The daughter of my wife's friend is joining the Navy.
She's never even touched a gun.
Wife's friend said, "Think <McThag> would teach her about how guns work?"
Does she really have to ask?
Even more fun the daughter said something like, "The recruiter says we'll train on the M16, how much can I learn from <McThag's> guns?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, I dunno, pretty much everything because an AR is 95% the same.
We're going to start with the Remington 341 though.
Wish me luck!
31 May 2011
My Rights > Officer Safety
The title says it all.
New Mexico's supreme court disagrees about traffic stops.
Indiana's supreme court disagrees about no knock searches.
The US Supreme court agrees with Indiana.
Yessir, they followed the proper forms and it's LEGAL for the cops to infringe on our rights.
This sort of injustice has happened here before, and it ends bloody.
The American Revolution was fought over such rights. The American Civil War was fought over such rights. Will we go for the hat-trick?
I hope not.
We really need to stop letting our employees tell us how they are going to do the job we've hired them to do. Yes, I understand that means we will have to start standing up to the police and their unions. It's a tall order.
The entire concept of letting your rights be violated and then letting the courts fix it later is fundamentally wrong. Especially since there's a bit of a bias with those courts with regards to getting things fixed post-facto. The situation is your rights get violated and you have no recourse because the court is not going to side against the cops. Sorry for your troubles "citizen" better luck next time; maybe by then the cops will have learned a skill that every pizza delivery driver learns the first day; getting to the right address.
Really read the Constitution some time. The rights of the citizen are paramount, the powers of the government are slaved to those rights. If those rights are secondary to the powers of the state; then the government exercising them is illegitimate. I think we can still use the ballot box to reverse the trend, but I am losing faith.
UPDATE:
What I am getting at here is this: What the cops are telling us is that they have to violate our constitutionally guaranteed rights in order for THEM to be safer. To that I say, "Tough Shit." The laws you are hired to enforce are supposed to be about securing my liberty and rights from the vagaries of others. Giving up those rights so that the hireling can be safer while securing my rights is better double speak than anything George came up with for 1984.
New Mexico's supreme court disagrees about traffic stops.
Indiana's supreme court disagrees about no knock searches.
The US Supreme court agrees with Indiana.
Yessir, they followed the proper forms and it's LEGAL for the cops to infringe on our rights.
This sort of injustice has happened here before, and it ends bloody.
The American Revolution was fought over such rights. The American Civil War was fought over such rights. Will we go for the hat-trick?
I hope not.
We really need to stop letting our employees tell us how they are going to do the job we've hired them to do. Yes, I understand that means we will have to start standing up to the police and their unions. It's a tall order.
The entire concept of letting your rights be violated and then letting the courts fix it later is fundamentally wrong. Especially since there's a bit of a bias with those courts with regards to getting things fixed post-facto. The situation is your rights get violated and you have no recourse because the court is not going to side against the cops. Sorry for your troubles "citizen" better luck next time; maybe by then the cops will have learned a skill that every pizza delivery driver learns the first day; getting to the right address.
Really read the Constitution some time. The rights of the citizen are paramount, the powers of the government are slaved to those rights. If those rights are secondary to the powers of the state; then the government exercising them is illegitimate. I think we can still use the ballot box to reverse the trend, but I am losing faith.
UPDATE:
What I am getting at here is this: What the cops are telling us is that they have to violate our constitutionally guaranteed rights in order for THEM to be safer. To that I say, "Tough Shit." The laws you are hired to enforce are supposed to be about securing my liberty and rights from the vagaries of others. Giving up those rights so that the hireling can be safer while securing my rights is better double speak than anything George came up with for 1984.
30 May 2011
Lest We Forget
"BIVOUAC OF THE DEAD"
The muffled drum's sad roll has beat The soldier's last tattoo;
No more on life's parade shall meet
That brave and fallen few.
On Fame's eternal camping-ground
Their silent tents are spread,
And Glory guards, with solemn round,
The bivouac of the dead.
No rumor of the foe's advance
Now swells upon the wind;
Nor troubled thought at midnight haunts
Of loved ones left behind;
No vision of the morrow's strife
The warrior's dream alarms;
No braying horn nor screaming fife
At dawn shall call to arms.
Their shriveled swords are red with rust,
Their plumed heads are bowed,
Their haughty banner, trailed in dust,
Is now their martial shroud.
And plenteous funeral tears have washed
The red stains from each brow,
And the proud forms, by battle gashed
Are free from anguish now.
The neighing troop, the flashing blade,
The bugle's stirring blast,
The charge, the dreadful cannonade,
The din and shout, are past;
Nor war's wild note nor glory's peal
Shall thrill with fierce delight
Those breasts that nevermore may feel
The rapture of the fight.
Like the fierce northern hurricane
That sweeps the great plateau,
Flushed with the triumph yet to gain,
Came down the serried foe,
Who heard the thunder of the fray
Break o'er the field beneath,
Knew well the watchword of that day
Was "Victory or death!"
Long had the doubtful conflict raged
O'er all that stricken plain,
For never fiercer fight had waged
The vengeful blood of Spain;
And still the storm of battle blew,
Still swelled the gory tide;
Not long, our stout old chieftain knew,
Such odds his strength could bide.
Twas in that hour his stern command
Called to a martyr's grave
The flower of his beloved land,
The nation's flag to save.
By rivers of their father's gore
His first-born laurels grew,
And well he deemed the sons would pour
Their lives for glory too.
For many a mother's breath has swept
O'er Angostura's plain ––
And long the pitying sky has wept
Above its moldered slain.
The raven's scream, or eagle's flight,
Or shepherd's pensive lay,
Alone awakes each sullen height
That frowned o'er that dread fray.
Sons of the Dark and Bloody Ground
Ye must not slumber there,
Where stranger steps and tongues resound
Along the heedless air.
Your own proud land's heroic soil
Shall be your fitter grave;
She claims from war his richest spoil ––
The ashes of her brave.
Thus 'neath their parent turf they rest,
Far from the gory field,
Borne to a Spartan mother's breast
On many a bloody shield;
The sunshine of their native sky
Smiles sadly on them here,
And kindred eyes and hearts watch by
The heroes sepulcher.
Rest on embalmed and sainted dead!
Dear as the blood ye gave;
No impious footstep shall here tread
The herbage of your grave;
Nor shall your glory be forgot
While fame her records keeps,
Or Honor points the hallowed spot
Where Valor proudly sleeps.
Yon marble minstrel's voiceless stone
In deathless song shall tell,
When many a vanquished ago has flown,
The story how ye fell;
Nor wreck, nor change, nor winter's blight,
Nor Time's remorseless doom,
Shall dim one ray of glory's light
That gilds your deathless tomb.
The muffled drum's sad roll has beat The soldier's last tattoo;
No more on life's parade shall meet
That brave and fallen few.
On Fame's eternal camping-ground
Their silent tents are spread,
And Glory guards, with solemn round,
The bivouac of the dead.
No rumor of the foe's advance
Now swells upon the wind;
Nor troubled thought at midnight haunts
Of loved ones left behind;
No vision of the morrow's strife
The warrior's dream alarms;
No braying horn nor screaming fife
At dawn shall call to arms.
Their shriveled swords are red with rust,
Their plumed heads are bowed,
Their haughty banner, trailed in dust,
Is now their martial shroud.
And plenteous funeral tears have washed
The red stains from each brow,
And the proud forms, by battle gashed
Are free from anguish now.
The neighing troop, the flashing blade,
The bugle's stirring blast,
The charge, the dreadful cannonade,
The din and shout, are past;
Nor war's wild note nor glory's peal
Shall thrill with fierce delight
Those breasts that nevermore may feel
The rapture of the fight.
Like the fierce northern hurricane
That sweeps the great plateau,
Flushed with the triumph yet to gain,
Came down the serried foe,
Who heard the thunder of the fray
Break o'er the field beneath,
Knew well the watchword of that day
Was "Victory or death!"
Long had the doubtful conflict raged
O'er all that stricken plain,
For never fiercer fight had waged
The vengeful blood of Spain;
And still the storm of battle blew,
Still swelled the gory tide;
Not long, our stout old chieftain knew,
Such odds his strength could bide.
Twas in that hour his stern command
Called to a martyr's grave
The flower of his beloved land,
The nation's flag to save.
By rivers of their father's gore
His first-born laurels grew,
And well he deemed the sons would pour
Their lives for glory too.
For many a mother's breath has swept
O'er Angostura's plain ––
And long the pitying sky has wept
Above its moldered slain.
The raven's scream, or eagle's flight,
Or shepherd's pensive lay,
Alone awakes each sullen height
That frowned o'er that dread fray.
Sons of the Dark and Bloody Ground
Ye must not slumber there,
Where stranger steps and tongues resound
Along the heedless air.
Your own proud land's heroic soil
Shall be your fitter grave;
She claims from war his richest spoil ––
The ashes of her brave.
Thus 'neath their parent turf they rest,
Far from the gory field,
Borne to a Spartan mother's breast
On many a bloody shield;
The sunshine of their native sky
Smiles sadly on them here,
And kindred eyes and hearts watch by
The heroes sepulcher.
Rest on embalmed and sainted dead!
Dear as the blood ye gave;
No impious footstep shall here tread
The herbage of your grave;
Nor shall your glory be forgot
While fame her records keeps,
Or Honor points the hallowed spot
Where Valor proudly sleeps.
Yon marble minstrel's voiceless stone
In deathless song shall tell,
When many a vanquished ago has flown,
The story how ye fell;
Nor wreck, nor change, nor winter's blight,
Nor Time's remorseless doom,
Shall dim one ray of glory's light
That gilds your deathless tomb.
29 May 2011
Ruminations
It should never be illegal to photograph or film uniformed police. Hey, if they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about; do they? Besides, it's what they tell me when they create some new violation of the 4th Amendment...
Speaking of the 4th Amendment:
The "let yourself be arrested and then let the courts sort it out" argument is the exact wrong tack here.
This is about rights. "Let your rights be violated and the courts will sort it out." But they won't, will they?
To the Fraternal Order of Police: Things that make my rights more secure and your job harder is a feature, not a bug (I lost the attribution for that line).
I've seen video of the Pima County Sheriff's raid that resulted in the death of Joe Guerena. There's no way they went from bright sunlight to positive threat identification in a darkened house in the time between the door being knocked in to when shots are fired.
I maintain that the rules of engagement for the police should be far more strenuous than those of the private citizen. There should never be a situation where the police have shot someone where I would be convicted of murder and they are not. Because an officer is not an individual while in the line of duty; I support that there are situations where a policeman is guilty of murder where I would not be as a private citizen. Cops are not people while doing their duty, they are The State. If any given cop, deputy or trooper doesn't care for this, they can quit and find a job elsewhere.
I am sick to death of hearing about my employees telling me that I am making their jobs harder so I can't. Officer, you work for me and I want your job to be harder. You work for us, we don't work for you and making your job easier is making you a fascist.
Speaking of the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."I notice there's not a "except when we think someone might destroy evidence" or "unless it's drug related" or "if they might be terrorists" exceptions listed here.
The "let yourself be arrested and then let the courts sort it out" argument is the exact wrong tack here.
This is about rights. "Let your rights be violated and the courts will sort it out." But they won't, will they?
To the Fraternal Order of Police: Things that make my rights more secure and your job harder is a feature, not a bug (I lost the attribution for that line).
I've seen video of the Pima County Sheriff's raid that resulted in the death of Joe Guerena. There's no way they went from bright sunlight to positive threat identification in a darkened house in the time between the door being knocked in to when shots are fired.
I maintain that the rules of engagement for the police should be far more strenuous than those of the private citizen. There should never be a situation where the police have shot someone where I would be convicted of murder and they are not. Because an officer is not an individual while in the line of duty; I support that there are situations where a policeman is guilty of murder where I would not be as a private citizen. Cops are not people while doing their duty, they are The State. If any given cop, deputy or trooper doesn't care for this, they can quit and find a job elsewhere.
I am sick to death of hearing about my employees telling me that I am making their jobs harder so I can't. Officer, you work for me and I want your job to be harder. You work for us, we don't work for you and making your job easier is making you a fascist.
NFA Trust Loophole
Been bantering with Weer'd about a potential loophole in setting up a trust to own NFA items.
There's a loophole-but-not-really in an NFA Trust about adding a trustee after the item has been transferred to the trust. New trustees will not be subjected to any sort of background check to now have unfettered access to the trust's NFA items.
The reason I have a trust for my NFA stuff is two-fold. One: my wife has access to the gun safe. Two: to provide a clear path of inheritance for our son (mentally incompetent) and legal method to dispose of those items for his benefit should something happen to us. Check it for yourself, your heir can't sell the item until it's been transferred to them. If they can't legally own it, they can't accept the transfer, and the item will just be seized when you die. With a trust, the trust is instructed to liquidate the item and pay the heir.
Not having to deal with photographs, fingerprints and the local sheriff was just a bonus.
It is conceivable that someone could add a felon to their list of trustees and allow them access to the NFA item. Seems that this is an illegal transfer to me. The transfer would be at the moment the felon became a trustee, not when he touches the item. Nothing about that trust changes the legal status of the trustees to own or handle an NFA item.
I am sick of reading about possible problems as if they are actual problems. Considering CNN's editorial slant, if there was a single instance of a felon using a trust to obtain an NFA item; it would have been mentioned prominently in the story. I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate that people who aren't allowed to legally own an NFA item don't bother to use legal channels to obtain them. Setting up an NFA trust IS a legal channel.
I've seen news stories where a shortened rifle or shotgun was seized. I've seen news stories where a machinegun was seized. I've seen news where such items were used in a crime. I have yet to hear about a legally owned and registered NFA item being used. This is not an oversight on the media's part, I think, since they sure as hell mention if someone had a carry permit when they shoot someone (legally or not).
There's a loophole-but-not-really in an NFA Trust about adding a trustee after the item has been transferred to the trust. New trustees will not be subjected to any sort of background check to now have unfettered access to the trust's NFA items.
The reason I have a trust for my NFA stuff is two-fold. One: my wife has access to the gun safe. Two: to provide a clear path of inheritance for our son (mentally incompetent) and legal method to dispose of those items for his benefit should something happen to us. Check it for yourself, your heir can't sell the item until it's been transferred to them. If they can't legally own it, they can't accept the transfer, and the item will just be seized when you die. With a trust, the trust is instructed to liquidate the item and pay the heir.
Not having to deal with photographs, fingerprints and the local sheriff was just a bonus.
It is conceivable that someone could add a felon to their list of trustees and allow them access to the NFA item. Seems that this is an illegal transfer to me. The transfer would be at the moment the felon became a trustee, not when he touches the item. Nothing about that trust changes the legal status of the trustees to own or handle an NFA item.
I am sick of reading about possible problems as if they are actual problems. Considering CNN's editorial slant, if there was a single instance of a felon using a trust to obtain an NFA item; it would have been mentioned prominently in the story. I am going to go out on a limb here and speculate that people who aren't allowed to legally own an NFA item don't bother to use legal channels to obtain them. Setting up an NFA trust IS a legal channel.
I've seen news stories where a shortened rifle or shotgun was seized. I've seen news stories where a machinegun was seized. I've seen news where such items were used in a crime. I have yet to hear about a legally owned and registered NFA item being used. This is not an oversight on the media's part, I think, since they sure as hell mention if someone had a carry permit when they shoot someone (legally or not).
28 May 2011
A new service rifle?
Of course, there will politics as usual.
Every time the topic of replacing the M16 family comes up, the same old bullspit is repeated to justify its replacement.
People bring up flaws in the Stoner gas system (it's not really direct impingement) without mentioning its two main benefits: 1. the recoil impulse is straight back from the chamber. 2. there is a large reduction in mass over a piston system.
Bringing up the flaws about the XM16E1 that have been found and corrected since 1967 just shows you don't really know what you are talking about when discussing replacing the M4. Just for the record, the powder issue has been settled for decades, you can stop bringing it up like it's germane to the issue at hand.
Pointing out the flaws of the M855 ammunition is valid. Try to remember when calling it a "varmint" round that 5.56x45mm (M193, M855 and or Mk 262) has successfully killed a whole lot of people over the nearly 50 years of its existence.
What we should be talking about, going forward instead of looking back, is: Can we get a carbine that does everything the M4 does right, without the things it does wrong?
Yes. There are damn few things so good that there isn't something better out there.
Should we scrap the M4 entire or procure something almost the same?
Yes. We should clean-slate this. The magazine alone is the cause of many of the M4's woes; the M16 family's magazine well does not lend itself to fixing that problem.
Once you decide that you're fixing the feed system, you are now free to "fix" the ammo. Time and again we find that 7mm (or thereabouts) is the ideal infantry caliber. Time and again we find an excuse to not issue it. No more excuses, let's adopt the best this time. I am a fan of the 6.8; but if we're redesigning the mag there's no reason to be constrained by the overall length of the 5.56 round (which 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel both are).
When starting from a clean slate one must decide what the grunts really need. They do not need a .30 caliber rifle with a 1,000 yard range. They didn't need that in WW1, and we knew it. They didn't need it in WW2, but we couldn't afford to scrap the mountains of .30-06 we had. We don't need it today. Really!
Infantry action is not target shooting. Not all grunts are snipers.
We need a round that can effectively kill at around 400m. That's really all the farther we can tell who we're shooting at. What this will mean is we will be getting fewer rounds for the same mass. Everything is a compromise.
There's more to this, but that's all I have for the moment.
h/t Lex
Every time the topic of replacing the M16 family comes up, the same old bullspit is repeated to justify its replacement.
People bring up flaws in the Stoner gas system (it's not really direct impingement) without mentioning its two main benefits: 1. the recoil impulse is straight back from the chamber. 2. there is a large reduction in mass over a piston system.
Bringing up the flaws about the XM16E1 that have been found and corrected since 1967 just shows you don't really know what you are talking about when discussing replacing the M4. Just for the record, the powder issue has been settled for decades, you can stop bringing it up like it's germane to the issue at hand.
Pointing out the flaws of the M855 ammunition is valid. Try to remember when calling it a "varmint" round that 5.56x45mm (M193, M855 and or Mk 262) has successfully killed a whole lot of people over the nearly 50 years of its existence.
What we should be talking about, going forward instead of looking back, is: Can we get a carbine that does everything the M4 does right, without the things it does wrong?
Yes. There are damn few things so good that there isn't something better out there.
Should we scrap the M4 entire or procure something almost the same?
Yes. We should clean-slate this. The magazine alone is the cause of many of the M4's woes; the M16 family's magazine well does not lend itself to fixing that problem.
Once you decide that you're fixing the feed system, you are now free to "fix" the ammo. Time and again we find that 7mm (or thereabouts) is the ideal infantry caliber. Time and again we find an excuse to not issue it. No more excuses, let's adopt the best this time. I am a fan of the 6.8; but if we're redesigning the mag there's no reason to be constrained by the overall length of the 5.56 round (which 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel both are).
When starting from a clean slate one must decide what the grunts really need. They do not need a .30 caliber rifle with a 1,000 yard range. They didn't need that in WW1, and we knew it. They didn't need it in WW2, but we couldn't afford to scrap the mountains of .30-06 we had. We don't need it today. Really!
Infantry action is not target shooting. Not all grunts are snipers.
We need a round that can effectively kill at around 400m. That's really all the farther we can tell who we're shooting at. What this will mean is we will be getting fewer rounds for the same mass. Everything is a compromise.
There's more to this, but that's all I have for the moment.
h/t Lex
25 May 2011
Popping Judges
Judge John Roll was killed by a psycho in the Tucson shooting.
Shortly after I read about a case he presided over where the author of the article figured that Judge Roll's ruling would not be overturned because that would establish that if you were unhappy with a ruling, just off the judge in question.
Did he even consider that refusing to change the ruling because the presiding judge is dead is telling a whole other camp of whackos that if they are HAPPY with a ruling then assassinating the judge will CEMENT that ruling?
I say we look at the cases on their merits and ignore the actions of the deranged.
Shortly after I read about a case he presided over where the author of the article figured that Judge Roll's ruling would not be overturned because that would establish that if you were unhappy with a ruling, just off the judge in question.
Did he even consider that refusing to change the ruling because the presiding judge is dead is telling a whole other camp of whackos that if they are HAPPY with a ruling then assassinating the judge will CEMENT that ruling?
I say we look at the cases on their merits and ignore the actions of the deranged.
24 May 2011
Obscure Joke.
Ask my wife, I love indie film and I will willingly watch chick flicks. She's an action/horror fan.
Yes, she wears the pants. I have a kilt, who needs pants?
I bought Juno.
Juno's step mother, Bren, runs a nail salon. The name of the business is "Bren's Ten"! I wonder how many people didn't even notice that pun.
Yes, she wears the pants. I have a kilt, who needs pants?
I bought Juno.
Juno's step mother, Bren, runs a nail salon. The name of the business is "Bren's Ten"! I wonder how many people didn't even notice that pun.
23 May 2011
Better to be like Tam than Robb...
82˚ humidity not yet oppressive. Tops? We don't need no stinking tops!
One nice thing about the sixth gen Corvette is the frame was designed from the get-go to be as rigid without the top as with. GM took a beating about the floppiness of the 4th gen with the top off and took it to heart with the 5th and following generations.
Truth is most cars that are designed as convertibles these days are plenty stiff. It's the cars that were designed as full-roof cars that have a convertible version that are sloppy nowadays.
22 May 2011
Damn Science!
There are several things in science that gives unsatisfying answers.
Dark matter is real.
FTL is not possible.
Don't they know I am trying to WRITE here?
Dark matter is real.
FTL is not possible.
Don't they know I am trying to WRITE here?
Fun with Strike Fighters 2
Here's a screen shot from Strike Fighters 2. This is an F-8J from VF-191 Satan's Kittens on the last day of Linebacker II. I've just landed and parked on the forward elevator of Oriskany.
F-8E from VF-162 Hunters ready for landing on Oriskany during Rolling Thunder.
I just love the lighting!
Click to make bigger.
Can you see the boat?
F-8E from VF-162 Hunters ready for landing on Oriskany during Rolling Thunder.
21 May 2011
19 May 2011
Should I be disappointed?
I have been a conceal carry permit holder for almost seven years.
I have not shot anyone.
I have not even drawn on anyone.
I have a grand total of two events where I thought that I might, but they deflated before they came to blows let alone shots.
I sometimes wonder if the lack of "action" has more to do with my being an observant and cautious person than anything else.
I have not shot anyone.
I have not even drawn on anyone.
I have a grand total of two events where I thought that I might, but they deflated before they came to blows let alone shots.
I sometimes wonder if the lack of "action" has more to do with my being an observant and cautious person than anything else.
I have a dirty mind.
I don't know what I am supposed to think of when I see this; but I do know what I DO think when I see it.
Notice it's mounted on a swing for convenient use?
Notice it's mounted on a swing for convenient use?
17 May 2011
Mistake?
"Reparations are a really good way for white people to admit they're wrong."
-- Zack Webb, University Of Kentucky NAACP
Tell you what, Zack. Pay us back the ~365,000 total dead and 275,200 wounded and we'll talk about how much cash we owe you. I am willing to admit that fighting that war to free your ancestors was a mistake, re-found the CSA and put blacks back in bondage. Is that what you were talking about? Because I think we made the right decision there in 1865, but since you're so damned unhappy about it, we can put it right back!
Fucking ingrates.
-- Zack Webb, University Of Kentucky NAACP
Tell you what, Zack. Pay us back the ~365,000 total dead and 275,200 wounded and we'll talk about how much cash we owe you. I am willing to admit that fighting that war to free your ancestors was a mistake, re-found the CSA and put blacks back in bondage. Is that what you were talking about? Because I think we made the right decision there in 1865, but since you're so damned unhappy about it, we can put it right back!
Fucking ingrates.
GOD Says you should own a 1911!
Revelations 19:11: And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.
What caliber you may ask?
Revelations 4:5: Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God;
Note seven spirits, seven rounds in a mag, coincidence? I think not!
What caliber should your AR be?
Revelations 2:23: 'And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
Revelations 6:5: When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand.
Revelations 6:8: I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.
What caliber you may ask?
Revelations 4:5: Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God;
Note seven spirits, seven rounds in a mag, coincidence? I think not!
What caliber should your AR be?
Revelations 2:23: 'And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
Revelations 6:5: When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand.
Revelations 6:8: I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.
Trademarked WHAT?
How can you trademark a name that's been around for at least thirty years that describes something you've never owned?
Now that Disney has applied for a trademark on "SEAL Team 6" can we expect an animated adventure musical from Pixar titled Killing Osama with songs titles like "Mozambique Drill"?
Now that Disney has applied for a trademark on "SEAL Team 6" can we expect an animated adventure musical from Pixar titled Killing Osama with songs titles like "Mozambique Drill"?
Help Me With This
Why are we flooding people out who are only being flooded out to prevent a place that will flood every time there is a flood from being flooded out?
If they'd just listened to me in 2005 this flood would be filling the radioactive crater where New Orleans is and nobody new would be inconvenienced by this latest from Mother Nature.
Of course, we should also allow the Mississippi to change its course as it's been trying to for the past fifty years.
If they'd just listened to me in 2005 this flood would be filling the radioactive crater where New Orleans is and nobody new would be inconvenienced by this latest from Mother Nature.
Of course, we should also allow the Mississippi to change its course as it's been trying to for the past fifty years.
16 May 2011
Conflicting positions.
You may notice, from time to time, that some of my positions on things seem to contradict my position on others.
I've noticed too and I do try to reconcile them. I don't always succeed.
I am a flawed person, like everyone else.
I do try to minimize my hypocrisy, that's more than some at least.
I've noticed too and I do try to reconcile them. I don't always succeed.
I am a flawed person, like everyone else.
I do try to minimize my hypocrisy, that's more than some at least.
Musing...
If the evidence of a crime is so easily destroyed that the police have to knock the door down without knocking; is that really something that should be illegal?
I am not opposed to legalizing drugs. Take all the heroin you want, take all you can. Self correcting problem, really.
I have a potentially novel ideal for enforcement.
Make whatever you break and whomever you hurt a first degree offense. By doing it impaired, you PLANNED on this outcome.
You kill someone drunk driving, it's 1st Degree Murder. Drive home from the bar shitfaced and don't hit anything or hurt anyone, no charge.
I am not opposed to legalizing drugs. Take all the heroin you want, take all you can. Self correcting problem, really.
I have a potentially novel ideal for enforcement.
Make whatever you break and whomever you hurt a first degree offense. By doing it impaired, you PLANNED on this outcome.
You kill someone drunk driving, it's 1st Degree Murder. Drive home from the bar shitfaced and don't hit anything or hurt anyone, no charge.
The Cops, Again.
I tell you, one might start thinking I am opposed to law and order.
I am not.
I strongly and deeply believe in the rule of law over the rule of man.
The recent Indiana State Supreme Court Ruling is not rule of law, it's rule of man, specifically rule of cop.
They say that a cop can unlawfully enter a house and the legal resident cannot resist.
What the fuck happened to the gorram fourth amendment? I know where we lost this fight; when we allowed the cops to enter under the limited circumstances of "probable cause" without a warrant. Look how that limited exception to getting a warrant has turned out.
Used to be the police needed a warrant to enter without the resident's permission. No warrant, no entry, period.
I will put it here, again. If you are a police officer, come to the door, ring and/or knock, wait a reasonable amount of time for me to register that there's someone at the door for the hour you're knocking, when I answer; tell me you are the police, with a warrant, I will call 911 and ask them your name, if it matches, I unlock and open the door and you get to waste time on a fruitless search for whatever it is you think is here.
And nobody gets shot or punched!
Knock that door down and I will shoot any son of a bitch coming through it, warrant or not. I'll die in the responding fusillade, but I doubt I will be alone because the go-to gun is capable of punching most body armor. Just remember, it doesn't have to be that way, KNOCK.
Along this same line of thought is a video about a cop who had to shoot the perp attempting to beat him up and take his gun. Good shoot officer! clearly in this case. What I object to in this case is the commentator introducing the spot applauds the officer's "warrior spirit". If there is one group of people who should not have a "warrior spirit" it is law enforcement. The mentality of a warrior or soldier is distinct and different from that of a policeman; blurring that line or eliminating it will not end well; nor is it playing out well.
I am not.
I strongly and deeply believe in the rule of law over the rule of man.
The recent Indiana State Supreme Court Ruling is not rule of law, it's rule of man, specifically rule of cop.
They say that a cop can unlawfully enter a house and the legal resident cannot resist.
What the fuck happened to the gorram fourth amendment? I know where we lost this fight; when we allowed the cops to enter under the limited circumstances of "probable cause" without a warrant. Look how that limited exception to getting a warrant has turned out.
Used to be the police needed a warrant to enter without the resident's permission. No warrant, no entry, period.
I will put it here, again. If you are a police officer, come to the door, ring and/or knock, wait a reasonable amount of time for me to register that there's someone at the door for the hour you're knocking, when I answer; tell me you are the police, with a warrant, I will call 911 and ask them your name, if it matches, I unlock and open the door and you get to waste time on a fruitless search for whatever it is you think is here.
And nobody gets shot or punched!
Knock that door down and I will shoot any son of a bitch coming through it, warrant or not. I'll die in the responding fusillade, but I doubt I will be alone because the go-to gun is capable of punching most body armor. Just remember, it doesn't have to be that way, KNOCK.
Along this same line of thought is a video about a cop who had to shoot the perp attempting to beat him up and take his gun. Good shoot officer! clearly in this case. What I object to in this case is the commentator introducing the spot applauds the officer's "warrior spirit". If there is one group of people who should not have a "warrior spirit" it is law enforcement. The mentality of a warrior or soldier is distinct and different from that of a policeman; blurring that line or eliminating it will not end well; nor is it playing out well.
13 May 2011
Gee, yah think?
Recently Florida passed a law making it far more difficult to commit voter fraud.
You have to read the bill to understand that.
Interestingly, there are no Republicans complaining about this change.
There sure are a bunch (but not all) of Democrats screaming bloody murder over it.
The key provisions make it very difficult to mass process voter registrations because you have a very small window from filling it out to getting it submitted.
Here's my take.
Voting is your sovereign right and duty as a US citizen.
You should be voting every single election and be informed of your candidate's positions.
I don't think anyone should be forced to vote.
I think that registering to vote should be simple.
Simple and irritating.
Like you have to show up at the election office in person with three forms of ID and spend an hour waiting to be processed. They make sure you are who you say you are and that you are eligible.
Let's be honest. Anyone who will not take that minimum amount of effort to get registered is probably not someone who will vote wisely. Remember how I said you should be informed?
The next provision is about changing your address. They cite that college students move a lot and that this disenfranchises them. Bullshit! What they are really saying is that college students don't bother with changing their address on their voter registration and don't worry about it until election day. What this provision really does is to make sure that someone isn't using the change your address at the poll process to make multiple votes.
Why would making it harder for one person to cast more than one vote bother one party and not the other?
The last provision they are complaining about is the shortening of the window where you can cast early ballots.
I'd have eliminated early ballots altogether.
If you can't take time on election day to show up, I don't think you're serious about the process and I don't think you should be voting.
I'd also make absentee ballots much harder. You'd have to be out of the country on pressing national business to get one. You know, like military or state department postings.
Again, if you can't be bothered to physically go to the polls on election day, you are not serious about the election and I don't want you voting.
Demanding that people take time off from work or their lives to vote demonstrates that this is a solemn duty that is literally more important than work or play. Making them physically show up also ensures that we get one person, one vote and that one person is who is actually casting the vote.
You have to read the bill to understand that.
Interestingly, there are no Republicans complaining about this change.
There sure are a bunch (but not all) of Democrats screaming bloody murder over it.
The key provisions make it very difficult to mass process voter registrations because you have a very small window from filling it out to getting it submitted.
Here's my take.
Voting is your sovereign right and duty as a US citizen.
You should be voting every single election and be informed of your candidate's positions.
I don't think anyone should be forced to vote.
I think that registering to vote should be simple.
Simple and irritating.
Like you have to show up at the election office in person with three forms of ID and spend an hour waiting to be processed. They make sure you are who you say you are and that you are eligible.
Let's be honest. Anyone who will not take that minimum amount of effort to get registered is probably not someone who will vote wisely. Remember how I said you should be informed?
The next provision is about changing your address. They cite that college students move a lot and that this disenfranchises them. Bullshit! What they are really saying is that college students don't bother with changing their address on their voter registration and don't worry about it until election day. What this provision really does is to make sure that someone isn't using the change your address at the poll process to make multiple votes.
Why would making it harder for one person to cast more than one vote bother one party and not the other?
The last provision they are complaining about is the shortening of the window where you can cast early ballots.
I'd have eliminated early ballots altogether.
If you can't take time on election day to show up, I don't think you're serious about the process and I don't think you should be voting.
I'd also make absentee ballots much harder. You'd have to be out of the country on pressing national business to get one. You know, like military or state department postings.
Again, if you can't be bothered to physically go to the polls on election day, you are not serious about the election and I don't want you voting.
Demanding that people take time off from work or their lives to vote demonstrates that this is a solemn duty that is literally more important than work or play. Making them physically show up also ensures that we get one person, one vote and that one person is who is actually casting the vote.
12 May 2011
Killer App
Ace of Spades has a quote from Ron Paul about how we should have been more nuanced about going after Bin Laden.
The one thing the Libertarians miss, over and over, is War is the killer app of the state.
Hate to break it to you, Ron, but we'd been working with the Pakistanis for years and they kept tipping him off and we kept missing him. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Did we violate Osama's civil rights?
No.
Let me say that again: NO!
Foreign nationals on foreign soil do not have any constitutionally protected rights. Foreign nationals on US soil without a visa likewise have no protected rights. US citizens regardless of where they are have protected rights. Foreign nationals with a visa AND on US soil have them too.
This is only with regards to the United States government.
The entire nation state model was not planned, it happened through centuries of trial and error. It also worked for centuries. Shall we call the experiment in multi-nationalism done and reboot to the last known good "state"?
PS: Libertarians have a lot of trouble with the idea of a nation state too. I remind you that libertarianism is too damn simple to have never been tried in the wild. It does not seem to have left a history anywhere, therefore it must not work in the real world. Part of me is sad about that, there's a lot of admirable bits to the philosophy, but I demand a social contract that will survive contact with reality.
The one thing the Libertarians miss, over and over, is War is the killer app of the state.
Hate to break it to you, Ron, but we'd been working with the Pakistanis for years and they kept tipping him off and we kept missing him. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Did we violate Osama's civil rights?
No.
Let me say that again: NO!
Foreign nationals on foreign soil do not have any constitutionally protected rights. Foreign nationals on US soil without a visa likewise have no protected rights. US citizens regardless of where they are have protected rights. Foreign nationals with a visa AND on US soil have them too.
This is only with regards to the United States government.
The entire nation state model was not planned, it happened through centuries of trial and error. It also worked for centuries. Shall we call the experiment in multi-nationalism done and reboot to the last known good "state"?
PS: Libertarians have a lot of trouble with the idea of a nation state too. I remind you that libertarianism is too damn simple to have never been tried in the wild. It does not seem to have left a history anywhere, therefore it must not work in the real world. Part of me is sad about that, there's a lot of admirable bits to the philosophy, but I demand a social contract that will survive contact with reality.
11 May 2011
Giving Rifles Girls Names
Why?
First there's the obvious Full Metal Jacket reference.
Second it's amusing.
Third, it became useful. Saying Kaylee was a lot easier than saying, "the carbine with the M4 profile barrel, fiberlite stock, C7 upper and Israeli furnature."
I didn't get the idea to do it until I was reading on Doc Russia's blog about his 6.5 build. I was 90% done in ordering parts for Dottie when I commented on this "buying a 6.5" post that except for chambering we were ordering the same gun. Then he went all furry on my caliber choice. At that moment the name would stick because he was so offended by 6.8.
Also for the record. I passed my 500 round mark before he passed his 1 round mark because, unlike Alexander Arms, the 6.8 makers were shipping.
First there's the obvious Full Metal Jacket reference.
Second it's amusing.
Third, it became useful. Saying Kaylee was a lot easier than saying, "the carbine with the M4 profile barrel, fiberlite stock, C7 upper and Israeli furnature."
I didn't get the idea to do it until I was reading on Doc Russia's blog about his 6.5 build. I was 90% done in ordering parts for Dottie when I commented on this "buying a 6.5" post that except for chambering we were ordering the same gun. Then he went all furry on my caliber choice. At that moment the name would stick because he was so offended by 6.8.
Also for the record. I passed my 500 round mark before he passed his 1 round mark because, unlike Alexander Arms, the 6.8 makers were shipping.
10 May 2011
The Heart Wants What The Heart Wants
I have built a couple three AR-15's now.
Most had an idea in mind when I started and they are now what I had in mind.
Kaylee is an oddity in that I had a plan and I didn't even get close. Sabrina is the culmination of that plan. Kaylee now represents a different plan, so it worked out.
Two guns, Brunhilda and Tabitha were clearing the parts bin. Times got a bit rough, so I sold Brunhilda; but not before the buyer asked for a lot of changes. That meant that the parts bin got parts put back in!
Tabitha emptied those parts back out; and I just love how she came out. Even her lower was a leftover from making Charlotte correct. The upper was left over from getting parts for Sabrina, and then leftover from Brunhilda. The charging handle was left over from getting a gray one for Sabrina. The lower and bolt carrier group (the bolt was a spare) were left over from Charlotte. The barrel was left over from Dottie. The lower parts kit was a spare, the stock was a spare, the pistol grip was my most battered one that I had bought just in case I couldn't get a better one for Sabrina. About all that was new was the handguards, gas tube and flash-hider.
I've said all that before.
What I didn't expect from this build was just how well she would fit. The vintage parts are not the best cosmetically; but there's nothing functionally wrong with them.
Tabitha is light, well balanced and shoots well. I didn't expect to like her, but I do. She's a keeper.
For the record for those scoring at home (below the fold):
Most had an idea in mind when I started and they are now what I had in mind.
Kaylee is an oddity in that I had a plan and I didn't even get close. Sabrina is the culmination of that plan. Kaylee now represents a different plan, so it worked out.
Two guns, Brunhilda and Tabitha were clearing the parts bin. Times got a bit rough, so I sold Brunhilda; but not before the buyer asked for a lot of changes. That meant that the parts bin got parts put back in!
Tabitha emptied those parts back out; and I just love how she came out. Even her lower was a leftover from making Charlotte correct. The upper was left over from getting parts for Sabrina, and then leftover from Brunhilda. The charging handle was left over from getting a gray one for Sabrina. The lower and bolt carrier group (the bolt was a spare) were left over from Charlotte. The barrel was left over from Dottie. The lower parts kit was a spare, the stock was a spare, the pistol grip was my most battered one that I had bought just in case I couldn't get a better one for Sabrina. About all that was new was the handguards, gas tube and flash-hider.
I've said all that before.
What I didn't expect from this build was just how well she would fit. The vintage parts are not the best cosmetically; but there's nothing functionally wrong with them.
Tabitha is light, well balanced and shoots well. I didn't expect to like her, but I do. She's a keeper.
For the record for those scoring at home (below the fold):
08 May 2011
Justice for Osama
"They should have brought the son-of-a-bitch back to New York, pickled him in alcohol and mounted on top of the ground zero mosque with porkchop in his mouth with a fireman's axe up his ass."
TICO Warbird Museum
After the Atlas launch, we went to the Warbird Museum.
I'd been there before in 2001. They had an example of one of my favorite birds, an F-8 Crusader.
They've fixed her up a bit since then. Turns out she's an F-8K, a rebuild of an F-8C.
I'd been there before in 2001. They had an example of one of my favorite birds, an F-8 Crusader.
They've fixed her up a bit since then. Turns out she's an F-8K, a rebuild of an F-8C.
Just for fun, an F-8C from VMF-333 made with Strike Fighters 2.
07 May 2011
Atlas V with SBIRS GEO-1 Launch
We staked out the parking lot, tethered the phones and surfed the internet until launch time.
MVI_2454.AVI
I didn't choose the most comfortable place to set up, but it was a nice day.
The haze that we had early on started to burn off when we got close to launch. This is the VAB.
It's a little hard to see, but just to the left of that tower in the center is SLC-41.
It got a lot easier to spot once the engines fired.
MVI_2454.AVI
Some post launch contrail fading out. It's amazing how much the wind distorts the arrow straight path.
Without solids there's not a lot of noise and very little smoke.
Waiting for a launch again.
Here in Titusville again waiting for the USAF to fire off an Atlas V carrying a SBIRS GEO-1 to look for missile launches.
Many fewer people come out for these little guys, but I still think it's magical.
UPDATE:
Pre-launch pics from our secret launch location.
Many fewer people come out for these little guys, but I still think it's magical.
UPDATE:
Pre-launch pics from our secret launch location.
06 May 2011
Quote of the moment twofer!
From Warning Signs.
“In 2008 we voted for Obama to prove we were not racists. In 2012 we must vote for someone else to prove we are not idiots.”
“In 2008 we voted for Obama to prove we were not racists. In 2012 we must vote for someone else to prove we are not idiots.”
Postal Match!
Borepatch has posted the rules for a postal match.
Here is my preliminary entry:
I score it as 50. I swear I did not cheat in ANY way.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Here is my preliminary entry:
I score it as 50. I swear I did not cheat in ANY way.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Thought of the moment
Is owning both a Glock and ammunition for it constructive intent to build a destructive device?
05 May 2011
Should we let granny starve?
When someone starts talking about whether we should reform social security, medicaid and/or medicare; we always hear about the doom and gloom of how grandpa and grandma are going to die, starving, in the dark.
Let me point out something that I don't think I have seen yet. I've been aware that those entitlement programs have been doomed to bankruptcy for decades. Since the early eighties at least. That means that people getting ready to enter the system today were in their mid to late thirties. That's more than enough time to set up something that ensured that they wouldn't die starving in the dark. The information was out there and obvious enough that I, a high school student at the time, noticed.
Grandpa and Grandma essentially have chosen to fuck us because they couldn't be bothered to plan ahead against this eventuality.
So I say, fuck them! Let them starve. Let them die of easily curable diseases. The chance to avoid this mess was in their hands before I even got a chance to vote, they chose to make this bed, let them lie in it!
If a particular grandparent is near and dear to you, clean out the spare bedroom and move them in. It's not my problem that your parents/grandparents didn't plan ahead. I deeply resent that I am likely not going to be able to make such plans myself as their decisions from thirty years ago consume all of the funds that I would have used to make a retirement account.
Grandma and Grandpa don't care if I starve in the dark, why should I care if they do? Letting them starve now means I don't starve later.
Never make me choose between me and you. I pick you every time.
Let me point out something that I don't think I have seen yet. I've been aware that those entitlement programs have been doomed to bankruptcy for decades. Since the early eighties at least. That means that people getting ready to enter the system today were in their mid to late thirties. That's more than enough time to set up something that ensured that they wouldn't die starving in the dark. The information was out there and obvious enough that I, a high school student at the time, noticed.
Grandpa and Grandma essentially have chosen to fuck us because they couldn't be bothered to plan ahead against this eventuality.
So I say, fuck them! Let them starve. Let them die of easily curable diseases. The chance to avoid this mess was in their hands before I even got a chance to vote, they chose to make this bed, let them lie in it!
If a particular grandparent is near and dear to you, clean out the spare bedroom and move them in. It's not my problem that your parents/grandparents didn't plan ahead. I deeply resent that I am likely not going to be able to make such plans myself as their decisions from thirty years ago consume all of the funds that I would have used to make a retirement account.
Grandma and Grandpa don't care if I starve in the dark, why should I care if they do? Letting them starve now means I don't starve later.
Never make me choose between me and you. I pick you every time.
04 May 2011
It's obvious when you think about it.
There's a misapprehension about what soldiers are, I think.
People seem to think they are the police.
The military's job really does gel down to "kill people and break stuff".
That they also take prisoners shows our compassion, but it's not "job 1" as it were.
There are lots of contrasts that should make the differences between cops and soldiers obvious. Not least of which is what happens to a prisoner of war. They are captured and interred until the war is over. This interment is open ended and its length is not altered by the rank or behavior of the prisoner. There are no trials or evidence presented to decide if they should be incarcerated.
Capturing the enemy on the battlefield is not an arrest. A prisoner of war is not necessarily a criminal. At the end of the war a POW is returned home without sanction.
People also seem to think that soldiers must always accept a surrender and take prisoners. This is not required by the rules of war. The key phrase about prisoners is, "when practicable". Surrendered troops can be summarily executed if the capturing unit has no means to guard or care for them. Yes, children, war sucks. We do have a policy of taking as many prisoners as we can though.
If the enemy thinks that he will be slain if he surrenders, he will feel he has nothing to lose by fighting to the last. Taking prisoners encourages him to quit once it his situation becomes hopeless; saving lives on both sides.
This stuff is why the laws of war (things like the Hague and Geneva Conventions) specify things like identifiable uniforms for combatants. So that we know that the surrendering person is a soldier. Partizans and spies can be executed summarily regardless of "when practicable".
Which brings us to the current situation. Please show me the official uniform of the people we are fighting. The clothing and insignia that distinguishes them from the local citizenry.
Anyone?
Combatants out of uniform are non-entities to the laws of war. Since we can kill them out of hand, anything less is showing how compassionate we are. Harsh things are allowed to be done to partizans and spies. This is entirely to encourage the fighters of both sides to put on uniforms!
When they start putting on uniforms I will start caring in the slightest about waterboarding.
When they start treating our troops in accordance with the rules of war, I will care about how they think about waterboarding.
Until then, however...
People seem to think they are the police.
The military's job really does gel down to "kill people and break stuff".
That they also take prisoners shows our compassion, but it's not "job 1" as it were.
There are lots of contrasts that should make the differences between cops and soldiers obvious. Not least of which is what happens to a prisoner of war. They are captured and interred until the war is over. This interment is open ended and its length is not altered by the rank or behavior of the prisoner. There are no trials or evidence presented to decide if they should be incarcerated.
Capturing the enemy on the battlefield is not an arrest. A prisoner of war is not necessarily a criminal. At the end of the war a POW is returned home without sanction.
People also seem to think that soldiers must always accept a surrender and take prisoners. This is not required by the rules of war. The key phrase about prisoners is, "when practicable". Surrendered troops can be summarily executed if the capturing unit has no means to guard or care for them. Yes, children, war sucks. We do have a policy of taking as many prisoners as we can though.
If the enemy thinks that he will be slain if he surrenders, he will feel he has nothing to lose by fighting to the last. Taking prisoners encourages him to quit once it his situation becomes hopeless; saving lives on both sides.
This stuff is why the laws of war (things like the Hague and Geneva Conventions) specify things like identifiable uniforms for combatants. So that we know that the surrendering person is a soldier. Partizans and spies can be executed summarily regardless of "when practicable".
Which brings us to the current situation. Please show me the official uniform of the people we are fighting. The clothing and insignia that distinguishes them from the local citizenry.
Anyone?
Combatants out of uniform are non-entities to the laws of war. Since we can kill them out of hand, anything less is showing how compassionate we are. Harsh things are allowed to be done to partizans and spies. This is entirely to encourage the fighters of both sides to put on uniforms!
When they start putting on uniforms I will start caring in the slightest about waterboarding.
When they start treating our troops in accordance with the rules of war, I will care about how they think about waterboarding.
Until then, however...
03 May 2011
Now that I have that out of my system...
SB234 was not a complete disaster. It does help great deal with an existing problem. It's not what I hoped for, but it most definitely is a step in the right direction.
We'll get them next time, I guess.
Giving the state preemption real teeth is another gigantic step in the right direction. That should make Orlando's gun shows a little more interesting.
We'll get them next time, I guess.
Giving the state preemption real teeth is another gigantic step in the right direction. That should make Orlando's gun shows a little more interesting.
Sovereignty
To claim sovereignty, one must exert it.
This is why I don't feel too bad about our incursion in Pakistan.
This is why we must get our border with Mexico in order.
This is why I don't feel too bad about our incursion in Pakistan.
This is why we must get our border with Mexico in order.
Cops as lobbyists.
Several police and sheriff's organizations lobbied hard against the open carry bill.
The universities lobbied against the campus carry provisions.
Our employees are telling us what we will have.
No!
You are our employees, you work FOR us, NOT AGAINST us.
We want open carry, you accommodate us, we don't accommodate you.
We want campus carry, you adapt, we don't.
How about we just cut funding for you? You job gets a lot harder with less money, doesn't it? You seem to have too much since you can afford to spend it lobbying against my wishes. Let's just figure out what you spent fighting this bill and we clip your budget by that amount.
Deal?
The universities lobbied against the campus carry provisions.
Our employees are telling us what we will have.
No!
You are our employees, you work FOR us, NOT AGAINST us.
We want open carry, you accommodate us, we don't accommodate you.
We want campus carry, you adapt, we don't.
How about we just cut funding for you? You job gets a lot harder with less money, doesn't it? You seem to have too much since you can afford to spend it lobbying against my wishes. Let's just figure out what you spent fighting this bill and we clip your budget by that amount.
Deal?
I'll try to be polite about this...
Read this first.
Back?
Ms Hammer, while this may have started as a USF and NRA bill, you might notice that it started growing legs once the open carry people found out and got on board.
We feel sold out because we wrote lots of letters, made phone calls and sent e-mails while it was in committee to get it to the floor. We objected strenuously to the neutering while it was in the judicial committee.
We are outraged that the same amendment we rejected in that committee was reintroduced by the same senator who had proposed it previously. We were not mollified when it was allowed without debate or objection! Your tone in your reply makes it sound like you think we didn't log onto the Florida senate's live feed to watch the sausage being made.
Now we're upset, but this is progress, we can live with it until next time...
Until we hear from Senator Bogdanoff that the amendment was suggested and supported by the NRA. Tell me, Ms Hammer, who is lying? You with your claim that this was the NRA's bill all along or Sen Bogdanoff who said you didn't get on board until it had been neutered?
Please stop acting like you are the only person we can go to for information. The staffers are chattering about the back room wheeling and dealing, ma'am.
If this bill was, and always had been, about protecting the CCW holder from accidental exposure, why was it written as an open carry bill. Seems the verbiage that was amended into it would have sufficed from day one. But the original bill was for open carry, and that was the bill we wanted and supported. You don't get to be insulted that we're angry about being short sheeted by the NRA at the last minute.
I will point it out again. Why did the AWB expire rather than be repealed? The NRA did nothing. Why is the Brady Act still law? The NRA does nothing. Why does the Hughes amendment still stand? The NRA does nothing.
Those are three easy ones, Ms Hammer. Show me the NRA backing the repeal of those three laws each and every session until they are repealed and I'll start to believe you guys didn't stab us in the back, again.
If we'd waited around for the NRA to start moving, we'd not have either the Heller or MacDonald decisions. Two cases you tried to horn in on and derail.
Starting to see why we're getting pissed off now?
Back?
Ms Hammer, while this may have started as a USF and NRA bill, you might notice that it started growing legs once the open carry people found out and got on board.
We feel sold out because we wrote lots of letters, made phone calls and sent e-mails while it was in committee to get it to the floor. We objected strenuously to the neutering while it was in the judicial committee.
We are outraged that the same amendment we rejected in that committee was reintroduced by the same senator who had proposed it previously. We were not mollified when it was allowed without debate or objection! Your tone in your reply makes it sound like you think we didn't log onto the Florida senate's live feed to watch the sausage being made.
Now we're upset, but this is progress, we can live with it until next time...
Until we hear from Senator Bogdanoff that the amendment was suggested and supported by the NRA. Tell me, Ms Hammer, who is lying? You with your claim that this was the NRA's bill all along or Sen Bogdanoff who said you didn't get on board until it had been neutered?
Please stop acting like you are the only person we can go to for information. The staffers are chattering about the back room wheeling and dealing, ma'am.
If this bill was, and always had been, about protecting the CCW holder from accidental exposure, why was it written as an open carry bill. Seems the verbiage that was amended into it would have sufficed from day one. But the original bill was for open carry, and that was the bill we wanted and supported. You don't get to be insulted that we're angry about being short sheeted by the NRA at the last minute.
I will point it out again. Why did the AWB expire rather than be repealed? The NRA did nothing. Why is the Brady Act still law? The NRA does nothing. Why does the Hughes amendment still stand? The NRA does nothing.
Those are three easy ones, Ms Hammer. Show me the NRA backing the repeal of those three laws each and every session until they are repealed and I'll start to believe you guys didn't stab us in the back, again.
If we'd waited around for the NRA to start moving, we'd not have either the Heller or MacDonald decisions. Two cases you tried to horn in on and derail.
Starting to see why we're getting pissed off now?
Just for the record
To anyone who says that whacking Osama will cause the Moslem world to hate us:
They already do.
They hated us before this, long before.
At this point I no longer think there's anything we, as a nation, can do to get them to stop hating us, so we should stop worrying ourselves about it.
Hate is a binary sort of condition. You either hate or not. "Hate more" isn't really a state until you have more than one hated thing to compare with. Note, both are hated.
Since they already hate us, doing things that they don't like doesn't change whether they hate us or not.
So, lets just do the things that piss them off! We literally have nothing to lose by it.
They already do.
They hated us before this, long before.
At this point I no longer think there's anything we, as a nation, can do to get them to stop hating us, so we should stop worrying ourselves about it.
Hate is a binary sort of condition. You either hate or not. "Hate more" isn't really a state until you have more than one hated thing to compare with. Note, both are hated.
Since they already hate us, doing things that they don't like doesn't change whether they hate us or not.
So, lets just do the things that piss them off! We literally have nothing to lose by it.
02 May 2011
Medals of Honor all around!
I think that SEAL Team 6 (or at least this detachment) has earned it. They, of course, will disagree.
Navy Crosses at least!
Navy Crosses at least!
01 May 2011
Osama is dead!
That's the news of the moment!
Before the press gets too far in sucking on Obama's dick and giving him sole credit for this; let it be remembered that Osama was hiding in Pakistan in no small measure because of a continuation of the Bush administration's policies in Afghanistan.
Shot in the head? In Pakistan? If Obama personally authorized that, my hat is off to him; I would not have guessed he had the balls.
Before the press gets too far in sucking on Obama's dick and giving him sole credit for this; let it be remembered that Osama was hiding in Pakistan in no small measure because of a continuation of the Bush administration's policies in Afghanistan.
Shot in the head? In Pakistan? If Obama personally authorized that, my hat is off to him; I would not have guessed he had the balls.