Too bad this particular one is located on the Kwai River:
Now More Voices Agree on the Need to Fix NICS:
"...We are in the third year of our industry’s national effort to ensure
that the system has all the appropriate records put into it. We call
the initiative FixNICS and we have been successful through our direct efforts to convince 16
state legislatures to pass legislation to ensure that there are no
statutory, regulatory, administrative or procedural impediments to
entering all appropriate records – criminal and mental health – into
NICS." {internal link omitted, and h/t Sayuncle)
Yes, Ve need to in-sure that ev-reboodies papers are in ord...er, I mean that only the desirables get to have gu... er, Oh nevermind.
Fix the background check system? Only if they're talking about fixing it the way Rand Paul videos himself "fixing" the tax code - while the chainsaw method looks fun I've not ruled out the flamethrower as the best option just yet.
The background check system exists to make sure The Wrong People don't exercise a basic, fundamental human Right that's enumerated in at least one applicable constitution. It should be eliminated, not enhanced in its efficiency.
"Yes. The 'gun lobby' did that. We prefer to be called the firearms
industry, but yes, we did that. We don’t expect the gun control groups
to provide any credit to our industry. It runs counter to the narrative
that they proffer, and that is too often accepted without challenge by
reporters who should know that verifying information should be part of
every story they file."
Why should the anti-gunowner groups credit the NSSF for the gun industry's work on background checks? I mean, it's embarrassing when your enemy effectively does your job for you. What is a surprise to most gun owning folks is how willing the firearms industry is to further the cause of gunowner control.
Then they go on to offer a tepid repudiation of extended background checks to private sales. You cannot reasonably prop up background checks at retail and effectively argue against them in other venues. That whole principal thing comes into play and most people aren't convinced by what seems a schizophrenic response.
The only thing to do is to oppose background checks in their entirety, and support abolishing the prohibited persons list altogether. It won't be easy swaying public opinion (especially with so many of our alleged allies cheering the other team on in this matter) but I have a few ideas about that.
And remember, appeasement is for chumps.
Edit: 07/31/15 14:35 MDT I just realized that thanks to the NSSF's efforts, no vet or octogenarian who has someone else deal with their finances will slip through the cracks. After all, the VA and SSA aren't the only ones who keep track of who ain't balancing their own checkbook. I'm sure there are state level programs that have that info and, thanks to such efforts as FixNICS, they'll be sure to include them from now on.
Friday, July 31, 2015
The South
The Anarchangel his-self has a post up I want y'all to read. It's entitled Wounds, and Scars, And Battle Flags.
It's not a short read, but many things that are worth reading tend
toward the lengthier side of life. As he warns, it contains something to
piss off just about everyone concerning this issue. But read it as what
I'll write will make more sense with his post in mind.
Now that you've presumably read it, I disagree with My Byrne's base assertion - that the confederate battle flag is a symbol of hatred towards black folks. I agree that some if not many black people have this view, but in general it's not quite what it seems.
When a person sees the flag that once flew over the Army of Northern Virginia, they don't see it a as symbol of hatred. They see it as a symbol of The South. They view The South as something that represents hatred. They're gravely mistaken, but that's what they see.
What
was missed in that very well thought out post is what southerners see,
specifically southerners that grew up in the 1960's through 1990's.
Now that you've presumably read it, I disagree with My Byrne's base assertion - that the confederate battle flag is a symbol of hatred towards black folks. I agree that some if not many black people have this view, but in general it's not quite what it seems.
When a person sees the flag that once flew over the Army of Northern Virginia, they don't see it a as symbol of hatred. They see it as a symbol of The South. They view The South as something that represents hatred. They're gravely mistaken, but that's what they see.
Vets And Purges
Workmageddon appears to be easing up momentarily, but I don't want to count my days off before they hatch. Posting may continue to be light (er, nonexistent) for a while, but whilst I have some time I'll try to jot down a few things.
So, Obama has told Israel that if they like the peace in our time they can keep it and goes on to criticize critics of his so called deal. Steyn disagrees that this is comparable to Chamberlain, as Chamberlain actually loved his country, or to Munich, as this seems far worse than Munich.
Domestically Obama is moving to disarm what seems like old folks. I don't think that's his goal though.
"The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported."
That same criteria is used by the VA. Coincidence? I kinda doubt it. Methinks this is geared towards disarming vets. If some old folks get caught in this net, no biggie, but the goal is vets.
Far fetched you say? I'll remind you of that DHS report from 2009 which listed vets, among others, as potential terrorist threats. Legislation is almost assuredly out of the question, so Obama is doing what he can (and more if one puts any stock in the Bill of Rights or that whole separation of powers notion) through executive action, and if your resources are limited you use them on what you perceive as the greatest threat within your capabilities of acting upon. In this case, it's vets.
Of course, hypocrisy is obvious - telling folks who can't balance a checkbook that they're unfit to own firearms coming from a guy who can't balance a budget yet has nukes at his disposal?
A lot of folks - millions from what I gather - have some trouble keeping their finances together. Now if you look at the Rand Paul videos where he literally destroys copies of the u.S. tax code you'll perhaps note the enormity of the documents. It is perfectly reasonable to be able to competently own and use a device as mechanically and morally simple as a firearm while not wanting the stress of flipping through 70,000 pages of legalease to interfere with trying to deal with whatever it is you're trying to deal with. Hell, most folks without PTSD or some other ailment don't want to deal with the tax code. That in no way reflects their competence with firearms, or motor vehicles or power tools.
But for this administration it's a way to disarm those that are seen as the most pressing threat. After all a veteran presumably has training in the use of arms and would therefore be able to put up the most resistance to any government imposed efforts to force a population into doing something it really didn't want to do. I am not saying or even implying that Obama is looking to declare martial law, crown himself president for life and start setting up re-education centers to murder 25 million stubborn Americans (the latter was only endorsed by Obama's pals, not by Obama himself). But if you see a group as a threat you try to take away their ability to do you harm. If old folks get disarmed along the way I doubt anyone in this administration will shed a tear.
I should also note that Obama has been making some changes within the military itself. Not just cultural changes, but a reduction in troops as well. There are suggestions of a purge of the military, not only of high ranking officers who aren't politically or socially desirable, but of the warrior class. I don't think this is part of some diabolical plot but simply an extension of Obama's (and the Progressives) worldview. He sees everything as political, and the military is a cultural problem that needs attention. Military culture ain't perfect - no culture its. But military culture is as close as can be of an institutionalized form of Scots-Irish culture, which is an abhorrence to the Progressive culture. Therefore it requires no Machiavellian plot to conclude that the changes he's trying to make to the military are an extension of the changes he's trying to make to society at large. Not good changes, as they all operate on the foundation of videri quam esse as does the Progressive culture itself, but not changes involving any sort of conspiracy.
Of course, just because there's no conspiracy doesn't mean they're not out to get ya, and you don't really need an excuse to stock ammo cans four or more deep.
So, Obama has told Israel that if they like the peace in our time they can keep it and goes on to criticize critics of his so called deal. Steyn disagrees that this is comparable to Chamberlain, as Chamberlain actually loved his country, or to Munich, as this seems far worse than Munich.
Domestically Obama is moving to disarm what seems like old folks. I don't think that's his goal though.
"The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported."
That same criteria is used by the VA. Coincidence? I kinda doubt it. Methinks this is geared towards disarming vets. If some old folks get caught in this net, no biggie, but the goal is vets.
Far fetched you say? I'll remind you of that DHS report from 2009 which listed vets, among others, as potential terrorist threats. Legislation is almost assuredly out of the question, so Obama is doing what he can (and more if one puts any stock in the Bill of Rights or that whole separation of powers notion) through executive action, and if your resources are limited you use them on what you perceive as the greatest threat within your capabilities of acting upon. In this case, it's vets.
Of course, hypocrisy is obvious - telling folks who can't balance a checkbook that they're unfit to own firearms coming from a guy who can't balance a budget yet has nukes at his disposal?
A lot of folks - millions from what I gather - have some trouble keeping their finances together. Now if you look at the Rand Paul videos where he literally destroys copies of the u.S. tax code you'll perhaps note the enormity of the documents. It is perfectly reasonable to be able to competently own and use a device as mechanically and morally simple as a firearm while not wanting the stress of flipping through 70,000 pages of legalease to interfere with trying to deal with whatever it is you're trying to deal with. Hell, most folks without PTSD or some other ailment don't want to deal with the tax code. That in no way reflects their competence with firearms, or motor vehicles or power tools.
But for this administration it's a way to disarm those that are seen as the most pressing threat. After all a veteran presumably has training in the use of arms and would therefore be able to put up the most resistance to any government imposed efforts to force a population into doing something it really didn't want to do. I am not saying or even implying that Obama is looking to declare martial law, crown himself president for life and start setting up re-education centers to murder 25 million stubborn Americans (the latter was only endorsed by Obama's pals, not by Obama himself). But if you see a group as a threat you try to take away their ability to do you harm. If old folks get disarmed along the way I doubt anyone in this administration will shed a tear.
I should also note that Obama has been making some changes within the military itself. Not just cultural changes, but a reduction in troops as well. There are suggestions of a purge of the military, not only of high ranking officers who aren't politically or socially desirable, but of the warrior class. I don't think this is part of some diabolical plot but simply an extension of Obama's (and the Progressives) worldview. He sees everything as political, and the military is a cultural problem that needs attention. Military culture ain't perfect - no culture its. But military culture is as close as can be of an institutionalized form of Scots-Irish culture, which is an abhorrence to the Progressive culture. Therefore it requires no Machiavellian plot to conclude that the changes he's trying to make to the military are an extension of the changes he's trying to make to society at large. Not good changes, as they all operate on the foundation of videri quam esse as does the Progressive culture itself, but not changes involving any sort of conspiracy.
Of course, just because there's no conspiracy doesn't mean they're not out to get ya, and you don't really need an excuse to stock ammo cans four or more deep.
Tunes For Gunnuts Part 1
By chance I found a CD just lying on the ground. Normally I'd have just tossed it in a trash can but on it was written "Gunnut songs" Intrigued I took it home & popped it in a player. I was astounded as I never noticed the tunes on it were in fact geared towards the Gun Culture. I must have misheard the lyrics for all these years. Here are a few of the titles
A.R. U Gonna Go My Way (Lenny Kravitz)
R.O. Got Us Fallin' In Love (Usher)
She's Only 17 (HMR!) (Winger)
It's Still Rock Island Armory To Me (Billy Joel)
Glock Around The Clock (Bill Hailey)
My Baby Garand (Billy Joel)
The Garand Tour (George Jones)
Trigger Control (Janet Jackson)
Three Times a Lahti (The Commodores)
For Those About To Glock (AC/DC)
Damned montegreen.
A.R. U Gonna Go My Way (Lenny Kravitz)
R.O. Got Us Fallin' In Love (Usher)
She's Only 17 (HMR!) (Winger)
It's Still Rock Island Armory To Me (Billy Joel)
Glock Around The Clock (Bill Hailey)
My Baby Garand (Billy Joel)
The Garand Tour (George Jones)
Trigger Control (Janet Jackson)
Three Times a Lahti (The Commodores)
For Those About To Glock (AC/DC)
Damned montegreen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)