Saturday, March 02, 2013

There are offenses for which I tend to lean toward old punishments,

say, something involving heads on spikes...
Around 18,000 litres of Scotch poured into a local sewage works after the gaffe by staff at Chivas Brothers bottling plant.
It's... sacrilege, it is!

The aim isn't 'sensitivity in speech' or any such bullshit: it's control over what people say.

From a journalist who, up till now, has defended just about every damn thing Obama has done:
“I’m all for killing terrorists, but the question is, are you going to be the only one who is in charge of deciding weather you can kill an American citizen?” Williams asked. “You are allowing the president of the United States to decide who to kill and when to kill, who is an American citizen. I think that’s pretty appalling, in my opinion. I think that’s unconstitutional.”
Listen to the whole thing: all of a sudden he's singing the praises of individualism and free markets.  Little weasel.  He also does the 'Obama got bin Laden' line.

Speaking of which,
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show.
I'm guessing we'll need a magnum version

Yeah, might be a slight problem...

Ran across this a few days ago; A Very Bad Thing:
The KN-08 has been called a "game-changer" for the DPRK, and with good reason.  Assuming the missile achieves its projected range, the KN-08 would give Pyongyang a strike platform capable of reaching much of the CONUS.  And with a mobile launch platform--supported by one of the world's most advanced denial and deception programs--the KN-08 will be extremely difficult to track and target.  Among its various roles, the kN-08 could easily deliver a sudden, surprise attack against the U.S., giving the North increased leverage in its dealings with Washington, and our allies in the region.
The norks with a missile that can reach the continental US; just effing bloody wonderful

If you've got a friend who thinks his gun is safe,

tell him to think again:
“This is where shotgun shells go inside this tube here,” Brophy demonstrated. “You can screw this part off the top and screw on an extender to this tube to allow it to hold more than eight rounds. It is readily convertible, which by definition in the bill, makes the whole thing a high-capacity magazine…we just might not be able to legally purchase a pump shotgun or a semi-automatic shotgun.”

Think this was a WA-style 'mistake', or just them doing what they really want: trying to ban everything possible?

Friday, March 01, 2013

(2) Four cats, defying all laws of physics

and thermodynamics, can, on a daily basis, turn 36 ounces of basic sustenance into 16 pounds of poop. Outside of Congress, I've not seen a conversion quite like it.

I'd forgotten this quote, then saw it at Borepatch:

 I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as 'ninja' ... Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.
- Col. Jeff Cooper
Every time I see some SWAT/TAC Team/whatever member with a mask on, it bothers me.  One shot was of a officer helping search a neighborhood- in daylight- for an escapee, and I wondered why the damned mask?  He's not a undercover guy taking part in a raid or something, so why hide his face?

Now I hear of another wrong address/wrong person/bad tip raid where someone's dogs are killed 'by procedure', kids terrified, adults thinking they're about to die, I know why they cover their faces.

Quote found at Borepatch

If you have a Caracal model C,

there may be a problem, and there's a recall.

In other news, I just listened to Obama explain how he's responsible for nothing, it's all somebody else's fault.
That by itself ought to get his ass thrown out of office, if he's that incompetent.

Tab clearing

because there's so much crap out there, and I'm out of inspiration to try to make proper commentary.

Feinstein & Co. are full of crap(which we knew) and try to slant the hearings(surprise!).

Heating up in New York

"How dare you talk about this?"

Ever notice that hand position for the Mexican anthem?
(Thank you, Bob: Bellamy salute)

Thirdpower responds to Josh & Ladd's bullshit.

"Ok, NY, SHOW us how this is constitutional."

More Criminal Mayors Against Guns.

"Is that REAL milk?  Or added-to?"

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Ed Flynn, chief of Milwaukee PD:

'Sorry excuse for a lawman' doesn't even BEGIN to cover it.

And if that information is correct, then not only Bravo Company, but every other supplier of ANYTHING should cut them off.

A rather impassioned response to Sen. Feinstein's breaking of her oath of office(again):
Don’t give a damn, bitch. My Constitutional rights–my natural rights as a free man–are not dependent on popularity, and are not now nor will they ever be up for a vote. They exist apart from your and your fellow fascists’ malign intentions and hopes, predate them, and trump them–now and forever. Try to take them and I will fight you, with any and every means at my disposal, to the last ounce of my strength and ability, and I will not stop until I am either imprisoned or in the ground. Full stop, end of story.
That's the mild part.

"Yeah, we've got laws, and we're not enforcing them, but we want MORE laws; maybe we'll actually enforce those if you give us what we want."

On another matter,
As you can see, Dawkins has no trouble attacking the Hebrew God in a most direct and uncompromising manner. No atheist wallflower he.

Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about."

How can it be that the world's most fearless atheist, celebrated for his strident opinions on the Christian and Jewish Gods, could profess to know so little about the God of the Koran? Has he not had the time? Or is Professor Dawkins simply demonstrating that most crucial trait of his species: survival instinct.

In this case, more properly labeled as 'being a chickenshit coward'.

I cannot remember who it was a year or so back who decided to make some silver bullets for his .45- real ones- and, after working out weights and costs, decided it would be cheaper nowadays to feed the werewolves...

More fallout in Colorado from the EBR ban bill.

Once again, this is the idiot the Democrats picked for Vice-President:
I said, "Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

Another success for smart diplomacy:
The KN-08 has been called a "game-changer" for the DPRK, and with good reason.  Assuming the missile achieves its projected range, the KN-08 would give Pyongyang a strike platform capable of reaching much of the CONUS.  And with a mobile launch platform--supported by one of the world's most advanced denial and deception programs--the KN-08 will be extremely difficult to track and target.  Among its various roles, the kN-08 could easily deliver a sudden, surprise attack against the U.S., giving the North increased leverage in its dealings with Washington, and our allies in the region.

And with that, I need a drink.

If you like spices, you ought to take a look

at this place: Savory Spice Shop.  If you're in the OKC area, NW 43rd & Western, northeast corner.  If you're not, they ship.

Daughter told me about it the other night, and I went by today.  Big selection of stuff, can get a jar or they'll bag however much you want.

I never saw ghost pepper salt before.

First, what would you do if a owl nested

outside your window?

Second, what friggin' idiot thinks sex ed is a good idea for kindergarten?

Ran across this about a month ago;

and, unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.
Considering the number of high-ranking people who seem to have no problem with ROE that send troops out to die, why would this be a surprise?

Speaking of stupid/disgusting/WTF?,
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” 
Any guesses as to why the White House lets Biden out without a muzzle?  Or at least a leash to keep him from running into traffic?

More journalists who, up till now, haven't talked about this:
As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.

2nd Amendment and the Kool-Aid drinkers

This is freakin' COOL!

And why the EPA needs to be either put on a VERY short leash, or dumped entirely:
Last month, a federal court dealt a serious blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's renewable fuels push by ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by mandating refiners use cellulosic biofuels, which aren't commercially available. The EPA's lawless response in a lawless administration was to raise its requirements.
On Jan. 25, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed the EPA had exceeded its authority. "(W)e agree with API that EPA's 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency's statutory authority," reads the court decision.
The court further told the agency: "The EPA points to no instance in which the term 'projected' is used to allow the projector to let its aspiration for a self-fulfilling prophecy divert it from a neutral methodology."
The agency's response to the court's ruling, Sensenbrenner notes, was to nearly double its 2013 mandate from 8.5 million gallons to 14 million gallons.

I'm closing with this from Hudson City alderman David Marstan replying to an e-mail:
Dear Joanna Johnson-Smith,
Its really neat that all you gun toting tea party psychotards are so interested in the goings on of our little City, even though I find it amazing that you don’t have any other pressing issues before you in New Lebanon. On the other hand, I guess its not surprising, considering you ideologues aren’t interested in actual policy, but rather grandstanding on mythical narratives of victimization.
Two things: The only spit here is the white stuff frothing on the ends of that rotten little mouth of yours from which you spew this hateful ignorant trash. And a donkeys behind? The rabid ignorance of the fringe is best illustrated by its sad metaphors, I mean seriously, thank you for the laughs.
He also wrote By all means, come on down, we’ll be happy to beat you barbarians back with the clubs of reason & responsibility, radical lunatics that you are.

Slight problem: they took him up on it.

"If Bush had done this-", etc.,

you know the drill:
BLITZER: What was said?
WOODWARD: It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this.

BLITZER: Who sent that e-mail to you?

WOODWARD: Well, I'm not going to say.

BLITZER: Was it a senior person at the White House?

WOODWARD: A very senior person. And just as a matter -- I mean, it makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'you're going to regret doing something that you believe in, and even though we don't look at it that way, you do look at it that way.'

I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice if some of those journalists remembered that idea called 'reporting' and actually did some of it.  Maybe this will help.  Not likely; a roundup over at Insty.

So Howler Cuomo and minions decided they need to exempt the cops from the bill they didn't bother to read before shoving through, AND
...but those restrictions will be changed so those types of weapons can be used on the sets of television shows and movies being shot in New York.
Screw the citizens of NY, but the TV and movie weenies need to be kept happy; they have the proper attitudes and bring in lots of money.

The Dutchman seems to be more right all the time:
I've said it before and I'll repeat: these collectivist pukes are more race-obsessed than the Nazi Gauleiter of 1930's Lower Swabia.

Sooner or later the Big One won't be needed; Californicated is just going to collapse.
As Erin put it, 'Green is the new black(out).'
As California's cap-and-trade program kicks in this year, the number of refineries will continue to go down, and the price of gasoline will continue to rise.
California already has some of the nation's highest electricity prices -- 39 percent higher than the national average -- and those will continue to rise as the state begins to enforce both its renewable energy mandate and cap-and-trade programs.
...Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that California will once again face rolling blackouts starting in 2015, thanks to the loss of conventional plants and unreliability of wind and solar energy due to weather fluctuations.

I'll add something about this line: The cap-and-trade law will at least spare residential consumers and utility companies part of the added pain with rebates and special allowances.  No, it won't; they might not be directly paying the increase, but the prices of EVERYTHING will go up more because of it, and they're damn well paying that.

California, you wanted it; you've got it.

A: Anyone who believes the White House and DHS 'didn't know about the release' is a fool.
B: I'm wondering what the payoff for the DHS clown is?

A fine summation of the Republican Party:
If the roles were reversed, Democrats would never have let the nominee get confirmed. Thanks to the GOP, we have a Washington where stellar candidates such as John Bolton and Miguel Estrada do not get confirmed, but a pro-Iranian anti-Israeli dolt like Chuck Hagel gets through.

-- NRO's Andrew McCarthy on Hagel's Confirmation

Lady, you want to make that choice for yourself, go ahead; but do not demand that I do so.
During the rally, one female protester — wearing an Obama hat — told WGCL-TV that using a firearm in self-defense “is not an option.” 
“It’s not an option,” she repeated. 
The reporter then asked her, “But what if someone is trying to kill you?” She replied, “They’ll just have to kill me.”

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Attention liberals and socialists:

I don't want to hear another damned word about 'Faux News' from you clowns until you condemn this kind of crap just as loudly as you bitch about Fox.

Most of you won't; because Maddow is the kind of lying journalist you like, so anything she does is good.

Dianne Feinstein is an oathbreaking dirtbag politician and a liar.  And really wishes that nasty Constitution would stop getting in her way.
On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that semi-automatic rifles are personal pleasures for gun owners that need to be set aside for the "general welfare," The Blaze reported Tuesday. 

"The mothers, the women, the men of America have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare," she told Mitchell.
I am going to borrow Tam's words here; partly because she says it so well, and partly because this kind of crap makes me want to break into Language Practice(extended version):
You listen to me, you meddling harpy, you jumped-up refugee from a zoning board: You don't get to pick and choose which of my constitutional rights are "personal pleasures" and further, while your job does entail a certain amount of promoting the general welfare, you don't get to compel whatever definition du jour of the "general welfare" you please.
My personal welfare, and the welfare of millions of my fellow Americans, is generally promoted by the possession of effective weapons of self-defense: trying to take them away would be very harmful to the general welfare and practically the opposite of ensuring domestic tranquility. Stop.

Exactly. But she won't, because she demands control, and us being armed and having some desire for personal autonomy stands in the way.

Linoge has a nice post on a Webley revolver, and a link to the 1937 British training manual.  Couple of bits that caught my eye:
2. The correct handling of the pistol in war calls for cunning,
initiative, determination and a knowledge of the characteristics
of the weapon. This is particularly the case in fighting in
enclosed country, such as villages, woods, trench systems, etc.
Handling the weapon in war requires confidence on the part
of the firer to hit an adversary at close quarters.

3. The characteristics of the pistol arc :-
1. A one-handed weapon used without support to hand or
arm. Therefore :- .
(a) It is unsuitable for firing by deliberate aim.
(b) Correct holding and trigger pressure are of
increased importance.
(c) The firer must be able to fire with either hand.

The occasions on service when a pistol is likely to be used
are rare but, when the necessity does arise, it is essential that
shots should be delivered accurately and very quickly. The
pistol should, therefore, normally be used at close range,
i.e. 25 yards or under, and the instinctive action of a man
suddenly confronted with an opponent within this distance is
to fire instantly by sense of direction. Under such conditions,
the quickness with which one or more effective shots can be
fired is more important than the close grouping of the shots.
The pistol is effective up to 50 yards, hut considerable skill is
necessary to hit an adversary at this distance.
My, my, things do change, don't they?  'Unsuitable for deliberate aim' my ass.
I do have a weakness for the Webley line.  One thing I'd love to find: Lyman used to make a mold for a .45 caliber hollow-base wadcutter; it'd work perfectly for recreating the Webley Patented Man-stopper Bullet.

Time to borrow another post from the Dutchman, for those who can't go to that site:
I laughed when I read that Magpul has one final slap at the state authorities of Colorado before voting with their feet and taking many jobs with them to a freer clime:
We are proud to announce that within a matter of days we will be going live with a new program. Due to a bill currently moving through the Colorado legislature, there is the possibility that Colorado residents' ability to purchase standard capacity magazines will soon be infringed. Before that happens, and Magpul is forced to leave the state in order to keep to our principles, we will be doing our best to get standard capacity PMAGs into the hands of any Colorado resident that wants them.
Verified Colorado residents will be able to purchase up to ten (10) standard capacity AR/M4 magazines directly from Magpul, and will be given immediate flat-rate $5 shipping, bypassing our current order queue.
Our customers outside of Colorado, please know that our PMAG production will continue at an ever-increasing rate until we do relocate, shipments to our distributors in other states will continue, and that we do not expect relocation to significantly impact PMAG production. We are also aware that Colorado is not the only state with existing or pending magazine capacity restrictions; we are working on programs for other affected states as well. (Emphasis supplied, MBV.)
Good on 'em. Meanwhile, Politico reports that Obama's gun strategy falling short in Senate.
Another advocate with close ties to the White House effort expressed frustration with the inability to create the bipartisan consensus Obama has praised in public.
“There is a sort of nativist craziness from a sort of number of people who never want any of their information about their gun ownership in the hands of the government,” the advocate said. “Those things are hard to deal with because it is essential that those records are kept somewhere.”
"Essential?" To whom? Call me a "nativist crazy" I guess but whatever bill emerges into intolerable act, we will disobey it. William Diamond's drum still sounds the long roll. (See previous parts of this series here,hereand here.)
I was visiting a local gun store on Monday when a man in his forties came in, looking for "a tube I can bury my best guns in." The counterman referred him to nearest surplus store. As he turned to leave, I asked him, "Why do you want to bury your best guns?" He responded, "So I'll still have some after they confiscate the beat-up ones." "And if they do that," I asked, "when do you think it will be safe to dig up the others?" He blinked, twice, then answered, "After all this shit has blown over." I could have argued further, but didn't have the time to waste. He departed, pulling out of the parking lot in the direction of the surplus store.
I was reminded of the framed copy of a Churchill quote that hangs on my wall, presented to me as a thank you by a local candidate for judge who I once helped with his campaign back in the late 90s:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
This thought was kicking around in my brain last night during my regularly scheduled insomnia when I recalled something from one of the books from the list that Doctor Richter had first recommended to me back in the winter of 1976-77: Eric Hoffer's The True Believer. Not from Hoffer's work, but rather from the Introduction by Sidney Hook. Richter also, as I recall, had Hook's The Hero in History on that list.
I remember identifying with Hook as a fellow ex-communist who had seen the light and become a staunch anti-communist. So last night, motivated by this twinkle of a long-ago memory, I rose and went to the shelves and pulled down my 1963 Time Books edition of The True Believer.
Hook's Introduction is as much a critique of Hoffer's broad stroke analysis as it is approving. This was the observation of Hook that tugged at my memory:
There is nothing that a fanatic will not do to achieve his goal: the end justifies the use of ANY means. There are some things which those who are not fanatical will refuse to do in defense of their ideals, even at the cost of their lives. . .
Those who in the face of totalitarian threats today (MBV: remember this was 1963 when Hook wrote this) say that survival at ANY price is the be-all and the end-all of existence have in effect capitulated to the fanatics who are unafraid to die. As a morality, this view is contemptible; as a strategy it is unimtelligent. It is morally contemptible because those who endorse it will swallow any infamy in order to live a life unworthy of man. It is unintelligent because the only thing which can restrain fanatics is fear of failure. Even Hitler probably would have kept the peace had he known or feared his aggression meant destruction for his cause. Where fanatics have no fear of failure, the liklihood is that in their insanity they will destroy themselves in fanatical war against other fanatics. In that case, those who have sacrificed integrity for life will have lost their lives, too.
The gravamen of this analysis, which I believe is not inconsistent with Hoffer's main position, is that moral integrity is not a monopoly of true believers. Those who love life must be prepared to risk life in behalf of the values which make life worth living. Those who desire peace with freedom rather than the peace of slavery must always be prepared to resist aggression at the cost of their lives. Otherwise, there will be no alternative to the warring absolutisms of true believers until oblivion descends upon the race of man.
The people who seek to destroy the Founders' Republic in order to achieve their "higher purpose" are, at the core of them, fanatics. They seek our liberty and property in service to their "right-thinking." It is ironic then that they call us "gun fanatics" when in fact all we seek is to be left alone with our God-given, natural and inalienable rights to life, liberty and property.
Yet if we desire to maintain those rights -- all other political efforts having failed -- we must resist in armed civil disobedience at the point of our rifles. Reluctantly, to be sure, but firmly. To do otherwise, to bury our weapons and hope for the best, is but craven, self-defeating cowardice.
End his post
I hadn't heard of that from Magpul; BRAVO!

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Some thoughts on the regressives and hoplophobes

The thing that pisses me off is that even die-hard progressives agree that a cop’s presence does in deed add a layer of ‘safety’ that didn’t exist before but they miss why that is. It’s not the cop, it’s the lethal force he or she represents. Not just the gun, that’s a tool, but the understanding that push comes to shove, there is a person there that will suffer no legal or moral ills should he dispatch an attacker to the hereafter. That’s a powerful message, and one that doesn’t require a cop to send.
I have to disagree with Robb here:
While I'm sure there are some who miss it, I think most fall into two categories.
One does not want to think about that fact, so they gloss over it.  They're the ones who have no problem calling the cops to protect them in time of trouble, but the rest of the time whine and moan about the evils of violence.  Or just try to block it out of mind, even refusing to consider 'what if' matters.

The second are not just gun bigots, they're force bigots: they don't like ANYONE other than a uniformed minion of the state being allowed to use force. Of any kind, but especially armed force. Oh, they'll overlook someone punching an attacker, or(probably) a woman grabbing something to hit a rapist with, but it's grudging: "You should not do that, you should wait for the Official People to show up.  Try running instead." 
But the idea of a teacher with a CCW permit carrying?  They crap their pants.  I'm sure a few actually have a genuine horror of the Halls of Academia being polluted by the presence of a weapon in the hands of a teacher, but the others?  That teacher is not a Uniformed Trained Official Minion, and thus cannot be trusted.  Even if they do stop a murderer(or rapist or anything else), it's bad: "You have traumatized the children!  You should be ashamed!" and so on.
And the REAL horror is that moral aspect Robb speaks of.  That sends them into conniptions: that someone not a UTOM be considered to have the legal and moral power to act?  They cannot stand that, in any way.  It erodes the authority of the State to be the only source of legal violence, and since they want to be in charge of the State...

I truly believe that some of them would rather see kids dead and crippled than see a teacher with a CCW permit stop the bad guy.

"Honest people with guns don't commit crimes;

but I want to screw with them anyway."

But ALL bad stuff is the Republicans/conservatives/libertarians fault. Uh huh.

Where Obama is cutting is telling. At least half of the savings will come out of Medicare Advantage, under which a full 28 percent of seniors buy privately managed health insurance that often includes added benefits such as vision and dental care or chronic-illness management.
But it's The Lightbringer doing it, so it doesn't count.

Pretty much

Another thought on the 'no hesitation' targets over at GFZ from Backwoods Engineer.(link fixed)

Give half a million, you've bought access to the White House; and yeah, if some conservative group had had this setup with Bush we'd be hearing about it from every media weenie out there.

A journalist AND his ombudsman admit "We don't know anything about these people, and we don't want to, but it doesn't stop us from 'reporting' on them.  In a highly-biased fashion."  Which kind of thing is where my category 'Reporters- sorry excuse for' came from.

Mr. Beretta, I hope you're not bluffing; and Oklahoma would be happy to have your whole business or some of the facilities come here.

Among the other problems with the No Fly List.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Well, tell you what, Mr. John Grebert:

Fuck you.  You and your Only Ones attitude.  You'd just love it for all honest people to be disarmed and dependent on you and the assholes like you, wouldn't you?
Because people in law enforcement deal with criminals every days, Grebert thinks they have, “a greater right” to weapons, “to deal with potentially violent situations.”
'A GREATER right'. 
Someone engrave Peel's Principles on a slab of granite and whack this asshole over the head with it.  Repeatedly.  'Cause that's the only way any of it will penetrate into the slime he calls his brain.

You'll also notice that he considers businesses refusing to sell to states run by gun bigots to be 'bullying'.  No, moron, it's people who care more about the Constitution than you seem to making a stand.

Difficult though that may be for you to understand.

Danny Westneat is either a credulous fool,

or a liar trying to cover for corrupt politicians.

This is about those WA legislators who not only want to ban anything possible, but want to toss the 4th Amendment out the window if you own a non-PC gun.  THREE TIMES they pushed bills with that crap in them, and every time "Golly gee, where did that come from?"
“Senator Kline flat-out lied to you,” read a typical email. “You are too naive to call yourself a journalist.”

Maybe so, but I still don’t think Kline lied. Because when the same bill came up in 2010, he also said then that he didn’t support the home inspections. 

“There’s no purpose in having that clause,” Kline said during a 2010 public hearing, agreeing with an NRA lobbyist who had called the police searches “a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Kline pledged then to take the provision out of the bill.

Of course he didn’t — Kline co-sponsored it again this year with the same provision. I don’t blame anyone for doubting him. He has, after all, put in the same alleged mistake three times now. But it’s also true he’s on record opposing police inspections before.
The deputy chief of staff of the Senate Democrats, Jeff Reading, insists nobody in Olympia supports these police searches: “The provision is nutty,” he said. “And obviously unconstitutional.”
Ok, so if all these people don't like it and want nothing to do with it, why do they keep pushing this crap in bills?  According to the dirtbag politicians, it's the evil lobbyists!
So our bill was a cut-and-paste job. How can legislators keep introducing a bill they don’t support? Because not only are they sometimes not reading their bills. They aren’t writing them, either. Lobbyists are.
Westneat, if you actually buy that- at least after the first time(giving the possible point that the lazy careless bastards don't bother to read what they sign on to)- none of these clowns knew that was in there, you're too stupid to be off a leash and you're going to run into traffic.

They knew it was there, they want it there; they don't have the balls to admit it.
And you really should stop giving them cover.

My Deity, the hedging and hawing by the weather weenies

is amazing; I just heard the forecast for snow amounts, which included "...some forecasts say a little less snow, some say a little more."
But they can tell us what the climate will be in a hundred years.  Yeah.

Oh, this will work out well: Calypso Louie wants his own security force(aside from the Fruitys of Islam):
Instead, Farrakhan had a different idea for how to address gun violence. In addition to sending letters to black military leaders, Farrakhan said he planned to contact the city's gang leaders to recruit gang members to "protect" any land the Nation of Islam might buy in the future.
"All you gangbangers, we know you love to shoot, but you're killing yourselves," Farrakhan said. "All your weapons are illegal and you're using them like savages."
But Farrakhan said gangbangers are "natural soldiers" and could be taught "the science of war" to become protectors of the Nation of Islam's assets in the future.
'any land', you ask?
That came at the Nation of Islam's annual Saviours' Day convention. Farrakhan, 79, renewed the call for African Americans to pool money and buy as much land as possible, in order to "control means of production" and produce food and other goods, such as clothing.
Farrakhan said collectively owning land is a way for black people in America to prosper economically.
'Collectively'.  As in 'no private property'.  These clowns are as bad as the outright communists, aren't they?

And take note of that admission: All your weapons are illegal... Be nice if the damned politicians would pay attention to that.

Oregon politicians: the oathbreaking bastards are out of the closet:
Two days after Senate Democrats claimed they would not seek a ban on modern firearms and feeding devices, Democrats in the Oregon House introduced just that.

Seven Senators joined with eight House Reps to introduce a sweeping ban on virtually all modern firearms. Among the Senators is, of course, Ginny Burdick, who claimed on Wednesday “that she is backing off an attempt to push through a bill on gun clips that she drafted following the December shootings at the Clackamas Mall.”
HB 3200 not only bans most modern guns and magazines, it allows warrantless searches of your home, requires background checks and registration for a firearm you already own and as-of-yet undefined storage requirements. We say “a firearm” because even if you comply with the restrictions in this bill you may still only own one.
Tar.  Feathers.  Ropes and lampposts.  These bastards don't simply have no concern for the oath they took, they took it while intending to violate it. 

On the subject of registration, in case you're not familiar with it, a prohibited person can't be prosecuted for failing to register his illegal gun; 5th Amendment, y'know.  From the Supremes:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851

I don't have a horsewhip, but I have something that'll do:

Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power via the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess.

So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say.

Senator Coburn, why the HELL are you pretending these people can be deal with in good faith?

You keep insisting 'There will be no registration', but
...Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law...
But the four senators are grappling with how to make the process of obtaining a background check as seamless as possible for private dealers while also ensuring that someone keeps a record of the transaction.
'No registration' my ass.  And you're working with them.

'Bitterly disappointed' barely begins to cover it.

Especially since we have the examples of New York and California and other states and countries to demonstrate the abuses it leads to.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Talked to a friend in Mustang a little earlier(west of OKC),

who had to stop by Wally World for something.  Checkout lady informed him it was a good thing he wasn't there for groceries:
Out of milk,
out of bread,
out of half-a-dozen other things.
My first thought: "It's Oklahoma in FEBRUARY, for God's sake; don't these idiots pay any attention to the weather* until the bloody day before?"


And, it being this part of the country, there's a severe thunderstorm watch down around Wichita Falls in Texas while there's a LIFE-THREATENING BLIZZARD/WINTER STORM warning north & west of here(we have only the WINTER STORM WARNING in this area).  Which would be illustrated below if the fookin' NWS illustration would allow you to save it.

Ah well.  I have a fresh bag of dog food, and most of a bottle of Scottish Holy Water, and a fair amount of food.  Plus other occasionally-useful-stuff.  Further reports to follow if the LIFE-THREATENING WINTER STORM!!! allows.

After I have a drink and some sleep.

*Yes, I know; it's still the generally somewhat-useful information available, though if that idiot on channel 4 starts screaming 'RECORD' or 'DEADLY!!' or whatever again, I may find him and throw him out a window.

A little more on the bastards saying what they actually want

Joe Huffman had this a couple of days ago, and I said something about it then. I've been thinking about it more.

This kind of crap is why I mostly don’t argue anymore with statist thugs who hide behind the word ‘liberal’, and socialists/communists who hide behind ‘progressive’: they do not believe in individual liberty.  They claim they do, but their actions speak otherwise.
A: We’re supposed to believe that, in a document listing some of the most important individual rights, that the founders said “Oh, and we’ll throw in something that says ‘the State can have guns’. Really?
B: A bunch of actual Constitutional scholars(not lecturers like our President) have flatly stated that this ‘collective right’ crap is a direct threat to ALL rights; a number of them have stated that personally they’d be quite happy to see guns banned from the commoners, but that this ’collective right’ argument is incredibly dangerous.
Do the socialists/regressives not care about the threat to all rights in their argument?  Or do they WANT all rights considered collective?
(I know, I know, but I have to ask here)

And please don’t give me that “You must engage in civil discussion” crap. Offhand I can name three ‘progressive’* sites that have done the same thing to me: argue with their premise(no swearing, threatening or whatever, just argue against it and provide links) and they block you. Then half of them whine that “Those people don’t want to discuss things” while the other half congratulate themselves for ‘chasing off the troll’. You can’t demand people talk while you’re blocking them for daring to disturb the echo chamber.

Well, they do;  outside of the flat lying bastards I don't know if they truly don't understand that, or if it simply doesn't occur to them.

It's like dealing with the Obamaphiles who insist everything is still Bush's fault; doesn't matter that he's been out for five years, that Democrats controlled Congress his last two years and Obama's first two, etc. etc., NONE OF IT COUNTS: Obama is not responsible for ANYTHING except Obamacare**.  And so, for them, actual individual rights really don't mean squat to them.
Because at base those rights actually mean "Leave us the hell alone."  And the socialists flat cannot stand that; it means if you don't do what they want, they can't force you to, and that idea drives them even further out of their minds.

So, for the most part, I don't argue with them anymore.  But when I do, I don't play nice and let them get away with a damn thing.  Not anymore.

*Progressive: socialist/communist who doesn’t have the integrity or balls to openly say what they are.

**And some of them are now wondering if that was really such a great damned idea now that it's biting them and not just the 'evil rich people not paying their share'.

Senator Coburn, you can insist 'there will be no registration in our universal background check bill'

all you want; it doesn't mean crap when one of the people you're 'negotiating' with has said things like this:
LaPierre then aired an NRA ad that featured an edited clip of Schumer calling background check and anti-gun trafficking measures under development “universal registration.”
your assurances really don't mean much.  We've still got a Attorney General in violation of legal orders to turn over Fast & Furious documents and a President hiding the documents behind executive privilege (and where the hell are the legal actions to do something about that?), and we're supposed to trust these people?


And what else would you expect from that arrogant fool?

The female questioner who prompted Joe Biden’s advice, in the course of a Facebook town hall on Tuesday, to “buy a shotgun,” called the vice president’s remarks “a little sexist” and described them as “the poorest advice he could give anyone.”

And Deity knows we can't 'unduly restrict' LE for any reason. Apparently including facts and truth.
According to testimony by a prosecution criminalist, the compound found in the man's blood doesn't impair the ability to drive but can remain detectable for four weeks.

…However, the Court of Appeals sided with prosecutors who appealed, saying that allowing the testing for marijuana's active compound would unduly restrict law enforcement.
Because it's FAR too much trouble to actually make sure someone is impaired before you throw them in a cell and impound their car and otherwise screw with their life.

What they really want.  The statist thugs who hide behind the word 'liberal'.

An opinion on this administrations' latest attack on vets