I had the most AMAZING week this week!
For the past several weeks, I have been fighting a cold. A Summer Cold .. which (as we all know) is the Very Worst Kind.
It started out with a cold sore on the lips, and that's not a good sign. The cold sore went away after a week, but I still kept coughing, sneezing, and I felt like crap ("Ague") Yes, my nose was runny and it never seemed to stop. Hard to get any sleep at night with all of that going on.
In fact, it lasted for six weeks!
I finally decided, in concert with my personal physician, that it might be a Allergies, rather than a cold, which was causing my distress.
Then .. Thursday .. it rained!
No more runny nose. No more coughing, and strangely enough no more rash or red skin!
So .. okay, it's all about Allergies. Pollen, or dust in the air? Who knows. The thing is, the rain knocked it all down so I could breathe (and sleep!) again.
THEN I got a call from an old Army Buddy whom I haven't seen for a while. He's got two shot-up legs and walks 5 miles a day; I never got a scratch in Viet Nam (if you don't count Bamboo Poisoning, which took 5 years to clear up) and I love to rehash our mutual experiences. The good part? He had it MUCH worse than I did! The bad part? I spent the whole year Over There; he spend like 15 days.
Well .. but he spent a few years in the hospital, and went through a lot of operations. Each one made it better, though, and he seems to move pretty good now, within limits.
Also, I got a recommendation from my landlord for a WiFi Router, which I got a good price on at Amazon, and I installed it today; it works just fine, and I can use my Laptop while I'm watching TV without incurring charges on my StupidPhone.
I got to renew my vehicle registration online .. no waiting in line. That's always A Good Thing, isn't it? I thought so
Finally ... I taught my Introduction to USPSA class today. Four students ( a couple didn't show, which I have come to expect .. they best know how to schedule their personal time). Most of the folks who attended were 'savvy', had good gun-handling skills. They were smart, personable, and nobody EVER made 'a bad move'.
Some classes, there is at least one person who is just not 'clear on the concept'. Not today. I tend to do faux "DQ" calls when a student violates a Safety Rule. (I don't really send them home, but I announce it loudly, so they face the chagrin of their fellow students; it's a "difficult" training technique, but if new students don't get a negative feedback they don't know how bad it is to be unsafe when you're "Runnin' & Gunnin'".) It didn't happen today; everyone was entirely safe, entirely aware, and entirely aware of where the muzzle and trigger are.
There are classes when I feel as if the best I can do is to correct major deficiencies, and hope the accept the lessons. This class, I didn't feel that I had to use 'superlatives' to reward them. Simply pointing out the positives was enough to keep them going; they didn't have safety issues at ALL.
Unfortunately, one of the five students was a 17 year-old young woman who, as it turned out, didnt;' have any significant experience shooting a pistol. I had to disallow her to take part in the Live Fire Exercise. No choice; it would have taken too much time trying to teach her Basic Hand-gunning Skills, and this is an Advanced Class. I wasn't aware until we all met that she didn't know how to shoot a pistol, so I couldn't let her shoot. Her Mom and her Mom's Boyfriend were there, but they hadn't realized that she couldn't learn gun-handling skills in a 3-hour class. So she patiently sat through the classroom segment, and participated; but she couldn't actually touch a gun, and I'm sure the last two hours were completely boring to her. This is NOT a Spectator Sport!
Fortunately, she got to watch other people, with various levels of skill, try to deal with increasingly challenging tests, so perhaps she (and her mother, and the BF) got to see why the "Introduction to USPSA" class requires a basic minimum of experience that she just didn't have.
Then my Saturday was over. I came home, showered, rested .. and then I installed my new Wi-Fi Router. I can use my Laptop again, and don't have to worry about the slow response of the Hotspot from my Stupid phone!
Okay, that's all pretty boring for you. But I'm jazzed that everything that happened to me this week worked out well.
Is it just me? Am I the only one who rates my life on a week-to-week basis instead of Day-by-Day?
You get happiness where you find it. For me, it was in the final bit of Schadenfreude I uncovered this morning.
The local "Streets Program" has workers fixing sewers and storm drains, and repaving streets in the summer. I'm fairly well resolved to accepting the Alternate Routes when the streets & intersections are closed for repairs .. which never last less than 3 days.
But it rained, Thursday!
When I drove through that major intersection Friday, I found it was closed.
The heavy rain Thursday had flooded the intersection. The repairs to the storm-drain system apparently failed, as it has never failed before. The intersection was closed .. I had to take a bypass-route.
The shovel-leaners spent 3 days 'fixing' the storm drains .. and it didn't survive the first thunderstorm?
Yes! Score one for the folks whose taxes pay their wages!
Sometimes, you just KNOW that these guys with the shovels and the "street closed" signs are entirely clueless.
Okay, it WAS "Shadenfreude"!
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Assault Weapon Ban: nothing new here, except ....
Deconstructing the “Assault Weapon Ban” Fiction of the American Political Science Review:
... except the only thing here is that which all of us who were affected by the Assault Weapons Ban is that it didn't accomplish a thing!
Most of us have quit wondering "Why did they even bother?" The entire Political Fiasco was nothing more than 'feel-good' legislation intended to make it appear that lazy politicians were actually "DOING SOMETHING!"
Politicians are like Summer Colds: annoying, apparantly veering from low-key presence to sneezes and sniffles and maybe you miss a couple days of work. Then you shrug your shoulders and go on with your life, knowing that next year you'll go through the same thing for no reason and no permanent change in your life.
And .. there's no cure for Politicians, either.
This article, self-described as a deconstruction, worked just fine. Hard tell how many of us read it, though, then shrugged and went on with our life.
ITEM: The Assault Weapon Ban had no clear-cut goal, except the announced one of reducing violent crime by removing murder-guns from public hands.
RESULT: No murder rates were affected by removing murder guns from public hands. In fact, most of the guns which were most 'restricted' were not previously involved in violent crime, and so .. what did they expect would happen, after the interveiws were over? Oh, the authors would get re-elected?
CONCLUSION: Nobody every lost any money by underestimating the intelligence of the American Voting Public.
ITEM: Manufacturers noted that specific firearms were identified by brand/model name and/or specific 'deadly' features.
RESULT: Manufacturers either changed the model name, or changed/deleted the named cosmetic features, and continued to sell the same firearm for the same price
CONCLUSION: Two parts: First, Politicians are naive; Second, Politicians never look at the consequences OR the result of the laws they pass, they only look at their press clippings. Here's a possible third conclusion: the negative press clippings never make it into their scrap-books, so they believe there were no negative press clippings.
ITEM: Main Stream Media sources (AKA: "Useful Idiots") are so busy sucking up to politicians, they tend not to evaluate their performance.
RESULT: MSM to this day thinks that the reason why the Assault Weapons Ban was repealed after ten years is because of the Evil Conservatives with try to the Evil Capitalists who brought us "Assault Weapons" (and refrigerators and typewriters) instead of acknowledging that the only reason the AWB was passed was because Conservative demanded that if the Liberals couldn't prove an improvement in ten years, the Law would be "Sundowned".
CONCLUSION: MSM and Politicians (and here we're specifically talking about Liberal Feel-Good Politicians) don't really care whether their high-profile issues negatively affect honest law-abiding citizens more than people who are going to break the law 'anyway', they just want to be seen as trying to "Do Something". Because they believe it will look good on their resume. And the sad fact is, it does! These same Maroons are getting re-elected, and the same sycophantic civilians are still writing op-ed pieces for the New York Times.
So, What's It All Mean, Dean?
It doesn't mean nothing. Politicians imposed a ten-year moratorium on such inconsequential "Assault Weapon"n features as bayonette lugs, flash hiders, magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds, pistol grips on rifles ... etc ad nauseum. All arbitrary, all obviously non-sensical, but because some IDIOTS had elected other IDIOTS to National Office, honest and law-abiding citizens had to put up with "work arounds"
During this period (1994 - 2004), I personally came into possession of a number of magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds ... including 25-round pistol magazines. It was entirely legal, and I never misrepresented myself. Nobody ever asked me if I had a criminal record because even if I HAD been a criminal, it would have been legal for me to buy them.
I used these Nefarious Tools of Crime to miss both cardboard and steel targets with ease, laughing all the time because even though I was forced to admit that I can't hit the broadside of the barn with a pistol, I was still defying the law of the land! I HAD EM! AND IT WAS LEGAL!
A slap in the face for Clintons (one and all), Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, and McKinnea and all of their Alphabetically Ordered/Politically Correct/Clue-less Ilk!
These political hacks couldn't write a sound law if their lives depended on it. We all knew it. We grumbled, we complained (some of us whined; most of us whined and did it anyway) because we resented feeling like criminals for doing something which was legal .. but still proscribed.
The nice thing about this very late article is that someone is publishing a non-blogger article that says what we have been saying for decades:
What a bunch of maroons!
POST SCRIPT:
Bwa-hah-hah-hah-hah!
Oh, dear. It seems that the American Political Science Review did a lousy job of refereeing a pseudo-academic study, Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico.
The study was brought to us by Joshua Keating from Slate, which is merely guilty of being a hack e-zine.
Keating’s article is primarily the result of an uninformed reporter assuming that academics in soft social sciences actually engage in more than bias-reinforcing navel-gazing. Put bluntly, he doesn’t have the background to write intelligently about the subject, which is sadly a common truth for most journalists. Keating’s inability to do more than parrot what he’d like to believe is merely exacerbated by the inflammatory image chosen to accompany the article.
... except the only thing here is that which all of us who were affected by the Assault Weapons Ban is that it didn't accomplish a thing!
Most of us have quit wondering "Why did they even bother?" The entire Political Fiasco was nothing more than 'feel-good' legislation intended to make it appear that lazy politicians were actually "DOING SOMETHING!"
Politicians are like Summer Colds: annoying, apparantly veering from low-key presence to sneezes and sniffles and maybe you miss a couple days of work. Then you shrug your shoulders and go on with your life, knowing that next year you'll go through the same thing for no reason and no permanent change in your life.
And .. there's no cure for Politicians, either.
This article, self-described as a deconstruction, worked just fine. Hard tell how many of us read it, though, then shrugged and went on with our life.
ITEM: The Assault Weapon Ban had no clear-cut goal, except the announced one of reducing violent crime by removing murder-guns from public hands.
RESULT: No murder rates were affected by removing murder guns from public hands. In fact, most of the guns which were most 'restricted' were not previously involved in violent crime, and so .. what did they expect would happen, after the interveiws were over? Oh, the authors would get re-elected?
CONCLUSION: Nobody every lost any money by underestimating the intelligence of the American Voting Public.
ITEM: Manufacturers noted that specific firearms were identified by brand/model name and/or specific 'deadly' features.
RESULT: Manufacturers either changed the model name, or changed/deleted the named cosmetic features, and continued to sell the same firearm for the same price
CONCLUSION: Two parts: First, Politicians are naive; Second, Politicians never look at the consequences OR the result of the laws they pass, they only look at their press clippings. Here's a possible third conclusion: the negative press clippings never make it into their scrap-books, so they believe there were no negative press clippings.
ITEM: Main Stream Media sources (AKA: "Useful Idiots") are so busy sucking up to politicians, they tend not to evaluate their performance.
RESULT: MSM to this day thinks that the reason why the Assault Weapons Ban was repealed after ten years is because of the Evil Conservatives with try to the Evil Capitalists who brought us "Assault Weapons" (and refrigerators and typewriters) instead of acknowledging that the only reason the AWB was passed was because Conservative demanded that if the Liberals couldn't prove an improvement in ten years, the Law would be "Sundowned".
CONCLUSION: MSM and Politicians (and here we're specifically talking about Liberal Feel-Good Politicians) don't really care whether their high-profile issues negatively affect honest law-abiding citizens more than people who are going to break the law 'anyway', they just want to be seen as trying to "Do Something". Because they believe it will look good on their resume. And the sad fact is, it does! These same Maroons are getting re-elected, and the same sycophantic civilians are still writing op-ed pieces for the New York Times.
So, What's It All Mean, Dean?
It doesn't mean nothing. Politicians imposed a ten-year moratorium on such inconsequential "Assault Weapon"n features as bayonette lugs, flash hiders, magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds, pistol grips on rifles ... etc ad nauseum. All arbitrary, all obviously non-sensical, but because some IDIOTS had elected other IDIOTS to National Office, honest and law-abiding citizens had to put up with "work arounds"
During this period (1994 - 2004), I personally came into possession of a number of magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds ... including 25-round pistol magazines. It was entirely legal, and I never misrepresented myself. Nobody ever asked me if I had a criminal record because even if I HAD been a criminal, it would have been legal for me to buy them.
I used these Nefarious Tools of Crime to miss both cardboard and steel targets with ease, laughing all the time because even though I was forced to admit that I can't hit the broadside of the barn with a pistol, I was still defying the law of the land! I HAD EM! AND IT WAS LEGAL!
A slap in the face for Clintons (one and all), Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, and McKinnea and all of their Alphabetically Ordered/Politically Correct/Clue-less Ilk!
These political hacks couldn't write a sound law if their lives depended on it. We all knew it. We grumbled, we complained (some of us whined; most of us whined and did it anyway) because we resented feeling like criminals for doing something which was legal .. but still proscribed.
The nice thing about this very late article is that someone is publishing a non-blogger article that says what we have been saying for decades:
What a bunch of maroons!
POST SCRIPT:
Bwa-hah-hah-hah-hah!
Friday, September 06, 2013
Iraq and Iran sign onto The War Against Syria
Iraqi officials, militants warn of threat to US | World News | Comcast: BAGHDAD (AP) —
That's the gist which has been floating around the Internet (and the MSM) lately.
The supposed scenario is that as the war against Syria expends into retaliatory strikes against Iran as well, other middle-eastern nations will joing in ... sufficient of the to expand the War Against Syria to a global war.
Is this "A Good Thing"?
No.
War is Not Good. I've been to war; it sucks. It was bad enough when the demonstrably-bad Republicans were micro-managing the war against Viet Nam.
What will Global War look like when various Nuclear Nations enter?
Not a pretty sight. People are going to get killed in any war, but this Democratic Adventurism is going to lead to National Adventurism .
Read: Total War, all over the place.
There is a "camel's nose under the tent" process in the wings, here, and America should be girding itself for this Total Committment.
Oour Dear Leader is leading us down the Garden Path, and he knows not what my occur.
Why?
Because he is an idiot with delusions of establishing a Viable War Record, and going down in the history books for his own personal glorification.
My Son The Squid is in the Navy, and I can picture many scenarios where this President may put him In Harms Way. He has five children, My Son The Squid, and if he dies in an unjust war ... I don't know what we will do.
Mine is not the only family who is wondering how we would survive without our young man.
It seems to me that Our Dear President is not paying attention to the Butcher's Bill which his actions may create.
I'd rather have a slothful, incompetent leader (can we say "Biden"?) than an ambitious incompetent leader (Obama) making National Policy.
Iranian-backed Shiite militias are threatening to retaliate against American interests inside Iraq if the United States goes ahead with strikes against the Tehran-allied government in neighboring Syria, according to Iraqi security officials and militants themselves.Is this really just a not-so-subtle way of getting Iran to commit to blatant Anti-American policies .. so we (American Military) can use their actions as justification to attack Iran?
Iraqi officials say they are taking the warnings seriously. The threats, which come as President Barack Obama's administration and Congress debate possible military action over the Syrian regime's alleged use of chemical weapons, risk exacerbating an increasingly deteriorating security environment inside Iraq.
Cleric Wathiq al-Batat, who leads the Mukhtar Army, a shadowy Iranian-backed militia, said his forces are preparing for a strong reaction against the interests of the U.S. and other countries that take part in any Syria strike. He claimed that militants have selected hundreds of potential targets, which could include both official American sites and companies "associated with the Americans."
That's the gist which has been floating around the Internet (and the MSM) lately.
The supposed scenario is that as the war against Syria expends into retaliatory strikes against Iran as well, other middle-eastern nations will joing in ... sufficient of the to expand the War Against Syria to a global war.
Is this "A Good Thing"?
No.
War is Not Good. I've been to war; it sucks. It was bad enough when the demonstrably-bad Republicans were micro-managing the war against Viet Nam.
What will Global War look like when various Nuclear Nations enter?
Not a pretty sight. People are going to get killed in any war, but this Democratic Adventurism is going to lead to National Adventurism .
Read: Total War, all over the place.
There is a "camel's nose under the tent" process in the wings, here, and America should be girding itself for this Total Committment.
Oour Dear Leader is leading us down the Garden Path, and he knows not what my occur.
Why?
Because he is an idiot with delusions of establishing a Viable War Record, and going down in the history books for his own personal glorification.
My Son The Squid is in the Navy, and I can picture many scenarios where this President may put him In Harms Way. He has five children, My Son The Squid, and if he dies in an unjust war ... I don't know what we will do.
Mine is not the only family who is wondering how we would survive without our young man.
It seems to me that Our Dear President is not paying attention to the Butcher's Bill which his actions may create.
I'd rather have a slothful, incompetent leader (can we say "Biden"?) than an ambitious incompetent leader (Obama) making National Policy.
Thursday, September 05, 2013
No You Can't .. Part II
Obama facing rank-and-file resistance to Syria plan, despite endorsements | Fox News: ed.
Salmon made his comments minutes before the start of the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. The congressman also said the administration doesn't appear to have the House votes right now.
"I don't think a majority of the Republican conference will support this," Salmon said. "And I suspect some Democrats will defect."
Earlier in the day, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash tweeted: "If members of Congress care at all what constituents think, they will not authorize strikes in #Syria. "Never seen an action w/ less support."
What does that mean .. "Strike on Syria"?
Missiles? Bombers? Boots on the Ground?
Nobody seems to know, yet, exactly what kind of "retaliation" (for evils NOT committed against American Citizens) seem most appropriate by Our American President.
One thing is sure, though; President Obama seems determined to make his "War Time Legacy" based on an attack on a foreign country (which has not demonstrably attacked us first).
Will we send rockets? Well we send bombers? Or will we send American soldiers to invade this Middle-Eastern country?
Does it matter?
I remain adamant in thinking that assaulting Syria, in any manner, because their president poisons his constituents ... is not within the prevue of the United States Constitution. Color me pink, but I always thought that the Military arm of the United States had a mandate to protect American sovereignty .. not American Presidential Preferences.
Until it can be shown that Syria represents a threat to America, I think America should stick to its own knitting.
Or, as I may perhaps have said before:
"What a bunch of Maroons!
President Obama notched several incremental victories this week in his push for congressional approval of a strike in Syria -- winning the support of congressional leaders and, on Wednesday, the backing of a key Senate panel.
But the president and his allies on the Hill are facing evident headwinds from rank-and-file members still not convinced that it's in the U.S. interest to launch missiles at Syria.
"It's going to be very difficult for [the president] to convince me the United States should be involved," Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., told FoxNews.com. "I'm not seeing any threat to our national security."STRIKE ON SYRIA:
Some of the strongest voices in opposition are coming from the Republican wing of Capitol Hill. Secretary of State John Kerry got a grilling from skeptical Republicans during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday afternoon; the hearing was far more contentious than one on the Senate side a day earlier.
While leaders of the Republican-led House said Tuesday they would support a strike as punishment for Syrian President Bashar Assad's recent chemical weapons attack, many conservative members are openly opposed -- or at least undecided.
What does that mean .. "Strike on Syria"?
Missiles? Bombers? Boots on the Ground?
Nobody seems to know, yet, exactly what kind of "retaliation" (for evils NOT committed against American Citizens) seem most appropriate by Our American President.
One thing is sure, though; President Obama seems determined to make his "War Time Legacy" based on an attack on a foreign country (which has not demonstrably attacked us first).
Will we send rockets? Well we send bombers? Or will we send American soldiers to invade this Middle-Eastern country?
Does it matter?
"I don't think a majority of the Republican conference will support this," Salmon said. "And I suspect some Democrats will defect."
Earlier in the day, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash tweeted: "If members of Congress care at all what constituents think, they will not authorize strikes in #Syria. "Never seen an action w/ less support."I've never met a political who impressed me by what he "tweeted", and I couldn't have less respect for anyone who expected that Twitter was a viable venue for political comment ... but just because the Congressman is clue-less about social websites, that doesn't mean he is clueless about political issues.
I remain adamant in thinking that assaulting Syria, in any manner, because their president poisons his constituents ... is not within the prevue of the United States Constitution. Color me pink, but I always thought that the Military arm of the United States had a mandate to protect American sovereignty .. not American Presidential Preferences.
Until it can be shown that Syria represents a threat to America, I think America should stick to its own knitting.
Or, as I may perhaps have said before:
"What a bunch of Maroons!
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
No, you can't
President Obama wants to bomb Syria back to the stone age. He's having a LITTLE bit of trouble selling this to congress.
Why shouldn't he?
President Clinton responded to the bombing of a navy ship, sending a Tomahawk Missile to destroy either an aspirin factory, or a single camel. Hmmmmm ... either way he ended up looking ineffective.
Tomahawks are very effective reducing, for example, Bagdad to rubble, but it didn't look all that good on Television.
President Al Gore was against Bush's actions, and .. oh, wait. He never got to be President. Now he's giving talks about Global Warming. Well, God knows it's hot here in Geekistan today; 80 degrees, which is entirely unseasonable.
Oh, wait; it's entirely seasonable.
Well, President Kerry is against the Military.
Oh, wait; he isn't. He's Secretary of State, and ... hmm he's still against the Military.
Well, the Military has never done a bit of good for the American People.
Except, perhaps, during World War II, but that's a minor point. But perhaps that's why he wants the United States of America to bomb Syria, because they sent "Freedom Fighters" to bomb New York.
Oh, wait; they didn't. Those people were Saudi's, and our allies. We don't want to bomb them.
But when Saudie citizens destroyed the Twin Towers of New York, they were wrong! Are we agreed on that?
Bombing Syria is an entirely different thing, isn't it?
I'm just wondering, how is that different?
Perhaps because bombing New York was an effort by "Private Enterprise" (aka: Al Queda), and bombing Syria is an effort by a Government. We are a nation of Laws, and our laws tell us that we cannot bomb another country without a declaration of war.
So, we're going to war because a middle-Eastern country poisons it's own people?
That's what Saddam Husein did, and President Gore/Kerry/Obama were entirely against that process.
I'm really quite confused about the mechanism by which a sitting president can convince Congress to allow American troops to bomb another country. Especially since President Obama, President Gore, and President Kerry were so adamantly against the American invasion of Iraq.
Is it not so much the actions, but the political party that makes the decision, that makes the difference?
Thank GOD we're being ruled by the Democratic Party, led by a political hack who has never had any experience in making a living other than being a "Community Organizer" and being a first-term U.S. Senator!
I'm so glad that Our President Obama holds his high office because he represented Chicago .. home of Drive By Shootings!
Oh. Drive By Shooting? Okay, That makes it all clear to me now.
Please, do as you will Mister President. I have full faith in your judgement.
I'm so glad that you were elected on the basis of your offer of HOPE, and CHANGE!
Why shouldn't he?
President Clinton responded to the bombing of a navy ship, sending a Tomahawk Missile to destroy either an aspirin factory, or a single camel. Hmmmmm ... either way he ended up looking ineffective.
Tomahawks are very effective reducing, for example, Bagdad to rubble, but it didn't look all that good on Television.
President Al Gore was against Bush's actions, and .. oh, wait. He never got to be President. Now he's giving talks about Global Warming. Well, God knows it's hot here in Geekistan today; 80 degrees, which is entirely unseasonable.
Oh, wait; it's entirely seasonable.
Well, President Kerry is against the Military.
Oh, wait; he isn't. He's Secretary of State, and ... hmm he's still against the Military.
Well, the Military has never done a bit of good for the American People.
Except, perhaps, during World War II, but that's a minor point. But perhaps that's why he wants the United States of America to bomb Syria, because they sent "Freedom Fighters" to bomb New York.
Oh, wait; they didn't. Those people were Saudi's, and our allies. We don't want to bomb them.
But when Saudie citizens destroyed the Twin Towers of New York, they were wrong! Are we agreed on that?
Bombing Syria is an entirely different thing, isn't it?
I'm just wondering, how is that different?
Perhaps because bombing New York was an effort by "Private Enterprise" (aka: Al Queda), and bombing Syria is an effort by a Government. We are a nation of Laws, and our laws tell us that we cannot bomb another country without a declaration of war.
So, we're going to war because a middle-Eastern country poisons it's own people?
That's what Saddam Husein did, and President Gore/Kerry/Obama were entirely against that process.
I'm really quite confused about the mechanism by which a sitting president can convince Congress to allow American troops to bomb another country. Especially since President Obama, President Gore, and President Kerry were so adamantly against the American invasion of Iraq.
Is it not so much the actions, but the political party that makes the decision, that makes the difference?
Thank GOD we're being ruled by the Democratic Party, led by a political hack who has never had any experience in making a living other than being a "Community Organizer" and being a first-term U.S. Senator!
I'm so glad that Our President Obama holds his high office because he represented Chicago .. home of Drive By Shootings!
Oh. Drive By Shooting? Okay, That makes it all clear to me now.
Please, do as you will Mister President. I have full faith in your judgement.
I'm so glad that you were elected on the basis of your offer of HOPE, and CHANGE!
Monday, September 02, 2013
: Shooting the S**t; or .. "Snakes Scare the S**T Out Of Me!"
Mausers, Medicine, & Motorcycles: Shooting the S**t
From Mouser Medic's Blog for April 7, 2013:
Shooting at Snakes: The Pacific NorthWest includes some excellent snake country. Nested rattlers along a fenceline (where we pretty much HAD to cross), and walking past a Umatilla County sagebrush and hearing that distinctive "I'm Gonna Get You, Suckah!" rattle. Those moments are engraved in your Lizard Brain forever!
No harm, no foul.
The "Nested Rattlers" story? True fact. My 3-man deer-hunting party was moving together to the other side of the hunting area, and when we got to a fence we found three timber-rattlers curled together in the sun, right where we had intended to cross the fence. The grass was high, the sun was high, the fence was there and we wanted to be on the other side. So we ignored the snakes, they ignored us, and we got safely through the fence during the mutual "cease fire".
Pistols as "Snake guns"
Note that shooting at a snake with a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 Magnum is singularly unrewarding, unless you have taken the precaution of building some "snake rounds" with #7 birdshot held in place with Toilet Paper Wads held in place with a generous dollop of paraffin. Note also that the wax tends to melt in the temperatures which encourage Brer Snake to shake his boogie.
I actually loaded up some Snake Rounds according to this formula, for an Antelope Hunting trip to the Cheyenne area in or about 1990. As it happens, I never DID find any Rattlers on this trip, but I tested the pattern against a telephone pole and discovered that at a six-foot standoff distance, that 7-1/2" barrel allowed the shot to spread over more than one foot, and the density was erratic at best.
At other times, I've responded (after the obligatory "JUMP FOR THE SKY" reaction) to rattlers with a variety of weaponry.
Rifles as "Snake Guns"
The old Conventional Wisdom that you can point the barrel of a gun at a snake, and he will self-align his head with the bore? I tried that one day when I was hunting Jack Rabbits in Southern Eastern Oregon, and got the Buzz Warning.
After I recovered from my initial fright, I stood ten feet away, extended the .25-06 with one hand and waited for the snake to 'extend'. He did, I pulled the trigger, and ... I never did know where the snake went. Didn't find any blood, nor any body parts. But the snake was GONE from Grant county, and I strutted back to the pick-up truck with the mien of a true conqueror.
Unfortunately, my hunting companions (my father and my Uncle) were lounging by the truck, watching me as I quartered the sagebrush patch, and they evinced great amusement when they saw me elevate six feet vertically and 20 feet back when I got The Buzz. From a standing start.
I had only recently returned from an extended vacation in Viet Nam, and I was perhaps too finely tuned to 'threat warnings'. It was embarrassing, but I had by then learned the old saw about "Any engagement you walk away from, is a win".
The Ultimate Snake Gun
Actually, my experience as a high-school student was probably the most rewarding one. At least, in terms of "Geek 1/Snake 0" scoreboard stats.
Upland Bird hunting in the rocky sagebrush of Umatilla County, I got buzzed by a cranky old rattler in the heat of the day. He was close to his hidey-hole in a jumble of rocks, and did the Full Presentation. He was coiled, hissing, looking me right in the eye and had that tail shaking like he was fully ready to strike.
I was packing a Winchester Model 12 in 12 gauge, with 1-1/2 ounces of #7 shot in a hand-loaded 2-3/4" AA hull, and a full-choke barrel. I didn't jump, didn't even think about it. I dropped the muzzle, snap-shot without looking at the sights, the barrel or the alignment. Just .. BLOOEY!
Ten minutes later, I still hadn't found more than one piece of Old Mr. Rattler. Only found a 3" piece of his backbone, with no skin on it.
That was when I learned to love the Twelve-Gauge Shotgun.
A few years later, that mind-set served me well in Vietnam. Snakes or Charley Cong ... it's not something you think about. Identify the threat, remove the threat.
I have to admit, though, that Rattlers have always scared me a whole lot more than black pajamas and a silly-assed AK47.
From Mouser Medic's Blog for April 7, 2013:
So what does one do when tired of shooting a small target with poor feedback? Horse shit. Stands out great against yellow and green grass, misses are easily seen by the chunks of dirt flying in the air, and hits are, well, very easily seen as the material flies better than the dirt does. Revolvers at 100 yards keep it interesting.
But there are things more engaging blasting horse apples at long distances. Like having a copperhead pop up while crossing the creek recovering targets at the end of the day. Two men emptying revolvers into water a couple feet away, without prior planning or coordination, is very interesting indeed.
Shooting at Snakes: The Pacific NorthWest includes some excellent snake country. Nested rattlers along a fenceline (where we pretty much HAD to cross), and walking past a Umatilla County sagebrush and hearing that distinctive "I'm Gonna Get You, Suckah!" rattle. Those moments are engraved in your Lizard Brain forever!
No harm, no foul.
The "Nested Rattlers" story? True fact. My 3-man deer-hunting party was moving together to the other side of the hunting area, and when we got to a fence we found three timber-rattlers curled together in the sun, right where we had intended to cross the fence. The grass was high, the sun was high, the fence was there and we wanted to be on the other side. So we ignored the snakes, they ignored us, and we got safely through the fence during the mutual "cease fire".
Pistols as "Snake guns"
Note that shooting at a snake with a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 Magnum is singularly unrewarding, unless you have taken the precaution of building some "snake rounds" with #7 birdshot held in place with Toilet Paper Wads held in place with a generous dollop of paraffin. Note also that the wax tends to melt in the temperatures which encourage Brer Snake to shake his boogie.
I actually loaded up some Snake Rounds according to this formula, for an Antelope Hunting trip to the Cheyenne area in or about 1990. As it happens, I never DID find any Rattlers on this trip, but I tested the pattern against a telephone pole and discovered that at a six-foot standoff distance, that 7-1/2" barrel allowed the shot to spread over more than one foot, and the density was erratic at best.
At other times, I've responded (after the obligatory "JUMP FOR THE SKY" reaction) to rattlers with a variety of weaponry.
Rifles as "Snake Guns"
The old Conventional Wisdom that you can point the barrel of a gun at a snake, and he will self-align his head with the bore? I tried that one day when I was hunting Jack Rabbits in Southern Eastern Oregon, and got the Buzz Warning.
After I recovered from my initial fright, I stood ten feet away, extended the .25-06 with one hand and waited for the snake to 'extend'. He did, I pulled the trigger, and ... I never did know where the snake went. Didn't find any blood, nor any body parts. But the snake was GONE from Grant county, and I strutted back to the pick-up truck with the mien of a true conqueror.
Unfortunately, my hunting companions (my father and my Uncle) were lounging by the truck, watching me as I quartered the sagebrush patch, and they evinced great amusement when they saw me elevate six feet vertically and 20 feet back when I got The Buzz. From a standing start.
I had only recently returned from an extended vacation in Viet Nam, and I was perhaps too finely tuned to 'threat warnings'. It was embarrassing, but I had by then learned the old saw about "Any engagement you walk away from, is a win".
The Ultimate Snake Gun
Actually, my experience as a high-school student was probably the most rewarding one. At least, in terms of "Geek 1/Snake 0" scoreboard stats.
Upland Bird hunting in the rocky sagebrush of Umatilla County, I got buzzed by a cranky old rattler in the heat of the day. He was close to his hidey-hole in a jumble of rocks, and did the Full Presentation. He was coiled, hissing, looking me right in the eye and had that tail shaking like he was fully ready to strike.
I was packing a Winchester Model 12 in 12 gauge, with 1-1/2 ounces of #7 shot in a hand-loaded 2-3/4" AA hull, and a full-choke barrel. I didn't jump, didn't even think about it. I dropped the muzzle, snap-shot without looking at the sights, the barrel or the alignment. Just .. BLOOEY!
Ten minutes later, I still hadn't found more than one piece of Old Mr. Rattler. Only found a 3" piece of his backbone, with no skin on it.
That was when I learned to love the Twelve-Gauge Shotgun.
A few years later, that mind-set served me well in Vietnam. Snakes or Charley Cong ... it's not something you think about. Identify the threat, remove the threat.
I have to admit, though, that Rattlers have always scared me a whole lot more than black pajamas and a silly-assed AK47.
Sunday, September 01, 2013
WH confident on winning Hill support on Syria but uses 'flood the zone' to get votes | Fox News
WH confident on winning Hill support on Syria but uses 'flood the zone' to get votes | Fox News:
Published September 01, 2013 FoxNews.com
I'm reminded of the Iran situation several years ago, when then-president Bush (a Republican) proposed attacking Iran for the exact same thing. Kerry, the well-known anti-war activist ("I was for it, before I was against it") and notorious war criminal (see his testimony on VietNam War activism) notoriously confronted the President because "there was no evidence" of gas attacks .. even though there was.
Today?
"Hey, no problem Brother."
Personally, I was uncomfortable when President Bush sent troops to Iraq. Democrats, however, used the word "quagmire" until it became The New Black. That send me back into support for The War on Terrorism; their bad!
Now, "The New Black" is "BOMB THEM INTO THE STONE AGE; LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!"
Am I the only one who is getting tired of USA investing American troops into regime change efforts?
Where's the United Nations? And where's Israel? It's their neighborhood. Aren't we paying them enough money to support their military?
If the president is Dithering, and the Secretary of State is contradicting his historical opposition to Regime Change ... WTF are these people doing? Really?
UPDATE:
Our Dear Leader doesn't know what he's going to do next. Is it any wonder that Syria is not intimidated? I'm not enchanted with the idea that American Troops may attack a country which has NOT attacked us ... but when a President announces a "red line" which must not be crossed, and then waffles on his promises of aggressive attacks .. isn't this the definition of a Paper Tiger?
Published September 01, 2013 FoxNews.com
The Obama administration, bolstered by evidence the Syrian government used lethal sarin gas on its own people, expressed confidence Sunday that Congress would back President Obama’s decision for a military strike on the Middle East country.Am I the only one who is amazed .. astounded .. that John Kerry is 'behind' the current (democratic) president's drive to attack a middle-eastern country for gassing citizens?
However, the president and his inner circle worked furiously over the weekend to win congressional support, appearing on Sunday shows, holding classified briefings and making calls to Capitol Hill leaders.
A senior administration officials told Fox News that the president, Vice President Joe Biden and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made phone calls on Sunday to senators and House members urging them to vote in favor of the authorization of military force in Syria.
The official called the lobbying effort a "flood the zone" strategy, in an apparent acknowledgement of just how hard winning Capitol Hill approval will be.
The effort was preceded by Secretary of State John Kerry blanketing the Sunday shows and administration official proceeding with a round of weekend briefings, as Capitol Hill lawmakers said Obama may not have the votes right now.
I'm reminded of the Iran situation several years ago, when then-president Bush (a Republican) proposed attacking Iran for the exact same thing. Kerry, the well-known anti-war activist ("I was for it, before I was against it") and notorious war criminal (see his testimony on VietNam War activism) notoriously confronted the President because "there was no evidence" of gas attacks .. even though there was.
Today?
"Hey, no problem Brother."
Personally, I was uncomfortable when President Bush sent troops to Iraq. Democrats, however, used the word "quagmire" until it became The New Black. That send me back into support for The War on Terrorism; their bad!
Now, "The New Black" is "BOMB THEM INTO THE STONE AGE; LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!"
Am I the only one who is getting tired of USA investing American troops into regime change efforts?
Where's the United Nations? And where's Israel? It's their neighborhood. Aren't we paying them enough money to support their military?
If the president is Dithering, and the Secretary of State is contradicting his historical opposition to Regime Change ... WTF are these people doing? Really?
UPDATE:
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Syria on Sunday derided President Barack Obama's decision to hold off on punitive military strikes, but also took precautions by reportedly moving some troops and military equipment to civilian areas.
The Obama administration countered that its case for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad is getting stronger, saying it now has evidence that the toxic gas allegedly used in strikes on rebel-held areas was the nerve agent sarin.
The administration predicted Sunday it will obtain congressional backing for limited strikes. After days of edging closer to military action against Syria, Obama suddenly announced Saturday he would first seek approval from Congress, which gets back from summer break Sept. 9.---
Our Dear Leader doesn't know what he's going to do next. Is it any wonder that Syria is not intimidated? I'm not enchanted with the idea that American Troops may attack a country which has NOT attacked us ... but when a President announces a "red line" which must not be crossed, and then waffles on his promises of aggressive attacks .. isn't this the definition of a Paper Tiger?
Father charged in BB gun shooting death of 18-month-old boy | Fox News
Father charged in BB gun shooting death of 18-month-old boy | Fox News:
Full Disclosure:
When I was 15, I had a pellet pistol. CO2 charged, and .22 caliber, it was not something which should be treated with disdain.
My sister was then dating a young man only a few years older than myself, who treated himself to complete access to our parents' home. He wandered into my room, found my pellet pistol, and took it into my sister's bedroom. Apparently he wanted to see how powerful the air blast was, so he pointed it at the palm of his hand, pulled the charging-handle to half-cock, and pulled the trigger.
After he had been released from the hospital, with stitches on both sides of his hand (the .22 pellet apparently went 'clear through', he confronted me.
"I can't believe you left a loaded gun just laying around!" he said.
I replied: "It was a pellet gun, in my private bedroom, and you have known me long enough to know that I don't have any 'unloaded' guns!".
---
I was lucky, and he was lucky, that we both learned valuable lessons from that not-too disastrous experience.
I learned that no gun is safe unless it was locked up.
He learned that every gun should be treated as loaded, that he should never point a gun at anything he was not willing to destroy, and he should keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot something.
(Sound familiar? As in .. the Three Rules of Firearms Safety?)
Going back to the original story, we are looking at a 'man' (of no great maturity) who considered a mere "pellet gun" as no threat. Consequent to his poor gun-handling skills, he shot and killed his son.
He was obviously 'distraught' by the injury incurred to his child, and I have not doubt that he regrets his 'playful' actions.
Here's a summary:
Guns don't have a history of having "....accidentally went off...". That happens when you pull the trigger. Suggestion: don't pull the trigger, don't kill your child. It isn't the gun; it's the shooter.
----
Seems pretty simple in retrospect, but the man-child with his finger on the trigger obviously didn't understand the concept.
While I have always been "for" firearms ownership rights, I'm also the first to concede that there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed within touching distance of a firearm. Firearms, unfortunately, include the Barret .50, machine guns, pistols, shotguns, .22 training rifles, and (sadly, in this case) BB-guns.
So, what's the answer? Is it to outlaw farearms, right down to a bb-gun?
I don't think so. Had this man-child been trained, he would have known better to handle a bb-gun in such a manner that it would "accidentally" go "off:". And at the same time, he would have known to not assume that the "firearm" was unloaded. Finally, he would have made sure that while he was handling the gun, it would at no time have been pointing toward another person.
There are THREE basic rules of Firearm Safety. This dipshit disobeyed all three of them, at the same time, and he killed a little boy.
Here are the crimes he has been charged with:
Here are the crimes he should have been charged with; unfortunately, they are not covered by existing law:
Here's a question for the readers: Do you think this will get any where NEAR the publicity that the Travon Martin case received?
NO? Why not? It's not just a matter of accidental homicide, nor of 'black on black' shooting. It's a matter of stupidity, of lack of training, of lack of judgement.
What do you want to bet that this murder (for it is murder, if by in-adventure) doesn't make it to the record books. Doesn't make it to the headlines of any newspaper in the world?s
My personal opinion? I know the guy must be devastated by the consequences of his ill-advised actions. And I'm sure he would do anything to take it back.
I'm thinking that The Reverend Al Sharpton will call for his execution.
No .. probably not.
x
x
x
An 18-month-old Georgia boy is dead after being shot in the chest with a BB gun and his father has been charged with felony murder, police say.
The toddler’s father, Jesse Sellers, 23, reportedly told police he was playing with the gun when it accidentally went off, MyFoxAtlanta.com reported. Sellers has been charged with second-degree cruelty to children and felony murder.
Police say six people, including three children, were in the home at the time of the shooting.
Witnesses reported seeing Sellers running out of the apartment yelling for help and directing paramedics when they arrived.
Police say the child was taken to Grady Hospital and later died.
Full Disclosure:
When I was 15, I had a pellet pistol. CO2 charged, and .22 caliber, it was not something which should be treated with disdain.
My sister was then dating a young man only a few years older than myself, who treated himself to complete access to our parents' home. He wandered into my room, found my pellet pistol, and took it into my sister's bedroom. Apparently he wanted to see how powerful the air blast was, so he pointed it at the palm of his hand, pulled the charging-handle to half-cock, and pulled the trigger.
After he had been released from the hospital, with stitches on both sides of his hand (the .22 pellet apparently went 'clear through', he confronted me.
"I can't believe you left a loaded gun just laying around!" he said.
I replied: "It was a pellet gun, in my private bedroom, and you have known me long enough to know that I don't have any 'unloaded' guns!".
---
I was lucky, and he was lucky, that we both learned valuable lessons from that not-too disastrous experience.
I learned that no gun is safe unless it was locked up.
He learned that every gun should be treated as loaded, that he should never point a gun at anything he was not willing to destroy, and he should keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot something.
(Sound familiar? As in .. the Three Rules of Firearms Safety?)
Going back to the original story, we are looking at a 'man' (of no great maturity) who considered a mere "pellet gun" as no threat. Consequent to his poor gun-handling skills, he shot and killed his son.
He was obviously 'distraught' by the injury incurred to his child, and I have not doubt that he regrets his 'playful' actions.
Here's a summary:
Guns don't have a history of having "....accidentally went off...". That happens when you pull the trigger. Suggestion: don't pull the trigger, don't kill your child. It isn't the gun; it's the shooter.
----
Seems pretty simple in retrospect, but the man-child with his finger on the trigger obviously didn't understand the concept.
While I have always been "for" firearms ownership rights, I'm also the first to concede that there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed within touching distance of a firearm. Firearms, unfortunately, include the Barret .50, machine guns, pistols, shotguns, .22 training rifles, and (sadly, in this case) BB-guns.
So, what's the answer? Is it to outlaw farearms, right down to a bb-gun?
I don't think so. Had this man-child been trained, he would have known better to handle a bb-gun in such a manner that it would "accidentally" go "off:". And at the same time, he would have known to not assume that the "firearm" was unloaded. Finally, he would have made sure that while he was handling the gun, it would at no time have been pointing toward another person.
There are THREE basic rules of Firearm Safety. This dipshit disobeyed all three of them, at the same time, and he killed a little boy.
Here are the crimes he has been charged with:
- Second degree cruelty to children
- Felony murder
Here are the crimes he should have been charged with; unfortunately, they are not covered by existing law:
- being ignorant; he didn't know any better
- being stupid; didn't know he didn't know any better
- handling a loaded firearm when other people were in his presence; see (1) and (2)
Here's a question for the readers: Do you think this will get any where NEAR the publicity that the Travon Martin case received?
NO? Why not? It's not just a matter of accidental homicide, nor of 'black on black' shooting. It's a matter of stupidity, of lack of training, of lack of judgement.
What do you want to bet that this murder (for it is murder, if by in-adventure) doesn't make it to the record books. Doesn't make it to the headlines of any newspaper in the world?s
My personal opinion? I know the guy must be devastated by the consequences of his ill-advised actions. And I'm sure he would do anything to take it back.
I'm thinking that The Reverend Al Sharpton will call for his execution.
No .. probably not.
x
x
x
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)