Chronicling the depravities of the State.
From View From the Porch comes some very incriminating evidence against MSNBC. They did a story that tries to link the Obamessiah’s critics to racism, specifically gun owning critics of their god. The problem? Well they showed a man with a rifle at a health care rally to talk about evil white supremacists. They only show a close in of the rifle across the man’s back, the man was the black man with a gun in Arizona:
Yup just call of Obama’s critics racist, even if they are black.
You simply can’t rely on the police for you personal protection as this article via Says Uncle shows. Two police officers in San Pablo stood by and watched as a gun name on a bridge killed two people. They made no effort to stop the gun name, apprehend him, or even get the license plate number of the criminal’s vehicle. They did radio for backup and block traffic from entering the bridge though, I guess that earns them a point out of 100 possible points.
Another thing to note is the amount of time it took to kill the two men:
The attack lasted less than half a minute.
So even if the police will protect you if they aren’t within 30 seconds travel distance you can be totally boned.
Remember people you are responsible for your own personal protection. Nobody is going to do it for you.
So I’ve been talking about the people legally brining guns with them to these health care rallies. Of course I mentioned I bring my gun with me everywhere I legally can. Of course common sense went out the window because we were talking about guns near the Obamessiah.
Me: “I don’t know who there might try to cause me harm. I carry a gun so if somebody means to cause me harm they are going to have to work for it.”
Other Person: “And what are the chances of you being attacked at one of these rallies. I’m guessing pretty slim.”
Me: “The chances of me getting into a car accident on my way home tonight are pretty slim as well but I still wear my seat belt.”
And that is where the conversation ended. Seriously people just don’t grasp the concept that carrying the gun has no downside for me and greatly lowers my risk. On the other hand not carrying the gun with me has many downsides and greatly increases my risk. I swear simple math is beyond the scope of many people.
Sweet, the White House actually stated that laws don’t changed just because the Obamessiah is in town. This in relation to citizens legally carrying guns to the health care events. Straight from the horses mouth:
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. “There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,” he said. “Those laws don’t change when the president comes to your state or locality.”
We all knew this was true but it’s nice to hear a White House official come out and state it. Of course the anti-gun crowd aren’t amused:
“What Gibbs said is wrong,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It’s crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody.”
Such hysteria. You know it’s almost adorable when Paul’s mouth starts frothing and he begins screaming gibberish whilst swinging his head back and forth getting froth on anybody within a few feet. I would like him to state how people legally carrying guns endangers anybody with the exception of criminals who may show up to do something nefarious.
In fact due to the large number of people there and the possibility there could be criminals meaning to bring harm upon unarmed civilians I believe it’s dangerous and irresponsible for legally able people not to carry their guns to these events. And because I like to correct people when they’re wrong:
Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans’ event in Phoenix.
There is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle. And assault rifle by definition is able to switch from semi-automatic to full-automatic or burst fire mode. If it can do either of the last two on that short list it’s not an assault rifle.
I’m sure by now you’ve all heard about a certain man carrying a certain AR rifle at a certain rally. Well this story has brought forth the wrath of the drama llama. People in the gun community are talking about this more than those not in the community and the opinions are varied. Well I’m throwing my opinion in the rink. But first I draw your attention to Rob Allen’s post. It mostly sums up my views on this as well.
I’m completely for the unnamed man carrying that AR rifle because of two things. The first is the simple fact it’s his right and society should never feel there are times when it’s not appropriate to exercise your rights. Sure if you don’t like guns and a person is carrying a gun on your property you can tell him to leave, it’s your property but this was being done on public land hence nobody should be able to tell him to leave.
But my second reason why I’m for this is exposure. We are always talking about open carry protests, picnics, and other assorted gatherings. It is believed that these gatherings will raise awareness and hopefully desensitize people to the sight of guns. It appears to be working as more and more people are saying they are for carry laws and I’ve noticed less people are freaking out when they see somebody with a gun. Well why should we change our tune on this when it comes to “evil black rifles?” How often do you hear us pro-gun people say guns are just tools and nothing more? If that’s what we truly believe then we need to be consistent and treat all guns as tools.
I do understand where the pro-gun people who are against this man come from. Yes he could be bad PR for our movement. But as they say in industry no publicity is bad publicity. The bias media is going to turn any pro-gun event into a threat to man kind style event. This is not something we can control, period. What we can control is how people perceive gun owners. If they see many of us walking around with rifles over our shoulders peacefully they will eventually realize we are peaceful regardless of the type of weapon we are carrying.
User Bubafat on the Gun Rights Radio Network forums posted the following video. It demonstrates the proper use of an iPhone application to relieve stress. By the way there is some not safe for work fucking language in it:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlzoL-wQwio]
Many people get in the habit of assuming anybody who comes to their home in a uniform is supposed to be there. Aubrey Isakson is not one of those suckers. When Robert Benjamin, a Verizon technician, said he needed access to Mr. Isakson’s apartment, Mr. Isakson did the smart thing and demanded to see the technician’s ID first. Smart move, everybody should verify the identify of anybody whom they do not know that asks to enter their apartment. Well Mr. Benjamin responded by pounding the shit out of Mr. Isakson. From the story:
“You want to know my name? Here’s my name,” Benjamin snarled, slapping his ID card into Isakson’s face, according to Isakson’s account of the December 2008 confrontation.
“The guy essentially snapped. He cold-cocked me, hit me two or three solid shots to the head while my hands were down,” said Isakson, a limo driver.
He said the pounding bloodied his face and broke his glasses.
But things got uglier, Isakson said, when Benjamin squeezed him around the neck and pressed him up against the wall.
“He’s prepared to kill me,” Isakson said. “That’s all I could think of.”
Anytime there is a potential threat you need to be alert. I’ll be honest I carry all the time, even when at home. I do this because it’s safer for me and it’s honestly quite comfortable since I have a good holster. If I were in a similar situation I believe my Ruger LCP would have been out of the pocket and in the technicians gut. Of course bullets would only be needed had he continues but most people get the message when a gun is presented.
The lesson here is also be at least in condition yellow when presented with an unknown person at your household.
There are many ways to save a little money here and there. Although this may not seems like a lot of money in the end it will begin building up. One easy way to save money is by examining usage cases of products you intend to buy in the future.
What am I talking about here? It’s simple really, whenever you are buying a product conduct a survey in your head on whether or not you’ll need particular features of the “better” model or not. For example having that nice $1,000 scope on a rifle is nice but if you’re only going to be shooting at ranges with 100 yards it’s a rather unneeded item.
This topic will discuss a simple way doing a usage case can save you a large amount of money by considering the purchase of a computer. Computers usually have a notorious number of possible upgrades. These upgrades usually become exponentially more expensive as the performance increase. Let’s look at processors for an instance.
This case will be greatly simplified in that processor A, B, and C are equal in every regard except clock speed. Processor A runs at 2.5 GHz, processor B runs at 3.0 GHz, and processor C runs at 3.4 GHz. Now let’s say the cost of processor A is $100, the cost of processor B is $200, and the cost of processor C is $350. As you get more speed the cost goes up while the amount gained becomes less each time.
Going from processor A to processor B costs an additional $100 and nets you 500 MHz. Meanwhile moving from processor B to processor C costs you an additional $150 and only nets you 400 MHz. Obviously the cost to performance ratio is better when going from processor A to processor B then it is when going to processor B to processor C. Which processor should you get? Obviously processor C is the fastest.
Many people often go with processor C because they equate more speed is better. But they could save themselves $150 to $250 by decided what they do with a computer. Let’s say all you do is browse the web and read e-mail. Neither of these tasks use much in the way of processor speed and processor A will easily fit your needs. Now let’s say you want to play some high end games, you may get some advantage out of buying processor B in that case but the additional 500 MHz probably won’t be apparent to your. Likewise while playing a game you generally aren’t using other applications so the game will get optimal use of the processor.
The same thing can be said for RAM. Once again browsing the web and checking e-mail doesn’t require much RAM while playing high end games takes considerably more. But you really aren’t going to need more then 4 GB of RAM on a current game since most of them are still written to work on 32-bit platforms. This saves you money on RAM and allows you to use a 32-bit operating system that will be more backwards compatible than it’s 64-bit equivalent.
This basic principal can be applied to almost anything you buy. Yes getting a piston drive AR rifle may allow you to shoot more rounds without cleaning it but if you clean it regularly why sink the additional cost into the piston driven system? If you have a standard definition television and don’t plan on upgrading any time in the future why pay the extra money on a Blu-Ray player? You won’t notice any difference but will have paid far more money for the player and the movies.
You don’t have to be cheap to save money. Just be smart about think about what you want to do with anything you buy. Then ask yourself if you’ll really use any additional features of the more expensive model or not. I bring this up because a friend of mine was going to purchase a $4,000 computer but was able to get a $1,500 one after doing a little usage analysis. That’s a large chunk of money for simply taking half an hour to think about what he actually does with his computer.
Many people end up having financial troubles because they simply buy the most expensive version of what they want. Yes a Geo Metro may not be a good car for a family but you probably don’t need to sink all of that money into a Chevrolet Suburban either. Something int he middle would most likely best suffice. Why buy a $500,000 home when you really only need a $200,000 one? Usage analysis is a valuable and free tool, use it.
Via the NRA ILA comes a story about Obama’s nominee, David Michaels, for the head of Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It’s not surprising that an Obama nominee would be anti-gun nor that the anti-gunner would be places in a position of such power. Nope certainly not surprising, but concerning.
OSHA has a lot of power being they dictate what is considered public health issues and what are not. If they believe something is a public health issue they can enact measures requiring employers to ban it. If the new nominee were to set his sights on guns he could very well enact policies that would require employees to disallow people from possessing guns while at work. Many employers currently will allow a person to carry a firearm if they have a carry license but OSHA could override this through regulations. Looking at the blog entry by Mr. Michaels I wouldn’t be surprised if he did decide to make guns an OSHA policy issue.
We need to contact our senators and tell them to bar Mr. Michael’s from becoming the head of OSHA.
At least that’s what Wisconsin’s governor keeps saying. Well Mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett, may be changing his tune. Well he probably won’t be but either way he got his ass beaten with a pipe. From the story:
“The mayor stopped and said something (to the man) like, ‘Let’s all cool down here, I’m going to call 911,'” the mayor’s spokesman Patrick Curley said. “He said it one or two times according to him. When he took out his phone, that’s when the suspect attacked him.”
The suspect hit Barrett in the head and torso with a metal pipe. Barrett apparently fought back, fracturing his hand when he punched the suspect.
You know what may have helped prevent Mr. Barrett from getting hit by that pipe, a gun. Shocking I know but a gun versus a pipe is a pretty easy fight to guess the outcome of. Of course being a member of Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns horde I doubt he’ll change his tune. And he’ll probably continue spouting anti-gun propaganda on top of it all.