Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Knockout Animals

David Codrea recently posted a condemnation of that "social phenomenon" (not his words) called by media "The Knockout Game".

It's not a game. It's rampant lawlessness. It's gang violence. It's a pack of jackals circling a victim


Watch this.

No "Trigger Warning", except: this is America?

  Watch while the animals find, then surround, then take down their prey.
(The video is from a commentator on Codrea's article.)

Watch them as they abuse his unconscious body, then taking his trousers and shoes, passing them around to be tossed into the air as if they were trophies.   They first take down their prey, then they violate his sanctity, then they violate his humanity.   Then they abuse his body with kicks ad punches, pick him up and toss his corpse in the air, in apparent glee.

And at some point during the killing frenzy their prey ... dies.
There may have been some time between the fatal knockout blow and his death for someone to call for an ambulance. Nobody in this video wanted  that.  They wanted to kill him, and were delighted at their success.

What are the odds, eight to one?  Hard to tell from this fuzzy video.

I've never seen anything more horrifying than this short scene.



Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Finally, a good reason to vote for Trump

Streisand: I’ll Leave The Country If Trump Wins | Daily Wire:
Acclaimed singer Barbra Streisand is joining the list of disgruntled celebrities threatening to leave America if Donald Trump is elected president. She made the comments during an interview with Sydney-based journalist Michael Usher during an Australian news program broadcast on Sunday.

(I'll miss Samuel L. Jackson)

Monday, August 29, 2016

Poodle Shooters

Anyone who considers the 5.56mm/.223 caliber M15 (SEMI-automatic) rifle a "Powerful Weapon" is either an ignoramus, or a Politician.
But I repeat myself.

Editorial: Finally, Democrats Speak About Gun Control:
Democrats, of course, have largely avoided the issue for many years, fearing the electoral consequences of being outgunned by the N.R.A. But in the wake of high-profile mass shootings involving powerful weapons — including a few committed by murderers with apparent terrorist leanings — and notorious killings by and of police officers in a number of cities, the party apparently thinks voters are ready to say that enough is enough. Clinton is said to be committed to making new gun restrictions a central theme of her campaign, and her choice for vice president of Sen. Tim Kaine, a former governor of Virginia who has long advocated stricter gun laws, lends credence to that scenario.
"Credence" my ...
Hillary, that bold political move is going to come back and bite you on the .....   oh, but I repeat myself.

That it wasn't a 'Battle' ... That was the Point

That Time the NRA Tied the Tiananmen Square Massacre to American Gun Rights - The Trace:

 Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University, tells The Trace that if the Chinese students had handguns at Tiananmen Square, “the result would have been an even worse disaster than what occurred. The students were outmanned by huge numbers” — an estimated 10,000 troops — ”and there is no way that, even armed, they could have won that battle.”
The egrigious comments made at the "The Trace" website demonstrate how far The Left is from understanding the underlying character of the American Citizenry.

In 1989, citizens in Communist China rallied by the thousands to protest against governmental controls on their (non-existent) political rights     There were thousands of unarmed (by fiat) citizens; there were thousands of armed troops, along with tanks, sent by the government to put down a 'riot' by 'hooligans'.

Not a protest by citizens, but a "riot by hooligans".

There never was a battle; nor was a battle planned by the protesters.

Instead, there was a massacre by armed government, with tanks and mortars to back them up, against their own citizens.

Think about that.


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Today in America ...

... free citizens demand their First Amendment Constitutional Rights to protest, to assemble, to speak; and they are not machine-gunned by federal troops because of one of the Constitutional Rights which has received a lot of bad press in the past few decades:  the Second Amendment.

Yes, the Chinese in Tienanmen Square would have still been massacred; against tanks, and massed troops with fully automatic weapons, any citizen who tried to fire upon the Government Troops would have been shot down, or crushed by tanks.

Which, by the way, was exactly what happened.   But what if those unarmed citizens had been armed?

They would still have been machine-gunned, still have been crushed by the treads of tanks, and the "rebellion" would still have been crushed along with their bodies.

... but in America there is a constitutional right to be armed.   And as bad as the Chinese devastation of their own people was, an American devastation would not be entirely one-sided.

That would result in more than a highly publicized protest; that would result in a Civil War.  One which was not sparked by regional differences, or a demand to Secession  as our own Civil War was.

This would have been clearly understood as a People demanding their right against a Totalitarian, Tyrannical government ... and  it would have resulted in blood being shed on both sides.  It wouldn't been 10,000 troops against unarmed civilians.  It would have resulted in many, many deaths on both sides.  American troops are reluctant to fire on unarmed civilians, but they are more reluctant to fire on armed civilians who are protesting their rights.

OREGON:



(And aren't we SO much more 'civilized' than the Red Chinese?)

WAS this a murder?   It was a protest, not a battle.   One can't help but wonder how Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University might have compared it to Tienanmen Square.

The only difference between China and the current administration in America is that the Chinese government is at least open in it's thuggery; the current administration in America is more .....
,,, selective.

It's nice to live in a civilized society, isn't it?

GOOOOOOOOD Morning Vietnam!


Adrian Kraunaur was one of the most beloved Disk Jockeys in Viet Nam.

I have heard that, but I never heard him; he was there in '65-66, I was there in '69-70.  So I never actually heard him.  I found this video on the web, which was him.  Here's what he really looked and sounded like.



Okay, that's not very exciting.

Now, here's Robin Williams' version:



What's important about the original interview with The Real Adrian?

He describes Robin williams as someone who was insecure and ... well, if you really care, you can go back and play the ENTIRE Adrian Kraunaur interview.

Who every thought that Robin Williams was that insecure?  Until this year.

Back Story:
So I was chatting with a friend and listening to the Radio back in 1987 (I guess) and the radio station came on with a contest:  they playing a song and asked for callers to be the first to name the song and the artist.  I said "Oh heck, that's Pink Sunshine singing "I Never Knew My Daddy Was A Funny Boy", from their album "The Wall"  (I'm making this up .. it was 30 years ago for crissakes!) and when I called the station they said "That's Right!  You just won two free tickets to "Good Morning Vietnam".

So I gave them my address, they sent me the tickets, and my friend and I went to see the movie.

I was disappointed in this YouTube video, because they never showed the punchline .... which I thought was the best line of the movie:

At the end, this cute little VietNamese kid, whom Kraunaur had made friends with, runs off into the middle of Saigon and blows himself up.

Kraunaur/Williams turns to the camera, and says his memorable line:

"That's NOT going to look good on my resume."

I guess you need a really dark sense of humor to appreciate it.

When he hanged himself, I didn't think that really looked good on his resume, either.


Blue Light Special

9 injured after balloons cause Orlando mall shooting scare:

I see where 9 people were injured in the panic resulting from some balloons popping in an Orlando shopping mall, but I don't see any reports of firearms being drawn in defense by CHL carriers.

Wasn't Florida one of the first states in America to legalize Concealed Carry?

Instead, shoppers were so amazed that their expected "Blue Light Special" didn't announce special one-time discounts on merchandise, they trampled each other in panic.

Floridians ... this is NOT going to look good on your resume!


The Witch is Back!

Re-working an old law for a new ‘effective immediately’ gun grab - Personal Liberty:
Gun owners in Massachusetts are running into all kinds of problems as they attempt to deal with Attorney General Maura Healey’s unilateral decision to ban hundreds of previously legal firearms by reinterpreting a 1998 law. Boston Herald reported that Healey is taking a new approach to enforcing the law, which mirrors the federal assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, to keep gun makers from producing state-compliant versions of the rifles on the ban list.
Wimpy HEALEY sez:
Image result
"I would gladly ban you tomorrow for a gun that is legal today!"
What we have here is an 'ex post facto law', which means that you (gun owner) are penalized today for some act you legally performed yesterday (bought a firearm); because Healey says that you have purchased an object which, although legal when you bought it, is no longer legal. So you are liable to awful penalties.

Because ... Healey.

There are flies all over this reeking pile of doggie-doo, and only the people who might be directly affected by this the proposed law are calling "SHAME!" on it.

PERSONAL NOTE:  I once had an RTO (Radio-Telephone Operator) named Healey working for me, who proved his courage by calmly continuing to maintain contact with 'higher authorities' under direct fire as I was crying for illumination (flares from Base Camp Artillery) during a fire-fight.   He got through, directed adjustment for consecutive Artillery Flares so we could see what we were shooting at, and was entirely unruffled during the entire kerfuffle.   I hope he is not related to the Healey-creature in question, because I thought he was an exemplary individual.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

The Venezuelan Solution

In blood-drenched Venezuela, police may be part of the problem

The police (and the Military) in Venezuela have a tough decision to make every day.

They don't know whom to shoot.

The Militants, the Criminals, or the Citizens?  

Tough call, so the Police and Military have refined their problem until it is no longer a problem:

Just shoot everybody who has a gun.

The Criminals and the Militants have also adopted this philosophy, except that they don't require their victims to have a gun.   They just shoot everybody.

In fact, they often shoot police (and military) just to gain possession of their guns.

The Citizens of Venezuela are in a quandary, though; they're not legally allowed to own a gun, but they know that the police, the military and the criminals consider them to be sheep; all three groups predate on them to one degree or another, and so they have decided that it's better to be shot for a wolf than a sheep.

As a consequence, they find guns, somewhere, if only to protect themselves from the police, the Military, and the Criminals.   Hell, they're going to die anyway!

Which doesn't work out very well for the (otherwise) peaceful citizens of Venezuela, except that they might ... maybe .. someday .. be able to defend themselves against the criminals; who are not necessarily to greatest threat to the peaceful citizens of Venezuela, and their families.

In America, there is a great cry to restrict legal firearms possession to the police, and the military.

Criminals, it is widely accepted, will have guns anyway.

But in a country (Venezuela .. I love that name) where firearms ownership is forbidden, as soon as an honest citizen acquires a firearm to protect themselves ... they have allowed themselves to be a target for the police, and the military.

Well, they're already a target for the criminals.  And in Venezuela, there is a fine line between police, military and criminals.  A line which has been crossed, as a matter of course.


Venezuelan military/police have been murdered by criminals for the sole purpose of acquiring their guns.

Some Americans have made the case that firearms in America should only be possessed by police, and Military.

Is this what you want America to turn into?  You want to live in a Northern Venezuela?

Remember .. in America, police have no obligation to protect citizens from crime.   Even the near likelihood of murder imposes on obligation on police to protect citizens.  Their job is to show up when the blood runs cold, and 'investigate'.  Not to stop mureders.

And today, in California, a new law designed to keep arms away from 'dangerous persons' is adding problems to the already addled mix of Laws and Permissions, to the point where nobody seems comfortable with their Second Amendment rights because .... who knows?

It seems to me that when you try to abridge constitutional rights, you've opened a Pandora's Box of complications and confusion which serves no citizen well.  

California has long been a hotbed of conspiracy against the Constitution; the lawmakers there seem to consider their state to be the testing ground of new ways to impose limitations on the civik rights of their citizens.

Other than as an exercise of their power over the people who elected themselves to high office, it's difficult to understand why elected officials in California should consider their High Office as a license to steal ... steal away the freedoms, steal away the protections, and steal away the dignity of their fellow citizens.

I use to live in California.  It has an "iffy" weather pattern, they buy water from other states and could not otherwise sustain their bloated (both in ecological and political terms) population.

There is not a great deal to choose from, between Venezuela and California.

Except that in Venezuela, you get to shoot the bastards.





Friday, August 26, 2016

UC to Students: you're here to be challenged, not to be pampered

U. of C. tells incoming freshmen it does not support 'trigger warnings' or 'safe spaces' - Chicago Tribune:
University of Chicago Dean of Students John Ellison told incoming freshmen in a letter what they should expect on campus. "Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own," the letter said.
The idea of a "University" is to introduce thinking individuals to the thoughts which are new to them.   It's not to teach them how think; if they couldn't think for themselves, they shouldn't have qualified for admission.

It's not to teach them what to think: they could read books, which they may have selected because the ideas are familiar to them.   Inside their comfort zone, so to speak.

A university education is a waste of time and resources for people who need to be taught how or what to think.   Better that they go back home and marry the high-school JV quarterback or cheerleader and make beautiful babies, who hopefully will grow to be more inquisitive than their second-string parents.

The goal of a higher education is to encourage young minds to grow, to expand beyond what their basic education has taught them: the mechanics, the ABC's, math, geography, Civics ... the basics which give them the tools to evaluate new experiences, new thoughts, new opinions, new world views.

Students are deprived of a "higher education" when they are not exposed to ideas they have not heard, and viewpoints they have not considered.

At the College level, students are all about exploring, but usually it's their physical universe which has expanded.  Sex, Drugs, Rock 'n Roll.  You go gurl!    Learn how to drink and politely find a garden or a toilet to barf instead of inundating your host's Hawaiian shirt with gastric effluvium.

And too often they learn nothing from the academic courses which they (or more likely, their parents) have been saving for decades to teach them.

UC has made the bold step to actually challenge their incoming students, from the first day.
Not a challenge to their social identity; UC chooses to challenge their intellectual curiosity.

And students who don't HAVE any intellectual curiosity may soon understand that the hollowed halls of ivy aren't really where they belong.  Perhaps they're not actively in search of intellectual broadening; in which case they can go home to State U. and get their sheepskin without having to actually think.

They, the University, and the world are better off not wasting their time and ours with the pursuit of casual dalliance.

This is NOT Your Father's University!


Thursday, August 25, 2016

White Privilege vs White Guilt

State university hosts 'Stop White People' training: Report - Washington Times:

Read through the convoluted language of the opening paragraphs (I provided the indents between paragraphs), and tell me you don't understand why I am so grateful that I'm no longer sucking on the public tit.
The State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamton reportedly hosted a training course for residential assistants on how to “stop white people.”
The course, titled “#StopWhitePeople2K16,” was listed on the university’s residential assistant training schedule for an event to give RAs an “overview of disabilities in Higher Education,” according to the Binghamton Review, the school’s student-run conservative newspaper.
(emphasis added)
Stop White People?

Geeze, Louise, the entire premise is racist.   It was conceived and implemented by 'people' who don't believe that 'white people' can be the object of racism, because of  'white privilege'.

I don't know what others may think, but I worked my way through college.  My parents could only sign  "Guaranteed Student Loan" papers on faith that I wouldn't default, because they damn sure didn't have the money to put me through college.  I caught a couple of scholarships because of my grades, but I started mowing lawns when I was 10 years old and worked weekend and vacations through high-school, and found summer jobs through college.

Judge Napolitano at Mises: Natural Law | Oath Keepers

Judge Napolitano at Mises: Natural Law | Oath Keepers:
I've never heard Napolitano speak:   I've missed out on one of the natural wonders of the universe.

Thanks to Oathkeepers  for providing this stirring speech by a jurist and a patriot whose subject is: "The natural law as a restraint against Tyranny".
From back in November, 2014, the ... video reaches deeply into philosophical queries regarding the relationship between the individual and a government. 
I won't embed the video here; credit to my source.   Go there and be prepared to spend twenty-two minutes in spellbound awe.

(Hey, I'm not joking around here!   If you're not spellbound, I will give you double your money back!)

“Making legal arms illegal is infringement.”


Alan Korwin:
... No degree of legal wrangling, court justifications, developed legal theories, codified opinions, law review articles, so-called popular opinion, telephons or other attempts to rationalize away the obvious can negate the fact that outlawing legal property is an abuse of power, plain and simple. The heinous excuse of outlawing property as a response to crime, the jihad or international threats is among the most corrupt, reprehensible and offensive. These are intolerable acts.
 If guns we have today are declared illegal , that by its very nature infringes our right to keep and bear those arms. Such action is banned -- and ultimately banned by the very firearms themselves.
 But America now has a candidate running whose very platform includes going after arms held by the people. And her followers are so poorly educated on the subject they cheer her -- and her insanely heavily armed cohorts. The irony is beyond Orwellian. It's time for the political class to understand that governement (sic) on these civil rights exceeds delegated power, and the consequences of usurpation are too high to risk. Just so we're clear: “Making legal arms illegal is infringement.” ...
This is the bare bones: go read it for the meat.


Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Oh, spare me your anti-M14 snobs

The "Everything New Is Bad" Mindset - The Firearm Blog

Frankly, I think a lot of people who seem to know what they're talking about ...  haven't a clue.

Speaking specifically about the AR16 and the M14:  I was there.

In 1969 in III corps (RSVN), First Infantry Division, we actively searched for M14 rifles to perform a very important mission:   arm "Point Men" to defend themselves.

Sure, the M16 was great for laying down a volume-of-fire, but for the guys who stalked the jungle one step at a time, trying to watch for trip wires, bunkers, snipers, spider holes, and ambushes ... it wasn't much fun to multi-task when the .556 cartridge was not worth a damn when you're shooting through dense foliage at an L-shaped ambush.   This was the duty of our point men; all volunteers, and among the bravest of us.

True fact, the M16 rounds were great for wounding the enemy, but not so great trying to beat a path through the cover and concealment (foliage) which protected the ambushers.

We looked for M14's so our guys out on the bleeding edge might have a small edge of their own; the enemy was protected against M16, which couldn't reliably break through the cover they used to protect themselves.  The NVA and VC didn't need a lot of cover when first-reaction rounds from American troops came their way.

And our point men knew it.  So we gave them M14s; 50 pounds of hardball that would go through leaves, trees and vietnamese.  (I exaggerate the weight of the M14; but if you carried one, all day and every day ... when your day began it was lighter than a feather; by the end of the day, it was heavier than a mountain.)

Maybe the M14 didn't have QUITE the penetrating power that we told them (our point men) it did, but nobody had any doubts that it was better than trying to back out of an ambush zone with nothing better than an M16 to make Charley duck and cover.   And we willingly lied to our point men; whatever it took to convince someone to lead us through the jungle.

The thing is ... our brave men who knew they were expendable booby-trap trippers also knew that we equipped them with the finest infantry rifle ever invented: the M14.

Nobody else in the company/battalion/division had The Hog.  It weighed too much, it carried awkwardly (you couldn't grip one by the 'center of balance' because it didn't have one!), and it was nearly impossible to get magazines, Level one maintenance, or even ammunition.  But these men were the eyes and ears of the squad/platoon/company/battalion.   They were BY GOD deserving of the best weapon available!

Charley opens up on you?  Shred the jungle with 20 rounds of 7.62 and let their mothers weep.

Think Charley is thinking about opening up on you?  Recon by fire with heavy metal which has been designed to push through leaves, trees and vietnamese.   Don't worry about the Ammo, Private; there's lots more where that came from

(Truth is, it was almost impossible to get M14 rifles, magazines or ammunition.  Every round the point-men fired meant that the company had to take up a collect to bribe some REMF supply officer to order in a shipment.   But we didn't tell them that.   Until the Patrol Leader  could bribe a case of 7.62 from Saigon with six bottles of Jack Daniels and introduction to a new Saigon whore, whatever those guys carried on their web-belts and Alice packs was all the 7.62 ammo in the world.)

YOU CAN MAKE  your own decision whether Point Men in Vietnam were the most naive, or most ignorant, or the bravest men in that hideous war.  What you cannot deny is that many more of us would have come home in a box except for their willingness to learn a trade which no man should become 'good at':   willfully walking into a trap, for the good of his brothers.

We gave him the best weapon we had ... the M14 7.62mm select fire "Assault Rifle" (Ptui the term! but my understanding is that it replaced the B.A.R. --- Browning Automatic Rifle) and wished them luck, and then cowered behind them in hopes that their MUCH MORE POWERFUL weapon could confuse and thin the enemy when they attacked; at least long enough that the rest of us could find cover and concealment to return a 'volume of fire' from our Poodle Shooters (which worked as well as you can expect from the lowest bidder).

Yes, this is nostalgia.  The thing is, nostalgia is the luxury of someone whose life, and the lives of his friends, have been saved by a gullible infantryman who busted up an ambush which could have / would have killed all, or most of them.

So AC97: I recognize that you are speaking as a person who looks at the question objectively.
Also, I perceive that you haven't lived your long life because someone who was armed with an M14 stood his ground for his brothers.

But if you have never had the luxury of a long life because of a brave man with an M14 who broke up an ambush purely because of his more-effective arms, I respectfully request you to STFU!




Avatar





And speaking of the M14, that thing shouldn't have even existed, let alone get adopted. Literally the only reasons that rifle is thought of positively in any way is because of nostalgia and the fact that the M16 had problems caused by cutting corners in vital areas, which have long since been solved.





    • Avatar





      People forget that it was withdrawn from production because the companies building them couldn't keep them shooting. It was an unreliable and inaccurate rifle much of the time. Only today, 60 years later, has it been made into a shooting machine, it never was during the Vietnam era.





        • Avatar





          You talking about the 16 or 14 brother? Because the same can be said about both..





            • Avatar





              There's a difference in that the M14 was a bad idea to begin with. Just look at all of those exposed locking surfaces. The FAL and AR 10 were (and are) more than capable of being better in every meaningful way.





              • Avatar





                The M14 was stopped and replaced by the M16 (then M16A1). Winchester, TRW and H&R had difficualty keeping the stocks from warping and stopping the proper function and accuracy issues. McNamara pulled the M14s plug. The M16 issues are well known and mostly came down to high level Army officers not knowing a damn thing about the new rifle.