Maybe I Have Found Something To Say

t is the president's duty to stand his ass at The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and place the wreath on Memorial Day.

The current president intends to shirk this duty onto his vice-president.

As much as I disliked Clinton, he still did the duty.

Nothing Much

I think I am going to let the lights burn out here. I find that I just don't have much to say about much anymore and the things I do say, I have said before.

Fascinating

I note that the same congress members who supported the assault weapon ban in 1994 are the same congress members who say we need a new ban to stop the drug violence in Mexico.

Dianne Feinstein
Dick Durbin
Chuck Schumer

Not a comprehensive list, but it's always the same few people. The justifications change, but the solution doesn't.

Going Out On A Limb

I detest the militarization of the police. I cannot express my distaste enough.

I do not bow to the argument, "If we save even one cop's life..."

Bullshit!

When he's on duty he is The State. And The State has a vast supply of individual officers. Yes, a police officer is a person, with rights. As such, his rights should be identical to mine, since I am a person too.

The laws we are wrapping around the cops is making me a second class citizen with regards to many rights.

Conceal carry comes with the badge in most places, in particular in places where a normal citizen is not allowed to carry at all.

Self defense laws are far more lenient on the police than on common folks; especially so when you consider that a cop is typically put on paid leave while the shooting is investigated and legal counsel is provided by the department. The investigations are typically very cursory and are conducted by the police force itself as if it's impossible for it to have no interest in the outcome.

Speaking of self defense, I know when I can shoot a normal assailant. It's codified in the law and confirmed by jurisprudence. When can I shoot a cop? In theory, it's the same as any other assault. In practice, it's never legal. In some jurisdictions, it's possible for a cop to shoot almost as many people as he'd like with impunity.

The police are the ultimate in "circle the wagons" and band together groups.

How many times have you seen a cop flagrantly breaking traffic laws?

The police are people, just people. On average no better (or worse) than the rest of us. I dislike the pedestal we've made for them.

I detest the militarization of the police forces. Heck, I detest it's called a police FORCE. I'm of the opinion that if a cop needs an M113A2 APC to do the job then we need the Army to make the arrest (and the Army doesn't arrest people). We might discover that the cops don't need tracked armored vehicles if they cannot have them.

What about cops lives? What about them? As agents of the state, there are plenty more where they came from. The state can afford the losses. Any argument about a cop needing a piece of military equipment applies just as fully to me in regards to my safety. Ban me from having something, you don't get it either. Being a policeman should not be a path to elevation above the people he's been hired to protect.

I would feel a lot better if the rules the cops followed were the same as the rules I have to follow. They really aren't too onerous.

Here comes the narrowest part of my limb.

I feel that, as agents of the state, the infractions committed by the police should be punished more harshly than if the same thing had been committed by a normal citizen. That's not just an individual violating your rights, that's the agency and government violating your rights.

I have some token solutions.

Police uniforms will be distinctive from military in color and cut. While a cop on a SWAT team might need something very much like BDU's or ACU's a pair of dark blue coveralls will do.

If a cop shoots someone; instead of paid leave they get six months where they don't collect a penny from any government source, including unemployment. That tells me, emphatically, that the officer needed to pull the trigger. If the police unions want to pay his salary while he's suspended, let them. A private citizen who has to defend themselves with lethal force is subject to more, actually, after losing time to court appearances, costs of legal fees, stress, etc...

Again, if the cops need military hardware and training to get the job done, then it's obviously a military job not a police job. Full. Stop. I think that once we take away the cool tactical hammer then not every problem will be a nail.

In my threeperish moments I have to think that the first ones to be shot will have to be the local police. They will be the first ones sent to quell an insurrection. The gun community had better get happy with the idea that it's not going to be the faceless ATF ninja at the forefront of this, but the local police. Thoughtlessly supporting the police in every situation is being mindless. They are people, just like you.

Please note, this is not a call to start shooting the police.



Comments

Take Note

Go here. Scroll down to pic 13.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.html

I want you to take note that the soldier on the right is holding a hand gun by the barrel. His handgun is in its holster. The soldier on the left is holding an AK, not an issue item for the ARVN. Notice also that the prisoner is not wearing a uniform. These firearms were taken from him moments before the picture was taken.

Pic 14 is the famous one.

Under both Hague and Geneva persons found under arms and out of uniform during a time of war in a combat area can be summarily executed. That was exactly what General Nguyen Ngoc Loan did.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyễn_Ngọc_Loan

I really despise the "suspected Viet Cong officer" in the caption. It doesn't matter. Found under arms, out of uniform is all that does. If we started being less generous about the application of this rule, we might find that we will be more successful against a people who respect this form.

By the way, it is brutal. I agree. C'est la guerre.

Home Improvements Continue Apace

We finally got the last crank window in the house replaced with nice double glazed single hung windows. There is already a noticeable difference in temperature in both The Boy's and our bedrooms.

Window removed.

Marv remembered to wear his work boots.

Marv brought up his air compressor and air-hammer. It made short work of the grout that was surrounding the opening. For previous installs we had used hand chisels and hammers. That took hours; this took minutes. Figures we'd learn how to do it right on the LAST window.

It's in!

Computer Stuff

Way back in Oct 2007 I bought The Lovely Harvey a spiffy new 15" MacBook Pro (2.4 GHz). This was a twin to mine that I had bought in May 2007.

The video on mine failed in May of 2008 just days before its warranty expired. Apple repaired this machine, but thanks to the repeated warnings of possible data loss and up to 90 day turn-around on repairs I ended up getting a new machine (just in case) too. Three day turn around, no data loss. "Well, at least we have a spare," I thought.

Good thing we did. In February ago The Lovely Harvey's laptop died exactly like my first one did. Since we were well out of warranty there was much despair; but since we had the spare...

Her machine would fire up in target disk mode so I could transfer the data from her machine to the spare. I did a fresh install of OSX 10.5 onto the spare and then moved her stuff over. Simple.

The old machine got tossed into the closet until we had the $500-$900 to fix it.

Fast forward to yesterday.

I was talking with Anglave about his ancient work laptop and joked around that he should just get a new one. Ha ha. I then suggested a Mac, you know even more money he didn't have. Then I suggested he fix our broken one since the repairs were almost the same as a new Win7 machine. He expressed doubt that those price comparisons were correct, surely a logic board would be more.

So I googled to find some prices for logic boards and found:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/MacBookPro_video_failure.html

That led to
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377

Whereupon I discovered that the repair would likely be covered for free.

It is now 8 PM. There is an 8:40 appointment slot at the Genius Bar available 37 miles away. To the Jalopy! Triple digit speeds were achieved several times and the Escort 8500 paid for itself at least three times. I made it to the Apple Store with minutes to spare.

The Genius™ ran a diagnostic and confirmed it was the GPU. He then gave me a receipt, warned of data loss and slow turn around and all will be well.

Side Note: Coming out of the Apple Store I picked up a tail. Two thuggish looking guys were loitering outside the entrance to the store and followed me back to the car. They broke off when they saw that I was alert, looking at them and had my hand in my pocket. And by "broke off" I mean they did a 180˚ and went back into the mall.

Additional Side Note: The Genius™ got a kick out of my "I'm Not Carrying A Concealed Firearm (Or Am I?)" t-shirt. The charitable side of me would like to think that the thugs just wanted to read my shirt and having done so went back to loitering.

Quote Of The Random Interval

Small bullets may expand to create bigger holes, but large bullets don't shrink.

AKsarben posting on the 6.8 forums. http://68forums.com/forums/index.php

This Just Doesn't Work

It would seem that Florida is poised to allow red-light cameras.

I am not advocating running red lights in my opposition to them.

Heck, I would accept them as a fine idea if they were done properly. But they won't be and they never have been.

Study after study has shown the way to reduce the number of accidents at light controlled intersections is to make the yellow longer and give a brief pause before changing the cross traffic's light green. Absorb that for a second. Giving people a bit more time to get stopped and then giving some time for the intersection to clear of traffic before releasing the side traffic reduces the number of accidents more than any other factor.

But red light cameras are not about reducing the number of accidents.

Why do I say that?

I say that because every single article about them mentions revenue generated.

Studies again: They show, over and over, that when first implemented, there's a lot of tickets issued; then over time the number of violations drops to nearly zero. If this was about safety, we'd declare victory at this point. But these cameras always come with a company that processes the tickets and maintains the cameras. If there are no tickets issued, there's no money for the company and (depending on the contract) threaten to take their cameras and go home (with dire warnings about the chaos that will ensue should there be no robotic guardian watching the maniacal drivers)or they collect their fee without the ticket revenue stream to support the expenditures.

What does the municipality that installed the cameras do now?

They invariably shorten the yellow time! Creating a situation where it's more difficult to get stopped safely in time; on purpose to get more money.

Remember what I said about increasing the yellow being the single most effective means for increasing safety at a light controlled intersection? Some places have shortened the yellow so much that you cannot safely stop from the speed limit before entering the intersection.

"But you said the number of violations drops to nearly zero, doesn't that mean there are fewer accidents?"

No, that does not mean there are fewer accidents. That means there are fewer t-bones. What we trade them for is rear-endings. People don't want a ticket for running the light, so they slam on the brakes. With the shorter yellow, they know they don't have much time to get stopped. Think a 2,800 lb Civic can out brake a school bus? I know it can.

While we are talking about accidents... The recent articles on the topic stated that just over 50% of the accidents in Florida occur at light controlled intersections (they infer that it's because people are running red lights, but don't actually say it). Light controlled intersections are not 50% of the intersections, by a wide margin. I could make a statistical case that the lights are causing a disproportionate number of accidents.

If we are going to be honest about this, we also need to look at why people push that yellow and run the red. I've been conducting an experiment. I've been driving the speed limit, accelerating very moderately and stopping when the light turns yellow. At a few key intersections, if I catch the red I will have to stop at the next ten red lights. If my timing is good, and I catch that one light green, I catch the rest of them green along this route as well. Congratulations traffic planners! You have created an incentive to run that key light.

I have also noticed that if I take a detour and sit at one of the cross streets that I am staring at a clear intersection for the entire red light (30-90 seconds). When the glob of traffic that was stopped at the previous light arrives at the intersection, it turns red for them and green for me. Seems to me that the time to let the cross traffic out is during that huge gap.

Let us also add in another observation. People have figured out they are going to have to stop at the next light so they don't bother getting up to the speed limit; they lolly-gag along at 5-10 under. This can be very frustrating.

Now, lets correlate the frustration with the timing. I know that if I'd made that first light green I would not have to stop at the second one. This means there's a much faster than the posted limit speed that will allow me to get back in sequence with the lights and catch the rest of them green. If the traffic in front of me doesn't get up to the limit and pulls the rolling road-block routine, that just means that when I get clear air I have to go even faster to make that next light. Fast enough that there's no way I can stop for the red given the short yellow. Look! An accident!

If this was really about safety, they would have the lights timed so that the huge mass of cars didn't have to stop at every light. They yellow would be long enough so that someone obeying the speed limit has plenty of time to stop. But they don't because this isn't about safety at all, it's about money.

EDIT!
I forgot to mention that a good third to half the red lights in the greater Tampa area were put there in response to some gruesome accident. One in particular locally stands out.

Where the intersection of Old Highway 54 T's into FL-54. The original plan was to have old 54 dead end where the intersection is now. When they first opened the new section it was simply a stop sign. Then one night around 2am a mother and her two young children stopped at the sign, looked both ways, pulled out to turn left... and were killed when a drunk driving 110 mph broadsided her. So we have a light to keep drunks from driving a buck ten? In addition to the idiot drunk, that section of road was planned with the idea that there was not going to be an intersection there at all, the sight distances suck. The deceased likely never even saw him. The question that should have been asked is not, "why wasn't there a light there?" but "why was there an intersection there?" Guess why the plan was changed. Yup, MONEY! There were a few businesses along that short stretch were 54 used to dogleg. Those businesses lobbied hard to keep that section from becoming a dead end; they said it would hurt their business when people stopped driving past.

Having A Wee Bit Of Rain

The street out front.

The back patio.

The neighbor's back yard.

Marv's BAG Purchase

It's a SIG-Sauer P238. Colt Series 80 shown for comparison.

Update: Pictures lost because Webshots went all pay-per-view and killed the links.

Being An Engineer And A Nerd

I bought a pocket protector... for my SIG P238.

Hey Iowa Friends

Drop an e-mail or letter at your governor and tell him you really, really want him to sign SF2379.

It will make Iowa's Conceal Carry Permit:

Shall Issue!!!
Standardizes training requirements
Places a 30-day time limit on issuing a permit.
Provides a tight appeals process
Universal recognition of all out of state permits The part I care about.
No ability for the Sheriff to record make, model, SN, or ammunition type of any weapon during the permit process
Removal of all individual Federal disqualifiers, replaced with one sentence
Permits good for five years

Hey Judge Fuck You Too

"The judge concluded that these weapons are not in common use, are not possessed by law-abiding citizens as a general rule, and are dangerous."

From: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/new-d-c-gun-laws-upheld/

Your "honor", I am a law abiding citizen, I possess several of "these weapons". I even went the extra law-abiding step of registering my short barrel rifle. Were I not a law-abiding citizen, I would have just lopped off that barrel and called it good.

Not in common use? Time to come out from under your rock, your "honor". Not only are they common, enough are sold to support development of new cartridges that are specifically designed for the platforms. Both the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8x43mm would be longer if not so constrained. There are companies, like Magpul, that are surviving nicely making accessories that are exclusively for such arms (and making very little that isn't for such weapons).

Define dangerous, your "honor". Not a single firearm in my house has killed a person since I have owned it. Three have almost certainly been used to kill in the past, but that was at the behest of the State during a war (they are military surplus rifles). Any of my firearms is certainly deadly dangerous to anyone foolish enough to attempt to break into my house, but even you are acknowledging that the first Heller ruling says that's OK.

Magpul AFG Initial Impressions

Right side:

Left side:

On the LaRue 4-rail the AFG interferes with the Magpul XTM rail panels. To put the AFG where I was comfortable, I had to remove one section of XTM. In fact, there's no way for the front part of the AFG to put anything on the side rails. The LaRue's bottom rail is closer to the barrel than the top, so there's less room here. I might get out the Dremel if things bug me too much.

I had to move my light from the bottom rail to one of the sides, because of the change in grip angle, this is actually easier than the bottom was.

I took the 'A2' finger stop out of the grip area since, like usual, it was where I wanted a finger instead of between. Even with it reversed.

It doesn't feel at all like I expected it to, but it is more comfortable with Dottie's nose heaviness.

UPDATE: (Already)
The loss of the third XTM panel bothered me because fingers were hitting rail. It's unpleasant. So I took a teeny lip off the underside of the XTM panel and that leaves enough clearance to get the AFG under it.

UPDATE: By request of Anglave

Spread The Word

Progressives Can't Get Past The Knowledge Problem

One thing we can say about Hayek that I don't think I have seen about Keynes is Hayek's theories are disprovable. Keynes seems to be much more along the lines of, "Let's see what happens!"

I Don't Know Why I Am Still Astounded

If you cannot afford $400 to fix your car, you cannot afford $750 to replace a TV. Especially when it is not your only TV. Explain to me again why you thought being called an idiot was inappropriate?

Well Said Sir

"Consistent, understandable to lay-people laws are a good and an end in themselves, a necessary feature of a free and stable society. Punishments roughly proportionate with malum in secriminality, not exaggerated for malum prohibitum defiance are themselves a good thing. Quoting a legal definition not only more precise but arguably at odds with plain English is exceedingly patronizing. The law is what some of us have reservations about, not out of ignorance but out of principle." Dave R in the comments here: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/03/29/feds-raid-radical-christian-group/

On Teaching Shooting

Tam's post; http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/04/chicks-can-hold-their-smoke.html got me to thinking.

When I met Harvey she was not a shooter. I was her first instructor.

Her first handgun shots were from a Glock 21. Her only difficulty was that the grips were too large for her hands.

Her first gun, of any kind, was a S&W Sigma in .357 SIG. It's still her first love. I had her handle everything first. We looked at both revolvers and autos. At the time, she said that the autos all felt better to her hand, but the revolvers seemed so much simpler. The first handgun I ever fired was an auto, there's more to learn but it's not really that difficult so we decided she'd just learn. And she did. I wish more "mentors" would take this to heart.

When the carry bug bit her, we realized that Sigma was a tad large for handy carry so we sought a smaller gun. A friend of hers had recently bought a S&W 642 (.38 Special) and such a snubby seemed ideal. The idea of an aluminum framed revolver rubs wrong to us so we went with the same size gun in stainless, the 640 (.357 Magnum). Her first shots from her snubby were Hornady Leverevolution rounds. Those are really intended for carbines! Her comments? "LOUD!"

Double-action only snubby revolvers in heavy loads are notoriously hard to shoot well, but she handled the 640 with aplomb. The range staff asked her several times if she was sure she'd never fired a little revolver before.

You Tube is awash with videos of boyfriends/husbands handing a .44 Magnum to their girlfriend/wife and having them shoot. The girl is invariably someone who doesn't seem to like guns and is obviously unfamiliar with shooting. Most of the time the thing jumping out of her hands just scares her and the guy (and his buddies) all guffaw. I hate this kind of thing. Congrats, guys, you just made a non-shooter out of someone you live with. She's going to resist any purchase of anything 'gun' from now on, even if it is in the most subtle of ways.

The Lovely Harvey, on the other hand, had no problem with a 4" Colt Anaconda firing 240gr Speer Gold-Dot. I like to think that is because I taught her correctly and never forced her to do something she wasn't ready to do. I also like to think that when I discovered I was doing something wrong (and teaching her that) that I admitted it, and we learned the new way together.

Harvey is my success story. Laurie is my failure.

Laurie is the friend with the 642. Her husband is the guy I refer to as "Libtard Lenny". He's an odd duck, a flaming liberal who likes guns.

He decided that she, with zero interest in shooting, would get a gun and carry permit. She'd taken the classes, but never processed her application. When Harvey got interested in her CCW, she cajoled Laurie into coming to the classes with her so that she'd have company; so Laurie took the class twice. Lenny strong-armed her into finishing the application this time and then it was time to get a gun.

I did the same thing with Laurie as I did with Harvey. We hit the gun shows and I made her handle every single handgun there. She has nerve damage in her right hand and is right-handed. She doesn't have a enough grip in her hand to work the slide on most small autos (blow back guns have stronger springs than locked breech). She is not mechanically inclined, so the simplicity of a revolver seemed better. The same accident that caused the nerve damage also affected her wrist strength in both hands. So we needed a light gun as well as a simple one.

This kept adding up to a revolver. She was able to work all of the controls every time, the 642 was light enough for her to hold and it was priced in her range. So she bought it and we went shooting.

I had forgotten some things. A lighter gun makes for more recoil. DAO means an atrocious trigger that requires a smooth pull, something Laurie had difficulty with because of the damage. Yet, she managed. We were making progress and she was learning and getting better. Practicing was acting as physical therapy for her left hand and fine motor skills and strength was returning.

Then we made the mistake of going to the range with Lenny and The Lovely Harvey. Laurie was a better shot than Lenny. She'd only been shooting for a whole month and she was better than he. Harvey was a lot better than he. The next time I took Laurie shooting, she was not as good as her first outing. Now her gun, that she had loved, was too big for her purse, to heavy(!), kicked too hard, trigger was too strong, grips felt wrong, etc... Odd, I thought. Turns out that Lenny had started telling her all this behind my back.

A week later she called to go shooting and had a new gun! Woot! It was an FN Browning Vest Pocket 1905 in .25 ACP. She showed that she could work the controls and she exclaimed over and over how happy she was with how it fit her hand. And she shot it well. Problem was, it was an ancient, used, gun. It was unreliable. It needed new springs and the magazine's lips were well worn. Rather than fix it, Lenny traded it in on a Beretta Tomcat. Note that LENNY traded it, not Laurie. This is because he went to the shop where he'd bought it and demanded warranty repairs. "On an 80 year old gun?" the shopkeeper asked. I am confident that the gun was repairable and would have been fine, but Lenny... well he was saying that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Good news, Laurie likes the Tomcat. Bad news, Lenny has taken over her training and she now shoots like he does.

That same day we all went shooting, I was zeroing my M-1903A3. Lenny was shooting his Kel Tec SU-16A at the extreme long range of 25 yards and getting torso sized groups. Once I was happy with my zero at 25 yards, I moved the target out to 100. Lenny said, under his breath, "Harvey, I can't even see it, I'll bet he can't even hit it." The kid in the next lane overheard and aimed his spotting scope at my target. I fired 5 shots unsupported off-hand. The kid says, "He's hitting it. Good grouping too." I had a nice 4" group. Lenny has never gone shooting with me again.

I think it is because he knows all he wants to know about shooting, but when he compares what he knows to what I know, it's obvious there's more to learn. That bothers him. I know several people who know more about shooting than I do. It bothers me. My solution is to attempt to learn what they know! It's working, my shooting is always getting better.

Harvey has a pile of friends who are eager to learn shooting. I am eager to duplicate my success with Harvey.

Mandatory Participation Meme

Your instructions:

If you are reading this right now, please post a comment with a COMPLETELY MADE UP AND FICTIONAL memory of you and me.

It can be anything you want - good or bad - BUT IT HAS TO BE FAKE.

When you're finished, post this little paragraph on your LJ and be surprised (or mortified) about what people DON'T ACTUALLY remember about you.


Imported Comments

Something Subtle Must Have Changed

I have had dealings with three separate Verizon employees in my quest to get rid of collections calls for Shawn Morano.

All three have admitted to owning firearms when the topic brushed against it; they were practically dying to share it seemed.

I am not used to this.

Something seems to have changed in corporate land. If the employees are able to be casual about sharing their ownership with a gunny customer, I think we've won. Won big.

Warm fuzzy feelings!

Why I Am In This

My political awakening happened just about when the AWB took effect. While Congress was debating it, actually. I was already a gun owner at the time, but the reasons I selected the Glock 17 and Mini-14 for my "arsenal" had a lot more to do with playing myself as a GURPS character and affordability than anything else.

The Mini-14 was all tricked out with a folding stock, flash-hider with a bayonet lug and as many 30-round magazines as we could afford. These things were COOL! Just about the only positive, functional, change I made was adding an Aimpoint 1000 to it; everything else was cosmetic.

This brings us to the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Act.

Brady didn't affect Iowans. The pistol purchase permit was an acceptable substitute for the background and waiting period. The AWB affected me. I had features on my rifle that were going to be banned.

This led me to the largest epiphany I have ever had: What had I done to deserve being treated this way? I had not shot anyone. I had not threatened anyone directly. I had not robbed anyone. I had done nothing.

The lawmakers passing that bill talked a great deal about criminal misuse of such guns. They mentioned people like Patrick Purdy. I had never taken my rifle to a school yard and killed 23 children and 6 teachers.

Then there was the galling part that my Mini-14 would be exempt from the ban if I only removed the folding stock. Considering that I chose my stock for appearance rather than function, it would have made my rifle more effective because it would have been lighter and handier.

This started me looking at other laws and proposed laws.

It makes me question the validity of them. I doubt their utility even where I am convinced of their constitutionality.

It's led to some unconventional stances on my part.

It's also made me touchy to things where I am being materially harmed for the benefit of people I do not know and/or care about.

For guns, I was not allowed to purchase cosmetic features for the illusory comfort of someone upset by their appearance.

For welfare, the wages I earned working were taxed so that people who were not working could selfishly breed. I would feel somewhat better if this person joined the workforce once the child was old enough for daycare; but that seems the exception rather than the rule. I cannot help but notice that if we'd just let them starve during the Johnson administration that we'd be all out of poor people. OK; that's not true. But we would have skipped the cost of supporting 3-5 generations of people who have never had and will never have a job, let alone pay taxes.

For healthcare, a similar feeling to welfare. Why the heck is it my job to pay for your medical care? I have to pay for my own, why don't you? Healthcare is broken because of government micromanagement. The government already tightly regulates service providers and the insurance companies. A substantial portion of the costs is from compliance with the diktats of the laws. I've heard, "Nobody should have to go broke just because they get sick." I propose we fix things so that it becomes affordable not leaving the prices where they are and stealing from people who aren't sick.

There are far too many areas that are messed up from the government "fixing" them that I just don't see them as a solution to anything any more.

We don't even have to touch on how socialism, communism and their cousin fascism ruined nations and murdered millions to see the harm. Capitalism is not fair, it is fairest.

By the way, notice that the people who are telling you that you need to make sacrifices across the board all have private jets? Notice that many of them are having that jet paid for by taxes? Think about that.

Public Service Announcement

To everyone saying something to the effect of, "Now that health care has passed I am moving to X country."

I will say the same thing to you that I said to Alec Baldwin when he said he'd leave if W was elected:

PACK YOUR SHIT AND GET!

If you are not going to, you know, actually leave; shut up about leaving.

You can compare the US with, say, Albania; it might be better there (it might not); but if you aren't planning on moving stop saying you are.

I intend to stay here and right this wrong. I'd like genuine help, and if you're shopping for housing in Tirana I will not bother attempting to enlist your aid.

PS: Eric, this was not aimed at your desire to defect (because I know you're staying and fighting).

What Indeed

What does it say about your cause that nearly every policy idea you cook up is based in some form or another on coercing the American people?

Interesting

See it's the JEEEEEEEEWS with all the money and the...uh...Hindus? What? Wait a second, let me check the KKK "fact" book.

Wealth distribution by religious affiliation:

Rightwing Violence

If it were rightwing, the shot would have hit someone. Libtards can't shoot for shit.

WW2 Racism

Mr Hanks,

You mentioned that there was racism in the US Army in WW2 and insinuated that we were out to eradicate the Japanese because of our racism towards them.

Um, did anyone tell you about the 442nd Infantry Regiment? 2 Medals of Honor issued at the time. 52 Distinguished Service Crosses (19 later upgraded to MoH). 1 Distinguished Service Medal. 560 Silver Stars (plus 58 oak leaves). 22 Legion of Merit. 15 Soldier's Medals. 4000 Bronze Stars (plus 1200 oak leaves; 1 upgraded Medal of Honor, 1 upgraded to Silver Star).

In less than a year of service, which included training.

If it were really racism, then there'd have been no valor awards given.

Compare to the 92nd Infantry Regiment: Medal of Honor: 2 (Posthumously in 1997); Distinguished Service Cross (United States): 2; Distinguished Service Medal (United States): 1; Silver Star: 208; Legion of Merit: 16; Soldier's Medal: 6; Bronze Star: 1,166; Purple Heart: 1891; Order of the Crown of Italy: 8; Military Cross for Military Valor (Italian): 17; Military Cross for Merit in War (Italian): 22; War Medal (Brazil): 1

The 92nd was a black regiment. Notice there are far fewer awards? Far fewer upgraded later? There's the racism in WW2, Mr Hanks. Possibly not, the 442nd was noted for fighting as if they had something to prove. Apparently, they didn't prove anything to Mr Hanks.

Errant Thought

One of the worst things about arguing with LibtardLenny about the path the nation was on was that he would be far harder hit by the changes he advocates than I would. He makes more, he owns more.

I find it extremely odd that I am fighting to keep him making and owning what he does when part of me wants to see him get what he's calling for, good and hard.

The Lovely Harvey has reported he's expressed some regrets about who he voted for. That does not heal the rift. He'd have to admit I was right; and I would have to refrain from gloating. I am not a big enough man to be able say, with any degree of certainty, that I would not scream, "I fucking told you so you God damned libtard!".

Unanimous

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:



For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

Jasmine And Kaylee Are Zeroed

Kaylee needed it because she's a flat-top with a carry handle and no longer a C7 upper. The Lovely Harvey expressed some dismay about Cheyenne being too similar to Kaylee, so I had been gathering pieces to make it less so.

Jasmine had previously never been fired! I've had her for almost two years and this was her first trip to the range. I had to do the normal FAL business of adjusting the gas system: Start with the gas regulator completely closed; load one round from the magazine; fire. Bolt should lock to the rear. Open regulator one step; load a single round in a mag; chamber; fire. Bolt should lock to the rear. Repeat until it doesn't lock then close two clicks.

Thinking back to the L1A1 I made just before the Clinton ban in '94, which I sold to Tim who sold it to Eric who had no good luck with it: I think that gun locked to the rear with the regulator fully open. I wonder if that broke something from being overgassed. At the time I didn't think of it and since it was working for me, I didn't worry.

Once Jasmine's gas was set, I started shooting for accuracy to get her zeroed. She was already, I didn't need to adjust the sights at all. Thanks! DSA for setting her up from the factory! She seems to like the 147gr NATO spec ammo from Magtech a lot. Group at 100 yards was head sized, I am attributing that to being poorly braced and not being able to see well. Shoot straight has the lights set just wrong for peep sights. I forgot to bring my boonie hat to shade the rear sight.

Godwin Moment

What I am blathering about: http://perezhilton.com/2010-03-12-sean-penn-defends-hugo-chavez

Mr Penn, lots of dictators were democratically elected. Lots of dictators came to power through legitimate means. The difference between a dictator and a president, say, is what they do once in power; like eliminate the next election ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum,_2009 ), transfer power from the legislative or judicial branches to themselves, trivial stuff hard to spot or detect (check the batteries in your sarcasm detector).

I notice that Mr Penn doesn't mention that Hugo attempted to take over in a coup d'état in 1992. He went to prison for that. He got pardoned later, but still, not someone who embodies the democratic ideal.

Gaming Guns

I am reminded of some of the fun gun stuff from gaming.

In the way back, I thought the FG.42 was a pretty nifty gun. I had no idea how fragile they were.

In one world, K'tanga, I had a group of people who were fed up with the state of affairs in the US who set up a new home beyond the interworld portal that happened to be located in Zaire.

They called their little enclave, New America (no relation to the group of the same name in Twilight 2000).

A Mary Sue of me, Calvin Dean, made a rifle patterned off the FG.42 called the M1 Dean. Since they had no actual FG.42 to pattern it off if, there were surely differences in function, but it had the same overall layout.

I dusted off my old notes today and noticed I had it chambered in .280 British with a 25 round magazine.

Fast forward to today. One of my favorite cartridges is 6.8x43mm SPC; the affordable magazines are 25 rounders. 6.8 is nearly a twin ballistically to the old .280 Brit.

I wonder if I like the 6.8 because of that similarity.

On Starbucks

I just noticed how bad things have become.

Starbucks is being lauded as being pro-gun for taking a neutral position; and it's a genuinely refreshing change of pace for a large chain to do so.

We've a long way to go, but we should not forget that just because they aren't anti-gun doesn't mean they are pro-gun.

That said, I will have a latte this evening. Carrying concealed, of course, since open is not legal here in Florida.

Geek Version Of Gun Meme

The "What three guns" question is one that came up quite a bit playing Nexus worlds.

The answer quite often is, "it depends on the world."

Where resupply was sketchy, we tended towards guns that ate the most common ammunition we could think of.

I actually BOUGHT a Colt Anaconda 4" in .45 Colt because I expected to play myself in a scenario where we were transported to the old west.

I selected several guns over the years based on their proven durability, if not reliability. I called it my African Thumb Method. If an unsupported african rebel can keep it running, it's good enough. Of course, being a gamer means taking the FAL over the AK because it gets two more dice damage and has more range.

The most common handgun on my character sheets is the M1911A1.
I hardly ever took a shotgun; a rifle that did the same dice of damage always did so at longer ranges for less weight.
The most common rifle is a three-way tie between the SMLE #3 Mk1, FN FAL and M16A2.

Even though I very rarely needed it, I chose a rifle that could take a bayonet whenever it was allowed. Guns just don't break in game worlds, really and players hardly ever run out of ammo.

If you run your world realistically enough that they don't hit like snipers, even in a pitched firefight, they whine piteously. When you hit like a sniper in all conditions, a basic load will last you almost forever.

Imported Comments:

Gun Meme

"One Handgun, One Rifle, One Shotgun. You are able to choose just one of each for self defense with NO modifications."

M1911A1. I'm intimate with the platform and can literally clean it blind-folded.

Remington 870, 12ga 3", extended magazine. I have this on the list because we're supposed to have a shotgun, not that I would choose it over the rifle.

11.5" AR. Light, handy, way more wallop than any handgun despite being .223, sitting here next to me...

Imported Comment Thread:

Great Now I'm A Serf

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/02/yeah-but-what-does-that-three-percent.html

Personal responsibility does not equal taking responsibility for others. In your car wreck example: If I did not cause the wreck I am not personally responsible. If you chose to assist, by all means proceed.

BUT GET THE FUCK DOWN OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE WITH THE CONTEMPT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK EXACTLY OR REACT EXACTLY AS YOU WOULD!

You have no idea what a serf is, do you? You probably don't know that serf and peasant are not synonyms.

Serf and subject are also not synonyms.

Altruist and citizen are not synonymous.

You are extremely free with the insults to people who don't live to your standards for your reasons. People demanding such purity are known as fanatics. I will not keep company with such.

The Sharing Thing

Inspired by: http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/03/quote-of-day-r0n-p4ul-edition_04.html

Taxes taken from me for the good of all in society, like roads, don't rankle me. Even people who do not drive benefit from good roads because they allow the reliable transportation of the things they do use.

Taxes taken from me for the good of a single person or group, like welfare, piss me off. Taking from ME to give to THEM may, in theory, be an overall good to society; reality doesn't seem to support the theory. Extended example: If there was no welfare then the person(s) in question would have either starved to death or found work; and ceased to be a problem. With welfare we've got their kids and grandkids pulling the same drain.

It is even more exasperating to find that one is not qualified to receive assistance after paying into the system for years because you still own something. Actually, the problem is not the owning, but being the owner of record. If our house and cars were in someone else's name we'd have a comfortable income. If you think that I am the first person to notice this and that people on welfare are unaware of it, can I sell you some Everglades property?

It often seems like we're the only people who've noticed the cheating; or rather that everyone is aware of it, but the government is blind to it.

The Lovely Harvey had noted it in her job in college financial aid. When someone with a perfectly groomed coiffure, manicure and designer clothes pulls up in a brand new Escalade you know someone in their household has a substantial income. Oddly, this same person reports $0 income and receives the full earned income credit, and is eligible for the full panoply of grants; this is on top of housing assistance, food stamps, etc...

I'm fed up with it, how about you?

What's Cheesing Me Off Here

The thing that upsets me most about the hu-hu over health care is when they pass it, and lose their asses next election, we will still have it.

I recall 1994 when the Dems lost their asses over gun control. If the AWB hadn't had a ten year expiration date, it would still be law. Why do I say this? Because the Brady Act is still law. Because the Hughes amendment is still law. Because the Gun Control Act of 1968 is still law.

Changing the party in charge doesn't mean shit if the reasons we are changing horses remains. I think the Republicans know this.

Without repeals, there's no reason to vote for a Republican. NONE.

I'm "wasting" my vote on a randomly selected third party from now on until the candidates start running on platforms of repeal.

In a related note: Several people have noted that if the Tea Party forms as a third party in Harry Reid's district that it will split the Republican vote and he will be reelected. GOOD! I don't think the Tea Party people think they will win anyway. What this is really about is teaching the Republicans that they have to actually oppose the policies we object to, and we can make sure they lose until they learn.

What was that quote? I will beat you until you learn! If you do not learn, you will die stupid.

Update: The learning process is applicable to the Democrats too. I would be perfectly willing to vote for a Dem who wasn't being a socialist.

An Errant Thought

Because of the separation between church and state, I am not allowed to have religious displays on public property.

Why are the police allowed to use a church parking lot as a staging area for their SWAT team?

Where's the ACLU?

If they want me to take this seriously the barrier has to run both directions.

Imported Comments Thread

Do You Like Conspiracy Theories

I love them! Even if I don't subscribe to them, I usually enjoy picking at them.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message984135/pg1

This one is interesting. It's one of the very few "birther" explanations that say why President Obama would spend millions to prevent the release of his full birth certificate and yet still be a natural born US citizen.

Completely disrupts his narrative too.