“MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that we’re beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous."
-MSNBC VP Bill Wolfe
I laughed out loud reading that. Uh huh, MSNBC is objective and unbiased. Yup, and I've got an empty NRA wheelbarrow and a closet full of cash in my apartment... My roommate is a liberal Obama supporter and even he has no problem admitting that MSNBC has a heavy liberal bias. Sometimes the things I read are so surreal I don't have much to add. This is one of those times.
H/T to Hotair
Monday, January 31, 2011
Hit or miss
David over at Musings Over A Pint, writes about a not so pleasant experience with a Dogfish Head brew. That was my experience with their Shelter Pale Ale as well. I didn't like it one bit.
Dogfish Head is a strange brewery and they love to really push the envelope and try new things. If you watch brewmasters you know this. This unique approach results in some awesome beers, some of which I've talked about on the blog, I.E. 90 Minute, Burton Baton, Bitches Brew, Midas Touch, Punkin' Ale etc, but it also results in (IMO) some big misses. There are some Dogfish Brews I just can't stomach and wouldn't buy again. I like all of their year round brews except the Shelter Pale Ale, 60 minute IPA & Indian Brown Ale.
I've only tried about one third of their "occasional rarities" and only two of the four seasonals, so I've clearly got some work to do this year on that front.
I have to applaud them for being unconventional and having an extremely wide variety of brews, and damn am I glad to have them right here in little old Delaware.
Dogfish Head is a strange brewery and they love to really push the envelope and try new things. If you watch brewmasters you know this. This unique approach results in some awesome beers, some of which I've talked about on the blog, I.E. 90 Minute, Burton Baton, Bitches Brew, Midas Touch, Punkin' Ale etc, but it also results in (IMO) some big misses. There are some Dogfish Brews I just can't stomach and wouldn't buy again. I like all of their year round brews except the Shelter Pale Ale, 60 minute IPA & Indian Brown Ale.
I've only tried about one third of their "occasional rarities" and only two of the four seasonals, so I've clearly got some work to do this year on that front.
I have to applaud them for being unconventional and having an extremely wide variety of brews, and damn am I glad to have them right here in little old Delaware.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
My Life With Cerebral Palsy - Introduction
I've brought up the subject of my cerebral palsy less than a handful of times on this blog and perhaps as many times in three years of writing on Livejournal before that. It's not that I tried to hide it or was ashamed of it or anything of the sort, rather I just rarely felt the need to bring it up. This is true both in my writing and in my day-to-day life. 99% of the time it's just not relevant to anything and I see no reason to say a word about it unless someone asks. That said, here we are, I feel compelled to write about it, and this is my little corner of the internet, so here goes nothing.
Cerebral Palsy (abbreviated hereafter as "CP.") is not a disease, it is a musculoskeletal condition generally caused by brain injury of the fetus before, during or after birth. In my case it was a result of being born premature and weighing less than 4 pounds at birth. My lungs were underdeveloped , causing a lack of oxygen to my brain, brain damage, and wa lah, cerebral palsy. Yes folks, I technically have "brain damage" and yet I'm not an ardent anti-gunner. Wrap your heads around that one.
Because CP is caused by brain injury at birth or shortly thereafter it's effects and extent aren't usually known right away. Because different areas of the brain can be affected the types, subtypes and symptoms involved can vary greatly from person to person. People sometimes think of CP and think of someone in a wheelchair who needs constant care. While this certainly can be the case depending upon type and severity of the condition, it is not the norm.
I have a very mild case of the most common form, which is spastic diplegia. Essentially this means my lower body is primarily impacted while my upper body has hardly any extra spasticity at all. Additionally, my right side is affected more so than my left. Incidentally, I've tried pocket carrying the 432pd on my right side, but I just don't have the coordination and fine motor skills needed to safely draw and fire from my right pocket.
In layman's terms, what occurs with this type of CP is simple. The spasticity / rigidity of the affected muscle gets worse as one grows, since the rigidity increases as the bones attached to those muscles grow. Once I reached adulthood this was no longer an issue. however, the cumulative impact of that muscle rigidity during my younger years and the permanent rigidity I'll always have means that CP related symptoms and complications (hooray arthritis!) do get worse even though CP is not technically degenerative.
One of the more interesting things about CP is that no one really fits perfectly into one type of the condition, and as a result no two people have exactly the same symptoms. While my primary issue is the hypotonia characteristic of spastic diplegia, I also have secondary issues with balance, strength, coordination and fine motor skills. Trust me, all of that sounds far worse when I write it down than it is in reality. You adapt to your shortcomings, find intuitive ways around the little things that cause you issues, and when shit breaks you get your ass under the knife, work hard and get back up and running ASAP.
The things I've gone through in my life have always seemed far worse from a 3rd party perspective than they have from my own. I've noticed this even within my own family, with my big brother and I discussing my "tough life" a few years ago. I consider those life experiences a good thing, as they've shaped me into the person I am today. I've never quite understood that 3rd party perspective. Given what so many others less fortunate than myself have had to endure I'd say any hardships I had were trivial by comparison. I've been incredibly fortunate and my life has been anything but "tough." I guess that's a matter of perspective, just like everything else in life.
This post is intended to be the first in a series of posts. I realize that it's a bit dry and technical, however I felt like a discussion of what CP is was integral to posts going forward. Subsequent posts should be more interesting(or not, depending on your perspective) and more personal. Ultimately I'm writing about this topic because it interests me and it's my blog.
Cerebral Palsy (abbreviated hereafter as "CP.") is not a disease, it is a musculoskeletal condition generally caused by brain injury of the fetus before, during or after birth. In my case it was a result of being born premature and weighing less than 4 pounds at birth. My lungs were underdeveloped , causing a lack of oxygen to my brain, brain damage, and wa lah, cerebral palsy. Yes folks, I technically have "brain damage" and yet I'm not an ardent anti-gunner. Wrap your heads around that one.
Because CP is caused by brain injury at birth or shortly thereafter it's effects and extent aren't usually known right away. Because different areas of the brain can be affected the types, subtypes and symptoms involved can vary greatly from person to person. People sometimes think of CP and think of someone in a wheelchair who needs constant care. While this certainly can be the case depending upon type and severity of the condition, it is not the norm.
I have a very mild case of the most common form, which is spastic diplegia. Essentially this means my lower body is primarily impacted while my upper body has hardly any extra spasticity at all. Additionally, my right side is affected more so than my left. Incidentally, I've tried pocket carrying the 432pd on my right side, but I just don't have the coordination and fine motor skills needed to safely draw and fire from my right pocket.
In layman's terms, what occurs with this type of CP is simple. The spasticity / rigidity of the affected muscle gets worse as one grows, since the rigidity increases as the bones attached to those muscles grow. Once I reached adulthood this was no longer an issue. however, the cumulative impact of that muscle rigidity during my younger years and the permanent rigidity I'll always have means that CP related symptoms and complications (hooray arthritis!) do get worse even though CP is not technically degenerative.
One of the more interesting things about CP is that no one really fits perfectly into one type of the condition, and as a result no two people have exactly the same symptoms. While my primary issue is the hypotonia characteristic of spastic diplegia, I also have secondary issues with balance, strength, coordination and fine motor skills. Trust me, all of that sounds far worse when I write it down than it is in reality. You adapt to your shortcomings, find intuitive ways around the little things that cause you issues, and when shit breaks you get your ass under the knife, work hard and get back up and running ASAP.
The things I've gone through in my life have always seemed far worse from a 3rd party perspective than they have from my own. I've noticed this even within my own family, with my big brother and I discussing my "tough life" a few years ago. I consider those life experiences a good thing, as they've shaped me into the person I am today. I've never quite understood that 3rd party perspective. Given what so many others less fortunate than myself have had to endure I'd say any hardships I had were trivial by comparison. I've been incredibly fortunate and my life has been anything but "tough." I guess that's a matter of perspective, just like everything else in life.
This post is intended to be the first in a series of posts. I realize that it's a bit dry and technical, however I felt like a discussion of what CP is was integral to posts going forward. Subsequent posts should be more interesting(or not, depending on your perspective) and more personal. Ultimately I'm writing about this topic because it interests me and it's my blog.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
MLK Would Be Rolling In His Grave
Al Sharpton hates free speech and wants the FCC to muzzle Rush Limbaugh. A liberal hates dissenting speech and is asking the government to muzzle a political rival. Inconceivable! Liberals love freedom, it's those evil conservatives who hate the Constitution, right?.....
What's really scary are the number of enlightened Liberals I've encountered who agree with Sharpton and whose hatred for Limbaugh and Fox News is one step below full-blown rage.
Give the government the tools to muzzle your political opponents and it won't be long before you find it's your mouth being held shut. It amazes me the number of people who are too short-sighted to understand this simple concept when it comes to Constitutional rights.
What's really scary are the number of enlightened Liberals I've encountered who agree with Sharpton and whose hatred for Limbaugh and Fox News is one step below full-blown rage.
Give the government the tools to muzzle your political opponents and it won't be long before you find it's your mouth being held shut. It amazes me the number of people who are too short-sighted to understand this simple concept when it comes to Constitutional rights.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Quote of the day - Toning it down
"Fuck Civility. Hyperbole, passion, and metaphor are beautiful parts of rhetoric. Marketplace of ideas can not be toned down for the insane."
-Penn Jillette
I think Penn put that about as beautifully and succinctly as possible. Fuck yeah!
-Penn Jillette
I think Penn put that about as beautifully and succinctly as possible. Fuck yeah!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Pre-fisked collegiate idiocy
One Chadwick Bowman, a senior from Colorado State University, writes an anti-gun screed that is poorly written, badly researched, and dripping with liberal elitism. Hell, there's even an Elmer Fudd reference. All Bowman is missing is a penis joke.
College apparently hasn't taught young Bowman much, but it has taught him poor journalistic standards and a condescending, elitist liberal attitude. This is a pretty good example of the results of the liberal brainwashing that occurs at our institutions of higher learning. Some folks like myself didn't take well to the brainwashing. I feel bad for those who succumbed to it.
I wont even get into the glaring factual errors (1751, really?) or the implications of reading away the 2nd Amendment because it's anachronistic, but I do want to quote a few things Bowman had to say,
"The logical concept is to separate everyone from their guns."
Oh yeah Mr. Bowman? Are you going to come to my door and ask nicely? Are you going to forcibly separate me from them? Good luck with that. Molon Labe.
"This is one of those scenarios in American politics where the smartest, most intuitive citizens need to force legislation upon the people, even when it is not the popular choice. The leadership roles that Congress and the President have taken oaths to uphold need to make decisions that are blatantly and obviously the correct ones, which will make for a safer country. A safer country, even when many citizens do not have the intellectual abilities to understand that it is the safest choice for them."
Some moron who can't even get the ratification date of the Bill of Rights correct is hardly one to be determining who the "smartest, most intuitive citizens" are. Those "leaders" Bowman speaks of are nothing of the sort. They are servants, employed by me, and they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not an oath to uphold so-called "leadership roles."
Can't you just taste the smarmy liberal elitism dripping from the Bowman's paragraph as quoted above? All of you peons are just too damn stupid to exercise free will, so our omnipotent and benevolent leaders are going to have to force the "correct" choices upon you for your own good.
I fear this is exactly the kind of citizen that our higher education system intends to produce. They want to produce highly educated morons. Morons with a desire to rule over the rest of us for our own good because we lack the intellectual abilities to understand and thus make the correct choices.
You know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like the attitude of a dictator or tyrant. I'd say Molon Labe, but based on this article I'm not sure Mr. Bowman has the intellectual ability to perform a Google search and ascertain the meaning of those two words.
I highly suggest Chadwick Bowman get his money back from CSU. Then again, he'll fit right in with the Liberal MSM as an "authorized journalist."
H/T to Kurt Hoffman who already fisked Mr. Bowman's article.
College apparently hasn't taught young Bowman much, but it has taught him poor journalistic standards and a condescending, elitist liberal attitude. This is a pretty good example of the results of the liberal brainwashing that occurs at our institutions of higher learning. Some folks like myself didn't take well to the brainwashing. I feel bad for those who succumbed to it.
I wont even get into the glaring factual errors (1751, really?) or the implications of reading away the 2nd Amendment because it's anachronistic, but I do want to quote a few things Bowman had to say,
"The logical concept is to separate everyone from their guns."
Oh yeah Mr. Bowman? Are you going to come to my door and ask nicely? Are you going to forcibly separate me from them? Good luck with that. Molon Labe.
"This is one of those scenarios in American politics where the smartest, most intuitive citizens need to force legislation upon the people, even when it is not the popular choice. The leadership roles that Congress and the President have taken oaths to uphold need to make decisions that are blatantly and obviously the correct ones, which will make for a safer country. A safer country, even when many citizens do not have the intellectual abilities to understand that it is the safest choice for them."
Some moron who can't even get the ratification date of the Bill of Rights correct is hardly one to be determining who the "smartest, most intuitive citizens" are. Those "leaders" Bowman speaks of are nothing of the sort. They are servants, employed by me, and they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not an oath to uphold so-called "leadership roles."
Can't you just taste the smarmy liberal elitism dripping from the Bowman's paragraph as quoted above? All of you peons are just too damn stupid to exercise free will, so our omnipotent and benevolent leaders are going to have to force the "correct" choices upon you for your own good.
I fear this is exactly the kind of citizen that our higher education system intends to produce. They want to produce highly educated morons. Morons with a desire to rule over the rest of us for our own good because we lack the intellectual abilities to understand and thus make the correct choices.
You know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like the attitude of a dictator or tyrant. I'd say Molon Labe, but based on this article I'm not sure Mr. Bowman has the intellectual ability to perform a Google search and ascertain the meaning of those two words.
I highly suggest Chadwick Bowman get his money back from CSU. Then again, he'll fit right in with the Liberal MSM as an "authorized journalist."
H/T to Kurt Hoffman who already fisked Mr. Bowman's article.
Homemade German Porn - With Character
Yes, I have some German porn for you folks.* German Sig porn of course!**
*get your minds out of the gutter
**They're Swiss, but say "Made in Germany" so we'll call this German Sig porn
*get your minds out of the gutter
**They're Swiss, but say "Made in Germany" so we'll call this German Sig porn
Also, remember to keep your fun toys well lubed!
Quote of the day - Freedom's substance
"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of freedom's substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith within."
-Justice Robert Jackson
Some of current crop of Liberals could learn from such words, but then many of them don't care much for freedom of speech for anyone but themselves.
-Justice Robert Jackson
Some of current crop of Liberals could learn from such words, but then many of them don't care much for freedom of speech for anyone but themselves.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Slippery Slope - How many rounds?
First you couldn't buy a magazine with a capacity of over 20 rounds in Maryland. Now the anti-gunners have introduced a bill* to amend the current law and change the restriction from 20 rounds to 10 rounds. What's next? 8 rounds, 5 rounds? one round in the chamber and an empty mag?
Hell, if we're going this route why not pass a law banning more than 10 people from assembling in more than one place? Under the anti-gunners logic it's not really an infringement on the right to freedom of association, just a "reasonable restriction" right?
*Is in PDF format
H/T to Falnfenix
Hell, if we're going this route why not pass a law banning more than 10 people from assembling in more than one place? Under the anti-gunners logic it's not really an infringement on the right to freedom of association, just a "reasonable restriction" right?
*Is in PDF format
H/T to Falnfenix
Quote of the day - extravagant rights
"History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."
-Justice Thurgood Marshall
Justice Marshall was right. Times of urgency are when tyrants come out of the woodwork to exploit tragedy. They salivate, and descend upon freedom like a pack of rabid dogs.* Necessity is, as William Pitt said, the argument of tyrants.
*I won't say how we deal with rabid dogs because, oh my god, that would be violent rhetoric on par with the words of our founders.
-Justice Thurgood Marshall
Justice Marshall was right. Times of urgency are when tyrants come out of the woodwork to exploit tragedy. They salivate, and descend upon freedom like a pack of rabid dogs.* Necessity is, as William Pitt said, the argument of tyrants.
*I won't say how we deal with rabid dogs because, oh my god, that would be violent rhetoric on par with the words of our founders.
Accidental gun deaths
NRA says more people die as a result of medical mishaps than they do from firearms accidents. Politifact rates this only "mostly true."
Politifact rates it as "mostly true" only because they don't trust the WISQARS data. Whether Politifact trusts the data used or not is irrelevant. The determination they're supposed to make is whether or not the NRA's claim is true. The NRA's claim is not "mostly true." It is simply "true."
The NRA goes on to say that 4 times as many people die from medical mistakes than firearms nationwide. They claim 6 times as many when looking at only the state of Florida.
The actual Florida number comes out to 6.75, while the nationwide numbers comes out to 3.67. The data completely supports the NRA's true statement.
Accidental deaths 2007 Nationwide Florida
Firearms 613 16
Medical care adverse effects 2,248 108
As usual the media just doesn't want to admit the truth.
Politifact rates it as "mostly true" only because they don't trust the WISQARS data. Whether Politifact trusts the data used or not is irrelevant. The determination they're supposed to make is whether or not the NRA's claim is true. The NRA's claim is not "mostly true." It is simply "true."
The NRA goes on to say that 4 times as many people die from medical mistakes than firearms nationwide. They claim 6 times as many when looking at only the state of Florida.
The actual Florida number comes out to 6.75, while the nationwide numbers comes out to 3.67. The data completely supports the NRA's true statement.
Accidental deaths 2007 Nationwide Florida
Firearms 613 16
Medical care adverse effects 2,248 108
As usual the media just doesn't want to admit the truth.
Zombie contingency plan
If you live with a roommate or loved ones you have discussed what to do if one of you is bitten and starts to turn, right? The roomie and I discussed this last night and it was mutually agreed upon that if one of us starts to turn my P220ST and a dose of .45ACP to the cranium is necessary to prevent any nomming on brains.
My exact words were "You have permission to take me out with my own gun, but if you turn first you're fucked."
My exact words were "You have permission to take me out with my own gun, but if you turn first you're fucked."
Monday, January 24, 2011
Sig Sweepstakes
January's Sig Sweepstakes gives you a chance to win the new Sig P290. I'll admit this gun does absolutely nothing for me and I'd almost certainly sell it if I won. That said, a free gun is a free gun.
Quote of the day - disabilities
QP (links possibly NSFW) penned an excellent post here and I thought something she said in the comments warranted a QOTD and further discussion.
"The reason you don’t think of Breda or me as “a handicapped girl”, I’m hoping, is because that’s not actually a thing. Disability is not my entire identity or my cardinal trait. It’s just something I deal with. That’s the same for anyone no matter how visible or severe their disabilities might be."
The above is almost verbatim of something Breda said to me once in a discussion on IRC. A physical impediment is but one of many simple identifying traits like, for example, having blue eyes or a big butt. While physical limitations are a part of your life they don't define you as a person. It's the sum of the parts that counts.
Reading her post really irked me. I'd be quite offended if someone's response to me was something to the effect of " aww, how nice of you to bring home a gimp." Pity might be useful for the person giving it, but in this context it's generally not going to be received well by the person with the disability. Y'know, this gimp could probably kick your butt up & down the basketball court. (well maybe not these days) I actually shut a lot of mouthy kids up this way growing up.
The 2nd part of QP's quote was as follows. I'm breaking up her quote for discussion purposes
"Of course it’s a little tricky when you want people to see you and not your health issues but also don’t want them to forget that you’re not completely able-bodied. But that’s a whole other complicated can of worms."
I don't really talk much about my disability. (nor do I consider myself "disabled") I don't have a handicapped parking tag even though I legally qualify for one. Hell, I think more people at The Firm know I'm a gun owner than know I have CP. Many of them only know because they were in my office when I got carted off in an ambulance at work in April 09' and I told the EMT's I had CP. There are plenty of people who don't just forget I'm not completely able-bodied, they don't even know about it.
The issue QP brings up is indeed a complicated can of worms. How do you balance the stubborn self-reliance that comes with the territory with the fact that, at times, there really are things you can't / shouldn't do on your own? I've always done an extremely poor job of balancing the two and my body has paid for it. I chalk it up to just dumb luck that I haven't seriously injured myself due to dumb stubbornness.* Honestly, the question above is one I can't answer.
*Hey, I was out on the basketball court shooting around with friends while I still had a big cast on one foot. And then there was the time I fell down an entire flight of concrete stairs while trying to move out of my dorm room without any help. Etc., Etc. Good times.
**This post was sitting in drafts for the past few weeks. D'oh.
"The reason you don’t think of Breda or me as “a handicapped girl”, I’m hoping, is because that’s not actually a thing. Disability is not my entire identity or my cardinal trait. It’s just something I deal with. That’s the same for anyone no matter how visible or severe their disabilities might be."
The above is almost verbatim of something Breda said to me once in a discussion on IRC. A physical impediment is but one of many simple identifying traits like, for example, having blue eyes or a big butt. While physical limitations are a part of your life they don't define you as a person. It's the sum of the parts that counts.
Reading her post really irked me. I'd be quite offended if someone's response to me was something to the effect of " aww, how nice of you to bring home a gimp." Pity might be useful for the person giving it, but in this context it's generally not going to be received well by the person with the disability. Y'know, this gimp could probably kick your butt up & down the basketball court. (well maybe not these days) I actually shut a lot of mouthy kids up this way growing up.
The 2nd part of QP's quote was as follows. I'm breaking up her quote for discussion purposes
"Of course it’s a little tricky when you want people to see you and not your health issues but also don’t want them to forget that you’re not completely able-bodied. But that’s a whole other complicated can of worms."
I don't really talk much about my disability. (nor do I consider myself "disabled") I don't have a handicapped parking tag even though I legally qualify for one. Hell, I think more people at The Firm know I'm a gun owner than know I have CP. Many of them only know because they were in my office when I got carted off in an ambulance at work in April 09' and I told the EMT's I had CP. There are plenty of people who don't just forget I'm not completely able-bodied, they don't even know about it.
The issue QP brings up is indeed a complicated can of worms. How do you balance the stubborn self-reliance that comes with the territory with the fact that, at times, there really are things you can't / shouldn't do on your own? I've always done an extremely poor job of balancing the two and my body has paid for it. I chalk it up to just dumb luck that I haven't seriously injured myself due to dumb stubbornness.* Honestly, the question above is one I can't answer.
*Hey, I was out on the basketball court shooting around with friends while I still had a big cast on one foot. And then there was the time I fell down an entire flight of concrete stairs while trying to move out of my dorm room without any help. Etc., Etc. Good times.
**This post was sitting in drafts for the past few weeks. D'oh.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Why I really didn't post this weekend
Because I had to drop by the parents house and pet sit the Big Guy. It sucks not having him around all the time.
-Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
-Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Saturday, January 22, 2011
More violent rhetoric - Who said this?
Take a guess as to who said the following words and to which party they belong...
"Instead of running for governor they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. "
Well, we haven't seen this plastered all over MSNBC, CNN and ABC, so if you guessed that it was a Democrat who said it you'd be right.
Those were the words of the now Ex-Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, referring to newly elected Republican governer Rick Scott of Florida.
Here's what he said in full,
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Anyone want to guess what would've happened if a Republican had said this about a Democrat? If said Republican were a gun owner? Better yet, what would've been the reaction if a Libertarian or Republican pro-gun blogger like TJIC had said it? Hell, just imagine if Sarah Palin had said something like that.
But hell, a Democratic Congressman said it. Nothing to see here, no violent rhetoric from the left. Move along.
"Instead of running for governor they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. "
Well, we haven't seen this plastered all over MSNBC, CNN and ABC, so if you guessed that it was a Democrat who said it you'd be right.
Those were the words of the now Ex-Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, referring to newly elected Republican governer Rick Scott of Florida.
Here's what he said in full,
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."
Anyone want to guess what would've happened if a Republican had said this about a Democrat? If said Republican were a gun owner? Better yet, what would've been the reaction if a Libertarian or Republican pro-gun blogger like TJIC had said it? Hell, just imagine if Sarah Palin had said something like that.
But hell, a Democratic Congressman said it. Nothing to see here, no violent rhetoric from the left. Move along.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Civil rhetoric - Democrat style
Ah yes, all the evil, hateful, violent rhetoric is being spewed by Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and "The right" according to the media. Suddenly folks on the Left are calling for civility and for us to "tone down the rhetoric." Basically now that they got their butts kicked in the midterms they're telling their political opposition to sit down & shut up. They even want to use the force of law to make this a reality.
I was no fan of George Bush. The man was an authoritarian and a big-government proponent. That said, I remember the kind of "civil discourse" the Left directed at him for 8 years. They have absolutely no moral grounds on which to call for anyone to "tone down" their rhetoric.
I give you Democrat Steve Cohen. Apparently this is what "civil rhetoric" and "toning things down" sounds like.
Another example of toning down rhetoric. Democrat from TX, Sheila Jackson-Lee saying that Republicans are "killing Americans" by repealing Obamacare (something they were elected to do BTW) Nice to see that Liberals have no intention of toning down their own rhetoric. Yup, Republicans are going to be eager to work with you when you claim that they are killing their constituents merely by attempting to repeal an unconstitutional law.
I was no fan of George Bush. The man was an authoritarian and a big-government proponent. That said, I remember the kind of "civil discourse" the Left directed at him for 8 years. They have absolutely no moral grounds on which to call for anyone to "tone down" their rhetoric.
I give you Democrat Steve Cohen. Apparently this is what "civil rhetoric" and "toning things down" sounds like.
Another example of toning down rhetoric. Democrat from TX, Sheila Jackson-Lee saying that Republicans are "killing Americans" by repealing Obamacare (something they were elected to do BTW) Nice to see that Liberals have no intention of toning down their own rhetoric. Yup, Republicans are going to be eager to work with you when you claim that they are killing their constituents merely by attempting to repeal an unconstitutional law.
It's Friday!
It's Friday, and to show you how excited I am, here's a picture of a monkey! He's bananas, that's why his face looks like that!
Oh shit! It's a black monkey, and since I'm clearly not an Obama fan that must mean I'm racist, right?
Happy Friday blog readers!
Thursday, January 20, 2011
NRA Convention - Pittsburgh
Looks like I'll be seeing you all in Pittsburgh for the 2011 NRA Convention, along with Falnfenix & her man. We're booked at the Radisson. I'd bet there's going to be a pretty cool shindig this year, though I don't know how we're going to top dinner & drinks with Alan Gura.
You are going right? If you don't you'll miss out on getting to hang out with cool folks like myself (I kid, I'm not cool, but some of the folks on my blogroll are...)
You are going right? If you don't you'll miss out on getting to hang out with cool folks like myself (I kid, I'm not cool, but some of the folks on my blogroll are...)
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
My oh my, I do love Liberals!
"It’s just plain old disgusting, Mike w., and that’s the nicest thing I can say.It’s sad and shameful what self-delusion can do to a person, and if I were you I would be ashamed of myself. But if you ever decide to grow up, reality and honesty will still be waiting for you. Peace."
- Commenter "Neil" responding to my one line comment.
I would be lying if I said this kind of reaction didn't amuse me. Those on the left launching personal attacks almost immediately. It is so simple and commonplace that I think you could design a comment bot to do it for them. I have no intention of commenting further over there, but still. Wow!
In retrospect I guess this is actually quite tame as far as personal attacks by liberals are concerned.
- Commenter "Neil" responding to my one line comment.
I would be lying if I said this kind of reaction didn't amuse me. Those on the left launching personal attacks almost immediately. It is so simple and commonplace that I think you could design a comment bot to do it for them. I have no intention of commenting further over there, but still. Wow!
In retrospect I guess this is actually quite tame as far as personal attacks by liberals are concerned.
Quote of the day - right to defy
"The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face. "
- Justice Potter Stewart - Walker v. Birmingham
Sure, there may be consequences to my actions but in the end I may break any law I choose. That's how violent criminals operate. They have wanton disregard for the laws of society. They know what they're doing and have decided that the juice is worth the squeeze. Laws are essentially superfluous for them and do not prevent them from engaging in their trade*
*unless of course they're locked up.
I will say this. While I make every effort to be a law-abiding gun owner there are some laws that, if passed, I would not intend to obey. Then of course there are others that would be virtually impossible not to violate even if I intended to comply with the law. That's the point of gun control laws though, to turn me and my fellow gunnies into criminals.
- Justice Potter Stewart - Walker v. Birmingham
A good example of where this might be applicable would be if a law were passed tomorrow requiring a government permit in order to blog.
I'll never quite understand anti-gunners and their insistence on more laws. They claim that we need more laws to stop "gun violence" yet at the same time rail on about the ineffectiveness of the laws on the books. They don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of laws. That is, law acts as both deterrent and punishment. It acts as as the former only for those who respect it. Laws do not magically prevent me from committing certain acts. Should I choose to break them I am free to do so.Sure, there may be consequences to my actions but in the end I may break any law I choose. That's how violent criminals operate. They have wanton disregard for the laws of society. They know what they're doing and have decided that the juice is worth the squeeze. Laws are essentially superfluous for them and do not prevent them from engaging in their trade*
*unless of course they're locked up.
I will say this. While I make every effort to be a law-abiding gun owner there are some laws that, if passed, I would not intend to obey. Then of course there are others that would be virtually impossible not to violate even if I intended to comply with the law. That's the point of gun control laws though, to turn me and my fellow gunnies into criminals.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Knee Jerkin'
I remember reading about this case in college. One kid, 17 year old Brett Chidester, kills himself in a case where it's debatable the drug salvia divinorum was even involved. What I didn't realize is that a bunch of other states* followed Delaware's lead and banned Salvia as well. It's like they saw Delaware and said "Hey, we don't want to be left out! Bans are good! Let's ban the evil, scary drug!"
You know what we really should ban? Knee-jerk reactions by legislatures.
*yes, I know the article I linked to is from April 2010. I don't care.
You know what we really should ban? Knee-jerk reactions by legislatures.
*yes, I know the article I linked to is from April 2010. I don't care.
Stupid Gun Laws - Magazine Capacity
There's been quite a bit of talk in the news about banning "high capacity" (I.E. standard capacity) magazines because some crazy shithead killed people with a Glock. I'm not going to get into the absurdity of saying "10 rounds good, 12 rounds evil" but I did want to expand on something I saw at Unc's.
As Unc points out, a few states have their own restrictions on mag capacity and of course, the free market has found a way to legally get around the restriction by selling repair kits. People in these less free states want standard magazines like the rest of us and the market has responded to that demand. Isn't capitalism great?
Of course there's also nothing stopping me from buying a ton of hi-cap mags and having friends from Maryland drive into Delaware so I can give them to folks who need them.* Likewise if Delaware passed such a law I could simply drive a few minutes into PA, buy all the mags I could afford and then return. Maryland residents may own normal magazines, they just can't buy them anywhere inside MD or have them shipped into the state. If you were a MD resident in say, Elkton this would be trivially easy, since there's a gunshop right over the MD/DE state line in Newark on 896.
I'm not sure how that works in other ban states, but I suspect we'll see similar activity in CA in response to the draconian ammo restrictions imposed by AB962. That's good news for businesses in AZ, OR and NV and not so good for CA. Then again California liberals despise capitalism anyway.
People who desire freedom will find a way around bad laws while simultaneously trying to change them. Criminals will just ignore them and go about business as usual.
H/T to Sayuncle and Robb Allen
*I don't want friends in MD stuck with neutered mags when the zombies come for their braaaains!
As Unc points out, a few states have their own restrictions on mag capacity and of course, the free market has found a way to legally get around the restriction by selling repair kits. People in these less free states want standard magazines like the rest of us and the market has responded to that demand. Isn't capitalism great?
Of course there's also nothing stopping me from buying a ton of hi-cap mags and having friends from Maryland drive into Delaware so I can give them to folks who need them.* Likewise if Delaware passed such a law I could simply drive a few minutes into PA, buy all the mags I could afford and then return. Maryland residents may own normal magazines, they just can't buy them anywhere inside MD or have them shipped into the state. If you were a MD resident in say, Elkton this would be trivially easy, since there's a gunshop right over the MD/DE state line in Newark on 896.
I'm not sure how that works in other ban states, but I suspect we'll see similar activity in CA in response to the draconian ammo restrictions imposed by AB962. That's good news for businesses in AZ, OR and NV and not so good for CA. Then again California liberals despise capitalism anyway.
People who desire freedom will find a way around bad laws while simultaneously trying to change them. Criminals will just ignore them and go about business as usual.
H/T to Sayuncle and Robb Allen
*I don't want friends in MD stuck with neutered mags when the zombies come for their braaaains!
Quote of the day - Use em' or lose em
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."
-Voltaire
I wish it were as simple as people not caring to exercise their freedoms, but it's not. So many of my fellow Americans don't care to exercise theirs and wish to burden me with the same choice by force of law.
*I'll try and have some more substantive content up soon. Bear with me.
-Voltaire
I wish it were as simple as people not caring to exercise their freedoms, but it's not. So many of my fellow Americans don't care to exercise theirs and wish to burden me with the same choice by force of law.
*I'll try and have some more substantive content up soon. Bear with me.
Monday, January 17, 2011
P6 Porn! Damn!
Pics of some absolutely beautiful Sig P6's refinished by CCR
Man, I need to get mine finished instead of getting things done piecemeal.
Man, I need to get mine finished instead of getting things done piecemeal.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Quote of the day - Butt what?
"This one guy said "look at that girl's butt! She has a nice butt." I said "yeah, I bet she can sit down excellently."
- Mitch Hedberg
Hooray for big butt jokes!
- Mitch Hedberg
Hooray for big butt jokes!
Tool Users
Human are tool users. A large stick was the weapon of choice in this Virginia robbery. The store owner grabbed a hammer in an attempt to defend himself. As long as people are willing to commit predatory violence against others an effective defensive tool will be necessary. That tool is the personal firearm. I'm glad a hammer worked fine in this case, but I'd rather take my chances with a firearm.
H/T to CTone
H/T to CTone
Friday, January 14, 2011
Quote of the day - rise & fall
"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them."
- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
On that note I give you this. Confidence inspiring isn't it?
H/T to Alan for the link
- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
On that note I give you this. Confidence inspiring isn't it?
H/T to Alan for the link
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Quote of the day - fear & speech
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. "
- Louis E. Brandeis (Whitney v. California - 1927)
- Louis E. Brandeis (Whitney v. California - 1927)
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Aww Shucks
The moment I heard the BS about a proposed law making it illegal to carry a firearm within 1000ft of an elected official one of my first thoughts was "How bout we make it illegal for them to come within 1000ft. of us?" Apparently Tam beat me to it with that idea.
As for making them easily identifiable, maybe make them wear a big yellow star? Failing that I think large, bright "kick me!" signs would work.
Just who in the hell do these asshats think they are anyway? What the heck makes them think they can erect a mobile "rights-free zone" around their persons? Newsflash! You're not special. You work for us. Deal with it or do us all a favor and quit, OK?
The simple fact of the matter is that public officials, whether they like it or not, are around armed citizens when in public. Even if you passed such a law that wouldn't change. Criminals already carrying illegally wouldn't obey it. I suspect many otherwise law-abiding gun owners would ignore it also, especially since it'd be impossible to comply with.
It's funny, this law is much like other knee jerk leglislation. #1, it's completely unconstitutional. #2, It's impractical and entirely unenforceable. Imagine I'm sitting in Manhattan Bagel and in walks Joe Biden. This actually has happened as he frequents that particular bagel shop. If I'm armed am I immediately breaking the law? If not, do I have to get up and leave the moment he arrives? He's not the boss of me, nor is any other politician.
As for making them easily identifiable, maybe make them wear a big yellow star? Failing that I think large, bright "kick me!" signs would work.
Just who in the hell do these asshats think they are anyway? What the heck makes them think they can erect a mobile "rights-free zone" around their persons? Newsflash! You're not special. You work for us. Deal with it or do us all a favor and quit, OK?
The simple fact of the matter is that public officials, whether they like it or not, are around armed citizens when in public. Even if you passed such a law that wouldn't change. Criminals already carrying illegally wouldn't obey it. I suspect many otherwise law-abiding gun owners would ignore it also, especially since it'd be impossible to comply with.
It's funny, this law is much like other knee jerk leglislation. #1, it's completely unconstitutional. #2, It's impractical and entirely unenforceable. Imagine I'm sitting in Manhattan Bagel and in walks Joe Biden. This actually has happened as he frequents that particular bagel shop. If I'm armed am I immediately breaking the law? If not, do I have to get up and leave the moment he arrives? He's not the boss of me, nor is any other politician.
An annoying anti-gun argument
We all know that pretty much all anti-gun arguments are emotionally based and devoid of logic, however some of their arguments are more ridiculous than others. I wanted to share one such argument.
It's no secret that my dad is very anti-gun. I've talked about it before and discussed it on BB& Guns. Most of you also know that I bought my first gun back in 2007 while I was still in college and living at home. Prior to that purchase I had sat down with he and my mom and discussed my intention to buy a Walther P22.
If you've ever been around someone who is both vehemently anti-gun and narcissistic you can imagine how that "discussion" went. It essentially ended with my father forbidding me from buying a gun, my purchasing a Sig P6 anyway and keeping it in a lockbox in the bedroom. Did I go against his wishes? Sure, but I wasn't about to forgo the correct course of action because of his irrational, emotional, angry ramblings. I should thank Dad one day for keeping me from purchasing a potmetal ZAMAK gun as my first.
Anyway, back to the point of this post. One of the arguments he made back then for why I couldn't buy a gun was that "criminals break into houses looking for guns, so you shouldn't have one." This is, without a doubt one of the most inane positions imaginable. I actually almost laughed at dad when he said this, but I restrained myself since that'd be disrespectful.
The idea that you shouldn't own a product because it's often stolen and used in crime is simply bizarre, yet that was one of dad's key reasons for not wanting a gun in the house.* A huge percentage of traffic fatalities are alcohol related. Does that mean we shouldn't keep booze in the house? Honda Civic's are often stolen, so by Dad's logic no one should own one and I should've gotten rid of mine.
Truth be told Dad was right, guns are a favorite thing for criminals to steal, but you're no more likely to be burglarized due to gun ownership than you would be because you own any other valuable good. I could have said that maybe he should sell his flatscreen HDTV, since that's a favorite of burglars and is just asking to get plucked.
I didn't use the TV argument or anything similar because it was clear there was no point. My dad tends to be emotional and irrational on certain issues and on those issues he's generally ignored by the rest of the family. Not maliciously of course, it's more of a lying by omission tactic. When you know full well how someone is going to react keeping them in the dark can be beneficial to all parties involved. I'd liken it to the way you'd respond to your crazy uncle. Just say "OK uncle Jessi" politely dismiss his comment and then get on with whatever you were going to do / say.
To this day I keep him in the dark about my gunniedom. He has no clue how many guns I own, how much ammo I have, that I have a CCW permit, or that I've ever carried a gun. It's easier than dealing with someone who is so obviously emotionally unhinged on the gun issue.
*The real reason of course was projection. He doesn't trust himself with a gun, therefore he doesn't trust his son with one and doesn't want one around.
It's no secret that my dad is very anti-gun. I've talked about it before and discussed it on BB& Guns. Most of you also know that I bought my first gun back in 2007 while I was still in college and living at home. Prior to that purchase I had sat down with he and my mom and discussed my intention to buy a Walther P22.
If you've ever been around someone who is both vehemently anti-gun and narcissistic you can imagine how that "discussion" went. It essentially ended with my father forbidding me from buying a gun, my purchasing a Sig P6 anyway and keeping it in a lockbox in the bedroom. Did I go against his wishes? Sure, but I wasn't about to forgo the correct course of action because of his irrational, emotional, angry ramblings. I should thank Dad one day for keeping me from purchasing a potmetal ZAMAK gun as my first.
Anyway, back to the point of this post. One of the arguments he made back then for why I couldn't buy a gun was that "criminals break into houses looking for guns, so you shouldn't have one." This is, without a doubt one of the most inane positions imaginable. I actually almost laughed at dad when he said this, but I restrained myself since that'd be disrespectful.
The idea that you shouldn't own a product because it's often stolen and used in crime is simply bizarre, yet that was one of dad's key reasons for not wanting a gun in the house.* A huge percentage of traffic fatalities are alcohol related. Does that mean we shouldn't keep booze in the house? Honda Civic's are often stolen, so by Dad's logic no one should own one and I should've gotten rid of mine.
Truth be told Dad was right, guns are a favorite thing for criminals to steal, but you're no more likely to be burglarized due to gun ownership than you would be because you own any other valuable good. I could have said that maybe he should sell his flatscreen HDTV, since that's a favorite of burglars and is just asking to get plucked.
I didn't use the TV argument or anything similar because it was clear there was no point. My dad tends to be emotional and irrational on certain issues and on those issues he's generally ignored by the rest of the family. Not maliciously of course, it's more of a lying by omission tactic. When you know full well how someone is going to react keeping them in the dark can be beneficial to all parties involved. I'd liken it to the way you'd respond to your crazy uncle. Just say "OK uncle Jessi" politely dismiss his comment and then get on with whatever you were going to do / say.
To this day I keep him in the dark about my gunniedom. He has no clue how many guns I own, how much ammo I have, that I have a CCW permit, or that I've ever carried a gun. It's easier than dealing with someone who is so obviously emotionally unhinged on the gun issue.
*The real reason of course was projection. He doesn't trust himself with a gun, therefore he doesn't trust his son with one and doesn't want one around.
The problem with our liberal friends....
Is that they know so many things that just aren't true.
Case in point. A commenter named George W. at this anti-gun post says the following,
"There are lots of countries with sensible (“Crazy? Police record? No gun for you”) gun regulations. People there still own guns, and they are also present in organized crime. But individual violent jerks or crazies have a harder time getting them, and the result is a much lower murder rate. "
So, those countries with "sensible gun regulations" have a much lower murder rate. Lower than what? I'll assume he means lower than the U.S. There's only one problem with his statement. It is, like virtually all arguments in favor of gun control, patently false.
Let's look at the per capita murder rates of countries with "sensible gun regulation." For the purposes of this experiment I'll define "sensible gun regulation" as regulation that is far more strict than what we see in the U.S. Virtually all of the countries on the list have strict gun bans for anyone other than police or military
Here's a list of Murders per capita of 62 nations. The U.S. comes in at #24. I see many gun control paradises on that list which have murder rates above that of the U.S. These are places that would drive Sarah Brady & Paul Helmke crazy with daily orgasmic ecstasy, yet people are being killed at a rate far above that of "gun-crazy" America. Columbia, S. Africa, Jamaica, Mexico, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe are a few of the countries on the list. Jamaica comes in at #3 in the world yet they banned handguns completely in 1974 and they're an island, yet the bloodshed continues. Here's a graph of their murder rate. In 2009 Jamaica had its highest murder rate ever.
So, the U.S. does NOT have a higher murder rate than countries with sensible gun laws. Confirming my statement took only a few seconds typing in "murders per capita country" into Google.
This is why I have trouble respecting the opinions of people who make these kinds of claims. The facts are out there. They can be found in a matter of seconds, yet people interested in restricting my rights keep on spewing their crap.
That said, George appears to be part of the "blame Palin for the AZ shooting" ilk, so I think it's safe to say that providing evidence to back up his claims is not his strongsuit.
H/T to Robb Allen
Case in point. A commenter named George W. at this anti-gun post says the following,
"There are lots of countries with sensible (“Crazy? Police record? No gun for you”) gun regulations. People there still own guns, and they are also present in organized crime. But individual violent jerks or crazies have a harder time getting them, and the result is a much lower murder rate. "
So, those countries with "sensible gun regulations" have a much lower murder rate. Lower than what? I'll assume he means lower than the U.S. There's only one problem with his statement. It is, like virtually all arguments in favor of gun control, patently false.
Let's look at the per capita murder rates of countries with "sensible gun regulation." For the purposes of this experiment I'll define "sensible gun regulation" as regulation that is far more strict than what we see in the U.S. Virtually all of the countries on the list have strict gun bans for anyone other than police or military
Here's a list of Murders per capita of 62 nations. The U.S. comes in at #24. I see many gun control paradises on that list which have murder rates above that of the U.S. These are places that would drive Sarah Brady & Paul Helmke crazy with daily orgasmic ecstasy, yet people are being killed at a rate far above that of "gun-crazy" America. Columbia, S. Africa, Jamaica, Mexico, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe are a few of the countries on the list. Jamaica comes in at #3 in the world yet they banned handguns completely in 1974 and they're an island, yet the bloodshed continues. Here's a graph of their murder rate. In 2009 Jamaica had its highest murder rate ever.
So, the U.S. does NOT have a higher murder rate than countries with sensible gun laws. Confirming my statement took only a few seconds typing in "murders per capita country" into Google.
This is why I have trouble respecting the opinions of people who make these kinds of claims. The facts are out there. They can be found in a matter of seconds, yet people interested in restricting my rights keep on spewing their crap.
That said, George appears to be part of the "blame Palin for the AZ shooting" ilk, so I think it's safe to say that providing evidence to back up his claims is not his strongsuit.
H/T to Robb Allen
Supporting our troops
I received an e-mail from a co-worker this morning and thought I'd pass the information on to you, my readers, in case you'd like to help support this young man.
"On August 5, Jay Raffetto, a young Navy Corpsman, was seriously injured in an IED explosion in Afghanistan. Jay lost both legs above the knee, his left arm above the elbow and three fingers on his right hand. This young man has a long road to recovery and is currently working hard on his rehabilitation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Jay and his wife Emily go to therapy twice a day and are making great progress, emotionally and physically. The military has a very strong support system that is assisting the wounded Corpsman with rehabilitation and occupational therapy and training. However, Jay and Emily now face a lifetime of physical, economic and emotional challenges. "
The event release can be found here.
The donation link can be found here at the upper right of the page. Thanks!
"On August 5, Jay Raffetto, a young Navy Corpsman, was seriously injured in an IED explosion in Afghanistan. Jay lost both legs above the knee, his left arm above the elbow and three fingers on his right hand. This young man has a long road to recovery and is currently working hard on his rehabilitation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Jay and his wife Emily go to therapy twice a day and are making great progress, emotionally and physically. The military has a very strong support system that is assisting the wounded Corpsman with rehabilitation and occupational therapy and training. However, Jay and Emily now face a lifetime of physical, economic and emotional challenges. "
The event release can be found here.
The donation link can be found here at the upper right of the page. Thanks!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Political civility
Despite what some would have you believe, politics has never been civil. There has always been nasty rhetoric, even in 1828. From the Miller Center there's an excerpt from an article about John Quincy Adams and the 1828 Presidential election, and I quote,
"In the popular press, the rhetorical attacks reached a level of cruelty and misrepresentation not seen since the election of 1796. Jackson was accused of multiple murders, of extreme personal violence, and of having lived in sin with his wife, Rachel. Adams, on the other hand, was attacked for his legalistic attitudes and reportedly for having procured young American virgins for the Russian czar as the primary achievement of his diplomatic career. Adams's critics referred to him as "His Excellency" while Jackson came under attack as an ill-mannered, barely civilized backwoods killer of Indians."
Angry, often untrue rhetoric has always been a part of political discourse. People need to man up, quit their complaining and grow some thicker skin. Hell, Adams was accused of being an adulterer and a pimp for the Russian Czar. That's some juicy stuff!
"In the popular press, the rhetorical attacks reached a level of cruelty and misrepresentation not seen since the election of 1796. Jackson was accused of multiple murders, of extreme personal violence, and of having lived in sin with his wife, Rachel. Adams, on the other hand, was attacked for his legalistic attitudes and reportedly for having procured young American virgins for the Russian czar as the primary achievement of his diplomatic career. Adams's critics referred to him as "His Excellency" while Jackson came under attack as an ill-mannered, barely civilized backwoods killer of Indians."
Angry, often untrue rhetoric has always been a part of political discourse. People need to man up, quit their complaining and grow some thicker skin. Hell, Adams was accused of being an adulterer and a pimp for the Russian Czar. That's some juicy stuff!
On political discourse
First a few quotes.
The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press have not been granted to the people in order that they may say things which please, and which are based upon accepted thought, but the right to say the things which displease, the right to say the things which convey the new and yet unexpected thoughts, the right to say things, even though they do a wrong. "
– Samuel Gompers
And now a contemporary quote from Jack Shafer writing at Slate
"Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me. "
-Jack Shafer
Amen! The Left is calling for those who oppose them to cool down the rhetoric. They're blaming any political opponent they can think of for the AZ shooting without any evidence. I have two words for those degenerates on the Left. Fuck you! Blaming myself and most of the folks on my blogroll for the shooting in Arizona only further inflames political discourse.
Has the Left learned nothing? Are they really this stupid? Apparently they don't realize that telling their political opponents and fellow Americans to shut up and then attempting to muzzle them will only make them want to speak out more. Treating them like accomplices to murder because they dare speak out against the most unfavorable Congress in American history does nothing to further civil discourse, rather it foments anger and discontent. As for anger and rhetoric, blaming myself and millions of other gun owners for the actions of a nutjob is only going to create well deserved anger and defensiveness amongst those being attacked.
You speak of toning down angry rhetoric. Look in the mirror first. Stop blatantly attacking Tea Partiers, gun owners, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone who dares speak out against the Progressive agenda. Stop collectively blaming us for the actions of others without any evidence. Spewing angry, nasty vitriol is what the Left does at both a macro (MSM) and micro (bloggers) level. Don't believe me? just take a look in my archives to see some of the despicable personal attacks levied against me by, you guessed it, Liberals. Take a look at the violent rhetoric of the Left or of President Obama himself.
The Left should know this. Don't expect those of us who don't want your utopia thrust upon us to sit back and take it just because some crazy asshole decided to start shooting. We will not be silenced. If there's one action that's sure to make us angry it's blatantly unconsitutitonal attempts to deprive us of our rights, especially our right to call you all a bunch of festering assbags who couldn't find the Bill of Rights if we posted it permanently on Obama's teleprompter.
If there is one thing the Left hates more than anything (even the 2nd Amendment) it is dissenting speech, which is why Bob Brady (D) wants to introduce a bill to criminalize free speech. Another Dem, Jim Clyburn wants to try to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine.
You knew it was coming. You didn't really think the Democrats would let a crisis go to waste when they could use it as an opportunity to quell dissent and muzzle opposing voices of the people, did you?
Also, Democrats with no respect for the 1st Amendment! This is my shocked face!
The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press have not been granted to the people in order that they may say things which please, and which are based upon accepted thought, but the right to say the things which displease, the right to say the things which convey the new and yet unexpected thoughts, the right to say things, even though they do a wrong. "
– Samuel Gompers
And now a contemporary quote from Jack Shafer writing at Slate
"Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and, yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me. "
-Jack Shafer
Amen! The Left is calling for those who oppose them to cool down the rhetoric. They're blaming any political opponent they can think of for the AZ shooting without any evidence. I have two words for those degenerates on the Left. Fuck you! Blaming myself and most of the folks on my blogroll for the shooting in Arizona only further inflames political discourse.
Has the Left learned nothing? Are they really this stupid? Apparently they don't realize that telling their political opponents and fellow Americans to shut up and then attempting to muzzle them will only make them want to speak out more. Treating them like accomplices to murder because they dare speak out against the most unfavorable Congress in American history does nothing to further civil discourse, rather it foments anger and discontent. As for anger and rhetoric, blaming myself and millions of other gun owners for the actions of a nutjob is only going to create well deserved anger and defensiveness amongst those being attacked.
You speak of toning down angry rhetoric. Look in the mirror first. Stop blatantly attacking Tea Partiers, gun owners, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone who dares speak out against the Progressive agenda. Stop collectively blaming us for the actions of others without any evidence. Spewing angry, nasty vitriol is what the Left does at both a macro (MSM) and micro (bloggers) level. Don't believe me? just take a look in my archives to see some of the despicable personal attacks levied against me by, you guessed it, Liberals. Take a look at the violent rhetoric of the Left or of President Obama himself.
The Left should know this. Don't expect those of us who don't want your utopia thrust upon us to sit back and take it just because some crazy asshole decided to start shooting. We will not be silenced. If there's one action that's sure to make us angry it's blatantly unconsitutitonal attempts to deprive us of our rights, especially our right to call you all a bunch of festering assbags who couldn't find the Bill of Rights if we posted it permanently on Obama's teleprompter.
If there is one thing the Left hates more than anything (even the 2nd Amendment) it is dissenting speech, which is why Bob Brady (D) wants to introduce a bill to criminalize free speech. Another Dem, Jim Clyburn wants to try to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine.
You knew it was coming. You didn't really think the Democrats would let a crisis go to waste when they could use it as an opportunity to quell dissent and muzzle opposing voices of the people, did you?
Also, Democrats with no respect for the 1st Amendment! This is my shocked face!
Well taught
This past weekend I was over at my big sis's house getting ready to head south to visit my oldest nephew.
I'm in the garage with her two boys and the younger one picks up a big stick, points it at me with a big smile and says "bang, bang, bang." His older brother responds with. "Jonathan! Don't point guns at uncle Michael! We don't point guns at people."
My sister's husband owns guns, but the youngest doesn't have any exposure to them yet as far as I know. That will probably change in a couple of years.
It's sad, but I'd trust any of my nephews 5 or older with a gun before I'd trust my dad. They exhibit responsiblity & knowledge regarding this topic. My dad, through both words and actions has demonstrated the opposite. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that my young nephews understand the basic concept of "don't point guns at people" while dad has demonstrated wanton disregard for such a concept in the past.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
I'm in the garage with her two boys and the younger one picks up a big stick, points it at me with a big smile and says "bang, bang, bang." His older brother responds with. "Jonathan! Don't point guns at uncle Michael! We don't point guns at people."
My sister's husband owns guns, but the youngest doesn't have any exposure to them yet as far as I know. That will probably change in a couple of years.
It's sad, but I'd trust any of my nephews 5 or older with a gun before I'd trust my dad. They exhibit responsiblity & knowledge regarding this topic. My dad, through both words and actions has demonstrated the opposite. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that my young nephews understand the basic concept of "don't point guns at people" while dad has demonstrated wanton disregard for such a concept in the past.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Monday, January 10, 2011
Two Classes
A few weeks ago Alan said this about the chasm between the ruling/political class and the people
"In almost every issue, what the political class wants is the opposite of what the people want. The government of the United States no longer represents or listens to the will of the people."
In my opinion that's the biggest problem with folks in Washington. They think they're special and that we exist to provide them with power.
Uncle has a good example of just how special the political class thinks they are. They seem to think they should be able to carry guns for protection. I say let em walk around with NO protection whatsoever. If you're passing laws that prohibit me from carrying an effective means of self-defense you sure as hell don't deserve to be able to carry, especially in places where I can't. You want to carry in DC? Fine, you can do so the moment I can legally OC and/or CCW throughout the District of Columbia. Until then politicians should have to live under the same BS civil liberty infringements I'm forced to.
"In almost every issue, what the political class wants is the opposite of what the people want. The government of the United States no longer represents or listens to the will of the people."
In my opinion that's the biggest problem with folks in Washington. They think they're special and that we exist to provide them with power.
Uncle has a good example of just how special the political class thinks they are. They seem to think they should be able to carry guns for protection. I say let em walk around with NO protection whatsoever. If you're passing laws that prohibit me from carrying an effective means of self-defense you sure as hell don't deserve to be able to carry, especially in places where I can't. You want to carry in DC? Fine, you can do so the moment I can legally OC and/or CCW throughout the District of Columbia. Until then politicians should have to live under the same BS civil liberty infringements I'm forced to.
Quotes of the day - AZ Shooting
I think these two articles say it far better than I could, so I'll leave you with two quotes, two links, and very light commentary. The first, from Glenn Reynolds at the Wall Street Journal
"Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don't help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder."
That sums things up beautifully. The left isn't interested in civil discourse. They're ignoring facts and using this as an excuse to attack their opponents. They have no shame.
The next, from Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel writing at The Daily Caller,
"Seize the tragedy for political gain. Blur the distinction between speech and violence. Bully the other side into silence. These were instinctive reactions of some on the Left to Saturday’s shootings. As the rest of us stood transfixed and horrified by the scale of human suffering, they were plotting a propaganda campaign."
They're right, this is what the ;eft does. It's their standard tactics. They survive on lies, misinformation and propaganda. As Rahm Emanuel once said,
"You don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”
Those on the Left and the bigots at the Brady Campaign haven't wasted any time before dancing in the blood of the dead. It is truly despicable behavior, yet entirely unsurprising.
H/T to Breda and Mary Katherine Ham.
"Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don't help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder."
That sums things up beautifully. The left isn't interested in civil discourse. They're ignoring facts and using this as an excuse to attack their opponents. They have no shame.
The next, from Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel writing at The Daily Caller,
"Seize the tragedy for political gain. Blur the distinction between speech and violence. Bully the other side into silence. These were instinctive reactions of some on the Left to Saturday’s shootings. As the rest of us stood transfixed and horrified by the scale of human suffering, they were plotting a propaganda campaign."
They're right, this is what the ;eft does. It's their standard tactics. They survive on lies, misinformation and propaganda. As Rahm Emanuel once said,
"You don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”
Those on the Left and the bigots at the Brady Campaign haven't wasted any time before dancing in the blood of the dead. It is truly despicable behavior, yet entirely unsurprising.
H/T to Breda and Mary Katherine Ham.
Shared Responsibility
This was an old post from April that sat in drafts. I'm posting an edited/updated version now due to recent events.
Greenpeace posted a call to violent action on their blog. Now, if any Greenpeace supporters, or anyone who could possibly be tangentally connected to Greenpeace, does something even remotely threatening or violent will the Left go hysterical and denounce Greenpeace?
Think they'll treat Greenpeace the way they do Limbaugh, Beck, or anyone who's not a member of the leftist mainstream media?
Liberals constantly tell me that right-wing pundits should be held accountable for the actions of any violent 3rd party. They will never apply this "logic" to any person or group on the left. What they really want is to silence those with whom they disagree.
My Grandpa for example has told me that when GWB invaded Iraq no one on the left responded with violence or threats of violence. I have to wonder how an otherwise intelligent man can make such a statement. I suppose there's a great deal of truth to the fact that people see only that which they choose to see. It's as if in his mind the violent, seething hatred of President Bush simply didn't exist. We'll ignore the fact that the Iraq Resolution enjoyed a great deal of bipartisan support.
There was plenty of violence and threats from the left, and plenty of extremist rhetoric, he just chose not to see or believe it. I seem to remember 2002 anti-Bush protests in Portland, OR that were far more unruly, violent, and threatening than any Tea Party rally we've seen. Likenesses of George Bush and Sarah Palin have been hung and burned in effigy. None of this violent behavior on the left was portrayed by the MSM as some kind of systemic, widespread hate or extremism that applied to the entire Democratic party. When it was reported at all it was brushed aside as insignificant.
Hell, anyone remember the movie about the Assasination of GWB, which came out while he was still in office? I think we all know what the MSM's reaction would be if a Conservative put out a similar movie about Obama this year. I'm sick of the double standard.
Thank God for the internet, which allows us to highlight the disgusting hypocrisy of the left when it comes to hate speech, violence and violent rhetoric. If you think I'm kidding go see Michelle Malkin's post. She does an excellent job detailing violent rhetoric and imagery coming from the left. There's violent rhetoric and imagery coming from folks all over the political spectrum, and when some paranoid schitzophrenic kook starts shooting it's not the fault of the pundits.
Ultimately, left or right shouldn't matter. Crazy is as crazy does and Loughtner was crazy. His ramblings on Youtube were all over the political spectrum. That said, and Mein Kampf & The Communist Manifesto aren't exactly favorite literature of your average Tea Party supporter.
The problem is that for the MSM left or right does matter, since their goal is to smear anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with progressive ideals. Anytime something like this AZ shooting happens it's the fault of violent rhetoric from the right and of course the fault of the tool used. It's Palin, it's Beck, it's Limbaugh, it's the gun, it's the 2nd Amendments fault. For some reason no one on the left will place the responsibility where it ultimately lies, on the shooter.
I suppose placing the blame for one's actions directly on the person in question would be far too damaging to the political ideology of the left. It simply wouldn't help further the progressive cause. Besides, you can't score cheap political points by doing that.
Greenpeace posted a call to violent action on their blog. Now, if any Greenpeace supporters, or anyone who could possibly be tangentally connected to Greenpeace, does something even remotely threatening or violent will the Left go hysterical and denounce Greenpeace?
Think they'll treat Greenpeace the way they do Limbaugh, Beck, or anyone who's not a member of the leftist mainstream media?
Liberals constantly tell me that right-wing pundits should be held accountable for the actions of any violent 3rd party. They will never apply this "logic" to any person or group on the left. What they really want is to silence those with whom they disagree.
My Grandpa for example has told me that when GWB invaded Iraq no one on the left responded with violence or threats of violence. I have to wonder how an otherwise intelligent man can make such a statement. I suppose there's a great deal of truth to the fact that people see only that which they choose to see. It's as if in his mind the violent, seething hatred of President Bush simply didn't exist. We'll ignore the fact that the Iraq Resolution enjoyed a great deal of bipartisan support.
There was plenty of violence and threats from the left, and plenty of extremist rhetoric, he just chose not to see or believe it. I seem to remember 2002 anti-Bush protests in Portland, OR that were far more unruly, violent, and threatening than any Tea Party rally we've seen. Likenesses of George Bush and Sarah Palin have been hung and burned in effigy. None of this violent behavior on the left was portrayed by the MSM as some kind of systemic, widespread hate or extremism that applied to the entire Democratic party. When it was reported at all it was brushed aside as insignificant.
Hell, anyone remember the movie about the Assasination of GWB, which came out while he was still in office? I think we all know what the MSM's reaction would be if a Conservative put out a similar movie about Obama this year. I'm sick of the double standard.
Thank God for the internet, which allows us to highlight the disgusting hypocrisy of the left when it comes to hate speech, violence and violent rhetoric. If you think I'm kidding go see Michelle Malkin's post. She does an excellent job detailing violent rhetoric and imagery coming from the left. There's violent rhetoric and imagery coming from folks all over the political spectrum, and when some paranoid schitzophrenic kook starts shooting it's not the fault of the pundits.
Ultimately, left or right shouldn't matter. Crazy is as crazy does and Loughtner was crazy. His ramblings on Youtube were all over the political spectrum. That said, and Mein Kampf & The Communist Manifesto aren't exactly favorite literature of your average Tea Party supporter.
The problem is that for the MSM left or right does matter, since their goal is to smear anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with progressive ideals. Anytime something like this AZ shooting happens it's the fault of violent rhetoric from the right and of course the fault of the tool used. It's Palin, it's Beck, it's Limbaugh, it's the gun, it's the 2nd Amendments fault. For some reason no one on the left will place the responsibility where it ultimately lies, on the shooter.
I suppose placing the blame for one's actions directly on the person in question would be far too damaging to the political ideology of the left. It simply wouldn't help further the progressive cause. Besides, you can't score cheap political points by doing that.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Quote of the day - hearts & butts
"I love you with all my butt. I'd say my heart but my butt's bigger."
-unknown - heard this over the weekend. I don't know where it came from butt I chuckled.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
-unknown - heard this over the weekend. I don't know where it came from butt I chuckled.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Friday, January 7, 2011
Welcome to the club!
TD's main squeeze Carrie has her own blog. She dyes her hair crazy colors, craves big recoil and most impressively, puts up with TD. That means she has to be awesome, right? I'm glad to see another lady gunblogger join the ranks.
She had this to say in her inaugural post,
"I was always a fan of the Second Amendment in theory, and I supported other people’s right to own, shoot, and carry firearms, but my personal interest could be called casual at best."
I pretty much started the same way. I was a gun nut in theory, and an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment for quite some time before owning or even shooting a gun.
She had this to say in her inaugural post,
"I was always a fan of the Second Amendment in theory, and I supported other people’s right to own, shoot, and carry firearms, but my personal interest could be called casual at best."
I pretty much started the same way. I was a gun nut in theory, and an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment for quite some time before owning or even shooting a gun.
Heh
Alan has been carrying a gun since 1984. That's longer than I've been alive. Man he's old.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Quote of the day - Contempt
"A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
That certainly explains nanny-staters and liberals.
-Alexis de Tocqueville
That certainly explains nanny-staters and liberals.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Dangerous Victims
This incident occurred about 5 minutes from me. Some thugs here in Delaware decided to burglarize an old man's house. Unfortunately for them this 82 year old man had both the means and will to fight back.
The police of course told him he shouldn't have taken matters into his own hands, and I quote NCC officer Weglars,
"Taking the situation into your own hands, you could get hurt," he said. "You also have the possibility of someone else getting injured."
Officer Hale of the DSP had similar advice,
"Obviously, it's something we don't recommend any victim of crime do. It could end with the loss of lives."
Officer Hale is correct. Two burglars could have lost their lives and ended up at room temperature in short order. What a tragedy that would've been.
Yes, doing what Harper did could have gotten him hurt, but so could showing up at the house unarmed while it was being burglarized. I often here the claim that victims shouldn't resist because "property isn't worth dying over." That's true, it's not. That's something burglars should consider before deciding to take what's not theirs. Perhaps these two criminals now understand this, since they came very close to being full of multiple .22 diameter preforations.
There's a burglary in progress occurring at his residence. If one of those officers was armed and in his shoes having their own residence burglarized do you think they'd call it in and wait for fellow officers or do you think they'd try and stop it?
Is he supposed to sit, watch & wait for the cops, who probably won't catch the guys or recover his stolen property? Obviously it's up to the victim to decide which course of action to take in a given situation. That said, in the state of Delaware it is lawful to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Burglary is a forcible felony.
The last bit from Mr. Harper says it all.
"Harper said he hopes not to be a victim again, adding, "I'm fed up with all this thievin'."
Somehow I bet these thieves will remember Mr. Harper pointing a gun at them and saying,
"If it moves toward me, the driver gets one right between the eyes."
Good job Mr. Harper! You remind me of my 87 year old poppop. Small, doesn't look like much, but feisty as all hell. Poppop has fought off at least two muggers in the past decade and years ago put two home invaders in the hospital armed with a bat and an iron skillet. Sometimes old dudes are far more dangerous than they appear.
The police of course told him he shouldn't have taken matters into his own hands, and I quote NCC officer Weglars,
"Taking the situation into your own hands, you could get hurt," he said. "You also have the possibility of someone else getting injured."
Officer Hale of the DSP had similar advice,
"Obviously, it's something we don't recommend any victim of crime do. It could end with the loss of lives."
Officer Hale is correct. Two burglars could have lost their lives and ended up at room temperature in short order. What a tragedy that would've been.
Yes, doing what Harper did could have gotten him hurt, but so could showing up at the house unarmed while it was being burglarized. I often here the claim that victims shouldn't resist because "property isn't worth dying over." That's true, it's not. That's something burglars should consider before deciding to take what's not theirs. Perhaps these two criminals now understand this, since they came very close to being full of multiple .22 diameter preforations.
There's a burglary in progress occurring at his residence. If one of those officers was armed and in his shoes having their own residence burglarized do you think they'd call it in and wait for fellow officers or do you think they'd try and stop it?
Is he supposed to sit, watch & wait for the cops, who probably won't catch the guys or recover his stolen property? Obviously it's up to the victim to decide which course of action to take in a given situation. That said, in the state of Delaware it is lawful to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Burglary is a forcible felony.
The last bit from Mr. Harper says it all.
"Harper said he hopes not to be a victim again, adding, "I'm fed up with all this thievin'."
Somehow I bet these thieves will remember Mr. Harper pointing a gun at them and saying,
"If it moves toward me, the driver gets one right between the eyes."
Good job Mr. Harper! You remind me of my 87 year old poppop. Small, doesn't look like much, but feisty as all hell. Poppop has fought off at least two muggers in the past decade and years ago put two home invaders in the hospital armed with a bat and an iron skillet. Sometimes old dudes are far more dangerous than they appear.
BB & Guns - Poppin' Your Cherry
Breda & Jay G. will be on BB & Guns tonight at 8PM EST talking about CCW, including stories about your first time. So call in to the show and tell them all about how you popped your carry cherry.
My first time was with a person who would've flown off their rocker if they'd known about the Sig on my left hip. It was also in an evil place where guns should not be carried..... oh noes!
My first time was with a person who would've flown off their rocker if they'd known about the Sig on my left hip. It was also in an evil place where guns should not be carried..... oh noes!
Stupid question
"Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand? I mean, is it a nod to the Tea Party?"
-The View's Joy Behar
I sure as hell hope the Constitution-loving is getting out of hand. If loving the document that secures the freedoms I enjoy is something that gets your panties in a bunch you can always go live somewhere that doesn't have a Constitution protecting individual liberty.
I mean hell, abiding by the Constitution is only the job of our elected representatives. I don't expect any of them to do a stellar job of it, but there's certainly nothing out of hand about it. I'm sorry if Joy would rather they shit all over it because "it's just a goddamn piece of paper."
H/T to Newsbusters
-The View's Joy Behar
I sure as hell hope the Constitution-loving is getting out of hand. If loving the document that secures the freedoms I enjoy is something that gets your panties in a bunch you can always go live somewhere that doesn't have a Constitution protecting individual liberty.
I mean hell, abiding by the Constitution is only the job of our elected representatives. I don't expect any of them to do a stellar job of it, but there's certainly nothing out of hand about it. I'm sorry if Joy would rather they shit all over it because "it's just a goddamn piece of paper."
H/T to Newsbusters
They Have No Answer
The Democrats have no substantive answer to the Tea Party movement, so what do they do? Oh, just attack the American voters who comprise it. From the mouth of Democrat Steny Hoyer,
So, because a large segment of the American populace fundamentally disagrees with you on substantive policy issues they must live in unhappy families? Might as well presume they're all cousin humping rednecks who beat their wives too. That'd have as much basis in reality as Hoyer's moronic presumption. Sigh, this is what I've come to expect from the left.
As for "compromise" well no, we don't want to "compromise" with you. We sure as hell don't want to move forward in the direction the progressives want to take us. I think we sent that message loud & clear during the midterm elections. Besides, liberals, in their typical fashion of having problems with simple definitions, do not understand the meaning of compromise. Even if they did understand it, one should never compromise on basic, fundamental principles. If we compromise on the American ideals of freedom, liberty, or property rights we are left with nothing except a smaller piece of cake to steal the next time they get a sweet tooth for what's ours.
Go get bent Mr. Hoyer.
H/T to Hotair
"There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families. All of you have been in families: single-parent, two-parents, whatever. Multiple parent and a stepfather. The fact is life is about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward. That is certainly what democracy is about. So if we are going to move forward compromise is necessary."
So, because a large segment of the American populace fundamentally disagrees with you on substantive policy issues they must live in unhappy families? Might as well presume they're all cousin humping rednecks who beat their wives too. That'd have as much basis in reality as Hoyer's moronic presumption. Sigh, this is what I've come to expect from the left.
As for "compromise" well no, we don't want to "compromise" with you. We sure as hell don't want to move forward in the direction the progressives want to take us. I think we sent that message loud & clear during the midterm elections. Besides, liberals, in their typical fashion of having problems with simple definitions, do not understand the meaning of compromise. Even if they did understand it, one should never compromise on basic, fundamental principles. If we compromise on the American ideals of freedom, liberty, or property rights we are left with nothing except a smaller piece of cake to steal the next time they get a sweet tooth for what's ours.
Go get bent Mr. Hoyer.
H/T to Hotair
Quote of the day - force
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-George Washington
That's absolutely true and unbelievably simple, yet it's a concept that so many fail to grasp. The government is not your friend. Everything they do is predicated upon the use of force against you.
-George Washington
That's absolutely true and unbelievably simple, yet it's a concept that so many fail to grasp. The government is not your friend. Everything they do is predicated upon the use of force against you.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Never Happened
This obviously never happened today in Omaha, since we all know school shootings can't happen in "Gun Free Zones."
Also, the automated message system kept everyone safe...
Also, the automated message system kept everyone safe...
What the Feck?
I've had Feckin' Irish Whiskey before. I bought some on St. Patty's day last year to be exact. It's pretty good and a bit cheaper than Jameson, plus the name is just feckin' sweet!
This however, well I'm not sure what to make of it? Spiced vanilla whiskey? Spiced rum? OK. Flavored vodka? fine. Who the feck makes spiced vanilla whiskey? Maybe it's just me, but whiskey is supposed to be whiskey. Don't feck it up.
This however, well I'm not sure what to make of it? Spiced vanilla whiskey? Spiced rum? OK. Flavored vodka? fine. Who the feck makes spiced vanilla whiskey? Maybe it's just me, but whiskey is supposed to be whiskey. Don't feck it up.
Big Bang!
Ctone shoots some big ass fireballs from a Mosin. That's not quite as awesome as being able to shoot lightining bolts from your arse like William Wallace, but it's close! Pretty cool!
Ruger LC-9
So it seems everyone has been talking about Ruger's new compact 9mm, the LC-9. I'm unimpressed. I could just buy a Kahr CW9 that has virtually identical weight and dimensions and a similar price. The Kahr also comes without a thumb safety or a magazine disconnect, two things I absolutely hate on a DAO or DA/SA carry gun. As far as I'm concerned they're just extra fail points that could keep my gun from going bang when I really need it. Murphy's a bitch y'know.
I'll admit that I do have a gun with both of those "features." My Firestorm FS22 has the dreaded mag disconnect. It also has a slide mounted thumb safety with the added "feature" of preventing rearward slide motion when engaged. I only ever use the thumb safety as a decocker and wish that's all it was. I'm not saying don't buy a gun because of such safeties, only that I personally don't care for them.
Also, the thing looks like a Kel-Tec. Ugly as sin.
I'm similarly unimpressed by the new Sig P290, but I'd like to do a separate post on small guns so that'll have to wait.
H/T to Caleb
I'll admit that I do have a gun with both of those "features." My Firestorm FS22 has the dreaded mag disconnect. It also has a slide mounted thumb safety with the added "feature" of preventing rearward slide motion when engaged. I only ever use the thumb safety as a decocker and wish that's all it was. I'm not saying don't buy a gun because of such safeties, only that I personally don't care for them.
Also, the thing looks like a Kel-Tec. Ugly as sin.
I'm similarly unimpressed by the new Sig P290, but I'd like to do a separate post on small guns so that'll have to wait.
H/T to Caleb
Sans Doodads
Uncle picks up a new gun, a S&W M&P9 with none of the silly, stupid "safety" doodads I hate so much.*
I didn't realize S&W actually printed "Caution - capable of firing with magazine removed" on the damn slide. All of my Sigs are capable of doing that. It's a feature not a bug. Is gun, goes bang! If there's a round chambered I want it going off when I pull the trigger. It's a simple concept really. I'd be pretty pissed if my Sigs had a warning like that on the slide. That said, M&P's are nice guns. Good pickup Uncle!
*I really should write a post on that, even though Weer'd covered it pretty well.
I didn't realize S&W actually printed "Caution - capable of firing with magazine removed" on the damn slide. All of my Sigs are capable of doing that. It's a feature not a bug. Is gun, goes bang! If there's a round chambered I want it going off when I pull the trigger. It's a simple concept really. I'd be pretty pissed if my Sigs had a warning like that on the slide. That said, M&P's are nice guns. Good pickup Uncle!
*I really should write a post on that, even though Weer'd covered it pretty well.
Quote of The Day - Master or Servant?
"In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant."
– Charles de Gaulle
If there's one term I absolutely hate it's "public servant." Politicians, by and large, do not serve the public. They exist to curtail freedom and serve themselves.
– Charles de Gaulle
If there's one term I absolutely hate it's "public servant." Politicians, by and large, do not serve the public. They exist to curtail freedom and serve themselves.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
2011 - 100 years of JMB's 1911
2011 is the 100th anniversary of the 1911, quite possibly John Moses Browning's greatest contribution to mankind.
Will 2011 be the year I buy my first 1911? I sure as hell hope so. If I do it'll be of the go big or go home variety. No offense to anyone who has one, but I have little interest in a low-end RIA or similar 1911. I'd really like a Dan Wesson PM-7.
Will 2011 be the year I buy my first 1911? I sure as hell hope so. If I do it'll be of the go big or go home variety. No offense to anyone who has one, but I have little interest in a low-end RIA or similar 1911. I'd really like a Dan Wesson PM-7.
Quote of the day - Saying it well
"I write this weblog for myself, but it would be a lot less interesting and engaging if it were not for feedback from you folks… Thanks for your comments, visits, and feedback throughout the years. "
- Linoge of Walls of The City
Very well put. I too write here primarily for myself, but the folks who come here and comment or send me e-mails absolutely enrich the experience. I hope that feeling is mutual.
- Linoge of Walls of The City
Very well put. I too write here primarily for myself, but the folks who come here and comment or send me e-mails absolutely enrich the experience. I hope that feeling is mutual.
Monday, January 3, 2011
If it keeps him from governing...
...I'm all for it. So far, in his first two years in office President Obama has played twice as much golf as President Bush did through his 8 years in office. Now, I could really care less how much golf Obama plays. If I were him I'd want to get away from Michelle too, and hell, if it keeps him from continuing to try and ruin this country he should keep it up.
What I do find interesting is the double standard of the media here. How often did the liberal mainstream media bash President Bush for playing golf? Olbermann did it every chance he could.
H/T to Gateway Pundit
What I do find interesting is the double standard of the media here. How often did the liberal mainstream media bash President Bush for playing golf? Olbermann did it every chance he could.
H/T to Gateway Pundit
Facts Illustrated
Linoge provides a great graph (in color!) for all you visual learners out there. More guns do not equal more gun violence. Imagine that!
Of course the fact that we've had record firearms sales the past 3 years and haven't seen violent crime rates rise during that same time period is also a pretty good indicator of what Linoge ultimately concludes.
Of course the fact that we've had record firearms sales the past 3 years and haven't seen violent crime rates rise during that same time period is also a pretty good indicator of what Linoge ultimately concludes.
Quote of the day - Nature of government
"Government, like any other organism, refuses to acquiesce in its own extinction. This refusal, of course, involves the resistance to any effort to diminish its powers and prerogatives. There has been no organized effort to keep government down since Jefferson's day. Ever since then the American people have been bolstering up its powers and giving it more and more jurisdiction over their affairs. They pay for that folly in increased taxes and diminished liberties. No government as such is ever in favor of the freedom of the individual. It invariably seeks to limit that freedom, if not by overt denial, then by seeking constantly to widen its own functions."
- H.L. Mencken
Mencken died in 1956. I wonder what he would say about the government we have today?
- H.L. Mencken
Mencken died in 1956. I wonder what he would say about the government we have today?
Resolutions
I don't really do New Year's resolutions, but this year I do have a few small goals in mind.
1. Get in better shape. Started this one early, about 5 weeks ago and have been hitting the gym several times a week for the past 5 weeks. So far this one's a success.
2. Try new beers, specifically IPA's. There are a handful of beers I really like, so when I hit the store I tend to get the same thing all the time. I've already started this by trying the "Brew Free or Die IPA over the weekend." I intend to pickup a big bottle of Dogfish Head Squall IPA sometime soon, as it comes highly recommended to me by folks whose opinions I trust. If any fellow Dogfish fans would like some or have requests for brews they can't get I've got no problem buying stuff for people who will be in Pittsburgh this year. Just shoot me an e-mail.
3. Get to the range more often. This includes bringing new shooters to the range. Between health issues that turned out just to be stress/anxiety, a car accident, nagging injuries and more pain than even I'm used to it really wasn't a good year from a gunnie standpoint.
4. Go back to school - I really should get my butt back in school this year. Need I say more?
What are your resolutions / plans for 2011?
1. Get in better shape. Started this one early, about 5 weeks ago and have been hitting the gym several times a week for the past 5 weeks. So far this one's a success.
2. Try new beers, specifically IPA's. There are a handful of beers I really like, so when I hit the store I tend to get the same thing all the time. I've already started this by trying the "Brew Free or Die IPA over the weekend." I intend to pickup a big bottle of Dogfish Head Squall IPA sometime soon, as it comes highly recommended to me by folks whose opinions I trust. If any fellow Dogfish fans would like some or have requests for brews they can't get I've got no problem buying stuff for people who will be in Pittsburgh this year. Just shoot me an e-mail.
3. Get to the range more often. This includes bringing new shooters to the range. Between health issues that turned out just to be stress/anxiety, a car accident, nagging injuries and more pain than even I'm used to it really wasn't a good year from a gunnie standpoint.
4. Go back to school - I really should get my butt back in school this year. Need I say more?
What are your resolutions / plans for 2011?
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Brew Free Or Die..... drinking
So I was at the liquor store earlier this week and I saw this interesting looking 6 pack microbrew.....in cans. It was just sitting there by it's lonesome, totally out of place so I had to pick it up.
The package says this beer starts with "a sucker punch of six different hops to the nose.". They were right.
I was anticipating a taste to match the smell and was a little let down. I was expecting more flavor and a heavier mouthfeel, yet this tasted light and easily quaffable for an IPA of 7% ABV.
I'll admit that I'm new to IPA's and the only one I have a taste for so far is Dogfish Head's 90 Minute IPA. Maybe I'm selling Brew Free or Die IPA short since I'm using the Dogfish for comparison.
It honestly wasn't bad, just wasn't everything I thought it'd be. Pickup a can and try it out if they have some near you. Buy at least one for the kickass name alone!
Expect some more beer blogging here in the near future.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Other than the homebrew the Nerds made for Breda this is one of the best beer names I've ever heard.
Live Free or Die IPA from 21st Amendment brewery.
Live Free or Die IPA from 21st Amendment brewery.
The package says this beer starts with "a sucker punch of six different hops to the nose.". They were right.
I was anticipating a taste to match the smell and was a little let down. I was expecting more flavor and a heavier mouthfeel, yet this tasted light and easily quaffable for an IPA of 7% ABV.
I'll admit that I'm new to IPA's and the only one I have a taste for so far is Dogfish Head's 90 Minute IPA. Maybe I'm selling Brew Free or Die IPA short since I'm using the Dogfish for comparison.
It honestly wasn't bad, just wasn't everything I thought it'd be. Pickup a can and try it out if they have some near you. Buy at least one for the kickass name alone!
Expect some more beer blogging here in the near future.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Saturday, January 1, 2011
TSA Propaganda
Earlier this week was the first time I'd been in an airport since the new screening procedures and nekkid machines went into effect. I had to bring my Poppop to PHL to send him off on his winter escape to Chile.
Prominently displayed on flatscreens above the screening area were videos touting the effectiveness and efficacy of TSA, with obvious emphasis on how they are "professionals" keeping us safe. This prompted my mother to rant about how utterly useless and incompetent the TSA is and I mentioned that they're treating Americans like children, engaging in group punishment like we are all preschoolers. She immediately made the connection to gun control and how it is similarly ineffective. You have no idea how proud that makes me.
There's nothing like watching your 87 year old grandpa go through that BS. It really puts you in a bad mood. We were worried he might miss his flight, so mom inquired about getting a gate pass so we could go through security and go to the gate with him. I leaned over to her and said "I can't do that. I won't make it through security." She looked at me blankly for a second, then nonchalantly asked "you're carrying?" Ah, she has come so far.
Prominently displayed on flatscreens above the screening area were videos touting the effectiveness and efficacy of TSA, with obvious emphasis on how they are "professionals" keeping us safe. This prompted my mother to rant about how utterly useless and incompetent the TSA is and I mentioned that they're treating Americans like children, engaging in group punishment like we are all preschoolers. She immediately made the connection to gun control and how it is similarly ineffective. You have no idea how proud that makes me.
There's nothing like watching your 87 year old grandpa go through that BS. It really puts you in a bad mood. We were worried he might miss his flight, so mom inquired about getting a gate pass so we could go through security and go to the gate with him. I leaned over to her and said "I can't do that. I won't make it through security." She looked at me blankly for a second, then nonchalantly asked "you're carrying?" Ah, she has come so far.
2011 and porking already
I honestly don't eat bacon very often, but I might have some of this to celebrate the start of what I hope will be a great year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
