Start with Japanese Anima. (I'm no fan.)
Throw in themes from Michael Z. Williamson, John Ringo, and Tom Kratman.
(And by the way, I've read just about every book these guys have written.)
Add a timely dose of Deus Ex Machina, and introduce it via a Free Access offer.
What do you have?
Cat Shit 1
I found this on the Lawdog blog, and rather than steal the well-deserved credit from him, I will encourage you to go to the article and read it for yourself.
You'll have to judge for yourself whether this is as far-out weirdo fascinating as I found it to be.
The only decisions you have to make is whether you have a half-hour to enjoy ... well, I won't spoil it for you. Just know that it's probably NSFW because you will disrupt your office cackling over each scene.
Oh, and DO obey Lawdog's injunction to view it on HD. Or at least, on Full-Screen mode.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Buyer Remorse
Apropos of absolutely nothing at all, I have been reading some stuff about "re-holstering" (via Michael Bane Blog). While it's an eminently worthwhile discussion about "making yourself appear un-threatening to police", that was only the spur to the memory.
When I re-applied to ARPC for membership several years ago, I discovered they had a new twist to the new-member application: a mandatory meeting ["New Member Orientation"] with a club officer, where he (among other things) discussed Rules of the Range.
The thing that struck me was the rule which forbade "Drawing From The Holster". That was an ironclad rule, and was applicable on the North range ... where ARPC had been holding IPSC-type matches for several years, already.
When I heard that one, I went ballistic. So did another new member, Keith Tyler, one of the best IPSC competitors in the Columbia Cascade Section. Keith is also an LEO, and had just begun his owning training venture.
We argued that the rule was ridiculous, given that they sponsored both IPSC and Speed Steel matches on a monthly basis. These two sport strongly emphasize drawing from the holster.
"How can we possibly use the range to practice our sport, when you won't let us draw from holsters?" we both objected.
The Club Officer who was giving the class was much taken aback. This seemed reasonable, since he was the person who organized Speed Steel matches, every month.
He didn't have an answer for us. We both suggested that if we were joining the club for the purpose of having a range where we could practice, but the club rules forbade drawing from holsters, then there was not much advantage for us to justify club membership.
(The club also offers "Old West" Single Action Society, "I.C.O.R.E" (revolver competition) and the range is used by several local police departments ... ALL of which features drawing pistols from the holster.)
We worked it out that the officer would check with the Board of Directors, and in the meantime we would join the club with the understanding that if this Range Rule would be enforced, we could quit and our initiation fee would be returned.
In the end, the BOD reviewed that earlier decision and decided that it was unrealistic. They had to have new "Range Rules" signs painted and mounted, but the exercise resulted in a club which was much more responsive to the needs and competence of its members.
Since then, the club has initiated new training classes which it offers to its members. One is an "Introduction to Handguns", which is intended for the benefit of members who want to learn how to use handguns safely ... even in competitive environments.
Another new class is "Introduction to USPSA". of which I am one of the instructors.
A third class is "Firearms Handling to Certify for Concealed Carry Licenses", which I have taken and also necessarily includes drawing from a holster.
The lesson here is that ranges which wish to be an active member of the shooting community must attempt to attract members of all shooting communities, and many of these will both practice and compete drawing from the holster. Any range today which wishes to be both busy and profitable will find that they cannot attract new members without recognizing that their fears of lawsuits will keep them at the level of a "small, private club of trap-shooters".
I have nothing against trap-shooting, but if that was the only activity offered by my local club, I would not be willing to spend hundreds of dollars every year there, between membership dues and match fees; nor would I be willing to spend several hours each month volunteering to help the club fulfill its mission.
That mission should be to encourage firearms competition and to provide a safe, well-maintained venue for firearms practice.
Private clubs often sink into obscurity. Public clubs may either grow with the demands of the public it seeks to attract, or ... not.
When I re-applied to ARPC for membership several years ago, I discovered they had a new twist to the new-member application: a mandatory meeting ["New Member Orientation"] with a club officer, where he (among other things) discussed Rules of the Range.
The thing that struck me was the rule which forbade "Drawing From The Holster". That was an ironclad rule, and was applicable on the North range ... where ARPC had been holding IPSC-type matches for several years, already.
When I heard that one, I went ballistic. So did another new member, Keith Tyler, one of the best IPSC competitors in the Columbia Cascade Section. Keith is also an LEO, and had just begun his owning training venture.
We argued that the rule was ridiculous, given that they sponsored both IPSC and Speed Steel matches on a monthly basis. These two sport strongly emphasize drawing from the holster.
"How can we possibly use the range to practice our sport, when you won't let us draw from holsters?" we both objected.
The Club Officer who was giving the class was much taken aback. This seemed reasonable, since he was the person who organized Speed Steel matches, every month.
He didn't have an answer for us. We both suggested that if we were joining the club for the purpose of having a range where we could practice, but the club rules forbade drawing from holsters, then there was not much advantage for us to justify club membership.
(The club also offers "Old West" Single Action Society, "I.C.O.R.E" (revolver competition) and the range is used by several local police departments ... ALL of which features drawing pistols from the holster.)
We worked it out that the officer would check with the Board of Directors, and in the meantime we would join the club with the understanding that if this Range Rule would be enforced, we could quit and our initiation fee would be returned.
In the end, the BOD reviewed that earlier decision and decided that it was unrealistic. They had to have new "Range Rules" signs painted and mounted, but the exercise resulted in a club which was much more responsive to the needs and competence of its members.
Since then, the club has initiated new training classes which it offers to its members. One is an "Introduction to Handguns", which is intended for the benefit of members who want to learn how to use handguns safely ... even in competitive environments.
Another new class is "Introduction to USPSA". of which I am one of the instructors.
A third class is "Firearms Handling to Certify for Concealed Carry Licenses", which I have taken and also necessarily includes drawing from a holster.
The lesson here is that ranges which wish to be an active member of the shooting community must attempt to attract members of all shooting communities, and many of these will both practice and compete drawing from the holster. Any range today which wishes to be both busy and profitable will find that they cannot attract new members without recognizing that their fears of lawsuits will keep them at the level of a "small, private club of trap-shooters".
I have nothing against trap-shooting, but if that was the only activity offered by my local club, I would not be willing to spend hundreds of dollars every year there, between membership dues and match fees; nor would I be willing to spend several hours each month volunteering to help the club fulfill its mission.
That mission should be to encourage firearms competition and to provide a safe, well-maintained venue for firearms practice.
Private clubs often sink into obscurity. Public clubs may either grow with the demands of the public it seeks to attract, or ... not.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Ghosts of the Forest
news public affairs player: video
( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f )
PBS offers this video record of "White Deer" with a homely host and a silly ( but obviously and appropriately enamored) Irish-looking photographer/correspondent.
In the normal course of events, it would be a "Silly Season" article.
But here, it's something wonderful.
Yes, the deer are white and they are not albinos.
Yes, they are beautiful. And protected, legally by state law.
Sometimes Laws are reasonable. It would be shameful to be a predator of these beautiful Ghosts.
Sorry, no embedded video.
( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=inwi10s22a3q81f )
PBS offers this video record of "White Deer" with a homely host and a silly ( but obviously and appropriately enamored) Irish-looking photographer/correspondent.
In the normal course of events, it would be a "Silly Season" article.
But here, it's something wonderful.
Yes, the deer are white and they are not albinos.
Yes, they are beautiful. And protected, legally by state law.
Sometimes Laws are reasonable. It would be shameful to be a predator of these beautiful Ghosts.
Sorry, no embedded video.
Never Underestimate An Old Broad
This video was sent to me (H/T G-man), and originally represented as "Ginger Rogers at 93, (Salsa) dancing with her grandson ...".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O-o5gwi4HI
Looking at the YOUTUBE link, however, it appears that it was a lady named Sarah "Paddy" Jones, a 75 year old British lady; and that Ginger Rogers died childless in 1995.
So it's a little bit of a disappointment, of course, but still ... it's a remarkable performance!
I don't know a lot of people at 75 who can dance like that. I know for certain that my mother (a red-headed 93) can't dance like that!
---
It reminded me, in a way, of the USPSA match last weekend at ARPC. It was won by Carl Schmidt who is MUCH younger than 75 but still far from the youngest competitor there.
If you are a member of USPSA, you may recall that Carl is a USPSA Range Master and an instructor in USPSA Level I and Level II courses. So it's not like he's new to competition. In fact, he only moved to Oregon last year, and we who regularly compete here are fortunate to have him in our community. Not just because he's experienced and knowledgeable, but also because he's representative of the kind of people we have grown accustomed to meeting in this venue. He's warm, friendly, helpful, industrious and I have no doubt that he is also brave, reverent, thrifty and cheerful.
Well, perhaps he's not an entire Boy Scout.
Still, when I saw him at the January match he still had his Winter Beard, and I have to admit that he looked kinda "old-fartish". Of course, the "Old Broad" appellation does not apply to Carl but just looking at him it would not be immediately obvious to the casual observer ... especially one in their 20's or 30's ... that there is more "Speed, Power and Accuracy" there than meets the eye.
---
One of the things I try to mention when I'm conducting the "Introduction to USPSA" classes to prospective new shooters is that "here you will meet people you would be happy to invite into your home; in short, there are a LOT of very nice people who compete in USPSA matches, and you will surely make new friends".
For me, it was a Good Things moment when Carl came up to me after the match, patted me on the back and said: "Don't worry about retirement, you're gonna love it! You'll wonder why you waited so long."
Dammit, Carl, now I'm going to be impatient for April 21 to come along, so I can start having all this fun you're talking about.
On the other hand, I now realize that it has been a long time since I have been impatient for tomorrow.
New Horizons, Pal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O-o5gwi4HI
Looking at the YOUTUBE link, however, it appears that it was a lady named Sarah "Paddy" Jones, a 75 year old British lady; and that Ginger Rogers died childless in 1995.
So it's a little bit of a disappointment, of course, but still ... it's a remarkable performance!
I don't know a lot of people at 75 who can dance like that. I know for certain that my mother (a red-headed 93) can't dance like that!
---
It reminded me, in a way, of the USPSA match last weekend at ARPC. It was won by Carl Schmidt who is MUCH younger than 75 but still far from the youngest competitor there.
If you are a member of USPSA, you may recall that Carl is a USPSA Range Master and an instructor in USPSA Level I and Level II courses. So it's not like he's new to competition. In fact, he only moved to Oregon last year, and we who regularly compete here are fortunate to have him in our community. Not just because he's experienced and knowledgeable, but also because he's representative of the kind of people we have grown accustomed to meeting in this venue. He's warm, friendly, helpful, industrious and I have no doubt that he is also brave, reverent, thrifty and cheerful.
Well, perhaps he's not an entire Boy Scout.
Still, when I saw him at the January match he still had his Winter Beard, and I have to admit that he looked kinda "old-fartish". Of course, the "Old Broad" appellation does not apply to Carl but just looking at him it would not be immediately obvious to the casual observer ... especially one in their 20's or 30's ... that there is more "Speed, Power and Accuracy" there than meets the eye.
---
One of the things I try to mention when I'm conducting the "Introduction to USPSA" classes to prospective new shooters is that "here you will meet people you would be happy to invite into your home; in short, there are a LOT of very nice people who compete in USPSA matches, and you will surely make new friends".
For me, it was a Good Things moment when Carl came up to me after the match, patted me on the back and said: "Don't worry about retirement, you're gonna love it! You'll wonder why you waited so long."
Dammit, Carl, now I'm going to be impatient for April 21 to come along, so I can start having all this fun you're talking about.
On the other hand, I now realize that it has been a long time since I have been impatient for tomorrow.
New Horizons, Pal!
Saturday, February 12, 2011
What WILL they think of next?
Those naughty boys from The Continent Which Must Be Named have found a new variation on their Un-namable Letter. They are still attempting to share a multi-million dollar legacy with you (if only you will allow them to process the funds through your private checking account ... as if that wouldn't be noticed by your bank!), but this the catch is that the 'solicitor' cannot access the funds directly because he is "under-aged". But still, they have a "business deal" which sounds just entirely too good to be true.
And of course, it is.
I rarely get these kinds of letters, and probably lyou don't either. For your edification and amusement, here is the unsolicited letter I received this week from my would-be benefactor, Mr. Gred Jacomet:
A nice Irish boy like this would not try to harm you, would he?
Please note that I have "sanitized" this text by passing it through a text editor. There are no hidden links.
Here are a few clues about how to recognize the falsity of this kind of solicitation:
And if you respond ... your email address is immediately noted as "currently active", they have just marked you as a potential "cash cow", and they will take you as far down the road to poverty as you will permit them.
Laughable? Of course it is. Still, every year there literally BILLIONS of dollars lost to this sort of vicious opportunism.
I wish I could send this email to my mother, bless her heart, because I worry that someday she may be so soft-hearted that she can be taken by this or a similar lament.
On the other hand, she has no more disposable income than do I, so we're mostly safe from these guys.
Sometimes it's good to be poor; but as this letter shows, everybody is worth milking, because the only investment the originator has is their time.
And of course, it is.
I rarely get these kinds of letters, and probably lyou don't either. For your edification and amusement, here is the unsolicited letter I received this week from my would-be benefactor, Mr. Gred Jacomet:
I am really interested to do business with you, actually I have strong plans to relocating to Europe in Three (3) weeks time for some business and also to invest there, this is a business proposal which I want us to be in partnership, we will execute this business then you will get your own percentage share and I get mine.
With trust and gratitude I faithfully contact you knowing that this letter will definitely come to you as a huge surprise, but I implore you to take your time to go through this mail carefully as the decision you make will go a long way to determine my future and continued existence.
I will make my proposal well known if I am given the opportunity and I would like to introduce myself to you. I am Mr. Gred Jacomet, 17 years old, a Liberian schooling in England, My (late) father Dr. George Jacomet was the Managing Director of Gold and Diamond Mining company in Monrovia-Liberia in west Africa, but he was wickedly poisoned to death by his business associates on one of their outing in Oversea.
Consequently, after his death, I managed to escape with a very important document of (?8.5m) Eight Million, Five Hundred Thousand Great Britain Pounds deposited by my late father in a Bank, which I am the Next of Kin. Meanwhile I am saddled with the problem of securing a trust worthy foreign personality to help me transfer the money over to Europe in your custody and await my arrival to come and meet you for Investment purposes. I am willing to give you 15% of this amount if you can stand in for me and retrieve the money from the bank because I am under-aged to handle this transaction. The amount was deposited as bond and I can write the bank a letter, introducing you as my relative, this way the bank will deal with you directly on the transfer modalities and when the money is transferred to you, I will meet with you. Furthermore, you can contact the bank for more confirmation and I will issue a letter of authorization in your name, that will enable the Bank to deal with you
on my behalf. I am giving you this offers as mentioned with every confidence on your acceptance to assist me and take me as your brother or as your son and manage the money. Conclusively, I wish you send me a reply immediately as soon as you receive this proposal.
For confidential purposes, your urgent reply will be highly appreciated. Please do send me your full information, so that I will send it to the bank in London if you are interested:
1. Your Full Names:
2. Your Address:
3. Your Sex:
4. Your Age:
5. Your Marital Status:
6. Your Occupation:
7. Your Direct Phone Number:
8. Your Resident City:
9. Your Resident State:
10. Your Country:
With best regards,
Gred Jacomet
A nice Irish boy like this would not try to harm you, would he?
Please note that I have "sanitized" this text by passing it through a text editor. There are no hidden links.
Here are a few clues about how to recognize the falsity of this kind of solicitation:
- It's unsolicited
- Bad grammer, awkward sentence structure, poor spelling, other indicators of semi-illiteracy.
- NOT addressed to you personally
- No "real" contact information
- A corresponding demand for YOUR detailed contact information and "other" personal information.
- The circumstances of (a good business partner) don't seem to describe you, so you wonder ... "why the heck is this stranger writing to me?"
And if you respond ... your email address is immediately noted as "currently active", they have just marked you as a potential "cash cow", and they will take you as far down the road to poverty as you will permit them.
Laughable? Of course it is. Still, every year there literally BILLIONS of dollars lost to this sort of vicious opportunism.
I wish I could send this email to my mother, bless her heart, because I worry that someday she may be so soft-hearted that she can be taken by this or a similar lament.
On the other hand, she has no more disposable income than do I, so we're mostly safe from these guys.
Sometimes it's good to be poor; but as this letter shows, everybody is worth milking, because the only investment the originator has is their time.
Friday, February 11, 2011
"Will America Let Us Shut Off Our Power System?
None Dare Call It Treason ..
but this guy does.
Alex Jones Calls Out Obama for Treason Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
I don't know who this "Alex Jones" guy is, or whether or not his premise is Legitimate. I have "issues" when someone accuses the President of the United States of America of being a "traitor" (or more commonly, here, of being guilty of "Treason")
I'm not as sure as this commentator seems to be that President Obama is a "traitor",. although I admit that I'm uncomfortable with some of his policies. Okay, several of his policies.
The full quote from Ovid is:
Let us get back to the comments presented currently by Alex Jones.
I don't know who this man is. I've never heard of him before, and I have no idea whether I'm inclined to accept his arguments or not.
KEYWORDS:
Also, that the concepts --- if enacted in this country --- would have a negative influence on the wealth of THIS nation (America), while providing a positive economic advantage to "other nations (China is the first country which springs to mind).
So if it is true that President Obama has taken an official, enforceable stance against Coal Powered Electricity Power Plants in America, then yes; I do believe that this "unilateral" national policy, which imposes no similar limits on the "carbon emissions" of other countries, may truly and unilaterally undermine our national "power wealth". This is by definition without requiring other power-using nations, such as China, to reciprocate.
And that serves only the singular purpose to impose expensive limitations on America, with no attempt to impose similar limitations on our competitors, which would at least providing a balancing influence.
That is to say ... if we are obliged to limit our power generation under a given set of circumstances, should noit our competitors be obliged to limit their power generation under the same circumstances?
this affects our national wealth, our national well-being, and our ability to compete on the world market.
I am very curious as to why our national leadership would agree to such egregious limitations when our "partners" are not required to agree to similar, if not identical, limitations
but this guy does.
Alex Jones Calls Out Obama for Treason Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
I don't know who this "Alex Jones" guy is, or whether or not his premise is Legitimate. I have "issues" when someone accuses the President of the United States of America of being a "traitor" (or more commonly, here, of being guilty of "Treason")
I'm not as sure as this commentator seems to be that President Obama is a "traitor",. although I admit that I'm uncomfortable with some of his policies. Okay, several of his policies.
The full quote from Ovid is:
Treason doth never prosper:These are my thoughts on Treason.
what's the reason?
Why if it prosper,
none dare call it treason.
Let us get back to the comments presented currently by Alex Jones.
I don't know who this man is. I've never heard of him before, and I have no idea whether I'm inclined to accept his arguments or not.
KEYWORDS:
- Kyoto Protocol
- Carbon Taxes
- Cap and Trade
Also, that the concepts --- if enacted in this country --- would have a negative influence on the wealth of THIS nation (America), while providing a positive economic advantage to "other nations (China is the first country which springs to mind).
So if it is true that President Obama has taken an official, enforceable stance against Coal Powered Electricity Power Plants in America, then yes; I do believe that this "unilateral" national policy, which imposes no similar limits on the "carbon emissions" of other countries, may truly and unilaterally undermine our national "power wealth". This is by definition without requiring other power-using nations, such as China, to reciprocate.
And that serves only the singular purpose to impose expensive limitations on America, with no attempt to impose similar limitations on our competitors, which would at least providing a balancing influence.
That is to say ... if we are obliged to limit our power generation under a given set of circumstances, should noit our competitors be obliged to limit their power generation under the same circumstances?
this affects our national wealth, our national well-being, and our ability to compete on the world market.
I am very curious as to why our national leadership would agree to such egregious limitations when our "partners" are not required to agree to similar, if not identical, limitations
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Teaching and Shooting: It's All Good
To my great surprise, I discovered today that teaching an "Introduction to USPSA" class is a great way to get some range time.
My training technique is "Tell, Show, Shoot" approach.
In fact, the mantra (is there is one) is that "the fastest shooter doesn't necessarily win the stage".
And the apotheosis is :
Q: what is the most common mistake mistake made by new shooters?
A: Shooting too fast.
In fact, the fastest shooter sometimes DOES win the stage, but that's only true when the "fastest shooter" in only quick, but accurate. And experienced.
But that doesn't really deliver the message, so for "new shooters" we emphasize Accuracy.
And we tell them that "speed will come ... when you someday discover that you can shoot as accurately at a higher speed".
It's true, but for 99% of us, it's not true. The exceptions do NOT prove the rule; rather, they are a distraction for those of us who must work to achieve proficiency. So we don't teach it: we teach accuracy, and if every shot isn't an "A-Zone" hit, we reinforce that by saying "Shooting To Fast ... Slow Down!"
---
Running a class is a wonderful way for us to get a Reality Check on our own skill set. We tend to think that we are so experienced that we can do no wrong, but in truth that is is bogus thinking. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to dial it down to whatever percent (80%? 50%?) and let the hits fall where they may. Or misses ... if nothing else, it may prove that the best purpose we serve as Instructors is to provide a bad example. There's nothing like standing in front of a class of earger students, and admitting that you missed the freaking target.
Reality check? No, it's a valid test of their ability to score a target which includes a miss. If you have taught the class right, the students do not miss the target. Sometimes, your (*my?*) own fallibility is the best training tool available.
If you are a trainer, it may be a very useful technique to demonstrate that experienced shooters can get caught up in the excitement of the moment, and ... "Shoot Too Fast".
----
It has been a while since ARPC (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club) has been able to conduct an "Introduction to USPSA" class. But with the improved weather and the uncommon fair weather we have experienced as a consequence of the "Global Warming" phenomenon, several (six) people chose February in Oregon as a good time to take the class and learn what they need to know before beginning IPSC competition.
We have a training manual (online) which is down loadable in Oregon. Not everyone chose the option of going through the manual, and completing the exercises before the class. Fortunately, the gun-handling skills of the attendees was excellent, on the average, and there were no problems in the class.
People who shoot in competition ... or want to do so ... tend to be (if I can make an observation) intelligent, responsible and competent, so we had NO problems during the training. I was pleased that everyone who attended was able to focus on competition issues, and not on basic gun-handling skills. Or, in other words, nobody screwed up to the degree which would have required me to flunk them from the class.
We got through the one hour of classroom instruction okay, and the surprises of actually going through the live-fire drills was decidedly more rewarding than problematic. As I had no demonstrator, I was "forced" to act as the demonstrator myself; this solved the problem of "describe, SHOW and experience" and also served to allow me some "Range Time" of my own.
The thing is, I shoot in competition because I love to shoot. And everyone in the class demonstrated their own personal devotion to "Let's Go Shoot Some Cardboard".
At the end of day ... okay, I'm not going to say that everyone had shot enough to satisf them, but we had a lot of fun and everyone shot safely. What else are we here for?
My training technique is "Tell, Show, Shoot" approach.
- First I tell the students what they will be doing on each stage of the Life Fire Excercises;
- Then I show them what it lo0ks like ( in slow-time, preferably, so they can see what is happening"
- Then the each come up to The Line and emulate what they have had described, and what they have seen.
In fact, the mantra (is there is one) is that "the fastest shooter doesn't necessarily win the stage".
And the apotheosis is :
Q: what is the most common mistake mistake made by new shooters?
A: Shooting too fast.
In fact, the fastest shooter sometimes DOES win the stage, but that's only true when the "fastest shooter" in only quick, but accurate. And experienced.
But that doesn't really deliver the message, so for "new shooters" we emphasize Accuracy.
And we tell them that "speed will come ... when you someday discover that you can shoot as accurately at a higher speed".
It's true, but for 99% of us, it's not true. The exceptions do NOT prove the rule; rather, they are a distraction for those of us who must work to achieve proficiency. So we don't teach it: we teach accuracy, and if every shot isn't an "A-Zone" hit, we reinforce that by saying "Shooting To Fast ... Slow Down!"
---
Running a class is a wonderful way for us to get a Reality Check on our own skill set. We tend to think that we are so experienced that we can do no wrong, but in truth that is is bogus thinking. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to dial it down to whatever percent (80%? 50%?) and let the hits fall where they may. Or misses ... if nothing else, it may prove that the best purpose we serve as Instructors is to provide a bad example. There's nothing like standing in front of a class of earger students, and admitting that you missed the freaking target.
Reality check? No, it's a valid test of their ability to score a target which includes a miss. If you have taught the class right, the students do not miss the target. Sometimes, your (*my?*) own fallibility is the best training tool available.
If you are a trainer, it may be a very useful technique to demonstrate that experienced shooters can get caught up in the excitement of the moment, and ... "Shoot Too Fast".
----
It has been a while since ARPC (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club) has been able to conduct an "Introduction to USPSA" class. But with the improved weather and the uncommon fair weather we have experienced as a consequence of the "Global Warming" phenomenon, several (six) people chose February in Oregon as a good time to take the class and learn what they need to know before beginning IPSC competition.
We have a training manual (online) which is down loadable in Oregon. Not everyone chose the option of going through the manual, and completing the exercises before the class. Fortunately, the gun-handling skills of the attendees was excellent, on the average, and there were no problems in the class.
People who shoot in competition ... or want to do so ... tend to be (if I can make an observation) intelligent, responsible and competent, so we had NO problems during the training. I was pleased that everyone who attended was able to focus on competition issues, and not on basic gun-handling skills. Or, in other words, nobody screwed up to the degree which would have required me to flunk them from the class.
We got through the one hour of classroom instruction okay, and the surprises of actually going through the live-fire drills was decidedly more rewarding than problematic. As I had no demonstrator, I was "forced" to act as the demonstrator myself; this solved the problem of "describe, SHOW and experience" and also served to allow me some "Range Time" of my own.
The thing is, I shoot in competition because I love to shoot. And everyone in the class demonstrated their own personal devotion to "Let's Go Shoot Some Cardboard".
At the end of day ... okay, I'm not going to say that everyone had shot enough to satisf them, but we had a lot of fun and everyone shot safely. What else are we here for?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
BATFE Letter re: SBR and SBS
From today's post from the Michael Bane Blog, I gather that the BATFE definition of SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) and SBS (Short Barreled Shotgun) is in some transitory mode, and we may expect some kind of redifinition. Reference:
iThe Michael Bane Blog: Is It Monday Yet?
I don't understand it (and I will spend the next 5,000 words explaining all the ways and reason I don't understand it), and although Bane seems to count it as contemporary and as urgent as Representative Carolyn McCarthy's newest bill to re-invent the Assault Weapons Bill (ASW) ban on "High Capacity Magazines" (magazines capable of holding over ten rounds of ammunition), I think this is not only severely dated, but also not likely to affect as many people.
For background, Bane first mentioned this Sunday and added more [although not enough] background later.
(I may have got these two links confused ... there should be 2 links, but they are both dated Sunday, January 23, 2011; the first is "Home Again, Home Again", and the second is "Republicans Won't go To The Wall". I'm not sure the sequence is important, but they seem to be progressively 'more informative'.)
SUMMARY:
there seems to be a letter (or a "Newsletter") from BATFE defining "Short Barreled Rifles ("SBRs") and "Short Barreled Shotguns" ("SBS"s). The are presented as FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) and although they may seem obvious at the start, they become confusing as more technically oriented questions are applied to them. Generally, they address the question of when shorter or longer barrels and/or stocks are replaced on a rifle or shotgun.
The confusion addresses when a long barrel is replaced by a short barrel; a long stock is replaced by a short stock (pistol-grip stock); or vice-versa ... in regards to whether they may be transferred to a third party. And believe me, that is oversimplifying the issue, when you add the question as to whether and when the receiver (the part with the serial number, which is all BATFE knows about the firearm) is transferred.
HISTORY:
I've done some research on the internet, and surprisingly the question seems to be based on an inquiry from a private person to BATFE asking about the regulations and restrictions on a "Short Barreled Rifle"; the BATFE response to which is dated January 11, 2008. (I was unable to find a copy of the original letter, but the ATF response provides sufficient information to provide the gist of the discussion.)
This response was 'officially codified' (and I'm making assumptions here) by the BATFE NEWSLETTER dated November of 2009, especially in the section headed : "Pistol Grips and Shotguns".
This information is apparently 'clarified' in a FAQ from the BATFE (presented here with the appropriate questions in detail .. link from Bane Blog). This is part of the section titled:
I fail to see how this question is timely (the question originated in 2008, was answered in 2009, and may have been added to the BATFE website in either 2009 or 2010.).
I also don't perceive this to be a question the importance of which is on a comparable scale with McCarthy's attempt to re-impose capacity-limits to magazines.
But Michael Bane found it sufficiently interesting, and sufficiently important, and sufficiently timely, to write about it in three consecutive blog-posts, and to link it to the McCarthy bill.
I concede that Michael Bane's finger on the pulse of Second Amendment issues is more sensitive than mine, so I can only conclude that he has identified a nuance which is beyond my perception; at least, in regards to the importance and timeliness of the issues. Unfortunately, either he failed to make it clear in his short posts, or I am just too naive to appreciate the issues.
CONCLUSIONS:
If I've mis-interpreted the situation sufficiently to confuse you, I apologize. This looks like a minor issue at least; perhaps even a non-issue. It may happen that in the ensuing days there will appear more facts to make it clear to even the most dense blogger that this is .. in the words of our Wonderful Vice President Joe Boden "A Really F**king Big Deal!"
Or it may not.
I'll reserve judgment until more facts and consequences become obvious. I suggest you do the same, and keep track of it on the Bane Blog (as I will).
If it turns out to be something you may need to write to your congressperson about, I'll let you know. But don't count on me: heck, I have initially categorized the question as "See how badly BATFE can manage to regulate firearms to poorly that even the experts don't know what they're saying!"
DEEP BACKGROUND:
See Shotgun World from 2006: "How to legally build a Short Barreled Shotgun (SBS)".
(See also the January, 2010 newsletter from Firearms Law group.)
_____________________________________
UPDATE: 25-JAN-2011
New news from the folks at Taurus vie the Michael Bane Blog: "Never mind"
iThe Michael Bane Blog: Is It Monday Yet?
I don't understand it (and I will spend the next 5,000 words explaining all the ways and reason I don't understand it), and although Bane seems to count it as contemporary and as urgent as Representative Carolyn McCarthy's newest bill to re-invent the Assault Weapons Bill (ASW) ban on "High Capacity Magazines" (magazines capable of holding over ten rounds of ammunition), I think this is not only severely dated, but also not likely to affect as many people.
For background, Bane first mentioned this Sunday and added more [although not enough] background later.
(I may have got these two links confused ... there should be 2 links, but they are both dated Sunday, January 23, 2011; the first is "Home Again, Home Again", and the second is "Republicans Won't go To The Wall". I'm not sure the sequence is important, but they seem to be progressively 'more informative'.)
SUMMARY:
there seems to be a letter (or a "Newsletter") from BATFE defining "Short Barreled Rifles ("SBRs") and "Short Barreled Shotguns" ("SBS"s). The are presented as FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) and although they may seem obvious at the start, they become confusing as more technically oriented questions are applied to them. Generally, they address the question of when shorter or longer barrels and/or stocks are replaced on a rifle or shotgun.
The confusion addresses when a long barrel is replaced by a short barrel; a long stock is replaced by a short stock (pistol-grip stock); or vice-versa ... in regards to whether they may be transferred to a third party. And believe me, that is oversimplifying the issue, when you add the question as to whether and when the receiver (the part with the serial number, which is all BATFE knows about the firearm) is transferred.
HISTORY:
I've done some research on the internet, and surprisingly the question seems to be based on an inquiry from a private person to BATFE asking about the regulations and restrictions on a "Short Barreled Rifle"; the BATFE response to which is dated January 11, 2008. (I was unable to find a copy of the original letter, but the ATF response provides sufficient information to provide the gist of the discussion.)
This response was 'officially codified' (and I'm making assumptions here) by the BATFE NEWSLETTER dated November of 2009, especially in the section headed : "Pistol Grips and Shotguns".
This information is apparently 'clarified' in a FAQ from the BATFE (presented here with the appropriate questions in detail .. link from Bane Blog). This is part of the section titled:
The following questions are related to an SBR or SBS which has had the barrel removed and is no longer subject to NFA transfer and possession regulations:DISCUSSION:
I fail to see how this question is timely (the question originated in 2008, was answered in 2009, and may have been added to the BATFE website in either 2009 or 2010.).
I also don't perceive this to be a question the importance of which is on a comparable scale with McCarthy's attempt to re-impose capacity-limits to magazines.
But Michael Bane found it sufficiently interesting, and sufficiently important, and sufficiently timely, to write about it in three consecutive blog-posts, and to link it to the McCarthy bill.
I concede that Michael Bane's finger on the pulse of Second Amendment issues is more sensitive than mine, so I can only conclude that he has identified a nuance which is beyond my perception; at least, in regards to the importance and timeliness of the issues. Unfortunately, either he failed to make it clear in his short posts, or I am just too naive to appreciate the issues.
CONCLUSIONS:
If I've mis-interpreted the situation sufficiently to confuse you, I apologize. This looks like a minor issue at least; perhaps even a non-issue. It may happen that in the ensuing days there will appear more facts to make it clear to even the most dense blogger that this is .. in the words of our Wonderful Vice President Joe Boden "A Really F**king Big Deal!"
Or it may not.
I'll reserve judgment until more facts and consequences become obvious. I suggest you do the same, and keep track of it on the Bane Blog (as I will).
If it turns out to be something you may need to write to your congressperson about, I'll let you know. But don't count on me: heck, I have initially categorized the question as "See how badly BATFE can manage to regulate firearms to poorly that even the experts don't know what they're saying!"
DEEP BACKGROUND:
See Shotgun World from 2006: "How to legally build a Short Barreled Shotgun (SBS)".
(See also the January, 2010 newsletter from Firearms Law group.)
_____________________________________
UPDATE: 25-JAN-2011
New news from the folks at Taurus vie the Michael Bane Blog: "Never mind"
Friday, January 21, 2011
I AM TJIC
The Smallest Minority: I AM TJIC
Am I really?
Well, I'm not sure.
Here's the back story:
A blogger from Massachusetts wrote an article titled "1 down, 534 to go" referring to last weekend's assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
It was ... egrigious. A clearly objectionable commentary on the ... would the word be "advisability"? ... of shooting politicians. One phrase stands out:
As a consequence, the local cops have seized his "arsenal" (11 guns .. that's not an arsenal, that's a dilettante), and have also "suspended his gun license". Well, it's Massachusetts, so you got to understand they think they can do this. If they require a "citizen" to apply for a license before owning a firearm, then they can suspend it ... with the added consequence that they confiscate all firearms. 'Well, the guy isn't licensed, so what can we do?' [Note: not a quote from any source referenced; I'm only imagining the rationale.]
Gee, this is bad stuff. How many laws has that doofus broken, anyway?
At last count: none.
Now, I don't claim that the guy has both oars in the water. What he said was stupid, and I don't agree with ANYTHING he said, assuming that all of the cited information is correct. Trouble is, the 'cited information' is second-hand at best, and probably 3rd or 4th hand. But let's assume that everything I've read is entirely factual, and also that it presents ALL of the 'facts' of the situation.
The guy said some stuff in a belligerent and bellicous manner, and it was WAY over the top.
Give that five exclamation points, just to emphasize that this is what I really, really really really REALLY think!!!!!
Let's go back to the number of laws he just broke.
None.
The thing is, there's this Constitutional issue.
See, the First Amendment wasn't written, and included among the FIRST RIGHTS of our country to protect speech that we all accept and agree with. It was included to protect speech that we don't like, that we don't agree with, and which we would rather not hear.
mmm .. I think that pretty much covers my own personal evaluation of the things this guy said, if I can believe the 2nd-hand information I have found.
Personally, I think these quotes are odious and egregious. Also, I think the man had every right to say them, and I am obliged by my belief in the righteousness of the Constitution of the United States to support his right to say them.
Wow! I can't believe I just said that. I would not invite this man into my home. I would not consider anyone who advocated the assassination of political officials a good choice as a 'friend'.
Let's briefly discuss the concept of "hate speech".
That's just stupid, trying to pass laws against words you use. Also, unconstitutional. This IS America, this IS a free country.
Okay, glad we got that out of the way.
How about this other thing? How about the "Arlington Police" confiscate his firearms?
That's a two-fer. One sentence, and these guys not only deny his First Amendment rights, but also his Second Amendment rights.
I know, it's Massachusetts ... they get to make the rules.
Actually, they don't.
I understand their concerns, the cops. There's already been one very high-profile attack on a Congressperson, and this guy is saying "Hey, that's okay!" I don't blame the police for being reluctant to NOT act on such an obvious threat.
mmm ... maybe it's not that obviously a threat. Maybe it is. Maybe the guy is another nutter, maybe he's just a jerk.
Probably the guy isn't going to go shoot anybody, no matter what he says. But I've seen the movie "Minority Report", and I know what's what.
Which is to say, that was a movie. A made-up story. We can't know what is the inevitable conclusion of "words".
Do I think the guy is a danger to some un-named politician? Is he going to turn into a sniper?
No, I don't think that. But I don't know for sure; and if I was a cop I would probably be inclined to err on the side of caution. But I'm not a cop, and it's not my job to evaluate the circumstances and maybe decide that it's a lot safer to take the guys guns away until we can sort this thing out.
Would I be wrong?
Maybe I would.
What do you think?
This is a very grey area, and I have not taken the job of policeman (or judge) because I don't think I can sort these things out and make the right decision .. .because right now I don't know what the right decision is.
What I DO know is the first two amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that says:
Am I really?
Well, I'm not sure.
Here's the back story:
A blogger from Massachusetts wrote an article titled "1 down, 534 to go" referring to last weekend's assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
It was ... egrigious. A clearly objectionable commentary on the ... would the word be "advisability"? ... of shooting politicians. One phrase stands out:
"It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot 'indiscriminately'. Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone."Let's come back to this later.
As a consequence, the local cops have seized his "arsenal" (11 guns .. that's not an arsenal, that's a dilettante), and have also "suspended his gun license". Well, it's Massachusetts, so you got to understand they think they can do this. If they require a "citizen" to apply for a license before owning a firearm, then they can suspend it ... with the added consequence that they confiscate all firearms. 'Well, the guy isn't licensed, so what can we do?' [Note: not a quote from any source referenced; I'm only imagining the rationale.]
Gee, this is bad stuff. How many laws has that doofus broken, anyway?
At last count: none.
Now, I don't claim that the guy has both oars in the water. What he said was stupid, and I don't agree with ANYTHING he said, assuming that all of the cited information is correct. Trouble is, the 'cited information' is second-hand at best, and probably 3rd or 4th hand. But let's assume that everything I've read is entirely factual, and also that it presents ALL of the 'facts' of the situation.
The guy said some stuff in a belligerent and bellicous manner, and it was WAY over the top.
Give that five exclamation points, just to emphasize that this is what I really, really really really REALLY think!!!!!
Let's go back to the number of laws he just broke.
None.
The thing is, there's this Constitutional issue.
[emphasis added]Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
See, the First Amendment wasn't written, and included among the FIRST RIGHTS of our country to protect speech that we all accept and agree with. It was included to protect speech that we don't like, that we don't agree with, and which we would rather not hear.
mmm .. I think that pretty much covers my own personal evaluation of the things this guy said, if I can believe the 2nd-hand information I have found.
Personally, I think these quotes are odious and egregious. Also, I think the man had every right to say them, and I am obliged by my belief in the righteousness of the Constitution of the United States to support his right to say them.
Wow! I can't believe I just said that. I would not invite this man into my home. I would not consider anyone who advocated the assassination of political officials a good choice as a 'friend'.
Let's briefly discuss the concept of "hate speech".
That's just stupid, trying to pass laws against words you use. Also, unconstitutional. This IS America, this IS a free country.
Okay, glad we got that out of the way.
How about this other thing? How about the "Arlington Police" confiscate his firearms?
Wow again!Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That's a two-fer. One sentence, and these guys not only deny his First Amendment rights, but also his Second Amendment rights.
I know, it's Massachusetts ... they get to make the rules.
Actually, they don't.
I understand their concerns, the cops. There's already been one very high-profile attack on a Congressperson, and this guy is saying "Hey, that's okay!" I don't blame the police for being reluctant to NOT act on such an obvious threat.
mmm ... maybe it's not that obviously a threat. Maybe it is. Maybe the guy is another nutter, maybe he's just a jerk.
Probably the guy isn't going to go shoot anybody, no matter what he says. But I've seen the movie "Minority Report", and I know what's what.
Which is to say, that was a movie. A made-up story. We can't know what is the inevitable conclusion of "words".
Do I think the guy is a danger to some un-named politician? Is he going to turn into a sniper?
No, I don't think that. But I don't know for sure; and if I was a cop I would probably be inclined to err on the side of caution. But I'm not a cop, and it's not my job to evaluate the circumstances and maybe decide that it's a lot safer to take the guys guns away until we can sort this thing out.
Would I be wrong?
Maybe I would.
What do you think?
This is a very grey area, and I have not taken the job of policeman (or judge) because I don't think I can sort these things out and make the right decision .. .because right now I don't know what the right decision is.
What I DO know is the first two amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that says:
- I can't shut him up
- I can't take his guns
Thursday, January 20, 2011
NYPD actually 'buys back' missing gun stolen from 103rd Precinct locker
NYPD actually 'buys back' missing gun stolen from 103rd Precinct locker:
While I'm extremely supportive of Law Enforcement Officers (my son is one, albeit in the Nave as a Master At Arms), I'm dubious about the level of maturity this incident demonstrates.
Cops are all about "To Serve ... And To Protect". Right? Also, they are held to a higher standard, because in any society they may be the "only ones" who are authorized to carry firearms on a daily basis, with the expectation that they will use these firearms only to protect us ... the disarmed citizens. (This is especially true in NYC, because we all know that the average citizen is not allowed to possess/carry firearms for self-protection; that's what we have the cops for, right?
The story is that a commander and his driver locked their firearms in a 'gun vault' at the precinct house, and when the went back to retrieve them the guns were gone. Best guess: cops in the cop-house broke into the lockers and stole them.
To make matters worse, later a 'citizen" turned in a gun at the front desk as part in the "don't ask/don't tell" gun program, and only later was that gun determined (by checking the serial number) to be one of the guns stolen from the cops.
Now the NYPD have experienced a clueless moment, and there is no way to follow the non-existent audit trail.
What kind of bullshit is this? Cops vs Cops? Is this Candid Camera, or "Spy vs Spy" a la Mad Magazine?
The punch line is, NYPD has (through no efforts on their own) "found" the pistol belonging to the commander.
They still have no idea what happened to the pistol belonging to the commander's driver.
Hey, the state with the "Sullivan Law" needs to be more pro-active. Or less, whatever it takes.
But you for damn sure need to keep track of your own people.
Somebody must go down for this. And it won't be the Commander or his driver, because so far it appears that they are The Only Ones who followed procedures.
"A gun swiped from a police lieutenant's locker - sparking a probe into whether it was an inside job by disgruntled officers - was sold to an NYPD buyback program for $100."Well, that's pretty exciting.
While I'm extremely supportive of Law Enforcement Officers (my son is one, albeit in the Nave as a Master At Arms), I'm dubious about the level of maturity this incident demonstrates.
Cops are all about "To Serve ... And To Protect". Right? Also, they are held to a higher standard, because in any society they may be the "only ones" who are authorized to carry firearms on a daily basis, with the expectation that they will use these firearms only to protect us ... the disarmed citizens. (This is especially true in NYC, because we all know that the average citizen is not allowed to possess/carry firearms for self-protection; that's what we have the cops for, right?
The story is that a commander and his driver locked their firearms in a 'gun vault' at the precinct house, and when the went back to retrieve them the guns were gone. Best guess: cops in the cop-house broke into the lockers and stole them.
To make matters worse, later a 'citizen" turned in a gun at the front desk as part in the "don't ask/don't tell" gun program, and only later was that gun determined (by checking the serial number) to be one of the guns stolen from the cops.
Now the NYPD have experienced a clueless moment, and there is no way to follow the non-existent audit trail.
What kind of bullshit is this? Cops vs Cops? Is this Candid Camera, or "Spy vs Spy" a la Mad Magazine?
The punch line is, NYPD has (through no efforts on their own) "found" the pistol belonging to the commander.
They still have no idea what happened to the pistol belonging to the commander's driver.
Hey, the state with the "Sullivan Law" needs to be more pro-active. Or less, whatever it takes.
But you for damn sure need to keep track of your own people.
Somebody must go down for this. And it won't be the Commander or his driver, because so far it appears that they are The Only Ones who followed procedures.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Retirement
Today I submitted to my manager a Letter of Intent. I will retire in 90 days.
My original plan was to work for one more year, if only because the Social Security benefits are significantly higher. My pension won't be "fully vested" for another 15 years, and there's no way that I'm going to work that long ... nor would anyone in their right mind allow me to. But I thought that with the "reduced pension", and another year of contribution (from both myself and my employer), the total would allow me to continue to live in the life-style to which I have become accustomed. Although, I probably won't be spending $50 a month at the local Used Book Store, as is my current habit.
This plan, however, is a non-starter.
The past two years have been difficult. Sandie's extended illness has been emotionally, as well as physically, draining. I have watched her bowing her head, and I have crumbled at the sight like the wall on an old adobe building under severe weather.
Stress, depression, all have taken their toll. I've experienced several health issues .. my doctor has reluctantly attributed them all to stress.
These have had consequences. I've missed a lot of work, partly because of time I've felt that being available to help She were somehow more important than the mundane day-to-day duties of working for a living. Other times because I was sick ... more often because I was discouraged and heart-sick.
In the meantime, my IS department has changed the way they do business, entirely. New applications, new operating system, new scheduling system, new computers ... everything is new. My colleagues who show up every day take the classes, get the experience, and charge on. I, on the other hand,was either unavailable or ... was unavailable.
It's a new and vibrant working environment. I got behind, and didn't catch up.
After Sandie's death, after I took 5 weeks off on "Compassionate Leave" (but unpaid), I was behind on the few projects I had left. And looking at them last week, I realized that they required technical skills that I just didn't have.
Frankly, I didn't much care. And that bothered me.
I have been working since I was old enough to push a lawn mower ... which I did starting about age 12. I worked for people in the neighborhood who left on vacation, and hired me to cut their lawns and water. I got a job with a real estate agent doing this for a few properties during my 14th summer.
I worked summers in the wheat harvest, in the pea harvest (Did you know that Umatilla County grows 25% of the peas produced in the United States? It's a family thing: my mother use to work summers in the pea-cannery in Pendleton, Oregon. After that time, she never ate another pea; after my two summers, neither did I.)
For a couple of years, I worked after school and Summers for two years at a Caterpillar Tractor parts house.
Minimum wage jobs, all, but I needed to find something that paid more before I started college.
My parents couldn't afford college tuition, but they could co-sign a Student Loan for me.
When I turned 18, I spent summers working in the Wood Products Industry. I did the jobs nobody else wanted to do, and the summer when I was 18 I worked swing shift at a "Unfinished Furniture" factory in a small town new where I lived.
Then I started college, first at Eastern Oregon college in LaGrande, later at Oregon State University in Corvallis.
My brother-in-law worked for the National Biscuit Company ("Nabisco" .. makers of saltines, snack crackers, etc.) He got me a summer-relief job taking over routes for salesmen in the Willamette Valley area. I spent a couple of summers doing that.
After graduation, I got married, and six days later reported for induction to the U.S. Army. I spent two years at that, with a starting wage of $102/month. One year in training, one year in Viet Nam as a Staff Sgt (E-6).
In 1970 I left the army, took a 6-month in Computer Programming (COBOL, BASIC, RPG) and somehow found a job as a courier for a Computer Service Bureau in Oakland, California. Started at the bottom (at $405/month); and shortly after I had worked my way up to a Programmer job, I moved with my wife to Portland, Oregon, where I had found a programmer job with Freightliner, Corporation at the grand salary of $1,000+/month.
I worked there for a while ... 14 years. Finally was RIFFED in 1994. Started (and failed at) a Contract Programmer business, but somehow got a 4 month contract with Oregon State University. Completed that successfully, then was later hired by OSU for a "real" (full employment) job based at least partly on the successful completion of my earlier contract. And there I have remained for 14 years, 11 months.
Sounds just like a resume', doesn't it? And in a way it is, because I have no other way to talk about the concept that I have worked all my life, for over 50 years, and now I have voluntarily determined that the best thing for me is to NOT continue working.
I have no idea what I'm going to do with my time. I've worked my whole life; I have no experience with not-working. I am not qualified for the non-job.
My best guess is that I will let myself go, as Liza Minelli said in the song. Then I'll get myself back together and find other things to do.
The Japanese (or is it the Chinese?) have a cultural history, I am told, of a man working productively until it is time for him to stop, then giving away his property and becoming a Budhist Monk; wandering the land with his begger-bowl and saffron robe, searching for rice and enlightenment.
I don't guess I'm going to do that. Although I admit I am curious where I will find either rice, or enlightenment.
Or I may end up living under a bridge with the hobos. I hope not. That has been a long-standing joke between myself and a co-worker. It seems less funny now, but really I hope that I can dig deep into the resources of my soul and find something worthwhile to do.
In the final analysis, it's an exciting new chapter in my life. I've always accumulated "things" (usually books). Now I have the opportunity to restructure my life, my self-image (which has been sorely wounded by my realization that I am no longer productive. and need to opt out of the sense of being a "contributor" which has characterized my day-to-day life for over 50 years).
I can be whomever and whatever I want ... within certain restrictions, which I wonder how to define, let alone accommodate.
The situation also offers opportunities.
I have long regretted that I am unable to spend time with my grandchildren, who live with their parents (my children) 1500 miles away in San Diego. Can I move to California (which state I dislike intensely because of the politics there, but not really not all that different from Oregon)? Is it worth it to me? Can I be a positive influence on them, when I missed most of my children's development because of divorce when they were very young?
Or am I merely indulging myself in a certain degree of Angst, because I have to do something that I have never done before?
I don't know the answers to these, and many other questions which occur to me just now. It's all new to me.
Isn't that exciting?
I can't wait to see what happens next in my life.
My original plan was to work for one more year, if only because the Social Security benefits are significantly higher. My pension won't be "fully vested" for another 15 years, and there's no way that I'm going to work that long ... nor would anyone in their right mind allow me to. But I thought that with the "reduced pension", and another year of contribution (from both myself and my employer), the total would allow me to continue to live in the life-style to which I have become accustomed. Although, I probably won't be spending $50 a month at the local Used Book Store, as is my current habit.
This plan, however, is a non-starter.
The past two years have been difficult. Sandie's extended illness has been emotionally, as well as physically, draining. I have watched her bowing her head, and I have crumbled at the sight like the wall on an old adobe building under severe weather.
Stress, depression, all have taken their toll. I've experienced several health issues .. my doctor has reluctantly attributed them all to stress.
These have had consequences. I've missed a lot of work, partly because of time I've felt that being available to help She were somehow more important than the mundane day-to-day duties of working for a living. Other times because I was sick ... more often because I was discouraged and heart-sick.
In the meantime, my IS department has changed the way they do business, entirely. New applications, new operating system, new scheduling system, new computers ... everything is new. My colleagues who show up every day take the classes, get the experience, and charge on. I, on the other hand,
It's a new and vibrant working environment. I got behind, and didn't catch up.
After Sandie's death, after I took 5 weeks off on "Compassionate Leave" (but unpaid), I was behind on the few projects I had left. And looking at them last week, I realized that they required technical skills that I just didn't have.
Frankly, I didn't much care. And that bothered me.
I have been working since I was old enough to push a lawn mower ... which I did starting about age 12. I worked for people in the neighborhood who left on vacation, and hired me to cut their lawns and water. I got a job with a real estate agent doing this for a few properties during my 14th summer.
I worked summers in the wheat harvest, in the pea harvest (Did you know that Umatilla County grows 25% of the peas produced in the United States? It's a family thing: my mother use to work summers in the pea-cannery in Pendleton, Oregon. After that time, she never ate another pea; after my two summers, neither did I.)
For a couple of years, I worked after school and Summers for two years at a Caterpillar Tractor parts house.
Minimum wage jobs, all, but I needed to find something that paid more before I started college.
My parents couldn't afford college tuition, but they could co-sign a Student Loan for me.
When I turned 18, I spent summers working in the Wood Products Industry. I did the jobs nobody else wanted to do, and the summer when I was 18 I worked swing shift at a "Unfinished Furniture" factory in a small town new where I lived.
Then I started college, first at Eastern Oregon college in LaGrande, later at Oregon State University in Corvallis.
My brother-in-law worked for the National Biscuit Company ("Nabisco" .. makers of saltines, snack crackers, etc.) He got me a summer-relief job taking over routes for salesmen in the Willamette Valley area. I spent a couple of summers doing that.
After graduation, I got married, and six days later reported for induction to the U.S. Army. I spent two years at that, with a starting wage of $102/month. One year in training, one year in Viet Nam as a Staff Sgt (E-6).
In 1970 I left the army, took a 6-month in Computer Programming (COBOL, BASIC, RPG) and somehow found a job as a courier for a Computer Service Bureau in Oakland, California. Started at the bottom (at $405/month); and shortly after I had worked my way up to a Programmer job, I moved with my wife to Portland, Oregon, where I had found a programmer job with Freightliner, Corporation at the grand salary of $1,000+/month.
I worked there for a while ... 14 years. Finally was RIFFED in 1994. Started (and failed at) a Contract Programmer business, but somehow got a 4 month contract with Oregon State University. Completed that successfully, then was later hired by OSU for a "real" (full employment) job based at least partly on the successful completion of my earlier contract. And there I have remained for 14 years, 11 months.
Sounds just like a resume', doesn't it? And in a way it is, because I have no other way to talk about the concept that I have worked all my life, for over 50 years, and now I have voluntarily determined that the best thing for me is to NOT continue working.
I have no idea what I'm going to do with my time. I've worked my whole life; I have no experience with not-working. I am not qualified for the non-job.
My best guess is that I will let myself go, as Liza Minelli said in the song. Then I'll get myself back together and find other things to do.
The Japanese (or is it the Chinese?) have a cultural history, I am told, of a man working productively until it is time for him to stop, then giving away his property and becoming a Budhist Monk; wandering the land with his begger-bowl and saffron robe, searching for rice and enlightenment.
I don't guess I'm going to do that. Although I admit I am curious where I will find either rice, or enlightenment.
Or I may end up living under a bridge with the hobos. I hope not. That has been a long-standing joke between myself and a co-worker. It seems less funny now, but really I hope that I can dig deep into the resources of my soul and find something worthwhile to do.
In the final analysis, it's an exciting new chapter in my life. I've always accumulated "things" (usually books). Now I have the opportunity to restructure my life, my self-image (which has been sorely wounded by my realization that I am no longer productive. and need to opt out of the sense of being a "contributor" which has characterized my day-to-day life for over 50 years).
I can be whomever and whatever I want ... within certain restrictions, which I wonder how to define, let alone accommodate.
The situation also offers opportunities.
I have long regretted that I am unable to spend time with my grandchildren, who live with their parents (my children) 1500 miles away in San Diego. Can I move to California (which state I dislike intensely because of the politics there, but not really not all that different from Oregon)? Is it worth it to me? Can I be a positive influence on them, when I missed most of my children's development because of divorce when they were very young?
Or am I merely indulging myself in a certain degree of Angst, because I have to do something that I have never done before?
I don't know the answers to these, and many other questions which occur to me just now. It's all new to me.
Isn't that exciting?
I can't wait to see what happens next in my life.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
NPR is Involved, Civilization is Doomed!
From The Smallest Minority (re: Snowflakes in Hell), I note this NPR interview with Paul Henke ("The Brady Bunch"); Robert Levy (co-counsel in Heller); Tracee Larson, an 'undercover agent' of the deliberately misnamed "American Hunters and Shooters Association" (new blogger with two blogs on her website, both in the past week); and Representative Carolyn McCarthy .. who plans to introduce new legislation restricting magazine capacity as per the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban.
The 33-Bullet Magazine: How Much Firepower is Too Much? | WBUR and NPR - On Point with Tom Ashbrook
[This is a 47 minute audio file, and there is no video ... or transcript ... currently available that I can find.]
Hemke is the pivotal interviewee, and he presents the basic themes of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
Robert Levy gets about a half-minute to state his basic position, which passes without comment.
McCarthy presents her bill.
But the majority of the interview time is spent with Tracee Larson, who purportedly speaks as an advocate of the Second Amendment. Just a quick quotes-snatch of her comments in the first 23 minutes of the interview serves to demonstrate her political position vis a vis the Second Amendment ... which is quite different from that of people who regularly enjoy their rights and comment in the various milieu:
Tracee re: the Glock gun used in the shooting: "It has a lot of power, it has a lot of kickback .. it's not easily concealed".
Host to Tracee: "You're a Gun Rights Advocate" ... "Are you familiar with those high-capacity magazines ... have you seen them?"
Tracee*: "Yes I have. I've seen them at various gun-shoots that I've attended. It's pretty heavy... it's not somthing that I see for the home-user personal protection. ... It does have a lot of power, it has a lot of kick-back ... it does have a lot of power."
*(Some confusion whether she is discussing the Glock, or the "high-capacity magazine". In the context of the interview, it seems as if she is discussing the magazine capacity, rather than the pistol or the caliber of the pistol..)
Host: "How do you look at it, Tracee?"
Tracee: " My personal perspective, as a gun owner and someone who does support the Second Amendment; I don't see the Congresswoman's amendment ... I don't see it preventing a person from legally owning a gun. it's not taking away my rights to bear arms. ... I would see it as a sensible step in ... having rightful and sensible gun ownership."
(Compares "high capacity magazines" with "Suppressors" The host immediately interrupts her and, in an alarmed tone says: "Suppressors, you mean Silencers!")
Tracee: "I don't see that the Congresswoman's bill preventing a legal able person from owning a gun. It doesn't take away from my right to bear arms. It didn't take away my right to own a gun [the AWB ban] then, and ... it won't now. I look on it as a sensible step in having rightful and sensible gun ownership."
Speaking of suppressors: Tracee Says:
That's a quick gallop-through of the first half of the interview, with special attention to the opinions of "Tracee", who represents herself as a "second amendment advocate".
Salient points are that Tracee is give the most air-time of any of the interviewees, and her opinions are consistantly that proposed (by Rep. McCarthy): legislation would not impose a hardship on gun-owners, and are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.
Which is not, perhaps, consistent with the phrase " ... shall not be infringed ...". But then, if you really don't care about the rights of firearms owners, that is not an issue which needs to be addressed.
One more thing.
In the 2nd half, after asking about the NRA opposition to McCarthy's proposed bill, the host asks Representative McCarthy:
"Do you feel safe, championing this as an American congresswoman today?"
McCarthy, of course, answers that she does.
The question, though, is insulting to American firearms owners. The implication is that an American Congresswoman cannot safely propose a bill which might restrict full interpretation of the Second Amendment. Or in other words, it implies that firearms owners are so intrinsically unbalanced that nobody can challenge the Constitution without personal risk.
Assuming that I did not already find National Public Radio an egregious outlook on American sensibilities ... I would now. How can anyone imply such a despicable view of honest Americans? Well, NPR obviously feels free to ask even the most despicable questions ... which in itself implies that they "feel safe".
(McCarthy's answer is : "Yes", but as soon as she attempts to expand on her comments the Host says: "We're out of time" and goes to commercial.)
Perhaps that answers the question.
COMMENTS:
But however warped the NPR perspective, perhaps it is even more telling that the comments the interview invites reveal an America which is fraught with fear, misinformation and Liberal Suggestion.
The online comments (embedded in the interview audio) are interesting, including as they do some input from firearms advocates .. which are typically dismissed by the host.
But the online comments on the website are extremely telling.
The first comment:
However, saying that "... gun control and magazine control is [sic] not the issue here ..." seems disingenuous at first, but perhaps the commenter is correct, although not the way he probably intended that casually proposed statement to be interpreted.
This really isn't about "guns", or "Magazines". This is about Control.
The second comment:
The Third Comment:
The 33-Bullet Magazine: How Much Firepower is Too Much? | WBUR and NPR - On Point with Tom Ashbrook
[This is a 47 minute audio file, and there is no video ... or transcript ... currently available that I can find.]
Hemke is the pivotal interviewee, and he presents the basic themes of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
Robert Levy gets about a half-minute to state his basic position, which passes without comment.
McCarthy presents her bill.
But the majority of the interview time is spent with Tracee Larson, who purportedly speaks as an advocate of the Second Amendment. Just a quick quotes-snatch of her comments in the first 23 minutes of the interview serves to demonstrate her political position vis a vis the Second Amendment ... which is quite different from that of people who regularly enjoy their rights and comment in the various milieu:
Tracee re: the Glock gun used in the shooting: "It has a lot of power, it has a lot of kickback .. it's not easily concealed".
Host to Tracee: "You're a Gun Rights Advocate" ... "Are you familiar with those high-capacity magazines ... have you seen them?"
Tracee*: "Yes I have. I've seen them at various gun-shoots that I've attended. It's pretty heavy... it's not somthing that I see for the home-user personal protection. ... It does have a lot of power, it has a lot of kick-back ... it does have a lot of power."
*(Some confusion whether she is discussing the Glock, or the "high-capacity magazine". In the context of the interview, it seems as if she is discussing the magazine capacity, rather than the pistol or the caliber of the pistol..)
Host: "How do you look at it, Tracee?"
Tracee: " My personal perspective, as a gun owner and someone who does support the Second Amendment; I don't see the Congresswoman's amendment ... I don't see it preventing a person from legally owning a gun. it's not taking away my rights to bear arms. ... I would see it as a sensible step in ... having rightful and sensible gun ownership."
(Compares "high capacity magazines" with "Suppressors" The host immediately interrupts her and, in an alarmed tone says: "Suppressors, you mean Silencers!")
Tracee: "I don't see that the Congresswoman's bill preventing a legal able person from owning a gun. It doesn't take away from my right to bear arms. It didn't take away my right to own a gun [the AWB ban] then, and ... it won't now. I look on it as a sensible step in having rightful and sensible gun ownership."
Speaking of suppressors: Tracee Says:
Not all states allow gun-owners to legally possess them, but those who can must apply through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to regulate the ownership of such devices. It doesn't mean that we can't own them, but there is a regulatory process that if you are to legally able and allowed to own a gun, that just go through a few extra steps .. uh .. um .. there is a little bit of a tariff that you do have to pay to own something of that, but it doesn't mean that a collector would be prevented from owning something [like that in their] .. .collection, but for me who is someone who owns guns for target shooting ... um ... [deleted text) I don't see why a gun owner needs ... a high-capacity clip."
That's a quick gallop-through of the first half of the interview, with special attention to the opinions of "Tracee", who represents herself as a "second amendment advocate".
Salient points are that Tracee is give the most air-time of any of the interviewees, and her opinions are consistantly that proposed (by Rep. McCarthy): legislation would not impose a hardship on gun-owners, and are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.
Which is not, perhaps, consistent with the phrase " ... shall not be infringed ...". But then, if you really don't care about the rights of firearms owners, that is not an issue which needs to be addressed.
One more thing.
In the 2nd half, after asking about the NRA opposition to McCarthy's proposed bill, the host asks Representative McCarthy:
"Do you feel safe, championing this as an American congresswoman today?"
McCarthy, of course, answers that she does.
The question, though, is insulting to American firearms owners. The implication is that an American Congresswoman cannot safely propose a bill which might restrict full interpretation of the Second Amendment. Or in other words, it implies that firearms owners are so intrinsically unbalanced that nobody can challenge the Constitution without personal risk.
Assuming that I did not already find National Public Radio an egregious outlook on American sensibilities ... I would now. How can anyone imply such a despicable view of honest Americans? Well, NPR obviously feels free to ask even the most despicable questions ... which in itself implies that they "feel safe".
(McCarthy's answer is : "Yes", but as soon as she attempts to expand on her comments the Host says: "We're out of time" and goes to commercial.)
Perhaps that answers the question.
COMMENTS:
But however warped the NPR perspective, perhaps it is even more telling that the comments the interview invites reveal an America which is fraught with fear, misinformation and Liberal Suggestion.
The online comments (embedded in the interview audio) are interesting, including as they do some input from firearms advocates .. which are typically dismissed by the host.
But the online comments on the website are extremely telling.
The first comment:
Please understand that gun control and magazine control is not the issue here. Fewer bullets in a magazine will not stop the kind of tragedy that we’ve just experienced. It is only when we as a nation demonstrate that we are one, do we have a chance of stopping the desire to use bullets in our discourse."We are one". Right. That's helpful. I have no idea what the author is trying to say.
However, saying that "... gun control and magazine control is [sic] not the issue here ..." seems disingenuous at first, but perhaps the commenter is correct, although not the way he probably intended that casually proposed statement to be interpreted.
This really isn't about "guns", or "Magazines". This is about Control.
The second comment:
... don’t you think there might be a genetic disposition towards irrational violence, just as there is a disposition towards “irrational exuberance” and genes for homosexuality? Or albinos?Again ... I have no idea. Is it "our fault" that we kill each other because it's in our genes? Is the author suggesting that we need to impose a genetic gene scan on each individual, to filter out the people who are genetically dispose to killing each other? Winston Smith, maybe, but the rest of us? I don't think so.
The Third Comment:
A simple preventative measure to gun toting Americans is to make military service mandatory for every one as do many nations from Switzerland to Israel.
If you have even been in the service, you won’t have the need to find your masculinity in a gun.
Hmmm ... I spent two years in the army, went to Viet Nam, saw the elephant, and I still feel the need to find my masculinity in a gun. Or maybe not. Maybe I just like shooting. Maybe a cigar is just a good smoke.
Maybe I just don't care that much; maybe the author of this comment is without a clue; maybe he's projecting.
The Fourth comment:
How many bullets do military pistols hold?
Try fitting a 32 round clip into a pistol and then into your holster. Duh !
M1911 is what ? Seven rounds ?
The Berretta? 8? 12?If the military does not need a 32 round clip, why on earth would civilians unless it is for some sort of pseudo-marcho-commercial reason.
Maybe the "military" uses "Assault Rifles" as their primary weapons, with 30 round magazines. And maybe they use their pistols as only their final defensive weapon; and maybe they can use magazines with as high capacity as the Army chooses to support ... economically. Maybe this question is bogus. You think?
The Fifth Comment:
Any firepower is too much. The 33-bullet magazine should never have been available to anyone except police, bodyguards, & those in the military. Whose side are these judges, lawyers & lawmakers on anyway? (As if we didn’t know. They certainly aren’t concerned with OUR safety.)
I have NO idea where this came from, but "any firepower is too much" must surely be a clue to the cluelessness of the author.
Why does he include "bodyguards"? Does the commenter believe that only the rich, who can afford to hire professional bodyguards, deserve protection? If he thinks police, bodyguards and military might find an advantage in having a "33-bullet magazine", then why does he think that the rest of us should be penalized by not having access to this advantage? And if it is not an advantage, why does he 'award' this non-advantage to privileged classes of people, and not allow it for the rest of us?
Ultimately, the entire sequence of comments suggests that there is something intrinsically WRONG in having "too much ... bullets" in a magazine. But who is qualified to determine exactly how many "bullets" are "too much"? And why are they more qualified than the rest of us to judge?
Skip a few, and then we get to the Seventh (Sixth?) comment:
I also thought, (hoped), I was off to bed, but tomorrow’s (today’s!) topics appeared, & I couldn’t help myself.
I’d give almost anything to read just 1 haiku about now, then drift happily off to sleep. Don’t know if I’ll make it or not, but fingers are crossed.
Sorry, but when this breached the Event Horizon, I quit and went to bed.
"Somebody" though the question sufficiently important to respond, but that "somebody" was so intrinsically clueless that she was more concerned with posing an appropriate haiku rather than to address an issue which "Somebody else" proposed.
The best I can do is to respond in an inappropriate Haiku:
The moving Finger writes,
and having writ,
reloads
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to check the "next comment":
I would like the Supreme Court to overturn the Second Amendment based on the concept that its ORIGINATION REPRESENTS AN ILLEGITIMATE BASIS FOR GUN OWNERSHIP TODAY. Once the amendment was overturned, the Court would require Congress to modify and replace it. Let us LEARN FROM this tragedy in Tucson: let’s work to grant ourselves True Life and Liberty!
The legal basis for this change is this: the Second Amendment was PARTLY passed as part of a Compromise between the North and the South. The South was afraid that the abolitionists in the North could get the federal government to overturn their states’ rights to raise armed militias which they had been raising for slave control, especially in times of slave insurrections, since colonial times. Should we be living under the “SWAY” of a law that was started in the context of slavery? Didn’t this “freedom” represent LOSS of freedom for millions of individuals living in this land, at the time, who helped to build this country? Yes, we no longer allow slavery, but we are living, on a daily basis, with the VESTIGES of it thru the Second Amendment!!
Not only way too many exclamation marks, but the author apparently confused the Revolutionary War with the Civil War.
Not only "Clueless", but .. aw, shit. These people are so without-a-clue that their ignorance automatically obviates anything they may offer in support of their so-called ... whatever.
I am so disappointed by the level of civic mis-comprehension of the average liberal, it makes me ill to read the crap that they write.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Tri County Gun Club Cancels Sunday Match!
The last time TCGC (in Sherwood, Oregon) canceled a match 'at the last minute' was in winter of 2004. Heavy snow, partial thaw, then freezing overnight. The access to the range is a steep uphill climb, and that morning the Stats-Mistress couldn't get her aging Tempo up the hill. So SHE canceled the match.
Tonite I received a forwarded email from the Match Director via the Section Secretary:
Tonite I received a forwarded email from the Match Director via the Section Secretary:
Tri-County had the action range resurfaced and it looks great, however there is no cover available, no safety tables and everything is out of the bays. It is going to rain heavy tomorrow and as a result I'm going to cancel the match. We'll resume normal festivities next month.
Can you forward this to the distribution list and ask folks to pass it along? We won't get to everyone but we'll do the best we can.
Obviously, this is a time-sensitive message and I doubt anyone will read it here tonite and change plans for tomorrow.
But this is the oldest "IPSC" club in Oregon, and as far as I know the oldest club in a 3-state area. It's where I got my first competition training, shot my first year or two exclusively (until other clubs started a program) and it's one of the premier clubs of the Pacific NorthWet. It will always be important to me.
PS: Norm, Mark ... I passed it along. I did my part.
Shooting Times News 1/15/10
As usual, most of the 'really good information' on firearms issues comes from my tri-weekly Shooting Times email subscription. (See here to subscribe ... you've seen this before.)
The editors have made some format changes lately, which not only provide a link to individual items but also the long-awaited permalink to the editorial.
Both to reinforce the suggestion that you get your own subscription, and to highlight the items that I found the most interesting, I'm providing an overview with links.
Aimpoint Launches New Website
(That would be Aimpoint.com, for those who can't bother to read the short article. It takes you here.)
ISSC-AUSTRIA and GEMTECH Co-Partner
Why is that interesting?
"WARE, MA - ISSC-Austria, exclusive importer and distributor of the M22 range pistol and MK22 range rifle, has partnered with GEMTECH, the leader in high- performance suppressors, to offer products that fit and function seamlessly together."
Please don't get me started on the reasons why I think that suppressors should be legal in America!
New Bullet for Existing Handguns and Hand-held Firearm
Okay, I see another "why is this interesting" moment. The leading paragraph:
Progress on South Korea Rifles?
This editorial informs us that "... the United States Department of State is reconsidering last year's decision to block the importation of World War II rifles from the Republic of Korea."
Which would be A Good Thing, no matter how it works out, because so far we get Bumpkes from the Diplomatic Service. To nobody's real surprise, one of the problems has been that the ATF doesn't like it; another has been that someone figures the US will buy all these M1 carbines to Mexico. I don't know why they would worry about that .. the carbine is nothing more than a poodle-shooter, more like a 2-handed pistol than a rifle. And yes, I expect to hear about that from someone who owns one.
There's still meat left on this journalistic bone, and the item/editorial is not all that long, so you should go read it now.
What, you have something better to do?
The editors have made some format changes lately, which not only provide a link to individual items but also the long-awaited permalink to the editorial.
Both to reinforce the suggestion that you get your own subscription, and to highlight the items that I found the most interesting, I'm providing an overview with links.
Aimpoint Launches New Website
(That would be Aimpoint.com, for those who can't bother to read the short article. It takes you here.)
ISSC-AUSTRIA and GEMTECH Co-Partner
Why is that interesting?
"WARE, MA - ISSC-Austria, exclusive importer and distributor of the M22 range pistol and MK22 range rifle, has partnered with GEMTECH, the leader in high- performance suppressors, to offer products that fit and function seamlessly together."
Please don't get me started on the reasons why I think that suppressors should be legal in America!
New Bullet for Existing Handguns and Hand-held Firearm
Okay, I see another "why is this interesting" moment. The leading paragraph:
Denver, CO - Recognizing that more than 90 percent of shots fired by handguns and hand-held firearms miss their targets, Advanced Ballistics Concepts, LLC (ABC), a ballistics research and development company, today announced the company has invented the first multi-part bullet that immediately unlocks and expands to a predetermined diameter and pattern of spread upon leaving the tip of a rifled barrel. This new wide envelopment bullet - enhanced with ABC's patent-pending Triple Threat™ Technology (T3™) - significantly improves a shooter's hit probability in ultra-close and mid-range engagements because the bullet produces a "spider web"-like effect prior to impact.While I'm insulted by the "90 percent" statistic on misses (unless someone has been submitting my shooting videos to YouTube, in which case I am without defense), it makes me wonder just how expensive these bullets are, and can I get me some. If they were 'too cheap', IPSC might have a problem. Look for a new rule in the 2012 Rule Book. No, they probably would be good on Virginia Count stages.
Progress on South Korea Rifles?
This editorial informs us that "... the United States Department of State is reconsidering last year's decision to block the importation of World War II rifles from the Republic of Korea."
Which would be A Good Thing, no matter how it works out, because so far we get Bumpkes from the Diplomatic Service. To nobody's real surprise, one of the problems has been that the ATF doesn't like it; another has been that someone figures the US will buy all these M1 carbines to Mexico. I don't know why they would worry about that .. the carbine is nothing more than a poodle-shooter, more like a 2-handed pistol than a rifle. And yes, I expect to hear about that from someone who owns one.
There's still meat left on this journalistic bone, and the item/editorial is not all that long, so you should go read it now.
What, you have something better to do?
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Unintentional Felons
"Crooks and Liars" (obviously not a foe of Gun Control) has posted a very nice blog article titled" Has Rep. Peter King actually come up with a decent idea on gun control?
(Hat Tip to Random Nuclear Strikes!)
Our answer is --- NOT!
The Huffington Post article describes King's proposal as:
However, we have already spent ten years valiantly attempting to determine whether her "new" efforts might have the effect she so obviously desires; the numbers just do not support her thesis.
We are so sorry, Representative McCarthy, but your proposal affects only those of us who are law-abiding citizens. Madmen, terrorists and criminals are not at ALL affected. You have proposed a bill which is a disservice not only to your constituents, but to those of us across thsi nation who would otherwise wish to accept any workable legislation.
A workable defense against Madness is not something that cannot be legislated, further than we have already done. At this point, our only proven solution is to arm our law-abiding citizens for the defense of themselves, and others.
(Hat Tip to Random Nuclear Strikes!)
Our answer is --- NOT!
The Huffington Post article describes King's proposal as:
Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official [emphasis added], according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.
King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King's measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.
The Gun-control folks are all over this ... they apparently think this is a good idea on toast, with gravy on it.
Why?
Because it would make it impossible for anyone with a legally carried firearm to know if/when he or she is breaking the law.
It's not like the laws which once made it illegal to possess a firearm within 1000' of a school ... in my small town, it's really, really difficult to NOT be within that distance of a school. But it's theoretically possible for me to find a route from my home to the the range, or to any exit from town, without 'encroaching' upon that limit.
"Government Officials", though, are a different beast. I'm not sure what constitutes a "Government Official". Is it my congressman? Is it the mayor? A City Councilman? (Mine lives within a few blocks of my home ... I couldn't leave my house without breaking the law.) And how do you know if you break the limit? These are people, they move around.
This proposed law would be impossible to enforce, impossible to avoid becoming an Unintentional Felon. If stopped, searched and arrested, I might be charged and convicted of this 'crime' without even knowing that I had broken the law. Hmm ... somehow, this doesn't seem fair to me, let alone reasonable. Heck, I actually like my congressman. Don't agree with his politics, of course, but I certainly wish him no ill.
The otherwise sane, reasonable people (okay, I'm giving them all the credit I can) don't think about that stuff. They don't own firearms, they don't care to consider the petty details. They think it's a good idea, so they are all for it.
If that law was in effect last Saturday when Gabrielle Giffords was holding a "meet and greet" at the local Safeway Store, any firearms owner on his way to the range who drove into the parking lot to pick up snacks and a bag of ice not knowing she was there ... would have been in violation. No intent to do harm would be necessary.
Madness.
In the interest of brevity, I encourage you to go to the "Crooks and Liars" post and read what is there.
Most emphatically, watch the 8 minute interview between PS_MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell ("The Last Word"; "Tucson Tragedy and Gun Control") where he interviews Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy.
O'Donnell's rhetoric is far removed from "Journalism". It is an opinion piece, blatantly illustrating his anti-gun bias. During his interview with Congresswoman McCarthy (who lost her husband during a 1993 assault on the Long Island RailRoad) he asks her, for example, whether " ... we are going to lose focus on what killed these people; a gun legally sold to a manman in a country that is intent on preserving the madman's right to obtain firearms and shoot people ...".
This question is actually, of course, a statement. Entered into the conversation for shock effect, and entirely without justification.
He also mentioned that the lunatic went to a store to buy ammunition, and was turned away. Actually, according to the store (a WalMart) he was not turned away. He merely "failed to complete the transaction". He later went to another WalMart and obtained ammunition there.
McCarthy plans to introduce (on January 18, 2011) a bill which is eerily similar to measures found in the failed Assault Weapons Ban:
On Tuesday, January 18, I will introduce legislation to restore the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices in the United States.
The United States Constitution guarantees to our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. At the same time that we can all acknowledge this basic right, I believe that we should also be able to come together to develop reasonable laws designed to ensure that the right to bear arms is exercised safely and responsibly. Just as we all celebrate and defend the first amendment but also understand that practical limits must be in place, such as not shouting, “Fire” in a crowded theater, so too should we be able to respect the second amendment while at thesame time supporting commonsense regulations.
Her statement fails to define the term "large capacity" although according to the Arizona Daily Star this is assumed to define magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
The failed 1994 Assault Weapons ban was part of HR3355, which was an omnibus bill addressing so many issues that the "Assault Weapons Ban" (Section 110101) was only a very minor part.
But at the very beginning of the bill (probably not a 'good link') was a very clear notice that the bill would be repealed after ten years:
SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle--
(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after that date.
When you read all of the pMS_NBC rhetoric, especially the parts where "it's all George W. Bush's Fault" (because he didn't take steps to "repeal the repeal") ... remember that this was the law. Bush merely declined to complicate the already failed issue. The crime statistics after ten years of onerous imposition on the rights of honest citizens to possess, for example, "magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition" resulted in NO positive effects on crime rates. It was essentially all smoke and mirrors. You and I went for ten years abiding by laws (which were surely not observed by criminals) and these laws failed to serve the stated purpose of reducing crime, violence, gun violence or any other goal for which this bill was purportedly established.
Why? How?
A report from the National Institute of Criminal Justice (U.S. Department of Justice / Office of Justice Programs) reviewed the results of the AWB, and among their results were the following statements:
- The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot victims.
- Target audience: Congressional representatives and staff; State and local legislators; Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials; criminal justice practitioners and researchers; advocacy groups; State and local government officials.
However, we have already spent ten years valiantly attempting to determine whether her "new" efforts might have the effect she so obviously desires; the numbers just do not support her thesis.
We are so sorry, Representative McCarthy, but your proposal affects only those of us who are law-abiding citizens. Madmen, terrorists and criminals are not at ALL affected. You have proposed a bill which is a disservice not only to your constituents, but to those of us across thsi nation who would otherwise wish to accept any workable legislation.
A workable defense against Madness is not something that cannot be legislated, further than we have already done. At this point, our only proven solution is to arm our law-abiding citizens for the defense of themselves, and others.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Dairy of a Madman
I heard about the "Tucson Massacre" on Saturday afternoon, but I didn't try to write anything about it because ... well, we just didn't know anything yet, did we? At the time, there was no information on who was hurt, how bad, let alone by whom or why.
Now we know "who", without any doubt at all. Described by people who knew him as a loner, frightening, mentally unstable ... this was definitively a "nutter" without any of the political slant (not a "right-wing nut" or a "left-wing nut").
Our country is still reeling from shock. We are experiencing forms of PTSD: Fear, anger, loss, grief ... denial.
Some people have written on the Internet to express their feelings. Some have declined to even identify the terrorist (because that is what the attack is, by definition ... no apparent purpose except to to sew terror among innocents) and instead only write of their cold, implacable anger.
I, too, am angry. Angry because of the senseless loss of innocent life. In a very real way, except for the magnitude of damage done this is very similar to the 9/11 Massacre of Innocents. It is an arrow in the heart of a nation.
In 2007, when a nutter named Cho shot up the Virginia Tech campus, I cursed the nutter with a vehemence I have not often felt. Later, I thought I had over-stated my feelings. Now I feel the same sense of violation, and I discover that what I said then is exactly applicable now, also:
But now I do. Perhaps you do, also. In a way, these terrible, predatory attacks bring out the worst in us.
The thing is, the "worst in us" all too often includes taking advantage for political gain.
POLITICS:
Since that terrible day, we've seen that a lot of people have taken political advantage of the situation to tout their own personal political kant.
"DAIRY of a Madman"? Not "Diary of a Madman"? That's right. In the current political milieu, the Left is milking it.
They're taken on two talking points.
First Amendment Infringement: There should be a law forbidding people to say naughty things about politicians. This isn't "hate crimes" (with which I already have a problem ... it's so subjective). It's chilling free speech.
Second Amendment Infringement: there should be a law forbidding people to have magazines that hold more bullets than they could possible need. Again, subjective.
Leave it to the Nanny Statists to "protect" us from ourselves. As Pogo use to say: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
I still feel bad about my own vehemence, but I feel even worse that there are people in this world who will gleefully twist a tragedy into an opportunity.
Yes, it's too bad that people often use intemperate language, and will apply invective ... I've just done that myself.
And it's too bad that people go mad, are so sick that they will shoot total strangers for no apparent reason except to indulge in their own vainglorious fantasy.
We're probably not going to be able to rid our society of either societal illness.
But it seems to me that we're losing sight of what's really important.
Here is an interview of the father of the little nine year old girl who was shot in the back. Can there be any worse thing to do to kill a child? A little girl .. .aren't we suppose to protect our children? And what can be worse than to lose your own child; that's not the way it's suppose to work. They should be mourning us, not the other way around.
This is heartbreaking. It's ten minutes of heartbreaking. It's almost unendurable, but if you have ever felt disgust at the expression "I Feel Your Pain", this may change your mind.
We see a father who is holding himself together with an inner strength that I doubt many of us would have the depths to call upon.
And in his grief, he still found one more iota of strength to say: This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.
I would have preferred to present a much better organized .. expression. But this is the best I can do, right now.
Now we know "who", without any doubt at all. Described by people who knew him as a loner, frightening, mentally unstable ... this was definitively a "nutter" without any of the political slant (not a "right-wing nut" or a "left-wing nut").
Our country is still reeling from shock. We are experiencing forms of PTSD: Fear, anger, loss, grief ... denial.
Some people have written on the Internet to express their feelings. Some have declined to even identify the terrorist (because that is what the attack is, by definition ... no apparent purpose except to to sew terror among innocents) and instead only write of their cold, implacable anger.
I, too, am angry. Angry because of the senseless loss of innocent life. In a very real way, except for the magnitude of damage done this is very similar to the 9/11 Massacre of Innocents. It is an arrow in the heart of a nation.
In 2007, when a nutter named Cho shot up the Virginia Tech campus, I cursed the nutter with a vehemence I have not often felt. Later, I thought I had over-stated my feelings. Now I feel the same sense of violation, and I discover that what I said then is exactly applicable now, also:
"You sociopathic sick fuck. I don't want to feel your pain. I just want you to be dead Dead DEAD for all eternity and may you rot in hell. I don't want to feel this angry toward another human being again."
But now I do. Perhaps you do, also. In a way, these terrible, predatory attacks bring out the worst in us.
The thing is, the "worst in us" all too often includes taking advantage for political gain.
POLITICS:
Since that terrible day, we've seen that a lot of people have taken political advantage of the situation to tout their own personal political kant.
"DAIRY of a Madman"? Not "Diary of a Madman"? That's right. In the current political milieu, the Left is milking it.
They're taken on two talking points.
First Amendment Infringement: There should be a law forbidding people to say naughty things about politicians. This isn't "hate crimes" (with which I already have a problem ... it's so subjective). It's chilling free speech.
Second Amendment Infringement: there should be a law forbidding people to have magazines that hold more bullets than they could possible need. Again, subjective.
Leave it to the Nanny Statists to "protect" us from ourselves. As Pogo use to say: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
I still feel bad about my own vehemence, but I feel even worse that there are people in this world who will gleefully twist a tragedy into an opportunity.
Yes, it's too bad that people often use intemperate language, and will apply invective ... I've just done that myself.
And it's too bad that people go mad, are so sick that they will shoot total strangers for no apparent reason except to indulge in their own vainglorious fantasy.
We're probably not going to be able to rid our society of either societal illness.
But it seems to me that we're losing sight of what's really important.
Here is an interview of the father of the little nine year old girl who was shot in the back. Can there be any worse thing to do to kill a child? A little girl .. .aren't we suppose to protect our children? And what can be worse than to lose your own child; that's not the way it's suppose to work. They should be mourning us, not the other way around.
This is heartbreaking. It's ten minutes of heartbreaking. It's almost unendurable, but if you have ever felt disgust at the expression "I Feel Your Pain", this may change your mind.
We see a father who is holding himself together with an inner strength that I doubt many of us would have the depths to call upon.
And in his grief, he still found one more iota of strength to say: This shouldn't happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society we're going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.
I would have preferred to present a much better organized .. expression. But this is the best I can do, right now.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
The constitution protects the rights of ... who?
Okay, consider this a High-School Civics Test.
No wait! It's a Supreme Court challenge of the most basic precepts of the Constitution of the United States!
Is there any difference between the two questions? Should there be?
The first .. the Civics test... wonders what we are teaching our new citizens today.
The second .. the SCOTUS .. wonders what we will be teaching our new citizens "tomorrow".
And who are our "new citizens"? Does this include only the children of today's citizens, or does it include naturalized citizens? Resident Aliens? Temporary (but legal) migrant workers? Illegal aliens?
Who is granted (acknowledged?) protections under the Constitution of the United States of America?
Let's look at the First Amendment:
Who is here granted the right to worship as he or she pleases? Is it only natural born citizens? Natives or Naturalized? Immigrants, visitors, interlopers?
Who has the RIGHT to march with a La Raza flag and sign on our nation's streets?
Who would deny ANYONE that right, in America?
How about the Fifth Amendment?
For that matter, in regarding the Fourth Amendment:
In America today there are many definitions of "The People", and it is so confusing that you and I are sometimes not only not certain who constitutes "The People", but we have no clear guidance, especially in the Constitution, to define what this body of people may be.
Sure, we have amendments to ascertain and define that much of the 14th Amendment was composed to address this question:
We are here challenged to decide whether the constitution as written may be interpreted to deny Constitutional rights to (legal) residents who are not Citizens.
That is, specifically, the 2nd Amendment:
(But are we really that sure about this point?)
And .. what individuals may legitimately lay claim to this right?
The egregious Dred Scott decision, made by the Supreme Court of the United States, includes may arguments (and they of the SCOTUS were then honorable men) discussing how and why Negros would not and should not be counted as 'citizens'; not the least of which is that they were NOT entered into the country as 'immigrant's, willingly, but that they were universally brought into the country as "property".
Also, and this is the most frequently quoted portion of the judgementl we should consider it a 'telling' reflection of the bias of the SCOTUS at that time (although we are assured that the current SCOTUS has no comparable bias or 'hidden agenda': (quoted directly from FINDLAW):
(This argument, given the time in history, carefully avoids the question of "involuntary servitude" which may or may not characterize the ancestors of not a few men who were arguing the case .. and judging it.)
I ask you once again.
Upon what basis would you deny a person, who is resident within the geographic boundaries of the United States of America, the right to the full protection under law of the Constitution of the United States of America? Any clause, any amendment, any nuance?
If Dred Scott was denied Constitutional Protection because he was not a "voluntary immigrant", then what of the rights of those who are today "voluntary immigrants"?
No wait! It's a Supreme Court challenge of the most basic precepts of the Constitution of the United States!
Is there any difference between the two questions? Should there be?
The first .. the Civics test... wonders what we are teaching our new citizens today.
The second .. the SCOTUS .. wonders what we will be teaching our new citizens "tomorrow".
And who are our "new citizens"? Does this include only the children of today's citizens, or does it include naturalized citizens? Resident Aliens? Temporary (but legal) migrant workers? Illegal aliens?
Who is granted (acknowledged?) protections under the Constitution of the United States of America?
Let's look at the First Amendment:
This enumeration of "our" rights; acknowledges freedom of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, freedom to gather ("in protest?") and to petition.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Who is here granted the right to worship as he or she pleases? Is it only natural born citizens? Natives or Naturalized? Immigrants, visitors, interlopers?
Who has the RIGHT to march with a La Raza flag and sign on our nation's streets?
Who would deny ANYONE that right, in America?
How about the Fifth Amendment?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Who is protected against Double Jeopardy? Who protected from being impelled to bear witness against himself? Who may be imprisoned without a trial, or be deprived of his home?
For that matter, in regarding the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Who is protected, constitutionally, against unwarranted search and seizure?
In America today there are many definitions of "The People", and it is so confusing that you and I are sometimes not only not certain who constitutes "The People", but we have no clear guidance, especially in the Constitution, to define what this body of people may be.
Sure, we have amendments to ascertain and define that much of the 14th Amendment was composed to address this question:
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This may be a clear and definitive description of those people whose rights under the Constitution may be applied: namely "citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside".
That last part may be confusing to you, though. It is to me.
Should we assume that the only persons resident in the United States who are "citizens" enjoy the Constitutional Rights here defined?
For example, if a person is not a Citizen (either natural born, or naturalized),. may he publish a newspaper, meet with his neighbors to discuss Important Issues, freely practice his chosen religion, and be free from warrantless search?
Or do those who do not have the right to define themselves as "Citizens" not also have the right to enjoy constitutional guarantees?
I draw your attention to the Second Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,Do "all men" find themselves under the protection of the Constitution, regardless of their legal status? We have generally accepted that certain classes of men .. felons, the insane, children who are too young to exercise the judgment which comes from maturity and experience .. may not be either entitled or competent to enjoy certain rights, at least until their individual situation changes.
But if "all men" is no more limiting than that "all men" be sane, mature and responsible people, and if these rights are ordained by God and not by The State .. .then do all Amendments of the Bill of Rights apply equally? Isn't this the basis of our American Society.
(Note that the 13'th, 14'th, 15'th and 19'th Amendments include more classes of people who have the right to vote ... does this define "citizen"? Is it the sole criteria of :people who are (citizens / legally resident . otherwise not legal, but resident) in the United States who are granted the "God given" right to liberty ... by The State?)
We who demand an all-encompassing "Individual Right" according to the Second Amendment have been vocal for decades in demanding that right be applied "universally", because it is a "God-given Right" and not 'granted' by the state.
But now we find ourselves having to deal with the question: what of a person who is a legal resident is not a "Citizen". Does the Second Amendment apply to him as well and as thoroughly and as definitively as it applies to "us"? We who may have born in this great country? Those whose most enduring monument is the Stature of Liberty, which enduring motto includes the phrase: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Many of us are disrespectful of the American Civil Liberties Union, because it has presented and argued against issues which we intuitively believe should stand without need for defense. We believe that our definition/interpretation of the Constitution is obvious.
But is it?
Those of us in that assumptive group also believe that the Constitution is a rigid uncomprimising traditional, uncontroversial body of law, and those who disagree with our interpretation should, if they are sincere in their controversial beliefs, be willing to mount a movement to change the Constitution, rather than to "re-interpret" it to meet the "Interpretation De Jour".
Now we are met with an issue which challenges our most sacred beliefs, and to our astonishment we discover that there are multiple interpretations which may not both be true in accordance with our individual belief systems.
We are here challenged to decide whether the constitution as written may be interpreted to deny Constitutional rights to (legal) residents who are not Citizens.
That is, specifically, the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That statement is obviously NOT worded to include issues of citizenship, or membership in any definitive body: The "Collective Rights" folks, who we have opposed for so long and have attempted to define it as supporting a governmentally sponsored, say that it has nothing at all to do with the citizenship of the individual, as long as that individual is a member of the "army:". We, however, have rejected that interpretation, and made it clear that it is an INDIVIDUAL right irrespective of support from the State.
(But are we really that sure about this point?)
And .. what individuals may legitimately lay claim to this right?
The egregious Dred Scott decision, made by the Supreme Court of the United States, includes may arguments (and they of the SCOTUS were then honorable men) discussing how and why Negros would not and should not be counted as 'citizens'; not the least of which is that they were NOT entered into the country as 'immigrant's, willingly, but that they were universally brought into the country as "property".
Also, and this is the most frequently quoted portion of the judgementl we should consider it a 'telling' reflection of the bias of the SCOTUS at that time (although we are assured that the current SCOTUS has no comparable bias or 'hidden agenda': (quoted directly from FINDLAW):
The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.So we are given directly from history the most awful ruling of SCOTUS , based entirely on race and the dubious but well defined principle of "involuntary servitude" which is deemed not to qualify a human being for consideration under the Bill of Rights because .... come ON guys! .. the dude didn't want to be here in the first place, so why should we give him the same consideration which is naturally ceded to those folks who WANTED to be here?
(This argument, given the time in history, carefully avoids the question of "involuntary servitude" which may or may not characterize the ancestors of not a few men who were arguing the case .. and judging it.)
I ask you once again.
Upon what basis would you deny a person, who is resident within the geographic boundaries of the United States of America, the right to the full protection under law of the Constitution of the United States of America? Any clause, any amendment, any nuance?
If Dred Scott was denied Constitutional Protection because he was not a "voluntary immigrant", then what of the rights of those who are today "voluntary immigrants"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)