their rule. The aftermath would be messy as hell. But not nearly som messy as having President Tom(as Glenn Beck calls him) of Iran getting nukes to hasten the return of the 12th Imam.
Additional: Malkin points to this by Diane West on the subject, well worth reading
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Further proof many enviroweenies are idiots
Over at Wizbang Jay Tea did a post on some of the electric car idiocy, such as CA passing "a law requiring that (as I recall) 5% of all the vehicles it sold be zero-emission vehicles.", and noting that they never did figure out how to make people buy the expensive electric toys. Somebody made, among other things, the comment that 'driving is a privilege'(which I believe is crap) so I posted this comment:
I just love the 'driving is a privilege' crap. Right up there with "You don't NEED to own that".
I damn well have a right to move myself around in the manner I choose, and I'm sick of it being described as a 'privilege'.
"One more thing for the sad people who find "a powerful" automobile more of a statement then a socially conscious decision directed at what's best for your kids and countries future the electric automobile will silently blow the doors of any of the best current noisy polluting gas hogs."
Guess what? I don't buy a car or firearm or house or whatever as a 'socially conscious decision'. You show me an electric car that will hold the loads I sometimes need to carry, for at least 250 miles at highway speeds without recharging AND is actually affordable, and I'll consider it. Until then, bite me.
"the electric automobile will silently blow the doors of any of the best current noisy polluting gas hogs." Not in this universe it won't. And I'm curious: what power source are you planning on to produce all the electricity needed to recharge all those batteries? Nuclear, gas, coal or oil-fired plants? 'Cause you're sure as hell not going to get that additional power from a solar cell on your roof or a little windmill in your backyard.
Not exactly temperate, but I'm tired, and sick of 'socially conscious' people telling me how I should be allowed to live.
Well, it seems I hurt his tender feelings, so he- in three different comments, yet- came up with
No you don't have a right to drive a car if you're 14 years old, have too many violations, have big metal spiked tires.....and I would add...you shouldn't be able to drive an SUV unless it meets the same fuel efficiency standards as regular cars.
and
"Guess what? I don't buy a car or firearm or house or whatever as a 'socially conscious decision'. "
Posted by: Firehand
Right and that's what bank robbers and axe murderers say about why they rob banks and axe murder people. And that's why we have laws to protect banks and people from being hacked up. And laws to protect kids with asthma as well as our national interest from people who will only worry about what's good for themselves and not about how their actions effect others and our country as a whole.
and finally
Wow every time you get in the car you have a full load and go 250 miles??? That's too bad for you because for most people over 90% of their trips are easily with in the range of an electric auto.
The problem is electric auto's are so efficient and need so little maintenance that they would cut big into the auto and gas industries profits.
But since there are enough people like you who are happy to have their democracy subservient to corporate interest no electric autos are available for the many people like me who would like to have them. Hopefully Tesla Motors will be the beginning of a very successful business that puts the big three out of business and gives the treasonous oil companies the equivalent of a solid kick to the groin.
Let's see, choosing a vehicle he doesn't like is equivalent to driving underage, with illegal tires, with a suspended license and my truck should get the same mileage as 'regular cars'. Hey, asshat, it's NOT a regular car, it's a TRUCK. Which doesn't get the same mileage as a lot of 'regular cars'. I'd flat LOVE it if I got, oh, 35 or 40mpg, but that ain't in the cards. Oh, by the way, an awful lot of 'regular cars' don't get that mileage, either.
Next, not considering 'socially conscious' ideals before buying something is equivalent to armed robbery and murder. Oh, and(you just knew it was coming, didn't you?) it means you don't care about The Children.
And finally, I'm supposed to buy an electric toy for- according to asshat- 90% of my trips will be taken care of by it. According to the Gospel of Asshat, at least. Well, tell you what, people choose a vehicle according to their overall needs. No, I don't always have a bed full of dirt or rock or lumber or tools; I don't always drive 250 miles nonstop. So what? Overall, a truck is what I choose, and what really seems to piss you off is you can't control it. I can actually choose a vehicle without you having a say in it, and I get the feeling that you just can't stand it.
Asshat, if electric cars were economical enough, and long-distance enough, and load-carrying enough to make people happy, more people would buy them. The problem is, they're not. And every effort to force people to buy the damn things fails because of it. You may not believe this, but I really like clean air and water. I don't like having to depend on a bunch of prophet-worshipping idiots with a death wish for oil. But electric cars just don't cut it at this point for lots and lots of people, and they won't unless/until they improve the tech enough to overcome the problems. Which, by the way, include the size of them; getting into and out of a low-slung car is a problem for some people.
And let's not forget one of the big problems: where does all the electricity come from for all those new electric cars? It doesn't just appear in an outlet, it has to be generated somewhere. And since people like you generally scream bloody murder at the idea of nuclear plants, OR new oil/gas/coal-fired power plants AND would flat forbid oil exploration in our own territory, I have no idea how you plan to recharge the batteries(fairly inefficient process from what I've read; and when an accident cracks the casing, you've got a toxic waste spill).
To borrow from something Steven den Beste once wrote, I guess you figure you'll make people buy the cars and plug them in and then the Pure Fucking Magic will happen to make the electricity appear to charge them.
I just love the 'driving is a privilege' crap. Right up there with "You don't NEED to own that".
I damn well have a right to move myself around in the manner I choose, and I'm sick of it being described as a 'privilege'.
"One more thing for the sad people who find "a powerful" automobile more of a statement then a socially conscious decision directed at what's best for your kids and countries future the electric automobile will silently blow the doors of any of the best current noisy polluting gas hogs."
Guess what? I don't buy a car or firearm or house or whatever as a 'socially conscious decision'. You show me an electric car that will hold the loads I sometimes need to carry, for at least 250 miles at highway speeds without recharging AND is actually affordable, and I'll consider it. Until then, bite me.
"the electric automobile will silently blow the doors of any of the best current noisy polluting gas hogs." Not in this universe it won't. And I'm curious: what power source are you planning on to produce all the electricity needed to recharge all those batteries? Nuclear, gas, coal or oil-fired plants? 'Cause you're sure as hell not going to get that additional power from a solar cell on your roof or a little windmill in your backyard.
Not exactly temperate, but I'm tired, and sick of 'socially conscious' people telling me how I should be allowed to live.
Well, it seems I hurt his tender feelings, so he- in three different comments, yet- came up with
No you don't have a right to drive a car if you're 14 years old, have too many violations, have big metal spiked tires.....and I would add...you shouldn't be able to drive an SUV unless it meets the same fuel efficiency standards as regular cars.
and
"Guess what? I don't buy a car or firearm or house or whatever as a 'socially conscious decision'. "
Posted by: Firehand
Right and that's what bank robbers and axe murderers say about why they rob banks and axe murder people. And that's why we have laws to protect banks and people from being hacked up. And laws to protect kids with asthma as well as our national interest from people who will only worry about what's good for themselves and not about how their actions effect others and our country as a whole.
and finally
Wow every time you get in the car you have a full load and go 250 miles??? That's too bad for you because for most people over 90% of their trips are easily with in the range of an electric auto.
The problem is electric auto's are so efficient and need so little maintenance that they would cut big into the auto and gas industries profits.
But since there are enough people like you who are happy to have their democracy subservient to corporate interest no electric autos are available for the many people like me who would like to have them. Hopefully Tesla Motors will be the beginning of a very successful business that puts the big three out of business and gives the treasonous oil companies the equivalent of a solid kick to the groin.
Let's see, choosing a vehicle he doesn't like is equivalent to driving underage, with illegal tires, with a suspended license and my truck should get the same mileage as 'regular cars'. Hey, asshat, it's NOT a regular car, it's a TRUCK. Which doesn't get the same mileage as a lot of 'regular cars'. I'd flat LOVE it if I got, oh, 35 or 40mpg, but that ain't in the cards. Oh, by the way, an awful lot of 'regular cars' don't get that mileage, either.
Next, not considering 'socially conscious' ideals before buying something is equivalent to armed robbery and murder. Oh, and(you just knew it was coming, didn't you?) it means you don't care about The Children.
And finally, I'm supposed to buy an electric toy for- according to asshat- 90% of my trips will be taken care of by it. According to the Gospel of Asshat, at least. Well, tell you what, people choose a vehicle according to their overall needs. No, I don't always have a bed full of dirt or rock or lumber or tools; I don't always drive 250 miles nonstop. So what? Overall, a truck is what I choose, and what really seems to piss you off is you can't control it. I can actually choose a vehicle without you having a say in it, and I get the feeling that you just can't stand it.
Asshat, if electric cars were economical enough, and long-distance enough, and load-carrying enough to make people happy, more people would buy them. The problem is, they're not. And every effort to force people to buy the damn things fails because of it. You may not believe this, but I really like clean air and water. I don't like having to depend on a bunch of prophet-worshipping idiots with a death wish for oil. But electric cars just don't cut it at this point for lots and lots of people, and they won't unless/until they improve the tech enough to overcome the problems. Which, by the way, include the size of them; getting into and out of a low-slung car is a problem for some people.
And let's not forget one of the big problems: where does all the electricity come from for all those new electric cars? It doesn't just appear in an outlet, it has to be generated somewhere. And since people like you generally scream bloody murder at the idea of nuclear plants, OR new oil/gas/coal-fired power plants AND would flat forbid oil exploration in our own territory, I have no idea how you plan to recharge the batteries(fairly inefficient process from what I've read; and when an accident cracks the casing, you've got a toxic waste spill).
To borrow from something Steven den Beste once wrote, I guess you figure you'll make people buy the cars and plug them in and then the Pure Fucking Magic will happen to make the electricity appear to charge them.
Friday, September 01, 2006
More on the UN and self-defense
Or the lack thereof from their point of view. I've been thinking about this, and I feel a mix of despair, rage and '#!**% you' toward the clowns in that organization, and the equally vile people in the EU and wherever else who push this crap.
I can't remember if this is someone else's wording or my own, I know I've read the same sentiment elsewhere: the ONLY reason for a govenment to take away the right to arms is because said government
A. Doesn't think you have the brains to own one,
B. Doesn't think anyone 'needs' to have arms(by the bureaucrats' definition),
C. Is planning on doing things the people won't like, and doesn't want them to have a serious means to resist, or
D. All of the above.
That's it. When you boil down all the bullshit wording in that UN document referenced in the previous post, that's all it is. "You cannot be trusted with arms, you don't need arms, you're so stupid you might resist our actions(which are for your own good if you were smart enough to understand that); therefore you cannot be allowed the ownership of arms".
The sad fact is that we've seen firsthand how the most basic rights can be eroded. 4th Amendment rights torn badly in the War On Drugs, for instance. In the case of the 2nd, originally most of the founders didn't think it even needed to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights; it was seen as such a basic and important right of free people that it need not be listed. Two or three states(can't remember offhand and I'm short of time) insisted that it MUST be listed, and if it wasn't they wouldn't sign onto the Constitution. Thank God for their stubbornness or we might be in the same position as Britain; a once accepted right of free people taken away by steps.
Maybe wouldn't have been as bad here; a combination of factors(the 'gun culture' John Ross writes of far more widespread, more hunters & target shooters, our frontier days a lot more recent) would have made it more difficult, especially in some states. But can anyone doubt that places now referred to as the People's Republics of Maryland and California and New York would have the same situation as Britain, or a total ban, if that inconvenient 2nd Amendment wasn't in the way? That sorry hypocrite Sen. Diane Feinstein has said flatly that if she thought there was enough support she'd present a bill banning handguns entirely(it may have been 'firearms' entirely). People like Chuck Schumer would do the same without a moments hesitation. And considering the way things work in D.C., especially with all those self-annointed 'elites' in the Senate, I think we would be in almost exactly the same situation as the Brits.
There was a series of books written about the Man-Kzin Wars(yeah, sci-fi). Start of the whole thing was that for generations the UN had been the world government and total disarmament of citazens had been accomplished. And in keeping with the 'peace at any cost' philosophy history had been edited. Drastically. War was not taught in any school except a few highly-restricted military ones; any kind of aggression, whether in play by kids or games for adults was forbidden and would get you 'treated' to fix your psychological problems; posession of restricted historical materials(books, video, anything of a pre-edited nature that showed non-approved history) would get you sent away to a camp; challenging the official version of things would get you sent away, the whole works. You would not be allowed in any way to challenge the Official History Of Man. Does anyone seriously doubt that, given the chance, that is not what the UN would do?
I would argue that this report is further evidence of that.
One of the finest examples of the mindset of the UN is the various genocides in Africa. In Rwanda the UN commander saw what was starting and said 'give me 2000 troops and authority to act and I can stop this'; and Kofi God-cursed Annan yanked out all but 200 of the troops he did have and forbade him to act. And hundreds of thousands died. In Darfur you have:
Evil moslem government
Evil proxies for the government
Unarmed people being raped, tortured, enslaved, murdered
And the UN talks. And talks. And does nothing. Apparently there's no kickbacks or bribes available so they don't want to get their damn hands messy with actually trying to DO SOMETHING.
Know what I'd love to see? Buy up a few thousand of the M/N 91/30's, M38's, SKS's, whatever that's on the market and a buttload of ammo. Hire a few trainers, send it all over to the people being attacked and set them up to kill the evil bastards attacking them. Along with the trainers hire a few people with some Stingers or SA7 missiles to kill the government aircraft that show up. Upside: people armed and able to protect themselves instead of hoping the God-cursed bureaucrats will finally do something, and lots of dead slavers. Downside: ?. I can't think of one. The UN would see armed peasants who won't take orders and won't wait to be saved as a horrible thing, the Sudan government would have purple kittens with pink spots and the peace-at-any-price people would be screaming themselves into strokes; personally, I'd say those belong in the 'upside' column.
To quote WILLisms:The UN's notion that there is "inadequate legal support" for the idea that self-defense is a human right is an agenda-driven wilful misreading of texts on the issue. 'Wilful misreading' is the right wording, I'd say, and it feeds directly into the UN drive for more and more power and control.
Additional
I just went over to Kevin's place and found this. Just a few choice bits:
The large increase has alarmed anti-gun charity International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which called for tighter checks on those seeking permission to possess large numbers of guns.
The spokesman for IANSA has called on the Government to bring forward the creation of a national register listing the details of all those who own a gun.
These little bastards are not going to be content until the actually have the world the Man-Kzin Wars started in. And I'm sick to death of them.
I can't remember if this is someone else's wording or my own, I know I've read the same sentiment elsewhere: the ONLY reason for a govenment to take away the right to arms is because said government
A. Doesn't think you have the brains to own one,
B. Doesn't think anyone 'needs' to have arms(by the bureaucrats' definition),
C. Is planning on doing things the people won't like, and doesn't want them to have a serious means to resist, or
D. All of the above.
That's it. When you boil down all the bullshit wording in that UN document referenced in the previous post, that's all it is. "You cannot be trusted with arms, you don't need arms, you're so stupid you might resist our actions(which are for your own good if you were smart enough to understand that); therefore you cannot be allowed the ownership of arms".
The sad fact is that we've seen firsthand how the most basic rights can be eroded. 4th Amendment rights torn badly in the War On Drugs, for instance. In the case of the 2nd, originally most of the founders didn't think it even needed to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights; it was seen as such a basic and important right of free people that it need not be listed. Two or three states(can't remember offhand and I'm short of time) insisted that it MUST be listed, and if it wasn't they wouldn't sign onto the Constitution. Thank God for their stubbornness or we might be in the same position as Britain; a once accepted right of free people taken away by steps.
Maybe wouldn't have been as bad here; a combination of factors(the 'gun culture' John Ross writes of far more widespread, more hunters & target shooters, our frontier days a lot more recent) would have made it more difficult, especially in some states. But can anyone doubt that places now referred to as the People's Republics of Maryland and California and New York would have the same situation as Britain, or a total ban, if that inconvenient 2nd Amendment wasn't in the way? That sorry hypocrite Sen. Diane Feinstein has said flatly that if she thought there was enough support she'd present a bill banning handguns entirely(it may have been 'firearms' entirely). People like Chuck Schumer would do the same without a moments hesitation. And considering the way things work in D.C., especially with all those self-annointed 'elites' in the Senate, I think we would be in almost exactly the same situation as the Brits.
There was a series of books written about the Man-Kzin Wars(yeah, sci-fi). Start of the whole thing was that for generations the UN had been the world government and total disarmament of citazens had been accomplished. And in keeping with the 'peace at any cost' philosophy history had been edited. Drastically. War was not taught in any school except a few highly-restricted military ones; any kind of aggression, whether in play by kids or games for adults was forbidden and would get you 'treated' to fix your psychological problems; posession of restricted historical materials(books, video, anything of a pre-edited nature that showed non-approved history) would get you sent away to a camp; challenging the official version of things would get you sent away, the whole works. You would not be allowed in any way to challenge the Official History Of Man. Does anyone seriously doubt that, given the chance, that is not what the UN would do?
I would argue that this report is further evidence of that.
One of the finest examples of the mindset of the UN is the various genocides in Africa. In Rwanda the UN commander saw what was starting and said 'give me 2000 troops and authority to act and I can stop this'; and Kofi God-cursed Annan yanked out all but 200 of the troops he did have and forbade him to act. And hundreds of thousands died. In Darfur you have:
Evil moslem government
Evil proxies for the government
Unarmed people being raped, tortured, enslaved, murdered
And the UN talks. And talks. And does nothing. Apparently there's no kickbacks or bribes available so they don't want to get their damn hands messy with actually trying to DO SOMETHING.
Know what I'd love to see? Buy up a few thousand of the M/N 91/30's, M38's, SKS's, whatever that's on the market and a buttload of ammo. Hire a few trainers, send it all over to the people being attacked and set them up to kill the evil bastards attacking them. Along with the trainers hire a few people with some Stingers or SA7 missiles to kill the government aircraft that show up. Upside: people armed and able to protect themselves instead of hoping the God-cursed bureaucrats will finally do something, and lots of dead slavers. Downside: ?. I can't think of one. The UN would see armed peasants who won't take orders and won't wait to be saved as a horrible thing, the Sudan government would have purple kittens with pink spots and the peace-at-any-price people would be screaming themselves into strokes; personally, I'd say those belong in the 'upside' column.
To quote WILLisms:The UN's notion that there is "inadequate legal support" for the idea that self-defense is a human right is an agenda-driven wilful misreading of texts on the issue. 'Wilful misreading' is the right wording, I'd say, and it feeds directly into the UN drive for more and more power and control.
Additional
I just went over to Kevin's place and found this. Just a few choice bits:
The large increase has alarmed anti-gun charity International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which called for tighter checks on those seeking permission to possess large numbers of guns.
The spokesman for IANSA has called on the Government to bring forward the creation of a national register listing the details of all those who own a gun.
These little bastards are not going to be content until the actually have the world the Man-Kzin Wars started in. And I'm sick to death of them.
Well, this pretty much makes it official:
The UN says you have no right to self-defense
Was looking through Instapundit and hit a link to this piece on a UN report. The Claremont post has this quote from the report:
No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles.
Please note the 'expressly set for in the primary sources' bit, it's important.
Both Instapundit and Claremont linked to this over at 'Of Arms and the Law' that goes more in-depth into the UN report. You really should read the whole thing at OAatL; there's too much to really summarize and the full impact of the UN outlook should not be minimized. I will note a few bits:
Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
22. Self-defence is broadly recognized in customary international law as a defense to criminal responsibility as shown by State practice. There is not evidence however that States have enacted self-defence as a freestanding right under their domestic laws, nor is there evidence of opinio juris that would compel States to recognize an independent, supervening right to self-defence that they must enforce in the context of their domestic jurisdictions as a supervening right.
And the one that, I think, REALLY gets to it:
25. Again, the Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context. Under this interpretation of international human rights law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.(emphasis mine in all the above)
Besides the already known fact that the UN detests the idea of armed citazens, I think this sums up a lot of the reason for this crap very well: if you recognize self-defense as a basic human right, you cannot deny people the means with which to defend themselves; whereas if self-defense is only a 'defense to criminal responsibility' then there is NO 'right' to self-defense and NO right to the means of it. And in the long run that doesn't just mean weapons, it means ANY training in combat that would help you defend yourself.
As is pointed out in the Claremont piece, "
Of course, as I have noted before the U.N., has grown to be hostile to the natural rights foundation of the United States by its very nature. At the foundation of the U.N.'s understanding of law is an idea that is irreconcilable with the natural rights foundation of the U.S. Hence the U.N. does not grasp the necessity of a natural right to self-defense, a right of inestimable importance to us, and formidable only to those who would be tyrants.
To the UN, 'rights' are something the state 'grants' to you.
Which means that the founders of this country would do one of two things: run the UN out, or just burn the damn place down.
Was looking through Instapundit and hit a link to this piece on a UN report. The Claremont post has this quote from the report:
No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles.
Please note the 'expressly set for in the primary sources' bit, it's important.
Both Instapundit and Claremont linked to this over at 'Of Arms and the Law' that goes more in-depth into the UN report. You really should read the whole thing at OAatL; there's too much to really summarize and the full impact of the UN outlook should not be minimized. I will note a few bits:
Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
22. Self-defence is broadly recognized in customary international law as a defense to criminal responsibility as shown by State practice. There is not evidence however that States have enacted self-defence as a freestanding right under their domestic laws, nor is there evidence of opinio juris that would compel States to recognize an independent, supervening right to self-defence that they must enforce in the context of their domestic jurisdictions as a supervening right.
And the one that, I think, REALLY gets to it:
25. Again, the Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context. Under this interpretation of international human rights law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.(emphasis mine in all the above)
Besides the already known fact that the UN detests the idea of armed citazens, I think this sums up a lot of the reason for this crap very well: if you recognize self-defense as a basic human right, you cannot deny people the means with which to defend themselves; whereas if self-defense is only a 'defense to criminal responsibility' then there is NO 'right' to self-defense and NO right to the means of it. And in the long run that doesn't just mean weapons, it means ANY training in combat that would help you defend yourself.
As is pointed out in the Claremont piece, "
Of course, as I have noted before the U.N., has grown to be hostile to the natural rights foundation of the United States by its very nature. At the foundation of the U.N.'s understanding of law is an idea that is irreconcilable with the natural rights foundation of the U.S. Hence the U.N. does not grasp the necessity of a natural right to self-defense, a right of inestimable importance to us, and formidable only to those who would be tyrants.
To the UN, 'rights' are something the state 'grants' to you.
Which means that the founders of this country would do one of two things: run the UN out, or just burn the damn place down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)