"I must tell my brothers and sisters that finding a cure (vaccination) for an epidemic before its outbreak is not allowed in Sharia ," said Maulana Fazlullah during a Friday sermon in Mam Dherai village where he is building a madrassa with local funds.
Yes, MUCH better to have your kids dying of or being crippled by polio than use a vaccine, right? Because then the kids will be martyrs.
Ignorant, hate-filled, bigoted, freaking barbarians. Maulana Fazlullah suspects the intentions of foreign agencies involved in funding drives against fatal diseases: “I don’t understand why foreigners would think of our well-being when we see that they are killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.” He cited the example of a companion of the Prophet who, he said, was ‘martyred’ during an epidemic.
Maybe because the ones being killed are murdering terrorists, and here people are trying to keep your kids safe from a nasty disease? Maybe because we actually care about life as opposed to your worship of death, you God-cursed idiot? And you ARE an idiot. Saleem accidentally sets off his bomb and dies, "He's a martyr!" Abdul crashes into a tree and "The jooos caused it, he's a martyr!" You ever think that, just maybe, if you stopped blaming everybody else for your problems and stopped excusing every damn thing by naming someone a 'martyr' you might actually accomplish something? Besides getting people killed, at least?
Dammit, this crap is enough to ruin your good mood.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Don't forget the Nation of Riflemen
First National Shooting Festival and Conference.
I'm not going to know if I can get the time until April. God, I want to go.
I'm not going to know if I can get the time until April. God, I want to go.
I think my arms are about an inch and a half longer
because of ALL THE BOOKS I JUST BOUGHT!
Library book sale this weekend, and somebody gave me a ticket so I was able to go to the Friday night opening. Damn, it was packed, and with the mild weather hot as hell in that building. But I got a stack of stuff.
May go back tomorrow, as they're refill the empty spots tonight.
Good thing it's about the end of the month.
Library book sale this weekend, and somebody gave me a ticket so I was able to go to the Friday night opening. Damn, it was packed, and with the mild weather hot as hell in that building. But I got a stack of stuff.
May go back tomorrow, as they're refill the empty spots tonight.
Good thing it's about the end of the month.
A note for those planning to buy a M1 Carbine
Whether from CMP or anyone else:
Buy the bolt tool.
Taking the Carbine bolt apart without it isn't too big a deal; putting it back together without one is a first-class pain in the ass.
Buy the bolt tool.
Taking the Carbine bolt apart without it isn't too big a deal; putting it back together without one is a first-class pain in the ass.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Gresham gets it
Smallest Minority pointed to this post by Gresham which pretty much covers it.
One thing he points out is the end result the Brady Gun-Ban Group and the Violence Policy Center Gun Ban Organization(my name for the bastards) desire:
To gun banners, there is no such thing as a good gun. They want them all. When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.
So if you're a cop, in their world you'll have a nightstick and a can of Mace, and that's it. Becuase "We banned guns, so you don't need to carry one anymore".
And we all know the criminals will turn theirs in. Right?
One thing he points out is the end result the Brady Gun-Ban Group and the Violence Policy Center Gun Ban Organization(my name for the bastards) desire:
To gun banners, there is no such thing as a good gun. They want them all. When Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, was on Gun Talk, I forced him to admit that he would like to ban all guns. What about the police, I asked. Once we get all the other guns, he said, the police won't need their guns, either.
So if you're a cop, in their world you'll have a nightstick and a can of Mace, and that's it. Becuase "We banned guns, so you don't need to carry one anymore".
And we all know the criminals will turn theirs in. Right?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
If any question remained about the intentions of the Brady Bunch,
check this out at Uncle. Somebody else noted the same thing, probably several somebodies, but I'm not going to search around for them now.
According to the Brady people, if you have a scope on a rifle or shotgun or handgun, you have a sniper rifle that should be banned. You should not be allowed to hunt unless you can do it with iron sights. There's never a need to shoot at game more than 100 meters away.
I said it before, they'll take anything you can think of about a firearm and that'll become a reason to ban it. Your hunting rifle has a scope, or is capable of shooting 'too accurately', it's a sniper rifle: ban it. How long do you think it'll take them to decide that anything other than buckhorn rear sights are 'unnecessary' for hunting accuracy and should be banned?
Like Uncle said before, they're the Brady Gun-Ban Group. Period. That's their entire aim. And people like Zumbo give them ammunition to shoot all gun owners- including Zumbo- in the back.
According to the Brady people, if you have a scope on a rifle or shotgun or handgun, you have a sniper rifle that should be banned. You should not be allowed to hunt unless you can do it with iron sights. There's never a need to shoot at game more than 100 meters away.
I said it before, they'll take anything you can think of about a firearm and that'll become a reason to ban it. Your hunting rifle has a scope, or is capable of shooting 'too accurately', it's a sniper rifle: ban it. How long do you think it'll take them to decide that anything other than buckhorn rear sights are 'unnecessary' for hunting accuracy and should be banned?
Like Uncle said before, they're the Brady Gun-Ban Group. Period. That's their entire aim. And people like Zumbo give them ammunition to shoot all gun owners- including Zumbo- in the back.
Amazing what comes out of the change machine sometimes
This quarter looks really worn, so I flipped it over to check the date
1935. I've found pre-1964 quarters a couple of times before, but never one this old.
1935. I've found pre-1964 quarters a couple of times before, but never one this old.
Well, well, well, enough yelling about the truth
and even bureaucrats listen.
The Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, interprets the Second Amendment as securing a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (See Memorandum for the Attorney General from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, et al., Re: Whether The Second Amendment Secures An Individual Right (Aug. 24, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olcsecondoamendment2.pdf ). In light of this interpretation, the FAA is withdrawing the statement made in the final rule.
I personally don't like that 'interprets' bit, but the basic problem with the original FAA rule is pretty much cleared with this.
The Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, interprets the Second Amendment as securing a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (See Memorandum for the Attorney General from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, et al., Re: Whether The Second Amendment Secures An Individual Right (Aug. 24, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olcsecondoamendment2.pdf ). In light of this interpretation, the FAA is withdrawing the statement made in the final rule.
I personally don't like that 'interprets' bit, but the basic problem with the original FAA rule is pretty much cleared with this.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
And, right on time, the Brady Gun Ban group jumps in
Monday, February 19, 2007
Naw, the Brady's & Co. don't want your hunting gun
Unless they can get it
A guy found this on the Brady blog and posted it:
The tragic proliferation of Sniper Rifles
I would like to take a moment to comment on the proliferation of Sniper Rifles.
Sniper Rifles are typically equipped with a high-powered scope, and every single one of them can blow through the body armor cops wear. They can even penetrate multiple police cars. Does the Second Amendment protect cop-killer Sniper Rifles? The NRA certainly thinks so, along with the powerful gun lobby that wants your children and your law enforcement officers to be at risk from these weapons of mass destruction.
So, your scoped hunting rifle or target rifle is now a 'weapon of mass destruction' that puts all the kiddies and cops at risk.
Some of these Sniper Rifles can even penetrate ballistic or armored glass, lightly armored vehicles, and armored limousines. Senator Ted Kennedy attempted to solve this with an important bill that would have banned armor piercing ammunition and protected lawful firearm commerce:
"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.....
..It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.."
Yes, that would be the old .30-30, or .30WCF as it was originally know when it came out so recently. In 1894. That must be some kind of deer rifle ol' Swimmer tested; only way I can see a .30-30 puncturing 'light-armored vehicles...even a 600-pound safe' would be if you gave it a depeleted uranium core and boosted it to about 6000fps. 'Course, that would turn the rifle in to shrapnel, but maybe Swimmer(Drunk-Hypocrite, MA) is a bit fuzzy on facts.
Should our elected officials live under the threat of reprisal on their lives from disgruntled constituents? The Gun Lobby seems to think so. We disagree.
Considering some of the crap they come up with, some elected officials should live under the threat of something; it might make them connect back to reality.
Sniper Rifles can be equipped with precision optics above even what the Military uses, allowing a sniper to deliver rounds within millimeters of accuracy - enabling them to engage targets at distances of well over one hundred meters. Is there a pressing need to be able to kill with accuracy at that distance? It is too far to justify as self defense. It is too far for hunting. It is only useful for those who wish to murder from afar.
Hehehehehe, 'within millimeters', 'well over one hundred meters'. God, these people are amazing! I'd point out to them that lots of matches are shot at far over that range, and shots at some game are often over 'one hundred meters', but I think he probably knows that, and just doesn't care to interrupt his tirade about 'sniper rifles' with facts.
Large caliber Sniper Rifles such as the .50 Browning Machine Gun can derail freight cars, shoot down aircraft and helicopters, damage vital ground equipment such as power substations, fuel tanks, and air traffic control, and cause complete chaos. For more information on why large caliber machine-gun rounds must be banned, visit http://www.50caliberterror.com. A shipment of large caliber machine-gun round sniper rifles made by Steyr turned up in Iran, and are being used on our own soldiers, as the .50 bullets easily defeat their body armor, their up-armored humvees, and even APCs.
Now THAT is a new one, a .50 can 'derail a freight car! This must be using one of those Type C Sub-Molecular Explosive Bullets(assuming they existed).
You'll notice that an enemy country using them against our troops is reason to ban them from us revolting(in both senses) peasants.
Many forward thinking, progressive politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have voted against Center-Fire Rifle Ammunition of types for Sniper Rifles, but due to the pressure and massive financial resources of the gun industry, the necessary steps to protect our homes and lives have not been attained.
Ah yes, forward thinking 'progressives', who seem to think stomping the peasants into line and banning anything that makes them wet their pants is a Good Thing. I guess it is, if you think the same kind of socialist crap that's fallen flat everywhere in the world will work here("We'll do it again, only more and harder!*). Note also that it's apparently ALL centerfire ammo, as I've never seen a box labeled 'for Sniper Rifles'.
Sniper Rifles have been used by murderers and spree killers for years, with notable incidents such as the Beltway Snipers, the Clocktower Sniper, and more.
ANY rifle configured and equipped as a sniper rifle has no sporting purpose especially as a hunting rifle. They are too big and heavy to take to the field. Designed for distance shooting, they are useless for the ranges at which game animals are normally shot, and when used on sporting sized game at range they often just wound the animal, inhumanely forcing it to die slowly while the would-be hunter tracks it to finish it off. Most Sniper Rifles fire atypically large cartridges and ultra high velocity ammunition that can travel much greater distances that standard ammunition. The danger imposed from missed shots and ricochetes from these specialty rounds is unreasonable.
You'll note he's not too specific about 'configured as a sniper rifle' other than 'it has a scope and will reach out more than 100 meters'. And this is downright idiotic: they're 'designed for distance shooting', but 'useless for the ranges' of hunting(remember, that's less than 100 meters); super powerful, but can't cleanly kill an animal. Flat amazing.
Most of these rifles carry multiple rounds, with either an automatic mechanism, or a quick toggle action to rapidly move another bullet into the breech, ready to fire into another victim. In most states, they are nearly unrestricted. Anyone over the age of 18 can buy one. If they can't pass a background check, they skirt the NCIS system by going to a gunshow, or finding a private sale in the newspaper. A murderer camped at a distance from a public gathering could quickly turn it into a massacre dwarfing anything we have seen before in the United States, if they had a Sniper Rifle. If they adopted hit and run tactics, entire portions of our country could be shut down.
Actually, sir, an 'automatic' mechanism is strictly regulated. Or do you mean 'semi-automatic'? They're not quite the same, you see. And apparently my old Model 94 is screwed, scope or not, as lever-actions are the only 'quick toggle action' I've ever heard of. John Wayne or The Rifleman and a loop lever, anyone?
And apparently this asshat somehow thinks that a terrorist planning mass murder would be stopped cold by 'A New And Improved Gun Ban Law'. Doesn't stop day-to-day dirtbags, but maybe terrorists will be more accommodating to his ideals.
Sniper Rifles shoot a high powered bullet that is almost always fatal. They are designed for one thing- delivering powerful overkill with deadly precision. You don't need the kind of power and accuracy that can kill a man at five hundred yards for hunting rabbits or defending your house.
But it can't kill a deer at whatever the hell range this guy has decided(for this paragraph at least) is 'normal' hunting range. I repeat, amazing.
We should also give commendations to France because many years ago they designated any firearm capable of shooting military ammunition as a military arm, illegal to posess without a special permit and unlawful to use for hunting. The 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are military weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population. Because they have no hunting purpose, there is no reason for civilians to own them.
Somehow, I knew he'd work the Wonders of France into this. Not familiar with French firearms law, but I have a certain feeling he's full of crap. Among other things, considering the old .30-06 is still one of the most popular hunting cartridges in the world his saying it has 'no hunting purpose' is insane. Same for the others.
Every state in the USA has hunting equipment rules that limit the caliber of firearm used to take game. They also limit the types of rifles, length, magazine capacity, etc. States should amend these hunting regulations to restrict the use of "sniper" rifles, specialty "sniper" cartridges, and "sniper" ammunition. Limits on weight, barrel length, bipods and tripods, thumbhole stocks and pistol grips, night vision type scopes, scopes of excessive magnification, super magnum and high velocity ammunition, and military slings should be imposed. They have no place in the hunting fields of America and hunting usage should not be used as an argument for civilians to own such firearms and weapons. There are more than ample hunting rifles, cartridges, and rounds of ammunition to choose from without them.
Hate to tell you this(not really, but go long here) but the reason they regulate the caliber is generally to make sure you're using a cartridge that has plenty of power for the game in question, not to make you use a smaller one. And what the hell is a 'scope of excessive magnification'? That depends on what you're hunting or the range your target is at. A 'military sling' does not a damn thing except give a way to carry the rifle, again he seems to think low-powered ammo is all you need to hunt with... etc., etc. I take it back, this isn't amazing, it's bloody pathetic.
Let us hope that in a safer, saner America, we will succeed in our efforts to restrict the deadly spread of long distance murder rifles."
In other words, 'Let's name every possible feature that might be found on a rifle and say that makes it a sniper rifle, so we can ban them all!" Kind of like Kerry & Co. going through a catalog to find the features that made them loose bladder control and decreeing that two or more of them make a firearm a 'assault weapon'.
But they don't want to ban your 'legitimate hunting gun', oh no....
A guy found this on the Brady blog and posted it:
The tragic proliferation of Sniper Rifles
I would like to take a moment to comment on the proliferation of Sniper Rifles.
Sniper Rifles are typically equipped with a high-powered scope, and every single one of them can blow through the body armor cops wear. They can even penetrate multiple police cars. Does the Second Amendment protect cop-killer Sniper Rifles? The NRA certainly thinks so, along with the powerful gun lobby that wants your children and your law enforcement officers to be at risk from these weapons of mass destruction.
So, your scoped hunting rifle or target rifle is now a 'weapon of mass destruction' that puts all the kiddies and cops at risk.
Some of these Sniper Rifles can even penetrate ballistic or armored glass, lightly armored vehicles, and armored limousines. Senator Ted Kennedy attempted to solve this with an important bill that would have banned armor piercing ammunition and protected lawful firearm commerce:
"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.....
..It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.."
Yes, that would be the old .30-30, or .30WCF as it was originally know when it came out so recently. In 1894. That must be some kind of deer rifle ol' Swimmer tested; only way I can see a .30-30 puncturing 'light-armored vehicles...even a 600-pound safe' would be if you gave it a depeleted uranium core and boosted it to about 6000fps. 'Course, that would turn the rifle in to shrapnel, but maybe Swimmer(Drunk-Hypocrite, MA) is a bit fuzzy on facts.
Should our elected officials live under the threat of reprisal on their lives from disgruntled constituents? The Gun Lobby seems to think so. We disagree.
Considering some of the crap they come up with, some elected officials should live under the threat of something; it might make them connect back to reality.
Sniper Rifles can be equipped with precision optics above even what the Military uses, allowing a sniper to deliver rounds within millimeters of accuracy - enabling them to engage targets at distances of well over one hundred meters. Is there a pressing need to be able to kill with accuracy at that distance? It is too far to justify as self defense. It is too far for hunting. It is only useful for those who wish to murder from afar.
Hehehehehe, 'within millimeters', 'well over one hundred meters'. God, these people are amazing! I'd point out to them that lots of matches are shot at far over that range, and shots at some game are often over 'one hundred meters', but I think he probably knows that, and just doesn't care to interrupt his tirade about 'sniper rifles' with facts.
Large caliber Sniper Rifles such as the .50 Browning Machine Gun can derail freight cars, shoot down aircraft and helicopters, damage vital ground equipment such as power substations, fuel tanks, and air traffic control, and cause complete chaos. For more information on why large caliber machine-gun rounds must be banned, visit http://www.50caliberterror.com. A shipment of large caliber machine-gun round sniper rifles made by Steyr turned up in Iran, and are being used on our own soldiers, as the .50 bullets easily defeat their body armor, their up-armored humvees, and even APCs.
Now THAT is a new one, a .50 can 'derail a freight car! This must be using one of those Type C Sub-Molecular Explosive Bullets(assuming they existed).
You'll notice that an enemy country using them against our troops is reason to ban them from us revolting(in both senses) peasants.
Many forward thinking, progressive politicians such as Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have voted against Center-Fire Rifle Ammunition of types for Sniper Rifles, but due to the pressure and massive financial resources of the gun industry, the necessary steps to protect our homes and lives have not been attained.
Ah yes, forward thinking 'progressives', who seem to think stomping the peasants into line and banning anything that makes them wet their pants is a Good Thing. I guess it is, if you think the same kind of socialist crap that's fallen flat everywhere in the world will work here("We'll do it again, only more and harder!*). Note also that it's apparently ALL centerfire ammo, as I've never seen a box labeled 'for Sniper Rifles'.
Sniper Rifles have been used by murderers and spree killers for years, with notable incidents such as the Beltway Snipers, the Clocktower Sniper, and more.
ANY rifle configured and equipped as a sniper rifle has no sporting purpose especially as a hunting rifle. They are too big and heavy to take to the field. Designed for distance shooting, they are useless for the ranges at which game animals are normally shot, and when used on sporting sized game at range they often just wound the animal, inhumanely forcing it to die slowly while the would-be hunter tracks it to finish it off. Most Sniper Rifles fire atypically large cartridges and ultra high velocity ammunition that can travel much greater distances that standard ammunition. The danger imposed from missed shots and ricochetes from these specialty rounds is unreasonable.
You'll note he's not too specific about 'configured as a sniper rifle' other than 'it has a scope and will reach out more than 100 meters'. And this is downright idiotic: they're 'designed for distance shooting', but 'useless for the ranges' of hunting(remember, that's less than 100 meters); super powerful, but can't cleanly kill an animal. Flat amazing.
Most of these rifles carry multiple rounds, with either an automatic mechanism, or a quick toggle action to rapidly move another bullet into the breech, ready to fire into another victim. In most states, they are nearly unrestricted. Anyone over the age of 18 can buy one. If they can't pass a background check, they skirt the NCIS system by going to a gunshow, or finding a private sale in the newspaper. A murderer camped at a distance from a public gathering could quickly turn it into a massacre dwarfing anything we have seen before in the United States, if they had a Sniper Rifle. If they adopted hit and run tactics, entire portions of our country could be shut down.
Actually, sir, an 'automatic' mechanism is strictly regulated. Or do you mean 'semi-automatic'? They're not quite the same, you see. And apparently my old Model 94 is screwed, scope or not, as lever-actions are the only 'quick toggle action' I've ever heard of. John Wayne or The Rifleman and a loop lever, anyone?
And apparently this asshat somehow thinks that a terrorist planning mass murder would be stopped cold by 'A New And Improved Gun Ban Law'. Doesn't stop day-to-day dirtbags, but maybe terrorists will be more accommodating to his ideals.
Sniper Rifles shoot a high powered bullet that is almost always fatal. They are designed for one thing- delivering powerful overkill with deadly precision. You don't need the kind of power and accuracy that can kill a man at five hundred yards for hunting rabbits or defending your house.
But it can't kill a deer at whatever the hell range this guy has decided(for this paragraph at least) is 'normal' hunting range. I repeat, amazing.
We should also give commendations to France because many years ago they designated any firearm capable of shooting military ammunition as a military arm, illegal to posess without a special permit and unlawful to use for hunting. The 223, 308, 7mm mauser, 30-06, and 6.5x55 have no place in the hunting fields of France. Firearms shooting these calibers are military weapons only designed for killing PEOPLE and should be kept out of the hands of the general population. Because they have no hunting purpose, there is no reason for civilians to own them.
Somehow, I knew he'd work the Wonders of France into this. Not familiar with French firearms law, but I have a certain feeling he's full of crap. Among other things, considering the old .30-06 is still one of the most popular hunting cartridges in the world his saying it has 'no hunting purpose' is insane. Same for the others.
Every state in the USA has hunting equipment rules that limit the caliber of firearm used to take game. They also limit the types of rifles, length, magazine capacity, etc. States should amend these hunting regulations to restrict the use of "sniper" rifles, specialty "sniper" cartridges, and "sniper" ammunition. Limits on weight, barrel length, bipods and tripods, thumbhole stocks and pistol grips, night vision type scopes, scopes of excessive magnification, super magnum and high velocity ammunition, and military slings should be imposed. They have no place in the hunting fields of America and hunting usage should not be used as an argument for civilians to own such firearms and weapons. There are more than ample hunting rifles, cartridges, and rounds of ammunition to choose from without them.
Hate to tell you this(not really, but go long here) but the reason they regulate the caliber is generally to make sure you're using a cartridge that has plenty of power for the game in question, not to make you use a smaller one. And what the hell is a 'scope of excessive magnification'? That depends on what you're hunting or the range your target is at. A 'military sling' does not a damn thing except give a way to carry the rifle, again he seems to think low-powered ammo is all you need to hunt with... etc., etc. I take it back, this isn't amazing, it's bloody pathetic.
Let us hope that in a safer, saner America, we will succeed in our efforts to restrict the deadly spread of long distance murder rifles."
In other words, 'Let's name every possible feature that might be found on a rifle and say that makes it a sniper rifle, so we can ban them all!" Kind of like Kerry & Co. going through a catalog to find the features that made them loose bladder control and decreeing that two or more of them make a firearm a 'assault weapon'.
But they don't want to ban your 'legitimate hunting gun', oh no....
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Demo #832 that the damned PC mindset is going to get us all killed
Updated
Remember the jerk who started shooting people at the Empire State Building ten years ago? Guess what the authorities didn't mention:
After insisting it wasn't a political attack for ten years, now his family admits that it was indeed an attack in service of the jihad against Israel.
...
"A Palestinian Authority official advised us to say the attack was not for political reasons because that would harm the peace agreement with Israel," she told The News on Friday. "We didn't know that he was martyred for patriotic motivations, so we repeated what we were told to do."
Here's where the PC mindset comes in:
But three days after the shootings, Kamal's family got a copy of a letter that was found on his body, they said. The letter said he planned the violence as a political statement, his daughter said.
"When we wanted to clarify that to the media, nobody listened to us," she said. "His goal was patriotic. He wanted to take revenge from the Americans, the British, the French and the Israelis."
This means that the NYFC PD had this letter, and the FBI damn sure knew of it, and the family told the media he did it for political/islamic reason and none of the bastards thought fit to mention it to us peasants.
Please also note this at the end of the Jihad Watch post:
"He wrote that after he raised his children and made sure that his family was all right he decided to avenge in the highest building in America to make sure they get his message," said Linda, who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees....
So this sorry little bastard brings his family here, to Great Satan HQ, to 'raise his children and make sure the family is all right', and then murders people here in the name of Allah 'to avenge'. And his daughter works(why am I not surprised?) at the effin' UN.
And not a law enforcement agency or the God-cursed major media we're supposed to trust thought his doing it to 'martyr' himself was worth mentioning.
Multiple layers of editors my ass, more like multiple layers of censors.
Update: I'd forgotten this about good ol' 2nd Amendment Supporting Giuliani:
At City Hall, Mayor Giuliani attempted to shift the focus toward gun control. He was accompanied by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son wounded in the 1993 shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train that killed six people and wounded 17.
Remember the jerk who started shooting people at the Empire State Building ten years ago? Guess what the authorities didn't mention:
After insisting it wasn't a political attack for ten years, now his family admits that it was indeed an attack in service of the jihad against Israel.
...
"A Palestinian Authority official advised us to say the attack was not for political reasons because that would harm the peace agreement with Israel," she told The News on Friday. "We didn't know that he was martyred for patriotic motivations, so we repeated what we were told to do."
Here's where the PC mindset comes in:
But three days after the shootings, Kamal's family got a copy of a letter that was found on his body, they said. The letter said he planned the violence as a political statement, his daughter said.
"When we wanted to clarify that to the media, nobody listened to us," she said. "His goal was patriotic. He wanted to take revenge from the Americans, the British, the French and the Israelis."
This means that the NYFC PD had this letter, and the FBI damn sure knew of it, and the family told the media he did it for political/islamic reason and none of the bastards thought fit to mention it to us peasants.
Please also note this at the end of the Jihad Watch post:
"He wrote that after he raised his children and made sure that his family was all right he decided to avenge in the highest building in America to make sure they get his message," said Linda, who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees....
So this sorry little bastard brings his family here, to Great Satan HQ, to 'raise his children and make sure the family is all right', and then murders people here in the name of Allah 'to avenge'. And his daughter works(why am I not surprised?) at the effin' UN.
And not a law enforcement agency or the God-cursed major media we're supposed to trust thought his doing it to 'martyr' himself was worth mentioning.
Multiple layers of editors my ass, more like multiple layers of censors.
Update: I'd forgotten this about good ol' 2nd Amendment Supporting Giuliani:
At City Hall, Mayor Giuliani attempted to shift the focus toward gun control. He was accompanied by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed and son wounded in the 1993 shootings on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train that killed six people and wounded 17.
How safe is a 1911 cocked & locked?
Pretty safe.
Somebody posted this a while back from this thread at High Road, and I thought it's worth looking at again.
John Browning did a nice job on this.
If there were any question that many Democrats want us to lose,
this crap would clear the matter up.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be “relentless.”
“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”
(Mind you, this comes from a Democrat who hasn't seen a gun ban/registration scheme/tax/licensing plan he didn't vote for, who thinks the idea of concealed carry is a horror, who-Suh-prize, Su-prize![/gomer]- turns out to have a NYFC license to carry. Sorry little gun-grabbing bastard)
And let us not forget the sorry little bastards(can't call them crapweasels, as I like ferrets) who 'crossed the isle' to vote against winning:
Republicans Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania sided with Democrats in calling for debate to begin, as did the two Republicans already on board, Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats would be “relentless.”
“There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment . . . just like in the days of Vietnam,” Schumer said. “The pressure will mount, the president will find he has no strategy, he will have to change his strategy and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm’s way and come home.”
(Mind you, this comes from a Democrat who hasn't seen a gun ban/registration scheme/tax/licensing plan he didn't vote for, who thinks the idea of concealed carry is a horror, who-Suh-prize, Su-prize![/gomer]- turns out to have a NYFC license to carry. Sorry little gun-grabbing bastard)
And let us not forget the sorry little bastards(can't call them crapweasels, as I like ferrets) who 'crossed the isle' to vote against winning:
Republicans Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania sided with Democrats in calling for debate to begin, as did the two Republicans already on board, Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Scrapes and cuts and breaks:
the world doesn't end.
Kevin had this post on reasons as to why so many kids are violent- and conscienceless- to the level they are. One of the things touched on was so many kids being taped into bubble wrap:
I don't like pain. Not even in small amounts. However, back in the Devonian Age when I was a kid it was accepted that you would get scraped and you would get cut and bruised and-
So what? The world doesn't end, you don't die, and it'll go away. It was expected that you'd learn to deal with stuff like this, and most parents wouldn't put up with the level of whining- from kids and adults- current on the subject.
After first divorce, one day my ex called and told me son had fallen and scraped the hell out of his arm, and did I have enough gauze or something to cover it? Stuck away in a corner I had an honest-to-God U.S. Army field dressing, the kind that covers a big area and has cotton cloth on the back(OD Green, of course) with arms on the sides to tie it on. I grabbed that and some antibiotic and ran it over. BIG scrape, sure enough, about 2/3 the length of this forearm and all across one side. He was not happy, but wasn't yelling or crying, just said "It hurts" when I asked how he was. "Well, I'd guess so" I replied. Ex had already cleaned it of course, and put some a/b on, so I tore open the package, displayed this gen-u-wine Army Field Dressing and wrapped his arm up.
And- of course- it still hurt, but he didn't really care anymore. It was taken care of, and he had this really neat bandage to show off, so the problem was solved. He never slowed down- neither did his sister after similar mishaps- and they both 'learned that stupid hurts, and pain is temporary', and that they'd heal.
When the kid gets hurt, you give them comfort and dry the tears, of course; but you don't let them think- or make them think, as happens too often now- that it's a big deal demanding bubble wrap and protective custody. I'm fairly tired of some kid falling, and instead of the needed tear-drying and comfort leading to "That's enough, get over it", the "Oh my God, this is terrible!" just keeps on, which keeps the kid going, which leads to the kid thinking any injury is something terrible that DEMANDS serious attention.
Personally, I think this is connected to the parents who get a call about their kid causing problems in school and instead of finding the facts and chewing the ass of the kid when called for, they show up and threaten the teacher and the principal and whoever else comes to mind for DARING to hold their kid responsible to the rules. In both cases the kids get the idea that they're never supposed to be inconvenienced, that any scratch on their precious body is a horror demanding special attention, and that the whole damn world revolves around them.
Kevin had this post on reasons as to why so many kids are violent- and conscienceless- to the level they are. One of the things touched on was so many kids being taped into bubble wrap:
Kids often get hurt playing tag, said Sharon Roland, the nurse at Jack L. Kuban School in southwest Phoenix and vice president of the School Nurses Organization of Arizona.While growing up, my sister broke her wrist. My brother broke an ankle and a collar bone in separate incidents. I broke a toe. Hovever I cracked my head a number of times (requiring stitches - which may explain my current personality), and even did a serious face-plant on the sidewalk once. Most of the kids I grew up with got injured - from cuts requiring stitches to one that was hospitalized after being hit by a car. We were active - and we learned that stupid hurts, pain is temporary, and chicks dig scars. I don't think a lot of our yoots learn much of that today.
They split their chins, scrape their noses and graze their knees, the expected injuries of childhood. But they also knock out teeth and fracture bones.
E'Lisa Harrison's son, Grant, was 8 when he was pushed and fell during a game of tag at Kyrene de la Estrella Elementary School in Phoenix. It was an accident, but Grant spent weeks with a cast on his arm, missing out on a season of baseball.
I don't like pain. Not even in small amounts. However, back in the Devonian Age when I was a kid it was accepted that you would get scraped and you would get cut and bruised and-
So what? The world doesn't end, you don't die, and it'll go away. It was expected that you'd learn to deal with stuff like this, and most parents wouldn't put up with the level of whining- from kids and adults- current on the subject.
After first divorce, one day my ex called and told me son had fallen and scraped the hell out of his arm, and did I have enough gauze or something to cover it? Stuck away in a corner I had an honest-to-God U.S. Army field dressing, the kind that covers a big area and has cotton cloth on the back(OD Green, of course) with arms on the sides to tie it on. I grabbed that and some antibiotic and ran it over. BIG scrape, sure enough, about 2/3 the length of this forearm and all across one side. He was not happy, but wasn't yelling or crying, just said "It hurts" when I asked how he was. "Well, I'd guess so" I replied. Ex had already cleaned it of course, and put some a/b on, so I tore open the package, displayed this gen-u-wine Army Field Dressing and wrapped his arm up.
And- of course- it still hurt, but he didn't really care anymore. It was taken care of, and he had this really neat bandage to show off, so the problem was solved. He never slowed down- neither did his sister after similar mishaps- and they both 'learned that stupid hurts, and pain is temporary', and that they'd heal.
When the kid gets hurt, you give them comfort and dry the tears, of course; but you don't let them think- or make them think, as happens too often now- that it's a big deal demanding bubble wrap and protective custody. I'm fairly tired of some kid falling, and instead of the needed tear-drying and comfort leading to "That's enough, get over it", the "Oh my God, this is terrible!" just keeps on, which keeps the kid going, which leads to the kid thinking any injury is something terrible that DEMANDS serious attention.
Personally, I think this is connected to the parents who get a call about their kid causing problems in school and instead of finding the facts and chewing the ass of the kid when called for, they show up and threaten the teacher and the principal and whoever else comes to mind for DARING to hold their kid responsible to the rules. In both cases the kids get the idea that they're never supposed to be inconvenienced, that any scratch on their precious body is a horror demanding special attention, and that the whole damn world revolves around them.
Comparisons between Britain and here
Saw this article the other day and started to write about it, but the more I wrote the more frustrated I got, and I gave up. Happily, Kevin took on the task and gives us this take on it.
Today, I found a comment from JR in my response to Elmer, and since I hadn't looked at his place for a while I clicked over and found- among other things- this post with a couple of good links. Went to the one at Classically Liberal and, along with other good information, this quote from Professor Joyce Malcolm on the contrast in homicide numbers:
“The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.”
There's been an ongoing problem here in the U.S. in which someone yells about the number of homicides involving firearms here compared to other places, but ignores the total number of homicides(apparently being beaten to death or stabbed doesn't count) in order to say "We need more gun-ban laws!" This quote points out that along with total numbers, you've got to look at how the homicide numbers are figured; if someone is slanting the way of counting deaths to cut down the number counted as murders, you can't trust their figures for the truth. Which makes it harder to argue the point, because sometimes you can't find the actual(true) numbers.
This is much like someone only counting use of a firearm in self-defense as 'real' if the victim shoots: it ignores the huge percentage of cases where the bad guy either finding out the intended victim is armed or having the arm aimed at him sends him away. So by counting it this way they can say "There are very few cases of self-defense with a gun". Dishonest as hell, but they use it anyway.
No particular point in this, just blowing off steam. I'm tired of reading Brit commenters saying they just haven't passed strict enough laws and the police don't have enough power over people and that's why things are bad, and calling us cowboys and vigilantes because we hold that the right of self-defense includes the right to use a weapon if needed.
Today, I found a comment from JR in my response to Elmer, and since I hadn't looked at his place for a while I clicked over and found- among other things- this post with a couple of good links. Went to the one at Classically Liberal and, along with other good information, this quote from Professor Joyce Malcolm on the contrast in homicide numbers:
“The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.”
There's been an ongoing problem here in the U.S. in which someone yells about the number of homicides involving firearms here compared to other places, but ignores the total number of homicides(apparently being beaten to death or stabbed doesn't count) in order to say "We need more gun-ban laws!" This quote points out that along with total numbers, you've got to look at how the homicide numbers are figured; if someone is slanting the way of counting deaths to cut down the number counted as murders, you can't trust their figures for the truth. Which makes it harder to argue the point, because sometimes you can't find the actual(true) numbers.
This is much like someone only counting use of a firearm in self-defense as 'real' if the victim shoots: it ignores the huge percentage of cases where the bad guy either finding out the intended victim is armed or having the arm aimed at him sends him away. So by counting it this way they can say "There are very few cases of self-defense with a gun". Dishonest as hell, but they use it anyway.
No particular point in this, just blowing off steam. I'm tired of reading Brit commenters saying they just haven't passed strict enough laws and the police don't have enough power over people and that's why things are bad, and calling us cowboys and vigilantes because we hold that the right of self-defense includes the right to use a weapon if needed.
The Dresden Files
If you haven't seen it and plan to, Spoilers Ahead. Though not in detail.
Finally had time to watch it, and I was disappointed. Harry doesn't live in the basement, no problems with phones, etc., Bob always has a human image when talking, Murphy is different, HE DOESN'T DRIVE THE BLUE BUG, DAMMIT!
They've changed his past history, instead of the White Council there's the High Council, and so on. Unless the other episodes are different they've made a 'evil monster or evil wizard of the week' show. And screwed it up.
You know what they could have done? Take the first book, Storm Front, and make it the season. You could tell the story one episode at a time and have a damn good show(assuming you don't screw with the characters, etc.) Apparently that just wasn't doable, or maybe it's what someone told me once about editors("They don't like the soup until they've peed in it") that somehow forced them to screw with it.
It wasn't terrible, mind you, just much less than I'd hoped.
Bleah.
Finally had time to watch it, and I was disappointed. Harry doesn't live in the basement, no problems with phones, etc., Bob always has a human image when talking, Murphy is different, HE DOESN'T DRIVE THE BLUE BUG, DAMMIT!
They've changed his past history, instead of the White Council there's the High Council, and so on. Unless the other episodes are different they've made a 'evil monster or evil wizard of the week' show. And screwed it up.
You know what they could have done? Take the first book, Storm Front, and make it the season. You could tell the story one episode at a time and have a damn good show(assuming you don't screw with the characters, etc.) Apparently that just wasn't doable, or maybe it's what someone told me once about editors("They don't like the soup until they've peed in it") that somehow forced them to screw with it.
It wasn't terrible, mind you, just much less than I'd hoped.
Bleah.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Ooh, Elmer has nasty words for me!
After I was so bold as to make my opinion known of Murtha and Pelosi & Co., Elmer left this in comments:
hey! i'm a coward and a traitor too!
Well, nice to have it out of the way
when i'm indicted and arrested for treason, do i get to wear my old army uniform from the vietnam war? with the medals?
You can wear whatever you want. I really don't give a rats ass. Funny thing, though, speaking your mind isn't treason. Acting to damage this country for personal/party gain, to me, is.
murtha will probably wear his full-dress officer's Marine uniform with the vietnam combat decorations.
Oooh, he's a vet, you'd better not criticize anything he says or does!
Sounds like the kind of shit he'd do.
uhhhh have you served in uniform, brave patriotic person? just curious.
Well, at least he didn't come out and call me a chickenhawk. This has been covered before, but I'll do it again: there's this strange thing in this country called the 1st Amendment, which notes my right to speak my piece. Doesn't require me to be in or have been in uniform. The "Have you been uniform?" stuff and calling people chickenhawk is an attempt to shut them up. So fuck you.
when you sling these words around, and apply them to elected officials, you cheapen them and you insult the voters who elected them, because clearly Pelosi and Murtha are doing what they believe their voters and constituents want them to do in Congress about the Iraq War -- and the Iran War Bush is cooking up.
I do indeed insult the idiots who elected these clowns to office. And I wonder about how much they really care about what the people back home think, as long as they can suck up enough to stay in office. In Pelosi's case, she probably is pleasing her voters, which is one reason I think they're idiots.
So Murtha and Pelosi are traitors who represent voter majorities, in California and Pennsylvania, who want them to commit treason for them in the House of Representatives.
Ref their majorities, see above.
I'm a Cut and Run guy myself. We got to bail from this loser scoundrel's liars war. 3200 of my neighbors' children dead already, and Victory -- not achievable, unavailable, not ever going to happen.
My, you live in a big neighborhood. '..this lose scoundrel's liars war', hmm? You mean the one that all those people in the House and Senate voted to authorize? They all liars and scoundrels? Or just the ones now throwing out that "If I had known then..." bullshit?
Bring our soldiers and marines home this week.
Even if they'd rather stay there and win. No matter the bloodshed that would follow. Great idea!
So like ... what's the punishment for treason?
Depends on the country. Hanging, drawing and quartering sounds good.
U.S. Army 1969-1971
SP5 drafted
Massachusetts
Ok, assuming this is all true, for serving in the defense of this country, I thank you. No ifs, ands or buts there. Just like, for their time in uniform I thank Murtha and McCain. But guess what? That does not give them a pass for what they've done since. McCain carried himself as a hero in the truest sense in the Marines; doesn't change that some of his acts as a senator have earned him my contempt and anger, and if I'm not giving him a pass I'm sure as hell not giving Murtha one. Especially after such acts as declaring Marines guilty of murder before any indictment, trial or anything else just so he could blame it on BushMcChimplerBurton.
I think that Murtha and Pelosi & Co. are doing a lot of this shit because A: they hate George Bush so much they can't stand the idea of this succeeding during his watch, and B: they want to use it to try to lock their party into power. Both are disgusting reasons to act. Both speak of a lack of integrity and more concern for their political fortunes than for the country.
If they actually believed the war was wrong, and it should be ended now, AND if they actually had integrity and some balls, they wouldn't be voting on some non-binding resolution: they'd be voting on something with teeth and to hell with political consequences for themselves and their party.
If they don't actually believe it, but they're willing to use it- and the lives of our troops- as pawns to damage this president and to (again) try to lock their party into power, that speaks of a breathtaking lack of integrity and- again- more concern for their party than for the nation.
These things may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they damn sure qualify to me. With the 'slow bleed' strategy Murtha seems so proud of- and the stupidity of using that when we've got troops actually bleeding in combat is breathtaking- they've made it pretty plain that they're willing to see troops die from lack of reinforcements and equipment. Which makes them traitors.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
I repeat: if they actually believed the crap they're saying, they would actually be trying to stop the war because that would be more important to them than staying in office. That everything they do is crafted around staying in office- no matter the price- they're traitorous shits.
And not to be too picky, but have you ever heard of using capital letters?
hey! i'm a coward and a traitor too!
Well, nice to have it out of the way
when i'm indicted and arrested for treason, do i get to wear my old army uniform from the vietnam war? with the medals?
You can wear whatever you want. I really don't give a rats ass. Funny thing, though, speaking your mind isn't treason. Acting to damage this country for personal/party gain, to me, is.
murtha will probably wear his full-dress officer's Marine uniform with the vietnam combat decorations.
Oooh, he's a vet, you'd better not criticize anything he says or does!
Sounds like the kind of shit he'd do.
uhhhh have you served in uniform, brave patriotic person? just curious.
Well, at least he didn't come out and call me a chickenhawk. This has been covered before, but I'll do it again: there's this strange thing in this country called the 1st Amendment, which notes my right to speak my piece. Doesn't require me to be in or have been in uniform. The "Have you been uniform?" stuff and calling people chickenhawk is an attempt to shut them up. So fuck you.
when you sling these words around, and apply them to elected officials, you cheapen them and you insult the voters who elected them, because clearly Pelosi and Murtha are doing what they believe their voters and constituents want them to do in Congress about the Iraq War -- and the Iran War Bush is cooking up.
I do indeed insult the idiots who elected these clowns to office. And I wonder about how much they really care about what the people back home think, as long as they can suck up enough to stay in office. In Pelosi's case, she probably is pleasing her voters, which is one reason I think they're idiots.
So Murtha and Pelosi are traitors who represent voter majorities, in California and Pennsylvania, who want them to commit treason for them in the House of Representatives.
Ref their majorities, see above.
I'm a Cut and Run guy myself. We got to bail from this loser scoundrel's liars war. 3200 of my neighbors' children dead already, and Victory -- not achievable, unavailable, not ever going to happen.
My, you live in a big neighborhood. '..this lose scoundrel's liars war', hmm? You mean the one that all those people in the House and Senate voted to authorize? They all liars and scoundrels? Or just the ones now throwing out that "If I had known then..." bullshit?
Bring our soldiers and marines home this week.
Even if they'd rather stay there and win. No matter the bloodshed that would follow. Great idea!
So like ... what's the punishment for treason?
Depends on the country. Hanging, drawing and quartering sounds good.
U.S. Army 1969-1971
SP5 drafted
Massachusetts
Ok, assuming this is all true, for serving in the defense of this country, I thank you. No ifs, ands or buts there. Just like, for their time in uniform I thank Murtha and McCain. But guess what? That does not give them a pass for what they've done since. McCain carried himself as a hero in the truest sense in the Marines; doesn't change that some of his acts as a senator have earned him my contempt and anger, and if I'm not giving him a pass I'm sure as hell not giving Murtha one. Especially after such acts as declaring Marines guilty of murder before any indictment, trial or anything else just so he could blame it on BushMcChimplerBurton.
I think that Murtha and Pelosi & Co. are doing a lot of this shit because A: they hate George Bush so much they can't stand the idea of this succeeding during his watch, and B: they want to use it to try to lock their party into power. Both are disgusting reasons to act. Both speak of a lack of integrity and more concern for their political fortunes than for the country.
If they actually believed the war was wrong, and it should be ended now, AND if they actually had integrity and some balls, they wouldn't be voting on some non-binding resolution: they'd be voting on something with teeth and to hell with political consequences for themselves and their party.
If they don't actually believe it, but they're willing to use it- and the lives of our troops- as pawns to damage this president and to (again) try to lock their party into power, that speaks of a breathtaking lack of integrity and- again- more concern for their party than for the nation.
These things may not meet the legal definition of treason, but they damn sure qualify to me. With the 'slow bleed' strategy Murtha seems so proud of- and the stupidity of using that when we've got troops actually bleeding in combat is breathtaking- they've made it pretty plain that they're willing to see troops die from lack of reinforcements and equipment. Which makes them traitors.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
I repeat: if they actually believed the crap they're saying, they would actually be trying to stop the war because that would be more important to them than staying in office. That everything they do is crafted around staying in office- no matter the price- they're traitorous shits.
And not to be too picky, but have you ever heard of using capital letters?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
I have GOT to make it to Australia,
where people drink and attack sharks:
"He's just thrashing around in the water but then he was starting to turn around and try to bite me and I thought 'Well, it's amazing what vodka does'." Kerkhof emerged from the fray unscathed, although his jeans were ripped by the shark's razor-sharp teeth. "It's not something I'd recommend to do. When I sobered up I thought about it and I said, 'I'm a bit of an idiot doing it'," he said.
"He's just thrashing around in the water but then he was starting to turn around and try to bite me and I thought 'Well, it's amazing what vodka does'." Kerkhof emerged from the fray unscathed, although his jeans were ripped by the shark's razor-sharp teeth. "It's not something I'd recommend to do. When I sobered up I thought about it and I said, 'I'm a bit of an idiot doing it'," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)