Winning.... Sharpton?

Radio Equalizer has the quote:

SHARPTON (4:52): I would say 90% of the calls I received yesterday were in support of the Supreme Court and people say they want to bear guns. They’re tired of the violence and it’s very very interesting. I have had a few on both sides today, but yesterday was overwhelming, it was stunning to me.

I just told Attorney Lou Meyers, lady stopped me last night; I did the commencement address at Boys and Girls High. She said I listen to your show Reverend and I want you to know I’m saved sanctified by feel of the Holy Ghost, but if they come in my house I’m going to drop them right where they stand. So, and she looked like she was in her eighties.

Sharpon leftwing hack and race baiter... among other things. Even he realizes that people want to defend themselves. And right here we see the advantage of firearms. A gun is the only real way an eldery woman could win in a fight with a young, physically fit, normally male criminal.

That's what gun bans do. Not only do they keep weapons out of the hands of the law abiding while the criminals simply break the law. As said here:

Let’s be real here. With the handgun ban in effect, three were killed and more than two dozen were shot in Chicago last weekend. The weekend prior to that, some 60 people were shot, and 10 were killed.

I don’t think the bad guys are waiting around for the courts to rule so they can go out and legally purchase weapons.

The bans have another effect, they reduce self defense to a matter of muscles. Which is a boon to those that prey on the weaker, smaller, and older. On the other hand, if you are a young woman, an old man, or so on, you become prey to those stronger than you who also happen to be willing to break the law. Even if you're a strong, fit man in the prime of your life you can simply be outnumbered.

There's a reason why this saying exists: "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."


James R. Rummel of Hell in A Handbasket addresses this issue. He teaches self defense to victims of voilent crime and while less than lethal have their place the gun still has a clear advantage in being able to stop a determined foe.


Also, I have family in Memphis. That is a city with a high crime rate, but being in a Shall Issue state, people can defend themselves. At one Memphis gun show I saw people of all races buying weapons to defend themselves. Good.

As The Prof says: This is the new Normal.

The best prevention against the gun grabbers is to have more informed and armed citizens. This has people become more aware of their rights, and makes it much easier for them to know whent he gun grabbers are lying to them.

Flying Car

I've been a bit of a meh on the flying car idea. As cool as it is, the logicstics of widespread use, especially with failsafes seems daunting.


Still a neat idea. And one that keeps getting worked on.

Like most flying cars the Terrafugia Transition is really a light aircraft that has folding wings and road wheels geared to the motor. It's a further refinement of the concept, and appears to be getting more road clearance and FAA regs worked out.

So we might one day get our flying cars... next up, jetpacks (which is a whole other stabilty and energy desnity problem)

Via Ace

Savory.

I never put too much though in what was in Lea and Perrins Worchestershire Sauce.

It was just a very handy sauce that added that something extra.

Turns out the main ingredient is fermented anchovies that give ia a savory/umani flavor.

That'll do it.

A good sauce will mix multiple sensations and savory is a very nice thing to add.

Incorporated.

5-4 Close... and it took long enough.


Here's s bit on National review.

Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns

A previous post on China and their gun laws proves that one out.

Truly onerous gun control came to fruition only in a minority of jurisdictions, predominantly those run by Democrat machines. The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983. With each failure of gun control, the rejoinder was to do it again, this time with feeling.

Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia’s handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago’s streets.

Three times in the last month, Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with “illegal” guns. In the first, an 80-year-old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home. In the second, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man’s home while running from the police. In the third, the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self-defense, sending the other two running.

So done in Dem controled areas and failure is met with trying it
again, only harder! The dance stays the same.


Here's a roundup from Reynolds.

It's taken a long time but the cause of self defense is scrambling forward, but it's still a near thing.

When Eco-Irony Exacerbates Crisis

Glen Reynolds has a saying: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

Compare this to Rahm Emanual's line: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

In the Gulf there is a real crisis. Unfortunately the admin is not treating it as a real crisis, instead there is the delightful mix of incompetence, eco-utopianism, and simply holding back their response in order to get cap and trade.

But that last one is crazy. That's like saying the administration would neglect critical constitutionally mandated responsibilities in order to get legislation they want. And that would never happen.

But back to the Gulf.

Via Reynolds we have this from the Financial Post.

Why does neither the U.S. government nor U.S. energy companies have on hand the cleanup technology available in Europe? Ironically, the superior European technology runs afoul of U.S. environmental rules. The voracious Dutch vessels, for example, continuously suck up vast quantities of oily water, extract most of the oil and then spit overboard vast quantities of nearly oil-free water. Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico.

When ships in U.S. waters take in oil-contaminated water, they are forced to store it. As U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the official in charge of the clean-up operation, explained in a press briefing on June 11, "We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water--the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10% or 15% on that." In other words, U.S. ships have mostly been removing water from the Gulf, requiring them to make up to 10 times as many trips to storage facilities where they off-load their oil-water mixture, an approach Koops calls "crazy."

Perfect is the enemy of the good. Emphasis added. Removing nearly all of the oil from the water but at a much higher rate would remove more oil than a perfect removal that is much slower.

But hey, what's a little math and logistics when you've got "the environment" to save. Which is different from actually saving the real world. Perfection and power over industry is more important than using the fastest way to remove the oil.

Again, the U.S. government priority is on U.S. jobs, with the Dutch asked to train American workers rather than to build the berns. According to Floris Van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch embassy in Washington, Dutch dredging ships could complete the berms in Louisiana twice as fast as the U.S. companies awarded the work. "Given the fact that there is so much oil on a daily basis coming in, you do not have that much time to protect the marshlands," he says, perplexed that the U.S. government could be so focussed on side issues with the entire Gulf Coast hanging in the balance.

Ahh... so US jobs are more important than wetlands. Being a Leftist is hard.

And again, the goobers in charge aren't treating this as a real crisis, but instead as a phony crisis that they can use to get more control over your life. Because hey, when all you've got is a statist hammer...

Nice to see that the man that run on being rational, internationalist, scientific, and competent. Is proving to be none of those things. Here's a hint next time a politician tells you everything you want to hear: He might be lying.

Told. You. So.

How to check out a used 1911

Xavier has a great post on the step by step method to check out a used 1911.

Good advice on how to spot for various kinds of wear damage, and improper mantinance.

And many functionality tests.

I picked up a used Kimber Custom II for a song. I was able to because on feild stripping I found why the slide lock was not funtioning properly. Someone had added a buffer to the guiderod that retarded the full travel of the slide.

Took some work and replacement of extractor and the expected spring work, but got a good gun out of it.

Gun Control. Never enough. Not even in China.

That's Mitch Moxley's view on Chinese Gun Control. He seriously thinks that a communist regime isn't strict enough.

[T]he gun control laws later implemented by Mao and the Communist Party [are] some of the most severe firearms laws in the world. China has imposed a blanket ban on gun ownership, including replicas. Since 1966, the government has prohibited the private manufacture, sale, transport, possession and import or export of bullets and guns.

Possessing a single gun can yield a three-year prison sentence, while perpetrators of gun crimes are often executed.

Moxley then goes on to list criminal activities and try to link them with "gun culture". Then we get this gem of an end.

China introduced gun control in 1966, after children armed with rifles shot out a window at the Great Hall of the People at the Tiananmen Square in Beijing while trying to hit a sparrow, according to official MPS history. The government cracked down harder on gun ownership after the 1989 pro- democracy demonstrations.

It needs to crack down even harder on today's rising gun crime.

Emphasis added.

There you go, in his own words Moxley shows that gun control is done expresssly to facilitate govermental control, and he wants more. Repression in response to protest is good in this man's view.


Gun grabbers are on the side of the totalitarians, and there is no ammount of private firearms use that they condone.

Even China doesn't go far enough.

Via Uncle.