a nose bleed, sounding like a bullfrog, and occasional coughing, further attitude from someone was something I REALLY didn't need.
There's always someone. And screw 'em. I'm going to watch a bit of Vikings, relax, and get some sleep.
Saturday, December 01, 2018
Saturday night
the storms blew through last night, it's clear now, but since it's a bit chilly and I've used so much kleenex the last week for Earth First! to declare me an Enemy of Gaia, I'm staying in. If you are as well, here's some data
Amazing what happens when the sights are actually clear
Just got new glasses. This time got some that have a wider and taller lens, figuring that might make the zones a little bigger(yes, trifocals). Well, it worked; for the first time in years the front iron sight is actually sharp and clear. Had a chance to shoot that Cadet the other day, and this might show the difference:
Before
After
Same everything except glasses. Wish I'd tried this setup a long time ago
Before
This was a fairly good piece on the 'cops shooting the good guys' problem until
they stepped into this bullshit:
But even as departments assess the incidents – and state authorities investigate more deeply – the killings suggest an uncomfortable truth about the Second Amendment itself, historians say: That it was at least in part designed to give legal leeway to settlers to deal with Native Americans and to stamp out slave rebellions in the South. Echoes of that history still infiltrate the modern gun rights debate.
“The history of this country suggests that the Second Amendment [is] not intended for people like the gentleman in Alabama, which is why he got shot,” says Gerald Horne, author of “The Counter-Revolution of 1776.”
No matter how well and often this crap has been shown to BE crap, they still keep throwing it. Apparently crap-flinging monkeys have no other activity.
Two things pointed out that really need to be dealt with:
“We now live in a time where there are no longer clear rules of engagement on the street for law enforcement, and where people who try to help often wind up suffering the most – for trying to help,” says Charles Rose, a law professor at Stetson University, in DeLand, Fla.
and
“As a side effect of the global war on terror, the military is very well-trained in how to deal with noncombatants in volatile situations without having to engage in deadly force,” says Rose, a former US Army judge advocate. “US law enforcement is routinely trained to start with deadly force. Those two mindsets don’t cross-pollinate very well, and I don’t know that it’s law enforcement’s fault.”
On the first part: Why the hell not?" It's the JOB of the people who run and train departments to have exactly that: clear rules for use of force.
On the second: The hell it's not LEs fault. If you're training your people to go straight to deadly force that damned well is your fault. That troops in war zones have better training in this than the supposed-to-be peace officers is a damning fact, and departments with this problem better start dealing with it. Like they should have a long time ago.
And the next time you find out some training seminar is pushing that 'You're a street warrior' crap, throw them the hell out. And warn every other agency around.
But even as departments assess the incidents – and state authorities investigate more deeply – the killings suggest an uncomfortable truth about the Second Amendment itself, historians say: That it was at least in part designed to give legal leeway to settlers to deal with Native Americans and to stamp out slave rebellions in the South. Echoes of that history still infiltrate the modern gun rights debate.
“The history of this country suggests that the Second Amendment [is] not intended for people like the gentleman in Alabama, which is why he got shot,” says Gerald Horne, author of “The Counter-Revolution of 1776.”
No matter how well and often this crap has been shown to BE crap, they still keep throwing it. Apparently crap-flinging monkeys have no other activity.
Two things pointed out that really need to be dealt with:
“We now live in a time where there are no longer clear rules of engagement on the street for law enforcement, and where people who try to help often wind up suffering the most – for trying to help,” says Charles Rose, a law professor at Stetson University, in DeLand, Fla.
and
“As a side effect of the global war on terror, the military is very well-trained in how to deal with noncombatants in volatile situations without having to engage in deadly force,” says Rose, a former US Army judge advocate. “US law enforcement is routinely trained to start with deadly force. Those two mindsets don’t cross-pollinate very well, and I don’t know that it’s law enforcement’s fault.”
On the first part: Why the hell not?" It's the JOB of the people who run and train departments to have exactly that: clear rules for use of force.
On the second: The hell it's not LEs fault. If you're training your people to go straight to deadly force that damned well is your fault. That troops in war zones have better training in this than the supposed-to-be peace officers is a damning fact, and departments with this problem better start dealing with it. Like they should have a long time ago.
And the next time you find out some training seminar is pushing that 'You're a street warrior' crap, throw them the hell out. And warn every other agency around.
Friday, November 30, 2018
Why anybody would trust the EffingBI about ANYTHING,
I do not know.
FBI agents raided the home of a recognized Department of Justice whistleblower who privately delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a government watchdog, according to the whistleblower’s attorney.
...
The raid was permitted by a court order signed on Nov. 15 by federal magistrate Stephanie A. Gallagher in the U.S. District Court for Baltimore and obtained by TheDCNF.
A special agent from the FBI’s Baltimore division, who led the raid, charged that Cain possessed stolen federal property and demanded entry to his private residence, Socarras told TheDCNF.
"WE say he stole government property, so screw the whistleblower laws."
Trust these clowns? Why should I?
FBI agents raided the home of a recognized Department of Justice whistleblower who privately delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a government watchdog, according to the whistleblower’s attorney.
...
The raid was permitted by a court order signed on Nov. 15 by federal magistrate Stephanie A. Gallagher in the U.S. District Court for Baltimore and obtained by TheDCNF.
A special agent from the FBI’s Baltimore division, who led the raid, charged that Cain possessed stolen federal property and demanded entry to his private residence, Socarras told TheDCNF.
"WE say he stole government property, so screw the whistleblower laws."
Trust these clowns? Why should I?
Gee, I wonder who else might be in among the 'refugees'?
An active member of the MS-13 gang admitted to U.S.
Border Patrol officials that he joined a caravan of migrants in the
hopes of reaching the border and crossing into the United States, a U.S.
official told the Washington Examiner.
Jose Villalobos-Jobel of Honduras was arrested on Nov. 24, after being spotted standing on the U.S. side of the border east of the port of entry in Calexico, Calif.
Customs and Border Protection said Villalobos-Jobel admitted to being from Honduras and an active gang member of Mara Salvatrucha 13, or MS-13, a transnational criminal organization. He also said he traveled to the U.S. from his home country with one of the caravan groups, which have said they were coming to the U.S. to apply for asylum at the border.
Throw in the reports of serious diseases- like chicken pox, and tuberculosis- among a bunch of them, and we're just supposed to let them walk in?
I don't think so.
Jose Villalobos-Jobel of Honduras was arrested on Nov. 24, after being spotted standing on the U.S. side of the border east of the port of entry in Calexico, Calif.
Customs and Border Protection said Villalobos-Jobel admitted to being from Honduras and an active gang member of Mara Salvatrucha 13, or MS-13, a transnational criminal organization. He also said he traveled to the U.S. from his home country with one of the caravan groups, which have said they were coming to the U.S. to apply for asylum at the border.
Throw in the reports of serious diseases- like chicken pox, and tuberculosis- among a bunch of them, and we're just supposed to let them walk in?
I don't think so.
From Lawdog a few years ago on silly-ass laws
The last 40-50 years, though, I get the impression that Emotion has been the major factor in the passing of Law.
Why did we temporarily ban "assault rifles"?
Logically, an "assault rifle" is woefully underpowered compared to a hunting rifle. Hell, some places won't let hunters use 5.56mm to hunt 80 pound deer because it won't kill them reliably.
No. We banned "assault rifles" because some-bloody-idiot got on the TeeVee with her lower lip trembling and started whining about how "scary" black assault rifles looked.
Same thing with switchblades.
A switchblade sucks as a fighting knife compared to a fixed blade knife, but some-bloody-idiot got up in front of the Texas Legislature -- no doubt with a trembling lip -- and started whining about them uppity minorities killin' everbody and Grandma Frickert with switchblades and we're stuck with a silly-assed law.
Emotion is a piss-poor reason for passing laws, and it's about time that someone with some testicular fortitude got into politics and pointed this out.
Throw in that along with the lip-tremblers we have the major-media asshats who've yet to set a 'ban this tool for the Children!' line that they won't run with.
Why did we temporarily ban "assault rifles"?
Logically, an "assault rifle" is woefully underpowered compared to a hunting rifle. Hell, some places won't let hunters use 5.56mm to hunt 80 pound deer because it won't kill them reliably.
No. We banned "assault rifles" because some-bloody-idiot got on the TeeVee with her lower lip trembling and started whining about how "scary" black assault rifles looked.
Same thing with switchblades.
A switchblade sucks as a fighting knife compared to a fixed blade knife, but some-bloody-idiot got up in front of the Texas Legislature -- no doubt with a trembling lip -- and started whining about them uppity minorities killin' everbody and Grandma Frickert with switchblades and we're stuck with a silly-assed law.
Emotion is a piss-poor reason for passing laws, and it's about time that someone with some testicular fortitude got into politics and pointed this out.
Throw in that along with the lip-tremblers we have the major-media asshats who've yet to set a 'ban this tool for the Children!' line that they won't run with.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Oh, the EUnuchs must be frothing at the mouth over this;
well done, Mr. Salvini!
In September, Salvini engineered legislation that eased Italy’s gun laws, de-restricting military small arms and making it possible to Italian citizens to own them.
He is also re-defining the legal definition of legitimate self-defense, making criminal prosecutions of citizens who bravely defend themselves from violent criminals, less likely.
I believe the Czech Republic and one or two other countries basically told the EU to stuff the "The commoners cannot be trusted to own arms" legislation it passed a year or two ago, and now this. Now if Britain will rediscover what it used to be...
In September, Salvini engineered legislation that eased Italy’s gun laws, de-restricting military small arms and making it possible to Italian citizens to own them.
He is also re-defining the legal definition of legitimate self-defense, making criminal prosecutions of citizens who bravely defend themselves from violent criminals, less likely.
“Defense is always legitimate,” Salvini states audaciously, and adds , “Owning a gun is ‘do-it-yourself’ security.”And, he is just getting started.
I believe the Czech Republic and one or two other countries basically told the EU to stuff the "The commoners cannot be trusted to own arms" legislation it passed a year or two ago, and now this. Now if Britain will rediscover what it used to be...
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
There has been light bloggage for a while,
and that'll probably continue for a bit.
Dad had an accident at home and really tore up his knees. Had to have surgery, which went well, and he's in braces to prevent his legs from bending while things heal. Lots of PT now, and more to come. And since he's in a med facility, there have been things Mom needed a hand with, so trips to do that.
Throw in that I seem to have contracted some form of plague(not flu), and some long days at work, and I'm knackered. And since I really don't want to be out in the wind right now, I had to turn down an invitation to see if I could whack Bambi.
Things should ease off as time goes by, but posting will be a bit hit & miss.
Dad had an accident at home and really tore up his knees. Had to have surgery, which went well, and he's in braces to prevent his legs from bending while things heal. Lots of PT now, and more to come. And since he's in a med facility, there have been things Mom needed a hand with, so trips to do that.
Throw in that I seem to have contracted some form of plague(not flu), and some long days at work, and I'm knackered. And since I really don't want to be out in the wind right now, I had to turn down an invitation to see if I could whack Bambi.
Things should ease off as time goes by, but posting will be a bit hit & miss.
More .310 stuff
I've seen a bunch of different lengths for the cartridge cases, and tried several. One of the things discovered is that with the shortened 7.62 Nagant cases, 1.145" will work well with the .32-caliber semi-wadcutters; on this rifle at least that case length will not work with the 120-grain original style bullet, it's just too long and the bullet is contacting the rifling before you can seat the cartridge all the way into the chamber.
So tried it with a 1.140; better, but still a bit too long for that bullet. Looks like, for these, probably 1.135 will be the best overall. 'Probably' because I'll have to shorten a few so we can try them, and that'll be a few days.
Cartridge case summation:
.32-20 cases can be successfully converted, and work well; they are a bit delicate because the case walls are so thin, but since you only have to resize about the first 1/3(for some uses won't have to) they'll last for many firings. The Nagant cases are much stronger, and- because of the thicker case walls- you don't have to resize them to get a firm grip on the bullet heel, just expand the mouth a touch to allow them to start in easily.
Length will vary, apparently a lot. I've read of some that won't work with cases over 1.125", others considerably longer. This one seems to work well with 1.135" cases and below(have used some all the way down to 1.120" with good results). If you wind up with one of these that's been rechambered for .32-20 cases, you can use them as-is.
I suspect that, after a few uses, it might be a good idea to anneal the case mouths of the Nagant brass; it's stiff enough that if you don't they might start cracking at the mouth if you don't. We'll see.
So tried it with a 1.140; better, but still a bit too long for that bullet. Looks like, for these, probably 1.135 will be the best overall. 'Probably' because I'll have to shorten a few so we can try them, and that'll be a few days.
Cartridge case summation:
.32-20 cases can be successfully converted, and work well; they are a bit delicate because the case walls are so thin, but since you only have to resize about the first 1/3(for some uses won't have to) they'll last for many firings. The Nagant cases are much stronger, and- because of the thicker case walls- you don't have to resize them to get a firm grip on the bullet heel, just expand the mouth a touch to allow them to start in easily.
Length will vary, apparently a lot. I've read of some that won't work with cases over 1.125", others considerably longer. This one seems to work well with 1.135" cases and below(have used some all the way down to 1.120" with good results). If you wind up with one of these that's been rechambered for .32-20 cases, you can use them as-is.
I suspect that, after a few uses, it might be a good idea to anneal the case mouths of the Nagant brass; it's stiff enough that if you don't they might start cracking at the mouth if you don't. We'll see.
Monday, November 26, 2018
How did Stalin hide the famines?
With the aid of lots of Professional Journalists. And the first one who, being an actual reporter, blew the whistle?
The Moscow press corps was even angrier. Of course its members knew that what Jones had reported was true, and a few were looking for ways to tell the same story. Malcolm Muggeridge, at the time the correspondent for the Manchester Guardian, had just smuggled three articles about the famine out of the country via diplomatic bag. The Guardian published them anonymously, with heavy cuts made by editors who disapproved of his critique of the USSR, and, appearing at a moment when the news was dominated by Hitler’s rise to power, they were largely ignored. But the rest of the press corps, dependent on official goodwill, closed ranks against Jones. Lyons meticulously described what happened:
...As 1933 turned into 1934 and then 1935, Europeans grew even more worried about Hitler. By the end of 1933, the new Roosevelt administration was actively looking for reasons to ignore any bad news about the Soviet Union. The president’s team had concluded that developments in Germany and the need to limit Japanese expansion meant that it was time, finally, for the United States to open full diplomatic relations with Moscow. Roosevelt’s interest in central planning and in what he thought were the USSR’s great economic successes—the president read Duranty’s reporting carefully—encouraged him to believe that there might be a lucrative commercial relationship too. Eventually a deal was struck. Litvinov arrived in New York to sign it—accompanied by Duranty. At a lavish banquet for the Soviet foreign minister at the Waldorf Astoria, Duranty was introduced to the 1,500 guests. He stood up and bowed.
The Moscow press corps was even angrier. Of course its members knew that what Jones had reported was true, and a few were looking for ways to tell the same story. Malcolm Muggeridge, at the time the correspondent for the Manchester Guardian, had just smuggled three articles about the famine out of the country via diplomatic bag. The Guardian published them anonymously, with heavy cuts made by editors who disapproved of his critique of the USSR, and, appearing at a moment when the news was dominated by Hitler’s rise to power, they were largely ignored. But the rest of the press corps, dependent on official goodwill, closed ranks against Jones. Lyons meticulously described what happened:
Throwing down Jones was as unpleasant a chore as fell to any of us in years of juggling facts to please dictatorial regimes—but throw him down we did, unanimously and in almost identical formulations of equivocation. Poor Gareth Jones must have been the most surprised human being alive when the facts he so painstakingly garnered from our mouths were snowed under by our denials. … There was much bargaining in a spirit of gentlemanly give-and-take, under the effulgence of Umansky’s gilded smile, before a formal denial was worked out. We admitted enough to soothe our consciences, but in roundabout phrases that damned Jones as a liar. The filthy business having been disposed of, someone ordered vodka and zakuski.And, of course, politicians who probably didn't give a damn.
...As 1933 turned into 1934 and then 1935, Europeans grew even more worried about Hitler. By the end of 1933, the new Roosevelt administration was actively looking for reasons to ignore any bad news about the Soviet Union. The president’s team had concluded that developments in Germany and the need to limit Japanese expansion meant that it was time, finally, for the United States to open full diplomatic relations with Moscow. Roosevelt’s interest in central planning and in what he thought were the USSR’s great economic successes—the president read Duranty’s reporting carefully—encouraged him to believe that there might be a lucrative commercial relationship too. Eventually a deal was struck. Litvinov arrived in New York to sign it—accompanied by Duranty. At a lavish banquet for the Soviet foreign minister at the Waldorf Astoria, Duranty was introduced to the 1,500 guests. He stood up and bowed.
As a general rule, I don't care who someone dates, or sleeps with
as long as there's no coercion involved. Turns out I'm a lot more liberal on the matter than an awful lot of the left, part of their insanity being what brought this up:
TERF was initially used as an acronym that meant Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, but the term has always been used to muzzle women from discussing our rights. For the past year and half, TERF has been widely used as homophobic hate speech aimed at all lesbians. That's right... ALL lesbians.
You don't have to be a radical feminist to be labeled a TERF. A lesbian can make it clear she believes trans people deserve human rights and respect, but she's still a "TERF" because her sexual orientation has an innate boundary. That boundary is same-sex attraction for other adult human females. Lesbians are the only sexual orientation that excludes penis...
So: if you're male but you won't date someone who's trans and has a penis, you're homo/trans-phobic. Or something. If you're a girl who likes girls, and won't sleep with a trans with a penis, you're a horrible human being. Reminds me of this I ran across a few years ago:
Ever notice that a lot of the left seems to want people to have no choice about who they sleep with? It's either everyone or you're a hater.
TERF was initially used as an acronym that meant Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, but the term has always been used to muzzle women from discussing our rights. For the past year and half, TERF has been widely used as homophobic hate speech aimed at all lesbians. That's right... ALL lesbians.
You don't have to be a radical feminist to be labeled a TERF. A lesbian can make it clear she believes trans people deserve human rights and respect, but she's still a "TERF" because her sexual orientation has an innate boundary. That boundary is same-sex attraction for other adult human females. Lesbians are the only sexual orientation that excludes penis...
So: if you're male but you won't date someone who's trans and has a penis, you're homo/trans-phobic. Or something. If you're a girl who likes girls, and won't sleep with a trans with a penis, you're a horrible human being. Reminds me of this I ran across a few years ago:
Ever notice that a lot of the left seems to want people to have no choice about who they sleep with? It's either everyone or you're a hater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)