PJTV - BANNED BY YOUTUBE: We Con the World, the Turkish 'Aid to Gaza' Song - Mpg
Presented with no comment.
(Because I can't get the code to embed the video.)
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
OREGON - UTAH CONCEALED CARRY - FIREARM TRAINING
OREGON - UTAH CONCEALED CARRY - FIREARM TRAINING: "UTAH PERMIT CARRY CONCEALED PISTOL IN 33 STATES /- SEE FACTS!
No Shooting, No Test.
Well, there's a fine recommendation for taking the class, isn't it?
Why can't you just sent in your email address and receive certification by return email?
Oh, you can?
Wonderful!
I'm encouraged to take this class to ensure that I'm "safe to carry".
NOT!
OREGON - UTAH Be Armed Be Safe.
We certify both! 2 classes weekly, no shooting, no test, just show up, please be on time. Oregon $35 Utah $35 both $70, get certified now. We issue only original Official Certificates, no counterfeits."
No Shooting, No Test.
Well, there's a fine recommendation for taking the class, isn't it?
Why can't you just sent in your email address and receive certification by return email?
Oh, you can?
Wonderful!
I'm encouraged to take this class to ensure that I'm "safe to carry".
NOT!
Come to the USA
YouTube - Ray Stevens - Come to the USA
Just interesting and fun stuff. You don't have to be an IPSC Competitor to enjoy and appreciate humor, do you?
(Heck, you don't even need to be an American!!!)
[H/T: The Hobo Brasser]
Just interesting and fun stuff. You don't have to be an IPSC Competitor to enjoy and appreciate humor, do you?
(Heck, you don't even need to be an American!!!)
[H/T: The Hobo Brasser]
Brits vs Americans: who is the most violent, how does gun ownership affect the respective cultures?
There's an interesting dialogue going on between Kevin Bacon at "The Smallest Majority" and a Scotsman named James at "SCOT goes POP!" about the British policy of severely restricting the private ownership of firearms.
Essentially, Bacon (the American) is an adherent of the philosophy of "More Guns, Less Crime" (as advocated by John Lotte, Jr). He really believes that the individual citizen should be "allowed" to protect himself/herself and his/her family and property.
But James (the Scot) believes that the British policy and law preventing Britains from owning firearms reduces the number of "gun deaths" in his country, and that's all that matters. Nothing in the Scot's "Why 'being right' isn't good enough for them - a cut-out-and-keep guide article (which includes his "ten question challenge" ... and first you may care to read James' follow-up article "The smallest minority : the individual, alone and abandoned") discusses either the right or the responsibility of a person to self-defense ... the entire point is to elucidate all the BAD ways that private firearms ownership can affect society.
Yep. Lots of ways that guns can be bad for people, but not a single suggestion that owning a weapon can prevent predation on innocents. James is determined to make the point that "Guns Are BAD!", and (one supposes) that Only Bad People Have Guns.
I have presented many ways in which the encroaching Socialism of British Governmental Policy have made the British (including Scots and Irish) seem to move Brits from the classifications of "citizens" to "subjects" ... subject to the arbitrary whims of their government. And if I seem to be excessively vituperative today it may just be on account of the way which our current Federal Administration seems determined to follow the European (and British) example in redefining our culture, and eliminating our freedoms in preference to a 'Strong Central Government'.
So perhaps it is not entirely fair for me to negatively compare the British Culture with the American Culture, especially in terms of individual freedoms. After all, are we so far away from finding ourselves equally subject to the unilateral determination of our Federal system, especially considering the huge number of unelected "Czars" who are sneaking their way into the American decision-making process?
One only needs to look at the ATF, who last week redefined the legal essentials of Federal Control of "transfer of firearms" (which requires ATF permission) from "ownership" of firearms to "possession of firearms", to understand how easily this creeping control can administratively be inserted into our day-to-day exercise of our Constitutional freedoms.
Yes, I had to comment on James' article. The daily lives and preferences of common people may soon mean less than a pile of beans to the American Czars, but I can only speak to the America of Today -- June of 2010 -- and how I hope it will continue rather than the way I fear it may become.
So here is the extended comment I made to James' article, which is probably incomprehensible unless you have read his original comment and understand the context.
Note that this is slightly longer than the version actually posted. The website has a 4MB (4096-character) limit on the comment length, and as frequent readers probably realize it is almost impossible for me to complete a though under these restrictions. Consequently, I have had to drastically edit my final accepted version in the actual comments section of James' blog.
I trust I have retained the flavor, which I'm afraid is a bit ... dismissive ... of the current British culture and entirely too laudatory of American culture.
I'm a throw-back who believes in the sanctity of the home, the rights of a citizen, and the hominem that "good fences make good neighbors".
I can't stop myself from jumping into the argument, because my opinion is that if there is a conflict between a private person and an 'aggressor', chances are that the bad-guy has a weapon of some kind and has also in some manner acting as a predator stalking a victim. In that scenario, the 'victim' should be allowed to protect himself/herself with whatever weapon seems most effective.
And the most effective defense weapon is a firearm, especially given that (a) the "victim" is most likely someone who is definitively unable to put up a good defense based on training, weapons at hand, situational awareness, and body mass; and (b) the aggressor is likely to have a weapon, more aggressive (and probably stronger) than his chosen victim, and has the advantage of surprise.
Read the original article, compare the comments which I made to James' article to that which is here presented: the greatest difference between the two versions (besides length of the comment) is a couple of embedded links providing background and substantiation of the comments.
.
Essentially, Bacon (the American) is an adherent of the philosophy of "More Guns, Less Crime" (as advocated by John Lotte, Jr). He really believes that the individual citizen should be "allowed" to protect himself/herself and his/her family and property.
But James (the Scot) believes that the British policy and law preventing Britains from owning firearms reduces the number of "gun deaths" in his country, and that's all that matters. Nothing in the Scot's "Why 'being right' isn't good enough for them - a cut-out-and-keep guide article (which includes his "ten question challenge" ... and first you may care to read James' follow-up article "The smallest minority : the individual, alone and abandoned") discusses either the right or the responsibility of a person to self-defense ... the entire point is to elucidate all the BAD ways that private firearms ownership can affect society.
Yep. Lots of ways that guns can be bad for people, but not a single suggestion that owning a weapon can prevent predation on innocents. James is determined to make the point that "Guns Are BAD!", and (one supposes) that Only Bad People Have Guns.
I have presented many ways in which the encroaching Socialism of British Governmental Policy have made the British (including Scots and Irish) seem to move Brits from the classifications of "citizens" to "subjects" ... subject to the arbitrary whims of their government. And if I seem to be excessively vituperative today it may just be on account of the way which our current Federal Administration seems determined to follow the European (and British) example in redefining our culture, and eliminating our freedoms in preference to a 'Strong Central Government'.
So perhaps it is not entirely fair for me to negatively compare the British Culture with the American Culture, especially in terms of individual freedoms. After all, are we so far away from finding ourselves equally subject to the unilateral determination of our Federal system, especially considering the huge number of unelected "Czars" who are sneaking their way into the American decision-making process?
One only needs to look at the ATF, who last week redefined the legal essentials of Federal Control of "transfer of firearms" (which requires ATF permission) from "ownership" of firearms to "possession of firearms", to understand how easily this creeping control can administratively be inserted into our day-to-day exercise of our Constitutional freedoms.
Yes, I had to comment on James' article. The daily lives and preferences of common people may soon mean less than a pile of beans to the American Czars, but I can only speak to the America of Today -- June of 2010 -- and how I hope it will continue rather than the way I fear it may become.
So here is the extended comment I made to James' article, which is probably incomprehensible unless you have read his original comment and understand the context.
Note that this is slightly longer than the version actually posted. The website has a 4MB (4096-character) limit on the comment length, and as frequent readers probably realize it is almost impossible for me to complete a though under these restrictions. Consequently, I have had to drastically edit my final accepted version in the actual comments section of James' blog.
I trust I have retained the flavor, which I'm afraid is a bit ... dismissive ... of the current British culture and entirely too laudatory of American culture.
I'm a throw-back who believes in the sanctity of the home, the rights of a citizen, and the hominem that "good fences make good neighbors".
I can't stop myself from jumping into the argument, because my opinion is that if there is a conflict between a private person and an 'aggressor', chances are that the bad-guy has a weapon of some kind and has also in some manner acting as a predator stalking a victim. In that scenario, the 'victim' should be allowed to protect himself/herself with whatever weapon seems most effective.
And the most effective defense weapon is a firearm, especially given that (a) the "victim" is most likely someone who is definitively unable to put up a good defense based on training, weapons at hand, situational awareness, and body mass; and (b) the aggressor is likely to have a weapon, more aggressive (and probably stronger) than his chosen victim, and has the advantage of surprise.
Read the original article, compare the comments which I made to James' article to that which is here presented: the greatest difference between the two versions (besides length of the comment) is a couple of embedded links providing background and substantiation of the comments.
"[J]aw-dropping, logic-defying belief" is it?
Well, I think you have the right phrase there. The question is, whose jaw is dropping?
It may be both your jaw and mine having difficulty maintaining equilibrium considering the contradictory claims of opinion being tossed about here.
James, your ten-point questionnaire would have more believability if you would do the research and find the answers to the questions you pose.
I once had an extended discussion with a British policeman who described himself as the "ASBO Monger". He was proud of the number of Anti-Social Behavior Orders he had handed out. When I asked why he didn't just arrest the Bad Boys (Yobs) on the first offense ... no matter how egregious their behavior, he seemed confused. That just wasn't they way they did things over there.
The thing is, my "ASBO Monger" friend was determined to make the case (as you did) that Britain has fewer firearms-related deaths than does America.
Well, duh. Americans are allowed to protect their persons, their property, and their families. Brits are not.
That doesn't mean that Britain has fewer assaults; they don't, they have more. The point you consider significant is that the assaults are less likely to result in a death.
Instead, the home-owner is likely subject to a bad beating, or a stabbing, because the aggressor (the ASBO-burdened YOB) has a weapon like a knife and a club, and the victim has no weapon at all. And the YOB has a plan, which is to kick ass until the victim is a bloody mess on the floor.
YOBs don't HAVE to kill anybody to have their way, although it doesn't much bother them if they do.
As a Consequence, the British Government has decided to resolve the situation by ... making it illegal for people to have knives. That's good, clear thinking.
And if a British subject (Y'all aren't "citizens" any more, did you notice that?) chooses to defend himself, his home and his family, he is MORE likely than the aggressor to spend serious jail-time than the YOU who attacked him. Have you looked at the statistics?
Compare "Deaths by firearms" with "violent assaults" in Britain vs America. I have. I found it meaningful. But I won't give the citations, the statistics, the references. You chose to make your point without references, you have the onus of proving your point.
Americans don't typically treat their YOBs gently. We have them, but the resolution is usually Darwinian
As you can see, especially from the example of "the tragic case of Andrew de Vries", the response to crime in America is much more inclined to the protection of the rights of the victim, than to the rights of the guilty. Mr de Vries was trespassing and acting in an aggressive and intrusive manner. Most folks here-abouts have a more respectful manner ... or they are considered a bad health risk and treated appropriately.
The cultural dissonance is that you treat it as a tragedy which should/could have been avoided given a more understanding attitude on the part of the home-owner.
We treated it as a tragedy which should/could have been avoided given a more understanding attitude on the part of the aggressor.
We don't expect nice people to climb over our fence and bang on our back door in the middle of the night. This is the "Darwinian Solution" which I mentioned earlier. Nice people bang on the front door and wait until they are noticed. Fences are to keep good people out; a gun is used to deal with not-good people. Folks who don't recognize the boundary of acceptable behavior are not generally considered to be trying very hard to meet to our standards of "good people who are only asking for help."
Now, I'm sure you won't acknowledge the legitimacy of "The Castle Defense". Heck, you don't even spell it right. "Defence"? Who the heck taught you to spell ... or, more importantly, to act? Certainly people like the ASBO Monger aren't teaching you to act. Instead, they are teaching your youths that if they are aggressive and rude, and step on toes everywhere they go, nothing particularly bad will happen to the. Bad thing to be teaching your children. Do you start out to be idiots? No, you are training yourselves that way
Not a good idea. Americans don't always do a much better job of bringing up our children, but at least we haven't institutionalized the idea of raising idiots.
(I'm not going to get into politics, but just to comment -- I have to admit that neither side of the Atlantic has a monopoly of electing Idiots to public office, and I'm real sorry about that. I mean that sincerely.)
So, you think you have a better culture than do Americans, because you have fewer "gun deaths".
Is that per-capita, or per assault?
Are your children more often murdered for their cell-phones, or for their sneakers than ours?
That is perhaps a better measure of the deadliness, and the violence, of our respective societies.
And that is my "One-Point List of Questions" may perhaps better go "to the heart of the credibility of any conclusions that could be drawn from the study".
Bottom line, studies and conclusions are based on statistics. You can tweak statistics to suit any conclusion you like best.
I don't like your conclusion, I don't think you have proved it, and I challenge you to answer your own questions.
.
NY Cops Legally Mandated to shoot armed Felons "In The Limbs"
NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly will invite City Council members to fire guns at shooting range - NYPOST.com
The city's top cop, Ray Kelly, is inviting all City Council members to shoot guns at the NYPD's firing range -- as the state Assembly considers legislation to require police officers to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the limbs, rather than aim to kill.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Do you hate your Internet Provider?
Do you hate your Internet Provider?
Me, too!
(click on image for larger format)
Me, too!
(click on image for larger format)
Friday, June 11, 2010
Musings of The GeekWithA.45
Musings of The GeekWithA.45 posted an article yesterday (June 10, 2010) discussing the effect of the Commerce Clause on the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Essentially, the Commerce Clause was not the excuse used for restricting access to firearms.
The justification was .... Taxation!
We probably kinda knew that, but we got all confused. (Okay, so I got all confused.)
If you want to understand how we all got to this sorry state of affairs, where the Federal Government justified its unconstitutional intrusion on the 2nd Amendment, go read the article.
When you're done, I'll have another sorry story to tell you.
Essentially, the Commerce Clause was not the excuse used for restricting access to firearms.
The justification was .... Taxation!
We probably kinda knew that, but we got all confused. (Okay, so I got all confused.)
If you want to understand how we all got to this sorry state of affairs, where the Federal Government justified its unconstitutional intrusion on the 2nd Amendment, go read the article.
When you're done, I'll have another sorry story to tell you.
Why did ATF suddenly redefine firearm transfers?
Why did ATF suddenly redefine firearm transfers?
David Codrea writes in the "Gun Rights" section of The Examiner that the ATF has suddenly, inexplicably, changed the definition of "Transfer" in regards to changing the physical possession of a firearm from one person to another.
Previously, if you "transfer" a firearm, it changes ownership.
Now, it is not necessary to give or sell a firearm to another person or 'entity', it is enough to let them have it.
Which means, for example, if you send your firearm to a gunsmith to work on it, you may have to complete all of the same paperwork as you would if you were selling it to the gunsmith.
And that applies to ANY other person. A gunsmith may not have a "dealer's license", so you would have to ship the firearm to a dealer, and the gunsmith would have to fill out the ATF Form 4473 before he/she could take possession ... not ownership, but simple possession ... of it.
Please note that this is not a bill in the legislature; Congressional oversight is not a factor. This is an administrative ruling ... by people that you did not get to vote for.
Jim Shepherd has a very nice write-up on this situation with a couple of embedded links to the applicable legal documents, on The Shooting Wire. Since I cannot link to it, I will add his two-cents worth by a full, direct quote:
GO to the links, see what the rulings (again, not "laws") look like, and you can make up your own mind about how happy you are that unelected administrators can so blithly trounce upon your second amendment rights to Keep and Bear Arms.
OH, and the election promise by Obama that he "would not take your guns away from you"?
Witness Step Number One of the very convoluted procedure by which Obama is going to ... if not do that precise thing immediately ... make it extremely difficult for you to keep your firearms, and for any service industry to support your ownership.
I ... am ... so ... pissed!
I'm so pissed off, angry and (unreasonably ... we knew he was a politician and therefore a lying S.O.B.) disappointed that I'm not even going to rant about this.
Not right now, anyway.
David Codrea writes in the "Gun Rights" section of The Examiner that the ATF has suddenly, inexplicably, changed the definition of "Transfer" in regards to changing the physical possession of a firearm from one person to another.
Previously, if you "transfer" a firearm, it changes ownership.
Now, it is not necessary to give or sell a firearm to another person or 'entity', it is enough to let them have it.
Which means, for example, if you send your firearm to a gunsmith to work on it, you may have to complete all of the same paperwork as you would if you were selling it to the gunsmith.
And that applies to ANY other person. A gunsmith may not have a "dealer's license", so you would have to ship the firearm to a dealer, and the gunsmith would have to fill out the ATF Form 4473 before he/she could take possession ... not ownership, but simple possession ... of it.
Please note that this is not a bill in the legislature; Congressional oversight is not a factor. This is an administrative ruling ... by people that you did not get to vote for.
Jim Shepherd has a very nice write-up on this situation with a couple of embedded links to the applicable legal documents, on The Shooting Wire. Since I cannot link to it, I will add his two-cents worth by a full, direct quote:
Transfers, Paperwork and Questions
ATF-WTF?
The ATF has very quietly reversed a forty-plus year interpretation of the Gun Control Act. Under the "new" interpretation, any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer to any agent or business (that includes engineering/design firms, lawyers, testing labs, gun writers or whatever) for a bona fide business purpose to be a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
What that means is the amount of paperwork, red tape and potential for inadvertent ATF violations has been increased - exponentially.
Say, for instance, a gun company wants testing done at an independent lab. Under the "new" interpretation, the test gun must be transferred using a form 4473 and a NICS check as if it were a firearm being sold at retail. If the test facility does not hold a FFL, the gun must be transferred to a nearby dealer, local laws complied with, and the dealer now becomes responsible for tracking the firearm on his records. If the test facility is located in one of several locales that are decidedly firearms - unfriendly- then there are the inevitable delays.
Under this ruling, it might become easier for a registered company agent to actually take the firearm to the test facility and wait while the testing is done.
If there were any history of abuse in the longstanding process, modification might seem more reasonable and less capricious. However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation says the ATF has been unable to provide a single instance during the past four decades where a single firearm shipped in reliance on the ATF's rulings was used in a crime.
ATF officials admit it's a radical change. The longstanding interpretation of what is not a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968 was first made in a 1969 ruling ("Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.") It was upheld - and further clarified - again in 1972.
The bottom line...the ATF now says those long-standing rulings were wrong. Taking 42 years to decide that seems a little excessive, even for a federal bureaucrat. The NSSF has suggested that ATF "appears" to be under the impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes "transfers".
It is appropriate to use "appears" in that instance because the ATF admits that neither the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the 1993 Brady Act defines "transfer".
So why the change after forty years? Seems no one except the suits at the ATF can answer that question - and Deputy Director Kenneth E. Melson, the man who authored the ruling, is not talking.
You can read the ruling for yourself at http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2010-1.pdf.
In a separate ruling issued Friday, the ATF has initiated a ruling that says ATF headquarters has oversight of all administrative actions prior to notices being sent to the licensee. In effect, this ruling establishes the final approval authority of denial of applications for licenses, suspensions, revocations of licenses or imposition of civil fines.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation's (NSSF) Senior Vice President, Assistant Secretary & General Counsel, Larry Keane says, "NSSF supports that all cases where revocation is recommended by the field must be cleared by ATF headquarters prior to issuance of notice to FFL. This will promote consistency of interpretation of the law and regulations."
You can read that ruling at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-13392.pdf
More happening out there, and we'll keep you posted.
--Jim Shepherd
GO to the links, see what the rulings (again, not "laws") look like, and you can make up your own mind about how happy you are that unelected administrators can so blithly trounce upon your second amendment rights to Keep and Bear Arms.
OH, and the election promise by Obama that he "would not take your guns away from you"?
Witness Step Number One of the very convoluted procedure by which Obama is going to ... if not do that precise thing immediately ... make it extremely difficult for you to keep your firearms, and for any service industry to support your ownership.
I ... am ... so ... pissed!
I'm so pissed off, angry and (unreasonably ... we knew he was a politician and therefore a lying S.O.B.) disappointed that I'm not even going to rant about this.
Not right now, anyway.
New 'Red Dawn' to attack communism again!
New 'Red Dawn' to attack communism again!
Oh my!
Someone is trying to release a re-make of Red Dawn, the 1984 adventure movie which starred (among other 'young-gun' type Hollywood luminaries) the late Patrick Swayze and the almost-too-late Charlie Sheen.
And the Main Stream Media doesn't like it, no sirree!
Why?
Because this time, the Bad Guys aren't Cuban and Russian, but Chinese.
We're running out of Politically Correct Bad Guys here, folks.
Looking at the trailers on reddawn2010, it doesn't look like much of a movie. But HEY! It's Hollywood, they're not suppose to be accurate. All together now: "It's Only A Moveeeee!"
In the last few years there have been a lot of politically correct movies about America's fight against terrorism, most of which earned about a dollar and a half at the box office. Nobody (except the movie-going audience, the few of which actually watched them) complained about America-bashing Hollywood.
But to put the Chinese in the role of the Bad Guys! Wow! The MSM is all over it like stink on what-you-avoid-on-the-sidewalk.
The Guardian doesn't like. The New Yorker doesn't like it.
These sound like recommendations to go see the show, even though there isn't yet a release date (IMDB.COM does list it; but the November, 2o1o release date on the movie's website has a strike-out line drawn through it. I assume this means that it's still questionable whether the movie will EVER be released.)
Here's the trailer for the movie, and it is about as boring as it can be:
There's even a website set up called "Anti-reddawn2010". But it's a little difficult trying to figure out what it has to say, because it's mostly written in (you guessed it) Chinese.
The only good news, out of all this, is that there's an option on the reddawn2010 website where you can build your own "alert" against 'enemies of the state' (or "suppressive persons ... whatever).
Here's my own personal Alert: click for the full-size image.
Kinda helps get you into the mood, doesn't it?
Oh my!
Someone is trying to release a re-make of Red Dawn, the 1984 adventure movie which starred (among other 'young-gun' type Hollywood luminaries) the late Patrick Swayze and the almost-too-late Charlie Sheen.
And the Main Stream Media doesn't like it, no sirree!
Why?
Because this time, the Bad Guys aren't Cuban and Russian, but Chinese.
We're running out of Politically Correct Bad Guys here, folks.
Looking at the trailers on reddawn2010, it doesn't look like much of a movie. But HEY! It's Hollywood, they're not suppose to be accurate. All together now: "It's Only A Moveeeee!"
In the last few years there have been a lot of politically correct movies about America's fight against terrorism, most of which earned about a dollar and a half at the box office. Nobody (except the movie-going audience, the few of which actually watched them) complained about America-bashing Hollywood.
But to put the Chinese in the role of the Bad Guys! Wow! The MSM is all over it like stink on what-you-avoid-on-the-sidewalk.
The Guardian doesn't like. The New Yorker doesn't like it.
These sound like recommendations to go see the show, even though there isn't yet a release date (IMDB.COM does list it; but the November, 2o1o release date on the movie's website has a strike-out line drawn through it. I assume this means that it's still questionable whether the movie will EVER be released.)
Here's the trailer for the movie, and it is about as boring as it can be:
There's even a website set up called "Anti-reddawn2010". But it's a little difficult trying to figure out what it has to say, because it's mostly written in (you guessed it) Chinese.
The only good news, out of all this, is that there's an option on the reddawn2010 website where you can build your own "alert" against 'enemies of the state' (or "suppressive persons ... whatever).
Here's my own personal Alert: click for the full-size image.
Kinda helps get you into the mood, doesn't it?
Norm's Unforgivable Gift
I have been focusing on the misfortunes of others. That's unforgivable, indicative of a low sense of humor and faithlessness toward one's friends.
Perhaps I can make it up by showing something 'fortuitous' that happened on the range. Specifically, at an IPSC match.
Really, I'm amazed that it has not previously occurred to me, that I should report on Norm's Unforgivable Gift.
Again, this happened at Tri County Gun Club a few years ago, on a soggy damp morning in Bay Two.
I'm not entirely certain, but I think this was a classifier stage. A very simple one, at that.
The shooting problem was to knock down six mixed steel (Pepper Poppers and U.S. poppers), reload, then knock down six more.
Norm The Ungrateful was up, and we were primed for a six-second run, maybe seven seconds, max. And he had it going in, but he fired the first four shots ... and got a jam!
While Norm was fiddling with his pistol, trying to clear the jam as quickly as possible, the fifth popper just ... fell down.
It may have been a matter of habit; when Norm shoots, the steel falls like tenpins. Norm would probably be inclined to think he had knocked down the first four poppers so solidly that it set up a tremor in the earth. Or else, he just intimidated it down.
Whatever the reason, he was saved a shot (which shaved something like a quarter, perhaps a third of a second, off his stage time, which was a total of 11 seconds rather than the expected six seconds).
When he completed clearing the jam, he just knocked down the sixth popper, reloaded, and knocked down the last six. I'm not even certain that he realized, at the time, that one steel had sacrificed itself in a paroxysm of terror.
What amazes me now is that I have apparently never thought to post it here.
The thing is, we were all in such jaw-dropping awe that the Range Officer just recorded the time and score and let him walk away from what would normally be a "Range Equipment Failure".
We all knew he was going to win the match anyway, and it was only a Club Match. At least, that's what we told our private selves.
The truth was, we weren't entirely certain that this wasn't the way he had planned to shoot the stage.
[YouTube Link here]
Perhaps I can make it up by showing something 'fortuitous' that happened on the range. Specifically, at an IPSC match.
Really, I'm amazed that it has not previously occurred to me, that I should report on Norm's Unforgivable Gift.
Again, this happened at Tri County Gun Club a few years ago, on a soggy damp morning in Bay Two.
I'm not entirely certain, but I think this was a classifier stage. A very simple one, at that.
The shooting problem was to knock down six mixed steel (Pepper Poppers and U.S. poppers), reload, then knock down six more.
Norm The Ungrateful was up, and we were primed for a six-second run, maybe seven seconds, max. And he had it going in, but he fired the first four shots ... and got a jam!
While Norm was fiddling with his pistol, trying to clear the jam as quickly as possible, the fifth popper just ... fell down.
It may have been a matter of habit; when Norm shoots, the steel falls like tenpins. Norm would probably be inclined to think he had knocked down the first four poppers so solidly that it set up a tremor in the earth. Or else, he just intimidated it down.
Whatever the reason, he was saved a shot (which shaved something like a quarter, perhaps a third of a second, off his stage time, which was a total of 11 seconds rather than the expected six seconds).
When he completed clearing the jam, he just knocked down the sixth popper, reloaded, and knocked down the last six. I'm not even certain that he realized, at the time, that one steel had sacrificed itself in a paroxysm of terror.
What amazes me now is that I have apparently never thought to post it here.
The thing is, we were all in such jaw-dropping awe that the Range Officer just recorded the time and score and let him walk away from what would normally be a "Range Equipment Failure".
We all knew he was going to win the match anyway, and it was only a Club Match. At least, that's what we told our private selves.
The truth was, we weren't entirely certain that this wasn't the way he had planned to shoot the stage.
[YouTube Link here]
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The First "Fish Flop"
Given the great kerfuffle about yesterday's post describing WhiteFish's demonstration on "how to take a fall and come up shooting", it seemed necessary that I provide some visual documentation.
June of 2006, Tri County Gun Club, Stage 1.
Starting prone on a platform, grab your pistol from one of the barrel and engage all targets as they become visible.
Unfortunately, the barrels were staked down using 9" spikes. The ground was so hard, they weren't pounded in very deeply. it was difficult to avoid them when moving from one side of the stage to the next.
The inevitable happened ... to WhiteFish!
Fortunately he recovered quickly and with a minimum of damage.
The video wasn't filmed from the best angle, but it's obvious that he managed to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction while rolling around in the dirt, and although he had to quickly clear a jam he kept his head and finished the stage as aggressively as he had begun it.
The man has the reflexes of a cat!
(NOTE: The title on the video is in error. The match was in 2006, not 2009.)
June of 2006, Tri County Gun Club, Stage 1.
Starting prone on a platform, grab your pistol from one of the barrel and engage all targets as they become visible.
Unfortunately, the barrels were staked down using 9" spikes. The ground was so hard, they weren't pounded in very deeply. it was difficult to avoid them when moving from one side of the stage to the next.
The inevitable happened ... to WhiteFish!
Fortunately he recovered quickly and with a minimum of damage.
The video wasn't filmed from the best angle, but it's obvious that he managed to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction while rolling around in the dirt, and although he had to quickly clear a jam he kept his head and finished the stage as aggressively as he had begun it.
The man has the reflexes of a cat!
(NOTE: The title on the video is in error. The match was in 2006, not 2009.)
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Fish Flop
When I have new people (and they're always new) taking the Introduction to USPSA class, it helps a lot if they come with experienced friends. Often, these are the people who have already talked them into trying IPSC competition, and as part of the encouragement they bring them to the range in time for the class.
I like to draft these experienced shooters to be "Demonstrators". That means I run them through the exercises in the "Life Fire" portion of the class, so the folks see what it is suppose to look like when someone actually shoots the stage scenario. Then the new people try it. It's all part of the "We tell you what to do, then we show you what to do, then you do it, then we talk about what you just did" school of training.
That's the exception rather than the rule, though. Usually the "new people" are members of the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, and they've done little more than contact Mike McCarter -- by "boss", sort-of -- and make arrangements to sign up for the next class.
That was the case last weekend. I had four "new people" for the class: Bruce and Margie, and Bill and Loci (pronounced like "Lucy", except the OH instead of the EWE sound). I was delighted to have two married couples show up. It's much more fun when couples can go shooting together, and it's an especially good sign when a man wants his wife to join him at the range.
I also had another member, who had been an IPSC shooter before but came by for the class-room segment. I had hoped he would be able to stick around for the "Live Fire" exercises, but unfortunately he had other commitments for the rest of the afternoon.
Acting as my own Demonstrator isn't the best approach. It's difficult for me to act as my own Range Officer, so I have to wing it. As usual, this means I hand the buzzer to one of the students, walk them through the Range Commands a couple of times, and then we just sort of wing it. This does have a slight advantage in that they learn the Range Commands faster, but they are distracted from the demonstration.
We worked this through the first hour and a half of the Live Fire exercise, when my friend WhiteFish showed up.
I asked him if he would be Demonstrator for me, and he decided he could do that. He got his gear out of the car and "geared up" while I was finishing the current exercise, and then I described the next exercise to the class ... and also to my Demonstrator.
This was going to be the first time we were going to try moving from one shooting position to another. We would start out engaging three IPSC targets from Box "A", then move down-range and to the right and engage two steel targets from Box "B", which was behind a Bianchi Barricade.
I hadn't noticed it, but WhiteFish was wearing his disgustingly dilapidated pair of pointy toed cowboy boots. When he half-turned to the right and started out of the box, those toes caught the one-inch high shooting box and he fell like a Helicopter with a shot-up engine.
Except for the auto-rotating part, which a Helicopter can do but a Whitefish cannot.
It was a thing of beauty.
He did everything exactly right. He turned it into a hip-roll, and even though his gun-hand was on the downhill side, he sacrificed his elbow by sliding it along the gravel. In doing so he kept the muzzle pointing downrange and his Open Glock out of the dirt.
As the dust settled, WhiteFish was curled in a semi-fetal position. I was standing over him, timer forgotten (it was still at shoulder height, pointing at the Fallen Warrior) when he looked up at me.
"Are you alright?" I asked him, conscious of the four pair of eyes behind me who have GOT to be thinking "Are we sure this is how we want to enjoy the Shooting Experience?"
My Downed Demonstrator looked around, checked himself out, and not finding anything broken nodded and said "uh huh".
"Well, the clock's still running. We're waiting on you."
My compassion for my fellow man is legendary.
WhiteFishjumped up crawled uphill until he got his feet under him, and advanced toward the Bianchi Barricade at his best speed. I noted that it was about half the velocity he had obviously been trying for Before The Fall.
But he got 'er done.
Still shaken, but not stirred, he took an extra moment to get a good bead on both the Pepper Popper and the U.S. Popper down-range. They fell with all the alacrity, but none of the style, which he had just demonstrated.
After completing the unload-and-show-clear thingie, we turned it into a teaching moment. Yes, we had planned this out ahead of time and of course he had deliberately scraped about a pound of skin of his elbow just to make it more realistic.
One of the students, I believe it was the naughty Loci (whose mother, it occurred to me, may have not known the correct spelling for Loki) asked if we would run through that one more time. She believed she may have missed some of the nuances.
Bill asked if this would be on the Final Exam.
Margie, every the practical one, was heard to mutter "I'm not doing that, no way!"
And Bruce was ... just not saying anything. He knew he was the next up in the shooting order, and he appeared to be calculating the distance from Box "A" to Box "B", and the height of both shooting boxes.
We finished the class, taking an extra class just because we were having so much darn fun. As we were hauling the target stands and steel back to the Prop Room, I offered WhiteFish ten bucks a day if he would just come out to the class once a month and Take a Dive for us again. I allowed as how it would be a great advertising gimmick, and I would split the "take" with him after we started selling tickets.
No, he didn't agree to it even when I upped the offer to twenty bucks.
Then I told the class about the offer, and his refusal.
That's when Loci turned to WhiteFish, and sweetly offered to pass the hat. The whole class was willing to chip in for an Instant Replay, if he would just wait until they retrieved their cameras from the car.
One thing is sure: if WhiteFish squads with me at the Certification Match next weekend, I know that I'll have four new shooters signing up for the same squad.
Plus, of course, the inimitable Hobo Brasser, who is always happy to end up the Last Man Standing.
I like to draft these experienced shooters to be "Demonstrators". That means I run them through the exercises in the "Life Fire" portion of the class, so the folks see what it is suppose to look like when someone actually shoots the stage scenario. Then the new people try it. It's all part of the "We tell you what to do, then we show you what to do, then you do it, then we talk about what you just did" school of training.
That's the exception rather than the rule, though. Usually the "new people" are members of the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club, and they've done little more than contact Mike McCarter -- by "boss", sort-of -- and make arrangements to sign up for the next class.
That was the case last weekend. I had four "new people" for the class: Bruce and Margie, and Bill and Loci (pronounced like "Lucy", except the OH instead of the EWE sound). I was delighted to have two married couples show up. It's much more fun when couples can go shooting together, and it's an especially good sign when a man wants his wife to join him at the range.
I also had another member, who had been an IPSC shooter before but came by for the class-room segment. I had hoped he would be able to stick around for the "Live Fire" exercises, but unfortunately he had other commitments for the rest of the afternoon.
Acting as my own Demonstrator isn't the best approach. It's difficult for me to act as my own Range Officer, so I have to wing it. As usual, this means I hand the buzzer to one of the students, walk them through the Range Commands a couple of times, and then we just sort of wing it. This does have a slight advantage in that they learn the Range Commands faster, but they are distracted from the demonstration.
We worked this through the first hour and a half of the Live Fire exercise, when my friend WhiteFish showed up.
I asked him if he would be Demonstrator for me, and he decided he could do that. He got his gear out of the car and "geared up" while I was finishing the current exercise, and then I described the next exercise to the class ... and also to my Demonstrator.
This was going to be the first time we were going to try moving from one shooting position to another. We would start out engaging three IPSC targets from Box "A", then move down-range and to the right and engage two steel targets from Box "B", which was behind a Bianchi Barricade.
I hadn't noticed it, but WhiteFish was wearing his disgustingly dilapidated pair of pointy toed cowboy boots. When he half-turned to the right and started out of the box, those toes caught the one-inch high shooting box and he fell like a Helicopter with a shot-up engine.
Except for the auto-rotating part, which a Helicopter can do but a Whitefish cannot.
It was a thing of beauty.
He did everything exactly right. He turned it into a hip-roll, and even though his gun-hand was on the downhill side, he sacrificed his elbow by sliding it along the gravel. In doing so he kept the muzzle pointing downrange and his Open Glock out of the dirt.
As the dust settled, WhiteFish was curled in a semi-fetal position. I was standing over him, timer forgotten (it was still at shoulder height, pointing at the Fallen Warrior) when he looked up at me.
"Are you alright?" I asked him, conscious of the four pair of eyes behind me who have GOT to be thinking "Are we sure this is how we want to enjoy the Shooting Experience?"
My Downed Demonstrator looked around, checked himself out, and not finding anything broken nodded and said "uh huh".
"Well, the clock's still running. We're waiting on you."
My compassion for my fellow man is legendary.
WhiteFish
But he got 'er done.
Still shaken, but not stirred, he took an extra moment to get a good bead on both the Pepper Popper and the U.S. Popper down-range. They fell with all the alacrity, but none of the style, which he had just demonstrated.
After completing the unload-and-show-clear thingie, we turned it into a teaching moment. Yes, we had planned this out ahead of time and of course he had deliberately scraped about a pound of skin of his elbow just to make it more realistic.
One of the students, I believe it was the naughty Loci (whose mother, it occurred to me, may have not known the correct spelling for Loki) asked if we would run through that one more time. She believed she may have missed some of the nuances.
Bill asked if this would be on the Final Exam.
Margie, every the practical one, was heard to mutter "I'm not doing that, no way!"
And Bruce was ... just not saying anything. He knew he was the next up in the shooting order, and he appeared to be calculating the distance from Box "A" to Box "B", and the height of both shooting boxes.
We finished the class, taking an extra class just because we were having so much darn fun. As we were hauling the target stands and steel back to the Prop Room, I offered WhiteFish ten bucks a day if he would just come out to the class once a month and Take a Dive for us again. I allowed as how it would be a great advertising gimmick, and I would split the "take" with him after we started selling tickets.
No, he didn't agree to it even when I upped the offer to twenty bucks.
Then I told the class about the offer, and his refusal.
That's when Loci turned to WhiteFish, and sweetly offered to pass the hat. The whole class was willing to chip in for an Instant Replay, if he would just wait until they retrieved their cameras from the car.
One thing is sure: if WhiteFish squads with me at the Certification Match next weekend, I know that I'll have four new shooters signing up for the same squad.
Plus, of course, the inimitable Hobo Brasser, who is always happy to end up the Last Man Standing.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Memorial Day, 2010
What does Memorial Day mean to you?
For Me, it means remembering those who went before me.
My uncle Sgt. Doug Phillips, who was killed during the Battle of The Bulge.
My uncle Sgt. Ernest Burnett, who drove the first tank into Rome.
My oldest brother, "Un-Named Baby", who lived for two days after his birth in 1936.
These are the graves ... and memorials ... which my mother has visited every year for at least the past 65 years. She has brought flowers to their graves, and quietly wept over them, for a long as I remember.
The local VFW post has found old men to fire rifle salutes to them, every year, for as long as I remember.
And my family has honored these, the young men who we have lost in war and peace, for as long as I remember.
The weren't Brave. They weren't stalwart. They were just mountain boys who came when they were called, and died -- or lived -- as fate decreed.
They left behind mothers, sisters, wives and daughters who have never ceased to mourn them.
They left behind brothers, nephews, sons who took them for their role models and quietly, uncomplainingly, followed them into battle in defense of their country, their culture, their way of life.
---
For others, it means 'other things', such as this:
But I do not believe that it means more to Oliver North than it means to me.
My mother is 93 now, and for the first time in over a half-century she is too ill to travel 400 miles to the family grave-yard. It has been her practice to quietly honor her son, her brother and her uncle.
I did not go in her place.
But still I honor my son, who has pledged his life for the honor and safety of his country.
My only wish is that I am not called upon to decorate his grave.
Still, if it is necessary, I know that he will defend his country to the greatest extend needed.
That makes me sad. In truth, I care more for him that he should be called upon to give his life for his country.
---
I begin to understand, a little, the things that my Mother has been saying for these many years.
For Me, it means remembering those who went before me.
My uncle Sgt. Doug Phillips, who was killed during the Battle of The Bulge.
My uncle Sgt. Ernest Burnett, who drove the first tank into Rome.
My oldest brother, "Un-Named Baby", who lived for two days after his birth in 1936.
These are the graves ... and memorials ... which my mother has visited every year for at least the past 65 years. She has brought flowers to their graves, and quietly wept over them, for a long as I remember.
The local VFW post has found old men to fire rifle salutes to them, every year, for as long as I remember.
And my family has honored these, the young men who we have lost in war and peace, for as long as I remember.
The weren't Brave. They weren't stalwart. They were just mountain boys who came when they were called, and died -- or lived -- as fate decreed.
They left behind mothers, sisters, wives and daughters who have never ceased to mourn them.
They left behind brothers, nephews, sons who took them for their role models and quietly, uncomplainingly, followed them into battle in defense of their country, their culture, their way of life.
---
For others, it means 'other things', such as this:
But I do not believe that it means more to Oliver North than it means to me.
My mother is 93 now, and for the first time in over a half-century she is too ill to travel 400 miles to the family grave-yard. It has been her practice to quietly honor her son, her brother and her uncle.
I did not go in her place.
But still I honor my son, who has pledged his life for the honor and safety of his country.
My only wish is that I am not called upon to decorate his grave.
Still, if it is necessary, I know that he will defend his country to the greatest extend needed.
That makes me sad. In truth, I care more for him that he should be called upon to give his life for his country.
---
I begin to understand, a little, the things that my Mother has been saying for these many years.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Persuader
Mexican President Flipe Calederon addressed the American Congress last week, and one of the primary points of his speach was that he "decried" the law recently enacted by the Arizona legislature which enabled local law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal laws which penalized individuals who enter American states (specifically, Arizona) without benefit of Federal permission.
Note that this access is specifically forbidden by Federal law, and the obligation to "protect (our) borders" is a constitutional requirement ... which is not current enforced by the Obama administration.
Specifically, he said:
Has Calderon confused the word "migration" with the word "immigration"?
It sees that he has, and the words we speak without thinking are most likely to reveal our inner thoughts.
Calderon is striving to encourage the United States of America to accept his most impoverished, and least productive, citizens. Those who have no skills to bring to the American job-market, but who are able to perform only unskilled labor for less than and American could legitimately and legally demand for doing the same work.
In a word .... a single word ... Calderon is condemning his "peasantry" to poor, underpaid manual labor for the single purpose of removing them from his country's economy.
He has unconsciously committed them, these "peons", to under-paid, under-skilled wage slavery for the benefit of his country, and for then "excess income" (excess, after mean wage-slave income) which they can garner in our country.
Does Calderon have the best interest of his citizens at heart? No, unless one considers that un-skilled workers are best encouraged to remove themselves from Mexico, and earn what meager salary they can in America.
They can make enough money to send some home? Great for Mexico, which has removed the lowest skilled workers without penalty, and still effect the transfer of literally BILLIONS of American Dollars to Mexico.
Why else would he object to America's attempts to enforce our border/immigration laws?
Remember the difference between "immigration" and "migration".
The first is the legal transfer, with permission, of individuals from one country to another.
The other is the transfer of individuals from one country to another, without necessarily being legally accepted by the receiving country.
Calderon thinks that "migration" is a wonderful, no-penalty solution to his country's overpopulation of Peons.
Obama thinks that it is a great way to propagate his Socialist agenda.
And so there is no difference of opinion between the two national leaders.
Except that American Citizens, who are dying by the thousands every month because 85% of these "migrants" are criminals, and they are underining the infrastructure of America.
But Obama doesn't care, because he plans to make them "legal citizens" through his plan of "immigration reform", and every fricking one of the are going to vote Democratic in 2012.
Why shouldn't they? Obama and the Liberal Democrats have given them the Keys to the Kingdom, and they are very grateful.
The Democrats care not one whit about the security of America. They just want the votes.
And they shall have them.
x
Note that this access is specifically forbidden by Federal law, and the obligation to "protect (our) borders" is a constitutional requirement ... which is not current enforced by the Obama administration.
Specifically, he said:
"I am convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform is crucial to securing our common border," the Mexican president told lawmakers in both parties gathered for the speech. "However I strongly disagree with your recently adopted law in Arizona."Here's an interesting ... and perhaps telling .. statement from Calderon:
Democrats stood and applauded Calderon's remarks at that point in the speech, while many Republicans remained seated, with no applause.
In asking anew for an immigration overhaul, Obama showed solidarity with his guest of honor, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who called Arizona's law discriminatory and warned Mexico would reject any effort to "criminalize migration." The United States and Mexico share a significant economic and political relationship that stands to be damaged the more the nations are at odds over immigration, which affects millions of people on both sides of the border.Note that word: "migration".
Has Calderon confused the word "migration" with the word "immigration"?
It sees that he has, and the words we speak without thinking are most likely to reveal our inner thoughts.
Calderon is striving to encourage the United States of America to accept his most impoverished, and least productive, citizens. Those who have no skills to bring to the American job-market, but who are able to perform only unskilled labor for less than and American could legitimately and legally demand for doing the same work.
In a word .... a single word ... Calderon is condemning his "peasantry" to poor, underpaid manual labor for the single purpose of removing them from his country's economy.
He has unconsciously committed them, these "peons", to under-paid, under-skilled wage slavery for the benefit of his country, and for then "excess income" (excess, after mean wage-slave income) which they can garner in our country.
Does Calderon have the best interest of his citizens at heart? No, unless one considers that un-skilled workers are best encouraged to remove themselves from Mexico, and earn what meager salary they can in America.
They can make enough money to send some home? Great for Mexico, which has removed the lowest skilled workers without penalty, and still effect the transfer of literally BILLIONS of American Dollars to Mexico.
Why else would he object to America's attempts to enforce our border/immigration laws?
Remember the difference between "immigration" and "migration".
The first is the legal transfer, with permission, of individuals from one country to another.
The other is the transfer of individuals from one country to another, without necessarily being legally accepted by the receiving country.
Calderon thinks that "migration" is a wonderful, no-penalty solution to his country's overpopulation of Peons.
Obama thinks that it is a great way to propagate his Socialist agenda.
And so there is no difference of opinion between the two national leaders.
Except that American Citizens, who are dying by the thousands every month because 85% of these "migrants" are criminals, and they are underining the infrastructure of America.
But Obama doesn't care, because he plans to make them "legal citizens" through his plan of "immigration reform", and every fricking one of the are going to vote Democratic in 2012.
Why shouldn't they? Obama and the Liberal Democrats have given them the Keys to the Kingdom, and they are very grateful.
The Democrats care not one whit about the security of America. They just want the votes.
And they shall have them.
x
Sunday, May 23, 2010
.50 BMG sniper
This is from the History Channel, and having watched it I must say that it is too professionally edited to be realistic.
But if you are interested in Sniper Action in Combat, this will appeal to you. (G0 to the link to see the video in full-page format.)
H/T to Guest "Randomly Hitten' Witten"
But if you are interested in Sniper Action in Combat, this will appeal to you. (G0 to the link to see the video in full-page format.)
H/T to Guest "Randomly Hitten' Witten"
Sunday, May 16, 2010
TEOTWAWKI
Four Great Preparedness Myths, by Dan B. - SurvivalBlog.com
From Guest/Friend "Randomly Hittin' Witten" comes this link to SurvivalBlog.com ("The Daily Web Log for Prepared Individuals Living in Uncertain Times").
The thrust of the article, coming from one who knows and thinks about TEOTWAWKI *, is that "survivorists" or "Preppers" (Prepared For Survival) tend to adhere to one or more of four belief systems which just may be nothing more than "wishful thinking"
Personally, I'm not into "End-Of-Days" preparedness. And I think some of those who only stock two days worth of food have that same expectation ... if we civilized folks have to live more than two days without an infrastructure, then there is little use in trying to be self-sufficient if Obama won't appear in a sort of Deus Ex Machina last-minute rescue. We're all gonna die anyway, aren't we?
As I said, I'm certainly not a practitioner of "survival preparedness", although I do have the three levels of 'stuff'' to meet emergencies:
I don't know ... and I don't much care ... what you have done for your own personal 'emergency preparedness But I suspect that, practically speaking, you may look around and find that you are almost as appropriately prepared as the "Preppers" for TEOTWAWKI".
Oh yeah. Almost forgot.
TEOTWAWKI stands for "The End Of The World As We Know It".
If you don't know that, you can't survive. I'm pretty sure it's in a book somewhere.
Scary, ain't it?
From Guest/Friend "Randomly Hittin' Witten" comes this link to SurvivalBlog.com ("The Daily Web Log for Prepared Individuals Living in Uncertain Times").
The thrust of the article, coming from one who knows and thinks about TEOTWAWKI *, is that "survivorists" or "Preppers" (Prepared For Survival) tend to adhere to one or more of four belief systems which just may be nothing more than "wishful thinking"
- "You can defend yourself against the horde" (the folks who haven't prepared for world-wide disaster, and want to take your 'stuff' away from you);
- "Stock up on the ammo you'll need to defend yourself with" (you're gonna need lots of ammo to defend yourself against the horde);
- "I only need X number of days of food" (surprisingly, the author states that most "preppers" only store a couple of days of food --- then what? They're gonna make a trip to Safeway?)
- "TEOTWAWKI will be fun!" (What? Watching your friends and family die horrible lingering deaths will be fun? Your own life will not be ""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"?)
Personally, I'm not into "End-Of-Days" preparedness. And I think some of those who only stock two days worth of food have that same expectation ... if we civilized folks have to live more than two days without an infrastructure, then there is little use in trying to be self-sufficient if Obama won't appear in a sort of Deus Ex Machina last-minute rescue. We're all gonna die anyway, aren't we?
As I said, I'm certainly not a practitioner of "survival preparedness", although I do have the three levels of 'stuff'' to meet emergencies:
- What I have in my pockets (knife, flashlight, lighter, etc.)
- What I have in my car (clothes, blankets, food, water, tarp, bigger knife, firearm & ammunition, etc.)
- What I have in my house (see #2, but more of it, kerosene lamps and a lot of camping equipment)
I don't know ... and I don't much care ... what you have done for your own personal 'emergency preparedness But I suspect that, practically speaking, you may look around and find that you are almost as appropriately prepared as the "Preppers" for TEOTWAWKI".
Oh yeah. Almost forgot.
TEOTWAWKI stands for "The End Of The World As We Know It".
If you don't know that, you can't survive. I'm pretty sure it's in a book somewhere.
Scary, ain't it?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Machine Gun Shoot at ARPC!
Here's an email I received this week:
You, of course, are not likely to volunteer to help out unless you are a member of the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club.
On the other hand, you should know that this event is taking place (happens every year, once in the Spring and once in Autumn) and that it is a heck of a good time.
ARPC members enter for free. All others, it costs the majorly big cost of FIVE (5) BUCKS!
There will be sub-guns and tripod-mounted guns (m-60 and the venerable Ma Deuce [video also here and here])
M60: 7.62 Nato caliber.
Belt fed, weighs about 18 pounds, fires at a rate of about 600 rounds per minute.
M2: .50 caliber
Belt fed, weighs about 100 pounds, fires at about 450 rounds per minute, effective range around 2,500 yards.
No, I can't guarantee that either will be there. I can only say that in past events, they HAVE been there.
What does it cost you to shoot it? My understanding is that you have to pay them for the ammunition. Which would probably be a lot less expensive with the M-60 than with the M-2. Whether there is an additional fee required, I can't say You'll have to go see it for yourself.
Personally, I'm planning to go just to get some really good pictures of people having a good time. And yes, if you have not ever shot a full-auto machine gun before, this is a good opportunity.
Oh, and there will be sub-guns there, too. We're talking the venerable tommy-gun and the m3 grease-gun, for starters. I have seen members of the Full-Auto club bring these to the range, as well as MP-5's.
Go here for more information, including directions to the range.
Saddle Butte Machine Gun Shoot:
The Saddle Butte Machine Gun Shoot is May 15th and 16th.
Every year we get larger and better and it takes a lot of volunteers to make this a safe and enjoyable event. Volunteers will be needed to serve as Range Officers, balloon/target setters, tee shirt sales, setup/take down (Friday 14th and Monday 17th) and gate/parking lots. Anyone interested in helping please contacted Allen Eriksen at Eriksenor@aol.com (weekends phone 541-967- 4005). Please include your full name, phone number and days volunteering to work. This is a great way to get your work bond hours. Don't worry if you have little or no experience with Machine Guns. We will teach you everything you will need to know to help out.
You, of course, are not likely to volunteer to help out unless you are a member of the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club.
On the other hand, you should know that this event is taking place (happens every year, once in the Spring and once in Autumn) and that it is a heck of a good time.
ARPC members enter for free. All others, it costs the majorly big cost of FIVE (5) BUCKS!
There will be sub-guns and tripod-mounted guns (m-60 and the venerable Ma Deuce [video also here and here])
M60: 7.62 Nato caliber.
Belt fed, weighs about 18 pounds, fires at a rate of about 600 rounds per minute.
M2: .50 caliberBelt fed, weighs about 100 pounds, fires at about 450 rounds per minute, effective range around 2,500 yards.
No, I can't guarantee that either will be there. I can only say that in past events, they HAVE been there.
What does it cost you to shoot it? My understanding is that you have to pay them for the ammunition. Which would probably be a lot less expensive with the M-60 than with the M-2. Whether there is an additional fee required, I can't say You'll have to go see it for yourself.
Personally, I'm planning to go just to get some really good pictures of people having a good time. And yes, if you have not ever shot a full-auto machine gun before, this is a good opportunity.
Oh, and there will be sub-guns there, too. We're talking the venerable tommy-gun and the m3 grease-gun, for starters. I have seen members of the Full-Auto club bring these to the range, as well as MP-5's.
Go here for more information, including directions to the range.
Echo Burning
Well.
I've finally got rid of all the nasty commercial comments from the guy who wanted to sell me laptop batteries.
It wasn't cheap. I had to actually BUY the ECHO comment moderation software. That required me to reset my PAYPAL account password ... but at least I was able to review my payment history, always good to know.
And I blocked the user. And his IP. And flagged everything he ever sent as SPHAM (deliberately misspelled, so it wouldn't trigger your computer filter). And then I deleted all of his comments.
I suspect I may have deleted some of the comments in my history, too. Or at least, my sidebar section where I display the most recent comments no longer display.
Sorry about that. I hope I didn't lose too much. And I hope the display will begin working again, as soon as I get more comments.
There's a lesson here, and that is -- I can't start a blog and then let it sit without maintaining it.
A Geek's Lot Is Not A Happy One, to steal a line from "The Pirates of Penzance". Because I have been so involved in work, and SWMBO, I haven't been involved in other things that I love. Examples include blogging, and shooting.
I've got back into the shooting stuff by instructing the "Intro to USPSA" classes at ARPC every month (regularly, instead of 'often'), and making it a point to compete at the ARPC match every month.
But even though the two activities should -- and do -- provide material for blog articles, I haven't made time for that, either.
So I've taken the weekend for "Me Time", with a list of things to do.
The first item on the list was to reclaim my Blog, which I have just done.
The second was to pay bills.
The third was to write some of those great articles I've been thinking about.
And the fourth thing was to fix my XL650 and start using it. Failing that, I'm going to just buy a new press, and start all over. (After paying bills, I may work harder on the 650. That $1,650 price tag on the 1050 is just a little too steep for me.)
Unessential things, like housekeeping and doing dishes and laundry, may suffer from this concerted effort
But heck, I wasn't going to do that this weekend anyway.
I've finally got rid of all the nasty commercial comments from the guy who wanted to sell me laptop batteries.
It wasn't cheap. I had to actually BUY the ECHO comment moderation software. That required me to reset my PAYPAL account password ... but at least I was able to review my payment history, always good to know.
And I blocked the user. And his IP. And flagged everything he ever sent as SPHAM (deliberately misspelled, so it wouldn't trigger your computer filter). And then I deleted all of his comments.
I suspect I may have deleted some of the comments in my history, too. Or at least, my sidebar section where I display the most recent comments no longer display.
Sorry about that. I hope I didn't lose too much. And I hope the display will begin working again, as soon as I get more comments.
There's a lesson here, and that is -- I can't start a blog and then let it sit without maintaining it.
A Geek's Lot Is Not A Happy One, to steal a line from "The Pirates of Penzance". Because I have been so involved in work, and SWMBO, I haven't been involved in other things that I love. Examples include blogging, and shooting.
I've got back into the shooting stuff by instructing the "Intro to USPSA" classes at ARPC every month (regularly, instead of 'often'), and making it a point to compete at the ARPC match every month.
But even though the two activities should -- and do -- provide material for blog articles, I haven't made time for that, either.
So I've taken the weekend for "Me Time", with a list of things to do.
The first item on the list was to reclaim my Blog, which I have just done.
The second was to pay bills.
The third was to write some of those great articles I've been thinking about.
And the fourth thing was to fix my XL650 and start using it. Failing that, I'm going to just buy a new press, and start all over. (After paying bills, I may work harder on the 650. That $1,650 price tag on the 1050 is just a little too steep for me.)
Unessential things, like housekeeping and doing dishes and laundry, may suffer from this concerted effort
But heck, I wasn't going to do that this weekend anyway.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
WE have been spammed!
You may note that the 'recent comments' section of the sidebar contains the same message, over and over.
Apparently someone has built a blogger-attach program for base material purposes. It has attached the same commercial message on at least 50 individual articles, and until more 'unspammed' comments are submitted the roster will be unchanged.
I have to say that this is the consequence of ECHO, which replaced Haloscan (even though I had not wished it to, and that's another story), which does not recognize me as administrator. I'm working on that, but even if I regain control over my own comment module, there doesn't seem to exist an option for me to mark the sender or the comments as SPAM ... either as a class or individually.
This is what comes of not maintaining the Blog. At this point, I'm just about angry enough to shut it down permanently.
Apparently someone has built a blogger-attach program for base material purposes. It has attached the same commercial message on at least 50 individual articles, and until more 'unspammed' comments are submitted the roster will be unchanged.
I have to say that this is the consequence of ECHO, which replaced Haloscan (even though I had not wished it to, and that's another story), which does not recognize me as administrator. I'm working on that, but even if I regain control over my own comment module, there doesn't seem to exist an option for me to mark the sender or the comments as SPAM ... either as a class or individually.
This is what comes of not maintaining the Blog. At this point, I'm just about angry enough to shut it down permanently.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Open Carry -- good thing or bad thing?
BTW, as I am devoting much of tonight's posts to Gun Bloggers I Read And Admire, note that Michael Bane has an excellent article regarding "Open Carry" vs "Concealed Carry" (regardless of the "Concealed Carry" tag on this post).
In his view, there is definately a valid reason for Open Carry.
The difference is that "Concealed Carry", which is approved by 90% of states in America, is a relatively new phenomena, and is usually legislated so that practitioners must apply for a permit.
"Open Carry", in contrast, has often been permissible in most states for several years.
The thing is, you can carry a pistol in a holster and it is ... and has been ... legal, without need for a special permit. Not so with "Concealed carry", which usually requires an application for a permit and commonly requires, in most states, that the practitioner meet some standard of training and certification.
Which is better? Why? And why should an individual choose one mode of carrying a firearm in public rather than the other?
I'm afraid this is one question which you must answer for yourself.
In his view, there is definately a valid reason for Open Carry.
The difference is that "Concealed Carry", which is approved by 90% of states in America, is a relatively new phenomena, and is usually legislated so that practitioners must apply for a permit.
"Open Carry", in contrast, has often been permissible in most states for several years.
The thing is, you can carry a pistol in a holster and it is ... and has been ... legal, without need for a special permit. Not so with "Concealed carry", which usually requires an application for a permit and commonly requires, in most states, that the practitioner meet some standard of training and certification.
Which is better? Why? And why should an individual choose one mode of carrying a firearm in public rather than the other?
I'm afraid this is one question which you must answer for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)