The Smallest Minority Goes to PayPal - NOT!

The Smallest Minority - No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Kevin at "The Smallest Minority" (one individual) wanted to contribute a gun for a raffle at the forthcoming "Gun Bloggers Rendezvous", and chose "Soldiers' Angels" to run the ticket sales.

Paypal closed down Soldiers Angel's account ... because of this raffle ... because PayPal is entirely anti-gun.

They (Soldiers' Angels) had to take the raffle off the list of contributors before they were allowed to continue accepting donations from 'other sources'.

Kevin's pissed, Soldiers' Angels may have lost some contributions during the outage, and it appears that the raffle may be 'off' after only 42 contributions had been received.

I have less than $50 in my paypal account. Maybe I'll look around for some better way to send money to worthwhile recipients, such as Day By Day Cartoons by Chris Muir.

Stumble It!

Credit Card Fraud Part Deux

Ahhhhh ... that's much better.
I received my new credit card today. It has been exactly one week since it was cancelled, six days since I phoned my Credit Card Provider and requested a new card. (See Credit Card Fraud)

All I had to do was call the 24-hour hotline to get it activated.

Remember how I had to ask all those "security questions" to order a replacment card? Guess what ... they have a whole 'nother raft of "security questions" before they'll activate it.

Actually, they only ask you to "using the number pad on your telephone, type in the first four letters of your mother's maiden name, or enter the four-digit security code for your account if you have provided one".

Let me see, is "JONES" entered as if you're texting, or just punch the same #6 key for both the "N" and the "O"? I tried it both ways, they wouldn't take any of them. So they put on a "Customer Assistance Associate" for the old Third Degree.

I wasn't taking no sass from that child. Spoke Amurruhcun Englitch, but he talked so fast I couldn't make out what he was saying. By the time we finished and he declared my account activated, I had asked him as many questions as he had asked me.

Now all I have to do is go to my online accounts and update them with my new number and expiration date. Oh, yeah, they didn't give me the old expiration date, as they had told me last week.

I'm sure looking forward to explaining why I need to change my credit card number at Amazon. Anybody have the URL for that? Never mind, I'll find it. They don't call me a Geek for nothing.

PS: do you know, my editing software accepted "Amurruhcun Englitch" without calling a spell-checker time out? Surprised me, too. There must be a lesson there. Okay, it's probably because the words are capitalized, but still ... I guess I must be easily impressed.

Stumble It!

Free National Health Care, eh?

Pajamas TV - Louder With Crowder - PJTV Undercover: Steven Crowder Investigates CanadaCare...Will ObamaCare Be Any Better? - Video

I found Pajama Media Televison (www.pjtv.com) today and I was very impressed with the quality of the content there.

Especially, I was impressed by a 20 minute 'article' exploring the limitations of Free National Health Care, as experienced in Canada. So I blogged the video so you can see it.

Unfortunately, I have since discovered that "The Smallest Minority" has linked to the same URL, over a week ago, for the same reasons. (Also see "Tell me again why GWB was so stupid." Not related, but ... well, maybe.)

So you can go there and see it, or click on the link at the top of the page.

In summary, the reasons why Free national Health Care doesn't serve Canadians well include:

• Waiting periods in emergency rooms are cited in terms of hours, not minutes
• Health Clinics are not open on weekends
• Even if you want a simple procedure, such as a blood test for tetnus, you almost always have to go to a Family Doctor
• Family Doctors are largely unable or unwilling to take new patients. The waiting list here is years
• If you need to see a specialist, expect to wait for a period of over a year
• Waiting to receive necessary medical care may take so long that the condition you originally wished to resolve may have worsened to an extreme degree .... an ailment which could possible be cleared up with an overnight hospital visit may be put off until it can be resolved only with extreme measures (in one cited case, with multiple amputations)
• The waiting list for 'expensive' testing or procedures (such as an MRI) may be years; that period may be shortened because, well, the people who were in line before you died before they could get help
• The good thing is that any treatment you get, if and when you get it, is 'free'; the bad news is that you pay for it in your taxes (Ontario taxes are 50% - 100% higher than California!) even if you don't need it
• More good news: you CAN go to a "Private Caregiver", although the waiting list is still extraordinarily long; the bad news is that (for example) a blood test can cost nearly a thousand dollars. When you can get in.

You may think I'm making this up, or mis-understanding the situation as represented. Well, I'm just reflecting what I've seen on the video. Before you take me to task, please do invest 20 minutes of your time to see the video.

In the mean time, I'll be researching the question independently. I find this all very hard to believe, although I've read (and written about) similar anecdotal evidence.

One thing is for certain: I won't want my congress-critter voting in favor of any National Health Care Bill (by any name) until they have had the time to read it, consider it thoroughly, and discuss it in session.

Obama, however, seems to want this passed before the Summer is over. He doesn't put as much priority on achieving a consensus as he does on having his will confirmed in law.

Again, I'm a cranky old man who resist change instinctively. It may be just me, but I think this whole National Health Care thing sounds a lot like a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman who demands that you make a decision right now.

That kind of deal presupposes that when you look at the contract in the light of day, you'll see it for the charlatanry that it is.

I'm speaking here of Encyclopedia Salesmen and Snake Oil Hucksters, of course.

Stumble It!

How hot is it?

It's so hot that yesterday we had an electrical 'interruption' (something exploded in the green box on the corner) yesterday at 5pm. That was at the end of a one-hundred-degree temperature day -- at 5pm. The house systems surged, but the surge protectors and UPS saved the computer

Tonite at 8pm I had another power surge, at 8pm. Nothing exploded, and I thought that my UPS had saved all the systems. (The temperature today reached 103.)

I got the UPS rebooted, and the router is up. But I couldn't get my desktop to boot. It lost its BIOS. I can't find my system disk, so I'll have to take it into the Puter Hospital tomorrow. They built it, they can fix it. And maybe even find me a boot disk to replace the one I 'miss-filed'.

So I'm in the downstairs dining room, the coolest room in the place (upstairs is still 93 degrees ... 89 with the air conditioner running), and working with my laptop. This may have been one of the better investments I've made lately, along with the router.

I have a towel at my side to wipe the sweat off my brow ... the doors are open, but there's no breeze. And the air conditioners are both upstairs.

Last night I let my air conditioner run all night in my bedroom. It's a portable, so the hose for condensation goes into a one-gallon bucket. When I got up this morning, the bucket was overflowing, soaking the carpet around the air conditioner. I soaked up the excess with towels, which are now in the washer, and let the natural heat of the day dry the carpet. Worked just fine. Wish I could say as much for my desktop.

In another hour it will be significantly cooler outside than in my upstairs bedroom, so I'll turn on the window fan to put some cooler (not cool, except in comparison to the 92 degrees held in the room), and later I'll turn on the air conditioner. First, though, I'll check the drainage bucket. I know there's already a half-inch of water from the hour I ran it early this evening.

The weather service says it will be 100 degrees again tomorrow. Some sources predict the heat will rise to 110 degrees.

It's not really so bad when I'm sitting in front of a computer (except for when the computer dies), but trying to compete in an IPSC match in a gravel-surfaced shooting bay with berms on 3 sides feels like I'm perched at the focal point of a parabolic mirror. Every erg of solar energy is pointing right at me, boring into my soul. It saps my energy and distracts me so I am unable to concentrate on tasks ... such as holding my sight picture on an 8" plate sitting 30 yards away. (Or a "metric" cardboard target's A-zone even when it's a lot closer.)

This kind of heat is said to be predominate for the rest of this week.

I remember being in Vietnam during the hot season of 1969. It was muggy, hot, and we were operating in the areas around Dian and Cu Chi, which were often fairly open. It was bad enough when we were operating as unattached infantry, working our way through areas which alternated between relatively open, and jungle. We sweated all the time, and there was rarely any breeze then, either. We had light field packs and were 'rapidly mobile' which means that we weren't carrying heavy packs with gear weighing 60 pounds or more. but we had to carry so much water and ammunition that it was often difficult to stand up with your gear on your back anyway.

Today, I don't have to carry any gear. In fact, I'm sitting in my dining room in short pants and nothing else. No load to carry, and my biggest worry is that I need to cake my PC to the shop tomorrow. And I'm complaining?

That's a luxury, and as I sit here dripping in sweat, it helps to remind myself how very EASY my life has become.

The sun is going down, and I still have electricity and lights. I can stay up as late as I want.

Back then, my most common fantasy was to sleep on a bare mattress on the floor, with fans blowing cool air over me from all directions. And there were no creepy crawly things sucking my blood as I slept. (You would be amazed at how prevalent leeches were when you slept on notionally dry ground. Especially in the Rubber Plantations, or rather what remained of them.)

Now, I don't have to stand a watch, I'm not in an 'ambush position', there aren't flares in the air or artillary going off in the middle of the night, I'm sleeping in a very comfortable bed.

And nobody is shooting at me.

Compared to that, I'm in Hog Heaven.

God Bless America.

Stumble It!

Wedding Party Boogey Down

Wedding Party Boogey Down (click on that to see the video)

Shared via AddThis

I'm as addicted to viral media as anyone, but this one takes me over the top.

What can be more joyful that people who dance at their own wedding?

Sorry about the short commercial before the actual video ... I couldn't fine a source without it.

But I did find this "recreation" of the event, in another venue.

Somehow, I doubt that this is an entirely 'amateur video' situation. Still, the fantasy is little short of charming.

Stumble It!

Stick figures in peril

Stick figures in peril: bizarre and confusing warning signs from around the world - Telegraph
As much as I don't like the UK's "Daily Telegraph" (because of their sensationalist and cheezy content), sometimes it's just really hard to resist their sleezy sensationalism.

Here's a few examples of something that we all know and wonder about ... stick figures.


This "Stick Figure", for example, appears to warn the viewer against performing unnatural acts with dump trucks.

On the other hand, is the unnatural acts interpretation a matter of objective thinking, or does it say something about the viewer? I invite you to contribute your own interpretation, as long as it does now reflect negatively on the author ... that would be me, not you. I'm okay, you're subject to intense psychological examination. Right?

Right.


Here's another example, which seems to support the unnatural acts interpretation. I hope you can provide a more logical meaning. Sure, it's probably contrary to continuing a normal sex-life if you allow ... perhaps encourage ... an elephant to step on you private parts. But we should all be aware of those risks without the stick figure.

On the other hand, what about the trunk, eh?





This is another stick figure which illustrates ... what? TP in the commode is okay, but standing up while doing your personal business is not okay?

Or does it suggest that it's 'not okay' to do a double back-flip into the commode as a bizarre version of suicide?

I work on a University Campus, and I have to admit that some of the people who are compelled by immediate personal needs to visit the "Public Loo" just don't seem to understand the etiquette of using a public toilet. Perhaps this indicates that "Ranging Shots Are Not Okay" is a reasonable interpretation of this Stick Figure.

No, that's just too bizarre to write about on a Public Blog. Forget I said that, okay?

Thanks.

These are only three of the NINETEEN stick figures presented in the Telegraph Article. Please remember that I started out saying that the Telegraph website was weird and not my favorite website.

Also, I never said anything about unnatural acts here. If you think I did, it merely reflects your own personal perversity. Not mine.

Stumble It!

Dundee July 2009 (Stage 4): "Made in the Shade"

The Jungle Run is particularly difficult to film. At the July Dundee club match, I only got one small video clip, which faded out when the camera was unable to focus on the action.

It seems only fitting that this discontinuous video reflect the audio clip from Wolfman Jack's on-air dialogue with a 13-year-old listener.

Ten IPSC targets, 3 steel at the end, The Hobo Brasser runs in the jungle ... no YouTube version available here..
.

Stumble It!

Dundee July 2009 (Stage 5): V2

The fifth stage of the July, 2009 DUNDEE club match provided lots of ways to err, but most of the competitors handled the shooting problem with a minimum of urps.

There were 4 IPSC "Classic" targets, overlayed with no-shoot "penalty targets", on either side of a stacked-barrel barrier. The stage was symmentrical, each side providing the Classic Target arrays, plus steel "Pepper" targets cunningly arrayed so that the competitor couldn't see a Popper until he/she downed the target in front of it.

Pepper Popper, US Popper. Pepper Popper, US Popper. That was the game plan, but many shooters took the larger "Pepper Poppers" first, to reveal the smaller (and usually farther away ... up to fifty feet) U.S. Poppers.

On this 24 round stage, I personally took the right side and then reloaded with another 17-round magazine, giving me a total of 18 rounds for the 8-round array. I ran out of ammo before I could take down the farthest US Popper and declined to reload to re-engage a small, far-away steel target which I had already shown myself unable to hit at that distance.

Others chose a different approach, and almost everyone beat me at that stage.

If I seem to belittle my squad-members in the accompanying video (available at YouTube here), that's misleading. If fact, most people on my squad performed much better than did I, and I was pleased to record their accomplishments on video.

Of course, I also recorded their faults. Perhaps it's that I have a mean streak, but more likely I wanted to depict the difficulties of this "Evil Bill" stage.

You can see this video on YouTube without the musical background here, but you can also view "the whole thing" (although you cannot download it) below.

Stumble It!

Dundee July 2009 (6): Way Over There

In the last stage of the July Dundee match, I tried to get as many squad-members on video as I could. We were all fairly ready to go home (or to lunch at Abby's Pizza in Newburg ... Giant Linquica pizzas and beer, yum yum!)

The stage is an odd one: start in the Guard Shack, engage 3 IPSC targets with 3 shots each, knock down the 3 pepper poppers (one of which is 'forward-falling'), and clean the 5 plates on the Texas Star. The stage instructions read: "Start in the Guard Shack, do what you usually do." It assumes we know what that means ... and although there was some ribald humor occasioned by the stage procedures, we did, indeed, do what we usually did. What a great way to end a Summer Match!

I filmed The Hobo Brasser, Erik, and as a change up I even have a video of The Geek doing his Limited best on this 23-round stage with lotsa awkward steel (including a straight-up Texas Star). The video also includes relatively new shooter Mike S., the surprising John M, and the high-light of the squad, Jerry D.

The most interesting part of this match was Jerry D. He was shooting an 'old' STI (black finish, no frills, with a C-more) and he did it very well ... although none of us could remember ever seeing him at a match before.

I finally, on this last stage, asked Jerry why he shot so well when we didn't remember him.

"Well, I haven't shot IPSC since 1990" he replied.

Where was the last match he shot?

"Tri-County", he replied, citing a local club.

The story is, Jerry D. signed up with another local shooter, Rich B., whose membership number is 5*.

"But surely that's a Lifetime membership member, Jerry. What's YOUR membership number?"

He cited a middle 3-digit (5**) USPSA Membership number.

Wow, I thought. The Hobo Brasser and I consider ourselves 'old-timers' in USPSA because our membership numbers are mid-1*,*** but Jerry D is truly one of the Pioneers of USPSA.

"So tell, me, Jerry, why is Rich's lifetime membership so low, but you didn't take the lifetime membership option"

He said, "I thought it was a waste of money to pay for the lifetime membership. I just signed up for the annual membership. I didn't think it would last this long."

For those people who don't think that Practical Shooting is an addictive sport, I have to say ... it's hard to stay away.

This is a 3:25 minute video. There's a raw version of the video on You Tube, but if you want to see it with music, click on the embedded video below. (Match scores available here.)

Stumble It!

Crock Match Cancelled

At the regularly scheduled Dundee Club match for July 2009, Match Director and Club President Paul Meiers announced that the planned "Crocodile Dundee Banzaii Ballistic (You Got Bullets?)" high-round-count match would not take place in September of 2009.

"It takes three or four thousand dollars to put on this match" Meier said at the July 25 club-match shooter's meeting. Because there are only a few weeks until the scheduled Labor Day match, Meier said "We are not a big club. We need the match fees to put on this match. We only have 20 shooters signed up so far, and only four of them are local shooters."

Today's email included an explanation from Meiers:

I’m sorry to have to announce I have canceled the 2009 Crazy Croc match. At this time we do not have enough applications to make the match run. We’ve been trying for the past 3 months to bring in applications but this year they just aren’t flowing. I know the primer shortage is one problem for several shooters, there are several big matches in this area this year and Nationals is the following week so many shooters are having to pick their matches. Also looking around at other matches, 2 day matches are having problems. The cost of travel is just too high for many shooters this year.

I know this is going to put some shooters in a bind but I just can’t run a match on a deficit. I don’t have those trillions to play with. We plan to be back next year reloaded and ready to go.

Those who have sent in applications I will shred them and put into the burn pile. I hope to see everyone next year.

For contact information, go to the "Team Croc" website here.

Stumble It!

Senate Defeats Conceal-Carry Measure That Divided Democrats - washingtonpost.com

Senate Defeats Conceal-Carry Measure That Divided Democrats - washingtonpost.com

The Senate narrowly defeated today a measure which would have allowed a person with a Concealed Carry Permit in one state to exercise that right in any state of the union. Note that this measure wouldn't have given any protections to criminals ... it would only have de-criminalized concealed carry for honest citizens outside their home state.

From the Washington Post:

An amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines fell just short of passage Wednesday in a vote that revealed deep divisions among the Senate's Democrats.

Supporters included all but two Republicans and 20 Democrats, but the vote of 58 to 39 in favor fell two short of the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.

...

Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, the legislation would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they "have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence" they "are entitled to do so." It was considered one of the most far-reaching federal efforts ever proposed to expand gun-permitting laws.

"This carefully tailored amendment will ensure that a state's border is not a limit to an individual's fundamental right and will allow law-abiding individuals to travel without complication throughout the 48 states that already permit some form of conceal and carry," Thune said during Wednesday's sometimes contentious debate.

The NRA, in urging a yes vote, called the amendment "important and timely pro-gun reform."

I have never been particularly fond of Wayne LaPierre, but in a PMSNBC interview he stood up to an obviously antagonistic Talking Head and provided a perspective which is usually missing from Main-Stream Media reports.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Given that the Senate vote was only two votes short of a filibuster-proof decision, I believe that LaPierre is justified in considering this vote a "win", if only as a means of measuring senatorial support which ... just wasn't quite enough to carry the day.

This time.

My home state of Oregon is loath to extend Reciprocal Right To Carry to residents of other states, perhaps in part because Oregon has requirements which are more strict than, say, it's neighboring state of Washington. (This is not necessarily true ... but that's the story we hear from the Governor and other "Blue-State" public officials. And they're sticking to it.) More likely because they're frightened by the idea of people carrying guns, and while by federal law they cannot prevent their own citizens from "Shall Issue" right to carry firearms, they're not about to let some stranger from another state carry here.

I suspect this is the same parochial mind-set which infected the senators from the other states who voted against this bill. No, it doesn't speak well for the Senators from Oregon .. or the other stages who voted against the bill.


We didn't win this one, but we looked good on video. Maybe the next time, or the time after that ...?

Funny thing about congressional voting. Usually 'we' are on the defensive, but this time the shoe is on the other foot.

We only have to win one time. 'They', on the other hand, must win every vote. If they lose just one .. hey, it's a whole new ballgame.

This position feels much more comfortable than the "usual" position we are forced into.

No wonder LaPierre seems so relaxed in his interview.

Stumble It!

Credit Card Fraud

Well, that was fun.

I just got off the phone with my Credit Card provider.

My credit card has been canceled.

I didn't know about this when I phoned them ... apparently it was just a matter of fortunate timing that I went online tonight to check my account balance and last statement, and I was nonplussed when I couldn't sign onto my online account.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Earlier tonight I had successfully signed on to the website of the supporting lending institution, but that didn't give me access to my credit card account. Then I attempted to sign onto the URL specifically for credit card information, and it wouldn't accept my logon/password and clicked on "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING SECURITY QUESTIONS". Which I did, with responses which were appropriate and accurate.

I found myself staring at the Brown Screen of Death:

Unable to identify you in our records
[error message RIO16]

The website would not accept the logonid and password which it had accepted only minutes before.

That left me with no choice but to read the 24-hour help hotline phone number on the back of my credit card.
Note: this number is in teeny tiny font, and if your eyesight is no better than mine I recommend that you get a magnifying glass and read it now, and write it in bigger font size where you won't lose it.

Eventually I was privileged to speak to a Customer Service Representative (CSR), a charming lady from India who speaks very very fast. I'm sure you've spoken to her before, or a close relative of hers, when accessing Customer Service facilities for other on-line services. I know I have, and it has always been difficult to understand them. When I asked her to slow down and enunciate carefully, the conversation was extended several more minutes. But I did understand every word she said.

This is when I learned that my account had been locked. Cancelled. Disconnected. Frozen. Sent to Coventry.

No longer valid.

On the phone, I was required to answer a LOT of "Security Questions", including my current phone number. (They had my OLD phone number, from 3 years ago, which explains why they were unable to contact me before locking the account. Curiously, I had checked my phone number just before they locked me out, and it was correct. Go figure.) They also confirmed my billing address, receipt of hard-copy bills (not happening, will now be corrected), SSN, card number, security code, etc.

The story was that "several accounts have been locked" because they had received charges from payees which were suspected of hacking. Or, to put it more plainly, ID Theft.

Mine was one of them.

The first thing they did was to lock my account.

After they were satisfied that I was who I claimed to be, the musically voiced young lady proceeded to read me the most recent charges:

DBODPOCOLC, July 22, $8.08.

No, I don't recognize that charge.

V KAREFE FON IND, July 22, $1.01
No, that's not familiar either.

MUSIC DOWNLOADS, July 10, $9.95
Okay, yeah. I downloaded an MP3 album from Amazon earlier this month. That one's mine.

Having established that the hatchet-job occurred yesterday (July 22), they asked me to destroy my old credit card and assured me that the bogus charges would be deleted from my bill.

In the meantime, they will be sending me a new credit card, with a new account number, and when I received it I should notify my legitimate online accounts.

Since my card was set to expire almost immediately, I asked about the expiration date. When the 'new old card' expires, they'll send me another new card, with another new account number and a longer expiration date.

That's going to be fun, too. I think I'll just not be buying anything soon if I have to pay by credit card.

There are probably several lessons to be learned from this experience.

• monitor your credit accounts frequently, and carefully
• if you can't access an on-line account on-line, phone your credit card provider immediately
• be assertive when talking to a CSR
• keep track of credit transactions you have made, so if a bogus one appears on your bill you'll know whether it's legitimate
• know how to contact your credit card provider in the not-that-unlikely event that you can't contact them on-line, if that's your usual mode of dialogue
• Don't be, as Elmer Fudd says, "vewwy quiet" ... you are not hunting rabbits, you're hunting wolves and you need help immediately
• Finally, and this is a personal situation, if your online purchase is denied by your credit card provide, this should be a big red warning light. It was for me, and I quit ordering from that 'questionable' vendor. But it still caught me by surprise, because they waited for a month and a week before they sold my credit card.

By the way, it's indicative of something-or-other that the first charge was for $1.01, and the second was for $8.08. The bad guys obviously started small, probably on the premise that if I saw the charges I would ignore them because it wasn't very expensive ... yet.

There's not doubt in my mind that they charges would have been very big, very soon, once they became comfortable with the assurance that I wasn't going to report them to my credit card provider.

I suspect that's what broke their back. They probably hurt a lot of credit card holders very bad, and were reported by their victims. That certainly saved me, because my credit card provider was alert and pro-active. Right now, I don't mind a bit that my credit card account was frozen. I suffered nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

Oh, and if YOU get a call from your credit card provider informing you that your card has been locked, and asking you to verify your Security Information ... don't do it. Instead, hang up and then call the number (in teensy tiny print) on back of your credit card. At least you will know who you're talking to.

Check your six, speaking financially.

It's a jungle out there.

Stumble It!

Mo Dowd and the Grey Lady

Call me racist, call me a Political Radical of "The Opposite Party" ... but then, I repeat myself.

At least, these two terms are the interchangeable according to New York Times and the Queen of the NYT columnists, Maureen Dowd (when speaking of Conservatives).

Okay, that's what they are ... what am I?

From the American Spectator, here is a 3-page satirical opinion column on the hypocritical racist attitudes and practices & unspoken policies of Mo and the NYT.

You may not find it as funny as I did.

Stumble It!

Evian "Dancing Babies" (Roller Babies)

Yes, there's a new Viral Video in town, and it's called "Dancing Babies".

For those of us who remember "Chackaboom Babies", this is Version 2.0 in the genre.

A commercial for Evian water includes some humongous CGI (we presume) work to show infants -- not even in the Toddler Stage --- roller-skating with skills which are not available to almost any of us. (Probably none of "us".)

This is not relevant to any subject you might expect at this blog, but personally I find the concept ... charming.

Enjoy. This is definitely one of the "Things I Like".


(Commentary available here.)

Stumble It!

Safe Direction

For those of you poor, benighted creatures who don't already subscribe to The Shooting Wire (click here to subscribe to the thrice-weekly newsletter), you don't enjoy the pleasure of reading Jim Shepherd's excellent Feature columns.

I feel it is my not-so-reluctant duty, from time to time, to acquaint you with a few of the excellent items the redoubtable Mr. Shepherd provides.

Today he wrote about a gun-related product which I had never before contemplated. It was such a profound revelation to me that I felt obliged to share it with you.

The "Ballistic Containment System" from Safe Direction LLC. allows the shooting individual to safely unload, reload, clear or otherwise handle a firearm without fear of an "Accidental Discharge" causing injury or damage in any environment.

As nearly as I can discern, this is a patch of Ballistic Nylon plied with some other non-specific materials designed to trap a bullet ... in the Pistol version, up to .45acp.

This 'patch' can be included in several configurations, including in a range bag, so that the gun-bearing individual may safely unload and, in the unlikely event of an "Accidental Discharge", the bullet will be trapped in the material.

Note that the instructions for the "Academy Pad" (shown above, available for $165 .. free shipping!) include the reminder that the barrel of the pistol must be placed on top of the logo, while applying 'gentle pressure'.

I've never seen one of these accessories, I have no idea how well they work, but it seems to me that they might have some special utility on a USPSA range.

One of the problems with USPSA competition (and probably IPSC competition as well, if there are any other regions in IPSC which allow Concealed Carry) is that one who 'carries' must divest oneself of a loaded weapon before entering the host range. USPSA/IPSC ranges are traditionally "Cold Ranges", meaning that the carrying of a loaded firearms on the range is strictly forbidden.
I know, that sounds odd considering the nature of the sport, but remembering that safety is the number one priority, it is not an unreasonable consideration.

In USPSA, ranges are enjoined to provide a safety area at the entrance to the range where carry guns can be safely unloaded and stowed. We don't see that very often (actually ... never, in my experience), there is much detail in rule 2.5 of the 2008 USPSA rule book:

2.5 Unloading/Loading Station
2.5.1 If it is possible that some competitors arriving at a range where a USPSA match is being held may be in possession of a loaded firearm on their person (e.g. law enforcement officers, persons duly authorized to carry a loaded firearm, etc.), match organizers should provide an Unloading/Loading Station to enable such competitors to safely unload their firearms prior to entering the range, and to safely load their firearms again on departure from the range. The Unloading/Loading Station should be conveniently located outside the entrance to the range (or outside the portion of the range allocated to the USPSA match), it should be clearly sign-marked and it must include a suitable impact zone.
2.5.2 Where no Unloading/Loading station is provided, a competitor who arrives at a match in possession of a loaded firearm and proceeds immediately to a match official for the express purpose of safely unloading the firearm shall not be subject to disqualification per the provisions of Rule 10.5.13.

Rather than have a water-filled or sand-filled barrel to expedite safe unloading, it may be possible to use one of these "Safe Direction" pads at the Unloading/Reloading stations.

Stumble It!

2009 CCS Sectional

Here's something that we will really like.

The Columbia Cascade Section (Area 1) of USPSA held their Sectional Tournament last weekend. SWMBO and I were there for a couple of hours to see our friends off-range, and to watch them shoot on-range.

Here's a vignette of the action.

Bay 11 hosted two stages: first, "Smokin 2" which featured the Texas Star (with only 4 plates, to allow for maximum rounds per position and also made the Star target array ... which made it much easier to set up for the next shooter); and "A Little Fuzzy".

This last stage requires some explanation.

The orange "Snow Fence" soft-cover played heck with Open Shooters. When your sighting deice is a red dot, it tends to get lost in the haze. The only way to overcome this limitation is to turn your red-dot sight all the way up, to maximum intensity.

And yes, if you forget to turn your dot-sight on, you are totally scr3w3d!~


The two stages were intended to be engaged "Back to Back", so after completing 'Smokin 2' Jan turned off her electronic sight.

Much to her embarrassment, instead of waiting for the previous shooter to reshoot she was cycled as the next shooter. She had bagged her pistol, after turning off the dot-sight. When she was ushered up to the firing line instead of the reshoot, she forgot to turn on her sight,.

This may not have been a problem except for the unusual circumstances. She recovered quickly and expediently, turned the c-more sight rheostat up to Maximum Gain (eventually), and look good on video.
Her husband, Mark, didn't face such embarrassing limitations. He beat her on the stage, but if Jan hadn't been distracted, he may have taken 2nd best within their competitive Division.

(NB: I posted this video to YouTube, but I don't doubt that they silenced it because the musical accompaniment was 'non-standard'. No problem, below you can see the full video with all the music.)



By the way,it's worth noting here that the stage designs were of a quality which surpasses the run-of-the-mill "Club Match" stage designs. I understand that it's difficult for one man to conjure up Stage Designs for monthly matches AND create even more challenging stages for a Major Match. But Match Director Mac M. met and exceeded all expectations.

Thanks for a very good match, Mac, and those Happy Few who also provided stage designs for this Sectional Match.

Match Results may be found here.

Stumble It!

NPR Opinions

There is a dichotomy in my blogger-self which, every night, prevents me from writing anything at all.

I have things to say about USPSA competition, and I want to write about them.

I also have things to say about the Political climate in the 2009 America, and I write about them too.

While I think I ought to write about USPSA, and other shooting interests, I am so taken by the outre' events we witness today that I convince myself that writing about the things I like may be less 'important' than the things I don't like.

Tonite I'm going to break the deadlock. Here, I'll write "Don't Like". Then I'll edit some videos and write about the things I "Do Like". That should resolve the quandry, and the Top Story will appear first in the column.

What I Don't Like:
I don't like National Public Radio -- NPR.

Why? Because they're a bunch of extreme liberal patsies who tout the most extreme messages, and unthinkingly assume it's Mainstream Thought because Hey, We're Liberal! They think that because they and their friends agree, it's The American Way.

Here is one example, from a July 17, 2009 article on NPR.ORG titled "Foreign Policy: Born in the USA" by Joshua Keating.:

The weirdly persistent belief held by many Americans that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States has been back in the news lately thanks to Major Stefan Cook, the "birther" soldier who was granted conscientious objector status because he refused to fight for a president he believes is illegitimate. There's also a bill gathering some support in the House that would change election law to require candidates to prove their citizenship.

The birther phenomenon is predictable form of paranoia given the president's unusually exotic (for a president, anyway) background. But isn't the larger scandal that the anachronistic natural-born citizenship requirement in Article II of the constitution still even exists?

So, according to this article, people who ask "Where's The Birth Certificate?" are:

"Weirdly Persistant" (sub-normal and fanatic); "birther" -- cultists; exhibiting a "predictable form of paranoia" mental deranged, incapable of original mentation; and "anachronistic" living in the past ... out of pace with 'modern thought'.

Without parsing every loaded phrase, let's look at the concepts presented in the rest of the article.

Let's imagine that Barack Obama had been born in Indonesia or Kenya or anywhere else for that matter, and hadn't become a citizen until moving to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Is there one good reason why that would make him less fit to be president?

Let's imagine that Osama moved to Miami and was naturalized. Would that make him fit to be president?

Put another way, is there one good reason why foreign-born governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer Granholm can't legally run for president but Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin can?

Well, it's in the Constitution. But you don't care much about that, do you?

Naturalized citizens like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Madeline Albright have been allowed into the highest positions in the U.S. national security establishment without anyone questioning their loyalty. Why shouldn't voters be allowed to decide whether a foreign-born candidate is American enough to be president? New York voters didn't mind the fact that Hillary Clinton had never lived in the state before running for its senate seat.

We're still wondering how Kissinger, Brzezinski and Albright reached such high public offices. The simple answer is that they were never elected; and the reasons they were not elected is because they knew that they were un-electable. They are a bunch of maroons. Not "morons" ... no question that they were bright. They were just ... un-electable.

As for Hillary, I have no idea why people in New York thought that she would be a good person to represent her in the Senate, except that New Yorkers are sometimes quite emotional and much taken to the glamor of personalities with a well-known name. (For my friends in NY, I apologize if that last statement seems judgemental. Still, you DID allow Hillary to represent you in the Senate. I rest my case.)

Finally, I return to one single sentence:

But isn't the larger scandal that the anachronistic natural-born citizenship requirement in Article II of the constitution still even exists?

Well, yes. And no.

If you don't like the constitution, then change it. There are procedures embedded in the Constitution which allow the American People to change it. It's called "Amendments". We have instituted quite a few of them; some we have attempted to implement (such as the Equal Rights Amendment) have been rejected because the constituent states have refused to ratify it.

Why has nobody attempted to amend this constitutional requirement?

My best guess is, the citizens of this country do not want to change it.

Any questions?

Stumble It!

Sotomayor Ducks Questions About Gun Rights

Sotomayor Ducks Questions About Gun Rights - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor refused on Wednesday to elaborate on her views about firearms regulations and the Second Amendment, saying she would "make no prejudgments" about future firearms-related cases.

President Obama's first nominee to the high court did say that she believed Americans do not currently enjoy a fundamental right to bear arms, which echoes her two previous rulings on the topic as an appeals court judge.

I commented previously about Sotomayor's candidacy to SCOTUS, and I admit it was not supportive. In that article, I also focused on her responses to questions about her support for the Second Amendment as acknowledging an 'individual right', and perhaps suggested that her support was tepid at best, reminiscence of a Cracker asserting that "some of my best friends are N ... uh ... Black People".

Today, the news reports describe her absolute inability (or unwillingness) to comment on the Second Amendment as an Individual Right.

Because Sotomayor has not clarified her position on gun rights, and has declined repeated invitations to do so during this week's Senate hearing, advocacy groups have turned to her written opinions and the president's own record on firearm regulation. (This parallels the abortion question: While Sotomayor parried those questions on Wednesday, the White House had previously reassured liberal groups that she would be a staunch pro-choice vote on the court.)

I have nobly managed not to address her decision on the RICCI case, and in truth I'm not willing to initiate a barrage attack on Sotomeyer's candidacy. I don't like the Ricci decision, I don't agree with it, but here ... it is a digression.

What most concerns me is that a candidate for the Supreme Court of The United States, one who has previously and historicallyl based her decisions on "precedence", is unwilling or unable to cite "precedence" as recent as the past calendar year.

Speaking openly, I don't feel much inclined to argue that a SCOTUS candidate who offers "I don't know, it depends on the case" is ipso facto unqualified for acceptance. Our last two SCOTUS nominees, those who somehow made it past the Senate Selection Committee, often felt obliged to respond in much the same way.

Consider this:

Existing Supreme Court decisions indicate the Second Amendment only limits "the actions the federal government could take with respect to the possession of firearms" and can't be used to strike down broad state laws, Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

This is all well and good (it says here), but this is not a nebulous issue which decision must be finessed by reading between the lines, such as Roe v Wade.

This is an issue which has been very carefully defined by the recent Heller decision, and for a SCOTUS candidate who professes to take into account 'precedents', one wonders why an interpretation of the law, for which precedents exist, has so much trouble answering simple questions.

To illustrate, read the transcript at the end of the article which offers a dialogue between Sotomayor and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK):

COBURN: Do I have a right to personal self-defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one.

SOTOMAYOR: Generally, as I understand, most criminal law statutes are passed by states. And I'm also trying to think if there's any federal law that includes a self-defense provision or not. I just can't...

COBURN: But do you have an opinion, or can you give me your opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?

SOTOMAYOR: I -- as I said, I don't know.

COBURN: I'm talking about your...

SOTOMAYOR: I don't know if that legal question has been ever presented.

COBURN: I wasn't asking about the legal question. I'm asking about your personal opinion.

SOTOMAYOR: But that is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside of...

COBURN: Well, I think that's what American people want to hear, Your Honor, is they want to know. Do they have a right to personal self-defense?...

Those are the kind of things people would like for us to answer and would like to know, not how you would rule or what you're going to rule, but -- and specifically what you think about, but just yes or no. Do we have that right?

SOTOMAYOR: I know it's difficult to deal with someone as a -- like a judge who's so sort of -- whose thinking is so cornered by law.

[Ed: emphasis added.]

There is more detail available in the original article, and you may be justified in thinking I have
"cherry-picked" the quotations. So go read the whole thing, and maybe it will help you to make up your own mind about Sotomayor's candidacy for the Supreme Court of The United States.

Personally, I don't have much faith in a SCOTUS candidate who professes to be "cornered by the law".

I never thought that Supreme Court judges could be 'cornored by the law'. I always though that they interpreted the law. If they feel 'cornored by the law', are they really the best candidates for the job?

Stumble It!

PNW U.S. Steel Match

I heard from Section Coordinator (and perhaps our next Area 1 USPSA Director) Chuck Anderson today.

There's a 'regional' (my term) match coming up, you probably don't want to miss it.

Here's the pertinent information:

The US Steel Shoot NW Regional is July 25-26. Applications are up on
the website at www.ussteelshoot.com

The bad news is we are light on entries. I've heard from several folks
that said they are coming but not many applications have shown up.

The good news is we have a huge prize table for the few that do show
up. We're well over $15,000.00 with more sponsors confirming every day.

If you're planning to show up and register on match day, please email
me so we can plan for the provided lunch.

Thanks,
Chuck Anderson
Chuck at andersontactical dot com

(The webpage for AndersonTactical is still under construction. I can't be very critical, my jerrythegeek website is similary under construction, although I haven't started building it yet.)

I checked the Columbia Cascade Sectional/Current Events website, and although I find a reference to the match, there is no link yet available. If you are interested in attending the July 25-26 match, watch here or watch at the Columbia Cascade Sectional "Current Events" website.

As of this date, I haven't been able to find more information. However, I can say that the Speed Steel events at the Tri-County Gun Club is usually wild and wooly. You may not be able to beat Max Michelle, but the prize table is often quite generous.

And with Chuck involved, you can take it to the bank that there WILL be a humongous prize table, at least as impressive as stated on Chuck's email.

This match is listed on the TCGC Calendar for July, 2009.
x

Stumble It!

some of my Best Friends are ....

Sotomayor pushes back on GOP’s bias claim - White House- msnbc.com

Judge Sonya Sodomayor today reputed Conservative attacks on her appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States by testifying that:

"Like, you, I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans," she said. "In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA and I have friends who hunt," she said, adding she would have an open mind.”

Is this the same as asserting that ?"Some of my best friends are (minority group of your choice here)"

Yes, it is.

This is very much like William Jefferson Clinton who, when asked if he had ever smoked Pot, replied: "Yes, but I didn't inhale".

To be absolutely clear on this point, consider the disingenuous response that:
"Yes, but I didn't swallow".

Dear Justice-wanna-be Sotomayor, from your words we know what you are. All we are doing now is dickering over your price.

If that makes you feel petty, than good! You begin to appreciate that you have exposed yourself as a Cigar Smoker.

Americans don't typically appreciate Cigar Smokers. You smoke, but you don't inhale. You foul your environment gratuitously, and don't even experience real satisfaction from the exercise.

And you expect us to vet you to one of the most powerful offices in America?

Thank you for your ingenuity, but ... no. We don't think you are the best person for the job. We would prefer someone who is entirely candid about who and what she is, what her political bias may bring to The Bench, and then we can make up our own minds about how qualified you are for the office.

From where we stand, your qualifications are ... not much. You have already made up your mind about how you will rule on several key judicial issues which you may be called upon to address (Abortion, 2nd Amendment, and Racial Discrimination.)

When called before a congress which has not already established a clear majority as a Liberal congress, you wouldn't make it past the front door.

Yes, you may likely be voted into office for life. That doesn't mean that the majority of American people accept your racial and liberally biased vies of "what's right for America".

And Sonya, remember that most of us don't think only W.A.S.P.s can be racists.

This ability to appoint Liberal Judges to the Supreme Court is only one of the reasons why many Americans were reluctant to vote for Obama.

And now you, personally, have proved that our concerns about Obama were justified.

Stumble It!

Welcome to Florida. Watch your six!

Woman shot in bathroom stall

Florida, one of the first states in the nation to pass "Shall Issue" Concealed Carry laws, reports a Negligent Discharge incident ... in the lady's room of a Tampa hotel.

TAMPA - A Tampa woman is recovering from a gunshot wound she received while using the bathroom at local hotel. Police say Thursday morning, 53-year-old Janifer Bliss was attending a women's health conference at the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center on Fowler Avenue in Tampa.

She was inside a bathroom stall, when a bullet came from the next stall and hit her in the leg.

There she was, innocently attending to her 'personal business', when a shot rings out and she collapses in a pool of blood.

(No word whether she had completed her 'personal business'.)

The woman in the next stall had just completed the 'drop trousers' portion of her personal business when the pistol she was carrying in an open holster (read: unsecured by strap, etc.) dropped out, hit the floor, and zinged Ms. Bliss a good one in the near hind limb.

Ambulances, policemen, janitors ... oh my!

Getting shot in the leg isn't something to make light of, but the circumstances are admittedly bizarre.

The pistol-packing mama was a concealed carry license holder, and the District Attorney's office is determining whether charges will be filed.

Which is a lesson to us all, at least those who do carry.

Do secure your firearm. CCW licensees are carefully vetted by the authorities, and are rarely charged with firearms-related felonies. Still, there is a disturbing tendency to carry 'sloppily'.

(I recall an Oregon man last year who had a .45acp in the pocket of his jacket, which hit the floor when he slung his jacket over a restaurant chair resulting in loud, rude noises and considerable upset to the other patrons. He's cooking his own breakfasts at home now.)

Stumble It!

Videos of people advocating bans on firearms

Tonight we have two videos for your enjoyment.

First, from Australia, in response to the State's Director of Prosecution's call for a total gun ban in South Australia ("Enough is Enough"); an interview with Samantha Lee of the National Coalition for Gun Control.


Quotes:

"After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Howard Government and the states and territories banned all semi-automatic long arms. But they did not extend that ban to semi-automatic hand-guns. Now we've seen some great benefits from the ban of semi-automatic long arms. We've seen a reduction in firearms deaths in Australia, and hospitalizations and suicides. So we'd like to see that ban extended to semi-automatic handguns."

(Interviewer: "Just how feasible is it for a total ban?")
S.Lee: "Well what we would like to see is the total ban of semi-automatic weapons."

S.Lee: "We'd like to take it by stages, and if we can get rid of the most powerful weapons, which are the semi-automatic weapons, we'd be very happy with that."

[Geek: Yes, you would be 'very happy with that' ... for now. It's disingenuous, which is the same thing as a bald-faced lie, to imply that your only target is to ban semi-automatic firearms in the same breath in which you admit that your goal is to 'take it by stages'. You must hold law-abiding firearms owners in extreme contempt to be so obvious in your lies.]

(Interviewer: "So what are the 'semi-automatics', everybody talks about a 'semi-automatic' -- I just have no idea".)
S.Lee: "Well, Semi-automatic means that it just flows so very quickly, so you puta magazine chamber into the firearm, and you press the trigger once, and it propels a number of bullets in a number of minutes. ..."

[Geek: this is an obvious attempt to confuse the listener/reader when you lump semi-automatic weapons in the same definition as full-automatic weapons. Ms. Lee obviously holds the listener/reader in the same contempt as she does legal firearms owners. Who could fall for this lie?]

(Interviewer: "As opposed to just one bullet at a time".)
S.Lee: "That's right. Now sporting shooters will argue that they need semi-automatics to do their sport. Now, that's not true. .... Now what we would like to see is ban all semi-automatic handguns, and what that means is that sporting shooters can have single-shot firearms to do their sport.

(Interviewer: "When you see ... the Olympics, those aren't semi-automatics, are they?")
S.Lee: "They don't need semi-automatics for Olympic or commonwealth (?) game shooting. Now when you think about sporting shooting, it's about hitting a target. It's not about how powerful you hit the target, so it's about your precision in hitting the target."

Geek: DVC obviously means nothing to a spokesman who doesn't understand the people or the sports she dismisses so casually.]

==========================================

The second interview is much more simplistic ... and perhaps not quite such a subtle (read: "Misleading") statement on Gun Control on an MSNBC "Hardball" interview of NRO's Deroy Murdock by Chris Mathews.

In response to the Mathews' question, "Do you think we should have a Concealed Gun law in New York", Murdock says "Yes, I think that would probably be helpful. There are people who do conceal guns here, and to the degree that people think criminals may be retaliated on I think that that helps keep the place safe."


where Mathews asserts:

"I think they should check people on sidewalks like they do people on airplanes, and why Americans think an airplane should be safer than an American sidewalk is crazy to me. ... I want to see people disarmed. I want people disarmed in our major cities. How's that for a plan? I don't think we should all be armed, and I don't think more firearms is the answer. I think that it's wacky to say that the solution to armed robbery and killing in our streets is to put more arms in the streets. ..."

Stumble It!

Houston, we have lock and load

In 2008, Mexico asked American officials for help in the effort to deny armament to Mexican drug gangs.

In Houston, ATF agents are responding with alacrity:

In front of a run-down shack in north Houston, federal agents step from a government sedan into 102-degree heat and face a critical question: How can the woman living here buy four high-end handguns in one day?

The house is worth $35,000. A screen dangles by a wall-unit air conditioner. Porch swing slats are smashed, the smattering of grass is flattened by cars and burned yellow by sun.

“I’ll do the talking on this one,” agent Tim Sloan, of South Carolina, told partner Brian Tumiel, of New York.

Success on the front lines of a government blitz on gunrunners supplying Mexican drug cartels with Houston weaponry hinges on logging heavy miles and knocking on countless doors. Dozens of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — sent here from around the country — are needed to follow what ATF acting director Kenneth Melson described as a “massive number of investigative leads.”

In Texas, ATF are kicking down doors and taking names, not because they think that American Citizens are purchasing illegal guns, though.

Their concern is that American are buying guns for the express purchase of reselling them in Mexico.


Given that the Mexican Drug Lords are living the life of feudal rulers in Mexico, a life-style which is supported by sales of illegal drugs in America, we need to wonder whether the Mexican Government is reciprocating by cutting down on drug shipments across the Rio Grande to America.

Are elements of the Mexican Government placing a high priority on stopping the shipments of illegal drugs into America?

No?

Why not?

Stumble It!

The Second Amendment as a Viable "Right"

Much has been made, by "Gun Nuts" of the value of the Second Amendment as a viable statement in reference to the "right of self defense".

This position has been largely "poo-pooed" by "Gun Control Advocates. Their position seems to be that, in this age of civility, there is no reason why an honest citizen should need to possess a firearm for personal defense. After all, isn't that what the police are for?

No. the police have the mandate to solve crimes, not to prevent them. This is legal writ, and has served time and again to protect Law Enforcement Officers (and their departments) from civil suits from the families of victims who have notified LEO organizations that they considered themselves potential victims, and have not subsequently received dedicated protection from clearly identified potential assailants.

Sometimes we require a concrete example of the consequences of LEO failure to protect victims, and also of the consequences of disallowing individuals the right to arm themselves for self-defense .... even though they have been informed that blatant threats have been identified.

A case in point is a situation in Ciuddad LaBaron, Mexico, as described in this Houston Chronicle article from July 7, 2009.

Essentially, a religious community in Mexico, populated by "Dual Citizenship" families (Mexico/America) has historically been threatened by drug gangs mostly because they protested to the Mexican Government that local drug gangs were predating people in their area.

Benjamin LeBaron and other village leaders had led hundreds of people in May to Chihuahua City to demand government action in the abduction of Eric LeBaron, Benjamin’s 16-year-old brother. The kidnappers were demanding $1 million in ransom, but the LeBaron community had decided to instead pressure for the boys’s release, which occurred in mid-May.

“We’re fighting as a community,” Brent LeBaron said. “Standing up against extortionists and kidnappers. But we have never done anything against the drug lords. We stay away from the drug war because we know it’s a battle that we can’t win.”

A placard left with the bodies said the killings were in retribution for the June arrests by federal forces of 25 men in a distant village accused of running narcotics.

In America, we are allowed to protect ourselves by self-armament. The "Castle Law" is a visible confirmation of the Second Amendment.

But in Mexico, it is illegal to arm yourself to protect yourself, your neighbors and your family. Because citizens cannot own guns, only outlaws own guns -- which lends credence to the old 2nd Amendment slogan which is so denigrated by "gun-control advocates".

Here is the money-quote from the CRON article from Brent LaBaron, the cousin of one of the victims:

“We don’t know what to do,” he said. “We can’t bear arms. We have no way of legally protecting ourselves.”

While the liberals of America criticize Second Amendment Supporters, they (the Liberals) are protected by a Law Enforcement system which, although flawed, is superior to the Mexican example. American Liberals glorify the concept that honest individual citizens are incompetent and subject to random insanity. They suggest that nobody is personally competent to possess a firearm without yielding to the overwhelming temptation to use that firearm
"inappropriately".

That is patently bullshit. These gun-fearing wussies (to borrow from Kim de Tuit) are so fearful of their inability to resist their own primal impulse to chaos, they are unable to understand that sane people populate the world with them. Sane people don't want to run wild; they just want to be left alone.

It is entirely possible that a peaceful community, such as Ciudad LaBaron, would be able to defend itself if permitted to do so by the national government of Mexico.

Instead?

Two dead, hundreds intimidated, and a God-fearing community becomes a "Last Man Standing" hostage to drug-runners and other outlaws.

Problem: a rural community terrorized.
Solution: The Second Amendment

Stumble It!

SWMBO news - July 8, 2008

Last weekend (Independence Day) Sandie and I went to San Diego to visit my two children and their 7 children. We really enjoyed the opportunity to see how much the grandchildren have grown.

But there was a more vital element to our visit.

On Thursday, June July2, SWMBO received communications from the Genotype program at Boston Mass., suggesting that if she wanted to enroll in the program she could show up at U.C. Irvine (California) on Tuesday June July7, for interviews and to complete some forms. This is the necessary first step step toward enrolling in the program.

I immediately called my daughter, Jenn, in San Diego. I asked if she would be able to help SWMBO get from San Diego to Irvine (about 90 miles) on Tuesday. "No Problem, I can take the afternoon off) she replied.


(She had already found us a motel in San Diego who was willing to give us a 'deal' on a 3-day stay; we simply had to convert the reservation to a six-day stay.)

Yesterday, Tuesday, SWMBO and Jenn drove to Irvine and completed the initial interview process.

Then they went to Disneyland. What's the use of living, if you can't enjoy life?

I felt terrible about not being able to stay with SWMBO in San Diego, but I absolutely had to go to work for the 3 days when she would be in California. Jenn and I did whatever we could to make sure that she was comfortable staying in a motel for an extra 3 days, and providing for her own transportation.

When she returned to Corvallis this evening, after taking a shuttle-bus from the Portland International Airport (PDX), SWMBO was exuberant. She related that the program has already successfully treated a Lung Cancer patient with the same symptoms (including resistance to the benefits of Tarvastin Tarceva), and they are so far willing to accept SWMBO as a program participant.

As I have already stated, this is the epitome of HOPE.

HOPE that she will be judged a viable candidate for the program after she goes to Mass. Gen. for a biopsy.

HOPE that the program will find a genotype profile which matches a previous successful treatment patient.

HOPE that the treatment will result in a complete eradication of the cancer cells in her lungs, as happened with the previous patient.

There are, of course, no guarantees. But there is a chance, albiet a small chance, that the treatment will cure her of lung cancer.

It's too early to be too optimistic. That doesn't stop us from feeling optimistic.

Keep those prayers coming, folks. They really work.

I'm still impressed that Granddaughter Samantha refers to me (in conversations to SWMBO) as "Your Boyfriend".

I suppose I should be upset that I became the less-important member of this relationship, but I'm not.

As long as this world contains such perceptive five-year-old children as Samantha, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish.

Miracles are still possible.

Stumble It!

Web Hosting with VODA

Last night I signed up for a new web-hosting service. Unlimited bandwidth, unlimited storage, domain-name registration, unlimited email accounts under my own domain name, and of course I can build web-pages in my domain.

I doubt I'll soon find a need for all the services they sold me (at not that high a cost), but one thing is certain: I will finally have a place where I can put files on the internet for download by others.

You may have noticed last week that I have become ultimately disgusted with YouTube's policy of removing the sound track of videos if the videos include music which is not on their 'approved' list. (Their 'approved list' is elevator music, not appropriate to the kind of videos I like to build.)

Resisting the impulse to editorialize about how I use the music that I bought, overlaying the sounds of gunfire and range commands, I have been driven to this by the litigious efforts of the Music Industry.

This is a move forward, though, not a passive-aggressive attempt to complain about The Way Things Are.

I like to shoot, I like to make and share videos of people shooting. Within the next week I'll begin uploading scored videos of people shooting, and readers will be able to both see the videos in small format, and then download the full-size video for their own personal collections.

It will take a while before I get all the pieces together, and learn how to use the new software, but today I have more options than I had yesterday.

I think that is A Good Thing.

Stumble It!

Independence Day -- After the Fact

Last weekend SWMBO and I flew to San Diego to spend the holiday with my kids.

This is the first time, ever, that both children (Jenn and Ben), their spouses, and their children (all seven of them) have ever presented themselves in the same room at the same time, in my presence.

It was a madhouse!

But I enjoyed it anyway.

From time to time someone would put an infant in my arms and then stand back while someone photographed the event. Bad Idea. I am not photogenic. But I liked the kids, and generally ignored the photographers. Good idea. I provided the camera for most of these "Photo Opportunities", so I deleted them

Just to prove that I actually have infant grandchildren, I'll include some of the pictures here,.

This is Adrian ...

... and this is Logan.



Okay, so it's the same picture. Doesn't matter. They're twins, nobody can tell them apart anyway. It's like: "if you've seen one, you've seen them all."


Anyway, we not only enjoyed the Twins, but we enjoyed the rest of the family as well.

Interesting side-story: while I was in San Diego, grand-daughter Samantha referred to me as "Grandfather Jerry".

Sandie had to stay behind when I left, because she had an appointment at U.C. Irvie on Tuesday. After I left, samantha (in conversations with SWMBO), referred to me as "Your Boyfriend". I guess the grandfather thing is transitory, but Boyfriends are forever.

I'll never understand the mind-set of pre-adolescent females, but it's probably good that she understands the relationshiop.

Stumble It!

Dundee Crap Shoot

It's not easy to write about Tim's performance on Stage 6 of the June, 2009 Dundee Points Match.

He did everything right, and it looks good on video (youtube link here). He moved quickly from one shooting position to the next, even though the stage was deliberately designed to tempt the shooter to be hesitant during movement. He was accurate from each shooting position, showing no signs of being out-of-breath or otherwise impaired by his rapid movement between one side of the bay and the other.

Looking good, Tim!

Note that there were no attempts to add music to the video. Just as well, they would have silenced it anyway, the maroons can't avoid the suits presented by music producers.

Stumble It!