I have a dictionary that defines Fascism as: A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially leftist, parties, minority groups, etc.), the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized government control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc.
Bush: A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship -- No. Forcible suppression of the opposition -- No. The retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized government control. -- No. Belligerent nationalism and racism -- No. Glorification of war -- Maybe.
Obama, so far: A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship -- No, but the large majority and unwillingness to work with the Republicans makes it seem like it sometimes. Forcible suppression of the opposition -- Yes, look what happened to the press in Missouri and Joe the Plumber. Here the media "watchdogs" are literally watching, and not reporting. I expect that to end, though, when they realize that their freedoms are being taken too. The retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized government control. -- Yes, dictating terms to AIG post facto and forcing the resignation of Rick Wagner while taking over GM's warranty obligations. Belligerent nationalism and racism -- No. Glorification of war -- Definitely not.
Kids, Obama is definitely more of a Fascist than Bush was. It also nicely illustrates that Fascism is not a right wing ideology. It's left.
There's nothing you can store in a steel 55 gallon drum that will burn for a few seconds and then explode after being hit with small arms.
There are a few things that will explode immediately. And 55 gallons of it going off will be an impressive blast. Far more impressive than a hand grenade, which has less than a half pound of high explosive; a barrel of explosives would have about 500 lbs of boom in it.
There are very few things that will burn after being hit with tracer or API. Even gasoline will not light after a tracer round goes through and an API will not light it if the barrel is full at impact. Look up vapor pressure. It's the same thing that keeps the in-tank electric fuel pump in your car from lighting it on fire.
The few things that will light don't often lead to explosions, but they can. 55 gallon barrels do not split at the sides and blast outward. The failure point is the crimp around the lid or base. If it's the lid, you get a flaming splash of the burning contents, and a low-pressure fireball. If it's the base you get a flying barrel and a small ring of flaming contents.
I finally took my .45 Colt Anaconda out to the range Sunday. What a honey! With a 6" barrel, recoil was negligible even with the Speer Gold-Dots that were all they had in .45 Colt. Six shot groups fired single action gave a single hole at 15'. This a far more pleasant experience than the 4" .44 Magnum Anaconda I have in the safe.
The 1908 Pocket Hammerless shoots a similar group at 15' too. Not bad for a gun made in 1923. Zero malfunctions with Georgia Arms hollow-points that Marv provided.
Did some shooting of the R604 at the 100 yard line. I can get a head consistently at that range. This was with 55 gr bulk PMC ammo too.
Marv's sister, Sandy, and her partner, Susan, came along. This was Susan's first trip to the range and she was clearly afraid of guns. We had her shooting Sandy's Ruger Mk II and an old H&R 9 shot .22 break open. She did quite well for a first timer. She even fired a single shot from Marv's Bersa. She almost fired the R604, but declined at the last second. She's very worried about recoil and dislikes the louder rounds.
We attempted to kill Marv's eBay flashlight by mounting it to the side rails of his 6.8. I fired the fatal shot! Post mortem revealed that the regulator module had merely come unthreaded from inside the barrel and it's all better now! Take that! Surefire!
Last summer Geff, Tim and I played in my GURPS: SEALs in Vietnam single shot.
I became inspired to make our characters with 1/35 scale model kits.
Some notes about the start follow...
Geff's character took an H&R T223. He selected it because it has a 40 round magazine. The T223 is a license manufactured H&K HK33.
I was OK until I went to find a kit that contained the aforementioned HK33. Dragon used to make an MP.5/G.3 Family kit with a couple examples of every H&K gun. I cannot find that set anywhere.
So, I made one.
Here's one compared to an M16
This is an Israeli Negev light machine gun.
I took the magazine.
Next an MP5A3 was donated from the LAPD SWAT team kit.
And I stole its stock. This worked out well since the HK33 uses the same stock as an MP5, and different from a fixed stock G3.
I next took a G3A4 from a Modern German Paratrooper kit.
And removed the sliding stock base and magazine.
Then we glue it all together.
I'd like everyone to notice the dime. These are tiny little guns.
Tim's character presented my next problem. His character took a CAR-15 R607 and a Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, Pump-Action Grenade Launcher. The R607 I snagged from a Dragon M16 family kit. I had to make the NWSCL GL from scratch.
I used the barrel from an M79 I got from a Vietnam era USMC Recon kit. The magazine is the barrel from an M203 out of the M16 family kit. The stock is from a Mossberg 500 that came in a Nam era SEAL kit. The remains of the M203's parent rifle donated some stuff too.
Because the GL was so much more involved, it didn't get as well documented.
My Mary Sue has an M3 OSS grease gun. This is merely a silenced M3, there's a video of one shooting on this very Live Journal! Making this was simple, I just cut off the old barrel and used my lighter to stretch some sprue. Notice the correct taper? I love when I get lucky.
The really sad thing about this is I had to get 6 packs of 4 figures each to get enough bits to make three Player Character models. Damn their independent thinking and all!
Edit: I added the action bulge to the bottom.
I changed the magazine on the T223 from the Negev to one from a StG.45(M). I think it looks more like the photo now.
I've mentioned before that there's was a growing number of people who would have thought shooting the illegal Mexicans would be OK.
Mexicans are shooting each other now over drug smuggling.
The anti-gun people are attempting to make us feel bad about that. It's not going to work, because we're OK with people shooting Mexicans thanks to people like them.
I've seen "90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the USA," bandied about, implying that it's people like me supplying all those guns. Then they talk about the machine guns and grenades the cartels have. Many times they show pictures. I'm a gun geek and I know an M16A2 when I see it. There were less than 1,000 of those to hit the civilian market before the 1986 ban on new civil manufacture hit. What this likely means is this gun comes not from a gun-owner in the US, but a government agency of some kind.
Since M16A2 are made by Colt in Hartford Connecticut, and FN in McLean, Virginia, I guess you can say they came from America even if it didn't come from a civilian gun owner. I'm willing to bet that if we call Colt and asked them to tell us who they sold that S/N rifle to they'll point us to a government arms room somewhere. I am also willing to bet that the majority of the guns being used in Mexico were exported to a nation to support their drug interdiction program.
I am entirely fed up with being blamed for a problem I am not the cause of. I don't do drugs, so I am not part of the market that the cartels are fighting about. I did not make the drugs illegal, which makes them expensive enough to be worth fighting about. I did not make the border so porous that anyone can wander in unchallenged; if you can't stop someone from walking in without a penny to their name, you are damn sure not going to stop someone with the level of funding the drug cartels have.
But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the everyday average gun owner is the principal source of guns for the Mexican druggies. I have a solution to the problem, that also addresses the illegal immigrant problem. Seal the damn border. Make it so that nobody just can walk in and you also make it so they can't just walk out. Use the Army. It's what armies are for, defending the frontier. If the Mexican government gets butt-hurt about it, invite them to try and stop us. Now we get to use the Marines and they get to overemphasize the "halls of Montezuma" part of the song.
Of course, the real solution is not militarizing the border. It's eliminating the reasons people are smuggling the shit in. Mexicans come here because Mexico is a shit-hole by comparison to the shit-hole jobs they're coming to do here. That would require changing things about how we force businesses to operate and changing the underlying issues of Mexico. Minimum wage, OSHA, and all manner of taxes make hiring illegals cheaper than hiring Americans. And this is all about the bottom line, if company A is using illegals and company B isn't they can sell for less, and they do. If the consumer, that's us, doesn't boycott company A, then company B is losing business because they can't lower the price of their goods because of labor. Just like drugs, it's us that are the source of the problem.
Drugs are expensive enough to kill over. The only way to make that not true is either legalize them or stop enforcing the law to the extent that it's defacto legal. I don't think there's a way to get the demand to go away.
You can’t make people happy by law. If you said to a bunch of average people two hundred years ago “Would you be happy in a world where medical care is widely available, houses are clean, the world’s music and sights and foods can be brought into your home at small cost, travelling even 100 miles is easy, childbirth is generally not fatal to mother or child, you don’t have to die of dental abcesses and you don’t have to do what the squire tells you” they’d think you were talking about the New Jerusalem and say ‘yes’.
— Terry Pratchett
I don’t really call myself much of anything firm when it comes to politics and ideology, at least not without a lot of hemming and hawing and mealy-mouthed qualifiers. I’m a conservative- but socially liberal in a lot of ways, and there are a lot of other “conservatives” that make my hide want to twitch right off. I’m a libertarian, but I want some controls and limits anyway because I think pure libertarianism contains just as many in the ways of crippling ideological flaws as pure Marxism does. I’m a minarchist, but put me in the same room with an anarchist and we’ll rip each others’ fool heads off*- and when you get right down to it I’m not exactly sure where the lines should be drawn for that -archy. At all.
So, I don’t have an ideology so much as I have a number of guidelines. Here are a few of them.
Any system that depends upon people becoming better people en masse, no matter what motivation is offered- spiritual, material, or political- is doomed to failure. More or less instantly, in fact. If it depends on EVERYBODY being better, no exceptions, then it’s not only going to fail, it’s going to go up in flames overnight.
Even if you do, in fact, know what’s good for someone better than they do, if they’re not your minor child you have no right to enforce this upon them in any way unless their poor conduct is putting you in direct danger.
People do not act altruistically at all times. People do not act rationally at all times. People do not act morally at all times. People do not act independently at all times. If your vision depends on them doing so even most of the time, your idea is in trouble.
There is no such thing as freedom without responsibility, or responsibility without freedom. You must take them both together or not at all, and if you think you can get away with it otherwise, someone has sold you an illusion and the bill will be coming due shortly. There is only one natural right: to do as you will. There is only one natural duty: to accept the consequences. The rest of society is a negotiation from this starting point, from contract law right on up to the death penalty.
People are more than animals, and yet animals still. Any system which ignores this truism is doomed to see people fulfill it to the most blatant and grotesque degree.
Likewise, any system that treats people like animals and nothing more has a very nasty series of surprises coming to it.
No idea, no matter how good, survives contact with reality intact. If one good blow will cause it to shatter, it wasn’t a good idea.
Some people will be philosophical in the face of extremity. There is also a reason why such a minority of people are philsophical to any degree at all. Don’t expect philosophical from people in extremis, be pleasantly surprised by it.
People have a hard ceiling on their ability to understand and manage complexity. No matter how smart and rational the people you put in charge are, and how many of them there are, once the system exceeds a certain size they will be incapable of controlling it, only succumbing to the illusion that being in control of the resultant bureaucracy is the same thing. This applies to traffic, economies, religions, and many other systems.
There is no more tragic misapprehension than “we are wiser now”. Assume at all times we are no wiser than we were in the Pleistocene, even if we are more advanced in knowledge. Knowledge is cumulative, the wisdom that comes from experience is not. This is why historical lessons must be relearned generationally. Never assume that that stops with yours.
You are NOT capable of fully controlling the behavior or reactions of another person. If your plan depends on this and nothing else, your plan is entirely dependent on luck. This also applies to crowds, nations, and any other unit of humanity, up to and including significant others.
Stereotypes and labels and prejudices don’t exist because society is rotten, they exist because it’s part of how we cope cognitively with a complex world that often demands decisions based on little or no information. If you think you can or have rid yourself of them, you have merely rid yourself of self-knowledge.
Children may be innocent, but innocence does not imply harmlessness. Rather the opposite. Remember that innocence is the opposite of knowledge. It is not something to be treasured in and of itself.
Children do not receive a visit from the Judgment Fairy on their eighteenth birthday- they rely on their parents for that, and they had better well have as much of it as they can possibly gather before they become adults. Remember that when contemplating when to broach the subjects of firearms, sex, alcohol, or anything else deemed “adult”. When the law deems them so is too late.
Life is inherently unfair and absolutely jam-packed with disproportionate consequences for minor bad decisions. There are more of these aspects that are immune to engineering than aren’t. Treat any and all proposals to engineer the parities of life with great skepticism.
Lack of education can turn a person with great innate intelligence into an idiot, but extra education cannot make a great mind of a person with little of it, any more than twenty years of music school can make a great musician out of the tone-deaf and arrhythmic.
All people are basically the same under the skin by dint of being humans. This only goes so far- merely because someone else can speak your language does NOT mean they think like you, and it is the height of dangerous arrogance to assume as much. Fish have no word for water, and you are probably unaware of most of your assumptions that stem from your culture rather than your biology or specific rearing. Likewise, any assumption that all members of another cultural context think and behave in the same ways is equally mistaken. If you can’t get six randomly chosen people on your home street to agree on pizza toppings, assume that similar diversity and disagreement exists in other cultures, scaling in degree with the degree of importance of the issue.
Freedom for other people invariably and inevitably means discomfort for you- physical, emotional, and moral.
Your causes and ideals are just that- yours. You do not have the right to force other people to work to achieve them, and you do not have the ability to force them to care.
Well, of course they are winning. I am banned, by law, from competing because I am a law-abiding citizen. I point to my sending a Form 1 to ATF in WV to ask permission to lop 4.5" of barrel off my XM177E2 clone.
Drug gangs are, nearly by definition, not law-abiding so they are not much constrained by the laws forbidding the acquisition, possession and use of a wide range of weapons.
I am sure I mentioned before that in 1986 Congress passed and the President signed the "Gun Owners Protection Act." This act did a lot of good in defining what the ATF was allowed and forbidden to do. Not enough, but it was immensely helpful.
Included in this act, however, was the Hughes Amendment. The Hughes Amendment, in a nutshell, forbids the construction of new machineguns for private citizens.
The government is going to be hurting for revenue soon. At $200 a gun a repeal of the Hughes Amendment would generate a lot of dough. I'd be willing to plunk at least $600 here. And think about it, that's $200 per gun that doesn't take $200 in services to generate. We change the rules slightly we can make it cost even less to process the Form 1s!
Right now they run a complete background check on every single application from every applicant. I propose that only be done with the first application. Subsequent applications only checks for disqualifying activity between the previous approval and the current date. The same thing could be done for all the back-ground checks for all guns.
Write your congresscritter, it's for the children!
There are several debates out there in the AR15 world that add up to not mattering to the everyday shooter.
The simple lack of a third position on the selector and the fact we have to buy our own ammo tends to nullify the 4140 vs 4150 debate. You will have to really work at it hard to get a barrel hot enough that it matters with semi. I don't think you can get the barrel hot enough that the differences between 4150 and 4150 CVM show up.
Another "mark of quality" is the magnetic particle (MP) test. This test is familiar to hot-rodders and engine builders as magnafluxing. It's a special magnetic dye that you apply to a part under a magnetic field and it's attracted to cracks, allowing them to become visible.
Why would this test matter in the real world of guns? It really doesn't. The military requires that every single rifle procured be fired with a proof round. This shot is well above maximum pressure. If the gun doesn't blow-up, it passes. The Army added this as a requirement after it got many M1903 rifles that had poor heat treatment that would explode.
Things were fine with this test for a long time, now enter the AR. The M16 would pass the proof test and then break shortly thereafter. This adds MP test to the list of things to do. Seems that the proof charge was cracking bolts and barrels so that they would fail under normal use later, but not enough to fail at the proof test. MP testing spots if the bolt or barrel has actually passed the proof test.
The problem with the M1903 was quickly identified and corrected, but we've kept the proof check for 106 years. The reasons for the cracks in the bolts and barrels during the proof test were found and fixed in about 1969, but we keep the MP test. Also note that there have been studies of guns that never were proof tested lasting just as long as the proofed ones. The MP test is BECAUSE of the proof test, and it seems the proof test is no longer really necessary. But if you proof check, you need to also MP test to make sure the proof didn't break anything.
If you don't proof test, then an MP test is meaningless. If you proof every single gun, you need to MP every single gun too. If you only proof one gun per batch, then you only need to MP that gun.
Mr Scoutten's show, Shooting USA, has every right to air or not air anything he wants. It's his show and his rules. What I am objecting to is his implication that his rules apply outside his show.
He's also wrong about the police being civilians. The police need to be demilitarized and we don't need a prominent member of the gun-press encouraging them to be more like soldiers.
The dress code rankles me. Shooting is not golf. What I mean is that a dress code seems akin to a country club elitist attitude that does not belong with shooting. Shooting should be a common sport, an everyman activity. His ban on camouflage is the silliest part. Many shooting games are designed to improve ones skill as a hunter, and wearing camo is a part of hunting.
I would presume when he bans targets that aren't pre-approved by him that he's also eliminating events such as three gun matches.
His assertion that we should want the shooting sports to be covered as if it were a mainstream sport bugs me too. He's not saying it should be covered LIKE other mainstream sports, he's saying it should be covered AS IF IT WERE a mainstream sport. Mr Scoutten, it's already a mainstream activity, we just aren't televised and, in part, it's people like you who are trying to make it more like golf than baseball (or basketball) who are really at fault for that.
I've encountered his sort of elitism in the gun sports community before and I hate gun snobs. I used to shoot trap and field events. I dared to do so with a <GASP> pump shotgun with rifle sights and extended magazine. I was told, repeatedly, that I SHOULD be using an over-under. Preferably an over-under that cost about ten times what my Remington 870 cost. I was told, repeatedly, that my gun was too slow and unwieldy to be competitive. Guess who did quite well? I've got two third place trophies around somewhere.
It reminds me of when I got my first FAL. We were having fun blasting when one of the benchrest guys commented that he'd NEVER own such an inaccurate rifle. I conceded that his would print smaller groups, but that a battle rifle was meant for a different purpose and it was accurate enough and better than a scoped bolt action in many cases. It went back and forth a couple times and I offered to prove it. We set a couple of gallon jugs of water out at the 100 yard line. First person to hit their jug wins. Ready? GO! He starts to aim, I put the sights in the general direction of the target, bang bang bang bang bang bang bang splash, I win. "But it took you seven shots to hit it!" he exclaimed. "Yup, but that's seven more shots than you took and I hit it."
The more I deal with Harvey's friend, Lenny, the more I realize that he doesn't know a fucking thing about guns.
He's an expert, if you ask him.
He's on a mission to get his step-daughter hurt now, and I know that I will not be able to convince him he's wrong. He bought her an old .32 S&W Long revolver so she'd have something for personal protection. Something is better than nothing, I will grant, but there are plenty of .38 Specials just as cheap.
You may have noticed there's something of an ammunition shortage associated with the ascension of The One. All the normal makers of .32 S&W are backordered while they focus on making ammo for more common guns. Lenny has found a company that loads an 85 grain bullet at 850 fps. That's a little hot for an older .32 S&W Long.
.32 S&W Long dates back to the black-powder days. Many of the makers of the guns chambered for this round didn't make the change to accommodate smokeless powder until long after black powder was quite obsolete. Most ammunition makers load light so as to not be sued by "Lefty" after his H&R Top Break exploded. An 85 grain bullet loaded to these levels should be about 790 fps. The loading he's found is about halfway between max-safe Blackpowder .32 S&W Long and .32 H&R Magnum!
Remember kids, just because you got away with it doesn't make it a good idea!
Why is it we can use a single letter from Thomas Jefferson to the
Danbury Baptists to explain how the 1st Amendment builds a wall between
church and state but we cannot use the Federalist Papers to explain what
the 2nd Amendment means?
Especially since Jefferson's letter was
his opinion alone and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were
the opinions of several of the founders.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 --2005
Seems really appropriate to post on the day the DOW dropped below 7,000 for the first time since 1997.