Tactical litter receptacles

LINTHICUM, Md. — A BWI airport official say a canister of pepper spray left in a trash can near a checkpoint was to blame for the evacuation of two concourses.

Incidences like these don't surprise me at all.  I've had to ditch all kinds of tactical doodads in airports over the years just because I forgot I had them on me, only noticing while standing in line at security.  I don't recall tossing any pepper spray, which isn't to say that I haven't, but I've ditched lots of pocket knives and several pistol mags in the past; a SOG Trident in one unnamed country and about five Beretta M9 mags in another immediately comes to mind.  If one were to rifle through those trash cans without drawing suspicion they would find some cool tactical gear, no doubt.  Think of all the Service men and women who realized that they still had their Gerber multi-tool on their belt and threw them away at the last minute.

It's really shameful if you think about it.  That's why I don't travel anymore.

If it's broke, fix it

I'm a rather strange cat in that I can be completely calm and collected after crawling out of the smoldering wreckage of a car accident, but then lose my mind when I can't get the lid off a mayonnaise jar. I know it's backwards, but whatever. That being said, one of the little trifling things in life that agitates me to no end is watching two of my small children struggle to buckle their seat belts in the back of the van.

In this day and age, we have minivans with more horsepower than the V-8 sportscars I had in the 80's and 90's; we have sensors that tell you when your tires are running low; there's sensors in cars that can tell if you've been in a collision and will route a telephone call right to your upside down vehicle; there's rear facing backup-cameras, FLIR cameras, bluetooth, navigation systems. . .etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. But for some frickin' reason we can't make inertial locking mechanisms on seatbelts to allow kids to pull the needed slack to buckle up unless every stinking millimeter of belt is first fed back into the reel. I mean, the car isn't running, hasn't moved in days, and is sitting calmly in the driveway, so why oh why does the seatbelt insist on staying locked!!! Do you have any idea at how wonderful it would be if my kids could buckle their own seatbelts?!?! Oh, the time it would save me not having to crawl to the back of the minivan to un-jam the least sophisticated safety device in the car!!

This technological blunder drives me crazy because I thought mankind could do better. It reminds me of this picture:



For all our alleged intelligence, it's a marvel mankind is still at the top of the food chain.

The vanity of this silly country will be its ruin

AAAHHHHHGHGGGGG!!! I swear (no really!), the absurd amount of fashion and vanity that is present in this country is depressing!!

Based on Andy's sound advice, I've scoured the internet looking for a medical ID bracelet for the afore mentioned allergy problem that I have, and instead of something simple and functional the market is instead flooded with jewelry. Jewelry. Accoutrement's that make you fashionable. Somewhere along the line some yayhoo decided that simple utility should take a back seat to looking cooooool. When I was a dumb wee lad, the way to look cool was to roll your Camels up in the sleeve of your white T-shirt.

That's all changed now.

Want a life saving medical marker for your wrist? Too bad the EMT looking for one on your soon-to-be corpse will pass over it while admiring your pathetic designer tribal cuff. What is this garbage!?!? Pleaseohplease tell me: What does your conceited, vainglorious, extroverted, bubbly personality have to do with a lifesaving device crafted for the sole purpose of identifying your severe medical condition? That's right, nothing!

It's abundantly obvious that idolatry is here to stay in America. Pity.

What I'm now looking for is a solid, stainless steel band with all my allergy gibberish on it, but with the whole shootin' match ceramic coated bright red. Bright red, as in LOOOOKY HERE EMT DUDE!!! MEDICAL ALERT THINGY!!! SAVE MY LIFE!!!! Not "Looky here EMT dude. I'm a charming thirty something with a fondness for shiny beads, horses, and long walks on the beach. I like taking long showers, and sometimes I get butterflys in my stomach when the cute clerk at Wegmans asks me if I have a bonus card. I'm insecure about the dark birthmark on my finger, and sometimes I cry quietly about it at night."

What I don't need is a leather, barbed wire abomination that some off duty nurse who sprung to help my dying ass will end up too busy laughing herself to death over to administer my epinephrine. Get over yourselves, people!

First they came for the lead. . . .

Then they came for the copper brass .

This is the start of something very interesting. When the ATF says that a particular brand of copper brass bullet is banned because it's "armor piercing," how long before other manufacturer's bullets are banned?

Something else to think of - California is a "lead free zone" so to speak, so this really hoses the millions of rifle shooters there. And isn't it a bad idea to ban a bullet designed to penetrate deep into large dangerous critters based on the idea that it penetrates so deeply?


***ETA: The bullets are made of brass.

Down with the sickness: Family edition

Two of my little people have raging ear infections, the other two have fevers, vomiting, and worse, and to top it off I wasn't feeling all that great, so I called out yesterday and took the kids to the doctor's office. One of my kids started throwing up on the sidewalk before we went in, so I knew it was going to be an adventure yesterday. Today is a full up extension of that adventure. My wife and I both called out sick, and there's a fountain of. . . .let's call it collectively "stuff" emitting from the kids. Tempers are high. It's going to be brutal.

Menace to society

This post is many parts; the lesser of the post being the first, which is that coyotes in King George's county, Virginia are now in an almost continuous open season, and hopefully this will extend to other surrounding counties, as my county is starting to see their population increase. I take issue with some parts of this ordnance, the main one being that if you use a rifle, it has to be larger than .22 caliber. I'd love to see some evidence of how this regulation was established, and would enjoy seeing some bureaucrat publicly defend it. It's asinine. If you frequent predator forums, you'd be hard pressed to miss that hunters note the faster calibers being the ones that put coyotes down quickly, and thus "ethically" like the DGIF official wants. The gist of it is hunters have had well hit coyotes run off after being hit with larger calibers with less velocity, and anchored them well with the same hits with zippy small caliber rifles. Call it what you want, but there's definitely a trend. My guess is that this regulation is put here now to make sure that icky AR rifles don't end up being the killing tool for coyote hunters.

I'm going to go off on a tangent for a minute: this caliber restriction applies to whitetail deer hunting as well, and I've never seen any scientific evidence or studies that show that .22 caliber bullets are less effective than anything larger. The .223 Remington cartridge is a premier deer round in states where it's lawful, but general public ignorance and baseless ordinances have led them to be demonized. I've argued this with people for years, and none of them can offer anything other than "it's not powerful enough." Do you have proof of that claim, because I've seen evidence that says otherwise.

Interestingly enough, many hunters that I've known throughout the years who subscribe to this bullshit tote a magnum caliber rifle that they can't shoot because they flinch with it on every shot, and believe it has more "knockdown power" because it's so biiiiiiiiiiiig. I've tracked a ton of hit deer for them, too, some of them where the hunter felt confident to shoot a 180 lb running doe square in the ass because their cartridge case has a belt, and that bullet will definitely make it to the vitals, sure. "IT'S A GREAT BRUSH GUN!!!!" - my personal favorite. To be blunt, I've tracked more dog-sized Virginia deer hit with a magnum than I can count, but never had to track one hit with a .22 Hornet, .22 Magnum, or .220 Swift. I don't account this fact to the caliber, but to the fact that the trigger man did his job and hit them properly, and did not rely on 30 extra grains of powder, 2 more millimeters, and piss poor shooting to get the job done. Just to ensure that this dead horse is adequately beaten, if you claim that to use a .223 Remington or other similar caliber cartridge on deer, you have to "hit them just right," you are implying that using a larger cartridge means that you don't have to hit them just right. Get it?

Good. Moving on.

The "no hunting on Sundays" is an archaic regulation that needs to be repealed. I don't know where it comes from, but to my knowledge folks believe that God will be angry with them if they're in their treestand on Sunday vice raking leaves or fixing the sink. The Lord didn't smite David for eating the showbread, and I don't think He will condemn Elmer Fudd for sending a ballistic tip through Wile E's guts. If you believe otherwise, then I invite you on a witch hunting journey with me in Salem. It'll be swell! My county this year has had a continuous doe-day this hunting season in a vain effort to control the population, and if they let hunters hunt one more day out of the week, a balance in the herd might be struck. The insurance companies would surely be happy with this concept, as they wouldn't have to shell out millions every year because of all the deer hit by vehicles.

Next up on my list of shit I don't like is this:

King George doesn’t allow the use of high-powered rifles during hunting season. Bullets fired by more powerful weapons travel farther, and that can be dangerous in areas with dense populations or flat terrain, which is the case in King George.Caroline County has the same restriction.

Now, this DOES NOT apply to shooting coyotes in the county -- it's for deer hunters -- but going off on a tangent again (I can do that, you know) I note that this is an asinine regulation, and it's one that plagues many counties around mine. Whoever came up with this should be kicked in the balls. The concept is that rifles are dangerous because the bullet has the potential to go further, so some counties only allow hunting with shotguns and muzzleloaders. The problem with that is that that concept is baseless:

Of Pennsylvania’s approximate 900 miles of border with other states, it was found that the centerfire rifle was unlawful along the entire boundary with the exception of western Maryland. They found that in no case was any state able to provide definitive information upon which they based their decision. In fact, most reported that they simply responded to the public perception that shotguns were less dangerous than centerfire rifles. At that time, PGC staff found there was no data to support the contention that shotguns and muzzleloaders are any less risky than centerfire rifles. They found, instead, that in the “shotgun-only” states this appears to be “an issue driven by emotion and politics rather than sound scientific data.”2

You mean to tell me that laws and regulations subjected on Pennsylvanians was born out of politics and emotion instead of facts? Weird. Don't quote me, but I think this sort of shenanigans has happened elsewhere in the country.

Anyhow, the conclusion from the linked study from Pennsylvania is that shotguns are "more risky" when fired from the ground at a zero degree angle, and Paw Paws 30.06 is "more risky" when fired at an angle, such as from a treestand -- but the risk factor in the study is based on the "danger zone" after the projectile has ricocheted, which is based entirely on the distance that it travels. My point is that who cares if the round ricochets one mile or ten: it's one bullet, and it's dangerous no matter how far it goes before it lands. It would be different if the bullet rained death down on everything below it during its brief flight, whereas the further and longer it flies, the more harm is done. That's not the case though; what we're talking about here is if a hunter fires a rifle at a deer, and the bullet skips off a rock and heads out of the pasture, that if it strikes Timmy in his back yard a thousand yards away it's "more safe" than if the round came down and struck grandma in the next county. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

According to the PA study, the criteria for the "danger zone" came from studies done by the US military on the ricochet distance for small arms for military ranges. So yeah, a two mile danger zone behind Edson Range is a good idea because thousands of Marine recruits fire millions of rounds there, and all those rounds will fall in a predictable area. Finding out how big that area is and making sure some developer doesn't build a Kroger there is in the public's interest. How this somehow applies to Elmer and his carbine is anyone's guess; I just don't see how a shotgun slug bounding half a mile is less dangerous than a .30 caliber Accubond skipping two miles. The telling part to me is the chart on page 26, where it shows that the probability of a rifle round ricocheting when fired at a 10 degree down angle is 38%, and the probability of a .50 round from a muzzloader or a shotgun slug ricocheting from the same angle is 91%; what I get from this is that there's less chance of an errant projectile to begin with if I stick with a rifle, damn the distance it flies. Go ahead and look that chart over real well. See how much more probable a ricochet is when you don't use a rifle?

It seems to me that we have the dumbest possible people struggling to make public policy, which I guess is better than letting them figure it out on their own using common sense, or worse, emotion.

Never again

In the 28 hours that it took for my name to be approved for a new firearm transfer, I came to the conclusion that I will not go through that process ever again. Though I did willingly consent beforehand, and He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it, I've had my fill, and will stick with private sales from here on out. A man should never feel so convicted in his heart that he questions whether he is a criminal or not, or questions who he is. It is unconscionable.

To be clear, I do not blame those within the Virginia State Police or FBI who administrate background checks, as they are not the ones who placed the repulsive concept of pre-criminalization on us; that blame lies with the greater American public first and foremost for not only agreeing to this insanity up front, and perpetually consenting to it, but for also continuing to demand it, under the naive belief that scumbags would be eradicated if we could only ensnare them with a piece of paper. I'm ashamed of myself that I ever fell under that criteria.

Last night I was doing mental backflips trying to find out what it was that would make a state and federal government hesitate to approve of a transfer. Though nobody could tell, as I have a knack for taking physical, mental, and emotional punishment with a calm demeanor, I was questioning myself over and over until I was actually thinking "what did I do wrong?" It was there where I realised I had left the Line of Departure into a hostile place that I had no business being.

I recall a time when I was in sunny Ramadi, talking to my beautiful wife on a private, Iridium satellite phone, when she told me she was delayed for a transfer for a handgun. To say she was upset is an understatement, and no doubt she was feeling exactly like I was last night: convicted. Though she had harmed no one, she combed through her past out loud to me, searching for a crime she didn't commit. I tried to convince her that everything was OK, and it did turn out to be -- that moment was my first warning notice of how harmful a background check could be, and I missed it. A dear friend of mine, who was instrumental in keeping me grounded last night, was also delayed on a gun purchase some time ago, and he also felt the same convicting thoughts -- that was the second notice that I again missed. Last night was final notice.

Whether you've ever bought a gun or not, or have any intention to, feeling convicted of something you didn't do is something everyone has probably experienced at one time. It's similar to the feeling of being falsely accused of something; not a - "you're a poopie-head" accusation, but a serious one, like - "you stole from me, didn't you?!?" The latter has the tendency to cut very deep. Having to explain yourself and why you're not in the wrong used to be a viscerally unnatural act. There was a time where it used to be a man would recoil at such a thing, as it was against all human nature to stand quietly in the face of an accusation -- "Are you calling me a liar?" Perhaps it's "reality shows" and bad TV that has put us into the mindset of constantly defending who we are, that I'm-right-and-you're-wrong, and getting comfortable with conflict and confrontation in situations we do not belong in. I don't know about y'all, but I am done putting myself in the middle of situations like that.

So now I'm here, having passed through the eye of the needle, and before too long somebody will come across this post and scoff "Big deal. Get over it. It's for the greater good. Getting criminals off the street is worth making millions of good people go through a background check." My retort is to try it sometime. If you get approved in two minutes, close enough to "instant" I guess, then you most likely won't get the full effect and have an understanding. Consider though that very few transfer denials are even prosecuted (also note in there that ATF agents didn't feel that most of the prohibited persons were dangerous enough to timely retrieve a sold gun). If you still feel that catching a handful of people that probably aren't dangerous is worth criminalizing tens of millions of Americans every year, then you can have the system. Hook, line, and sinker. As for me, I'm out.

Virginia Irritating Criminal Background Check System

I already know the problem here: I'm not a criminal, so I must not qualify for the "instant" part.

in·stant 
[in-stuhnt]
noun
1. an infinitesimal or very short space of time; a moment: They arrived not an instant too soon.
2. the point of time now present or present with reference to some action or event.

Considering that the word doesn't match reality in regards to the situation here, I have substituted a more descriptive word for the system. If you still don't see why people like myself bitch about these background checks, let me just direct you to the information page for Virginia's VCHECK system:

This program became operational on November 1, 1989, and provides for a timely, point-of-sale, approval or disapproval decision regarding the sale or transfer of all firearms (except antiques) based upon the results of a criminal history record information (CHRI) check concerning the prospective purchaser pursuant to§18.2-308.2:2 of the Code of Virginia.

Emphasis mine. The VSP cannot now say that their background check system is timely, because my transaction last night was not approved before the store closed, thus violating the point-of-sale stipulation. Furthermore, if there isn't an approval or disapproval decision, the system has failed to work as required.

I heard from the dealer that ran the background check for my HK P30 last night that delays in the state were so bad, gun shows were reporting a 50% loss on sales. The VCDL is reporting significant hangups as well. I guess Tim Kaine got what he wanted after all, as I now have a gun that's paid for but not in my hands because of bureaucratic red tape. Way to go. But if it catches one violent criminal, it's all worth it, right? (That's a joke)

Can anyone in the class explain to me how a vague, half-assed system intended to catch a criminal for a crime they may or may not commit is not as destructive as inhibiting lawful commerce and transfer of property? Anyone?

"Oh, but CTone, what if some badguy was trying to buy a handgun to go on a murder spree; wouldn't you want them to be delayed or denied?" I'll answer that right after you answer this: what if a soccer mom was trying to buy a handgun to protect herself from her already armed ex-spouse who has intent to do her serious bodily harm or kill her? Is it fine and dandy for her to be delayed to? Which scenario do you think happens more often? The "what if" game cuts both ways, and I highly doubt these background check systems actually help convict criminals. Fortunately, there's a push to rid Virginia of their redundant, needless, and ineffective system, and I can only hope that with time, the nation will shed this ludicrous idea of pre-criminalizing persons for crimes they haven't committed.

Mommas, don't let your hippies grow up to be toilet technologists

As much as it angers me to do it, I have to again revisit the topic of toilets because this shit is pissing me off (the pun - flows through me, it does)!!

This is in no way gun related, but it has to be said.

The idea of low flow toilets had to have been conceived by stinky hippie engineers who dreamed of an invention to torture the common man. Little did they know about the severe water overuse in B.F., Virginia because toilets in a certain commercial building were flushed at least three times per use. There are babies suffering somewhere, in some forgotten country probably ending in -stan, because of this insane overuse of water here. Trust me.

Secondary to the malicious intent of torturing mankind and making foreign babies suffer is the thought that by making toilets use less water, somehow polar bears and penguins would have more ice to sit on. Or some shit like that. Saving water is what hippies do, damn the reasons and consequences, and they thought that that end could be accomplished in the engineering department of American Standard. What they in fact did is create toilets that have to be flushed, re-flushed, and re-flushed again, and possibly re-flushed several more times in order to achieve the same outcome as a toilet that uses twice as much water in one flush, which runs counter to the "low flow" label that they're branded with.

"High efficiency," my ass.

When using a toilet in the building where I work, there are always leftovers if you dare to check. Every single time. Before you even use the toilet, the very first thing you have to do is flush; and once you're done, it's a mandatory two flushes at the very least, and there will still be leftovers. And if your portion size is. . . .ummmm. . . let's say larger than industry standard, sometimes you wind up with a turd stuck fast to the side of the bowl that a measly 1.6 gallons of water just can't dislodge. That's a fact. With all the snorting toilets in the men's room, and the muffled toilet snorts heard through the wall from the ladies room, you would think a sounder of agitated warthogs lived here.

So the end result is that more water is used instead of less, which could all have been avoided by leaving toilet technology well enough alone; something some folks just can't seem to do. Accept that there are some things in life that can't be improved upon: take forks for example (You now associate turds with forks. Thanks, CTone!). There isn't anything that can be done to improve how forks function. Forks design has stayed pretty much the same for hundreds of years, if not thousands, but you can bet that some hairy toed hippie has thought of shortening the fork's tines to make people use less food or something, and thus save the moose. Following in that logic, maybe we can save the Teamster population by making shovels smaller, too; or make poop disappear just as well as 3.5 gallons by using half as much.

Fix it! Or at the very least, add a selector switch. I mean, we have adjustable gas blocks. Why not adjustable toilet flow regulators?

"Oooof. This one's gonna be a doozie! Better switch from "standard" to "dirty.""

Strike while the irony is hot

This is too good:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — The president of New Hampshire’s Plymouth State University told students Thursday they don’t have to come to class Friday because activists may appear on campus with loaded guns to protest the school’s ban on weapons on campus.

Whaaaaaaat?!? Those rebels! Anyone who would willingly break the law must have ill intent!

Later, the two said the weapons would not be loaded and would have trigger locks and other safety devices on them, the university said.

You mean these hooligans gave advanced notice to the university that the firearms they intend to bring to their claimed peaceful protest will have locks on them and be in plain view? Ms. Steen, you did the right thing. Who knows if these outrageous people will suddenly change their mind, unlock those weapons, load them, and then take out as many innocents as possible, their cause for safety be damned.

Safety first, I always say. And nothing is more useful towards safety than ensuring that non-violent folks who pass out literature regarding unsafe university policies don't have an audience. That's safer than safe. I would go so far as to personally write each student and staffer a day-pass from class on bubble wrap, so their finger tips don't get bruised when I handed it to them. Of course, I would announce this privilege softly so as to not panic the herd.

There is no need for bravery in this new world, as plans are in the works to start a society where fear has been forbiden, and it will be enforced.

Look, the only people who should be authorized to carry a weapon on campus are cops. Since these boys haven't been highly trained to handle the icky things, they have no business with weapons of death -- locked or not. Wait, what?

Jardis resigned from the Epping Police Department last year after he apparently was suspended, the Union Leader reported in 2010.

Oh. Well. . . .maybe he forgot all that training. It's well known that once you leave the force, you revert back to being a drooling moron like the rest of us. Come. . . join our ranks, good sir!

I only wish I lived in a country where I have to make stuff like this up.

Roadside euthanasia

An ARFCOM thread on why police officers don't put down animals that have been crippled by traffic. I commented that often it's department policy that either prohibits this practice, or makes it a big ball of red tape in order to do so, and not because cops are heartless and like to watch bambi struggle for life on roadways.


True story:
Nine years ago I was home from Camp Lejeune for the weekend, driving back from the video store (we still had those then) at about 10:00 at night on a four lane non-divided highway. I was close behind the only other car on the road at the time -- a black Nissan Pathfinder -- when two deer crossed the highway from our left, the trailing one getting hit on the front end of the Nissan. I could tell that he hit that deer really hard, as he caught it with the entire front end, and we were moving along at just over 50 mph. We both stopped, checked the damage, and I gave the driver and his wife my personal information as a witness in case their insurance scumbags tried to screw them on getting the car fixed. The driver and I found the deer on the edge of the road on the right side about fifty yards behind us, still alive, with its spine broken just forward of its hips. It kept trying to stand up, and because its back legs didn't work it would topple over to its left, bringing it closer and closer to the middle of the roadway.

County deputies show up, and take a solid ten minutes to get permission from the Sheriff or Sergeant or whomever was in charge that night to publicly execute this crippled doe. State cops show up stop traffic both ways, which was now significantly built up, and what I presume to have been the most junior county deputy of the six or so who were there racks the slide to chamber a round (I don't know why she didn't have her duty weapon in condition 1, but I saw it with my own eyes that she carried on an empty chamber). Me and the driver were walking back to our cars when I heard the shot. . . . and then another. . . .and then another.

I knew immediately what was going on, so I said goodbye to the driver and headed back down to see what kind of macabre scene this clueless deputy had just subjected her audience of onlookers to. It was. . . . substantial.

She had shot this youthful, two or three year old doe three times in the face at close range, but hadn't hit anything of importance -- and by importance I mean something structurally vital that would mercifully end the poor critter's life as humanely as possible. All the other jolly cops standing around weren't giving her any instruction, as they themselves didn't know how in the world this superhuman deer could take three rounds of .40 S&W in the head and still be completely alert, looking around with blood pouring out from what was left of her nose and jaw. I note that one of the police cruisers was positioned in the turn lane so that its headlights fully illuminated the public display of incompetence, and traffic was stopped not more than 75 yards away.

Whom I believed to be the senior deputy said: "Well, we'll just have to wait for the ol' girl to bleed out." I told them all in not the most tactful voice that we would be there for awhile, as superficial gun shot wounds have that tendency to, you know, heal, and that a deer missing all its teeth would definitely die -- of starvation -- but there would be a little bit too much overtime involved with the supervision of that. Then, like a middle-school science teacher, I pointed out that the deer did in fact have a head, which included the brain housing group, and attached to that was the beak-like extension of the jaw and nose, that didn't. Deputy Sally hadn't hit that brain housing group, but if she could do that, then everybody could go home.

More permission was asked for more rounds to be expended on behalf of this traumatized deer, and when it was given I pointed out just where to shoot.

Me: "Right here." (pointing to a spot right below the ear)
Cop: "Right where?"
Me: (Grabbing the deer by the ear and turning her head towards the cruiser's lights) "Here. Shoot her with one round here."
Cop: "Oh. . .ok" (as she starts to aim from six feet away I stop her)
Me: (pointing to the muzzle of her Sig pistol) "No ma'am. This is a doe. It doesn't have antlers, so it can't hurt you. Put your weapon against her head so that you don't miss."

At the crack of the gun it was finally over. All the cops looked at me like I was some sort of deer whisperer, knowing just what to do. In reality, I've just killed a ton of animals and know where the vitals are; and that doe would have been better served if, at the moment I found her, I had killed her with my pocket knife. For this reason I don't encourage cops to put animals out of their misery because, in my opinion, they are much more likely to put them IN misery.

What happend to The Military Channel?

Once upon a time there were a ton of cool shows on all sorts of military disciplines on The Military Channel: Future Weapons, Weaponology, Ultimate Weapons, Weapon Masters -- all of these shows were great to watch (they're still on, but all re-runs), but now The Military Channel has turned into the Nazi Channel. Seriously; when I hit the channel guide, the lineup is all "Hitler's Shock Troops," "Hitler's War Machine," "Cooking with Hitler," "Nazi Tank Battles," "Nazi UFO Conspiracy," "Nazi Ten-Minute Ab Workout." It's a Nazi cornucopia; who wants to watch that shit 24/7?

WWII was over 65 years ago, give it a rest, would ya?

Don't get your freak on

This garbage about stopping shooters from enjoying public land. . . . the Interior Department can shove this right up their interior.

I'm severely agitated over this because of the similar situation here in Virginia. This area used to be good-'ol-boy land: a place where my fellow hillbilly heathens and I gathered together to hunt, fish, shoot guns, shoot bows, and otherwise have a great time on God's green earth. That was back when the county's population was manageable. Now, my county and the surrounding ones are awash with yuppie families who moved down in droves from New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland to live in the "country," which has put the word "history" into "historic" Fredericksburg. Now you can't fire a slingshot or clap your hands too loud or one of these pathetic people will call the police out of fear.

I wish they would all leave.

My only hope is that I can convince my wife, our family, and several friends to move the hell out to a state where I can go for a walk without hearing the sound of traffic and sirens; where I can step out on my porch in my underwear and fire an overbored rifle at a distant crow without wondering how long it will take for the cops to show up to measure my backstop; where I can park my truck in the driveway knowing that at night, thieving little shits aren't going to syphon off all my gasoline before scattering a handful of trim nails under my tires; where it doesn't take me an hour to drive five miles to work or the grocery store.

Now you're telling me that the government wants to get involved in taking away the dwindling places where folks want to enjoy shooting? All because spineless hippies that are scared of their own shadow might "freak out" at the sound of gunfire?

There are plenty of places that these chicken-shits can go where shooting is already banned. Let them go there. The meek people who would use the government to intrude on peaceable folks, how about they go take a fucking shower instead of worrying their stinky little heads over hunters and shooters. How about a bill that makes the Interior Department send their high-falutin' asses right back where they came from? I don't like wimpy people around my kids; it creates a public disturbance. It's a social issue, get it?

Two can play at this game.

You can't convince me that they're seriously scared that an elk hunter might shoot their dog when these days urban folks are terrified that police will do the same thing when they raid their home looking for a pot plant. I guess these days there's no place safe for Cujo.

So, my question is: the hippies think they have a right to live in a place free from good folks who like shooting firearms? Good. I accept that, as long as they accept that shooters and hunters have a right to live in a place free from the sight of cowards out riding their high horse.

I think the next time I see someone who's fearfully looking at my openly carried Glock, I may have to whip out my cell phone and call the cops:

"The lady is obviously not of sound mind, officer; she looks like she might do something crazy any moment, like make terroristic threats or something. Oh, she just peed down her leg. Take her away, boys!"

Video game blogging

Aaaaaaaand Battlefield 3 is. . . . .

Terrible.

This game sucks so bad I doubt I will even finish it. I just quit playing not only for the gheyness, but also because it's boring. I'm a first person shooter type of gamer, and I'm known for being able to love the bitter with the sweet, but this game is bad. I don't have many positives here, so I'll tell it like it is.

The storyline sucks. The structure is so rigid that if you stray too far looking for cover you will be DQ'd. Bad guys appear out of thin air; you can watch this happen so much that it becomes something you start counting, like a pet word or someone who knifehands when they talk. Oftentimes your weapon has zero effect, like there's a glitch that keeps the game from acknowledging your hits.

Worst of all, there's these little story/video clips in almost every mission where you are 98% detached from what is going on, but are obligated to hit a random button every five seconds or so to keep from getting your ass kicked by some Iranian or Russian dude. The developers couldn't figure out how to make your character fight like a real Marine, so they make you watch it happen, and if you don't realize what's going on you will get stabbed to death. They should have left that stuff out; or at the very least, if you're going to add a fighting part into the game, give me some real controls so I can fight. Don't make me watch ten seconds of a struggle, and then quickly flash the "B" button and expect me to pick up the signal that I'm supposed to be interacting.

The entire game is senseless like that. The execution of it is as bad as it gets. The graphics are good, and the weapons are pretty cool. The rest sucks. It's my opinion, but I note again that I am the guy who plays the devil's advocate and sees both sides of everything. This game is not worth your time.

ETA: I don't have the time to play multiplayer online, so I stick with the campaign. I can't speak for multiplayer, but I think the campaign is garbage.

ETA2: What this bloke said. And I'm not even done listening because the wife and kids want my time. Wives in general have no clue as to what video gaming is all about. But that's ok; you are loved just the same.

ETA3: Kids are in bed, so I gave it another shot. Now it's not just ghey, but it's preposterously ghey. There's a scene where an enemy jet is engaging your Recon team, and it must be hyper realistic because it doesn't matter what you do, that jet will kill you. It can apparently shoot through anything, so there's no point in hiding. The game is super scripted, which is not what I would have expected from Battlefield. Y'all are slipping!

The news isn't fun to read anymore

It's too depressing. This morning I open Yahoo! News to find that Andy Whitfield has died. I enjoyed Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and somehow hoped that Whitfield would return to the part because he played the character so well. His character was re-cast, and the new season starts early next year.

The first news article that caught my eye this morning though was the headline/quote from president Obama stating that "America does not give in to fear," which made me snort just a little bit. The news has been awash with stories fear for eleven days, pondering the next terrorist strike that is bound to happen at any moment. Any minute now. . . .

We have uniformed government workers sexually assaulting random Americans at airports and bus stops, F16 fighters escorting air planes to the ground, bomb scares in Boston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, and D.C. ; and in New York:

New York police amassed a display of force on Friday including checkpoints that snarled traffic in response to intelligence about a car or truck bomb plot linked to the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Officers armed with automatic weapons were stationed at city landmarks including Wall Street, Times Square and the September 11 memorial site where the Twin Towers once stood.

[snip]

New Yorkers who have grown accustomed to bag searches at subway stations and random displays of police presence encountered increased vigilance after the threat, which prompted President Barack Obama to order a redoubling of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Yeah, we sure don't give in to fear not one little bit. Nothing tells me that the republic is at ease like amassed police with automatic weapons in major cities. My favorite, sweet little truffle from yesterday morning's news:

Mejia now is close to marking her fourth year as a TSA security officer. She has worked every September 11, she said. "It's somewhat an honor to be here today, to watch, to say that people are not afraid to fly, and we are here to help," Mejia said.

This is from an article titled "Travelers feel fear, resolve about flying on September 11." Someone should probably tell her that thousands, if not millions of Americans fear flying the other 364 days out of the year because of the fear of having their intimate body parts rigorously fondled by blue-glove wearing tyrants who work for the TSA.

"Nearing the end of this violation, I sobbed even louder as the woman, FOUR
TIMES, stuck the side of her gloved hand INTO my vagina, through my pants. Between my labia. She really got up there. Four times. Back right and left, and
front right and left. In my vagina. Between my labia. I was shocked -- utterly
unprepared for how she got the side of her hand up there. It was government-sanctioned sexual assault."

I know I always feel safer about travel knowing that when I get to the airport, there is a high likelyhood that some disgusting stranger in a dirty blue shirt will painfully grab ahold of my satchel; but it's awesome though and totally worth it because some spineless wimp of a man behind me will feel like these good hearted goverment agents are dilligently keeping everyone safe. Even though they're not.

Fear not, muslim friends, we're here to find terrorists. I'm clearing your minds of all anxiety." - Sarah; Team America: World Police

Have a safe day!!

Where did all the music stores go?

I swear, it couldn't have been a year or two ago the local mall had several stores that sell music CDs, and now they're all gone. Sure, there's still Wal-Mart, Target, or Best Buy if you have the hankerin for an entire case of Lady Gaga or Rihanna, but where do you go when you scratch your Sonic Brew or NOLA CD? Certainly not Target.

Deerly beloved

What's this!?!? Can't feed the deer? Does this mean the Commonwealth can fine you if Bambi is caught gnawing on your azaleas? Can I still feed them 123 grain A-MAXes?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Really this asinine law adds up to nothing considering whitetailed deer are amazingly prolific and can eat pretty much any plant in the state. So what, putting handfuls of corn or apples in your yard is going to bring about famine and pestilence to the whitetail population?

Feeding them can unnaturally increase population numbers that damage natural habitats and can increase unwanted human-deer conflicts.

Human-deer conflicts? Like this kind? If you really wanted to reduce said conflicts, then how about rescinding that other asinine law that says folks can't hunt on Sundays. I bet in two seasons the number of vehicle/deer collisions would plummet. And how exactly does feeding them increase their population? Deer are some of the most fruitful creatures on the planet; I highly doubt saltlicks and C'Mere Deer are going to make them hornier than they already are.

Now lets talk about the "damage [to] natural habitats." Do you really think that DC has at times had 200 deer per square mile because residents feed them? I think the vehicular slaughter and mangled gardens and flower pots should be considered as damaged natural habitat, as it includes both human and deer living space. Maybe something should be done about the explosion of the deer population in highly developed areas before the state resorts to fining grandma for tossing peaches into her yard.

***ETA: I didn't catch this little gem the first time around:

The practice can also be misconstrued as deer baiting, which is illegal.

I side with Ted Nugent in that everything a hunter does to make a kill is "baiting."

Sitting in a stand watching a corn field?

Baiting!

Propped up against a tree on a ridgeline watching the creek?

Baiting!

Waiting for a buck to come back to a scrape?

Baiting!

It's all an illusion made to keep you in a particular mindset. I raise the bullshit flag on this one; if the state cares so much about a healthy deer population, they would shelf stupid laws like this one and let hunters shoot deer on Sundays.

Notice me

Virginia drivers have deplorable driving skills, and one of the things that pisses me off are drivers who do not use their turn signal.

Understanding that Notice is part of the basic principles of Contract, as well as giving Value to get Value, using a turn signal gives other drivers Notice of your intent; the other drivers get Value from knowing what you plan to do so that they can act accordingly, and the signalor (industry term) gets Value by not having the other drivers smashing into the ass end of their vehicle. Don't bother to argue with that as Contract has been well settled over thousands and thousands of years, and is way more proven than opinion.

And yes, brake lights are Notice of sorts, but they do not indicate intent. Like this morning for instance; I had no way of knowing if Incompetent Driver's BMW brake lights were an indication that there was a squirrel or other fuzzy faced creature poised precariously on the side of the road; that there was an emergency vehicle entering traffic; that the driver hit the brake pedal accidentally while scratching her overstuffed leg and will continue on or about at the same speed; or that the driver, having determined all at once that she wanted to stuff her filthy face with McDonald's latest wares, was coming to a full on stop, and had to wait to cross oncoming traffic. Without knowing that a driver is going to come to a sudden stop, it can be very easy to hit someone. That's why you're supposed to show intent.

Incompetent Driver did not give me Value, so by all means I should have blared the horn at her stupid ass, and by that I would have been giving her Value as she may have learned to use that stem thingy hanging off the steering column and avoid preventable collisions in the future. I would probably have received Value indirectly, as my children in the back seat would not have to hear me swearing nasty things, thereby parroting them in company of my wife.

I don't make it a habit to stomp on my brakes and come to a full stop every time I see brake lights. I'm not asking for y'all to come over to my house and mow my lawn; just give me some fucking Notice.

Range Report: Dale Fricke Zacchaeus holster review

Yesterday I did some shooting from the Dale Fricke Zacchaeus holster that I reviewed last week, and I must say I am a fan. Draws were smooth and snag free, and the holster performed perfectly. It is now my EDC holster.

I actually finished a long write up of this post just now, but Blogger.com ate it. So this is what you get this morning until I can finish it later.

You suck, Blogger.com

This is why I don't fly anymore

His ordeal began last Friday when airport security in Freeport, Bahamas found a .32-caliber bullet inside his fanny pack. He was charged with possessing ammunition and sent to a jail in Nassau. Lapp says he thinks he left the bullet in his pack after a hunting trip.

How would you take it if this happened to you while traveling with family on vacation? I'm certainly capable of overlooking a shell casing or bullet in a travel bag. How about you?

All of these so called security measures that have been enacted around the world rely on policy and not thought. One security yahoo with the capability to produce conscious thought would have kept an innocent man out of jail if he or she were only able to act on what they know, and not on what a zero-tolerance policy tells them to.