seeing as how if anyone says anything that they don't like- for whatever reason- it's an 'attack on Islam' and an excuse to riot and scream and make more death threats.
Guys? I'm sure people more noticeable than I have pointed this out, but if you react to any criticism of your actions or beliefs by threatening to kill everybody in sight, you're not exactly being very peaceful. And you're ruining your supposed reputation as a 'peaceful religeon'. Instead, you're acting like a bunch of spoiled brats who see everything short of falling on knees and converting as an 'attack on Islam' and use it as an excuse to declare jihad and kill people and burn things.
Religeon of peace my ass. If it actually was, you'd have marches by muslims calling suicide bombers and the murderers in Iraq the beasts they are and condemning them. If you disagreed with what the Pope said in the above link, you'd be arguing the point in an intelligent manner, not saying things like "
Benedict would go down in history "in the same category as leaders such as (Benito) Mussolini and (Adolf) Hitler.", and burning people in effigy, etc.
I've been reading Londonistan, and one of the things she points out is that the radicals(whether they actually believe it or not) and the hysterics(who do) claim anything as an 'attack on Islam' and reason for suicide bombings and terrorism in general and so forth. Do anything except fall on your knees before them, and it's an attack.
And I'm really tired of the supposed 'moderate' muslims at least silently going along with it.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
More on the UN 'There Is No Right Of Self-Defense' BS
Looking over at Volokh.com(something I need to do more) I found this by Dave Kopel:UN's New Attack on Law-Abiding American Gun Owners . It's about a particular question on a 'Human Rights Law Exam, as follows:
Advanced Topics in Human Rights Law. Exam, Spring 2010. Question 4: One day, a woman goes to a gun store in Florida. She provides picture identification to the store owner, who then, pursuant to the National Instant Check System, uses his telephone to contact law enforcement, and ensure that the woman has no criminal record. The woman then purchases an expensive double-barreled shotgun, manufactured in the United Kingdom. She plans to use the gun for all lawful purposes, but primarily for sporting clays. In accordance with Florida law, she did not need to obtain a government license to possess the gun.
Two years later, a man breaks into her home at night. The woman reasonably (and correctly) believes that the man intends to rape and torture her. She also, correctly, believes that there is absolutely no possibility that the man will kill her. She shoots the man and kills him.
Summarize the human rights violations
They find three, the Brits for exporting 'small arms' to the U.S.; the U.S. and Florida for 'permitting' the woman to buy the gun without a license; and Finally, the woman's use of gun violence against the man was also a human rights violation.
Overall, it's a fairly standard piece of UN crap. But read it all the way through; to me, the biggest red flag in the thing is right at the end:
If the victim's human rights lawsuit were brought before a judge who was sympathetic to such manufacturers or organizations, it is unlikely that the suit would succeed. However, there are many judges who do not have such sympathies. Thanks to the flexibility of international law, and the evolving practice in U.S. constitutional interpretation of using international law guidelines, it would be possible for the lawsuits to result not only in monetary damages, but also in injunctive relief, and the judicial negation of the state and federal laws on self-defense and gun control which violate international human rights.(emphasis mine)
If there was ever a a blunt warning as to what the international GFWs and 'human rights' clowns want to happen here, this is it. It's why, anytime some judge decides to base his ruling on 'international law' instead of the Constitution, he out to be tarred and feathered. These people PLAN on using such judges to trash our Constitution; they're looking forward to it and planning on it.
One more reason why that damn building should be torn down and the sorry excuses for humans in it set up in Botswana or someplace in Europe.
Advanced Topics in Human Rights Law. Exam, Spring 2010. Question 4: One day, a woman goes to a gun store in Florida. She provides picture identification to the store owner, who then, pursuant to the National Instant Check System, uses his telephone to contact law enforcement, and ensure that the woman has no criminal record. The woman then purchases an expensive double-barreled shotgun, manufactured in the United Kingdom. She plans to use the gun for all lawful purposes, but primarily for sporting clays. In accordance with Florida law, she did not need to obtain a government license to possess the gun.
Two years later, a man breaks into her home at night. The woman reasonably (and correctly) believes that the man intends to rape and torture her. She also, correctly, believes that there is absolutely no possibility that the man will kill her. She shoots the man and kills him.
Summarize the human rights violations
They find three, the Brits for exporting 'small arms' to the U.S.; the U.S. and Florida for 'permitting' the woman to buy the gun without a license; and Finally, the woman's use of gun violence against the man was also a human rights violation.
Overall, it's a fairly standard piece of UN crap. But read it all the way through; to me, the biggest red flag in the thing is right at the end:
If the victim's human rights lawsuit were brought before a judge who was sympathetic to such manufacturers or organizations, it is unlikely that the suit would succeed. However, there are many judges who do not have such sympathies. Thanks to the flexibility of international law, and the evolving practice in U.S. constitutional interpretation of using international law guidelines, it would be possible for the lawsuits to result not only in monetary damages, but also in injunctive relief, and the judicial negation of the state and federal laws on self-defense and gun control which violate international human rights.(emphasis mine)
If there was ever a a blunt warning as to what the international GFWs and 'human rights' clowns want to happen here, this is it. It's why, anytime some judge decides to base his ruling on 'international law' instead of the Constitution, he out to be tarred and feathered. These people PLAN on using such judges to trash our Constitution; they're looking forward to it and planning on it.
One more reason why that damn building should be torn down and the sorry excuses for humans in it set up in Botswana or someplace in Europe.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
If you need a shooting rest,
take a look at this:
They're being made by a girl who's raising money for a .204 Encore, information is posted at Mad Ogre. He had a post on it yesterday, now has the pics and a link for ordering.
What more can you ask? A solid rest, a kid raising money for a boomstick, and it'll seriously twist the hinges of the GFWs out there. Go take a look.
They're being made by a girl who's raising money for a .204 Encore, information is posted at Mad Ogre. He had a post on it yesterday, now has the pics and a link for ordering.
What more can you ask? A solid rest, a kid raising money for a boomstick, and it'll seriously twist the hinges of the GFWs out there. Go take a look.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Carbine followup
Yesterday I went to the range, but a little differently. No chrono, no loads to test, just a couple of rifles and a pistol, some targets and ammo. Just shooting for fun, which I hadn't done in a while. I also couldn't stand all the 9/11 stuff on radio and tv, so went out.
That little Model 8 Martini is a really nice plinking rifle. It lets you break a clay pigeon at 50 yards, and then break up the pieces. It's a bit heavy for the purpose, but with fine sights and- especially with sub-sonic ammo virtually no recoil and very low noise it's a good rifle to let a kid shoot.
The M1 Carbine experiment continues. After the last time I used it, I'd taken it down for a thorough cleaning, so this time would tell how well it held zero after being dis- and reassembled. Answer is very well, I didn't have to make any adjustment; it hit right where it'd been hitting before. Be it said that this will depend a LOT on how good & tight the stock/handguard/barrel band assembly is. This one is pretty tight and goes back the same way every time, one that was any looser you'd have to do some work to tighten things up so it'd lock back up the same way every time. I do think the clamp-onto-the-barrel mounts out there are probably superior to this because they'd be lower to the barrel and would stay clamped on in the same position through disassembly. However, if you want to put this together and do some tweaking(if necessary) it's a worthy project. I'm going to see what are the lowest rings I can lay hands on and see how much they'd lower the scope compared to those I have now. The only other way I can see to lower it would be to inlet the scope base down into the handguard, and I have doubts how well that'd work; you'd be thinning the wood enough to seriously reduce the strength unless you also used epoxy or something to permanently fix it in as part of the guard.
And, if it's going to take all that to make it workable for you, you'd be adding in enough time that, unless you like messing with things, it'd probably be more cost-effective to just buy a good barrel-clamp mount.
The scope works nicely on it. As for a SHTF rifle or home-defense, I think the red-dot sight would be the way to go, without question. Fast and plenty accurate for the use.
Looked at the SOG site yesterday, and they show they're getting in some M1 Carbine receivers, listed as 'very good' condition. Tempting to see if could get one, then start collecting parts. Pretty much everything is available except receivers, and you can find those from some dealers; problem is, the receivers are around $350 everywhere I looked. Add parts to that, and you're paying as much or more than a ready-to-use carbine.
And I actually got some things done at home before had to shut down. Amazing.
That little Model 8 Martini is a really nice plinking rifle. It lets you break a clay pigeon at 50 yards, and then break up the pieces. It's a bit heavy for the purpose, but with fine sights and- especially with sub-sonic ammo virtually no recoil and very low noise it's a good rifle to let a kid shoot.
The M1 Carbine experiment continues. After the last time I used it, I'd taken it down for a thorough cleaning, so this time would tell how well it held zero after being dis- and reassembled. Answer is very well, I didn't have to make any adjustment; it hit right where it'd been hitting before. Be it said that this will depend a LOT on how good & tight the stock/handguard/barrel band assembly is. This one is pretty tight and goes back the same way every time, one that was any looser you'd have to do some work to tighten things up so it'd lock back up the same way every time. I do think the clamp-onto-the-barrel mounts out there are probably superior to this because they'd be lower to the barrel and would stay clamped on in the same position through disassembly. However, if you want to put this together and do some tweaking(if necessary) it's a worthy project. I'm going to see what are the lowest rings I can lay hands on and see how much they'd lower the scope compared to those I have now. The only other way I can see to lower it would be to inlet the scope base down into the handguard, and I have doubts how well that'd work; you'd be thinning the wood enough to seriously reduce the strength unless you also used epoxy or something to permanently fix it in as part of the guard.
And, if it's going to take all that to make it workable for you, you'd be adding in enough time that, unless you like messing with things, it'd probably be more cost-effective to just buy a good barrel-clamp mount.
The scope works nicely on it. As for a SHTF rifle or home-defense, I think the red-dot sight would be the way to go, without question. Fast and plenty accurate for the use.
Looked at the SOG site yesterday, and they show they're getting in some M1 Carbine receivers, listed as 'very good' condition. Tempting to see if could get one, then start collecting parts. Pretty much everything is available except receivers, and you can find those from some dealers; problem is, the receivers are around $350 everywhere I looked. Add parts to that, and you're paying as much or more than a ready-to-use carbine.
And I actually got some things done at home before had to shut down. Amazing.
Monday, September 11, 2006
To Andrew Sullivan and all the other clowns
who said the abuses at Abu Ghraib under U.S. control were torture:
Then:Abu Ghraib became synonymous with abuse after shocking pictures were published in 2004 showing prisoners being tortured and humiliated, galvanising opposition to the US presence in Iraq.
and now:
The witness said that even in the thieves' section prisoners were being treated badly. "Someone was shouting 'Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back'," he said.
Well, well, it seems that being led around on a leash and having panties on your head wasn't so bad after all. I said at the time- along with a lot of other people- that these were indeed abuses, but there ain't no way that comes in under the heading of 'torture'.
I'm not excusing this. I am pointing out that a: what happened at the prison when under U.S. control was not good, but wasn't anywhere near this and b: what did anyone think was going to happen to some of the terrorists- and unfortunately some accused of being terrorists- when someone who's had friends or family killed while at a store or applying for a job gets hold of them? In a culture that's been treated this way for a couple of generations?
Article here; I'd seen it the other day but lost the link, found it from Sondra K
Then:Abu Ghraib became synonymous with abuse after shocking pictures were published in 2004 showing prisoners being tortured and humiliated, galvanising opposition to the US presence in Iraq.
and now:
The witness said that even in the thieves' section prisoners were being treated badly. "Someone was shouting 'Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back'," he said.
Well, well, it seems that being led around on a leash and having panties on your head wasn't so bad after all. I said at the time- along with a lot of other people- that these were indeed abuses, but there ain't no way that comes in under the heading of 'torture'.
I'm not excusing this. I am pointing out that a: what happened at the prison when under U.S. control was not good, but wasn't anywhere near this and b: what did anyone think was going to happen to some of the terrorists- and unfortunately some accused of being terrorists- when someone who's had friends or family killed while at a store or applying for a job gets hold of them? In a culture that's been treated this way for a couple of generations?
Article here; I'd seen it the other day but lost the link, found it from Sondra K
9/11
Lots of people doing memory pieces, what they were doing, how it happened. I may do something on that later. For now...
I'm still pissed. Every time I think of it, REALLY pissed. At the vile excuses for men who committed these acts, those who gave them money and intelligence and places to train. At those who make plans to kill us in stores and restaurants and offices and schools.
And I don't forget the idiots who help them here out of stupidity and PC blindness. The CIA bastards who didn't do their damn jobs. The FBI bastards who wouldn't seek a warrant for that laptop, who were more worried about being seen as 'insensitive' than in getting their damn job done.
Maybe more later.
Later:
Not really anything to add. I wrote once before about that morning. About going from "Terrible accident" to "Crap, we've been attacked". The anger at the incompetents who helped it happen and the sorry offspring of rabid dogs and syphilitic camels who helped the murderers train and hide and gave them money. And the rage at the idiot broadcasters who kept talking about 'terror striking into the hearts of America' over and over. The disgust at the 'peace at any cost' idiots came later, when they started marching with their "don't hurt them, understand them" bullshit.
Just, overall, sick and tired.
Additional: Kevin at Smallest Minority had a link to this piece by Steven den Beste; I'd strongly suggest reading it.
I'm still pissed. Every time I think of it, REALLY pissed. At the vile excuses for men who committed these acts, those who gave them money and intelligence and places to train. At those who make plans to kill us in stores and restaurants and offices and schools.
And I don't forget the idiots who help them here out of stupidity and PC blindness. The CIA bastards who didn't do their damn jobs. The FBI bastards who wouldn't seek a warrant for that laptop, who were more worried about being seen as 'insensitive' than in getting their damn job done.
Maybe more later.
Later:
Not really anything to add. I wrote once before about that morning. About going from "Terrible accident" to "Crap, we've been attacked". The anger at the incompetents who helped it happen and the sorry offspring of rabid dogs and syphilitic camels who helped the murderers train and hide and gave them money. And the rage at the idiot broadcasters who kept talking about 'terror striking into the hearts of America' over and over. The disgust at the 'peace at any cost' idiots came later, when they started marching with their "don't hurt them, understand them" bullshit.
Just, overall, sick and tired.
Additional: Kevin at Smallest Minority had a link to this piece by Steven den Beste; I'd strongly suggest reading it.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
How far down the drain would you say England is?
Getting pretty far, I'd say.
At Cam Edwards place, found a link to this story:
A man vowed to keep a glowing garden gnome on display today in defiance of a police notice. Gordon MacKillop even faces possible prosecution over the offending ornament.
He was woken in the night by two police officers who warned him that the solar-powered gnome, dressed in full police uniform, was offensive to his neighbours.
They served him with a notice under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 for "placing a garden gnome with intent to cause harassment to Mr John McLean".
For a garden gnome?!?
"When you hear a knock at the door at quarter to midnight you don't expect to be served with that," said Mr MacKillop, a marine surveyor at Devonport Dockyard.
No, you wouldn't think so. After reading this I checked the front page. You would think, instead of busting 'harassing' gnomes they'd be dealing with things like this:
A 15-year-old boy gunned down in a city park was an innocent victim in the wrong place at the wrong time, police have said.
Schoolboy Jessie James was shot three times in the early hours of Saturday morning in a public park in Manchester's notorious Moss Side district.
He was shot with a semi-automatic pistol suffering two wounds to his torso and one near his appendix, police said.
He died at the scene.
And, by the way, since handguns are pretty much banned in Britain, how'd the gang weenies get hold of this semi-auto pistol, anyway? Of course, instead of chasing gang-bangers with guns, the police are pretty tied up dealing with dangerous characters like this miscreant:
A mother-of-two faces a possible prison sentence after swearing at yobs who have made her life a living hell.
For more than two years a large group of teenage thugs have hounded desperate Donna Appleyard who has had to endure relentless abuse, threats and vandalism.
But unbelievably, when the 32-year-old finally "snapped" over the constant intimidation and swore at one of her bullies she was arrested by police and now faces a possible prison sentence if she refuses to pay a fine.
A fine, you say? Nay, it should not be! She should be put in the stocks for a day at least!
Donna, who had lived on the estate for the last 14 years, said the problems with kids had grown progressively worse over the last two years until it is now unlivable.
On a daily basis Donna claims her and her two children, James 14, and Holly, 12, have to put up with a 15 strong group of kids aged between 12 and 17 hanging around outside their three-bedroom semi-detached home.
Donna and her neighbours have had to endure paint been thrown on their walls, plants ruined from their gardens, and late night noise from the gang who stay up drinking on the streets.
Those poor little kids are just trying so have some fun! And you put your safety and privacy and home above that?!? You bigot! You hatemonger! You, you swearer!
Things finally came to a head on March 30 when a desperate Donna finally lost her temper and told her tormentors to "please, just f*** off."
The youths ignored her but two weeks later officers called at her home. She was told a 13-year-old girl had made a complaint against her.
Donna was arrested and charged under public order offences.
I should think so! She must have hurt the feelings of the littlebastards kids something terrible with that language!
She was handed an £80 fixed penalty notice but refused to pay and was taken to court last month. Magistrates then upped the sum to £120 pounds which Donna must now pay or face a possible jail term.
All funny off. This is a marvelous example of the idiocy that is destroying Britain. The police won't act against the hoodlums, but they will charge you with yelling at them. God forbid you hurt a burglar who attacks you in your home, you'll go to prison for that. An honest subject of the Crown who owns a firearm is treated like a criminal who just hasn't been caught yet, but people who commit a whole range of offenses, including violent ones, now get a damned ticket. And if you're arrested for a variety of charges, the British Government has taken away your right to a trial by jury. You get 'caught' with a bloody pocketknife, and you'll go to jail unless you can show 'need' for posession of it.
And a bunch of jihadi assholes can parade through a city calling for death and destruction, but if you dare to object to what they're saying, you get threatened with arrest for disturbing the peace.
Barring a miracle-level turnaround in the near future, once-Great Britain is gone.
At Cam Edwards place, found a link to this story:
A man vowed to keep a glowing garden gnome on display today in defiance of a police notice. Gordon MacKillop even faces possible prosecution over the offending ornament.
He was woken in the night by two police officers who warned him that the solar-powered gnome, dressed in full police uniform, was offensive to his neighbours.
They served him with a notice under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 for "placing a garden gnome with intent to cause harassment to Mr John McLean".
For a garden gnome?!?
"When you hear a knock at the door at quarter to midnight you don't expect to be served with that," said Mr MacKillop, a marine surveyor at Devonport Dockyard.
No, you wouldn't think so. After reading this I checked the front page. You would think, instead of busting 'harassing' gnomes they'd be dealing with things like this:
A 15-year-old boy gunned down in a city park was an innocent victim in the wrong place at the wrong time, police have said.
Schoolboy Jessie James was shot three times in the early hours of Saturday morning in a public park in Manchester's notorious Moss Side district.
He was shot with a semi-automatic pistol suffering two wounds to his torso and one near his appendix, police said.
He died at the scene.
And, by the way, since handguns are pretty much banned in Britain, how'd the gang weenies get hold of this semi-auto pistol, anyway? Of course, instead of chasing gang-bangers with guns, the police are pretty tied up dealing with dangerous characters like this miscreant:
A mother-of-two faces a possible prison sentence after swearing at yobs who have made her life a living hell.
For more than two years a large group of teenage thugs have hounded desperate Donna Appleyard who has had to endure relentless abuse, threats and vandalism.
But unbelievably, when the 32-year-old finally "snapped" over the constant intimidation and swore at one of her bullies she was arrested by police and now faces a possible prison sentence if she refuses to pay a fine.
A fine, you say? Nay, it should not be! She should be put in the stocks for a day at least!
Donna, who had lived on the estate for the last 14 years, said the problems with kids had grown progressively worse over the last two years until it is now unlivable.
On a daily basis Donna claims her and her two children, James 14, and Holly, 12, have to put up with a 15 strong group of kids aged between 12 and 17 hanging around outside their three-bedroom semi-detached home.
Donna and her neighbours have had to endure paint been thrown on their walls, plants ruined from their gardens, and late night noise from the gang who stay up drinking on the streets.
Those poor little kids are just trying so have some fun! And you put your safety and privacy and home above that?!? You bigot! You hatemonger! You, you swearer!
Things finally came to a head on March 30 when a desperate Donna finally lost her temper and told her tormentors to "please, just f*** off."
The youths ignored her but two weeks later officers called at her home. She was told a 13-year-old girl had made a complaint against her.
Donna was arrested and charged under public order offences.
I should think so! She must have hurt the feelings of the little
She was handed an £80 fixed penalty notice but refused to pay and was taken to court last month. Magistrates then upped the sum to £120 pounds which Donna must now pay or face a possible jail term.
All funny off. This is a marvelous example of the idiocy that is destroying Britain. The police won't act against the hoodlums, but they will charge you with yelling at them. God forbid you hurt a burglar who attacks you in your home, you'll go to prison for that. An honest subject of the Crown who owns a firearm is treated like a criminal who just hasn't been caught yet, but people who commit a whole range of offenses, including violent ones, now get a damned ticket. And if you're arrested for a variety of charges, the British Government has taken away your right to a trial by jury. You get 'caught' with a bloody pocketknife, and you'll go to jail unless you can show 'need' for posession of it.
And a bunch of jihadi assholes can parade through a city calling for death and destruction, but if you dare to object to what they're saying, you get threatened with arrest for disturbing the peace.
Barring a miracle-level turnaround in the near future, once-Great Britain is gone.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Ah, yes, freedom of speech
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)