Over at Wizbang Jay Tea did a post on some of the electric car idiocy, such as CA passing "a law requiring that (as I recall) 5% of all the vehicles it sold be zero-emission vehicles.", and noting that they never did figure out how to make people buy the expensive electric toys. Somebody made, among other things, the comment that 'driving is a privilege'(which I believe is crap) so I posted this comment:
I just love the 'driving is a privilege' crap. Right up there with "You don't NEED to own that".
I damn well have a right to move myself around in the manner I choose, and I'm sick of it being described as a 'privilege'.
"One more thing for the sad people who find "a powerful" automobile more of a statement then a socially conscious decision directed at what's best for your kids and countries future the electric automobile will silently blow the doors of any of the best current noisy polluting gas hogs."
Guess what? I don't buy a car or firearm or house or whatever as a 'socially conscious decision'. You show me an electric car that will hold the loads I sometimes need to carry, for at least 250 miles at highway speeds without recharging AND is actually affordable, and I'll consider it. Until then, bite me.
"the electric automobile will silently blow the doors of any of the best current noisy polluting gas hogs." Not in this universe it won't. And I'm curious: what power source are you planning on to produce all the electricity needed to recharge all those batteries? Nuclear, gas, coal or oil-fired plants? 'Cause you're sure as hell not going to get that additional power from a solar cell on your roof or a little windmill in your backyard.
Not exactly temperate, but I'm tired, and sick of 'socially conscious' people telling me how I should be allowed to live.
Well, it seems I hurt his tender feelings, so he- in three different comments, yet- came up with
No you don't have a right to drive a car if you're 14 years old, have too many violations, have big metal spiked tires.....and I would add...you shouldn't be able to drive an SUV unless it meets the same fuel efficiency standards as regular cars.
and
"Guess what? I don't buy a car or firearm or house or whatever as a 'socially conscious decision'. "
Posted by: Firehand
Right and that's what bank robbers and axe murderers say about why they rob banks and axe murder people. And that's why we have laws to protect banks and people from being hacked up. And laws to protect kids with asthma as well as our national interest from people who will only worry about what's good for themselves and not about how their actions effect others and our country as a whole.
and finally
Wow every time you get in the car you have a full load and go 250 miles??? That's too bad for you because for most people over 90% of their trips are easily with in the range of an electric auto.
The problem is electric auto's are so efficient and need so little maintenance that they would cut big into the auto and gas industries profits.
But since there are enough people like you who are happy to have their democracy subservient to corporate interest no electric autos are available for the many people like me who would like to have them. Hopefully Tesla Motors will be the beginning of a very successful business that puts the big three out of business and gives the treasonous oil companies the equivalent of a solid kick to the groin.
Let's see, choosing a vehicle he doesn't like is equivalent to driving underage, with illegal tires, with a suspended license and my truck should get the same mileage as 'regular cars'. Hey, asshat, it's NOT a regular car, it's a TRUCK. Which doesn't get the same mileage as a lot of 'regular cars'. I'd flat LOVE it if I got, oh, 35 or 40mpg, but that ain't in the cards. Oh, by the way, an awful lot of 'regular cars' don't get that mileage, either.
Next, not considering 'socially conscious' ideals before buying something is equivalent to armed robbery and murder. Oh, and(you just knew it was coming, didn't you?) it means you don't care about The Children.
And finally, I'm supposed to buy an electric toy for- according to asshat- 90% of my trips will be taken care of by it. According to the Gospel of Asshat, at least. Well, tell you what, people choose a vehicle according to their overall needs. No, I don't always have a bed full of dirt or rock or lumber or tools; I don't always drive 250 miles nonstop. So what? Overall, a truck is what I choose, and what really seems to piss you off is you can't control it. I can actually choose a vehicle without you having a say in it, and I get the feeling that you just can't stand it.
Asshat, if electric cars were economical enough, and long-distance enough, and load-carrying enough to make people happy, more people would buy them. The problem is, they're not. And every effort to force people to buy the damn things fails because of it. You may not believe this, but I really like clean air and water. I don't like having to depend on a bunch of prophet-worshipping idiots with a death wish for oil. But electric cars just don't cut it at this point for lots and lots of people, and they won't unless/until they improve the tech enough to overcome the problems. Which, by the way, include the size of them; getting into and out of a low-slung car is a problem for some people.
And let's not forget one of the big problems: where does all the electricity come from for all those new electric cars? It doesn't just appear in an outlet, it has to be generated somewhere. And since people like you generally scream bloody murder at the idea of nuclear plants, OR new oil/gas/coal-fired power plants AND would flat forbid oil exploration in our own territory, I have no idea how you plan to recharge the batteries(fairly inefficient process from what I've read; and when an accident cracks the casing, you've got a toxic waste spill).
To borrow from something Steven den Beste once wrote, I guess you figure you'll make people buy the cars and plug them in and then the Pure Fucking Magic will happen to make the electricity appear to charge them.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Friday, September 01, 2006
More on the UN and self-defense
Or the lack thereof from their point of view. I've been thinking about this, and I feel a mix of despair, rage and '#!**% you' toward the clowns in that organization, and the equally vile people in the EU and wherever else who push this crap.
I can't remember if this is someone else's wording or my own, I know I've read the same sentiment elsewhere: the ONLY reason for a govenment to take away the right to arms is because said government
A. Doesn't think you have the brains to own one,
B. Doesn't think anyone 'needs' to have arms(by the bureaucrats' definition),
C. Is planning on doing things the people won't like, and doesn't want them to have a serious means to resist, or
D. All of the above.
That's it. When you boil down all the bullshit wording in that UN document referenced in the previous post, that's all it is. "You cannot be trusted with arms, you don't need arms, you're so stupid you might resist our actions(which are for your own good if you were smart enough to understand that); therefore you cannot be allowed the ownership of arms".
The sad fact is that we've seen firsthand how the most basic rights can be eroded. 4th Amendment rights torn badly in the War On Drugs, for instance. In the case of the 2nd, originally most of the founders didn't think it even needed to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights; it was seen as such a basic and important right of free people that it need not be listed. Two or three states(can't remember offhand and I'm short of time) insisted that it MUST be listed, and if it wasn't they wouldn't sign onto the Constitution. Thank God for their stubbornness or we might be in the same position as Britain; a once accepted right of free people taken away by steps.
Maybe wouldn't have been as bad here; a combination of factors(the 'gun culture' John Ross writes of far more widespread, more hunters & target shooters, our frontier days a lot more recent) would have made it more difficult, especially in some states. But can anyone doubt that places now referred to as the People's Republics of Maryland and California and New York would have the same situation as Britain, or a total ban, if that inconvenient 2nd Amendment wasn't in the way? That sorry hypocrite Sen. Diane Feinstein has said flatly that if she thought there was enough support she'd present a bill banning handguns entirely(it may have been 'firearms' entirely). People like Chuck Schumer would do the same without a moments hesitation. And considering the way things work in D.C., especially with all those self-annointed 'elites' in the Senate, I think we would be in almost exactly the same situation as the Brits.
There was a series of books written about the Man-Kzin Wars(yeah, sci-fi). Start of the whole thing was that for generations the UN had been the world government and total disarmament of citazens had been accomplished. And in keeping with the 'peace at any cost' philosophy history had been edited. Drastically. War was not taught in any school except a few highly-restricted military ones; any kind of aggression, whether in play by kids or games for adults was forbidden and would get you 'treated' to fix your psychological problems; posession of restricted historical materials(books, video, anything of a pre-edited nature that showed non-approved history) would get you sent away to a camp; challenging the official version of things would get you sent away, the whole works. You would not be allowed in any way to challenge the Official History Of Man. Does anyone seriously doubt that, given the chance, that is not what the UN would do?
I would argue that this report is further evidence of that.
One of the finest examples of the mindset of the UN is the various genocides in Africa. In Rwanda the UN commander saw what was starting and said 'give me 2000 troops and authority to act and I can stop this'; and Kofi God-cursed Annan yanked out all but 200 of the troops he did have and forbade him to act. And hundreds of thousands died. In Darfur you have:
Evil moslem government
Evil proxies for the government
Unarmed people being raped, tortured, enslaved, murdered
And the UN talks. And talks. And does nothing. Apparently there's no kickbacks or bribes available so they don't want to get their damn hands messy with actually trying to DO SOMETHING.
Know what I'd love to see? Buy up a few thousand of the M/N 91/30's, M38's, SKS's, whatever that's on the market and a buttload of ammo. Hire a few trainers, send it all over to the people being attacked and set them up to kill the evil bastards attacking them. Along with the trainers hire a few people with some Stingers or SA7 missiles to kill the government aircraft that show up. Upside: people armed and able to protect themselves instead of hoping the God-cursed bureaucrats will finally do something, and lots of dead slavers. Downside: ?. I can't think of one. The UN would see armed peasants who won't take orders and won't wait to be saved as a horrible thing, the Sudan government would have purple kittens with pink spots and the peace-at-any-price people would be screaming themselves into strokes; personally, I'd say those belong in the 'upside' column.
To quote WILLisms:The UN's notion that there is "inadequate legal support" for the idea that self-defense is a human right is an agenda-driven wilful misreading of texts on the issue. 'Wilful misreading' is the right wording, I'd say, and it feeds directly into the UN drive for more and more power and control.
Additional
I just went over to Kevin's place and found this. Just a few choice bits:
The large increase has alarmed anti-gun charity International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which called for tighter checks on those seeking permission to possess large numbers of guns.
The spokesman for IANSA has called on the Government to bring forward the creation of a national register listing the details of all those who own a gun.
These little bastards are not going to be content until the actually have the world the Man-Kzin Wars started in. And I'm sick to death of them.
I can't remember if this is someone else's wording or my own, I know I've read the same sentiment elsewhere: the ONLY reason for a govenment to take away the right to arms is because said government
A. Doesn't think you have the brains to own one,
B. Doesn't think anyone 'needs' to have arms(by the bureaucrats' definition),
C. Is planning on doing things the people won't like, and doesn't want them to have a serious means to resist, or
D. All of the above.
That's it. When you boil down all the bullshit wording in that UN document referenced in the previous post, that's all it is. "You cannot be trusted with arms, you don't need arms, you're so stupid you might resist our actions(which are for your own good if you were smart enough to understand that); therefore you cannot be allowed the ownership of arms".
The sad fact is that we've seen firsthand how the most basic rights can be eroded. 4th Amendment rights torn badly in the War On Drugs, for instance. In the case of the 2nd, originally most of the founders didn't think it even needed to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights; it was seen as such a basic and important right of free people that it need not be listed. Two or three states(can't remember offhand and I'm short of time) insisted that it MUST be listed, and if it wasn't they wouldn't sign onto the Constitution. Thank God for their stubbornness or we might be in the same position as Britain; a once accepted right of free people taken away by steps.
Maybe wouldn't have been as bad here; a combination of factors(the 'gun culture' John Ross writes of far more widespread, more hunters & target shooters, our frontier days a lot more recent) would have made it more difficult, especially in some states. But can anyone doubt that places now referred to as the People's Republics of Maryland and California and New York would have the same situation as Britain, or a total ban, if that inconvenient 2nd Amendment wasn't in the way? That sorry hypocrite Sen. Diane Feinstein has said flatly that if she thought there was enough support she'd present a bill banning handguns entirely(it may have been 'firearms' entirely). People like Chuck Schumer would do the same without a moments hesitation. And considering the way things work in D.C., especially with all those self-annointed 'elites' in the Senate, I think we would be in almost exactly the same situation as the Brits.
There was a series of books written about the Man-Kzin Wars(yeah, sci-fi). Start of the whole thing was that for generations the UN had been the world government and total disarmament of citazens had been accomplished. And in keeping with the 'peace at any cost' philosophy history had been edited. Drastically. War was not taught in any school except a few highly-restricted military ones; any kind of aggression, whether in play by kids or games for adults was forbidden and would get you 'treated' to fix your psychological problems; posession of restricted historical materials(books, video, anything of a pre-edited nature that showed non-approved history) would get you sent away to a camp; challenging the official version of things would get you sent away, the whole works. You would not be allowed in any way to challenge the Official History Of Man. Does anyone seriously doubt that, given the chance, that is not what the UN would do?
I would argue that this report is further evidence of that.
One of the finest examples of the mindset of the UN is the various genocides in Africa. In Rwanda the UN commander saw what was starting and said 'give me 2000 troops and authority to act and I can stop this'; and Kofi God-cursed Annan yanked out all but 200 of the troops he did have and forbade him to act. And hundreds of thousands died. In Darfur you have:
Evil moslem government
Evil proxies for the government
Unarmed people being raped, tortured, enslaved, murdered
And the UN talks. And talks. And does nothing. Apparently there's no kickbacks or bribes available so they don't want to get their damn hands messy with actually trying to DO SOMETHING.
Know what I'd love to see? Buy up a few thousand of the M/N 91/30's, M38's, SKS's, whatever that's on the market and a buttload of ammo. Hire a few trainers, send it all over to the people being attacked and set them up to kill the evil bastards attacking them. Along with the trainers hire a few people with some Stingers or SA7 missiles to kill the government aircraft that show up. Upside: people armed and able to protect themselves instead of hoping the God-cursed bureaucrats will finally do something, and lots of dead slavers. Downside: ?. I can't think of one. The UN would see armed peasants who won't take orders and won't wait to be saved as a horrible thing, the Sudan government would have purple kittens with pink spots and the peace-at-any-price people would be screaming themselves into strokes; personally, I'd say those belong in the 'upside' column.
To quote WILLisms:The UN's notion that there is "inadequate legal support" for the idea that self-defense is a human right is an agenda-driven wilful misreading of texts on the issue. 'Wilful misreading' is the right wording, I'd say, and it feeds directly into the UN drive for more and more power and control.
Additional
I just went over to Kevin's place and found this. Just a few choice bits:
The large increase has alarmed anti-gun charity International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which called for tighter checks on those seeking permission to possess large numbers of guns.
The spokesman for IANSA has called on the Government to bring forward the creation of a national register listing the details of all those who own a gun.
These little bastards are not going to be content until the actually have the world the Man-Kzin Wars started in. And I'm sick to death of them.
Well, this pretty much makes it official:
The UN says you have no right to self-defense
Was looking through Instapundit and hit a link to this piece on a UN report. The Claremont post has this quote from the report:
No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles.
Please note the 'expressly set for in the primary sources' bit, it's important.
Both Instapundit and Claremont linked to this over at 'Of Arms and the Law' that goes more in-depth into the UN report. You really should read the whole thing at OAatL; there's too much to really summarize and the full impact of the UN outlook should not be minimized. I will note a few bits:
Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
22. Self-defence is broadly recognized in customary international law as a defense to criminal responsibility as shown by State practice. There is not evidence however that States have enacted self-defence as a freestanding right under their domestic laws, nor is there evidence of opinio juris that would compel States to recognize an independent, supervening right to self-defence that they must enforce in the context of their domestic jurisdictions as a supervening right.
And the one that, I think, REALLY gets to it:
25. Again, the Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context. Under this interpretation of international human rights law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.(emphasis mine in all the above)
Besides the already known fact that the UN detests the idea of armed citazens, I think this sums up a lot of the reason for this crap very well: if you recognize self-defense as a basic human right, you cannot deny people the means with which to defend themselves; whereas if self-defense is only a 'defense to criminal responsibility' then there is NO 'right' to self-defense and NO right to the means of it. And in the long run that doesn't just mean weapons, it means ANY training in combat that would help you defend yourself.
As is pointed out in the Claremont piece, "
Of course, as I have noted before the U.N., has grown to be hostile to the natural rights foundation of the United States by its very nature. At the foundation of the U.N.'s understanding of law is an idea that is irreconcilable with the natural rights foundation of the U.S. Hence the U.N. does not grasp the necessity of a natural right to self-defense, a right of inestimable importance to us, and formidable only to those who would be tyrants.
To the UN, 'rights' are something the state 'grants' to you.
Which means that the founders of this country would do one of two things: run the UN out, or just burn the damn place down.
Was looking through Instapundit and hit a link to this piece on a UN report. The Claremont post has this quote from the report:
No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles.
Please note the 'expressly set for in the primary sources' bit, it's important.
Both Instapundit and Claremont linked to this over at 'Of Arms and the Law' that goes more in-depth into the UN report. You really should read the whole thing at OAatL; there's too much to really summarize and the full impact of the UN outlook should not be minimized. I will note a few bits:
Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
22. Self-defence is broadly recognized in customary international law as a defense to criminal responsibility as shown by State practice. There is not evidence however that States have enacted self-defence as a freestanding right under their domestic laws, nor is there evidence of opinio juris that would compel States to recognize an independent, supervening right to self-defence that they must enforce in the context of their domestic jurisdictions as a supervening right.
And the one that, I think, REALLY gets to it:
25. Again, the Committee’s interpretation supports the requirement that States recognize self-defence in a criminal law context. Under this interpretation of international human rights law, the State could be required to exonerate a defendant for using firearms under extreme circumstances where it may be necessary and proportional to an imminent threat to life. Even so, none of these authorities enumerate an affirmative international legal obligation upon the State that would require the State to allow a defendant access to a gun.(emphasis mine in all the above)
Besides the already known fact that the UN detests the idea of armed citazens, I think this sums up a lot of the reason for this crap very well: if you recognize self-defense as a basic human right, you cannot deny people the means with which to defend themselves; whereas if self-defense is only a 'defense to criminal responsibility' then there is NO 'right' to self-defense and NO right to the means of it. And in the long run that doesn't just mean weapons, it means ANY training in combat that would help you defend yourself.
As is pointed out in the Claremont piece, "
Of course, as I have noted before the U.N., has grown to be hostile to the natural rights foundation of the United States by its very nature. At the foundation of the U.N.'s understanding of law is an idea that is irreconcilable with the natural rights foundation of the U.S. Hence the U.N. does not grasp the necessity of a natural right to self-defense, a right of inestimable importance to us, and formidable only to those who would be tyrants.
To the UN, 'rights' are something the state 'grants' to you.
Which means that the founders of this country would do one of two things: run the UN out, or just burn the damn place down.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Range day,
and a new toy tool
No, not a boomstick, a chronograph. I'd been thinking about one for a long time, and finally broke down and bought the basic Chrony model. It doesn't crunch the numbers for you, it just gives you the velocity of whatever flies over it. When I first got it I could only think of one way to test it, so I set it up in the back yard and fired an airsoft pistol over it. I now know the pellets range around 275-290fps six feet from the muzzle.
I wanted to make sure the 8mm I fixed up years ago was sighted in so if I get to gobambi-whacking deer hunting it'll be on, and I don't want to try to fit in with all the people who'll wait to the last minute. On that part, if I miss I can't blame the rifle, it was putting everything right where it was supposed to. Load I worked up was 49 grains of IMR4064 pushing a 150grain Hornady soft-point. I only ran four rounds of it over the Chrony and got 2558, 2576, 2648 and 2582fps. I haven't studied this enough to make any judgements; according to the Lyman loading manual that's indicating well under "STOP!" pressure levels, and that's 2 grains below the listed max. At this point I won't jack with the load, it gives 1" or better groups at 100 yards and if current velocity won't take a deer they've migrated from Krypton.
Took the K31 along, and this is why I think everyone should have one. I loaded six rounds, sat down at the bench and fired them- no special care, just line up and squeeze- and got this
Military surplus ammo and a standard issue rifle. Don't you love it?
I'm not used to using the Chrony so instead of getting a string of ten I only recorded eight. Low of 2502, high of 2585 for a spread of 83fps and average of 2553.
With the M1, I had some of the Korean 1970's ball. It's always shot well, so I wondered how consistent it was. Out of eight rounds, low of 2545, high of 2762 for a spread of 217fps, average of 2674. Much less consistent than the Swiss 7.5x55 ammo, which might explain why I'd sometimes get a really good group, then so-so to terrible compared to the good one. It's great practice ammo, and without question it'd take care of business in a fight, but it ain't near match quality. I need to get some suitable bullets and do some handloading for the M1 and see what I get. I thought I'd thrown in a bandolier of the Greek HXP I got from CMP, but I didn't so that'll have to be tested later. I've consistently had good results from it, so it'll be interesting to see how consistent it is.
I tried it with some .22 ammo, Federal Champion and Eley Sport from the Martini model 12.
The Federal gave a low 1173, high 1236; next lowest was 1203. Eley lowest 1062 to 1124- you noticed the difference in that one, sharper crack- with the next highest being 1096. Comparing them:
Federal Eley
1236 1096
1173 1092
1203 1068
1225 1098
1203 1124
1220 1095
1203 1062
1207 1075
1206 1075
1222 1089
I'll have to learn more about breaking these numbers down to mean something. And I promise not to do a lot of number-listing in the future, but it's mytoy tool and I'm enjoying playing with learning to use it.
Last thing was a surprise. Aguila makes some .22s they call 'Sniper Subsonic'. It's a long 60grain bullet with a short case to make it fit standard chambers.
Here is a live round and fired case compared to a standard .22LR.
How useful it is is very dependant on your rifle; that long, heavy bullet is not stabilized by many barrels. I've got one rifle that shoots it fairly well, another from which every second or third round keyholes at 25 yards. I'd never tried them in the Martini, so tried one shot at 50 yards. Nice neat hole around three inches lower than the Eley. Tried a second and it almost went through the same hole. Ok, that's interesting thinks I. So I dug out the Chrony I'd just put away(this was the last shooting for the day) and set it up, and fired ten rounds for velocity, then a few more for fun, getting this:
I hadn't even set up a target for this, just spotted an unused corner of an old one. Not counting the low-left(called flyer) that's 1.25" on a target I can't center with iron sights as well as a black bull. Velocity ran
880
862
884
855
894
889
887
869
891
889
for a spread of only 39fps. It ran around 200fps slower than the Eley, around 300 slower than the Federal. Just out of curiosity I moved back to a 100-yard bench, raised the sights same as I would for the Eley and fired two. Two because I thought I'd had the partial box and another full one with me. Oh no, just the one, so only two shots at 100. Not enough for a real test, but they did stike cleanly, no keyholing, and just under 2" apart. I need to take this stuff back out and try it again in this rifle.
No, not a boomstick, a chronograph. I'd been thinking about one for a long time, and finally broke down and bought the basic Chrony model. It doesn't crunch the numbers for you, it just gives you the velocity of whatever flies over it. When I first got it I could only think of one way to test it, so I set it up in the back yard and fired an airsoft pistol over it. I now know the pellets range around 275-290fps six feet from the muzzle.
I wanted to make sure the 8mm I fixed up years ago was sighted in so if I get to go
Took the K31 along, and this is why I think everyone should have one. I loaded six rounds, sat down at the bench and fired them- no special care, just line up and squeeze- and got this
Military surplus ammo and a standard issue rifle. Don't you love it?
I'm not used to using the Chrony so instead of getting a string of ten I only recorded eight. Low of 2502, high of 2585 for a spread of 83fps and average of 2553.
With the M1, I had some of the Korean 1970's ball. It's always shot well, so I wondered how consistent it was. Out of eight rounds, low of 2545, high of 2762 for a spread of 217fps, average of 2674. Much less consistent than the Swiss 7.5x55 ammo, which might explain why I'd sometimes get a really good group, then so-so to terrible compared to the good one. It's great practice ammo, and without question it'd take care of business in a fight, but it ain't near match quality. I need to get some suitable bullets and do some handloading for the M1 and see what I get. I thought I'd thrown in a bandolier of the Greek HXP I got from CMP, but I didn't so that'll have to be tested later. I've consistently had good results from it, so it'll be interesting to see how consistent it is.
I tried it with some .22 ammo, Federal Champion and Eley Sport from the Martini model 12.
The Federal gave a low 1173, high 1236; next lowest was 1203. Eley lowest 1062 to 1124- you noticed the difference in that one, sharper crack- with the next highest being 1096. Comparing them:
Federal Eley
1236 1096
1173 1092
1203 1068
1225 1098
1203 1124
1220 1095
1203 1062
1207 1075
1206 1075
1222 1089
I'll have to learn more about breaking these numbers down to mean something. And I promise not to do a lot of number-listing in the future, but it's my
Last thing was a surprise. Aguila makes some .22s they call 'Sniper Subsonic'. It's a long 60grain bullet with a short case to make it fit standard chambers.
Here is a live round and fired case compared to a standard .22LR.
How useful it is is very dependant on your rifle; that long, heavy bullet is not stabilized by many barrels. I've got one rifle that shoots it fairly well, another from which every second or third round keyholes at 25 yards. I'd never tried them in the Martini, so tried one shot at 50 yards. Nice neat hole around three inches lower than the Eley. Tried a second and it almost went through the same hole. Ok, that's interesting thinks I. So I dug out the Chrony I'd just put away(this was the last shooting for the day) and set it up, and fired ten rounds for velocity, then a few more for fun, getting this:
I hadn't even set up a target for this, just spotted an unused corner of an old one. Not counting the low-left(called flyer) that's 1.25" on a target I can't center with iron sights as well as a black bull. Velocity ran
880
862
884
855
894
889
887
869
891
889
for a spread of only 39fps. It ran around 200fps slower than the Eley, around 300 slower than the Federal. Just out of curiosity I moved back to a 100-yard bench, raised the sights same as I would for the Eley and fired two. Two because I thought I'd had the partial box and another full one with me. Oh no, just the one, so only two shots at 100. Not enough for a real test, but they did stike cleanly, no keyholing, and just under 2" apart. I need to take this stuff back out and try it again in this rifle.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Since Nagin has opened his fat mouth again,
I've just got to take note of this. Florida Cracker has a piece on Max Mayfield, retiring director of the National Hurricane Center. Well worth reading. I'll give two excerpts:
The city's readiness plan called for a mandatory evacuation at least 48 hours before landfall, but by 8 p.m. Saturday, with Katrina's center only 36 hours away, Nagin had not issued that order. Three hours earlier, he had said his lawyers were still researching the city's liability for lost business revenue if he took such action.
I flat cannot believe that, as many evacuations as have been done over the decades, that this kind of crap wasn't worked out a long damn time ago. So either Nagin- and staff- are even more stupid than we know, or something else was going on.
and then, after Mayfield had specifically TOLD Nagin how bad this storm was probably going to be,
Later, Nagin said that Mayfield's message 'scared the crap out of me. I immediately said, `My God, I have to call a mandatory evacuation.' ''
....
Still, Nagin waited for 15 hours, finally ordering the evacuation at 11 a.m. Sunday, just five hours before the storm's outer wind and rain began arriving. Katrina's core made landfall only 19 hours after the evacuation order, but many people did heed the order and escaped in time.
This is not to let the idiot governor off the hook(there's someone else who needs an appointment with tar and a bag of feathers), this simply points out beyond any doubts, if you had any, what a jerk Nagin was and is.
For that matter, it's not to let New York off the hook on the Trade Center, these people are so tied up in PC feelings nonsense not a brick has been laid to rebuild the place; better monument there could not be.
The city's readiness plan called for a mandatory evacuation at least 48 hours before landfall, but by 8 p.m. Saturday, with Katrina's center only 36 hours away, Nagin had not issued that order. Three hours earlier, he had said his lawyers were still researching the city's liability for lost business revenue if he took such action.
I flat cannot believe that, as many evacuations as have been done over the decades, that this kind of crap wasn't worked out a long damn time ago. So either Nagin- and staff- are even more stupid than we know, or something else was going on.
and then, after Mayfield had specifically TOLD Nagin how bad this storm was probably going to be,
Later, Nagin said that Mayfield's message 'scared the crap out of me. I immediately said, `My God, I have to call a mandatory evacuation.' ''
....
Still, Nagin waited for 15 hours, finally ordering the evacuation at 11 a.m. Sunday, just five hours before the storm's outer wind and rain began arriving. Katrina's core made landfall only 19 hours after the evacuation order, but many people did heed the order and escaped in time.
This is not to let the idiot governor off the hook(there's someone else who needs an appointment with tar and a bag of feathers), this simply points out beyond any doubts, if you had any, what a jerk Nagin was and is.
For that matter, it's not to let New York off the hook on the Trade Center, these people are so tied up in PC feelings nonsense not a brick has been laid to rebuild the place; better monument there could not be.
I ask my many readers
a question. Got this in an e-mail on a part, a replacement for the standard 1903A3 front blade: Saw a guy with one at Camp Perry. Front sight was a thicker flat-topped front sight blade. He said it was a legal USMC variant. , and he wonders if I'd know where to get one.
I have no idea, and a quick check of the places I'd normally look finds no mention of them. It's a damn good idea; the original blade is too damn narrow. I can think of a couple of ways to make one, or add material to the sides of a standard to widen it, but I ask you all, anybody know where these blades can be bought?
I have no idea, and a quick check of the places I'd normally look finds no mention of them. It's a damn good idea; the original blade is too damn narrow. I can think of a couple of ways to make one, or add material to the sides of a standard to widen it, but I ask you all, anybody know where these blades can be bought?
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Experts
No, I'm not an expert, but I'm gonna yap about this anyway. Cause it's MY blog and I can bitch and moan and...
er, where was I? Oh yeah, experts.
Specifically, self-defense experts, some of whom get a lot of money for training and are completely full to the gills with what comes out of the south end of a northbound cow. Make no mistake, training from someone who truly knows what they're doing could be priceless if you ever get into a win-or-die situation; hell, if it helps you stay OUT of that, it's paid back ten times the price easily.
I'm talking about the clowns to whom 'tactical' is about every fifth word out of their mouths, who have 'tactical' from their combat-special kneepads to their 'tactical' grips to their 'tactical' light and on and on(by the way, have you noticed that 'tactical' in the name bumps the price considerably?). They're the ones who take people who're worried about being attacked in a parking lot or at the ATM or hearing a breaking window in the night and start shoving what's supposed to be special ops or SWAT equipment and training at them.
A while back Dad gave me the April '06 issue of Guns magazine. There's a guy named John Connor who does a column called Odd Angry Shot, this one was titled 'Carts & Horses'. He was an observer at a "world-renowned tactical training center" to report to the investors what he thought. He didn't think much.
The "Professional Operator" set up a scenario in a two-story 'Kill House' where there were three- maybe more- heavily-armed terrorists in the house with unknown armaments and you, all by your lonesome, had to take them out so how will you do it? Connor's description of the guys' methods sounds like something from a Jackie Chan movie. Then he chased them all through it one at a time, killing them all of course. The finished "sweat-soaked, financially fleeced, demoralized, and had learned exactly squat" as Connor put it. Then the Professional Operator turned to him and asked "How would YOU go in?" Answer was "Uh, that would be, umm... stupid" followed by he'd be about two klicks that way calling in an air strike or artillery.
"You can't do that!" was answered with since there are porta-cans outside, I'll wait till one or more come out and whack them. "You HAVE to go in!" and "there's no armed backup available" was answered by "I'd dial up the Suicide Prevention HotLine and tell 'em Help! I've gone terminally stupid! Stop me, please!" And it went really downhill from there.
His point was this clown was trying to teach what he considered advanced steps (dumb ones at that)to people who didn't know the basics yet. The basics ALWAYS come first. How to shoot properly before fancy moves. How to assess your threats and options. Taking a guy who's worried about being robbed and putting him into a commando armor suit to run a 'kill house' is idiotic: he's not ready for OR needing that.
If you have a firearm for home and/or carry, you learn to shoot it well. You don't have to make offhand 3" groups at 25 yards, far more important to quickly and reliably get decent groups on a silhouette at your defense ranges, which are generally from contact range to ten yards max. And practice doing it one-handed and with your off hand, too; what if your strong side is tangled
up or injured? Look at what would make you less attractive to a bad guy looking for a victim, where you might need to be more alert for what. Simple things that will make the big difference.
Remember, you practicing how you'd check your house at night if you had to IS training. So is looking around the store or the ATM area or parking lot and thinking "what would I do if...?" If you keep it realistic, it counts. I've seen people set up a chair and table as if in a restaurant to practice draw & fire & move; somebody else used two chairs- one to sit in and one to simulate the door- to practice shooting from a car. Good training from someone who knows their backside from a hole in the ground is invaluable; if for some reason you can't take classes like that, work out scenarios in your mind and practice them. If you can't do the stuff at the range you go to, do it at home with an unloaded gun(MAKE SURE, DAMMIT!). Getting it in your mind and reactions how to react to something and what to do is the big thing.
er, where was I? Oh yeah, experts.
Specifically, self-defense experts, some of whom get a lot of money for training and are completely full to the gills with what comes out of the south end of a northbound cow. Make no mistake, training from someone who truly knows what they're doing could be priceless if you ever get into a win-or-die situation; hell, if it helps you stay OUT of that, it's paid back ten times the price easily.
I'm talking about the clowns to whom 'tactical' is about every fifth word out of their mouths, who have 'tactical' from their combat-special kneepads to their 'tactical' grips to their 'tactical' light and on and on(by the way, have you noticed that 'tactical' in the name bumps the price considerably?). They're the ones who take people who're worried about being attacked in a parking lot or at the ATM or hearing a breaking window in the night and start shoving what's supposed to be special ops or SWAT equipment and training at them.
A while back Dad gave me the April '06 issue of Guns magazine. There's a guy named John Connor who does a column called Odd Angry Shot, this one was titled 'Carts & Horses'. He was an observer at a "world-renowned tactical training center" to report to the investors what he thought. He didn't think much.
The "Professional Operator" set up a scenario in a two-story 'Kill House' where there were three- maybe more- heavily-armed terrorists in the house with unknown armaments and you, all by your lonesome, had to take them out so how will you do it? Connor's description of the guys' methods sounds like something from a Jackie Chan movie. Then he chased them all through it one at a time, killing them all of course. The finished "sweat-soaked, financially fleeced, demoralized, and had learned exactly squat" as Connor put it. Then the Professional Operator turned to him and asked "How would YOU go in?" Answer was "Uh, that would be, umm... stupid" followed by he'd be about two klicks that way calling in an air strike or artillery.
"You can't do that!" was answered with since there are porta-cans outside, I'll wait till one or more come out and whack them. "You HAVE to go in!" and "there's no armed backup available" was answered by "I'd dial up the Suicide Prevention HotLine and tell 'em Help! I've gone terminally stupid! Stop me, please!" And it went really downhill from there.
His point was this clown was trying to teach what he considered advanced steps (dumb ones at that)to people who didn't know the basics yet. The basics ALWAYS come first. How to shoot properly before fancy moves. How to assess your threats and options. Taking a guy who's worried about being robbed and putting him into a commando armor suit to run a 'kill house' is idiotic: he's not ready for OR needing that.
If you have a firearm for home and/or carry, you learn to shoot it well. You don't have to make offhand 3" groups at 25 yards, far more important to quickly and reliably get decent groups on a silhouette at your defense ranges, which are generally from contact range to ten yards max. And practice doing it one-handed and with your off hand, too; what if your strong side is tangled
up or injured? Look at what would make you less attractive to a bad guy looking for a victim, where you might need to be more alert for what. Simple things that will make the big difference.
Remember, you practicing how you'd check your house at night if you had to IS training. So is looking around the store or the ATM area or parking lot and thinking "what would I do if...?" If you keep it realistic, it counts. I've seen people set up a chair and table as if in a restaurant to practice draw & fire & move; somebody else used two chairs- one to sit in and one to simulate the door- to practice shooting from a car. Good training from someone who knows their backside from a hole in the ground is invaluable; if for some reason you can't take classes like that, work out scenarios in your mind and practice them. If you can't do the stuff at the range you go to, do it at home with an unloaded gun(MAKE SURE, DAMMIT!). Getting it in your mind and reactions how to react to something and what to do is the big thing.
A reader sent me this: a message to muslims
(A Letter From An American Airlines Pilot)
This is the same question that many of us have been asking for the
past several years....this well spoken man, who is a pilot with American
Airlines, says what is in his heart
beautifully....read, absorb and pass on....it's time to get answers
from those who claim their terrorist members do not represent
them..why are their leaders not LOUDLY AND FIERCELY AND CONTINUOUSLY
condemning their visible murderous brethren.
YOU WORRY ME!
By American Airlines Pilot - Captain John Maniscalco
"I've been trying to say this since 9-11 - but you worry me. I wish you
didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I
love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful
human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in
anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. I notice you because I
can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be
Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our
friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their
grievances and hate but I know that nothing can justify the
inhumanity of their attacks.
On September 11, nineteen ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my
country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and
brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes
and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers,
loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends,
favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.
The Palestinians Celebrated, The Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of
the Arab world.
So I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be
consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed
the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational
American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational
and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you,
and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.
How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim-Americans and the
Arab/Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools,
enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the
protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that
will slaughter these same good neighbors and children? The events of
September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to
determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its
religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its
faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine
it for me.
I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know whether
or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you
proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car?
Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this
nation, that He will protect and prosper it? Or do you pray that
Allah with destroy it in one of your "Jihads"? Are you thankful for
the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid
for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their
lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by
paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your
commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.
Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at
this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you
are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United
States of America Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the
death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as
innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked
attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not
interested in any more sympathy...I am only interested in action.
What will you do for America - our great country -- at this time of
crisis, at this time of war?
I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I
want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America ." I want to see young
Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment
of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to
this nation as a whole. The FBI has a list of over 400 people they
want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live
and socialize in Muslim communities. You know them You know where
they are.
Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching
this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and
secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the
streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities.
You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from
reprisals.
The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the
media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned
with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible
before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting
their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the
United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country
and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and
Arafat. If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace
and love for all people then I want chapter and verse from the Koran
and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good
is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when
your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and
intolerance?
It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if large numbers of the
world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and
adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been
demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is
built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose
members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose
members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day,
week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around
the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American
flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert
from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great
United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose
rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show
their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.
Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because our women proudly show
their faces in public rather than cover up like a shameful whore? Do
you and your fellow Muslims hate us because we drink wine with
dinner, or celebrate Christmas? Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us
because we have befriended Israel, the ONLY civilized democratic
nation in the entire Middle East?
And if you and your fellow Muslims hate us, then why in the world are
you even here? Are you here to take our money? Are you here to
undermine our peace and stability? Are you here to destroy us? If so,
I want you to leave I want you to go back to your desert sandpit
where women are treated like rats and dogs. I want you to take your
religion, your friends, and your family back to your Islamic
extremists, and STAY THERE! We will NEVER give in to your influence,
your retarded mentality, your twisted, violent, intolerant religion.
We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for
that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights
under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where
every Arab/ Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right
and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A
right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters
who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and
your family. I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here
as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But
there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance
and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand." "Until then .. you
worry me" ""
This is the same question that many of us have been asking for the
past several years....this well spoken man, who is a pilot with American
Airlines, says what is in his heart
beautifully....read, absorb and pass on....it's time to get answers
from those who claim their terrorist members do not represent
them..why are their leaders not LOUDLY AND FIERCELY AND CONTINUOUSLY
condemning their visible murderous brethren.
YOU WORRY ME!
By American Airlines Pilot - Captain John Maniscalco
"I've been trying to say this since 9-11 - but you worry me. I wish you
didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I
love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful
human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in
anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. I notice you because I
can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be
Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our
friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their
grievances and hate but I know that nothing can justify the
inhumanity of their attacks.
On September 11, nineteen ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my
country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and
brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes
and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers,
loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends,
favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers.
The Palestinians Celebrated, The Iraqis were overjoyed as was most of
the Arab world.
So I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be
consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed
the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational
American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational
and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you,
and the Arab/Muslim terrorist.
How do I differentiate between the true Arab/Muslim-Americans and the
Arab/Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools,
enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the
protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that
will slaughter these same good neighbors and children? The events of
September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to
determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its
religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its
faults. It is time for every Arab/Muslim in this country to determine
it for me.
I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know whether
or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you
proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car?
Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this
nation, that He will protect and prosper it? Or do you pray that
Allah with destroy it in one of your "Jihads"? Are you thankful for
the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid
for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their
lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by
paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your
commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it.
Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at
this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you
are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United
States of America Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the
death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as
innocent. No more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked
attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not
interested in any more sympathy...I am only interested in action.
What will you do for America - our great country -- at this time of
crisis, at this time of war?
I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I
want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America ." I want to see young
Arab/Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment
of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to
this nation as a whole. The FBI has a list of over 400 people they
want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live
and socialize in Muslim communities. You know them You know where
they are.
Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching
this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and
secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the
streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities.
You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from
reprisals.
The very few Arab/Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the
media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned
with making sure that the United States proves who was responsible
before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting
their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the
United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country
and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and
Arafat. If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace
and love for all people then I want chapter and verse from the Koran
and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good
is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when
your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and
intolerance?
It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if large numbers of the
world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and
adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been
demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is
built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose
members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose
members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day,
week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around
the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American
flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert
from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great
United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose
rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show
their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.
Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because our women proudly show
their faces in public rather than cover up like a shameful whore? Do
you and your fellow Muslims hate us because we drink wine with
dinner, or celebrate Christmas? Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us
because we have befriended Israel, the ONLY civilized democratic
nation in the entire Middle East?
And if you and your fellow Muslims hate us, then why in the world are
you even here? Are you here to take our money? Are you here to
undermine our peace and stability? Are you here to destroy us? If so,
I want you to leave I want you to go back to your desert sandpit
where women are treated like rats and dogs. I want you to take your
religion, your friends, and your family back to your Islamic
extremists, and STAY THERE! We will NEVER give in to your influence,
your retarded mentality, your twisted, violent, intolerant religion.
We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for
that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights
under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where
every Arab/ Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right
and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A
right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters
who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and
your family. I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here
as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But
there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance
and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand." "Until then .. you
worry me" ""
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Once again, the "It will save us all!" act
turns out to have a, ah, slight problem
I heard a bit of this on Glenn Beck's show a couple of days ago, then ran across this post by the Emperor today. It leads us to the article Fixing the ozone hole slows efforts on global warming.
The Emperor excerpted the article and chewed on it, so I'll skip that. Now, it's been a while since I read up on this, but there are some problems with the article:
It treats it as proven fact that CFCs damage the ozone layer; as I recall that's the theory, but it was unproven. And still is.
If I remember right, there were scientists back when the Montreal Treaty was signed who said there were big problems with the approach being taken; and they were ignored by the "We have to act NOW!!!" people.
There was a bunch of 'this will be better' junk being pushed back then, and the weenies are still pushing them. Like using propane or butane as a refrigerant. Never mind that they're less efficient; never mind you couldn't/can't make a freezer worth a damn with them; never mind that if they leak your house could blow up; they're more ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY so we HAVE to use them. And so forth.
For that matter, given a chance the enviroweenies would have us using tiny little refrigerators like so much of Europe; after all, we don't need a big fridge; the nannies say so. Friend of mine was in Wales for a month a couple of years ago and the folks he was staying with- lady with two teens- had a refrigerator for their house that was the size of the unit my kids used in their dorm room in college; they were amazed that he had a fridge/freezer 'so big!'. It was a standard size here, but considered 'industrial' or 'light industrial' over there. When he told them I had a unit the same size AND a deep-freeze, they were shocked. Among other things, they're taxed over there according to size from what he was told(can't have the peasants just buying appliances because they want them, now can we?)
Remember Captain Planet? Cartoon started back in the 80's if I remember right: bunch of kids working with Captain Planet to Save The Environment from the Evil Businessmen(always men and always evil) and Uncaring Governments, etc. Piece of absolute crap, pure environweenie propaganda to catch kids. End of one episode(happened to see it by chance, NO I didn't normally watch it) in the 'save the world' bit at the end, one of the kids is having the air conditioners taken out of the cabins they lived in; not 'serviced', not 'replaced with more efficient units', getting rid of them because 'air conditioners destroy the ozone layer'. I doubt the little bastards who wrote this ever spent a summer without a/c, but that doesn't matter of course, SOMETHING will appear by magic to keep their environmentally-conscious butts from broiling in July.
Ok, I lied. I am going to take three excerpts:
Manufacturers also say they could not meet U.S. energy efficiency requirements that took effect this year if they used those chemicals. "The technology just isn't there," Yurek said.,
and
"It is true that there will be a significant growth over the next 10 years of HCFC production and consumption in the developing countries," said Lambert Kuijpers, a Dutch nuclear physicist and a lead author of the U.N. report. "This will also contribute to global warming in a so far unprecedented way, if it will occur as anticipated."
and
"You have to put it into historical perspective. Hydrocarbon technology wasn't ready. ... It was still being tested in the early 1990s. And only gradually that technology became mature and became accepted," said Sheng Hsuo Lang, the fund's deputy chief officer. "In hindsight, you can say, 'Why didn't you wait?' Or you can take action right away."
Ok, so the tech isn't available to make the damn things work with the stuff the enviroweenies want to force us to use. They're spooked because all those peasants in developing countries actually WANT ways to stay cool when it's hot and keep food fresh(not to mention electric lights, but that's a different- but connected- matter). And last, the tech wasn't there when they signed the damn treaty, and it STILL isn't, but one of the bigshots who is upset because "That is a touchy subject for supporters of the Montreal agreement. Few want to acknowledge anything could be wrong with a treaty that is on track to fix at least one major environmental problem is calling it mature and accepted technology.
Makes me wonder if these are the clowns who wrote for Captain Planet.
I heard a bit of this on Glenn Beck's show a couple of days ago, then ran across this post by the Emperor today. It leads us to the article Fixing the ozone hole slows efforts on global warming.
The Emperor excerpted the article and chewed on it, so I'll skip that. Now, it's been a while since I read up on this, but there are some problems with the article:
It treats it as proven fact that CFCs damage the ozone layer; as I recall that's the theory, but it was unproven. And still is.
If I remember right, there were scientists back when the Montreal Treaty was signed who said there were big problems with the approach being taken; and they were ignored by the "We have to act NOW!!!" people.
There was a bunch of 'this will be better' junk being pushed back then, and the weenies are still pushing them. Like using propane or butane as a refrigerant. Never mind that they're less efficient; never mind you couldn't/can't make a freezer worth a damn with them; never mind that if they leak your house could blow up; they're more ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY so we HAVE to use them. And so forth.
For that matter, given a chance the enviroweenies would have us using tiny little refrigerators like so much of Europe; after all, we don't need a big fridge; the nannies say so. Friend of mine was in Wales for a month a couple of years ago and the folks he was staying with- lady with two teens- had a refrigerator for their house that was the size of the unit my kids used in their dorm room in college; they were amazed that he had a fridge/freezer 'so big!'. It was a standard size here, but considered 'industrial' or 'light industrial' over there. When he told them I had a unit the same size AND a deep-freeze, they were shocked. Among other things, they're taxed over there according to size from what he was told(can't have the peasants just buying appliances because they want them, now can we?)
Remember Captain Planet? Cartoon started back in the 80's if I remember right: bunch of kids working with Captain Planet to Save The Environment from the Evil Businessmen(always men and always evil) and Uncaring Governments, etc. Piece of absolute crap, pure environweenie propaganda to catch kids. End of one episode(happened to see it by chance, NO I didn't normally watch it) in the 'save the world' bit at the end, one of the kids is having the air conditioners taken out of the cabins they lived in; not 'serviced', not 'replaced with more efficient units', getting rid of them because 'air conditioners destroy the ozone layer'. I doubt the little bastards who wrote this ever spent a summer without a/c, but that doesn't matter of course, SOMETHING will appear by magic to keep their environmentally-conscious butts from broiling in July.
Ok, I lied. I am going to take three excerpts:
Manufacturers also say they could not meet U.S. energy efficiency requirements that took effect this year if they used those chemicals. "The technology just isn't there," Yurek said.,
and
"It is true that there will be a significant growth over the next 10 years of HCFC production and consumption in the developing countries," said Lambert Kuijpers, a Dutch nuclear physicist and a lead author of the U.N. report. "This will also contribute to global warming in a so far unprecedented way, if it will occur as anticipated."
and
"You have to put it into historical perspective. Hydrocarbon technology wasn't ready. ... It was still being tested in the early 1990s. And only gradually that technology became mature and became accepted," said Sheng Hsuo Lang, the fund's deputy chief officer. "In hindsight, you can say, 'Why didn't you wait?' Or you can take action right away."
Ok, so the tech isn't available to make the damn things work with the stuff the enviroweenies want to force us to use. They're spooked because all those peasants in developing countries actually WANT ways to stay cool when it's hot and keep food fresh(not to mention electric lights, but that's a different- but connected- matter). And last, the tech wasn't there when they signed the damn treaty, and it STILL isn't, but one of the bigshots who is upset because "That is a touchy subject for supporters of the Montreal agreement. Few want to acknowledge anything could be wrong with a treaty that is on track to fix at least one major environmental problem is calling it mature and accepted technology.
Makes me wonder if these are the clowns who wrote for Captain Planet.
Campaigning vs. Voting
While walking down the street one day aUS senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the man.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the man.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."
Friday, August 25, 2006
Oh, the wonders of victim disarmament and police bureacrats
The wonder is how many more will be dead and how many more lives destroyed before/if Britain ever wakes up?
Was over at TFS Magnum and hit a link to this article in the Telegraph(I'm not linking to the post at Magnum because there's several touching on this).
The family of a young father shot dead by a teenage gang have released pictures showing the effects of a knife attack on him by the same gang seven months ago.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission yesterday launched an inquiry into the way the first investigation was handled as members of the Metropolitan Police Authority also demanded answers.
Answers? You already know the damn answers, you just don't like them.
Mr Woodhams's father, Peter, said the family had kept a plastic bag of bloodstained clothes from the first attack which had never been examined by police.
"These clothes are covered in his blood and their DNA," Mr Woodhams said. "But they have been sitting in a plastic bag in a cupboard at his house for months. They could have held the key to putting these people away and saving Peter's life."
You think maybe? But that presupposes the authorities actually WOULD put them away.
The killing came days after the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said crime had dropped sufficiently in an area of inner-city London for people to leave heir doors unlocked.
"I say it is safe, so it is safe! Do not trouble me with facts!"
Canning Town has such a crime rate that the couriers DHL have refused to deliver in the area. Two weeks ago a man was stabbed to death streets away from where Mr Woodhams died.
The Newham borough commander, Chief Supt Michael Johnson, said six anti-social behaviour orders had been handed out in the street where the confrontation took place along with dispersal notices to stop youths congregating.
Well, by God that'll take care of it! Just hand out some more Behaviour Orders!
Police believe that in the attack on Monday, the gang set out to kill Mr Woodhams as he tried to fend them off.
No!
And from an earlier report:
The spokeswoman said: “Following the tragic murder of Peter Woodhams, officers from the Specialist Crime Directorate were made aware of a serious stabbing incident involving the victim in January 2006. Officers from the SCD have been liaising with the senior officers from Newham borough to establish the outcome of this incident; as a result a full review is currently being conducted to ensure correct standards of police procedure were initially taken.”
I realize this is not a nuanced approach to the matter, and not very good at feeling the pain of the disadvantaged types who committed the crimes, but, just maybe, if you worthless uniform-wearing clowns had taken the trouble to INVESTIGATE the stabbing and CATCH the bastards and PUT THEM IN JAIL, then just maybe they wouldn't have been walking the streets to commit MORE CRIMES.
I realize this isn't the only factor, the Brits are also dealing with judges and various political bigshots who'd rather turn a rapist and murderer loose than a: have the prison crowded or b: have to acknowledge that their touchy-feely approach hasn't worked. So what was the Emperor saying about rope, lampposts and politicians?
Few years back I listened to a guy speechifying about how our big problem was our form of government, and if we had a system more like Britain and the various European governments things would be all better. I didn't like the idea then, and having seen what comes out of Parliament and the PMs' office over there, if anyone tried to change our system to be like that it'd be time for pitchforks and torches.
Which is what the Brits have needed for some time now, only at this point I don't know if it's too late or not.
Was over at TFS Magnum and hit a link to this article in the Telegraph(I'm not linking to the post at Magnum because there's several touching on this).
The family of a young father shot dead by a teenage gang have released pictures showing the effects of a knife attack on him by the same gang seven months ago.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission yesterday launched an inquiry into the way the first investigation was handled as members of the Metropolitan Police Authority also demanded answers.
Answers? You already know the damn answers, you just don't like them.
Mr Woodhams's father, Peter, said the family had kept a plastic bag of bloodstained clothes from the first attack which had never been examined by police.
"These clothes are covered in his blood and their DNA," Mr Woodhams said. "But they have been sitting in a plastic bag in a cupboard at his house for months. They could have held the key to putting these people away and saving Peter's life."
You think maybe? But that presupposes the authorities actually WOULD put them away.
The killing came days after the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said crime had dropped sufficiently in an area of inner-city London for people to leave heir doors unlocked.
"I say it is safe, so it is safe! Do not trouble me with facts!"
Canning Town has such a crime rate that the couriers DHL have refused to deliver in the area. Two weeks ago a man was stabbed to death streets away from where Mr Woodhams died.
The Newham borough commander, Chief Supt Michael Johnson, said six anti-social behaviour orders had been handed out in the street where the confrontation took place along with dispersal notices to stop youths congregating.
Well, by God that'll take care of it! Just hand out some more Behaviour Orders!
Police believe that in the attack on Monday, the gang set out to kill Mr Woodhams as he tried to fend them off.
No!
And from an earlier report:
The spokeswoman said: “Following the tragic murder of Peter Woodhams, officers from the Specialist Crime Directorate were made aware of a serious stabbing incident involving the victim in January 2006. Officers from the SCD have been liaising with the senior officers from Newham borough to establish the outcome of this incident; as a result a full review is currently being conducted to ensure correct standards of police procedure were initially taken.”
I realize this is not a nuanced approach to the matter, and not very good at feeling the pain of the disadvantaged types who committed the crimes, but, just maybe, if you worthless uniform-wearing clowns had taken the trouble to INVESTIGATE the stabbing and CATCH the bastards and PUT THEM IN JAIL, then just maybe they wouldn't have been walking the streets to commit MORE CRIMES.
I realize this isn't the only factor, the Brits are also dealing with judges and various political bigshots who'd rather turn a rapist and murderer loose than a: have the prison crowded or b: have to acknowledge that their touchy-feely approach hasn't worked. So what was the Emperor saying about rope, lampposts and politicians?
Few years back I listened to a guy speechifying about how our big problem was our form of government, and if we had a system more like Britain and the various European governments things would be all better. I didn't like the idea then, and having seen what comes out of Parliament and the PMs' office over there, if anyone tried to change our system to be like that it'd be time for pitchforks and torches.
Which is what the Brits have needed for some time now, only at this point I don't know if it's too late or not.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Shotgun-mounted light test
Was able to hit the range this morning before it started heating up(hot again the next couple of days, then another front and chance of rain). On the most basic factor, the light did not fail: it didn't break, burn out or otherwise fail to operate. The cord didn't come unplugged and the switch operated as designed with no problems.
Had one problem; the bracket will indeed fit it to most any barrel or round magazine tube, but the inside is smooth, and after about ten rounds of assorted buckshot I noticed the light had slipped forward under recoil, and another two or three rounds would probably have slid it out of the bracket
You'll notice that only the tailcap is now the only part in the mount, not a good thing. If you planned on sticking the thing on and not taking it off unless work were needed, you could dose it with threadlocker. I think I'll get the dremel out and a cutoff wheel and cut some grooves into the sides of the mount where they contact the light; they'll catch with the knurling on the barrel and should hold it in place. Yeah, something with a Picatinny rail on the barrel or forend would be best; it would also be considerably more expensive. If you need/are willing to pay for that, you'll get no argument from me, quality always costs. For general home/homestead defense where you don't need or want a full LE/military-grade tactical light setup, this isn't bad at all.
Back at the last gun show I'd picked up some shotgun ammo I wanted to try, so did that today too. These were fired offhand at 25-30 feet. First up was some Winchester Ranger low-recoil 00 buck:
This load has a full nine pellets, and when they say low-recoil they're not kidding, noticeably lighter recoil than standard loads. That's two rounds, the big holes in center left and left arm are from the wad. Group about 3.5x4", not bad at all.
Next up was some Federal Tactical #4 buck, 27 pellets per shell
Again, two shots. Group about 6x6", recoil like any other standard buckshot load.
Last, some plain old Winchester Super-X 00 buck, 9 pellets per shell
This time I fired five rounds. This was roughly 5x5" for the groups tighter than any other standard buckshot load I've tried and MUCH tighter than the S&B 00 buck. Note that the wads moved a lot further from the shot than the other ammo.
So the light is a good deal, and the slipping in the bracket can be fixed. For home defense, from what I've tried now personally I'll go with either the Hornady TAP I tested before or the Ranger 00: less power than standard loads and with the Hornady one less pellet, but faster recovery and, face it, if a solid hit or two from these at home/yard ranges won't stop somebody, you've got BIG problems.
Had one problem; the bracket will indeed fit it to most any barrel or round magazine tube, but the inside is smooth, and after about ten rounds of assorted buckshot I noticed the light had slipped forward under recoil, and another two or three rounds would probably have slid it out of the bracket
You'll notice that only the tailcap is now the only part in the mount, not a good thing. If you planned on sticking the thing on and not taking it off unless work were needed, you could dose it with threadlocker. I think I'll get the dremel out and a cutoff wheel and cut some grooves into the sides of the mount where they contact the light; they'll catch with the knurling on the barrel and should hold it in place. Yeah, something with a Picatinny rail on the barrel or forend would be best; it would also be considerably more expensive. If you need/are willing to pay for that, you'll get no argument from me, quality always costs. For general home/homestead defense where you don't need or want a full LE/military-grade tactical light setup, this isn't bad at all.
Back at the last gun show I'd picked up some shotgun ammo I wanted to try, so did that today too. These were fired offhand at 25-30 feet. First up was some Winchester Ranger low-recoil 00 buck:
This load has a full nine pellets, and when they say low-recoil they're not kidding, noticeably lighter recoil than standard loads. That's two rounds, the big holes in center left and left arm are from the wad. Group about 3.5x4", not bad at all.
Next up was some Federal Tactical #4 buck, 27 pellets per shell
Again, two shots. Group about 6x6", recoil like any other standard buckshot load.
Last, some plain old Winchester Super-X 00 buck, 9 pellets per shell
This time I fired five rounds. This was roughly 5x5" for the groups tighter than any other standard buckshot load I've tried and MUCH tighter than the S&B 00 buck. Note that the wads moved a lot further from the shot than the other ammo.
So the light is a good deal, and the slipping in the bracket can be fixed. For home defense, from what I've tried now personally I'll go with either the Hornady TAP I tested before or the Ranger 00: less power than standard loads and with the Hornady one less pellet, but faster recovery and, face it, if a solid hit or two from these at home/yard ranges won't stop somebody, you've got BIG problems.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
It's been out there before, but it's worth repeating
A fleeing al Qaeda guerrilla, desperate for water, was plodding through the Iraqi desert when he saw something far off in the distance. Hoping to find water, he walked toward the object, only to find a little old Jewish man at a small stand selling neckties.
The terrorist asked, "Do you have water?"
The Jewish man replied, "I have no water. Would you like to buy a tie? They are only 5 American dollars."
The terrorist shouted, "Idiot Jew! Israel should not exist! I do not need an overpriced tie. I need water! I will kill you, but I must find water first."
"OK," said the old Jew, "it does not matter that you do not want to buy a tie and that you hate me. I will show you that I am bigger than that. If you continue over that hill to the east for about two miles, you will find a lovely restaurant. It has all the water you need. Shalom."
Muttering, the terrorist staggered away over the hill.
Several hours later he crawled back, near collapse. "Your brother won't let me in without a tie."
The terrorist asked, "Do you have water?"
The Jewish man replied, "I have no water. Would you like to buy a tie? They are only 5 American dollars."
The terrorist shouted, "Idiot Jew! Israel should not exist! I do not need an overpriced tie. I need water! I will kill you, but I must find water first."
"OK," said the old Jew, "it does not matter that you do not want to buy a tie and that you hate me. I will show you that I am bigger than that. If you continue over that hill to the east for about two miles, you will find a lovely restaurant. It has all the water you need. Shalom."
Muttering, the terrorist staggered away over the hill.
Several hours later he crawled back, near collapse. "Your brother won't let me in without a tie."
Further word from Basic
Got a letter from my son today, catching me up on things at boot camp. Lots of stuff, but two things in particular I thought I'd mention.
First: "Ok, so I only wish something like the gas chamber on my worst enemies" followed by a graphic description. As far as experiences to go through, I think I'll skip this one. Yuck.
Second: "The M-16s issued out are the A2 version and it looks like they haven't been oiled in a long time", and later "Cleaned the M-16 today. That sucker was dirty as hell. Dry patches came out black. I had to run a brush down it and then about 10 patches before it actually started to come clean.
"It was bad, and the cleaning stuff they gave us had no solvent. So all there was was oil, patches and brushes. So I made that sucker shine on the inside by the time I got all the fouling out."
Sniff. My boy did pay attention at times, and to important stuff at that! Now if a truck runs over me tomorrow, I'll know I passed something on other than "Just because the vehicle is capable of doing something, doesn't mean YOU are". Which I think he listened to. I hope.
More updates as they come in. I've got a letter to write.
First: "Ok, so I only wish something like the gas chamber on my worst enemies" followed by a graphic description. As far as experiences to go through, I think I'll skip this one. Yuck.
Second: "The M-16s issued out are the A2 version and it looks like they haven't been oiled in a long time", and later "Cleaned the M-16 today. That sucker was dirty as hell. Dry patches came out black. I had to run a brush down it and then about 10 patches before it actually started to come clean.
"It was bad, and the cleaning stuff they gave us had no solvent. So all there was was oil, patches and brushes. So I made that sucker shine on the inside by the time I got all the fouling out."
Sniff. My boy did pay attention at times, and to important stuff at that! Now if a truck runs over me tomorrow, I'll know I passed something on other than "Just because the vehicle is capable of doing something, doesn't mean YOU are". Which I think he listened to. I hope.
More updates as they come in. I've got a letter to write.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Flea market report
Both a good thing and a bad. Last Saturday went out and (good thing) found a copy of The Black Book of Communism and one of Carnage and Culture, and got both for $2.
Bad thing: was walking down an aisle and ran across a #4 Mk1 Enfield that had been 'sporterized'. At first look, not bad; handguard gone, forend cut back to sporter length and not badly finished. Then noticed four things:
There was a new rear sight mounted on the barrel. Not badly done, but still...
The charger bridge had been cut off, not that great a job.
The original rear sight was completely gone, base and all.
And for some idiot reason, whoever had done all this had added some metal into the slot that
allows you to tip the bolt head up so you can pull the bolt out; which narrowed the slot so that you couldn't take the bolt out.
And the guy wanted $130 for it.
Enough to make you cry.
Bad thing: was walking down an aisle and ran across a #4 Mk1 Enfield that had been 'sporterized'. At first look, not bad; handguard gone, forend cut back to sporter length and not badly finished. Then noticed four things:
There was a new rear sight mounted on the barrel. Not badly done, but still...
The charger bridge had been cut off, not that great a job.
The original rear sight was completely gone, base and all.
And for some idiot reason, whoever had done all this had added some metal into the slot that
allows you to tip the bolt head up so you can pull the bolt out; which narrowed the slot so that you couldn't take the bolt out.
And the guy wanted $130 for it.
Enough to make you cry.
Ref the situation in Britain; you REALLY should read this
no matter how disgusting it is: Real Crime, Fake Justice by Theodore Dalrymple.
Britain and the U.S. were on the same track in the 70's on this, but we jumped the track; Britain stayed on it and is now bogged to the chassis and sinking.
Britain and the U.S. were on the same track in the 70's on this, but we jumped the track; Britain stayed on it and is now bogged to the chassis and sinking.
Remember Bill Clinton thought gun control
cost the Democrats Congress in '96? And cost Gore the 2000 election?
Judicial Watch has been digging up information on Clinton's 'behind the scenes' pushing of various schemes during his presidency. If you had any doubts as to Clinton's victim-disarmament desires, check it out. Pushing various lawsuits, bullying the firearms industry, etc.
And Hillary would be the same, only more open about it.
Judicial Watch has been digging up information on Clinton's 'behind the scenes' pushing of various schemes during his presidency. If you had any doubts as to Clinton's victim-disarmament desires, check it out. Pushing various lawsuits, bullying the firearms industry, etc.
And Hillary would be the same, only more open about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)