and tomorrow's the last of the fair. Windy and cool Friday, windy and warm today, supposed to be windy and chilly to cold tomorrow. But dry; it does make a big difference.
My story for the day:
Was heading to check with a friend on something when saw one lady digging in another ladies' pocket; not an easy task as tight as the shorts were. Pulled out a phone as I walked up and said "Here now, what's going on here?"
"I was getting her phone!"
"A likely story!"
She put an arm around her friend's shoulder and said "Well, you know, I can't control myself at times."
I leaned over and said "Guess what?" and put an arm around her.
"What?"
"I don't have any pockets."
I think I may have permanently lost some of my remaining upper register.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Not much blogging for the next couple of days,
busy with Med-Fair stuff. Report and- hopefully- pictures later on.
I have to make note of Mrs. Lucas' post on the
Obamas Greeting The Queen mess. First, in comments I'd pointed out that if there'd been any question about proper protocol, there's a bunch of people in the .gov who do nothing but keep track of such things. Shortly thereafter a gent called Subotai said
First, I will agree with Firehand; there is a State Department Office of Protocol in the White House itself. They have been handling the whole gift and receptions thing for two hundred years. They know what they are doing, and the only way that the ongoing fiascos have been occurring is because Hussein Pasha has been deliberately over-ruling them. This is a series of deliberate slights, which can be compared with the grovelling he has been doing to our enemies. Make whatever assumptions you want to make about our future with that information.
Snort. Snorkle. HAHASHAHAH, Hussein Pasha. I'm going to have to remember that.
But back to business: today she has this post as followup, and it includes this from a link:
According to a person close to the situation, Obama hasn’t yet appointed a chief of protocol and his staffers, still unpacking, didn’t realize that the State Department has an entire office dedicated to foreign visits.
People, I'm a dumbass in Oklahoma with an electronic soapbox to say this from, and I KNEW THAT. This clown and his minions have been in politics for years, including a few days in the U.S. Senate, and none of them were aware of this?
It boggles the mind, truly it does.
First, I will agree with Firehand; there is a State Department Office of Protocol in the White House itself. They have been handling the whole gift and receptions thing for two hundred years. They know what they are doing, and the only way that the ongoing fiascos have been occurring is because Hussein Pasha has been deliberately over-ruling them. This is a series of deliberate slights, which can be compared with the grovelling he has been doing to our enemies. Make whatever assumptions you want to make about our future with that information.
Snort. Snorkle. HAHASHAHAH, Hussein Pasha. I'm going to have to remember that.
But back to business: today she has this post as followup, and it includes this from a link:
According to a person close to the situation, Obama hasn’t yet appointed a chief of protocol and his staffers, still unpacking, didn’t realize that the State Department has an entire office dedicated to foreign visits.
People, I'm a dumbass in Oklahoma with an electronic soapbox to say this from, and I KNEW THAT. This clown and his minions have been in politics for years, including a few days in the U.S. Senate, and none of them were aware of this?
It boggles the mind, truly it does.
The Mexican Gun Lie is finally being talked about as such
in a major media outlet.
There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:
It's just not true.
In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
...
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.
...
Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.
"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."
Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."
Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.
...
The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.
In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.
Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.
"Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."
"The predominant source of guns in Mexico is Central and South America. You also have Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns. It's estimated that over 100,000 soldiers deserted the army to work for the drug cartels, and that ignores all the police. How many of them took their weapons with them?"
But, of course, the VPC and other gun ban groups have an answer:
But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.
"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."
Ok, so a 'wide open' market is one covered by thousands of federal, state and local laws? And, even though guns from the US are not the problem, we should still screw the 2nd Amendment so we can say "We're Doing Something!!!"? And please note the bullcrap statement "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States"; ignore the ones legally exported to the Mexican government and blame 'gun shops along the border; utter garbage, but he'll repeat it endlessly. Because it helps his position, even though it's a lie.
There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:
It's just not true.
In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
...
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.
...
Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.
"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."
Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."
Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.
...
The exaggeration of United States "responsibility" for the lawlessness in Mexico extends even beyond the "90-percent" falsehood -- and some Second Amendment activists believe it's designed to promote more restrictive gun-control laws in the U.S.
In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.
Chris Cox, spokesman for the National Rifle Association, blames the media and anti-gun politicians in the U.S. for misrepresenting where Mexican weapons come from.
"Reporter after politician after news anchor just disregards the truth on this," Cox said. "The numbers are intentionally used to weaken the Second Amendment."
"The predominant source of guns in Mexico is Central and South America. You also have Russian, Chinese and Israeli guns. It's estimated that over 100,000 soldiers deserted the army to work for the drug cartels, and that ignores all the police. How many of them took their weapons with them?"
But, of course, the VPC and other gun ban groups have an answer:
But Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, called the "90 percent" issue a red herring and said that it should not detract from the effort to stop gun trafficking into Mexico.
"Let's do what we can with what we know," he said. "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."
Ok, so a 'wide open' market is one covered by thousands of federal, state and local laws? And, even though guns from the US are not the problem, we should still screw the 2nd Amendment so we can say "We're Doing Something!!!"? And please note the bullcrap statement "We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States"; ignore the ones legally exported to the Mexican government and blame 'gun shops along the border; utter garbage, but he'll repeat it endlessly. Because it helps his position, even though it's a lie.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Hell with tar & feathers, the Obama Youth Bill
calls for breaking out the ropes. And dragging people to lampposts. This piece of crap is called the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, which by itself sounds like something that came out of Castro's Cuba or Mao's China.
Is this the change you really voted for? President Obama has only been in office for two months. Now we have HR 1388. The Bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) with 37 others. The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama.
...
Here is part of the HR1388 Bill’s wording:
Is this the change you really voted for? President Obama has only been in office for two months. Now we have HR 1388. The Bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) with 37 others. The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama.
...
Here is part of the HR1388 Bill’s wording:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.Get the lead sponsor: McCarthy, the "Ban all guns for the CHILDRENNN!" leader in the house. Please note, miserable excuses for Americans in both parties voted for this unconstitutional garbage, and should be held responsible for it.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
…
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
Xavier pointed out a piece on 'Cop Attackers &
Their Weapons', well worth reading. Couple of excerpts:
Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be cop killers:
...
Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing "most of the time." Gang members especially started young.
Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% "regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year," the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and "street corners in known drug-trafficking areas."
One spoke of being motivated to improve his gun skills by his belief that officers "go to the range two, three times a week [and] practice arms so they can hit anything."
In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this "may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills," the study says.
And, as if it weren't known already,
Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun "because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being."
Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."
Thanks to Xavier for pointing to this.
Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be cop killers:
- show signs of being armed that officers miss;
- have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;
- practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;
- have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. "If you hesitate," one told the study’s researchers, "you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street..."...
...
Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing "most of the time." Gang members especially started young.
Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% "regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year," the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and "street corners in known drug-trafficking areas."
One spoke of being motivated to improve his gun skills by his belief that officers "go to the range two, three times a week [and] practice arms so they can hit anything."
In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this "may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills," the study says.
And, as if it weren't known already,
Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun "because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being."
Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."
Thanks to Xavier for pointing to this.
Let's be plain and call it the 'Mexican Gun Lie', as this post
Sondra points to makes even futher note of:
Gents, thanks for a fine article. However, with regard to weaponry coming from the US, please be advised that Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) used by the Cartels are made in the PRC and former Combloc countries and not in the USA.
Also the grenades found in the US coming from Mexico are of Chinese or Combloc origin. many of the small arms, like fully automatic AK-47s are illegal in the USA and come from China or former Combloc nations. They should not be confused with the semi-auto look-alike weapons made and sold in the USA which are of no use to the Cartels as they are not machine guns. They are merely ugly like their military ancestors but are no different in action than a semi-auto hunting rifle sold at Big-5 or Oshman's and of far less power.
Fully automatic M16s, while made in the USA (or abroad under license) are military weapons sold to approved by State Dept. military units and governments abroad, then stolen and smuggled in to Mexico and elsewhere. Automatic weapons are not available in the USA over the counter and require paperwork, background checks, huge fees and approval and subsequent regular inspections of the privately-owned arm by BATF. BATF has not reported thefts or loss of personally owned Class III (Full auto selective fire). BATF should be able to provide you back-trace information proving that the weapons seized in Mexico, while made here or abroad under license, were stolen from the end-user, illegally acquired and smuggled in to Mexico by the Cartels from elsewhere than the US.
Which last would require the Mexican government to give us the serial numbers of the stuff they claim were legally bought in the US and smuggled to Mexico, and for some reason they don't want to do that...
Gents, thanks for a fine article. However, with regard to weaponry coming from the US, please be advised that Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) used by the Cartels are made in the PRC and former Combloc countries and not in the USA.
Also the grenades found in the US coming from Mexico are of Chinese or Combloc origin. many of the small arms, like fully automatic AK-47s are illegal in the USA and come from China or former Combloc nations. They should not be confused with the semi-auto look-alike weapons made and sold in the USA which are of no use to the Cartels as they are not machine guns. They are merely ugly like their military ancestors but are no different in action than a semi-auto hunting rifle sold at Big-5 or Oshman's and of far less power.
Fully automatic M16s, while made in the USA (or abroad under license) are military weapons sold to approved by State Dept. military units and governments abroad, then stolen and smuggled in to Mexico and elsewhere. Automatic weapons are not available in the USA over the counter and require paperwork, background checks, huge fees and approval and subsequent regular inspections of the privately-owned arm by BATF. BATF has not reported thefts or loss of personally owned Class III (Full auto selective fire). BATF should be able to provide you back-trace information proving that the weapons seized in Mexico, while made here or abroad under license, were stolen from the end-user, illegally acquired and smuggled in to Mexico by the Cartels from elsewhere than the US.
Which last would require the Mexican government to give us the serial numbers of the stuff they claim were legally bought in the US and smuggled to Mexico, and for some reason they don't want to do that...
Two pieces on the Mexican Gun Canard
First, from Salon of all places:
And yet, let's take a closer look at those guns...
On night patrol in Reynosa in November, soldiers came upon some suspicious men, who led them to a house that was packed with armaments for the drug cartels -- 540 rifles, 165 grenades, 500,000 rounds of ammunition and 14 sticks of dynamite. [...]The war analogy is not a stretch for parts of Mexico. Soldiers, more than 40,000 of them, are confronting heavily armed paramilitary groups on city streets. The military-grade weapons being used, antitank rockets and armor-piercing munitions, for example, are the same ones found on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Are these being bought at gun shows in the U.S.? Unlikely.
...
Bill Conroy at NarcoNews has done excellent reporting on the drug war and gets to the bottom of this in Legal U.S. Arms Exports May Be Source of Narco Syndicates' Rising Firepower
The Obama administration is now sending hundreds of additional federal agents to the border in an effort to interdict this illegal arms smuggling to reassure an agitated middle-America that Uncle Sam will get these bad guys. The cascade of headlines from mainstream media outlets printing drug-war pornography assures us in paragraphs inserted between the titillation that the ATF's Operation Gunrunner and other similar get-tough on gun-seller programs will save America from the banditos of Mexico.
But in reality, while the main weapons are getting to the cartels from the U.S., they're not being smuggled into Mexico, and so no interdiction efforts will help.
The deadliest of the weapons now in the hands of criminal groups in Mexico, particularly along the U.S. border, by any reasonable standard of an analysis of the facts, appear to be getting into that nation through perfectly legal private-sector arms exports, measured in the billions of dollars, and sanctioned by our own State Department. These deadly trade commodities -- grenade launchers, explosives and "assault" weapons --are then, in quantities that can fill warehouses, being corruptly transferred to drug trafficking organizations via their reach into the Mexican military and law enforcement agencies, the evidence indicates.
That's right, the ultimate source of the guns used by the cartels in Mexico? The U.S. government.
And remember the word about serial numbers?
Conroy follows the trail of the shipments of legal guns to Mexico, noting that while these weapons could be traced...
But that assumes the Mexican government, and our own government, really want to trace those weapons. A November 2008 report in the San Antonio Express News, which includes details of the major weapons seizure in Reynosa, Mexico, that same month involving the Zetas, reveals the following:Another example of coordination problems occurred this month. Mexican authorities in Reynosa across the border from McAllen, seized the country's single largest stash of cartel weapons -- nearly 300 assault rifles, shoulder-fired grenade launchers and a half million rounds of ammunition.[...] A former DEA agent, who also asked not to be named, says the shipment of military-grade weapons to the Mexican government under the DCS program, given the extent of corruption within that government, is essentially like "shipping weapons to a crime syndicate."But weeks later, Mexican authorities still have not allowed the ATF access to serial numbers that would help them track down the buyers and traffickers on the U.S. side.
Add to that all the stuff mentioned in the LA Times article on smuggling across Mexico's southern border and on the coasts... As the Armed Schooleacher puts it,
This newest gambit is basically the same idea wrapped in a tortilla. It only sounds scary until you think it through; if you were a leader in a Mexican cartel with access to rifles, ammunition, grenades and RPG's from Mexican military arsenals, M16 rifles and ammunition from scavengers all over South America who have old American military exports to sell on the cheap, and a dozen other sources . . . would you be sending people to gun shows in Tucson and Albuqurque to find someone with a clean background check to buy a few semi-automatic rifles and then try to smuggle them south? When it fails, it'll end up the same way as The Terrorist CanardTM did--forgotten once it's no longer useful as a club to bea gun owners over the head.
Thanks to Uncle for the links.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
It's always so nice to find yourself happy
with something you bought. Yes, I'm referring to the K22.
Not quite a year ago, at a show I saw what appeared to be a N-frame S&W in .22. The finish was awful; no pitting, but discolored badly. But the action was tight and smooth, the bore and chambers bright. I decided that, while I had just enough, I shouldn't oughta do it. And I've been kicking myself ever since. So when I ran across this one, I went back, looked it over further, did a bit of talking and bought it. Hit the range after work to try it out, and found myself having gone through three boxes by the time I had to leave. Took care of a couple of other things, too, but this was the primary.
Had to adjust windage just a touch, and then shot. A bunch. This is about typical, mix of single and double-action fire at ten-twelve yards:
The double-action is just wonderful, smooth and clean. And the single-action... almost an orgasmic experience. Well, not really, but it's really nice: light, clean no perceptible motion when it breaks. Let me put it this way: I'm a fairly lousy one-hand pistol shot. Some I can do fairly well, but it's not my strong point. Just as I was about to leave I loaded six and ran a last target out to ten-twelve yards. So the target's hanging out there, still moving slightly, and I fired six rounds single-action, one hand
For me, that's bloody amazing. Especially after all the other shooting, and when I'm hungry.
Did I mention I really like this pistol?
The library turned out to have the 2nd Edition Standard Catalog of S&W, and I picked it up today. According to the number this one was made 1951. Everything matches except the round butt; as Tam says, no mention of any. I think she's right, that someone converted it. The grooves in the backstrap are faded out partway down, as if from there down was ground down. The profile seems to perfectly match what a factory round butt would be, and the backstrap curve matches perfectly; and it was very well and properly polished. Whether it went to a smith or someone did it themselves, it was very well done. And I think I actually prefer it to the square; fits the hand very well. In any case, it's mine. And, like I say, it's always very nice to find yourself very happy with something you get.
I learned what Tam meant by a 'pile' of brass' by her; had there been more time, there'd have been a bigger pile.
Not quite a year ago, at a show I saw what appeared to be a N-frame S&W in .22. The finish was awful; no pitting, but discolored badly. But the action was tight and smooth, the bore and chambers bright. I decided that, while I had just enough, I shouldn't oughta do it. And I've been kicking myself ever since. So when I ran across this one, I went back, looked it over further, did a bit of talking and bought it. Hit the range after work to try it out, and found myself having gone through three boxes by the time I had to leave. Took care of a couple of other things, too, but this was the primary.
Had to adjust windage just a touch, and then shot. A bunch. This is about typical, mix of single and double-action fire at ten-twelve yards:
The double-action is just wonderful, smooth and clean. And the single-action... almost an orgasmic experience. Well, not really, but it's really nice: light, clean no perceptible motion when it breaks. Let me put it this way: I'm a fairly lousy one-hand pistol shot. Some I can do fairly well, but it's not my strong point. Just as I was about to leave I loaded six and ran a last target out to ten-twelve yards. So the target's hanging out there, still moving slightly, and I fired six rounds single-action, one hand
For me, that's bloody amazing. Especially after all the other shooting, and when I'm hungry. Did I mention I really like this pistol?
The library turned out to have the 2nd Edition Standard Catalog of S&W, and I picked it up today. According to the number this one was made 1951. Everything matches except the round butt; as Tam says, no mention of any. I think she's right, that someone converted it. The grooves in the backstrap are faded out partway down, as if from there down was ground down. The profile seems to perfectly match what a factory round butt would be, and the backstrap curve matches perfectly; and it was very well and properly polished. Whether it went to a smith or someone did it themselves, it was very well done. And I think I actually prefer it to the square; fits the hand very well. In any case, it's mine. And, like I say, it's always very nice to find yourself very happy with something you get.
I learned what Tam meant by a 'pile' of brass' by her; had there been more time, there'd have been a bigger pile.
I have to say, I wish I'd seen
this; must have been interesting. From the sound of it, the AG was trying everything he could think of to avoid giving the actual answer: "No."
Note: when a politician refuses to answer 'yes' or 'no' to a question that only requires a one-word answer, the politician knows he's done wrong. And doesn't have the balls or the integrity to face up to it.
Note: when a politician refuses to answer 'yes' or 'no' to a question that only requires a one-word answer, the politician knows he's done wrong. And doesn't have the balls or the integrity to face up to it.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Glenn Beck and some others keep urging not to see other people as 'the enemy',
but when you read crap like this, you realize that some of them ARE the enemy. In the comments to this post at Anarchangel,
I also believe that I'll have to give up a lot, in terms of tax dollars, for things to get better. Unlike you, Chris, I don't have an issue with a cap on bonuses or salaries. I think the government, be it local or federal, can be a good way to distribute resources more evenly. There are people losing their homes while others on Wall Street have several, and whine about having to give up just one of them. Where's the democracy in that?
I know I'm in the minority here on this blog, but I always enjoy reading comments and thought I'd at least put out there what someone who did "vote for change" feels about our current situation.
I just keep marveling at this. She believes in, she wants the government to take what we earn and 'distribute it more evenly'. Theft by force and fear, and she applauds the idea. Someone loses their home, someone else has more than one, and she actually asks "Where's the democracy in that?" As if democracy has a damn thing to do with someone owning more than someone else, or the result, in far too many cases, of borrowing more money than they could pay back.
Chris responds
Frankly, your beliefs are evil. Involuntary redistribution of wealth is no different than slavery.
You are a deluded fool for not understanding this; never mind for believing otherwise.
Which got her knickers in a twist:
Why do you feel it necessary to add judgemental language to your reply? I truly don't understand why you feel it necessary to label my beliefs "wrong", "evil", and call me "deluded". Why isn't it possible to have a fundamental disagreement about politics and economics without resorting to threats of violence and and placing value judgements on differing beliefs?
If I may throw in my own response: Amy, we all judge things all the time; being judgemental isn't automatically a bad thing. And he has pretty much the same opinion I do: your desire for the government to steal what I work for so it can redistribute it as some socialist politician prefers is evil. He- and I- think that you have to be deluded to think that's a good thing.
And as for 'value judgements', you make the judgement that it's wrong for one person to have more than another; you make the judgement that it's a good thing for the government, at gunpoint, to take what people earn and give it to others(and if you think 'at gunpoint' is exaggeration, try not paying your taxes and see what winds up happening to you), therefore that it's wrong for Chris or I or anyone to simply keep what we earn; you're not in a good position to bitch at other people for making judgements.
And please show me where anyone 'threatened you with violence'? Unless you count serious disagreement a threat.
A little further along she comes out with this:
For the past 9 years, I disagreed with the policies and ethics of the leaders of this country. This past November, I made a choice to vote in a person and leadership whose values I do align with. I still don't see why there is a right or wrong here, or why you feel you are in the position to judge me. My views differ from yours, period.
So she likes the values of those who want to socialize the country, rob everyone who works hard and succeeds, and tried damn hard to make us lose in Iraq and will try to make us lose in Afghanistan; and she thinks there is no 'right or wrong here'. And is really upset that Chris judged her views on this.
To once again throw my own piece in here: Amy, you just said your values sit with those who want to loot us, and our families and friends, and don't want us to judge your beliefs? When you have judged ours(but that's apparently ok)? And you don't think there's a right or wrong involved? Then either you cannot understand that there IS right and wrong involved to us, or you ignore it and say we're threatening for daring to say "There is right and wrong, and we think Obama and you are in the wrong."
This is one of those cases where someone may be, personally, very nice, but it doesn't matter: because she pushes views that threaten our lives and work and nation, and doesn't want us to dare to say we think her ways are bad; that her Chosen One is trying to, maybe deliberately, badly damage this nation. We shouldn't say that because it's judgemental, and pointing to seeing right and wrong. And, nasty as it sounds, that does make her part of the enemy.
I also believe that I'll have to give up a lot, in terms of tax dollars, for things to get better. Unlike you, Chris, I don't have an issue with a cap on bonuses or salaries. I think the government, be it local or federal, can be a good way to distribute resources more evenly. There are people losing their homes while others on Wall Street have several, and whine about having to give up just one of them. Where's the democracy in that?
I know I'm in the minority here on this blog, but I always enjoy reading comments and thought I'd at least put out there what someone who did "vote for change" feels about our current situation.
I just keep marveling at this. She believes in, she wants the government to take what we earn and 'distribute it more evenly'. Theft by force and fear, and she applauds the idea. Someone loses their home, someone else has more than one, and she actually asks "Where's the democracy in that?" As if democracy has a damn thing to do with someone owning more than someone else, or the result, in far too many cases, of borrowing more money than they could pay back.
Chris responds
Frankly, your beliefs are evil. Involuntary redistribution of wealth is no different than slavery.
You are a deluded fool for not understanding this; never mind for believing otherwise.
Which got her knickers in a twist:
Why do you feel it necessary to add judgemental language to your reply? I truly don't understand why you feel it necessary to label my beliefs "wrong", "evil", and call me "deluded". Why isn't it possible to have a fundamental disagreement about politics and economics without resorting to threats of violence and and placing value judgements on differing beliefs?
If I may throw in my own response: Amy, we all judge things all the time; being judgemental isn't automatically a bad thing. And he has pretty much the same opinion I do: your desire for the government to steal what I work for so it can redistribute it as some socialist politician prefers is evil. He- and I- think that you have to be deluded to think that's a good thing.
And as for 'value judgements', you make the judgement that it's wrong for one person to have more than another; you make the judgement that it's a good thing for the government, at gunpoint, to take what people earn and give it to others(and if you think 'at gunpoint' is exaggeration, try not paying your taxes and see what winds up happening to you), therefore that it's wrong for Chris or I or anyone to simply keep what we earn; you're not in a good position to bitch at other people for making judgements.
And please show me where anyone 'threatened you with violence'? Unless you count serious disagreement a threat.
A little further along she comes out with this:
For the past 9 years, I disagreed with the policies and ethics of the leaders of this country. This past November, I made a choice to vote in a person and leadership whose values I do align with. I still don't see why there is a right or wrong here, or why you feel you are in the position to judge me. My views differ from yours, period.
So she likes the values of those who want to socialize the country, rob everyone who works hard and succeeds, and tried damn hard to make us lose in Iraq and will try to make us lose in Afghanistan; and she thinks there is no 'right or wrong here'. And is really upset that Chris judged her views on this.
To once again throw my own piece in here: Amy, you just said your values sit with those who want to loot us, and our families and friends, and don't want us to judge your beliefs? When you have judged ours(but that's apparently ok)? And you don't think there's a right or wrong involved? Then either you cannot understand that there IS right and wrong involved to us, or you ignore it and say we're threatening for daring to say "There is right and wrong, and we think Obama and you are in the wrong."
This is one of those cases where someone may be, personally, very nice, but it doesn't matter: because she pushes views that threaten our lives and work and nation, and doesn't want us to dare to say we think her ways are bad; that her Chosen One is trying to, maybe deliberately, badly damage this nation. We shouldn't say that because it's judgemental, and pointing to seeing right and wrong. And, nasty as it sounds, that does make her part of the enemy.
It occurs to me that there's a story I can tell, now that son
is back in the world. I'd held off before because of the possibility of someone who'd worry too much reading it, so here goes:
Couple of months before his unit rotated out of Iraq I was driving down the street when the phone went off. Usual procedure is to see who it is and call back; I HATE people rolling down the road with a phone in their ear, ignoring all around them. However, the prefix indicated it was the son so I went ahead and answered while looking for a way to get out of traffic.
"Hello."
"Hi, how's things in your part of the world?"
"I no longer have a truck."
Wha? He'd left it at my place while he was gone, so "What the hell? It's in the drivew-"
"No, my truck here."
"Oh." Pause. "What happened to it?"
"It blew up."
...
Well, he was obviously not missing any parts or suffering other nasty after-effects, so, "How did that happen?" I still can't get out of the road, either.
Turned out they were rolling along on a patrol when he, up in the cupola, felt 'like being whapped with a hot, heavy blanket' and the MRAP stopped. First thought "Bleep!" and look for bad guys popping out of the rocks. No bad guys. Everybody gets out, other vehicles already have people on foot checking around.
According to the EOD guy, they'd rolled across a mine that had been there for at least a month from the look of things. The left front wheel was gone, suspension mostly gone or converted into the fragments that trashed the engine and transmission. Total injuries: one guy inside who'd been taking a nap with his helmet off banged his head on the "Ow! Shit!" level.
While getting a tow rigged, they checked the whole area. They found an eighty-pound piece of the run-flat tire 200 meters away. The really odd find was the convex mirror from the left-front fender: 50 meters away, bracket gone, frame gone, and not a mark on the mirror. Which the LT grabbed, announcing "This is going in a frame on the wall."
By this time I was so close to where I was going I just finished the drive. He didn't even notice a 'bang', not even a scratch from it, all's well and we're getting a new vehicle. Got caught up, and I informed him that he could tell Grandma & Grandpa about this himself after he got home; I sure as hell wasn't going to.
I know there were various bits of unpleasantness gone through in his tour, but that's the only one he really talked about; he ever feels the need to talk about others, he knows I'm here.
Once before he'd talked about the MRAP; the verdict was 'big, heavy, doesn't handle real well, but it'll do 80 on a straight and it's armored out the wazoo'. Which he now had personal evidence of.
Couple of months before his unit rotated out of Iraq I was driving down the street when the phone went off. Usual procedure is to see who it is and call back; I HATE people rolling down the road with a phone in their ear, ignoring all around them. However, the prefix indicated it was the son so I went ahead and answered while looking for a way to get out of traffic.
"Hello."
"Hi, how's things in your part of the world?"
"I no longer have a truck."
Wha? He'd left it at my place while he was gone, so "What the hell? It's in the drivew-"
"No, my truck here."
"Oh." Pause. "What happened to it?"
"It blew up."
...
Well, he was obviously not missing any parts or suffering other nasty after-effects, so, "How did that happen?" I still can't get out of the road, either.
Turned out they were rolling along on a patrol when he, up in the cupola, felt 'like being whapped with a hot, heavy blanket' and the MRAP stopped. First thought "Bleep!" and look for bad guys popping out of the rocks. No bad guys. Everybody gets out, other vehicles already have people on foot checking around.
According to the EOD guy, they'd rolled across a mine that had been there for at least a month from the look of things. The left front wheel was gone, suspension mostly gone or converted into the fragments that trashed the engine and transmission. Total injuries: one guy inside who'd been taking a nap with his helmet off banged his head on the "Ow! Shit!" level.
While getting a tow rigged, they checked the whole area. They found an eighty-pound piece of the run-flat tire 200 meters away. The really odd find was the convex mirror from the left-front fender: 50 meters away, bracket gone, frame gone, and not a mark on the mirror. Which the LT grabbed, announcing "This is going in a frame on the wall."
By this time I was so close to where I was going I just finished the drive. He didn't even notice a 'bang', not even a scratch from it, all's well and we're getting a new vehicle. Got caught up, and I informed him that he could tell Grandma & Grandpa about this himself after he got home; I sure as hell wasn't going to.
I know there were various bits of unpleasantness gone through in his tour, but that's the only one he really talked about; he ever feels the need to talk about others, he knows I'm here.
Once before he'd talked about the MRAP; the verdict was 'big, heavy, doesn't handle real well, but it'll do 80 on a straight and it's armored out the wazoo'. Which he now had personal evidence of.
Despite the rising cost of .22lr,
something followed me home.
S&W K22 Combat Masterpiece from what I can tell, with a set of Uncle Mike's grips instead of the original wood. Except the pictures of K22 pistols I've found show a square butt, and this one is round; otherwise seems to match up. Ribbed barrel, 5-screw, and so on. As smooth a double-action as I've ever handled, and the single-action... oh my.
The lockup is tight, the bore and chambers spotless and all seems to line up just like it should. So now I have to sit and contemplate it, and that brick of ammo, until I can get to the range with it. After reading some of Tam's comments about hers, I am looking forward to it with great anticipation.
S&W K22 Combat Masterpiece from what I can tell, with a set of Uncle Mike's grips instead of the original wood. Except the pictures of K22 pistols I've found show a square butt, and this one is round; otherwise seems to match up. Ribbed barrel, 5-screw, and so on. As smooth a double-action as I've ever handled, and the single-action... oh my.The lockup is tight, the bore and chambers spotless and all seems to line up just like it should. So now I have to sit and contemplate it, and that brick of ammo, until I can get to the range with it. After reading some of Tam's comments about hers, I am looking forward to it with great anticipation.
Notes from the gun show
this weekend, which I was able to go to yesterday. Dad had planned on coming up, but his area got some freezing rain during the night, then a couple of inches of snow, and the streets were pretty bad that early so he didn't make it.
1. This was the first place I'd seen .22 long rifle ammo available for a month or more; and DAMN! Bricks of Winchester were $38! Every other major brand was pretty close to that except for one ammo guy who had two bricks of Remington for $20 each. I got one, and should have grabbed both. The only stuff I'd class as 'affordable' by general standards was the Centurion made by Aguila, $18/brick.
2. I got there right after it opened, not many people. By the time a half-hour passed, lots more. By the time I left to get some lunch there was a line out the door to get in and the place was packed.
3. A guy had a Pocket Hammerless in .380, but wanted $800, which was more than I could go for it. Had some .32's also, and some parts. I'd love to see his collection, he described the stuff for sale as 'what I decided I can do without'.
4. I noticed the Winchester low-recoil 00 buck was up $2 from what it was a year ago.
5. Lots of business going on, saw fewer AR variants than last time.
6. I was hoping to get a box or two of the higher-grade .22 for testing purposes, but A: nobody had the stuff I wanted and B: I wasn't paying $15-18 for a box of .22 ammo for the really good stuff.
7. There's a company that shows up occasionally that carries nothing but brass and bullets, lots and LOTS of them; unfortunately, they weren't here. I know why; the big Tulsa show is next weekend.
8. Some of these people are flat nuts; wanting $3-400 for a SKS?
Nasty weather and all, it was a very busy show; wish I could have gone back today.
1. This was the first place I'd seen .22 long rifle ammo available for a month or more; and DAMN! Bricks of Winchester were $38! Every other major brand was pretty close to that except for one ammo guy who had two bricks of Remington for $20 each. I got one, and should have grabbed both. The only stuff I'd class as 'affordable' by general standards was the Centurion made by Aguila, $18/brick.
2. I got there right after it opened, not many people. By the time a half-hour passed, lots more. By the time I left to get some lunch there was a line out the door to get in and the place was packed.
3. A guy had a Pocket Hammerless in .380, but wanted $800, which was more than I could go for it. Had some .32's also, and some parts. I'd love to see his collection, he described the stuff for sale as 'what I decided I can do without'.
4. I noticed the Winchester low-recoil 00 buck was up $2 from what it was a year ago.
5. Lots of business going on, saw fewer AR variants than last time.
6. I was hoping to get a box or two of the higher-grade .22 for testing purposes, but A: nobody had the stuff I wanted and B: I wasn't paying $15-18 for a box of .22 ammo for the really good stuff.
7. There's a company that shows up occasionally that carries nothing but brass and bullets, lots and LOTS of them; unfortunately, they weren't here. I know why; the big Tulsa show is next weekend.
8. Some of these people are flat nuts; wanting $3-400 for a SKS?
Nasty weather and all, it was a very busy show; wish I could have gone back today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)