(Yeah – I’m shocked, too!) :-P
That is a turnout increase of 300%. If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov.
Now hers’ the SHOCKING PART!
h/t CNN !
But not before they tell you you do!
Yep. We live in the bizzaro world...
h/t The Reluctant Paladin
The Ten Ring asked his wife (a former blogger) to respond to writer Stephen King’s screed (now available on Kindle) with regard to guns, gun rights, gun ownership, and the character of American gun owners.
The telling passage:
Style and mistakes aside, King tries to add to the national dialog about gun violence. The last section of this short work, lists policy ideas that might cut down on gun violence. One notion is a ban on “assault weapons” but he loses his argument when he gets too cute by half, honey.King justifies calling for such a ban by insulting owners of semi-automatics (a gun that fires one round per trigger pull). He says that the owners only use these guns to fire as fast as they can while yelling yeehaw and getting horny…
Can you say ignorance and outright bigotry?
Can you imagine if he downplayed or maligned any other groups’ rights or actions in this manner? Said group would have his head on a pike!
Of course, as responsible firearms owners, we must show restraint in our response, lest we provide more ammunition for bigots like King.
In the pervasive environment of political correctness, it’s never appropriate to malign Blacks, gays, women, other religions, other individual ethnic groups or classes. And, of course, it shouldn’t be.
But apparently legitimate gun owners are still okay to target. With such moronic comments as he made above.
I’ve enjoyed a number of Mr. King’s books, and films made from them. He can be a great writer. AND, he’s allowed his opinions. And I mine.
He’s a bigoted idiot.
(or, I hate polls, part two…)
So, what do you think?
Or do you get Guffaw in AZ via blog reader or email, and not even see the extrania?
(Feel free to leave comments, but don’t hurt me too badly! :-) )
*for you youngsters, one of the first mainstream X-rated films released in the U.S. was I am Curious (Yellow) (1967)
and the pic below, with an approximation of the spoken line, is from Dirty Harry (1971).
It was a different time.
(NOT the modern AR-15 rifle clone, you ninnies!)
The classic, later known as the Model 10 .38 Special revolver.
I’ve never owned one. I’ve shot a bazillion of ‘em, and carried some. With the exception of those without the strength to pull the trigger, I’ve recommended these (or similar models) for self protection, CCW, and general home/business carry for years.
Why? Not everyone likes the semiautomatic, even those with minimal levers and buttons (e.g. Glock). And the .38 Special cartridge is street-proven, but not so full of blast and flash to scare the new shooter more than the shootee! Good for a beginner.
Barrel length? That’s a matter of personal choice, although a 4″ barrel is fairly ubiquitous and inexpensive (used) at gun shows and pawn shops.
And they come with a fixed sight – nothing to hang up, break or misalign on a coat or in a purse. One could ‘bob’ the hammer and remove the single action function if one were moved to do so.
Disadvantages? Medium caliber and six rounds; slow to reload. Although I’ve known a few folks who could reload from belt loops two-rounds-at-a-time faster shot-to-shot than some folks using a pistol with a magazine!
And, I’m old-school, so there!
When I worked at my last job, we did many things on a computer terminal. I was there over 20 years, and saw many changes. Of course, as the technology evolved, so did our machines – usually about 4 years after everyone else did.
They kept harping about A PAPERLESS SOCIETY, but kept us using paper and printing on it. More electronically, but, eventually paper was involved.
Now, my roomie prefers the really soft, cushy roll of paper. You know the kind – advertised by cartoon bears in the woods. Sadly, roll it about two-times-over and one is down to the cardboard tube. Time to change the roll.
My experience is the female-of-the-species prefers as my roomie does. Better soft than abrasive.
This has evolved into two roll dispensers in the main bathroom, his and hers. And ‘roll follies’ when one roll is needed upstairs, but the reloads are downstairs. But, all-in-all, we work it out.
As we humans know, unless one is in a less-civilized part of the World, eventually, paper is involved.
I used to be ‘on’ Facebook a lot more. I located a number of long-lost friends there, and even connected with high school reunion (and junior high!) folks there.
But, as I became more of a blogger, my time there has been limited. I usually stop by daily, just to check-in though.
While there is occasionally conflict or a difference of opinion in the blogosphere, my experience in FB has not been the same. You see, persons of more diverse opinions tend to make theirs known on Facebook. I’ve no problem with people not being on the same page. That’s one of the things that makes life interesting. I’ve posted about such friends (Ralph). Life would be incredibly boring if we were all in lock-step.
My objection is people who aren’t even on the same planet or in the same universe. These folks concern me.
As an example, I’ve known a guy for about 20 years. We worked together @ TMCCC. We had some similar interests. I liked going all out for Halloween, so did he (for example). But, we never really got political. And he moved to Australia. And back here. And he visited me in the hospital after the accident – a good guy. We’ve reconnected on Facebook, and he’s made noises about getting together for a drink, or lunch, or something. A laudable idea. But…
He obviously not only has no idea where I stand (he doesn’t read this blog); he (re)posts stuff on FB, without any knowledge of the subject, or researching it to see if it makes any sense. One (of many) examples:
This adjacent to a bunch of comments from like-minded folk also piling on, and not understanding either The Constitution or the subject matter. Complete with ‘you don’t need a machine gun to deer hunt’ comments!
How can I possibly make nice with this guy?
I have friends who are liberal. I have friends who are independent. And we’ve had healthy, sometimes heated discussions. I’m just not certain I can do so with this guy. And that ticks me off, as he’s a friend.
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot!
The Wounded Warrior Project, who obviously assists wounded veterans and their families has done just that. They recently refused to participate in a firearms-oriented radio talk show, which would have brought them great publicity and additional support. An email exchange between their PR flack and the radio producer produced evidence that they do not organizationally support Second Amendment Rights.
Our position regarding firearms and alcohol is in response to the struggles that many injured service members face with substance abuse and suicide and the roles those items often play in those issues.
Pro-civil-rights-bloggers are dropping them from their blog sidebars like hot machine gun barrels. Hopefully, other big supported like Anheuser-Busch are doing the same.
As am I.
I’m substituting the charity Soldier’s Angels in their stead.
This reminded me of many years ago, before I was married. I was looking into the Big Brothers/Big Sisters organization, with the possibility of perhaps sponsoring one. They, too, seemed to do great work. A local news story surfaced, wherein the regional chapter denied a decorated, veteran police officer Big Brother status, because he insisted on having his gun with him! Now, I don’t know (or particularly care) if this was a local, regional or national policy decision. It soured the organization for me. I didn’t pursue the status further, and give them no money. And tell all who will listen the story.
There are many worthy charities out there. I wish I had the resources to help them, but, I do not. But, I can put them on my sidebar and send them five or ten dollars when I have it. Which is not very often.
But I’ve expectations of those I support. They don’t need to actively support gun rights, HOWEVER, disparaging firearm possession and furthering propaganda lies are another thing altogether.
Please support Soldier’s Angels.
(Update – WWP is backpedaling all over the place. Too little, too late in my view – Guffaw)
I didn’t watch the first debate. Nor the second. Nor the third. I’ve three reasons for not doing so, to wit:
1. They are NOT debates, but rather stump speeches with responses. They don’t answer questions, just push their own agendas! (The President – Assault Weapons Ban, again!) (And Governor Romney – The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting!)
2. Not all viable candidates were asked to participate, and
3. The participants are not under oath when answering.
4. Why do I care what Tweedledee and Tweedledum have to say! Both are avowed statists with big government agendas. Not exactly my political stance.
“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” – Ronald Reagan
My understanding, via the wisdom of the Internet, is the Republican took the first one, handily. The Democrat
interrupted and laughed a lot during the second. And CNN voted for the Republican both times. CNN! CNN said the President won last night.
Re: Gun Control (a rant) -
Mr. President, the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban did nothing to stop crime. Crime went down significantly when it finally sunset 10 years later. And virtually all the current statistics (except those from the totalitatian-loving, anti-rightist folks) show as there is more gun ownership today, and crime is down! I know you know this. Because gun control isn’t about stopping crime, it’s about controlling law-abiding citizens!
News Flash: Criminals don’t obey the law! (end rant)
Ultimately, the only ‘debate’ that matters in the one in the voter’s head on Election Day. All else is window dressing.
Firehand directs us to a CNN opinion article authored by Penn Jillette.
Mr. Jillette is a magician, a comedian, an actor, firearms owner, and a(n) (in)famous atheist. He is also quite astute and is a libertarian.
From the piece:
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
Can I get an AMEN? I assume this wouldn’t offend Mr. Jillette’s atheistic sensibilities.
h/t Irons in the Fire, CNN