Saysuncle Asks "Did you remember to turn out the lights?"
I clicked on his third link and my 1st thought was "well Africa looks pretty dark"
It was only an observation, but then I realized what that'd sound like if I'd said it out loud to someone. I guess I'm racist.....
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Feeling Safe vs. Being Safe
Tech's New Security Measures Worth Investigating
So apparently Va Tech has spent $10.4 MILLION in "security upgrades" after Cho killed 31 people. This student editorial asks the obvious question. Does it really make any difference, or just give us a false sense of security?
All the security measures colleges put in place won't do a damn thing to stop someone intent on mass murder or violent crime in general.
I don't care what security measures are put in place, some nutjob like Cho will still be able to walk onto any college campus at any time and start killing people. Most college campuses, by virtue of their openness and general size simply cannot be secure. Anyone can walk onto campus at any time, and there's no practical way to prevent this at the nation's colleges. The only policy that can do a damn bit of good is allowing those with CCW permits to carry on campus.
So apparently Va Tech has spent $10.4 MILLION in "security upgrades" after Cho killed 31 people. This student editorial asks the obvious question. Does it really make any difference, or just give us a false sense of security?
All the security measures colleges put in place won't do a damn thing to stop someone intent on mass murder or violent crime in general.
"And in my opinion, thinking we are safe when we actually are not is more dangerous than not being safe."I couldn't agree more. In fact I said exactly the same thing in my comments to our student newspaper article regarding arming U of D cops. Va. Tech can add all the "security" measures they want, but if mass violence ever revisits their campus, it won't end until the shooter decides he's done or an armed individual stops it.
I don't care what security measures are put in place, some nutjob like Cho will still be able to walk onto any college campus at any time and start killing people. Most college campuses, by virtue of their openness and general size simply cannot be secure. Anyone can walk onto campus at any time, and there's no practical way to prevent this at the nation's colleges. The only policy that can do a damn bit of good is allowing those with CCW permits to carry on campus.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Interesting explanation of "Limp Wristing"
From "Tool1075" on Sigforum.com
it's a simple concept, but I don't see a lot of people ever speaking about it.
1. you pull the trigger.
2. bullet fires
3. slide sees a force, goes backward
4. some of the force is transmitted from the slide, into the frame (by means of the recoil spring, or whatever your gun does)
5. the frame wants to move! (it gets jealous)
6. if the frame isn't held back enough (limp grip/wrist/arm) the frame starts to approach the same rearward deflection of the slide (the frame "catches up" to the slide's recoil
7. the recoil spring says "what the fuck, you bitch, now I can't compress all the way"
8. slide comes back, and it left the next round in the mag just sitting there. It didn't get to move back enough to chamber it!
9. The round is pissed! it blames the slide. The slide blames the spring. The spring blames the frame. The frame blames you!
10. And then, like a pussy, you blame them.
tell your friends. don't limp-wrist.
it's a simple concept, but I don't see a lot of people ever speaking about it.
1. you pull the trigger.
2. bullet fires
3. slide sees a force, goes backward
4. some of the force is transmitted from the slide, into the frame (by means of the recoil spring, or whatever your gun does)
5. the frame wants to move! (it gets jealous)
6. if the frame isn't held back enough (limp grip/wrist/arm) the frame starts to approach the same rearward deflection of the slide (the frame "catches up" to the slide's recoil
7. the recoil spring says "what the fuck, you bitch, now I can't compress all the way"
8. slide comes back, and it left the next round in the mag just sitting there. It didn't get to move back enough to chamber it!
9. The round is pissed! it blames the slide. The slide blames the spring. The spring blames the frame. The frame blames you!
10. And then, like a pussy, you blame them.
tell your friends. don't limp-wrist.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Books, Reading, and all that "Old Fashioned" Stuff
Breda has a post up about people not wanting free books
I for one don't understand this. If the book is FREE, why not take it? It might be interesting, if not, someone else might like to read it. I'll admit, prior to this year I didn't really do any pleasure reading. Lots of Constitutional Law will make you not want to read. For a few semesters I had several hours of reading per night. I don't mean light reading where you can gloss over it while kicking back with a few beers, I'm talking the stuff you have to engross yourself in to really understand. Constitutional Law was very interesting, and it helped fuel my interest in the 2nd Amendment (though we NEVER talked about it) but it also killed any interest I might have had in picking up a non-textbook.
I've just this year started to get back into pleasure reading. Now i'm not sure why I ever stopped.
I've just this year started to get back into pleasure reading. Now i'm not sure why I ever stopped.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
What if?
What if everything we do in life is done out of self-interest? Do we really do anything for purely altruistic reasons? Is it possible to assume that actions we take for the public good, or for the good of another person are actually undertaken because they are self-gratifying? We are guided by natural self-interest. In short, that means we do things because they make us feel good. If I serve my country in the military, isn't part of the reason why I enlisted because I wanted to make a difference? I wanted to serve my country with honor & integrity, and secure the freedoms enjoyed by my fellow Americans. Or maybe I just wanted the chance to fuck up some terrorist assholes?
If I donate my kidney to my best friend, am I doing it out of altruism, or am I doing it because his company makes me happy, and I'd like to continue to have him around because he brings a level of enjoyment to my life? If I donate to the NRA, I don't do it because I think It increases public safety, I do it because I have a vested interest in the values & policies that the NRA promotes. The same goes for carrying a firearm. We all do so for selfish reasons, not because we want to protect "society."
I don't go to college because I think being an educated young person is in the best interests of the country. Thats not what my parents pay thousands for. I go to college because the benefits of an education serve my future interests. Likewise, my professor doesn't teach just to hear herself speak (and if she did that'd still be "self-interest" - Pride is a self-interest) She teaches either because shaping the minds of young people brings her enjoyment & a sense of fulfillment and / or because the University is paying her for her services.
I started this a few days ago and forgot to post it, so it's just going to have to end abruptly....
Marko has another must-read post
Go read Marko's "My Guiding Principle" It's a great explanation of Randian Objectivism and the Non-Aggression Principle. The entire concept is ingenious and quite simple. If you want to deal with me, you must do so rationally and we must be in mutual agreement. Once you attempt to compel me to act against my own rational self-interest, via force / threat of force you have violated my rights. Force, whether utilized by individuals, groups, governments, or nations, is only permissible when done in self-defense, defense of others, or to free people from tyranny. Once you understand objectivism, it becomes extremely easy to determine whether government action is permissible or not.
If I hear this one more time I'm going to smack someone
How many times have we heard the media state that U.S. v. Miller (1939) set legal precedent allowing gun control? Or that Miller supports a "collective rights" interpretation? A basic google search will give you the SCOTUS holding in Miller. As an anti, you've got a terrible argument when you base your claims on a ruling that's not supportive in any way.
Miller made no ruling about whether the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, and it certainly didn't say anything about it being a "collective right." What the Court did say was that Miller's weapon, a sawed-off shotgun, was not an "arm" under the 2nd Amendment. They didn't go any further because Miller was dead by the time the case came up. Sure, they were wrong that a sawed-off shotgun had no militia purpose, but there was no one to argue the point and inform them otherwise.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. "
Miller made no ruling about whether the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, and it certainly didn't say anything about it being a "collective right." What the Court did say was that Miller's weapon, a sawed-off shotgun, was not an "arm" under the 2nd Amendment. They didn't go any further because Miller was dead by the time the case came up. Sure, they were wrong that a sawed-off shotgun had no militia purpose, but there was no one to argue the point and inform them otherwise.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. "
In fact, Miller actually supports an individual rights interpretation quite clearly. How can it be a collective right of state militias when "Men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
"the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "
Quote of the Day
"The necessary consequence of a man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. If some "pacifist" society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of it's intention: Instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it"
Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness - The Nature of Government
That entire concept seems so simple and glaringly obvious to me, but to others it's unthinkable.
Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness - The Nature of Government
That entire concept seems so simple and glaringly obvious to me, but to others it's unthinkable.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Police and "assault rifles"
Found over at Fighting for Liberty
In Delaware, according to FBI statistics for 2005 & 2006 (citation needed) there wasn't a single crime committed with a rifle. No crimes committed with ANY type of rifle, much less an "assault weapon." So tell me again why police need to become more "militarized" and arm themselves with AR-15's?
Criminals in the U.S. have historically used cheap, small-caliber pistols in the commission of crimes. Ravens, Lorcin's, Hi-Point's, and most popular, the .38 snubby. They tend to use pistol calibers ranging from .22 to 9mm (which is exactly why police ballistics vests are rated to stop small-caliber pistol rounds)
The idea that police are in some kind of "arms race" with criminals is preposterous, and I've yet to see a shred of factual evidence to support such a claim.
In Delaware, according to FBI statistics for 2005 & 2006 (citation needed) there wasn't a single crime committed with a rifle. No crimes committed with ANY type of rifle, much less an "assault weapon." So tell me again why police need to become more "militarized" and arm themselves with AR-15's?
Criminals in the U.S. have historically used cheap, small-caliber pistols in the commission of crimes. Ravens, Lorcin's, Hi-Point's, and most popular, the .38 snubby. They tend to use pistol calibers ranging from .22 to 9mm (which is exactly why police ballistics vests are rated to stop small-caliber pistol rounds)
The idea that police are in some kind of "arms race" with criminals is preposterous, and I've yet to see a shred of factual evidence to support such a claim.
My "American Political Thought" professor
She's a Berkeley educated liberal. We're currently learning about liberalism vs. republicanism. Liberalism, in this context refers to "classical liberalism" while Republicanism shares many similarities with modern-day "liberalism."
Liberals believe that people are naturally self-interested / self-serving. Republicans believe people are naturally cooperative, moral/good, and will work toward the "common good." For republicans, the "common-good" often trumps individual rights. I'd say history offers proof that people aren't naturally cooperative, virtuous, moral, good etc. The majority are, as liberals explained, driven by self-interest.
Well my professor is spending alot of time trying to teach us that scholars were wrong about the founders and that they did not hold profoundly liberal, "Lockeian" views. She's spending time pointing out the "liberal" argument and then picking through readings and statements in order to find "republican" elements so she can say "see, this country wasn't founded upon ideas of "classical liberalism."
Were there republican viewpoints among the founders? Of course, and the idea of "virtuous" citizens setting aside self-interest to perform acts of civic virtue was certainly prevalent. To say that this, and the idea of "collectivism" and "common good" were prevailing views of the founders is just plain wrong in my opinion. After all, we did set out a Bill of Rights that specifically protected inherent, inalienable, Individual rights.
Liberals believe that people are naturally self-interested / self-serving. Republicans believe people are naturally cooperative, moral/good, and will work toward the "common good." For republicans, the "common-good" often trumps individual rights. I'd say history offers proof that people aren't naturally cooperative, virtuous, moral, good etc. The majority are, as liberals explained, driven by self-interest.
Well my professor is spending alot of time trying to teach us that scholars were wrong about the founders and that they did not hold profoundly liberal, "Lockeian" views. She's spending time pointing out the "liberal" argument and then picking through readings and statements in order to find "republican" elements so she can say "see, this country wasn't founded upon ideas of "classical liberalism."
Were there republican viewpoints among the founders? Of course, and the idea of "virtuous" citizens setting aside self-interest to perform acts of civic virtue was certainly prevalent. To say that this, and the idea of "collectivism" and "common good" were prevailing views of the founders is just plain wrong in my opinion. After all, we did set out a Bill of Rights that specifically protected inherent, inalienable, Individual rights.
More from typical Anti-Gunners
Another Stab at Shooting my Mouth off to Gun Nuts
So I guess Mr. Cope finds it perfectly acceptable to spew his hatred, ridicule, bigotry, and ignorance towards us "gun nuts." There used to be certain standards required for an article, even an editorial to be printed. I was managing editor of my high school newspaper, and we would NEVER have printed such a load of crap. Even editorials are supposed to be factually based y'know? It's called making an argument and backing it up with logic and FACTS. Is that no longer required?
Joe Huffman is right. To people like Mr. Cope we're nothing more than "gun ni***rs" who deserve no respect whatsoever.
So I guess Mr. Cope finds it perfectly acceptable to spew his hatred, ridicule, bigotry, and ignorance towards us "gun nuts." There used to be certain standards required for an article, even an editorial to be printed. I was managing editor of my high school newspaper, and we would NEVER have printed such a load of crap. Even editorials are supposed to be factually based y'know? It's called making an argument and backing it up with logic and FACTS. Is that no longer required?
Joe Huffman is right. To people like Mr. Cope we're nothing more than "gun ni***rs" who deserve no respect whatsoever.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Light & Fast or Big & Slow?
I'm talking about defensive ammo choices. My P6's will not feed 147 grain 9mm rounds. I haven't tried 135 or 127gr. stuff yet. Right now I have a few boxes of 115gr. Federal 9BP standard velocity, 124gr. Hornady TAP FPD, and 90gr. Hornady XTP.
I've yet to try any actual +P rounds in the P6 yet, but the 90gr. XTP's are rated @ ~1350 fps so they're near +P velocity but really light. The Federal 9BP has been a mainstay carry round for many police for years and is ~1100fps. 9BPLE is 1300fps according to ammoman.com It's weird that the 9BPLE is rated +P+ at 1300fps, but my 90gr. Hornady's are just as fast w/o being marked as high pressure rounds.
Is this lighter, higher velocity stuff hard on your gun, or is that really only an issue if I'm shooting 115 - 147gr. +P and +P+ loads? Is the extra 250fps with the lighter loads just a result of a lighter bullet rather than higher pressures.
Also anyone know anything about 9mm JSP's, specifically the 95 gr. Federal 9mm JSP's being sold at ammoman? The only thing I could find were a few reports stating that police agencies used to use them in weapons that didn't reliably feed hollowpoints.
Is this lighter, higher velocity stuff hard on your gun, or is that really only an issue if I'm shooting 115 - 147gr. +P and +P+ loads? Is the extra 250fps with the lighter loads just a result of a lighter bullet rather than higher pressures.
Also anyone know anything about 9mm JSP's, specifically the 95 gr. Federal 9mm JSP's being sold at ammoman? The only thing I could find were a few reports stating that police agencies used to use them in weapons that didn't reliably feed hollowpoints.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Hey Sarah Brady
a whole group of people walked into an IHOP in Delaware this morning carrying loaded "weapons of mass destruction" on their hips for everyone to see. It was uneventful and there was no "shootout at the OK Corral," just a group of average citizens displaying their 2nd Amendment rights. I was quite glad to see no one really cared. A few women seemed uncomfortable, but didn't say anything to any of us. IHOP was filled to capacity, and still I noticed nothing more than a few double takes.
My Sigs are still out getting refinished so I didn't actually carry. Besides, I'm a pretty terrible shot. I need more practice before I even consider carrying. It was nice meeting everyone, and sorry I was so quiet.
On an unrelated note, trying to shoot an AR without a rear sight is a waste of ammo. Is this a good rear sight or do I need to buy something better like a GG&G sight?
My Sigs are still out getting refinished so I didn't actually carry. Besides, I'm a pretty terrible shot. I need more practice before I even consider carrying. It was nice meeting everyone, and sorry I was so quiet.
On an unrelated note, trying to shoot an AR without a rear sight is a waste of ammo. Is this a good rear sight or do I need to buy something better like a GG&G sight?
Friday, March 21, 2008
Progress
My mother has said two surprising things to me recently.
1. Today we were discussing the D.C. ban (in the context of stuff I'm doing for class actually) and she admitted that she now thinks allowing the citizens of D.C. to have guns in their homes will make people safer and lower the crime rate.
2. She expressed an interest in going to the shooting range with me. Being a noob myself I'm not sure how qualified I am to be teaching a new shooter. I'd be likely to teach her how to push & break her wrists up. (According to New Jovian Thunderbolt's targets I think that's what I'm doing wrong) I suppose teaching her the 4 rules and letting her put some lead downrange can't be a bad thing.
The only issue with this is I'm not sure how to bring her shooting without divulging that her son does in fact own guns, and has for quite some time. (and an "evil assault weapon too) You know how parents are, super overprotective and worried all the time about their "babies...."
1. Today we were discussing the D.C. ban (in the context of stuff I'm doing for class actually) and she admitted that she now thinks allowing the citizens of D.C. to have guns in their homes will make people safer and lower the crime rate.
2. She expressed an interest in going to the shooting range with me. Being a noob myself I'm not sure how qualified I am to be teaching a new shooter. I'd be likely to teach her how to push & break her wrists up. (According to New Jovian Thunderbolt's targets I think that's what I'm doing wrong) I suppose teaching her the 4 rules and letting her put some lead downrange can't be a bad thing.
The only issue with this is I'm not sure how to bring her shooting without divulging that her son does in fact own guns, and has for quite some time. (and an "evil assault weapon too) You know how parents are, super overprotective and worried all the time about their "babies...."
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Quote of the Day
Courtesy of Tam. She's one of my daily reads, and posts like this one are exactly why.
The Bill of Rights could only be read as "Granting Rights" by someone whose reading comprehension compares unfavorably with that of a lobotomized flatworm. It "grants" nothing to nobody, unless by "Grant" you mean "Tell The Government To Bugger Off".
The Bill of Rights could only be read as "Granting Rights" by someone whose reading comprehension compares unfavorably with that of a lobotomized flatworm. It "grants" nothing to nobody, unless by "Grant" you mean "Tell The Government To Bugger Off".
Collectivist Uberpost spaceholder (Updated but still unfinished....)
I'd like to do a piece about this whole "collective rights" concept, as I have much more to say that what I said in my previous post. Can't do it quite yet though, since I have an exam tomorrow. (yes, she scheduled an exam on Good Friday..... my other class is cancelled)
of course my uberpost is about equal to a blurb by kevin's standards
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notion of "collective rights" is a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to the 1960's the 2nd Amendment was considered an individual right just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. (although courts had no problem ignoring it when they felt like it) Somewhere along the line the idea crept up that maybe the 1st clause of the Amendment, "A Well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...." was meant to restrictive upon the 2nd clause of the amendment.
Well what exactly is a "collective right?" Can it even be defined? Well it's a right which a group of people hold collectively. The theory, at least as applied to the 2nd Amendment, is that the militia clause restricts the breadth of the right to one that is conditioned upon service in a State militia. Such a reading makes the claim that I only have a right to "keep & bear arms" while actively serving in a militia, which is of course a collective group. I, as an individual citizen, forfeit that right when I cease my participation / membership in the group.
The entire concept of "collective rights" is faulty. If rights are collective in nature, then what protection do they afford me, an individual? Do I only have a right to freedom of Religion when I'm engaged in active worship with others, and only at a church controlled by the Federal government? Must I form a group before petitioning the government? Do I have a right to freedom of speech and of the press, but no right to individual ownership of a printing press or computer?
Let us consider what that would mean, if the 1st clause were indeed restrictive upon the 2nd. In order to even begin such an exercise one must assume that "well-regulated" takes on it's contemporary meaning rather than it's 18th century meaning. In other words we must abide by the doctrine of a "living Constitution" rather than consider it in the context of when it was written, which Thomas Jefferson considered to be the proper method of Constitutional interpretation.
OK, so let's make the faulty assumption that "well-regulated" means "regulated" by the government. What are we left with? We are left with an Amendment that makes no sense. Why would the founders delegate to the Federal government the power to infringe upon that which "shall not be infringed?"
of course my uberpost is about equal to a blurb by kevin's standards
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notion of "collective rights" is a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to the 1960's the 2nd Amendment was considered an individual right just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. (although courts had no problem ignoring it when they felt like it) Somewhere along the line the idea crept up that maybe the 1st clause of the Amendment, "A Well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...." was meant to restrictive upon the 2nd clause of the amendment.
Well what exactly is a "collective right?" Can it even be defined? Well it's a right which a group of people hold collectively. The theory, at least as applied to the 2nd Amendment, is that the militia clause restricts the breadth of the right to one that is conditioned upon service in a State militia. Such a reading makes the claim that I only have a right to "keep & bear arms" while actively serving in a militia, which is of course a collective group. I, as an individual citizen, forfeit that right when I cease my participation / membership in the group.
The entire concept of "collective rights" is faulty. If rights are collective in nature, then what protection do they afford me, an individual? Do I only have a right to freedom of Religion when I'm engaged in active worship with others, and only at a church controlled by the Federal government? Must I form a group before petitioning the government? Do I have a right to freedom of speech and of the press, but no right to individual ownership of a printing press or computer?
Let us consider what that would mean, if the 1st clause were indeed restrictive upon the 2nd. In order to even begin such an exercise one must assume that "well-regulated" takes on it's contemporary meaning rather than it's 18th century meaning. In other words we must abide by the doctrine of a "living Constitution" rather than consider it in the context of when it was written, which Thomas Jefferson considered to be the proper method of Constitutional interpretation.
OK, so let's make the faulty assumption that "well-regulated" means "regulated" by the government. What are we left with? We are left with an Amendment that makes no sense. Why would the founders delegate to the Federal government the power to infringe upon that which "shall not be infringed?"
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
A few quotes in light of Heller
“The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.”
-Thomas Jefferson (letter to justice John Cartwright June 5, 1824)
And for the Constitution as a "living document" people. (This would include the "collectivists")
"Let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-Thomas Jefferson
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas JeffersonTry taking a walk with your gun in D.C...... oops, only the police and a few select elites can do that.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
"The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-- Albert Gallatin"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
- Samuel Adams
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms .To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . "
-Richard Henry Lee 1788
A Challenge to Collective Rights Theorists....
Find me a right, either judicially created out of "prenumbra's and emanations" or explicitly stated in the Constituion, which applies to "the people" ONLY when they are part of a group, but not when they act individually.
You won't find one anywhere, because the entire notion of "collective rights" is downright moronic.
More on this topic later.
You won't find one anywhere, because the entire notion of "collective rights" is downright moronic.
More on this topic later.
Talk about saying something stupid
Check out Bruce's post about D.C. Police Chief Lanier..... and the comments. I'll have more later. These people are astoundingly stupid AND arrogant.
I'm stealing the vid from Bruce. Check it out
I'm stealing the vid from Bruce. Check it out
Bobbi has a good post up about the collectivist mindset. I particularly like this part.
"Folks who were there at the time point out how Ayn Rand could be utterly vicious to witlings and the ill-informed, especially later in life; witnessing this particular form of aristocratic Queen-Bee collectivism, I begin to understand how she got that way."
I certainly see how she got that way as well. As is evident from my writings I tend to get that way too. I tend to just get fed up with stupidity and ignorance, especially with those who act superior in their ignorance. Anything that differs from their collectivist "common good" worldview is bad and they act like they might die if they even have to be subjected to a different opinion. In short, they stick their fingers in their ears and scream about you being an evil meanie like stuck-up children. This kind of reaction makes the rest of us want to give up, or become even more vicious & poignant (like Rand) in which case the collectivists just see us as assholes.
I know I'm branded an asshole sometimes, but if being blunt, objective, and a realist makes me an asshole in some peoples' eyes then so be it.
"Folks who were there at the time point out how Ayn Rand could be utterly vicious to witlings and the ill-informed, especially later in life; witnessing this particular form of aristocratic Queen-Bee collectivism, I begin to understand how she got that way."
I certainly see how she got that way as well. As is evident from my writings I tend to get that way too. I tend to just get fed up with stupidity and ignorance, especially with those who act superior in their ignorance. Anything that differs from their collectivist "common good" worldview is bad and they act like they might die if they even have to be subjected to a different opinion. In short, they stick their fingers in their ears and scream about you being an evil meanie like stuck-up children. This kind of reaction makes the rest of us want to give up, or become even more vicious & poignant (like Rand) in which case the collectivists just see us as assholes.
I know I'm branded an asshole sometimes, but if being blunt, objective, and a realist makes me an asshole in some peoples' eyes then so be it.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
mmmm.... Kate
I should mention I have a huge crush on Kate Beckinsale. What a hottie!
I guess the Brits do have some attractive women.
Quote of the Day
in the spirit of Heller
I don't see how there's any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
- Justice Scalia (Heller oral arguments)
Everyone should read the full transcript Scalia even goes so far as to discuss William Blackstone & Justice Story.
Scalia also points out one of the fallacies of using a collective rights interpretation, saying
"So long as it was up to the Federal Government to regulate the militia and to assure that they were armed, the Federal Government could disband the State militias."
Scalia is exactly right. If the 2nd Amendment protects only a collective right of state militias to keep and bear arms, but Congress has the power to arm (or choose not to arm) those militias, then the Federal government can render the militia useless by simple neglect. Why would this be the case when the founders wrote the Bill of Rights as a check on the power of the Federal government?
I don't see how there's any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State- managed. But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
- Justice Scalia (Heller oral arguments)
Everyone should read the full transcript Scalia even goes so far as to discuss William Blackstone & Justice Story.
Scalia also points out one of the fallacies of using a collective rights interpretation, saying
"So long as it was up to the Federal Government to regulate the militia and to assure that they were armed, the Federal Government could disband the State militias."
Scalia is exactly right. If the 2nd Amendment protects only a collective right of state militias to keep and bear arms, but Congress has the power to arm (or choose not to arm) those militias, then the Federal government can render the militia useless by simple neglect. Why would this be the case when the founders wrote the Bill of Rights as a check on the power of the Federal government?
Wow, this is so cool!
Scotusblog has live blogging of the argument before the court.
I notice the Justices already seem to be leaning towards our side in their questions. Also, Scalia asks "Doesn't well-regulated mean well-trained?" I think he gets it!
UPDATE-
It appears that Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and surprisingly Kennedy are all on our side. Kennedy seemed particularly focused on self-defense. Thomas kept quiet today, but I trust he's on our side as well. Barring an unforeseen catastrophe I think we have this won. The problem of course is how narrow of a decision will they hand down?
Hell, even my mother believes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but start getting down to specifics of what that means and what "reasonable regulations" are permitted and that right doesn't mean what I take it to mean. I take "shall not be infringed" to mean that a priori restrictions on my keeping & bearing are unconstitutional and that banning certain classes of small-arms is an infringement. Still, this is an incremental process for us. 1st we have to get the court to affirm that the right is one of individuals, not state militias. Once we take this 1st big step we can start targeting specific infringements in the court.
How did we let it get to this point? How did we let it get to the point where we have an uphill battle of using the court system to invalidate egregious infringements?
I notice the Justices already seem to be leaning towards our side in their questions. Also, Scalia asks "Doesn't well-regulated mean well-trained?" I think he gets it!
UPDATE-
It appears that Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and surprisingly Kennedy are all on our side. Kennedy seemed particularly focused on self-defense. Thomas kept quiet today, but I trust he's on our side as well. Barring an unforeseen catastrophe I think we have this won. The problem of course is how narrow of a decision will they hand down?
Hell, even my mother believes the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but start getting down to specifics of what that means and what "reasonable regulations" are permitted and that right doesn't mean what I take it to mean. I take "shall not be infringed" to mean that a priori restrictions on my keeping & bearing are unconstitutional and that banning certain classes of small-arms is an infringement. Still, this is an incremental process for us. 1st we have to get the court to affirm that the right is one of individuals, not state militias. Once we take this 1st big step we can start targeting specific infringements in the court.
How did we let it get to this point? How did we let it get to the point where we have an uphill battle of using the court system to invalidate egregious infringements?
Will We Win Heller?
I think we will. I think we can count on Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Scalia (as long as he doesn't have a raging fear of guns like he does homosexuals). That's 4 of 9. I really like Justice Thomas and would be shocked if he doesn't come down in favor of Heller. I suppose Alito could go either way, and I admit I don't know much about him, but I have a feeling he'll side with the other 3 justices I mentioned. Justice Kennedy seems to be a avid supporter of privacy rights, particularly within ones own home. DC's law is such a brazen privacy intrusion that I think the privacy aspect alone will push him to side with Heller. Kennedy makes it 5-4 in favor of Heller.
All bets are off with Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg & Stevens. I don't usually agree with the opinions of these four, but I'm fairly confident that at least one can be swayed on the strength of Heller's argument alone. (or because of the weakness of DC's position.... I don't think they'll buy the District's "public safety" argument)
Add one from the list of Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg & Steven's and you've got a 6-3 decision in our favor. If we get Kennedy I predict one of these 4 will side with the majority. (Kennedy is generally the "swing" vote)
Yes, I know this court gave us Kelo, but although I don't agree with that decision I can understand their reasoning.
All bets are off with Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg & Stevens. I don't usually agree with the opinions of these four, but I'm fairly confident that at least one can be swayed on the strength of Heller's argument alone. (or because of the weakness of DC's position.... I don't think they'll buy the District's "public safety" argument)
Add one from the list of Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg & Steven's and you've got a 6-3 decision in our favor. If we get Kennedy I predict one of these 4 will side with the majority. (Kennedy is generally the "swing" vote)
Yes, I know this court gave us Kelo, but although I don't agree with that decision I can understand their reasoning.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Quote of the Day.....
“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good
citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of
protecting the public welfare.”
-Justice H. Walter Croskey
That sounds more like the purpose of education in a Dictatorship than in a free America. Of course this asshat is saying this in the context of his decision which said homeschooling is illegal in California. How one chooses to raise their children is beyond the scope of government regulation. It is a private family matter in which the State has no right to intercede.
If I lived in California I'd give the State the finger and homeschool my kid anyway. The state has NO authority to force a parent to send their kid to public school if the parent feels that the values taught in state schools are not in the best interest of the child.
citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of
protecting the public welfare.”
-Justice H. Walter Croskey
That sounds more like the purpose of education in a Dictatorship than in a free America. Of course this asshat is saying this in the context of his decision which said homeschooling is illegal in California. How one chooses to raise their children is beyond the scope of government regulation. It is a private family matter in which the State has no right to intercede.
If I lived in California I'd give the State the finger and homeschool my kid anyway. The state has NO authority to force a parent to send their kid to public school if the parent feels that the values taught in state schools are not in the best interest of the child.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Kids and guns (A stupid "experiment")
What Would Your Kids Really do if They Found a Gun?
This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've seen. They're putting these kids in an unusual situation. They're in an unusual place surrounded by authority figures (a cop and their parents)
The article states,
What do most little boys do with toy guns, or their fingers? They point them at each other and go "bang, bang, bang." That's exactly what I'd expect to happen. The adults conducting this "experiment" set it up to ensure they'd achieve the result they wanted.
All non-instinctual behaviors are learned. Life is all about learning how to respond to different situations. If one of the kids in that class had been taught to respect firearms the outcome would have been very different. Put a 12 year old in that class who goes shooting with his dad every Saturday and who helps his father clean his pistols and you'll have a decidedly different outcome. That 12 year old might pick it up, drop the mag, check the chamber, and then go hand it to an adult.
Put a bunch of adults with NO firearms experience in a similar situation and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the person who found it immediately started pointing it at people. Hell, my dad did exactly that once. He jokingly pointed a pistol at my mom years ago and said "don't worry it's not loaded" nevermind that my dad knows nothing about guns and almost assuredly didn't check whether it was loaded...... and I wonder why my mom is afraid of guns.
This is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've seen. They're putting these kids in an unusual situation. They're in an unusual place surrounded by authority figures (a cop and their parents)
The article states,
We wanted to test a group of children to see what would happen if we planted a real gun in their mix of toys.Well there's problem # 1. You're fucking up the entire experiment by deliberately putting a gun in with a bunch of toys. Also, and this should be common sense, kids will react with curiosity unless you teach them how they should react. If you haven't discussed firearms with your kids how can you expect them to instinctually consider them dangerous, not touch them, or come and tell an adult? Kids are naturally curious. If they've never seen, touched, or held a real gun before how would you expect them to know it's not a toy? (especially in this case, where you've deliberately placed it in a box of toys.)
What do most little boys do with toy guns, or their fingers? They point them at each other and go "bang, bang, bang." That's exactly what I'd expect to happen. The adults conducting this "experiment" set it up to ensure they'd achieve the result they wanted.
All non-instinctual behaviors are learned. Life is all about learning how to respond to different situations. If one of the kids in that class had been taught to respect firearms the outcome would have been very different. Put a 12 year old in that class who goes shooting with his dad every Saturday and who helps his father clean his pistols and you'll have a decidedly different outcome. That 12 year old might pick it up, drop the mag, check the chamber, and then go hand it to an adult.
Put a bunch of adults with NO firearms experience in a similar situation and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the person who found it immediately started pointing it at people. Hell, my dad did exactly that once. He jokingly pointed a pistol at my mom years ago and said "don't worry it's not loaded" nevermind that my dad knows nothing about guns and almost assuredly didn't check whether it was loaded...... and I wonder why my mom is afraid of guns.
Obama and "Reverend" Wright
Yet another topic I need to take on when I have the time.
Imagine if you will that this was reversed and John McCain's pastor had said these kinds of bigoted, racist, vile things about blacks. The media and voting public would crucify him. Not just his candidacy, but his entire political life would be ruined. Why is there a double standard when blacks spout despicable hate speech towards whites (in church no less)
Oh, and how is Geraldine Ferraro wrong in her statement that Obama's success is due in part to him being black? Is it not true? Why should she apologize and resign for making a true statement that is in no way insensitive? If a white person makes a statement of fact or espouses an opinion having to do with race that is rational, factual, and without malice how are they being racist? If I say that young black males are committing a majority of the violent crimes in this country that would not be racist. It would be a fact
Obama's success is most certainly not BECAUSE he is black, but that's not what Ferraro said. How can you deny that his being black has not aided in his success? He has ~75% of the black vote at this point. Were he not running that constituency would have gone to Hillary and Bill (the 1st black President) Clinton. If his race is an advantage then so be it. There's nothing wrong with a white woman making that observation.
Imagine if you will that this was reversed and John McCain's pastor had said these kinds of bigoted, racist, vile things about blacks. The media and voting public would crucify him. Not just his candidacy, but his entire political life would be ruined. Why is there a double standard when blacks spout despicable hate speech towards whites (in church no less)
Oh, and how is Geraldine Ferraro wrong in her statement that Obama's success is due in part to him being black? Is it not true? Why should she apologize and resign for making a true statement that is in no way insensitive? If a white person makes a statement of fact or espouses an opinion having to do with race that is rational, factual, and without malice how are they being racist? If I say that young black males are committing a majority of the violent crimes in this country that would not be racist. It would be a fact
Obama's success is most certainly not BECAUSE he is black, but that's not what Ferraro said. How can you deny that his being black has not aided in his success? He has ~75% of the black vote at this point. Were he not running that constituency would have gone to Hillary and Bill (the 1st black President) Clinton. If his race is an advantage then so be it. There's nothing wrong with a white woman making that observation.
Does 1776 ring a bell?
I know I'm a little late on this one.... Apparently an Aussie blogger thinks we American's are a bunch of savages with guns and is having a bit of trouble with reasoned discourse. Like most anti's however, he appears to be supremely ignorant of facts and history.
In comments he asked Kim Du Toit the following question.
In comments he asked Kim Du Toit the following question.
I can think of several actually, the most notable and obvious being the American Revolution!
Kim can you perhaps give a historical example where an armed citizenry has successfully resisted government oppression?
Friday, March 14, 2008
To be done later
Saw this article over @ The War On Guns, and jesus does it ever deserve a good fisking. I'm at work now so I'll have to do it later, but this one is too good to pass up
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Note(s) to Self
1. Setup a UPS Mailbox for receiving packages. The sight of anything firearms-related being mailed to the house will "scare the white people" (I.E. my parents - Dad) and result in immediate PSH.
2. Move out ASAP following graduation despite what "plans" my parents have. They want me to apply to law school after graduation and then live at home while in school. Not going to happen.
3. Don't even try to discuss firearms with someone you know to be a narcissistic, dishonest, disrespectful, irrational, insecure and volatile person. Their fragile mind cannot even process the thought of a gun without immediate PSH ensuing. Yet somehow *I* am the one to be concerned about because of my interest in guns.
4. Hoplophobia really is a mental illness, at least as far as rabidly anti-gun people are concerned. These people are actually scary to interact with, and they manifest their hoplophobia with projection.
2. Move out ASAP following graduation despite what "plans" my parents have. They want me to apply to law school after graduation and then live at home while in school. Not going to happen.
3. Don't even try to discuss firearms with someone you know to be a narcissistic, dishonest, disrespectful, irrational, insecure and volatile person. Their fragile mind cannot even process the thought of a gun without immediate PSH ensuing. Yet somehow *I* am the one to be concerned about because of my interest in guns.
4. Hoplophobia really is a mental illness, at least as far as rabidly anti-gun people are concerned. These people are actually scary to interact with, and they manifest their hoplophobia with projection.
Here's a surprising revelation....
CCW Permits up in Colorado
A few tidbits from the article, courtesy of El Paso County Sheriff Tony Maketa
Maketa said he's not concerned about the county's growing number of legally armed people. In fact, he said he believes law-abiding citizens make the region safer by getting the permits.
"Actually, I wish it was a higher number, because I know from experience that offenders in the jail system tell me they avoid crimes against people because they know there is a very high concealed-carry rate," Maketa said.
I'm SHOCKED, absolutely shocked I tell ya. I can't believe criminals actually avoid areas where good people are armed because they worry about getting shot!
H/T to John Lott for the link
A few tidbits from the article, courtesy of El Paso County Sheriff Tony Maketa
Maketa said he's not concerned about the county's growing number of legally armed people. In fact, he said he believes law-abiding citizens make the region safer by getting the permits.
"Actually, I wish it was a higher number, because I know from experience that offenders in the jail system tell me they avoid crimes against people because they know there is a very high concealed-carry rate," Maketa said.
I'm SHOCKED, absolutely shocked I tell ya. I can't believe criminals actually avoid areas where good people are armed because they worry about getting shot!
H/T to John Lott for the link
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Working on a post that may / may not make any sense
After reading Breda's post I had a few things I wanted to discuss regarding peoples' reactions to those with disabilities. (a label I don't particularly like BTW) I ended up with a stream-of-consciousness type post that I'm not sure is even worthy of posting.
Sometimes I can write so well, but other times it's just....... eh.
Sometimes I can write so well, but other times it's just....... eh.
National Parks are no Place for Firearms Right?
Tell that to this boy
Hell, guns are evil, and it's not like you'd ever need one in a National Park unless you were a poacher or violent criminal........
Hell, guns are evil, and it's not like you'd ever need one in a National Park unless you were a poacher or violent criminal........
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Answering the Question that always gets asked.......and probably answering it poorly
of people with any kind of physical disability. Other than "what happened?" (which I stopped answering long ago unless I felt it was genuinely sincere) the question I'd most often get, particularly from older adults is "How do you do it?" To be honest, I've always thought of this question as somewhat stupid and worthy of some smart-ass response on my part.
Well, the question was most often tied to sports or some other physical activity. I was / am no different than any other person. I played sports and participated in other activities for the same reasons any other person would. I liked them, they were fun, and minor physical limitations weren't going to stop me from doing what I wanted to do. (except ride a bike, I still can't do that)
So going back to that question "How do you do it?" In short, I just do it. It's not really some big mystery. I do it because I want to. I never understood why people were surprised at my doing something / playing a particular sport and doing it well. Many of us have disabilities, but that should never define ones life, nor stop them from trying. We work with the capabilities we do have, and fight through the physical limitations as best we can. Everyone has physical limitations, for example by way of lack of physical / athletic ability so doesn't my statement apply to the entire population not just those who are "disabled?" I swear to god sometimes when I was asked "that question" by someone in regards to running XC what I really wanted to say was "well, I put one foot in front of the other for 3.1 miles until the race is over."
That same question was often asked of me in regards to surgeries. Even my parents seem sometimes surprised by my matter of fact, nonchalant attitude towards surgery. Again, I never understood what the big deal was. Surgery is simple. Something is wrong and it needs fixing. It's nothing more than a temporary pain in the ass, like having to bring your car to the shop. It needs to be done, so get it over with, get better, and get back to life. Recovery is always frustrating, but the only time it's actually "scary" is when you're lying on the operating table just before they put you under.
I had some extremely unpleasant post-surgery experiences that are seared into my mind forever (pain will do that) I also remember two years ago, being so goddamn frustrated trying to eat after jaw-surgery that I actually cried. In reality though, those things are short-lived and not that bad. Shit happens, the physical pain is momentary, and you deal with it. I think 3rd party observers see things as much worse than they actually are. More often than not I've had to reassure my parents that I'll be fine.
I suppose I also never understood the admiration I received from others. I'm wasn't worthy of any special praise or treatment for simply doing the things I enjoyed. Anything I did was done because I wanted to do it and was capable of doing it well, not so I could prove a point that "someone like me" could do such things. Had I exhibited such an attitude I'd have been putting myself on a pedestal and in the process disrespecting both myself and my fellow athletes. Had I been more of a detriment than an asset I would have quit out of respect for my teammates.
What having a "disability" all comes down to is dealing with it. Life throws you speed bumps along the way and you make due. Every one of us has problems and obstacles that come our way in life. Whether or not that problem comes in the form of a physical handicap is irrelevant. I think it's how we make due that matters.
Well, the question was most often tied to sports or some other physical activity. I was / am no different than any other person. I played sports and participated in other activities for the same reasons any other person would. I liked them, they were fun, and minor physical limitations weren't going to stop me from doing what I wanted to do. (except ride a bike, I still can't do that)
So going back to that question "How do you do it?" In short, I just do it. It's not really some big mystery. I do it because I want to. I never understood why people were surprised at my doing something / playing a particular sport and doing it well. Many of us have disabilities, but that should never define ones life, nor stop them from trying. We work with the capabilities we do have, and fight through the physical limitations as best we can. Everyone has physical limitations, for example by way of lack of physical / athletic ability so doesn't my statement apply to the entire population not just those who are "disabled?" I swear to god sometimes when I was asked "that question" by someone in regards to running XC what I really wanted to say was "well, I put one foot in front of the other for 3.1 miles until the race is over."
That same question was often asked of me in regards to surgeries. Even my parents seem sometimes surprised by my matter of fact, nonchalant attitude towards surgery. Again, I never understood what the big deal was. Surgery is simple. Something is wrong and it needs fixing. It's nothing more than a temporary pain in the ass, like having to bring your car to the shop. It needs to be done, so get it over with, get better, and get back to life. Recovery is always frustrating, but the only time it's actually "scary" is when you're lying on the operating table just before they put you under.
I had some extremely unpleasant post-surgery experiences that are seared into my mind forever (pain will do that) I also remember two years ago, being so goddamn frustrated trying to eat after jaw-surgery that I actually cried. In reality though, those things are short-lived and not that bad. Shit happens, the physical pain is momentary, and you deal with it. I think 3rd party observers see things as much worse than they actually are. More often than not I've had to reassure my parents that I'll be fine.
I suppose I also never understood the admiration I received from others. I'm wasn't worthy of any special praise or treatment for simply doing the things I enjoyed. Anything I did was done because I wanted to do it and was capable of doing it well, not so I could prove a point that "someone like me" could do such things. Had I exhibited such an attitude I'd have been putting myself on a pedestal and in the process disrespecting both myself and my fellow athletes. Had I been more of a detriment than an asset I would have quit out of respect for my teammates.
What having a "disability" all comes down to is dealing with it. Life throws you speed bumps along the way and you make due. Every one of us has problems and obstacles that come our way in life. Whether or not that problem comes in the form of a physical handicap is irrelevant. I think it's how we make due that matters.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Patience
I'm not good at this whole waiting thing....
Both Sigs are currently out getting work done and I'm anxious to get to the range. Hopefully I'll have one back at the end of the month and the other in mid-April.
I have to wait till the end of the month to purchase the .22 AR upper as well. I still have to decide what exactly I want on it. I can't decide between the standard front sight post or a YHM Flip-Up front sight. Is a flip-up sight worth the extra $75?
Both Sigs are currently out getting work done and I'm anxious to get to the range. Hopefully I'll have one back at the end of the month and the other in mid-April.
I have to wait till the end of the month to purchase the .22 AR upper as well. I still have to decide what exactly I want on it. I can't decide between the standard front sight post or a YHM Flip-Up front sight. Is a flip-up sight worth the extra $75?
BATF Thugs can't handle criticism
The War on Guns: Taking the Bait
Looks like they didn't like David's criticizm of them and their handling of Red's Trading Post, so they're doing what they do best. That, of course, is intimidation. I'd like to congratulate Mr. Codrea for not backing down. They need to learn they can't threaten people into silence. If they're going to run roughshod over our 2nd Amendment rights, then some of us are going to call them out on their tyrannical practices. It seems they have the same contempt for our 1st Amendment rights, and so they damn well deserve to be called out.
Thank you David for your post. It is truly inspiring.
Looks like they didn't like David's criticizm of them and their handling of Red's Trading Post, so they're doing what they do best. That, of course, is intimidation. I'd like to congratulate Mr. Codrea for not backing down. They need to learn they can't threaten people into silence. If they're going to run roughshod over our 2nd Amendment rights, then some of us are going to call them out on their tyrannical practices. It seems they have the same contempt for our 1st Amendment rights, and so they damn well deserve to be called out.
Thank you David for your post. It is truly inspiring.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
She's Got a Gun
A new book by Nancy Floyd
I like what I see from the excerpts in the above link. It's important that guns & gun owners get as much positive exposure as possible. It's especially important to target women as an audience. Women, as a whole, more likely to be both fearful and ignorant of guns and gun-owners.
It still amazes me the stereotypes people have regarding gun owners. We are an extremely diverse group of people, not a bunch of redneck yahoos.
Anyway, I'm not in a commenting mood tonight. Really I just posted this for the link.
I like what I see from the excerpts in the above link. It's important that guns & gun owners get as much positive exposure as possible. It's especially important to target women as an audience. Women, as a whole, more likely to be both fearful and ignorant of guns and gun-owners.
It still amazes me the stereotypes people have regarding gun owners. We are an extremely diverse group of people, not a bunch of redneck yahoos.
Anyway, I'm not in a commenting mood tonight. Really I just posted this for the link.
Beer
As much as I like my Guinness / Newcastle Brown I'd like to try some new beers.
Any recommendations? (keeping in mind that I do not like hops)
Any recommendations? (keeping in mind that I do not like hops)
Friday, March 7, 2008
Quote of the Day
Via Tam
"....when his wealth is made possible by our consumer environment and our money which is all created on a collective basis."
- Some asshat commenting on a message board
Sorry buddy, but wealth is not created on a "collective basis" unless by "wealth" you really mean "dependency" and "suffering."
Any material wealth I have I obtained in one of two ways. One, I entered into a consentual agreement with someone whereby I would provide a service they needed done, and they'd pay me for the work. That's called a JOB. Two, I was given money as a gift. In either case society or a "collective" did not pay me, nor did they do my work for me. I worked, I was paid for it. That's how people acquire wealth. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a "collective process." If you're too much of a moron to get that through your thick skull you're probably one of those people Nikki and I think shouldn't vote
I'd love for someone to leave a comment explaining how money/wealth is created on a "Collective Basis." It doesn't happen.
"....when his wealth is made possible by our consumer environment and our money which is all created on a collective basis."
- Some asshat commenting on a message board
Sorry buddy, but wealth is not created on a "collective basis" unless by "wealth" you really mean "dependency" and "suffering."
Any material wealth I have I obtained in one of two ways. One, I entered into a consentual agreement with someone whereby I would provide a service they needed done, and they'd pay me for the work. That's called a JOB. Two, I was given money as a gift. In either case society or a "collective" did not pay me, nor did they do my work for me. I worked, I was paid for it. That's how people acquire wealth. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a "collective process." If you're too much of a moron to get that through your thick skull you're probably one of those people Nikki and I think shouldn't vote
I'd love for someone to leave a comment explaining how money/wealth is created on a "Collective Basis." It doesn't happen.
oh joy, I love Fridays......
Today has been an awesome day so far...., and here I am stuck at work till 8:15 tonight.
I guess it's my own damn fault though. I had writers block while trying to write a terrible paper about a nonsensical book for an utterly useless class taught by a nutjob liberal feminist professor. So this resulted in a crappy 4 page paper finished at 5AM followed by ~3 hours of sleep.
Then I woke up late, couldn't find my keys, was almost late for class and forgot my lunch. I ate no breakfast because my family likes to leave the empty cereal boxes in the cabinet. Of course every single one is empty.
Thankfully I found time to get coffee at Brew-Haha..... and promptly burnt myself as I spilled it all over my hand.
I sat through class till 1:10 and listened to a guest lecture from a lawyer I know. (he used to work with my parents) All he did was discuss the Capano case from way back in 1996. He's a good lawyer, but damn is he dry and boring.
Now I rush to get to work by 2PM and manage to both hit every red light and get stuck behind people going 10 under the speed limit. I get into Wilmington already late for work, so I stop at Grotto's so I'll have a lunch. I was feeling physically ill from the lack of sleep and food. I finally get parked and manage to step on a dead cat next to my car. It looks like he's been there a few days. As I'm running up the 3 blocks to the office my pizza slides out of the side of the box. Great, now all I've got to eat till ~9 tonight are 2 cans of Mountain Dew.
Oh, and Friday's mean I get to walk down to the crime infested shithole where I park. (although there are worse areas of the city) A well-dressed, skinny, limping white boy walking alone and in the dark. I keep my head up and on a swivel, but I'm sure I look like an attractive target. I don't carry much if any cash or valuables, but that doesn't exactly stop criminals. I'm not scared, but I do really dislike the walk to my car at night. Lots of shady characters like to hang out down there.
I guess it's my own damn fault though. I had writers block while trying to write a terrible paper about a nonsensical book for an utterly useless class taught by a nutjob liberal feminist professor. So this resulted in a crappy 4 page paper finished at 5AM followed by ~3 hours of sleep.
Then I woke up late, couldn't find my keys, was almost late for class and forgot my lunch. I ate no breakfast because my family likes to leave the empty cereal boxes in the cabinet. Of course every single one is empty.
Thankfully I found time to get coffee at Brew-Haha..... and promptly burnt myself as I spilled it all over my hand.
I sat through class till 1:10 and listened to a guest lecture from a lawyer I know. (he used to work with my parents) All he did was discuss the Capano case from way back in 1996. He's a good lawyer, but damn is he dry and boring.
Now I rush to get to work by 2PM and manage to both hit every red light and get stuck behind people going 10 under the speed limit. I get into Wilmington already late for work, so I stop at Grotto's so I'll have a lunch. I was feeling physically ill from the lack of sleep and food. I finally get parked and manage to step on a dead cat next to my car. It looks like he's been there a few days. As I'm running up the 3 blocks to the office my pizza slides out of the side of the box. Great, now all I've got to eat till ~9 tonight are 2 cans of Mountain Dew.
Oh, and Friday's mean I get to walk down to the crime infested shithole where I park. (although there are worse areas of the city) A well-dressed, skinny, limping white boy walking alone and in the dark. I keep my head up and on a swivel, but I'm sure I look like an attractive target. I don't carry much if any cash or valuables, but that doesn't exactly stop criminals. I'm not scared, but I do really dislike the walk to my car at night. Lots of shady characters like to hang out down there.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Hats off to SpikesTactical
I ordered a little something from them around 10:30 this morning. As of 1:40 I have confirmation that my order has shipped AND a UPS tracking number!
That's crazy fast.
That's crazy fast.
Oops, I'm a bad boy
Laurel from PG&B reminds us in her most recent post that Lent ends March 22nd.
Umm, I have given up nothing for Lent. Technically I'm Catholic, but really I just go to church on the major holidays because the rest of the family goes. I just don't think you need to do the whole church thing to be a good person. I don't think I need to go to mass in order for God to hear me. If he exists, then he's omnipotent and omnipresent as far as I'm concerned.
Basically my philosophy is this
"Live my life generally trying to do good things and be nice to people. If I've lived a good life then things will work out in the end."
I'm not qualified to know (or tell others) that there is or is not a God, that he is a certain way, or is created in a certain image. I''m not necessarily saying I do/don't believe, only that I'm not qualified to make that judgment. My belief / non-belief or level of belief has no bearing on my value as a person or my morality. One can be moral without being religious. I really don't care one way or the other so long as others don't act morally superior in the name of being "religious" or try to force their religion upon me.
Here's what I wrote about the subject in May 2005. I can't say my view has changed any since then.
And what is it about religion? Why is it that people feel the need to believe in a certain entity who is above all? Is it because they feel lost and insignificant going about their daily lives in this huge world, and that there must be some meaning, some purpose for them, that transcends the monotony of their lives? I dont mean to offend, but I personally, despite being a churchgoer with my family I never really saw the point. Yes I think there are some good lessons you can get out of sermons, but thats all just common sense stuff that makes you think and reevaluate your life and how you treat others, nothing more in my opinion.It just seems to me that religion stems more hatred, intolerance, war, genocide and other horrible atrocities than it does anything else. Think of all the conflicts started over religion, all the conquests where rulers proclaimed "divine rights" or how those same rulers oppressed those people by claiming those same "divine rights"
Umm, I have given up nothing for Lent. Technically I'm Catholic, but really I just go to church on the major holidays because the rest of the family goes. I just don't think you need to do the whole church thing to be a good person. I don't think I need to go to mass in order for God to hear me. If he exists, then he's omnipotent and omnipresent as far as I'm concerned.
Basically my philosophy is this
"Live my life generally trying to do good things and be nice to people. If I've lived a good life then things will work out in the end."
I'm not qualified to know (or tell others) that there is or is not a God, that he is a certain way, or is created in a certain image. I''m not necessarily saying I do/don't believe, only that I'm not qualified to make that judgment. My belief / non-belief or level of belief has no bearing on my value as a person or my morality. One can be moral without being religious. I really don't care one way or the other so long as others don't act morally superior in the name of being "religious" or try to force their religion upon me.
Here's what I wrote about the subject in May 2005. I can't say my view has changed any since then.
And what is it about religion? Why is it that people feel the need to believe in a certain entity who is above all? Is it because they feel lost and insignificant going about their daily lives in this huge world, and that there must be some meaning, some purpose for them, that transcends the monotony of their lives? I dont mean to offend, but I personally, despite being a churchgoer with my family I never really saw the point. Yes I think there are some good lessons you can get out of sermons, but thats all just common sense stuff that makes you think and reevaluate your life and how you treat others, nothing more in my opinion.It just seems to me that religion stems more hatred, intolerance, war, genocide and other horrible atrocities than it does anything else. Think of all the conflicts started over religion, all the conquests where rulers proclaimed "divine rights" or how those same rulers oppressed those people by claiming those same "divine rights"
Guns in 2008
Ok, so for the remainder of 2008 I will not be buying anymore guns. (barring any serious AWB legislation of course) This will not include non-firearms, I.E. ammo, targets, slings/sling mounts, mags, rails, and refinishing work.
I was telling my FFL this on Tuesday when I picked up the P6. He laughed and said "yeah right, you'd better buy a bigger safe because you're going to keep buying regardless. I won't go into specifics as to how or where I store things, but let's just say that all pistols are safely locked away in a secure location, as are all loaded mags I own. Anything else is stored in such a way that it's non-functional and inaccessible. Bulk ammo's the only thing I don't keep locked up.
I probably will end up buying that Spikes Tactical .22 upper this year, but that's it, and that's not classified as a "gun" anyway.
I was telling my FFL this on Tuesday when I picked up the P6. He laughed and said "yeah right, you'd better buy a bigger safe because you're going to keep buying regardless. I won't go into specifics as to how or where I store things, but let's just say that all pistols are safely locked away in a secure location, as are all loaded mags I own. Anything else is stored in such a way that it's non-functional and inaccessible. Bulk ammo's the only thing I don't keep locked up.
I probably will end up buying that Spikes Tactical .22 upper this year, but that's it, and that's not classified as a "gun" anyway.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tribe's backpedaling.....
Here's what he said in a recent op-ed. Somehow with logic like he's showing I don't think the piece should be titled "Sanity and the 2nd Amendment"
Can we ban an entire class of words without violating freedom of speech? Can we ban Islam because of the events of 9/11 and still find such a restriction Constitutional under the 1st Amendment? Of course not. Tribe is also obfuscating the issue, since the DC ban does far more than just ban handguns, it bans all functional long arms as well.
And he calls himself a law professor........ This whole thing reeks of political motivations.
"But nothing I have discovered or written supports an absolute right to possess the weapons of one's choice. The lower court's decision in this case -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the District's ban on concealable handguns in a densely populated area to be unconstitutional -- went overboard. Under any plausible standard of review, a legislature's choice to limit the citizenry to rifles, shotguns and other weapons less likely to augment urban violence need not, and should not, be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of the people to keep or bear arms.What "plausible standard of review" allows the district to ban an entire class of "arms?" Not to mention we're talking about not just any right, but one spelled out in the original Bill of Rights. I'd say that fact alone makes the use of strict scrutiny appropriate. Tribe is saying that it's ok to ban handguns because DC is a "densely populated area." and handguns are "likely to augment urban violence." I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous argument. Can we deny other Constitutionally protected rights to people simply because they live in "densely populated areas" I.E. cities? No, and such an argument is moronic.
Can we ban an entire class of words without violating freedom of speech? Can we ban Islam because of the events of 9/11 and still find such a restriction Constitutional under the 1st Amendment? Of course not. Tribe is also obfuscating the issue, since the DC ban does far more than just ban handguns, it bans all functional long arms as well.
And he calls himself a law professor........ This whole thing reeks of political motivations.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Another one you say?
Yup, another Sig P6 that is!
I really lucked out with my 1st gun, which had a manufactured date of 8/97 and was basically brand new.
This one not so much, although it was dirt cheap. It's pretty dirty too, I've got to soak it in some CLP and do a major cleaning. This gun is one of the earlier models, with a 4/79 date.
On the downside, it's got blacked out sights. I suppose I can just dab some bright white paint on them. On the upside, this is basically going to be a range gun, and the DA pull doesn't feel nearly as stiff as the newer gun.
There's some wear on the slide rails and the inside of the frame (frame rails look good though) The grip screws are rusted to hell, so I'll have to order new ones. Mags are sticking a bit, but that could just be due to crud buildup. The slide release was getting stuck in the "up" position but it seems to be working OK now, so again I think it's just dirt. Barrel looks good, not too many smilies. Obviously it's got the older style barrel, and I've already determined Hornady XTP's and FPD's will most likely not cycle. No big deal really, since the Federal 9BP hollow points should work.
More detailed & internal pics will follow.
P6
P6
I really lucked out with my 1st gun, which had a manufactured date of 8/97 and was basically brand new.
This one not so much, although it was dirt cheap. It's pretty dirty too, I've got to soak it in some CLP and do a major cleaning. This gun is one of the earlier models, with a 4/79 date.
On the downside, it's got blacked out sights. I suppose I can just dab some bright white paint on them. On the upside, this is basically going to be a range gun, and the DA pull doesn't feel nearly as stiff as the newer gun.
There's some wear on the slide rails and the inside of the frame (frame rails look good though) The grip screws are rusted to hell, so I'll have to order new ones. Mags are sticking a bit, but that could just be due to crud buildup. The slide release was getting stuck in the "up" position but it seems to be working OK now, so again I think it's just dirt. Barrel looks good, not too many smilies. Obviously it's got the older style barrel, and I've already determined Hornady XTP's and FPD's will most likely not cycle. No big deal really, since the Federal 9BP hollow points should work.
More detailed & internal pics will follow.
P6
P6
Monday, March 3, 2008
Looking for an FFL in Delaware?
just doing a little ad / plug post here......
I highly recommend Jim Kegerreis Jr. of Diamond State Firearms
e-mail him at thekegs@verizon.net
I highly recommend Jim Kegerreis Jr. of Diamond State Firearms
e-mail him at thekegs@verizon.net
Looks Like the Media's Getting it's Panties in a Bunch Over a Packin' Granny
"Gun Incident" Near President Bush's Ranch
Except that this was in fact a non-incident that shouldn't even have warranted a story.
The 1st sentence of the article reads,
"A Danish journalist came this close to getting shot Saturday by an elderly woman packing a pistol near President Bush's ranch here in what was easily the strangest incident I've ever witnessed covering the White House."
How is it considered "strange" for an old lady to have a gun in Texas? Hello! it's Texas. Furthermore, from the article it appears that she lives out in the country. Ok, so we've got an elderly lady, in TEXAS, living on a little dirt country road. (where police presence is probably non-existent) It should not be the least bit surprising that she owns a gun. It makes perfect sense for someone in her situation to have a gun when investigating a man trespassing on her property.
The article states she had it in her hand and did nothing other than tell the reporter he was trespassing and tell him to leave. According to the article she did not threaten him, didn't act crazy or irrational, and did not point her weapon at anyone. Where's the claim that he "came this close to getting shot" coming from then? That's just terrible reporting and a flat out lie.
This was not a "gun incident" by any stretch of the imagination, nor was it an "international incident" as CNN claims. No, it was a "trespassing incident" involving a prudent old lady and a stupid journalist who was never in any danger whatsoever.
Also, what does "leeway" regarding use of firearms under Texas law have to do with ANYTHING? she did not use her weapon, and as far as I know you can carry a weapon on your own property with no restrictions in pretty much every state in the U.S. I can't believe some of the ridiculous comments as well. She did not threaten him with the gun in any way.
Good for her, and shame on whoever decided to go ahead and print this article.
Except that this was in fact a non-incident that shouldn't even have warranted a story.
The 1st sentence of the article reads,
"A Danish journalist came this close to getting shot Saturday by an elderly woman packing a pistol near President Bush's ranch here in what was easily the strangest incident I've ever witnessed covering the White House."
How is it considered "strange" for an old lady to have a gun in Texas? Hello! it's Texas. Furthermore, from the article it appears that she lives out in the country. Ok, so we've got an elderly lady, in TEXAS, living on a little dirt country road. (where police presence is probably non-existent) It should not be the least bit surprising that she owns a gun. It makes perfect sense for someone in her situation to have a gun when investigating a man trespassing on her property.
The article states she had it in her hand and did nothing other than tell the reporter he was trespassing and tell him to leave. According to the article she did not threaten him, didn't act crazy or irrational, and did not point her weapon at anyone. Where's the claim that he "came this close to getting shot" coming from then? That's just terrible reporting and a flat out lie.
This was not a "gun incident" by any stretch of the imagination, nor was it an "international incident" as CNN claims. No, it was a "trespassing incident" involving a prudent old lady and a stupid journalist who was never in any danger whatsoever.
Also, what does "leeway" regarding use of firearms under Texas law have to do with ANYTHING? she did not use her weapon, and as far as I know you can carry a weapon on your own property with no restrictions in pretty much every state in the U.S. I can't believe some of the ridiculous comments as well. She did not threaten him with the gun in any way.
Good for her, and shame on whoever decided to go ahead and print this article.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Quote of the Day
"The perception will be that it's safer," she said. "As far as safety is concerned, perception is everything."
- UD Professor Maria Aristigueta - from a recent article in our student newspaper regarding the decision to allow Campus PD to carry firearms. Apparently those in academia just don't get it.
As far as safety is concerned, perception means nothing. Reality means everything.
EDIT -
Here were my comments I posted to the article.
- UD Professor Maria Aristigueta - from a recent article in our student newspaper regarding the decision to allow Campus PD to carry firearms. Apparently those in academia just don't get it.
As far as safety is concerned, perception means nothing. Reality means everything.
EDIT -
Here were my comments I posted to the article.
I have to disagree with Professor Aristigueta's final comment, although I certainly agree that it is a huge step in the right direction to allow UDPD to carry firearms.
"The perception will be that it's safer," she said. "As far as safety is concerned, perception is everything."
When it comes to safety, perception means nothing whatsoever. Reality is what really matters. What good is a perception of safety if you aren't actually safe? For those who have been victims of crime in Newark such a perception of safety means nothing. It is an illusion. Those victims were, in reality, not safe.
It's actually dangerous for students to have a false sense of security now that campus police are armed. The police cannot be everywhere, and odds are that when you need them the most they won't be around to save you from harm. That is not a knock against UD or Newark Police, it's simply a statement of fact that police are reactionary. Other than by visual deterrence beforehand, they are almost never going to stop a violent crime in progress. Students, as potential victims, must keep up their guard, pay attention to their surroundings, and fight back against violent criminals when possible.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Finally they've done something smart...
from The Review on February 12th "University Police to Carry Guns"
It's about damn time! The earlier policy was idiotic and actively ignored the fact that we DO have crime on campus. (all bolding in original article done by me) Too bad they'll never take it the logical next step and allow the rest of us to carry. (or course DE state law prohibits it anyway)
It's about damn time! The earlier policy was idiotic and actively ignored the fact that we DO have crime on campus. (all bolding in original article done by me) Too bad they'll never take it the logical next step and allow the rest of us to carry. (or course DE state law prohibits it anyway)
A new policy allowing University Police officers to carry firearms on their person has been instituted.
Before this new rule, police officers were forced to keep their guns in their patrol cars. A supervisor had to be called and give the "go-ahead" before an officer was allowed to actually remove the gun from the car.
There would not be enough time to have gone through all the steps to make sure it was acceptable to use a gun, in a situation where firearms would be needed.
The old policy was a safety hazard for the police officers as well as the students and faculty they were trying to protect. Even though it is hoped that the guns will not have to be used, simply having them offers much more security.
All University Police officers have gone through extensive training with firearms. The old policy was not allowing the officers to use all of their skills to do their jobs. Now, if the situation calls for it, the officers can react as they have been trained.
The new policy allowing police to have guns on their person was partially spurred forward because of the events that occurred at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University last spring.
Sadly enough, the reality is that armed officers are somewhat of a necessity.
Some incidents have been minor, but some have not. The truth is that the new policy is for our own protection. The University Police officers are paid to look after us so we might as well allow them to do their jobs.
This is not to say the new policy is necessary only because of crimes involving students. The university does not have a closed campus. Anyone can walk onto college grounds at any time. This cannot be controlled. Preventing dangerous incidents and dealing with them in the most efficient ways is all that can be done. This new policy will not only allow officers to better protect university staff and students but also the people in the community of Newark.
By instituting the new policy, the university is openly recognizing that there is crime on campus. Half the battle is admitting that there is a problem. This new policy is a positive step towards solving this problem.
Quote of the Day
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see."
- Ayn Rand
This is most pertinent when discussing Obama with people my age. They don't want to hear what's behind the facade of idealism, hope, and change.
- Ayn Rand
This is most pertinent when discussing Obama with people my age. They don't want to hear what's behind the facade of idealism, hope, and change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)