(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
The lovely and talented Roberta X hits it out-of-the-park, yet again!
Politics makes people sociopathic — somebody linked to an article on the subject recently but I can’t find it again. Thing is, its true; when we form up sides and fight over Ideas, it’s wired right into us to forget that the men and women espousing ideas we oppose are still people and it’s just as easy for them to do the same to us.
Please visit the link and read the whole thing. Because it’s important to remember.
Of course, you should be reading Roberta X daily, anyway…
I’ve been thinking about Science and Politics. I believed there used to be a time, a time of purity, where science was science and politics was politics and never the twain shall meet.
I think this was because of The Scientific Method, which I was taught in grade school, junior high and high school science classes.
Yes, in public school. I doubt it happens that way, today.
While The Scientific Method has validity, it presupposes a number of things as given. One is there isn’t a foregone conclusion one is trying to reach. This is where Politics rears its ugly head.
Galileo Galilei was investigating the nature of the Universe. Scientifically. He didn’t know he would determine heliocentrism (the planets moving around the Sun) to be more valid than the Earth being at the center. His suspected heresy in the matter found him tried and convicted in the Inquisition, and lived the remainder of his life under house arrest. Because he irritated, annoyed and questioned Political Power (Pope Urban VIII).
In the 1960s-70s, radical leftist scientists took it upon themselves to insert their politics into science. We were all supposed to freeze by the mid-1990s. Remember?
Many of these same scientists became part of the IPCC, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (formerly Anthropogenic Global Warming) formed by the United Nations. When I first heard about
anthropogenic global warming climate change, I poo-poohed it, because it seemed to be somehow linked to a socialist, internationalist agenda. The U.N., duh! But, the IPCC released it’s report, and I thought, well, I was wrong. All these prominent scientists came to the conclusion that man-made pollution had brought about warming climate change on Earth. It was our fault.
Then, the facts began to unravel the report. Including that many ‘prominent’ scientists had intentionally falsified their data to reach a foregone conclusion. Why? Because, if they relied on their scientific facts alone, they would be ostracized by the others, and lose their funding. They even emailed others regarding how to change their data to keep the money coming in.
Science be damned. Turned out scientists were just as flawed as the politicians who continue to push the agenda, because they are getting money from the so-called carbon credit exchange. Money to purchase large, not environmentally sound homes. Hypocrites. Galileo suffered house arrest for his beliefs. He didn’t accept bribes.
One hears stories about the diminishing polar bear population. The latest independent statistics shows their habitat and population are growing. How is that possible?
The plural of anecdote is not data. - Plamus
The short of it is I was wrong to believe the scientists. Because they stopped being scientists the moment they accepted money for a desired result. There was never a time of purity. Except perhaps for Galileo.
I’m no scientist. Go and read Borepatch with regard to the history and debunking of this matter. He has a right to an opinion.
Both my chemistry and physics teachers told me there was no such thing as political science. (joke)
Extremist ‘science’ and politics wedded? You doubt it?
Happy Earth Day!
Say Uncle suggests Rachel Maddow says, in his words:
On occasion, Maddow says something insightful and not inciteful.
…and commenter Bubblehead Les takes issue with his suggestion.
Not having a dog in this fight, I’ll take my own advice and not cast aspersions toward any of the participants, much as I don’t call Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore fat.
Go and read, and draw your own conclusion. Independent, reasoned thinking toward a conclusion – how rare!
h/t Say Uncle, Bubblehead Les, Rachel Maddow, Jack D. Lail