and thinking about that made me think about smithing, and how I got started in this mess.
Partly I was always fascinated with the idea of actually making things. And then I found out my grandfather on Dad's side had been a smith for many years, and his father. Which brought that specific way of making things very much into my mind. No idea what to do about it, but it was a wonderful thought. Then I got a taste of doing it.
Back when, Dad was working part-time at a local salvage yard to pull in some extra money. Once day, after I'd said something about wanting to try forging, he brought home a round, bowl-shaped piece of cast iron with a smaller bowl in the bottom which had a hole in the side for grease. He thought it was some kind of cover for a shaft end on some machinery, and it ought to work for a forge bowl. So we propped it up on some bricks, took the refrigerator compressor he had from somewhere(I don't remember what he'd used it for) and ran the output line into the grease hole, broke up some charcoal briquets and lit it off. Not much air flow, but enough to get small pieces hot.
Understand, I had absolutely no idea what I was doing, and Dad didn't know much; by the time he was born Grandpa had started working at a different job and didn't do much forging anymore. No books, either. So I just fooled around with it, burning up more charcoal than was really affordable, with the only real product I remember being a small javelin head I made out of a screwdriver shaft.
A little while after that we moved, and it was years before I had the chance or inclination to try it again. By that time I was grown(physically, at least), married and had- if anything- even less money free for crap like that. Then-wife and I were playing around in the SCA(had been when we met, so that was nothing new) and a guy we knew was interested in smithing, too. And he had the money and time to collect tools and had put a forge together. So when opportunity allowed I'd go over to his girlfriend's house(his stuff was in the yard) and we'd hammer on things. And by that time there were actually some books out on the subject, and from looking at objects in history and craft books we figured out some things, and it went from there.
I wound up with my own forge, made of some steel framing holding a cast iron sink; I cut a hole in the bottom and set in a brake drum for a firepot, and rigged up a squirrel-cage blower to that. And I actually started getting good at it.
The feeling of figuring out how to make something correctly, and then creating it... it's wonderful. And amazing. The first time of making something, or figuring out a way to make something better(in both senses), it's just indescribable. The first time I hardened and tempered a blade, and it WORKED! The first time I actually forge-welded two pieced together and they didn't fall apart under stress!
Another part of that is taking some rusty scrap you picked up off the street, or from a salvage yard, and making something. Then you wire-brush it, and oil it or polish it or however you finished it off. And you display it and people say "Oh my God, that's wonderful! How can you do that?!?" It's actually kind of addictive.
My favorite thing to make is blades. Knives, chisels, axes, swords. Taking some spring steel and making a chef's knife that holds an edge better than anything the owner had ever had before. Making a chandelier for either candles or oil lamps that you find out has the place of honor in someone's home. It makes you want to make more, and better. I started making pattern-welded blades- also called 'damascus'- because I just had to do it myself. And then you can manipulate the pattern in the blade.
And tools. Need an oddball wrench? A punch? Odd-shaped or sized screwdriver? Light the fire and make it. Need a specially-shaped hammer? You can make it. A spring you can't find a replacement for? Tricky at times, but you can create it.
There is just no other feeling like it.
That's one reason- other than the general- that I bitch about my hands and elbow and shoulder. I flat cannot work like I used to, and I miss it.
But, to quote somebody, "I'm not dead yet!" So I still fire the forge and hammer when I can work it..
Damn, I wish there were blacksmith groupies.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Don't you just love the idea of living under sharia law?
"I must tell my brothers and sisters that finding a cure (vaccination) for an epidemic before its outbreak is not allowed in Sharia ," said Maulana Fazlullah during a Friday sermon in Mam Dherai village where he is building a madrassa with local funds.
Yes, MUCH better to have your kids dying of or being crippled by polio than use a vaccine, right? Because then the kids will be martyrs.
Ignorant, hate-filled, bigoted, freaking barbarians. Maulana Fazlullah suspects the intentions of foreign agencies involved in funding drives against fatal diseases: “I don’t understand why foreigners would think of our well-being when we see that they are killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.” He cited the example of a companion of the Prophet who, he said, was ‘martyred’ during an epidemic.
Maybe because the ones being killed are murdering terrorists, and here people are trying to keep your kids safe from a nasty disease? Maybe because we actually care about life as opposed to your worship of death, you God-cursed idiot? And you ARE an idiot. Saleem accidentally sets off his bomb and dies, "He's a martyr!" Abdul crashes into a tree and "The jooos caused it, he's a martyr!" You ever think that, just maybe, if you stopped blaming everybody else for your problems and stopped excusing every damn thing by naming someone a 'martyr' you might actually accomplish something? Besides getting people killed, at least?
Dammit, this crap is enough to ruin your good mood.
Yes, MUCH better to have your kids dying of or being crippled by polio than use a vaccine, right? Because then the kids will be martyrs.
Ignorant, hate-filled, bigoted, freaking barbarians. Maulana Fazlullah suspects the intentions of foreign agencies involved in funding drives against fatal diseases: “I don’t understand why foreigners would think of our well-being when we see that they are killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.” He cited the example of a companion of the Prophet who, he said, was ‘martyred’ during an epidemic.
Maybe because the ones being killed are murdering terrorists, and here people are trying to keep your kids safe from a nasty disease? Maybe because we actually care about life as opposed to your worship of death, you God-cursed idiot? And you ARE an idiot. Saleem accidentally sets off his bomb and dies, "He's a martyr!" Abdul crashes into a tree and "The jooos caused it, he's a martyr!" You ever think that, just maybe, if you stopped blaming everybody else for your problems and stopped excusing every damn thing by naming someone a 'martyr' you might actually accomplish something? Besides getting people killed, at least?
Dammit, this crap is enough to ruin your good mood.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Don't forget the Nation of Riflemen
First National Shooting Festival and Conference.
I'm not going to know if I can get the time until April. God, I want to go.
I'm not going to know if I can get the time until April. God, I want to go.
I think my arms are about an inch and a half longer
because of ALL THE BOOKS I JUST BOUGHT!
Library book sale this weekend, and somebody gave me a ticket so I was able to go to the Friday night opening. Damn, it was packed, and with the mild weather hot as hell in that building. But I got a stack of stuff.
May go back tomorrow, as they're refill the empty spots tonight.
Good thing it's about the end of the month.
Library book sale this weekend, and somebody gave me a ticket so I was able to go to the Friday night opening. Damn, it was packed, and with the mild weather hot as hell in that building. But I got a stack of stuff.
May go back tomorrow, as they're refill the empty spots tonight.
Good thing it's about the end of the month.
A note for those planning to buy a M1 Carbine
Whether from CMP or anyone else:
Buy the bolt tool.
Taking the Carbine bolt apart without it isn't too big a deal; putting it back together without one is a first-class pain in the ass.
Buy the bolt tool.
Taking the Carbine bolt apart without it isn't too big a deal; putting it back together without one is a first-class pain in the ass.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Gresham gets it
Smallest Minority pointed to this post by Gresham which pretty much covers it.
One thing he points out is the end result the Brady Gun-Ban Group and the Violence Policy Center Gun Ban Organization(my name for the bastards) desire:
To gun banners, there is no such thing as a good gun. They want them all. When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.
So if you're a cop, in their world you'll have a nightstick and a can of Mace, and that's it. Becuase "We banned guns, so you don't need to carry one anymore".
And we all know the criminals will turn theirs in. Right?
One thing he points out is the end result the Brady Gun-Ban Group and the Violence Policy Center Gun Ban Organization(my name for the bastards) desire:
To gun banners, there is no such thing as a good gun. They want them all. When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.
So if you're a cop, in their world you'll have a nightstick and a can of Mace, and that's it. Becuase "We banned guns, so you don't need to carry one anymore".
And we all know the criminals will turn theirs in. Right?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
If any question remained about the intentions of the Brady Bunch,
check this out at Uncle. Somebody else noted the same thing, probably several somebodies, but I'm not going to search around for them now.
According to the Brady people, if you have a scope on a rifle or shotgun or handgun, you have a sniper rifle that should be banned. You should not be allowed to hunt unless you can do it with iron sights. There's never a need to shoot at game more than 100 meters away.
I said it before, they'll take anything you can think of about a firearm and that'll become a reason to ban it. Your hunting rifle has a scope, or is capable of shooting 'too accurately', it's a sniper rifle: ban it. How long do you think it'll take them to decide that anything other than buckhorn rear sights are 'unnecessary' for hunting accuracy and should be banned?
Like Uncle said before, they're the Brady Gun-Ban Group. Period. That's their entire aim. And people like Zumbo give them ammunition to shoot all gun owners- including Zumbo- in the back.
According to the Brady people, if you have a scope on a rifle or shotgun or handgun, you have a sniper rifle that should be banned. You should not be allowed to hunt unless you can do it with iron sights. There's never a need to shoot at game more than 100 meters away.
I said it before, they'll take anything you can think of about a firearm and that'll become a reason to ban it. Your hunting rifle has a scope, or is capable of shooting 'too accurately', it's a sniper rifle: ban it. How long do you think it'll take them to decide that anything other than buckhorn rear sights are 'unnecessary' for hunting accuracy and should be banned?
Like Uncle said before, they're the Brady Gun-Ban Group. Period. That's their entire aim. And people like Zumbo give them ammunition to shoot all gun owners- including Zumbo- in the back.
Amazing what comes out of the change machine sometimes
This quarter looks really worn, so I flipped it over to check the date
1935. I've found pre-1964 quarters a couple of times before, but never one this old.
1935. I've found pre-1964 quarters a couple of times before, but never one this old.
Well, well, well, enough yelling about the truth
and even bureaucrats listen.
The Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, interprets the Second Amendment as securing a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (See Memorandum for the Attorney General from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, et al., Re: Whether The Second Amendment Secures An Individual Right (Aug. 24, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olcsecondoamendment2.pdf ). In light of this interpretation, the FAA is withdrawing the statement made in the final rule.
I personally don't like that 'interprets' bit, but the basic problem with the original FAA rule is pretty much cleared with this.
The Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, interprets the Second Amendment as securing a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (See Memorandum for the Attorney General from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, et al., Re: Whether The Second Amendment Secures An Individual Right (Aug. 24, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olcsecondoamendment2.pdf ). In light of this interpretation, the FAA is withdrawing the statement made in the final rule.
I personally don't like that 'interprets' bit, but the basic problem with the original FAA rule is pretty much cleared with this.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
And, right on time, the Brady Gun Ban group jumps in
Monday, February 19, 2007
Naw, the Brady's & Co. don't want your hunting gun
Unless they can get it
A guy found this on the Brady blog and posted it:
The tragic proliferation of Sniper Rifles
I would like to take a moment to comment on the proliferation of Sniper Rifles.
Sniper Rifles are typically equipped with a high-powered scope, and every single one of them can blow through the body armor cops wear. They can even penetrate multiple police cars. Does the Second Amendment protect cop-killer Sniper Rifles? The NRA certainly thinks so, along with the powerful gun lobby that wants your children and your law enforcement officers to be at risk from these weapons of mass destruction.
So, your scoped hunting rifle or target rifle is now a 'weapon of mass destruction' that puts all the kiddies and cops at risk.
Some of these Sniper Rifles can even penetrate ballistic or armored glass, lightly armored vehicles, and armored limousines. Senator Ted Kennedy attempted to solve this with an important bill that would have banned armor piercing ammunition and protected lawful firearm commerce:
"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.....
..It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.."
Yes, that would be the old .30-30, or .30WCF as it was originally know when it came out so recently. In 1894. That must be some kind of deer rifle ol' Swimmer tested; only way I can see a .30-30 puncturing 'light-armored vehicles...even a 600-pound safe' would be if you gave it a depeleted uranium core and boosted it to about 6000fps. 'Course, that would turn the rifle in to shrapnel, but maybe Swimmer(Drunk-Hypocrite, MA) is a bit fuzzy on facts.
Should our elected officials live under the threat of reprisal on their lives from disgruntled constituents? The Gun Lobby seems to think so. We disagree.
Considering some of the crap they come up with, some elected officials should live under the threat of something; it might make them connect back to reality.
Sniper Rifles can be equipped with precision optics above even what the Military uses, allowing a sniper to deliver rounds within millimeters of accuracy - enabling them to engage targets at distances of well over one hundred meters. Is there a pressing need to be able to kill with accuracy at that distance? It is too far to justify as self defense. It is too far for hunting. It is only useful for those who wish to murder from afar.
Hehehehehe, 'within millimeters', 'well over one hundred meters'. God, these people are amazing! I'd point out to them that lots of matches are shot at far over that range, and shots at some game are often over 'one hundred meters', but I think he probably knows that, and just doesn't care to interrupt his tirade about 'sniper rifles' with facts.
Large caliber Sniper Rifles such as the .50 Browning Machine Gun can derail freight cars, shoot down aircraft and helicopters, damage vital ground equipment such as power substations, fuel tanks, and air traffic control, and cause complete chaos. For more information on why large caliber machine-gun rounds must be banned, visit http://www.50caliberterror.com. A shipment of large caliber machine-gun round sniper rifles made by Steyr turned up in Iran, and are being used on our own soldiers, as the .50 bullets easily defeat their body armor, their up-armored humvees, and even APCs.
Now THAT is a new one, a .50 can 'derail a freight car! This must be using one of those Type C Sub-Molecular Explosive Bullets(assuming they existed).
You'll notice that an enemy country using them against our troops is reason to ban them from us revolting(in both senses) peasants.
Many forward thinking, progressive politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have voted against Center-Fire Rifle Ammunition of types for Sniper Rifles, but due to the pressure and massive financial resources of the gun industry, the necessary steps to protect our homes and lives have not been attained.
Ah yes, forward thinking 'progressives', who seem to think stomping the peasants into line and banning anything that makes them wet their pants is a Good Thing. I guess it is, if you think the same kind of socialist crap that's fallen flat everywhere in the world will work here("We'll do it again, only more and harder!*). Note also that it's apparently ALL centerfire ammo, as I've never seen a box labeled 'for Sniper Rifles'.
Sniper Rifles have been used by murderers and spree killers for years, with notable incidents such as the Beltway Snipers, the Clocktower Sniper, and more.
ANY rifle configured and equipped as a sniper rifle has no sporting purpose especially as a hunting rifle. They are too big and heavy to take to the field. Designed for distance shooting, they are useless for the ranges at which game animals are normally shot, and when used on sporting sized game at range they often just wound the animal, inhumanely forcing it to die slowly while the would-be hunter tracks it to finish it off. Most Sniper Rifles fire atypically large cartridges and ultra high velocity ammunition that can travel much greater distances that standard ammunition. The danger imposed from missed shots and ricochetes from these specialty rounds is unreasonable.
You'll note he's not too specific about 'configured as a sniper rifle' other than 'it has a scope and will reach out more than 100 meters'. And this is downright idiotic: they're 'designed for distance shooting', but 'useless for the ranges' of hunting(remember, that's less than 100 meters); super powerful, but can't cleanly kill an animal. Flat amazing.
Most of these rifles carry multiple rounds, with either an automatic mechanism, or a quick toggle action to rapidly move another bullet into the breech, ready to fire into another victim. In most states, they are nearly unrestricted. Anyone over the age of 18 can buy one. If they can't pass a background check, they skirt the NCIS system by going to a gunshow, or finding a private sale in the newspaper. A murderer camped at a distance from a public gathering could quickly turn it into a massacre dwarfing anything we have seen before in the United States, if they had a Sniper Rifle. If they adopted hit and run tactics, entire portions of our country could be shut down.
Actually, sir, an 'automatic' mechanism is strictly regulated. Or do you mean 'semi-automatic'? They're not quite the same, you see. And apparently my old Model 94 is screwed, scope or not, as lever-actions are the only 'quick toggle action' I've ever heard of. John Wayne or The Rifleman and a loop lever, anyone?
And apparently this asshat somehow thinks that a terrorist planning mass murder would be stopped cold by 'A New And Improved Gun Ban Law'. Doesn't stop day-to-day dirtbags, but maybe terrorists will be more accommodating to his ideals.
Sniper Rifles shoot a high powered bullet that is almost always fatal. They are designed for one thing- delivering powerful overkill with deadly precision. You don't need the kind of power and accuracy that can kill a man at five hundred yards for hunting rabbits or defending your house.
But it can't kill a deer at whatever the hell range this guy has decided(for this paragraph at least) is 'normal' hunting range. I repeat, amazing.
We should also give commendations to France because many years ago they designated any firearm capable of shooting military ammunition as a military arm, illegal to posess without a special permit and unlawful to use for hunting. The 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are military weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population. Because they have no hunting purpose, there is no reason for civilians to own them.
Somehow, I knew he'd work the Wonders of France into this. Not familiar with French firearms law, but I have a certain feeling he's full of crap. Among other things, considering the old .30-06 is still one of the most popular hunting cartridges in the world his saying it has 'no hunting purpose' is insane. Same for the others.
Every state in the USA has hunting equipment rules that limit the caliber of firearm used to take game. They also limit the types of rifles, length, magazine capacity, etc. States should amend these hunting regulations to restrict the use of "sniper" rifles, specialty "sniper" cartridges, and "sniper" ammunition. Limits on weight, barrel length, bipods and tripods, thumbhole stocks and pistol grips, night vision type scopes, scopes of excessive magnification, super magnum and high velocity ammunition, and military slings should be imposed. They have no place in the hunting fields of America and hunting usage should not be used as an argument for civilians to own such firearms and weapons. There are more than ample hunting rifles, cartridges, and rounds of ammunition to choose from without them.
Hate to tell you this(not really, but go long here) but the reason they regulate the caliber is generally to make sure you're using a cartridge that has plenty of power for the game in question, not to make you use a smaller one. And what the hell is a 'scope of excessive magnification'? That depends on what you're hunting or the range your target is at. A 'military sling' does not a damn thing except give a way to carry the rifle, again he seems to think low-powered ammo is all you need to hunt with... etc., etc. I take it back, this isn't amazing, it's bloody pathetic.
Let us hope that in a safer, saner America, we will succeed in our efforts to restrict the deadly spread of long distance murder rifles."
In other words, 'Let's name every possible feature that might be found on a rifle and say that makes it a sniper rifle, so we can ban them all!" Kind of like Kerry & Co. going through a catalog to find the features that made them loose bladder control and decreeing that two or more of them make a firearm a 'assault weapon'.
But they don't want to ban your 'legitimate hunting gun', oh no....
A guy found this on the Brady blog and posted it:
The tragic proliferation of Sniper Rifles
I would like to take a moment to comment on the proliferation of Sniper Rifles.
Sniper Rifles are typically equipped with a high-powered scope, and every single one of them can blow through the body armor cops wear. They can even penetrate multiple police cars. Does the Second Amendment protect cop-killer Sniper Rifles? The NRA certainly thinks so, along with the powerful gun lobby that wants your children and your law enforcement officers to be at risk from these weapons of mass destruction.
So, your scoped hunting rifle or target rifle is now a 'weapon of mass destruction' that puts all the kiddies and cops at risk.
Some of these Sniper Rifles can even penetrate ballistic or armored glass, lightly armored vehicles, and armored limousines. Senator Ted Kennedy attempted to solve this with an important bill that would have banned armor piercing ammunition and protected lawful firearm commerce:
"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.....
..It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.."
Yes, that would be the old .30-30, or .30WCF as it was originally know when it came out so recently. In 1894. That must be some kind of deer rifle ol' Swimmer tested; only way I can see a .30-30 puncturing 'light-armored vehicles...even a 600-pound safe' would be if you gave it a depeleted uranium core and boosted it to about 6000fps. 'Course, that would turn the rifle in to shrapnel, but maybe Swimmer(Drunk-Hypocrite, MA) is a bit fuzzy on facts.
Should our elected officials live under the threat of reprisal on their lives from disgruntled constituents? The Gun Lobby seems to think so. We disagree.
Considering some of the crap they come up with, some elected officials should live under the threat of something; it might make them connect back to reality.
Sniper Rifles can be equipped with precision optics above even what the Military uses, allowing a sniper to deliver rounds within millimeters of accuracy - enabling them to engage targets at distances of well over one hundred meters. Is there a pressing need to be able to kill with accuracy at that distance? It is too far to justify as self defense. It is too far for hunting. It is only useful for those who wish to murder from afar.
Hehehehehe, 'within millimeters', 'well over one hundred meters'. God, these people are amazing! I'd point out to them that lots of matches are shot at far over that range, and shots at some game are often over 'one hundred meters', but I think he probably knows that, and just doesn't care to interrupt his tirade about 'sniper rifles' with facts.
Large caliber Sniper Rifles such as the .50 Browning Machine Gun can derail freight cars, shoot down aircraft and helicopters, damage vital ground equipment such as power substations, fuel tanks, and air traffic control, and cause complete chaos. For more information on why large caliber machine-gun rounds must be banned, visit http://www.50caliberterror.com. A shipment of large caliber machine-gun round sniper rifles made by Steyr turned up in Iran, and are being used on our own soldiers, as the .50 bullets easily defeat their body armor, their up-armored humvees, and even APCs.
Now THAT is a new one, a .50 can 'derail a freight car! This must be using one of those Type C Sub-Molecular Explosive Bullets(assuming they existed).
You'll notice that an enemy country using them against our troops is reason to ban them from us revolting(in both senses) peasants.
Many forward thinking, progressive politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have voted against Center-Fire Rifle Ammunition of types for Sniper Rifles, but due to the pressure and massive financial resources of the gun industry, the necessary steps to protect our homes and lives have not been attained.
Ah yes, forward thinking 'progressives', who seem to think stomping the peasants into line and banning anything that makes them wet their pants is a Good Thing. I guess it is, if you think the same kind of socialist crap that's fallen flat everywhere in the world will work here("We'll do it again, only more and harder!*). Note also that it's apparently ALL centerfire ammo, as I've never seen a box labeled 'for Sniper Rifles'.
Sniper Rifles have been used by murderers and spree killers for years, with notable incidents such as the Beltway Snipers, the Clocktower Sniper, and more.
ANY rifle configured and equipped as a sniper rifle has no sporting purpose especially as a hunting rifle. They are too big and heavy to take to the field. Designed for distance shooting, they are useless for the ranges at which game animals are normally shot, and when used on sporting sized game at range they often just wound the animal, inhumanely forcing it to die slowly while the would-be hunter tracks it to finish it off. Most Sniper Rifles fire atypically large cartridges and ultra high velocity ammunition that can travel much greater distances that standard ammunition. The danger imposed from missed shots and ricochetes from these specialty rounds is unreasonable.
You'll note he's not too specific about 'configured as a sniper rifle' other than 'it has a scope and will reach out more than 100 meters'. And this is downright idiotic: they're 'designed for distance shooting', but 'useless for the ranges' of hunting(remember, that's less than 100 meters); super powerful, but can't cleanly kill an animal. Flat amazing.
Most of these rifles carry multiple rounds, with either an automatic mechanism, or a quick toggle action to rapidly move another bullet into the breech, ready to fire into another victim. In most states, they are nearly unrestricted. Anyone over the age of 18 can buy one. If they can't pass a background check, they skirt the NCIS system by going to a gunshow, or finding a private sale in the newspaper. A murderer camped at a distance from a public gathering could quickly turn it into a massacre dwarfing anything we have seen before in the United States, if they had a Sniper Rifle. If they adopted hit and run tactics, entire portions of our country could be shut down.
Actually, sir, an 'automatic' mechanism is strictly regulated. Or do you mean 'semi-automatic'? They're not quite the same, you see. And apparently my old Model 94 is screwed, scope or not, as lever-actions are the only 'quick toggle action' I've ever heard of. John Wayne or The Rifleman and a loop lever, anyone?
And apparently this asshat somehow thinks that a terrorist planning mass murder would be stopped cold by 'A New And Improved Gun Ban Law'. Doesn't stop day-to-day dirtbags, but maybe terrorists will be more accommodating to his ideals.
Sniper Rifles shoot a high powered bullet that is almost always fatal. They are designed for one thing- delivering powerful overkill with deadly precision. You don't need the kind of power and accuracy that can kill a man at five hundred yards for hunting rabbits or defending your house.
But it can't kill a deer at whatever the hell range this guy has decided(for this paragraph at least) is 'normal' hunting range. I repeat, amazing.
We should also give commendations to France because many years ago they designated any firearm capable of shooting military ammunition as a military arm, illegal to posess without a special permit and unlawful to use for hunting. The 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are military weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population. Because they have no hunting purpose, there is no reason for civilians to own them.
Somehow, I knew he'd work the Wonders of France into this. Not familiar with French firearms law, but I have a certain feeling he's full of crap. Among other things, considering the old .30-06 is still one of the most popular hunting cartridges in the world his saying it has 'no hunting purpose' is insane. Same for the others.
Every state in the USA has hunting equipment rules that limit the caliber of firearm used to take game. They also limit the types of rifles, length, magazine capacity, etc. States should amend these hunting regulations to restrict the use of "sniper" rifles, specialty "sniper" cartridges, and "sniper" ammunition. Limits on weight, barrel length, bipods and tripods, thumbhole stocks and pistol grips, night vision type scopes, scopes of excessive magnification, super magnum and high velocity ammunition, and military slings should be imposed. They have no place in the hunting fields of America and hunting usage should not be used as an argument for civilians to own such firearms and weapons. There are more than ample hunting rifles, cartridges, and rounds of ammunition to choose from without them.
Hate to tell you this(not really, but go long here) but the reason they regulate the caliber is generally to make sure you're using a cartridge that has plenty of power for the game in question, not to make you use a smaller one. And what the hell is a 'scope of excessive magnification'? That depends on what you're hunting or the range your target is at. A 'military sling' does not a damn thing except give a way to carry the rifle, again he seems to think low-powered ammo is all you need to hunt with... etc., etc. I take it back, this isn't amazing, it's bloody pathetic.
Let us hope that in a safer, saner America, we will succeed in our efforts to restrict the deadly spread of long distance murder rifles."
In other words, 'Let's name every possible feature that might be found on a rifle and say that makes it a sniper rifle, so we can ban them all!" Kind of like Kerry & Co. going through a catalog to find the features that made them loose bladder control and decreeing that two or more of them make a firearm a 'assault weapon'.
But they don't want to ban your 'legitimate hunting gun', oh no....
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Demo #832 that the damned PC mindset is going to get us all killed
Updated
Remember the jerk who started shooting people at the Empire State Building ten years ago? Guess what the authorities didn't mention:
After insisting it wasn't a political attack for ten years, now his family admits that it was indeed an attack in service of the jihad against Israel.
...
"A Palestinian Authority official advised us to say the attack was not for political reasons because that would harm the peace agreement with Israel," she told The News on Friday. "We didn't know that he was martyred for patriotic motivations, so we repeated what we were told to do."
Here's where the PC mindset comes in:
But three days after the shootings, Kamal's family got a copy of a letter that was found on his body, they said. The letter said he planned the violence as a political statement, his daughter said.
"When we wanted to clarify that to the media, nobody listened to us," she said. "His goal was patriotic. He wanted to take revenge from the Americans, the British, the French and the Israelis."
This means that the NYFC PD had this letter, and the FBI damn sure knew of it, and the family told the media he did it for political/islamic reason and none of the bastards thought fit to mention it to us peasants.
Please also note this at the end of the Jihad Watch post:
"He wrote that after he raised his children and made sure that his family was all right he decided to avenge in the highest building in America to make sure they get his message," said Linda, who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees....
So this sorry little bastard brings his family here, to Great Satan HQ, to 'raise his children and make sure the family is all right', and then murders people here in the name of Allah 'to avenge'. And his daughter works(why am I not surprised?) at the effin' UN.
And not a law enforcement agency or the God-cursed major media we're supposed to trust thought his doing it to 'martyr' himself was worth mentioning.
Multiple layers of editors my ass, more like multiple layers of censors.
Update: I'd forgotten this about good ol' 2nd Amendment Supporting Giuliani:
At City Hall, Mayor Giuliani attempted to shift the focus toward gun control. He was accompanied by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son wounded in the 1993 shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train that killed six people and wounded 17.
Remember the jerk who started shooting people at the Empire State Building ten years ago? Guess what the authorities didn't mention:
After insisting it wasn't a political attack for ten years, now his family admits that it was indeed an attack in service of the jihad against Israel.
...
"A Palestinian Authority official advised us to say the attack was not for political reasons because that would harm the peace agreement with Israel," she told The News on Friday. "We didn't know that he was martyred for patriotic motivations, so we repeated what we were told to do."
Here's where the PC mindset comes in:
But three days after the shootings, Kamal's family got a copy of a letter that was found on his body, they said. The letter said he planned the violence as a political statement, his daughter said.
"When we wanted to clarify that to the media, nobody listened to us," she said. "His goal was patriotic. He wanted to take revenge from the Americans, the British, the French and the Israelis."
This means that the NYFC PD had this letter, and the FBI damn sure knew of it, and the family told the media he did it for political/islamic reason and none of the bastards thought fit to mention it to us peasants.
Please also note this at the end of the Jihad Watch post:
"He wrote that after he raised his children and made sure that his family was all right he decided to avenge in the highest building in America to make sure they get his message," said Linda, who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees....
So this sorry little bastard brings his family here, to Great Satan HQ, to 'raise his children and make sure the family is all right', and then murders people here in the name of Allah 'to avenge'. And his daughter works(why am I not surprised?) at the effin' UN.
And not a law enforcement agency or the God-cursed major media we're supposed to trust thought his doing it to 'martyr' himself was worth mentioning.
Multiple layers of editors my ass, more like multiple layers of censors.
Update: I'd forgotten this about good ol' 2nd Amendment Supporting Giuliani:
At City Hall, Mayor Giuliani attempted to shift the focus toward gun control. He was accompanied by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son wounded in the 1993 shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train that killed six people and wounded 17.
How safe is a 1911 cocked & locked?
Pretty safe.
Somebody posted this a while back from this thread at High Road, and I thought it's worth looking at again.
John Browning did a nice job on this.
If there were any question that many Democrats want us to lose,
this crap would clear the matter up.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be “relentless.”
“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”
(Mind you, this comes from a Democrat who hasn't seen a gun ban/registration scheme/tax/licensing plan he didn't vote for, who thinks the idea of concealed carry is a horror, who-Suh-prize, Su-prize![/gomer]- turns out to have a NYFC license to carry. Sorry little gun-grabbing bastard)
And let us not forget the sorry little bastards(can't call them crapweasels, as I like ferrets) who 'crossed the isle' to vote against winning:
Republicans Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania sided with Democrats in calling for debate to begin, as did the two Republicans already on board, Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be “relentless.”
“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”
(Mind you, this comes from a Democrat who hasn't seen a gun ban/registration scheme/tax/licensing plan he didn't vote for, who thinks the idea of concealed carry is a horror, who-Suh-prize, Su-prize![/gomer]- turns out to have a NYFC license to carry. Sorry little gun-grabbing bastard)
And let us not forget the sorry little bastards(can't call them crapweasels, as I like ferrets) who 'crossed the isle' to vote against winning:
Republicans Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania sided with Democrats in calling for debate to begin, as did the two Republicans already on board, Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Scrapes and cuts and breaks:
the world doesn't end.
Kevin had this post on reasons as to why so many kids are violent- and conscienceless- to the level they are. One of the things touched on was so many kids being taped into bubble wrap:
I don't like pain. Not even in small amounts. However, back in the Devonian Age when I was a kid it was accepted that you would get scraped and you would get cut and bruised and-
So what? The world doesn't end, you don't die, and it'll go away. It was expected that you'd learn to deal with stuff like this, and most parents wouldn't put up with the level of whining- from kids and adults- current on the subject.
After first divorce, one day my ex called and told me son had fallen and scraped the hell out of his arm, and did I have enough gauze or something to cover it? Stuck away in a corner I had an honest-to-God U.S. Army field dressing, the kind that covers a big area and has cotton cloth on the back(OD Green, of course) with arms on the sides to tie it on. I grabbed that and some antibiotic and ran it over. BIG scrape, sure enough, about 2/3 the length of this forearm and all across one side. He was not happy, but wasn't yelling or crying, just said "It hurts" when I asked how he was. "Well, I'd guess so" I replied. Ex had already cleaned it of course, and put some a/b on, so I tore open the package, displayed this gen-u-wine Army Field Dressing and wrapped his arm up.
And- of course- it still hurt, but he didn't really care anymore. It was taken care of, and he had this really neat bandage to show off, so the problem was solved. He never slowed down- neither did his sister after similar mishaps- and they both 'learned that stupid hurts, and pain is temporary', and that they'd heal.
When the kid gets hurt, you give them comfort and dry the tears, of course; but you don't let them think- or make them think, as happens too often now- that it's a big deal demanding bubble wrap and protective custody. I'm fairly tired of some kid falling, and instead of the needed tear-drying and comfort leading to "That's enough, get over it", the "Oh my God, this is terrible!" just keeps on, which keeps the kid going, which leads to the kid thinking any injury is something terrible that DEMANDS serious attention.
Personally, I think this is connected to the parents who get a call about their kid causing problems in school and instead of finding the facts and chewing the ass of the kid when called for, they show up and threaten the teacher and the principal and whoever else comes to mind for DARING to hold their kid responsible to the rules. In both cases the kids get the idea that they're never supposed to be inconvenienced, that any scratch on their precious body is a horror demanding special attention, and that the whole damn world revolves around them.
Kevin had this post on reasons as to why so many kids are violent- and conscienceless- to the level they are. One of the things touched on was so many kids being taped into bubble wrap:
Kids often get hurt playing tag, said Sharon Roland, the nurse at Jack L. Kuban School in southwest Phoenix and vice president of the School Nurses Organization of Arizona.While growing up, my sister broke her wrist. My brother broke an ankle and a collar bone in separate incidents. I broke a toe. Hovever I cracked my head a number of times (requiring stitches - which may explain my current personality), and even did a serious face-plant on the sidewalk once. Most of the kids I grew up with got injured - from cuts requiring stitches to one that was hospitalized after being hit by a car. We were active - and we learned that stupid hurts, pain is temporary, and chicks dig scars. I don't think a lot of our yoots learn much of that today.
They split their chins, scrape their noses and graze their knees, the expected injuries of childhood. But they also knock out teeth and fracture bones.
E'Lisa Harrison's son, Grant, was 8 when he was pushed and fell during a game of tag at Kyrene de la Estrella Elementary School in Phoenix. It was an accident, but Grant spent weeks with a cast on his arm, missing out on a season of baseball.
I don't like pain. Not even in small amounts. However, back in the Devonian Age when I was a kid it was accepted that you would get scraped and you would get cut and bruised and-
So what? The world doesn't end, you don't die, and it'll go away. It was expected that you'd learn to deal with stuff like this, and most parents wouldn't put up with the level of whining- from kids and adults- current on the subject.
After first divorce, one day my ex called and told me son had fallen and scraped the hell out of his arm, and did I have enough gauze or something to cover it? Stuck away in a corner I had an honest-to-God U.S. Army field dressing, the kind that covers a big area and has cotton cloth on the back(OD Green, of course) with arms on the sides to tie it on. I grabbed that and some antibiotic and ran it over. BIG scrape, sure enough, about 2/3 the length of this forearm and all across one side. He was not happy, but wasn't yelling or crying, just said "It hurts" when I asked how he was. "Well, I'd guess so" I replied. Ex had already cleaned it of course, and put some a/b on, so I tore open the package, displayed this gen-u-wine Army Field Dressing and wrapped his arm up.
And- of course- it still hurt, but he didn't really care anymore. It was taken care of, and he had this really neat bandage to show off, so the problem was solved. He never slowed down- neither did his sister after similar mishaps- and they both 'learned that stupid hurts, and pain is temporary', and that they'd heal.
When the kid gets hurt, you give them comfort and dry the tears, of course; but you don't let them think- or make them think, as happens too often now- that it's a big deal demanding bubble wrap and protective custody. I'm fairly tired of some kid falling, and instead of the needed tear-drying and comfort leading to "That's enough, get over it", the "Oh my God, this is terrible!" just keeps on, which keeps the kid going, which leads to the kid thinking any injury is something terrible that DEMANDS serious attention.
Personally, I think this is connected to the parents who get a call about their kid causing problems in school and instead of finding the facts and chewing the ass of the kid when called for, they show up and threaten the teacher and the principal and whoever else comes to mind for DARING to hold their kid responsible to the rules. In both cases the kids get the idea that they're never supposed to be inconvenienced, that any scratch on their precious body is a horror demanding special attention, and that the whole damn world revolves around them.
Comparisons between Britain and here
Saw this article the other day and started to write about it, but the more I wrote the more frustrated I got, and I gave up. Happily, Kevin took on the task and gives us this take on it.
Today, I found a comment from JR in my response to Elmer, and since I hadn't looked at his place for a while I clicked over and found- among other things- this post with a couple of good links. Went to the one at Classically Liberal and, along with other good information, this quote from Professor Joyce Malcolm on the contrast in homicide numbers:
“The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.”
There's been an ongoing problem here in the U.S. in which someone yells about the number of homicides involving firearms here compared to other places, but ignores the total number of homicides(apparently being beaten to death or stabbed doesn't count) in order to say "We need more gun-ban laws!" This quote points out that along with total numbers, you've got to look at how the homicide numbers are figured; if someone is slanting the way of counting deaths to cut down the number counted as murders, you can't trust their figures for the truth. Which makes it harder to argue the point, because sometimes you can't find the actual(true) numbers.
This is much like someone only counting use of a firearm in self-defense as 'real' if the victim shoots: it ignores the huge percentage of cases where the bad guy either finding out the intended victim is armed or having the arm aimed at him sends him away. So by counting it this way they can say "There are very few cases of self-defense with a gun". Dishonest as hell, but they use it anyway.
No particular point in this, just blowing off steam. I'm tired of reading Brit commenters saying they just haven't passed strict enough laws and the police don't have enough power over people and that's why things are bad, and calling us cowboys and vigilantes because we hold that the right of self-defense includes the right to use a weapon if needed.
Today, I found a comment from JR in my response to Elmer, and since I hadn't looked at his place for a while I clicked over and found- among other things- this post with a couple of good links. Went to the one at Classically Liberal and, along with other good information, this quote from Professor Joyce Malcolm on the contrast in homicide numbers:
“The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.”
There's been an ongoing problem here in the U.S. in which someone yells about the number of homicides involving firearms here compared to other places, but ignores the total number of homicides(apparently being beaten to death or stabbed doesn't count) in order to say "We need more gun-ban laws!" This quote points out that along with total numbers, you've got to look at how the homicide numbers are figured; if someone is slanting the way of counting deaths to cut down the number counted as murders, you can't trust their figures for the truth. Which makes it harder to argue the point, because sometimes you can't find the actual(true) numbers.
This is much like someone only counting use of a firearm in self-defense as 'real' if the victim shoots: it ignores the huge percentage of cases where the bad guy either finding out the intended victim is armed or having the arm aimed at him sends him away. So by counting it this way they can say "There are very few cases of self-defense with a gun". Dishonest as hell, but they use it anyway.
No particular point in this, just blowing off steam. I'm tired of reading Brit commenters saying they just haven't passed strict enough laws and the police don't have enough power over people and that's why things are bad, and calling us cowboys and vigilantes because we hold that the right of self-defense includes the right to use a weapon if needed.
The Dresden Files
If you haven't seen it and plan to, Spoilers Ahead. Though not in detail.
Finally had time to watch it, and I was disappointed. Harry doesn't live in the basement, no problems with phones, etc., Bob always has a human image when talking, Murphy is different, HE DOESN'T DRIVE THE BLUE BUG, DAMMIT!
They've changed his past history, instead of the White Council there's the High Council, and so on. Unless the other episodes are different they've made a 'evil monster or evil wizard of the week' show. And screwed it up.
You know what they could have done? Take the first book, Storm Front, and make it the season. You could tell the story one episode at a time and have a damn good show(assuming you don't screw with the characters, etc.) Apparently that just wasn't doable, or maybe it's what someone told me once about editors("They don't like the soup until they've peed in it") that somehow forced them to screw with it.
It wasn't terrible, mind you, just much less than I'd hoped.
Bleah.
Finally had time to watch it, and I was disappointed. Harry doesn't live in the basement, no problems with phones, etc., Bob always has a human image when talking, Murphy is different, HE DOESN'T DRIVE THE BLUE BUG, DAMMIT!
They've changed his past history, instead of the White Council there's the High Council, and so on. Unless the other episodes are different they've made a 'evil monster or evil wizard of the week' show. And screwed it up.
You know what they could have done? Take the first book, Storm Front, and make it the season. You could tell the story one episode at a time and have a damn good show(assuming you don't screw with the characters, etc.) Apparently that just wasn't doable, or maybe it's what someone told me once about editors("They don't like the soup until they've peed in it") that somehow forced them to screw with it.
It wasn't terrible, mind you, just much less than I'd hoped.
Bleah.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Ooh, Elmer has nasty words for me!
After I was so bold as to make my opinion known of Murtha and Pelosi & Co., Elmer left this in comments:
hey! i'm a coward and a traitor too!
Well, nice to have it out of the way
when i'm indicted and arrested for treason, do i get to wear my old army uniform from the vietnam war? with the medals?
You can wear whatever you want. I really don't give a rats ass. Funny thing, though, speaking your mind isn't treason. Acting to damage this country for personal/party gain, to me, is.
murtha will probably wear his full-dress officer's Marine uniform with the vietnam combat decorations.
Oooh, he's a vet, you'd better not criticize anything he says or does!
Sounds like the kind of shit he'd do.
uhhhh have you served in uniform, brave patriotic person? just curious.
Well, at least he didn't come out and call me a chickenhawk. This has been covered before, but I'll do it again: there's this strange thing in this country called the 1st Amendment, which notes my right to speak my piece. Doesn't require me to be in or have been in uniform. The "Have you been uniform?" stuff and calling people chickenhawk is an attempt to shut them up. So fuck you.
when you sling these words around, and apply them to elected officials, you cheapen them and you insult the voters who elected them, because clearly Pelosi and Murtha are doing what they believe their voters and constituents want them to do in Congress about the Iraq War -- and the Iran War Bush is cooking up.
I do indeed insult the idiots who elected these clowns to office. And I wonder about how much they really care about what the people back home think, as long as they can suck up enough to stay in office. In Pelosi's case, she probably is pleasing her voters, which is one reason I think they're idiots.
So Murtha and Pelosi are traitors who represent voter majorities, in California and Pennsylvania, who want them to commit treason for them in the House of Representatives.
Ref their majorities, see above.
I'm a Cut and Run guy myself. We got to bail from this loser scoundrel's liars war. 3200 of my neighbors' children dead already, and Victory -- not achievable, unavailable, not ever going to happen.
My, you live in a big neighborhood. '..this lose scoundrel's liars war', hmm? You mean the one that all those people in the House and Senate voted to authorize? They all liars and scoundrels? Or just the ones now throwing out that "If I had known then..." bullshit?
Bring our soldiers and marines home this week.
Even if they'd rather stay there and win. No matter the bloodshed that would follow. Great idea!
So like ... what's the punishment for treason?
Depends on the country. Hanging, drawing and quartering sounds good.
U.S. Army 1969-1971
SP5 drafted
Massachusetts
Ok, assuming this is all true, for serving in the defense of this country, I thank you. No ifs, ands or buts there. Just like, for their time in uniform I thank Murtha and McCain. But guess what? That does not give them a pass for what they've done since. McCain carried himself as a hero in the truest sense in the Marines; doesn't change that some of his acts as a senator have earned him my contempt and anger, and if I'm not giving him a pass I'm sure as hell not giving Murtha one. Especially after such acts as declaring Marines guilty of murder before any indictment, trial or anything else just so he could blame it on BushMcChimplerBurton.
I think that Murtha and Pelosi & Co. are doing a lot of this shit because A: they hate George Bush so much they can't stand the idea of this succeeding during his watch, and B: they want to use it to try to lock their party into power. Both are disgusting reasons to act. Both speak of a lack of integrity and more concern for their political fortunes than for the country.
If they actually believed the war was wrong, and it should be ended now, AND if they actually had integrity and some balls, they wouldn't be voting on some non-binding resolution: they'd be voting on something with teeth and to hell with political consequences for themselves and their party.
If they don't actually believe it, but they're willing to use it- and the lives of our troops- as pawns to damage this president and to (again) try to lock their party into power, that speaks of a breathtaking lack of integrity and- again- more concern for their party than for the nation.
These things may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they damn sure qualify to me. With the 'slow bleed' strategy Murtha seems so proud of- and the stupidity of using that when we've got troops actually bleeding in combat is breathtaking- they've made it pretty plain that they're willing to see troops die from lack of reinforcements and equipment. Which makes them traitors.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
I repeat: if they actually believed the crap they're saying, they would actually be trying to stop the war because that would be more important to them than staying in office. That everything they do is crafted around staying in office- no matter the price- they're traitorous shits.
And not to be too picky, but have you ever heard of using capital letters?
hey! i'm a coward and a traitor too!
Well, nice to have it out of the way
when i'm indicted and arrested for treason, do i get to wear my old army uniform from the vietnam war? with the medals?
You can wear whatever you want. I really don't give a rats ass. Funny thing, though, speaking your mind isn't treason. Acting to damage this country for personal/party gain, to me, is.
murtha will probably wear his full-dress officer's Marine uniform with the vietnam combat decorations.
Oooh, he's a vet, you'd better not criticize anything he says or does!
Sounds like the kind of shit he'd do.
uhhhh have you served in uniform, brave patriotic person? just curious.
Well, at least he didn't come out and call me a chickenhawk. This has been covered before, but I'll do it again: there's this strange thing in this country called the 1st Amendment, which notes my right to speak my piece. Doesn't require me to be in or have been in uniform. The "Have you been uniform?" stuff and calling people chickenhawk is an attempt to shut them up. So fuck you.
when you sling these words around, and apply them to elected officials, you cheapen them and you insult the voters who elected them, because clearly Pelosi and Murtha are doing what they believe their voters and constituents want them to do in Congress about the Iraq War -- and the Iran War Bush is cooking up.
I do indeed insult the idiots who elected these clowns to office. And I wonder about how much they really care about what the people back home think, as long as they can suck up enough to stay in office. In Pelosi's case, she probably is pleasing her voters, which is one reason I think they're idiots.
So Murtha and Pelosi are traitors who represent voter majorities, in California and Pennsylvania, who want them to commit treason for them in the House of Representatives.
Ref their majorities, see above.
I'm a Cut and Run guy myself. We got to bail from this loser scoundrel's liars war. 3200 of my neighbors' children dead already, and Victory -- not achievable, unavailable, not ever going to happen.
My, you live in a big neighborhood. '..this lose scoundrel's liars war', hmm? You mean the one that all those people in the House and Senate voted to authorize? They all liars and scoundrels? Or just the ones now throwing out that "If I had known then..." bullshit?
Bring our soldiers and marines home this week.
Even if they'd rather stay there and win. No matter the bloodshed that would follow. Great idea!
So like ... what's the punishment for treason?
Depends on the country. Hanging, drawing and quartering sounds good.
U.S. Army 1969-1971
SP5 drafted
Massachusetts
Ok, assuming this is all true, for serving in the defense of this country, I thank you. No ifs, ands or buts there. Just like, for their time in uniform I thank Murtha and McCain. But guess what? That does not give them a pass for what they've done since. McCain carried himself as a hero in the truest sense in the Marines; doesn't change that some of his acts as a senator have earned him my contempt and anger, and if I'm not giving him a pass I'm sure as hell not giving Murtha one. Especially after such acts as declaring Marines guilty of murder before any indictment, trial or anything else just so he could blame it on BushMcChimplerBurton.
I think that Murtha and Pelosi & Co. are doing a lot of this shit because A: they hate George Bush so much they can't stand the idea of this succeeding during his watch, and B: they want to use it to try to lock their party into power. Both are disgusting reasons to act. Both speak of a lack of integrity and more concern for their political fortunes than for the country.
If they actually believed the war was wrong, and it should be ended now, AND if they actually had integrity and some balls, they wouldn't be voting on some non-binding resolution: they'd be voting on something with teeth and to hell with political consequences for themselves and their party.
If they don't actually believe it, but they're willing to use it- and the lives of our troops- as pawns to damage this president and to (again) try to lock their party into power, that speaks of a breathtaking lack of integrity and- again- more concern for their party than for the nation.
These things may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they damn sure qualify to me. With the 'slow bleed' strategy Murtha seems so proud of- and the stupidity of using that when we've got troops actually bleeding in combat is breathtaking- they've made it pretty plain that they're willing to see troops die from lack of reinforcements and equipment. Which makes them traitors.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
I repeat: if they actually believed the crap they're saying, they would actually be trying to stop the war because that would be more important to them than staying in office. That everything they do is crafted around staying in office- no matter the price- they're traitorous shits.
And not to be too picky, but have you ever heard of using capital letters?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
I have GOT to make it to Australia,
where people drink and attack sharks:
"He's just thrashing around in the water but then he was starting to turn around and try to bite me and I thought 'Well, it's amazing what vodka does'." Kerkhof emerged from the fray unscathed, although his jeans were ripped by the shark's razor-sharp teeth. "It's not something I'd recommend to do. When I sobered up I thought about it and I said, 'I'm a bit of an idiot doing it'," he said.
"He's just thrashing around in the water but then he was starting to turn around and try to bite me and I thought 'Well, it's amazing what vodka does'." Kerkhof emerged from the fray unscathed, although his jeans were ripped by the shark's razor-sharp teeth. "It's not something I'd recommend to do. When I sobered up I thought about it and I said, 'I'm a bit of an idiot doing it'," he said.
On treason and general cowardice
Specifically, that of Pelosi and Murtha and all their little flying buttmonkeys.
There flat are no words for the rage I feel over this. I'm not even going to try to put it down, I'll just point you to Cold Fury and his words on the subject.
Cowards and traitors. Traitors for what they plan to do to the military and to this country; cowards because they don't have the balls to do it openly. Oh no, they'll screw over the people on the sharp end and hope- HOPE, Goddammit!- that everything falls apart, while saying "I support the troops" and screaming "Don't question my patriotism!" at anyone who points out what they're doing and what they are.
More here and here.
There flat are no words for the rage I feel over this. I'm not even going to try to put it down, I'll just point you to Cold Fury and his words on the subject.
Cowards and traitors. Traitors for what they plan to do to the military and to this country; cowards because they don't have the balls to do it openly. Oh no, they'll screw over the people on the sharp end and hope- HOPE, Goddammit!- that everything falls apart, while saying "I support the troops" and screaming "Don't question my patriotism!" at anyone who points out what they're doing and what they are.
More here and here.
It has come to my attention
that some people are not aware of the proper way to say the name of my state.
Pay attention, now: First you say "Okla-
and then "-homa", with a properly reverent tone.
Simple, isn't it?
Pay attention, now: First you say "Okla-
and then "-homa", with a properly reverent tone.
Simple, isn't it?
So the Democrat Party had given up on gun banning, huh?
Doesn't look like it. And the buttmonkey, RINO, 'moderate' Republicans will fall all over themselves signing on to it.
I don't give a rat's ass if they're 'just doing this to pay off the nutroots supporters', THEY'RE DOING IT. Which means they still want to do it, and still want anyone who disagrees painted as 'neo-nazi and white supremacist' types; because, after all, if we weren't we'd agree with them, wouldn't we?
I was waiting for my tax refunds to come back before I did any shopping, but I may have to look around now because the past has shown that every time the politicians start this, the prices go up and supplies of some things run short. Which is another reason to consider them troublemaking dirtbags.
On a side issue, the House is debating their non-binding resolution(also known as the "We don't have the balls to actually do anything, but we'll do this!" Resolution) today and KTOK reported that a freshman OK Rep named Boren is supporting it. The only good thing about this sorry excuse for a man is that he's not from my district so I don't have to take responsibility for voting him into office. He's another clown doing one of two things: actually willing to damage the troops and the war effort because he believes it, or doing it to suck up to Pelosi & Co. In either case, he sucks.
I don't give a rat's ass if they're 'just doing this to pay off the nutroots supporters', THEY'RE DOING IT. Which means they still want to do it, and still want anyone who disagrees painted as 'neo-nazi and white supremacist' types; because, after all, if we weren't we'd agree with them, wouldn't we?
I was waiting for my tax refunds to come back before I did any shopping, but I may have to look around now because the past has shown that every time the politicians start this, the prices go up and supplies of some things run short. Which is another reason to consider them troublemaking dirtbags.
On a side issue, the House is debating their non-binding resolution(also known as the "We don't have the balls to actually do anything, but we'll do this!" Resolution) today and KTOK reported that a freshman OK Rep named Boren is supporting it. The only good thing about this sorry excuse for a man is that he's not from my district so I don't have to take responsibility for voting him into office. He's another clown doing one of two things: actually willing to damage the troops and the war effort because he believes it, or doing it to suck up to Pelosi & Co. In either case, he sucks.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Nagin and Riley held in contempt
Legally held in contempt, by a U.S. District Judge.
Judge Carl J. Barbier issued a blistering rebuke to New Orleans’ defense counsel for conduct that is “wholly unprofessional” and warned that it “shall not be condoned.” Judge Barbier ordered defense counsel to reimburse SAF’s attorney $1,365. SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association.
In his ruling, Judge Barbier noted, “Defense counsel has caused time and money to be wasted by Plaintiffs’ counsel and further admits that he has ‘no good reason’ to explain his behavior.”
This definitely counts as a Good Thing. Now if he'd just add in some leg irons...
Found through Michelle Malkin
Judge Carl J. Barbier issued a blistering rebuke to New Orleans’ defense counsel for conduct that is “wholly unprofessional” and warned that it “shall not be condoned.” Judge Barbier ordered defense counsel to reimburse SAF’s attorney $1,365. SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association.
In his ruling, Judge Barbier noted, “Defense counsel has caused time and money to be wasted by Plaintiffs’ counsel and further admits that he has ‘no good reason’ to explain his behavior.”
This definitely counts as a Good Thing. Now if he'd just add in some leg irons...
Found through Michelle Malkin
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Darwin's concept in action
pouring chlorine in the gene pool.
Authorities believe Aerts, a regular visitor to the zoo, hid in the park late Sunday until it closed and managed to find the keys to the cheetah cage.
And for a further candidate: "Karen loved animals. Unfortunately the cheetahs betrayed her trust," Libot said.
Repeat after me, children: "Cheetahs are wild animals, even if they are in a zoo, and they will act as such. And people who think they are pets are too stupid to be out without a keeper."
And speaking of stupid: Animal rights group GAIA called for the immediate closure of the zoo, located 55 miles northeast of Brussels, saying it was unsafe for both visitors and the cats.
Let's see, someone deliberately hides in the zoo and does something incredibly stupid, and that makes the zoo 'unsafe for both visitors and the cats'. No, it makes you a friggin' idiot of the enviroweenie kind.
You know, if we still lived 'closer to Nature' as these clowns wish, a good many of them would be converted to fertilizer and we wouldn't have to listen to this crap.
Authorities believe Aerts, a regular visitor to the zoo, hid in the park late Sunday until it closed and managed to find the keys to the cheetah cage.
And for a further candidate: "Karen loved animals. Unfortunately the cheetahs betrayed her trust," Libot said.
Repeat after me, children: "Cheetahs are wild animals, even if they are in a zoo, and they will act as such. And people who think they are pets are too stupid to be out without a keeper."
And speaking of stupid: Animal rights group GAIA called for the immediate closure of the zoo, located 55 miles northeast of Brussels, saying it was unsafe for both visitors and the cats.
Let's see, someone deliberately hides in the zoo and does something incredibly stupid, and that makes the zoo 'unsafe for both visitors and the cats'. No, it makes you a friggin' idiot of the enviroweenie kind.
You know, if we still lived 'closer to Nature' as these clowns wish, a good many of them would be converted to fertilizer and we wouldn't have to listen to this crap.
More on the Compean and Ramos railroading
I do not use that term loosely. What I'd read before said this case stinks like dead fish in the July sun. Just how, went through this post at Pamibe which rounds up a whole lot of general information and a LOT of connections between the smuggler and various people at DHS and their connections to other people.
This sucks, people. Like a shop-vac with a clean filter. These guys deserve- at the least- a new trial that's actually fair and by the law.
And some people at DHS and in the Justice Department should be in jail.
note: found Pamibe thanks to Sondra
This sucks, people. Like a shop-vac with a clean filter. These guys deserve- at the least- a new trial that's actually fair and by the law.
And some people at DHS and in the Justice Department should be in jail.
note: found Pamibe thanks to Sondra
The scene of the crime,
as Kim puts it. The aftermath of a suicide. And the prologue, sometimes.
Used to know a lady. Had met her when married to first wife, had seen her on and off over the years; we messed around in the SCA at the time, and that was her big recreation. She was a nurse, and married at the time.
Then she went through a somewhat messy divorce. Didn't see her for a while, but- this was after my wife had moved out- she called occasionally to talk. Second or third time she started asking me what I thought about the best way to commit suicide. Which freaked me out no small amount, because it was obvious she wasn't just curious, she was seriously thinking about it. I truly did not know I could dance like that, working my way around the subject and being as discouraging as possible.
Didn't hear from her for a while, then she called one night sounding like she was about to collapse. I wound up going over to her house and spent about two hours there. She really freaked me out, being at once mostly very calm about things but having that quivering edge showing through. But I thought she'd calmed down quite a bit, and I felt like I'd done something good there.
That lasted until she called about two months later. She'd moved to Norman in that time, and I'd heard nothing from or about her. That night she called about 0130, just after I'd got home from work, and the first thing she said was "Hi, this is -. If you had a .32 automatic, how would you kill yourself with it?"
I never knew my brain could both freeze up and run in circles so fast, either.
I spent about ten minutes trying to tell her "I wouldn't" while dressing it up in 'that might not work well' crap to both give myself time to think of what to do. I'd been a dispatcher for four years and handled all kinds of stuff but I'd never had a suicide call, and the agency I worked for had no training for such; we never got calls like that, they always went to the PD or the SO. So I was flying on my own there. That ten minutes ended when she- pissed I wouldn't give her solid suggestions("I will NOT help you kill yourself")- hung up. She'd sounded so firm on it that I, figuring they were likely to find the body, called the PD, told them what'd happened. Then I sat around for half an hour hoping they'd been able to cross-check the phone number- I didn't have her address- until they called back. Officer had found her home with a friend, with "no idea what you're talking about, officer" on the subect of the visit. He told his dispatcher he thought she was covering up so he'd swing by a few times over his shift. Quiet the rest of the night.
Next day I got hold of my ex and told her about it, as she knew some people in Norman who were friends with the lady and I thought someone close to her ought to know about it. Then, that night when I got home I had a message: "I don't appreciate you calling the police on me, and I don't appreciate you telling people about me. I'll make a deal with you: I won't call you anymore, and you won't send the police to my house, ok?"
Couple of days later ex called with the word: the friends in Norman knew about her suicide talk, this was just another incident, and they figured "Don't worry, as long as she's talking about it she won't do anything". Well, bullshit, I'd heard her voice and she wasn't just thinking, she was planning. But I couldn't think of anything else to do, and the fact was she was an adult and could do whatever she pleased.
It was about a month after that as I recall that the ex called and informed me that she'd done it. The note said that she'd decided that if she reached this birthday without being married and- preferably- being pregnant, she didn't want to go on living. So the night before she'd borrowed a gun from a friend to go target shooting(which she'd done before), and on the day she'd put on a nightgown, sat down on her bed and shot herself in the head.
Wasn't anywhere near the shock of Kim's friend Danny; we hadn't been that close, and she'd definitely made it clear what was coming. It was two things to me:
The first was saddening, because here was a lovely, intelligent, capable woman who'd taken her own life.
The second, I was pissed. I mentioned she was a nurse, so she had access to any kind of drug you can think of and could simply have taken a bottle. But no, couldn't do that. I can't remember if it was in the note or something she'd said before, she didn't like the idea of drugs because of the possibility of someone finding her before she was dead and a med team keeping her alive. I think that was bullshit. I think she wanted to leave a mess behind, so she did it in a way that would screw over the friend she borrowed the gun from and make a nice mess on the bed.
Kim wrote "But I think that when you throw your life away, you only get a free pass when you’re over the age of seventy, and living in circumstances of extreme physical pain. Before that time, and before you become old and have fulfilled all your obligations, you have a responsibility to others to keep on living. You are not entitled to become a coke addict at age thirty-five, or have sex with five thousand homosexual partners, or screw some poxy street tart on a business trip, or any of that bullshit." I'll throw something else in: if you decide to off yourself, you are not entitled to do it in a way guaranteed to cause grief to as many people as possible and to hurt a friend as much as possible.
And if you do that, screw you.
Used to know a lady. Had met her when married to first wife, had seen her on and off over the years; we messed around in the SCA at the time, and that was her big recreation. She was a nurse, and married at the time.
Then she went through a somewhat messy divorce. Didn't see her for a while, but- this was after my wife had moved out- she called occasionally to talk. Second or third time she started asking me what I thought about the best way to commit suicide. Which freaked me out no small amount, because it was obvious she wasn't just curious, she was seriously thinking about it. I truly did not know I could dance like that, working my way around the subject and being as discouraging as possible.
Didn't hear from her for a while, then she called one night sounding like she was about to collapse. I wound up going over to her house and spent about two hours there. She really freaked me out, being at once mostly very calm about things but having that quivering edge showing through. But I thought she'd calmed down quite a bit, and I felt like I'd done something good there.
That lasted until she called about two months later. She'd moved to Norman in that time, and I'd heard nothing from or about her. That night she called about 0130, just after I'd got home from work, and the first thing she said was "Hi, this is -. If you had a .32 automatic, how would you kill yourself with it?"
I never knew my brain could both freeze up and run in circles so fast, either.
I spent about ten minutes trying to tell her "I wouldn't" while dressing it up in 'that might not work well' crap to both give myself time to think of what to do. I'd been a dispatcher for four years and handled all kinds of stuff but I'd never had a suicide call, and the agency I worked for had no training for such; we never got calls like that, they always went to the PD or the SO. So I was flying on my own there. That ten minutes ended when she- pissed I wouldn't give her solid suggestions("I will NOT help you kill yourself")- hung up. She'd sounded so firm on it that I, figuring they were likely to find the body, called the PD, told them what'd happened. Then I sat around for half an hour hoping they'd been able to cross-check the phone number- I didn't have her address- until they called back. Officer had found her home with a friend, with "no idea what you're talking about, officer" on the subect of the visit. He told his dispatcher he thought she was covering up so he'd swing by a few times over his shift. Quiet the rest of the night.
Next day I got hold of my ex and told her about it, as she knew some people in Norman who were friends with the lady and I thought someone close to her ought to know about it. Then, that night when I got home I had a message: "I don't appreciate you calling the police on me, and I don't appreciate you telling people about me. I'll make a deal with you: I won't call you anymore, and you won't send the police to my house, ok?"
Couple of days later ex called with the word: the friends in Norman knew about her suicide talk, this was just another incident, and they figured "Don't worry, as long as she's talking about it she won't do anything". Well, bullshit, I'd heard her voice and she wasn't just thinking, she was planning. But I couldn't think of anything else to do, and the fact was she was an adult and could do whatever she pleased.
It was about a month after that as I recall that the ex called and informed me that she'd done it. The note said that she'd decided that if she reached this birthday without being married and- preferably- being pregnant, she didn't want to go on living. So the night before she'd borrowed a gun from a friend to go target shooting(which she'd done before), and on the day she'd put on a nightgown, sat down on her bed and shot herself in the head.
Wasn't anywhere near the shock of Kim's friend Danny; we hadn't been that close, and she'd definitely made it clear what was coming. It was two things to me:
The first was saddening, because here was a lovely, intelligent, capable woman who'd taken her own life.
The second, I was pissed. I mentioned she was a nurse, so she had access to any kind of drug you can think of and could simply have taken a bottle. But no, couldn't do that. I can't remember if it was in the note or something she'd said before, she didn't like the idea of drugs because of the possibility of someone finding her before she was dead and a med team keeping her alive. I think that was bullshit. I think she wanted to leave a mess behind, so she did it in a way that would screw over the friend she borrowed the gun from and make a nice mess on the bed.
Kim wrote "But I think that when you throw your life away, you only get a free pass when you’re over the age of seventy, and living in circumstances of extreme physical pain. Before that time, and before you become old and have fulfilled all your obligations, you have a responsibility to others to keep on living. You are not entitled to become a coke addict at age thirty-five, or have sex with five thousand homosexual partners, or screw some poxy street tart on a business trip, or any of that bullshit." I'll throw something else in: if you decide to off yourself, you are not entitled to do it in a way guaranteed to cause grief to as many people as possible and to hurt a friend as much as possible.
And if you do that, screw you.
Take a look, do you know what this is?
It's here at Michael Yon's site. Instapundit and Michelle Malkin both had links to this, it's something found in a bunch of Iranian weapons supplied to the dirtbags in Iraq. I've got no idea, other than it looks like some kind of missile launcher. If you've got any information, post it in his comments.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Think about having to get special legislative permission
for Olympic shooter to keep their pistols at home. No ammo. And you could only fire it at a "Registered regional shooting club". This kind of bullshit is what Clinton and Obama & Co. want here. And let's not forget Giuliani wouldn't mind it, either.
Also, check this out on gun-ban groups methods of speech:
In his 1988 "report on assault weapons," gun prohibitionist Josh Sugarmann wrote: "The weapon’s menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these guns." In other words, Sugarmann expected public support for a ban on "semi-automatic assault weapons," because that public was completely uninformed about the guns so labeled. And he expected the public to stay uninformed about these guns, because, as he candidly acknowledged, the media the public looks to for information were equally uninformed about them
Both found through the good offices of Uncle.
Also, check this out on gun-ban groups methods of speech:
In his 1988 "report on assault weapons," gun prohibitionist Josh Sugarmann wrote: "The weapon’s menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these guns." In other words, Sugarmann expected public support for a ban on "semi-automatic assault weapons," because that public was completely uninformed about the guns so labeled. And he expected the public to stay uninformed about these guns, because, as he candidly acknowledged, the media the public looks to for information were equally uninformed about them
Both found through the good offices of Uncle.
There ARE priorities, after all...
Two deer hunters were standing on a ridge near a highway in rural Minnesota on the opening day of deer season. They both saw a trophy-class buck meandering towards them. As the one hunter raised his gun to shoot, a funeral procession came slowly by.
The hunter lowered his gun, took off his hat, and stood with his head bowed until the procession was past. Of course by then, the deer was long gone.
The other hunter exclaimed "Wow! That was the most sportsmanlike act I've ever seen! You allowed this trophy buck to escape while showing such compassion and kindness toward someone's dearly departed. You are a great humanitarian and a shining example to sportsmen throughout the world!"
The first hunter nodded and said; "Well, we were married for 42 years".
Thanks to Mr. Completely
The hunter lowered his gun, took off his hat, and stood with his head bowed until the procession was past. Of course by then, the deer was long gone.
The other hunter exclaimed "Wow! That was the most sportsmanlike act I've ever seen! You allowed this trophy buck to escape while showing such compassion and kindness toward someone's dearly departed. You are a great humanitarian and a shining example to sportsmen throughout the world!"
The first hunter nodded and said; "Well, we were married for 42 years".
Thanks to Mr. Completely
And there was great rejoicing!
Yay!
The magic box is back in full service.
Local shop had a 430w power supply, just finished installing it and everything seems to work as it should. Quieter, too. I can't remember if the old supply got louder over time, or if this is just a better unit. I think it's the better unit.
Old supply was a '300 watt max'. This gives a whole lot more leeway, and if I wanted to I've now got enough cables & connectors to add pretty much anything that might come to mind.
And I don't have to worry about this thing melting down anymore, either.
Oh, and I did not at any time develop a resemblance to a fluorescent light bulb. So there.
The magic box is back in full service.
Local shop had a 430w power supply, just finished installing it and everything seems to work as it should. Quieter, too. I can't remember if the old supply got louder over time, or if this is just a better unit. I think it's the better unit.
Old supply was a '300 watt max'. This gives a whole lot more leeway, and if I wanted to I've now got enough cables & connectors to add pretty much anything that might come to mind.
And I don't have to worry about this thing melting down anymore, either.
Oh, and I did not at any time develop a resemblance to a fluorescent light bulb. So there.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Do you worry about stuff?
I don't mean "The damn refrigerator just died" or solid 'something is wrong' things like that, I mean about crap that hasn't happened? And may not, but you worry about it anyway?
I tend to. Damn tired of it, too.
Once upon a time, didn't do it. Then various things happened(marriage, kids, etc.) and I'd start thinking "What if ..." 'If' being the car breaking, house breaking, illness or injury. And if you get started, it's hard to break it. And what makes it worse, is it's generally little crap, or something that- if it did happen- wouldn't be a world-ending thing.
'Course, at the time I started, an awful lot seemed like a near-world-ending thing. When there's a serious illness, new kids, a combination of the above and etc., anything can seem a lot worse than it really is. Problem is, if you get started in the worry habit, it's hard to stop.
It's gotten better over the years, but I still tend to do it; when I'm stressed in particular. And it still sucks.
I tend to. Damn tired of it, too.
Once upon a time, didn't do it. Then various things happened(marriage, kids, etc.) and I'd start thinking "What if ..." 'If' being the car breaking, house breaking, illness or injury. And if you get started, it's hard to break it. And what makes it worse, is it's generally little crap, or something that- if it did happen- wouldn't be a world-ending thing.
'Course, at the time I started, an awful lot seemed like a near-world-ending thing. When there's a serious illness, new kids, a combination of the above and etc., anything can seem a lot worse than it really is. Problem is, if you get started in the worry habit, it's hard to stop.
It's gotten better over the years, but I still tend to do it; when I'm stressed in particular. And it still sucks.
A nice thing about some sites,
like Random Nuclear Strikes, is the sayings they keep track of. Such as
Has nice things like this regularly. Not to mention posts from Professor Booty...
Explaining the pleasure of collecting excellent condition examples of the astonishing engineering feats that are the firearms of the 19th and early 20th centuries, each with a story to tell, many having miraculously survived actual combat, to the gunhater would be like trying to explain the pleasure of accumulating a complete set of autographed first editions of your favorite author to an illiterate savage, incapable of viewing their pages as anything but toilet paper or kindling.
Vin Suprynowicz – Send in the Waco Killers - pp 366
Has nice things like this regularly. Not to mention posts from Professor Booty...
Ever been to an open mike night?
Lots of bars & clubs have them. One or two nights a week they open the stage to whoever wants to perform, you get(most of the time) a mike, an amp and an audience.
After divorce #2 I started practicing with my guitar a lot, and one night a friend told me I ought to hit a place she went to; she went there for karoke two or three times a week(shut up), but on Tuesday nights they had open mike. So I finally went.
Lady named Melanie was the host, she'd do two or three songs, then have someone come up and do one or two, sometimes three, then she'd do a couple more. Met some nice people, heard some good performers and generally was just the place I'd needed to find.
One night I was talking to someone(maybe Melanie, but I don't remember) and they said I ought to bring my guitar and give it a try. I said I didn't think so, I wasn't that good, and they snorted and said "Hell, nobody cares, we're all just here to have fun." Which sounded nice, so I started practicing a bit more. And one night I did it.
Badly.
Actually, that doesn't even begin to describe how it went. First, I'm not the best speaker in front of people(unless I'm pissed, then I can sometimes damn near channel Churchill). Second, my guitar had no pickup, so had the mike halfway between face and guitar(every tried to play, let alone play AND sing, while hunched over? Bleah). Couldn't get my fingers to go to the right places, couldn't get my voice to sound normal...
I cut it short, cased the guitar and got a beer. And while I was sitting wondering why the hell I'd talked myself into this, a guy named Randy came by. He was a damn good performer, almost always playing slide, mostly blues. I said something about 'that was bloody awful' and he said "First time always is. It'll be better next time"
"Next time my ass!"
"Give it another time, it'll be better."
So a couple of weeks later I gave it another try, and amazingly, it was better. Not a lot, but I actually got through three songs in half-decent manner, and felt much better afterward.
So I started hitting the place almost every Tuesday, sometimes performing, sometimes just listening(there really were some damn good musicians who showed up there). I found a pickup that fit in the sound hole, which helped. And I found I really enjoyed it.
Later on started going to another place called Galileo's in the Paseo district. The 'artsy' part of town, if you will. Their open mike was on Thursdays. Having a much bigger crowd, met some nice people, including a guitar maker who put a real pickup in for me and- the big hazard- some of the bleepin' worst musicians/performers you'd ever hope not to see. Not nervous like I was at first: bad. BAD. Like the guy who had a Strat and his own amp, with the volume and distortion turned ALL the way up, with a heavy hand and even less talent than I, who really and truly believed he was Heaven's gift to music. Which caused Brit- who ran the thing- to cut him off early, because people were actually leaving. But there were others who made up for it. Like the 17-year old who had a voice like young Patsy Cline, the aforementioned guitar maker who was a very accomplished classical player, and others.
Between time and other things, finally stopped going. The first place had gone downhill, the lady had started doing one song, then having other people perform for as much of the time as possible; just didn't seem to want to do it right anymore. Galileo was still pretty good, but I just didn't have time anymore, and it'd gotten so packed that I could never get a slot to play, so stopped going there. One of these days I'll have to make time to find another place, maybe give it another try.
After divorce #2 I started practicing with my guitar a lot, and one night a friend told me I ought to hit a place she went to; she went there for karoke two or three times a week(shut up), but on Tuesday nights they had open mike. So I finally went.
Lady named Melanie was the host, she'd do two or three songs, then have someone come up and do one or two, sometimes three, then she'd do a couple more. Met some nice people, heard some good performers and generally was just the place I'd needed to find.
One night I was talking to someone(maybe Melanie, but I don't remember) and they said I ought to bring my guitar and give it a try. I said I didn't think so, I wasn't that good, and they snorted and said "Hell, nobody cares, we're all just here to have fun." Which sounded nice, so I started practicing a bit more. And one night I did it.
Badly.
Actually, that doesn't even begin to describe how it went. First, I'm not the best speaker in front of people(unless I'm pissed, then I can sometimes damn near channel Churchill). Second, my guitar had no pickup, so had the mike halfway between face and guitar(every tried to play, let alone play AND sing, while hunched over? Bleah). Couldn't get my fingers to go to the right places, couldn't get my voice to sound normal...
I cut it short, cased the guitar and got a beer. And while I was sitting wondering why the hell I'd talked myself into this, a guy named Randy came by. He was a damn good performer, almost always playing slide, mostly blues. I said something about 'that was bloody awful' and he said "First time always is. It'll be better next time"
"Next time my ass!"
"Give it another time, it'll be better."
So a couple of weeks later I gave it another try, and amazingly, it was better. Not a lot, but I actually got through three songs in half-decent manner, and felt much better afterward.
So I started hitting the place almost every Tuesday, sometimes performing, sometimes just listening(there really were some damn good musicians who showed up there). I found a pickup that fit in the sound hole, which helped. And I found I really enjoyed it.
Later on started going to another place called Galileo's in the Paseo district. The 'artsy' part of town, if you will. Their open mike was on Thursdays. Having a much bigger crowd, met some nice people, including a guitar maker who put a real pickup in for me and- the big hazard- some of the bleepin' worst musicians/performers you'd ever hope not to see. Not nervous like I was at first: bad. BAD. Like the guy who had a Strat and his own amp, with the volume and distortion turned ALL the way up, with a heavy hand and even less talent than I, who really and truly believed he was Heaven's gift to music. Which caused Brit- who ran the thing- to cut him off early, because people were actually leaving. But there were others who made up for it. Like the 17-year old who had a voice like young Patsy Cline, the aforementioned guitar maker who was a very accomplished classical player, and others.
Between time and other things, finally stopped going. The first place had gone downhill, the lady had started doing one song, then having other people perform for as much of the time as possible; just didn't seem to want to do it right anymore. Galileo was still pretty good, but I just didn't have time anymore, and it'd gotten so packed that I could never get a slot to play, so stopped going there. One of these days I'll have to make time to find another place, maybe give it another try.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Hee, more apostates from the Church of Globalist Warmering!
From Tim Blair found a link to this article about an astrophysicist:He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
And that article has links to a series on 'The Deniers'. Including this one about Christopher Landsea of NOAA:
Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.
As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin.
And so on.
'Course though, he's not a real scientist; real scientists all believe in human-caused globular warmening, the enviroweenies tell us so! Only incompetents or bribed researchers or non-real scientists disagree... Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.
Gee, I don't think all the real scientists agree, after all!
perfectly appropriate picture stolen from the beauteous Sondra of the Thong
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
And that article has links to a series on 'The Deniers'. Including this one about Christopher Landsea of NOAA:
Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.
As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin.
And so on.
'Course though, he's not a real scientist; real scientists all believe in human-caused globular warmening, the enviroweenies tell us so! Only incompetents or bribed researchers or non-real scientists disagree... Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting." He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.
Gee, I don't think all the real scientists agree, after all!
perfectly appropriate picture stolen from the beauteous Sondra of the Thong
Yeesh! My magic box is losing it!
My computer has either the power supply or the motherboard going out. I think. Runs fine, but when I put a cd in the drive it started to spin up and then the whole thing shut down. Did this the other day, and the first couple of times I pushed the power button it'd start to come on, then shut off again. Third time came all the way up.
So of course I tried the other cd drive and it did the same thing. Dammit, I hate messing with crap like this. I don't know how to test either the supply or the board, and the idea of trying parts until it's fixed(what am I, and IBM tech?) is not attractive. There's a couple of good computer shops not far away, one of which is highly recommended by people who really do know their ass from a hole in the ground on the subject, so if need be I can take it there.
It boils down to if I don't at least make a try at fixing it myself, I'll feel like a jerk. So if you read a news report of someone in Oklahoma turning into a fluorescent bulb, you'll know I touched the wrong connection.
Any suggestions- other than "Take it to the shop!" since I already know that one- accepted.
So of course I tried the other cd drive and it did the same thing. Dammit, I hate messing with crap like this. I don't know how to test either the supply or the board, and the idea of trying parts until it's fixed(what am I, and IBM tech?) is not attractive. There's a couple of good computer shops not far away, one of which is highly recommended by people who really do know their ass from a hole in the ground on the subject, so if need be I can take it there.
It boils down to if I don't at least make a try at fixing it myself, I'll feel like a jerk. So if you read a news report of someone in Oklahoma turning into a fluorescent bulb, you'll know I touched the wrong connection.
Any suggestions- other than "Take it to the shop!" since I already know that one- accepted.
Time trial on the flashlight
I turned it on at 11:30 last night. When I got up at 7:30 it was noticeably dimmer, still useable but fading fast enough to see over the next half hour.
Say eight hours good, and that's with cheap Rayovac non-alkaline batteries(6 for $1 at the dollar store). With good alkaline batteries, I imagine it'll extend that a bit. Next time I get a chance I'll pick some up and give them a try.
Say eight hours good, and that's with cheap Rayovac non-alkaline batteries(6 for $1 at the dollar store). With good alkaline batteries, I imagine it'll extend that a bit. Next time I get a chance I'll pick some up and give them a try.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Sometimes good things come from EvilBay
Couple of days ago was browsing over flashlights, searched 'led flashlights', and among lots of stuff ran across this:
It was listed as a '1 watt led light' that puts out 35 lumens. Hmmm, little over five bucks, three minutes to go, hey, free shipping! So I put in a bid, and won, and paid for it.
Know how shipping of some things seems to take forever? Not this time, it was in the mailbox about 48 hours after I paid. Very nice.
It's an aluminum body 4.25" long, about 1.25" diameter at the head, pushbutton tailswitch. Uses three AAA batteries: unscrew the back and a plastic housing drops out, put in the batteries, slide it back in and close it up. Then wait for dark to try it out.
I don't have any way to measure it, but this sucker is bright. Not as bright as my Surefire G2, but bright; you do not want to shine it in your eyes. The light compares favorably to the Surefire in that it's a bright center with no shadows or dark spots, though it does have that led blue tint(not bad, but noticeable).
I want to find out how long batteries will last in this, so I'm going to mark a starting time, turn it on and leave it until it goes out or too dim to use. Update to follow.
It was listed as a '1 watt led light' that puts out 35 lumens. Hmmm, little over five bucks, three minutes to go, hey, free shipping! So I put in a bid, and won, and paid for it.
Know how shipping of some things seems to take forever? Not this time, it was in the mailbox about 48 hours after I paid. Very nice.
It's an aluminum body 4.25" long, about 1.25" diameter at the head, pushbutton tailswitch. Uses three AAA batteries: unscrew the back and a plastic housing drops out, put in the batteries, slide it back in and close it up. Then wait for dark to try it out.
I don't have any way to measure it, but this sucker is bright. Not as bright as my Surefire G2, but bright; you do not want to shine it in your eyes. The light compares favorably to the Surefire in that it's a bright center with no shadows or dark spots, though it does have that led blue tint(not bad, but noticeable).
I want to find out how long batteries will last in this, so I'm going to mark a starting time, turn it on and leave it until it goes out or too dim to use. Update to follow.
"DHS involved in perjury and other crimes:
and we still don't want to talk about it."
The other day I noted that A: DHS and some people in the Justice Department seem to have been, er, loose with the truth in the case of Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and B: there seems to be damn little interest in this, if you judge from the lack of reports from the usual major media suspects. As of a little earlier, still no note of this at any of the blogs I mentioned then, nothing on Drudge. I state that I haven't listed to NBC, ABC or CBS news in quite a while, so I don't know if they mentioned it on their broadcasts. There are lots of articles in various places, but not in the big places where you'd expect.
This is really weird. You've got federal agents and officials lying under oath and to Congress, a federal prosecutor who had to have known about this mess while he was prosecuting, people in prison in the case, all kinds of shady doings, and damn few media types showing an interest. This is the kind of thing that SHOULD be getting lots of play, but... Glenn Beck had this article linked on his site today, including the interesting note
According to official documents in WND's possession, a Department of Homeland Security agent played a major role in managing the drug smuggler and conducting the field investigation in the incident that landed Border Patrol officers Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean in federal prison for more than a decade.
Yet, in the heavily redacted 77-page DHS report submitted to Congress Wednesday there is no explicit discussion of the role DHS Special Agent Christopher Sanchez played in the case.
In another article, there's this on the ballistics tests:
"For some unexplained reason, U.S. Attorney Sutton had the ballistics test performed by the Texas Department of Public Safety in El Paso, rather than by the FBI," he said. "This was a federal issue that should have gone to the FBI and only to the FBI. The Texas Department of Public Safety had no business running a ballistics report on a federal case. The FBI handles all shooting incidents, whether it involves assaults or otherwise, concerning federal agents. DPS should have refused the case and demanded that the bullet be picked up by the FBI for analysis.
"If you ask the Texas DHS how many shooting cases they handle involving federal agents, they would have said, 'None'. Then, if you asked the FBI how many shooting cases they handle involving federal agents, they would have said, 'All of them.' Yet that isn't how it went in this case. Nothing was done by the rules."
On the ballistics report:
Correa could not positively identify Ramos's weapon as the one that fired the submitted bullet. His report concludes:
The copper-jacketed bullet was fired from a barrel having six lands and grooves inclined to the right. The manufacturer of the firearm that fired the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown, but could include commonly encountered models of .40 S&W caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols.
Correa's report gives no indication the bullet submitted for analysis was disfigured or in fragments, despite having been supposedly extracted from Aldrete-Davila's body after reportedly doing massive damage to his groin area and hitting bone.
So the test was done on a 'copper-jacketed bullet', ok. In this article, we have this on the wound and bullet:
The medical records document that March 16, 2005, Dr. Winston Marne removed a large bullet fragment from Aldrete-Davila's right thigh. The records indicate bullet fragments were found in Aldrete-Davila's pelvis but not removed. The path of the bullet is clearly described as entering in the left side of the left buttocks, traversing the groin area, and lodging in the right thigh.
If this information is correct, what was removed from the smuggler's body was one large fragment and some smaller pieces were left inside. Which doesn't leave much of a bullet to run ballistics tests on. Even to only narrow it down to 'could include' four brands of firearm. Add to all the rest of the crap that's come out, and this is, at the least- well, hell, there is no 'least' in this.
Happily, DHS seems to have pissed off a bunch of politicians really bad, and this has gotten the attention of people like Rush and Beck who've been talking about it. If the investigation I noted previously does happen- and honestly- something may get done about this. At the very least, the attorneys for Compean and Ramos may be able to do something with this information. But- have to add the caveat- if the information that's come out is accurate, there are a bunch of people in suits with large amounts of authority who really do belong in prison.
Yes, I know this is from WND, which hasn't always been the most accurate of sources. But they are reporting on this, and the information seems to be holding up, so I'll happily use it unless someone can point out a good reason not to. I do admit that I may be missing stuff; I've just done a couple of quick searches.
The other day I noted that A: DHS and some people in the Justice Department seem to have been, er, loose with the truth in the case of Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and B: there seems to be damn little interest in this, if you judge from the lack of reports from the usual major media suspects. As of a little earlier, still no note of this at any of the blogs I mentioned then, nothing on Drudge. I state that I haven't listed to NBC, ABC or CBS news in quite a while, so I don't know if they mentioned it on their broadcasts. There are lots of articles in various places, but not in the big places where you'd expect.
This is really weird. You've got federal agents and officials lying under oath and to Congress, a federal prosecutor who had to have known about this mess while he was prosecuting, people in prison in the case, all kinds of shady doings, and damn few media types showing an interest. This is the kind of thing that SHOULD be getting lots of play, but... Glenn Beck had this article linked on his site today, including the interesting note
According to official documents in WND's possession, a Department of Homeland Security agent played a major role in managing the drug smuggler and conducting the field investigation in the incident that landed Border Patrol officers Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean in federal prison for more than a decade.
Yet, in the heavily redacted 77-page DHS report submitted to Congress Wednesday there is no explicit discussion of the role DHS Special Agent Christopher Sanchez played in the case.
In another article, there's this on the ballistics tests:
"For some unexplained reason, U.S. Attorney Sutton had the ballistics test performed by the Texas Department of Public Safety in El Paso, rather than by the FBI," he said. "This was a federal issue that should have gone to the FBI and only to the FBI. The Texas Department of Public Safety had no business running a ballistics report on a federal case. The FBI handles all shooting incidents, whether it involves assaults or otherwise, concerning federal agents. DPS should have refused the case and demanded that the bullet be picked up by the FBI for analysis.
"If you ask the Texas DHS how many shooting cases they handle involving federal agents, they would have said, 'None'. Then, if you asked the FBI how many shooting cases they handle involving federal agents, they would have said, 'All of them.' Yet that isn't how it went in this case. Nothing was done by the rules."
On the ballistics report:
Correa could not positively identify Ramos's weapon as the one that fired the submitted bullet. His report concludes:
The copper-jacketed bullet was fired from a barrel having six lands and grooves inclined to the right. The manufacturer of the firearm that fired the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown, but could include commonly encountered models of .40 S&W caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols.
Correa's report gives no indication the bullet submitted for analysis was disfigured or in fragments, despite having been supposedly extracted from Aldrete-Davila's body after reportedly doing massive damage to his groin area and hitting bone.
So the test was done on a 'copper-jacketed bullet', ok. In this article, we have this on the wound and bullet:
The medical records document that March 16, 2005, Dr. Winston Marne removed a large bullet fragment from Aldrete-Davila's right thigh. The records indicate bullet fragments were found in Aldrete-Davila's pelvis but not removed. The path of the bullet is clearly described as entering in the left side of the left buttocks, traversing the groin area, and lodging in the right thigh.
If this information is correct, what was removed from the smuggler's body was one large fragment and some smaller pieces were left inside. Which doesn't leave much of a bullet to run ballistics tests on. Even to only narrow it down to 'could include' four brands of firearm. Add to all the rest of the crap that's come out, and this is, at the least- well, hell, there is no 'least' in this.
Happily, DHS seems to have pissed off a bunch of politicians really bad, and this has gotten the attention of people like Rush and Beck who've been talking about it. If the investigation I noted previously does happen- and honestly- something may get done about this. At the very least, the attorneys for Compean and Ramos may be able to do something with this information. But- have to add the caveat- if the information that's come out is accurate, there are a bunch of people in suits with large amounts of authority who really do belong in prison.
Yes, I know this is from WND, which hasn't always been the most accurate of sources. But they are reporting on this, and the information seems to be holding up, so I'll happily use it unless someone can point out a good reason not to. I do admit that I may be missing stuff; I've just done a couple of quick searches.
Some more on Bloomberg's kick in the ass
from Cam Edwards:For months the ATF was silent on the matter, but recently disclosed that an investigation into Bloomberg’s actions was taking place. Now the Battle letter, first made public by the New York Daily News, details the problems with Bloomberg’s attacks on firearms dealers.
According to the Daily News, none of the gun dealers Bloomberg is suing broke federal law and took part in straw purchase transactions. The letter also took Bloomberg to task for conducting these stings "without proper law enforcement authority," though there is no indication that BATFE or the Justice Department would seek to file charges against Bloomberg or his civilian private investigators. Instead, the letter warns that Bloomberg’s operations could put the city at risk of legal action.
You think maybe?
On the other side, at least one of the stores sued by Bloomberg has counter-sued the mayor, alleging Bloomberg had conspired with others to deceive the store in order to falsely and fraudulently purchase a firearm. Former Congressman Bob Barr is representing Smyrna, Georgia-based Adventure Outdoors, and he says the news is “very problematic” for the mayor, and presumably very good news for his client. The Georgia retailer is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages in the libel and slander suit.
Let's see, $400 million... Even in NYFC(as Kim puts it) that's serious money. Now some of the other dealers smeared and sued by this clown need to counter-sue also. And if it's being done according to the law, then Bloomberg and his buttmonkeys need to have criminal charges filed against them. It's a start, anyway.
According to the Daily News, none of the gun dealers Bloomberg is suing broke federal law and took part in straw purchase transactions. The letter also took Bloomberg to task for conducting these stings "without proper law enforcement authority," though there is no indication that BATFE or the Justice Department would seek to file charges against Bloomberg or his civilian private investigators. Instead, the letter warns that Bloomberg’s operations could put the city at risk of legal action.
You think maybe?
On the other side, at least one of the stores sued by Bloomberg has counter-sued the mayor, alleging Bloomberg had conspired with others to deceive the store in order to falsely and fraudulently purchase a firearm. Former Congressman Bob Barr is representing Smyrna, Georgia-based Adventure Outdoors, and he says the news is “very problematic” for the mayor, and presumably very good news for his client. The Georgia retailer is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages in the libel and slander suit.
Let's see, $400 million... Even in NYFC(as Kim puts it) that's serious money. Now some of the other dealers smeared and sued by this clown need to counter-sue also. And if it's being done according to the law, then Bloomberg and his buttmonkeys need to have criminal charges filed against them. It's a start, anyway.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The nazis were friendly towards citizens with guns?
Since when?
A regime that would disarm and murder an entire segment of the population hardly could be said to support, if the language of the Second Amendment can be applied, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Indeed, that is the very kind of regime this right is meant to provide the means to resist.
I'd read somewhere that some clowns were trying to paint the National Socialists of Germany as 'Second Amendment friendly', found this post on it at Clayton Cramer. How sorry and desperate do you have to be to use something like this to try to whack at gun owners?
A regime that would disarm and murder an entire segment of the population hardly could be said to support, if the language of the Second Amendment can be applied, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Indeed, that is the very kind of regime this right is meant to provide the means to resist.
I'd read somewhere that some clowns were trying to paint the National Socialists of Germany as 'Second Amendment friendly', found this post on it at Clayton Cramer. How sorry and desperate do you have to be to use something like this to try to whack at gun owners?
And yet more problems for Bloomberg,
and it's about damn time.
The Exec Office of US Attorneys informs the mayor that they will not prosecute any of the dealers he targeted, and warns that his engaging in "stings" without law enforcement authorization could jeopardize real operations and expose him and the city to liability.
So now maybe the dealers he was screwing with can sue his ass off while ATF files charges on the sorry little GFW.
The Exec Office of US Attorneys informs the mayor that they will not prosecute any of the dealers he targeted, and warns that his engaging in "stings" without law enforcement authorization could jeopardize real operations and expose him and the city to liability.
So now maybe the dealers he was screwing with can sue his ass off while ATF files charges on the sorry little GFW.
So they want a state climatologist,
but only one who says what they want him to.
Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."
Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.
The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"
"Naw, we want a real scientist there, and a real scientist would agree with us!"
Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."
Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.
The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"
"Naw, we want a real scientist there, and a real scientist would agree with us!"
In the Atlanta case of abuse of police powers,
the D.A. is seeking criminal charges. As in felony murder.
I flat can't stand this:Atlanta police Sgt. Scott Kreher, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, called reports that prosecutors would seek indictments against the officers "sad."
"I think any time law enforcement officer is accused of a crime, we all sit back and wonder what went wrong and look within ourselves in what we do day to day," Kreher said. "Hopefully, if it's presented to a grand jury and there isn't enough evidence, they will send back a no bill."
Gee, Sgt. Kreher, I think it's sad that police officers got a warrant under false conditions and killed an old woman because they couldn't be bothered to actually, you know, investigate before they went over to kick in the door.
I flat can't stand this:Atlanta police Sgt. Scott Kreher, president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, called reports that prosecutors would seek indictments against the officers "sad."
"I think any time law enforcement officer is accused of a crime, we all sit back and wonder what went wrong and look within ourselves in what we do day to day," Kreher said. "Hopefully, if it's presented to a grand jury and there isn't enough evidence, they will send back a no bill."
Gee, Sgt. Kreher, I think it's sad that police officers got a warrant under false conditions and killed an old woman because they couldn't be bothered to actually, you know, investigate before they went over to kick in the door.
Why isn't the story of Homeland Security officials lying to Congress
big news?
I've been looking around this morning for more information, and it's amazing how little there is. Glenn Beck talked about it, and has this link on his site, and looking at World Net Daily found this one, and Drudge linked to this one. But Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Wizbang and Powerline have not a word as of the last time I looked. And they should be all over this. And of course the major media hasn't said a word that I've heard. Hell, even Newsbusters had nothing on it.
God knows why. Malkin has been whacking on the refusal to take serious action on the borders for a long time, Insty usually says something on things like this, and so on. But nothing so far. Which makes no sense. Here's federal agents lying under oath, federal officials lying to Congress, two Border Patrol agents in prison at least in part on false testimony... This is the kind of crap that should have everyone digging a pitchfork out of the shed and making a torch. This, for instance:
The misstatements occurred when aides briefed four Texas congressmen in September about the 2005 shooting near Fabens, southeast of El Paso.
"It was an unfortunate mischaracterization," Skinner told Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, whose district stretches to Harris County. "I apologize on behalf of our staff, and I just want to make perfectly clear this was not intentional."
My ass this was 'not intentional', this was a flat-ass lie, not a 'mischaracterization'. I'll say that again: These aides lied to Congress. Period. And ought to face severe penalties for it.
The report, released Wednesday with some sections deleted, does not substantiate what McCaul said were some of the more inflammatory claims made by the inspector general's office last fall. The claims included the alleged "shoot a Mexican" comment and an assertion that agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos had no fear for their lives when they fired 15 rounds at the trafficker as he ran back toward Mexico after ditching a van with 743 pounds of marijuana.
"...does not substantiate..." Put in plain words, the report from the IG's office lied. And he needs to face severe penalties for that.
And if the prosecutor in the case was aware of this- and I cannot imagine that he was not- he needs to have his ass handed to him. And have any similar cases he worked on reviewed, to see if there were any other little 'mischaracterizations' involved.
There is this for a start:Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., granted a request Wednesday by Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for a committee investigation and hearing into the case. McCaul is asking the House Homeland Security Committee to conduct a hearing as well.
And Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, demanded a Justice Department investigation into the faulty statements made to lawmakers by the inspector general's staff last fall.
"It was a fabrication," Poe said flatly of the investigators' claims. Poe wouldn't hazard a guess as to why the investigators misspoke. But Culberson offered an opinion.
"There is no chance this was an innocent mistake," Culberson said. "Those statements made to us were designed to throw us off the scent and cover up what is obviously an unjust criminal prosecution of two officers who were protecting our borders from criminals and terrorists sneaking in."
So we may actually get real investigations into this crap. I hope so, and I hope- as stated above- the people involved in this face real penalties for it. We cannot tolerate federal agents lying under oath, we cannot tolerate federal officials lying under oath and lying to Congress. Period.
I've been looking around this morning for more information, and it's amazing how little there is. Glenn Beck talked about it, and has this link on his site, and looking at World Net Daily found this one, and Drudge linked to this one. But Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Wizbang and Powerline have not a word as of the last time I looked. And they should be all over this. And of course the major media hasn't said a word that I've heard. Hell, even Newsbusters had nothing on it.
God knows why. Malkin has been whacking on the refusal to take serious action on the borders for a long time, Insty usually says something on things like this, and so on. But nothing so far. Which makes no sense. Here's federal agents lying under oath, federal officials lying to Congress, two Border Patrol agents in prison at least in part on false testimony... This is the kind of crap that should have everyone digging a pitchfork out of the shed and making a torch. This, for instance:
The misstatements occurred when aides briefed four Texas congressmen in September about the 2005 shooting near Fabens, southeast of El Paso.
"It was an unfortunate mischaracterization," Skinner told Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, whose district stretches to Harris County. "I apologize on behalf of our staff, and I just want to make perfectly clear this was not intentional."
My ass this was 'not intentional', this was a flat-ass lie, not a 'mischaracterization'. I'll say that again: These aides lied to Congress. Period. And ought to face severe penalties for it.
The report, released Wednesday with some sections deleted, does not substantiate what McCaul said were some of the more inflammatory claims made by the inspector general's office last fall. The claims included the alleged "shoot a Mexican" comment and an assertion that agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos had no fear for their lives when they fired 15 rounds at the trafficker as he ran back toward Mexico after ditching a van with 743 pounds of marijuana.
"...does not substantiate..." Put in plain words, the report from the IG's office lied. And he needs to face severe penalties for that.
And if the prosecutor in the case was aware of this- and I cannot imagine that he was not- he needs to have his ass handed to him. And have any similar cases he worked on reviewed, to see if there were any other little 'mischaracterizations' involved.
There is this for a start:Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., granted a request Wednesday by Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for a committee investigation and hearing into the case. McCaul is asking the House Homeland Security Committee to conduct a hearing as well.
And Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, demanded a Justice Department investigation into the faulty statements made to lawmakers by the inspector general's staff last fall.
"It was a fabrication," Poe said flatly of the investigators' claims. Poe wouldn't hazard a guess as to why the investigators misspoke. But Culberson offered an opinion.
"There is no chance this was an innocent mistake," Culberson said. "Those statements made to us were designed to throw us off the scent and cover up what is obviously an unjust criminal prosecution of two officers who were protecting our borders from criminals and terrorists sneaking in."
So we may actually get real investigations into this crap. I hope so, and I hope- as stated above- the people involved in this face real penalties for it. We cannot tolerate federal agents lying under oath, we cannot tolerate federal officials lying under oath and lying to Congress. Period.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Giuliani for President? No effin' way
Kim brought this to mind, and one of his links tells why Giuliani should be treated like a vampire in a blood bank:
“My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed? We’re talking about all dangerous weapons.” - Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000
“We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions — and really stronger ones — that exist for driving an automobile.”
“This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed.”
“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”
“Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.”
“I’m in favor of gun control.”
But now that he needs our votes?
“It’s part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.”
I've been listening to Sean Hannity a bit, and the man has pretty much sold himself to Giuliani, making excuses and "buts" for every damn thing. Especially Giuliani's attacks on the 2nd. Take note of that last bit Snowflakes found: "You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.” Not "I will not mess with the 2nd Amendment", but "regulate consistent with". Which means he'll do the same damn thing he's done before: sign onto every lawsuit, ban, licensing scheme, restriction and whatever else comes along to cut pieces off.
What does Hannity say? "He's promised to appoint judges like", etc. Which means exactly nothing. For whatever reason Hannity seems to have decided Giuliani is 'IT', and wants to make excuses for the problems.
And here's some more, from Alphecca:
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Let's see, 'reasonable and sensible' restrictions; in favor of the Brady bill and AWB, etc. One more nanny-state politician that we're supposed to vote for because "He'll do this with judges" or "He's not Hillary!". Bleah.
Like Jeff says, I'm not wedded to the Republican(aka 'Stupid') Party, especially with so many of the 'front runners' being so hostile to things I hold dear. A Democrat who doesn't bend over for the national level people like Pelosi and Reid and Clinton and holds the same things I do dear, can get my vote.
Awright, Stupid Party, you need to get your collective head out of your butt, and do it very damn soon. People like Sen. Coburn are great; they aren't going to save the whole damn party.
“My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed? We’re talking about all dangerous weapons.” - Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000
“We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions — and really stronger ones — that exist for driving an automobile.”
“This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed.”
“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”
“Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.”
“I’m in favor of gun control.”
But now that he needs our votes?
“It’s part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.”
I've been listening to Sean Hannity a bit, and the man has pretty much sold himself to Giuliani, making excuses and "buts" for every damn thing. Especially Giuliani's attacks on the 2nd. Take note of that last bit Snowflakes found: "You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.” Not "I will not mess with the 2nd Amendment", but "regulate consistent with". Which means he'll do the same damn thing he's done before: sign onto every lawsuit, ban, licensing scheme, restriction and whatever else comes along to cut pieces off.
What does Hannity say? "He's promised to appoint judges like", etc. Which means exactly nothing. For whatever reason Hannity seems to have decided Giuliani is 'IT', and wants to make excuses for the problems.
And here's some more, from Alphecca:
HANNITY: But generally speaking, do you think it's acceptable if citizens have the right to carry a handgun?
GIULIANI: It's not only -- I mean, it's part of the Constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then the restrictions of it have to be reasonable and sensible. You can't just remove that right. You've got to regulate, consistent with the Second Amendment.
HANNITY: How do you feel about the Brady bill and assault ban?
GIULIANI: I was in favor of that as part of the crime bill. I was in favor of it because I thought that it was necessary both to get the crime bill passed and also necessary with the 2,000 murders or so that we were looking at, 1,800, 1,900, to 2,000 murders, that I could use that in a tactical way to reduce crime. And I did.
Let's see, 'reasonable and sensible' restrictions; in favor of the Brady bill and AWB, etc. One more nanny-state politician that we're supposed to vote for because "He'll do this with judges" or "He's not Hillary!". Bleah.
Like Jeff says, I'm not wedded to the Republican(aka 'Stupid') Party, especially with so many of the 'front runners' being so hostile to things I hold dear. A Democrat who doesn't bend over for the national level people like Pelosi and Reid and Clinton and holds the same things I do dear, can get my vote.
Awright, Stupid Party, you need to get your collective head out of your butt, and do it very damn soon. People like Sen. Coburn are great; they aren't going to save the whole damn party.
Maybe, just maybe, Bloomberg should start sweating
as it seems ATF is actually doing some investigating of his games:
ATF is investigating the matter in order to determine if violations of Federal firearms laws occurred.
I get the feeling that there's been enough screaming and yelling about this that, even if the more political types didn't like it, they had to do something.
We will see.
ATF is investigating the matter in order to determine if violations of Federal firearms laws occurred.
I get the feeling that there's been enough screaming and yelling about this that, even if the more political types didn't like it, they had to do something.
We will see.
"Government agency lies to Congress:
No further reporting at any time."
From the major media, anyway.
Heard Glenn Beck mention this today, so I checked it out. It seems that "A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.
The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.
This would make me wonder just how much of the evidence presented against these BP agents may turn out to be, well, 'doubtful' let us say? And I'd think their lawyers are going to have fun with this.
From the major media, anyway.
Heard Glenn Beck mention this today, so I checked it out. It seems that "A Department of Homeland Security official admitted today the agency misled Congress when it contended it possessed investigative reports proving Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean confessed guilt and declared they "wanted to shoot some Mexicans" prior to the incident that led to their imprisonment.
The admission came during the testimony of DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, according to Michael Green, press secretary for Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas.
This would make me wonder just how much of the evidence presented against these BP agents may turn out to be, well, 'doubtful' let us say? And I'd think their lawyers are going to have fun with this.
Minorities and the 2nd Amendment
One of the amazing things to me of the huge minority support for the Democrat Party is the huge hostility that party- on the national level and in many states- has for the right to arms: if I were latino or black or whatever and actually worried about some jerk attacking me or my family, I'd think the right to arms was a fairly important thing. And if you actually believed- as so many of the people in various groups claim- that the gummint is against you, why would you want to back measures that would prevent anyone BUT the gummint from having arms? Seems self-defeating.
Especially, as Kevin points out, in light of the Dred Scott decision. Everyone knows it was bad, but it seems very few pay attention to the last part of this:
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
It was considered so much a right of free citizens to 'keep and carry arms' that this was one of the reasons these people specifically did not want blacks to be considered citizens; because if they were, they had the right to arms the same as everyone else.
What brought this to mind today was this column at Town Hall: Second Amendment Freedoms Aided the Civil Rights Movement . It notes some of the specific instances where people with arms cause clowns like the KKK to, er, 'rethink the wisdom' of some of their actions. As is usually the case, they weren't looking for a fight, they were looking for a victim; and it's considerably harder to make someone a victim if they've got a shotgun in their hands.
Which brings up the question as to why so many people want to be victims, but that's a whole 'nother question.
Especially, as Kevin points out, in light of the Dred Scott decision. Everyone knows it was bad, but it seems very few pay attention to the last part of this:
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
It was considered so much a right of free citizens to 'keep and carry arms' that this was one of the reasons these people specifically did not want blacks to be considered citizens; because if they were, they had the right to arms the same as everyone else.
What brought this to mind today was this column at Town Hall: Second Amendment Freedoms Aided the Civil Rights Movement . It notes some of the specific instances where people with arms cause clowns like the KKK to, er, 'rethink the wisdom' of some of their actions. As is usually the case, they weren't looking for a fight, they were looking for a victim; and it's considerably harder to make someone a victim if they've got a shotgun in their hands.
Which brings up the question as to why so many people want to be victims, but that's a whole 'nother question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)