I had the most AMAZING week this week!
For the past several weeks, I have been fighting a cold. A Summer Cold .. which (as we all know) is the Very Worst Kind.
It started out with a cold sore on the lips, and that's not a good sign. The cold sore went away after a week, but I still kept coughing, sneezing, and I felt like crap ("Ague") Yes, my nose was runny and it never seemed to stop. Hard to get any sleep at night with all of that going on.
In fact, it lasted for six weeks!
I finally decided, in concert with my personal physician, that it might be a Allergies, rather than a cold, which was causing my distress.
Then .. Thursday .. it rained!
No more runny nose. No more coughing, and strangely enough no more rash or red skin!
So .. okay, it's all about Allergies. Pollen, or dust in the air? Who knows. The thing is, the rain knocked it all down so I could breathe (and sleep!) again.
THEN I got a call from an old Army Buddy whom I haven't seen for a while. He's got two shot-up legs and walks 5 miles a day; I never got a scratch in Viet Nam (if you don't count Bamboo Poisoning, which took 5 years to clear up) and I love to rehash our mutual experiences. The good part? He had it MUCH worse than I did! The bad part? I spent the whole year Over There; he spend like 15 days.
Well .. but he spent a few years in the hospital, and went through a lot of operations. Each one made it better, though, and he seems to move pretty good now, within limits.
Also, I got a recommendation from my landlord for a WiFi Router, which I got a good price on at Amazon, and I installed it today; it works just fine, and I can use my Laptop while I'm watching TV without incurring charges on my StupidPhone.
I got to renew my vehicle registration online .. no waiting in line. That's always A Good Thing, isn't it? I thought so
Finally ... I taught my Introduction to USPSA class today. Four students ( a couple didn't show, which I have come to expect .. they best know how to schedule their personal time). Most of the folks who attended were 'savvy', had good gun-handling skills. They were smart, personable, and nobody EVER made 'a bad move'.
Some classes, there is at least one person who is just not 'clear on the concept'. Not today. I tend to do faux "DQ" calls when a student violates a Safety Rule. (I don't really send them home, but I announce it loudly, so they face the chagrin of their fellow students; it's a "difficult" training technique, but if new students don't get a negative feedback they don't know how bad it is to be unsafe when you're "Runnin' & Gunnin'".) It didn't happen today; everyone was entirely safe, entirely aware, and entirely aware of where the muzzle and trigger are.
There are classes when I feel as if the best I can do is to correct major deficiencies, and hope the accept the lessons. This class, I didn't feel that I had to use 'superlatives' to reward them. Simply pointing out the positives was enough to keep them going; they didn't have safety issues at ALL.
Unfortunately, one of the five students was a 17 year-old young woman who, as it turned out, didnt;' have any significant experience shooting a pistol. I had to disallow her to take part in the Live Fire Exercise. No choice; it would have taken too much time trying to teach her Basic Hand-gunning Skills, and this is an Advanced Class. I wasn't aware until we all met that she didn't know how to shoot a pistol, so I couldn't let her shoot. Her Mom and her Mom's Boyfriend were there, but they hadn't realized that she couldn't learn gun-handling skills in a 3-hour class. So she patiently sat through the classroom segment, and participated; but she couldn't actually touch a gun, and I'm sure the last two hours were completely boring to her. This is NOT a Spectator Sport!
Fortunately, she got to watch other people, with various levels of skill, try to deal with increasingly challenging tests, so perhaps she (and her mother, and the BF) got to see why the "Introduction to USPSA" class requires a basic minimum of experience that she just didn't have.
Then my Saturday was over. I came home, showered, rested .. and then I installed my new Wi-Fi Router. I can use my Laptop again, and don't have to worry about the slow response of the Hotspot from my Stupid phone!
Okay, that's all pretty boring for you. But I'm jazzed that everything that happened to me this week worked out well.
Is it just me? Am I the only one who rates my life on a week-to-week basis instead of Day-by-Day?
You get happiness where you find it. For me, it was in the final bit of Schadenfreude I uncovered this morning.
The local "Streets Program" has workers fixing sewers and storm drains, and repaving streets in the summer. I'm fairly well resolved to accepting the Alternate Routes when the streets & intersections are closed for repairs .. which never last less than 3 days.
But it rained, Thursday!
When I drove through that major intersection Friday, I found it was closed.
The heavy rain Thursday had flooded the intersection. The repairs to the storm-drain system apparently failed, as it has never failed before. The intersection was closed .. I had to take a bypass-route.
The shovel-leaners spent 3 days 'fixing' the storm drains .. and it didn't survive the first thunderstorm?
Yes! Score one for the folks whose taxes pay their wages!
Sometimes, you just KNOW that these guys with the shovels and the "street closed" signs are entirely clueless.
Okay, it WAS "Shadenfreude"!
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Assault Weapon Ban: nothing new here, except ....
Deconstructing the “Assault Weapon Ban” Fiction of the American Political Science Review:
... except the only thing here is that which all of us who were affected by the Assault Weapons Ban is that it didn't accomplish a thing!
Most of us have quit wondering "Why did they even bother?" The entire Political Fiasco was nothing more than 'feel-good' legislation intended to make it appear that lazy politicians were actually "DOING SOMETHING!"
Politicians are like Summer Colds: annoying, apparantly veering from low-key presence to sneezes and sniffles and maybe you miss a couple days of work. Then you shrug your shoulders and go on with your life, knowing that next year you'll go through the same thing for no reason and no permanent change in your life.
And .. there's no cure for Politicians, either.
This article, self-described as a deconstruction, worked just fine. Hard tell how many of us read it, though, then shrugged and went on with our life.
ITEM: The Assault Weapon Ban had no clear-cut goal, except the announced one of reducing violent crime by removing murder-guns from public hands.
RESULT: No murder rates were affected by removing murder guns from public hands. In fact, most of the guns which were most 'restricted' were not previously involved in violent crime, and so .. what did they expect would happen, after the interveiws were over? Oh, the authors would get re-elected?
CONCLUSION: Nobody every lost any money by underestimating the intelligence of the American Voting Public.
ITEM: Manufacturers noted that specific firearms were identified by brand/model name and/or specific 'deadly' features.
RESULT: Manufacturers either changed the model name, or changed/deleted the named cosmetic features, and continued to sell the same firearm for the same price
CONCLUSION: Two parts: First, Politicians are naive; Second, Politicians never look at the consequences OR the result of the laws they pass, they only look at their press clippings. Here's a possible third conclusion: the negative press clippings never make it into their scrap-books, so they believe there were no negative press clippings.
ITEM: Main Stream Media sources (AKA: "Useful Idiots") are so busy sucking up to politicians, they tend not to evaluate their performance.
RESULT: MSM to this day thinks that the reason why the Assault Weapons Ban was repealed after ten years is because of the Evil Conservatives with try to the Evil Capitalists who brought us "Assault Weapons" (and refrigerators and typewriters) instead of acknowledging that the only reason the AWB was passed was because Conservative demanded that if the Liberals couldn't prove an improvement in ten years, the Law would be "Sundowned".
CONCLUSION: MSM and Politicians (and here we're specifically talking about Liberal Feel-Good Politicians) don't really care whether their high-profile issues negatively affect honest law-abiding citizens more than people who are going to break the law 'anyway', they just want to be seen as trying to "Do Something". Because they believe it will look good on their resume. And the sad fact is, it does! These same Maroons are getting re-elected, and the same sycophantic civilians are still writing op-ed pieces for the New York Times.
So, What's It All Mean, Dean?
It doesn't mean nothing. Politicians imposed a ten-year moratorium on such inconsequential "Assault Weapon"n features as bayonette lugs, flash hiders, magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds, pistol grips on rifles ... etc ad nauseum. All arbitrary, all obviously non-sensical, but because some IDIOTS had elected other IDIOTS to National Office, honest and law-abiding citizens had to put up with "work arounds"
During this period (1994 - 2004), I personally came into possession of a number of magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds ... including 25-round pistol magazines. It was entirely legal, and I never misrepresented myself. Nobody ever asked me if I had a criminal record because even if I HAD been a criminal, it would have been legal for me to buy them.
I used these Nefarious Tools of Crime to miss both cardboard and steel targets with ease, laughing all the time because even though I was forced to admit that I can't hit the broadside of the barn with a pistol, I was still defying the law of the land! I HAD EM! AND IT WAS LEGAL!
A slap in the face for Clintons (one and all), Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, and McKinnea and all of their Alphabetically Ordered/Politically Correct/Clue-less Ilk!
These political hacks couldn't write a sound law if their lives depended on it. We all knew it. We grumbled, we complained (some of us whined; most of us whined and did it anyway) because we resented feeling like criminals for doing something which was legal .. but still proscribed.
The nice thing about this very late article is that someone is publishing a non-blogger article that says what we have been saying for decades:
What a bunch of maroons!
POST SCRIPT:
Bwa-hah-hah-hah-hah!
Oh, dear. It seems that the American Political Science Review did a lousy job of refereeing a pseudo-academic study, Cross-Border Spillover: U.S. Gun Laws and Violence in Mexico.
The study was brought to us by Joshua Keating from Slate, which is merely guilty of being a hack e-zine.
Keating’s article is primarily the result of an uninformed reporter assuming that academics in soft social sciences actually engage in more than bias-reinforcing navel-gazing. Put bluntly, he doesn’t have the background to write intelligently about the subject, which is sadly a common truth for most journalists. Keating’s inability to do more than parrot what he’d like to believe is merely exacerbated by the inflammatory image chosen to accompany the article.
... except the only thing here is that which all of us who were affected by the Assault Weapons Ban is that it didn't accomplish a thing!
Most of us have quit wondering "Why did they even bother?" The entire Political Fiasco was nothing more than 'feel-good' legislation intended to make it appear that lazy politicians were actually "DOING SOMETHING!"
Politicians are like Summer Colds: annoying, apparantly veering from low-key presence to sneezes and sniffles and maybe you miss a couple days of work. Then you shrug your shoulders and go on with your life, knowing that next year you'll go through the same thing for no reason and no permanent change in your life.
And .. there's no cure for Politicians, either.
This article, self-described as a deconstruction, worked just fine. Hard tell how many of us read it, though, then shrugged and went on with our life.
ITEM: The Assault Weapon Ban had no clear-cut goal, except the announced one of reducing violent crime by removing murder-guns from public hands.
RESULT: No murder rates were affected by removing murder guns from public hands. In fact, most of the guns which were most 'restricted' were not previously involved in violent crime, and so .. what did they expect would happen, after the interveiws were over? Oh, the authors would get re-elected?
CONCLUSION: Nobody every lost any money by underestimating the intelligence of the American Voting Public.
ITEM: Manufacturers noted that specific firearms were identified by brand/model name and/or specific 'deadly' features.
RESULT: Manufacturers either changed the model name, or changed/deleted the named cosmetic features, and continued to sell the same firearm for the same price
CONCLUSION: Two parts: First, Politicians are naive; Second, Politicians never look at the consequences OR the result of the laws they pass, they only look at their press clippings. Here's a possible third conclusion: the negative press clippings never make it into their scrap-books, so they believe there were no negative press clippings.
ITEM: Main Stream Media sources (AKA: "Useful Idiots") are so busy sucking up to politicians, they tend not to evaluate their performance.
RESULT: MSM to this day thinks that the reason why the Assault Weapons Ban was repealed after ten years is because of the Evil Conservatives with try to the Evil Capitalists who brought us "Assault Weapons" (and refrigerators and typewriters) instead of acknowledging that the only reason the AWB was passed was because Conservative demanded that if the Liberals couldn't prove an improvement in ten years, the Law would be "Sundowned".
CONCLUSION: MSM and Politicians (and here we're specifically talking about Liberal Feel-Good Politicians) don't really care whether their high-profile issues negatively affect honest law-abiding citizens more than people who are going to break the law 'anyway', they just want to be seen as trying to "Do Something". Because they believe it will look good on their resume. And the sad fact is, it does! These same Maroons are getting re-elected, and the same sycophantic civilians are still writing op-ed pieces for the New York Times.
So, What's It All Mean, Dean?
It doesn't mean nothing. Politicians imposed a ten-year moratorium on such inconsequential "Assault Weapon"n features as bayonette lugs, flash hiders, magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds, pistol grips on rifles ... etc ad nauseum. All arbitrary, all obviously non-sensical, but because some IDIOTS had elected other IDIOTS to National Office, honest and law-abiding citizens had to put up with "work arounds"
During this period (1994 - 2004), I personally came into possession of a number of magazines with a capacity of over ten rounds ... including 25-round pistol magazines. It was entirely legal, and I never misrepresented myself. Nobody ever asked me if I had a criminal record because even if I HAD been a criminal, it would have been legal for me to buy them.
I used these Nefarious Tools of Crime to miss both cardboard and steel targets with ease, laughing all the time because even though I was forced to admit that I can't hit the broadside of the barn with a pistol, I was still defying the law of the land! I HAD EM! AND IT WAS LEGAL!
A slap in the face for Clintons (one and all), Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, and McKinnea and all of their Alphabetically Ordered/Politically Correct/Clue-less Ilk!
These political hacks couldn't write a sound law if their lives depended on it. We all knew it. We grumbled, we complained (some of us whined; most of us whined and did it anyway) because we resented feeling like criminals for doing something which was legal .. but still proscribed.
The nice thing about this very late article is that someone is publishing a non-blogger article that says what we have been saying for decades:
What a bunch of maroons!
POST SCRIPT:
Bwa-hah-hah-hah-hah!
Friday, September 06, 2013
Iraq and Iran sign onto The War Against Syria
Iraqi officials, militants warn of threat to US | World News | Comcast: BAGHDAD (AP) —
That's the gist which has been floating around the Internet (and the MSM) lately.
The supposed scenario is that as the war against Syria expends into retaliatory strikes against Iran as well, other middle-eastern nations will joing in ... sufficient of the to expand the War Against Syria to a global war.
Is this "A Good Thing"?
No.
War is Not Good. I've been to war; it sucks. It was bad enough when the demonstrably-bad Republicans were micro-managing the war against Viet Nam.
What will Global War look like when various Nuclear Nations enter?
Not a pretty sight. People are going to get killed in any war, but this Democratic Adventurism is going to lead to National Adventurism .
Read: Total War, all over the place.
There is a "camel's nose under the tent" process in the wings, here, and America should be girding itself for this Total Committment.
Oour Dear Leader is leading us down the Garden Path, and he knows not what my occur.
Why?
Because he is an idiot with delusions of establishing a Viable War Record, and going down in the history books for his own personal glorification.
My Son The Squid is in the Navy, and I can picture many scenarios where this President may put him In Harms Way. He has five children, My Son The Squid, and if he dies in an unjust war ... I don't know what we will do.
Mine is not the only family who is wondering how we would survive without our young man.
It seems to me that Our Dear President is not paying attention to the Butcher's Bill which his actions may create.
I'd rather have a slothful, incompetent leader (can we say "Biden"?) than an ambitious incompetent leader (Obama) making National Policy.
Iranian-backed Shiite militias are threatening to retaliate against American interests inside Iraq if the United States goes ahead with strikes against the Tehran-allied government in neighboring Syria, according to Iraqi security officials and militants themselves.Is this really just a not-so-subtle way of getting Iran to commit to blatant Anti-American policies .. so we (American Military) can use their actions as justification to attack Iran?
Iraqi officials say they are taking the warnings seriously. The threats, which come as President Barack Obama's administration and Congress debate possible military action over the Syrian regime's alleged use of chemical weapons, risk exacerbating an increasingly deteriorating security environment inside Iraq.
Cleric Wathiq al-Batat, who leads the Mukhtar Army, a shadowy Iranian-backed militia, said his forces are preparing for a strong reaction against the interests of the U.S. and other countries that take part in any Syria strike. He claimed that militants have selected hundreds of potential targets, which could include both official American sites and companies "associated with the Americans."
That's the gist which has been floating around the Internet (and the MSM) lately.
The supposed scenario is that as the war against Syria expends into retaliatory strikes against Iran as well, other middle-eastern nations will joing in ... sufficient of the to expand the War Against Syria to a global war.
Is this "A Good Thing"?
No.
War is Not Good. I've been to war; it sucks. It was bad enough when the demonstrably-bad Republicans were micro-managing the war against Viet Nam.
What will Global War look like when various Nuclear Nations enter?
Not a pretty sight. People are going to get killed in any war, but this Democratic Adventurism is going to lead to National Adventurism .
Read: Total War, all over the place.
There is a "camel's nose under the tent" process in the wings, here, and America should be girding itself for this Total Committment.
Oour Dear Leader is leading us down the Garden Path, and he knows not what my occur.
Why?
Because he is an idiot with delusions of establishing a Viable War Record, and going down in the history books for his own personal glorification.
My Son The Squid is in the Navy, and I can picture many scenarios where this President may put him In Harms Way. He has five children, My Son The Squid, and if he dies in an unjust war ... I don't know what we will do.
Mine is not the only family who is wondering how we would survive without our young man.
It seems to me that Our Dear President is not paying attention to the Butcher's Bill which his actions may create.
I'd rather have a slothful, incompetent leader (can we say "Biden"?) than an ambitious incompetent leader (Obama) making National Policy.
Thursday, September 05, 2013
No You Can't .. Part II
Obama facing rank-and-file resistance to Syria plan, despite endorsements | Fox News: ed.
Salmon made his comments minutes before the start of the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. The congressman also said the administration doesn't appear to have the House votes right now.
"I don't think a majority of the Republican conference will support this," Salmon said. "And I suspect some Democrats will defect."
Earlier in the day, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash tweeted: "If members of Congress care at all what constituents think, they will not authorize strikes in #Syria. "Never seen an action w/ less support."
What does that mean .. "Strike on Syria"?
Missiles? Bombers? Boots on the Ground?
Nobody seems to know, yet, exactly what kind of "retaliation" (for evils NOT committed against American Citizens) seem most appropriate by Our American President.
One thing is sure, though; President Obama seems determined to make his "War Time Legacy" based on an attack on a foreign country (which has not demonstrably attacked us first).
Will we send rockets? Well we send bombers? Or will we send American soldiers to invade this Middle-Eastern country?
Does it matter?
I remain adamant in thinking that assaulting Syria, in any manner, because their president poisons his constituents ... is not within the prevue of the United States Constitution. Color me pink, but I always thought that the Military arm of the United States had a mandate to protect American sovereignty .. not American Presidential Preferences.
Until it can be shown that Syria represents a threat to America, I think America should stick to its own knitting.
Or, as I may perhaps have said before:
"What a bunch of Maroons!
President Obama notched several incremental victories this week in his push for congressional approval of a strike in Syria -- winning the support of congressional leaders and, on Wednesday, the backing of a key Senate panel.
But the president and his allies on the Hill are facing evident headwinds from rank-and-file members still not convinced that it's in the U.S. interest to launch missiles at Syria.
"It's going to be very difficult for [the president] to convince me the United States should be involved," Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., told FoxNews.com. "I'm not seeing any threat to our national security."STRIKE ON SYRIA:
Some of the strongest voices in opposition are coming from the Republican wing of Capitol Hill. Secretary of State John Kerry got a grilling from skeptical Republicans during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday afternoon; the hearing was far more contentious than one on the Senate side a day earlier.
While leaders of the Republican-led House said Tuesday they would support a strike as punishment for Syrian President Bashar Assad's recent chemical weapons attack, many conservative members are openly opposed -- or at least undecided.
What does that mean .. "Strike on Syria"?
Missiles? Bombers? Boots on the Ground?
Nobody seems to know, yet, exactly what kind of "retaliation" (for evils NOT committed against American Citizens) seem most appropriate by Our American President.
One thing is sure, though; President Obama seems determined to make his "War Time Legacy" based on an attack on a foreign country (which has not demonstrably attacked us first).
Will we send rockets? Well we send bombers? Or will we send American soldiers to invade this Middle-Eastern country?
Does it matter?
"I don't think a majority of the Republican conference will support this," Salmon said. "And I suspect some Democrats will defect."
Earlier in the day, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash tweeted: "If members of Congress care at all what constituents think, they will not authorize strikes in #Syria. "Never seen an action w/ less support."I've never met a political who impressed me by what he "tweeted", and I couldn't have less respect for anyone who expected that Twitter was a viable venue for political comment ... but just because the Congressman is clue-less about social websites, that doesn't mean he is clueless about political issues.
I remain adamant in thinking that assaulting Syria, in any manner, because their president poisons his constituents ... is not within the prevue of the United States Constitution. Color me pink, but I always thought that the Military arm of the United States had a mandate to protect American sovereignty .. not American Presidential Preferences.
Until it can be shown that Syria represents a threat to America, I think America should stick to its own knitting.
Or, as I may perhaps have said before:
"What a bunch of Maroons!
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
No, you can't
President Obama wants to bomb Syria back to the stone age. He's having a LITTLE bit of trouble selling this to congress.
Why shouldn't he?
President Clinton responded to the bombing of a navy ship, sending a Tomahawk Missile to destroy either an aspirin factory, or a single camel. Hmmmmm ... either way he ended up looking ineffective.
Tomahawks are very effective reducing, for example, Bagdad to rubble, but it didn't look all that good on Television.
President Al Gore was against Bush's actions, and .. oh, wait. He never got to be President. Now he's giving talks about Global Warming. Well, God knows it's hot here in Geekistan today; 80 degrees, which is entirely unseasonable.
Oh, wait; it's entirely seasonable.
Well, President Kerry is against the Military.
Oh, wait; he isn't. He's Secretary of State, and ... hmm he's still against the Military.
Well, the Military has never done a bit of good for the American People.
Except, perhaps, during World War II, but that's a minor point. But perhaps that's why he wants the United States of America to bomb Syria, because they sent "Freedom Fighters" to bomb New York.
Oh, wait; they didn't. Those people were Saudi's, and our allies. We don't want to bomb them.
But when Saudie citizens destroyed the Twin Towers of New York, they were wrong! Are we agreed on that?
Bombing Syria is an entirely different thing, isn't it?
I'm just wondering, how is that different?
Perhaps because bombing New York was an effort by "Private Enterprise" (aka: Al Queda), and bombing Syria is an effort by a Government. We are a nation of Laws, and our laws tell us that we cannot bomb another country without a declaration of war.
So, we're going to war because a middle-Eastern country poisons it's own people?
That's what Saddam Husein did, and President Gore/Kerry/Obama were entirely against that process.
I'm really quite confused about the mechanism by which a sitting president can convince Congress to allow American troops to bomb another country. Especially since President Obama, President Gore, and President Kerry were so adamantly against the American invasion of Iraq.
Is it not so much the actions, but the political party that makes the decision, that makes the difference?
Thank GOD we're being ruled by the Democratic Party, led by a political hack who has never had any experience in making a living other than being a "Community Organizer" and being a first-term U.S. Senator!
I'm so glad that Our President Obama holds his high office because he represented Chicago .. home of Drive By Shootings!
Oh. Drive By Shooting? Okay, That makes it all clear to me now.
Please, do as you will Mister President. I have full faith in your judgement.
I'm so glad that you were elected on the basis of your offer of HOPE, and CHANGE!
Why shouldn't he?
President Clinton responded to the bombing of a navy ship, sending a Tomahawk Missile to destroy either an aspirin factory, or a single camel. Hmmmmm ... either way he ended up looking ineffective.
Tomahawks are very effective reducing, for example, Bagdad to rubble, but it didn't look all that good on Television.
President Al Gore was against Bush's actions, and .. oh, wait. He never got to be President. Now he's giving talks about Global Warming. Well, God knows it's hot here in Geekistan today; 80 degrees, which is entirely unseasonable.
Oh, wait; it's entirely seasonable.
Well, President Kerry is against the Military.
Oh, wait; he isn't. He's Secretary of State, and ... hmm he's still against the Military.
Well, the Military has never done a bit of good for the American People.
Except, perhaps, during World War II, but that's a minor point. But perhaps that's why he wants the United States of America to bomb Syria, because they sent "Freedom Fighters" to bomb New York.
Oh, wait; they didn't. Those people were Saudi's, and our allies. We don't want to bomb them.
But when Saudie citizens destroyed the Twin Towers of New York, they were wrong! Are we agreed on that?
Bombing Syria is an entirely different thing, isn't it?
I'm just wondering, how is that different?
Perhaps because bombing New York was an effort by "Private Enterprise" (aka: Al Queda), and bombing Syria is an effort by a Government. We are a nation of Laws, and our laws tell us that we cannot bomb another country without a declaration of war.
So, we're going to war because a middle-Eastern country poisons it's own people?
That's what Saddam Husein did, and President Gore/Kerry/Obama were entirely against that process.
I'm really quite confused about the mechanism by which a sitting president can convince Congress to allow American troops to bomb another country. Especially since President Obama, President Gore, and President Kerry were so adamantly against the American invasion of Iraq.
Is it not so much the actions, but the political party that makes the decision, that makes the difference?
Thank GOD we're being ruled by the Democratic Party, led by a political hack who has never had any experience in making a living other than being a "Community Organizer" and being a first-term U.S. Senator!
I'm so glad that Our President Obama holds his high office because he represented Chicago .. home of Drive By Shootings!
Oh. Drive By Shooting? Okay, That makes it all clear to me now.
Please, do as you will Mister President. I have full faith in your judgement.
I'm so glad that you were elected on the basis of your offer of HOPE, and CHANGE!
Monday, September 02, 2013
: Shooting the S**t; or .. "Snakes Scare the S**T Out Of Me!"
Mausers, Medicine, & Motorcycles: Shooting the S**t
From Mouser Medic's Blog for April 7, 2013:
Shooting at Snakes: The Pacific NorthWest includes some excellent snake country. Nested rattlers along a fenceline (where we pretty much HAD to cross), and walking past a Umatilla County sagebrush and hearing that distinctive "I'm Gonna Get You, Suckah!" rattle. Those moments are engraved in your Lizard Brain forever!
No harm, no foul.
The "Nested Rattlers" story? True fact. My 3-man deer-hunting party was moving together to the other side of the hunting area, and when we got to a fence we found three timber-rattlers curled together in the sun, right where we had intended to cross the fence. The grass was high, the sun was high, the fence was there and we wanted to be on the other side. So we ignored the snakes, they ignored us, and we got safely through the fence during the mutual "cease fire".
Pistols as "Snake guns"
Note that shooting at a snake with a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 Magnum is singularly unrewarding, unless you have taken the precaution of building some "snake rounds" with #7 birdshot held in place with Toilet Paper Wads held in place with a generous dollop of paraffin. Note also that the wax tends to melt in the temperatures which encourage Brer Snake to shake his boogie.
I actually loaded up some Snake Rounds according to this formula, for an Antelope Hunting trip to the Cheyenne area in or about 1990. As it happens, I never DID find any Rattlers on this trip, but I tested the pattern against a telephone pole and discovered that at a six-foot standoff distance, that 7-1/2" barrel allowed the shot to spread over more than one foot, and the density was erratic at best.
At other times, I've responded (after the obligatory "JUMP FOR THE SKY" reaction) to rattlers with a variety of weaponry.
Rifles as "Snake Guns"
The old Conventional Wisdom that you can point the barrel of a gun at a snake, and he will self-align his head with the bore? I tried that one day when I was hunting Jack Rabbits in Southern Eastern Oregon, and got the Buzz Warning.
After I recovered from my initial fright, I stood ten feet away, extended the .25-06 with one hand and waited for the snake to 'extend'. He did, I pulled the trigger, and ... I never did know where the snake went. Didn't find any blood, nor any body parts. But the snake was GONE from Grant county, and I strutted back to the pick-up truck with the mien of a true conqueror.
Unfortunately, my hunting companions (my father and my Uncle) were lounging by the truck, watching me as I quartered the sagebrush patch, and they evinced great amusement when they saw me elevate six feet vertically and 20 feet back when I got The Buzz. From a standing start.
I had only recently returned from an extended vacation in Viet Nam, and I was perhaps too finely tuned to 'threat warnings'. It was embarrassing, but I had by then learned the old saw about "Any engagement you walk away from, is a win".
The Ultimate Snake Gun
Actually, my experience as a high-school student was probably the most rewarding one. At least, in terms of "Geek 1/Snake 0" scoreboard stats.
Upland Bird hunting in the rocky sagebrush of Umatilla County, I got buzzed by a cranky old rattler in the heat of the day. He was close to his hidey-hole in a jumble of rocks, and did the Full Presentation. He was coiled, hissing, looking me right in the eye and had that tail shaking like he was fully ready to strike.
I was packing a Winchester Model 12 in 12 gauge, with 1-1/2 ounces of #7 shot in a hand-loaded 2-3/4" AA hull, and a full-choke barrel. I didn't jump, didn't even think about it. I dropped the muzzle, snap-shot without looking at the sights, the barrel or the alignment. Just .. BLOOEY!
Ten minutes later, I still hadn't found more than one piece of Old Mr. Rattler. Only found a 3" piece of his backbone, with no skin on it.
That was when I learned to love the Twelve-Gauge Shotgun.
A few years later, that mind-set served me well in Vietnam. Snakes or Charley Cong ... it's not something you think about. Identify the threat, remove the threat.
I have to admit, though, that Rattlers have always scared me a whole lot more than black pajamas and a silly-assed AK47.
From Mouser Medic's Blog for April 7, 2013:
So what does one do when tired of shooting a small target with poor feedback? Horse shit. Stands out great against yellow and green grass, misses are easily seen by the chunks of dirt flying in the air, and hits are, well, very easily seen as the material flies better than the dirt does. Revolvers at 100 yards keep it interesting.
But there are things more engaging blasting horse apples at long distances. Like having a copperhead pop up while crossing the creek recovering targets at the end of the day. Two men emptying revolvers into water a couple feet away, without prior planning or coordination, is very interesting indeed.
Shooting at Snakes: The Pacific NorthWest includes some excellent snake country. Nested rattlers along a fenceline (where we pretty much HAD to cross), and walking past a Umatilla County sagebrush and hearing that distinctive "I'm Gonna Get You, Suckah!" rattle. Those moments are engraved in your Lizard Brain forever!
No harm, no foul.
The "Nested Rattlers" story? True fact. My 3-man deer-hunting party was moving together to the other side of the hunting area, and when we got to a fence we found three timber-rattlers curled together in the sun, right where we had intended to cross the fence. The grass was high, the sun was high, the fence was there and we wanted to be on the other side. So we ignored the snakes, they ignored us, and we got safely through the fence during the mutual "cease fire".
Pistols as "Snake guns"
Note that shooting at a snake with a Ruger Blackhawk in .41 Magnum is singularly unrewarding, unless you have taken the precaution of building some "snake rounds" with #7 birdshot held in place with Toilet Paper Wads held in place with a generous dollop of paraffin. Note also that the wax tends to melt in the temperatures which encourage Brer Snake to shake his boogie.
I actually loaded up some Snake Rounds according to this formula, for an Antelope Hunting trip to the Cheyenne area in or about 1990. As it happens, I never DID find any Rattlers on this trip, but I tested the pattern against a telephone pole and discovered that at a six-foot standoff distance, that 7-1/2" barrel allowed the shot to spread over more than one foot, and the density was erratic at best.
At other times, I've responded (after the obligatory "JUMP FOR THE SKY" reaction) to rattlers with a variety of weaponry.
Rifles as "Snake Guns"
The old Conventional Wisdom that you can point the barrel of a gun at a snake, and he will self-align his head with the bore? I tried that one day when I was hunting Jack Rabbits in Southern Eastern Oregon, and got the Buzz Warning.
After I recovered from my initial fright, I stood ten feet away, extended the .25-06 with one hand and waited for the snake to 'extend'. He did, I pulled the trigger, and ... I never did know where the snake went. Didn't find any blood, nor any body parts. But the snake was GONE from Grant county, and I strutted back to the pick-up truck with the mien of a true conqueror.
Unfortunately, my hunting companions (my father and my Uncle) were lounging by the truck, watching me as I quartered the sagebrush patch, and they evinced great amusement when they saw me elevate six feet vertically and 20 feet back when I got The Buzz. From a standing start.
I had only recently returned from an extended vacation in Viet Nam, and I was perhaps too finely tuned to 'threat warnings'. It was embarrassing, but I had by then learned the old saw about "Any engagement you walk away from, is a win".
The Ultimate Snake Gun
Actually, my experience as a high-school student was probably the most rewarding one. At least, in terms of "Geek 1/Snake 0" scoreboard stats.
Upland Bird hunting in the rocky sagebrush of Umatilla County, I got buzzed by a cranky old rattler in the heat of the day. He was close to his hidey-hole in a jumble of rocks, and did the Full Presentation. He was coiled, hissing, looking me right in the eye and had that tail shaking like he was fully ready to strike.
I was packing a Winchester Model 12 in 12 gauge, with 1-1/2 ounces of #7 shot in a hand-loaded 2-3/4" AA hull, and a full-choke barrel. I didn't jump, didn't even think about it. I dropped the muzzle, snap-shot without looking at the sights, the barrel or the alignment. Just .. BLOOEY!
Ten minutes later, I still hadn't found more than one piece of Old Mr. Rattler. Only found a 3" piece of his backbone, with no skin on it.
That was when I learned to love the Twelve-Gauge Shotgun.
A few years later, that mind-set served me well in Vietnam. Snakes or Charley Cong ... it's not something you think about. Identify the threat, remove the threat.
I have to admit, though, that Rattlers have always scared me a whole lot more than black pajamas and a silly-assed AK47.
Sunday, September 01, 2013
WH confident on winning Hill support on Syria but uses 'flood the zone' to get votes | Fox News
WH confident on winning Hill support on Syria but uses 'flood the zone' to get votes | Fox News:
Published September 01, 2013 FoxNews.com
I'm reminded of the Iran situation several years ago, when then-president Bush (a Republican) proposed attacking Iran for the exact same thing. Kerry, the well-known anti-war activist ("I was for it, before I was against it") and notorious war criminal (see his testimony on VietNam War activism) notoriously confronted the President because "there was no evidence" of gas attacks .. even though there was.
Today?
"Hey, no problem Brother."
Personally, I was uncomfortable when President Bush sent troops to Iraq. Democrats, however, used the word "quagmire" until it became The New Black. That send me back into support for The War on Terrorism; their bad!
Now, "The New Black" is "BOMB THEM INTO THE STONE AGE; LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!"
Am I the only one who is getting tired of USA investing American troops into regime change efforts?
Where's the United Nations? And where's Israel? It's their neighborhood. Aren't we paying them enough money to support their military?
If the president is Dithering, and the Secretary of State is contradicting his historical opposition to Regime Change ... WTF are these people doing? Really?
UPDATE:
Our Dear Leader doesn't know what he's going to do next. Is it any wonder that Syria is not intimidated? I'm not enchanted with the idea that American Troops may attack a country which has NOT attacked us ... but when a President announces a "red line" which must not be crossed, and then waffles on his promises of aggressive attacks .. isn't this the definition of a Paper Tiger?
Published September 01, 2013 FoxNews.com
The Obama administration, bolstered by evidence the Syrian government used lethal sarin gas on its own people, expressed confidence Sunday that Congress would back President Obama’s decision for a military strike on the Middle East country.Am I the only one who is amazed .. astounded .. that John Kerry is 'behind' the current (democratic) president's drive to attack a middle-eastern country for gassing citizens?
However, the president and his inner circle worked furiously over the weekend to win congressional support, appearing on Sunday shows, holding classified briefings and making calls to Capitol Hill leaders.
A senior administration officials told Fox News that the president, Vice President Joe Biden and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made phone calls on Sunday to senators and House members urging them to vote in favor of the authorization of military force in Syria.
The official called the lobbying effort a "flood the zone" strategy, in an apparent acknowledgement of just how hard winning Capitol Hill approval will be.
The effort was preceded by Secretary of State John Kerry blanketing the Sunday shows and administration official proceeding with a round of weekend briefings, as Capitol Hill lawmakers said Obama may not have the votes right now.
I'm reminded of the Iran situation several years ago, when then-president Bush (a Republican) proposed attacking Iran for the exact same thing. Kerry, the well-known anti-war activist ("I was for it, before I was against it") and notorious war criminal (see his testimony on VietNam War activism) notoriously confronted the President because "there was no evidence" of gas attacks .. even though there was.
Today?
"Hey, no problem Brother."
Personally, I was uncomfortable when President Bush sent troops to Iraq. Democrats, however, used the word "quagmire" until it became The New Black. That send me back into support for The War on Terrorism; their bad!
Now, "The New Black" is "BOMB THEM INTO THE STONE AGE; LET GOD SORT THEM OUT!"
Am I the only one who is getting tired of USA investing American troops into regime change efforts?
Where's the United Nations? And where's Israel? It's their neighborhood. Aren't we paying them enough money to support their military?
If the president is Dithering, and the Secretary of State is contradicting his historical opposition to Regime Change ... WTF are these people doing? Really?
UPDATE:
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Syria on Sunday derided President Barack Obama's decision to hold off on punitive military strikes, but also took precautions by reportedly moving some troops and military equipment to civilian areas.
The Obama administration countered that its case for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad is getting stronger, saying it now has evidence that the toxic gas allegedly used in strikes on rebel-held areas was the nerve agent sarin.
The administration predicted Sunday it will obtain congressional backing for limited strikes. After days of edging closer to military action against Syria, Obama suddenly announced Saturday he would first seek approval from Congress, which gets back from summer break Sept. 9.---
Our Dear Leader doesn't know what he's going to do next. Is it any wonder that Syria is not intimidated? I'm not enchanted with the idea that American Troops may attack a country which has NOT attacked us ... but when a President announces a "red line" which must not be crossed, and then waffles on his promises of aggressive attacks .. isn't this the definition of a Paper Tiger?
Father charged in BB gun shooting death of 18-month-old boy | Fox News
Father charged in BB gun shooting death of 18-month-old boy | Fox News:
Full Disclosure:
When I was 15, I had a pellet pistol. CO2 charged, and .22 caliber, it was not something which should be treated with disdain.
My sister was then dating a young man only a few years older than myself, who treated himself to complete access to our parents' home. He wandered into my room, found my pellet pistol, and took it into my sister's bedroom. Apparently he wanted to see how powerful the air blast was, so he pointed it at the palm of his hand, pulled the charging-handle to half-cock, and pulled the trigger.
After he had been released from the hospital, with stitches on both sides of his hand (the .22 pellet apparently went 'clear through', he confronted me.
"I can't believe you left a loaded gun just laying around!" he said.
I replied: "It was a pellet gun, in my private bedroom, and you have known me long enough to know that I don't have any 'unloaded' guns!".
---
I was lucky, and he was lucky, that we both learned valuable lessons from that not-too disastrous experience.
I learned that no gun is safe unless it was locked up.
He learned that every gun should be treated as loaded, that he should never point a gun at anything he was not willing to destroy, and he should keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot something.
(Sound familiar? As in .. the Three Rules of Firearms Safety?)
Going back to the original story, we are looking at a 'man' (of no great maturity) who considered a mere "pellet gun" as no threat. Consequent to his poor gun-handling skills, he shot and killed his son.
He was obviously 'distraught' by the injury incurred to his child, and I have not doubt that he regrets his 'playful' actions.
Here's a summary:
Guns don't have a history of having "....accidentally went off...". That happens when you pull the trigger. Suggestion: don't pull the trigger, don't kill your child. It isn't the gun; it's the shooter.
----
Seems pretty simple in retrospect, but the man-child with his finger on the trigger obviously didn't understand the concept.
While I have always been "for" firearms ownership rights, I'm also the first to concede that there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed within touching distance of a firearm. Firearms, unfortunately, include the Barret .50, machine guns, pistols, shotguns, .22 training rifles, and (sadly, in this case) BB-guns.
So, what's the answer? Is it to outlaw farearms, right down to a bb-gun?
I don't think so. Had this man-child been trained, he would have known better to handle a bb-gun in such a manner that it would "accidentally" go "off:". And at the same time, he would have known to not assume that the "firearm" was unloaded. Finally, he would have made sure that while he was handling the gun, it would at no time have been pointing toward another person.
There are THREE basic rules of Firearm Safety. This dipshit disobeyed all three of them, at the same time, and he killed a little boy.
Here are the crimes he has been charged with:
Here are the crimes he should have been charged with; unfortunately, they are not covered by existing law:
Here's a question for the readers: Do you think this will get any where NEAR the publicity that the Travon Martin case received?
NO? Why not? It's not just a matter of accidental homicide, nor of 'black on black' shooting. It's a matter of stupidity, of lack of training, of lack of judgement.
What do you want to bet that this murder (for it is murder, if by in-adventure) doesn't make it to the record books. Doesn't make it to the headlines of any newspaper in the world?s
My personal opinion? I know the guy must be devastated by the consequences of his ill-advised actions. And I'm sure he would do anything to take it back.
I'm thinking that The Reverend Al Sharpton will call for his execution.
No .. probably not.
x
x
x
An 18-month-old Georgia boy is dead after being shot in the chest with a BB gun and his father has been charged with felony murder, police say.
The toddler’s father, Jesse Sellers, 23, reportedly told police he was playing with the gun when it accidentally went off, MyFoxAtlanta.com reported. Sellers has been charged with second-degree cruelty to children and felony murder.
Police say six people, including three children, were in the home at the time of the shooting.
Witnesses reported seeing Sellers running out of the apartment yelling for help and directing paramedics when they arrived.
Police say the child was taken to Grady Hospital and later died.
Full Disclosure:
When I was 15, I had a pellet pistol. CO2 charged, and .22 caliber, it was not something which should be treated with disdain.
My sister was then dating a young man only a few years older than myself, who treated himself to complete access to our parents' home. He wandered into my room, found my pellet pistol, and took it into my sister's bedroom. Apparently he wanted to see how powerful the air blast was, so he pointed it at the palm of his hand, pulled the charging-handle to half-cock, and pulled the trigger.
After he had been released from the hospital, with stitches on both sides of his hand (the .22 pellet apparently went 'clear through', he confronted me.
"I can't believe you left a loaded gun just laying around!" he said.
I replied: "It was a pellet gun, in my private bedroom, and you have known me long enough to know that I don't have any 'unloaded' guns!".
---
I was lucky, and he was lucky, that we both learned valuable lessons from that not-too disastrous experience.
I learned that no gun is safe unless it was locked up.
He learned that every gun should be treated as loaded, that he should never point a gun at anything he was not willing to destroy, and he should keep his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot something.
(Sound familiar? As in .. the Three Rules of Firearms Safety?)
Going back to the original story, we are looking at a 'man' (of no great maturity) who considered a mere "pellet gun" as no threat. Consequent to his poor gun-handling skills, he shot and killed his son.
He was obviously 'distraught' by the injury incurred to his child, and I have not doubt that he regrets his 'playful' actions.
Here's a summary:
Guns don't have a history of having "....accidentally went off...". That happens when you pull the trigger. Suggestion: don't pull the trigger, don't kill your child. It isn't the gun; it's the shooter.
----
Seems pretty simple in retrospect, but the man-child with his finger on the trigger obviously didn't understand the concept.
While I have always been "for" firearms ownership rights, I'm also the first to concede that there are some people who just shouldn't be allowed within touching distance of a firearm. Firearms, unfortunately, include the Barret .50, machine guns, pistols, shotguns, .22 training rifles, and (sadly, in this case) BB-guns.
So, what's the answer? Is it to outlaw farearms, right down to a bb-gun?
I don't think so. Had this man-child been trained, he would have known better to handle a bb-gun in such a manner that it would "accidentally" go "off:". And at the same time, he would have known to not assume that the "firearm" was unloaded. Finally, he would have made sure that while he was handling the gun, it would at no time have been pointing toward another person.
There are THREE basic rules of Firearm Safety. This dipshit disobeyed all three of them, at the same time, and he killed a little boy.
Here are the crimes he has been charged with:
- Second degree cruelty to children
- Felony murder
Here are the crimes he should have been charged with; unfortunately, they are not covered by existing law:
- being ignorant; he didn't know any better
- being stupid; didn't know he didn't know any better
- handling a loaded firearm when other people were in his presence; see (1) and (2)
Here's a question for the readers: Do you think this will get any where NEAR the publicity that the Travon Martin case received?
NO? Why not? It's not just a matter of accidental homicide, nor of 'black on black' shooting. It's a matter of stupidity, of lack of training, of lack of judgement.
What do you want to bet that this murder (for it is murder, if by in-adventure) doesn't make it to the record books. Doesn't make it to the headlines of any newspaper in the world?s
My personal opinion? I know the guy must be devastated by the consequences of his ill-advised actions. And I'm sure he would do anything to take it back.
I'm thinking that The Reverend Al Sharpton will call for his execution.
No .. probably not.
x
x
x
Friday, August 30, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
5 Of The Cheapest States To Own A Car | Bankrate.com
5 Of The Cheapest States To Own A Car | Bankrate.com:
The whole thing about 'no state sales tax' is a continuing issue in Oregon. State lawmakers have been trying to initiate a State Sales Tax in Oregon for fifty years .. on a nearly bi-annual basis. They present bills, it comes up for a vote (mandated by the state constitution), and their constituents keep voting it down. And voting against the sponsors of the bills, as often as not, the next time they come up for re-election.
Another issue; when I lived in Washington State, and in California State, when we renewed our vehicle license the cost was based on the value of the car. It had nothing to do with the usage, only with car value. Apparently, most states figure if you can afford a decent car, you can afford to let the state milk you for the privilege. Actually, even when I drove junkers in those states, the licensing fees were higher than that for a luxury car in Oregon. We're talking double-digits for biannual licensing fees in Oregon, and everybody pays the same.
There are other benefits to living in Oregon. New Jersey and Oregon have two things in common; no state sales tax, and service stations cannot require you to pump your own gas. No other states in the union combine these benefits.
There's a joke about New Jersey:
"California has the highest ration of attorneys per capita than any other state. New Jersey has the highest ration of toxic waste dumps. Why is that? Answer: New Jersey got first choice!"
Where I live, I can drive to the coast to surf in two hours or to a mountain to ski in three hours. In five hours I can be in a dessert. (Not that I do any of these things .. I stay close to home, as do most Oregonians, which is why our annual mileage is so low, Everything's perfect just where we are, except for the lousy Liberal politics .. so where would we want to go?)
Just something you should know. Visit Oregon. Spend lots of money. Then, go home!
Oregon tops Bankrate's list as the cheapest place in the country to own and operate a vehicle. Drivers here pay $2,204 to own and operate a car each year. That may be a surprise in a place where gas prices have frequently jumped above $4 per gallon.Don't tell California residents that it's a lot cheaper to live in Oregon; too many of their retirees are moving here, already (and have been doing so for decades).
The Beaver State gives drivers a break with no state sales tax. Kelley Blue Book estimates the combined vehicle fees in the state amount to just $157 per year. That's the lowest in the country.
Oregon motorists also drive less than in most other states. That drives down what they spend on gasoline each year. The average yearly cost of gasoline in Oregon was $942 per driver in 2012, while it was $1,020 nationally.
Insurance premiums are also relatively low at $724 per year.
The whole thing about 'no state sales tax' is a continuing issue in Oregon. State lawmakers have been trying to initiate a State Sales Tax in Oregon for fifty years .. on a nearly bi-annual basis. They present bills, it comes up for a vote (mandated by the state constitution), and their constituents keep voting it down. And voting against the sponsors of the bills, as often as not, the next time they come up for re-election.
Another issue; when I lived in Washington State, and in California State, when we renewed our vehicle license the cost was based on the value of the car. It had nothing to do with the usage, only with car value. Apparently, most states figure if you can afford a decent car, you can afford to let the state milk you for the privilege. Actually, even when I drove junkers in those states, the licensing fees were higher than that for a luxury car in Oregon. We're talking double-digits for biannual licensing fees in Oregon, and everybody pays the same.
There are other benefits to living in Oregon. New Jersey and Oregon have two things in common; no state sales tax, and service stations cannot require you to pump your own gas. No other states in the union combine these benefits.
There's a joke about New Jersey:
"California has the highest ration of attorneys per capita than any other state. New Jersey has the highest ration of toxic waste dumps. Why is that? Answer: New Jersey got first choice!"
Where I live, I can drive to the coast to surf in two hours or to a mountain to ski in three hours. In five hours I can be in a dessert. (Not that I do any of these things .. I stay close to home, as do most Oregonians, which is why our annual mileage is so low, Everything's perfect just where we are, except for the lousy Liberal politics .. so where would we want to go?)
Just something you should know. Visit Oregon. Spend lots of money. Then, go home!
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Justice in England; Delayed, and Demeaning
It has been a while since I picked on The Brits (those stalwart defenders of the Bastions of Anti-Gun Laws). I must be getting soft.
There's so much to abhor in The Late Great British Empire, it's sometimes hard to choose. Fortunately, my attention was drawn today to an article I wrote in May, 2005 titled "Yob Meat". About halfway through it, I presented a 'sidebar' instance of one Linda Walker from Manchester. Her home and family were being harrassed by a gang of YOBs ("BOY", spelled backwards; we call them Hooligans or Juvenile Delinquents a half-century ago) and finally attempted to drive them away during a front-stoop confrontation by firing a pellet-gun at the sidewalk.
Nobody was injured, but as a consequence the teacher Walker was fired from her job and imprisoned!
(Go read the original article for the details; the "SCOTSMAN" link is still active, although the current date is cited rather than the original date of publication).
While I reread my own article, I wondered .. just what happened to Linda Walker?
According to a 2008 BBC article, they released her from prison:
The woman was trying to defend hearth and home and family .. with a pellet gun against a gang ... and it took four years for England to 'rehabilitate' her back to active status at her chosen occupation (teaching).
DEMEANING:
The council hearing was not convened until it was 'appropriate':
Nadine Bristow, chairwoman of the General Teaching Council committee, said: "The reprimand is appropriate because Mrs Walker has shown insight and remorse into her behaviour - she has said she is ashamed of her conduct."
She said Mrs Walker "appeared to have learnt her lesson".
Yes, Mrs Walker has learnt her lesson. She now knows that the only way she can earn a living in her native country is to kowtow to absurd judicial mandate. She must hang her head, allow her government to shame her publicly for years until she is completely broken.
I'm reminded of Les Miserables and the plight of Jean Valjean, who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family and was sentence to years as a galley slave, rowing ships back and forth while being whipped by overseers.
Okay, that was a little melodramatic. Not, perhaps, an entirely inappropriate comparison, but over the top anyway.
LESSON LEARNED?:
If anything, I'm personally grateful to George Washington, Nathan Hale, et al, who broke the chains of British rule a couple hundred years ago. I'm sure that "Oh, to be in England in the Spring" was an appropriate sentiment for British Soldiers in India during "The Raj", but it would break the heart of any 19th Century Tommy who looked at England today.
I've often commented on the British tendency to turn Citizens into Subjects; but in retrospect this looks far to much like being broken by the whip.
Oh .. "1984", that classic novel by George Orwell .. wasn't Orwell British? Didn't that have something to do with complete subjugation of the populace by a dictatorial government? Apparently, Orwell wasn't all that far wrong. He was only 20 years early in his timeline. Well, The Brits have always been "conservative" on social issues, haven't they?
There is a lesson here, for America.
There's so much to abhor in The Late Great British Empire, it's sometimes hard to choose. Fortunately, my attention was drawn today to an article I wrote in May, 2005 titled "Yob Meat". About halfway through it, I presented a 'sidebar' instance of one Linda Walker from Manchester. Her home and family were being harrassed by a gang of YOBs ("BOY", spelled backwards; we call them Hooligans or Juvenile Delinquents a half-century ago) and finally attempted to drive them away during a front-stoop confrontation by firing a pellet-gun at the sidewalk.
Nobody was injured, but as a consequence the teacher Walker was fired from her job and imprisoned!
(Go read the original article for the details; the "SCOTSMAN" link is still active, although the current date is cited rather than the original date of publication).
While I reread my own article, I wondered .. just what happened to Linda Walker?
According to a 2008 BBC article, they released her from prison:
At a General Teaching Council hearing she was given a reprimand which she must disclose to any employer inquiring about herDELAYED:registration status.
The reprimand will last for two years.
'Learnt her lesson'
Speaking after the hearing, Mrs Walker said: "I am thrilled to bits."
She added that she now wanted toteach adults and hoped to put the incident behind her.
Nadine Bristow, chairwoman of the General Teaching Council committee, said: "The reprimand is appropriate because Mrs Walker has shown insight and remorse into her behaviour - she has said she is ashamed of her conduct."
She said Mrs Walker "appeared to have learnt her lesson".
Mrs Walker taught children with behavioural problems at New Park HighSchool in Eccles, Salford, when the gun incident happened.
She was jailed for six months for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and affray.
The appeal court later quashed her jail sentence, replacing it with a 12-month conditional discharge.
The woman was trying to defend hearth and home and family .. with a pellet gun against a gang ... and it took four years for England to 'rehabilitate' her back to active status at her chosen occupation (teaching).
DEMEANING:
The council hearing was not convened until it was 'appropriate':
Nadine Bristow, chairwoman of the General Teaching Council committee, said: "The reprimand is appropriate because Mrs Walker has shown insight and remorse into her behaviour - she has said she is ashamed of her conduct."
She said Mrs Walker "appeared to have learnt her lesson".
Yes, Mrs Walker has learnt her lesson. She now knows that the only way she can earn a living in her native country is to kowtow to absurd judicial mandate. She must hang her head, allow her government to shame her publicly for years until she is completely broken.
I'm reminded of Les Miserables and the plight of Jean Valjean, who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family and was sentence to years as a galley slave, rowing ships back and forth while being whipped by overseers.
Okay, that was a little melodramatic. Not, perhaps, an entirely inappropriate comparison, but over the top anyway.
LESSON LEARNED?:
If anything, I'm personally grateful to George Washington, Nathan Hale, et al, who broke the chains of British rule a couple hundred years ago. I'm sure that "Oh, to be in England in the Spring" was an appropriate sentiment for British Soldiers in India during "The Raj", but it would break the heart of any 19th Century Tommy who looked at England today.
I've often commented on the British tendency to turn Citizens into Subjects; but in retrospect this looks far to much like being broken by the whip.
Oh .. "1984", that classic novel by George Orwell .. wasn't Orwell British? Didn't that have something to do with complete subjugation of the populace by a dictatorial government? Apparently, Orwell wasn't all that far wrong. He was only 20 years early in his timeline. Well, The Brits have always been "conservative" on social issues, haven't they?
There is a lesson here, for America.
M&P Shield Pistol Safety Alert
Shooting Wire:
(... and a supplemental note from Shooting Wire:)
Smith Wesson Issues Safety Alert and Inspection Procedure for M&P Shield PistolsSee the SHOOTING WIRE link at the top of the page for the complete safety warning text.
SPRINGFIELD, MA --- Smith & Wesson Corp. announced today that the Company has identified a condition where the trigger bar pin could damage the lower trigger in certain M&P Shields in a way that may affect the functionality of the drop safety feature of the firearm, potentially allowing the pistol to discharge if it is dropped.
This Safety Alert applies to all M&P Shield pistols manufactured before August 19, 2013. We believe this condition is largely limited to recently manufactured M&P Shield pistols. However, out of an abundance of caution, we are asking all consumers of all M&P Shields manufactured before August 19, 2013 to immediately inspect their pistols for this condition.
Any unintended discharge of a firearm has the potential to cause injury, and we ask that you STOP USING YOUR PISTOL IMMEDIATELY UNTIL IT HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND, IF THE CONDITION IS FOUND, REPAIRED
(... and a supplemental note from Shooting Wire:)
To make it simpler for those of us who find gunsmithing not in our skill-set, there's a video online at MPShieldSafetyAlert.com to give video instructions for inspecting your Shield.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
A Modest Proposal
Justice Department to sue Texas over voter ID law | Fox News: WASHINGTON –
It's this whole "voter disenfranchisement" that confuses me. I understand poll taxes and literacy tests to have historically been the 'litmus test' of disenfranchisement.
The stationing of two uniformed "New Black Panthers" outside the Philadelphia Ward 4 voting site in 2008 was not, however, "disenfranchisement". Passive intimidation? One wonders why else one of them felt obliged to brandish a club, but perhaps that's just his "pacifier". Holder's Justice Department declined to prosecute the two, having determined that they had broken no laws.
Why, then, is Mr. Holder planning to sue Texas for doing something that other states are allowed to do? That is, require voters to prove their identity before being given the ballot prepared for that registered voter. Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
However, if Mr. Holder's fiefdom is permitted to sue Texas for requiring voters to prove their identity, and wins, then perhaps the rest of us can use that precedent to protect our own civil rights.
For example, I am currently required to present government issued photo ID before I am permitted to purchase a firearm. And the Second Amendment is as clear on my right to Keep and Bear arms as other amendments are clear in protecting voting rights.
I believe that this is an illegal and unconstitutional impediment on my civil rights. Specifically, it's a deliberate attempt to undermine German-Irish rights in America! Look to other rights protected by Constitutional Amendments:
Therefore, if the Justice Department sues Texas and wins, then he has established a precedent for the prevention of any other laws which require the use of a photo ID to prove my eligibility to exercise my constitutional rights. Such as, the right to keep and bear arms.
Obviously, the requirement for me to present a photo ID to rent a motel room or a car, or to cash a check or enter a tavern -- those are not constitutionally protected rights; they're privileges or mere monetary transactions.
So Mr. Holder, I put it to you that the Slippery Slope argument is alive and well in America. Especially since the only people who would be 'disenfrangised' by this law are those who are attempting to commit voter fraud.
Put up or shut up.
[ apologies and appreciation to Jonathan Swift ]
The Justice Department said Thursday that it will sue Texas over its voter ID law and, separately, look for ways to intervene in a lawsuit over the state’s redistricting policies -- in the latest volley in the ongoing dispute between the feds and the Lone Star State.
[Attorney General Eric Holder] ... said the step marks the department’s “continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans.” He added, “We will not allow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights.”
Holder’s announcement follows a June 25 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively removed a vital portion of the Voting Rights Act that required 16 jurisdictions to seek pre-clearance from the DOJ before making any changes to election laws and redistricting laws.
Following the ruling, Holder called the court’s decision and its reasoning behind it “flawed,” and vowed to find other ways within the law to challenge the ruling. He planned to do this by targeting other provisions in the act that would allow plaintiffs to present cases where they were unfairly targeted by the law.
“The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to theI have to admit, I'm not sure what Holder's problem is. (Okay, we've all been saying that for years now, but I was talking about this specific issue.)ballot box , no matter where it occurs,” he said. “We will keep fighting aggressively to prevent voter disenfranchisement.”
It's this whole "voter disenfranchisement" that confuses me. I understand poll taxes and literacy tests to have historically been the 'litmus test' of disenfranchisement.
The stationing of two uniformed "New Black Panthers" outside the Philadelphia Ward 4 voting site in 2008 was not, however, "disenfranchisement". Passive intimidation? One wonders why else one of them felt obliged to brandish a club, but perhaps that's just his "pacifier". Holder's Justice Department declined to prosecute the two, having determined that they had broken no laws.
Why, then, is Mr. Holder planning to sue Texas for doing something that other states are allowed to do? That is, require voters to prove their identity before being given the ballot prepared for that registered voter. Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
However, if Mr. Holder's fiefdom is permitted to sue Texas for requiring voters to prove their identity, and wins, then perhaps the rest of us can use that precedent to protect our own civil rights.
For example, I am currently required to present government issued photo ID before I am permitted to purchase a firearm. And the Second Amendment is as clear on my right to Keep and Bear arms as other amendments are clear in protecting voting rights.
I believe that this is an illegal and unconstitutional impediment on my civil rights. Specifically, it's a deliberate attempt to undermine German-Irish rights in America! Look to other rights protected by Constitutional Amendments:
- The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870
- women gained the vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920
- American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924
- The Twenty-Fourth Amendment eliminated the Poll Tax in 1964
- The Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the legal voting age to eighteen in 1972
Therefore, if the Justice Department sues Texas and wins, then he has established a precedent for the prevention of any other laws which require the use of a photo ID to prove my eligibility to exercise my constitutional rights. Such as, the right to keep and bear arms.
Obviously, the requirement for me to present a photo ID to rent a motel room or a car, or to cash a check or enter a tavern -- those are not constitutionally protected rights; they're privileges or mere monetary transactions.
So Mr. Holder, I put it to you that the Slippery Slope argument is alive and well in America. Especially since the only people who would be 'disenfrangised' by this law are those who are attempting to commit voter fraud.
Put up or shut up.
[ apologies and appreciation to Jonathan Swift ]
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Ammunition Deficit Redux
not having any in mind other than sharing "What's Happening now" stuff with my sister this morning, I realized that I had just reproduced an earlier Blogspot Comment to my family member.
Not that there's anything all that NEW in here .. I just found it interesting that I was preaching to my Liberal Democrat Family Member, without even thinking about it.
Wow! Talk about Knee-jerk Reactionism!
Here's how it looks when you just sort of .. seque .. into it:
----
----
This is probably too personal for publication, but my point is one of consistency; While I don't mind saying to YOU these paranoid/conspiracy things, I am surprised when I discover that I'm making the same points to my Liberal sibling .. who will NOT consider for a moment that my point of view includes any fact-based reason for concern.
And people wonder why my blogging had diminished dramatically?
Not that there's anything all that NEW in here .. I just found it interesting that I was preaching to my Liberal Democrat Family Member, without even thinking about it.
Wow! Talk about Knee-jerk Reactionism!
Here's how it looks when you just sort of .. seque .. into it:
----
I got my gun back! My gunsmith finished replacing the barrel, the grip, and a lot of other stuff for about $400 parts and $150 labor. The sights were loose, too, and some other minor issues. So I have my gun and I can start using it for competition again.
Unfortunately, most of the ammunition reloading components are not currently available. I have lots of powder because I bought a big job lot (twenty pounds) a couple of years ago. but I'm running out of bullets, and they are NOT available on today's market. Nor are primers. Reason? When Obama got elected, there was a huge run on guns, ammunition, parts and reloading components. Much of it [the source of the increased demand is ...] federal ... Homeland Security, and military. Ammunition component manufacturers are building new plants like crazy, but it will be one or two years before they can gear up to meet the demand.
The reason for shortage? Demand has sky-rocketted. When Obama was first elected, we saw an increase in firearms purchases, including reloading components. Then when he was running for second term, we had almost recovered. Then Federal agencies started [to] buy increasing [amounts of] ammunition, in the billions of rounds PER YEAR instead of millions. And people got scared again, and manufacturers couldn't keep up with the demand. Homeland Security alone is buying 1.6 BILLION rounds of .40S&W hollowpoint ammunition in the next 3 years .. for training. Manufacturers place emphasis on government contracts because they KNOW they have the market. And I can't get bullets, or primers, or brass for my competition pistol, because they [the manufacturers] can't meet the government contracts AND the civilian market demands.
I'm about to quit shooting in competition, because I have less than 1,000 rounds of bullets, which won't last me through the year in even an abbreviated competition schedule.
Why am I telling you all of this?
Partly because I'm frustrated.
Mostly because I wonder why my government needs ammunition for "Homeland Security" more than I need it for competition.
I don't know what they know that I don't know.
BTW .. hollowpoint ammunition isn't advantageous for training; it costs more to produce than standard ammunition. It's only advantageous for combat situations. I'm wondering why Homeland Security needs to specify HOLLOW-POINT ammunition for 'training', as the ballistics are similar to the less-expensive 'standard' ammunition.
Okay, right now you're thinking: "My brother is paranoid!".
At a ratio of one-million-to-one, are there more than 1,000 terrorists who need to be shot at? With a half-BILLION rounds left over for 'training'?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
Google it. I'm just saying ...
----
This is probably too personal for publication, but my point is one of consistency; While I don't mind saying to YOU these paranoid/conspiracy things, I am surprised when I discover that I'm making the same points to my Liberal sibling .. who will NOT consider for a moment that my point of view includes any fact-based reason for concern.
And people wonder why my blogging had diminished dramatically?
Sunday, August 04, 2013
Why I Don't Subscribe to Cable TV
CBS blackout by Time Warner goes into 2nd day | Fox News:
People, People .. can't we just all "get along"?
LOS ANGELES – Time Warner Cable's blackout of CBS continued Saturday, and neither side indicated a resolution of their dispute over fees is imminent. Time Warner dropped CBS Friday in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas and several other cities, leaving three million customers without the network's programs. The issue is fees that the cable company pays CBS to air its programs. Each has accused the other of making unreasonable demands. On Saturday the two sides even seemed to disagree on the status of negotiations. A Time Warner spokeswoman said Saturday afternoon that negotiations are ongoing. CBS said it expects talks to resume soon, but the decision rests with Time Warner.
People, People .. can't we just all "get along"?
The ongoing threat of EEVIL Assault Cars!
1 dead, 11 hurt after car drives into crowd on LA boardwalk | Fox News: LOS ANGELES –
Shouldn't we at least require purchasers of Full-Auto Assault Cars to demonstrate a proficiency in the operation of these high-power weapons?
This is clearly a situation which begs .. nay, REQUIRES ... Federal control.
In the past, there were no restrictions; anyone could buy a car. But that was back in the days when cars had only small, two-cylinder engines. Cars then couldn't travel much more than walking speeds.
Now anyone can buy a V8 engine. Surely our forefathers did not envision the day when eight-cylinder engines were available. If they had, they would have established restrictions on cars with more than two cylinders! Imagine if they had realized that cars could be purchased which had a terminal velocity of over a hundred miles an hour.
In a Nation which famously established a speed limit of 55 miles an hour, there is clearly no NEED for a car which can travel at over twice that speed. Even interstate freeways have a speed limit of no more than 65 or 70mph. Why do the irresponsible car manufacturers persist in building cars with the possibility of going more than the legal speed?
Conservatives point out that the 55MPH speed limit, which was a progressive movement in the 1970's, had proven to be "less than effective" at meeting the stated goals of that Federal law. We all know that the true purpose was to keep irresponsible car owners from unregulated access to Weapons of Mass Distruction ... Assault Cars!
But they, the evil Conservatives, had a Secret Weapon: The AAA!
This nefarious Special Interest Group lobbied senators, threatened Representatives with the withdrawal of political (and financial) support, until our poor beleagured Congressmen had to choose between bowing to the powerful Lobbiest or facing defeat at the polls.
This is the result of powerful Special Interest Groups. Even though the AAA has over 60,000,000 members, it is unconscionable that our elected representatives should bow under lobbyist pressure on an issue which is so clearly vital to the safety of the American Public.
It's clearly time for right-thinking Americans to rise up against these Special Interest Groups. Write your congressman! Tell him (or her, or it, as the case may be) that you are opposed to the ... well, perhaps not illegal, but clearly WRONG .. pressure exerted by these special-interest voting blocks.
Who cares if the AAA has all those votes in their pockets? Clearly, it is time that our brave senators and representatives rise up and Vote Their Conscience! The votes of millions of Americans count as nothing when compared to those of dozens of Right-Thinking (okay, Left-Thinking) Americans who KNOW that the average citizen is neither bright enough, not responsible enough, to be trusted with an Evil Assault Car!
Now .. go vote for Obama and help him stop this travesty now!
You know it's The Right Thing To Do. Do it for the children.
One person has died and 11 others have been injured after a car drove into a crowd of people walking along the famed Venice Beach boardwalk early Saturday evening before the driver fled the busy Los Angeles tourist site.When is America going to wake up to the ongoing threat of unregistered Assault Automobiles? Why do we allow our young people, who are obviously too immature to understand the terrible responsibility they assume when they buy Assault Cars (which are available to anyone at Car Shows without background checks!) to possess these Weapons of Mass Destruction?
A Los Angeles Police spokesman said late Saturday that one person had been detained for questioning in nearby Santa Monica, though it was not immediately clear if the person detained was the driver.
Police were looking for a dark-colored Dodge Charger or Avenger. [emphasis added]
The driver was a man described as having sandy blond hair and estimated to be in his mid-20s, [emphasis added] authorities said. Multiple witnesses reported that the driver appeared to be "moving purposefully" and in control of the car as it plowed through the crowd, Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Brian Humphrey said. The car was still moving as it drove out of sight of firefighters and the people who were hit.
Shouldn't we at least require purchasers of Full-Auto Assault Cars to demonstrate a proficiency in the operation of these high-power weapons?
This is clearly a situation which begs .. nay, REQUIRES ... Federal control.
In the past, there were no restrictions; anyone could buy a car. But that was back in the days when cars had only small, two-cylinder engines. Cars then couldn't travel much more than walking speeds.
Now anyone can buy a V8 engine. Surely our forefathers did not envision the day when eight-cylinder engines were available. If they had, they would have established restrictions on cars with more than two cylinders! Imagine if they had realized that cars could be purchased which had a terminal velocity of over a hundred miles an hour.
In a Nation which famously established a speed limit of 55 miles an hour, there is clearly no NEED for a car which can travel at over twice that speed. Even interstate freeways have a speed limit of no more than 65 or 70mph. Why do the irresponsible car manufacturers persist in building cars with the possibility of going more than the legal speed?
Conservatives point out that the 55MPH speed limit, which was a progressive movement in the 1970's, had proven to be "less than effective" at meeting the stated goals of that Federal law. We all know that the true purpose was to keep irresponsible car owners from unregulated access to Weapons of Mass Distruction ... Assault Cars!
But they, the evil Conservatives, had a Secret Weapon: The AAA!
This nefarious Special Interest Group lobbied senators, threatened Representatives with the withdrawal of political (and financial) support, until our poor beleagured Congressmen had to choose between bowing to the powerful Lobbiest or facing defeat at the polls.
This is the result of powerful Special Interest Groups. Even though the AAA has over 60,000,000 members, it is unconscionable that our elected representatives should bow under lobbyist pressure on an issue which is so clearly vital to the safety of the American Public.
It's clearly time for right-thinking Americans to rise up against these Special Interest Groups. Write your congressman! Tell him (or her, or it, as the case may be) that you are opposed to the ... well, perhaps not illegal, but clearly WRONG .. pressure exerted by these special-interest voting blocks.
Who cares if the AAA has all those votes in their pockets? Clearly, it is time that our brave senators and representatives rise up and Vote Their Conscience! The votes of millions of Americans count as nothing when compared to those of dozens of Right-Thinking (okay, Left-Thinking) Americans who KNOW that the average citizen is neither bright enough, not responsible enough, to be trusted with an Evil Assault Car!
Now .. go vote for Obama and help him stop this travesty now!
You know it's The Right Thing To Do. Do it for the children.
Saturday, August 03, 2013
Ka-POP!
I've been a Bad Blogger lately.
Too distracted by personal events, I haven't kept up with news that I think is interesting to this audience. Well, that's Hubris. Still, things have been going on in my life that *_I_* think are interesting. Here's an example:
Wimpy Loads:
Last Friday (last weekend in July) .. I received a communication from The Hobo Brasser to the effect that he was going Under The Knife soon for repairs to his knee(s), and the Saturday match at Dundee was the last time he would be shooting until he and Spicy-Lady would Snowbird to Texas for the Winter. I agreed to meet him at the match so we could squad together.
Scene shift to Geek Central .. that cluttered garage where I keep my reloading equipment and supplies. Since the GeekGun (10mm STI Edge) was still hors d'combat at the gunsmith (a consequence of a KaBOOM! in March of this year), I decided that The Beloved Kimber was the only viable alternative for last-moment rearmament.
I hadn't loaded .45ACP ammunition for well over two years, so I was pleased and surprised to find a box of 300 Semi-wadcutter 200gr bullets (made by a man who hasn't been in business for 10 years), some Winchester Large Pistol primers, and half of a 1-lb canister of Vihta Vourhi N330 powder. Checking my loading log, I determined the 5.0 grains of VVN330 was the correct load, and I set my Bullseye powder measure accordingly. My records indicated 1.275" OAL was adequate, but I settled for 1.262 as my preferred bullet-seating depth because .. I just had a feeling.
I only managed to load 100 rounds, because it took me a while to swap my dies from the Dillon XL650 Turret to the Lee Turret press ... the XL has not served me will lately, as it does not cycle primers properly. But that's another story.
The next day, Saturday, I showed up late at the Dundee match but was pleasantly surprised that the squad was still on their first stage. When my turn to shoot came up, I was confident that I had fresh ammunition and I was eager to shoot.
When the buzzer went off, I engaged the first of 12 targets (at point-blank range) and The Beloved Kimber went .. Ker-POP!
The load was so light that, although the bullet cleared the barrel and put a solid A-zone hit on the target .. the slide didn't cycle properly! It ejected the spent brass, but the following round jammed.
I cleared the jam, tried the next round.
Ker-POP!
Okay, one more time:
Ker-POP!
It wasn't a fluke. EVERY round in my magazine was too lightly loaded to properly cycle the slide. I gave up. The match fee was $17, and the cost of gasoline for the 170 mile round trip was .. well, more than that.
I stuck around for an hour, but as Norman the Ungrateful pointed out: "IPSC is not a spectator sport". I went home to pout, and to contemplate my sins.
A couple of days later, Guy Neil ("Front Sight" Reloading Guru, who lives in the area) emailed me to ask what happened. His impression was that I got stove-pipes. I explained that the empties ejected okay, but the following rounds weren't seated in the chamber because the load was too light to cycle the slide correctly.
Then I started thinking. Where, exactly, did I get that load of gunpowder? And why was it inadequate to the purpose?
I realized that this was part of a 3-pound batch which I picked up at the prize table at the 2003 Open/Limited Nationals in Bend, Oregon. This stuff was ten years old!
Later, I went back to re-examine the canister. The markings on the label indicated that the batch was actually manufactured in 1998 ...15 years ago.
The powder didn't appear to have drawn moisture, and it was tightly sealed so I don't think that moisture contributed to the problem.
No, my best guess (and it's only a guess) is that the gunpowder deteriorated in a sealed, water-tight container due only to age.
There's a moral here, and that is that if you don't test your ammunition before you got to a match, you probably are setting yourself up for failure.
I had experienced that once before, in 1996, when I loaded a batch of 9mm with a new 115gr LRN bullet and took it to a match. The OAL was okay, but the bullet shape was one I had never tried before (I had been shooting conical bullets). Turns out that the mere bullet shape was sufficiently different that the round wouldn't seat in the chamber of my SW659. Go figure. (At least that time, since I hadn't shot a single round, I got my match fees back!)
I'm pretty sure there's a moral to this story.
I don't care.
I'm still pissed.
Too distracted by personal events, I haven't kept up with news that I think is interesting to this audience. Well, that's Hubris. Still, things have been going on in my life that *_I_* think are interesting. Here's an example:
Wimpy Loads:
Last Friday (last weekend in July) .. I received a communication from The Hobo Brasser to the effect that he was going Under The Knife soon for repairs to his knee(s), and the Saturday match at Dundee was the last time he would be shooting until he and Spicy-Lady would Snowbird to Texas for the Winter. I agreed to meet him at the match so we could squad together.
Scene shift to Geek Central .. that cluttered garage where I keep my reloading equipment and supplies. Since the GeekGun (10mm STI Edge) was still hors d'combat at the gunsmith (a consequence of a KaBOOM! in March of this year), I decided that The Beloved Kimber was the only viable alternative for last-moment rearmament.
I hadn't loaded .45ACP ammunition for well over two years, so I was pleased and surprised to find a box of 300 Semi-wadcutter 200gr bullets (made by a man who hasn't been in business for 10 years), some Winchester Large Pistol primers, and half of a 1-lb canister of Vihta Vourhi N330 powder. Checking my loading log, I determined the 5.0 grains of VVN330 was the correct load, and I set my Bullseye powder measure accordingly. My records indicated 1.275" OAL was adequate, but I settled for 1.262 as my preferred bullet-seating depth because .. I just had a feeling.
I only managed to load 100 rounds, because it took me a while to swap my dies from the Dillon XL650 Turret to the Lee Turret press ... the XL has not served me will lately, as it does not cycle primers properly. But that's another story.
The next day, Saturday, I showed up late at the Dundee match but was pleasantly surprised that the squad was still on their first stage. When my turn to shoot came up, I was confident that I had fresh ammunition and I was eager to shoot.
When the buzzer went off, I engaged the first of 12 targets (at point-blank range) and The Beloved Kimber went .. Ker-POP!
The load was so light that, although the bullet cleared the barrel and put a solid A-zone hit on the target .. the slide didn't cycle properly! It ejected the spent brass, but the following round jammed.
I cleared the jam, tried the next round.
Ker-POP!
Okay, one more time:
Ker-POP!
It wasn't a fluke. EVERY round in my magazine was too lightly loaded to properly cycle the slide. I gave up. The match fee was $17, and the cost of gasoline for the 170 mile round trip was .. well, more than that.
I stuck around for an hour, but as Norman the Ungrateful pointed out: "IPSC is not a spectator sport". I went home to pout, and to contemplate my sins.
A couple of days later, Guy Neil ("Front Sight" Reloading Guru, who lives in the area) emailed me to ask what happened. His impression was that I got stove-pipes. I explained that the empties ejected okay, but the following rounds weren't seated in the chamber because the load was too light to cycle the slide correctly.
Then I started thinking. Where, exactly, did I get that load of gunpowder? And why was it inadequate to the purpose?
I realized that this was part of a 3-pound batch which I picked up at the prize table at the 2003 Open/Limited Nationals in Bend, Oregon. This stuff was ten years old!
Later, I went back to re-examine the canister. The markings on the label indicated that the batch was actually manufactured in 1998 ...15 years ago.
The powder didn't appear to have drawn moisture, and it was tightly sealed so I don't think that moisture contributed to the problem.
No, my best guess (and it's only a guess) is that the gunpowder deteriorated in a sealed, water-tight container due only to age.
There's a moral here, and that is that if you don't test your ammunition before you got to a match, you probably are setting yourself up for failure.
I had experienced that once before, in 1996, when I loaded a batch of 9mm with a new 115gr LRN bullet and took it to a match. The OAL was okay, but the bullet shape was one I had never tried before (I had been shooting conical bullets). Turns out that the mere bullet shape was sufficiently different that the round wouldn't seat in the chamber of my SW659. Go figure. (At least that time, since I hadn't shot a single round, I got my match fees back!)
I'm pretty sure there's a moral to this story.
I don't care.
I'm still pissed.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Rifle Basics: Cycling the AR charging handle | Shooting Wire
Rifle Basics: Cycling the AR charging handle | Shooting Wire:
But when it comes to the AR frame ... I tend to holler "Whoa, Nellie!"
I got a bad feeling about AR style rifles. And no, it's not about the "EEEEvil Black rifle" thingie. It's all about my experiences with the AR Model 16 (M16) during my so-called Military Career.
You may be old enough to remember what a controversial subject the original M16was, during the Vietnam War Era.
They got dirty in Vietnam .. red dust coated the working mechanisms, and the rifle required frequent cleaning with a special lube to be applied after the rifle was determined to be 'clean'.
The special lubrication medium was a thick grease, looking a lot like Vaseline, and it attracted dust like a magnet attracts iron filings.
Not rust .. dust!
In the early days, soldiers died because their M16's jammed early in a firefight; often after the first shot. The model was modified to include a 'forward assist' plunger, which was useful when the bolt failed to return to battery because of particle fouling. The familiar "Tap/Rack/Bang" immediate-action drill was not available to U.S. Soldiers in Vietnam until that necessary feature was added.
From top to bottom:
By the time I got to Vietnam, I had read everything available in Gun Magazines about the M16, including the emphasis on frequent/thorough cleaning and lubrication.
Some of the literature included descriptions of the "incredible maiming power" of the fast, lightweight bullets. One article I recall included graphic x-ray photos of the arm of a Viet Cong who had been wounded. The upper arm bone was clearly shattered by the bullet.
The article also mentioned, in passing, that M16 rounds (5.56 MM) were frequently "deflected" .. or more appropriately "exploded", but contact with trees ... twigs ... leaves.
In case you are not familiar with tropical jungles, there are more trees, twigs and leaves there than there were "targets" (Viet Cong, NVA). And when American soldiers found themselves in a firefight, they often found themselves outgunned by the enemys' AK47. Bigger bullet, slower velocity.
As a consequence, many American soldiers chose 'other' arms to defend themselves.
M14
Designated "Point Men" (those who walked at the head of a squad in the jungle) were given first choice of the limited number of M14 rifles; firing the venerable .30 caliber bullet (.308; 7.62 NATO), those magazine-fed rifles were so effective in the jungle that the 'first responders' had no doubts that their semi-automatic fire could and would disrupt the organization of a Viet Cong ambush.
Unlike the Garand (which fired a similar, but not identical cartridge and amazed the .30-06 advocates of the 1903/A3 Springfield), this rifle was magazine fed. Which allowed American troops to shoot more often (20 times instead of 8) and reload more quickly than the clip-fed Garand.
M1897 Trench Gun
Medics often opted to arm themselves; their choice of weapon was a WWI 'Trench Gun" ... a short-barreled 12-gauge pump shotgun. It held 5 12-gauge shotgun shells and when loaded with buckshot could cut through the shrubbery with great efficiency. There were few of these available via legitimate military sources, which explains why medics ALWAYS got those few available. And none of us complained; we knew that the one man who ALWAYS received first priority was he who would keep us alive until the dust-off chopper arrived. I personally witnessed three occasions when our medic (always called "Doc") saved live and/or limb of men in our platoon; on the one occasion when he lost a man who had been too badly wounded by a grenade fragment to the heart, he cried on his knees in the middle of the battlefield. We always protected our medic, and he was always high on Librium.
M79 Grenade Launcher
As a Platoon Sergeant, I chose to use an M79 grenade launcher. That shoulder-fired, single-shot 40mm break-action weapon offered not only a wide variety of ammunition (fragmentation grenade; double-ought shot shell with more .32-caliber 'pellets' than a 12-gauge shotgun; parachute flare; starshell flare) but it was so intuitively 'point shooting' friendly that most grenadiers removed the sights. I only experienced one time when I regretted that my "Thump Gun" was sightless; when we spotted an ammo can in the field, and I tried to detonate the suspected booby-trap by hitting it with grenade rounds at 50 yards. (It turned out to be .. and empty ammo can, nothing more.)
The advantage to a commander was obvious. Our division (FirstI Infantry) was a light infantry division, which means we didn't carry heavy packs and we typically operated in small units. Think ... the Platoon Leader (lieutenant) took two squads on on mission while I, the Platoon Sgt (E6 Staff Sergeant) took the other two squads on another mission.
The M79 is an 'area weapon' ( like a mortar round ), a 'signalling tool' (like a starshell), a night-time illumination tool (like a parachute flare), and a small-unit shotgun (again, the 'buckshot' round).
The Thump Gun allowed me to use my weapon as both an offensive weapon and as a "command tool". My job was not to shot at the enemy; it was to direct the fire of my element .. my two squads .. toward the element.
I could walk through the jungle with a buckshot-round loaded, and it provided the 'area' firepower of a shotgun with twice the one-shot coverage of a 12-gauge shotgun.
I could use the grenade round during a firefight to not only bring pain to the enemy, but also to signal to my men where they should be directing their fire.
I could use the parachute flare when we ambushed Viet Cong forces at night, so that we could safely sweep the "kill zone". Usually, we called upon support artillary to fire "Flare Rounds" so we had light to see potential (not-dead) enemy who might return fire as we assaulted the kill-zone; with the M79, we could assault sooner and more quickly for the initial pass over the killing grounds. Division Artillary often took several minutes to register the target area and to load for illumination rounds. I and my M79 was right there, right then .. we didn't have to either stumble through the dark nor to wait for the wounded enemy to crawl away before we swept the area. We found wounded Viet Cong in kill zones who turned out to be valuable sources of military intelligence, because we COULD see them, dominate them, and capture them up before they left the battlefield. We never lost a man in the aftermath of a night ambush, simply because we could see immediately who remained in the kill zone or in the near vicinity.
And when we called for external ground support after a night ambush (usually, that would be an armored platoon or squadron, the starshell gave the support troops their initial guide on our immediate location. It's impossible to overemphasize how important that ability could be to a unit which has just ambushed a Viet Cong unit which has only been decimated ... not destroyed .. an whose surviving members are conceivably loitering in the area with 'payback' on their mind.
(They might counter-ambush us .. but they will not fire on mobile armored forces! There's nothing quite so militarily overwhelming as a tank firing a cannister round from it's main gun down the gulch through which a NVA raiding party has advanced against an ARVN base camp .. and then used the same route to didi out of the kill-zone.)
Back to the M16:
So, what part did the M16 play in Vietnam?
It got a lot of American troops killed, when their maintenance turned out not to have been adequate to the job at hand.
Yes, it allowed American troops to carry more ammunition than those American troops could carry during WWI and WWII (.30-06) and even Korea (still .30-06). But the M16 was "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". For example, the only reason why more American troops were not killed by "Blue-on-Blue" attacks (friendly fire) is that the 5.56mm M16 round was so ineffective in deep jungle vegetation. I witnessed several accidental "Blue on Blue" firefights which would have been much more deadly if "real rifles" had been used.
M16: or ... "You Can Tell If It's Matel; It's Swell!"
What's It All About?
So it's obvious that my personal bias against the M16 and it's descendents (the M4, etc) is based on negative personal experiences .. especially when compared to 'real guns', such as the shotgun, the grenade launcher, and even (omg!) the 1911.
(In a personal note; this week I exchanged an series of texts with my Navy Cop Son "The Squid" in which he called me a "1911 snob".)
So .. yes, I am preternaturally (?) biased against small-caliber, high-speed rifles which jam easily and .. especially! .. need detailed instructions on how to LOAD THE NEXT ROUND so as to preclude a feeding failure.
I look for reliability first in a firearm, and stopping power next. I don't see the AR frame as one which has proven to meet either criteria, especially in a combat situation.
I have been told that the 'current generation' is much more reliable than my experiences of .... omg, has it been 40 years ago now?
On the other hand, the Beretta 92 in 9mm has replaced the 1911 .45 acp in most American Military Units .. except in units which DEMAND both Reliability and Stopping Power. In those units, the 1911A1 in .45acp (or its varients) are still the standards.
This article (okay, go back to the top and click on the link) suggests that anyone whose life depends on their AR-style rifle needs to know just how frail and tempermental it is. I'm uncomfortable with that. I think that any combat rifle which requires a "forward assist" is fatally flawed.
No, I have ALWAYS been uncomfortable with American troops having to nursemaid a tempermental rifle. Why have we gone to that option, when better rifles are available.
Is it the cost? Maybe .. they're being bought at around $1,000 per rifle, which is dirt cheap.
I have pistols which cost more than that! And I'm only shooting in competition ... not in defense of my life in a combat situation. Back in The Day, M16's cost a whole lot less, in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Is it because the troops can carry more ammunition? Is it because the emphasis on American military training has changed from 'accuracy' to 'volume of fire'?
Perhaps both of these factors.
_________________________________________________________
I'm not going to reach a conclusion here. But you might. And ... I think I've spent enough of our time for you to make up your own mind about whether the AR frame is better as a military arm (at $1,000/unit) or as a competitive arm (at considerably greater expense, but less cost in terms of fatalities).
You probably wouldn't agree with me. But then, perhaps you've never seen a kid crying and cussing over a jammed AR when the bullets are flying.
The charging handle is a critical component of the AR rifle. Knowing how to use it properly is essential to operating the AR. And, while in theory it seems simple, like most aspects to gun handling there's a lot more to it than most people realize.
With all weapon manipulations consistency is the key to safety and efficiency. So, when cycling the handle the right-handed shooter uses the left hand. To perform a chamber check or lock the bolt to the rear the right hand works the handle.As usual, The Shooting Wire (click here to subscribe to their informative daily newsletter) provides useful tips on a wide variety of shooting-related interests. And as usual, I read every article and even followed up by clicking links which lead the reader to more detailed info.
But when it comes to the AR frame ... I tend to holler "Whoa, Nellie!"
I got a bad feeling about AR style rifles. And no, it's not about the "EEEEvil Black rifle" thingie. It's all about my experiences with the AR Model 16 (M16) during my so-called Military Career.
You may be old enough to remember what a controversial subject the original M16was, during the Vietnam War Era.
They got dirty in Vietnam .. red dust coated the working mechanisms, and the rifle required frequent cleaning with a special lube to be applied after the rifle was determined to be 'clean'.
The special lubrication medium was a thick grease, looking a lot like Vaseline, and it attracted dust like a magnet attracts iron filings.
Not rust .. dust!
In the early days, soldiers died because their M16's jammed early in a firefight; often after the first shot. The model was modified to include a 'forward assist' plunger, which was useful when the bolt failed to return to battery because of particle fouling. The familiar "Tap/Rack/Bang" immediate-action drill was not available to U.S. Soldiers in Vietnam until that necessary feature was added.
From top to bottom:
- M16 A1
- M16 A2
- M4 A1
- M16 A4
By the time I got to Vietnam, I had read everything available in Gun Magazines about the M16, including the emphasis on frequent/thorough cleaning and lubrication.
Some of the literature included descriptions of the "incredible maiming power" of the fast, lightweight bullets. One article I recall included graphic x-ray photos of the arm of a Viet Cong who had been wounded. The upper arm bone was clearly shattered by the bullet.
The article also mentioned, in passing, that M16 rounds (5.56 MM) were frequently "deflected" .. or more appropriately "exploded", but contact with trees ... twigs ... leaves.
In case you are not familiar with tropical jungles, there are more trees, twigs and leaves there than there were "targets" (Viet Cong, NVA). And when American soldiers found themselves in a firefight, they often found themselves outgunned by the enemys' AK47. Bigger bullet, slower velocity.
As a consequence, many American soldiers chose 'other' arms to defend themselves.
M14
Designated "Point Men" (those who walked at the head of a squad in the jungle) were given first choice of the limited number of M14 rifles; firing the venerable .30 caliber bullet (.308; 7.62 NATO), those magazine-fed rifles were so effective in the jungle that the 'first responders' had no doubts that their semi-automatic fire could and would disrupt the organization of a Viet Cong ambush.
Unlike the Garand (which fired a similar, but not identical cartridge and amazed the .30-06 advocates of the 1903/A3 Springfield), this rifle was magazine fed. Which allowed American troops to shoot more often (20 times instead of 8) and reload more quickly than the clip-fed Garand.
M1897 Trench Gun
Medics often opted to arm themselves; their choice of weapon was a WWI 'Trench Gun" ... a short-barreled 12-gauge pump shotgun. It held 5 12-gauge shotgun shells and when loaded with buckshot could cut through the shrubbery with great efficiency. There were few of these available via legitimate military sources, which explains why medics ALWAYS got those few available. And none of us complained; we knew that the one man who ALWAYS received first priority was he who would keep us alive until the dust-off chopper arrived. I personally witnessed three occasions when our medic (always called "Doc") saved live and/or limb of men in our platoon; on the one occasion when he lost a man who had been too badly wounded by a grenade fragment to the heart, he cried on his knees in the middle of the battlefield. We always protected our medic, and he was always high on Librium.
M79 Grenade Launcher
As a Platoon Sergeant, I chose to use an M79 grenade launcher. That shoulder-fired, single-shot 40mm break-action weapon offered not only a wide variety of ammunition (fragmentation grenade; double-ought shot shell with more .32-caliber 'pellets' than a 12-gauge shotgun; parachute flare; starshell flare) but it was so intuitively 'point shooting' friendly that most grenadiers removed the sights. I only experienced one time when I regretted that my "Thump Gun" was sightless; when we spotted an ammo can in the field, and I tried to detonate the suspected booby-trap by hitting it with grenade rounds at 50 yards. (It turned out to be .. and empty ammo can, nothing more.)
The advantage to a commander was obvious. Our division (FirstI Infantry) was a light infantry division, which means we didn't carry heavy packs and we typically operated in small units. Think ... the Platoon Leader (lieutenant) took two squads on on mission while I, the Platoon Sgt (E6 Staff Sergeant) took the other two squads on another mission.
The M79 is an 'area weapon' ( like a mortar round ), a 'signalling tool' (like a starshell), a night-time illumination tool (like a parachute flare), and a small-unit shotgun (again, the 'buckshot' round).
The Thump Gun allowed me to use my weapon as both an offensive weapon and as a "command tool". My job was not to shot at the enemy; it was to direct the fire of my element .. my two squads .. toward the element.
I could walk through the jungle with a buckshot-round loaded, and it provided the 'area' firepower of a shotgun with twice the one-shot coverage of a 12-gauge shotgun.
I could use the grenade round during a firefight to not only bring pain to the enemy, but also to signal to my men where they should be directing their fire.
I could use the parachute flare when we ambushed Viet Cong forces at night, so that we could safely sweep the "kill zone". Usually, we called upon support artillary to fire "Flare Rounds" so we had light to see potential (not-dead) enemy who might return fire as we assaulted the kill-zone; with the M79, we could assault sooner and more quickly for the initial pass over the killing grounds. Division Artillary often took several minutes to register the target area and to load for illumination rounds. I and my M79 was right there, right then .. we didn't have to either stumble through the dark nor to wait for the wounded enemy to crawl away before we swept the area. We found wounded Viet Cong in kill zones who turned out to be valuable sources of military intelligence, because we COULD see them, dominate them, and capture them up before they left the battlefield. We never lost a man in the aftermath of a night ambush, simply because we could see immediately who remained in the kill zone or in the near vicinity.
And when we called for external ground support after a night ambush (usually, that would be an armored platoon or squadron, the starshell gave the support troops their initial guide on our immediate location. It's impossible to overemphasize how important that ability could be to a unit which has just ambushed a Viet Cong unit which has only been decimated ... not destroyed .. an whose surviving members are conceivably loitering in the area with 'payback' on their mind.
(They might counter-ambush us .. but they will not fire on mobile armored forces! There's nothing quite so militarily overwhelming as a tank firing a cannister round from it's main gun down the gulch through which a NVA raiding party has advanced against an ARVN base camp .. and then used the same route to didi out of the kill-zone.)
Back to the M16:
So, what part did the M16 play in Vietnam?
It got a lot of American troops killed, when their maintenance turned out not to have been adequate to the job at hand.
Yes, it allowed American troops to carry more ammunition than those American troops could carry during WWI and WWII (.30-06) and even Korea (still .30-06). But the M16 was "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". For example, the only reason why more American troops were not killed by "Blue-on-Blue" attacks (friendly fire) is that the 5.56mm M16 round was so ineffective in deep jungle vegetation. I witnessed several accidental "Blue on Blue" firefights which would have been much more deadly if "real rifles" had been used.
M16: or ... "You Can Tell If It's Matel; It's Swell!"
What's It All About?
So it's obvious that my personal bias against the M16 and it's descendents (the M4, etc) is based on negative personal experiences .. especially when compared to 'real guns', such as the shotgun, the grenade launcher, and even (omg!) the 1911.
(In a personal note; this week I exchanged an series of texts with my Navy Cop Son "The Squid" in which he called me a "1911 snob".)
So .. yes, I am preternaturally (?) biased against small-caliber, high-speed rifles which jam easily and .. especially! .. need detailed instructions on how to LOAD THE NEXT ROUND so as to preclude a feeding failure.
I look for reliability first in a firearm, and stopping power next. I don't see the AR frame as one which has proven to meet either criteria, especially in a combat situation.
I have been told that the 'current generation' is much more reliable than my experiences of .... omg, has it been 40 years ago now?
On the other hand, the Beretta 92 in 9mm has replaced the 1911 .45 acp in most American Military Units .. except in units which DEMAND both Reliability and Stopping Power. In those units, the 1911A1 in .45acp (or its varients) are still the standards.
This article (okay, go back to the top and click on the link) suggests that anyone whose life depends on their AR-style rifle needs to know just how frail and tempermental it is. I'm uncomfortable with that. I think that any combat rifle which requires a "forward assist" is fatally flawed.
"Fatally Flawed": that's an euphemism for "piece of shit weapon which will get combatants killed".
No, I have ALWAYS been uncomfortable with American troops having to nursemaid a tempermental rifle. Why have we gone to that option, when better rifles are available.
Is it the cost? Maybe .. they're being bought at around $1,000 per rifle, which is dirt cheap.
I have pistols which cost more than that! And I'm only shooting in competition ... not in defense of my life in a combat situation. Back in The Day, M16's cost a whole lot less, in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Is it because the troops can carry more ammunition? Is it because the emphasis on American military training has changed from 'accuracy' to 'volume of fire'?
Perhaps both of these factors.
_________________________________________________________
I'm not going to reach a conclusion here. But you might. And ... I think I've spent enough of our time for you to make up your own mind about whether the AR frame is better as a military arm (at $1,000/unit) or as a competitive arm (at considerably greater expense, but less cost in terms of fatalities).
You probably wouldn't agree with me. But then, perhaps you've never seen a kid crying and cussing over a jammed AR when the bullets are flying.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
We're havin' a Heat Wave!
Temperatures in the 90's ... approached 100 degrees yesterday. Too hot to type up here in The Hell Room.
Blogging temporarily suspended until it snows.
This is OREGON?
Linda Ronstadt - Heat Wave - YouTube
Monday, July 22, 2013
Lax gun laws vs. Trayvon Martin's life: Our view
Lax gun laws vs. Trayvon Martin's life: Our view: [USATODAY OPINION: July 16, 2013]
Opinions are like .. rectums; everyone has one.
I've tried to stay away from the Florida trial and its ramifications, but this one hits straight into one of what are two of my most personally important ideals: Personal Responsibility, and the Second Amendment.
I want to address each statement in this opening paragraph (the rest of the article is no better) to demonstrate the difference between "guns are bad" and "each situation must be considered in view of the facts" philosophies.
Point 1: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
Counterpoint: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, George Zimmerman may not be alive today.
It has been proven in court that Zimmerman was being savaged by (the bigger, stronger) Martin, who had the Neighborhood Watch Captain on the ground, underneath him, and who was beating Zimmerman's head against a concrete sidewalk. The Florida Courts and a jury were willing to accept that Zimmerman was in fear for his life .. especially in view of Martin's shouted threat that "you're going to die tonight". Zimmerman at that point had the option of thinking that Martin was merely speaking insincerely, or believing that Martin intended he would die that night.
Point 2: An unarmed Zimmerman probably would have heeded police advice to stay in his truck after seeing someone he believed was "up to no good."
Counterpoint: I concur that Zimmerman made a monumentally bad decision. Two stupid people made stupid decisions. The one with a gun failed to die before he could be beaten to death by his attacker. Zimmerman should not have allowed the confrontation to occur, but how was he to know that the 'suspicious person' would turn violent?
Point 3: And even if the neighborhood watch volunteer had left the vehicle, his altercation with Martin is unlikely to have turned deadly if a firearm had not been involved.
Counterpoint: Disagree. As was accepted at the trial, Martin had voiced a death threat while he was in a position to make it happen, and he was obviously doing his best to beat Zimmerman to death. Zimmerman was physically overwhelmed and, with no apparent other recourse, used his legally carried pistol to stop his assailant from murdering him.
Point 4: Viewed from that perspective, the Zimmerman case is a byproduct of a society that in the past three decades has made it easier for people to buy guns, to carry concealed guns, to take guns into more places, and to bear less responsibility to retreat from dangerous situations.
Counterpoint: Suddenly, this 'dialogue' shifts from specific allegations to societal/political issues. This society has, in the past three decades, begun to pay attention to the nuances of the Second Amendment; it has ceased to abridge the right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms.
The fallacy of the Opinion published in the USA Today article is demonstrated in the last phrase: "... and to bear less responsibility to retreat from dangerous situations."
This statement completely ignores two of the most significant facts of the trial of George Zimmerman:
I have offered before that both actors in this tragedy were idiots. But they at least had the small defense that they were acting in the heat of the moment, and had NO time to consider their actions in a calm, reflective manner.
The author of this Opinion article in the newspaper, however, has no defense against his careful statement which he has apparently been considering for days, if not months.
There is nothing more dangerous than a careful, reasonable idiot; the danger is that someone may not recognize him for one of the class of politically "Useful Idiots" to which he so obviously, proudly and cluelessly belongs.
Just about every aspect of why and how George Zimmerman came to fatally shoot an unarmed teenager on Feb. 26, 2012, is open for debate. But one conclusion ought to be obvious: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.My view:
OPPOSING VIEW: Armed Zimmerman was no Dirty Harry
An unarmed Zimmerman probably would have heeded police advice to stay in his truck after seeing someone he believed was "up to no good." And even if the neighborhood watch volunteer had left the vehicle, his altercation with Martin is unlikely to have turned deadly if a firearm had not been involved.
Viewed from that perspective, the Zimmerman case is a byproduct of a society that in the past three decades has made it easier for people to buy guns, to carry concealed guns, to take guns into more places, and to bear less responsibility to retreat from dangerous situations.
Opinions are like .. rectums; everyone has one.
I've tried to stay away from the Florida trial and its ramifications, but this one hits straight into one of what are two of my most personally important ideals: Personal Responsibility, and the Second Amendment.
I want to address each statement in this opening paragraph (the rest of the article is no better) to demonstrate the difference between "guns are bad" and "each situation must be considered in view of the facts" philosophies.
Point 1: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
Counterpoint: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, George Zimmerman may not be alive today.
It has been proven in court that Zimmerman was being savaged by (the bigger, stronger) Martin, who had the Neighborhood Watch Captain on the ground, underneath him, and who was beating Zimmerman's head against a concrete sidewalk. The Florida Courts and a jury were willing to accept that Zimmerman was in fear for his life .. especially in view of Martin's shouted threat that "you're going to die tonight". Zimmerman at that point had the option of thinking that Martin was merely speaking insincerely, or believing that Martin intended he would die that night.
Point 2: An unarmed Zimmerman probably would have heeded police advice to stay in his truck after seeing someone he believed was "up to no good."
Counterpoint: I concur that Zimmerman made a monumentally bad decision. Two stupid people made stupid decisions. The one with a gun failed to die before he could be beaten to death by his attacker. Zimmerman should not have allowed the confrontation to occur, but how was he to know that the 'suspicious person' would turn violent?
Point 3: And even if the neighborhood watch volunteer had left the vehicle, his altercation with Martin is unlikely to have turned deadly if a firearm had not been involved.
Counterpoint: Disagree. As was accepted at the trial, Martin had voiced a death threat while he was in a position to make it happen, and he was obviously doing his best to beat Zimmerman to death. Zimmerman was physically overwhelmed and, with no apparent other recourse, used his legally carried pistol to stop his assailant from murdering him.
Point 4: Viewed from that perspective, the Zimmerman case is a byproduct of a society that in the past three decades has made it easier for people to buy guns, to carry concealed guns, to take guns into more places, and to bear less responsibility to retreat from dangerous situations.
Counterpoint: Suddenly, this 'dialogue' shifts from specific allegations to societal/political issues. This society has, in the past three decades, begun to pay attention to the nuances of the Second Amendment; it has ceased to abridge the right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms.
The fallacy of the Opinion published in the USA Today article is demonstrated in the last phrase: "... and to bear less responsibility to retreat from dangerous situations."
This statement completely ignores two of the most significant facts of the trial of George Zimmerman:
- Zimmerman's attorney never raised the question of the Florida 'stand your ground' law;
- The 'stand your ground' law was not applicable, because Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat. He was on the ground, being pressed against the sidewalk by his larger, more aggressive attacker, who was trying his best to beat Zimmerman to death. He could NOT retreat!
I have offered before that both actors in this tragedy were idiots. But they at least had the small defense that they were acting in the heat of the moment, and had NO time to consider their actions in a calm, reflective manner.
The author of this Opinion article in the newspaper, however, has no defense against his careful statement which he has apparently been considering for days, if not months.
There is nothing more dangerous than a careful, reasonable idiot; the danger is that someone may not recognize him for one of the class of politically "Useful Idiots" to which he so obviously, proudly and cluelessly belongs.
Monday, July 15, 2013
George Zimmerman verdict: Former neighborhood watch leader not guilty in death of Fla. teen Trayvon Martin - Crimesider - CBS News
George Zimmerman verdict: Former neighborhood watch leader not guilty in death of Fla. teen Trayvon Martin - Crimesider - CBS News:
Yeah, like I'm going to affect their decision.
Now that it's all "over", and I can speak freely, here's my opinion. As if anyone is interested:
The guy .. Zimmerman ... didn't have to be there. He didn't have to get out of his car. He didn't have to be carrying. He didn't have to confront "The Trespasser". (T. Martin)
He (Zimmerman) was looking for a confrontation, and he got one. He got to pull the trigger, and that's what he was hoping for.
The "perp", Trevon whatshisname? He was bad news looking for a confrontation. He was trespassing, he dismissed the 'security guard' (Zimmerman) as "a cracker"? Come on, what does that matter? Zimmerman didn't know, Martin's opinion had no influence.
It speaks volumes to Martin's attitude, and intentions.
Two hyped-up guys looking for a fight .. each found one. The difference was, one brought a gun to the fight.
Stupid freaking idiots, neither one of them had any business being there.
Martin died. What a shameful waste. Any human life is worth saving.\
Zimmerman was acquitted .. of what? Second Degree Murder? I'm not sure whether he deserved judicial punishment, but come ON! The guy is an idiot. He makes people who carry firearms for their own defense look bad. Do I think he was fearful of his life because his head was being pounded into the sidewalk? I don't know all the facts .. but I think he put himself into the situation, whatever it was .. willfully.
Would I have behaved differently?
I hope I wouldn't have been confronting the trespasser alone. Don't these guys have radios, or cell phones?
Oh, didn't he phone 911? yes, he did; the operator warned him to NOT challenge the interloper.
Zimmerman ignored what was, probably, in these circumstances ... good advice.
Bottom Line:
A pox upon both their houses!
Bottom line: two idiots, one gun.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. If either of these congenital idiots had been stopped before they met, NONE of this had to happen.
If there was a federal law against being a stupid butt-****, Zimmerman would have been rightfully convicted.
Or, if it turned out differently, Martin would have been convicted.
Is there "No sex in Federal Lock-up?" I know I'm being disingenuous here; work with me, okay?
If either of them had ended up in prison, and was deprived of the opportunity to have a woman in the room with them, the human race would be improved due solely to the fact that they would not have been allowed to reproduce.
Which is my fervent hope for "Not Guilty" Zimmerman.
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny:
"What a bunch of Maroons!
George Zimmerman verdict: Former neighborhood watch leader not guilty in death of Fla. teen Trayvon MartinI've been very careful to NOT comment on this story until the jury verdict was rendered.
Yeah, like I'm going to affect their decision.
Now that it's all "over", and I can speak freely, here's my opinion. As if anyone is interested:
The guy .. Zimmerman ... didn't have to be there. He didn't have to get out of his car. He didn't have to be carrying. He didn't have to confront "The Trespasser". (T. Martin)
He (Zimmerman) was looking for a confrontation, and he got one. He got to pull the trigger, and that's what he was hoping for.
The "perp", Trevon whatshisname? He was bad news looking for a confrontation. He was trespassing, he dismissed the 'security guard' (Zimmerman) as "a cracker"? Come on, what does that matter? Zimmerman didn't know, Martin's opinion had no influence.
It speaks volumes to Martin's attitude, and intentions.
Two hyped-up guys looking for a fight .. each found one. The difference was, one brought a gun to the fight.
Stupid freaking idiots, neither one of them had any business being there.
Martin died. What a shameful waste. Any human life is worth saving.\
Zimmerman was acquitted .. of what? Second Degree Murder? I'm not sure whether he deserved judicial punishment, but come ON! The guy is an idiot. He makes people who carry firearms for their own defense look bad. Do I think he was fearful of his life because his head was being pounded into the sidewalk? I don't know all the facts .. but I think he put himself into the situation, whatever it was .. willfully.
Would I have behaved differently?
I hope I wouldn't have been confronting the trespasser alone. Don't these guys have radios, or cell phones?
Oh, didn't he phone 911? yes, he did; the operator warned him to NOT challenge the interloper.
Zimmerman ignored what was, probably, in these circumstances ... good advice.
Bottom Line:
A pox upon both their houses!
Bottom line: two idiots, one gun.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. If either of these congenital idiots had been stopped before they met, NONE of this had to happen.
If there was a federal law against being a stupid butt-****, Zimmerman would have been rightfully convicted.
Or, if it turned out differently, Martin would have been convicted.
Is there "No sex in Federal Lock-up?" I know I'm being disingenuous here; work with me, okay?
If either of them had ended up in prison, and was deprived of the opportunity to have a woman in the room with them, the human race would be improved due solely to the fact that they would not have been allowed to reproduce.
Which is my fervent hope for "Not Guilty" Zimmerman.
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny:
"What a bunch of Maroons!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)