Jdude - The Unstoppable Madman

I was mid argument, and realised

2012-02-09T12:53:00.000-08:00

This person isn't debating me because we disagree on opinions... this person is trying to shout me down and beat me with aggression. He started this argument to inflate his ego and look good in front of his friends. His entire response to my counterpoints have been "Nuh-Uh" and an insult.

I decided to stop wasting my time and cut my losses.

A few moments ago, I ran into this excerpt from a poem which states my position quite succinctly.

~

It is best not to argue,
But if you do at all,
Never do so with a fool.
A fool can defeat all.

She does not care for the facts.
She does not know debate.
She’s a stranger to reason.
Logic she can negate.

In the end the fool will win,
Her logic is so strong!
Decides what she does not like
And then it must be wrong!

It’s better to keep quiet
When challenged by a fool.
Else, to prove her own wisdom,
She will make you a tool.

It is hence my policy
To not respond to those
Who ask questions not to learn
But to be bellicose.

~ Extracted from a poem by Dr M C Gupta

CCMG Tactical Bacon

2012-02-07T05:50:00.000-08:00

Someone figured out how to take the best stuff on earth and put it into a can.Here you go, dear readers:

http://cmmginc.secure-mall.com/item/CMMG-Tactical-Bacon-1325

So I went outside...

2012-02-07T04:20:00.000-08:00

My dear friend Linda nominated me for a blogger award, and requested that I resume typing.

I promised I would go outside and find something to write about.

I went outside.
I looked left...
I looked right...

And I saw Afghanistan.

I find myself in the midst of one of my many forays into a foreign country at the service of the People of the United States.

There is snow in the mountains. Afghanistan has the potential to have several multi-million dollar ski resorts. Literacy rates are rising, and clean water is readily available.

I believe Afghanistan needs a cultural shift to more fully embrace capitalism for their long term health. I leave the thinking in that arena to the subject matter experts. I am merely an outside observer.

I believe that my contributions to this country will have positive implications long after I've left.

I love my job.

-Jdude

Sometimes life gets in the way

2010-10-21T19:37:00.001-07:00

I am no longer able to maintain this opinion log on a regular basis, as may be apparent from my lack of posting lately.

Fret not, all is well here.

I have been so busy that I didn't even notice that several months have passed since I last posted. My goal was to always have one post every second week. "A bit behind?", my dear reader may think.

I am taking (and have taken) a step back from the daily rigors and have focused on the basics in life so that I may take stock in that which is truly important.
I am in a transitory phase, in hobbies and in life... I shall find a new hobby soon. I am as of yet undecided.
Perhaps I'll teach myself French. :)

Until then, I may just write about silly things that happen throughout the day.

Once I have my mind, home and health in the right place, I shall resume posting. I am 99% there.

Thank you for your patience, consideration and understanding.

As always, dear readers

Unstoppable "It's just an unscheduled break from the internet!" Madman

I am extremely busy.

2010-05-22T14:34:00.001-07:00

And have been for quite some time. My faithful readers, I have not abandoned you.
The posts will start to pick up once I get home. I can't say when, due to opsec and all that, but it's not too far.

Does anybody have a good resource for reintegrating and getting to know their wife all over again?

It's uncomfortable for the both of us to just jump in together and say "wee, the world is grand again!" One can never truly appreciate how much another can grow and change in a year, and how difficult it is to build a relationship with what effectively amounts to a new person every single time.

With some trepidation, nervousness and fear, and quite a bit of excitement, I will see my wife again soon.

Sincerely yours,

Jdude~Update (Feb 2012): Divorced. Seems she didn't like me anymore, and chose to move on. Her loss.Farewell and safe travels.-Jdude

Paintings that I like

2010-03-27T06:19:00.000-07:00

Let me show you some paintings that I like.

Carl Spitzweg, The Butterfly Catcher (Taken from Wikipedia)

Martin Johnson Heade, Blue Morpho Butterfly (From here)

Alexander Koester, Elf Enten Unter Birken und im Wasser (From here)

Frederick Childe Hassam, Poppies Isles of Shoals (From here)

Joseph Farquharson, Snowy Garb of Sleeping Earth (From here)

If ever anybody traps you into talking about the artists, name one of the ninja turtles and say some off the wall hippy speak and the few art words you know. Nobody can ever tell when you are full of it that way. ;)

Rebellious Linda, Jar of Beets (From here)

I have not posted in a while

2010-03-13T10:15:00.000-08:00

Because I gave upo guns for lent.

No debating, reading, buying, or anything else related to firearms.

Tis' be killin' me. ;)

Crazy Terrorists are sending suicidal women after us

2010-01-23T10:19:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of the New York Post

By TOM LIDDY
Government officials have been told that female suicide bombers may be trying to enter the United States, according to a published report.

At least two of them may have ties to al Qaeda in Yemen, the same group connected to Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, ABC News reported.

An official said those women may not look Arab and might be traveling on a Western passport, according to the network.

The threat was described as "current" as opposed to imminent, but the intelligence comes the same week that an "unusually high" number of people on the no-fly list tried to board flights into or out of the United States.

How can one identify a terrorist? I wish I could give you a good description of a suicide bomber, but I really can't. They look just like everybody else... your friends, your family, your mom... EXCEPT THEY JUST DON'T SEEM TO BELONG. They may be nervous, sweaty, or wearing a heavy coat in the middle of summer. Don't be afraid to call the police. We do pay them for this, after all.

Here are a few helpful rules on dealing with suicide bombers.

1) Don't get close or tackle possible suicide bombers. They like to blow up. Getting blown up with them is no fun. Shoot them from far away.

2) Shoot a suicide bomber before they blow up, not after. It works much better that way.

3) Know your target. Don't shoot someone because he is wearing a heavy coat in the summer. That is not enough of a indicator to say he is or is not a suicide bomber.

4) Don't pull your firearm until there is danger to life or limb, or a reason justifiable under your local law. Don't shoot the the local bag lady just because she is the local bag lady.

5) If you see someone trying to set his ballsack on fire on an airplane - probably a terrorist. Definitely an idiot. Kick his ass. He is an idiot. Don't worry, it is perfectly legal. It falls under the tax code as "idiot tax". Remember, if he blows up you are going down anyways. After you have kicked his ass, call the Police or Federal Air Marshalls. The Marshalls have guns on them. It is legal. They will shoot the terrorist for you. Also legal.

7) You are not John Wayne, Superman, or Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris eats terrorists and sweats gunpowder every morning. You eat doughnuts and get fat. Don't try to single handedly stop a terrorist unless you absolutely have no other choice. If it does comes to that, fight to win. I want you to go home today safe and sound.

I think that is all I have to say about that.
-Jdude

A quick note on safety

2009-12-18T03:13:00.000-08:00

If you drop a gun, do not try to catch it. Modern guns are designed to be drop-safe. You would not want to inadvertently catch the gun by the trigger and send a round in an unsafe direction.

Have you ever seen somebody in the news arrested for something...

2009-12-10T06:40:00.000-08:00

And your first thought is "where can I get one!?!"

Enter one Mr Jeremy Bell, of Toronto Canada.

Seems Mr. Bell purchased a very realistic looking lego gun. It further seems that some pervert who can't mind his own business and whose apartment overlooks Bell's office spotted the pistol. Said neighbor called Toronto's Emergency Task Force, who promptly responded. Mr. Bell was released without charges, and laughs were had by all. Okay, maybe only me.

I am hotlinking images, I know. I'll make it up to the company by having everybody I know buy me a lego gun.
This is the gun.

I want this one.

They even sell ammunition.

Update: they have just become backordered 4-6 weeks. Totally awesome.

What an interesting event it would have been...

2009-11-22T14:26:00.000-08:00

I am home on two weeks R&R leave from Iraq, and have been flying all over the country. During my recent layover at the Phoenix airport, I struck up a conversation with an elderly gentleman and his son. They are headed out to meet a Linda, who lives near Chicago. I know a Linda who lives near Chicago! I mentioned Linda's site, but they were unfamiliar with it. The two gentleman and I had a wonderful discussion, from scripture to great grandchildren to chess. They boarded their plane and went on their way. What a wonderful coincidence if I had met the family of my internet friend. As it turns out, I had not.

Chicago gun case

2009-11-18T09:59:00.000-08:00

The D.C. gun case I reported on a while back has returned, although in a slightly different form.

Legal experts and nitpickers, please be advised: I write this for people who have little to no interaction with the law.

That said, I will fix blatant errors if they are pointed out to me. I am not a lawyer and operate with a limited understanding of the law. I really don't have a good grasp on the difference between Privilege and Immunities and Due process.

A quick summary of Heller v. D.C.
D.C. said that nobody can legally own a handgun without licensing and registration. D.C. then refused to license or register any handguns. This effectively banned private handgun ownership in D.C. with very few exceptions. A security Guard (Dick Heller) and his lawyer (Alan Gura) thought that it was B.S. because Heller wanted a gun to protect himself at home. After several twists and turns, the Supreme Court said that D.C. MUST allow Heller to register his gun for defense in the home, assuming he didn't become disqualified during the preceding years of the court case. In this sense, disqualified means becoming a felon and thus unable to legally own a firearm.

Because of the way that U.S. law works, that decision only applies to the Federal Government. A very similar law is in place in Chicago, Illinois. The Lawyer, Alan Gura, flew over to Chicago and sued them on behalf of 4 people including Otis McDonald. Now this case is headed to the Supreme Court. Everybody watching this case expects (on the pro gun side) and seems resigned (on the anti gun side) for the Supreme Court to tell Chicago to shut up and sit down, and to let people who aren't felons get a gun for home defense.

There is a bit of discussion about how to incorporate(1) the case as well. The case might be incorporated through the Privileges and Immunities Clause (2), or the Due Process Clause (3).

If the Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process clause, it basically means that the Supreme Court is saying that the Second Amendment is part of the fundamental fairness and traditions of of our land and each US Citizen has the specific right.
If it is incorporated through the Privileges and immunities clause, it means the Supreme Court thinks that the Second Amendment applies to all Citizens, and is one of the special rights the Citizen has against the State and Feds.

For this case, and this case only, the result will be exactly the same regardless of the incorporation method used. If the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process clause, it will follow the general tradition that has incorporated the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. If it is incorporated through the Privileges and immunities clause, it opens up a whole potential of new protections to our liberties.

---

A long, long time ago, and sometimes a bit more recent, some States made rules that said black people can't do certain things like vote, be on jury duty, testify in court, or own guns. The U.S. Congress said no, that is B.S, and made up the 14th amendment. That means that the States can't make up a law against someone just because they look different or come from somewhere weird like Idaho. There are a bunch of parts to the 14th amendment.
---

(1)Incorporate: Illinois and the other States will have to play by the same rules as D.C. Without this, Illinois (or it's cities) can make up it's own dumb laws that would, if written by the Federal Government, violate the Bill of Rights.

(2) Privileges and Immunities: This means that as an American, you have special rights. You have the right to drive to any State you want and become a citizen. After you do that, the State is not allowed to say "You were not born here, so we are going to treat real residents better than you. You can't go to school here and have to pay extra tax on your cars."

Well, some Cities and States decided to say "well, we can't just stop black people from owning guns, so we will stop everybody."

The legal argument here is that all citizens of the United States have the right to own a gun, and local laws cannot infringe on one's privileges or fundamental rights as an American just because he in unfortunate enough to be a resident of or travel through Chicago. We are now waiting to see if this is what the Supreme Court says.

(3) Due Process clause: This is another part of the 14th Amendment. It says that "Due Process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state."
This means that Due Process is intended to ensure a fair and equitable legal process. At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".

Since it can be argued that firearms ownership can be viewed as fundamental, going back to the founding of our nation and even before then, a law against owning firearms violates the fundamental fairness of our nation.
Most of the other rights listed in the Constitution are incorporated by Due Process.

Further Reading
Main website of the Chicago gun case

Some information from a real lawyer at Arms and the Law

A short post over at Sebastian's place (Snowflakes in Hell)

And finally, over at Volokh... ome of ,any posts on the topic.

And, finally, the NRA brief in the case.

I'll post the briefs for the other side when they become available.

I am still alive

2009-10-02T09:58:00.001-07:00

I've not been able to post due to a deployment to Iraq. I have been here since July-August. Now that I am situated, I'll start posting some opinions again.

-Jdude

One art, please

2009-07-08T10:37:00.000-07:00

I have a challenge for you.
Paint something in a yard, then paint an animal.

This is what I would like my yard to look like.

This is my cat, bitey.

Share your paintings in the comments.

The best one wins a picture of bacon.

Pipe bombs and the second amendment

2009-07-03T11:54:00.001-07:00

This topic has come up because the 11th circuit has said no, they are not. The good professor Volokh's opinion.

I am going to use this post to try and set a defining line where I believe the court is going to split what weapons are protected and are not. This is not my viewpoint, this is how I think the courts are going to define the line.
---
The first class is weapons commonly held for lawful purposes by American people, that also have a militia purpose. (Heller+Miller)

The second category is weapons not commonly owned by Americans, yet when they are it is usually for lawful purposes.

The third category is the weapons of mass destruction category.

The final category is subclasses of normal weaponry that can be banned. This category includes things that are dangerous to manufacture when compared to other manufacturing processes. This also includes weapons that are unsafe for the user to operate. This category also includes traps, items disguised to not appear as weapons, and other wildly indiscriminate items.
---

Category 1:

This group is commonly held for lawful purposes by American people, that also have a militia purpose.

This category includes rifles, pistols, shotguns, knives, swords, and all other commonly owned weapons. I believe the Nunchaku case in New York, headed for the supreme court, will get decided with this in mind. I believe that the background check system will eventually fall to this as well. I do not think that violent felons or those convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence will get this right back.

Category 2: This category is weaponry that is particularly useful for "suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions", two of the duties of the militia when called up as defined by the Constitution. This category can be generally defined by what arms the local police or national guard have on hand. This includes cannon, tanks, machine guns, flash bangs, grenades, rpgs (American equivalent: the light antitank weapon "LAW"), artillery and mortars. I believe the restrictions will fall under time/manner/place restrictions. Ownership here would not be disallowed, but laws against driving your tank on a road, firing your mortar in a city or hunting with your mountain howitzer would most likely stand. NFA style difficulties to this class of arm will probably stand (which I disagree with).

Category 3: Weapons of mass destruction:

This is weaponry that has no lawful nonmilitary purpose, AND has no militia purpose, or is wildly indiscriminate in its normal use.

Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons fail all three tests.

Absolutely nothing in this category would be protected by the Second Amendment.

This category, however, cannot also include arms banned by treaty. If it did, plenary power to disarm the militia could be granted by international treaty.

An example is hollow point ammunition, banned by international treaty for use in war but commonly used in the US by police, hunters and average people for self defense purposes. Otherwise a treaty could be written to ban all non NATO calibers, decimating the militia but leaving the US military unaffected.

Category 4:
The final category is subclasses of normal weaponry that can be banned. This category includes things that are dangerous to manufacture when compared to other manufacturing processes. This also includes weapons that are unsafe for the user to operate under normal operating guidelines.

To make a bad example, if 1 out of 3 people who make pizza get seriously injured due to the accepted process for making a pizza, manufacturing pizza can be banned. The same can be said for pipe bombs. If a larger number than average people are harmed while making pipe bombs (as compared to making gunpowder or reloading ammunition or something else comparable) then the manufacture of pipe bombs can be banned.

A rifle barrel made out of crispy bacon and twine is clearly unsafe to shoot with, and can thus be banned. Firearms made out of pot metal are not this extreme, but remain unsafe for the user. Firearms made of garbage metal therefore can be banned.

Traps such as a shotgun tied to a doorknob, can also be banned. Note that a shotgun itself cannot be banned. The manner of setting a trap with it can. The reason behind this is that a burglar may set it off, killing himself as designed, but so can a firefighter reacting to his lawful duty. There is no discretion behind the device.

Weapons disguised as other items falls under the subcategory of traps. Thus car bombs, mail bombs, briefcase guns and cigar guns can be banned.

---

The dividing line leaves us with two questions to ask.

Are they commonly owned and used for lawful non militia purposes?

If the answer is yes, it cannot be banned. If the answer is no, then the second question is asked:

Do they have a militia purpose, and can they be safely manufactured and operated? Is the item a trap?

If the answer to the second question contains a no, then the device can be banned.

Now we get to the title of this topic, pipe bombs. Where do pipe bombs, car bombs, Molotov cocktails, and other improvised weaponry fit? If pipe bombs were to become legal, are there any lawful uses of a pipe bomb? A pipe bomb can be used to destroy a beaver dam or remove tree stumps. A pipe bomb is essentially a cheaply made grenade, so it should fall into category 2 non common militia items and thus not banned. However, if pipe bombs are shown to disproportionately prematurely detonate during manufacturing, then they are weapons that can be banned.

What about car bombs? Let's define car bombs as a weapon explicitely designed to be mobile, discreet and disguised, used against an unsuspecting target. We will exclude vehicles that are transporting explosives, fuel, or other dangerous items in a lawful manner. Car bombs are explicitly weapons under common definition. They have no lawful purpose whatsoever.

Using the second test, "generally defined by what arms the local police or national guard have on hand", and the 4th test's "wildly indiscriminate" and "disguised as other items" clauses, car bombs can be banned.

Molotov cocktails: Molotov cocktails (gasoline in a jar) are currently illegal. If they were legal, would there be a lawful use for them? Quickly starting a fire in a field that one intends to lawfully burn is a good use. Flamethrowers currently fill this role, of which the use is completely unregulated in the United States. So under the above guideline, Molotov cocktails could not be banned but their use can be severely limited under time/place/manner restrictions.

I estimate this is the general guideline that the courts will take when deciding what weaponry is and is not protected by the Second Amendment.

With this in mind, I do not think pipe bombs will be protected by the Second amendment as they are much more dangerous to manufacture than other items. I do think that grenades and flash bangs, a functional equivalent, are protected under the guidelines I have written.

---
This is my non lawer opinion on how the court will further define the right.
-Jdude

Into the sunset...

2009-07-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

I went to the sportsmans warehouse to go see if there were any firearms in need of adoption. I did not find anything that urgently needed to go home with me, so I headed to the exit.

At the checkout stand, which one must pass to leave the store, is an impulse buyer's trap: the candy spot.

I selected two sugary snacks and moved to the checkout stand.

The cashier, a young woman of around 22, asked a question of me: "Have you ever felt the need to do something to make you happy, but did not have the desire to do anything at all?"

Quite the contraction in desires, I thought. Having no answers, I suggested "Perhaps you should dance? Dancing often makes people happy."

She responded "my hands are too cold to dance... oh but I can do this!" She pulls her index finger all the way to the back of her wrist.

"Interesting", I say. I give her the vulcan salute.

Her hands form the American sign language symbol for "W". She smiles. I note that her fingers are slightly angled in a clear sign of early arthritis.

Being my turn again, I place my hands on the table and move my arms forward. (my wrists bend backwards a bit more than average). I simultaneously place cash on the counter to pay for my sugary snacks.

She completes the transaction, hands me my change, and attempts to twist her thumb back. She hurts herself. A grimace, then a larger smile.

I do the same, yet I avoid hurting myself. My smile looks like a gorilla preparing to bite someone (all teeth, no style). I don't get put in the local newspaper often.

I ask her if I helped to make her feel happier. She says "Yes". A I turn to walk away, she says "I don't even know you and I am in love with you."

I glance over my shoulder to discretely read her name tag, make eye contact and reply: "I love you too, Chelsea."

I mount my steed and gallop through the doors and out of her life, forever.

I galloped away quickly just in case she was a psychopath.

Leetle old ladies and assaulty weapons

2009-06-15T14:29:00.001-07:00

I took my dear neighbor, brokentrucklady, to the range in an attempt to show her the other side of her anti gun viewpoints. We talked about all of the usual things - crime statistics, the 4 rules, and the various purposes of owning firearms. She did not start out very convinced of the pro gun side of the argument. Her only experience at the range was with some other yahoos who thought it was funny and proper to start a first time shooter with a 45. Not a cool thing to do to a true believer anti-gunner who is about a thousand years old. The noise, the recoil, and the general uncomfortableness of trying to hit a 25 yard target with a too large pistol just did not leave her with a good impression.

She agreed several months ago that when she was ready that I could take her to the range and show her a proper, fun time. (Get yer hands out of your pocket, you pervs, I am a gentleman.)

We arrived at the range bright and early, at the crack of noon. We did not take any pictures of the pistoling fun. We did shoot a few .22s at 7 yards. This is also where I participated in sebastian's shootin' contest, where I was subsequently disqualified for using a flamethrower and more specifically for not having a target to score.

After that, we moved onto the rifle range. After a short bit of instruction, the lady made her first ever shot with a rifle - and hit right where she was aiming. See the evil orange guy below, with a hole right in his stupid orange face.

Here is an action shot of her.

After 10-15 rounds or so, she seemed to get a bit bored of the slow, aimed fire with all of the aiming and effort and stuff. So, right as she seemed to slightly lose interest, I leaned in and whipered (so much as one can do through a set of earphones) "give him hell". She hesitated, and gave the bastard orange guy two shots. I told her again and she didn't hesitate - she burned through the last 20 or so rounds in the magazine in a very short time.

And she had a huge smile.

Here is a picture of that smile. Per request, her face is not shown. So believe me when I say it is there.

I call this photo "Because fuck you, orange guy."

I don't have any more time to work with brokentrucklady. She must sadly move on to a new, better, higher paying career. She does now understand the pro gun point of view, and the world is a better place.

-Jdude

The Arizona Rifleman suggests a game.

2009-06-15T14:25:00.000-07:00

http://www.arizonarifleman.com/2009/06/15/lets-play-a-game/

It’s commonly said that, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” — which such a sentiment tends to be viewed as somewhat macabre, I think it’s right on the money: if a person is committed to violence, they will find a way to make it happen regardless of the availability of a specific type of weapon.

Evidently the British don’t seem to understand this, and have even gone so far as to make and market an “anti-stab” knife. While the rounded tip might foil1 thrusting attacks, it’s still quite effective for slashing. Will they take the edge off next?

Anyway, I digress. I was talking about a game. The game is as follows: find an ordinary household object that is not generally considered a weapon and make (or describe, if you don’t wish to actually modify it) it into a weapon (practical or not) using, if required, only ordinary household items in a reasonable amount of time. Let’s assume the weapon is for use against a single opponent, and will not present undue risk to bystanders (that almost certain rules out things like gasoline).

I suggested:

A quick trip from the garage to the kitchen:

An electric drill, the broom. Box of nails. Electrical tape. The oven, cups, plates, forks. Ice tea. Pecan pie.

Here we go. Set the pie and tea out for an unsuspecting brit to bend over and attempt to pick up. Our over the pond friend is unable to do so because the pie is nailed to the ground.

Meanwhile, drill holes in the forks. run nails through them and bend the forks so the nails won’t come out. Tape them all together in one giant wad of doom. Take a dozen or so 4 foot strips of tape, and tape them to the broom handle like a mace. Sharpen the broom handle on the concrete while you are at it.

While the Queen struggles with the pie, smack her over the head with the fork-nail mace. If the mace does not come apart, repeat. If it does fall apart, poke her with the stick.

Shove her in the oven for the win.

Go on, y'all. Do something better and funnier than me.

Letter From a Soldier in Afghanistan

2009-04-30T10:52:00.000-07:00

From the National review online:

Letter From a Soldier in Afghanistan [Michael Ledeen]

One of the best I've seen. It helps us understand how our troops see themselves, free of the cant that surrounds their mission here.
Sarah Albrycht

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

~ Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address

A few nights ago, I walked a quiet mile with hundreds of other service members. It was a clear night in Bagram, Afghanistan. Although it was late, the birds were singing, perhaps roused by the unusual occurrence of people walking under their trees at the late hour. Soft voices broke the solemnity, but no words were discernible. Suddenly, as if on cue, soldiers, airmen, seamen, marines, broke off the sidewalk and lined the road, spacing themselves regularly and assuming a position of silent watchfulness. The honor cordon had formed.

Heads began to turn right as flashing blue lights appeared far down the road. As the vehicles neared, one by one, service members assumed the position of attention and rendered the hand salute. In the back of an open truck sat eight military members, and between them, at their feet, was a flag draped casket.

As I rendered my salute, I thought about the fallen soldier. I did not know his name, his unit or his home. I never saw his face or spoke to his family. I did not know why he volunteered for the Army or what he was doing when he was killed. But there was much I did know. I knew he had fought and died in an honorable cause, a cause that had little to do with our policy on Afghanistan. This soldier had volunteered to put his very life on the line in service to his nation and his brothers-in-arms. I see no more honorable cause that that.

In a column, Mr. Putney has again raised the debate about the sacrifice of America's "sons and daughters" in uniform. Some have argued that we must continue the fight to honor their memory "so that they have not died in vain." Others argue we must stop the wars to save soldiers from this fate. I think an essential understanding of what motivates those of us in uniform is missing in this debate.

We are not your sons and daughters, whom you must protect and defend. We are your sword and your shield. We are men and women who volunteer to place our lives on the line so you do not have to. We do not decide when or where we will be sent. We go. You are our advocates, not our parents.

We trust you to care for our families, to hold our jobs, pay for our equipment, salary and medical care and yes, to honor our sacrifice. We trust you to vote for good political leadership, to speak out against bad policy decisions and to demand public accountability. However, we do not count on you to explain the honorable character of our service. We are ennobled by the very fact we serve.

Our "high moral cause" is one of service to a nation whose principles we believe in. We miss the point of political debate when we distill it down to numbers of service member deaths. Debate should be about the policy that leads us in or pulls us out of war. I, as a soldier, am personally insulted when debate about war becomes not about policy, but about deaths, because it implies that my service is at best uninformed or ill-conceived, and at worst valueless.

I know my life is in the hands of others because I choose for it to be that way. I am not your daughter, a child who must be guided. I have made my choice and pledge my honor to it. I will thank you to remember that because we serve our nation, none of us dies in vain, regardless of the cause; end of debate.

Every day a new Marine enlists or an airman puts on her uniform is a reminder that our defenders come from people who still believe in our nation and the values it aspires to, as flawed as we sometimes are. War does not make our sacrifice honorable, death does not make our service honorable; service itself is our honor.

We, your American service members, do not see the cause for which we may give our last full measure of devotion, as our nation's goals in Iraq or Afghanistan, and perhaps that is the difference. Our cause is our nation, in all her beautiful, imperfect glory.

So on a dark night in Afghanistan we stood under a velvet sky of a million stars to honor one man who lay under 50. We never doubted what he died for. Pfc. Patrick A. Devoe II died for you, the United States of America. That, Mr. Putney, is no goof.

Sarah Albrycht is a Bennington native serving in the Army in Afghanistan.

No comments,

-Jdude

My wisdom teeth were pulled yesterday.

2009-04-30T10:24:00.000-07:00

First of all, allow me to issue apologies to everyone I called and babbled at until my brother took my phone away. I wasn't all there. Hopefully whatever I said was funny.

So, I lay down in the dentist's chair at the maxilofacial surgery ward. I am scheduled to have 2 wisdom teeth removed - #17 and # 32 (the bottom ones). The nurse, training to be an RN, has the job of keeping me alive. I get an IV, and the dentist and I have a chat for a bit. He gives me something in the IV that "will make me feel drunk". We chat for a bit more, and at some point they put Ketamine into my IV.

From that point, I remember only these things:
1 At some point, I woke up and said to the nurse
"You're cute."

She responded "I am married".

"Me too. That's too bad for you."

2 During the surgery, I woke up again. There were 3 docs of some sort around me, and I think the nurse was in the back corner. I did not know who they were or why they were there. "These people must be my friends!" I thought. "Why else would they be here?" I then attempted to raise my right hand to wave at them. I believe I was told to put my hand down. I don't remember if I did, because I was gone again.

3 I woke up in the waiting room. I asked some guy in a yellow and black striped shirt where I was at. I also asked him if he was a space alien. He said we are on earth, and he is not an alien. He wasn't sure about those other people though.

4 Some time after that, the nurse wheeled me out. I commented that we were going very fast. I wasn't displeased with the speed, just commenting. I believe she slowed down anyway.

My brother tells me that I was pointing at people. He says I did not mention anything to or about them.

And that was how my day went.

I get today and tomorrow morning off, and light duty (paperwork only) for the next week.

I have to wait for a bit before I can go shooting again. I am going to wait for 2 weeks or so. I would rather not have concussive pressure right next to a gaping hole in my face. That would probably hurt.

-Jdude

Preparing for the future and inflation

2009-04-08T06:36:00.000-07:00

This chart tells me that the money supply has DRASTICALLY increased over the past year or so. This tells me that inflation will hit very hard when it does.

What does this mean to you and me?

In the simplest point of view, things will become more expensive. Secured interest rate loans will become easier to pay because proportionately, you will have more money (if you get a raise at all).

Some people invest in gold as a hedge against inflation. [I AM NOT AN EXPERT, THIS IS NOT ADVICE UNLESS YOU CAN LOSE ALL OF YOUR MONEY]
I agree with Warren Buffet. He says that gold just its there. It does not make you any money. I am investing in the stock market right now for the long term to have my money work for me.

I suggest that one maintains their emergency reserve of cash, and refuse to hold onto the rest. Now is the time to A) Invest, B) prepare for the future, and C) Buy ammo, food, water filters, solar cells and other long term use / self sufficiency items.

I may be right about inflation, I may be wrong. But what I am right about is preparing for the future. The last thing you want to do is discover that you are 30, 40, 50 years old and have no savings or preparations for retirement or the impending zombie invasion.

-Jdude

Of honor and a paycheck

2009-04-05T08:54:00.000-07:00

Why do mechanics give bad deals to elderly ladies?

One of the neighbors owns an RV. The RV was not running, and has had 2 separate mechanics out to get it up. Each one tried a standard bag of tricks (jumping the battery, flashing the carburetor, other things) and failed to fix it each time. Neither mechanic did any diagnostics or troubleshooting. They also charged excessively.

She was considering hiring yet another company and mechanic when I offered the assistance of myself and my brother. She was hesitant. After all, 2 other real mechanics had tried and failed. She felt that she should probably use an expert.

I offered this:
"We will work on it at our own expense. We will buy the parts needed, and do all of the work. Your burden to us is repayment of parts purchased, and any price you feel is fair for labor but only after it is running to your satisfaction."

She accepted the deal, then I told my brother what I got him in to.

I don't know much about cars, but I do know how to troubleshoot things. The engine would not respond to turning the key. We checked the battery, and charged it. This caused the engine to make noise, but still not start. We checked the fuel pump. It was working, but dry on each end. We followed the fuel line back to the tank to see if there was a hole or something.

Turns out, RVs have 2 fuel pumps. The one in the back of the RV had malfunctioned and failed. The hose around it also was dry rotted and full of holes. We replaced the fuel pump and the hose.

To the key again! CHUGA CHUGA CHUGA

We left it running for a half hour or so. We restarted it the next day and it fired right up again.

I am going to take all of the credit even though my brother is an expert mechanic.

Total time to solution was about 2 hours, including a recharged battery and a replaced fuel pump. We spent 4 more hours the next day replacing fuel lines and corroded electrical wires. Total cost of parts was $80.

The professional mechanics that had attempted in the past tried their stupid tricks for 3 hours each. Maybe one must be a professional to be able to not solve something so obvious.

I will allow Ddude to tell his version of the story later.

Veesetors OF DOOM

2009-03-27T05:57:00.000-07:00

Ddude will be visiting on monday for an undetermined period of time.
:)
More to come.

It is not uncommon in my family to just show up at someone's house with only a day's notice and say "I'm gonna stay here for a bit, dude." We just throw the guy out when we are tired of each other. The system is not abused which is why it can actually work. I've had Ddude for as long as 6 months before, and as short as 3 days. I have stopped by Bdudette's house for a 2 week jaunt before.

You might infer that we are rich, but this is really vacationing on the cheap. All we have to pay for is gas or plane tickets. Ddude picked up a one way ticket for 160 bucks. He will pick up the other half when he is tired of looking at me.

Ddude will thank me by finishing all of my half complete projects, or by protecting me from a heart attack by eating all of my bacon. Probably the latter, the rat bastard. ;)

This will be fun.

-Jdude

2009-03-20T20:42:00.000-07:00

One of the neighbors (the couple I brought bacon to in the previous story) have a pistol they bought decades ago for self defense. It is very old and a bit dirty. The guy has shot a pistol only once, many years ago. His wife has never shot before.

They are pro gun control. They are highly educated adults. (masters degrees.) Their coworkers and people in their field tend to be anti gun as well. The only thing they know about guns is what they see on TV.

I have offered to take them shooting with their own firearms for familiarization and to teach them a bit about gun safety. They have happily accepted. They mentioned that they never really meet any gun people.

The offer I have given to them is the same offer I give to everybody for their first shoot: I pay for and supply everything. We will be using their gun in this case, but most of the time I use mine. I think this will all go well. We expect to go next weekend or the one after.

In reference to the previous post: The cat does know how to open the screen door. He is trying to open it right now. He is tearing a hole in it too. I better keep the window closed indefinitely.

Oh hell. He knows how to open the door. Good thing it is locked.

Smartey Cat. >;P

Stupid cat

2009-03-20T20:22:00.000-07:00

The cat ran away today.

I went over to the neighbor's house and provided the bacon for a bacon on vegetables dinner. They supplied the vegetables/ They also cut up some potatoes, and made fries! It was awesome!

Oh yeah, the cat.
So on the way out the door, I opened the window. The screen on the window remained closed. At some point after I had left, the cat by either luck or design managed to open the screen and escape. I walked around for 20 minutes before I found him under someone's shed. I found him when he looked at my flashlight.

I think that he now knows how to open the screen to the window. He is pawing at it now. The window has an automatically setting lock on it, so with the window closed the screen's position is irrelevant. I will have to be more careful in the future. He's a crafty little jerk.

-Jdude

AIG, bonuses, and bailouts

2009-03-18T18:15:00.000-07:00

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090317/aig_outrage.html?.v=36

Now, could someone explain something to me? We gave money to these businesses, knowing that they had problem, and we expect them to treat the new money in OUR interests?

The problem is not that people are getting paid what they are contractually obligated to. The problem is that my pocket was raided to bail them out in the first place.

The whole "paid more than they deserve" is manufactured anger, IMHO. It focuses anger away from the legislators onto a small aspect of the whole issue. AIG shipped most of the bailout money overseas as soon as they got it. Does the government truly think that the drop in the bucket that the bonuses make will actually make a difference? The money is already wasted and gone. I think the government is setting the stage to mandate a maximum wage.

The article says that "New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo reported that 73 company employees received bonus checks of $1 million or more last Friday..." "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money" declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York.

The bonuses were paid on friday. Anyone with a lick of sense has already left the country.

I am not defending AIG or any of these over paid bastard executives. I am against the process that the government is attempting to set in place to tax their pay away. The government bought the whole milkin' cow. They should be changing the grass that it eats, not trying to skim sour milk out of the bucket to make the rest of the milk taste better.

If the contract of certain employees were to be terminated, then it should have happened a a condition of the buyout. The bonuses shouldn't be taxed or taken away after the fact because the buyer made a bad deal.

The government can not dissolve contractual payments on it's whim. "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation..."

The government needed to look at the package before they bought it. At best, their remedies can now only be through the contract with any attendant termination pay.

I am fighting the government's position that they can tax your pay just because you don't deserve it. That is something that the Soviets did.

This is not their call. This is not Freedom.

````` Article copied below for posterity.

Lawmakers tell AIG to take back bonuses -- or else
Tuesday March 17, 8:54 pm ET
By Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writer
Democrats talk tough, threaten AIG with legislation to take back money spent on bonuses

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Talking tougher by the hour, livid Democrats confronted beleaguered insurance giant AIG with an ultimatum Tuesday: Give back $165 million in post-bailout bonuses or watch Congress tax it away with emergency legislation.

ADVERTISEMENT
Republicans declared the Democrats were hardly blameless, accusing them of standing by while the bonus deal was cemented and suggesting that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner could and should have done more. While the White House expressed confidence in Geithner, it was clearly placing the responsibility for how the matter was handled on his shoulders.

Geithner sent a letter late Tuesday to congressional leaders informing them that he was working with the Justice Department to determine whether any of the AIG payments could be recovered. He cited a provision in the recent economic stimulus law that gave him authority to review compensation to the highest-paid employees of companies that already have received federal assistance.

Fresh details, meanwhile, pushed outrage over AIG ever higher: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo reported that 73 company employees received bonus checks of $1 million or more last Friday. This at a company that was failing so spectacularly that the government felt the need to prop it up with a $170 billion bailout.

The financial bailout program remains politically unpopular and has been a drag on Barack Obama's new presidency, even though the plan began under his predecessor, George W. Bush. The White House is well aware of the nation's bailout fatigue -- anger that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have gone to prop up financial institutions that made poor decisions, while many others who have done no wrong pay the price.

White House officials, for the first time, on Tuesday night said Geithner told the White House about the bonus payments last Thursday, and senior aides informed the president later that day. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal details of the timeline involving AIG.

The administration wouldn't be pleased to hear what Maria Panza-Villa, of Hillsboro, Ore., had to say. "Wasn't Obama supposed to fix this?" asked the mother of two who said she has lost three jobs since November as one employer after another went under.

AIG chief executive Edward Liddy can expect a verbal pummeling Wednesday when he testifies before a House subcommittee.

On Capitol Hill late Tuesday, House Democrats directed three powerful committees to come up with legislation this week to authorize Attorney General Eric Holder to recover massive bonus payments made by companies like the ones paid last week by American International Group Inc.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, suggested that if the AIG executives had any integrity, they would return the $165 million in bonus money. One leading Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, even suggested they might honorably kill themselves, then said he didn't really mean it.

Whatever the process, lawmakers of all stripes said, the money -- generally "retention payments" to keep prized employees -- belongs back in the government's hands.

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York.

Not all Democratic leaders were racing in that direction. Penalizing people with the tax code could be inappropriate, declared Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the taxwriting Ways and Means Committee. He said, "It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon."

Others saw the connection as reasonable and relevant. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., noted that the government, through the bailout, is now an 80 percent owner of the company and suggested that was grounds to sue to recover the bonuses.

Republicans said Obama and his administration should have leaned harder on AIG executives to reject the extra pay, raising some speculation over Geithner's future.

"I don't know if he should resign over this," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "He works for the president of the United States. But I can tell you, this is just another example of where he seems to be out of the loop. Treasury should have let the American people know about this."

The administration quickly moved to quash talk of Geithner's ouster. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama retains full confidence in his treasury secretary.

And White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel categorically dismissed to The Associated Press any suggestion that Geithner is in trouble.

On Capitol Hill, there was a daylong rush to the microphones -- a bipartisan campaign to out-outrage each other.

Grassley led the stampede with a statement Monday night on a radio show that AIG executives should either return the money or commit suicide in what he described as the Japanese style of taking responsibility. He spent much of Tuesday backtracking but still calling for corporate titans to take responsibility for grievous errors in judgment.

Other Republicans said Democratic leaders last month killed a plan that would have forced financial institutions to compensate taxpayers if they paid their executives large bonuses after receiving federal bailout money.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a co-sponsor of the amendment to Obama's stimulus bill, said striking it "left open an escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street."

AIG has received more than $170 billion from U.S. taxpayers. With bailouts in hand, AIG has paid out tens of billions of dollars to banks, municipal governments and other financial institutions around the world.

AIG is no stranger to controversy, nor is it the only publicly rescued company to give bonuses while being bailed out of financial ruin.

Merrill Lynch paid $3.6 billion in bonuses to its executives while its sale to Bank of America Corp., a big recipient of bailout money, was pending.

Morgan Stanley also came under fire Tuesday. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., urged Geithner to halt retention awards planned by the company's joint brokerage venture with Citigroup. Both firms have received billions of dollars in government bailout funds. Morgan Stanley is reportedly planning to pay its brokers up to $3 billion in retention payments -- a spokeswoman said the program amounts to a nine-year loan -- to keep them from jumping to other firms.

Cuomo said AIG last week paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work there. Despite their company contracts, the AIG employees agreed to take 2009 salaries of $1 in exchange for receiving their bonus packages, he said.

Administration officials said Geithner did all that he legally could to avert the payments.

Geithner urged AIG's Liddy last week to renegotiate the contracts that called for the bonuses.

"He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done," Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told the AP in an interview Tuesday.

In his letter to congressional leaders, Geithner said that any bonus payments that Treasury cannot recoup will be recovered by requiring AIG to repay the Treasury an amount equal to the remaining bonuses. He said Treasury also will deduct an amount equal to the payments from AIG's latest $30 billion credit line from the government.

Though AIG's bonus plans were disclosed last year, Congress' outrage and threats have begun pouring forth only recently.

At least three Democratic bills and one Republican measure were introduced to crack down on the Treasury Department and stiffen rules for recipients of bailout funds. Two bills in the House aimed to impose a 100 percent tax on the bonuses.

In the Senate, the top two members of the Senate Finance Committee -- a Republican and Democrat -- announced a proposal to impose a 35 percent excise tax on the companies paying the bonuses and a 35 percent excise tax on the employees receiving them.

The Internal Revenue Service currently withholds 25 percent from bonuses less than $1 million and 35 percent for bonuses more than $1 million.

The Obama administration said it was trying to put strict limits on how future government bailout dollars could be used, and Reid on Tuesday said he urged the administration to step up its pace on that.

Associated Press Writers Stephen Ohlemacher, Martin Crutsinger, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Dave Espo, Jennifer Loven and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this story.

Daylight savings time

2009-03-08T13:42:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow morning, you have to wake up one hour earlier.

If your clock says 2:00 right now, bump it to 3:00.

Don't be late for work or breakfast.

-Jdude

Quick little video (SFW)

2009-03-08T10:21:00.000-07:00

Beware the isms. Any attempt to save the world is usually an attempt to rule the world.
They mean to rule the world well, but make no mistake - they mean to rule.

Selecting your first gun

2009-02-22T17:13:00.000-08:00

Based on a comment on a previous post, I am going to offer my opinion on the proper selection of a new firearm.

The selection process hinges on a single question - What do you want to do with it?

5 categories come to mind. We will cover the first 3 in this post. After the three categories I will cover a few different options in weaponry based on your need. The last two require posts and thoughts of their own.

1: Self defense in the home
2: Self defense in the car or in public
3: Harvesting cheeseburgers
4: Fighting zombies / Civil unrest
5: Fighting for the homeland

1: Self defense in the home
If your intention is self defense within the home, there are 2 general schools of thought. The first one is to use a handgun. The second is to use a shotgun.
The benefits of a handgun include maneuverability, ease of storage, and effective ammunition. Adults, children, and people weakened by arthritis can use them equally well. A pistol can be locked in a small, cheap safe that is bolted to the floor if you have children. You can also take your pistol with you into the city. Make sure you know your laws - this is illegal to do in Chicago, DC, and a few other places. My preference tends towards pistols.
The benefits of a shotgun include a large amount of damage to whatever you hit. With slugs you can effectively kill most cheeseburgers (deer, elk, hog, squirrel) in the nation. There is also a psychological effect if you have a pump shotgun. I don't think it has any effect on the intruder whatsoever - the effect is on the person doing the ka-shucking. It focuses the mind. I usually suggest people away from shotguns when they don't know much about guns. I have noticed that people will buy a nice shotgun for home defense and use the cheapest wal-mart birdshot as a defensive round. Birdshot will not reliably or effectively put down an intruder. If you do choose to get a shotgun, you must get buckshot or slugs to be an effective home defense weapon. Shotguns are also easier to lock up if you do not have a safe.

2: Self defense in the car or in public
Your choice here is almost exclusively a pistol. They are concealable (where legal, of course) and light. Being light they are not an inconvenience and you will be more likely to leave it in your purse or on your hip. Mace and a tasers are also good choices. Be advised that the effect of maces and tasers is temporary. After 30 seconds or so the person or dog can resume doing bad things. The last option is a knife. Use a knife in the same exact manner you vote. Knife early, knife often.

3: Harvesting cheeseburgers
This is dependent on the social situation. If the people are hungry everything worth taking will have been shot already. In that case a .22 is the only rifle that will be of any hunting value. It will be used on squirrels, crow, and cat. (If you are starving...) If normal hunting rules apply, then they won't have all been taken. In that case you can use a larger rifle for larger animals. .270, 7.62, 308, 30-06 are some of the many choices out there. To summarize: you need a rifle that is a 22, and a rifle that is not a 22.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How to select your firearm now that you have identified your need:

Selecting a pistol
There are a billion opinions and a billion choices in this category.

In my experience, the most important aspect is if the pistol fits your hand.
My sister has smaller hands and prefers to shoot a Springfield Armory XDM-9. It has a bit of weight to it so felt recoil is rather low. Other choices in this category is a Taurus 111 SSP, and the model 651 revolver in .357 mag. Be warned, the kick on that revolver is not suitable to beginners. I prefer pistols the size of a Colt Commander. The O4012XSE is my choice of the selections on the page. I also like the Beretta 92f from my experience with it through the military.

The second most important choice is the caliber. There are minor flame wars and lifelong holy wars over this subject. I shall settle the entire debate right here. The pistol must be equal to or larger than a .32, and smaller than a 50 cal. Everything within this range will do the job and with a minimum of fuss. Leave the Ruger single six 22 revolver at home for target practice, and leave the desert eagle 50 in the shop where you found it. A your skill increases you will find a round that you like.

Please note that I did not link to cheap guns like Hi point, lorcin, and various military surplus. They are cheap because they are built like a yugo or are old as hell and the risk of getting a junker is too high. Spend the money and buy a nice pistol. Those other, lesser guns are for collectors and people with patience. Madmen and Madwomen who read this site have no patience. It must work, it must work right, and it must work right now.

Selecting a shotgun
Shotgun choice is usually pretty simple. Almost any 12 gauge that can accept a 3" shell will work. I have a Mossberg 500. The military uses the same model. For home defense a shorter barrel is optimal. Some shotguns have a 24 inch barrel and that is unwieldy in the hallways. The closer you can get to 18", the better (in my opinion). Benelli makes some very nice shotguns. They are expensive though.
If you do choose a shotgun, be sure to get buckshot or slugs for hunting and home defense. Birdshot is for birds. Warning: Buckshot is for ostrich. They get reeeally pissed if you shoot them with birdshot.

Selecting a hunting rifle
Earlier I mentioned that you need a 22 and a not 22. This is because each one of them has a different job. The 22 is for harvesting animals about the size of a possum, skunk, or smaller. A few examples are the Marlin Model 60, the Ruger 10/22, and for very small people or children, the Cricket 22.
When your cheeseburgers come from animals larger than a possum, a larger rifle is appropriate. The simple truth again is that caliber generally doesn't matter so long a it is larger than a 2.23"/5.56mm and smaller than a howitzer.(That one is really funny. Click it.) There will probably be a lot of anger that I have excluded the 5.56 military round. I did that for a reason. In some states hunting deer is illegal if you use 5.56 or 2.23. They are the same round, basically but with a different name. (Commenters who care to disagree must remember that this site is aimed at the newest of the new. They are close enough for the purpose of this topic.) Almost any other round available on the shelf is suitable. .270, 7.62, 308, 30-06, whatever. They all kick like hell and they are all suitable for all but the largest cheeseburgers in the nation. I am going to catch hell for this but... Pick a rifle that looks kewl or cute in one of the above calibers. Make sure that you can hold it straight without having to bend in funny ways. This is called the length of pull. This long boring page says the critical dimension in judging the correct LOP for an individual is that there should be about one inch to an inch-and-a-quarter of space between the thumb and nose when the gun is mounted, cheeked and ready to fire. This is a measurement that you can't make on yourself, but is one easily made by someone else. They say that when you are properly holding a rifle in the ready to shoot position, your thumb should be about an inch from your nose. If your only rifle was the 22 mentioned previously, just go to the gun store and try on guns until you find one that fits. I am sure some ninja sniper assassin needs to have a perfect rifle balanced and tuned to his shoulder, but he doesn't read my opinion log. For the rest of us a cool gun that feels right is perfect.

Make sure the rifle already has sights on it or pick up a scope. Scope selection is simple. Pick one that costs about the same as your rifle did and have the helpful folks at Sportsman's Warehouse install it and sight it for you. The sighting will still be off for your respective eyes but it will be close enough to be able to hit paper and make adjustments.

Finally, get a recoil pad. Harsh recoil makes Jdude the Unstoppable Madman cry. Recoil pads make it much less painful to shoot. Less painful means more fun and more practice.

A few helpful links:
Selecting a concealed carry pistol
The rifle country section of the forum TheHighRoad.US
For technical discussions, they cannot be beat.
Shotgun section of the same forum

Any questions, concerns, typos and money can be left in the comments. I am aware that if asked the time I may start describing the gears in my clock, so if this post was not helpful due to tangents or information overload feel free to let me know.

-Jdude

Steelers for the win

2009-02-01T19:54:00.000-08:00

At the last second, the Steelers made a touch down capitalizing on a Cardinals error to win the game.

Whenever the Cardinal's defense lined up in that way, the Steelers broke through it. They knew the defensive pattern. They knew how to break it. And every time the Cardinals used it, the Steelers broke it.

The 100 yard touch down was awesome. I think it should not have counted. At the 2 yard line or so, the runner' knee was down - it was on the defender' leg. Does that count as down? I thought so. Maybe not. Apparently not, the glass box disagreed. Oh well.

It was a good game. Maybe next year.

Obama takes presidential oath _ again

2009-01-21T19:02:00.000-08:00

When first administering the oath of office, President Obama misspoke one of the sentences. In order to rectify any problems Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the oath of office as prescribed in the constitution. What follows is the news article copied directly from the AP.

///
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts has administered the presidential oath of office to Barack Obama for a second time just to be on the safe side.

The unusual step came after Roberts flubbed the oath a bit on Tuesday, causing Obama to repeat the wording differently than as prescribed in the Constitution.

White House counsel Greg Craig said Obama took the oath from Roberts again out of an "abundance of caution."

The chief justice and the president handled the matter privately in the Map Room on Wednesday night.

A view from the porch

2009-01-21T05:52:00.000-08:00

Eleven score years ago, George Washington was sworn in as the first president of the United States. Yesterday we swore in the forty third president of the United States.

The people of the United States have spoken. Through them, the Electoral College has spoken. President Obama and Vice President Biden have been duly sworn in by a justice of the Supreme Court (one small phrasing misstep aside).

Welcome to the highest political office in the land, Sir. Do your duty to abide by and enforce the Constitution of these United States.

-Jdude

~---~
Of those who voted for the current President, I have defined a few things that motivated people to do so.

1 They want to be part of something historic by voting for the first black man to be President.
2 They believe that the purpose of the government is to provide, like a cow to be milked.
3 They voted against Bush in the only way they could for reasons that I may not disagree with.
4 Those who think the Democrats do a better job at administration than the Republicans.(Also known as "the Republicans are all idiots!)

I have met only one outlier to this phenomenon. A young lady who I know personally voted for him because she believes that he will bring the war to an end. She may or may not care about the results in Iraq, but her reasoning is personal. She is tired of being alone for a large part of her long marriage while her husband is repeatedly deployed. Honestly if it came down to peace in Iraq or my family, I'd pick my family too.

Those who voted for McCain did no better. I subdivide them into a few other groups.

1 The religious right. This can be further subdivided, but the overall label will do.
2 Those who believe that the purpose of the government is to provide, like a cow to be milked. They just disagree with the other group on what should be provided and to whom.
3 Gun owners, spurned by the NRA and the Democratic party's stated positions, in defense of their Second Amendment rights.
4 Small government advocates, gold standard advocates, and privacy rights advocates who either didn't pay attention or believe the Democrats will do worse. There was no Regan in this race.
5 Those who think the Republicans do a better job at administration than the Democrats.(Also known as "the Democrats are all idiots!)

A large part of group 4 and a small part of 3 bled off and voted for Paul, Barr, or other candidates.

You may infer from my writings that I am a political analyst or a blooming idiot. Spell check to the contrary, I am neither. I am a small voice in an ocean of yelling.

The American people have spoken. May they have everything they asked for. They have it coming.

A first gun story

2009-01-12T15:41:00.000-08:00

I have owned a pistol, a Star BM, for almost a decade. I have fired around 2,000 rounds through it (and maybe more) over these past several years.

This is the work I have done to it.
Replaced the magazine twice. ($20 each)
Polished the feed ramp. (professionally done, $30)
Replaced the worn recoil spring with a Wolff 14 lbs pring. ($8.00)
Removed the magazine safety disconnect. (a few minutes time)
Replaced the firing pin. ($25)

Things I need to do:
Replace the right handgrip. It has a crack in it.
Parkerize the frame.
Replace the magazine, again.

Once, I shot a 1" group with 8 rounds at 7 yards. For me that is really good.

Thee star is my first pistol. I am going to keep it running and shooting as long as I can afford it.

I think the pistol is capable of even more if the shooter were up to it.

-Jdude

Neil Gaiman on the 1st Amendment

2008-12-28T19:24:00.000-08:00

You may remember a while back when I wrote some bad poetry defending Samina Malik, who was charged with terrorist poetry.(!?!)

Well, the issue of free speech has arisen once again. This time it has been opined on by no less than Neil Gaiman. Click the name for the link.

Since we are on the subject, here is another bad poem.

An inbred redneck from Kent
Was straining real hard as he went
He cried "oh bugger the queen"
and "It will ruin my dreams"
and down the loo, her visage he sent.

All in all, fuck the queen and the horse she carried in on her back.

Freedom, y'all. Fight for it.

Warrants now required when doing searches or seizures in Iraq

2008-12-19T21:55:00.000-08:00

Link, MSNBC

Soldiers are now required to get a warrant before searching a person or place in Iraq.

I think this is a good thing.

This should help eliminate the ill feelings many Iraqis have for Americans. This I believe will decrease violence even further, and helps us with the transition through a (victorious of course) transition of power to the Iraqi forces.

Allow me to elaborate. Let us pretend that your neighbor Bob is suspected of pushing little blue pills. The DEA kicks in his door, your door, and the door of all of the other neighbors. They stomp your dog and point guns at your kids. The only thing you did was live next to a criminal. So why did they kick in your door? That is what they can do if a warrant is not required. That would make you angry, I suspect (hope).

How is that any different if you were an Iraqi? How many times would your door get kicked in before you got tired of it? Sure there is a war going on. However, we aren't talking hot pursuit or not shooting back or dropping two 500 pound bombs on Al Zarquari's house :D (local, very deceased, Iraqi militia leader who was probably buried in a soup can). Those are tools that the troops and subsequent local law will always retain. We are talking about an impartial third party to separate the policing force and the population. The US Military is acting as a policing force. Standard American values should apply, no matter where they are.

One of the American rules of law is that a warrant is required for a search (US Const, Am. 4). This is to prevent an abuse of the police power by the authorities of the hour. From wiki:

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was designed as a response to the controversial writ of assistance (a type of general search warrant), which was a significant factor behind the American Revolution. Toward that end, the amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned, supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a law enforcement officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
/End wiki

That is why I think the requirement for a search warrant in Iraq is a good thing.

-Jdude

Those who lead

2008-11-26T11:11:00.000-08:00

I passed a funeral procession as it was leaving post today. A soldier had fallen. The funeral procession was escorted by several Military Police and the Patriot Guard Riders.

I don't know who the soldier was. I don't know where he was from. I don't know why he fought, or how he died.
All I know is that he has fallen.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving, everybody. remember that you are free. Freedom cannot be asked for, nor can it be bought with money or jewels. There is only one payment for it.

The blood of the fallen.

Rest in peace, brother.

Assorted stories

2008-11-19T20:41:00.000-08:00

First and foremost, November 19th is national buy ammo day. Each person should buy 100 rounds of their favourite flavor of ammo. If one of my three to five regular dear readers are unable to participate, fret not as I have two of you covered. The other three, the ones with money, better start shopping. ;)

I have started taking my bike to work again. The route is the same. Construction has widened the lanes and cleared up the shoulder a bit, making my ride safer and smother.

The cause of the wreck has been determined. A careful analysis of the front tire revealed that somewhere along the way I ran over a very angry and pointy plant. After I entered the turn the flattened tire caught on the brake and locked in place.

The new local gun dealer keeps records on who purchased ammunition, and in what quantities. I shall never again grace them with my presence until they rectify the situation. I am putting together a post on the issue and company for subsequent publishing.

That sums up the events since the last post. I shall write for you all again soon. Wait on the edge of your seats, in that funny spot that makes your butt go numb.

Until then,
-Jdude

The coming administration

2008-11-05T10:00:00.000-08:00

There are some... forceful... comments out there about the coming administration. I shall not link to them. They can be found easily enough.

Allow me to divorce myself from them immediately.

I support the office of the President of the United States, and the lawful orders that emanate thereof.

I wish the upcoming administration the best.

-Jdude

John has a long mustach.

2008-11-05T05:57:00.000-08:00

John has a long mustache.

The chair is against the wall.
The chair is against the wall.

May Senator Obama have a long, illustrious 4 year career and may he accomplish absolutely nothing.

Now it is time to start working on the 2010 House and Senate elections. The battle for freedom marches on.

Gun Registration

2008-10-30T22:26:00.000-07:00

The sole purpose of registration is eventual confiscation, by one administration or another.

My projection for gun control in this nation is to make it exceedingly difficult and very unprofitable to sell or buy guns. (Pay attention to the numbers of firearms dealers shown in the link. And despite the VPC's article, each dealer was required to perform a background check on the purchaser of each firearm that the dealer transferred. Even to friends and family.) After that occurs, the 'gun issue' will die out except in dedicated hobbyists on it's own.

Since everybody who has bought a gun from a dealer since the mid 80's has his name, address, and various other private information stored on a permanent paper record, confiscation of what remains is nothing more than a strongly worded letter to the owner followed up by a public violent end to a few special resistors.

The belief is that the remaining owners will fall in line at this point.

The right to be free from search and seizure will fall immediately after the right to bear arms does. There is an urgent need to move as quickly as possible to pacify the populace before or during the early stages of resistance, and worrying about pesky warrants or even having an idea of who's house you are searching just gets in the way. Immediately following will be the freedoms encoded in the First and Eighth amendments.

I believe that the administration responsible, left or right, will follow this same basic path. After all, turn to far to the left or right and you start meeting people coming the other way.

And that, my dear readers, is why registration is bad.

Charles T. Morgan, at the time Director of the Washington office of the ACLU said in Senate testimony in 1975 when asked about gun registration:

"What the administration's and Congressman McClory's bills . . . call for is a whole new set of Federal records. . . .I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another."

Finally, I leave you with a quote from a 9th circuit court Judge.

Judge Alex Kozinski:
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake free people get to make only once."

General updates

2008-10-24T21:32:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, I will share one of my "life's rules and observations", also codified as my "Values Code".
Today I will share observation number four.

"Everything has a pattern. The trick is in finding it."

During the last Presidential election cycle, gas prices dropped precipitously during the last month or so before the election. The current election seems to be experiencing the same event. Immediately following last season's election, gas prices drastically raised back to indecently high prices. I project the same event to happen this year.
With that in mind, I am certainly curious as to how much gas prices can influence an election and who benefits from manipulating them.

This is certainly something that can benefit from more research.

There is an upcoming Appleseed shoot near my area. I am going to go and see what it is all about. Expect the post to be up a week or so after the election passes. I do not wish to state which Appleseed shoot I will be at to avoid the appearance of impropriety or a biased article. After all, I am such a well known author (Thank you, my loyal 5 member audience!) someone may get the good idea to butter me up or sabatoge the event. If my co-shooters are Hooters girls and lunch is provided by Whole Foods, my opinion might be slightly higher than if it were catered by the Korowai tribe and ran by a screeching, angry Rosie O'Donnel.

-Jdude

He's dangerous.

2008-10-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

Obama is allied with scoundrels - Boston Herald

Not over yet - National Review Online

America' first socialist president - The Bulletin

Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party? - Newsbusters.org

Commentary: Voting against Obama doesn't make you a racist - CNN

Planting seeds of disaster - National Review Online

Not the school commentary he knew? - Commentary Magazine

Another attempt by Obama to destroy the Constitution

2008-10-06T18:24:00.000-07:00

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship,

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.”

Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.
Read the rest here

Political leanings

2008-10-05T12:39:00.000-07:00

Here is where I fit on the political road map.

So why, oh why, do I vote Republican instead of Democrat?

The Democratic party CONSISTENTLY acts to make me a criminal for owning a gun.

This Democratically backed bill would have banned most semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns in America.

How's that for voting for self interest?

Oh and I also don't vote for socialists or corrupt machine politicians or people who are friends with a terrorist who bombed government facilities.

Mark this independent down for McCain this year.

I am not broken!

2008-10-02T06:49:00.001-07:00

Update: Not broken! The Xray tech over read a natural line (doc's words) in the bone. All I have is mangled muscle (the bicep tendon near the elbow, and the muscles that rotate the hand) which should heal in a few weeks with no permanent damage.

I crashed my bike

2008-09-29T22:28:00.000-07:00

Today, I was taking a right turn on my motorized bike at 10-15 mph when the front tire blew. I felt the bike start to jerk over, so I straightened it and goosed the engine to regain control. Unaware that the tire had blown, I leaned into the turn again when (this next part happened faster than I could think, I had crashed before I realised I was crashing) the front tire snagged the brakes and stopped. I did a high side tumble and caught my right hand at the index finger on the pavement and rolled it backwards. This separated my radius, near the elbow. I also smashed my helmeted head into the ground and broke the helmet. It was about this time that I realised I was crashing. Fat lot of good that did, after I was already done. I never even had a chance to put my hand out instinctively to stop the fall.

Total damage: Smashed helmet, floggin' on the noggin'. Broken radius (forearm bone), inconsequential scrape on hip.

Bike: Mirror smashed off, kickstand bashed loose. I didn't look at anything else yet.

If they let me have the x-rays I will scan and post them here.

That was my day.

Theives in the ranks

2008-09-25T21:52:00.000-07:00

Full statements by the main players, preserved here for posterity. I shall reserve comments beyond publicly stating my support for my friend Oleg (whom I have never met, and am probably unknown to).

Statements by the main actors:
Oleg Volk
Going to court.
In December 2002, I founded The High Road forum dedicated to the advancement of responsible gun ownership. Recently, it was discovered that in 2006, the volunteer forum systems administrator, Derek Zeanah of Statesboro, Georgia, changed domain registration to himself. After he was confronted, Derek locked out all other staff from accessing the Web server administration and would not share even backup copies of its content. After failed attempts to peacefully resolve the dispute, it has become necessary for me to initiate a lawsuit against Derek Zeanah for the return of thehighroad.org domain name and the forum database.

I am seeking and would greatly appreciate donations to help with the cost of litigation. You can use Paypal (olegvolk@gmail.com) or send a check to:
Oleg Volk 3112 Chambley Ct Hermitage, TN 37076

All donations shall be returned if the lawsuit is ultimately avoided. You can also aid me by re-posting this appeal on your blog, forum or web site. My legal position is already endorsed by almost all of The High Road staff as well as Rich Lucibella, the founder of The Firing Line forum.

UPDATE: Derek's reaction was to disable The High Road forum all together. He also removed most of the staff who opposed him.

Derek Zenah

Drama Warning
I'm sorry I had to leave such a vague message while the board was down these last 12 hours. Some legal threats were made, and I thought it prudent to get legal advice before reacting.

For nearly six years THR has operated as a voluntary community. Oleg has been the face of the board. I assembled and provided the engine. While user contributions were appreciated, I hosted the board almost completely at my own expense and preformed the technical work necessary to keep the system available 24 by 7 and ahead of our ever-growing user demand. The moderators kept things on an even keel, and over 75,000 others have contributed to make the board what it now is. I'm very proud of what we've become, and I’m committed most of all that the Board remain a place we are all proud of and where we all feel at home.

To my deep regret, during these last few weeks an issue that Oleg and I should have worked out privately has become an increasingly public dispute. I deeply regret this development and apologize for having been unable to work through our differences in a less harmful manner. This is an internal dispute, and should not have gotten out in the open forum to be the distraction it has become.

During this time, I have continued to operate THR on exactly the same basis you have come to expect. My assertion this entire time is that the status quo should be maintained unless THR staff decide otherwise, and that we should use a rational process to evaluate potential changes. Having said that, THR has grown substantially these last few years, and our continued growth makes some kind of change inevitable in order to pay for the increasing resource commitments our growth requires.

As far back as I can remember Oleg and have had the understanding that we were joint owners. A few weeks ago, Oleg changed his mind. I have not. We need to resolve this equitably and between ourselves, but in my view neither of us should be willing to proceed in a manner that politicizes the issue and damages this community.

Last night, someone began to use the THR to solicit members to contribute to a legal fight. I took the board down after another moderator dealt with the posts and alerted me to them. This is a perhaps a harsh measure, but I will act as I am able to preserve this community. The Board may not be used to sabotage the Board, and I will insist on that. There are thousands of users out there who just want to use THR as they always have so they can pursue their interests in peace. We have already had many moderators resign due to the tenor of discussions surrounding this issue, and it is my intention that we prevent similar damage to the forum at large.

During whatever happens, I will make every effort to maintain THR in the manner you have all come to expect. I hope cooler heads can prevail to keep THR something we are all happy with and remain proud of.

-- Derek
__________________
The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, anytime, and with utter recklessness -- Robert Heinlein

WELLBUILTNETWORKS: Hosting THR since 2002

thebluesman

Mutiny on The High Road
Derek Zeanah has succeeded, temporarily, in stealing this website from its rightful owner, Oleg Volk. A lawsuit will be filed within days. Details here: http://olegvolk.livejournal.com/474369.html

He has also removed from staff the loudest voices of dissent including Oleg and myself. Through an oversight on his part, I still have access to the forum announcements.

It is unlikely that any members will ever read this, but it is possible that a staff member may see it while the board is shut down. If you were unconvinced of Derek's treachery before, perhaps this will convince you of his true colors.

Derek Zeanah is a thief. I played Nathan to his David in private and this is how he responds. What is left of his reputation online is about to be demolished by this desperate act.

Add your comments to this situation here: (links dead))

Rich Lucibella
Derek Zeanah claims it was my intent to transfer ownership of THR to
him. In support he quotes a May 2006 email from me:

"Derek-
Provide me your full info.
I'm gonna change the NetSol contacts to you."

I find it unfortunate that Derek chooses to misrepresent my statements
and position, especially in light of our phone conversation of early
August. I thought I had clearly articulated to Derek my position and
my willingness to join this fray in the most direct and
confrontational manner imaginable, should he choose to draw me into
it. Derek appears hell bent on that outcome, given his out-of-context
quote. If Derek wishes to insist on claiming me as a co-conspirator in
his attempt to hijack this domain, I'll be more than happy to resolve
this issue in a most efficient and direct manner.
TheHighRoad.org domain was owned and paid for by me from inception in
December 2001 thru May 2006. Beginning 2005, I attempted to transfer
Domain Ownership to Oleg Volk, as the name was one of his choosing,
the staff was handpicked by him, and the originally forums were
personally delineated, described and designed by him. On December 2005
I reached out to Oleg and Derek replied:

"I guess I've been nominated to handle the renewal.
It looks like it's currently registered to you. Would you prefer to
renew it (and I'll send you a check), or transfer it, or something
else?
Thanks."

I asked that we transfer. Derek responded on that date that he was
unable to create an account with Network Solutions to accept transfer
of the domain. In the end I responded:

"I've paid you up for another year. You don't owe me anything, but
please effect a transfer ASAP before this falls thru the cracks
again."

Justin Guyett was witness to this email exchange. To my knowledge and
understanding, Derek was representing himself as Oleg's agent in this
transfer. I had no personal relationship with Derek and would never
have knowingly subsidized a site for him; nor would I have transferred
the domain name to him.
On May 16, 2006, Derek approached me to see if I wanted to co-locate
TFL at his location. I passed on the offer but reiterated the need to
move the domain:

"BTW, I really need to transfer ownership of THR. Can you assist?"

Once again, Derek had troubles effecting the transfer. It was in this
context that I emailed him, stating

"Derek-
Provide me your full info.
I'm gonna change the NetSol contacts to you."

Derek finally effected the name transfer to GoDaddy.com and that was
the last I heard of it.
At no time was I aware that Derek was acting as anything but Oleg's
personal agent. Had I been aware that Derek was acting for his own
benefit I would never have transferred the domain name to him. It is
my position that Mr. Zeanah had fraudulently misrepresented himself to
me. If he persists in publicly hiding behind my statements, taken out
of context, I will have little choice but to join this legal fray,
recover the domain name thru the courts and pursue Mr. Zeanah for my
legal fees.
Best regards-
Rich Lucibella

bayourenaissanceman
please jump to Bayou rennisance man's site to read his post.

I have missed many, but I must sleep. the rest will come tomorrow. Please leave your links to similar original source article in the commets.

Freedom is not free

2008-09-08T17:09:00.000-07:00

McCain/Paulin 08.

Damned idiots

2008-08-26T16:03:00.000-07:00

Some people decided they might shoot at one of the presidential candidates. Fortunately the Secret Service are superbly skilled and foiled this mess. Fortunately again, the jerks apparently were crack heads and probably could not have pulled it off.
Here is a link.
Here are my comments.
Barack Obama and I differ on many issues. I think he is a silly candidate and not prepared for the office he is running for. I am terrified that Chicago machine politics may become United States machine politics.
That said, the appropriate method of dealing with him is at the ballot box. Go vote for McCain or Clinton if you are worried about a black man becoming president. Go vote for McCain guy if you are truly worried about a true socialist becoming president.
But to go shoot someone for something he cannot help? Skin color is not a choice. The dude was born that way. Would you shoot someone because he has a red hair?

Senator Obama, as ill prepared for the presidency as he is, does not deserve to be shot. The man should have a long illustrious career ahead of him. Hell, he might even become president. If you have such a big problem with him for whatever reason may tickle you, go vote for the other guy. Or shoot yourself. I don't particularly care which.

Our Courts still work.
Our Legislative system still works.
We are nowhere near the point necessary to shoot politicians.

Senator Obama and I differ on many issues. But I'll defend to the death his right to express them.

Keep your damn hands of of our politicians.

Here is the story.

By KRISTEN WYATT and LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writers 27 minutes ago

DENVER - Authorities say three men who triggered an assassination investigation after their arrests in the Denver area did not pose a "true threat" to Barack Obama at this week's Democratic National Convention.
ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. Attorney Troy Eid (EYED) describes the men as "meth heads" who weren't capable of such an attack.

The investigation was triggered after police in the Denver suburb of Aurora stopped a truck that was swerving erratically early Sunday. Police say they found two high-powered rifles, two wigs, camouflage clothing, a bulletproof vest and two walkie-talkies in the truck. They say they also found three IDs in other people's names and what they believe to be methamphetamine.

The three men arrested Sunday face drug and gun counts.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

DENVER (AP) — Authorities investigating a possible plot to assassinate Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention have three men in custody — including one found with high-powered rifles, three fake IDs and two wigs in a truck — but they expressed doubts Tuesday that the suspects had posed a credible threat.

The men arrested Sunday face drug and gun counts but are not expected to be charged with making threatening statements, conspiracy or other national-security-related crimes, according to a federal law enforcement official in Denver who spoke on condition of anonymity because the charges have not yet been filed.

Obama will become the first black nominee for president by a major party at this week's convention. One of the men arrested, Nathan Johnson, told a Denver TV station that others involved in the case had made racist statements regarding Obama and had discussed killing him Thursday, the day of his acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High.

"He don't belong in political office. Blacks don't belong in political office. He ought to be shot," Johnson told KCNC-TV Monday in a late-night interview from jail, where he was being held on drug charges.

When asked whether he felt there was a plot to kill Obama, Johnson said, "Looking back at it, I don't want to say yes, but I don't want to say no." He said he wasn't involved in any plot.

By Tuesday, Johnson was declining media requests for interviews. He did not speak at a bond hearing where he was given $10,000 bond. The low bond amount, though, indicated authorities don't believe he was capable of assassinating Obama.

"We're absolutely confident there is no credible threat to the candidate, the Democratic National Convention, or the people of Colorado," U.S. Attorney Troy Eid said in a statement.

The assassination investigation was triggered after police in Aurora, a suburb east of Denver, stopped a truck that was swerving erratically around 1:30 a.m. Sunday. The driver, 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell, had a suspended driver's license, and the truck was rented in the name of another person, said Aurora police Detective Marcus Dudley.

Aurora police Lt. Bob Stef said police saw two scoped rifles, two wigs, camouflage clothing, a bulletproof vest and two walkie-talkies in the truck. A search also revealed 4.4 grams of what police believed to be methamphetamine and three IDs in other people's names, Stef said.

Johnson, 32, and Shawn Robert Adolf, 33, were arrested in area hotel rooms after interviews with Gartrell. Adolf jumped out a sixth-story window of a hotel when police arrived Sunday. He broke his ankle in the fall but tried to run before police found him a short distance away.

Three senior FBI officials said it's unclear whether shooters could have had a clear path to hit the stage from outside the convention hall. At least two of the men may have had white supremacist ties, the officials said, adding that it was unclear whether any of them were serious about carrying out threats. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

A fourth federal official familiar with the investigation said an assassination attempt was unlikely.

"The capability and their opportunity and what they had for their weaponry — I don't see that they would have been able to carry it out," the official said on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

A news conference to discuss the charges was expected later Tuesday.

Adolf was hospitalized and was being held on $1 million bond for several outstanding warrants involving drug charges. Adolf had a handcuff key in one hand and a swastika ring on the other when he was arrested, a senior FBI official said. Adolf was listed on the "Most Wanted" list of the Weld County, Colo., sheriff's department for burglary, larceny, aggravated motor vehicle theft and other charges.

Gartrell, who has no known address, was being held at the Arapahoe County jail on $50,000 bail on drug and weapons charges. The jail said he was due in court Thursday.

A woman described by federal authorities as the girlfriend of one of the men was also arrested, though her name and charges weren't immediately clear.

Law enforcement officials were also investigating whether the men were linked to vandalism shootings that targeted at least two federal buildings in Denver over the past two weeks. Windows were shot at the U.S. Custom House and the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Station on the same street in Denver's downtown Federal District.

Additionally, a bullet was recovered from a Hertz rental car that was hit on Aug. 15, and authorities are now looking to see if it could have matched the guns seized from the men.

Gartrell lived in rural Nevada in the 1990s with his father, a journeyman ranch hand and heavy equipment operator, Lincoln County Sheriff Kerry Lee said Tuesday.

Lee told the AP that Gartrell was run over by a truck as a child and that "it was absolutely amazing that he wasn't hurt badly."

As a teen, Gartrell tried to enroll at a high school about 80 miles north of Las Vegas, but provided transcripts from a high school in Colorado that showed "quite a bit of disciplinary action," said Debi Smallwood, administrative aide to school Principal Steve Hansen. Gartrell was told he'd have to enroll in an alternative high school but never did, Smallwood said.

___

Lara Jakes Jordan reported from Washington. Associated Press writers P. Solomon Banda in Denver, Eileen Sullivan in Washington and Ken Ritter in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

Damn fools

2008-08-24T18:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8862367
WELEETKA, Okla. (AP) - Investigators searching for the killer or killers of 2 Oklahoma girls spent the weekend test-firing guns.

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Jessica Brown says 60 letters were sent to registered owners of .40-caliber handguns, asking them to voluntarily submit their weapons for testing.

Brown says 40 owners showed up and their guns were fired outside the Okfuskee (ohk-FUS'-kee) County Courthouse. Five people said they no longer owned the guns but gave the names of the new owners.

Fifteen gun owners didn't show up.

Investigators previously hadn't released the caliber of guns used to kill 11-year-old Skyla Whitaker and 13-year-old Taylor Paschal-Placker. They were shot to death in June along a country road about 70 miles southwest of Tulsa.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
This is the letter that was sent out to firearms owners.

Now what the hell is going on here? I see 2 huge ass problems. The first one is that the police do not have a clue who the criminal is. To prove that they are doing something they are going to waste time, money and effort chasing innocent people. Hey guys, try this. Go ask some questions. Go look for forensic evidence. You know, investigate. Don't waste my damn tax dollars on ineffective measures against willing idiots.
The second thing that pisses me off is the people who showed up. So the police send you a strongly worded letter suggesting that you show up and have your gun tested. Let us assume you are a kind soul willing to help in a police investigation. Did you kill those girls? No? Then what good does it do to have your pistol tested? So you can prove your innocence? Hey! We live in a free Country. You are innocent until proven guilty. You have wasted your time, the inept police's time, and have added unnecessary wear to your firearm. You have also surrendered your fourth and fifth amendment rights.

"I have nothing to hid, why should I worry?" You say.

You live in a free country. How about you quit being a damn coward and stand up for your rights. "But I want to help the police! 2 little girls were killed!" I know they were. It sucks. Did you kill them? I doubt it. What good does it do for you to stumble all over your self to prove your innocence? You are getting in the way of an [inept] police investigation. Stay at home. Fight for your rights. Quit being a coward and demand a warrant.

What you should be saying is this.
"I've done nothing wrong. Why are they bothering me?"
Followed by
"Come back with a warrant."

Repeat after me.
"I do not consent to search.
Am I being detained?
Am I free to go?
Do you have a warrant?
I do not consent to search.
Have a nice day."

Fight for your rights. Live free.
Else you will lose them and it will be to late to stand up.

Welcome, Dilbert readers

2008-08-13T20:27:00.000-07:00

I thought comments over at Mr. Adam's site were moderated, so I sent a comment with my opinion log's address in it. I figured he would delete the address before posting my comment.
Turns out, they are not moderated so now my site is soon to be visited by many readers. I apologize to anyone who thinks that I am associated with Scott. He does not know me. Furthermore the opinions here are entirely my own.

Well, since you are all now at my moderately political site (Welcome!) I must state that open and honest debate is encouraged. If you have something to say here, spill the beans. I'll reply when I get to it. If you have nothing to say, I hope you learn something at least.

One again, welcome. I hope you enjoy my site.

A rose smells as sweet by any other name...

2008-08-03T11:30:00.000-07:00

Today I am going to cover D.C's machine gun law. Specifically, I am going to show you what is commonly accepted to be a machine gun and what D.C. claims constitutes one.

Most people say a machine gun is any gun that shoots many times with the trigger being pulled only once.

Federal law defines a machine gun as:

(b) Machinegun: The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Pizza is here. Time out while I eat.
Nom nom nom. I am back now.

D.C.'s law on what a machine gun is:
*I cannot find the exact law right now. I post this phrasing, from memory:
Any firearm which can shoot 12 or more rounds, automatically or semiautomatically (one trigger pull = 1 bullet) with out manual reloading, is considered a machine gun.

So let us analyze this. I think we all understand a machine gun to be a gun that shoots a bunch of times when the trigger is pulled once. If you disagree, leave a message in the comments and we will discuss it.

The District contends that if you can shoot 12 times without having to reload, it is a machine gun.
A standard revolver shoots 6 times before requiring a reload. It only shoots 1 bullet per trigger pull.
A bolt action Swiss K-31 rifle shoots 6 times before requiring a reload. It only shoots 1 bullet per trigger pull.
The standard magazine size in a 1911 pistol is 7 rounds. It only shoots 1 bullet per trigger pull.
A ruger 10/22 is a semi-automatic rifle. It only shoots one bullet at a time for each trigger pull. The standard magazine size for these are 5 and 10 rounds. It only shoots 1 bullet per trigger pull.

Since none of these guns fire more than one bullet at a time, they count as not machine guns under federal, D.C, and our definitions...
But wait!

What happens if we take that 1911 pistol and put a extended magazine in it? It still only shoots 1 bullet at a time for each trigger pull. The only difference is that you have to reload when you count to 13 bullets, instead of 7. Simply because these magazines are available, D.C. says that the 1911 pistol is now a machine gun.

So now we have a Ruger 10/22, the most popular rifle in America. It only shoots one bullet at a time. but since these 50 round magazines are available, it magically becomes a machine gun. Notice that if you buy and install one of these, your Ruger 10/22 still only shoots 1 round for each trigger pull.

Let's look at the Swiss K-31 rifle now. As far as I know, the magazines for these come in only 6 round sizes. So under D.C. law, it is not a machine gun.
If I purchased and registered one of these the proper, legal way in the District of Columbia, I would be perfectly fine. But what if I am lazy and dislike reloading?
Let's pretend that I took two 6 round magazines and welded them together, making a 12 round magazine. Let us further pretend that I set up a website and sold a few of them on the internet. Since 12 round magazines are now available for the K-31 bolt action** rifle, it now counts as a machine gun.

Silly, isn't it.

* I prefer to post as much accurate data as possible. I wish for my readers to make up their own mind, so I try to post what the law actually says - not what I say it says. This post will be edited when I find the exact D.C. code.
** A bolt action rifle is a gun that you have to pull the lever on the side of the gun after you shoot, so that the next bullet loads.

Heller Vs. D.C. 2

2008-07-28T20:52:00.000-07:00

Seems that D.C. made new laws which basically ignored the ruling. Only revolvers can be registered. Their law defines any normal pistol like a glock or smith and wesson (look at any pistol I have- Bam! machine gun in D.C.!) that holds 11 rounds as a machine gun.Note: They are not machine guns. They only shoot 1 bullet a a time, like all normal guns.

D.C. also says they get to shoot a round out of your gun and keep the bullet. It is for ballistic fingerprinting. The law they wrote says they can charge whatever they want for it.

So, over the next few days I am going to analyze D.C.'s new law and how it ignores the Supreme Court, D.C.'s law that defines normal guns as machine guns even though they are not, ballistic fingerprinting, and excessive fees on registration.

Stay tuned for that and more this week.

-Jdude

Speed calculations

2008-07-27T16:32:00.001-07:00

This post will be used to determine my actual average speed using the bike motor. I am going to edit it as we go, so check back here for updates. There will be 3 tests total.

Speed test 1
Slight uphill
1.3 miles 4 min 7 sec. 18.9473 mph.
Slight downhill, return trip
1.3 miles 3 min 22 sec. 23.1683 mph
Overall average 21.0578 mph

Notes on speed test 1: The bike seemed to move much better once the engine warmed up. The rear tire seems a bit low, so I'll need to air it up. Test 1 was completed entirely on asphalt.

My new babe magnet

2008-07-26T20:47:00.000-07:00

There I was, thinking about how much giving my money to other people irritated me. Recently that ire became focused on the gas prices. Normally when I get tired of paying for things I dial the local cable company and exclaim "Hey! I'm tired of you jerks getting my money every month!", to which the kind operator with the golden voice politely says "Mr. Jdude, you get basic level free cable. Have a nice day."

So I tried calling the king of Saudi Arabia to explain that I was getting a bit miffed at the expense of my daily drive. Turns out that kings don't have to take my call, cause I am a lowly peasant according to some random dude secretary. I guess living in the land of the free and having Mrs. Bedford, Mr. Lopes and Mr Garcia's office numbers publicly posted and available to call have left me a bit spoiled. (The lady and Gentlemen are my state level representatives.)

Since I do not respond well to pompous bastards, I did what any American would do: I sighted and cleaned my rifle. Next I went to the store and stared at the scantily clad women. Then I set out to find a way to cut as much gas use from my life as possible.

So this is what I decided to do.
I have replaced my daily driver vehicle with a motored bicycle. It still uses gas, but at a much lower consumption rate than my car. I am talking 100-150 MPG here.

The kit I have took me to an average 20MPH during my test drive. I drove it a total of 14 miles with 2 rest periods for my sore butt. The math is horribly off because I did not stop my watch when I took the breaks. I will have to replace that seat. It hurts.

Here are a few photos.

It is camouflage tan so I can hide it from bike thieves and sneak up on pompous Saudi bastards.

This part here is the engine. It is a Staton-Inc eho35 friction drive kit. If you call the company and mention me, they won't give you a discount. But it's fun to try.

More motor goodness

This is the control center. The red switch is used to turn it off. The thumb lever on the right is the throttle.

Starting Monday I am going to be regularly riding it to work. If anything cool happens I will let you all know. I will also post my actual mileage and speed after I accurately measure it.

-Jdude

Pragmatist or Principles?

2008-07-25T16:23:00.000-07:00

My comments are way at the bottom after three dashes. This background info is relevant to my response.

There is a letter to the editor at the Capital times, Madison newspaper. I am going to copy it here in it's entirety in case the link goes dead.
Mike Vanderboegh: More gun laws would mean civil war

Mike Vanderboegh — 7/23/2008 5:26 am

Dear Editor:

Joe Bialek from Cleveland proposes the licensing and registration of all weapons currently in civilian hands. My question is, how exactly do you propose to do that, Joe?

There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don't extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.

Are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else's son or daughter in federal service to take the risk? Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan? Seems a strange way to make a "safer society." More to the point, are you willing to risk your sorry hide to do it? No? I thought not.

Then quit proposing the next American civil war. We're done being pushed back from our natural rights without a fight. Be careful what you wish for.

Mike Vanderboegh

Pinson, Ala.

Sebastion says:

Could we please not make gun owners look like lunatics in the media for all to see? You know what ends up happening when the majority of the people in this country who don’t own gun, and don’t care much about gun rights, start believing that gun owners are out to foment a civil war? They start agreeing to take our guns away.

Kim Says:You’d better believe it. For the sake of the gun nuts who have been hiding out for the past eight years in their underground bunkers, munching on their leftover Y2K supplies and keeping their guns oiled and their powder dry: we are winning this battle, not losing it. If you said to me ten years ago that the state of the Gun Thing in this country would be where it is today (expanded CCW states, Supreme Court decision reaffirming the RTKBA, stupid assault rifle bans a distant memory, gun control organizations essentially surrendering), I’d have called you an incurable optimist. From a gun owner’s perspective, the State of the Nation is, indeed, good. (It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than it was, or could be.)

David Codrea replies:The writer wanted to introduce a concept most had never thought about: What happens if "they" keep pushing and "we" say "No"? What rule says all letters to the editor must be geared to "win hearts and minds"? By what authority does anyone presume that public warnings of dire consequences have no place? How about letters that inspire some of us, and let us know we're not alone, or letters that give those doing the pushing pause to consider there may be an "or else" with personal consequences attached to the "Stop it now"?

That's legitimate. It needs to be considered. And I really see no difference between the letter Mike wrote, which has received such reactionary disapproval, and Charlton Heston, whom the same people revere, holding up a gun and proclaiming "From my cold dead hands!"

They both presuppose an unjust attack by government precipitating forceful resistance. Just what the hell is the Second Amendment ultimately supposed to be about, if not this? Why is everybody acting like this is some kind of big secret to be kept from the public?

---

Now for my response.

Talking the hard line is appropriate at many times. I do not disagree with the letter writer. His point of view is valid, and needs to be discussed. My response here artfully dodges it.

As far as I can tell, no MAJOR problem exists with our legal system. We are already winning in reference to the right to to self defense. Courts have found that even the people at Guantanamo bay can get a fair trial. The minority political party is not in jail or dead. People like Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Westboro Church get to spew their stupid without risk to their liberty. Our legal system works. Your rights can be vindicated through the slow system in place. Governments can and are being sued to right wrongs.

Our legislative system also works . You can vote for whomever you want and you can even run to take the guy's job. Laws can be passed or repealed. Citizens can even submit a potential law (bill) to their representatives if they so choose. It may not pass but the possibility is there.

The only legitimate complaint is that this all takes time.

So am I a pragmatist or a principled?
Hawaii requires registration of firearms. While I lived there, I properly did so. At the time I did not view registration as an infringement.
My current location also requires registration. I have refused to do so. I publicly state this without fear because I am not worried that the police will appear with a warrant. I will meet them at the door with a smile, because I believe our system works. I will fight the seizure and registration all the way to the Supreme Court with every penny I have. I have refused to comply with a law that I feel is unconstitutional and I am prepared to handle the repercussions.

So what about when the ominous 'they' go door to door confiscating arms, similar to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina?

I do not seek violence and attempt to live a peaceful life.
I know where my line is. I know what my response is. You do not.
The ephemeral 'they' at my door is too far.

-Jdude

Opinion log Vs Blog

2008-07-24T20:13:00.000-07:00

I have been asked why I use the phrase "opinion log" instead of "blog" to describe this collection of writings.

There exists a simple two part answer. First, "blog" sounds like a name for a particularly nasty loogie. I do not like loogies. Hence the word "blog" is out. This site neither looks like a scroll of papyrus or a college ruled notebook. With those eliminated, that leaves "Log". So there you have it.

Second, I harbor no illusions about my writings here. They are entirely my opinion.

Hence my Opinion log.

You are at Jdude's Opinion Log. Welcome.

The List

2008-07-13T11:10:00.000-07:00

We all have a few things we would like to accomplish before we die. Some of us keep them in our head, and some of us write them down.

I have written mine down.
Today, with great pleasure, I share with you that I have completed an item on my list that I did not believe was possible to complete.

I have completed item number 2.
Since it is generally neutral, I shall share with you the item.

"Have a completely unique thought that has never been thought by a human before."

I recognize this is impossible to verify, so I allowed myself a corollary.

"Write or say something that has never been written or said before."

x Completed 13 July 2008

I searched both google and ask for this phrase, and neither of them have turned up any results EXCEPT for my usage.
What is even better is that the phrase is totally signature worthy.

What is the phrase?

I share before you, to the best of my knowledge, a phrase which has never been written before:

"Freedom does not come with a 'safety' sticker on the side."

Bask in my glory and join me in happiness in the completion of an item off of my list.

Updates on Parker

2008-06-27T11:07:00.000-07:00

[From Scotusblog]
Among its orders Friday, the Court took its first actions on cases on gun rights following its Second Amendment decision Thursday: it denied review of an appeal by a firearms manufacturer, Michael J. Kelly, Sr.., arguing that Congress violated the Second Amendment by making it a crime to make, transfer or possess a semi-automatic assault weapon (Kelly v. U.S., 07-776), and it refused to hear an appeal by five Washington, D.C., residents who had wanted to take part in the challenge to the city’s ban on handgun possession (Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia, 07-335).

[Jdude]
I'll have to do some research on Kelly. But as to Parker, they have denied ceratori. This means that the Supreme Court choses not to hear this case.

Since Parker is almost exactly the same as Heller, and in fact they were one lawsuit split in two, hearing Parker and deciding the same thing again would be redundant and unnecessary. Since Heller won, there was no need to GVR (send back to a lower court) since the Heller decision granted the same exact thing Parker was after. The ruling in Heller covers both cases now.

That didn't take long

2008-06-26T18:30:00.000-07:00

Within minutes of the Supreme Court ruling, lawsuits against similar bans were filed in many places.

Chicago and several suburbs
by the NRA, Illinois State Rifle Association (15 minutes after Heller was released!), and The Second Amendment Foundation.

San Fransisco
by the NRA.

These are similar bans to the now defunct D.C. version.

Chicago is in the 7th circuit and San Francisco is in the 9th. The country is divided into a fistful of legal circuits, and each one covers a few states. The 9th covers WA, OR, CA, AZ, NV, ID, MT, AK and HI.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to to get the Circuit Court to say "Our area is protected in the same way as D.C. is, and these handgun restrictions are unconstitutional." If the District Court fails to do that, then the NRA and other organizations will appeal to the Supreme Court and go for incorporation. Right now, the ruling is only held against D.C. and the Federal government. If the decision is incorporated, this means that the States must also abide by the decision.

That is it for today

2008-06-26T08:54:00.000-07:00

I am off to go buy a celebratory gun. Hence my loyal visitors must suffer the lack of my eloquent verbiage flowing upon them like uhh... shower water or something.

I'll be back on tonight. Yay US! Yay USA!

Minor correction

2008-06-26T08:39:00.001-07:00

In my last post "what could go wrong", Cuda from TheHighRoad pointed out an error in my thinking. I repost it here in it's entirety.

[Cuda]
Originally Posted by Cuda
Maybe if we broaden the term "common use" it won't worry us so much.

I've read a bunch of posts concerned with a specific model of firearm. And until that specific model is in the hands of many we are concerned that it would not be considered a common firearm.Consider what a lawyer might argue, rifle, pistol, revolver not the specific model but the type of firearm. Rifles, pistol and revolvers are common use arms. Caliber, model, make not withstanding.

I may be wrong but I believe they left the door open on a positive note for us. It would now be up to the gun banners to show proof that a gun is not common...

[Unstoppable Madman / Jdude]
Interesting. So perhaps then instead of being able to show a "glock .40 commemorative edition limit 1,000" as rare and uncommon, they have to show that "auto loading pistol" is unusual.

Well, Hell. I like that line of thought.

[Cuda]
That's my thought.

[Jdude]
Thank you, Cuda.

What could possibly go wrong?

2008-06-26T07:52:00.000-07:00

Since Heller has been decided for us, it is time to see what could go wrong and be used against us.
The majority decided that the machine gun ban 922(o) stays in effect, because the arms are 'not in common use'.

So to eliminate arms, they only have to be shown to not be in common use. What is the problem here?

Curio and Relic firearms- those that are limited by nature, age, or deterioration and are generally not available in the millions.

New firearms that have not left the assembly line. Since they haven't made it to the people's hands, obviously they are not in common use.

Any weapon which there are less of than others. Have an AR or SKS? Too bad. Ruger 10/22s are the most common rifle, and he only one you may have.

The 200 dollar tax stamp has been left in place. Hence the stamp can be extended to any other arm (since registration was left constitutional) and when they become uncommon or rare, they get banned too.

Heller analyzed

2008-06-26T07:30:00.000-07:00

With a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme court has Affirmed the right to keep and bear arms. They have found two of the three D.C. provisions to be unconstitutional.

The level of scrutiny has not been decided.

Incorporation has not been decided.

The decision is found to be an individual right.

The purpose of the right is individual meaning personal defense.

The machine gun ban 922(o) stays in effect, because the arms are 'not in common use'.

Felons 922(g) are not mentioned at this time.

Armor piercing handgun ammunition is not mentioned at this time. 921(a)(17)(b)

The Lautenberg amendment is not mentioned at this time. 922(g)(9)

The gun free schools act is not mentioned at this time. 922(q)

Background checks are not mentioned at this time.

Need help understanding something? Scroll down to Definitions, below.

Copied directly from Scotus Blog

2008-06-26T07:13:00.001-07:00

Ben Winograd -

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.

HELLER AFFIRMED

2008-06-26T06:49:00.000-07:00

HELLER AFFIRMED

Definitions

2008-06-25T14:54:00.000-07:00

In preparation of tomorrow's Heller post, I am going to place some definitions and explanations here to save both myself and the reader some time.

Scrutiny - what is an acceptable level of infringment for the government to achieve it's stated purpose. The types of scrutiny are Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational basis. Strict Scrutiny protects a right unless the Government can show the law is absolutely necessary for the public good and is done in the least infringing way possible. Intermediate scrutiny requires an "exceedingly persuasive" justification. Rational basis means that law reasonably appears to do what is intended. Translated to simple terms, they mean this:
Strict: To get the mice out of the barn you must set traps that are specifically designed to get only mice and not harm squirrels, horses, or chickens.
Intermediate: To get the mice out of the barn, certain traps are okay even though they may get the occasional chicken or squirrel.
Rational basis: To get the mice out of the barn, you may randomly kill things inside so long as most of them are mice.

Incorporation - Whether the ruling applies to the states as found through the 14th amendment.

Purpose: What purpose does the right protect?
An individual purpose protects the right to have a gun in one's home for self defense, but not much else.
A collective right protects only the right to be armed while drilling and practicing with the state militia, in defense of the State. Guns in the home are not protected by the collective rights interpretation.
A dual purpose right protects an individual right to self defense, and a right to bear arms in defense of the state when needed.

Machine gun ban - 922(o), the section of law that prohibits the sale, manufacture or ownership of all machine guns made after 1986.

Felons - 922(g) The section of law prohibiting felons from owning guns.

Armor piercing handgun ammunition ban 921(a)(17)(b). Prohibits certain types of ammunition.

The Lautenberg amendment 922(g)(9). Prohibits people convicted of certain misdemeanors from owning guns.

The gun free schools act 922(q). Prohibits possesion of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.

GVR. Grant, Vacate, and Remand. The Supreme Court returns a case to the lower courts to make a decision based on the Supreme Court's findings. (This will most likely happen to the Parker case).

Assault weapons. Depending on who you ask. Officially classified as automatic weapons. The Brady campaign will have you believe it refers to any military style rifle. (The 1994 Assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 banned certain cosmetic features, such as bayonet connectors).

bayonet Big knife that attaches to the front of a gun.

Background checks. A Check against a federal database to see if the person is in a prohibited class of purchasers.

Miller (1939)- The previous Supreme Court ruling on guns. The Supreme Court found that (paraphrasing)"We have no evidence sawed off shotgun is useful to a well regulated militia".
This simple phrase has been interpreted by both sides to suit their needs.
The individual rights side says that it protects all military quality weapons for those who wish to have them, because the would be useful to a well regulated militia
The collective rights (gun banners) side says it means "no weapons for the people" because only those in the State sanctioned militia are protected.

DC Law in question

D.C. Code § 7-2502.02. Denies all handgun registration and permits after 1976.

D.C. Code § 22-4504. Prohibits open or concealed carry of a pistol without a permit on public or private property, to include private residences. Prohibits open or concealed carry of any other firearm without a permit on public property.

D.C. Code § 7-2507.02. Firearms are required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked.

Notice that the second code says you must have a permit for a pistol. Notice that the first automatically denies all permits. Quite a conundrum for someone who wishes to buy a pistol, eh?

Computer Crash!

2008-06-25T07:44:00.000-07:00

When I fired up the computer this morning to get Heller (not released today) and a few other Scotus updates, It would not start. I had it scheduled to automatically fire up at 9:55 so that I would be online at Scotusblog by 10. I heard it fire up but the operating system did not load. After a few attempts at restart, I dug up my system disks and simply reinstalled. Worked on the first try, phew.

What a time for a computer crash!

I'll post updates on Heller as soon as they are available. Until then, look at some of the other neat things the Scotus is doing.

bad news and GOOD NEWS

2008-06-23T07:12:00.000-07:00

[Tom Goldstein] - The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller. The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.

[Unstoppable Madman]
The bad news is no Heller today. The good news? Unless something unusual happens, Justice Scalia(!) will write the opinion! During questioning, Justice Scalia showed he is a strong friend of the 2a, at times (in my opinion) mocking D.C. for their ridiculous assertions.

We are now looking at next Wednesday or Thursday. With Justice Scalia writing, we will have a powerful reading to our side.

Here is to 9-0!

Watching for Heller

2008-06-23T07:01:00.000-07:00

I am over at ScotusBlog watching for news of Heller. As soon as a decision gets released, I'll post it here. After I read it, I'll share my (non lawyerly) opinion with you all.
-Jdude

Contest over, winner decided

2008-06-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

The contest has been decided! Ladies and gentlemen, Sebastion was the first to post. Yet the good Mr. Sebastian left us with a conundrum. You see, he suggested that I vote for TD of The Unforgiving Minute.

The rules, as stated, say "The first eligible contestant, or fan thereof, to post in my comments field wins my vote and support."

Mr. Sebastion was the first to post. Yet he mentioned a different site. So who shall I vote for?

Both of them!

I personally will vote for Sebastion, and my wife shall vote for TD. Victory for all!

I must point out that I am fortunate that nobody else posted first. Sebastion has stated "I also don't hump hamsters like those other gun bloggers you mentioned!"

I clearly did not want to vote for a hamster lover. That sounds messy and potentially painful.

Who shall I vote to send to Blackwater?

2008-06-19T06:54:00.000-07:00

I am torn. I am very torn. There are a number of gun related opinion logs that I like to read on a regular basis. If I could, I would send them all to blackwater. Alas, my vote only counts for one.

So, I will decide where my vote goes by way of a contest. The first eligible contestant, or fan thereof, to post in my comments field wins my vote and support. Below you will see my favorites. Alas, I am a fair person. Thusly my contest is open to anyone eligible to go.

This contest stems from an inability to decide between Sebastion at Snowflakesinhell, Caleb at Call Me Ahab, and Dave hardy and Dave Kopel at Arms and he law. I don't know if the last two are interested in going, since they do not have a post of it on their opinion log. Their site is one of my favorite sites on the internet, so they are staying eligible whether they like it or not. ; )

Upcoming Heller case, and the Brady campaign's colors

2008-06-13T21:50:00.000-07:00

I apologize to my loyal fan base for the long delay in posting. While moving to a different state i was precluded from doing anything fun.

The good news is that the Heller decision will be coming soon.
Even better is that the Brady Campaign has conceded defeat - and the ruling has not even been issued yet.

Via ABC News

Quote:: "We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

Unfortunately, their Campaign Attorney Dennis Henigan goes on to say [my paraphrasing] "We lost, so we are going to try the exact same thing but just call it different."

Here is the exact quote::Henigan said"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."

Super scary assault rifles? Interesting phrase. Most people call them Hunting rifles or target rifles. The Brady Campaign will throw any scary sounding name they can on a firearm. They aren't afraid of saying things like "super dangerous assault rifles" and "reasonable regulation". Their ultimate goal is total disarmament of the American populace and they will take any incremental steps they can in getting it.

I would like to show you something. Below are 4 rifles.

Notice anything? They are all Ruger 10/22s, the most common rifle in America. Every one. Even the scary looking one on the top.

Paul Helmke and the Brady campaign want them all.

And to this, I say NO.

The images are from this guy's home page,, a gun store, Ruger, and Ruger again, respectively. I recommend you go buy one of the Ruger ones. They are all generally around 300 dollars, which is an excellent deal. A 550 pack of Remington ammo at your local Wal-Mart or other store goes for less than $20 bucks.
Do remember to follow the 4 rules of madman gun safely.

Converting an anti -(or)- in it for the long haul

2008-04-14T08:50:00.000-07:00

So, I have this friend. Let's call him... Charles.

Charles is my roommate.

My primary goal is to shift his viewpoints on firearms. This is my progress thus far.

1: 2 years ago: Charles wished for tight gun control. He went into hysterical, angry, yelling rants about how he doesn't want to be shot in his room by someone across the street. (Well neither do I, of course, but this was the core of his argument.) His rights to not be shot through the wall superceded the neighbor's right to shoot an intruder. (Again, I am not going to discount his fears. It could happen. A car could also drive through his window and squash him flat).
The solution to fear is education. Between the two of us, we debate in the Socratic method: The search for truth is more important than the victor. Because of this he was willing to visit the shooting range with me. I took him to the range and demonstrated safe operations of firearms. I explained to him the capabilities of firearms. We researched the likelihood of him being accidentally shot by the neighbors. (That research is long gone by now, I won't re-do it for the purpose of this post.)

2: Over the next year we visit the range off and on, covering safety. He doesn't particularly enjoy the trip, but it is not something he dislikes. It is something to do. He still thinks assault guns and machine guns should be completely banned. He is still pro gun control, but has less concern relating to his earlier rants. Learning the lack of probability of this happening, and understanding the function of firearms, was what eased this concern.
About 6 months ago, I bought a Swiss K-31 rifle. We went to the range with the usual EBR, and took the K-31 this time. He fired the 31 a few times, and said "This is more fun. I have to make each shot count, unlike the other rifle. It takes more work and isn't a waste of ammo."

Lightbulb!

His birthday conveniently came 3 weeks later. Not being one to celebrate, he was surprised when I gave him a gift - a do it yourself black powder pistol. He was surprised. A risky maneuver on my part, but worth it. He got to sanding and polishing, all the fun things. I had to walk away many times because I wanted to be the one doing the work. After it was complete we went to the range. Load the powder, ball, percussion cap. Then bang! He has a small smile. I think to myself "Got you! It's all downhill now."

4: Three months ago, I started open carrying. The beginning was rough. Charles wanted to know why I wanted to shoot people. He wanted to know why I wanted to cause havoc. So on and on. We ended up making a compromise: Since I had never O/C before, I would O/C for a week. He would stick around to keep me from being stupid and after the week was up I would not O/C around him afterwards if he explicitly requested it. I obviously did not do anything stupid. I've been armed in public before, just not openly. On day 6 Charles says to me "I kinda feel safer knowing that you have that thing. I don't know about other people, but I know you aren't going to do anything stupid." O/C now is hit or miss. Some days he asks I leave it behind, some days not.

5: Last week he said "I want to buy a black powder rifle" The little voice in my head said "It's working..."

Charles started Absolutely Anti on assault rifles, machine guns and pistols.

Charles is currently Semi-Neutral/Anti when discussing assault rifles. He is mostly anti on machine guns. He is closer to our side when it comes to pistols, and almost all the way there on B.P. firearms of any kind. If given a choice between turning in his guns or his comic books, the guns will go for sure. I am going to let Charles figure that one out. When he does it will be more solid than anything I can ever tell him.

After 2 years, I have nudged him this far. Like a huge boulder, once I got it going it became easier to keep it going.

Lessons learned:

Slow and methodical is the only way this will ever work. If I dropped a EBR in his hands and berated him about his viewpoints, we would have lot Charles immediately and forever.

I had to find a firearm he liked. A single sentence over the course of 2 years was the only hook I had to go on. It has paid off beautifully so far.

I have invested more in his gun than he has, dollar wise. None of it was wasted. The gun itself is ugly as hell but he built it with his own hands and he's proud of it. If I assembled the kit he wouldn't care as much.

This has been a long road.

Those who don't respect a certain part of the Constitution don't respect any of it

2008-03-10T19:33:00.000-07:00

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/03/taking-bait.html

Law enforcement sent him an intimidating letter. Mr Codrea says he is not intimidated. Read it all there.

2008-02-04T09:19:00.000-08:00

The range event went really well. I taught our guest the 4 rules of safety and the 4 fundamentals of shooting. We have many fancy pictures, I'll post some as soon as I get them on the computer. The shelves still sit at the CompUSA and are still in use, so my junk sits moderately organized on the floor.

I started my on again of again relationship with running 2 days ago. The last time I went regularly, I went for 3 months 4x a week. My goal this time is to get to a 7 minute mile. I can probably do that in the same time frame. I am going to incorporate biking to build cardio, because running every day hurts my knees.

That is all for today.

Off to the range

2008-01-10T17:28:00.000-08:00

I am going to open my leave time with a trip to the gun show at the Phil Long expo center here in Colorado Springs. After that I will head out to Dragonman's shooting range.

I will be taking a 16 year old with me who has never gone shooting before. I'll have to prepare an appropriate safety brief and basics of firearms handling. I think I will go with the 4 rules and the 4 fundamentals of shooting.

The gun show costs 5 bucks to get in. Dragonman's range is 10/per. I hope to see you all there.

Seratoma Gun show
Phil long expo center
1515 Auto Mall Loop
Colorado Springs, Colorado

Dragon man's
1200 dragon man drive
Colorado springs, Colorado

See you there!

CompUSA

2007-12-30T06:54:00.000-08:00

Seems that the local compUSA is closing. A quick internet search tells me that all of them will be. I am going to take the opportunity to go buy a few shelving display units to hold all of my stuff. They are selling everything. By the end, they will even sell the cash registers. I'll post pics of my room when the shelves are installed. I expect to get them in around 2 weeks or so.

Well, that is about it. I'll post later, when I feel like it.

Jdude

Evil hair cutter dude

2007-12-19T07:05:00.000-08:00

Being that hair grows at a regular rate, and I like to keep it short, the time was right to have the local barber give me a trim. Normally I cut my own hair, since the cost ratio of self cutting versus professional cutting suggests the former. Lacking my cutters, I had little choice.

Turns out, there is also a pain ratio to consider when deciding self versus pro cutting. Allow me to elaborate.

I was sheared like a sheep today.

Since an electric hair clipper requires electricity, and an unplugged electric hair clipper is not getting electricity, when the pro cutter accidentally kicks the cable out he should stop attempting to cut.

What does my personal expert do? "Electricity be damned!" he says. He decides to tear the hair out of my head with a non functioning pair of clippers. Not just once. Before I had a chance to tell him anything, he pulls the non functioning clippers off of my head and rams it right back into the same spot and pulls my hair out!
Oh man was I pissed. I politely [ahem-Ed.] inform the person that he needs to take it easy.
When the sheep shearer plugs the hair cutters back in, he uses the kid gloves and gently does a pretty good job.

See? Politeness does [AHEM-Ed.] work.

Maniacs in Colorado

2007-12-12T11:29:00.000-08:00

Some lunatic decided he didn't like church goers, so what did he decide to do? Did he write a well thought out diatribe against modern religion? Did he convert a bunch of people to his favorite god? No, of course not. He decided to go shoot some church goers. Unfortunately, he failed to follow the rule of "shoot yourself first" like most cowards. Matthew Murray, our lunatic, shot up one church in Denver, then drove to Colorado Springs and shot at church goers there.

Well, the church in Colorado Springs wasn't that easy of a target. Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard who was legally armed, shot the guy which stopped his maniac spree.

Our villain, having a few brand new holes courtesy of Ms. Assam, decided that he really was a punk and a coward who couldn't face a victim who fought back. So he killed himself.

Matthew Murray, you piece of shit. You should have killed yourself first.
Let's seize this guy's shit and sell it at auction to help the victims, eh?

Omaha killer: Wahh, im sorry

2007-12-07T20:22:00.000-08:00

Well boo fucking hoo hoo. So you go running around shooting people who had nothing to do with it? What the hell? You wanted to be famous? Well fuck you, Robert Hawkins 507-27-6712.

You really should have started by killing yourself, you shit bag.

Omaha mall shooting

2007-12-07T08:42:00.000-08:00

In Omaha, a guy went into a mall and shot 8 people and then himself. I really feel bad for those people. I wonder if there is a victim help fund?

As for the asshole, he should have started with himself and saved the rest of us some trouble.

My sympathies to the victims.
Jdude

Free speech

2007-12-06T08:38:00.000-08:00

Speech, no matter how stupid or outrageous, must be protected. Oppression begins on the outskirts and undesirables of a society. The woman in the article absolutely disgusts me. Her poetry is crap, and her message is stupid. But that won't stop me from defending even her right to speech.

I am talking, of course, about the 'Lyrical Terrorist' in the UK.
The Guardian Unlimited reports: (They are in the United Kingdom, dear readers.)

[quote]A 23-year-old former Heathrow shop assistant who called herself the "lyrical terrorist" and scrawled her extremist thoughts on till receipts has been handed a nine-month suspended jail sentence.

Samina Malik became the first woman convicted under new terrorism legislation after writing poems entitled How To Behead and The Living Martyrs.

Malik, described as an "unlikely but committed" Islamic extremist, was last month convicted by an jury at the Old Bailey of a charge under the 2000 Terrorism Act.

One poem, called The Living Martyrs, said: "For the living martyrs are awakening/ And kuffars [non-believers] world soon to be shaking.
Another line ran: "Let us make jihad/ Move to the front line/ To chop chop head of kuffar swine."

A second poem was called How to Behead. "It's not as messy or as hard as some may think/ It's all about the flow of the wrist," it read.[/quote]

She goes on to describe in gruesome detail the methods of beheading. I am absolutely disgusted with her poetry, message, and hatred. But I advocate the freedom to say stupid things. But since I do not live in the UK, the best thing to do is to come up with some of my own crappy poetry.

Haiku:
Samina Malik,
Crappy poet hates the queen.
should cut her self instead.

I know it is 5-7-6. it is crappy poetry, remember?

Limerick:
There once was a queen so offended
she wanted bad poetry ended.
The queens an uptight tart
but that's not the worst part
the Magna Carta was left undefended.

Well, those are the only kinds of poetry I remember from english class, so many years ago.
-Jdude (the poetry is copyrighted 2007, by Jdude)

Should women be allowed to go topless?

2007-12-05T10:32:00.000-08:00

Well, duh. of course they should. Awesome countries have women who wear skimpy clothes. Less awesome countries have women who are completely covered. Therefore, to increase the awesomeness of the USA, women should go topless.

If this logic hurts your head, think about boobs. It will all become clear.

Lazies

2007-12-04T18:57:00.000-08:00

I am a bit lazy at the moment. it is 5:56 AM, and I have to pee. In order to do so I have to put on my shoes, walk a short distance, and do the deed. I bet it is cold outside. I suppose I'll wait until the urge to pee gets stronger tha........

How to secure guns safely if you have kids

2007-11-30T15:43:00.000-08:00

This post has been edited, in line with the new "less preachy" version of this site.

Different options to secure guns safely if you have kids
Trigger lock
Lock box
Safe
Holstered, on your body

Remember to educate your kids.

NRA Eddie Eagle program
"Stop! Don't Touch! Tell an Adult!"
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

Childsafe
http://www.projectchildsafe.org/

Project ChildSafe provides safety kits that include

* a cable-style gun locking device
* lock installment instructions
* safety booklet

Childsafe says "Firearm safety is everyone's responsibility." I agree. Go through these sites, pick the methods that would work best for you.
Jdude, The Unstoppable madman

Pizza

2007-11-27T19:12:00.001-08:00

One of the things we miss out on in combat is good food. Don't get me wrong, the food they serve is nourishing and not bad. The problem is that of individual tastes. I like thin crust pepperoni lovers pizza with extra cheese. I like home made oatmeal cookies with NO raisins. I like fresh tamales, the red ones, with a little green olive in the middle. So I am eagerly waiting the end of my tour so that I can eat all of these things. I also like to walk to the bathroom without having to find my shoes. I also like to sleep in on the weekends and days off unless I have something to do. I really like to go to a shooting range that isn't controlled by the military. They really know how to take all the fun out of an event.

Ahhh, warm Tamales. Soon we will be together again.

2007-11-26T20:09:00.000-08:00

This post has been killed, in line with the new focus of this site.

Collective rights VS Individual rights

2007-11-26T19:21:00.000-08:00

I posted this at a forum where I was discussing the issue. I have transplanted it here almost verbatim.
The issues behind Collective right and Individual right
'Collective rights' assume that arms are owned by the members of the state militia, and after 1907, what is today known as the National guard. A few functioning militias today are the Michigan milita, the Texas state guard, the Ohio naval militia, The Virginia State Militia, The California state guard, and the New York Militia. These are state sanctioned militias. The Minutemen of Arizona are not state sanctioned, and will not be discussed in this post.

If the collective rights ruling was upheld, only members of state militias, federal militaries, police, sheriffs, and other armed forces would be authorized to privately purchase arms for militia purpose. Non militia people would be barred from private arms. Most gun control legislation, at it's core, is based on this philosophy.

The individual rights view hold that the state may regulate (drill and train) the militia, but the second half, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is an independent clause, with the first clause "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" being a clairifying or explaining clause.

Problems with collective right: First, there is historical precedent. Firearms have been in private hands since before the revolution. Second, if 'militia only' applied, a state could pass a law (Or have it already written into the State Constitution, as Arizona has done[Article 16 section 1]) which would name all law abiding citizens in the state a member of the militia, rendering all gun control laws moot. Third, under current federal law, 10 USC 311, (Copy paste)United States Code (USC)

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists
of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have
made a declaration of intention to become, citi-
zens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned of-
ficers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of
the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists
of the members of the militia who are not
members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

Finally, gun control legislation is typically pushed by organizations who's ultimate goal is entire disarmament of the populace, excluding military and police.
Current law defines that all men of a certain age are the militia, and only women who are already in the guard. A bit mysoganist, don't you think?

Most common arguments against the individual rights theory are:

1"We don't need maniacs running around with guns like it is the wild west."
2"The populace couldn't stand up to the military anyways, so the need is pointless."
3 "Gun control saves lives"
4 And finally, "where does it stop."

1. Let's take Israel and Switzerland as examples. In Israel, every person is a member of the military. While in the service, they are required to take their arms everywhere they go. You will not visit Israel without seeing armed people all over the place. (The same is true with Arizona and Virginia :P ) In switzerland, every person in the military is required to keep in his house 1 machine gun service rifle, and until recently, 50 rounds of service ammunition. They may keep private arms and ammunition if they wish to. The murder rates for these countries are much lower than Mexico, a disarmed state, England, also disarmed, and Washington DC. Washington DC is the source of the current supreme court case. DC required that all arms be registered, kept disassembled, and with a trigger lock. Open carry in public in D.C. is not allowed. Washington DC has a higher murder rate than any other STATE in the union.
2 "The populace couldn't stand up to the military anyways, so the need is pointless." This may be true. However, there are 9 guns for every 10 people in America. To confiscate them all would require stomping all over the rest of the constitution. Studies of police officers asking them if they would confiscate arms in mass have met with 60% absolute refusal, with reasons cited being "constitutional rights" and "confiscating arms is not worth my life. This would put me in immediate danger from mr joe public, instead of the criminals we are trained to face every day" The psychological aspect keeping arms have placed is where the effect really is.
3 "Gun control saves lives". Cities and states with gun control have higher murder and violent crime rates than those without. Only rapes increase, slightly, in cities with gun freedom. (No hiding anything here.)

4 Where does it stop? Tanks, artillery, fighter jets, nuclear bombs? This is commonly argued within the gun rights community, as well. So I will give you some facts and then my opinion. Tanks, artillery and fighter jets are already in [rich] private hands. Artillery pieces, the cannons on tanks, and machine guns on aircraft are regulated under the 1934 NFA. Tanks are also regulated under various armored vehicle and road worthiness laws. Fighter jets, such as the spitfire, are regulated under applicable flying laws. Next time you are at a ww2 aircraft air show, remember: Those guys may just have real machine guns up there. Nuclear devices are not, nor will they be, owned by private citizens.

Now, for my opinion: Nuclear devices deteriorate over time, are 'pointed' at everyone in the city, and the simple possession violates every gun safety rule there is. So for me, at least, the line is drawn at nuclear devices.

I'll post my sources pretty soon when I find my list. Here is a group that has done extensive research and lists all their sources already. Read their work while I find my lists.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Toby Keith

2007-11-25T21:12:00.000-08:00

Toby Keith came down to my area of Iraq and played some songs. I was working, but I got off in just enough time to see the dude heading out. Thanks anyways, Toby. Means alot to us guys.

Habits

2007-11-23T17:25:00.000-08:00

So, with my new opinion log, I have a shocking habit. I regularly open all my links and refresh them often, as a habit from bb forums. Since this is kept open while I think of what to write, it gets refreshed when I press 'refresh all'. Twice in the last hour I have sworn at the author of this opinion log, wondering when that asshole was going to update. On the third try, I realized that the author is me. Anyone else have a problem adjusting from a consumer to a provider of content?

Whoppers malted milk balls

2007-11-22T21:31:00.000-08:00

Man, they suck. I used to like them. Now they taste like chocolate hinted wax layered over foam. I am going to dispose of the remaining pack.

Hershey company: there was nothing wrong with the bag or product. My tastes have changed. I like apples now.

Arms safety for Madmen

2007-11-22T20:54:00.000-08:00

1 Well, yeah it's loaded. How else does the damn thing work?

2 Aim at your target! Pointing anywhere else is grounds for jail and an ass whooping.

3 The trigger hates you. Stay out of it's house unless you have no choice.

4 The target is not going to protect your dumbass brother who is so politely holding it at chest level for you. You should hold the target first, so that you know what is behind it.

With apologies to Cooper and Darwin.

I kid, but safety is serious stuff. Don't be stupid. Follow the 4 rules, and the madmen won't have to whoop your ass.

Statement of purpose

2007-11-22T20:25:00.000-08:00

Greetings, my loyal guests. I shall begin early with a statement of purpose. This opinion log has 4 simple purposes. The first purpose is to convince people to stop asking me to build a damn myspace page. They are, in my opinion, everything that is wrong with web design.

The second purpose is to study and defend the constitution. Understanding law, and the occasional berating from lawyers, is expected and welcome. Be polite and respectful and I won't have to figure out how to moderate comments.

The third purpose is to focus on firearms as a hobby and a defense against tyranny. Anyone may argue his or her viewpoint here, so long as they are calm and rational in that means. Again, don't make me figure out how to moderate crap.

The 4th and final purpose here is to support the "Bora Brost" movement. I am not in that particular country, but I think more "bora brosts" around the world would make our planet a much nicer place to live. No linky because I didn't waste my time reading the user agreement and I don't want to get banned for offensive material.

That pretty much sums up the point of this opinion log. So play nice, have fun, and we will all get along.

Jdude, The Unstoppable Madman

P.S. Mom, you are hereby forever banned from participating in "Bora Brost".

First Post

2007-11-22T20:22:00.000-08:00

This is my first post, to help me understand the system. I'll complain to you, my guests, later.