Kill NASA.

This CNET article really shows why we need to kill NASA, even though I am sure that's not the author's intent.

More than once the article mentions the need to develop a new heavy lift booster.

What the fuck, over?

We have a fully developed and FLOWN heavy lifter.  Delta IV Heavy.  How about we fund the building of a proven system for a change instead of tossing it and making up a whole new one?  Speaking of proven designs, what about the Titan IV?  Yes, we don't get them on the cheap by recycling ICBM's anymore but we damn sure know they work.

This is all a side issue to the real solution to our earth to orbit needs.  Please show me the government agency in charge of funding new commercial aircraft development.  Hell, show my the government agency funding the development of new trains or buses.  While there is some incentive funding, Congress is not making live or die decisions on CSX's new rolling stock.

I am positive that if we got NASA out of the way then Boeing would be more than capable of making, selling and launching as many Deltas as there are customers for.  Without NASA, Boeing has real incentives to make their product better and cheaper.

I remember talking to some people who were involved with the design of the Shuttle.  The insanely low prices that were quoted for payloads were possible, they insisted.  What they, engineers, didn't know at the time is that NASA is a jobs program and their design would constantly and consistently be compromised to make sure that those jobs would have to be used to operate the system.

NASA, in 1963 is a great example of how some things just won't get started without nation-state funding levels to start the infrastructure; it's also a prime example of how government routinely fails to make way for the real users once the infrastructure is established.

I have grossly oversimplified and exaggerated things here, so if you have a comment, fill in details and provide support.  If I am completely wrong, show me (be nice, be polite).

Interesting find in my parts bin...

In the course of aquiring parts for Sabrina, my XM177E2 clone, I ended up buying two complete carbine stock sets.  One to get the correct aluminum sliding portion, one to get an undamaged receiver extension.

Both sets came with a spring and buffer.

I was reading the Vuurwapen Blog comparison of the H, H2 and H3 buffers for carbines and got to thinking that since my SBR has an over-sized gas port that I should use a heavier buffer.  I knew I had an H buffer in the bin, so I went digging to swap it out; that's when I noticed on of the buffers in the bin looked different.  Turns out I have a Colt 9mm buffer that came with one of my stock purchases.  I thought that I would give that one a try for a while and see what affect it has.

Vuurwapen has a comparison showing a standard, H and 9mm too.  The H does better for the bounce there; so I will run the H and see.

A standard buffer is 3 oz.  H is 3.8 oz, H2 is 4.6 oz, H3 is 5.4 oz.  A standard 9mm buffer is 5.5 oz.

Left to right:
9mm, H, Standard.

No more NFA for SBR?

I hear there's going to be an attempt to get short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns removed from the National Firearms Act registration.  Maybe silencers too.

Huzzah! I says.

I'll take my SBR stamp for my XM177E2 clone and frame it as a curiosity.

Then I'll have Kaylee and Cheyenne lopped to 14.5" and Kevina taken down to 11.5".  That would rock!

If the silencer thing happens, I would prolly not get one, they are expensive in and of themselves.

If we're really lucky, they'll get the Hughes amendment removed and let people register machine guns again.  If that happens, I am going to be doing some Form 1's!

Revolver question:

When I carry my J-Frame, I carry two speed loaders.  I've been doing some small practice with my left hand with the assumption that my right has been injured and no longer functional.

Single handed reloads with a speed loader are much harder than loose rounds.  Who knew?

The "gay" thing.

I was once borderline homophobic.  Then I discovered that two very close friends were gay.  One went to his grave without telling me, I found out from his sister at the funeral.  The other was outed by his girlfriend (he's bi in case you can't figure it out).

I had to come to grips with the fact that my friends weren't evil.  I gather I took it pretty well compared to some.

I grew up in central Iowa, Ames in fact.  It's one of the liberal enclaves in an otherwise pretty conservative state.  Being OK with the gay people meant that I could also go to the bars that played the music I preferred (punk/ska/metal) because most places were Top 40 or C&W.

Very seldom was I hit on even when I was the straight guy in the gay bar.  Only once or twice was I hit on and my "suitor" didn't accept the "sorry, I'm straight, just here for the music".  I can't say I've seen girls be able to get rid of unwelcome attention as easily when I've been to "normal" bars.

A disconnect between me and a decent sized chunk of my gay friends has been the gun thing.  That interfered with and ended more than one friendship.  Somehow they couldn't internalize the lesson that the straight gun owner had not even once threatened to shoot them for being gay.

More recently I am discovering, mainly through my wife, that a sizable chunk of gay men are pretty damned conservative.  I've even taught a few to shoot.

Talking to them I gather they are just as frustrated as I am about the political party's division of issues.  I still wonder why being gay and owning a gun are on opposite sides of the political fence; or that they need to be on one side only.

On the advice of Roberta X

Roberta X says we should not debate the antis because that gives them practice debating, thus improving their debating skills.

Instead, she suggests we cut them off at the knees and ask Joe Huffman's "One Question."

"Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"


I will do so from now on.  Joe is also the originator of the "Jews in the Attic" test.

Extending the tax cuts?

The very language of this is bothers me.

By calling it an extension it sounds as if the higher level of taxation is the permanent situation and the current rates are a temporary respite from them.  Many pundits are making it sound as if this respite is also ruinous.

Calling the current tax rate "the Bush tax cut" is also disingenuous.  The president merely signs the bill that congress presents him.  Time to start giving credit and blame to congress for their role in the process.

Fear

One nice thing about getting old is knowing the measure of ones fear.  I could make that climb.  Mentally.  The other thing about getting old is knowing your limits.  I am not in near good enough shape to make that climb.  That's something I should try to change.

One odd thing about this vid is that while I think I would have no problem being out there on that tower, I don't like to watch it.

Auto vs Revolver?

Auto, because John Moses Browning (pbuh) never made a revolver.

I now know a bit more about the gubernatorial race.

Candidate Sink is missing something crucial in her appeals to people like myself.

I want the government to get out of my way so that I can do business and make money.  She seems to think that it's her job to control the environment where I will do business and that control will make it all possible.

Nope.

I know it's hackneyed, but the buggy whip thing keeps coming to mind.  I don't need a mandate to make whips, I need the freedom to make what people wanna buy.

I will likely not answer as well, but...

Go here and here for possibly better answers to her questions.  Go here for some better background on where these questions originated.

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?

Absolutely!  Because I believe that if they are out here in general society with us, they should be here as full members.  If I cannot trust them with a gun, I cannot trust them with rat poison, gasoline, kitchen knives, baseball bats or heavy blunt instruments.

2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?

Lock them up; keep them locked up until no longer a danger to society.  Deciding who is "dangerously mentally ill" is a tough row to hoe though.

3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?

Yes; especially since I have to undergo such a check every single time I purchase a firearm.  I have proven I have a clean record the first time and nothing has changed since then, why do the full check every time?

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

I most certainly do believe it!  I believe it because the people you work with have said so!  Granted, they have changed the name of the company twice since then, but it's a matter of record.  Couple those statements with how they fight to keep infringements on the right to keep and bear arms I should ask, "How can you not believe it?"

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

I think we really need only look at where it has already happened.  New Jersey, California, New Orleans, Chicago...  Bob had a good list of the steps in his answers to these very questions.

6. What do you think are the “second amendment remedies” that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?

The "second amendment remedies" are "shoot the bastards!"  Sounds very harsh, doesn't it?  It's the real intent of having the 2nd amendment; but it's like an ejection handle.  You use the handle and you won't be using the plane again; so you do everything you can before yanking it.  It would help immensely if people would stop routing us through thunderstorms and throwing frozen turkeys into the intakes!

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don’t like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?

Not as such.  As I indicated, the 2nd amendment remedies are last resort, start over from scratch, actions.  We are a long ways from needing to use them; however we have been moving in that direction.  It would be better for all concerned to stop moving towards a situation where the only solution is to shoot the bastards.  A useful tip here, it's not mainly about guns that have lots of people thinking we need an armed insurrection to "fix things".

8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?

Is it OK to call an untruthful prostitute a "lying whore"?  If someone is lying, it's OK to call them a liar.  If someone is being hypocritical, then it's OK to call them a hypocrite.  If someone is taking money in exchange for sexual favors, it's OK to call them a whore.  It's impolite to call someone those things if they are not, but it's legal.

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person’s face?

Not only would I, I will do it again!

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?

Do you mean 'any' as in 'every' or that it's possible to make a law that's unconstitutional?  I don't think every gun law is unconstitutional, just most of them.  I don't really mind the background check laws, I just worry that more and more things will become felonies until it's impossible to live in the USA without breaking one of those laws.

11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.

I do not believe that the current gun laws are doing anything but aggravate the law abiding and that they do nothing to impede criminals from obtaining and using guns illegally.  Classic example: straw purchase.  The way it is defined if I wish to buy a gun as a gift I have made an illegal straw purchase.  I cannot even pay for the gun while the recipient (or both of us) undergoes the background check.  Criminals just lie or have someone else lie, if I tell the truth, I break the law.

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

I believe that law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns.  I don't think that they would never shoot anybody, especially since anyone who's bought a gun for self defense is pretty much stating they will shoot someone under a specific set of circumstances.  I think this question is an attempt to be disingenuous.

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?

Only if they use a gun and only if suicides are in a separate category from murders and legal homicides.

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should “count” in the total numbers?

Certainly!  Especially since these numbers support my position and undermine the Brady Campaign's.  Accidental gun deaths are declining!

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?

Yes.  There are several examples where a gun can be made to fire without pulling the trigger and virtually all of them would fall under criminal negligence if someone were to be harmed while doing so.  Look, criminal negligence is criminal without even making it specific to firearms; guess we don't need a new law to make it illegaler, huh?

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?

Do you believe it's too few?

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?

By carrying a firearm where ever I may and killing anyone who tries to hurt me physically.  Dead criminals have 0% recidivism rate and far too many violent criminals are multiple violent offenders.  Oh, wait, you didn't ask how will I prevent illegal shootings!  I guess I am not going to do anything to stop more shootings, oh well.

18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?

I am not saying you are lying.  But your methodology is familiar.  Has there ever been a greedy Jew?  Has there ever been a lazy black man?  Has a black man ever fathered an illegitimate child?  Has an Irishman ever gotten drunk?  Once drunk has that Irishman ever been belligerent?  It not that these things never happen, it's that not every member of a group is alike or guilty of the things you claim.  It's called bigotry and we recognize it and don't care to be painted with your overly wide brush.

19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).

All of my dealings with the BATFE have been polite, cordial and professional.  That does not mean I support their overall methods of doing business.  When asked simple questions concerning the law or regulation they become vague and answer without answering.  Questions like, "Can I own more than one short barreled upper receiver for a single, registered, short barreled AR-15 while also owning one or more unregistered Title 1 AR-15's?"

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

This is an exercise in futility because your side will not participate in a reasonable discussion in the first place so there cannot be a continuation of such.


Update:


I must say that Joe Huffman has the absolute best response to her questions.

A note to motorcyclists.

Once upon a time I was a biker.  I sold my scoot when I became convinced that the four wheel traffic was actively trying to run me down.

I now think I was right; and I understand why now.

There's a minority of people on motorcycles who have their heads so completely up their asses, they have hemorrhoids on their tongues.  Ten under the limit, braking hard too soon, weaving in and out of traffic, you name it.  All of them looking like refugees from some Hard Corps Biker™ mag.

Two things my dad taught me when I was learning to ride were, "you are invisible to 80% of drivers," and "the other 20% can see you and are TRYING to hit you."  These idiots are riding like everyone can see them and that the traffic laws (or even basic courtesy) doesn't apply.

I look out for bikes, but you have to be predictable for me to avoid you.  Remember also, your 500 lbs of bike and 250 lbs of you can certainly stop in less distance than my 3,300 lbs of car and 250 lbs of me.  If you get to zero and all I can do is get down to 20 before hitting you, you're going to be going like 15 again.  Neither of us wants that to happen, so be a bit more gentle with the brakes, OK?

My Negligent Discharge

First off, the four rules (as I learned them) of firearm safety:
1. The firearm is always loaded.
2. Don't point it at anything you want to keep.
3. Don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
4. If what you are pointing it at can't stop a bullet, make sure you don't care about what's behind it.

Those are paraphrasing the "official" four rules; but the meaning is essentially the same.  Basically, if you break two rules and it goes off, you won't hurt anyone.  This is a bonus feature, not the actual intent of the rules.

My negligent discharge was with a 2nd Gen Glock 21.  I had just purchased a Springfield 1911 GI and wanted to take some pictures comparing the barrels; so I was taking the Glock apart.  To take a Glock apart, you must pull the trigger.  Foolishly, I was also talking on the phone while doing this.

I had the gun pointed at the wall to my left, dropped the mag (loaded since this was my carry gun at the time), forgot to rack the slide because I was talking on the phone, and pulled the trigger.  BANG!  Hole in the wall.

230gr .45 ACP Gold-Dot v drywall.

Good thing I was following 2 and 4!

This was totally my fault, but it's soured me on Glocks.  I don't like that I have to pull the trigger to take it apart now.  Of the guns in my safe, only the Glock cannot be disassembled with a live round in the chamber (not that doing so would be any smarter).

What did I learn from this?  I learned that I had become complacent about following the basics.  I learned the four rules of safety in the Army; and the first two lines of instruction for disassembly for any weapon are: 1. remove the source of ammunition; 2. clear the chamber; 3+ weapon specific instructions.  I forgot 2.

The result of my discharge has given me new religion about the rules, and soured me on Glock.

Florida Politics

We have a contentious Senate and Gubernatorial election this time through.

I am far more familiar with what's going on with the Senate election.  The Democrats appear to be running the same cardboard cut-out they ran last time (not the same actual person, but someone who is saying the same things that lost last time.)  The arab-curse interesting part of the campaign is Charlie Christ, our RINO Governor.

Democrat: Kendrick Meek.  His own web page pretty much sums up "why not".  He's against developing our gigantic swamp, against offshore drilling, for raising minimum wages, and against privatizing social security.  He is for a middle class tax cut and against (additional) credit card fees; those are positives.  He says that he's the "only one" who's taking those positions, but Governor Crist has actually spent money on the first thing by buying US Sugar out.  The first two things are environmentalist things that I am sick of hearing.  The next two are part of the current crisis.  By the way, Mr Meek, bragging about winning the debate on Univision is not a selling point to someone who is worried the US is being colonized by people from Spanish speaking nations.

Independent: Charlie Crist.  We know this guy pretty well after four years as governor.  RINO.  I have heard people say more than once, "I thought we voted for a Republican."  Well, I did, but this is who we got instead.  I could, perhaps, forgive the RINOness because Florida is a bit left of center overall, but what makes me hate him is his primary run.  He appointed Sen. LeMieux primarily because LeMieux would not run against him for the election.  Unfortunately for Gov. Crist, there was a primary challenge.  Early on, when it looked like it would be an easy win, Crist stated that he'd accept the will of the voters and support the winner of the primary.  Then Marco Rubio started to pull ahead in the polls.  This is when things get interesting.  Gov. Crist went from "support the winner" to "I'm running as an independent".  I could almost have forgiven him if he'd managed to couch the decision as a principled stand against the direction the party was headed post-2008, but he came across more as, "I wanna keep dangling from the public teat."  His decision to keep money donated to him when he was still a Republican and the only R candidate was unforgivable.  He had a press conference justifying his decision and arrogantly declared the donors gave to "Charlie Crist for Senate" not "The Republican Candidate for Senate."  Probably not, Charlie.  Most donors donate to the party not a candidate; and lots of them were more than happy to say so once you kept the money for yourself; reinforcing the impression that you just wanna keep a job on the public's dime.

Republican: Marco Rubio.  I really don't know as much as I should.  His stated positions are basic conservative boilerplate, but the clincher for me is how much Charlie Crist has been attacking him.  Just about the only accusation that Crist hasn't leveled on him is a revelation that he once didn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom.  His demeanor is simple and to the point, I like that.

I guess we shall see.

What this place is, to me.

This is where I air my thoughts.  I talk about guns, I talk about politics, I talk about religion.  I'm a low-rent philosopher.

These are my opinions, I try to back them up with facts when I can, but this is not a research paper so citations might be very spotty.  I will try to give credit where credit is due.  That applies to blame as well.

Some basic things: I am pro-gun.  I'm a heterosexual who supports gay rights.  I'm an atheist who supports freedom of religion.  I'm a disabled veteran.  I'm a father.  I'm a husband.  I'm a scoundrel.

I believe in liberty and freedom.  I feel that you have to give them to receive them.  I believe that freedom and liberty have warts and unpleasant consequences; and I don't care.  Eliminating freedoms to get the warts is exactly the wrong way to do it.

Liberty and freedom are ideals; unattainable in the real world.  That means there are limits to them.  There are things that are off limits here too.

This is my soap-box, not yours.  If you have so much to say that you are drowning out what I am trying to say; make your own blog.  I do welcome comments, however.  Remember, this is not your place; but mine.

Here I go!

This is me, abandoning my comfortable home on LiveJournal to expose my naked belly to the harsh reality of the world.

It's a bit daunting, since I know that Blogger gets a lot more traffic.

I'm going to have to learn to deal with trolls and idiots.

Hopefully I will not have to use the ban hammer or memory hole too often.

Edit:

All posts prior to this one were imported from my LiveJournal account.

The Fallacy Of Giving Them What They Want

I direct you to the tragic tale of the Dr William Petit Jr family of Cheshire, Connecticut.

The mother paid the killers the $15,000 they asked for and it did not save her or her two daughters. Dr. Petit is alive because they didn't spend more time finishing him off and he managed to, literally, wriggle to safety while the killers murdered his family.

Mrs Petit told the teller at the bank what was going on and the police reacted too slowly to do anything.

This, more than anything else convinces me that I am on my own for at least the first thirty minutes once the bad guys make their presence known.

Arm yourself and keep it handy. You never know how much time you'll get to secure your gun.

Rights

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39075518/ns/today-parenting?gt1=43001

The owner of the restaurant has every right to set rules for their establishment, including telling parents of screaming children to fix the problem.

Ms Chambliss is too typical of the parent of a special needs child; over sensitive to any slight. I hate to break it to you, ma'am, but I've seen a lot of these kids now and some of them should not be in restaurants. Where have I seen these children? They are my son's classmates.

I too am a parent of a special needs child. If I am unable to get The Boy to behave, there is no reason at all to ruin the dining experience for the whole place. Luckily, The Boy is high enough functioning to be able to behave most times.

Unspoken in the article is what level her child is at. I'm going to assume that her child is not functioning at a very high level since she takes immediate offense. Get over yourself, ma'am.

Ammo

Talking with Brett last night and I am struck that so few books on guns or ammunition give any sort of context about their development.

Like how John Moses Browning (pbuh) was working hard on a .41 caliber round for his next pistol design when the Army asked for, "like that, but in .45 please." The M-1911 could have been in .41 ACP except the Cavalry felt that it wouldn't reliably put a horse down.

Perhaps how .38 Special is a "magnum" version of the .38 Long Colt? And that .38 caliber was considered "too much is more than enough" because .32 was all you really needed to stop someone.

Even more rare is how "what is already in the inventory" affects both ammunition and arm decisions. I've had people deny the effect, but if it's not true why are there no .276 Garands at the CMP?

Ah HA!

Geff helped me put my finger on it.

It's not atheists that bother me. It's anti-christian bigots who call themselves atheists that bother me.

It's obvious once you talk to them for a while that the anti-christian thing is all that matters. They don't get all frothy about Jews or Moslems. In fact, they go out of their way to avoid pissing off moslems; gee wonder why?

EDIT:The core point of the previous two paragraphs is: it's wrong to blame everyone who's part of a larger group just because a subset of that group is being offensive!

Another thing he helped me realize: If the Ground Zero Mosque people were really interested in a dialog between Islam and the rest of us, once they were informed of how pissed their plan was making people, they'd have said, "Sorry about that," and picked a new location. But it's not about dialog, it's a victory memorial.

Speaking of victory memorials:

http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/Foamboard1,theGiantCrescentPDF.pdf
http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/Foamboard2,ItPointsToMeccaPDF.pdf
http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/Foamboard3,TowerSundialPDF.pdf
http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/Foamboard4,%20the%2044blocksJPG.pdf

And

http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/DirectorsCutDownload.htm

Shooting Lefty

I practice wrong-handed for about 1/3 of my shooting. It's good practice for if your good arm stops working for some reason.

My biggest problem, I can see, will be getting the gun out of its holster and not the controls being set up for a right hander. All of my holsters are strong side, strong hand carry. Especially the pocket holsters.

Manipulating the safety wrong handed is the hardest part, because I am assuming no right hand to use. It requires holding it a bit wrong, but it's not too bad with the 1911 or P238. Those are the hardest guns to work left handed for me. Reloading the revolvers is irritating because the swing-out is sided.

Not a single semi-rifle I have is hard to operate lefty because they are all two handed guns anyway. The bolt guns, that's where the suckage really starts.

Bottom line: Learn to operate your firearms with the wrong paw! It could save your life.

Worst Guns

There's a bit of a meme running around the gun-blogs about "what was your worst gun?"

I am lucky in that I have never really gotten a gun I have loathed.

The revolvers I inherited from Grampa are about the worst guns I have ever owned for trigger pull. Iver Johnson and H&R were known for being affordable, not being silky smooth, so my expectations are met. Grampa was also clearly not a man who took meticulous care of his guns.

My Ruger Mini-14 was a frustrating rifle. Wobbly iron sights, B-Square scope mount that wouldn't stay tightened and a zero that would change from session to session. I didn't particularly care for the proprietary magazines, but they were at least reasonably abundant. I gave up on it and bought a Daewoo DR200.

The DR200 was a workmanlike gun, it never failed me. The front sight was at least 3/16" wide and the rear had a teensy little aperture, making you think that you could get better accuracy that you could. That front sight would block a man-size target completely out at just 50 yards. Better aim for center mass, because that's all you'll be able to see! It took normal M16 magazines, which was a plus; but it got labeled an non-sporting gun and imports were banned, that took the importer out and parts disappeared. I didn't want a gun that I couldn't get parts for, so I started getting AR-15s.

My luck with some guns did not extend to the next owner. The L1A1 clone I built on an Entréprise Arms receiver was fine for me, fine for the next owner, never worked for the next. Sorry Eric. It was probably fixable, by someone who know a lot more about the FAL than we do.

Come My Birthday

Next birthday, my driver's license expires.  To renew I will need to bring

Primary Identification
Which is one of the following:
Certified United States birth certificate, including territories and District of Columbia
Valid United States Passport or Passport Card
Consular Report of Birth Abroad
Certificate of Naturalization, Form N-550 or Form N-570
Certificate of Citizenship, Form N-560 or Form N-561

Proof of Social Security Number
Which is:
Social Security Card
W-2 form
Pay check
SSA-1099
Any 1099

AND! TWO Proofs of Residential Address
Which means any two of the following:
Deed, mortgage, monthly mortgage statement, mortgage payment booklet or residential rental/lease agreement
Florida Voter Registration Card
Florida Vehicle Registration or Title
Florida Boat Registration or Title (if living on a boat/houseboat)
A statement from a parent, step-parent or legal guardian of an applicant. The parent or guardian must reside at the same residence address, accompany the applicant and present "Proof of Residence Address"
A utility hook up or work order dated within 60 days of the application
Automobile Payment Booklet
Selective Service Card
Medical or health card with address listed
Current homeowner's insurance policy or bill
Current automobile insurance policy or bill
Educational institution transcript forms for the current school year
Unexpired professional license issued by a government agency in the U.S.
W-2 form or 1099 form
Form DS2019, Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor (J-1) status
A letter from a homeless shelter, transitional service provider, or a half-way house verifying that the customer resides at the shelter address
Utility bills, not more than two months old
Mail from financial institutions; including checking, savings, or investment account statements, not more than two months old
Mail from Federal, State, County or City government agencies (including city and county agencies)
Transients' Sexual Offender/Predator/Career Offender: - FDLE Registration form completed by local sheriff's department

All that to get a driver's license. Something is rotten in Denmark.

This makes me feel just like when I fill out a 4473. You know, the form that the Supreme Court says felons don't have to fill out because of self incrimination? The form which entire point of is to prevent felons from buying guns.

I've Said This Too!

I just hadn't said it well, or fired near so many rounds to prove it.

Vuurwapen Blog Brings You Another Dead Link

and

Defense Review

Both articles confirmed something I had figured out on my own, the AR is already a piston system. The bolt carrier is a spigot piston. Those articles also show that the "shits where it eats" people should really shut up now. I clean my rifles after every trip to the range more out of a concern for corrosion than carbon because I don't get to shoot as often as I'd like.

In my experience with M16's in the Army, they jammed when using blanks. I never had a single failure with live ammunition. However, that doesn't say much since, as a tank crewman, I didn't shoot the M16 much. One qualification on an M16A1 in OSUT and two quals with my line unit with the M16A2 don't make me an authority, but I did shoot expert!

I noticed that both articles mention that they discarded magazine failures when considering the reliability. I think that is a very telling portion of this debate. I would be fascinated by a study that sees how the AR magazine affects the reliability of other guns.

When I got my first AR15 I still had a Daewoo DR200. I discovered that the AR mags I had on hand worked happily in the DR200 but would mis-feed the third from the last round with the AR. Replacing the black follower with orange Magpul cured the problem in my AR, but there was no issue in the Daewoo. I have always found that very odd.

Truth In Sentencing

I wish to renew my strenuous objection to lifetime bans to owning firearms for felons.

If we feel we cannot trust someone with a gun, I don't think we can trust them outside of a prison.

If I can trust them with knives, gasoline or behind the wheel of a tractor trailer then we can trust them with a gun too.

Comments

What's My Solution To The Fuel For Cars Problem?

Build nuke plants. Make gasoline.

Remember when I said there's naught difference in the tail-pipe emissions? That's because no matter if we're burning gas or E85 we've really got the tail-pipe to CO2, water and some trace compounds for aroma.

The engineers had essentially won the emissions war.

Notice that the debate changes from ozone, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur, etc. and becomes a debate about how much carbon dioxide is emitted once we have sequential multi-port fuel injection and cars that have 436 horsepower getting 30 miles per gallon? To put that in perspective, my '79 Camaro (not emissions legal) got 16 miles per gallon and put out about 200 hp; '86 Civic got 40 mpg, but only had 60 hp and the '91 Biscayne with a '95 engine gets 21 mpg with an output of 250 hp.

EDIT:

The pic is from a 34 mile run from a friend's place to home, almost all interstate running the speed limit.

Do you see the progression?

The irritating thing about this entire, tiresome, debate is that the solution is always the same; no more burning fossil fuels. Since the gas crisis in the early seventies, how many problems have arose where the solution was to stop burning? It's always the same people and organizations finding the problems too. That makes me suspicious.

We had one, count them, one incident with a nuclear reactor in this country. In that incident, the safety systems worked and there was no catastrophe. Compare and contrast Three Mile Island with Chernobyl. Three Mile Island killed nuclear power here because the environmentalists latched onto the accident and got outstandingly sympathetic press.

Step one: Tell the greenies to shut up, fuck off, and get them out of the way.
Step two: Fission baby!
Step three: Use the energy produced to make gas.
Step four: Burn baby burn!

The Germans were making gasoline from scratch in WW2. It's not efficient. We start doing it on a larger scale, we will learn more about the process and then we can refine and improve upon it. What manufacturing gasoline from scratch does is change is from an energy source to a method of energy storage. Other advantages should appear too; this will be very pure gasoline with hardly any of the contaminants found in natural petroleum. Synthetic motor oil has discovered this as well.

It's been said that if gasoline didn't exist, we would have to invent it. I think that's true. It's easily transported, stored, and transferred. It has an amazing energy density. All we have to do is admit that CO2 is not Sarin and let people burn it.


Comments

Assumptions

I don't go off half cocked about a lot of car things. I do a lot of research before making conclusions.

The previous post is seven points from a 400 level econ term paper. I got an A, but the paper itself is lost thanks to a failed hard drive.

I am not going to re-research the entire thing just to refute an anonymous commenter. I will point out that when you post chemical reactions, you should use real world data and not theoretical. The reactions listed (and deleted for not signing their post) were correct, for standard temperature and pressure in a pure oxygen environment. Those equations are not correct in an engine combustion chamber. Nitrogen is liberated from the air and sulfur from impurities in the gasoline and oil. No fuel is as pure as that theoretical reaction. You need to crack some college level dynamic forces engineering and do some calculus to get the conditions that you then apply to your chemistry equations. It's messy.

Tailpipe measurements trump theoretical output anyway and the measured results are not as wide as the theoretical.

Other advice, when doing a point by point rebuttal, actually address the point being made; don't change it to an unrelated tangent. For example talking about ease of filling the tank in the point about energy density. I never said E85 was harder to put into the tank than normal gas, I just said it takes a lot more of it to get the same work.

And sign your work! You're posting it, own it. If you don't own it, I toss it.

Do it like this; after you're done, hit return, hyphen twice, then put your name.
--Thag.

E85

E85 is not a good idea.

1. It's burning food. We're going to need that food someday and having it committed to be burnt is foolish at best.

2. It's not economical. Without massive subsidies it would not be made or sold. It costs more than regular gas to make, ship and store. You might see a lower price at the pump, but that's only because taxes from other places have paid the portion you are not at the moment.

3. It's not economical. Ethyl alcohol is less energy dense than gasoline. To get the same energy out, you must burn more of it. This means you cannot go as far on a tank of fuel and need to fill up more often. This effect is noticeable with even E15 and E10.

4. There's an illusion of "more pep" because it's got a higher octane rating than normal gas. This allows the timing to be run more advanced. This makes things happen sooner, but unlike most other fuels with higher octane; it has a lower energy content. What you are getting is things happening sooner, but actually slower. Put a clock on it. 0-60 is slower. 1/4 mile is slower.

5. The entire reason it exists is based on an enormous fraud! Global warming; or rather Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. We don't have a large effect on the climate and because of that, burning food will not have a positive effect. See the big glowing ball of fusion in the sky that's there ALL DAMN DAY?? There's your climate change engine.

6. It's not doing what you think it's doing. CO2 emissions are essentially identical to normal gasoline combustion. Remember how it takes more E85 to get the same work done? That means that E85 emits more CO2 for the same work as gas. But wait! It gets better! Gas doesn't have the CO2 emissions from tractors planting, tending and harvesting grain. Gas doesn't have CO2 emissions from the distilling process of turning food into alcohol.

7. It's not sustainable! There is not enough arable land on the planet to keep up with the US demand for vehicle fuel, let alone the world. That includes considering using non-edible plants like sawgrass for the feed stock. No matter how you slice this up you are trading food to eat for food to burn. You are deciding that, someday, people will starve so you can drive. Don't even try to say you aren't.

In short, alcohol based fuels are stupid. Crowing the advantages of them makes you look stupid. If this hurts your feelings, I am sorry. Pointing out stuff like this costs me friends. I can't help but think that people wish to be ignorant of how things work deliberately.

EDIT:
The terms "economical" and "sustainable" are used in rebuttal to claims made by boosters of E85. No source of energy is sustainable if you run the time table out far enough. Economical is used where "cheaper" should be, and E85 is not cheaper. If it truly was, then the developers would just put it out there for the market to buy; and a truly cheaper option would sell.

Burning food is really burning the food that food eats since it is made from field corn for the most part. The prices of beef at the supermarket are 50% higher than before the mandate. If that's not true at your local market, check to see if your state has a beef subsidy (Iowa and Texas reportedly do, but I have not confirmed that).

The lack of arable land will eventually matter. The world population is growing and someday we will have to decide between food or fuel on a field that's growing feedstock for alcohol. It's inevitable. It's just as true that we'll eventually have a large enough population that even growing food any place it's possible, there will be famine. Why rush it for nothing?

"True Cost" is exactly that. It's what something costs with all things considered. Cost at the pump is not the true cost, that the adjusted cost. $2.399 (say) for E85 is less the per gallon subsidy paid to the retailer, less the subsidy paid to the manufacturer, less the subsidy paid to the corn farmer. True cost would be $2.399 PLUS all the subsidies. Which is a lot more than the price of an unsubsidized gallon of gasoline, even premium.


Comments

About That Multi-Name Mosque

Rauf had better be careful about the tack he is taking to put his mosque in a provocative place. That exact same reasoning can be used to justify all manner of businesses that are offensive to Moslems.

Geff mentioned several in his post. http://fuzzy-geff.livejournal.com/3348.html

After getting the thing shoved up our ass under the "first amendment right" justification, you'd better bet that we're going to see all manner of things next door to and across the street from it. Rauf and his buddies had better suck it up and ignore it too. If they resort to the violence that Islam is famous for in retaliation the people opposed to the mosque can say, "Told you so," and rip it down.

Good news though, the heavily unionized construction industry in NYC is basically refusing to work the job. I would hate to attempt to build anything there without the union's cooperation since they are heavily entwined with the building inspectors and code enforcement. "I see the code calls for a type 252-R Pitney Flange here and I don't see one on your plans or on site; let alone the accompanying safety wire on the bolts and there's clearly inadequate grounding for it built into the electrical system. I'm afraid all work must stop until the plans are amended and approved and the site passes a second inspection for compliance. I wouldn't try to get a variance on this on, Judge Steinberg is a stickler for the code as written."

This brings me to another thought about this. I am sick and fucking tired of being told how I have to so gorram tolerant of visitors in my own gorram country while they can shit on the fucking carpet. Want some respect from me? Show some.

Comments

In Line With That Hope

I've been reading that the electorate is waking up and becoming engaged. Good! From what my friends have been talking about, that assessment is correct.

People are upset about the state of the State. Also good.

Americans are a generous people. Sometimes to a fault. We give where others pretend not to have heard the call.

Despite the "rude american" image we are also extremely polite. When we are being generous, all we ask is you wipe your feet and don't call Mom a whore. Easy.

While we are generous, we cannot stand moochers. The moochers have us examining the state of affairs with Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and the border.

What we are seeing is our generosity has given our government entirely too much power over our lives and we're not happy about it. The groggy giant smashed the snooze button when it attempted to let Congress know that we DID NOT WANT the health care monstrosity. Congress should have listened.

The upcoming election will be pivotal. If changes aren't made in DC, there will be an uproar. I am not exaggerating that the nation has not been this divided since the Civil War. The percentages are such that if the people in fly-over are ignored gallows could be erected. We want our country back and we're to the point where we're about ready to kill to get it. I would be far better for a vote to decide it.

Hope

Something I most definitely need now.

http://snarkybytes.com/2010/08/08/america-fuck-yeah/#comments

I'll add though:

The US has not been this divided since the Civil War. He's correct in pointing out that we were more divided though.

He points out Jim Crow and the Indian Wars as examples of the "police state" being worse than now; I beg to differ. The scope is smaller now, but the scale is far larger with a clear intent of making it worse.

However, I join him in his optimism for what the future holds.

Spread This Far And Wide

Pantry Proof That Marxism Can Never Work

Quote Of The Random Interval

"The traditional reward for fighting out of uniform was a drumhead trial, a blindfold and a cigarette, (although we probably wouldn't use the cigarette these days because they cause cancer.)"

Tam. From: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2010/08/like-twisted-disney-cartoon.html

Happy Nagasaki Day

"You mean you were out?!" みじめな悪臭を放つ嘘つき! 信頼できる軍産複合体を信頼できなければか。


Comments

Happy Hiroshima Day

Thanks Enola Gay!

Comments

Webcomic

http://www.the-whiteboard.com/autowb319.html

Mayhem In Mass

Approximately thirty people were killed in Massachusetts during a "blogger shoot". The presence of semiautomaticassaultweapons is suspected to be the principle cause of the carnage.

Several of the bloggers slain in the massacre claim that nobody was hurt, let alone killed, but we all know how "those people" lie.

http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2010/08/bloggershoot-recap-round-two.html

Everything Old Is New Again

The new M855A1 round has an exposed steel tip to increase penetration against hard targets.

Gene Stoner added a 4-40 screw to the nose of some early 5.56x45mm, creating an exposed steel tip, to accomplish much the same thing back when there wasn't even an XM16 yet...

I Suspected But Could Not Prove

I've said for a long time that the media spoke with a suspiciously unified voice.

I had attributed it to there being so very few owners of the large outlets and that they just happened to agree with one another.

The recent kerfluffle about JournaList shows that the members of the media are willing to conspire to push their agenda. Conspire and lie about it.

This explains a great deal.

It was impossible to talk about how Bill Clinton committed perjury when all we could talk about was that getting fellatio was OK or even admirable.

When the topic was how admirable fellatio was, it was impossible to talk about how that act was sexual harassment.

It was impossible to talk about how I disagreed with Bush Jr's spending when I had to prove he wasn't Hitler.

It was impossible to express my concerns about how Obama assassinated the character of Joe the Plumber while attempting to explain that Sarah Palin wasn't really a moron.

I couldn't talk about my concerns about how the Obama campaign squelched the local media in Missouri or how ACORN might have been committing voter registration fraud when the media flat refused to report on it and was unified about how the one channel, Fox, that talked about it was wholly owned by the Republican party. I notice that nobody is talking much about how the margin of error in the Minnesota senate campaign was determined by illegally registered felons.

Never mind that if the Republicans owning Fox is wrong, then the Democrats owning the rest is just as wrong.

A republic hinges on a well informed electorate. Intentional misinformation runs counter to the needs of a free nation. I would call it treasonous; I am not alone.

Comments

Out

Instead of the party of no, I want the party of out.

Out of my gun cabinet.
Out of my medicine chest.
Out of my cigarette case.
Out of my humidor.
Out of my liquor cabinet.
Out of my marriage.
Out of my bedroom.
Out of my bank account.
Out of my garage.
Out of my life!

That covers it; generally and specifically.