Greybeard's Rants

Planing out a new reef tank.  Took my old one down nearly a decade ago... and I miss having one around.  

Initial concept:

I'm seeing a bunch of pro 2A folks posting about how happy they are that Sarah Brady has passed.  Wrong, folks, just wrong.

In my opinion, she was dead wrong on the issue she dedicated the last half of her life to, but this is a person we're talking about.  Somebody's daughter, wife, mother... I don't care how much you disagree with her, dancing on anyone's grave is just wrong.

Her husband was permanently disabled by an idiot with a gun.

I've had a similar event in my life... my nephew and namesake, who I loved dearly, committed suicide with a handgun that I helped him purchase.  I assure you... something like that will make you sit down and really think through your position on guns.  I disagree with the conclusion that Sarah Brady made... strongly... but I can understand it.  

I'll continue to fight against the organization that bears her name, and any other groups or individuals who attempt to disarm the people of this nation.  You want to challenge the positions she took? Good.  I'm right there with you.  Celebrating her passing?  Nope.  Not going there.  Neither should you.

Common Sense

Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.

Noticed lately how every call for more gun control laws are labeled as ‘Common Sense’?  It’s the latest rhetorical device, designed to make all those who disagree look unreasonable.  By labeling their arguments as common sense, they are declaring that their argument is valid, without the tedious process of actually presenting their case. In high school debate, this would be called Informational Fallacy.

Gun control proponents can’t win on facts, so they rely on emotional arguments and intellectually dishonest tactics to promote their ideals.

Don’t let them get away with it.

You labeling something as ‘Common Sense’ does not make it so.  Common Sense was the argument used to prove that the earth was flat.  The verdict at the Scopes Monkey trial relied on the ‘Common Sense’ of 12 jurors.

If you look at the facts, none of their agenda items are anything of the sort.  There is no evidence that anything on their agenda will reduce criminal use of firearms in any way.  Over the last couple of decades, concealed carry laws have swept the nation… and crime rates have fallen drastically. As John Lott has been saying for 20 years now… more guns, less crime.

Those facts don’t fit the gun control crowd agenda, so… shut them up.  Call every draconian gun ban ‘Common Sense’.  Tell the world that a huge majority supports their ideas… never mind that it’s all a lie, doesn’t matter, nobody is going to call you on it.  Make the other side out to be nutcase, extremist, knuckle dragging cavemen.   Not true… the fastest growing segment of people purchasing guns today is women, but that truth doesn’t fit the agenda, so ignore it.

As the old saying goes, if you have facts on your side, pound the facts.  If you have the law on your side, pound the law.  If you have neither, pound the table.  The gun control crowd has lost the argument on the facts, they’ve lost the argument on the law, all the ‘Common Sense’ argument shows is that they have been reduced to pounding the table.

Because of the mayor’s lack of support, the NYC PD staged a very effective ‘work slowdown’ protest. Thousands of parking tickets went unwritten, minor traffic violations were ignored, virtually nobody was arrested for drinking in public, or jumping the subway turnstile… Claims are that NYC lost somewhere north of 5 million dollars in fines and court fees.  And the most important thing that happened was this…

Life went on.

According to Reuters:  “During the slowdown, there was also a moderate decline in reports of murder, robbery and other serious crime, the data showed.” 

That’s right, despite thousands of ‘crimes’ going unpunished, less murder, robbery, and ‘serious’ crimes.  People went on with their lives.  Society did not fall apart, despite all of those speeding tickets that never got written.

Now, Anarchist, I’m not.  I tend to side with the police on most issues.  If I had to guess, I’d say that most police officers would rather be chasing those ‘serious’ criminals than writing speeding tickets anyway.  Not the cops fault, really… they’re not the ones who make the laws, they’re just charged with enforcing them.  Seems to me, what this whole thing really shows, is that perhaps we don’t need all these laws in the first place.

Imagine that.

A few years back, I posted an article about why I could never vote for John McCain.  That primary ended with me having a choice of him, or BO… and, against my better judgment, I voted for ‘the lesser of two evils’.  BO won anyway… and I developed a more critical thought process.  I will never walk away from a voting booth with a sour taste in my mouth again.  Practicality can take a flying leap, I’m voting for the best candidate, regardless of his (or her) chances of winning.

Here comes the election cycle of 2016, and people are starting to talk about Jeb Bush.  Sorry, I’ll write in Mickey Mouse before I check Bush’s name on a ballot… and here’s why:

1: No way Bush would close the border.  We badly need to secure our borders, there are lots of folks in this world who would like nothing better than to come here and re-play 9/11, and keeping a two thousand mile wide hole along our southern border is a pretty dumb thing to do.  Add drug cartels to the mix, and it just gets worse.  Here’s my position on illegal immigration:  They’ll keep coming, as long as they can… and we’re making it easy.  Hey, I’m no Native American… and I don’t have anything against Mexicans… heck, if I were there, and dirt poor, I’d try and come here too.  We can debate until the cows come home over what to do with the millions of illegals that are here now… think it through.  If we CLOSE THE DARNED BORDER, the illegal immigrant problem will resolve itself in a generation, right?  Think Jeb is going to do that?  Think again.

2: Big Government.  Jeb’s an ‘establishment’ candidate.  High taxes, more and more regulations, government poking its nose into everyone’s personal business… Government controlled education, big business, special interests… he’s a Bush.  We’ll get much of the same thing we got from the first two.

3: He can’t win.  Hillary is coming, and we need someone we can really get behind to defeat her.  Another pro-establishment old white male isn’t going to do it.  Honestly, nobody on the current list is very exciting to me… Perhaps a solid, conservative woman? Jan Brewer?? Nikki Haley?? Heck, I don’t know, but Jeb Bush?  No chance.

I keep seeing outcry on the left over the Koch family giving money to the right… Let’s look at this with some balance.

Yeah, the Koch family has given lots of cash to the right.  To Republican and Libertarian candidates, as well as the Tea Party, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, etc.  I don’t have numbers here to quote, but I’m sure it’s a lot.

Fred Koch was an American chemical engineer, started an oil refinery business, and did very well.  His family is still running that business, and is still doing very well.  They give back to the country that allowed them to succeed.  I know oil isn’t a popular product at the moment, but it’s hard to argue that it isn’t an important one.

The left’s equivalent, George Soros, was born in Hungary, educated in England, came to the US in his late 20’s.  He made his money on investment speculation, much of it by selling short the British pound.  He made billions, the British people lost billions.

Now, I don’t know if the money donated by Koch bros and Soros are anywhere near equivalent, honestly, I’d guess that Soros has given far more to the left than the Koch bros have given to the right, but the fact remains… screaming about the Koch family, while ignoring George Soros, seems a bit dishonest to me.

So, which of these two would you rather associate with politically, an American family who made their money in the oil business, making a product that, like it or not, everyone needs... or an investment speculator who immigrated to the UK, educated himself on the public dime, and then got rich by destroying their currency?

Found this after busting up a cinder block with my revolver... .500 S&W Magnum, 350g Berry's plated bullet, travelling in the 1700fps range.  Nice expansion, for something that was never designed to expand :)  Measures 0.935" 

Several years back, a good friend of mine put together a 'how to', on modifying a basic, inexpensive (or at least they were then...) SKS rifle into something more Rifleman friendly.  Since that friend isn't too tech savy, he then gave the document to me to make it available.  Still getting hits on that old document... as valuable today as it was when he made it.

http://www.midkiff.us/sksltr.pdf

Enjoy, and Thanks, KR!

I recently read a facebook post, from Chester, a good friend of mine, recommending that gun owners undergo some sort of mandatory training in order to exercise their 2^nd amendment rights.  Another acquaintance of mine, Christopher, jumped on the bandwagon.  ‘Training is good…’ they say.  Well, they’re right, training is good.  ‘Mandatory’ training, however, is most certainly not a good thing.

I’m going to strenuously disagree with my good friends Christopher and Chester on this one.  Applying this sort of logic to the 1^st amendment, you could purchase a typewriter or computer, but if you’re going to publish your opinions, well, that requires a license.  Sound good to you?   “ …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Please explain to me how what you’re proposing does not infringe on the right to bear arms?   Can you give me an example of any other right that depends on training, licensing, or fees in order to exercise that right?  Who do you propose we trust to tell us how much training we need, how much is ‘fair’ in licensing fees, what other restrictions we might have… Nancy Pelosi?  Barack Obama?  Claire McCaskill? 

What benefits are going to come of gun owners accepting these restrictions on our right, acknowledging that our rights are subject to government approval, and therefore, not really rights at all, but privileges?  Chester proposes that “this type of law would probably save the lives of lot children who are killed every year in accidental shootings”.  According to the national center for health statistics, the annual number of deaths among children due to accidental shooting is down 90% since 1975.  1.1% of all accidental deaths are caused by firearms.  With all of the regulations, taxes, and fees applied to driving a vehicle, vehicles still account for 41% of accidental deaths in this country.  Do you really believe legislation requiring training, safe storage, licensing fees, etc. is really going to lower this number significantly?  There is no benefit, aside from making people ‘feel’ safer, in any such legislation.

Carrying a firearm for self-defense without sufficient training is stupid.  On that point we can agree.   Legislation banning stupidity is even more so.  I pray that you will both reconsider your positions.  Actively campaigning for additional restrictions on our rights is good for one group of people only, those who want to do away with the 2^nd amendment altogether.  Right now, Obama is pushing some BS about 90% of gun owners who want universal background checks.  This kind of thing hurts… badly.

Divide and conquer works for them. In 94, Clinton used duck hunters to push his ‘nobody needs an AR’ agenda, and got his assault weapons ban passed.  In 86, nobody stood against the Hughes amendment, and the full-auto registry was closed, without so much as a whimper from pro-2a groups.  Now, you want to voluntarily divide us again, in to pro/anti mandatory training camps?  We MUST STAND TOGETHER.  No new anti-gun legislation, no new restrictions on the 2^nd amendment, whatsoever.  If we don’t, it’s only a matter of time, they’ll all be gone.