Unless you piss off the Clintons. And their suckups.
I've been listening to the noise about the 9/11 show ABC put together. And the screaming and, now, flat-out threats by the Clintons and their buttmonkeys for DARING to hint that, just maybe, they might not have exactly done a really good job of whacking terrorists.
Ace of Spades has this roundup, including this quote:
"The Path to 9/11" is a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11th to blame Democrats.
'Conservative attempt'. From ABC/Disney. Snort. Choke. Hahahahahahahaha!. These people are out of their freakin' minds.
And at Wizbang, Bill Clinton has his lawyers writing letters to ABC demanding the show not be shown at all. That's on top of various Democrats threatening ABC's broadcast license.
Oh yeah, they'd just DIE to protect THEIR freedom of speech. Screw yours.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Just how nutty and threatened are some by the very concept
of self-defense?
Take a look here:
But make no mistake, they continue to fight such legislation. Their latest tactic? Identifying the death of any armed home invader or rapist at the hands of his intended victim as a "murder," they have launched a Web site opposed to these new self-defense laws, dubbed www.licensetomurder.com.
"It's Not a Movie. It's the Law," says the Web site. "The NRA is working to pass a law that makes murder legal in the United States. It's been called the 'Shoot First,' 'Make My Day,' or 'Deadly Force' law, but call it what you want, it's a License to Murder. ... One killer has already been set free, and other criminals and their lawyers are already drooling at the thought of using the NRA's 'Shoot First' law as a legal defense."
I can tell you who's drooling, and it's not lawyers; it's the friggin' morons who wrote and buy this crap.
Take a look here:
But make no mistake, they continue to fight such legislation. Their latest tactic? Identifying the death of any armed home invader or rapist at the hands of his intended victim as a "murder," they have launched a Web site opposed to these new self-defense laws, dubbed www.licensetomurder.com.
"It's Not a Movie. It's the Law," says the Web site. "The NRA is working to pass a law that makes murder legal in the United States. It's been called the 'Shoot First,' 'Make My Day,' or 'Deadly Force' law, but call it what you want, it's a License to Murder. ... One killer has already been set free, and other criminals and their lawyers are already drooling at the thought of using the NRA's 'Shoot First' law as a legal defense."
I can tell you who's drooling, and it's not lawyers; it's the friggin' morons who wrote and buy this crap.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Practical vs. 'best' accuracy
Was thinking about this in relation to the M1 Carbine, but it holds for a lot of firearms. There are two types of accuracy, which can depend on the firearm itself or the user or both.
Best accuracy is what you can get under ideal conditions; the best possible load for accuracy under the best possible firing conditions with the best possible aiming system.
Practical is what you can get with the best ammo for THAT USE with standard sights under field conditions. That's how I put it, anyway.
You can set a rifle up to get the finest possible accuracy; match sights or scope, load tailored for accuracy, solid bench with solid rests fore & aft, etc. It may be accurate as hell, but not much use for hunting or, if things go to hell, fighting. That's 'best' accuracy.
Practical is what you can get with, call it 'working' loads and sights and a stock you'd actually carry around, working from either a field expedient rest or shooting position.
The sights on the M1 Garand and Carbine both are NOT designed for match shooting; the front blades are thick to be easier to see in bad light and faster to line up, the rear aperture sized for the same(though for field use it could actually be a bit larger with no problem). They can deliver very good accuracy, but there's a reason people trying to wring the best out of a Garand use different sights; to get a more precise sight picture on targets.
I like shooting iron sights, especially on something like the M1's. I decided to try out the scope idea for two reasons: to get a better sight for testing loads, and to see how the idea would work out for field shooting. And fact is that on some indoor ranges the light makes it a bit difficult at times for me to shoot a rifle well; harder to hold a good sight picture in dim light. So far, I think this setup would work quite well for field use, the mount- with a tight-fitting handguard- doesn't shift, fast pickup, same things that have the military using lots of optical sights now.
I don't think this mount idea would work as well on an M1 Garand. The rear handguard, for best accuracy, HAS to have a bit of fore & aft play, maybe 1/10 of an inch, and that is not a good thing to mount a scope on. Especially on a hard-recoiling rifle like this. So I think the type that mounts directly to the barrel, replacing the handguard, would be better. I'll have to see how taking the handguard off & replacing on the carbine affects things, I think it should hold zero pretty well.
We'll see.
Best accuracy is what you can get under ideal conditions; the best possible load for accuracy under the best possible firing conditions with the best possible aiming system.
Practical is what you can get with the best ammo for THAT USE with standard sights under field conditions. That's how I put it, anyway.
You can set a rifle up to get the finest possible accuracy; match sights or scope, load tailored for accuracy, solid bench with solid rests fore & aft, etc. It may be accurate as hell, but not much use for hunting or, if things go to hell, fighting. That's 'best' accuracy.
Practical is what you can get with, call it 'working' loads and sights and a stock you'd actually carry around, working from either a field expedient rest or shooting position.
The sights on the M1 Garand and Carbine both are NOT designed for match shooting; the front blades are thick to be easier to see in bad light and faster to line up, the rear aperture sized for the same(though for field use it could actually be a bit larger with no problem). They can deliver very good accuracy, but there's a reason people trying to wring the best out of a Garand use different sights; to get a more precise sight picture on targets.
I like shooting iron sights, especially on something like the M1's. I decided to try out the scope idea for two reasons: to get a better sight for testing loads, and to see how the idea would work out for field shooting. And fact is that on some indoor ranges the light makes it a bit difficult at times for me to shoot a rifle well; harder to hold a good sight picture in dim light. So far, I think this setup would work quite well for field use, the mount- with a tight-fitting handguard- doesn't shift, fast pickup, same things that have the military using lots of optical sights now.
I don't think this mount idea would work as well on an M1 Garand. The rear handguard, for best accuracy, HAS to have a bit of fore & aft play, maybe 1/10 of an inch, and that is not a good thing to mount a scope on. Especially on a hard-recoiling rifle like this. So I think the type that mounts directly to the barrel, replacing the handguard, would be better. I'll have to see how taking the handguard off & replacing on the carbine affects things, I think it should hold zero pretty well.
We'll see.
I love it when an idea actually works
the way it was supposed to. Also, an ammo report.
Note: no pictures, as my daughter has borrowed my camera for the next week or so. I'll either update this or do a new post with pics when possible.
In this case, the homemade scout mount for the M1 Carbine. I took it to the range today to try out. Indoor range, so it's only 30 yards, but enough for a trial. And it worked nicely. I'd wondered if the handguard would be stable enough for a solid mount, but over about fifty rounds nothing shifted. Started off way high & right(no surprise) and a little trial & adjust put it on point of aim, after which tried for accuracy. I was using- in effect- three different loads. Main was some GI-spec I bought from GI Brass, the rest some reloads I put together using Lake City brass and 110-grain FMJ bullets. First group of five with the GI stuff produced one long hole less than 3/4" long and about one bullet-width wide; not what I expected from this little rifle. The reloads were made up of
(DISCLAIMER: These are loads I got from the Lyman manual. They worked in MY rifle; that's no guarantee they'll work in yours or with your reloading style. As with any loads, START at the minimum and work up from there. What you do with load info and the results you get are NOT under my control.)
Lake City brass and bullets, Winchester small rifle primers and 2400 powder. There are several recommended for this cartridge, 2400 being one of them, and since I already use it I started with it. The minimum load functioned with no problems, but the next step up I used both functioned perfectly and gave accuracy equal to the GI stuff. I'll need to try both the GI and handloads at 50 and 100 from a solid bench, I think both will give good accuracy.
So far, the only problem with the mount is what I mentioned before, that the scope sits higher than I like. I could either find/make a lace-on cheekpad, or find the lowest-rise scope rings I can and put those on. I think the low rings would make a big difference. This setup would also work very well with a red-dot sight, and a good one would make the not-so-good cheek weld less of a factor if it sits a bit high.
As to ammo, a while back I bought one of the cans of .30 Carbine from GI Brass; it's made with Lake City components, and of the two hundred or so I've fired there have been zero problems and- as noted above- good accuracy. And as I fire it it gives me good-quality reloadable brass. I used some of their bullets for the reloads, and they are of fine quality and worked beautifully.
The other ammo was with the Benelli, some Federal Tactical Low Recoil slugs I picked up at the gun show. They throw a 1oz. slug, no velocity listed on the box. I fired five rounds at 30 yards, just resting my left hand on the bench. Four produced one big hole a little less than 1.75" long and a little under 1" wide, measuring center-to-center; one called flyer landed an inch or so left of the bottom of the group and a little low. Recoil was noticeably less than the S&B 00 buck I fired before this. I want to try this stuff off a bench at 50 and 100, too; if this is any indication this Federal stuff is a winner.
Now, about the light. I tried a suggestion; painted the inside of the mounting clamp with contact cement, let it dry thoroughly and then clamped the light in. This is why I started the shotgun with the S&B buck, to try this out, and the idea didn't work. After five rounds the light had shifted a long ways forward, so on to the next idea. I'm thinking take a Dremel and cutoff wheel(got to get a new Dremel, mine died) and cut some grooves in the inside of the mount, then put something like a piece of bicycle inner tube between mount & light; that might grab on both enough to hold it in place. For home defense this shouldn't be a real big factor, but I don't like having a setup that I don't KNOW will hold steady however many rounds I fire. The light itself, by the way, still works perfectly.
Note: no pictures, as my daughter has borrowed my camera for the next week or so. I'll either update this or do a new post with pics when possible.
In this case, the homemade scout mount for the M1 Carbine. I took it to the range today to try out. Indoor range, so it's only 30 yards, but enough for a trial. And it worked nicely. I'd wondered if the handguard would be stable enough for a solid mount, but over about fifty rounds nothing shifted. Started off way high & right(no surprise) and a little trial & adjust put it on point of aim, after which tried for accuracy. I was using- in effect- three different loads. Main was some GI-spec I bought from GI Brass, the rest some reloads I put together using Lake City brass and 110-grain FMJ bullets. First group of five with the GI stuff produced one long hole less than 3/4" long and about one bullet-width wide; not what I expected from this little rifle. The reloads were made up of
(DISCLAIMER: These are loads I got from the Lyman manual. They worked in MY rifle; that's no guarantee they'll work in yours or with your reloading style. As with any loads, START at the minimum and work up from there. What you do with load info and the results you get are NOT under my control.)
Lake City brass and bullets, Winchester small rifle primers and 2400 powder. There are several recommended for this cartridge, 2400 being one of them, and since I already use it I started with it. The minimum load functioned with no problems, but the next step up I used both functioned perfectly and gave accuracy equal to the GI stuff. I'll need to try both the GI and handloads at 50 and 100 from a solid bench, I think both will give good accuracy.
So far, the only problem with the mount is what I mentioned before, that the scope sits higher than I like. I could either find/make a lace-on cheekpad, or find the lowest-rise scope rings I can and put those on. I think the low rings would make a big difference. This setup would also work very well with a red-dot sight, and a good one would make the not-so-good cheek weld less of a factor if it sits a bit high.
As to ammo, a while back I bought one of the cans of .30 Carbine from GI Brass; it's made with Lake City components, and of the two hundred or so I've fired there have been zero problems and- as noted above- good accuracy. And as I fire it it gives me good-quality reloadable brass. I used some of their bullets for the reloads, and they are of fine quality and worked beautifully.
The other ammo was with the Benelli, some Federal Tactical Low Recoil slugs I picked up at the gun show. They throw a 1oz. slug, no velocity listed on the box. I fired five rounds at 30 yards, just resting my left hand on the bench. Four produced one big hole a little less than 1.75" long and a little under 1" wide, measuring center-to-center; one called flyer landed an inch or so left of the bottom of the group and a little low. Recoil was noticeably less than the S&B 00 buck I fired before this. I want to try this stuff off a bench at 50 and 100, too; if this is any indication this Federal stuff is a winner.
Now, about the light. I tried a suggestion; painted the inside of the mounting clamp with contact cement, let it dry thoroughly and then clamped the light in. This is why I started the shotgun with the S&B buck, to try this out, and the idea didn't work. After five rounds the light had shifted a long ways forward, so on to the next idea. I'm thinking take a Dremel and cutoff wheel(got to get a new Dremel, mine died) and cut some grooves in the inside of the mount, then put something like a piece of bicycle inner tube between mount & light; that might grab on both enough to hold it in place. For home defense this shouldn't be a real big factor, but I don't like having a setup that I don't KNOW will hold steady however many rounds I fire. The light itself, by the way, still works perfectly.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
An experiment
Ever since Jeff Cooper started the scout rifle noise, you've been able to go to any gunboard and write "What do you think of this?" and start a fight. Responses will range from "Greatest thing ever!" to "Idiotic idea".
I'm in the middle. Not the best of all worlds, but it definately has its uses. A red-dot is very nice, but at a distance some magnification can be good, and I think, despite what Kim says, a low-power scope out front on a .30-30 is a wonderful idea for hunting.
While back had a chance to shoot a M1 Carbine, and- despite expectations- fell in love with the damn thing. And had a chance to buy one a while later, and grabbed it(seeing what prices have done lately, I'm damn glad I did). So I've got a batch of ball ammo for it, and I've been enjoying shooting it, and I had the thought this would be a fine rifle for the scout-mount concept. You could use the same mount for either a scope or red-dot depending on which suits you.
Looking around I found Sportsmans's Guide has this Carbine Tactical Tri-Rail Forearm Mount,
which replaces the handguard and clamps directly to the barrel. That was the only one I saw; it would do, but a: I don't need the tri-rail setup, just wanted one on top and b: being cheap I didn't want to spend that much without knowing if I'd like it. So, the experiment.
At the gun show over the weekend I found an old carbine handguard. Took a piece of walnut(it's hard, and I had a scrap piece) and rounded one side to match the groove in the handguard top, then sanded it so the top would be level. I had a short piece of scope base, so put this guard on the rifle and marked the centerline, then took it off and drilled two mounting holes. Screwed the base on, stuck on a scope I had on a .22 pistol with some rings I'd picked up a while back(nice to have spares), and here 'tis:
It sits a bit high; lower rings would make a big difference there. And there's the possibility the mount being on the handguard as opposed to the barrel may not be as solid as I'd need, it only taking a tiny bit of shifting to make a big difference. However, this is not a 200-300 yard rifle, it a 150 at most(no matter what the sight says). In any case, it's a good testbed for this. If I really like it, I can do things to sit it lower or lock it a bit more solidly, or if the concept is good but I need a mount on the barrel, I can get one of the units from SG, idiot side rails and all.
Times like this I wish I had some machinist training and access to a milling machine, I could make a base that locked solidly to the barrel and mounted the scope nice and low. Maybe later, for now I'll have to see how this works.
I'm in the middle. Not the best of all worlds, but it definately has its uses. A red-dot is very nice, but at a distance some magnification can be good, and I think, despite what Kim says, a low-power scope out front on a .30-30 is a wonderful idea for hunting.
While back had a chance to shoot a M1 Carbine, and- despite expectations- fell in love with the damn thing. And had a chance to buy one a while later, and grabbed it(seeing what prices have done lately, I'm damn glad I did). So I've got a batch of ball ammo for it, and I've been enjoying shooting it, and I had the thought this would be a fine rifle for the scout-mount concept. You could use the same mount for either a scope or red-dot depending on which suits you.
Looking around I found Sportsmans's Guide has this Carbine Tactical Tri-Rail Forearm Mount,
which replaces the handguard and clamps directly to the barrel. That was the only one I saw; it would do, but a: I don't need the tri-rail setup, just wanted one on top and b: being cheap I didn't want to spend that much without knowing if I'd like it. So, the experiment.
At the gun show over the weekend I found an old carbine handguard. Took a piece of walnut(it's hard, and I had a scrap piece) and rounded one side to match the groove in the handguard top, then sanded it so the top would be level. I had a short piece of scope base, so put this guard on the rifle and marked the centerline, then took it off and drilled two mounting holes. Screwed the base on, stuck on a scope I had on a .22 pistol with some rings I'd picked up a while back(nice to have spares), and here 'tis:
It sits a bit high; lower rings would make a big difference there. And there's the possibility the mount being on the handguard as opposed to the barrel may not be as solid as I'd need, it only taking a tiny bit of shifting to make a big difference. However, this is not a 200-300 yard rifle, it a 150 at most(no matter what the sight says). In any case, it's a good testbed for this. If I really like it, I can do things to sit it lower or lock it a bit more solidly, or if the concept is good but I need a mount on the barrel, I can get one of the units from SG, idiot side rails and all.
Times like this I wish I had some machinist training and access to a milling machine, I could make a base that locked solidly to the barrel and mounted the scope nice and low. Maybe later, for now I'll have to see how this works.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Basic Training update
They qualified with their M16s, and he missed Expert by one point. Which I'm confident he'll make up next time. Training with night-vision sights and CCO(Close Combat Optics).
Speaking of CCO, anybody recognize which one this is?
I know I've seen it before, but can't think of the name/maker to save my ass.
From what he's said, the worst day so far- no including the gas chamber- was the day on the range when, at 112 degrees, the odd late-summer storm blew through and soaked everyone; the next few hours in soaked clothes and armor in 100+ temps were fairly miserable.
Apparently big advances have been made in military cooking, as he says the food is pretty good.
No sick call, no "WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO?!?" reported, I'd have to say so far, so good. Whether from his preparation and expectations or their having toned it down, he still says Basic is a lot easier than expected, which is a bit worrisome. It SHOULD be tough; if it's not tough enough, will it get the training through to the class?
In any case, life continues.
Speaking of CCO, anybody recognize which one this is?
I know I've seen it before, but can't think of the name/maker to save my ass.
From what he's said, the worst day so far- no including the gas chamber- was the day on the range when, at 112 degrees, the odd late-summer storm blew through and soaked everyone; the next few hours in soaked clothes and armor in 100+ temps were fairly miserable.
Apparently big advances have been made in military cooking, as he says the food is pretty good.
No sick call, no "WHAT THE HELL DID YOU DO?!?" reported, I'd have to say so far, so good. Whether from his preparation and expectations or their having toned it down, he still says Basic is a lot easier than expected, which is a bit worrisome. It SHOULD be tough; if it's not tough enough, will it get the training through to the class?
In any case, life continues.
The Crocodile Hunter bites the big one
in a truly strange fashion.
A stingray barb through the heart? How the hell do you manage that? At the risk of being overly insensitive, considering some of the crap he's done it was pretty obvious when he bought it it would be messing with some animal; it just caught up with him.
If by some chance a member of his family reads this, you have my condolences. No strings, no exceptions. Losing a family member almost always sucks.
I can't help it, though; can anyone think of a more oddball way for a guy who works with animals to buy it?
A stingray barb through the heart? How the hell do you manage that? At the risk of being overly insensitive, considering some of the crap he's done it was pretty obvious when he bought it it would be messing with some animal; it just caught up with him.
If by some chance a member of his family reads this, you have my condolences. No strings, no exceptions. Losing a family member almost always sucks.
I can't help it, though; can anyone think of a more oddball way for a guy who works with animals to buy it?
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Gun show
Had a nice one at the fairgrounds this weekend. Lots of stuff to look at and people to talk to. Picked up some ammo and parts, and courageously walked away from some things I really, really wanted... dammit.
One man had a National Match M1 Garand, that on closer inspection turned out to have a Krieger match barrel. And he wanted $1000 for it. Let's see, the barrel alone costs $400, and a rifle with the match sights, trigger, etc... damn, I need more money.
At least they didn't have one thing. Few days ago I went by H&H range to look around and take another drool at the S&W 1911PD I mentioned before. And Will, the bastard, had to show me something. They make a full-size 1911 with the Scandium frame. Heavier than the compact size but not by much, and that extra weight out front would be real nice when shooting heavy loads, and it only cost a few dollars more than the compact. Will is an evil man, I must warn you: "Who can afford anything? Since when is that an excuse not to buy it?" So I didn't have to look at one of those again, at least until I go shooting at H&H again.
One thing I've noticed is that the shortage of 7.62x39 is well and truly over, and so are the prices that you used to find. Best I saw worked out to about $3/box and a lot of it was higher. Made me glad I bought some when I did. A while back Sportsman's Guide had some listed for a decent price, and I had a $10 off coupon, so I ordered. And at the checkout they had a deal: join the Guide Club and get double the usual discount a member gets AND free shipping. I'd been thinking about joining for a while, so went ahead, and it wound up with the cost of the ammo being about $2.40/box. By the way, one thing I've noticed about their shipping: on a case of 1000 rounds it's listed as a 'heavy/bulky' item they tack an extra shipping charge onto, but ordering two cases of 500 did NOT have that added on. Odd, but handy.
One thing I've noticed at shows is a lot fewer shotguns with pistol grips on the tables. Never really understood why the damn things were popular. I don't mean the pistol grip on a stock, I mean a pistol grip only with no shoulder stock. Recoil on a 12 guage being what it is, I cannot imagine wanting to fire one of them. Chris at Anarchangel has written on them and notes that as big as he is, he can't handle more than one or two rounds with one. I guess a few of the people who bought them told friends how they wound up with their wrist in a brace and word got around.
All in all, a good show.
One man had a National Match M1 Garand, that on closer inspection turned out to have a Krieger match barrel. And he wanted $1000 for it. Let's see, the barrel alone costs $400, and a rifle with the match sights, trigger, etc... damn, I need more money.
At least they didn't have one thing. Few days ago I went by H&H range to look around and take another drool at the S&W 1911PD I mentioned before. And Will, the bastard, had to show me something. They make a full-size 1911 with the Scandium frame. Heavier than the compact size but not by much, and that extra weight out front would be real nice when shooting heavy loads, and it only cost a few dollars more than the compact. Will is an evil man, I must warn you: "Who can afford anything? Since when is that an excuse not to buy it?" So I didn't have to look at one of those again, at least until I go shooting at H&H again.
One thing I've noticed is that the shortage of 7.62x39 is well and truly over, and so are the prices that you used to find. Best I saw worked out to about $3/box and a lot of it was higher. Made me glad I bought some when I did. A while back Sportsman's Guide had some listed for a decent price, and I had a $10 off coupon, so I ordered. And at the checkout they had a deal: join the Guide Club and get double the usual discount a member gets AND free shipping. I'd been thinking about joining for a while, so went ahead, and it wound up with the cost of the ammo being about $2.40/box. By the way, one thing I've noticed about their shipping: on a case of 1000 rounds it's listed as a 'heavy/bulky' item they tack an extra shipping charge onto, but ordering two cases of 500 did NOT have that added on. Odd, but handy.
One thing I've noticed at shows is a lot fewer shotguns with pistol grips on the tables. Never really understood why the damn things were popular. I don't mean the pistol grip on a stock, I mean a pistol grip only with no shoulder stock. Recoil on a 12 guage being what it is, I cannot imagine wanting to fire one of them. Chris at Anarchangel has written on them and notes that as big as he is, he can't handle more than one or two rounds with one. I guess a few of the people who bought them told friends how they wound up with their wrist in a brace and word got around.
All in all, a good show.
Forced conversions
There's been a lot of stuff written and said over the forced conversion of the two Fox news people. It really seems to point out that the 'Religeon of Peace' noise is just exactly that: noise.
Here you have people being told "You will convert- on camera so we can broadcast it- or we will kill you". So they do the 'conversion' and(may have been the idea the whole time, who knows?) are released. Guess what? The fact that they were forced into it doesn't matter, by not living up to it they are now considered apostates and subject to being killed for it.
Christianity has had its share of idiots who thought forcing people to convert was a good thing. There was a book written a few years ago about how it used to be a somewhat common thing in Italy for a housekeeper or some other christian working in a Jewish household would tell a priest that they had 'baptized' a baby or child, upon which the authorities would take the child to be raised as a Christian; I believe it was actually illegal for a 'Christian' child to be raised in a Jewish home. Well, that crap ended a long time ago. Oh yeah, there are those who still think it's a good idea, and they are a small minority that everyone else looks on as a retarded fool. A 'conversion' attained by force means NOTHING. Lots of Jews were put in that position during the Inquisition, and those who chose 'conversion' were watched closely for years because they were not trusted. The bastards who did this knew that most didn't mean it, they just didn't want to die in some horrible manner; and the vile excuses for men figured that if they kept parents acting like Christians out of fear, their kids would be raised as Christians so it didn't matter that the parents were doomed to hell for lying about converting; a few less 'official' Jews and some more kids raised in the church. A more contemptable, disgusting mindset is hard to imagine. And this was at a time when many, in many places, had written specifically that forcing someone to convert was a travesty, meant nothing, and was to be condemned. Zealots aren't known for seeing the holes in their thoughts, or caring about them when pointed out.
So what we're dealing with is an attitude the civilized world dumped a long time ago(barring the few idiots) that is the reigning attitude for much of Islam. They have the attitude of the bad guy in The Shadow: "Join me; or die". Don't care if you were forced; hell, that's part of the rules for them! If you say you are/act as moslem for any reason, that's it. If you ever then say you're not, that the conversion was not true, you're under a death sentance. Which is one reason so many people are pissed at places like that CA school that had students dressing and acting like muslims for classes; according to the idiots, that makes them muslim and subject to sharia law. Period.
I've given up on the 'moderate muslims' of the world. With a few exceptions they won't speak out against it. They either believe that's the way it should be, or defend it because "Hey, they're of the umma(sp?) so I won't say anything against them", or are in fear of other muslims. So we've got muslims in the U.S. who know people planning terror operations, raising money for terrorists, etc., who won't report them because "they may be jihadi assholes, but they're our jihadi assholes". Which means, for all practical purposes, they are the enemy.
That's about as blunt as you can put it, and I'm sure it would piss various people, especially the usual suspects, off. I don't care. I'm sick of it being avoided at all costs by the major media, I'm sick of politicians who care for nothing but sucking up to some group who might get him votes actively ignoring it, and I'm tired of being called a racist or bigot for saying it. By the way, 'muslim' is not a race, it's a religeon. And I won't plead guilty to being a bigot for recognizing a threat to our civilization. I really don't give a rats ass what religeon someone practices unless their practice of it makes it- and them- a threat to me and mine. At which point my tolerance goes out the window. Whena religeon sees forced conversions as a good thing, and wants everyone who won't convert dead(dhimmi will do in some cases, but death is better according to the BPMs), and their sincere belief says they have to conquer the world for their religeon, they are a threat. And those members of that religeon who really don't agree with it but won't speak against it, well, they're part of the threat.
This has teh potential to get monumentally more ugly than it is now, and I'm afraid the only thing that would prevent it is naked violence; taking Syria or Iran, maybe both, and stomping the place flat. Figuratively speaking would be better; decapitate the governments and stomp the armed forces that enforce their rule. The aftermath would be messy as hell. But not nearly som messy as having President Tom(as Glenn Beck calls him) of Iran getting nukes to hasten the return of the 12th Imam.
Additional: Malkin points to this by Diane West on the subject, well worth reading
Here you have people being told "You will convert- on camera so we can broadcast it- or we will kill you". So they do the 'conversion' and(may have been the idea the whole time, who knows?) are released. Guess what? The fact that they were forced into it doesn't matter, by not living up to it they are now considered apostates and subject to being killed for it.
Christianity has had its share of idiots who thought forcing people to convert was a good thing. There was a book written a few years ago about how it used to be a somewhat common thing in Italy for a housekeeper or some other christian working in a Jewish household would tell a priest that they had 'baptized' a baby or child, upon which the authorities would take the child to be raised as a Christian; I believe it was actually illegal for a 'Christian' child to be raised in a Jewish home. Well, that crap ended a long time ago. Oh yeah, there are those who still think it's a good idea, and they are a small minority that everyone else looks on as a retarded fool. A 'conversion' attained by force means NOTHING. Lots of Jews were put in that position during the Inquisition, and those who chose 'conversion' were watched closely for years because they were not trusted. The bastards who did this knew that most didn't mean it, they just didn't want to die in some horrible manner; and the vile excuses for men figured that if they kept parents acting like Christians out of fear, their kids would be raised as Christians so it didn't matter that the parents were doomed to hell for lying about converting; a few less 'official' Jews and some more kids raised in the church. A more contemptable, disgusting mindset is hard to imagine. And this was at a time when many, in many places, had written specifically that forcing someone to convert was a travesty, meant nothing, and was to be condemned. Zealots aren't known for seeing the holes in their thoughts, or caring about them when pointed out.
So what we're dealing with is an attitude the civilized world dumped a long time ago(barring the few idiots) that is the reigning attitude for much of Islam. They have the attitude of the bad guy in The Shadow: "Join me; or die". Don't care if you were forced; hell, that's part of the rules for them! If you say you are/act as moslem for any reason, that's it. If you ever then say you're not, that the conversion was not true, you're under a death sentance. Which is one reason so many people are pissed at places like that CA school that had students dressing and acting like muslims for classes; according to the idiots, that makes them muslim and subject to sharia law. Period.
I've given up on the 'moderate muslims' of the world. With a few exceptions they won't speak out against it. They either believe that's the way it should be, or defend it because "Hey, they're of the umma(sp?) so I won't say anything against them", or are in fear of other muslims. So we've got muslims in the U.S. who know people planning terror operations, raising money for terrorists, etc., who won't report them because "they may be jihadi assholes, but they're our jihadi assholes". Which means, for all practical purposes, they are the enemy.
That's about as blunt as you can put it, and I'm sure it would piss various people, especially the usual suspects, off. I don't care. I'm sick of it being avoided at all costs by the major media, I'm sick of politicians who care for nothing but sucking up to some group who might get him votes actively ignoring it, and I'm tired of being called a racist or bigot for saying it. By the way, 'muslim' is not a race, it's a religeon. And I won't plead guilty to being a bigot for recognizing a threat to our civilization. I really don't give a rats ass what religeon someone practices unless their practice of it makes it- and them- a threat to me and mine. At which point my tolerance goes out the window. Whena religeon sees forced conversions as a good thing, and wants everyone who won't convert dead(dhimmi will do in some cases, but death is better according to the BPMs), and their sincere belief says they have to conquer the world for their religeon, they are a threat. And those members of that religeon who really don't agree with it but won't speak against it, well, they're part of the threat.
This has teh potential to get monumentally more ugly than it is now, and I'm afraid the only thing that would prevent it is naked violence; taking Syria or Iran, maybe both, and stomping the place flat. Figuratively speaking would be better; decapitate the governments and stomp the armed forces that enforce their rule. The aftermath would be messy as hell. But not nearly som messy as having President Tom(as Glenn Beck calls him) of Iran getting nukes to hasten the return of the 12th Imam.
Additional: Malkin points to this by Diane West on the subject, well worth reading
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Further proof many enviroweenies are idiots
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)