Reference "Another Ft. Hood Massacre", (which incident has been talked up much better elsewhere) .... I'm still fuming about the practice of not allowing American military personnel to be armed "in camp". This policy, established 20 years ago by President Bill "Willy" Clinton, actually goes back much farther.
Which explains part of my ire, which has been with me since 1969.
And which just might not be defensible.
Friday, April 04, 2014
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Georgia lawmakers pass controversial 'guns everywhere' bill | MSNBC
Georgia lawmakers pass controversial 'guns everywhere' bill | MSNBC:
(March 21, 2014 .. revised March 23, 2014)
I intend to present a different interpretation, based on my own personal PRO-gun prejudices.
Now you know the "Full Disclosure", which is more than the MSNBC author allowed you; hopefully, you will evaluate both interpretations and find your own understanding to fall somewhere in the middle ground.
(March 21, 2014 .. revised March 23, 2014)
The Georgia House passed a sweeping gun bill late Thursday night that allows firearms in bars, nightclubs, school classrooms and certain government buildings that lack security personnel or devices. Lawmakers moved the bill through the House during the last hour of the night on Thursday, meeting their midnight deadline before the end of the current legislative session. If signed by the state’s governor, the law will give religious leaders the option to “opt-in” to allow guns on their worship premises, where violators cannot be arrested or fined more than $100 each. Additionally, it could grant citizens the right to carry firearms in bars, nightclubs, libraries, sports facilities, senior citizen and youth centers, and on K-12 premises by authorized administrators and teachers.Not surprisingly, this MSNBC article presents a rather biased interpretation of the new Georgia laws, in order to present a view which accords with the author's anti-gun prejudices.
I intend to present a different interpretation, based on my own personal PRO-gun prejudices.
Now you know the "Full Disclosure", which is more than the MSNBC author allowed you; hopefully, you will evaluate both interpretations and find your own understanding to fall somewhere in the middle ground.
Kansas: Gun RIGHTS, not Gun CONTROL
Senate preparing to pull trigger on gun-rights bill | CJOnline.com:
(April 01, 2014. The Topeka Capital-Journal: H/T: The Gun Wire)
Kansas is preparing to eliminate all existing and proposed restrictions on Concealed Carry.
(April 01, 2014. The Topeka Capital-Journal: H/T: The Gun Wire)
Kansas is preparing to eliminate all existing and proposed restrictions on Concealed Carry.
The Senate endorsed a sweeping bill Tuesday limiting authority of local governments to require employees to disclose if they hold a concealed-handgun permit and abolishing power of cities or counties to spend tax dollars on gun buy-back programs. Legislation scheduled for a final vote Wednesday would require elimination of all city or county regulations, ordinances or policies regulating the open carrying of firearms. The bill would allow municipal governments to post signs on buildings to ban open carry of weapons, but violators would face no criminal sanction for ignoring the signs. The Senate bill also would make it a misdemeanor to operate, possess or carry any firearm — not just a concealed handgun — while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Chicago CHL holder "Unclear On The Concept?"
The whole point to CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is that if you apply for and receive a CHL, you understand that you represent the Responsible Gun Owners who deserve the trust of --- well, people who are frightened by people who carry guns.
NW Side man is first concealed carry permit holder arrested in Chicago - Chicago Sun-Times:
(March 30, 2014)
A 54-year-old Northwest Side man who allegedly pulled a gun during a property dispute is the first concealed carry permit holder arrested in Chicago, police officials say. William P. O’Connell, of the 7200 block of North Oleander Avenue, lost his permit as a result of the arrest, said a spokeswoman for the Illinois State Police. In January, a new state law kicked in allowing people to carry concealed weapons as long as they have a permit. O’Connell was involved in a quarrel over rent money with a 52-year-old man on March 23, police said. O’Connell allegedly pointed a handgun at the man and threatened to shoot him.
The sad truth is, some people just cannot live up to the expectations.
The "Shall Issue" rule in Chicago is .. what, less than four months old? (Effective January, 2014 ... Who can keep track of Chicago?) And already it is being abused by a man who presumably met the necessary background checks and references to aver that he was qualified to responsibly carry a concealed handgun.
I'm disappointed. Embarrassed for him, and for the people who have fought for so long to get Illinois into the "More Guns/Less Crime" mindset. His only job was to prove himself worthy of the trust, and he mucked it up the first chance he got.
He has, of course, been deprived of his license to carry a gun. I hope they charge him with every felony they can think of, from 'brandishing' to felony assault.
There is no excuse for pulling a gun on a person, unless it is a matter of defense of self, or others. Property? Maybe, under special circumstances; I don't think so highly of most of the 'things' I own that I deem them worthy of a life. On the other hand, if I'm present when I'm being robbed, I would be concerned that the robber would prove to be a threat to me, personally. It still comes down to "Things" vs "People", and I can't fault people who decide that they are at risk during felonious assault.
But .. arguing over RENT?
Geez, think of all those judges who aren't getting paid to settle property litigation!
On the other hand, now the Chicago Judiciary has a juicy "Menacing" (or better, "Assault") charge to try.
Chicago. There's always something. Maybe it's the Mercury in the lake waters.
You think?
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Another Ft. Hood Massacre
Four dead, 14 injured at Ft. Hood, Texas congressman says - latimes.com: KILLEEN, Texas —
(April 2, 2014 @1718)
The shooter was among the four dead soldiers. Count of wounded has not been confirmed yet.
It only lacks one more shield:
(April 2, 2014 @1718)
Authorities are investigating a shooting at Ft. Hood that left four people dead and 14 others injured, according to a Texas congressman. The sprawling military base was on lockdown as investigators tried to determine whether there was a second gunman.
The shooter was among the four dead soldiers. Count of wounded has not been confirmed yet.
Ft. Hood remains on lockdown and everyone at the Texas Army base is to "shelter in place."That Base Sign is beginning to look like a tombstone.
The 1st Cavalry Division, which is based at Ft. Hood, sent a Twitter alert telling people on base to close doors and stay away from windows.
It only lacks one more shield:
The Legacy of Piers Morgan: A True Believer!
Bottom line on GUNS in America : Guns in 21st Century America : Naples Blogs : Naples Daily News: Local Naples, Florida News Delivered Throughout the Day.:
Love him or hate him this man always went to the bottom line and said what he believed. He let those of different views say thier [sic] piece too, without the cut-offs, shout-downs and bullying you see today on the Fox cable show. Piers Morgan even took his show into the lions den in the largest gun and shooters shop in Texas. The owners demostrated [sic] thier [sic] best, most popular guns and ammo. At that time it was the AR-15 Military style assault rifle, 100 plus shots in less than a minute, wonderfull [sic] . Killing made fast and easy. Piers words speak for themselves. I agree with most of them and the respectfull [sic] way he says them and proves his point.Oh, where to start.
America's Newest Firearms Superstore Opens in… California?
America's Newest Firearms Superstore Opens in… California? | Virtual-Strategy Magazine:
BARRETT
In 2005 I posted an article which described Ronnie Barrett's decision to discontinue servicing Barrett .50 BMG rifles owned by the LAPD after California declared that his rifle was EVILLLL!
STI and MICROSTAMPING
And in 2007 I posted an article which described the STI (Strayer-Tripp, Inc.) decision to discontinue selling their pistols to California LEO organizations when it appeared that CA would implement the Micro-Stamping requirement on new gun sales.
DROP TEST
There was also a point around that time (a cursory search of this website didn't find the exact post) when California was implementing a new law which required that EVERY model, make and caliber of pistol which the manufacturer expected to sell in California must submit a sample production exemplar of that pistol to California. There it would be subjected to extreme "Drop Test". As I recall, the requirement was that the pistol would be repeatedly dropped onto a concrete floor from a height of six feet, while cocked and with the safety off. If the hammer dropped, the model was rejected and would not be allowed to be sold in California.
Of course, the testing was a "to destruction" process, so the submitted firearms were not in a condition to sell .. whether the firearm passed the test or not.
STI (and other manufacturers) backed away from that loser law, too.
So, with this very limited experiential history as a basis, I'm wondering just WHY anyone would want to start a new firearms manufacturing business in ... Kalifornia?
Despite California's increasing intolerance for firearms, a new firearms manufacturing superstore proudly opens its doors. Complete with an e-commerce website, Full Spectrum Firearms brings innovation to firearms enthusiasts across the nation. Fresno, CA (PRWEB) March 31, 2014Really! I'm amazed.
BARRETT
In 2005 I posted an article which described Ronnie Barrett's decision to discontinue servicing Barrett .50 BMG rifles owned by the LAPD after California declared that his rifle was EVILLLL!
STI and MICROSTAMPING
And in 2007 I posted an article which described the STI (Strayer-Tripp, Inc.) decision to discontinue selling their pistols to California LEO organizations when it appeared that CA would implement the Micro-Stamping requirement on new gun sales.
DROP TEST
There was also a point around that time (a cursory search of this website didn't find the exact post) when California was implementing a new law which required that EVERY model, make and caliber of pistol which the manufacturer expected to sell in California must submit a sample production exemplar of that pistol to California. There it would be subjected to extreme "Drop Test". As I recall, the requirement was that the pistol would be repeatedly dropped onto a concrete floor from a height of six feet, while cocked and with the safety off. If the hammer dropped, the model was rejected and would not be allowed to be sold in California.
Of course, the testing was a "to destruction" process, so the submitted firearms were not in a condition to sell .. whether the firearm passed the test or not.
STI (and other manufacturers) backed away from that loser law, too.
So, with this very limited experiential history as a basis, I'm wondering just WHY anyone would want to start a new firearms manufacturing business in ... Kalifornia?
NY OFFICIALS AGREE TO NOT ENFORCE 7-ROUND MAGAZINE LIMIT WHILE GUN CASE ON APPEAL
Test NY OFFICIALS AGREE TO NOT ENFORCE 7-ROUND MAGAZINE LIMIT WHILE GUN CASE ON APPEAL
(April 1, 2014)
Unless I am sadly mistaken, most of these 'arbitrary ... limit on magazine capacity" laws are disingenuous at best. The usual practice is to accompany the 'mag capacity' rule with verbiage to the effect that " .... the following firearms are restricted in that they allow the use of a magazine with a capacity of holding more than (x-number) rounds". The only variable is the "arbitrary" number of rounds.
Make no mistake, that number is entirely arbitrary. Is a seven round magazine acceptable, but an eight round magazine is "evil"? Those who would mandate a magazine capacity limit would very much prefer a maximum of ONE round, but they feel magnanimous in "allowing" us to have up to <gasp!> SEVEN rounds of highly dangerous ammunition.
One supposes that they feel this is a quid pro quo measure.
That is, they will "give" the citizens of their state the ability to carry SEVEN round of ammunition (presumably because the WWII magazines in a 1911-frame .45 accepted 7 rounds).
In turn, they expect you to swallow, smile, and say "thank you, that was very good for me".
Those of you New Yorkers who have foolishly bought 8-round magazines, or even worse 10-round magazines? Well, y'all are just shit out of luck because you know that this appeal process is going to fail in the long run.
Why?
It's the governor of New York, that's why.
And you thought Cuomo was a Good Guy because he stood up with GW Bush on 9/12.
The fact is, of course, that restricting magazine capacity DOES "infringe" upon the 2nd Amendment.
(April 1, 2014)
Second Amendment Foundation: BELLEVUE, WA –Well, isn't that special?
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and State Police Superintendent Joseph D’Amico have agreed, in a stipulated order, to not enforce a section of the state’s controversial SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act while an appeal is underway in one of the legal challenges to that statute, amounting to a small but important victory for the Second Amendment Foundation in a challenge to the constitutionality of a provision in the law.
At issue is the arbitrary seven-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the SAFE Act under Section 265.37 of that law. At"... arbitrary seven round limit on magazine capacity ....."
trial in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Cuomo, Judge William M. Skretny ruled that the section dealing with the magazine limit is unconstitutional. He upheld other provisions inthe Act .
Unless I am sadly mistaken, most of these 'arbitrary ... limit on magazine capacity" laws are disingenuous at best. The usual practice is to accompany the 'mag capacity' rule with verbiage to the effect that " .... the following firearms are restricted in that they allow the use of a magazine with a capacity of holding more than (x-number) rounds". The only variable is the "arbitrary" number of rounds.
Make no mistake, that number is entirely arbitrary. Is a seven round magazine acceptable, but an eight round magazine is "evil"? Those who would mandate a magazine capacity limit would very much prefer a maximum of ONE round, but they feel magnanimous in "allowing" us to have up to <gasp!> SEVEN rounds of highly dangerous ammunition.
One supposes that they feel this is a quid pro quo measure.
That is, they will "give" the citizens of their state the ability to carry SEVEN round of ammunition (presumably because the WWII magazines in a 1911-frame .45 accepted 7 rounds).
In turn, they expect you to swallow, smile, and say "thank you, that was very good for me".
Those of you New Yorkers who have foolishly bought 8-round magazines, or even worse 10-round magazines? Well, y'all are just shit out of luck because you know that this appeal process is going to fail in the long run.
Why?
It's the governor of New York, that's why.
And you thought Cuomo was a Good Guy because he stood up with GW Bush on 9/12.
The fact is, of course, that restricting magazine capacity DOES "infringe" upon the 2nd Amendment.
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
Salem Oregon: New indoor shooting range!
Marine veteran opens indoor shooting range | Statesman Journal | statesmanjournal.com:
---
Although I do not live in Salem, I live very near there. "People Who Shoot" need to be aware of, and support, independent facilities as they become available.
If YOU live near Salem (Oregon), I heartily encourage you to patronize this new business.
Website: http://tritacshooting.com/http://tritacshooting.com/
Facebook (and map): https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tritac-Shooting-Solutions/259698797515451?sk=page_map
An indoor shooting range where individuals can learn about gun safety, sharpen their skills, go through training simulations or purchase a weapon is now open in Salem. Tritac Shooting Solutions at ...
1400 Sunnyview Road NE
... had a soft opening March 26. Co-owner Martin Weiss, a Marine Corps veteran, decided to open the facility to provide gun enthusiasts and law enforcement officials a place to sharpen their skills away from the elements. “I felt there was a need for a safe facility,” he said.
---
Although I do not live in Salem, I live very near there. "People Who Shoot" need to be aware of, and support, independent facilities as they become available.
If YOU live near Salem (Oregon), I heartily encourage you to patronize this new business.
Website: http://tritacshooting.com/http://tritacshooting.com/
Facebook (and map): https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tritac-Shooting-Solutions/259698797515451?sk=page_map
About
TriTac is committed to providing the highest level of training and safety to the general public and security professionals in Salem and surrounding areas.DescriptionTriTac Shooting Solutions offers six lanes of live-fire indoor shooting for pistols and rifles; high-definition video training simulator; gun and ammo rentals and sales; instructional classes for beginners to advanced shooters.
-30 Days of unlimited range time with the purchase of a firearm!
-The only place in Salem where you can try out a gun through our rental program before you buy one!
-Ammo in stock, no limits!
-TriTac is a great place for parties and dates!
-Watch for updates about special ladies' nights.
-Group training available for law enforcement, military, and security personnel.
-Open 7 days a week
Membership Information
-Unlimited lane use
-Priority reservations- No waiting!
-Special deals and discounts
-Free eye and ear protection
-Free TriTac t-shirt
April Fool's Day!
NOTE:
No stupid April Fools Day tricks here.
Unless you count Obama's jubilation over having met his 'benchmark' for Affordable Care enrollment.
Well ... and that's His trick. How many have truly signed up, considering that as of March 1 nobody expected enrollment to reach six million, let alone seven point one million, and Smarmy Biden was "lowering expectations" from 7 mill to 6 mill a month ago?
Imagine, after all these months to get six million enrollees, when it came down to the wire and they absolutely had to show progress .... they got ONE MILLION PEOPLE to sign up for Obamacare in just four weeks.
How'd they do that?
It's a freaking MIRACLE, that's what it is.
Question: How many of the enrollees have actually actually sent a check?
OH, and ....
According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2009 there were 48.6 million people in the US (15.7% of the population) who were without health insurance. (source as of July 2013)
Assuming that 7.1 million are now insured, thanks to the wonder of ObamaCare ....
Where are the other forty million?
No stupid April Fools Day tricks here.
Unless you count Obama's jubilation over having met his 'benchmark' for Affordable Care enrollment.
Well ... and that's His trick. How many have truly signed up, considering that as of March 1 nobody expected enrollment to reach six million, let alone seven point one million, and Smarmy Biden was "lowering expectations" from 7 mill to 6 mill a month ago?
Imagine, after all these months to get six million enrollees, when it came down to the wire and they absolutely had to show progress .... they got ONE MILLION PEOPLE to sign up for Obamacare in just four weeks.
How'd they do that?
It's a freaking MIRACLE, that's what it is.
Yes, We Can!
Question: How many of the enrollees have actually actually sent a check?
OH, and ....
According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2009 there were 48.6 million people in the US (15.7% of the population) who were without health insurance. (source as of July 2013)
Assuming that 7.1 million are now insured, thanks to the wonder of ObamaCare ....
Where are the other forty million?
Monday, March 31, 2014
NSF: "Climate Change; The Musical"
National Science Foundation funded climate change musical to tune of $700,000 | Fox News:
Your Tax Dollars At Work!
Yes, the article is describing exactly the boondoggle it sounds like. A stage show which is intended to .. not research, but to glamorize the theories behind the research. It's an actual stage play, produced to champion the cause of Awareness of Global Warming, and financed by Your Tax Dollars.
This kind of project might marginally be 'understandable' (if not 'acceptable') if it was endowed by NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) ... we already know that is a wildcat experiment designed to pay lunatics to pee into a mason jar and call it "Art". But no, this is ... Science!
A stage play is ... science?
Performance Art?
Here's the kind of performance which this project is funding:
SOL ... A Climate Change Musical!
A song of our warming planet -- understanding Climate Change through music
Woody Allen (who probably did NOT deliberately contribute to this tree-hugging liberal bullshit) once said: "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying."
Can't argue with that.
Here's MY take on Climate Change: The Musical:
Your Tax Dollars At Work!
The National Science Foundation has spent nearly $700,000 on a climate change-themed theatrical production, leaving some in Congress questioning if the organization's grant funds could be put to better use.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, questioned White House science czar John Holdren in a hearing last Thursday about the way the NSF is using taxpayer money -- including on the grants for the play, a New York production called "The Great Immensity."
“I support basic research, which can lead to discoveries that change our world, expand our horizons and save lives,” Smith, chairman of the House Science Committee, told FoxNews.com. “But NSF has funded too many questionable research grants.
Spending taxpayer dollars to fund a climate change musical called ‘The Great Immensity’ sounds more like a waste of taxpayer dollars -- money that could have funded higher priority research.”(emphasis added)
Yes, the article is describing exactly the boondoggle it sounds like. A stage show which is intended to .. not research, but to glamorize the theories behind the research. It's an actual stage play, produced to champion the cause of Awareness of Global Warming, and financed by Your Tax Dollars.
This kind of project might marginally be 'understandable' (if not 'acceptable') if it was endowed by NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) ... we already know that is a wildcat experiment designed to pay lunatics to pee into a mason jar and call it "Art". But no, this is ... Science!
A stage play is ... science?
Performance Art?
Here's the kind of performance which this project is funding:
SOL ... A Climate Change Musical!
Spreading the message through music and theatre. [sic]
We need to come off the carbon, but we can't. We're locked into a cycle of production and consumption that just seems too set in it's ways to change direction.and ...
It's not for want of information or know-how. It's rather our self-belief and the will to act for our collective future which needs to be re-kindled. We need to become emotionally engaged with new stories about ourselves and our planet if we're going to have any joy in adapting our behaviours to the new situation we find ourselves in.
A song of our warming planet -- understanding Climate Change through music
When faced with the challenge of sharing the latest climate change discoveries, scientists often rely on data graphics and technical illustrations. University of Minnesota undergrad Daniel Crawford came up with a completely different approach. He’s using his cello to communicate the latest climate science through music.Well, isn't THAT special?
Woody Allen (who probably did NOT deliberately contribute to this tree-hugging liberal bullshit) once said: "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying."
Can't argue with that.
Here's MY take on Climate Change: The Musical:
"I don't want to save the earth by paying for Liberal Tree-Hugger bullshit programs; I just want to die before the bill hits my mailbox!"
Chicago: 17 people shot in 30 hours!
2 Dead, 15 Wounded in Chicago Shootings Since Friday | NBC Chicago:
Seventeen .... which was the median age of the victims (except a FedEx courier and a 41 year old man who was in the company of a 16-year-old victim of the same incident) ... people shot. One of the "wounded" was shot in the head; prognosis unavailable.
(According to the rough timeline provided in the article, all of the shootings occurred between Noon Friday and 4:30pm Saturday.)
One 'victim' was killed by a Chicago policeman; the 'victim' was pointing a pistol at the policeman at the time, during a home invasion of the officer's residence, and had refused to put down the gun. As nearly as the reader can tell, that was the only incident in which both parties had displayed a gun. Were the shootings entirely random? The article doesn't delve deeply enough to determine causality. Apparently, even the local NBC affiliate was overwhelmed by the spate of Gun Violence in Chicago.
Yes, the term "Gun Violence" seems appropriate; but the emphasis should be on the word "violence", not "guns". Note that only ONE incident was characterized by an intended 'victim' having a gun. That was the Chicago policeman who shot a teen who was defending his life, his property, and his family during a home invasion.
According to the article in only one shooting 'gang-related'. Yeah, right.
Let's talk about this for a minute:
Two men were fatally shot and at least 15 others have been wounded in shootings across Chicago since Friday.(Sunday, March 30, 6am)
Seventeen .... which was the median age of the victims (except a FedEx courier and a 41 year old man who was in the company of a 16-year-old victim of the same incident) ... people shot. One of the "wounded" was shot in the head; prognosis unavailable.
(According to the rough timeline provided in the article, all of the shootings occurred between Noon Friday and 4:30pm Saturday.)
One 'victim' was killed by a Chicago policeman; the 'victim' was pointing a pistol at the policeman at the time, during a home invasion of the officer's residence, and had refused to put down the gun. As nearly as the reader can tell, that was the only incident in which both parties had displayed a gun. Were the shootings entirely random? The article doesn't delve deeply enough to determine causality. Apparently, even the local NBC affiliate was overwhelmed by the spate of Gun Violence in Chicago.
Yes, the term "Gun Violence" seems appropriate; but the emphasis should be on the word "violence", not "guns". Note that only ONE incident was characterized by an intended 'victim' having a gun. That was the Chicago policeman who shot a teen who was defending his life, his property, and his family during a home invasion.
According to the article in only one shooting 'gang-related'. Yeah, right.
Let's talk about this for a minute:
Friday, March 28, 2014
Live Fire exercise for American Pilots
Friendly fire: Navy seeks 'dummy' training missiles to shoot at pilots | Fox News:
(March 28, 2014)
(He should know .. he had the experience during the Boer War).
Now the U.S. Navy expects to train their pilots how to use the same "Duck and cover" techniques which the U.S. Army trained infantry troops during the Viet Nam war.
By shooting at them.
However, these are 'controlled fire' exercises. In the Army of the 1960's, grunt trainees crawled across a field in a ditch covered with barbed wire, ensuring that they could not stand up in an area over which zealous Training Cadre fired M60 machine guns ... the traverse bars of which were locked to only allow the 7.62mm bullets to pass several feet above the self-beshatting trainees.
In the 21st Century equivalent, the Navy ensures that (a) the 'rockets' are not capable of reaching the heights at which the jets are flying, and (b) the warheads are not filled with explosives.
The results are the same: the object of the exercise is to 'accustom' the subjects to "live fire", but at the same time the subjects know that they don't have to really EVADE the threat, but just keep on keeping on.
What's the difference between the 1960's infantrymen and the 21st Century pilots?
Both are bored by the exercise, but the pilots don't have to crawl through mud.
Yes, it's possible for the pilots and the grunts to freak out and deliberately expose themselves to fire. But what are the odds?
Does anyone think that grunts who knew they were going to Viet Nam, or pilots who 'suspect' they may be fired upon, will receive any benefit from these exercises?
Perhaps not, but it helps fill the training schedule.
(March 28, 2014)
The Navy is considering a novel way to protect its fighter pilots: firing live shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles at them to train them in evasive action and test aircraft missile warning systems. The shoulder-fired missiles in the hands of terrorists, criminal and enemy fighters pose a worldwide problem. Insurgents in Iraq during the war posted YouTube videos showing their deadly ability with the weapons against U.S. military helicopters.Sir Winston Churchill once famously said: "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result."
(He should know .. he had the experience during the Boer War).
Now the U.S. Navy expects to train their pilots how to use the same "Duck and cover" techniques which the U.S. Army trained infantry troops during the Viet Nam war.
By shooting at them.
However, these are 'controlled fire' exercises. In the Army of the 1960's, grunt trainees crawled across a field in a ditch covered with barbed wire, ensuring that they could not stand up in an area over which zealous Training Cadre fired M60 machine guns ... the traverse bars of which were locked to only allow the 7.62mm bullets to pass several feet above the self-beshatting trainees.
In the 21st Century equivalent, the Navy ensures that (a) the 'rockets' are not capable of reaching the heights at which the jets are flying, and (b) the warheads are not filled with explosives.
The results are the same: the object of the exercise is to 'accustom' the subjects to "live fire", but at the same time the subjects know that they don't have to really EVADE the threat, but just keep on keeping on.
What's the difference between the 1960's infantrymen and the 21st Century pilots?
Both are bored by the exercise, but the pilots don't have to crawl through mud.
Yes, it's possible for the pilots and the grunts to freak out and deliberately expose themselves to fire. But what are the odds?
Does anyone think that grunts who knew they were going to Viet Nam, or pilots who 'suspect' they may be fired upon, will receive any benefit from these exercises?
Perhaps not, but it helps fill the training schedule.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
People 'not educated' about Internet
Reid on need for ObamaCare extension: People 'not educated' about Internet | Fox News:
(March 26, 2014)
No, the Obama Administration is "just not educated on how to use the Internet". How much did WE pay for an Internet Designer to screw up the Obamacare website? Too much. Over budget, missed the deadline, and even today the website is not "user friendly".
ObamaCare depends on young people to sign up, so they can pay for Old People who have more medical problems than the 'target group' ... which is young people.
Old People are a liability to Obamacare; this is the population segment which is most likely to burden the system though constant claims, because .. well, we're old, and we get sick more often. Young people don't get sick as often, and when they do they are reluctant to seek medical attention.
Yet this is the segment of the population which is expected to pay more, because .. well, they have a longer life span dating from the implementation of Obamacare. In other words, they are less likely to die before medical treatment is completed, but they still have an income and are more likely to continue contributing.
Why do "young People" .. those who were BORN to use the Internet for almost every transaction ... not sign up for Obamacare?
It isn't that they don't know how to use the Internet.
It's because they know their government is out to screw them. ObamaCare is a viper at their breast, and they are not buying into it.
Welcome to the "Computer Savvy" generation.
(March 26, 2014)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to explain the Obama administration's latest decision to extend a key ObamaCare deadline by saying people just "are not educated on how to use the Internet."Oh, that's just insulting.
No, the Obama Administration is "just not educated on how to use the Internet". How much did WE pay for an Internet Designer to screw up the Obamacare website? Too much. Over budget, missed the deadline, and even today the website is not "user friendly".
ObamaCare depends on young people to sign up, so they can pay for Old People who have more medical problems than the 'target group' ... which is young people.
Old People are a liability to Obamacare; this is the population segment which is most likely to burden the system though constant claims, because .. well, we're old, and we get sick more often. Young people don't get sick as often, and when they do they are reluctant to seek medical attention.
Yet this is the segment of the population which is expected to pay more, because .. well, they have a longer life span dating from the implementation of Obamacare. In other words, they are less likely to die before medical treatment is completed, but they still have an income and are more likely to continue contributing.
Why do "young People" .. those who were BORN to use the Internet for almost every transaction ... not sign up for Obamacare?
It isn't that they don't know how to use the Internet.
It's because they know their government is out to screw them. ObamaCare is a viper at their breast, and they are not buying into it.
Welcome to the "Computer Savvy" generation.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
"How to Understand Georgia's 'Guns Everywhere' Law"
How to Understand Georgia's 'Guns Everywhere' Law: Four Blunt Points - Businessweek:
(March 25, 2014)
So before fisking the "blunt points, understand that this is from Michael Bloomberg's mouth to BusinessWeek's ear.
So when he says "Points", he's actually providing "Talking Points" so that his minions know the Party Line.
(March 25, 2014)
Georgia appears poised to enact a so-called guns-everywhere law, making it easier for firearm permit holders to take their weapons into bars, churches, and even airports. Approved last week by the state legislature, the bill awaits the signature of Republican Governor Nathan Deal, a strong gun-rights advocate up for reelection this fall. His opponent, Jason Carter, a Democratic state senator and grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, voted for the legislation, so enactment seems assured. Non-gun owners doubtless find all this baffling. Here are four blunt points to sort out what’s going on and how to respond:May we point out, before we get into the details, that this is Bloomberg BusinessWeek?
So before fisking the "blunt points, understand that this is from Michael Bloomberg's mouth to BusinessWeek's ear.
So when he says "Points", he's actually providing "Talking Points" so that his minions know the Party Line.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Parasite: "I don't wancha here!"
Disturbing Behavior At Anti-Gun Rights Rally: Calls Other Side "Parasites" - Video:
(Saturday, March 22, 2014)
Hat tips: TOWNHALL via EXAMINER via ALPHECCA.
Wow. This is ... really disturbing. It took a while to track it down, having gone through two news organizations and a Senior Blogger to reach the original source of the video, but it was worth the effort.
Apparently, a Second Amendment Advocate "infiltrated" an Anti-Gun Rally in Pennsylvania and tried to hand out single-sheet position statements to the people who attended the rally. His mantra: "Anybody want to hear the other side?"
He was followed around by a woman in a red coat who retrieved the papers from those who had accepted them: one man, while giving up the document, said "Here, I don't want this".
The woman then threatened the 2-advocate, saying that 'the police know you are here'.
There was no obvious confrontation .. other than by the red-coated woman and the gaunt man at the end of the video who, when asked "why are you doing this"? replied: "Because I don't wancha here!"
This confrontation had all the elements of an SEIU rally*: people whose minds are already made up, and don't want to be confused by facts. And rather than allow the establishment of a dialogue, simply want the 'trouble-maker' to go away.
One can only guess at the reasons why the Liberal mind-set is so adamantly opposed to the suggestion of a peaceful dialogue.
I'm aware that Pro-Gun People have already made their minds up ... it's not just a political stance, but it's also a matter of survival to them.
I suppose the Anti-Gun crowd has the same imperatives working for them. I don't blame them for being fearful. If I knew that I was absolutely unable to protect myself against random violence, I would feel similarly defensive. Unfortunately, the only way they can defend themselves is to be verbally offensive against those people who had decided on an alternative "way". That is, instead of defending themselves "physically" (which fat women in red coats have already rejected), they defend their rights rather than their persons.
The easiest ways to accomplish that dubious goal is two-fold. First, they assert the logic of their position .. which is all they have. And second, they reject ANY element which suggests that their defensiveness is inadequate.
And God help the man who throws his overalls in their chowder .. he will be rejected, dejected, and his Devil's Disciple contrarian tracts will be gathered (unread) and disposed of, forthwith.
So The Woman in the Red Coat confiscates our Advocates' tracts .. unread, because all of her acolytes agree that anything their Opposition says is not only anathema, but might undermine their already made-up minds ... and banish them to the wilderness.
They don't want to hear what he has to say. They are already fearful, and in their state of fear ... they are most comfortable.
Give a choice between being able to provide themselves with a PHYSICAL state of defense, and being defended by the correctness of their logical position, they will invariably choose on the side of retaining their moral high ground. And they will fight to bring as many others into their way of thinking, to reinforce their lackadaisical way of life and to validate their opinions. They will not listen to any evidence which undermines their predisposition.
There is nothing that anyone could say which might help them. If they accept .. if they even make themselves open to HEARING another "side" .. then they lose their peace of mind. They do not want to learn that they might have to physically help themselves. They have found a political position which validates their imaginary Gun Free Zone.
And they would rather die than to move out of that comfort zone.
There is a technical term for these people: they are called "Sheeple".
Actually, there is another term which applies to them.
"Victims".
* (Note: in researching this article, I found that most YOUTUBE videos which matched "SEIU Rally" and "violence" had been deleted. Except for this ... oops, this Hot Air video is also deleted. Try this, for an example.)
(Saturday, March 22, 2014)
"Parasite" is what one organizer for CeaseFirePA called a gun owner who wanted a dialogue with the anti-gun organization.
Hat tips: TOWNHALL via EXAMINER via ALPHECCA.
Wow. This is ... really disturbing. It took a while to track it down, having gone through two news organizations and a Senior Blogger to reach the original source of the video, but it was worth the effort.
Apparently, a Second Amendment Advocate "infiltrated" an Anti-Gun Rally in Pennsylvania and tried to hand out single-sheet position statements to the people who attended the rally. His mantra: "Anybody want to hear the other side?"
He was followed around by a woman in a red coat who retrieved the papers from those who had accepted them: one man, while giving up the document, said "Here, I don't want this".
The woman then threatened the 2-advocate, saying that 'the police know you are here'.
There was no obvious confrontation .. other than by the red-coated woman and the gaunt man at the end of the video who, when asked "why are you doing this"? replied: "Because I don't wancha here!"
This confrontation had all the elements of an SEIU rally*: people whose minds are already made up, and don't want to be confused by facts. And rather than allow the establishment of a dialogue, simply want the 'trouble-maker' to go away.
One can only guess at the reasons why the Liberal mind-set is so adamantly opposed to the suggestion of a peaceful dialogue.
I'm aware that Pro-Gun People have already made their minds up ... it's not just a political stance, but it's also a matter of survival to them.
I suppose the Anti-Gun crowd has the same imperatives working for them. I don't blame them for being fearful. If I knew that I was absolutely unable to protect myself against random violence, I would feel similarly defensive. Unfortunately, the only way they can defend themselves is to be verbally offensive against those people who had decided on an alternative "way". That is, instead of defending themselves "physically" (which fat women in red coats have already rejected), they defend their rights rather than their persons.
The easiest ways to accomplish that dubious goal is two-fold. First, they assert the logic of their position .. which is all they have. And second, they reject ANY element which suggests that their defensiveness is inadequate.
And God help the man who throws his overalls in their chowder .. he will be rejected, dejected, and his Devil's Disciple contrarian tracts will be gathered (unread) and disposed of, forthwith.
So The Woman in the Red Coat confiscates our Advocates' tracts .. unread, because all of her acolytes agree that anything their Opposition says is not only anathema, but might undermine their already made-up minds ... and banish them to the wilderness.
They don't want to hear what he has to say. They are already fearful, and in their state of fear ... they are most comfortable.
Give a choice between being able to provide themselves with a PHYSICAL state of defense, and being defended by the correctness of their logical position, they will invariably choose on the side of retaining their moral high ground. And they will fight to bring as many others into their way of thinking, to reinforce their lackadaisical way of life and to validate their opinions. They will not listen to any evidence which undermines their predisposition.
There is nothing that anyone could say which might help them. If they accept .. if they even make themselves open to HEARING another "side" .. then they lose their peace of mind. They do not want to learn that they might have to physically help themselves. They have found a political position which validates their imaginary Gun Free Zone.
And they would rather die than to move out of that comfort zone.
There is a technical term for these people: they are called "Sheeple".
Actually, there is another term which applies to them.
"Victims".
* (Note: in researching this article, I found that most YOUTUBE videos which matched "SEIU Rally" and "violence" had been deleted. Except for this ... oops, this Hot Air video is also deleted. Try this, for an example.)
The Smallest Minority: R.S.P.E.C.T for and the Rule of Law
The Smallest Minority: R�S�P�E�C�T for and the Rule of Law:
(Sunday, March 23, 2014)
If it is not your common practice to read Kevin Baker's blog ("the smallest minority on earth is the individual ..."), I don't know why. But in that case, you probably are unaware of the "Uber Post" he published over the weekend.
In it, he discusses respect for the law on three levels: Respect by The People, Respect by The Judiciary, and Respect by The President.
The president will not enforce the law. Prosecutors are not infrequently allowed misconduct in the cases they bring to trial, and the judges allow them to get away with it .... or they are subject to losing their bench because the prosecutors ask that the judges recuse themselves from the cases. And judges may decide judgements which are either not based on the facts presented, or the applicable laws.
Which puts the lie to the belief that in America we are governed by "the Rule of Law, rather than "the Rule of Man".
In that case, The People also lose respect for the law.
Another popular belief is that a man may be found guilty of breaking a law of which he was not aware, because "Ignorance Is No Excuse!" Which is true, and at the same time almost inevitable. The fact is, nobody know what the law is; they are too numerous for even the Federal Government to be capable of making the full body of Federal Law available to The People, to the Lawyers, to the Prosecutors, to the Judges, to the Legislators or to The President (who now makes his own laws, modifies them on whim, and chooses which laws he will enforce on a daily basis).
Baker elucidates our concern that we are reaching, or have already reached, the "Tipping Point" beyond which both the America Economy and the American Society will no longer be viable.
The Bottom Line of the commentary?
(Sunday, March 23, 2014)
If it is not your common practice to read Kevin Baker's blog ("the smallest minority on earth is the individual ..."), I don't know why. But in that case, you probably are unaware of the "Uber Post" he published over the weekend.
In it, he discusses respect for the law on three levels: Respect by The People, Respect by The Judiciary, and Respect by The President.
The president will not enforce the law. Prosecutors are not infrequently allowed misconduct in the cases they bring to trial, and the judges allow them to get away with it .... or they are subject to losing their bench because the prosecutors ask that the judges recuse themselves from the cases. And judges may decide judgements which are either not based on the facts presented, or the applicable laws.
Which puts the lie to the belief that in America we are governed by "the Rule of Law, rather than "the Rule of Man".
In that case, The People also lose respect for the law.
Another popular belief is that a man may be found guilty of breaking a law of which he was not aware, because "Ignorance Is No Excuse!" Which is true, and at the same time almost inevitable. The fact is, nobody know what the law is; they are too numerous for even the Federal Government to be capable of making the full body of Federal Law available to The People, to the Lawyers, to the Prosecutors, to the Judges, to the Legislators or to The President (who now makes his own laws, modifies them on whim, and chooses which laws he will enforce on a daily basis).
Baker elucidates our concern that we are reaching, or have already reached, the "Tipping Point" beyond which both the America Economy and the American Society will no longer be viable.
The Bottom Line of the commentary?
But if they haven't broken us to the State by the time all those spinning plates start falling off their sticks, well, as I've said before, our "austerity protests" are going to be SPECTACULAR.So put on your tinfoil hat, secure it to your head with a roll of Duct Tape, pour yourself a healthy measure of your favorite beverage and RTWT!
"Will Not Comply" Vermont!
Gun ordinances face defiance from law officers Watchdog.org:
(March 24, 2014 -By Bruce Parker | Special to Watchdog.org)
This, in the state with the most freedom-loving gun laws in the nation.
Comments to this article include words and phrases such as "communist", "patriots", "idiots", "bastards", "thieves of rights" and (perhaps inevitably) "the beginning of an revolution".
(March 24, 2014 -By Bruce Parker | Special to Watchdog.org)
The head of a nationwide sheriffs coalition is calling on Vermont’s law enforcement officers to defy three controversial gun control measures passed by Burlington voters three weeks ago. “Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to refuse to comply with such ordinances,” said Richard Mack, president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. “We’re seeing sheriffs in New York oppose the Safe Act and Gov. Cuomo. If we have sheriffs in New York doing this, how much more should we have sheriffs doing it in Vermont?”Amazing. Burlington, Vermont, voters actually passed a law supporting gun control measures which have already been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.
On March 4, Burlington voters joined a push by elected officials throughout northeastern states to enact stiffer gun control measures. By a 2-to-1 margin, they banned the carry of firearms in bars and[emphasis added]
restaurants , authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home.
This, in the state with the most freedom-loving gun laws in the nation.
Comments to this article include words and phrases such as "communist", "patriots", "idiots", "bastards", "thieves of rights" and (perhaps inevitably) "the beginning of an revolution".
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Zero Tolerance policy change in Georgia Schools?
Legislature relaxes 'zero tolerance' treatment of weapons at schools | Online Athens:
Morris News Service – updated Friday, March 21, 2014 - 1:56pm ATLANTA --
Georgia, cracking down on "Zero Tolerance"?
Sounds just peachy to me!
Morris News Service – updated Friday, March 21, 2014 - 1:56pm ATLANTA --
After countless headlines about students being expelled for taking toy guns and knives and other minor weapons to school, the Georgia Legislature passed Thursday night a measure to end the so-called zero tolerance policy.
House Bill 826 creates a new class of weapon and gives schools authority to deal with them when students bring them on campus or a school bus. However, the law continues to permit law enforcement to press charges if any weapon is used in a threatening manner.
Georgia, cracking down on "Zero Tolerance"?
Sounds just peachy to me!
"... Intimidating Gun States"
Armed, Locked and Loaded: The Worst and Most Intimidating Gun States
by Leonard Steinhorn: "Author and Professor of Communication at American University"
(Huffington Post opinion article -- March 21, 2014)
Go, go read the whole thing. You will be shocked, shocked, by the licentious behavior of people in these "wild west" states!
by Leonard Steinhorn: "Author and Professor of Communication at American University"
(Huffington Post opinion article -- March 21, 2014)
No one should feel safe in the following states. And it is time to take a stand and do something about it. These are states with the most Wild West gun laws where you are most likely to encounter someone -- anyone -- with a gun: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Mississippi.
It is legal in these states for people with absolutely no training to walk around armed and to carry their guns openly in the streets. It is legal in these states to bring loaded guns into gambling establishments, sporting events and restaurants that serve alcohol. It is legal in these states to carry weapons into stores and shopping malls, and in some cases even onto college campuses and into bars and houses of worship.
In all of these states, it is legal to shoot first and claim self-defense much the way George Zimmerman did with Trayvon Martin and hundreds of others have done in less publicized cases.
And in all of these states, their background laws -- if they even exist -- are so full of loopholes that someone with a criminal record, a drug or drinking problem, or a history of mental illness can obtain a gun.
Go, go read the whole thing. You will be shocked, shocked, by the licentious behavior of people in these "wild west" states!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)