A variety of thoughts and opinions.

Whoops, did I say that?

Written by:remyrw
Published on March 30th, 2011 @ 10:21:57 am , using 17 words, 84 views
Posted in Commentary

Link: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/29/republicans-thankful-sen-schumers-faux-pax

Sen. Charles Schumer was a little more honest and transparent with the press than he'd planned recently.

Who's the good guy?

Written by:remyrw
Published on March 29th, 2011 @ 10:50:47 pm , using 539 words, 12 views
Posted in Commentary

Link: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/28/rebel-libya-%E2%80%9Cbrothers-who-fought-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-now-is-the-time-to-defend-your-land%E2%80%9D/

I'm a bit confused as to why some folks are so quick to support the Libyan rebels. Yes, they're rebelling against a dictator who's responsible for a lot of terrible acts, but if anything he's the good guy when comparing resumes. The rebels are often people who were a bit too hard core fundamentalists to be happy when he started trying for a certain measure of international respect and trust. They're people who actively support and engage in terrorism today, not just in the past. It's not a question of good and bad, it's just who's worse.

Personally, I think we need to take a real hard look at who we support in this conflict. The last time we helped a bunch of islamic fundamentalists fight off their current rulers we regretted it. These people hate our guts, even if they're cheering as we help them. They're not cheering because they like us. They're cheering because they just saw an obstacle to their goal be blown up or forced to get out of the way. Unfortunately their goal, long term, is the destruction of pretty much everything western civilization holds dear. Next time you see or hear reports of our forces helping or defending the Libyan rebels, apologize to the service members those same rebels killed elsewhere and will kill in the future because we helped them today.

These aren't people we can form alliances with, they will take anything we give then use it against us. As far as they're concerned that's just smart. I agree, it is smart and they are very good at this type of action. From their point of view our civilization must be destroyed and any and all methods are fair game. It's not a question of right or wrong, we can't apply our rule book to their actions and expect it to make sense. We're playing one game, they're playing another, unless we make sure they lose BOTH games, we're dead. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but somewhere down the line slavery will return to Europe and North America. Rape will be punished by killing the victim and practicing any religion but Islam will be punishable by death. Speaking out against your leaders, even just the local priest will get you killed, free speech will mean the local mosque printed your pro islam news for you. Remember the Holocaust? That will seem like a drop in the bucket if radical islam succeeds with their stated goals, and so far they've been doing pretty well.

THESE are the people we're defending from the "bad" Muʿammar al-Qaḏḏāfī. I vote we send a few bombs with 48 hour timers over and give them to both sides. Give the rebels lots of fuel for their trucks, give the loyalists free reign and provide intel to both sides (tailored to encourage lots and lots of fighting). Let them wipe each other out, if they're still killing each other ten years from now it would be more beneficial to the security of our nation and western civilization than if the rebels win. At this point if the loyalists win we've poisoned the well with the Libyan government anyway, so we can't expect any good will there if they win.

No Fly Zone, or War Zone?

Written by:remyrw
Published on March 29th, 2011 @ 10:24:57 pm , using 291 words, 13 views
Posted in Commentary

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us_deploys_low_flying_attack_planes_in_libya/2011/03/26/AF9grPqB_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

We got told that the US military was just going to help establish a no fly zone and was not taking sides (though I'm not sure how even that statement works). Somehow I don't see tactical strikes by Air to Ground support craft fit that description. AC130's and A10's don't do Air to Air, they aren't even smart units to send after air defense units to help protect our aircraft while they enforce a no fly zone. The A10 can do that job, but it's generally done with faster and/or stealthier aircraft to reduce the risk.

"The planes are being used to step up pressure on Libyan ground troops, who have retreated from the rebel’s advance and fortified around several cities east of Tripoli, the capital. “Our strategy continues to be to pressure them where we think it’s going to give us the best effect,” said Vice Adm. William Gortney, director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff.

That sure doesn't describe operations limited to enforcing a no fly zone.

I'm not a real fan of Libya's current ruler, don't get me wrong here. I have an opinion regarding whether we should be there or not, and what our goals and commitments should be regarding this type of situation. None of that comes into play here. What I think is so important is that the American public is getting sold a pack of bullshit. If we're going to put our armed forces into harms way in Libya, and actively take a side in the conflict, let's not play games about it at home by saying we're just enforcing a no fly zone or protecting civilians. It sounds to me like we need to either have congress declare war or mind our own business.

Equal rights for Illegal Aliens?

Written by:remyrw
Published on March 27th, 2011 @ 11:14:34 am , using 136 words, 22 views
Posted in Commentary

Link: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/impounds-and-illegals/

I can almost understand the arguments for equal rights for the illegals. I disagree, but at least I can see where they're coming from. What I don't understand is how someone can justify turning it completely the other way and give ADVANTAGES to an illegal because of that status. I'm sorry, rather than giving them special legal benefits maybe we should be deporting them? Maybe I'm just crazy, but isn't an illegal alien a criminal, you know, the whole "illegal" part of how they're in this country? Even if the local and state law enforcement agencies turn a blind eye to immigration status I take serious exception to special treatment BECAUSE of that status. Either the police treat you as a criminal when they become aware of that situation, or they treat you like everyone else.

Magazine bans in CT and other states

Written by:remyrw
Published on March 4th, 2011 @ 10:51:05 am , using 2136 words, 86 views
Posted in Commentary

Link: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=26&t=443941

If you aren't already aware of this stupidity please follow the link. If you haven't already emailed the committee and your specific rep, please do so. From what I hear this bill as well as a possible gun registration bill are being discussed. It's interesting to note that this bill still has not been added to their list on the bulletin page.
(CT General Assembly Bulletin) http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABulletin/Bulletin.asp
(Find your legislators) http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CGAFindLeg.asp

The key issues here (other than the general stupidity and pointlessness of such legislation) are that the bill has no sunset clause and NO GRANDFATHERING. In other words, it doesn't expire and it does not care that you already own the magazines, when the bill goes into effect you are a felon if you haven't disposed of them. Yeah, a class D felon, for owning a hunk of aluminum or plastic with a spring in it. Forget the fact that it's for a perfectly legal firearm, or that you bought it legally, or that you've got hundreds of dollars or more invested in magazines, or that you participate in various shooting sports that make use of them, or that you carry that pistol for self defense and that's the magazines it was designed to use, you're a felon if you don't get rid of them.

Nope, they aren't going to reimburse you, or care if you can't find 10 round or smaller magazines for your firearm. They don't care if it's an antique or curio.

They're also not going to take them from the police, just the lowly citizens. The police (and I'm not saying they shouldn't have them, nor should this be taken as a negative comment toward them) are tasked with enforcing the law. Along the way they also serve to help protect us, but they can hardly be there every second of every day, we are responsible for our own safety. This has been settled in court repeatedly. The police are NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING US. Essentially, they show up after the fact, take the report and hopefully catch the criminal, counting on them to stop the crime is pure fantasy. It's great when it happens, but it's not realistic. So while the police keep their high capacity magazines, chosen and purchased at tax payer expense because bad guys are bad guys and the police need to be suitably armed, the general population, the ones the police serve, do not get them. We don't rate that level of hardware for our own protection I guess. How exactly is my life less valuable than a police officer's? How exactly does he or she rate any more right to self defense than any citizen? They are granted special rights (arrest being the key one) in order to do their jobs, but when you get right down to it they're just citizens with the job of responding to criminal activity.

When I wrote to the committee and my legislators I used the analogy of vehicles and golfing. Cars kill a lot more people than guns in this country, even if you count police shootings. Yet there's no bill out there to restrict cars to walking speed and require sirens and flashing lights on all of them as constant warnings to other drivers and pedestrians. We all know they're potentially dangerous, we all take precautions, and we all accept that accidents do happen. We also have laws regarding unsafe use of a vehicle and criminal use. So we don't have to limit cars to some artificially low speed that supposedly makes them safe. Even then, accidents happen and criminals will ignore the law.

Golf clubs were my other example. The motivation behind the magazine ban is that there are people who find them scary, the magazines and guns in general. Well, the reason they're scary is they can kill people, and the high capacity magazines (among other purposes) facilitate this. No sugar coating, more ammo in the firearm is meant to make the shooter more effective and provide greater firepower. Gosh, I've had a baseball bat swung at my head, it was pretty scary too. I want them all restricted to no more than two feet long including handle and they can't weigh more than 10oz. That makes them safer, right? Golf clubs are deadly weapons too. Heck, the police had to kill that guy who was across the room holding a golf club (not arguing the shoot, just using it as an example) because of how dangerous it is. All those people walking around every day with a bunch of golf clubs in a bag, and then they go drink at the club house.... very scary. You know, they don't need a permit or waiting period or anything for those things, and they carry them around in their vehicles too.

You see the point here? Golf clubs, baseball bats and automobiles aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, but they're normal every day parts of life that most people don't think twice about unless used for criminal behavior. The product itself is not bad, just the criminal use of it. When used for legal purposes they're just fine. Well, my firearms and oh so dangerous high capacity magazines ARE protected by the Bill of Rights, and they DO serve many legal purposes. From sporting activities to self defense to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment itself, they have a place in the civilian world.

If the legislators don't care about the actual rights of the population, or common sense issues, maybe they'll care about the economic aspects of this change. Many of us own quite a few magazines that would suddenly need to be disposed of. If you don't plan to compensate me for them I'm going to be trying to sell them while i can, but I know I'll take a loss. Then factor in that the 10 round magazines are generally MORE expensive (due to lower demand in general, they're not the generic mass produced version) and the fact that to hold the same total number of rounds I'll need more of them I'm looking at a significant financial hit. I most likely will NOT be spending that money in state, I'll be buying whatever's the best deal and that probably means online from suppliers in states that don't have such high taxes on businesses. That means that money I'd otherwise have spent locally now got spent out of state. At the same time I, and many other shooters and shooting organizations, will be looking at legal action to remove the law and force financial restitution for our losses. These legal challenges will cost the state government quite a bit of money.

Taking it all a little further and you get into what might seem extreme but I consider it a significant concern these days. Our nation is in a financial and economic (not always the same thing) crisis. Prices and taxes are going up at the same time as unemployment is increasing, pay is decreasing and a huge percentage of home buyers from the past decade are upside down in their mortgages. Add in political unrest, social changes and a growing awareness by the general public that the system is not just broken but that the damage will come to roost for them. It's one thing to know intellectually that the various social programs that eat up so much of the budget are going to bankrupt the nation by a certain year if nothing's done about it. It's another for that year to be fast approaching and realize that anything done at this point is just damage control.

A lot of gun owners are also planners and preppers. Not survivalists or mountain men, but people who look at the potential future and plan accordingly. Extra food stuffs that you just rotate through so you can survive a while without the grocery store or soup kitchen? Just common sense, even the government suggests it. Alternative heat source in case utilities go down in the middle of the winter? Mother Nature's a bitch, it's just common sense to make sure you won't freeze to death. Major social unrest when social programs collapse or even hic-up? Better have a means of protecting yourself, your family and your business. What would happen if welfare checks were even just a week late? Do we really think it will go smoothly? If even a small fraction of the recipients throw a fit it could be a major problem. More importantly, the states know this, so they'll have already cut back elsewhere to try to keep those programs funded. That means public services from road work to emergency services will be minimized. Government workers laid off (thus more unemployed and in need of financial assistance.) This doesn't even consider the reduced aid from the federal government as it tries to shore up its own programs in the face of sinking tax income despite increased taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's doomsday or Mad Max time, just that there is significant potential for major social unrest of the violent nature in the next decade. Preparing for this falls in the same category as preparing for natural disasters. If you live in New England you own a shovel and boots, probably even a snow blower if you have a home or business. People have plows, salt and ice melt supplies, backup heaters... This is just common sense. If you're smart you don't wait till the day before the blizzard to buy this stuff, you keep it ready. If you life in hurricane or tornado country you plan accordingly. You buy the right insurance, you make some adjustments to your home compared to elsewhere (real shutters, a tornado room in the basement....) and you probably can write out the FEMA guidelines for emergency preparedness without looking, because you live it. It's not being crazy or paranoid, it's being logical. If every year hurricanes come through your general area you prepare accordingly, even if your specific spot doesn't get hit all the time.

Now back to the point of all that. In the middle of all these problems this kind of bill is like smacking a beehive that's already aggravated. Why would you do this if you don't have to? The BEST you can hope for is a lot of pissed off voters who comply with the law. The rest of the population isn't going to be happy about it, they won't care one way or the other for the most part until the economic aspects start effecting them. Next possibility is that it puts some already unstable individual over the edge and they do something criminal and violent. Of course, the people who were for the ban will point it out as an example of why it was needed, ignoring the fact that the ban didn't stop it. Next most likely, and maybe the most likely in fact, is that the majority of gun owners who have magazines that are effected turn in a few, sell a couple out of state and just stash the rest in a closet somewhere knowing full well there is no way anyone's going to be doing house to house searches. Then, when one of these individuals somehow comes to the attention of law enforcement and these magazines are found they are added to the charges. A lot of people get very annoyed at what are considered BS charges (since quite likely the original charges that prompted the search will be minor or even spurious) and you wind up with a lot of even more pissed off people who see one of their own being treated poorly. This may or may not lead to the next situation, which is that the population just says "fuck you" and not just ignores the law but decides that it's the proverbial line in the sand. Remember, you're not dealing with sheep here, nor unarmed rioters with nothing better than rocks. Even if only a small percentage of gun owners decided they were fed up it would be way beyond the ability of the police to handle (even assuming a good portion of them weren't sympathetic or laid off due to budget cuts). How many otherwise law abiding and upstanding citizens can be arrested on a magazine capacity charge before the rest decide it's time to force a change? Don't get me wrong, this will start with legal challenges right when the law is passed, but if progress isn't made, and the law is being aggressively enforced, it is not unlikely that people will resort to directed violence to effect change. Even if it is smacked down, the end result will not be pretty and no one wins in that situation, it's just a question of who's left in control.

<< 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 18 >>

©2017 by remyrw
Comments are welcome, but must be sent to me via the contacts link here. Due to spam I no longer allow automatic comment submission. • ContactHelpfree bloggreen hostingFP
b2evo skin design by Andrew Hreschak