There’s an old joke about a woman who gets to the Pearly Gates, and wants to know if her husband is there. She tells St. Peter that his name is Frank, and he said he would turn over in his grave if she ever had relations with another man after his passing. St. Peter had trouble identifying which Frank, then suddenly exclaimed, “Oh, you mean Pinwheel Frank!”
I saw this thing from Guns & Ammo about a new 1911. I became excited. I like 1911s. And this was a Browning!
Then I saw the caliber…!
1911 – .380 ACP
I do agree that any gun is better than none, but I was disappointed.
What’s next, a Velo-dog single-action semiautomatic?
(uh, Col. Jeff Cooper, for the uninitiated, was a big proponent of the .45 ACP caliber. He passed in 2006. I suspect he’s taken Frank’s place.)
h/t Maddened Fowl
(as purloined from Random Nuclear Strikes…)
While writing about the NYT tale of how “Assault Weapon” is a term made to scare white folks, Surber refuses to hold the tough questions back.
Instead of going after the gangs, Urban Democrats go after the law-abiding citizenry, unconstitutionally banning handguns and the like until the Supreme Court’s Heller decision reversed that.
In politics, unintended consequences are rare. By going after the weapons white suburbanites and rural people enjoy, Democrats obfuscate the real issue: Black young men killing black young men for profit in cities controlled by Democrats.
Don Surber – Do Democrats Care About Dead Black Men?
The answer is: Only if will help them get votes.
(Guffaw says) To be fair, every time this game has been played in a major metropolitan area in The United States (over the past 70 years) it hasn’t always been Democrats. But it’s always been Progressives of some ilk. And how have such policies worked in places like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles?
I’m not even expanding to discussing economies in such places as Detroit.
That’s for another blog.
Or rather MY libertarian conundrum!
I’m generally a libertarian (small L), politically and philosophically. Want to MAKE me do something as a function of government? I don’t think so. (conscript me, tax me w/o representation, ad infinitum). Want to believe something different than me? Sure – have at it! Believe in Krishna or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing. I don’t care.
Just don’t knock on my door demanding I believe as you, with or without the force of government behind you!
I respect your right to think and act and believe differently, as long as you leave me to do the same. Period.
Now comes the conundrum -
I tend to be isolationist. If one tribe or political party in far off Boogaboogastan wants to kill another tribe or political party, it’s no skin off my nose. As long as it doesn’t affect me. Or the National interest. (whatever THAT is!)
BUT, what if I had this opinion (and had been alive) during WWII? What if The United States did? Would we all be speaking German or Japanese now? (Those of us who are alive?)
In short, what is in keeping with libertarian principles, but allows us to have our National Security and Sovereignty and be able to look ourselves in the mirror?
Do our National Principles apply only to us? And if not, to whom, and when?
ProudHillbilly posted on 09/11 about the numerous folks killed and injured because of their religion World-wide.
A partial sampling:
||Thirty-seven Iraqis are reduced to pulp by a Shahid suicide bomber.
||Two Shahid suicide bombers take out a half-dozen human beings.
||A Shahid suicide bomber disassembles six other people.
||Boko Haram militants spray machine-gun fire into villages while yelling praises to Allah. At least fourteen are killed.
||Muslim terrorists murder a teacher with a bomb.
Should we have gone into Iraq initially? I won’t debate that, because the fact is we did. And we then left.
hundreds thousands are paying for our having done so.
A libertarian tenet is WE ARE NOT THE WORLD’S POLICEMAN. We cannot afford to be, and we are not going to make everyone believe as we do.
It would be great if we could just leave others alone to their own Destiny. Or Hell. Pick one.
Then look in the mirror the next morning.
Not even shock and surprise from me. Perhaps this…
I seem to remember posting something years ago regarding how individual political groups constantly fight for power and position. One would think that two sub-entities of the same government would play by the rules (laws) and operate on the same page.
Of course, these are the same folks who smuggled guns to Mexican cartels under the guise of ‘investigation’ only to have them used against our own Border Patrol and DEA. (and people died). And the folks who pursued conservative folks with possible tax violations as a political ploy. And those who claim Israel is an ally, to bad mouth their actions and excuse actions of their enemy. The entity who almost universally badmouths Christians, but refuses to speak against Muslim extremists.
I could go on.
But, seriously, what’s the point in so doing?
Most of you regular readers know my position on government (and others) snooping, especially when said snooping is against innocents.
I long for the day of the pre-Patriot Act (and it’s fellow legislative travelers) wherein it was illegal for the CIA to operate domestically. And the FBI was primarily a law enforcement agency.
It’s one thing for us to spy on France or even Israel, but each other?
That’s just counterproductive and wasteful.
I’ve stated before, I’m a believer in the conspiracy theory of history. Not that all heinous acts (like political assassinations) are accomplished by groups, with accessories-after-the-fact to cover it up, but that some are, and we need to continue to look at all such acts and their aftermaths to determined what actually happened. Who were the participants? What were the motivations? And most importantly:
QUI BONO? (Who benefits?)
(from Clayton Cramer)
He says the FBI won’t release videos that show a second person was with Timothy McVeigh when he parked a truck outside the Oklahoma City federal building and detonated a bomb that killed 168 people.
The government says McVeigh was alone.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups sent the case to trial after remaining unsatisfied with the FBI’s responses in the five years since the lawsuit was filed.
This is a very interesting case. I was glad that McVeigh admitted his guilt in this matter because from reading the transcripts of his trial, it is pretty clear that the federal prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McVeigh did it. There was certainly evidence that supported that claim, but it is was not spectacularly impressive, and McVeigh’s defense attorney Stephen Jones did a spectacular job of poking big gaping holes in the government’s claims. Perhaps the most important is the questions raised about the leftover leg. (Did 168 people die in this tragedy, or 169? The leftover leg raised some serious questions.)
The claim that a second person was involved was based on eyewitness reports (which are often unreliable) and the FBI’s initial attempts to locate a second person of interest (of Middle Eastern appearance). There have long been questions about whether there might have been Iraqi involvement in this bombing. McVeigh’s partner, Terry Nichols was in a Philippines hotel at the same time as some of the people involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, such as Ramzi Youssef, and by some accounts, actually met with him. (…)
I know there has always been conspiratorial chatter about such events, in part because our collective psyches don’t want to believe one man is capable of such horror.
But sometimes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortion
A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.
Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and “unnatural” but is now widely accepted.
He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion.
“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner,” the judge said.
“If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy.Those things have gone.”
I had some had concerns about multiple marriages following in the footsteps of gay marriage. Some of those folks have surfaced judicially. And the NAMBLA folks have also jumped on the bandwagon.
This is the the libertarian conundrum – if every human has rights, including minors, how much can the State infringe on those rights for the protection of all?
At Gun Nuts Media, I was shocked to see this article headline. Even more so when I read the professional in question was Hilton Yam!
An excerpt from Mr. Yam’s essay:
It is easy to get caught up in the mystique and history of the 1911, but the design is over 100 years old, and we have learned a few things about designing and manufacturing since then. If you enjoy the craftsmanship of a finely built 1911 or you enjoy tinkering on your own, by all means continue to enjoy them. However, if training, shooting, and performance is your primary goal and you lack the resources, time, patience, or knowledge to keep after a 1911, then be realistic and choose something more modern. These days I spend much less time at the workbench fixing my training guns or having to wonder if the latest build or mod will work. I no longer need the 1911 as a crutch, and can now just concentrate on the performance.
Of course, I am not a LEO, SWAT trainer, and team leader like Mr. Yam. I do greatly respect his judgement and expertise. And, perhaps, if I had the finances, I would opt for a carry pistol that was more reliable and less finicky than a 1911?
BUT, the point is moot, as I do not and will not. I will continue to carry my S&W 442 electroless nickel and (weather-permitting) my National Match 5″ 1911. The only hiccups I’ve had with MY 1911 were due to improper maintenance (need of lubrication and lack of cleaning). When reasonably clean and lubed, she runs like a champ! And has for over 15,000 rounds since 1983!
Perhaps old-timers like me are akin to the guys 100 years ago who stuck by their horses or black powder? I’m not a specops guy or even a LEO. I’m just an old crippled guy on disability who doesn’t get out much.
But, plastic guns STILL have no soul.
h/t Gun Nuts Media, Modern Service Weapons
The esteemed David Hardy reports to us on the tweaking (twerking?) of the New York State SAFE Act…
Federal judge upholds NY SAFE Act, strikes part of magazine limit
Posted by David Hardy · 31 December 2013 05:20 PM
Story here. He upheld the ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds, but struck down the provision banning putting more than seven rounds in one of them.
…and how many angels, again?
Who said better to be tried by twelve than carried by six?
I keep seeing this meme more and more on the Internet, or at least on the blogosphere:
We as a Nation are more divided than ever before.
A Civil War is inevitable.
It’s gonna be those who love Freedom (at least OUR brand of freedom) versus those nanny-statist bastards!
And, I try console myself into thinking, “No, that won’t happen – we are too great a Nation with too much going for us to have it happen!”
But then I see stuff about the sheeple meekly lining up to have their Fourth Amendment rights shorn from them, or demanding ‘the government’ do something to
protect help medicate pay for take care of them.
And something like THIS (a comment on a gun control article in the Washington Post):
10/27/2013 6:12 PM MST
I would settle for a background check for each and every transaction and every gun owner needing to have a complete comprehensive psychiatric examination before the initial purchase and check-up every 3-years thereafter. If you fail the psych test, your a prohibited person and must surrender your guns to law enforcement. Better yet, the psych test is given at police headquarters and if you fail they return home with you and confiscate your guns. Penalties must be increased for a prohibited person having a gun any gun. Police must also have the discretion to conduct Terry Stops and warrant less searches in targeted areas looking for illegal guns. I like Washington DC’s policy if you have a empty shell casing without a firearm id card for that weapon you go to jail for years. Also if you have a permit for a 9mm and you get caught with a empty 380 casing, you go to jail. If this does not significantly reduce the gun violence epidemic in this country, we all know what’s next.
A mandatory psych test given at police headquarters? Warrantless searches and confiscations? Terry ‘stop and frisk’ searches at the ‘discretion of law enforcement?
This ‘Italian Rose’ certainly sounds learned in the basics of criminal law, minus the whole Constitutional protections part. Not unlike The President and the Attorney General.
And here’s the accompanying Gallup Poll results:
When did we become voluntary Pla-Do for the American Stasi? And what should we do about it?
h/t Condition Ready
My Daily Kona (Monday) quotes Boortz in a rant to end all rants, re: the character of the commander-in-chief.
The money shot:
I knew 0bama had a deep resentment toward America when he came here in 1979 to enter Occidental College. Even so, I’m continually amazed at how vindictive, arrogant, dishonest, narcissistic and thuggish this man can be. Yes … I said thug. 0bama is to the presidency what Jimmy Hoffa was to union leadership.
Aw, c’mon! Tell us how your really feel!
You should visit the link above and read the whole thing.
The Republicans may have held the House of Representative (and by extension, the purse strings) and forced negotiation in that manner (as the Democrats have also historically done), but no President in my memory or knowledge has governed in such a manner.
And, it now appears The Republicans blinked.
No surprise here. Most of the Republicans are RINOs, anyway…concerned on how the media makes them appear versus doing the job for which they were elected. Because 2014 is only a year away.
REMEMBER. The 2014 mid-term elections are only one year away.