Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Bask in the utter lack of correlation. And a lack of key physical phenomena required for the a given warming theory to function.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see Avengers, and I think it could be a real fun, especially given the personalities of the ensemble cast.
But after seeing Act of Valor's uber practical effects (it's hard to beat real seals using real weapons, with real ammunition, being moved around by real vehicles (like a frickin Ohio). Even the blood and gore effects were practical.
It really shows the extreme verisimilitude practical effects and cast members that know what they're doing can bring over CGI and actors.
And here's a bit of behind the scenes for Valor.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
There’s some positive thinking, Jack! That puts a smile on my face!
That crippled tyrant did have a positive side-effect!
You'll have to go to the link for the context.
Weer'd on Uncle showing off his son's first time firing an AR
Love that video!
Also this is impossible without a collapsible stock which is illegal in Massachusetts.
Making children smile is illegal here. This is the purpose of their laws.
And on the former Snowflakes in Hell on if the Canadian Long gun registry represent a bridge too far?
Will this repeal show Canadian gun owners that they have an option other than keeping their heads down or trying to accomodate with the antis? Well to use Rocky logic, this shows the Gun Control movement can bleed. That they can be beaten.
And another great comment by Weer'd:
Also, speaking as a former anti, the AWB was the big dumb lie that got me to question EVERYTHING the anti-rights movement has pushed.
The AWB seems like a good idea if you believe the guns are more deadly and dangerous than ban compliant guns.
Mandatory permits and training and registration sounds like a great idea if you believe these things lower, or solve crime, or prevent accidents.
Gun-free Zones seem like a good idea if it saves lives.
Of course data shows all of this is crap, and the backers of the laws are liars, and that converts pretty hard.
People don’t like being lied to.
An example. I have a Canadian gunnie friend and what really turned him from a "guns are neat but sensible gun control is sensible" to "Gun Control is a pack of stupid lies and jackbooted thuggery" was this story.
With that he realized that no only were safe storage laws BS that the police used to punish someone who dared defend himself. He's made jokes about a revolver covered in cable locks and trigger locks as being "Candian Compliant". And talks about how Canadaians do have a right to self defense despite what the police think.
Much of that came from the realization that he was being lied to by people that found him contemptible. People don't like to be played the fool. Which is part of why they get so invested in sunken costs.
Erin Palette at Lurking Rhythmically has a bit of a request.
And if you're a gunnie that looking to do your bit to help a shooter and help someone with self defense you could do worse.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Basically they're harkening back to the good old days, a 100 years ago when" gun makers could build a #gun child couldn’t shoot for pennies per gun. Still can. Yet today triggers are more sensitive."
Are they talking about trigger pull? Safety features? The 1911 is a very popular gun (guess how old it is) and has a very light trigger, but has 2 safeties. Revolvers have no safeties but have fairly heavy triggers. And... the trigger weights haven't really changed. If anything with the Wonder-9's and subsequent composite frame weapons the trigger has gotten heavier.
This betrays a gut-level bleat based on no actual knowledge or experience with firearms. And yet they want to regulate them and think they know better than you if you should have a gun.
But why are they so ignorant? It's not like this stuff is hard to learn about. Especially not with the internet. Say what you will about abortion but at least both sides know what a trimester is. Obligatory shoulder thing that goes up.
So why don't they learn even a tiny bit about guns? This isn't about knowing something and lying for your side's benefit. This is just blabbing whatever "feels right".
We are dealing with a group that wears their ignorance of firearms like a badge of honor.
In a way I suppose that makes a certain kind of twisted sense.
Take Weer'd, he used to be an anti. Then he started shooting and became more informed about things and look at him now: Full bearded and full gunned.
I'd guess that all but the most insular anti's know at least someone that fell to the "darkside". Which could contribute to their fear of knowledge.
Lord knows they've got enough magical thinking already about the evil, corrupting intent of objects. Why not do the same with knowledge?
Is that it? They're not just afraid of objects but also of ideas?
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Doesn't matter if you don't actually own a firearm. The drawing is enough. Especially if you've got a record, due process what's that?
So we've got the teachers overreacting, the police "just doing their job", and all to find...
And there was a gun … a clear plastic toy gun that shoots soft plastic biodegradable BBs and retails for around $20 at Walmart.
Bravo. It's interesting to see that the teachers can say whatever they want and the police just have to follow orders. Nice work if you can get it.
Next up they'll go after the guy who's son says he owns an illegal rocketship, they have some strong pictorial evidence and hard testimony supporting that case.
Well it'll teach that little girl an important lesson. Authority figures are frightened, panicky idiots, and if you want to make it through school turn off your imagination and keep your head down.
Heaven help the Canadian with guns and a firearms permit, who has a child that likes to draw and has an imagination.
And it's good stuff. In short: Dress for the range and for the store, keep in mind the culture and ask questions. And be confident but don't act like you know more than you do.
You are dealing with a fair chunk of chance so your interaction and what you learn is important.
Also this Pony Pistol(no not that kind of pony) is just plain adorable.
Also talk about a small world, given I found about Erin inspired this at Weerd's.
Oh and Act of Valor is a very fun action movie. Not much plot and meh-ish acting from the protagonists (who are Seals and not actors so okay), but very good action and a really good pace. As someone said in the GBC chat last night, it's gun porn. Watch if you like seeing Seals shoot guys.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Right now, we need oil. Oil is what the world runs on. Not lasers, and not fusion, and not fucking algae, for the love of God.
There will always be some technological innovations and occasionally a paradigm-shifting breakthrough, a watershed.
But your policy cannot be built up on the premise "And then a miracle happens," and further you certainly cannot schedule it to happen bureaucratically."
But that's what all of Obama's policies are based on. It's not quite that Obama wants to destroy the US, sure he wants to change the way it operates into his "more just" vision, but the other problem is he just can't make his rhetoric into reality.
He lives in a fantasyland of algae and miracles. He is functionally a child. Things will happen because he wants them to happen. He wants the cookie, ergo the cookie jar will spontaneously generate a cookie.
Which is how most politicans think and sell their policies. IE: you deserve X therefore X will be availaible, forever, at no cost. But most politicians at least disguise it a bit.
Well better than his plan to balance the budget.
Meanwhile Obama's mockingly dismissive of his mocking description of the Republican's plan:
You pay more, they’re licking their chops. You can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plan for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill and then step three is to keep drilling.
Yeah... increasing supply of a good normally does reduce it's price. I mean drilling more? That's crazy talk. No, algae will solve this year's gas price spike.
And why does he think drilling isn't a solution?
We are at the same line in 2007 when I was running for president. We hear the same thing every year. We’ve heard the same thing for 30 years. Well, the American people aren’t stupid. They know that’s not a plan, especially since we’re already drilling.
So it's impossible for the rate of production could increase? Man there's that mercantilist -progressive thinking: you can only redistribute the pie, there's no finding more pie
It's certainly not like Gulf Coast production has been slashed on the President's order, or that he's canceled a pipeline that would increase our supply of Canadian oil. Talk about a simplistic binary view of the world: The US is either drilling for oil or it's not.
And funny that he mentions how the some people say every year that the US should increase production. "If We Started Drilling In ANWR Today, We Wouldn't Have Oil Until Ten Years from Now." -2002 And plenty more at the link.Via Ace
So not only is the President scornful of a basic economic tenant (raise supply to lower price), but he's also aghast that his political rivals might blame him for his energy policies. The link has more, including a time when Democrats blamed the President for gas prices.
And it's not like Obama wanted high energy prices.
Ed Driscoll has more.
Keep this in mind that the President is through "compromising" and has made a big campaign theme of "We Can't Wait". That the whole checks and balances thing is a limitation for lesser presidents but not him.
Since when do elected officials get to decide that they are “done compromising,” as the president’s chief of staff asserted? Obviously, politics, which at its heart is the art of compromise, is too pedestrian, too . . . democratic for this administration.
Via Ace who fears "It has gone beyond the political, gone beyond policy, gone beyond preferences."
So we have a president who is angry that he's being challenged... and that people dare to hold him accountable, well at least he'll have all support from all the people that hated Bush's "imperial presidency" and "totalitarian policies", as well as the media.
Until his friends remove the middle-man and by the outlets themselves to ensure things run really smoothly.
And Victor Davis Hanson has some more doom with the story of the "Dog that Caught the Car".
The Obama administration’s real problem is existential: What if it gets what it wants, but then finds that either it or the country really is uncomfortable with what it got?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Meanwhile Tam looks past the shiny talking heads and uses her own lying eyes with Imaginary Recovery. And links to a similar vibe.
Things are going to get... interesting. Which just shows that the idea of a stable and fat and happy society of plenty unusual and at risk to "bad luck".
Keep your powder dry and learn various cooking and sundry skills while you can. And be extra wary of any man on a white horse offering to "save" you.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Why no, they don't provide the text of their proposed amendment. Just a feel good assurance of their goal of "a Constitutional Amendment that will keep corporate money out of our elections."
Call me crazy, but when you invite me to support your attempt to amend the Constitution in order to regulate Free Speech, I'd kind of want to know what I'm signing on for. How do you intend to limit Free Speech and Free Association in order to "take back American democracy"?
But don't worry just give them your name, email, zip code, and company name (it really helps if you own a business) to this large foreign owned corporation and they'll start lobbying congress and statehouses to get... corporate influence... out of politics. Huh.
Well, I'm sure they only mean to get rid of the "bad" kind of corporate money via their mystery constitutional amendment.
Though one of the Reddit one of the commenters nails it:
Ben and Jerry's, a division of Unilever (one of the biggest companies in the food business), has launched a cynical advertising campaign disguised as a petition drive to overturn citizens united. As part of a calculated effort to increase brand visibility and favorability among progressive, politically literate people, Ben and Jerry's has launched the petition which has been fine tuned not to step on any of unilever's interests.
Give them your contact info Rube!
Well. the alternative is that a subsidiary of a massive multinational is asking Americans to help them lobby for a secret amendment the Constitution with the aim of regulating Free Speech in order to weaken rival corporations while helping their own interests.
Geeze. A cynical hippy-dippy marketing gimmick is far more palatable.
[T]he movement has accomplished its main original goal: to protest these injustices, not by simply holding a rally and going home, but by keeping the rally going to underscore the seriousness of this problem. Your piece accuses the protesters of sitting around and doing nothing. So maybe they should take up their Second Amendment-sanctioned guns and storm Wall Street and our nation’s capitals.
Yes... because the sensible answer to a lack of clear goals on how to move forward is to sit in place... for months on end. And if that fails jump from rallies straight threatening armed insurrection. Not even gonna try the ballot box? Or is OWS decided to cut out the middle man once again and move to outright banditry? They've already moved from occupying parks to occupying houses.
Though call it a safe bet, but this guy is probably a total poser, or at least urging his buddies to vote from the rooftops sans rifle, ladder, and without getting any roofing tar under his nails.
Though I'll make another bet that someone with the Occupuy group will try something... again.
And note that the Second Amendment is only looked at approvingly by the media, (even the insurrectionist interpretation) when it's done on behalf of leftist agitators. And note that instead of rebelling against tyranny the OWS mantra is demands of money, the ability to walk away from debt, and greater government control of the economy.
Not the only Bizarre Behavior today.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
The part on the Atlantic Slave Trade had a fascinating aside.
Although the driving force of abolitionism was moral, it wouldn't have made much headway without economic changes. At the beginning of the modern era, so many business ventures invoked slaves at some point in the process that no one could abolish slavery without losing a lot of money. An investor who was morally opposed to profiting from slavery would be shut out of making money from shipping, textiles, tobacco, sugar, banking, insurance, and mining. Then in the mid-1700's, the emerging industrial economies began to produce plenty of money without using slaves. Suddenly, the abolition of slavery wouldn't bankrupt as many important people, so it became a lot easier to take a moral stand.
Why did the Industrial Revolution push out slavery? It's not that slaves couldn't do the work. Slaves could be found working as factory hands, miners, and skilled tradesmen in cities and towns throughout the Western Hemisphere- and doing a perfectly fine job of it. Factories often treated their workers like slaves anyway, so using actual slaves was not a problem.
The real problem was that slaves were a long-term investment that died up capital and became riskier as the economy became more dynamic. With markets always fluctuating, it was easier to just hire and fire free labor as needed, rather than raise slaves from babies for jobs that might be gone when they were old enough to work. Only agricultural production was steady enough, year by year, to make it feasible to acquire a workforce years before it would be put to use.
Also, plantations were more self-sufficient than cities, making it a lot cheaper to keep slaves. Food, water, housing, and firewood were easily available on farms, so in bad times it was possible to hunker down and wait for the economy to improve. Keeping slaves in and urban economy meant renting shelter, importing, food, and buying fuel. That's money flowing out even when there's no money coming in. It was easier to pay workers a wage and let them worry about their own upkeep.*
* This sounds like wage labor was even more cruel than slavery. Well, yes, it was, except that free laborers were allowed to get married, keep their children, fight back, go to court, go to school, go to church, avoid church, save money, spend money, drink beer, drink whiskey, drink too much, read, move, and own their own pants. But, yes, aside from all that...
Pages 169-170, Emphasis added. Do I need to explain the conflict between "security" and liberty? Or what happens when a person's employer is obligated to take care of everything? Or how technological advancement and labor flexibility can result in greater liberty despite greedy intentions of "the rich"?
Though things can also come back to gun rights.
In Cuba, slavery wasn't shaken loose until its first unsuccessful war of independence, the Ten Years War. By the time the insurrection was put down in 1878, too many slaves had escaped to hunt them all down again, so the Spanish government decided not to argue with any slaves who had guns. (In technical terms, the peace treaty granted freedom to any slave who had fought for either side in the war - in other words, those who had guns.) The rest were set free eight years later.
Page 171, Emphasis added. And by pure coincidence communist Cuba has extremely harsh gun control. Funny that.
But from the title all I could think of was this.
Though as shirts go I'd prefer the Garand one (after purchasing the rifle) or the JMB. The 1911 is nice but may be a bit too on the nose.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Consider how inexpensive birth control and the like are. Many contraceptives are purely over the counter. How come an insurance policy is supposed to cover such things? Why isn't toothpaste mandated? How come auto insurance isn't forced to cover new tires?
The reason is for spite.
Now instead addressing the control aspect, it's much easier to go on about what is being mandated. It's like how as a comment at Weer'd's shows:
As someone somewhere else said (sorry, can’t remember who or where…), this whole thing is like telling Muslims that they have to give out bacon to everyone who comes in their mosque, and when they get upset about it, saying “BUT WHO COULD GET UPSET ABOUT BACON WHY DON’T YOU LIKE BACON BACON IS GOOD!”
Changing the argument.
Ace looks at what it really means. Basically there's no free exercise of religion, the second you step outside of the churchyard everything you do is regulated as if you were a government utility. Your religion prohibits X? Tough.
And that regulation includes orders to insurers fabricate their accounting books in order to pretend certain goods and services are free. Yes, gotta love when government edicts force companies to act illegally.
And not only do all institutions have to provide certain services no matter what, you as a citizen will have to buy certain services no matter what. You don't agree? Tough shit serf.
Krauthammer sums it up:
This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.
But don't worry, they promise that the health industry is special and unlike the rest of the economy needs to be a single payer. And you can trust them, just like how the Income Tax will only apply to the rich.
And it's just like how now they swear that tax rates will only go up for the rich. Nevermind that there isn't enough money among the wealthy to cover that. No, it's better to pretend that cheap class-warfare will solve all our problems.
I've said this forever, but the Democrats can't speak a plan aloud, because there are only two options:
1. Reduce benefits, which they don't want to do, as they're playing Mediscare yet again.
2. Massively increase the tax burdens on the middle class, which they claim they don't want to do, but they do. All of their schemes rely on pulling more money from the middle class which is, as Willie Sutton said of banks, "where the money is."
I actually think the Democrats want a crisis, because in crisis, the politically impossible becomes merely the politically unpalatable.
That's just crazy talk. It's not like these are the same folks that said "never let a crisis go to waste".
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking on behalf of the Obama White House, to Rep. Paul Ryan: "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours.
Oh. Yeah. It's all a farce.
TODAY’S REAL NEWS: “This is the second year in a row that Geithner has described an Obama budget as unsustainable.”
And today he's built on that to create a compact firearm for those that love the Judge but find .410 a bit too powerful: The Paralegal.
Much better name.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
I particularly like Whittle's note on the moral superiority of a dead victim over a living victor.
From Weer'd. Who notes that it's the same moralizing pap as the rest of the gun control movement.
Sure they're against concealed carry and all rights, but that's just for you proles.
No explanation was provided for why Media Matters advocates punishing permit holders who accidentally carry permitted concealed handguns into gun-free zones, but simultaneously think that it is fine for their organization to carry guns in Washington, D.C. where no other civilians are allowed to do so by law.
Yet, whatever Daley and O’Donnell’s personal contradictions, neither of them were committing a crime. Brock’s actions are arguably much worse: carrying a concealed handgun in Washington, D.C. is a felony.
They’re against concealed carry for you or I but when it comes time to protect their own hides they’ll happily have a flunkie carry a Glock for them.
Because when their own lives are on the line, they know what's the best method for their own self defense.
The difference is that they don't want the rest of you proles to have that same ability.
Watch the whole thing and note how the life-threatening situations get resolved.
Especially take note of the end. Because a woman going out alone at night when a murderer is out and about is completely fantastical. Now note how the situation would have gone if she had not been armed.
And as an added bonus note the man's big mistake of turning his back to a potential threat.
There are two things that ruin horror movies. 1 CCW and 2 Cell phones.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Some notes from the article.
Bernier said that the Ecole Polytechnique shooting — the Montreal Massacre that provided the political impetus for the long-gun registry — could not have been prevented.
“The weapon used at Ecole Polytechnique was registered,” he said. “The fact of registering long guns does not permit us to fight efficiently against crime.”
Yes it's like registering doesn't do anything to stop the criminal element.
And here's a rollout of "gun crime"
Clement was asked how victims of gun crime and their families, who will assemble on Parliament Hill for the vote, would feel to know MPs are popping champagne in celebration.
“It’s important to note we’re on the side of the victims, including those of gun crime,” he said. “We’re with people who have been dealt a terrible situation, a tragedy because of the bad guys.”
And note that the vote to end the registry basically came from one party. Which does not bode well given Canada's 3.5 party system. There's also that in a parliamentary system it's much easier for the majority party to do what it wants.
Almost all opposition MPs voted against the legislation — except for New Democrats Bruce Hyer and John Rafferty, who sided with the government.
Candice Hoeppner, whose private member’s bill to abolish the registry was defeated in 2010 after a narrow vote, singled out NDP members who pledged to their constituents to vote with the government, only to change sides and vote to save the registry at the last moment.
She named NDP MPs Charlie Angus, Nikki Ashton, Alex Atamanenko, Dennis Bevington, Nathan Cullen, Claude Gravelle and Carol Hughes as those who went against the wishes of their constituents.
“Opposition members cannot be let off the hook for saying one thing and doing another,” she said. “All of these members should know that many of their colleagues were fired by their real bosses: law abiding Canadians who are voting.”
And then you see the "effective gun control" line being trotted out.
“These proposals ignore the concerns of victims of gun violence who are mourning their dead or tending to their crippling injuries: this must never happen again,” she said. “We must do all in our power to prevent this carnage, including supporting effective gun control.”
Coalition members, including YWCA Canada CEO Paulette Senior and Alexa Conradi, president of the Quebec Women Federation, excoriated the government for its “ideological” devotion to ending the registry.
“The safety of women must take precedence over a small ‘bureaucratic hassle,’ ” Conradi said. “The decision by the government to delete the existing data can only be described as a punitive measure that has little to do with privacy and much to do with ideology.”
Yes, it's not like the data in the registry could ever be abused. But no, having your property being capriciously confiscated by the state, that's just a "hassle".
And another interesting thing, in every single example of "gun crime" an anti gives in that article... the registry had done nothing to prohibit or help trace the weapon. In the whole article there's no example of a success story or the registry working or doing anything to reduce crime.
Which is to be expected. It doesn't matter that the registry has failed to do anything in reducing crime, what's important is the intent in passing it and the symbolism of the scheme itself.
Unfortunately, even among the pro-gun side in the article there's not a word of self defense. It's all about sport shooters and hunters. That's a shame because to ignore self defense is the key aspect to firearms rights. Without it you're stuck arguing on the anti's terms.
Defensive gun uses are generally the elephant in the room for the Anti-Rights types, as in an argument where pro-gun people can only frame their gun ownership in terms of sport and collecting, that argument will ALWAYS lose, as no matter what as the negatives will be the abuses of guns in society, and the positives will be fun-and-games. No rational person will chose the gun. But if you frame guns as a tool to protect innocent lives and resist tyranny, and cite the number of lives SAVED by personal firearms EVERYDAY, and compare that with the innocent lives harmed by them, well there is no contest.
But if Canada can get rid of the Long Gun Registry, it's evidence that other countries can roll back gun control too and that the ratchet does not go just one way. Maybe one day Canada can have their own CCW "revolution".
This time making a 22 AR lower out of Derlin.
Very neat stuff. He's also done work on aluminum lowers too.
It's cool to see it go from a block of plastic to a functional and legal firearm (in both definitions as the project is legal, and that chunk of plastic is what the law considers the gun).
We can all put in in the standard bit about Gun Control being a dead-letter here.
An interesting thing to consider is that in the US homemade firearms are already legal and even the most restrictive states allow Joe-Average to buy some sort of gun. Then add in that 70% of the country is at the very least Shall Issue, and there's only one state and DC that do not have any kind of CCW.
So, in all, the effect of a person being able to "print up" a gun because they want too would not be as destabilizing in the US as it would be in a country with very high gun control.
It's all about reducing "barriers to entry" in the US there are less barriers than in a country like the UK or Japan.
An interesting question will also be if there is a cultural or legal shift. Take Canada, a country where 22% of households have a gun, but only a tenth of those have a handgun. And Carry Permits are as mythical and "special" as Hawaiian permits.
So one can see that increased access to firearms may not translate to increased carry rights. It's not just the Right to Keep Arms, after all.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
If scientists are stunned by simple data collection, they’re doing it wrong. Their job is to dispassionately collect and analyze the data, not get all worked up because it didn’t fit their pet theory.
Confirmation bias is a nasty little bugger, and why a scientist has to be very careful to not get too attached to his or her theories. It's not about proving your theory was right; it's about finding a theory that matches the empirical data and can predict future empirical data.
But apparently all that goes out the window if you're saving the world...
Monday, February 13, 2012
Of course the head of Media Matters can have armed body gaurds and even have his personal assitant illegally carry a Glock. He's an important man that needs protection against "right wing attack."
Just don't tell his funders... or his readers... or his writers.
So, let me get this straight. The attacks on lawful gun owners are coming from a group that is headed by someone who hires an armed driver, suffers from a questionable mental state, has publicly admitted to drug use, and had an assistant violate gun laws on his behalf. The organization leader isn’t actually concerned about the hypocrisy of it all, but rather that funding might dry up if his gun hiring habits are exposed.
Oh and if you work for him and object you'll be fired. Course you'll be fired if these so sensitive and tolerant people think you're too ugly too. Or complain about the drugs and sex.
Geeze. As Mr. Evilwrench notes. These guys fulfill their stereotypes even better than they say we do.
But you can trust them to be a voice for gun control. And you better, because if you don't play ball they'll come after you.
One of the strategies Media Matters employs in trying to make sure that all reporters only provide a left-leaning vision of America is to release the hounds on smaller reporters working for regional papers. They throw the weight of their nationwide fundraising and contact list, as well as the bloggers who carry their water, onto reporters who are just trying to cover the news as it relates to the towns around them.
And from the same parent article we see that these clowns help the White House create and enforce enemies lists.
So remember the next time Media Matters rails on how some law or regulation would make things "more fair"... remember that if they find the law inconvenient themselves, they'll just ignore it.
And here's another example of friends of the Crown getting special privileges.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Same with bayonets, quite useful.
Pocket guns are compact and can make up for their recoil and capacity and caliber issues by presenting accessibility.
JayG, of course, combines all three.
Edit: Updated by talking with Jay on GBC
[22:54] <+The_Jack> Jay, you should get some 22 cal shotshell
[22:54] <+The_Jack> You can market the "Micro judge"
[22:54] * +JayG *has* 22LR shotshells...
[22:55] <+JayG> ...
[22:55] <+JayG> The_Jack, you are a genius
[22:55] <+JayG> an evil, evil genius
Friday, February 10, 2012
Weer'd was not kidding when he warned that the holsters were designed for full size magazines.
They double version works great and will be handy for carrying two 1911 magazines whenever I use my IWB holster.
But I also got 2 single ones for my LCP and my PM45.
Well I did the mod for my LCP tonight and then tested it for a bit, and I think it'll work as an IWB or pocket magazine holder.
Left is my LCP in the Desantis Nemesis holster. Right is two magazines in the Remora holder (which is made of about the same material).
Below is what the holder originally looked like.
The Remora had good stitching and quality material. I'll know more about how it wears with some testing, but so far been rather happy, and it was easy to modify.
So if you have a pocket gun and you want to carry your ammunition better than just loosely in a pocket, this can work for you.
Though if you solely want IWB carry, It may be better to simply sew along the bottom of the holder to shorten the depth of the pocket.
PS: It's kind of funny that the first real thing I do with my work bench (other than polishing some wood grips) is swwing.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The video is only a minute long but the questions will keep you up all night.
It starts out as a clunky video about how it's rad to save yourself for marriage. Fair enough... I suppose. Lord knows I won't judge on that, but using a teddy-bear as your font of wisdom? Really?
Where are they at the end? Is that a church? Where are the other people? Even if you elope you can’t get married without a minister or a justice of the peace.
Oh god, is that his basement? Did the scary guy who thinks a plush God Bear talks to him and cuddles with him take that poor girl to Uncle Bruin’s Chastity Dungeon?
One thing I'm glad for, that final scene didn't have an altar in it.
The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn't. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.
I'm not a StarWars fan. I find the Jedi to be a creepy bunch of arrogant hypocrites. And the most I've seen of the new movies is from the Plinket reviews. And so I don't really care. I am amused at how Lucas seems to have gone insane and seems to revel in "destroying" StarWars.
But what struck me was something else.
That's why I won't talk about how Lucas' statement is a blatant falsehood given that even I can see that in the original Greedo didn't get a shot off. Which makes order mood.
But this isn't about the changes. It's that Lucas felt that he had to clarify that Han wasn't a cold-blooded killer. Ace explains the insanity:
My, you have to be sitz-tinkler to get all worried about the message you're sending by having Han "gun Greedo down" like a "cold-blooded murderer."
For one thing, you know, Greedo had a gun on him, and announced, clearly, that he intended to kill Han in the next few seconds.
This seems "bad ass" only because of silly movies in the fifties and stuff when singing cowboys always let the bad guy have the first shot. That continued for decades.
Really think about it. Han's moment to establish is badass questionable morals (something that Lucas in his later years found upsetting and required retconning) was... shooting a man that had pulled a gun on him. Which is a pretty black and white case of self defense there.
Anyway, this seems more "cold-blooded" than it is. To the extent these films have anything remotely to do with "realism," it's more realistic that you'd just shoot a guy who's aiming to kill you. Without granting him the advantage of getting to shoot first.
None of this would have seemed surprising had it not been established as a movie convention -- and only a convention in the movies -- that good guys are morons who are willing to risk a bullet to the head in the interests of Being Good Sports About This Whole Trying To Murder Each Other Thing.
Again... if someone got the drop on you, pointed a gun at you, and you were armed and able to covertly draw, aim and... what stop and only pull the trigger after your attacker shot you?
Was Han supposed to wait his turn? Make sure that Greedo wasn't bluffing?
This is right up there with Joan "We have to give the criminal every benefit of the doubt" Petterson.
If you really wanted to have Han be shady and morally grey, you'd have him shoot Greedo the second Greedo shows up and hints about Jabba, or maybe wait until Greedo merely shows his weapon (though if Greedo made a move to unholster...).
Also I'm talking about contemporary US self defense law. Not say... a wild rough and tumble spaceport dive bar full of illegal activity. Greeze.
Also naming an evil bounty hunter Greedo? Really Lucas?
It's because it turns the rule of law and equality before the law into a system of feudal patronage and indulgences. If a state or organization can just get a waiver from a law then that gives them an unfair advantage, and indebts them to the man that granted said waiver.
At least Obamacare had provisions for waivers (which were generously doled out to faithful supporters). But now Obama's taken it upon himself to deem where No Child Left Behind is applicable... without even a legal fig-leaf.
And of course, the consequences of a Lord of the Flies style, whimsical executive without any checks and balances isn't something the Left apparently worries about.
At least when their guy's in office. Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open. Well, well, isn't that convenient.
A very neat dryfire practice method, where you can know where your gun is aimed.
In other news my Remora ammo holders came in. And Weerd is not kidding when he says that the carriers just swallow small magazines. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure I can cut the material back ab it and resew the edging.
More info when I try the rework.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Take a guess:
"One would think that a church would feel a special obligation to make sure that they weren’t fueling a black market for a particularly deadly form of commerce."
Why yes, that is term-limit-exempt Mayor Bloomberg bleating about something thousands of miles from New York City.
Remember this is a man who in addition to being the food, alcohol, trans-fat nanny has also (incorrectly) bragged about how he's got enough armed men to make top-tier army.
So is it no wonder that he sounds and awful lot like the Venezuelan Communist Dictatorship?
Well get ready to recalibrate your opinions!
I'm sure all those that agreeded with the president's assement of Super Pacs as being dangerous tools that bring too much money are A-okay with him using them for his own aims.
You see, it's different when the President does it.
Just imagine the reaction to Bush doing some of the stuff Obama's done... oh wait, you don't have to imagine for a lot of it.
And here's a couple more rubes that realize that when you put your trust in a giant bloated goverment you might get screwed over. Governments can lie? Who knew?
Maybe, just maybe some people will realize that the government is not your friend, it is nor your family. Instead, they will realize that it is force. Kurt Schlichter is a bit optimistic.
The Republicans, pushed by a groundswell of opposition from conservative new media types, bailed. SOPA was a non-starter, and now everyone will be looking the next time Hollywood tries to play them. Hey, Hollywood, there’s a new paradigm in Tinseltown.
And the Democrats who supported SOPA – and who could not back out no matter how outraged the nutroots got – ended up looking both foolish and like tools of the corporate power structure. And that’s just what they are.
But it gets better.
It gets better because this was a great object lesson all around. To those in Republicans in Congress, it brought attention to a subject that had been sadly ignored but is vital to a huge number of influential voters. It gave them an issue – Internet freedom – that is truly congruent with conservative values, unlike the past political payoffs to connected Hollywood cronies. We conservatives can run on this.
It was also a lesson to young, tech-savvy people who see themselves as culturally liberal and just kind of voted that way, mostly out of habit. The group that really shares their values – creativity, enterprise, freedom – is the conservativees. The liberals they counted themselves among wanted to shut down websites, not the conservatives. SOPA opened a lot of eyes."
Perhaps. In my experience a lot of even casual independents see Democrats being corrupt as a sign of "Corporatist American Goverment" while Republicans being corrupt is "Right Wing Extermism."
There's also the very creepy notion that those in government will be less inclined to abuse their powers than those in corporations. Never mind that governance has far greater economic, legal, and financial power, not to mention uniquely possessing coercive powers.
Nope, there's still the idea that someone driven by greed is worse than someone driven by "good government". Despite the fact that a corporation can only meddle in your life if you agree to do business with them or are mandated to by the State. The State has no such limitations.
However to those inclined to open their eyes, this does help. And people, even on the left, have noticed which side was moved by internet freedom.
I've been working with a pro-gun Canadian friend and been able to show hims how safe storage laws and registration can be abused. Even in his own country.
He's also been very receptive to events like the Carry at Starbucks on the 14th. And he's expressed a desire to participate, despite his own country's laws.
Monday, February 6, 2012
“As of March, every last gun shop remaining should be closed. That is to say the perverse chapter of the commercialization of firearms and munitions [will be] over.”
Sounds like some gun grabber blabbing about the evil NRA and gun lobby right?
Especially, when you put in this preceding bit "saying that articles used to threaten human lives cannot not be sold freely."
The Venezuelan Minister of the Interior and Justice, Tareck El Aissami.
So yes, Hugo has decided that nationalizing everything in sight, and controlling the media isn't enough, total disarmament of everyone but his cronies is required.
Because articles that threaten human lives should only be in the hands of the State.
Miguel has the full quotation with identifying nouns.
Gun Control, it's catnip for Dictators.
Which says a lot about the mentality of those in the US that want it. Nice to see that the UN will happily side with totalitarian thugs bent on ruling a pliant and defenseless population.
Oh and the UN was right there in Caracas at the International Seminar on Arms and Munitions Control and Disarmament. And they approved of the measures.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Those neo Puritans sure hate the idea of someone somewhere having fun and making the 'wrong' choicer.
The Nannystate defined. Sugar is just like cigarettes and alcohol and we need massive taxes to "nudge" you proles into the right decisions. Which makes sense that these social engineers laud $11 for a pack of smokes and wish it were higher.
And bonus for first world problems and the bright idea of spiking food prices.
It's like how gun control is about control.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Interesting stuff. And some very amusing photos.
And quote of the day, on the video that Oleg links to about an 11 year old girl prepared to defend herself against three intruders: "Gutierrez realized hiding didn't do any good."
So instead she armed herself, and thankfully the intruders ran off. (Yes, you'll find most gun nuts don't actually want to have to fire their weapons in anger).
It's not just 11 year olds that realize that, 10 year olds do too.
Of course in Canada Miss Gutierrez would be the one brought up on charges.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Sure self defense is technically legal, but if you use a gun to defend yourself they'll get you with an "Unsafe Storage" violation, even if you actually did have your weapon "safely" stored and somehow had enough time to unlock your safe and make ready.
Witness this case:
Just when was Ian Thomson guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm? Mr. Thomson is the Port Colborne, Ont., man currently standing trial in a Welland, Ont. courtroom after he and his home were attacked by firebombers in August, 2010. (That's correct, in the topsy-turvy world of Canadian criminal justice, Mr. Thomson and his home were the ones attacked and yet he is the one on trial.)
Having dropped other more serious charges - such as dangerous use of a firearm - because they concluded there was no reasonable chance of winning a conviction, Crown prosecutors have nonetheless bullied ahead with unsafe storage charges against Mr. Thomson.
Nevermind that Mr. Thomson has proven that he could have unlocked his safe and loaded his guns in the given time frame. The Canadian government has decided to see fit to punish a man for defending his house from attacking arsonists.
Via Clayton Cramer.
I suppose they don't want to send the message that self defense is acceptable. Because then Canadians might start using their guns to defend themselves on their property, and even worse demand carry permits be given to normal citizens, instead of an elite few.
As Weer'd said Self Defense and protection against tyranny are the main reasons for firearms ownership.
It's telling that in Canada they use the latter to punish the former.
Right now, the Canadian government would prefer guns merely be hunting and sporting implements.
It makes them that much easier to ban.
At least there's been some progress up there.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
One of the great blessings of the United States is that in the large politics really doesn't matter all that much. Sure we care - a lot- and have plenty of strong opinions about national politics. But the reality is that for most people whoever controls the White House has little discernible effect on their daily lives and that of their friends and families.
But in other countries politics /matters/: who has political power determines whether you keep your job, can get enough food, whether your family can stay in the country, or even whether you live or die. By contrast we have the luxury of not having to care about politics and still leading a happy, pleasant life. And that's no small thing.
Note that there are some that want that to change. And that the happy sleepy dream state of much of the populace is part of the political problems we have. That and people like free ice-cream and would rather support the man promising them more goodies than some fool who tells 'em it wasn't free and the bill's due.
As Frank J shows why Independents are so happy with that system.
I know what some of you are thinking: “I don’t know that this apathy idea will work for me.” Well, that’s your problem — you’re thinking about it. Thinking leads to opinions, and opinions eradicate apathy. Instead, you just need to shrug your shoulders and say, “Eh.” Then — BOOM! — the argument is over.