To begin with, this is your president. This ought to be one of the most shameful things ever said by a sitting president.
"Do you have any words to the victims of the hurricane?"
BIDEN: "We've given everything that we have."
"Are there any more resources the federal government could be giving them?"
BIDEN: "No." pic.twitter.com/jDMNGhpjOz
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 30, 2024
We must have spent too much money on Ukraine to help Americans in distress. I don't…… [read more]
For a while now Herschel has been letting me know that “anytime you feel like posting you still have access” and “if you feel like posting something, just go ahead because you still have posting privileges.” OK. I’ll admit I’m slow on the uptake. Maybe, just maybe, these were hints… So here we go.
As is our habit, we begin with a quiet recitation of A. Shepard’s Prayer.
In John Gierach’s book “Sex, Death, and Fly Fishing” he uses the term “expertizing.” He defines expertizing thus: “Expertizing means acting like an expert. Not necessarily being an expert, mind you, but acting like one.”
In the book he tells several tales that involve him expertizing. The one that strikes me as most applicable to my point is the one in which he is invited to speak to a group of people involved with fly fishing. As he looks out at the audience, he notes several attendees that are much better at fly fishing than he is. All are looking at him with rapt attention in anticipation of his great words. They are better, but due to his platform, he is viewed as the expert.
We are living in interesting times (like that has never happened before) and the local, nationwide, and worldwide status is in a state of constant change. In a search for information on the what, where and how of the goings on we can cast a fairly wide net in search of information. Some of what we catch is good eatin’ for the mind. Some of what we catch isn’t. And there also is that occasional boot that doesn’t even fit on the menu. While it is easy to judge good fish/bad fish/boot, information from a website can ofttimes be more difficult to discern.
There are those out there that have given themselves a platform from which to expertize. Others, having come across that platform, then share it on their own platform which can very much increase the size of the original platform. This then leads to more expertizing, and so on.
None of you are stupid. At the least you took a break from watching cat videos to come here for the Captain’s insight. (Unfortunately, you found me here today. Xin Loi). Each of you is capable of looking at the information presented and determining good fish/bad fish/boot. Use that capability when reading what the expertizers are placing on your plate.
An Alabama state lawmaker has introduced legislation that would create a statewide database for Alabamians with concealed carry permits.
The process that the state implements currently isn’t secure enough, according to state Rep. Proncey Robertson (R). Currently, the application process for a concealed carry permit is overseen by each county’s sheriff’s office.
“When you go in there and you give them your personal information, addresses, Social Security numbers, date of birth, all this sort of stuff to put on that, it’s sitting there in a very nonsecure location,” Robertson told an Alabama Fox affiliate.
The bill would also allow Alabama residents to be issued lifetime concealed carry permits.
BamaCarry, a pro-gun group in the state, is against the proposed bill.
“They need to back off of trying to regulate people who lawfully carry weapons,” Eddie Fulmer, a member of BamaCarry, told the network.
He couches it in such protectionist terms, doesn’t he? Lifetime permits. Nonsecure. All an excuse for more regulation.
Sometimes I seriously wonder what’s wrong with Alabama. I know Mike Vanderboegh had problems with Boss Hogg, and even more problems. But there’s more you should know from David Codrea.
So your NRA supported this? You don’t say? Some astute reader should make a list of the gun control the NRA has supported, for example, AWB, the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, the GCA, the bump stock ban, red flag laws, UBCs, etc., etc., with URLs to prove it all.
Any takers? Fill up the comments with URLs of NRA gun control. Have at it. Let’s have the full list of crap they have supported.
A group of seven measures to restrict gun rights in Virginia was advanced by a state Senate committee on Monday.
The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted to pass legislation ranging from a measure that would provide for expanded background checks on any gun sales or purchases to one that would create an order allowing for the temporary removal of guns from a legal owner if a court determines that the person poses a threat of harm to themselves or others.
According to Tanya Schardt, a senior counsel for the gun-control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the bills passed in a near party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against.
Not the kind parents will teach their children in home schooling (not necessarily so, but maybe, I certainly would), but with a different emphasis.
Following the same procedure, we can see that even over an 18-year span we have a 10% chance of violent revolution, which is an interesting thought experiment to entertain before you have kids. It’s also important to note that a violent nation-state transition doesn’t just affect people who live in a floodplain. It affects everyone stuck in the middle. Especially the poor and defenseless.
The authors try to do some PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) with a limited failure data set. After all, violent revolutions in North America is a limited data set. A better statement follows. “The tech preppers do not necessarily think a collapse is likely. They consider it a remote event, but one with a very severe downside, so, given how much money they have, spending a fraction of their net worth to hedge against this . . . is a logical thing to do.”
This is better because it boils it down to its essential elements. We’ve discussed this many times before in the context of concealed or open carry. The minimization of risk means understanding high risk scenarios, and risk = probability X consequences. So for example, if something is low probability and the consequence of the event is low (for example, a spoon breaking when you eat your morning cereal), you don’t invest in a new set of expensive china.
If on the other hand an event has high probability or high consequence, that can drive the risk high, meaning it’s something you need to plan for. Preppers see the event for which they are planning to be a high consequence event. They are right.
So, how might one engage the entire school system; the years of indoctrination; the daily drumbeat of socialist dogma? The only route is through the brain and the quickest avenue to the brain is through literature, not television. Television does not have to engage the brain, but literature does.
[ … ]
Let’s not forget what this is all about. We are engaged in a cultural war, but our side is silent. They are silenced, because there is no media outlet out there that has not been compromised, but I have found a few like-minded producers who are willing to engage it as I am and as we are. It must be fought over on every front, with everything we have and it very easily might turn into something more serious that demands all of our action, but even then, we will need viable media to counter the lies told about us. That is something we will need no matter what else happens.
Here is his latest (Newsletter 025), and he has some ideas. I agree with his sentiments. I was listening to a lecture at a Christian Reconstruction conference in Chicago some years ago, and one astute lecturer pointed out that the American church has almost uniformly rejected symbolism, and thus literature and art have suffered and we have had difficulty reaching the people, especially the young.
The media, from movies to magazines to stories and novels, has been turned over to the forces of darkness, and those forces have used it to their greatest advantage.
“People openly carried guns, even assault rifles, to the recent gun rally at the Capitol,” a Friday opinion piece titled “Gun Rally Smacked of Fascism” in The Salt Lake Tribune whines. “The reason for brandishing guns is hard to fathom.”
If they were actually brandishing them, it would be. Except Utah criminal code is quite clear that:
“‘Threatening manner’ does not include: the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening…”
Not only does Utah suffer from the progs who have relocated there to the large cities such as Salt Lake, but you need to remember that both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the LDS church are viscerally and irrationally opposed to gun rights. Utah isn’t as friendly a state for gun owners as you might think they would be because of the strength of the LDS.
Oh, both of those groups allow for LEOs to have weapons, but as for people who aren’t “the only ones,” they are deeply opposed to firearms ownership or use. I recall asking an LDS friend once about guns in his church and what would happen if an armed intruder came in and started shooting families.
His response centered around off-duty LEOs who were members of the congregation. No one else carries. The church leadership is deeply opposed to it. I’ve also had this conversation with a JW, insofar as it was possible. He was much more emotional about it, but in line with his church’s beliefs, which means deeply opposed.
I pity the gun owners in Utah, but their pleas might fall on deaf ears, not just with the pols, but with most of the people too, at least as many who identify as LDS.
This comes to us via Ammoland. The actual link to Pete’s web site is here.
Close the “boyfriend loophole” in federal law to help prevent domestic abuse, including within the LGBTQ community. Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime from buying a firearm. The law as currently written, however, only protects those who are married to, live with or have lived with, or have children with their abuser. Pete supports federal legislation requiring that state or local law enforcement be notified whenever anyone, including a domestic abuser or convicted stalker, tries to buy a gun and fails a required background check.
Repeal PLCAA to stop shielding the gun industry from liability for negligent practices that lead to gun violence. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry from civil liability for business practices that directly threaten public safety. Civil liability, which is used as a critical check for nearly every American industry and product, must also extend to the gun industry.
In other words, he supports bankrupting Remington (and other manufacturers) when their products are used in the commission of a crime. I don’t suspect he also supports bankrupting Ford.
Ban the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. As a veteran, Pete knows that military-grade weapons have no place being sold to civilians. The same is true for high-capacity magazines. We’ve already decided that certain weaponry—like tanks and rockets—are unacceptable in civilian hands. Congress should similarly reinstitute a ban on selling federal assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
This is a remarkable video. It comes from reader Joe. I don’t know when this incident occurred, but the video was recently released. Watch it all.
The officer repeatedly states that he is entitled to know the person’s identity for a lawful activity because he is “investigating” something or other, while also not making clear that the person has been detained or arrested.
He then goes inside and reads the statute aloud, while also reading the words detained or arrested on suspicion of a crime.
He’s conflicted. The statute cited by the photographer, Texas Penal Code 38.02, says this.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: (1) lawfully arrested the person; (2) lawfully detained the person; or (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
The photographer was not under arrest. He was also not being detained according to the officer, but the officer wouldn’t let him leave. So the officer lied about it, and clearly doesn’t understand what it means to detain someone. The officer merely repeated the point that he was conducting an investigation.
We’ve seen this before with the Prince William County PD, where they repeatedly claimed that the mere act of conducting an investigation was adequate cause for demanding identification.
Here’s the fact. It’s not. That couldn’t be clearer. This wasn’t a so-called “Terry Stop.” There was no suspicion of a crime (photography isn’t illegal), and the conduct of an investigation isn’t justification for violation of rights.
The police academy is lying to their students, or else, the officer is ignorant and unteachable. There is another possibility – he just doesn’t care. Their contact information can be found here.
Beware, dear readers. The 2A sanctuary movement, bringing Sheriffs and local PDs on board with your 2A rights, may not be be all it’s cracked up to be. For your AO, you need to ensure that it means what it means and your local LEOs are truly on board, not just saying things for the purpose of reelection.
If they’ll violate your first amendment rights with careless impunity, they’ll do it with the second amendment too.
For many years hunters and groups that support hunters have been relentlessly telling the unbelievers that hunting deer is needed to keep the deer herds in check. These groups of people just will not believe the educated ones.
Now the Lansing State Journal is reporting that East Lansing City Officials last Tuesday voted to authorize the culling of the deer herds. To those who may not know what culling the herd means; that means hiring sharpshooters who would kill the deer in specialized hunts in the city parks.
By hiring that means instead of hunters paying for the chance to hunt and kill a deer, the taxpayers of East Lansing has to pay the $6,000 it will cost for this round of culling. When the cull happens the city manager would partner with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services to bring in those taxpayer-paid sharpshooters who will kill the deer in specialized hunts in the city parks.
It gets even better for all those who are against hunters and hunting, the East Lansing City Manager George Lahanas said the city most likely will not budget $6,000 but closer to $20,000 in case the culling program would be needed in more areas of the city and for a longer period.
The problem with the increasing deer population comes from the fact that they are destroying gardens, vegetation, and increased vehicular crashes.
During the debate Council member Mark Meadows said:
“This is not a vote, for me, based on whether hostas are eaten…There comes a point in time where there isn’t enough food for the deer, and I think controlling the population at this point in time is an appropriate way for us to go forward.”
That my friends is exactly what hunters and the groups that support hunters have been saying for decades. When there is a protected species with no natural predators the herds will grow beyond them being able to sustain themselves.
Modern game management practices have increased herd sizes and made the herd healthier. This has been known in America for a century or longer. It’s probably been known worldwide for millennium.
But only the pros are good enough to hunt the parks. It’s not good enough to dispatch bow hunters on the deer herd. They are the “only ones.”
I’ve heard a fair bit of conjecture over the years about what happens when a bullet flies through the rain. Speculation varies from nothing to maybe something. Until now, all I’ve had is an opinion. After conducting tests at EMRTC (New Mexico Tech) (emrtc.nmt.edu) for Guns & Ammo TV, observed by a team of ballisticians, I can honestly answer, “A lot more than you think.”
The most common speculation I’ve heard is that a pressure wave forms on the supersonic bullet’s nose and pushes anything out of the way — and water never touches the bullet. I’ve also heard that even if water hits the bullet, it moves too fast and has enough mass that a drop has no effect. Both hypotheses are false.
The impetus for this test was Dave Emary who write’s this magazine’s “Bullet Board” column. Emary shared with me an experience he had shooting a High Power Match at Camp Perry, Ohio, during which some serious rain showed up. Dave was shooting and doing just fine until he had one bullet barely clip the edge of the entire 600-yard target board. It wasn’t just a few inches away from the rest of his group — it was a few feet! Dave was shooting an M1A chambered in .308 Winchester using 180-grain bullets when his bullet hit about 3 feet away from his expected impact.
[ … ]
… EMRTC had the instrumentation to film a bullet hitting a drop of rain, so we decided it was time to find out exactly what happens when a bullet hits a drop by filming it occur in high speed.
Engineer David Hibbert and a couple of PhD candidates determined that a drop of rain induced a 3.2-degree yaw on our 125-grain bullet. Thanks to some judicious pixel counting by our big-brained team of scientists, we also determined that the bullet’s yaw was not directly correlated to the flight path; 3.2 degrees is some serious yaw. We observed 4 inches of deflection at 50 yards, however, the bullet could have hit multiple water droplets due to our test setup.
[ … ]
Does this mean that shooters need to worry about shooting in the rain? No. Even in a pretty steady rain, the likelihood of hitting a drop with a bullet is pretty low. However, there are a couple of instances where it would be worth remembering this study, should you find yourself shooting in wet weather.
Via Woodpile Report. This is an interesting result, but not one I would try to plan or train for. On a related note, I recall one time that “Myth Busters” tested the notion that walking faster or running in the rain caused you to get less wet than if you walked slowly.
It’s not true. You can see rain drops in terms of specific concentration, or drops per cubic foot or cubic meter (or your favorite volume dimension). You’re going to walk through the same number of water droplets running as you will walking.
