Sunday, October 31, 2004
Acknowledgement, with thanks
The Geek With a .45 was good enough to add me to his blogroll. I am grateful, as he is one of the pre-eminent gun blogs.
I'm still working on Instapundit and Spoons, but if you try to hold your breath that long, you will probably die.
I'm still working on Instapundit and Spoons, but if you try to hold your breath that long, you will probably die.
I hate Bob Herbert
In case the title of this post did not convey my true feelings, let me extrapolate. This man plays the race card more than Jesse Jackson. To him, blacks are merely a weak minority that gets run over every time it tries to extend its opinions. Giving the District of Columbia the right to bear arms would be irresponsible, because we all know urban blacks cannot be trusted with guns.
This man is more of a nemesis to me than Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd. This man believes people should be judged on their economic status or the color of their skin or the party they belong to. The King doctrine of judging someone's character is out the window.
His pre-election fare is some of the most vile, bilous rhetoric I've heard lately. This man is a disgrace.
Overseas, our troops are being mauled in the long dark night of Iraq - a war with no end in sight...
What is this "long dark night" crap? Of everything I've read about, talked to military people about, it is no long dark night. It is helping a, once subjugated population reach light from the depths they existed in before we deemed it worthy to free them. Don't get me wrong, Iraq would not have happened without 9/11 and I don't think the US should be the world police; but I know guys who were shot at while flying over so-called no-fly zones.
At home, the party of the sitting president is systematically stomping on the right of black Americans to vote, a vile and racist practice that makes a mockery of the president's claim to favor real democracy anywhere.
"A vile and racist" accusation that is thrown out there without any fucking support. This guy writes for the NY Times but gets his news from the Democratic Underground and Michael Moore. Mary Frances Berry (who is by no means non-partisan) and the rest of the US Civil Rights Commision concluded that their was not a single black person whose vote was deliberately obstructed or disfranchised (I'm no longer using the currently popular word, but the correct one.)
And this isn't voter intimidation or disfranchising, it is "stomping on the right of black Americans." This guy will need a rest at the giggle farm, regardless of who wins this election.
Unofficial estimates of the number of Iraqis killed in the war have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000. But a survey conducted by scientists from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad compared the death rates of Iraqis before and after the American invasion. They estimated that 100,000 more Iraqis have died in the 18 months since the invasion than would have been expected based on Iraqi death rates before the war.
That would be shocking if it wasn't already discredited. I'd find links, but it is prima facia ludicrous.
The scientists acknowledged that the survey was difficult to compile and that their findings represent a rough estimate. But even if they were off by as many as 20,000 or 40,000 deaths, their findings would still be chilling.
Did I mention that these numbers have been thoroughly discredited by numerous organizations? But even if the number is off by 50% it is still chilling.
Most of the widespread violent deaths, the scientists reported, were attributed to coalition forces. "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces," the report said, "were women and children."
This is the voice a poor bastard who never got over the civil-rights movement and subsequent anti-war movement that happened over 35 years ago. If you think Coalition forces are killing women and children, you probably also wear an aluminum hat, think you live on the moon, or get a New York Times paycheck.
Also mind-boggling is the attempt by Republican Party elements to return the U.S. to the wretched days of the mid-20th century when many black Americans faced harassment, intimidation and worse for daring to exercise their fundamental right to vote.
When I was taught how to write an essay, the number one priority was maintaining your central topic. This guy swings between war atrocities and black voter disfranchisement like there was remotely possible link. Well, I guess there is; the Dreaded Republican Party. Every contribution you make to the RNC means they're buying more firehoses, dogs, and cattle-prods.
That's called voter suppression, folks, and the G.O.P. concentrates its voter-suppression efforts in the precincts where there are large numbers of African-Americans. And that's called racism.
Read the whole piece, but what this joker is trying to say is that the GOP suppresses votes through both known and unknown means. These attempts take place largely in urban black neighborhoods. His basic thesis is that black people are too stupid to know their own rights or read the Constitution, so just tell them to vote on Nov. 3, or tell them if they show up their children will be taken away.
Guys like Walter Williams, Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, etc. seem to have figured it out.
It's not the GOP that is racist, it's Bob Herbert.
UPDATE: Kirk over at Limpidity, rightly points out that I was somewhat derelict in this post, in that I did not cite any sources for my contention that the civilian casualty count Lancet threw up against the wall. The Washington Times published the facts about the so-called study. The poll only included 998 Iraqi households and extrapolated the questionable data to the entire country. Much like badly run domestic polls, I don't buy it. However, I should have provided evidence to back up my claim that Mr. Herbert is full of runny brown stuff.
This man is more of a nemesis to me than Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd. This man believes people should be judged on their economic status or the color of their skin or the party they belong to. The King doctrine of judging someone's character is out the window.
His pre-election fare is some of the most vile, bilous rhetoric I've heard lately. This man is a disgrace.
Overseas, our troops are being mauled in the long dark night of Iraq - a war with no end in sight...
What is this "long dark night" crap? Of everything I've read about, talked to military people about, it is no long dark night. It is helping a, once subjugated population reach light from the depths they existed in before we deemed it worthy to free them. Don't get me wrong, Iraq would not have happened without 9/11 and I don't think the US should be the world police; but I know guys who were shot at while flying over so-called no-fly zones.
At home, the party of the sitting president is systematically stomping on the right of black Americans to vote, a vile and racist practice that makes a mockery of the president's claim to favor real democracy anywhere.
"A vile and racist" accusation that is thrown out there without any fucking support. This guy writes for the NY Times but gets his news from the Democratic Underground and Michael Moore. Mary Frances Berry (who is by no means non-partisan) and the rest of the US Civil Rights Commision concluded that their was not a single black person whose vote was deliberately obstructed or disfranchised (I'm no longer using the currently popular word, but the correct one.)
And this isn't voter intimidation or disfranchising, it is "stomping on the right of black Americans." This guy will need a rest at the giggle farm, regardless of who wins this election.
Unofficial estimates of the number of Iraqis killed in the war have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000. But a survey conducted by scientists from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad compared the death rates of Iraqis before and after the American invasion. They estimated that 100,000 more Iraqis have died in the 18 months since the invasion than would have been expected based on Iraqi death rates before the war.
That would be shocking if it wasn't already discredited. I'd find links, but it is prima facia ludicrous.
The scientists acknowledged that the survey was difficult to compile and that their findings represent a rough estimate. But even if they were off by as many as 20,000 or 40,000 deaths, their findings would still be chilling.
Did I mention that these numbers have been thoroughly discredited by numerous organizations? But even if the number is off by 50% it is still chilling.
Most of the widespread violent deaths, the scientists reported, were attributed to coalition forces. "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces," the report said, "were women and children."
This is the voice a poor bastard who never got over the civil-rights movement and subsequent anti-war movement that happened over 35 years ago. If you think Coalition forces are killing women and children, you probably also wear an aluminum hat, think you live on the moon, or get a New York Times paycheck.
Also mind-boggling is the attempt by Republican Party elements to return the U.S. to the wretched days of the mid-20th century when many black Americans faced harassment, intimidation and worse for daring to exercise their fundamental right to vote.
When I was taught how to write an essay, the number one priority was maintaining your central topic. This guy swings between war atrocities and black voter disfranchisement like there was remotely possible link. Well, I guess there is; the Dreaded Republican Party. Every contribution you make to the RNC means they're buying more firehoses, dogs, and cattle-prods.
That's called voter suppression, folks, and the G.O.P. concentrates its voter-suppression efforts in the precincts where there are large numbers of African-Americans. And that's called racism.
Read the whole piece, but what this joker is trying to say is that the GOP suppresses votes through both known and unknown means. These attempts take place largely in urban black neighborhoods. His basic thesis is that black people are too stupid to know their own rights or read the Constitution, so just tell them to vote on Nov. 3, or tell them if they show up their children will be taken away.
Guys like Walter Williams, Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, etc. seem to have figured it out.
It's not the GOP that is racist, it's Bob Herbert.
UPDATE: Kirk over at Limpidity, rightly points out that I was somewhat derelict in this post, in that I did not cite any sources for my contention that the civilian casualty count Lancet threw up against the wall. The Washington Times published the facts about the so-called study. The poll only included 998 Iraqi households and extrapolated the questionable data to the entire country. Much like badly run domestic polls, I don't buy it. However, I should have provided evidence to back up my claim that Mr. Herbert is full of runny brown stuff.
Electoral College and the WP
I haven't fisked anything decent in a while, so here goes.
The Washington Post has an op-ed up from a professor somewhere (I assume because he's smarter than me.)
The most popular idea to replace it -- a national direct election -- has the obvious appeal of honoring our modern-day commitment to the principle of one person, one vote. We would no longer risk the distortion of majority sentiment by a disproportionate allocation of state electors.
But a national direct election would also mean giving up a number of advantages that thoughtful commentators attribute to the electoral college system as it currently operates.
Firstly, the "thoughtful commentators" he is referring to are the Founding Fathers. Secondly, I don't know where he comes up with any "modern-day commitment" to majority rules.
I've made this argument before; if majority ruled, a more stringent AWB would be in place. As the author points out in another segment of this tripe, labeled commentary, Gore would be president. Both of these facts lead me to believe that if the majority ruled, I would be punished fiscally, constitutionally and any other way "the majority" could devise.
The winner-take-all system everywhere but Maine and Nebraska, which is based on state law and not on the Constitution, bolsters the two-party system, which many think the basis for our long history of relative political stability.
Well asshead tells an out and out lie here. The system(s) are based on state law because that is what the Constitution says. So it is entirely based on the Constitution. If Vermont says you can only be a candidate for the House if you have the requisite number of varicose veins that's fine. Of course I'm ignoring equal protection, numerous amendments, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
But the professor is smarter than those stupid dead white men, isn't he?
For all of these reasons, it may be attractive to replace our current process with another system of indirect election that simply changes the makeup of the electoral college.
If I voted for what was "attractive," Cindy Crawford would be president. But let's hear out his arguments.
Currently, each state gets a number of electors equivalent to the number of its members of the House, plus two for its senators.
It is the latter allocation that most significantly causes the overweighting of the small states' votes. Giving each state a number of electors equivalent to its House delegation would still overrepresent the less populated states, but not as dramatically.
The Constitution had a very good reason for giving each state 2 Senators and giving them the equivalent two electoral votes. So that people in California and New York could not run the country into the ground. They had different examples, i.e. the Confederacy of States, the rule of King George, etc.; but the rationale holds true.
If you rob Rhode Island of two electoral votes, you are disenfranchising them (note: the actual word is disfranchise, but I have given in to post 2000 political rhetoric.) If the Constitution guarantees that to them, they get it. This asshole is recommending voter intimidation on a federal level.
The second step of a desirable con- stitutional amendment would be to require states to choose their electors through statewide popular votes. This would finally give explicit recognition to the proposition that participating in presidential elections, even if run by the states, is a privilege of national citizenship.
Don't ask me about the dash; it is in the text. If the argument here is that the popular vote should decide all of a state's electors, that already happens in 90% of states. If he is arguing that the votes should be divided on the basis of the popular vote, that contradicts the very intent of the Constitutional framework.
A third step would be to impose the winner-take-all "unit rule" as a national standard, thus protecting the two-party system and the incentive that our current system embodies for consensus-building and governing from the middle.
Well, I'm just not a fan of "governing from the middle." It remind me of Clinton.
Finally, a new amendment should provide that, in elections thrown to Congress, each state delegation would vote as a whole, as it does now, but that the vote of each state would be weighted according to the size of its House delegation. In other words, we should not abandon a fair weighting of the states just at the point that the electoral college fails to produce an outcome.
This is essentially no different than a popular vote. This egghead is a little too nuanced for his own good. This is the idea that reform, no matter what it is, is a good thing. Being progressive is a good thing, because that means change and any change must me good. Horseshit.
I total, all you need to know is in the second to last paragraph:
Had this system been in place from 1960 to 2000, it would have changed the outcome of only one election -- the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore. Instead of losing 271 to 266, Gore would have won 224 to 211, which would have accorded with the popular vote.
So he was a Gore voter. 'Nuff said.
The Washington Post has an op-ed up from a professor somewhere (I assume because he's smarter than me.)
The most popular idea to replace it -- a national direct election -- has the obvious appeal of honoring our modern-day commitment to the principle of one person, one vote. We would no longer risk the distortion of majority sentiment by a disproportionate allocation of state electors.
But a national direct election would also mean giving up a number of advantages that thoughtful commentators attribute to the electoral college system as it currently operates.
Firstly, the "thoughtful commentators" he is referring to are the Founding Fathers. Secondly, I don't know where he comes up with any "modern-day commitment" to majority rules.
I've made this argument before; if majority ruled, a more stringent AWB would be in place. As the author points out in another segment of this tripe, labeled commentary, Gore would be president. Both of these facts lead me to believe that if the majority ruled, I would be punished fiscally, constitutionally and any other way "the majority" could devise.
The winner-take-all system everywhere but Maine and Nebraska, which is based on state law and not on the Constitution, bolsters the two-party system, which many think the basis for our long history of relative political stability.
Well asshead tells an out and out lie here. The system(s) are based on state law because that is what the Constitution says. So it is entirely based on the Constitution. If Vermont says you can only be a candidate for the House if you have the requisite number of varicose veins that's fine. Of course I'm ignoring equal protection, numerous amendments, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
But the professor is smarter than those stupid dead white men, isn't he?
For all of these reasons, it may be attractive to replace our current process with another system of indirect election that simply changes the makeup of the electoral college.
If I voted for what was "attractive," Cindy Crawford would be president. But let's hear out his arguments.
Currently, each state gets a number of electors equivalent to the number of its members of the House, plus two for its senators.
It is the latter allocation that most significantly causes the overweighting of the small states' votes. Giving each state a number of electors equivalent to its House delegation would still overrepresent the less populated states, but not as dramatically.
The Constitution had a very good reason for giving each state 2 Senators and giving them the equivalent two electoral votes. So that people in California and New York could not run the country into the ground. They had different examples, i.e. the Confederacy of States, the rule of King George, etc.; but the rationale holds true.
If you rob Rhode Island of two electoral votes, you are disenfranchising them (note: the actual word is disfranchise, but I have given in to post 2000 political rhetoric.) If the Constitution guarantees that to them, they get it. This asshole is recommending voter intimidation on a federal level.
The second step of a desirable con- stitutional amendment would be to require states to choose their electors through statewide popular votes. This would finally give explicit recognition to the proposition that participating in presidential elections, even if run by the states, is a privilege of national citizenship.
Don't ask me about the dash; it is in the text. If the argument here is that the popular vote should decide all of a state's electors, that already happens in 90% of states. If he is arguing that the votes should be divided on the basis of the popular vote, that contradicts the very intent of the Constitutional framework.
A third step would be to impose the winner-take-all "unit rule" as a national standard, thus protecting the two-party system and the incentive that our current system embodies for consensus-building and governing from the middle.
Well, I'm just not a fan of "governing from the middle." It remind me of Clinton.
Finally, a new amendment should provide that, in elections thrown to Congress, each state delegation would vote as a whole, as it does now, but that the vote of each state would be weighted according to the size of its House delegation. In other words, we should not abandon a fair weighting of the states just at the point that the electoral college fails to produce an outcome.
This is essentially no different than a popular vote. This egghead is a little too nuanced for his own good. This is the idea that reform, no matter what it is, is a good thing. Being progressive is a good thing, because that means change and any change must me good. Horseshit.
I total, all you need to know is in the second to last paragraph:
Had this system been in place from 1960 to 2000, it would have changed the outcome of only one election -- the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore. Instead of losing 271 to 266, Gore would have won 224 to 211, which would have accorded with the popular vote.
So he was a Gore voter. 'Nuff said.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Paranoia Weekend
I'm feeling a bit fragile. First off, I have a unique situation. My business bought a building several years ago. The blueprint was perfect but we were loathe to rent out the second story because of liability issues. I, being the lone white guy nut with too many guns who seems nice and keeps to himself, ended up living in the second story. This has advantages and disadvantages. I will only speak of advantages. I have close to 1,300 square feet of room. I have a pellet gun range at 120 feet or so. I also make sure the building is secure during nights and weekends.
Today, I was on the road for most of the afternoon (I heard about our buddy 'Sama on the radio.) When I got back to the office a partner informed me that a bum was peaking in my door. The partner opened the door and spoke with the rancid sack of shit. Said vermin expressed interest in a job. My first instinct is that he was casing the premises. A little paranoia, but my high-cap Glock magazines came in today as well.
Secondly is my buddy Osama. The fucker hasn't been seen for 2 years or so, but surfaces 4 days before an election. This was not screened CIA material, it was aired like fat lady underwear over Al-Jazeera. If one recalls, prior to the Cole bombing, I believe he had a video 4 or 5 days before. These videos contain code that may activate certain cells. With the Cole bombing, he was wearing a distinct Yemeni dagger on his belt. Intelligence found this to be the the go-command to the Yemeni swine. As I said, I was on the road today, so I wasn't able to see any video. But some shit might blow up in the next several days, and that weirds me out.
Remaining hunkered and bunkered, and no homeless fucker better knock on the door or anything else within a mile radius.
Today, I was on the road for most of the afternoon (I heard about our buddy 'Sama on the radio.) When I got back to the office a partner informed me that a bum was peaking in my door. The partner opened the door and spoke with the rancid sack of shit. Said vermin expressed interest in a job. My first instinct is that he was casing the premises. A little paranoia, but my high-cap Glock magazines came in today as well.
Secondly is my buddy Osama. The fucker hasn't been seen for 2 years or so, but surfaces 4 days before an election. This was not screened CIA material, it was aired like fat lady underwear over Al-Jazeera. If one recalls, prior to the Cole bombing, I believe he had a video 4 or 5 days before. These videos contain code that may activate certain cells. With the Cole bombing, he was wearing a distinct Yemeni dagger on his belt. Intelligence found this to be the the go-command to the Yemeni swine. As I said, I was on the road today, so I wasn't able to see any video. But some shit might blow up in the next several days, and that weirds me out.
Remaining hunkered and bunkered, and no homeless fucker better knock on the door or anything else within a mile radius.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Tactical lights
Hell in a Handbasket first brought this up, in a very applicable scenario. The application of light is almost more important than the caliber you sport. He prevented an incident with a flashlight, without racking a weapon, or even letting the usurper realize he was armed.
Head follows up with recollections of a similiar experience and actually cites a specific product.
Several weeks ago, The Geek had a realization at a gun show about how useful these devices are.
I, for one, realized the benefit of 120 lumens early on; I just misapplied the reasoning.
My normal bedside gun is the CZ P-01. I don't live with anyone and don't have kids, so the pistol carries one in the chamber, decocked, but is still double-action when you pick it up. The light I scored for it mounts on the rail beneath the muzzle. The picture has a Streamlight M-6 mounted, which has a laser sight as well as the tac light, while mine is a Streamlight M-3 (no laser sight, just 80 lumens of white light.)
I've come to the realization that, if you are on a SWAT team or clear safe-houses on a regular basis, this light is a good choice. Your target is illuminated and, consequently, your muzzle is pointed in the right direction. But I'm not one of those guys. I'm a scrub.
An article I read (I don't remember where) pointed out that just because you want to paint a subject with a tac light, that does not necessarily mean you want the muzzle of a loaded double-action pistol pointing at them, as well. The off-hand utilization allows you to either paint the subject without pointing your muzzle at it, or utilize a grip that paints and points.
Head and HiaHB both bring up the necessity of another sheath for the light. Like I don't have enough shit hanging off of my belt already (my mother never understands that, while I'm not getting fatter, I need bigger pants.) I will be ordering the recommended light and sheath this evening.
And same as Head, if anyone cited wants to send me a buttload of batteries, I'll endorse your product with my 2-tooth smile and a gallon of moonshine.
UPDATE: CowboyBlob gives the low down on the use and utilization of lights.
Head follows up with recollections of a similiar experience and actually cites a specific product.
Several weeks ago, The Geek had a realization at a gun show about how useful these devices are.
I, for one, realized the benefit of 120 lumens early on; I just misapplied the reasoning.
My normal bedside gun is the CZ P-01. I don't live with anyone and don't have kids, so the pistol carries one in the chamber, decocked, but is still double-action when you pick it up. The light I scored for it mounts on the rail beneath the muzzle. The picture has a Streamlight M-6 mounted, which has a laser sight as well as the tac light, while mine is a Streamlight M-3 (no laser sight, just 80 lumens of white light.)
I've come to the realization that, if you are on a SWAT team or clear safe-houses on a regular basis, this light is a good choice. Your target is illuminated and, consequently, your muzzle is pointed in the right direction. But I'm not one of those guys. I'm a scrub.
An article I read (I don't remember where) pointed out that just because you want to paint a subject with a tac light, that does not necessarily mean you want the muzzle of a loaded double-action pistol pointing at them, as well. The off-hand utilization allows you to either paint the subject without pointing your muzzle at it, or utilize a grip that paints and points.
Head and HiaHB both bring up the necessity of another sheath for the light. Like I don't have enough shit hanging off of my belt already (my mother never understands that, while I'm not getting fatter, I need bigger pants.) I will be ordering the recommended light and sheath this evening.
And same as Head, if anyone cited wants to send me a buttload of batteries, I'll endorse your product with my 2-tooth smile and a gallon of moonshine.
UPDATE: CowboyBlob gives the low down on the use and utilization of lights.
Election Fatigue
It was shortly under 12 months ago I was watching Democratic primary stumps and debates. At that time, I was fervently rooting for the Rev. Al Sharpton. But that fervor has waned in the ensuing time period.
This election has taken way too long and if it lasts past Nov. 3rd, I'm going to be very pissed off. Nothing reflects weakness like a country that doesn't know who its leadership is. This happened in 2000, to the glee of the wine and chocolate manufacturers. This is a different era. To project that sort of weakness is a tactical concession.
I think I've made clear that I consider Kerry to be about the most reprehensible sort of individual that a person could run in to.
What's starting to grate is the "he said," "he, said" sort of campaign that has been taking place this last several weeks, thanks, in part, to the NYT and CBS.
Read Dowd today (I don't recommend it.) She is full of so much shit, she could fertilize an organic farm for the next 10 years. It's trite, dim-witted, and, as always, completely leaves out the fact that 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of some people who swapped in their nightshirts for 3-pc. suits.
The other case is Andrew Sullivan, who turned from hand-wringing pragmatist into a full on moon bat. His endorsement of Kerry consists of mental gymnastics and truth through prisms that would take a smarter man than me to figure out. His basic point seems to be that we know Bush sucks so why not give a guy a shot who could be worlds worse than Bush. There's a snowball's chance in hell he might be the leader we need.
All of this is balderdash. The election is Tuesday, go vote, ignore people who are supposedly "smarter" than the rest of us (because they don't know shit) and cross your fingers it is a convincing electoral win.
And if you have free time, tell Maureen Dowd what an idiot she is.
This election has taken way too long and if it lasts past Nov. 3rd, I'm going to be very pissed off. Nothing reflects weakness like a country that doesn't know who its leadership is. This happened in 2000, to the glee of the wine and chocolate manufacturers. This is a different era. To project that sort of weakness is a tactical concession.
I think I've made clear that I consider Kerry to be about the most reprehensible sort of individual that a person could run in to.
What's starting to grate is the "he said," "he, said" sort of campaign that has been taking place this last several weeks, thanks, in part, to the NYT and CBS.
Read Dowd today (I don't recommend it.) She is full of so much shit, she could fertilize an organic farm for the next 10 years. It's trite, dim-witted, and, as always, completely leaves out the fact that 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of some people who swapped in their nightshirts for 3-pc. suits.
The other case is Andrew Sullivan, who turned from hand-wringing pragmatist into a full on moon bat. His endorsement of Kerry consists of mental gymnastics and truth through prisms that would take a smarter man than me to figure out. His basic point seems to be that we know Bush sucks so why not give a guy a shot who could be worlds worse than Bush. There's a snowball's chance in hell he might be the leader we need.
All of this is balderdash. The election is Tuesday, go vote, ignore people who are supposedly "smarter" than the rest of us (because they don't know shit) and cross your fingers it is a convincing electoral win.
And if you have free time, tell Maureen Dowd what an idiot she is.
Good bye, Pres. Clinton
I got the email today that my post-post-ban Glock 17 magazines will be showing up Monday. I ordered 5 new manufacture (no LEO stamp) 17-round 9mm magazines. I will be smiling by the end of the work day on Monday. A little freer and a little further away from Bill Clinton's abuse of me and Monica's rights.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Stolen Honor
My lazy ass just got around to watching the Stolen Honor video.
At best, this man is seditious; at worst, he is a traitor. I think it is a sad and sick testament to the character of this country that a man like this could even be considered for the highest office in the land. As I have stated time and time again, I do not blame this pusillanimous excuse for an upright vertebrate, I blame us. We are at fault that this man is even a consideration, and it will be a far worse indictment of the populace if this man wins the election in a week.
If you are undecided, I don't understand you, and I probably never will.
At best, this man is seditious; at worst, he is a traitor. I think it is a sad and sick testament to the character of this country that a man like this could even be considered for the highest office in the land. As I have stated time and time again, I do not blame this pusillanimous excuse for an upright vertebrate, I blame us. We are at fault that this man is even a consideration, and it will be a far worse indictment of the populace if this man wins the election in a week.
If you are undecided, I don't understand you, and I probably never will.
Easy Kerry Shot
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
What is this "Knife Culture?"
Tony Blair, while being a staunch ally in all of our foreign undertakings, is still a liberal. A hawkish liberal, but still a liberal. This article highlights some of his domestic dissonance.
Tony Blair tonight pledged to do more to combat crime, particularly violence involving drink, guns and knives.The Prime Minister said falling numbers of offences means people now have the lowest chance of becoming a victim in over 20 years.But writing in the Daily Mirror, Mr Blair said: “Crime and the fear of crime still cast a shadow over far too many lives and communities.”
Sounds reasonable enough. We have decreased crime, but will strive forth to reach the most favorable state a society could have. Good for them. But then the next sentence:
The article comes after official figures last week showed an 11% leap in violent crime despite an overall drop in recorded offences.
If recorded offences are down, is the leap in crime a murder figure? They catch less people? There are several ways to interpret these numbers, and none of them are good.
“The whole Government are determined to do more to put the law-abiding majority back in charge of communities,” he said.
My answer: legalize guns. Handguns, shotguns, rifles, whatever. If some degenerate tries to violate you, "put the law-abiding majority back in charge," so to speak.
“We need as well to do more to tackle alcohol-related disorder and the gun and knife culture which has developed in parts of this country. I promise we will,” he wrote.
This is a phrase the Brit press loves to bandy about: "the knife culture." Now I don't know what that is, but I own a lot of knives. My theory being, that if you don't have a firearm available, or circumstances are so close quarters it is impossible to deploy a pistol, a knife comes in handy.
In a "culture" where the government has physically removed your firearms, knives are the only tools you have to fall back upon. It's not a "culture", it's the next best thing. And it seems upper class Britain is shocked, shocked I tell you, that people who are precluded from defending themselves with the most effective weapons would fall back upon something as primitive as a knife.
But ban knives and everything will be alright. Until people start filing spoons to a point...
Tony Blair tonight pledged to do more to combat crime, particularly violence involving drink, guns and knives.The Prime Minister said falling numbers of offences means people now have the lowest chance of becoming a victim in over 20 years.But writing in the Daily Mirror, Mr Blair said: “Crime and the fear of crime still cast a shadow over far too many lives and communities.”
Sounds reasonable enough. We have decreased crime, but will strive forth to reach the most favorable state a society could have. Good for them. But then the next sentence:
The article comes after official figures last week showed an 11% leap in violent crime despite an overall drop in recorded offences.
If recorded offences are down, is the leap in crime a murder figure? They catch less people? There are several ways to interpret these numbers, and none of them are good.
“The whole Government are determined to do more to put the law-abiding majority back in charge of communities,” he said.
My answer: legalize guns. Handguns, shotguns, rifles, whatever. If some degenerate tries to violate you, "put the law-abiding majority back in charge," so to speak.
“We need as well to do more to tackle alcohol-related disorder and the gun and knife culture which has developed in parts of this country. I promise we will,” he wrote.
This is a phrase the Brit press loves to bandy about: "the knife culture." Now I don't know what that is, but I own a lot of knives. My theory being, that if you don't have a firearm available, or circumstances are so close quarters it is impossible to deploy a pistol, a knife comes in handy.
In a "culture" where the government has physically removed your firearms, knives are the only tools you have to fall back upon. It's not a "culture", it's the next best thing. And it seems upper class Britain is shocked, shocked I tell you, that people who are precluded from defending themselves with the most effective weapons would fall back upon something as primitive as a knife.
But ban knives and everything will be alright. Until people start filing spoons to a point...
Gun safe bleg
Another question to throw out. If you use a handgun safe, what do you recommend?
Background: I am a partner in a business. I happen to be the one that spends the most time with seedy people and driving around in unknown territories. Therefore, I usually like to carry a pistol in the console. That, of course, entails bringing the firearm into the office. One of my coworkers brought up that a safe would be a good idea, in that we have several high school girls filing for us and whatnot. I'm not worried specifically about theft, but me and the coworker agreed that safety was an issue, with younger people who's background you can't readily ascertain.
So I bought a safe. It is a DoskoSport, which I suspect is Chinese. It seems to work alright, but the fucking thing talks to you. And it uses the Chinese approximation of a Texan accent.
Being that my issue is safety and stealth, does anyone own a quieter safe that is as easily accessible?
Background: I am a partner in a business. I happen to be the one that spends the most time with seedy people and driving around in unknown territories. Therefore, I usually like to carry a pistol in the console. That, of course, entails bringing the firearm into the office. One of my coworkers brought up that a safe would be a good idea, in that we have several high school girls filing for us and whatnot. I'm not worried specifically about theft, but me and the coworker agreed that safety was an issue, with younger people who's background you can't readily ascertain.
So I bought a safe. It is a DoskoSport, which I suspect is Chinese. It seems to work alright, but the fucking thing talks to you. And it uses the Chinese approximation of a Texan accent.
Being that my issue is safety and stealth, does anyone own a quieter safe that is as easily accessible?
Monday, October 25, 2004
Blogroll additions
Took the liberty of adding Hell In A Handbasket and The Donovan to the blogroll. Good solid bloggers, Americans, and all that goes with it.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Kerry's camoflauge
I didn't touch this one this week because I knew Jeff at Alphecca would skewer it pretty well once the Weekly Check on Gun Bias rolled around.
One Issue Voters
I've been thinking about this in the run-up to the election and several things seem to be apparent.
There are two kinds of one-issue voters; Conservative and Liberal. I think Liberal one-issue voters are far more reliable to the Democratic Party than Conservative one-issue voters are to the Republicans.
Over the last several weeks, I've read a bunch of conservatives writing about how they can't vote for Bush. Of course, the easiest example is the pro-2A crowd.
Instead of being happy the AWB is dead, a lot of gun nuts have denigrated Bush for not coming forth with a sworn veto. Now I agree, as previously stated, that the veto pen has never left George's desk. That is regrettable.
But the AWB is dead.
If you look at polls, some 60% of gun owners favored the ban. Close to 80% of the general public did. Regardless of absolutism, the fact that it is dead in the face of numbers like these is somewhat incredible. DeLay killed it while Bush had to invest no political capital in the thing, and came out looking mainstream. It may be a bitter pill to swallow for some of us, but this was an extremely popular law. I don't believe that the House was lost to Democrats in 1994 because of this bill, as the NRA loves to claim. If that many gun owners supported it, it was mainstream; centrist; rational crime control, etc.
Now I will condemn the lot of us. If the sunset was supported by any kind of majority, it would have been easy for Bush to say he would not support it's renewal.
Those of us who understood how stupid the law was, failed to convince even 10% of our fellow gun owners. This law went into effect 6 years before Bush took office, but so many of you are ready to blame him for it, when it was our community that failed to make our case.
We can bounce this around between people who agree, but, even with the leveling influence of a Republic, the majority rules. We just failed to convince the public at large given 10 years to deal with it. We failed, Bush didn't.
So, to the larger point, all of you are going to sit home or vote for Batshit Badnarik, while eveyone who is pro-gun control, anti-war, pro-choice...pick your poison, is going to vote for Kerry.
This is why he might win. And when everything goes to pot in 3 years, Conservative one-issue voters will be squawking the loudest, even though they are the ones that made the situation possible.
There are two kinds of one-issue voters; Conservative and Liberal. I think Liberal one-issue voters are far more reliable to the Democratic Party than Conservative one-issue voters are to the Republicans.
Over the last several weeks, I've read a bunch of conservatives writing about how they can't vote for Bush. Of course, the easiest example is the pro-2A crowd.
Instead of being happy the AWB is dead, a lot of gun nuts have denigrated Bush for not coming forth with a sworn veto. Now I agree, as previously stated, that the veto pen has never left George's desk. That is regrettable.
But the AWB is dead.
If you look at polls, some 60% of gun owners favored the ban. Close to 80% of the general public did. Regardless of absolutism, the fact that it is dead in the face of numbers like these is somewhat incredible. DeLay killed it while Bush had to invest no political capital in the thing, and came out looking mainstream. It may be a bitter pill to swallow for some of us, but this was an extremely popular law. I don't believe that the House was lost to Democrats in 1994 because of this bill, as the NRA loves to claim. If that many gun owners supported it, it was mainstream; centrist; rational crime control, etc.
Now I will condemn the lot of us. If the sunset was supported by any kind of majority, it would have been easy for Bush to say he would not support it's renewal.
Those of us who understood how stupid the law was, failed to convince even 10% of our fellow gun owners. This law went into effect 6 years before Bush took office, but so many of you are ready to blame him for it, when it was our community that failed to make our case.
We can bounce this around between people who agree, but, even with the leveling influence of a Republic, the majority rules. We just failed to convince the public at large given 10 years to deal with it. We failed, Bush didn't.
So, to the larger point, all of you are going to sit home or vote for Batshit Badnarik, while eveyone who is pro-gun control, anti-war, pro-choice...pick your poison, is going to vote for Kerry.
This is why he might win. And when everything goes to pot in 3 years, Conservative one-issue voters will be squawking the loudest, even though they are the ones that made the situation possible.
Clarification
I think I need to clarify an earlier position I posted.
Being a hard-core conservative is a good thing. I am and I encourage other people to be.
That being said, you are not going to make Republicans more conservative by staging protest votes. I prefer the term "vanity votes", because it's just admitting that you think you are better than everyone else. Yes, "Moonbat" Badnarik is more clearly pro-2A than either of the 2 mainstream candidates, but there is a catch: he's out of his mind and voting for him ensures a Kerry victory.
The other thing I failed to address, reasonably, is single-issue voters. I thought this breed disappeared after 9/11, but I was sorely mistaken. The Second Amendment is important to me, but that is not the sole issue I vote on.
3 years after the attacks, there are still people who can only think about abortion, gays, and guns (h/t to Howard Dean, although I left out God and didn't get any nifty alliteration.) That stance is insane. There are myriad other issues that a President should and has to deal with.
In total, Spoons is not a single-issue voter and has taken a broad-issue view of the election.
I still don't understand the dithering, but some are more principled than I.
Being a hard-core conservative is a good thing. I am and I encourage other people to be.
That being said, you are not going to make Republicans more conservative by staging protest votes. I prefer the term "vanity votes", because it's just admitting that you think you are better than everyone else. Yes, "Moonbat" Badnarik is more clearly pro-2A than either of the 2 mainstream candidates, but there is a catch: he's out of his mind and voting for him ensures a Kerry victory.
The other thing I failed to address, reasonably, is single-issue voters. I thought this breed disappeared after 9/11, but I was sorely mistaken. The Second Amendment is important to me, but that is not the sole issue I vote on.
3 years after the attacks, there are still people who can only think about abortion, gays, and guns (h/t to Howard Dean, although I left out God and didn't get any nifty alliteration.) That stance is insane. There are myriad other issues that a President should and has to deal with.
In total, Spoons is not a single-issue voter and has taken a broad-issue view of the election.
I still don't understand the dithering, but some are more principled than I.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Carpet Baggers
No I'm not talking about Hillary Clinton or the now certifiable Alan Keyes. I'm talking about retirees.
ASHVILLE - Butch and Sherry Herren said they moved to Ashville about two years ago to get ready for a quiet retirement that is still a few years away.
But the hunting and shooting that they say goes on near their home has given them second thoughts.
"We moved out here to enjoy the peace and quiet, not to live in Dodge City," said Sherry Herren, 60.
The article does not mention where Butch and Sherry resided before they retired. I think it's safe to assume it was some urban rathole if they didn't see it as a fit place to retire.
So they move to the country for the peace and quiet but instead find the dreaded "Dodge City" that Brady-types always reference. But, instead of adjusting to local customs and traditions, they are going to tell people who have lived there their whole lives what they can and can't do.
Phillip Anthony, a former Ashville mayor and a retired game warden, said people's rights to hunt and shoot on their property should be protected.
"People move out there and buy five, 10, 15 or 20 acres and think they control the 300 or 400 around them," Anthony said. "They do not. And they need to be convinced that they do not."
Mr. Anthony is a dying breed, unfortunately. Why should we respect property rights when we can just bully some government body into legislating into existence our own version of what retirement paradise should be?
This happened here not too long ago. The next county over has always been a great place to shoot. The ass end of Albuquerque hangs slightly over the county line, but from there it's nothing. Also there are natural arroyos throughout that provide 25 high walls of earth.
Naturally, if you needed to sight in a rifle or wanted to plink or whatever, you'd drive around until you found a suitable spot, clear the surrounding area and shoot away. The area is also popular with dirt-bikers and four-wheelers, but they knew there were shooters out there and avoided them, and the shooters always tried to steer clear of the dirt-bikers.
As I mentioned, the ass end of Albuquerque (Rio Rancho) hangs in this county. Over the last 20 years this has been popular place for New Yorkers to transplant, some of which are no doubt looking for the ideal retirement.
So they banned it. You can't shoot in all of Sandoval county, just because some whiny old people get freaked when they hear reports in the distance.
It is a pretty sad state of affairs.
ASHVILLE - Butch and Sherry Herren said they moved to Ashville about two years ago to get ready for a quiet retirement that is still a few years away.
But the hunting and shooting that they say goes on near their home has given them second thoughts.
"We moved out here to enjoy the peace and quiet, not to live in Dodge City," said Sherry Herren, 60.
The article does not mention where Butch and Sherry resided before they retired. I think it's safe to assume it was some urban rathole if they didn't see it as a fit place to retire.
So they move to the country for the peace and quiet but instead find the dreaded "Dodge City" that Brady-types always reference. But, instead of adjusting to local customs and traditions, they are going to tell people who have lived there their whole lives what they can and can't do.
Phillip Anthony, a former Ashville mayor and a retired game warden, said people's rights to hunt and shoot on their property should be protected.
"People move out there and buy five, 10, 15 or 20 acres and think they control the 300 or 400 around them," Anthony said. "They do not. And they need to be convinced that they do not."
Mr. Anthony is a dying breed, unfortunately. Why should we respect property rights when we can just bully some government body into legislating into existence our own version of what retirement paradise should be?
This happened here not too long ago. The next county over has always been a great place to shoot. The ass end of Albuquerque hangs slightly over the county line, but from there it's nothing. Also there are natural arroyos throughout that provide 25 high walls of earth.
Naturally, if you needed to sight in a rifle or wanted to plink or whatever, you'd drive around until you found a suitable spot, clear the surrounding area and shoot away. The area is also popular with dirt-bikers and four-wheelers, but they knew there were shooters out there and avoided them, and the shooters always tried to steer clear of the dirt-bikers.
As I mentioned, the ass end of Albuquerque (Rio Rancho) hangs in this county. Over the last 20 years this has been popular place for New Yorkers to transplant, some of which are no doubt looking for the ideal retirement.
So they banned it. You can't shoot in all of Sandoval county, just because some whiny old people get freaked when they hear reports in the distance.
It is a pretty sad state of affairs.
Election Wobblies
It surprises me this election season that so many conservatives are torn about pulling the lever for Bush. Spoons has a post up that really exposes the amount of wrestling some people are doing with this choice.
First off, in the interest of full disclosure, let me state that I have already voted absentee and that Bush fell in the "aye" column. Also, I voted straight Republican. This does not mean that I am a party-loyalist, it's just that the New Mexico Democratic Party is one of the most corrupt in the country and they field candidates who are beyond caricature (for example, this is the clown they are running against Heather Wilson in my district, and I'm no Heather Wilson fan.) This also doesn't preclude the reality that my absentee ballot is floating somewhere in the Rio Grande River.
Secondly, let's try to agree that Badnarik and post-9/11 Big-L Libertarians are all moonbats. Deaniacs had more common sense. Also, Nader...well, he's Nader.
That leaves us with two major parties and two major candidates. Bush is no genius and, as I've said before, they should have put Cheney at the top of the ticket in 2000. His pusillanimous non-use of the veto pen has driven me nuts while campaign finance, farm subsidies, more goodies for old geezers, and a bunch of other crap have made it into law. This is partly the responsiblilty of the Republican non-leadership in the Senate, but for God's sake man, not one veto?
Bush is probably not the ideal for many pro-2A types, either.
So let's glance at the other candidate.
I think one of the larger issues in this election (read the largest) is the war. I still have not been able to put my finger on a solid position this man has regarding this enterprise. Yes, he said he'd "kill the terrorists" about a million times during the 3 debates, but that doesn't mean he has any clue how he would go about executing the duties of Commander-in-Chief. And the thought of an ambulance-chasing shyster like Edwards being one heartbeat away from the presidency, scares the holy hell out of me.
Whereas, Bush is not so hot on the gun issue, Kerry would be a disaster.
The bigger concern most conservatives have is the stunning lack of fiscal conservatism this administration has displayed. What I think a lot of wobblers may be ignoring is that this will be Bush's final term in office. First term you have to worry about re-election and tacking to the center and all of that BS. I think if W is reelected, all of this uniting not dividing crap will be right out the window.
Also, if he even begins to privitize Social Security or reform tort law, that will be a major step in the right direction on domestic issues.
So, in conclusion, I think the contrast between the candidates is pretty stark and there really shouldn't be any question if your politics are somwhere to the right of Teddy Kennedy's.
First off, in the interest of full disclosure, let me state that I have already voted absentee and that Bush fell in the "aye" column. Also, I voted straight Republican. This does not mean that I am a party-loyalist, it's just that the New Mexico Democratic Party is one of the most corrupt in the country and they field candidates who are beyond caricature (for example, this is the clown they are running against Heather Wilson in my district, and I'm no Heather Wilson fan.) This also doesn't preclude the reality that my absentee ballot is floating somewhere in the Rio Grande River.
Secondly, let's try to agree that Badnarik and post-9/11 Big-L Libertarians are all moonbats. Deaniacs had more common sense. Also, Nader...well, he's Nader.
That leaves us with two major parties and two major candidates. Bush is no genius and, as I've said before, they should have put Cheney at the top of the ticket in 2000. His pusillanimous non-use of the veto pen has driven me nuts while campaign finance, farm subsidies, more goodies for old geezers, and a bunch of other crap have made it into law. This is partly the responsiblilty of the Republican non-leadership in the Senate, but for God's sake man, not one veto?
Bush is probably not the ideal for many pro-2A types, either.
So let's glance at the other candidate.
I think one of the larger issues in this election (read the largest) is the war. I still have not been able to put my finger on a solid position this man has regarding this enterprise. Yes, he said he'd "kill the terrorists" about a million times during the 3 debates, but that doesn't mean he has any clue how he would go about executing the duties of Commander-in-Chief. And the thought of an ambulance-chasing shyster like Edwards being one heartbeat away from the presidency, scares the holy hell out of me.
Whereas, Bush is not so hot on the gun issue, Kerry would be a disaster.
The bigger concern most conservatives have is the stunning lack of fiscal conservatism this administration has displayed. What I think a lot of wobblers may be ignoring is that this will be Bush's final term in office. First term you have to worry about re-election and tacking to the center and all of that BS. I think if W is reelected, all of this uniting not dividing crap will be right out the window.
Also, if he even begins to privitize Social Security or reform tort law, that will be a major step in the right direction on domestic issues.
So, in conclusion, I think the contrast between the candidates is pretty stark and there really shouldn't be any question if your politics are somwhere to the right of Teddy Kennedy's.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Cowboy Blob
Cowboy Blob is the man. I am not technically savvy. He gave me some advice and I'm trying the hyperlink without posting the entire address.
Here's the man, Cowboy Blob
Here's the man, Cowboy Blob
Range Report
Range day.
Haven't shot in four weeks, which is before the inception of this site. Brought the new LH Ruger 700 .223. It was extremely accurate, (it's already been pretty well sited in). As such, hitting a gong at 200 yards was not surprising and was thoroughly unentertaining.
I can hit whatever I want with that gun. No one would go to the 600 yard range with me.
Whenever I go, I always take a pistol with me, as the club has about 8 ranges and you can move.
Today's choice was the Glock 17 (I love that gun.)
It has fixed sights, which I have a hard time adjusting to. The other thing is, we shoot reloads. The last several trips, the charge wouldn't cycle the slide. That was all taken care of. My father made the load hotter and the other half of the ammo was mil-surp. No jams, no stovepipes, no nothing. What an impeccable gun.
My father is a big bore freak. If it is under .30 caliber, you are a pussy.
He brought his Ruger Redhawk .44 and the Henry .44 lever-action. This was the first day in months that nothing screwed up. Usually, sights pop off a gun, slides don't function, load tubes pop out, etc.
All the .44s were dead on. The only snag was .44 Specials through the rifle. Looking at it, I don't think it makes sense, but if anyone has recommendations, I'd love to hear them.
The only downer was the range Nazi. He shows up for 45 minutes with a 6.5 bolt, and can't hit shit ( i.e. 4" group with at scope at 100 yards.)
Said fascist, starts the day by yelling at a 12 year old who was pulling a bolt out the back of his dad's truck while the range was "cold." As we all know, touching the gun is Verboten while the range is cold. But instead of screaming "COLD RANGE, COLD RANGE!!! THERE IS NO GUN HANDLING ALLOWED!!!," the fucker could have approached the boy's father and addressed the problem. But no, the need to be a dick surpassed all of that.
What I give thanks for, is that I was going to bring a Noobie out today, and they bowed out. Thank God.
99.9999% of gun-nuts are the friendliest people you could find. The are helpful, amicable, and generally responsible members of society.
This shit, was part of the .00001% that probably gives the rest of us a bad name.
But I should grant him, that he had the balls to dress down a 12-year old for pulling a bolt-action rifle out of a truck while it was "cold." What a heroic hemmorhoid.
Lesson: Train people, don't shout at them. Oh and a little reminder, the world is not your oyster, and neither is the range, shitbag.
Haven't shot in four weeks, which is before the inception of this site. Brought the new LH Ruger 700 .223. It was extremely accurate, (it's already been pretty well sited in). As such, hitting a gong at 200 yards was not surprising and was thoroughly unentertaining.
I can hit whatever I want with that gun. No one would go to the 600 yard range with me.
Whenever I go, I always take a pistol with me, as the club has about 8 ranges and you can move.
Today's choice was the Glock 17 (I love that gun.)
It has fixed sights, which I have a hard time adjusting to. The other thing is, we shoot reloads. The last several trips, the charge wouldn't cycle the slide. That was all taken care of. My father made the load hotter and the other half of the ammo was mil-surp. No jams, no stovepipes, no nothing. What an impeccable gun.
My father is a big bore freak. If it is under .30 caliber, you are a pussy.
He brought his Ruger Redhawk .44 and the Henry .44 lever-action. This was the first day in months that nothing screwed up. Usually, sights pop off a gun, slides don't function, load tubes pop out, etc.
All the .44s were dead on. The only snag was .44 Specials through the rifle. Looking at it, I don't think it makes sense, but if anyone has recommendations, I'd love to hear them.
The only downer was the range Nazi. He shows up for 45 minutes with a 6.5 bolt, and can't hit shit ( i.e. 4" group with at scope at 100 yards.)
Said fascist, starts the day by yelling at a 12 year old who was pulling a bolt out the back of his dad's truck while the range was "cold." As we all know, touching the gun is Verboten while the range is cold. But instead of screaming "COLD RANGE, COLD RANGE!!! THERE IS NO GUN HANDLING ALLOWED!!!," the fucker could have approached the boy's father and addressed the problem. But no, the need to be a dick surpassed all of that.
What I give thanks for, is that I was going to bring a Noobie out today, and they bowed out. Thank God.
99.9999% of gun-nuts are the friendliest people you could find. The are helpful, amicable, and generally responsible members of society.
This shit, was part of the .00001% that probably gives the rest of us a bad name.
But I should grant him, that he had the balls to dress down a 12-year old for pulling a bolt-action rifle out of a truck while it was "cold." What a heroic hemmorhoid.
Lesson: Train people, don't shout at them. Oh and a little reminder, the world is not your oyster, and neither is the range, shitbag.
BTW
The Canadians are still pussies, in case anyone forgot:
http://64.4.48.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=4d0044245be2bdc042ff952c906c995c&lat=1098355568&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecanada%2ecom%2fnational%2fnationalpost%2fnews%2fstory%2ehtml%3fid%3df72b57d7%2d8a45%2d4c55%2dae20%2d3cdeb0ec017f
http://64.4.48.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=4d0044245be2bdc042ff952c906c995c&lat=1098355568&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecanada%2ecom%2fnational%2fnationalpost%2fnews%2fstory%2ehtml%3fid%3df72b57d7%2d8a45%2d4c55%2dae20%2d3cdeb0ec017f
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Slow Night
From what I've read, a woman exercised her right to shoot assholes coming into her home.
A promising new site, With No Email Link, posted to an article about women shooting. The blogger is a woman. Makes sense; no email.
New blogroll addition is http://cerebralmisfire.blogspot.com/ . He is a lawyer, but hey, read his first post and you might not want to bury him.
Other addition, a devout .357 addict: http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/
All welcome additions, and as always, my thanks goes out to Jeff at http://alphecca.com . He is the center of the gun blog world.
A promising new site, With No Email Link, posted to an article about women shooting. The blogger is a woman. Makes sense; no email.
New blogroll addition is http://cerebralmisfire.blogspot.com/ . He is a lawyer, but hey, read his first post and you might not want to bury him.
Other addition, a devout .357 addict: http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/
All welcome additions, and as always, my thanks goes out to Jeff at http://alphecca.com . He is the center of the gun blog world.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Reform
Lately, I have fallen into the sheer attraction of Fisking stupid articles. Given, it's fun, but it is intellectually lazy.
Last night's post is an example of tired arguments trotted out time and time again.
In any case, I need a recommendation. Of course I have sent this link to all of my friends. Thus far one has called me an idiot, another has called me a nut (I guess the blog is aptly named.) Another is a friend of mine,who is married and female, seems to have shifted points of view. I suppose that is the point of a gun blog, but I never really thought it would have any effect; on the vast public or my own circle.
First question: I really like the 9mm caliber. Saying that, I can't argue that the .45ACP is not the most effective defense gun.
This is a debate that has been raging for 30+ years. That's not what I want to know. For a first time gun owner (who is female) what is the ideal cartridge?
By the by, don't recommend .25ACP or .32. We are talking a home defense weapon, as well as something that is accurate on the range. Less than .38 I don't think there is a viable home defense gun. My opinion only.
Also, I have always thought that a shotgun is the best home weapon. It hurts, but you really don't need any experience or accuracy?
Please comment.
Last night's post is an example of tired arguments trotted out time and time again.
In any case, I need a recommendation. Of course I have sent this link to all of my friends. Thus far one has called me an idiot, another has called me a nut (I guess the blog is aptly named.) Another is a friend of mine,who is married and female, seems to have shifted points of view. I suppose that is the point of a gun blog, but I never really thought it would have any effect; on the vast public or my own circle.
First question: I really like the 9mm caliber. Saying that, I can't argue that the .45ACP is not the most effective defense gun.
This is a debate that has been raging for 30+ years. That's not what I want to know. For a first time gun owner (who is female) what is the ideal cartridge?
By the by, don't recommend .25ACP or .32. We are talking a home defense weapon, as well as something that is accurate on the range. Less than .38 I don't think there is a viable home defense gun. My opinion only.
Also, I have always thought that a shotgun is the best home weapon. It hurts, but you really don't need any experience or accuracy?
Please comment.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Everyone should be armed
The Washington Post is not quite as easy as the NYT, but it is still prime target material.
THE WILD WEST mentality that has turned Virginia into Holster Heaven -- where people openly packing guns can sashay almost anywhere -- is making a grim mockery of security considerations at greater Washington's two airports in the Old Dominion
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know many people who open-carry and sashay at the same time. I might be mistaken.
The "Wild West" thing got old about two years before the meme got started.
Yet as long as open-carry is the law in Virginia, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has little choice. State law says the pistol packers can wear their weapons while motoring along state roads, including those that head to and through airport property.
I must admit that Virginians scare the living crap out of me. When faced with a Virginian or an Islamic nutjob who is willing to kill himself, only to take me with, I fear the Virginian. We ought to screen these people. Why the hell are these inbred refuse allowed to own guns in the first place? They don't even understand the "Religion of Peace," those pea-brained rats.
So now, outside the security check areas in terminals -- where at least some people have to step out of their shoes and undergo pat-downs and other safety checks -- the parking lots may be loaded with deadly weapons.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but 9/11 was perpetrated without any use of a firearm. But now the parking lots are dangerous.
Forgive me, but I can't remember the last incident when 3,000 people died because of guns stored in a parking garage.
Who writes these editorials? It's either Jimmy Carter or the nearest drunk, whose last memory was of the late Sixties, in some way, shape or form.
Let's all say it together, Islamofascist Muslims are more dangerous than guns. Rinse. Repeat.
It's my opinion that every person should be armed on airlines.
THE WILD WEST mentality that has turned Virginia into Holster Heaven -- where people openly packing guns can sashay almost anywhere -- is making a grim mockery of security considerations at greater Washington's two airports in the Old Dominion
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know many people who open-carry and sashay at the same time. I might be mistaken.
The "Wild West" thing got old about two years before the meme got started.
Yet as long as open-carry is the law in Virginia, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has little choice. State law says the pistol packers can wear their weapons while motoring along state roads, including those that head to and through airport property.
I must admit that Virginians scare the living crap out of me. When faced with a Virginian or an Islamic nutjob who is willing to kill himself, only to take me with, I fear the Virginian. We ought to screen these people. Why the hell are these inbred refuse allowed to own guns in the first place? They don't even understand the "Religion of Peace," those pea-brained rats.
So now, outside the security check areas in terminals -- where at least some people have to step out of their shoes and undergo pat-downs and other safety checks -- the parking lots may be loaded with deadly weapons.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but 9/11 was perpetrated without any use of a firearm. But now the parking lots are dangerous.
Forgive me, but I can't remember the last incident when 3,000 people died because of guns stored in a parking garage.
Who writes these editorials? It's either Jimmy Carter or the nearest drunk, whose last memory was of the late Sixties, in some way, shape or form.
Let's all say it together, Islamofascist Muslims are more dangerous than guns. Rinse. Repeat.
It's my opinion that every person should be armed on airlines.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
"Knife culture"
I've always maintained that if you ban one method of self-defense, people will think of something else. You ban guns, they use knives. Ban knives, they use pick-axes. Ban pick-axes, they use forks. Etc. etc. ad nauseum.
But in a culture where guns are banned and crime is at an all time high, the British are shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that youth are carrying knives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3747120.stm
This story is not worth a full fisk, but there are several choice passages.
"Knives are more at the top of the list than guns at the moment, because it ain't kids our age that's carrying guns. Where would you get a gun from?" she added.
Friends of hers admitted it was very common for children to carry knives - in fact they claimed to know of one who had a pocket knife at the age of seven.
A pocket knife at the age of seven. I think my grandfather got me my first Swiss Army knife when I was younger than that. In this article they never specify if they are talking about 2 1/4" pen knifes or SOG Seal Pups.
And David, who wants to be a laywer when he grows up, gave a shocking answer when asked how many of his friends had had a knife pulled out on them.
"All of them, all of them."
On top of being a stupid story, this is indicative of the BBC or "fill in the blank" as far as their lazy editorialship. You might find it shocking that a kid (David) of unspecified age has two friends who have been shown knives (they never say threatened with), but what I find shocking is a vast news organization that can't spell "lawyer." This is a blog run by one guy with only third-hand reviews of its content. When I note a typo or some unsound grammar in a post, I correct it. I'm sure some sloppiness still seeps through, but the BBC posted this story Friday and apparently never reviewed it for typos nevermind the bone-headedness of its content.
The other thing shocking is the ineptness of the source material:
Another girl in the group, Sofia, said: "Well, most people wouldn't really care to use it, cos it's like it wouldn't make them feel guilty or nothing.
First of all, there is no closed quotes. I think this quote speaks for itself. This is what Dan Rather would refer to as an "impeachable source."
Another gratuitous dumb quote:
"I've seen someone carrying but two knives, and do you know what, they weren't even knives, these were like Chinese chopper things.
"I ain't lying. You could put your hand in and they were like a blade saw, but they were long, and they weren't blunt, they were sharp."
"Chinese chopper things?" What the hell is this kid talking about? Every Chinese knife I've ever seen is a righteous POS.
But the most chilling message came from a teenager called Jamie-Lee, who said that most parents had no idea of the level that the knife culture was at.
I guess we have to look out for the "fork culture."
But in a culture where guns are banned and crime is at an all time high, the British are shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that youth are carrying knives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3747120.stm
This story is not worth a full fisk, but there are several choice passages.
"Knives are more at the top of the list than guns at the moment, because it ain't kids our age that's carrying guns. Where would you get a gun from?" she added.
Friends of hers admitted it was very common for children to carry knives - in fact they claimed to know of one who had a pocket knife at the age of seven.
A pocket knife at the age of seven. I think my grandfather got me my first Swiss Army knife when I was younger than that. In this article they never specify if they are talking about 2 1/4" pen knifes or SOG Seal Pups.
And David, who wants to be a laywer when he grows up, gave a shocking answer when asked how many of his friends had had a knife pulled out on them.
"All of them, all of them."
On top of being a stupid story, this is indicative of the BBC or "fill in the blank" as far as their lazy editorialship. You might find it shocking that a kid (David) of unspecified age has two friends who have been shown knives (they never say threatened with), but what I find shocking is a vast news organization that can't spell "lawyer." This is a blog run by one guy with only third-hand reviews of its content. When I note a typo or some unsound grammar in a post, I correct it. I'm sure some sloppiness still seeps through, but the BBC posted this story Friday and apparently never reviewed it for typos nevermind the bone-headedness of its content.
The other thing shocking is the ineptness of the source material:
Another girl in the group, Sofia, said: "Well, most people wouldn't really care to use it, cos it's like it wouldn't make them feel guilty or nothing.
First of all, there is no closed quotes. I think this quote speaks for itself. This is what Dan Rather would refer to as an "impeachable source."
Another gratuitous dumb quote:
"I've seen someone carrying but two knives, and do you know what, they weren't even knives, these were like Chinese chopper things.
"I ain't lying. You could put your hand in and they were like a blade saw, but they were long, and they weren't blunt, they were sharp."
"Chinese chopper things?" What the hell is this kid talking about? Every Chinese knife I've ever seen is a righteous POS.
But the most chilling message came from a teenager called Jamie-Lee, who said that most parents had no idea of the level that the knife culture was at.
I guess we have to look out for the "fork culture."
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Old Hippies
If there's is anything that sticks in my craw, it is balding hippies, wearing shorts and holding placards. They all probably make more than I do as well, but that is an entirely different blog.
Charles over at http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com has a knack for finding complete wingnut, "Better Red than Dead" type propaganda. Given, he lives in California, which gives him a unique vantage point over all of us in flyover country.
Here's the latest he found: http://www.forusa.org/programs/iraq/iraqphotoproject/iraq-photoproject-statement.html
It's some kind of wacko mission statement, but if you hit the link, there are about 200 pictures of old, washed-up, "the Vietnam war surrender meant the end of any meaning to my life," Ray-ban wearing, sandal-sporting, ugly hippies holding stupid signs. This is wallpaper material for me for the next 10 years.
These people are ridiculous. I don't know if I've mentioned it on this blog before, but, in my opinion, the proper response to 9/11 was killing a lot of people. Killing a lot more people than we have.
Old hippies, young hippies, and old hippies who were once young hippies would have licked Communist boot, given half the chance. And that's the generation that's running the government now.
Check out the site and envision John Kerry holding one of those signs. It is remarkably easy to do.
UPDATE: Tim Blair has gotten a hold on this one: http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/007772.php
Charles over at http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com has a knack for finding complete wingnut, "Better Red than Dead" type propaganda. Given, he lives in California, which gives him a unique vantage point over all of us in flyover country.
Here's the latest he found: http://www.forusa.org/programs/iraq/iraqphotoproject/iraq-photoproject-statement.html
It's some kind of wacko mission statement, but if you hit the link, there are about 200 pictures of old, washed-up, "the Vietnam war surrender meant the end of any meaning to my life," Ray-ban wearing, sandal-sporting, ugly hippies holding stupid signs. This is wallpaper material for me for the next 10 years.
These people are ridiculous. I don't know if I've mentioned it on this blog before, but, in my opinion, the proper response to 9/11 was killing a lot of people. Killing a lot more people than we have.
Old hippies, young hippies, and old hippies who were once young hippies would have licked Communist boot, given half the chance. And that's the generation that's running the government now.
Check out the site and envision John Kerry holding one of those signs. It is remarkably easy to do.
UPDATE: Tim Blair has gotten a hold on this one: http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/007772.php
Plastic Guns
As always, John Lott's response to Edward's accusation that Cheney voted against the "terror-enabling" plastic gun ban is a little more detailed, reasearched, and lucid than mine.
Lott:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/TCSDefendingCheney.html
Me:
http://reasonablenut.blogspot.com/2004/10/late-debate-post-plastic-guns.html
Lott:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/TCSDefendingCheney.html
Me:
http://reasonablenut.blogspot.com/2004/10/late-debate-post-plastic-guns.html
Interesting Views from a Liberal Weenie
Here's an op-ed that kind of weirded me out. It's by a complete liberal wuss, who went shooting for the first time, but it makes a compelling argument while being idiotic, simultaneously.
http://www.purdueexponent.org/interface/bebop/showstory.php?date=2004/10/15§ion=columns&storyid=ColumnMike1015
The opener is, by no means, promising:
I felt like I was in a Michael Moore documentary.
If I ever felt like that, I'd find the nearest cliff and do what was necessary.
I remember feeling uneasy about the whole thing. Here I was, a kid never who shot any sort of gun in his whole life, handed a .45 caliber government model pistol. The two friends who accompanied me were also somewhat dumbfounded by the ease with each we attained firearms and ammunition. I kept asking myself, shouldn’t this guy have asked for some sort of credentials? All he required was my name and address.
I don't understand his point here. A range officer having a copy of your ID isn't going to tell him if you are a complete moron or not. Last time I checked, discriminating against someone for where the live is called "redlining," and is one of the oldest federal civil rights laws on the books. Coupled with the fact, they are at an indoor range. Outside of going on a kill-crazy rampage, the worst they can do is shoot at other people's targets.
My first blunder was loading the bullets. I was having trouble forcing them down into the clip — I put them in backwards.
Shooting, like most things, requires a modicum of common sense. You don't put the flat-head of a nail against wood and hammer on the sharp end; if you want the car to go forward, you put it in drive not reverse; etc.
I cocked the slide, just like I’ve seen so many movie stars do.
I have a big problem with this one. If you take your gun safety cues from Hollywood, it is only a matter of time before you hurt yourself or someone else. You don't "cock" a slide. Recently I watched "Man on Fire", with Denzel Washington. OK flick; not brilliant. But what irked the crap out of me was his character was constantly cocking and de-cocking a Glock. Hey guys, look at it; it doesn't have a hammer.
The most important thing I gained from my day at the shooting range is a healthy respect for guns. Even though I had fun and enjoyed myself — while utilizing common sense safety precautions — I have no aspirations to go out and buy a gun. I now know that it takes a lot of practice to be proficient in the handling and usage of a firearm.
Here's where my little buddy starts to make a little sense. In the immortal words of Mr. Eastwood, "a man's gotta know his limitations." And respect is more important than getting your nomenclature correct.
Becoming familiar with the weapon made me see the need for gun control laws. But more importantly, I realized that personal accountability is also critical.
This one is a bit two edged. Doing 65 rounds of .45 is not becoming "familiar with." As well, I have no idea how an hour at an indoor range can confirm or deny one's views on gun control (personally, I hate indoor ranges. They are loud and inevitably my neighbor's brass is bouncing off of my head.) But then my weenie newspaper friend gives a nod to personal responsibility, which is a human attribute one does not often read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
That being said, I don’t think that television is the real problem, in of itself. I think society is the problem. I think an environment where gun-violence is not glorified will greatly reduce the amount of real firearm-related crimes. Cleaning up television — from the violent images it portrays — is not the only answer. The remedy lies within you and I; It is the societal environment that we create, an environment that does not fear but respects firearms.
That's his weenie conclusion. He takes a pretty conservative solution to a perceived liberal problem. All in all, 65 rounds was not nearly enough. I'd like to hear back from him after 2,000.
http://www.purdueexponent.org/interface/bebop/showstory.php?date=2004/10/15§ion=columns&storyid=ColumnMike1015
The opener is, by no means, promising:
I felt like I was in a Michael Moore documentary.
If I ever felt like that, I'd find the nearest cliff and do what was necessary.
I remember feeling uneasy about the whole thing. Here I was, a kid never who shot any sort of gun in his whole life, handed a .45 caliber government model pistol. The two friends who accompanied me were also somewhat dumbfounded by the ease with each we attained firearms and ammunition. I kept asking myself, shouldn’t this guy have asked for some sort of credentials? All he required was my name and address.
I don't understand his point here. A range officer having a copy of your ID isn't going to tell him if you are a complete moron or not. Last time I checked, discriminating against someone for where the live is called "redlining," and is one of the oldest federal civil rights laws on the books. Coupled with the fact, they are at an indoor range. Outside of going on a kill-crazy rampage, the worst they can do is shoot at other people's targets.
My first blunder was loading the bullets. I was having trouble forcing them down into the clip — I put them in backwards.
Shooting, like most things, requires a modicum of common sense. You don't put the flat-head of a nail against wood and hammer on the sharp end; if you want the car to go forward, you put it in drive not reverse; etc.
I cocked the slide, just like I’ve seen so many movie stars do.
I have a big problem with this one. If you take your gun safety cues from Hollywood, it is only a matter of time before you hurt yourself or someone else. You don't "cock" a slide. Recently I watched "Man on Fire", with Denzel Washington. OK flick; not brilliant. But what irked the crap out of me was his character was constantly cocking and de-cocking a Glock. Hey guys, look at it; it doesn't have a hammer.
The most important thing I gained from my day at the shooting range is a healthy respect for guns. Even though I had fun and enjoyed myself — while utilizing common sense safety precautions — I have no aspirations to go out and buy a gun. I now know that it takes a lot of practice to be proficient in the handling and usage of a firearm.
Here's where my little buddy starts to make a little sense. In the immortal words of Mr. Eastwood, "a man's gotta know his limitations." And respect is more important than getting your nomenclature correct.
Becoming familiar with the weapon made me see the need for gun control laws. But more importantly, I realized that personal accountability is also critical.
This one is a bit two edged. Doing 65 rounds of .45 is not becoming "familiar with." As well, I have no idea how an hour at an indoor range can confirm or deny one's views on gun control (personally, I hate indoor ranges. They are loud and inevitably my neighbor's brass is bouncing off of my head.) But then my weenie newspaper friend gives a nod to personal responsibility, which is a human attribute one does not often read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
That being said, I don’t think that television is the real problem, in of itself. I think society is the problem. I think an environment where gun-violence is not glorified will greatly reduce the amount of real firearm-related crimes. Cleaning up television — from the violent images it portrays — is not the only answer. The remedy lies within you and I; It is the societal environment that we create, an environment that does not fear but respects firearms.
That's his weenie conclusion. He takes a pretty conservative solution to a perceived liberal problem. All in all, 65 rounds was not nearly enough. I'd like to hear back from him after 2,000.
The Children, Continued
One day after posting the abhorrent happenings at an officer's home, I was just a bit surprised to run into this puff piece. (h/t KABA.com)
http://www2.townonline.com/rockland/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=105674
The good group in the spotlight is, of course, "Project Child Safe."
Having a gun and a child in the same home is a dangerous combination, but with the help of Project ChildSafe, it's a risk that may soon disappear.
Forgive me, but suppositions like these are merely feel-good salves for the overtly sensitive. And in yesterday's post, it was noted that the police will have a hard time figuring out how to make the world safe for children if they fail to take the necessary measures in their own homes.
Project ChildSafe is funded by a $50 million grant from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and will provide nearly 20 million free gunlocks to families in all 50 states, the five U.S. Territories and the District of Columbia.
And yes, it is a government funded program, with some help from the NSSF. I always applaud the efforts of organizations like NSSF and the NRA's attempts to bring safety programs to the community. But let's face it, both of these organizations are more effective when they are not hampered by government aid. I have about 3 of these lock devices that I have never used. Several people I know have more than that. We would be happy to send them to Massachussets or wherever law enforcement officers feel like leaving children at home with a loaded firearm.
And, come on, $50 million? Thats a bit steep for some glorified bike locks, isn't it?
http://www2.townonline.com/rockland/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=105674
The good group in the spotlight is, of course, "Project Child Safe."
Having a gun and a child in the same home is a dangerous combination, but with the help of Project ChildSafe, it's a risk that may soon disappear.
Forgive me, but suppositions like these are merely feel-good salves for the overtly sensitive. And in yesterday's post, it was noted that the police will have a hard time figuring out how to make the world safe for children if they fail to take the necessary measures in their own homes.
Project ChildSafe is funded by a $50 million grant from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and will provide nearly 20 million free gunlocks to families in all 50 states, the five U.S. Territories and the District of Columbia.
And yes, it is a government funded program, with some help from the NSSF. I always applaud the efforts of organizations like NSSF and the NRA's attempts to bring safety programs to the community. But let's face it, both of these organizations are more effective when they are not hampered by government aid. I have about 3 of these lock devices that I have never used. Several people I know have more than that. We would be happy to send them to Massachussets or wherever law enforcement officers feel like leaving children at home with a loaded firearm.
And, come on, $50 million? Thats a bit steep for some glorified bike locks, isn't it?
Thursday, October 14, 2004
The Children
This is a sad story, but one that should be told without mush and bias from an obviously slanted paper:
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/news/stories/20041014/localnews/1411923.html
Before beginning, full disclosure. I am single. I live alone. I have no children, pets, or even insects. I hold myself to a much lower standard as far as monitoring how secure firearms and ammunition are than most people with children do.
The Porterville Police Department said the child, whom it did not identify, was in the bedroom of an apartment in the 1000 block of West Grand Avenue where she and three other children, ages 2 and 4, were playing with the loaded gun. It discharged, and she was shot in the head.
Now to begin with, what the hell is an unsecured handgun doing around a 7-year old? If you aren't carrying it, which you should be, it should be removed from you children's access. And when you are getting ready to have company that is as young as "2 and 4", that whole wing of the house should be locked. That's not what really chaps my ass though:
Neither he nor any other adults were at the home when the children were playing with the gun, Porterville police said.
So somehow, a 7- 4- and 2-year old manage to get the house to themselves to throw a kegger. During the set-up they happen upon a handgun (the police won't say if it is a service revolver.) And What? Your wife is getting a manicure and you're picking up auto parts?
Porterville police Sgt. John Hall said investigators looking into how the fatal shooting occurred.
"We have no idea if there's going to be any arrests. It's too early to tell," he said. "It depends on where the evidence leads us."
Call me dumb, but I think I have figured out how "the fatal shooting occurred."
This is an even-handed story though, and here's how they wrap it up:
Gun safety
Hall stressed that anybody who owns a gun should store it safely.
"To safely store a firearm, it should be locked up," Hall said. "Simply hiding a gun is not a sufficient step to keep kids from getting a gun."
Porterville police as well as all other county and city police departments are part of Project Child Safe, a program that gives away gun locks.
"We will provide gun locks for anyone who comes in and asks for them," Hall said.
In 2001, 386 youths, ages newborn to 19 years old, died in California in firearm-related deaths; it was the most recent year for which information was available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The death of a child is an extremely tragic thing, and clowns like Sheriff Hall do them no favors. To begin with, maybe Porterville police should set an example by training their own deputies about gun safety, children, lethality, and all that other good shit. As far as gun locks go, I don't want one and I don't need one. And maybe you shouldn't wait for "the public" to ask, maybe you should issue them to your officers.
Finally, the fact that they "are a part of Project Child Safe" should me more of an embarassment than a boast, no?
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/news/stories/20041014/localnews/1411923.html
Before beginning, full disclosure. I am single. I live alone. I have no children, pets, or even insects. I hold myself to a much lower standard as far as monitoring how secure firearms and ammunition are than most people with children do.
The Porterville Police Department said the child, whom it did not identify, was in the bedroom of an apartment in the 1000 block of West Grand Avenue where she and three other children, ages 2 and 4, were playing with the loaded gun. It discharged, and she was shot in the head.
Now to begin with, what the hell is an unsecured handgun doing around a 7-year old? If you aren't carrying it, which you should be, it should be removed from you children's access. And when you are getting ready to have company that is as young as "2 and 4", that whole wing of the house should be locked. That's not what really chaps my ass though:
Neither he nor any other adults were at the home when the children were playing with the gun, Porterville police said.
So somehow, a 7- 4- and 2-year old manage to get the house to themselves to throw a kegger. During the set-up they happen upon a handgun (the police won't say if it is a service revolver.) And What? Your wife is getting a manicure and you're picking up auto parts?
Porterville police Sgt. John Hall said investigators looking into how the fatal shooting occurred.
"We have no idea if there's going to be any arrests. It's too early to tell," he said. "It depends on where the evidence leads us."
Call me dumb, but I think I have figured out how "the fatal shooting occurred."
This is an even-handed story though, and here's how they wrap it up:
Gun safety
Hall stressed that anybody who owns a gun should store it safely.
"To safely store a firearm, it should be locked up," Hall said. "Simply hiding a gun is not a sufficient step to keep kids from getting a gun."
Porterville police as well as all other county and city police departments are part of Project Child Safe, a program that gives away gun locks.
"We will provide gun locks for anyone who comes in and asks for them," Hall said.
In 2001, 386 youths, ages newborn to 19 years old, died in California in firearm-related deaths; it was the most recent year for which information was available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The death of a child is an extremely tragic thing, and clowns like Sheriff Hall do them no favors. To begin with, maybe Porterville police should set an example by training their own deputies about gun safety, children, lethality, and all that other good shit. As far as gun locks go, I don't want one and I don't need one. And maybe you shouldn't wait for "the public" to ask, maybe you should issue them to your officers.
Finally, the fact that they "are a part of Project Child Safe" should me more of an embarassment than a boast, no?
Thanks to Publicola
This is a relatively new blog. Well, strike that, there is nothing relative about it. It's new. Given that there are ample amounts of well established gun blogs that do an exemplary job, on a day to day basis, any notice I get is appreciated. Initially, I swore to have 2 gun posts a day. That's harder than it sounds and you realize how much time and energy these people devote to the cause.
In any case, http://publicola.mu.nu/ , has deemed this site worthy of the blogroll. Thanks all around. He's on the blogroll here and he is one of the pre-eminent blogs.
Here's the announcement: http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/050214.php#050214
Thanks again.
In any case, http://publicola.mu.nu/ , has deemed this site worthy of the blogroll. Thanks all around. He's on the blogroll here and he is one of the pre-eminent blogs.
Here's the announcement: http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/050214.php#050214
Thanks again.
Meatballs and Speds
My favorite campaign ad from 2000 was Buchanan's "Meatball" commercial. For those of you who didn't see it (it only ran in a few states) or don't remember, here is a recap. A man is watching the news in his kitchen while eating a huge amount of spaghetti. The newscaster starts mentioning immigration statistics as the gentleman is putting a meatball in his mouth. As the statistic sets into his mind, he gasps in indignation, inhaling the meatball at the same time. He pulls the Universal Sign for Choking and dials 9-1-1. He accesses a computerized message that asks him if he would like directions in Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Swahili, etc. He falls to the floor with the phone in his hand and dies while the recorded operator continues to list foreign languages.
Now forget politics. I personally think Buchanan was a joke for quite a while before the 2000 Reform Party self-fuck, or whatever you want to term it.
This ad made me laugh my ass off. Actually, I liked it so much, I found a Windows Movie version of it, and still watch it every now and again.
That said, this year's campaign has been kind of lackluster in stellar advertising. "I'm so-and-so, and I approved this weak shot at my opponent." But a certain state Democrat Party came up with, what will probably be, my favorite political ad for the the year. It's not a commercial but a flyer. I'm hard pressed to predict that anything better than this will be out before election day.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/BushOlympics.JPG
Now forget politics. I personally think Buchanan was a joke for quite a while before the 2000 Reform Party self-fuck, or whatever you want to term it.
This ad made me laugh my ass off. Actually, I liked it so much, I found a Windows Movie version of it, and still watch it every now and again.
That said, this year's campaign has been kind of lackluster in stellar advertising. "I'm so-and-so, and I approved this weak shot at my opponent." But a certain state Democrat Party came up with, what will probably be, my favorite political ad for the the year. It's not a commercial but a flyer. I'm hard pressed to predict that anything better than this will be out before election day.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/images/BushOlympics.JPG
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Last Debate, Thank God
This one was about as boring as the first one. Kerry sounded good, but didn't make any sense, and Bush was substantive, but bungle every phrase he possibly could have.
When the AWB came up, they were equally squishy.
I go back to my "life from the moment of conception" line of thought that Kerry provoked. Once again tonight, he had to mention he was a altar boy and that his religious beliefs run very, very, very, very, deep. More than a pleb like you or I could understand. Then comes the inevitable "but."
While being very Catholic, he feels it would be unfair to force any of his religion-inspired beliefs on the populace, because they may not be in agreement.
Now how can this fucker take that ludicrous position while being a liberal who wants to steal my money, ban my guns, shut down my business, and muzzle me as far as political speech goes. He wants to strip this country of its defenses, give up in Iraq, and nationalize health care.
But he won't force beliefs he holds on an unwilling third party. Bullshit.
UPDATE: As always Spoons has a less reactionary and more analytical post: http://www.thespoonsexperience.com/archives/003084.php#003084
When the AWB came up, they were equally squishy.
I go back to my "life from the moment of conception" line of thought that Kerry provoked. Once again tonight, he had to mention he was a altar boy and that his religious beliefs run very, very, very, very, deep. More than a pleb like you or I could understand. Then comes the inevitable "but."
While being very Catholic, he feels it would be unfair to force any of his religion-inspired beliefs on the populace, because they may not be in agreement.
Now how can this fucker take that ludicrous position while being a liberal who wants to steal my money, ban my guns, shut down my business, and muzzle me as far as political speech goes. He wants to strip this country of its defenses, give up in Iraq, and nationalize health care.
But he won't force beliefs he holds on an unwilling third party. Bullshit.
UPDATE: As always Spoons has a less reactionary and more analytical post: http://www.thespoonsexperience.com/archives/003084.php#003084
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Blame it on "Big" Anything
Missed this story yesterday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/12/nyregion/12gun.html?ex=1098244800&en=fd93567aeb588e6a&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
Before I start on this, let me lay forth my views on product liablity insofar as guns are involved.
If I purchase a firearm and it discharges unintentionally while I am safely handling it, that is a defective product. If the gun is aimed at a convenience store clerk and the trigger is squeezed and the gun goes off, that is what the product was designed for. I think you have a better product liability case if your rob a store and intend to fire a warning shot into the ceiling, but the firearm does not discharge. That's what it was supposed to do but it didn't.
To be fair, this NYT article is relatively unbiased, it's just the topic is so asinine.
...New York City's landmark case that claims the firearms industry is responsible for gun crimes...
No reason, no justification, just swallow it. Understand?
The lawyer who is to head Thelen Reid's trial team, Michael S. Elkin, said yesterday that one reason for the decision to help the city was his firm's support for public interest legal efforts aimed at preventing gun violence.
Now, post-facto, I have never understood petty retribution as an effective means of prevention. By making Smith & Wesson his whore, he is going to save an entire generation of victims, right. Plaintiff lawyers don't prevent anything; they profit from the suffering of others. And it's not morality, it's money; whoever has the fattest wallet you go after (but make sure to name everyone else in the suit, just in case you have to settle for chump change.)
That commitment, he said, began with 10 partners from its West Coast offices who worked at Petit & Martin, a San Francisco law firm where a gunman opened fire in a 1993 shooting spree that killed eight people and wounded six others.
No comment.
A trial of the city's civil case is scheduled in Brooklyn federal court in April. The city seeks an injunction reforming the industry's sales and marketing practices, which it claims allow guns to pass too easily into the hands of criminals and create a public nuisance.
One of the most highly regulated consumer products and NY needs to reform it. I shouldn't be surprised, there's a tuna can scratch that's going to be before the US Supreme Court. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041012/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_tuna_lawsuit_3
Star-Kist has been producing tuna in can packaged for decades. Manufacturers have been making guns that fire bullets for centuries. Your call.
They basically round up with this:
Yesterday, the lead lawyer on the case at the city's Law Department, Eric Proshansky, said it had been difficult to find another firm to help the city after Weil, Gotshal dropped out. He said many major firms "would say something like, 'We have clients that don't like this sort of thing.' ''
"They were gotten to by people, obviously, with an agenda,'' Mr. Proshansky added
Sounds pretty sinister, but it's the same tired playbook. If we can rob the manufacturer's money, the cost of guns will continue to increase. And, at a certain point, scrubs like me won't be able to afford it. Problem solved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/12/nyregion/12gun.html?ex=1098244800&en=fd93567aeb588e6a&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
Before I start on this, let me lay forth my views on product liablity insofar as guns are involved.
If I purchase a firearm and it discharges unintentionally while I am safely handling it, that is a defective product. If the gun is aimed at a convenience store clerk and the trigger is squeezed and the gun goes off, that is what the product was designed for. I think you have a better product liability case if your rob a store and intend to fire a warning shot into the ceiling, but the firearm does not discharge. That's what it was supposed to do but it didn't.
To be fair, this NYT article is relatively unbiased, it's just the topic is so asinine.
...New York City's landmark case that claims the firearms industry is responsible for gun crimes...
No reason, no justification, just swallow it. Understand?
The lawyer who is to head Thelen Reid's trial team, Michael S. Elkin, said yesterday that one reason for the decision to help the city was his firm's support for public interest legal efforts aimed at preventing gun violence.
Now, post-facto, I have never understood petty retribution as an effective means of prevention. By making Smith & Wesson his whore, he is going to save an entire generation of victims, right. Plaintiff lawyers don't prevent anything; they profit from the suffering of others. And it's not morality, it's money; whoever has the fattest wallet you go after (but make sure to name everyone else in the suit, just in case you have to settle for chump change.)
That commitment, he said, began with 10 partners from its West Coast offices who worked at Petit & Martin, a San Francisco law firm where a gunman opened fire in a 1993 shooting spree that killed eight people and wounded six others.
No comment.
A trial of the city's civil case is scheduled in Brooklyn federal court in April. The city seeks an injunction reforming the industry's sales and marketing practices, which it claims allow guns to pass too easily into the hands of criminals and create a public nuisance.
One of the most highly regulated consumer products and NY needs to reform it. I shouldn't be surprised, there's a tuna can scratch that's going to be before the US Supreme Court. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041012/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_tuna_lawsuit_3
Star-Kist has been producing tuna in can packaged for decades. Manufacturers have been making guns that fire bullets for centuries. Your call.
They basically round up with this:
Yesterday, the lead lawyer on the case at the city's Law Department, Eric Proshansky, said it had been difficult to find another firm to help the city after Weil, Gotshal dropped out. He said many major firms "would say something like, 'We have clients that don't like this sort of thing.' ''
"They were gotten to by people, obviously, with an agenda,'' Mr. Proshansky added
Sounds pretty sinister, but it's the same tired playbook. If we can rob the manufacturer's money, the cost of guns will continue to increase. And, at a certain point, scrubs like me won't be able to afford it. Problem solved.
My airgun obsession, contd.
It's worse than I thought over there.
http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0125nwarksnews/tm_objectid=14743649&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=court-told-man-shot-at-boys-with-air-gun-name_page.html
First off, the nomenclature is always wrong in these articles. A firearm implicity uses ignition. An airgun uses air pressure to send a projectile.
Wayne Jacques, 20, of Weston Lane, Bulkington, admitted two charges of possessing a firearm and two charges of assaulting boys at Warwick Crown Court.
My translation, some guy who's nuts shoots some kids with an airgun. I don't think this story would even make it into my local paper. What's a "firearm"? What is an assault?
So what kind of havoc did Mr. Jacq...Wayne wrought? Pretty freaky shit.
The court heard how Jacques had walked down the street with an air rifle before repeatedly firing at a group of boys on the driveway of a Bulkington house in January.
One of the group was wearing a crash helmet, which was left with a dent from the attack.
Forget the initial Terminator, walking down the street "pumping round after round" and "spray firing" these innocent children. The net result was a dent in a bike helmet. Hell, award that kid a couple million in "pain and suffering." His fucking BIKE HELMET was damaged.
http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0125nwarksnews/tm_objectid=14743649&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=court-told-man-shot-at-boys-with-air-gun-name_page.html
First off, the nomenclature is always wrong in these articles. A firearm implicity uses ignition. An airgun uses air pressure to send a projectile.
Wayne Jacques, 20, of Weston Lane, Bulkington, admitted two charges of possessing a firearm and two charges of assaulting boys at Warwick Crown Court.
My translation, some guy who's nuts shoots some kids with an airgun. I don't think this story would even make it into my local paper. What's a "firearm"? What is an assault?
So what kind of havoc did Mr. Jacq...Wayne wrought? Pretty freaky shit.
The court heard how Jacques had walked down the street with an air rifle before repeatedly firing at a group of boys on the driveway of a Bulkington house in January.
One of the group was wearing a crash helmet, which was left with a dent from the attack.
Forget the initial Terminator, walking down the street "pumping round after round" and "spray firing" these innocent children. The net result was a dent in a bike helmet. Hell, award that kid a couple million in "pain and suffering." His fucking BIKE HELMET was damaged.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Small Gripe
I believe about 10% of the population is left-handed. I happen to be one of those poor slobs.
For those of you right-handers out there, you have no idea the trials and tribulations of being a southpaw. If you shoot a Garand you tend to catch 4-5 hot casings in the face per clip. Then the clip bounces off of your head. Almost worse than that, once in awhile a casing will hit your muffs, which is tantamount to blowing out an ear drum. (Full disclosure: one of the reasons I love the AR-15 is that little brass-deflector that Uncle Sam, in all of his wisdom placed rear of the ejection port.)
Bolt-action rifles are an especially big pain in the ass. I spent about 6 months trying to find a varmint caliber bolt action. Finally through diligence and mostly luck, I found a heavy barrel Remington 700 in .223. It has a fiberglass stock, which I'm not a big fan of, but beggars can't be choosers.
Then you have the fact that all of my shooting buddies refer to me as "cripple" or "gimp." It's even been floated that I should sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Well today I had another small reminder. I ordered a knife from Benchmade about 6 months ago. It was backordered. The reason I give so much business to Benchmade is the fact that they are one of the few quality knife makers that have a pocket clip that can be moved to accomodate tip-up left-hand carry.
Here's the culprit: http://www.benchmade.com/products/product_detail.asp?model=630
Needless to say, after the extended wait, it finally showed up today. It is strictly a tip-down, right hand style clip. Tip-down I find to be the most undeployable knife there is. These sorts of things are strictly taste, but I can deploy my Case pocket knife quicker than this thing.
Needless to say, it is a beautiful instrument. I guess I just got another showpiece or an early Christmas present for someone.
For those of you right-handers out there, you have no idea the trials and tribulations of being a southpaw. If you shoot a Garand you tend to catch 4-5 hot casings in the face per clip. Then the clip bounces off of your head. Almost worse than that, once in awhile a casing will hit your muffs, which is tantamount to blowing out an ear drum. (Full disclosure: one of the reasons I love the AR-15 is that little brass-deflector that Uncle Sam, in all of his wisdom placed rear of the ejection port.)
Bolt-action rifles are an especially big pain in the ass. I spent about 6 months trying to find a varmint caliber bolt action. Finally through diligence and mostly luck, I found a heavy barrel Remington 700 in .223. It has a fiberglass stock, which I'm not a big fan of, but beggars can't be choosers.
Then you have the fact that all of my shooting buddies refer to me as "cripple" or "gimp." It's even been floated that I should sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Well today I had another small reminder. I ordered a knife from Benchmade about 6 months ago. It was backordered. The reason I give so much business to Benchmade is the fact that they are one of the few quality knife makers that have a pocket clip that can be moved to accomodate tip-up left-hand carry.
Here's the culprit: http://www.benchmade.com/products/product_detail.asp?model=630
Needless to say, after the extended wait, it finally showed up today. It is strictly a tip-down, right hand style clip. Tip-down I find to be the most undeployable knife there is. These sorts of things are strictly taste, but I can deploy my Case pocket knife quicker than this thing.
Needless to say, it is a beautiful instrument. I guess I just got another showpiece or an early Christmas present for someone.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
AWB Relic
This is a late one, but I don't often do the Boston Globe. And when I do, it is a reminder of why I generally don't.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/15/victims_of_the_gun_lobby/
This starts with the normal drivel about this being an issue that Americans coalesce around, and that most people don't think machine guns should be readily available. Where this fucker pisses me off is when he brings in 9/11:
Only two days after the nation noted the third anniversary of Sept. 11 and the murders of nearly 3,000 Americans by a foreign terrorist network, Congress turned right around and invited an increase in local terror.
This poor plebian has no clue. That comparison should shock and enrage anybody who took 9/11 seriously, and, increasingly, we are starting to realize the legion that don't. Now damn near half the people I know own a rifle that could be considered an "assault weapon." Most of them are quite useless outside of punching paper. As a home defense, 7-11 robbing, revenge, shooting into a crowd type gun, I think we can all agree the shotgun offers the widest range of anti-personnel utility.
And the sniveling twerp won't rest; he brings it up again:
Yet a Democratic Party that is running scared and a Republican Party that is hiding behind protocol let the NRA do everything it could to destroy the ban in a nation where nearly 30,000 lives a year are destroyed by guns, 10 times more than 9/11.
Now, what is the point? Does the NRA want to kill people? Are Americans more dangerous than terrorists? Or are liberal gun statistics more horrifying than 9/11?
Using 9/11 as some kind of political "zinger" is both disrespectful and appalling. Were assholes like this guy likening homeless figures to Pearl Harbor back in the day? I doubt it.
Anyway, here's his grand wrap-up:
The NRA kept Bush from speaking his mind. It made Kerry lose his mind. It stripped Congress of any spine. Nearly nine in 10 Americans wanted gun laws to stay the same or become more strict. This week they became less strict. The invariable result will be more cold, dead hands.
That schtick about the cold, dead hands is pretty witty. I wonder where he came up with that one?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/15/victims_of_the_gun_lobby/
This starts with the normal drivel about this being an issue that Americans coalesce around, and that most people don't think machine guns should be readily available. Where this fucker pisses me off is when he brings in 9/11:
Only two days after the nation noted the third anniversary of Sept. 11 and the murders of nearly 3,000 Americans by a foreign terrorist network, Congress turned right around and invited an increase in local terror.
This poor plebian has no clue. That comparison should shock and enrage anybody who took 9/11 seriously, and, increasingly, we are starting to realize the legion that don't. Now damn near half the people I know own a rifle that could be considered an "assault weapon." Most of them are quite useless outside of punching paper. As a home defense, 7-11 robbing, revenge, shooting into a crowd type gun, I think we can all agree the shotgun offers the widest range of anti-personnel utility.
And the sniveling twerp won't rest; he brings it up again:
Yet a Democratic Party that is running scared and a Republican Party that is hiding behind protocol let the NRA do everything it could to destroy the ban in a nation where nearly 30,000 lives a year are destroyed by guns, 10 times more than 9/11.
Now, what is the point? Does the NRA want to kill people? Are Americans more dangerous than terrorists? Or are liberal gun statistics more horrifying than 9/11?
Using 9/11 as some kind of political "zinger" is both disrespectful and appalling. Were assholes like this guy likening homeless figures to Pearl Harbor back in the day? I doubt it.
Anyway, here's his grand wrap-up:
The NRA kept Bush from speaking his mind. It made Kerry lose his mind. It stripped Congress of any spine. Nearly nine in 10 Americans wanted gun laws to stay the same or become more strict. This week they became less strict. The invariable result will be more cold, dead hands.
That schtick about the cold, dead hands is pretty witty. I wonder where he came up with that one?
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Australian Elections
I should note that Prime Minister John Howard was reelected today. From a foreign policy perspective, Americans should applaud this. Outside of Blair, he is the most committed supporter of the intervention in Iraq. Austarilians were ready to bail after the Jakarta and Bali bombings.
However, John Howard's victory is not the victory for conservatism that it is made out to be. John O'Sullivan at National Review Online refers to Howard as "a stauch conservative." http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/osullivan200410081432.asp
This is true, in the limited sense that his opponent was a nutjob. Chris Latham, the Labour candidate, is an out of the closet socialist. So saying John Howard was the conservative candidate is the equivalent of saying that Joe Biden is a "staunch conservative" next to the likes of Teddy K. Indeed, O'Sullivan goes on to point out:
Instead of giving the voters a battle royal over Iraq, both parties have been promising them all sorts of economic and social goodies in a competitive fiscal giveaway. Usually left-wing parties have a natural advantage in such an auction — and Latham has fought a shrewd and lively campaign on economic and environmental issues.
"Economic and social...fiscal giveaway"s are not the stuff of conservatism. On a domestic level, Australia is sliding into the Western European tradition of Nanny socialism.
As an example (a gun one, imagine that), John Lott had a stunning piece earlier this year about the sword ban that took effect on 07/12/04 as a result of the edged-weapon crime epidemic that has been sweeping Australia after their disastrous gun bans.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BanningSwordsAustralian.html
These sorts of policies have, unsurprisingly, resulted in crime statistics that would have the American Public turning every incumbent candidate out on their ass.
So while Howard's reelection is a victory for the administration and this country's ongoing struggle against, well you know who, it is merely holding socialists at the gate, and maybe even conceding some ideology.
However, John Howard's victory is not the victory for conservatism that it is made out to be. John O'Sullivan at National Review Online refers to Howard as "a stauch conservative." http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/osullivan200410081432.asp
This is true, in the limited sense that his opponent was a nutjob. Chris Latham, the Labour candidate, is an out of the closet socialist. So saying John Howard was the conservative candidate is the equivalent of saying that Joe Biden is a "staunch conservative" next to the likes of Teddy K. Indeed, O'Sullivan goes on to point out:
Instead of giving the voters a battle royal over Iraq, both parties have been promising them all sorts of economic and social goodies in a competitive fiscal giveaway. Usually left-wing parties have a natural advantage in such an auction — and Latham has fought a shrewd and lively campaign on economic and environmental issues.
"Economic and social...fiscal giveaway"s are not the stuff of conservatism. On a domestic level, Australia is sliding into the Western European tradition of Nanny socialism.
As an example (a gun one, imagine that), John Lott had a stunning piece earlier this year about the sword ban that took effect on 07/12/04 as a result of the edged-weapon crime epidemic that has been sweeping Australia after their disastrous gun bans.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BanningSwordsAustralian.html
These sorts of policies have, unsurprisingly, resulted in crime statistics that would have the American Public turning every incumbent candidate out on their ass.
So while Howard's reelection is a victory for the administration and this country's ongoing struggle against, well you know who, it is merely holding socialists at the gate, and maybe even conceding some ideology.
California's Lockyer
What confounds me most about California is not the fact that the entire coastal region is so insanely liberal. I have grown to accept that. What really gets my head hurting is the people they decide to elect. Outside of the obvious ones, like Feinstein and Boxer, you have Gavin Newsom, Grey Davis, Cruz Bustamante, and Bill Lockyer.
Here's the newest proposal these chuckleheads have come up with to make sure that nobody ever gets hurt by anything, anywhere, ever.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6434216
California's attorney general wants to crack down on gun violence by laser-branding all handgun bullets sold in the state with tiny identification numbers nearly invisible to the naked eye.
That's how the story opens. It would sound almost Orwellian if the entire concept wasn't so Jetsons.
Now, exactly what would this accomplish, you may ask?
"We think this is a very valid idea that could solve crimes quickly," said Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Lockyer, one of the state's leading Democrats.
Now this is on par with gun-fingerprinting. Maryland has fingerprinted 17,000 handguns since 2001 and hasn't solved a single crime utilizing their database. They have also spent a crapload of money on this mind-bendingly stupid idea.
Merely running a cleaning rod harshly down the side of the chamber and barrel alters the rifling marks to such a degree that the resulting grooves are unidentifiable from their test casings.
But let's take a look at who ordered a complete study on this technology and found it to be completely useless? The NRA? John Ashcroft? No. Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html
Anyway, that nincompoop idea didn't work so let's try another one.
Under the plan, all ammunition sold in California would have a serial number etched by laser on the bullet and casing. Bullets without such micro-markings, including those from outside the state, would be barred by law, with some exceptions for sport shooters who make their own ammunition.
Hmmm. Make your own ammunition. That's an idea.
When laws like this pass, they make absolutely no difference at all for one simple reason: capitalism. Markets tend to fill the needs of an individual willing to spend the cash for the supply, however slim that supply is.
The black market, however, is even more laissez faire than the larger economy and can react to shifts in demand much more readily.
So pass a law and with a wave of the wand you have created an instant illegal black market. And as we see with other black markets, the people who run them are not always of sterling principles.
"It's something that the cops going to a crime scene involving shooting victims, once they recover the spent cartridge or bullets they can look at it right there," she said. "We have a database where they can put the number right in and then drive to the person's house whose bullets they were."
Oh it sounds so simple doesn't it? Unless you've ever seen a bullet after it has been fired into an object. I'm assuming that hollow-points aren't legal in California, so they must be using soft points (unless the market has already filled the demand for currently illegal documentation.) Soft points turn into mush once they hit, say, a concrete wall.
Finally, they say that the markings are "nearly invisible to the naked eye." Simple solution? Buy a magnifying glass and a file.
UPDATE: Jeff over at Alphecca has noted this in his Weekly check: http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/000586.html
For a more technical approach see Random Nuclear Strikes: http://www.softgreenglow.com/mt/archives/004875.html
Here's the newest proposal these chuckleheads have come up with to make sure that nobody ever gets hurt by anything, anywhere, ever.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6434216
California's attorney general wants to crack down on gun violence by laser-branding all handgun bullets sold in the state with tiny identification numbers nearly invisible to the naked eye.
That's how the story opens. It would sound almost Orwellian if the entire concept wasn't so Jetsons.
Now, exactly what would this accomplish, you may ask?
"We think this is a very valid idea that could solve crimes quickly," said Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Lockyer, one of the state's leading Democrats.
Now this is on par with gun-fingerprinting. Maryland has fingerprinted 17,000 handguns since 2001 and hasn't solved a single crime utilizing their database. They have also spent a crapload of money on this mind-bendingly stupid idea.
Merely running a cleaning rod harshly down the side of the chamber and barrel alters the rifling marks to such a degree that the resulting grooves are unidentifiable from their test casings.
But let's take a look at who ordered a complete study on this technology and found it to be completely useless? The NRA? John Ashcroft? No. Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,66007,00.html
Anyway, that nincompoop idea didn't work so let's try another one.
Under the plan, all ammunition sold in California would have a serial number etched by laser on the bullet and casing. Bullets without such micro-markings, including those from outside the state, would be barred by law, with some exceptions for sport shooters who make their own ammunition.
Hmmm. Make your own ammunition. That's an idea.
When laws like this pass, they make absolutely no difference at all for one simple reason: capitalism. Markets tend to fill the needs of an individual willing to spend the cash for the supply, however slim that supply is.
The black market, however, is even more laissez faire than the larger economy and can react to shifts in demand much more readily.
So pass a law and with a wave of the wand you have created an instant illegal black market. And as we see with other black markets, the people who run them are not always of sterling principles.
"It's something that the cops going to a crime scene involving shooting victims, once they recover the spent cartridge or bullets they can look at it right there," she said. "We have a database where they can put the number right in and then drive to the person's house whose bullets they were."
Oh it sounds so simple doesn't it? Unless you've ever seen a bullet after it has been fired into an object. I'm assuming that hollow-points aren't legal in California, so they must be using soft points (unless the market has already filled the demand for currently illegal documentation.) Soft points turn into mush once they hit, say, a concrete wall.
Finally, they say that the markings are "nearly invisible to the naked eye." Simple solution? Buy a magnifying glass and a file.
UPDATE: Jeff over at Alphecca has noted this in his Weekly check: http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/000586.html
For a more technical approach see Random Nuclear Strikes: http://www.softgreenglow.com/mt/archives/004875.html
Friday, October 08, 2004
Debate Deaux
First off, let me say that I hate townhall formats. Inevitably they pick people who have a hard time reading questions, they themselves wrote. The other thing is: outside of foreign policy shit, questions inevitably devolve to "what are you going to do for me" type crap. This one was slightly improved because the moderator got to screen the questions. That still didn't help with anunciation or people remembering that they need a microphone to be heard.
Bush did a lot better. Kerry did just as good.
The bit that confounded me was Kerry's response to the obligatory abortion question. Now, don't get me wrong, abortion is a topic I like to stay afield from (and after all this primarily a gun blog.)
Now the specific question doesn't matter, because Kerry didn't address the substance of a single question all night. His response was something like this:
"I'm a Catholic. I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school. I was an altar boy. I take my faith seriously, blah, blah, blah."
He states that religion constitutes deep belief. But then he pops off with how just because he believes in something, something deeply (after all he was an altar boy), he doesn't feel he should impose that belief on people who don't agree with him.
Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't being in modern government all about imposing your beliefs on people, regardless of whether they agree with you or not? Especially the liberal view of government?
After all, this guy owns a Chinese assault weapon as a souvenir from his service, but he thinks I'm too stupid to own a pistol without an internal lock?
Bush did a lot better. Kerry did just as good.
The bit that confounded me was Kerry's response to the obligatory abortion question. Now, don't get me wrong, abortion is a topic I like to stay afield from (and after all this primarily a gun blog.)
Now the specific question doesn't matter, because Kerry didn't address the substance of a single question all night. His response was something like this:
"I'm a Catholic. I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school. I was an altar boy. I take my faith seriously, blah, blah, blah."
He states that religion constitutes deep belief. But then he pops off with how just because he believes in something, something deeply (after all he was an altar boy), he doesn't feel he should impose that belief on people who don't agree with him.
Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't being in modern government all about imposing your beliefs on people, regardless of whether they agree with you or not? Especially the liberal view of government?
After all, this guy owns a Chinese assault weapon as a souvenir from his service, but he thinks I'm too stupid to own a pistol without an internal lock?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
A Violent Epidemic
I could post 25 articles on the pellet gun issue. I won't because I feel stupid even talking about it. Here's the latest:
http://www.cumbria-online.co.uk/viewarticle.asp?id=141563
In all of the reports I've read, there have been no casualties except a 31-year old skateboarder, who got shot at a skate park on a Monday afternoon (obviously he is a leading member of society if he's trying to do an Ollie in the early afternoon on a workday).
This is pathetic.
But note: we are on the same path. Whenever "the children" or "the good of the society" is deemed to be dominant over an individual's rights, the following path and outcome is inevitable.
England may be more pro-active, but we are only about 10 years behind.
http://www.cumbria-online.co.uk/viewarticle.asp?id=141563
In all of the reports I've read, there have been no casualties except a 31-year old skateboarder, who got shot at a skate park on a Monday afternoon (obviously he is a leading member of society if he's trying to do an Ollie in the early afternoon on a workday).
This is pathetic.
But note: we are on the same path. Whenever "the children" or "the good of the society" is deemed to be dominant over an individual's rights, the following path and outcome is inevitable.
England may be more pro-active, but we are only about 10 years behind.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Shout out
I meant to do this last night, but Qwest decided that it should wait for today. Smallest Minority gave me a complimentary link http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/. That is greatly appreciated from one of the biggies out there to a dilletante like me.
As well, http://cowboyblob.blogspot.com has noted that our blogs were allowed to breathe air around the same time. Mr. Blob has a much slicker format than this writer and is also a lot more diverse in his topics, not that I'm a one-track mind, drooling troglodyte, who can't handle more than one thought at a time, he deals with issues that I am too ignorant of to comment on.
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/, seems to be a walking police blotter. Also (once again) a much better looking blog than moi.
In any case, thanks for all of the help in getting a little attention to a guy and a blog that can't seem to keep the internet working for a fucking political debate.
As well, http://cowboyblob.blogspot.com has noted that our blogs were allowed to breathe air around the same time. Mr. Blob has a much slicker format than this writer and is also a lot more diverse in his topics, not that I'm a one-track mind, drooling troglodyte, who can't handle more than one thought at a time, he deals with issues that I am too ignorant of to comment on.
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/, seems to be a walking police blotter. Also (once again) a much better looking blog than moi.
In any case, thanks for all of the help in getting a little attention to a guy and a blog that can't seem to keep the internet working for a fucking political debate.
Late Debate Post / Plastic Guns
Qwest thought debate night would be a good occasion to crash my DSL.
For the record, I think Cheney kicked ass. I always argued back in 2000 that Cheney should have been Commander-In-Chief, with Bush as a back-up.
In any case, being a gun nut, I found one Edwards quote completely laughable. Here's the complete context as copied from the C-SPAN transcript:
"I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa."
Full disclosure: I hate the Head start program (what is the root cause of the "child obesity epidemic), The Department of Education should have been gone after Carter got voted out of office, Meals on Wheels is a program I don't understand, but sounds costly and ineffective, MLK has a holiday so why doesn't every other important person (that way we can work 150 days a year like the French) and Nelson Mandela is no saint. So if this record makes Cheney a complete shit, than so am I.
The one I wish to concentrate on is the "plastic weapons ban" that would prevent terrorists from smuggling these insidious guns onto airplanes and whatnot. Teddy Kennedy introduced this back in 1987 in response to the increased sales of Glocks. He had no idea what he was talking about at the time, and much hasn't changed since then except that boxcutters seem to do a pretty good job as well.
I know most of the people who will vote are not abreast of the issues, but this is one the stupidest bills I've ever heard of. Glock has a polymer frame, but the slide is all metal. Why? Because a plastic would shatter. Probably splinters in the face, or a casing in the brain. The space-age technology does not exist, and most likely never will.
But I guess Cheney voted pro-terrorist.
Then there is the bullet question. If you succeeded in manufacturing a plastic firearm that wouldn't kill or maim the user, what the fuck are you going to shoot? If it passes through a metal detector, well, it ain't metal.
This was the only gun reference in the debate, but, Gee Whiz, Edwards is a stupid man. And piss on HeadStart.
For the record, I think Cheney kicked ass. I always argued back in 2000 that Cheney should have been Commander-In-Chief, with Bush as a back-up.
In any case, being a gun nut, I found one Edwards quote completely laughable. Here's the complete context as copied from the C-SPAN transcript:
"I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa."
Full disclosure: I hate the Head start program (what is the root cause of the "child obesity epidemic), The Department of Education should have been gone after Carter got voted out of office, Meals on Wheels is a program I don't understand, but sounds costly and ineffective, MLK has a holiday so why doesn't every other important person (that way we can work 150 days a year like the French) and Nelson Mandela is no saint. So if this record makes Cheney a complete shit, than so am I.
The one I wish to concentrate on is the "plastic weapons ban" that would prevent terrorists from smuggling these insidious guns onto airplanes and whatnot. Teddy Kennedy introduced this back in 1987 in response to the increased sales of Glocks. He had no idea what he was talking about at the time, and much hasn't changed since then except that boxcutters seem to do a pretty good job as well.
I know most of the people who will vote are not abreast of the issues, but this is one the stupidest bills I've ever heard of. Glock has a polymer frame, but the slide is all metal. Why? Because a plastic would shatter. Probably splinters in the face, or a casing in the brain. The space-age technology does not exist, and most likely never will.
But I guess Cheney voted pro-terrorist.
Then there is the bullet question. If you succeeded in manufacturing a plastic firearm that wouldn't kill or maim the user, what the fuck are you going to shoot? If it passes through a metal detector, well, it ain't metal.
This was the only gun reference in the debate, but, Gee Whiz, Edwards is a stupid man. And piss on HeadStart.
Spoons on Levy
Spoons had posted a very good retort to my argument on Levy's NRO article (linked to further down). Mea culpa.
Here's his response in full:
I think you're being shortsighted about this.Here's what I think you're not factoring in to the equation. Currently, the Supreme Court doesn't recognize much of anything in the way of our Second Amendment rights. Now, we can argue all day about whether the Supreme Court has any authority to ignore rights that are spelled out right there in the Constitution, but the fact of the matter is, what the Supreme Court says matters. If you and I have a "right" to own guns, but the Supreme Court says we dont', and the State is willing to back them up with force, then the fact that you and I know we're right isn't much comfort.So, we find ourselves in a position where if we want our rights to be meaningful, we need to persuade the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn't filled with wise and honest judges who will always impartially interpret the law regardless of their personal preferences. The Court is filled with, by and large, politicians. At least half the Court doesn't really care what the Constitution says. They care what POLICY is. They'd rather be kings, than judges.In light of that, it MATTERS what kind of case comes before them. Should the Second Amendment apply the same way to the crackhead as to you or I? Maybe it should. But guess what? Whichever one of us gets to the Court first, that's who's gonna shape the law. If the crackhed gets their first, and the Court decideds to construe the Second Amendment narrowly because they don't like him, then it's you and I whose rights are going to suffer.If we had a perfect Court, you'd possibly have a point. In the real world, though, we just need to win. If the crackhead's case is a loser, then we don't want him carrying our flag.
# posted by Spoons : 12:28 PM
This is a very big problem I have and he skewers me rightfully. I have never been good at pragmatic approaches to things. People point this out to me all of the time.
Usually when I'm arguing with a liberal, I do pretty well. Inevitably though, I hit a point where I cut loose with something like, "Well I don't see why I shouldn't be able to own a machine gun, for crying out loud."
This is the equivalent of me getting naked, painting myself blue, and signing a confession that I'm a complete wingnut.
So, upon further reflection, Spoons is entirely right, and I would probably lose any 2A argument in front of the supremes.
Here's his response in full:
I think you're being shortsighted about this.Here's what I think you're not factoring in to the equation. Currently, the Supreme Court doesn't recognize much of anything in the way of our Second Amendment rights. Now, we can argue all day about whether the Supreme Court has any authority to ignore rights that are spelled out right there in the Constitution, but the fact of the matter is, what the Supreme Court says matters. If you and I have a "right" to own guns, but the Supreme Court says we dont', and the State is willing to back them up with force, then the fact that you and I know we're right isn't much comfort.So, we find ourselves in a position where if we want our rights to be meaningful, we need to persuade the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn't filled with wise and honest judges who will always impartially interpret the law regardless of their personal preferences. The Court is filled with, by and large, politicians. At least half the Court doesn't really care what the Constitution says. They care what POLICY is. They'd rather be kings, than judges.In light of that, it MATTERS what kind of case comes before them. Should the Second Amendment apply the same way to the crackhead as to you or I? Maybe it should. But guess what? Whichever one of us gets to the Court first, that's who's gonna shape the law. If the crackhed gets their first, and the Court decideds to construe the Second Amendment narrowly because they don't like him, then it's you and I whose rights are going to suffer.If we had a perfect Court, you'd possibly have a point. In the real world, though, we just need to win. If the crackhead's case is a loser, then we don't want him carrying our flag.
# posted by Spoons : 12:28 PM
This is a very big problem I have and he skewers me rightfully. I have never been good at pragmatic approaches to things. People point this out to me all of the time.
Usually when I'm arguing with a liberal, I do pretty well. Inevitably though, I hit a point where I cut loose with something like, "Well I don't see why I shouldn't be able to own a machine gun, for crying out loud."
This is the equivalent of me getting naked, painting myself blue, and signing a confession that I'm a complete wingnut.
So, upon further reflection, Spoons is entirely right, and I would probably lose any 2A argument in front of the supremes.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Short note on ammo
My father and I load most of our cartridges, with the notable exception of .22 lr (cheap) and .223 and .308 (mil-surp, cheap.) As far as pistols, we both shoot .45's and he is into the .44 Magnum shell, both of which it is worthwhile to reload, for accuracy and cost reasons.
What my father doesn't own, or want to own, is any 9mm handgun. I, however, own several. We have loaded these for awhile but have come to the conclusion that NATO mil-surp is cheaper.
To get to the point, I ordered 3,000 round off of http://www.ammoman.com . Great price, great service. The ammo came in today and looked good. The big thrill was the nice clean, new ammo cans that they were contained in. This is a vain point, but I really dig ammo cans. If I get any more of them, I'm going to start packing my clean socks in cans with dessicant.
What my father doesn't own, or want to own, is any 9mm handgun. I, however, own several. We have loaded these for awhile but have come to the conclusion that NATO mil-surp is cheaper.
To get to the point, I ordered 3,000 round off of http://www.ammoman.com . Great price, great service. The ammo came in today and looked good. The big thrill was the nice clean, new ammo cans that they were contained in. This is a vain point, but I really dig ammo cans. If I get any more of them, I'm going to start packing my clean socks in cans with dessicant.
Idiot's Guide to American Gov't
My brother is a vetrinarian who graduated in May of this year. He has recently taken a position and is doing well. Unfortunately 10 years of school has prevented him from following politics, and, I think we can all agree, that high school civics is woefully inadequate.
In any case, given the nearness of the election and his intention to vote, he asked about some good reading material regarding the 2000 fiasco and politics in general. In re the 2000 election, I had him read Bill Sammon's "At Any Cost." My father recommended the "Idiot's Guide" series, stating that from his experience, they seemed to be relatively unbiased. Little did I know:
"From p. 21, The Complete Idiot's Guide to American Government, by Melanie Fonder and Mary Shaffrey. "Specific powers that Congress holds are also listed in the first article, including the right to collect taxes and tariffs, borrow money from itself, regulate commerce, coin money, regulate immigration, investigate counterfeit, establish post offices and roads, promote sciences and "useful arts," grant inventors exclusive rights to their ideas, create courts lower than the Supreme Court, and protect U.S. Ships and citizens when they are not in the country. The right to declare war, raise and support armies, maintain a navy, regulate those armed forces, call up a "militia"-now known as the National Guard-to execute laws, aid states in supporting their militia, and have control over the District of Columbia are all included in the explicit powers." Enjoy, ****"
When did the militia turn into the National Guard? If memory serves me correctly, the Guard was established in the late 19th or early 20th century. And I don't think this was some grand scheme of the founding fathers that took 125 years to come to fruition.
In similar family news, I had to explain the synthesis of the Rathergate flap to my mother. She didn't understand whay a major news network would do something so recognizably ficticious, or why other media didn't check it. She is a big-time Fox News watcher.
I explained to her that I no longer watch TV news because I don't believe it. I stated that journalists go to school for journalism. They really don't know jackshit about anything else, let alone rifle calibers or wrap-around fonts (of which I am admittedly ignorant of.)
Then I explained to her that the blogosphere offers an individual the opportunity to check with actual people who know their shit. You don't need to believe what some good looking (and Fox has the best) blonde is reading into a microphone.
By that time my spittle was on the table and my arms were flailing. She had ceased listening to me about ten minutes previous to my closing statement.
My message to the family was check their facts, then check them again and again and again and again.
In any case, given the nearness of the election and his intention to vote, he asked about some good reading material regarding the 2000 fiasco and politics in general. In re the 2000 election, I had him read Bill Sammon's "At Any Cost." My father recommended the "Idiot's Guide" series, stating that from his experience, they seemed to be relatively unbiased. Little did I know:
"From p. 21, The Complete Idiot's Guide to American Government, by Melanie Fonder and Mary Shaffrey. "Specific powers that Congress holds are also listed in the first article, including the right to collect taxes and tariffs, borrow money from itself, regulate commerce, coin money, regulate immigration, investigate counterfeit, establish post offices and roads, promote sciences and "useful arts," grant inventors exclusive rights to their ideas, create courts lower than the Supreme Court, and protect U.S. Ships and citizens when they are not in the country. The right to declare war, raise and support armies, maintain a navy, regulate those armed forces, call up a "militia"-now known as the National Guard-to execute laws, aid states in supporting their militia, and have control over the District of Columbia are all included in the explicit powers." Enjoy, ****"
When did the militia turn into the National Guard? If memory serves me correctly, the Guard was established in the late 19th or early 20th century. And I don't think this was some grand scheme of the founding fathers that took 125 years to come to fruition.
In similar family news, I had to explain the synthesis of the Rathergate flap to my mother. She didn't understand whay a major news network would do something so recognizably ficticious, or why other media didn't check it. She is a big-time Fox News watcher.
I explained to her that I no longer watch TV news because I don't believe it. I stated that journalists go to school for journalism. They really don't know jackshit about anything else, let alone rifle calibers or wrap-around fonts (of which I am admittedly ignorant of.)
Then I explained to her that the blogosphere offers an individual the opportunity to check with actual people who know their shit. You don't need to believe what some good looking (and Fox has the best) blonde is reading into a microphone.
By that time my spittle was on the table and my arms were flailing. She had ceased listening to me about ten minutes previous to my closing statement.
My message to the family was check their facts, then check them again and again and again and again.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Another Freebie
I really feel low when I start doing the NYT. Some people think it is the paper of record but I see it as the easiest place to find East Coast pod-people.
In any case here’s the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/opinion/03sun2.html?oref=login
First quote:
"In between reinstating every hunter's sacred Second Amendment right to nail Bambi with an AK-47, and mischievously meddling in local affairs to pass a one-chamber bill to weaken public safety in the nation's capital, the National Rifle Association and its busy-beaver allies quietly scored another legislative coup - this one without even trying. This little-noted achievement - if you can call it that - relates to a glaring omission in the new initiative to prevent youth suicide just approved by the House and Senate, and awaiting President Bush's signature."
So we bounce from killing Bambi with machine guns to making the Murder Capitol of the World more dangerous by allowing law-abiding people to bear arms to youth suicide. One of these days, guns are going to be the cause of global warming and a new flesh eating disease in western Africa.
"Some 4,000 young Americans take their own lives each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
This number honestly shocked me. I the United States of America that is supposed to be a whopping indicator of a mass problem? That works out to 80 youth suicides per state per year. I may be a Pollyanna but that seems like a pretty light toll.
"There's no question that the $82 million the legislation authorizes over the next three years to improve early-intervention suicide prevention efforts, including on college campuses, will save some lives (albeit fewer than it might have, owing to a parental consent requirement right-wing House Republicans insisted upon that will inevitably deter some troubled kids from getting timely help)."
$82,000,000 is a lot of money to be spending. Per person that died and could have been saved, that works out to $20,500 for every individual. That’s one guy’s modest salary for the last year and you can’t guarantee that you could save these people from suicide.
Now to the marrow of the piece. Gun locks, trigger safeties, CAP laws will all save another 20 children per year.
"But what a grim reflection on the present climate in Washington that small, reasonable steps like mandatory trigger locks cannot be openly raised and debated even in the context of trying to prevent children from committing suicide."
Alright, I know it is about "the children" and that "if it saves one life" it is a worthwhile undertaking.
It’s not. This author uses numbers she doesn’t understand to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
Let me say it as simply as possible: if I wanted to kill myself, I wouldn’t need a gun.
UPDATE: Jeff has covered the suicide thing more substantively over at www.Alphecca.com .
Specific post: http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/000559.html
In any case here’s the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/opinion/03sun2.html?oref=login
First quote:
"In between reinstating every hunter's sacred Second Amendment right to nail Bambi with an AK-47, and mischievously meddling in local affairs to pass a one-chamber bill to weaken public safety in the nation's capital, the National Rifle Association and its busy-beaver allies quietly scored another legislative coup - this one without even trying. This little-noted achievement - if you can call it that - relates to a glaring omission in the new initiative to prevent youth suicide just approved by the House and Senate, and awaiting President Bush's signature."
So we bounce from killing Bambi with machine guns to making the Murder Capitol of the World more dangerous by allowing law-abiding people to bear arms to youth suicide. One of these days, guns are going to be the cause of global warming and a new flesh eating disease in western Africa.
"Some 4,000 young Americans take their own lives each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
This number honestly shocked me. I the United States of America that is supposed to be a whopping indicator of a mass problem? That works out to 80 youth suicides per state per year. I may be a Pollyanna but that seems like a pretty light toll.
"There's no question that the $82 million the legislation authorizes over the next three years to improve early-intervention suicide prevention efforts, including on college campuses, will save some lives (albeit fewer than it might have, owing to a parental consent requirement right-wing House Republicans insisted upon that will inevitably deter some troubled kids from getting timely help)."
$82,000,000 is a lot of money to be spending. Per person that died and could have been saved, that works out to $20,500 for every individual. That’s one guy’s modest salary for the last year and you can’t guarantee that you could save these people from suicide.
Now to the marrow of the piece. Gun locks, trigger safeties, CAP laws will all save another 20 children per year.
"But what a grim reflection on the present climate in Washington that small, reasonable steps like mandatory trigger locks cannot be openly raised and debated even in the context of trying to prevent children from committing suicide."
Alright, I know it is about "the children" and that "if it saves one life" it is a worthwhile undertaking.
It’s not. This author uses numbers she doesn’t understand to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
Let me say it as simply as possible: if I wanted to kill myself, I wouldn’t need a gun.
UPDATE: Jeff has covered the suicide thing more substantively over at www.Alphecca.com .
Specific post: http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/000559.html
Airgun Rampage
With the US media we are constantly imbued with fear by stories about school shootings, workplace massacres, and the ever-present lone nut, who is nice to his neighbors but keeps to himself.
That's why we have British media for comic relief.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=140227
"A GUNMAN shot at four children and a man in a terrifying drive-by airgun attack."
"The incident...is the third air gun attack in the city in the last five months."
Reassuringly, the police spokesman said, "The consequences of this incident could have been a lot worse."
I'm still a rabid air gun shooter. My house is basically designed around a 100 foot air gun range. Comes in handy, especially in winter months where shooting outdoors is not possible because of short daylight hours or I just don't feel like freezing my ass off.
As such, I try to follow online airgun forums. The two largest I've found are in England and Australia (NZ, maybe), respectively. As with any group of shooters they are always polite, cordial, and willing to help out.
Firstly, what weirds me out is that no working class fellow, say age 28, has ever had a chance to shoot an actual firearm.
Secondly, the tales they tell are almost beyond belief, to me. England has an arbitrary statute regarding what pellet velocity a gun can have. If you trick up a gun to get your pellet's FPS beyond a certain point, your gun can be confiscated and you can be fined. Law enforcement actually attend shooting clubs in order to chronograph fucking pellet guns.
I own three pellet rifles. My regular shooter is a Gamo Shadow that sends a .177 pellet out of the barrel at 1,000 FPS. By English standards, this a fucking assault rifle. And I've never seen a pellet from that gun make it through the White Pages.
So whenever you get down that the country is going to pot; that your not making as much as you should be, because the economy is allegedly crap; that your wife is leaving you; that your kids hate you, etc. etc. etc.; Remember:
You don't pay almost half your wages in taxes; you can still own a .45; you don't have to wait six months to see a dentist in order to have a filling replaced;
And there is no scourge of drive-by pellet gun shootings to terrify you and your family.
That's why we have British media for comic relief.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=140227
"A GUNMAN shot at four children and a man in a terrifying drive-by airgun attack."
"The incident...is the third air gun attack in the city in the last five months."
Reassuringly, the police spokesman said, "The consequences of this incident could have been a lot worse."
I'm still a rabid air gun shooter. My house is basically designed around a 100 foot air gun range. Comes in handy, especially in winter months where shooting outdoors is not possible because of short daylight hours or I just don't feel like freezing my ass off.
As such, I try to follow online airgun forums. The two largest I've found are in England and Australia (NZ, maybe), respectively. As with any group of shooters they are always polite, cordial, and willing to help out.
Firstly, what weirds me out is that no working class fellow, say age 28, has ever had a chance to shoot an actual firearm.
Secondly, the tales they tell are almost beyond belief, to me. England has an arbitrary statute regarding what pellet velocity a gun can have. If you trick up a gun to get your pellet's FPS beyond a certain point, your gun can be confiscated and you can be fined. Law enforcement actually attend shooting clubs in order to chronograph fucking pellet guns.
I own three pellet rifles. My regular shooter is a Gamo Shadow that sends a .177 pellet out of the barrel at 1,000 FPS. By English standards, this a fucking assault rifle. And I've never seen a pellet from that gun make it through the White Pages.
So whenever you get down that the country is going to pot; that your not making as much as you should be, because the economy is allegedly crap; that your wife is leaving you; that your kids hate you, etc. etc. etc.; Remember:
You don't pay almost half your wages in taxes; you can still own a .45; you don't have to wait six months to see a dentist in order to have a filling replaced;
And there is no scourge of drive-by pellet gun shootings to terrify you and your family.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
The Courts' role
Levy has an interesting legal argument at NRO.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/levy200410010740.asp
I'm no lawyer, so I cannot comment on the technical aspects this article brings up.
But the gist seems to be that we want young, white, beautiful people to be front and center in any court discussion of 2A. This is the sort of thing that always pisses me off. An ugly black kid with no teeth gets kidnapped in Detroit: lucky if the AP even has a wire story on it. If a good-looking white child is abducted from the suburbs, it gets non-stop coverage.
My fault with the argument is, you are talking about an amendment included in the Bill of Rights (not the patient's bill of rights, or the insurance bill of rights, THE BILL OF RIGHTS.) By saying you need to bring the perfect case before the Supreme Court underscores the subjugation of the argument. It becomes a catwalk instead of a legal argument.
Given, Levy argues that it is better to bring a 2A suit in front of the Justices if the plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens, who walk their dogs and drink bottled water etc. It is not so appealing if you have a crackhead, who somehow managed to purchase a firearm legally.
At that point, you undermine the right, perception wise. If a crackhead or a dog-walking suburbanite purchases a gun legally, there's nothing wrong with that. By saying you need stricter gun laws just caters to the notion that people are not smart enough to make decisions. As far as the unfortunate crackhead; if he used a legal gun in the conduct of a crime, what difference does that make? He would have gotten hold of something lethal anyway. The answer to that is to pull him off the street and incarcerate him at taxpayer expense (if you are compassionate) or have him put to death (if you are interested in saving taxpayer money and ensuring the public doesn't have to face a threat from that asshole ever again ((and he can't piss in the gene pool.))
It's an interesting argument, but with rights, I don't think you need to put your best looking face on it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/levy200410010740.asp
I'm no lawyer, so I cannot comment on the technical aspects this article brings up.
But the gist seems to be that we want young, white, beautiful people to be front and center in any court discussion of 2A. This is the sort of thing that always pisses me off. An ugly black kid with no teeth gets kidnapped in Detroit: lucky if the AP even has a wire story on it. If a good-looking white child is abducted from the suburbs, it gets non-stop coverage.
My fault with the argument is, you are talking about an amendment included in the Bill of Rights (not the patient's bill of rights, or the insurance bill of rights, THE BILL OF RIGHTS.) By saying you need to bring the perfect case before the Supreme Court underscores the subjugation of the argument. It becomes a catwalk instead of a legal argument.
Given, Levy argues that it is better to bring a 2A suit in front of the Justices if the plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens, who walk their dogs and drink bottled water etc. It is not so appealing if you have a crackhead, who somehow managed to purchase a firearm legally.
At that point, you undermine the right, perception wise. If a crackhead or a dog-walking suburbanite purchases a gun legally, there's nothing wrong with that. By saying you need stricter gun laws just caters to the notion that people are not smart enough to make decisions. As far as the unfortunate crackhead; if he used a legal gun in the conduct of a crime, what difference does that make? He would have gotten hold of something lethal anyway. The answer to that is to pull him off the street and incarcerate him at taxpayer expense (if you are compassionate) or have him put to death (if you are interested in saving taxpayer money and ensuring the public doesn't have to face a threat from that asshole ever again ((and he can't piss in the gene pool.))
It's an interesting argument, but with rights, I don't think you need to put your best looking face on it.
