The Gun Lobby And A Dumb Law Are Keeping Us From Safer Guns:
(July 16, 2014) The Huffington Post
If Loretta Weinberg is so adamant about the efficacy of "Smart Guns", why is she offering a "deal
to the NRA that she will withdraw what she has already admitted is a dumb law?
Just another Liberal Democrat end-run, for political purposes? Probably, but pity the poor Huffington Post Writer who is charged by his editor of keeping up with the Politics while pretending to understand the issues ... which he (admittedly) DOES NOT!
Friday, July 18, 2014
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Pee-waddin'
Inspired by Never Yet Melted's "I'm Not Doing That" post today, I can't resist the urge to offer this 2013 version of YouTube's "Best of the Web".
If some of this doesn't scare the Pee-Waddin' out of you, you're braver than I am.
If some of this doesn't scare the Pee-Waddin' out of you, you're braver than I am.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
"What should they do? Compromise?" A Modest Suggestion.
Embrace Obama's Border Security Bill:
(July 14, 2014)
Current procedures are to send border-compromisers back where they came from, unless they are children.
Realizing that children are being sent unattended by their parents, who expect (with justification) that the current procedures will ensure the safety of their children no matter what happens, the border patrol should change their procedures.
They should transport the children to that point farthest away from their initial entry point, place them across the border, and not that they have been "displaced".
For example, if the illegal border-crossers have been apprehended at Laredo, they should be re-inserted at Tijuana.
But the parents of these children have decided that they cannot afford to keep their children, so their only choice is to suckle on the good will of the American President (who has already shown that he doesn't really care.)
Perhaps if the surviving children were subject to inconvenience, their parents would cease sending them over the border. Apparently, they are unable (in their current economy) to survive with so many hungry mouths to feed. So they send their children to another country, in hopes that others can assume their parental duties.
This .. doesn't sound fair to the people upon whom they are imposing. If they care so little for their children, they should at least be obliged to assume the burden of retrieving their children ... which is essentially what they seem to be asking Americans to do.
Or, they could just eat their children.
(July 14, 2014)
The new Obama law changes the existing William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, a 2008 statute that says minors who are not from Mexico or Canada are entitled to legal proceedings before they are deported. Surprisingly, Obama has agreed this is not a good idea and wants to scrap it. He wants speedy deportations. He is also asking for $400 million to secure the border and pay for additional border agents, as many have been moved to detention centers and other cities to deal with the humanitarian crisis. Senate Democrats are not so happy with Obama’s bill, which will increase deportations and end the crisis. Congressional Republicans don’t like its $3.7 billion price tab. What should they do? Compromise.No.
Current procedures are to send border-compromisers back where they came from, unless they are children.
Realizing that children are being sent unattended by their parents, who expect (with justification) that the current procedures will ensure the safety of their children no matter what happens, the border patrol should change their procedures.
They should transport the children to that point farthest away from their initial entry point, place them across the border, and not that they have been "displaced".
For example, if the illegal border-crossers have been apprehended at Laredo, they should be re-inserted at Tijuana.
But the parents of these children have decided that they cannot afford to keep their children, so their only choice is to suckle on the good will of the American President (who has already shown that he doesn't really care.)
Perhaps if the surviving children were subject to inconvenience, their parents would cease sending them over the border. Apparently, they are unable (in their current economy) to survive with so many hungry mouths to feed. So they send their children to another country, in hopes that others can assume their parental duties.
This .. doesn't sound fair to the people upon whom they are imposing. If they care so little for their children, they should at least be obliged to assume the burden of retrieving their children ... which is essentially what they seem to be asking Americans to do.
Or, they could just eat their children.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Can USPSA run a profitable Nationals?
USPSA Finances Part 5: Can USPSA run a profitable Nationals? | Gun Nuts Media:
But SHOULD they?
Well, that would be nice.
I dont think that anyone who has ever been to a Nationals Match expects that it .. or USPSA as a whole .. should be a "Profitable" venture.
This is an all-volunteer venture. The sole purpose is to allow us, the members, to compete at a variety of skill-levels. Most of us are really not very good at what we love the most ... shooting at difficult targets under challenging circumstances. It stands to reason that the National Matches present the greatest challenges.
Most of us who spend our time, money and energy competing in USPSA matches don't expect to win. It would be nice if we came in at a 'high level' in our own designated Class and Division. But there are always those people who are 'talented' who almost invariably win. We secretly loath and detest 'talented' shooters, but the statistics don't lie; they are better than us.
We can live with that.
Every year, hundreds of not-very-good shooters compete in the Major Matches: Sectional, Area or National matches, it doesn't matter except that the higher-rated the match, the chances grow increasingly slim that we will "do well".
We don't care.
We just want to shoot a "Major Match".
Your reasons for spending hundreds of dollars may vary. You may want to see how you stack up against the best of the best.
You may want to meet the best and brightest in the USPSA world.
You will spend more money than you can afford, you won't win a darned thing, and you'll come away thinking that it is "money well spent"
Today I want to regather my focus and look at Nationals, the single largest expense on the USPSA tax returns.
----
It is immediately obvious that USPSA loses money each year on the National Championship matches. The average money lost by USPSA over the six year period of Nationals we tracked is approximately $250,000 a year. That is an awful lot of money.
Today we have two questions: can USPSA run a profitable National Championship series
and more importantly, should they?I don't know if USPSA should run a "Profitable" National Championship series. Probably not .. they never have before.
But SHOULD they?
Well, that would be nice.
I dont think that anyone who has ever been to a Nationals Match expects that it .. or USPSA as a whole .. should be a "Profitable" venture.
This is an all-volunteer venture. The sole purpose is to allow us, the members, to compete at a variety of skill-levels. Most of us are really not very good at what we love the most ... shooting at difficult targets under challenging circumstances. It stands to reason that the National Matches present the greatest challenges.
Most of us who spend our time, money and energy competing in USPSA matches don't expect to win. It would be nice if we came in at a 'high level' in our own designated Class and Division. But there are always those people who are 'talented' who almost invariably win. We secretly loath and detest 'talented' shooters, but the statistics don't lie; they are better than us.
We can live with that.
Every year, hundreds of not-very-good shooters compete in the Major Matches: Sectional, Area or National matches, it doesn't matter except that the higher-rated the match, the chances grow increasingly slim that we will "do well".
We don't care.
We just want to shoot a "Major Match".
Your reasons for spending hundreds of dollars may vary. You may want to see how you stack up against the best of the best.
You may want to meet the best and brightest in the USPSA world.
You will spend more money than you can afford, you won't win a darned thing, and you'll come away thinking that it is "money well spent"
DYING to come to America: "Watered Down" Immigration policies responsible
Report: SMALL LIFELESS, DEAD CHILDREN Found “Washed Up Along Riverbank” of Rio Grande | The Gateway Pundit:
(July 14, 2014)
(Note: according to this report, Gilberto Ramos did not drown while crossing the Rio Grande. however, apparently several other juveniles did. Whether death by drowning or dehydration, the consequences --- and the blame --- are the same.)
Let's face it: we have an Open Border to our south.
Our president, for reasons known only to himself, has refused to enforce current Immigration Laws.
Especially, he has made statements which might be interpreted to mean that he will not stop "children" from illegally crossing the border from Mexico and Central/South American countries.
He may consider this a "humanitarian effort", but from this report it is anything but humanitarian.
Children are literally dying because of the failures of the Obama policy.
Even if we are not concerned about who besides "migrant workers" (and their families ... those who are still living) may be encouraged to enter America illegally: perhaps it's time to be aware of, and consider, the fact that these family members will never be seen by their fathers and their mothers again.
If Obama was a home-owner in Chicago, who had a swimming pool in his back yard; and if neighborhood children climbed his chain-link fence to swim in his pool ... and if those children drowned in his swimming pool, what would happen?
He would be charged as having "maintained an Attractive Nuisance", and prosecuted for any consequences.
In this real-life case, the issue is not that there are no fences around the "swimming pool" that is America, but that the "owner manager of the property" (The American President) has unilaterally declined to enforce any 'punishment' for people who attempt to illegally cross our southern border.
Washington Examiner (7/13/14): "Obama Pays Price for Inaction on Immigration Law":
Sometimes, "Hope and Change" can kill you; and the man responsible for the deaths of these children is he who so cunningly held out the hope of the "undreamable dream" for people who would probably not have sent their children to confront thelion mouse in his lair, if they had not been encouraged to do so by the man with a cell phone and a pen.
President Obama is responsible for the deaths of these children.
He, alone.
(Source referenced by David Codria via gunbloggers.com)
(July 14, 2014)
A Fox News exclusive reported this morning by Jana Winter inexplicably buried the lede.
Winter reports that several dead children have been discovered “washed up along the riverbank” of the Rio Grande, but fails to note that there have been no reports by the Obama administration on this.
This indicates a pattern of covering up dead illegal alien kids by the Obama administration. It was two weeks before news was reported on the sole child death acknowledged by the Obama administration, Gilberto Ramos, a 15 year-old boy from Guatemala whose body was found in the Texas brush dead from the heat.
(Note: according to this report, Gilberto Ramos did not drown while crossing the Rio Grande. however, apparently several other juveniles did. Whether death by drowning or dehydration, the consequences --- and the blame --- are the same.)
Let's face it: we have an Open Border to our south.
Our president, for reasons known only to himself, has refused to enforce current Immigration Laws.
Especially, he has made statements which might be interpreted to mean that he will not stop "children" from illegally crossing the border from Mexico and Central/South American countries.
He may consider this a "humanitarian effort", but from this report it is anything but humanitarian.
Children are literally dying because of the failures of the Obama policy.
Even if we are not concerned about who besides "migrant workers" (and their families ... those who are still living) may be encouraged to enter America illegally: perhaps it's time to be aware of, and consider, the fact that these family members will never be seen by their fathers and their mothers again.
If Obama was a home-owner in Chicago, who had a swimming pool in his back yard; and if neighborhood children climbed his chain-link fence to swim in his pool ... and if those children drowned in his swimming pool, what would happen?
He would be charged as having "maintained an Attractive Nuisance", and prosecuted for any consequences.
In this real-life case, the issue is not that there are no fences around the "swimming pool" that is America, but that the "
Washington Examiner (7/13/14): "Obama Pays Price for Inaction on Immigration Law":
In the short run Barack Obama paid no political price for the Democrats' decision to sidestep immigration. The only time he got pressed on the issue was a grilling by Univision’s Jorge Ramos in September 2012. Obama carried 71 percent of Hispanic votes in November.
---
The second thing that led to the flood of underage illegals was Obama’s declaration in June 2012, five months before the election, that he would not enforce immigration laws against so-called “dreamers,” young adults brought over the border illegally as children who also met certain conditions.
Sometimes, "Hope and Change" can kill you; and the man responsible for the deaths of these children is he who so cunningly held out the hope of the "undreamable dream" for people who would probably not have sent their children to confront the
President Obama is responsible for the deaths of these children.
He, alone.
(Source referenced by David Codria via gunbloggers.com)
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Definition of "Most Transparent Administration ....."
Earnest defends notion of 'most transparent administration' in US history | Fox News:
(July 13, 2014)
Translation: "The Emperor Has No Clothes!"
(July 13, 2014)
The White House on Sunday stood by President Obama's position that he continues to be the most transparent president in U.S. history, despite widespread complaints from journalists and other Americans about a lack of information or apparent misinformation.
Translation: "The Emperor Has No Clothes!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)