Obama says it's easier to get a gun than it is fresh vegetables. I give up. Where can I buy gun seeds?
— Doug Rink (@TalkSouthRadio) October 31, 2015
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Grow your own
One last cut-n-paste post before I move on to other things on this fine Saturday morning...
Government: Pumpkins are destroying the planet
It seems Obama's crazed regime finds climate change villainy in every aspect of the eco-system. Except, of course, the flagrant carbon footprint of Air Force One.
Obama's Department of Energy now deems it necessary to denounce pumpkins as agents of global warming.
I find today's government far more scary than any planet consuming Jack o' Lantern will ever be.
Obama's Department of Energy now deems it necessary to denounce pumpkins as agents of global warming.
I find today's government far more scary than any planet consuming Jack o' Lantern will ever be.
"Armor of Light" just another stab at anti-gun indoctrination.
The anti-gun lobby is trying to make the most of Abigail Disney's (Walt's grandniece) anti-gun documentary that tries to make the most of the premise that there's a contradiction between being an evangelical Christian who is anti-abortion and being pro-gun.
Why not turn the tables, and claim it's hypocrisy to be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty?
I haven't seen Disney's The Armor of Light, but I've read some reviews, and I've seen the trailer. Disney's effort is not unlike propaganda of the late 1930s that sought to indoctrinate a viewpoint that it was immoral for Christians and Christian nations to arm in opposition to the rising Nazi or Japanese war machines.
For those unfamiliar with the isolationist, anti-war propaganda of the 1930s, I recommend viewing Peace on Earth, an MGM cartoon from 1939 (As of this writing, Peace on Earth is available for viewing on YouTube).
Would the world be a better place had Americans never "gunned up" and opposed conquests by Germany and Japan?
For that matter, what would America be like today had America's Christian colonists followed the decrees of the king, been acquiescent to tyranny, and allowed British soldiers to disarm them before a revolution could take shape?
And let's not overlook the thousands of times (perhaps more than two million) a year that someone having a gun thwarts a crime in modern America.
I find it impossible to believe America today would be a better place if presently armed Christians and other law abiding citizens surrendered their guns, allowing perpetrators of evil to know they had a monopoly on use of lethal force to carry out crimes against the good and innocent.
Why not turn the tables, and claim it's hypocrisy to be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty?
I haven't seen Disney's The Armor of Light, but I've read some reviews, and I've seen the trailer. Disney's effort is not unlike propaganda of the late 1930s that sought to indoctrinate a viewpoint that it was immoral for Christians and Christian nations to arm in opposition to the rising Nazi or Japanese war machines.
For those unfamiliar with the isolationist, anti-war propaganda of the 1930s, I recommend viewing Peace on Earth, an MGM cartoon from 1939 (As of this writing, Peace on Earth is available for viewing on YouTube).
Would the world be a better place had Americans never "gunned up" and opposed conquests by Germany and Japan?
For that matter, what would America be like today had America's Christian colonists followed the decrees of the king, been acquiescent to tyranny, and allowed British soldiers to disarm them before a revolution could take shape?
And let's not overlook the thousands of times (perhaps more than two million) a year that someone having a gun thwarts a crime in modern America.
I find it impossible to believe America today would be a better place if presently armed Christians and other law abiding citizens surrendered their guns, allowing perpetrators of evil to know they had a monopoly on use of lethal force to carry out crimes against the good and innocent.
Friday, October 30, 2015
Lest we forget
The Muslim invasion of Europe continues.
As seen on Twitter:
As seen on Twitter:
Pic of the Day: “Merkel + Islam = 3rd World War”
https://t.co/iIja8JcOAC via @creepingsharia pic.twitter.com/hzZXFsHIzN
— ☆Ophidian Pilot☆ (@ophidianpilot) October 30, 2015Connecting the dots on gun grab rhetoric
Bad as this week's betrayals in Congress have been, Don and I will likely start today's Don and Doug program discussing some of the latest gun grab rhetoric from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
If you connect the dots provided by their recent comments, you may see the pattern for a gun confiscation strategy beginning to emerge.
The program starts at noon (linked here), and is available for replay afterwards.
If you connect the dots provided by their recent comments, you may see the pattern for a gun confiscation strategy beginning to emerge.
The program starts at noon (linked here), and is available for replay afterwards.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
When seconds count...
...The police are only minutes away, if you sit still, and if the police can find you.
In this case, the woman targeted seems to have done the smart thing, she kept moving away from danger, and only later found a bullet hole in her car.
But the story underscores the reality that police can't be on scene in mere seconds. And sometimes, police even have trouble ascertaining the location where 911 calls are originating.
In this case, the woman targeted seems to have done the smart thing, she kept moving away from danger, and only later found a bullet hole in her car.
But the story underscores the reality that police can't be on scene in mere seconds. And sometimes, police even have trouble ascertaining the location where 911 calls are originating.
Obama's baffling B-S
This goes beyond spin. Obama's flat-out talking crazy.
Breitbart reports:
A gun's gonna cost better than a hundred bucks. More like two or three hundred, often much more. Unless you're talking stolen pistol offered for sale in an inner city parking lot. And there will never be background checks on stolen firearms.
There's never been background checks on books.
Most schools sell books at book fairs. Ever see a middle school hold a gun fair?
And you can still get decent used paperbacks, even hardcovers, for a few bucks at most thrift stores and flea markets.
And yes, I've seen thrift stores and flea markets in inner cities. A lot more of those than there are gun stores.
By the way, Amazon and other online sellers can get almost any book delivered to your door, often for about the same as thrift store prices if you buy used. And you don't have to get a book shipped to a licensed dealer like you have to do when buying a gun online.
Breitbart reports:
On October 27 President Obama addressed law enforcement personnel gathered in Chicago and said that “It is easier for a lot of young people in this city and [communities around the country] to buy a gun than it is to buy a book.”I think the Europeans are right. The man's off his rocker.
A gun's gonna cost better than a hundred bucks. More like two or three hundred, often much more. Unless you're talking stolen pistol offered for sale in an inner city parking lot. And there will never be background checks on stolen firearms.
There's never been background checks on books.
Most schools sell books at book fairs. Ever see a middle school hold a gun fair?
And you can still get decent used paperbacks, even hardcovers, for a few bucks at most thrift stores and flea markets.
And yes, I've seen thrift stores and flea markets in inner cities. A lot more of those than there are gun stores.
By the way, Amazon and other online sellers can get almost any book delivered to your door, often for about the same as thrift store prices if you buy used. And you don't have to get a book shipped to a licensed dealer like you have to do when buying a gun online.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Even Republicans are embarrassed
I don't recall any candidate on stage at tonight's CNBC debate having anything good to say about the rogues who portray themselves as today's Republican congressional leadership. I suspect the presidential candidates are embarrassed at how Boehner and McConnell and their cohorts in Congress are destroying/have destroyed the party.
Even well established establishment guys like Jeb Bush seem unwilling to be associated with the betrayals now being orchestrated in Congress.
I think they know, thanks to repeated, heavy handed betrayals of the Republican Party base, getting any kind of GOP turnout in November 2016 is going to be hard, if not impossible.
Even well established establishment guys like Jeb Bush seem unwilling to be associated with the betrayals now being orchestrated in Congress.
I think they know, thanks to repeated, heavy handed betrayals of the Republican Party base, getting any kind of GOP turnout in November 2016 is going to be hard, if not impossible.
My letter to Congressman Rob Woodall (R-Ga)
This has been sent via email to my congressman:
We voted in a Congress that promised to oppose Obama, and got a Congress that gives Obama blank checks and a free reign.
It's time to vote NO on Boehner's Zombie Budget betrayal.
If you respect the representative Congress left to us by the founders, you will also vote NO on the choice of Ryan as speaker.
To vote "yes" on either makes you fully complicit with destruction of representative government, makes you fully complicit with however Obama chooses to move his transformational agenda forward over the next 15 months.I also suggest interacting with members of Congress by way of their Twitter feeds and Facebook accounts. It not only communicates with the member of Congress, but it also lets other constituents know they're not alone in standing against the Big Party juggernaut.
Think things can't get worse?
On present trajectory, the rise of a President Camacho may only be an election cycle or two away.
Ryan endorses Boehner's "deal"
Heir apparent Paul Ryan now embraces the betrayal of a budget deal being crammed through by outgoing House Speaker John Boehner.
Free reign for Obama, no debt ceiling until 2017.
Forward!
Free reign for Obama, no debt ceiling until 2017.
Forward!
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Jeffersonian warning
"What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson
Republicans in Washington, Democrats too, best we mindful of what their arrogance might set into motion.
Republicans in Washington, Democrats too, best we mindful of what their arrogance might set into motion.
Duck and Cover and other dangerous games
Whatever he is, Paul Ryan's no leader.
He's more like Bert the Turtle, trying to keep his head down while someone else does the dirty work.
Ryan, the man who the Republican establishment wants to ascend to the role of House Speaker is currently trying to hide behind John Boehner's skirt as the outgoing Boehner works to cram through another betrayal of a budget that will fully fund Obama's agenda to fundamentally transform America through the end of the Obama administration.
How bad does Obama want Boehner's budget deal?
Perhaps enough to stir up a military distraction with China so most Americans won't notice the budget betrayal until its a done deal, and allowing Ryan, hand picked by the GOP's Quisling get along gang, ascends to his new role as speaker.
Question: Is the Obama team smart enough to play "wag the dog" without it blowing up in their faces?
He's more like Bert the Turtle, trying to keep his head down while someone else does the dirty work.
Ryan, the man who the Republican establishment wants to ascend to the role of House Speaker is currently trying to hide behind John Boehner's skirt as the outgoing Boehner works to cram through another betrayal of a budget that will fully fund Obama's agenda to fundamentally transform America through the end of the Obama administration. How bad does Obama want Boehner's budget deal?
Perhaps enough to stir up a military distraction with China so most Americans won't notice the budget betrayal until its a done deal, and allowing Ryan, hand picked by the GOP's Quisling get along gang, ascends to his new role as speaker.
Question: Is the Obama team smart enough to play "wag the dog" without it blowing up in their faces?
Monday, October 26, 2015
Is Hillary Clinton throwing a life-line to would-be gun grabbers in New York and Connecticut?
Polling data for her comments must not have gone over so well.
Best I can tell, Hillary Clinton hasn't repeated her openness to gun confiscation through an Australian style gun buy back program at subsequent campaign events.
But, let's back up and review what she said when asked about such a program at a campaign town hall about a week ago:
"By offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply, and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future. Now, communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buy back programs. But I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged. "
Clinton seemed sure and concise as she made her comments. She didn't strike me as speaking off-the-cuff.
As Don was reviewing Clinton's comments near the end of last week's Don and Doug program, it struck me that the gun buy back might well get some traction under a Clinton or some other anti-gun regime. Perhaps not on a national scale, but a federal program offering up hefty monetary grants might be used as a life-line to assist those states that overreached on gun control laws, and have thus far been unable or unwilling to forcefully bring non-compliant gun owners into compliance.
It's estimated hundreds of thousands of residents in Connecticut and New York remain in possession of unregistered "assault weapons" or outlawed "high capacity" detachable firearm magazines. That's way too many for a handful of cops to try kicking down doors as a means to confiscate guns now deemed illegal or subject to mandatory registration.
But if the federal government came along and offered or assisted with an optional gun buy back in states with gun laws now facing massive non-compliance, and some of the current resistors got in line to sell their guns, those states might finally be able to generate a sense that resisting gun owners have finally warmed to the states' anti-gun legislation.
Put enough money on the table, and offer up amnesty as part of the deal, and there will be takers.
Sure, not everyone holding onto an state-declared "illegal" weapon would comply, but the number of strong hands holding guns would likely diminish if the price paid per weapon was significant, perhaps even above what market price would be in non-restricted states.
Such a ploy might give would-be gun-grabber politicians a win on a couple of levels. First and foremost, it would give anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats in Connecticut and New York a means to finally begin wresting away those guns they've feared going after the past two and and a half years.
Once those guns are out of circulation, otherwise law abiding "sellers" would have no means to replenish supply once present home inventories are depleted.
Secondly, if successful in New York and Connecticut (or at least successful enough for gun-grabbers to claim success), state-by-state buy backs could become a model or incentive for other states that pass tighter restrictions on gun ownership.
The addition of financial incentives to those who surrender guns might be enough to get the state-by-state gun control strategy back on the march.
I'm opposed to the kinds of restrictive gun laws passed in places like New York and Connecticut, nor am I advocating any kind of buy back confiscation scheme. I also doubt a so-called buy back would bring full compliance.
But I am attempting to assess what Hillary Clinton, and those aligned with her, might be hinting at as a means to get the gun control game back in play after suffering setbacks because of overreach a couple years back. Attempting to take anti-gun tyranny and wrapping it in a softer package with financial incentives to make confiscation appear voluntary might be the next move for the would-be gun-grabbers.
I also suspect the political left, after wins on things like Obamacare and gay marriage, may think they finally have the political clout to go after guns in new and bigger ways. I also suspect they underestimate the resolve of many American gun owners who were raised under a Bill of Rights that distinctly articulates our God given right to keep and bear arms.
Best I can tell, Hillary Clinton hasn't repeated her openness to gun confiscation through an Australian style gun buy back program at subsequent campaign events.
But, let's back up and review what she said when asked about such a program at a campaign town hall about a week ago:
"By offering to buy back those guns, they were able to curtail the supply, and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future. Now, communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buy back programs. But I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged. "
Clinton seemed sure and concise as she made her comments. She didn't strike me as speaking off-the-cuff.
As Don was reviewing Clinton's comments near the end of last week's Don and Doug program, it struck me that the gun buy back might well get some traction under a Clinton or some other anti-gun regime. Perhaps not on a national scale, but a federal program offering up hefty monetary grants might be used as a life-line to assist those states that overreached on gun control laws, and have thus far been unable or unwilling to forcefully bring non-compliant gun owners into compliance.
It's estimated hundreds of thousands of residents in Connecticut and New York remain in possession of unregistered "assault weapons" or outlawed "high capacity" detachable firearm magazines. That's way too many for a handful of cops to try kicking down doors as a means to confiscate guns now deemed illegal or subject to mandatory registration.
But if the federal government came along and offered or assisted with an optional gun buy back in states with gun laws now facing massive non-compliance, and some of the current resistors got in line to sell their guns, those states might finally be able to generate a sense that resisting gun owners have finally warmed to the states' anti-gun legislation.
Put enough money on the table, and offer up amnesty as part of the deal, and there will be takers.
Sure, not everyone holding onto an state-declared "illegal" weapon would comply, but the number of strong hands holding guns would likely diminish if the price paid per weapon was significant, perhaps even above what market price would be in non-restricted states.
Such a ploy might give would-be gun-grabber politicians a win on a couple of levels. First and foremost, it would give anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats in Connecticut and New York a means to finally begin wresting away those guns they've feared going after the past two and and a half years.
Once those guns are out of circulation, otherwise law abiding "sellers" would have no means to replenish supply once present home inventories are depleted.
Secondly, if successful in New York and Connecticut (or at least successful enough for gun-grabbers to claim success), state-by-state buy backs could become a model or incentive for other states that pass tighter restrictions on gun ownership.
The addition of financial incentives to those who surrender guns might be enough to get the state-by-state gun control strategy back on the march.
I'm opposed to the kinds of restrictive gun laws passed in places like New York and Connecticut, nor am I advocating any kind of buy back confiscation scheme. I also doubt a so-called buy back would bring full compliance.
But I am attempting to assess what Hillary Clinton, and those aligned with her, might be hinting at as a means to get the gun control game back in play after suffering setbacks because of overreach a couple years back. Attempting to take anti-gun tyranny and wrapping it in a softer package with financial incentives to make confiscation appear voluntary might be the next move for the would-be gun-grabbers.
I also suspect the political left, after wins on things like Obamacare and gay marriage, may think they finally have the political clout to go after guns in new and bigger ways. I also suspect they underestimate the resolve of many American gun owners who were raised under a Bill of Rights that distinctly articulates our God given right to keep and bear arms.
Down time, and working on a home project or two
Had some folks over Friday night, the girls had the Taylor Swift concert Saturday, and I've managed to drum up a few projects at home that have me busy.
One of those projects is coming up with a surveillance camera system to monitor outside the house. The boxed HD systems seemed a little pricey, and I wanted at least 720p HD resolution. So, I'm going to cobble together my own set from different vendors to make my own system.
Found a few of the components at local retail, but most the stuff needed to be ordered.
We haven't had any problems in our neighborhood, but one less than a mile away has had overnight intruders entering a couple of occupied homes through basement doors. And, a couple of years ago, one of our neighbors had a camera set up that caught a guy trying to enter a car parked beside his house.
One more goody's on the way. A budget night vision monocular, one that's CCD based on camera technology, not the more traditional "Gen 1" or much more expensive follow-up series of traditional gear. While it might do in a pinch to scan for bad guys, I'm primarily going to use it to scan a spot down the street where my car headlights spotted a fox or two last year. We also had a coyote sighting last year. I'm curious to see what may be sitting in the night shadows with the new "toy", which advertises to be good out to a range beyond 200 yards.
I'm also curious to see what a low light device might do to make stars more visible in our light-polluted suburban locale.
One of those projects is coming up with a surveillance camera system to monitor outside the house. The boxed HD systems seemed a little pricey, and I wanted at least 720p HD resolution. So, I'm going to cobble together my own set from different vendors to make my own system.
Found a few of the components at local retail, but most the stuff needed to be ordered.
We haven't had any problems in our neighborhood, but one less than a mile away has had overnight intruders entering a couple of occupied homes through basement doors. And, a couple of years ago, one of our neighbors had a camera set up that caught a guy trying to enter a car parked beside his house.
One more goody's on the way. A budget night vision monocular, one that's CCD based on camera technology, not the more traditional "Gen 1" or much more expensive follow-up series of traditional gear. While it might do in a pinch to scan for bad guys, I'm primarily going to use it to scan a spot down the street where my car headlights spotted a fox or two last year. We also had a coyote sighting last year. I'm curious to see what may be sitting in the night shadows with the new "toy", which advertises to be good out to a range beyond 200 yards.
I'm also curious to see what a low light device might do to make stars more visible in our light-polluted suburban locale.
Friday, October 23, 2015
The end of American law
Few Americans get past the headlines, and the political gimmickry intended to distort realities.
Fact is, we have moved into an extraordinarily dangerous era in America.
And none currently holding the reigns of what were intended to be checks and balances seem to have the will to want to roll things back.
Fact is, we have moved into an extraordinarily dangerous era in America.
And none currently holding the reigns of what were intended to be checks and balances seem to have the will to want to roll things back.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Too many white people
The Daily Caller reports:
A student government election at a San Francisco middle school had its results ignored after a principal decided the candidates elected were too white.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Today's thrift shop find
Found this great looking REI Trekker Wonderland backpack piled atop a bunch of other stuff. Looks practically new, like it may have made it out into the field once or twice before being stowed away.
It's a full size, multi-pocket external frame rig, currently set for some one way taller than me, but it has plenty of adjustments to bring it down to size.
The price? $10.51 plus tax.
No way I could let it just sit there. Though I may have to give up one of my lesser thrift shop bargain packs to make room to store this one.
Windows are killing babies in New York City
Surely something can be done to be sure windows don't become accessible to the mentally ill or others with criminal tendencies.
Maybe landlords should be required to run background checks before allowing tenants access to units with dangerous windows.
Maybe landlords should be required to run background checks before allowing tenants access to units with dangerous windows.
Perhaps Mayor de Blasio can convene a task force to investigate and recommend action in the wake of this rash of window violence.A baby was thrown to her death from a sixth-floor window in a Bronx apartment block on Thursday, witnesses and police said. Six-month old Janillah Lawrence was the third child in three months to die after being thrown out of an apartment window in New York City.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Democrats really really really want to relieve us of our guns
Another rare moment of truthfulness from Hillary Clinton today.
If elected president, Clinton says she'd be willing to consider an Australian style civilian gun confiscation program.
Of course, Ms. Clinton refers to such an endeavor as a gun buy-back.
Also today, before hearing of Clinton's latest rambling, Don Dickinson and I hashed over some of the gun-grabbing clues dropped during this week's Democratic presidential candidates debate.
Of course, most Dems have learned to be cagey in how they describe their ambitions. Gone are the days of demanding outright confiscation. Today's Democrats tend to speak in more general terms like "gun safety legislation" or limiting public pitches to "enhanced" background checks.
Don't buy into the deceptive labeling. Confiscation and elimination are the end game being sought.
Gun-hating Democrats have said so too many times to believe they've given up now.
If elected president, Clinton says she'd be willing to consider an Australian style civilian gun confiscation program.
Of course, Ms. Clinton refers to such an endeavor as a gun buy-back.
Also today, before hearing of Clinton's latest rambling, Don Dickinson and I hashed over some of the gun-grabbing clues dropped during this week's Democratic presidential candidates debate.
Check Out Politics Conservative Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with TalkSouthRadio on BlogTalkRadio
Of course, most Dems have learned to be cagey in how they describe their ambitions. Gone are the days of demanding outright confiscation. Today's Democrats tend to speak in more general terms like "gun safety legislation" or limiting public pitches to "enhanced" background checks.
Don't buy into the deceptive labeling. Confiscation and elimination are the end game being sought.
Gun-hating Democrats have said so too many times to believe they've given up now.
What's up with the Obama's veggie garden?
Got to thinking...
We haven't been inundated with stories about Michelle Obama growing a garden this year. So, I got to looking around.
Apparently she had one.
She also tried to push another "healthy food" initiative as recently as August.
But even the Lefty media seemed to enjoy a tad of mockery more than straight coverage.
From Rolling Stone:
We haven't been inundated with stories about Michelle Obama growing a garden this year. So, I got to looking around.
Apparently she had one.
She also tried to push another "healthy food" initiative as recently as August.
But even the Lefty media seemed to enjoy a tad of mockery more than straight coverage.
From Rolling Stone:
Acronyms can be confusing, especially when they suggest curse words. First Lady Michelle Obama tried to promote her new healthy food campaign FNV ("Fruits 'N' Vegetables") with a PSA aired during Thursday's Jimmy Kimmel Live, but the host derailed the promo by assuming the "F" had another meaning.
"I couldn't be more excited about a new campaign called 'FNV,'" Obama says in the spot before Kimmel interjects, "as in 'Eat Your F'in Vegetables.'"
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Run, don't walk, away from Ryan
 |
| Courtesy: War on Guns |
He pretends he'd be making a sacrifice if he ascends to Speaker of the House, so he says he'll only do so if Republican House members put their party ahead of constituents.
Now we hear the Obama White House would welcome a Ryan speakership.
Word also gets around that Ryan's a fan of open borders.
And despite high marks from the NRA, Ryan's shown weakness on defending Second Amendment rights. Ryan was among Republicans eager to go along with Democrat proposed gun control "enhancements" in 2013 until political pressure from conservatives forced him back into Republican territory.
Boehner was a terrible speaker. If Republicans embrace Ryan as the next one, chances are good things go from bad to worse.
Don't stop till the shooting starts
Biggest take-away from tonight's Democrat presidential debate:
At least three of the five on stage seemed eager to recklessly pursue deeper gun control even to the point of inciting insurrection, maybe civil war.
Oddly, the most "socialist" of the candidates, Bernie Sanders, seemed the one most willing to express the danger in pursuing gun control at any price.
At least three of the five on stage seemed eager to recklessly pursue deeper gun control even to the point of inciting insurrection, maybe civil war.
Oddly, the most "socialist" of the candidates, Bernie Sanders, seemed the one most willing to express the danger in pursuing gun control at any price.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Wee-wee'd up mom upset over an ISIS worksheet
How dare a public middle school lesson depict an ISIS figure (in a cartoon) holding a knife!
This violates the school's zero tolerance weapons policy, claims a Gwinnett County, Georgia mom, who for obvious reasons, doesn't want to be identified.
Here's the offending cartoon, note the only thing shown "cut" in the sketch is a COEXIST sign.
So, uh... If mom's line of thinking holds, does this mean Lee or Grant can't be depicted with a sword in Civil War lessons?
WWI Doughboys can't be seen with shouldered Springfield rifles?
Under this mom's logic, Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn best not be illustrated either.
This violates the school's zero tolerance weapons policy, claims a Gwinnett County, Georgia mom, who for obvious reasons, doesn't want to be identified.
Here's the offending cartoon, note the only thing shown "cut" in the sketch is a COEXIST sign.
So, uh... If mom's line of thinking holds, does this mean Lee or Grant can't be depicted with a sword in Civil War lessons?
 |
| Library of Congress |
WWI Doughboys can't be seen with shouldered Springfield rifles?
 |
| Library of Congress |
Under this mom's logic, Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn best not be illustrated either.
 |
| Library of Congress |
Test your SD ammo
I bought a variety of hollow point 9mm ammo to test in a couple of pistols.
At the range today, the pricey, highly recommended 124gr Federal HST +P was a dud when tried in two Glocks.
A Glock 17 started acting up on the third shot, and had two more failure to feed issues. A similar single malfunction occurred when putting a mag of the same ammo through a Glock 19.
On the other hand, HSTs from the same box shot great in a Ruger LC9s, and we finished up the box without fail in a Taurus 908 that's long been finicky about what ammo will feed.
The Glocks fed and fired old style Federal Hi-Shocks, Remington Golden Saber, and Hornady XTP rounds without fail. I think we may have also put some Fiocchi JHPs through the 17, also no problem.
I'm not writing this to knock HSTs. Semi-autos can be fussy about what feeds, especially newer ones that haven't had a full "break-in." I guess that even goes for some Glocks.
Drives home an old lesson.
Test and retest each and every brand and type of ammo you plan to use for self defense. This is especially important in semi-autos. Long time shooters should know this, but folks just getting involved with guns may not realize how critical this is.
A Glock 17 started acting up on the third shot, and had two more failure to feed issues. A similar single malfunction occurred when putting a mag of the same ammo through a Glock 19.
On the other hand, HSTs from the same box shot great in a Ruger LC9s, and we finished up the box without fail in a Taurus 908 that's long been finicky about what ammo will feed.
The Glocks fed and fired old style Federal Hi-Shocks, Remington Golden Saber, and Hornady XTP rounds without fail. I think we may have also put some Fiocchi JHPs through the 17, also no problem.I'm not writing this to knock HSTs. Semi-autos can be fussy about what feeds, especially newer ones that haven't had a full "break-in." I guess that even goes for some Glocks.
Drives home an old lesson.
Test and retest each and every brand and type of ammo you plan to use for self defense. This is especially important in semi-autos. Long time shooters should know this, but folks just getting involved with guns may not realize how critical this is.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
More media strangeness...
Apparently on his way to becoming a Communist revolutionary and a sadistic killer, young Che Guevara had to overcome a life-long affliction with asthma.
Time seems find this an inspiring "health" story.
Bush's fault?
CNN reports Iran has just test-fired a new missile.
Look whose photo appears at the top of the page to accompany the story....
"Double D" Debbie strikes again
"Double D", of course, referring to deeply delusional.
Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told CNN’s Dana Bash Sunday that all of the remaining Republican presidential candidates are trying to “out-Trump Donald Trump” and are saying, “yeah, let’s kick women. Let’s kick them and immigrants out of this country.”Would Dems dare talk this way if their game wasn't dependent on a deeper division in America, a division so deep as to put the nation at risk of igniting civil war?
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Armor up
Ever consider getting a "bullet resistant vest" as part of your planning for civil unrest, economic collapse...or whatever?
What appear to be some great deals on "new" body armor have shown up on eBay in the past couple weeks. Some listings note never used stuff, apparently government contractor surplus, made by some of the industry mainstays who supply police and other government agencies.
Here's a size medium, said to fit a 42 to 44 inch chest, made by United Shield. New old stock, made five years ago, but never worn, it says. Priced under $180, that's not much higher than a lot of ten year old police surplus sells for.
Same seller has it in larger sizes at slightly higher prices.
There's also this "tactical style" in a small for $170, including soft front, rear and side cummerbund panels.
While I'm no expert on body armor, I've seen each of these styles close up, and they appear well made. They have Level IIIa soft armor panels that are larger, giving much better body coverage, than typical budget civilian sets that make use of stock 10 x 12 front and rear panels.
The two examples I mentioned here are noted as Level IIIa, capable of stopping most handgun rounds. Level IIIa, and the slightly less capable but less cumbersome Level II, are what most cops wear for daily duty. These vests aren't intended to be capable of stopping rifle rounds.
If you dig around on eBay, searching by brand names, there's a few other similar "new old stock" IIIa deals out there right now. Maybe some contractor lost its government contract. Maybe some contractors, for insurance purposes, have wholesaled surplus vests near the end of their 5 year warranty window. Whatever, a deal's a deal (but do your own due diligence in researching your buy).
I've also spent some time tracking a few used armor auctions. It's not uncommon to see what appear to be (without seeing what's been sold) some decent vest rigs going for under a hundred bucks.
Body armor's not for everybody. When I was a reporter in the 1990s, I borrowed a surplussed police vest from a friend when covering brief bouts civil unrest in Atlanta. Nobody ever shot at me, but there was a time or two that vest gave a bit of protection when protesters began hurling rocks and bottles.
Body armor's the kind of thing you need to plan for in advance if you think there's ever going to be an outside chance you're going to need it. You're not going to find in on racks at Walmart or other big box stores. Even if you find some at a local specialty public safety retailer, style choice and sizing's going to be limited, and it's likely going to run hundreds and hundreds of dollars if you buy new.e
With the recent spurt of college campus shootings, I wonder how many students (or their parents) are pondering purchase of a set as a contingency should they ever be under a "shelter in place" directive.
By the way, if you live in Connecticut, it's against the law for you to buy body armor online unless you're law enforcement or military.
Nationally, felons are barred from purchasing or possessing body armor.
Updated: Text revised to delete reference to shotgun slugs, where I find conflicting info on whether a IIIa vest will stop one. While on the subject, Box o' Truth did some layman's unofficial testing of some IIIa panels a while back, you can see the results here.
What appear to be some great deals on "new" body armor have shown up on eBay in the past couple weeks. Some listings note never used stuff, apparently government contractor surplus, made by some of the industry mainstays who supply police and other government agencies.
Here's a size medium, said to fit a 42 to 44 inch chest, made by United Shield. New old stock, made five years ago, but never worn, it says. Priced under $180, that's not much higher than a lot of ten year old police surplus sells for.
Same seller has it in larger sizes at slightly higher prices.
There's also this "tactical style" in a small for $170, including soft front, rear and side cummerbund panels.
While I'm no expert on body armor, I've seen each of these styles close up, and they appear well made. They have Level IIIa soft armor panels that are larger, giving much better body coverage, than typical budget civilian sets that make use of stock 10 x 12 front and rear panels.
The two examples I mentioned here are noted as Level IIIa, capable of stopping most handgun rounds. Level IIIa, and the slightly less capable but less cumbersome Level II, are what most cops wear for daily duty. These vests aren't intended to be capable of stopping rifle rounds.
If you dig around on eBay, searching by brand names, there's a few other similar "new old stock" IIIa deals out there right now. Maybe some contractor lost its government contract. Maybe some contractors, for insurance purposes, have wholesaled surplus vests near the end of their 5 year warranty window. Whatever, a deal's a deal (but do your own due diligence in researching your buy).
I've also spent some time tracking a few used armor auctions. It's not uncommon to see what appear to be (without seeing what's been sold) some decent vest rigs going for under a hundred bucks.
Body armor's not for everybody. When I was a reporter in the 1990s, I borrowed a surplussed police vest from a friend when covering brief bouts civil unrest in Atlanta. Nobody ever shot at me, but there was a time or two that vest gave a bit of protection when protesters began hurling rocks and bottles.
Body armor's the kind of thing you need to plan for in advance if you think there's ever going to be an outside chance you're going to need it. You're not going to find in on racks at Walmart or other big box stores. Even if you find some at a local specialty public safety retailer, style choice and sizing's going to be limited, and it's likely going to run hundreds and hundreds of dollars if you buy new.e
With the recent spurt of college campus shootings, I wonder how many students (or their parents) are pondering purchase of a set as a contingency should they ever be under a "shelter in place" directive.
By the way, if you live in Connecticut, it's against the law for you to buy body armor online unless you're law enforcement or military.
Nationally, felons are barred from purchasing or possessing body armor.
Updated: Text revised to delete reference to shotgun slugs, where I find conflicting info on whether a IIIa vest will stop one. While on the subject, Box o' Truth did some layman's unofficial testing of some IIIa panels a while back, you can see the results here.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Are you watching what your kids are watching?
Borrowed this from a Facebook post:
This is a warning to all parents of teenagers... beware those popular shows your kids are watching. I'm about to get up on my soapbox, not as anyone other than the parent of two teenage daughters. I was introduced to American Horror Story for the first time tonight, even though the cable network show on FX has apparently been on for four seasons and has a cast full of well-known stars. Now I like horror movies as much as the next guy, and my older daughter was counting down the hours until tonight's season 5 premiere came on. But I was hardly prepared for the sadomasochistic content that I felt goes far beyond even a rated-R movie. I was deeply disturbed by what was on my own television which was switched off half-way through. And apparently it's a hip, "artistic" show that EVERYONE watches (It was even trending on Twitter). No wonder we have problems with our society. Our kids are watching sick crap like this! Luckily we only have cable on the main television in our house and Netflix is about to get canceled after tonight. You may be a fan of the show, but for those who had no idea be forewarned. It is nothing like the Friday the 13th or Freddy Krueger movies we grew up watching. It's a thousand times worse.In the age of Internet and multiple TVs scattered throughout the house, too few parents realize how explicit and dark "mainstream" entertainment has become.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Politicizing a mass shooting
"His visit here isn't a re-election campaign stop, but it is a campaign stop for an agenda that he and his associates believe is important. And that is to take away Americans' right to own firearms." - David Jacques, editor of the Roseburg (Oregon) Beacon, on President Obama' s announced trip to the community later this week where he's expected to meet with families of last week's college campus shooting victims.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
War on body armor heats up
Under federal law, felons are banned from owning body armor. Now, Democrats in Washington want to put the rest of America's civilian population on par with felons when it comes to bullet resistant attire.
A Democrat sponsored bill was introduced in Congress earlier this year would ban civilians from possessing more effective varieties of body armor. To help sell his bill, Rep Mike Honda of California labels such armor as "military grade", a deceptive term used to refer to body armor capable of stopping mid-range rifle rounds.
In a release from Honda, he quotes a California prosecutor who claims prohibiting Americans from possessing the means to block bullets fired at them "will serve to combat our nation’s epidemic of gun violence and protect communities."
Strikes me, Honda's bill, if enacted, would leave more bullet riddled bodies to be counted.
Let's move beyond Honda's inflammatory rhetoric, and consider some facts.
Best I can tell, just one state, Connecticut, presently decrees only police or other select agents of the state have the right to own body armor. Everyone else in Connecticut, even those facing threats of violence apparently, are SOL. Hardly seems fair.
There have been a couple of notorious shootouts where bad guys wearing body armor were able to chew the cops up pretty bad. But those events were in the 1980s, and 1990s. And it only happened a couple of times. I don't recall any recent headlines of such occurrences. Police have significantly upgraded their guns, gear and ammo over the past couple of decades.
The vilification of civilian body armor again went front and center last week when police disclosed the campus shooter in Oregon was in possession of it (though reports lack detail of the type of ballistic gear he allegedly possessed).
It is also now reported that this shooter in Oregon committed suicide. Body armor didn't contribute to his shooting toll as he killed people in a gun-free classroom. As I've stated previously in social media posts, if this guy was wearing heavy duty (known as Type III or higher body armor), it probably slowed him down if, indeed, he was actually wearing it.
Body armor is heavy, and bulky. In most cases, it restricts mobility, as well as the ability to shoulder and accurately fire a weapon. Those who wear such armor in the police or military undertake extensive training to compensate for the drawbacks it presents.
Also, in Aurora, Colorado James Holmes was reported to have had body armor. He surrendered rather than engage in a firefight with police. His body armor did nothing to advance his victim count, but he was so overloaded with gear, guns and ammo, his effectiveness in killing might have actually been higher if he'd traveled lighter.
Lots of people own body armor for legit reasons. Business owners in high crime areas (think pawn shops, liquor stores, indy convenience stores).
Emergency first responders are another group. Not all paramedics or ambulance drivers are public safety employees. In some communities, these are private workers.
News media too, often don body armor when covering events. War, riots, etc. often demand extra degrees of protection. Reporters and camera crews in Ferguson were so equipped - sometimes in gear provided by employers, sometimes they have to dig into a personal stash. In Ferguson, indy media doing live streams of protests reportedly made mad scrambles to get gear - some of which was purchased off eBay.
There was a civilian rush to buy body armor during the 2002 DC sniper shootings. Can't say I blame those who beefed up their wardrobes during that time of uncertainty. It would be impossible for most to do so, under the Democrats' and Rep. Honda's plan.
Body armor doesn't cover head to toe. There are points of vulnerability. In most cases, it is designed to protect a body's most vulnerable area - the chest, for example, with its lungs, heart and spinal column.
If memory serves, when Eric Rudolph was bombing abortion clinics (and other targets) back in the 1990s, there were clinic workers who began taking the extra step. Body armor isn't just for bullets. It can be effective against shrapnel and other fragments thrown by bombs or other explosions.
I don't recall the Left being so fearful of body armor when clinic workers were buying it up. Or when DC's government workers, their families, friends and neighbors were the ones packing it on.
A Democrat sponsored bill was introduced in Congress earlier this year would ban civilians from possessing more effective varieties of body armor. To help sell his bill, Rep Mike Honda of California labels such armor as "military grade", a deceptive term used to refer to body armor capable of stopping mid-range rifle rounds.
In a release from Honda, he quotes a California prosecutor who claims prohibiting Americans from possessing the means to block bullets fired at them "will serve to combat our nation’s epidemic of gun violence and protect communities."
Strikes me, Honda's bill, if enacted, would leave more bullet riddled bodies to be counted.
Let's move beyond Honda's inflammatory rhetoric, and consider some facts.
Best I can tell, just one state, Connecticut, presently decrees only police or other select agents of the state have the right to own body armor. Everyone else in Connecticut, even those facing threats of violence apparently, are SOL. Hardly seems fair.
There have been a couple of notorious shootouts where bad guys wearing body armor were able to chew the cops up pretty bad. But those events were in the 1980s, and 1990s. And it only happened a couple of times. I don't recall any recent headlines of such occurrences. Police have significantly upgraded their guns, gear and ammo over the past couple of decades.
The vilification of civilian body armor again went front and center last week when police disclosed the campus shooter in Oregon was in possession of it (though reports lack detail of the type of ballistic gear he allegedly possessed).
It is also now reported that this shooter in Oregon committed suicide. Body armor didn't contribute to his shooting toll as he killed people in a gun-free classroom. As I've stated previously in social media posts, if this guy was wearing heavy duty (known as Type III or higher body armor), it probably slowed him down if, indeed, he was actually wearing it.
Body armor is heavy, and bulky. In most cases, it restricts mobility, as well as the ability to shoulder and accurately fire a weapon. Those who wear such armor in the police or military undertake extensive training to compensate for the drawbacks it presents.
Also, in Aurora, Colorado James Holmes was reported to have had body armor. He surrendered rather than engage in a firefight with police. His body armor did nothing to advance his victim count, but he was so overloaded with gear, guns and ammo, his effectiveness in killing might have actually been higher if he'd traveled lighter.
Lots of people own body armor for legit reasons. Business owners in high crime areas (think pawn shops, liquor stores, indy convenience stores).
Emergency first responders are another group. Not all paramedics or ambulance drivers are public safety employees. In some communities, these are private workers.
News media too, often don body armor when covering events. War, riots, etc. often demand extra degrees of protection. Reporters and camera crews in Ferguson were so equipped - sometimes in gear provided by employers, sometimes they have to dig into a personal stash. In Ferguson, indy media doing live streams of protests reportedly made mad scrambles to get gear - some of which was purchased off eBay.
There was a civilian rush to buy body armor during the 2002 DC sniper shootings. Can't say I blame those who beefed up their wardrobes during that time of uncertainty. It would be impossible for most to do so, under the Democrats' and Rep. Honda's plan.
Body armor doesn't cover head to toe. There are points of vulnerability. In most cases, it is designed to protect a body's most vulnerable area - the chest, for example, with its lungs, heart and spinal column.
If memory serves, when Eric Rudolph was bombing abortion clinics (and other targets) back in the 1990s, there were clinic workers who began taking the extra step. Body armor isn't just for bullets. It can be effective against shrapnel and other fragments thrown by bombs or other explosions.
I don't recall the Left being so fearful of body armor when clinic workers were buying it up. Or when DC's government workers, their families, friends and neighbors were the ones packing it on.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Umpqua president describes gun free zone
Following Thursday's deadly shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, the school's president held a news conference.
Dr. Rita Calvin seemed to brag on her school's campus security plan, and how it was put into play.
Even after the shooting, Calvin seems to express confidence having one unarmed security guard on campus, and a lock down procedure, were sufficient to keep things in check in an emergency until police could arrive.
And despite Oregon law allowing concealed carry on public college campuses, schools have great leeway in how they interpret the law. The college president specifically says Umpqua has a "no guns on campus" policy (aprox 4:40 on the news conf timeline).
From the Umpqua student code of conduct:
How many who normally conceal carry in other places would be reluctant to go through whatever additional process the school may have in place, knowing it might target them for possible retribution by instructors or administrators who possess an anti-gun bias?
That is, assuming there is a process.
The college president makes it sound like there is none.
Dr. Rita Calvin seemed to brag on her school's campus security plan, and how it was put into play.
Even after the shooting, Calvin seems to express confidence having one unarmed security guard on campus, and a lock down procedure, were sufficient to keep things in check in an emergency until police could arrive.
And despite Oregon law allowing concealed carry on public college campuses, schools have great leeway in how they interpret the law. The college president specifically says Umpqua has a "no guns on campus" policy (aprox 4:40 on the news conf timeline).
From the Umpqua student code of conduct:
The following actions and/or behaviors are the types of misconduct for which students may be subject to disciplinary action....
...possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, substances, or any other weapons or destructive devices that are designed to or readily capable of causing physical injury, on College premises, at College-sponsored or supervised functions or at functions sponsored or participated in by the College.
How many who normally conceal carry in other places would be reluctant to go through whatever additional process the school may have in place, knowing it might target them for possible retribution by instructors or administrators who possess an anti-gun bias?
That is, assuming there is a process.
The college president makes it sound like there is none.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)