30 April 2010
And the author makes a strong case that the more people who observe an event the less likely they will be to feel compelled to act because other people aren't acting.
I don't disagree with that, but I have another observation. Most people have no training in dealing with violence. Here in the US we are trained from an early age to "not get involved" and to end conflict peacefully.
Most Americans have no experience actually dealing with violence.
Violence brings on the "Fight/Flight/Flee/Submit" response. It is normal for people to freeze when confronted by danger, trying to figure out what to do. This is why we have "Battle Drills" or "Immediate Action Drills" so we don't have to think about what we want to do.
In 2007 outside Fort Benning my wife and I were coming home when we saw a woman fleeing from a man who called her a "stupid bitch". We went to our apartment, I got my 1911 and then I went and asked the woman if she needed any assistance and offered her the use of my cell phone.
Had I been armed when I first saw the incident my response would have been different. My first instinct was to keep my wife out of danger, not to help a stranger.
29 April 2010
G. A. Cohen. Behold this cite from the latter's "Why Not Socialism?" (2009) --
"Although inequalities [of the sort just mentioned] are not condemned by justice, they are nevertheless repugnant to socialists when they obtain on a sufficiently large scale, because they contradict community: community is put under strain when large inequalities obtain … We cannot enjoy full community, you and I, if you make, and keep, ten times as much money as I do, because my life will then labor under challenges that you will never face, challenges that you could help me to cope with but do not, because you keep your money."(pp. 34–35)
It seems to me that G.A. Cohen didn't know what community is about. Community is NOT "equality" or "fairness".
Community is about relationships. And if you can't have a relationship with someone because they make more money than you, that makes you a shallow fool.
To believe that the defining characteristics of humanity lie in our income or reserves of wealth is completely ludicrous. A poor artist can lead a rich life, and a rich person can buy fine art. Leading a good life isn't about leading a pleasant life, it is about leaving behind lasting relationships.
The most influential people in my life have inspired me by their moral character and intellectual prowess, not by the numbers in their bank accounts.
If I were to say that I couldn't have "community" with a mentally handicapped person because I am "ten times smarter" it would stink of obvious elitism and arrogance. Intelligence is only one facet of relationships. Humans cannot be compressed into single dimensional characters.
28 April 2010
As much as I would really like to trample on their right to free speech by arranging a meeting between Phelps and God I cannot betray my faith in the rule of law to do so.
Phelps' and his ilk have a history of deliberately causing violent confrontation with servicmenbers and/or their family and then filing lawsuits to get money. I find this despicable, intentionally causing pain and financial hardship to random strangers to finance their hate filled propaganda.
Last week an elderly white supremist was beaten/stabbed/murdered in his own home and the mainstream media yawned. If someone shot Phelps, would they even blink?
I don't know. I find myself in a moral dilema where I would think that SOMEONE who shot Phelps would be a hero, and yet I don't want to be that hero. Is it a lack of moral conviction on my part? Or is it that I value my freedom more than I would value silence from the WBC? I do know that any death caused by guns is trumpeted by the Left as further evidence of the clear need for "common sense gun laws" like a complete ban on everything.
In the end the WBC is a fringe lunatic movement, and anybody with two brain cells to rub together recognizes that. As much as they anger me, should I not instead feel pity? Would giving into my hate for Phelps fall into the category of "staring into the abyss" and becoming the same as my adversary? An unreasonable man filled with hate?
I don't know, but if Phelps were any animal other than human, a bullet would be mercy by any moral standard.
27 April 2010
First off, I went just looking to have fun and mingle with some board members. I hadn't shot the Finn in four years, and I'd never shot the PU sniper before (not even to get the scope dialed in).
I still shot, at 100 yards, 1 hit in ten rounds with both rifles. Now this can be proof that even the blind squirrel gets a nut every once in a while, or it can be proof that I really need to work on my offhand shooting technique, or it can be proof that even a guy out of practice can put lead on steel enough of the time to be a credible threat.
You don't always have to hit, you just always have to miss close enough that the enemy stays pinned down.
This is why George Orwell said that the rifle on the wall of the farmers hut secured his liberty. Not because he was a crack shot or trained commando, but because he had a ready resource of power. No inate ability makes someone with a firearm deadly, it is simply access to power. Most terrorists are horrible shots with the AK-47, but they are feared because they HAVE them.
And the left fears YOU because you have access to power. Whether you are benign or malignant with that power is a personal choice.
The statement "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a shortened phrase often taken out of context. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." is the correct statement by Lord Acton.
This follows from the Machiavelli school of charm thought on politics and power. This is why the gun is feared by tyrants large and small, because they have already been corrupted with a need for more power over you.
To own a gun is a threat to tyranny. To be trained and proficient with your weapon, ready to defend your life is a statement of individualism. Those who have a collectivist vision MUST disarm you to see their vision come true.
A complete side note, I really had fun at the match, even if I was shivering too hard to keep the front sight post on the target.
But there are a few things that make such a course of action unwise.
First off this is the US. Using the military for law enforcement simply is not part of our history. True we had military governorship of some islands in the Pacific (Phillipines as an example) but that was a temporary measure on the way to self rule under elected civilian leaders.
Second, soldiers are in the business of breaking things and killing people. If you want peace you will have it, but people will die in the process. If your goal is to stop the violence, you need to empower the people, not bring in the big hammer of the armed forces.
Soldiers are not the spanking belt of the nanny state, and you don't want us to be. Then again, do you really want the government to have a spanking belt?
26 April 2010
I work in a field where Democratic ideals don't exist. If you want to protest this (or the next) war, do it as a civilian. We in the military volunteered to shut up and Soldier (SUAS) in order to GET THINGS DONE.
We have "bought in" to the system. But we don't get much of a say in our orders, but because we've all pledged our lives to the service we are effective as an organization.
Right now our voters haven't "bought in" to the system. 47% of them don't even pay income tax.
Let us explain this in terms of "Shepherd's Stew". Where everybody puts in a little something to the common pot, and everybody who puts in gets to take out. Right now half the people around the campfire haven't put into the pot but are fully expecting to take out of it. And they will, because they have been enfranchised with their vote, and the politicians who need their vote are more than happy to take your money and give it away to ensure that they stay in office.
This is why a flat rate tax is the only moral solution to enfranchisement. A 10% tax taken out by your employer (or quarterly tax payments if you are self employed) means that no one gets a tax return, but it also means that EVERYBODY is bought in to the system.
Teddy Roosevelt was a champion of the graduated tax because of his personal belief that those who earned more money from the market earned less from their personal labor and more from the labor of others. If you asked Teddy if someone should pay NO tax I think you would get a resounding "NO". The graduated tax scheme has come to the point where half our voting population doesn't even pay into the system. Teddy would not like that at all.
More and more countries are adopting a flat tax because it is fair, just, and simple. Currently our tax code is twenty six volumes of gobbledygook desperately needing to be simplified.
25 April 2010
"Vitalism" is the belief that somehow living sources of food/vitamins/etc have a "vital component" that the chemically identical synthetic versions don't. Vitamin companies are horrific for touting the "natural sources" of their components as if it they were superior to other vitamins that used synthetic Vitamin C and E. Vitalism has been discredited for over two centuries.
"Primitivism" is the belief that we were better when we were "more natural". As if dieing at 30 of malnutrition was a good thing.
"Collectivism" is the belief that the majority can't be wrong.
The reason why these things are so important to discredit is because a COLLECTIVIST who also believes in VITALISM and PRIMITIVISM will eventually resort to FASCISM to enforce their belief system on the rest of us.
If you need proof of my words, ask a hippy about "organic farming" and listen as they gush over the goodness and awesomeness and how cool it will be when every farm is "organic". Or even look at best selling author Alan Weisman's article Is the Earth Striking Back? and see how many unscientific ideas and principles you can spot.
24 April 2010
2. Suggestive names are cool.
3. Watching people skate in ovals while hitting each other is about as interesting as a hockey game. But the rules are simpler.
4. It's like NASCAR, but on skates with chicks.
So if you like hockey and NASCAR then Roller Derby is right up your alley.
23 April 2010
Second off, BAD NEWS ON THE ECONOMY! FORECLOSURES UP!
As a skeptic, I really hate it when someone looks at one trend indicator and uses it to justify their position on a trend.
What I see here isn't a tale of economic recovery, but a market correction in real estate. The glut of foreclosures is correcting the price of real estate to levels that are more in line with reality.
Also I see a lot of folks buying into loans with low rates. A 30 year fixed can still be had for 5.2%, which is a great rate. For people with better credit even lower rates are possible. The loans to possibly stay away from are the 3.8% adjustable rate mortgages, because if the economy does have an upswing next year then we could see a lot of people in the same boat, payments increase to the point where the cycle of foreclosures happens again.
I'm really hoping that the increase in home buying is from people who are taking advantage of the market correction to make a true long term investment. That would be good for everyone.
22 April 2010
The House of Commons and the House of Lords are the same thing for all intents and purposes now. The original purpose for the Senate, to be a reality check for the House of Representatives, has not happened since Senators had to beg for their jobs to the same people as the Representatives.
Now Term Limits would effectively change that if and only if Senators were limited to one term. You get elected once, serve your six years, and go your merry way.
Would term limits effectively restore the intended function of the Senate? To represent the states equally in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority? I think that is more likely the case although I would much rather see the indirect election of Senators as designed by the Framers.
21 April 2010
It violates the First (free exercise of religion, marriage having a religious aspect) and Tenth Ammendments. Since the FedGov wasn't granted authority over marriage by the Constitution, it is up to the States to define marriage and up to the FedGov to ensure that all States recognize each others marriages via the "Full Faith and Credit" of Article 4 section 1.
This is why you find a good cross section of America at the TEA party events (yes the majority are "white", but that majority generally reflects that we living in a nation that has a white majority). When you come down to it, since Congress has the authority to change the UCMJ then the UCMJ prohibition on homosexual "Statements, Acts, or Marriage" is also unconstitutional as a violation of the 1st Ammendment.
It is true that this is a "broad interpretation" of the Free Exercise of Religion, but as long is there is a recognized religion that recognizes same sex marriages, then not allowing US Citizens to serve in the Armed forces because of a same sex marriage is clearly Unconstitutional and therefore under the authority of the US Supreme Court to strike down.
Of course I'm not an attorney, just a guy who couldn't fall asleep last night because he was angry that he gets treated as a second class citizen over gun rights. Which is probably how the rest of you feel about gay rights, women's rights, etc. In the end it all boils down to HUMAN rights, and not letting the .gov take them away.
20 April 2010
First off, pure research DOES in fact bring back interesting results. So giving a grant to someone or some institution to study the physics of glue sometimes pays off in weird and profitable ways.
Secondly, research aimed at increasing our understanding, or "applied research" is often helpful in understanding complex systems. For example forestry management, frequent fires in a forest are often helpful, not harmful.
Now here is the kicker. When research into something becomes an industry...
Climate studies are getting a lot of grant money because people are alarmed over climate change. They are alarmed because of alarming reports put out by climate "scientists". The more alarmed people are, the easier it is for the .gov to grant money to climate "scientists" to study the issue in a never ending cycle of grants for applied research.
The Human Genome Project was a massive funding project with a specific goal in mind. We are still benefitting from that research today, and will continue to benefit from that research for many decades to come. This is applied research that is finished.
Pure research, such as high energy particle physics, usually has a less noticeable set of rewards. But you can't build huge superconductors and new sensors to study interesting collisions without getting a payback in technical or engineering know how.
But where is the benefit from climate studies? The answer is that I cannot see a benefit from climate studies. A single volcanic eruption has more impact on climate than the entire human species. It would be one thing to study hurricanes to be able to create more accurate predictions, or the specific set of conditions that dictate a tornados path, or even the cyclic effects of el nino and la nina on crops. But climate change research has become nothing more than a doomsday industry.
Profiling doesn't catch everybody. But the to create good security you need to recognize that you WON'T catch everybody.
A single male with no checked baggage pays in cash for a ticket at the last minute using his Yemeni passport as photo identification SHOULD raise some flags.
In California the police have a very high success rate identifying drivers who are under the influence. If it is after 21:00 (9 p.m.) and the vehicle is a pickup with yard tools in the back, and the driver is wearing a ball cap, they know there is about a 90% chance that the driver will fail a sobriety test.
That is profiling. It isn't "racial profiling" but it is profiling.
Someone who protests too much when their seat is changed should raise suspicions. A large number of single men who booked their tickets online, choosing seats that spread them out over the plane should raise suspicions.
It is true that we won't catch everybody. And it is true that the bad guys WILL change their methods in order to not match known profiles. BUT if you are forcing the bad guys to change their M.O. then YOU ARE BEING SUCCESSFUL.
Making Grandma pour out her conditioner isn't security, it is absurdity.
19 April 2010
It may not be "democratic" and it definitely isn't "fair". But in matters of life and death democratic and fair have no place.
The argument that those who want to defeat security will defeat it eventually has no merit. Yes there are aryan looking terrorists and huge numbers of peaceful men of middle eastern descent. However, as long as you are profiling correctly, then it isn't racism, it is security.
And if it ISN'T security, then what is it? It is a sham, a nostrum, an exercise in societal masturbation fantasizing about security.
Profiling has a place, and as long as you can update your profiling criteria as the threat changes, it is a useful tool.
18 April 2010
The difference between mathematics and law is that once something is "proven" mathematically, there is no more arguing. A mathematical proof is based on assumptions and other proofs and laws. There are several hundred proofs for the Pythagorean Theorum, square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sums of the squares of the other two sides.
There is no "proof" in Law, there are however basic assumptions. In our American heritage our founding fathers understood that there were two types of law, "Natural" or "God's Law" and "man's law".
The idea of "natural law", or universal law, is that murder is murder in all places, in all times. Theft is theft, in all places at all times. Even without writing down those laws we know that some actions are inherently wrong. I cannot think of a natural law that doesn't have a victim of the perpetrator. As such we can state that "natural law" is the basis for morality in law.
Man made law is a different entity. Smoking a joint does not have a "victim". If you violate curfew, there is no "victim". Man's laws are regulatory, they are often attempts at enforcing some morality or behavior that people disagree on. Gay marriage, the war on (some) drugs, etc.
Moral relativists believe that right and wrong only exist as an individual viewpoint, in essence that there is no such thing as "natural law". When there is no such thing as natural law, then all law becomes "man's law". When all law is man's law, then there is no basis it all for law, and eventually "man's law" begins to violate "natural law".
The more oppressive the government system, the harsher the violations on individuals become. First freedoms become privileges, then dissent becomes illegal, then Oceana has always been at war with Europa....
The slippery slope argument is a "false argument", just as dropping a snowball on the top of a hill does not guarantee an avalanche at the base of the hill. For example allowing condoms to be distributed in schools will not turn cheerleaders into prostitutes. However, governments do not become less oppressive without revolution, without a collapse, without renewal. If anyone can point out a historical precedent where a government willingly became smaller, less intrusive, and more permissive I would really like to know.
But Rome and the USSR collapsed under their own mismanagement, Nazi Germany and Japan were conquered by the allies, China is a conundrum that seems to be a combination of Rome and the USSR.
Will the US experience a collapse or a revolution? That is the real question. Our legal system was destroyed in the 1930's, and I am wondering when the final death throes will hit.
17 April 2010
Without getting all tinfoil beenie wookie suiter, how convenient is it that MSNBC is now showing "Confessions of an American Terrorist: The McVeigh Tapes" right as the fedgov is cracking down on the Hutaree through the use of an agitating plant?
The left wants to disarm the right. It is much easier to fight a disarmed enemy. You can't turn the US into the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, or even the UK with an armed populace. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.
The damn "Patriot Act" needs to be repealed. It shouldn't have passed under Bush, and the continued abuse under the Dems shows it for the POS legislation that it is.
One or two good "domestic terrorist" attacks and I'm sure that the mainstream media could sell civilian disarmament to the US voting populace...
Roslyn Beer, from Roslyn Washington, has a distinctive soapy taste. I don't know if I got an "off" batch, but my beer tasted like floor cleaner smells.
The label said "mild but distinctive dark lager" and what can I say? It lied.
16 April 2010
Under Obamacare participation is mandatory under threat of force.
This is a pretty ridiculous comparison, but in either system, people who do not have any vested interest in your well being are in charge of you. And for anyone who cherishes freedom, that is a scary thing.
15 April 2010
Stupid back pain.
I will reschedule for later in the Summer, but I sure wish I could be there.
Any trigger time is good trigger time.
14 April 2010
In other words, if we use the First Amendment to try to persuade our elected officials to our point of view, and we fail, then it’s time to resort to the Second Amendment – that is, to threaten violence. And, ultimately, to use violence.
This is right out of the NRA’s playbook. Last year, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre explained it in chilling terms to the wild cheers of the Conservative Political Action Conference. According to LaPierre, when it comes down to it, the only freedom that really counts is the right to be armed – without it, “liberty is but an illusion.” In the NRA’s world, we are only free to the extent that our guns allow us to impose our will on others. Here are LaPierre’s words:
“Our divine rights, they might have been endowed by a Creator, but they are preserved by mortals, if we mortals have the means and the will to make it stick….Freedom is nothing but dust in the wind till it’s guarded by the blue steel and dry powder of a free and armed people….Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”
It is worth pausing to reflect on that phrase: “The guys with the guns make the rules.” In the NRA’s distortion of democracy, the rules we live by are not ultimately the result of our collective decision-making, made through our elected representatives, after we have had a fair opportunity to exercise our First Amendment right to be heard. Ultimately, the rules are made by those who are more powerful than the rest of us because they are armed.
Dennis, guns don't just allow us to impose our will on others, you mouth breathing side drooling sub-monkey moron, guns allow us to RESIST others who would oppose THEIR WILL on us.
Dennis must suffer from projection issues if he thinks the only reason to own a firearm is to impose his will on someone else. I hope Dennis gets mugged and/or raped. If that doesn't turn him into a conservative then nothing will, and it that case I hope he dies of ass cancer.
This is a poor way to compare as many states are NOT statistically similar. There is no good way to compare Wyoming with California. Comparing North Dakota with New York is another example of an "Old Woman and Frogs" comparison.
However, you CAN compare CITIES with other cities in a much more meaningful manner. First off there are MUCH more cities than states, so you get more data points. Second you get more data points to compare (population density, total population, Brady ranking, etc).
For schitzengiggles I went and tried to reproduce Sebastian's work (good work is reproducable after all) and came up with this.
Which pretty much confirms that the Brady rankings have nothing to do with crime, and everything to do with how the Brady campaign feels about a given state. Of course I'll explain my method of comparison a little better than Sebastian did, just so that someone else can replicate my replication. I took the 2004 crime statistics by state from wikipedia, and cross referenced that with the Brady rankings. I gave Washington DC a Brady ranking of "1" even though it isn't a state, it was included in the data.
The X axis is Brady Ranking (lower is less free) and the Y axis is crime rate as compared to OTHER states (lower is better). Such a weak R squared value doesn't give me any confidence in correllation.
I am however very interested in doing the analysis for cities....
13 April 2010
As part of the workup he took some X-rays of my spine, and it turns out I have a "transitional lumbosacral vertebrae" which means I have an extra "moveable" piece of my back that normal people don't. The five sacral vertebrae normally fuze with the hip, and my top one didn't. Which explains a few things about why I have had back problems.
The good news is that now that I'm aware of the abnormality it won't be too hard to properly strengthen my core to prevent slippage in the future.
12 April 2010
Face it. You just want to piss and moan. Fine with me. Do not have the expectation anyone gives a shit about your pretend conversation just because you strap a hard cold steel substitute penis on your thigh.
In the end I carry a pistol, because as impressive as my penis is, I can't ejaculate at 1085 fps to neutralize an attacker. If I could I would go around with a big "B" on my chest. Bukkake man, justice is cumming...
My super hero sponsor woulbe be Upjohn!, and my arch nemesis would be "Trojan Man".
On a more serious note, when is the "firearm as a phallic symbol" meme EVER going to die?
11 April 2010
Most of them are VASTLY overpriced.
Consider 1.5 ounces of "Firearms Grease" is only 10.99 on SALE!!! Oh what a bargain. (that's seven bucks thirty three cents an ounce).
How is that grease worth so much more than this grease? 7.99 for 12.5 ounces? (that's a whopping sixty four cents an ounce, less than one tenth of the tacticool stuff)
The only real difference I could find is in the temperature ratings. The top of the line automotive grease is only rated from -40 to 375 while the Milcomm is rated -90 to 450.
So the question is this, am I ever going to shoot my firearms in less than -40 degree weather? If so then maybe it becomes worth it to buy the expensive stuff. Am I ever going to shoot my guns until the bearing surfaces are above 375 degrees? Probably not, but if I were, then maybe the expensive stuff would be worth it.
But the scientist in me has one more question. Is the automotive grease only rated to those temperatures because it doesn't need to be rated further? Obviously vehicles drive in Alaska year round where temperatures are below -40 degrees at times, and even regular low end lithium grease seems to be doing fine.
Something to think about anyways....
09 April 2010
Citizens are full members of a society.
Taxpayers are the ones who fund a society.
Serfs are not full members of society.
Slaves are disenfranchised, and not part of society.
I think that there are plenty of signs that the current regime is trying to turn "Taxpayers" from citizens into serfs and non-taxpaying citizens into slaves of the state.
Hope and Change indeed.
In defense of folks everywhere who recommend a snub nose 38 to new shooters, there are some very good points for the snub nose 38.
No magazines to lose.
5 rounds for sure.
Malfunction drills are easy.
Slow to reload
Accuracy is nothing to brag about.
Now there are those that say that the recoil from a 38 revolver is too much for a new shooter. Maybe they are right, but I find that if a new shooter is taught the fundamentals on a a 22, or even just a dry fire practice, they are more than capable of handling the recoil of 38 Special loads.
I am writing this (again, so it seems) because my wife and I recently compared two 5 round 38 specials, her aluminum framed lightweight Charter Arms "Pink Lady" and a blued steel Rossi S&W clone. Recoil was surprisingly gentle from both revolvers, and the well designed grip on the Pink Lady made shooting easy.
I thought that the recoil from ultra light Pink Lady would be punishing, even with regular "target loads". I was wrong. It may not be a perfect fit for every woman shooter, but it is a real option. My wife likes her Pink Lady a LOT better than the Glock 19 I got her...
08 April 2010
And what did I see? I saw an episode where Stimpy becomes addicted to playing with his navel.
Ren furiously (in the furious manner of chihuahuas) prophesies what will happen if Stimpy keeps playing with his belly button...
But this being a cartoon, we know where this is going right? Stimpy becomes addicted, he can't take his eyes off his navel, and eventually gets sucked into his own belly button where he is treated to a magic land of trippy visions and the belly button elf.
And then like an acid trip gone bad, Stimpy finds himself trapped in his own world, what was once marvelous and magical now dark and dangerous.
And now, here I am, a man in his 30's, starts getting the moral of the story. Excessive navel gazing leads to nothing good. It's like the current Regime and their plan for America.... They've looked at this plan for so long, they are getting sucked in to their own belly button, and they promise rainbows and unicorns, but it will end up bread lines, death panels, and government rationing.
We, the people of America, elected Stimpy. We put Stimpy into power in the Legislative and Executive, and through them the Judiciary will become Stimpy too.
07 April 2010
The cartridges feed correctly, but the firing pin leaves light marks and the extractor claws don't grip the rim to pull the brass/cartridge out.
I've posted this problem on rimfirecentral but if anyone has any ideas?
500 rounds of 22lr runs anywhere from 19 dollars on up, and that is about the same price as 100 68 gr BTHP bullets for reloading 223.
03 April 2010
Apple didn't like that so now you have to jailbreak your phone to use it as a tether.
You know if apple didn't neuter the product I wouldn't have to crack it to use features already built into the product...
02 April 2010
She met her husband when he was her bouncer, escorting her from the establishment....
She loved Carl's Junior hamburgers.
She served in the US Air Force, Army National Guard, and active Army. She went up and down the ranks a bit, but she was always someone you wanted on your team, on your side, and at your back. She dipped, cussed like an infantryman, and was perfectly at home wearing a military uniform and carrying a rifle.
My last conversation with her was that I was glad she was able to take off the neck brace and was showing signs of full recovery. She was in a neck brace after breaking her neck in a bar fight. Like I said she was a helluva soldier. Instead of milking that injury for more time stateside her husband had to alert the Sergeant Major to keep her from getting on the plane back to the sandbox. She pushed to get medically cleared, and with no fanfare went back to her unit.
For the rest of my life I don't think I'll ever be able to pass a Carl's Junior without thinking of PFC McClyman.
I finally found one that I like for my 1911.
Tagua inside the waistband holster.
I've used it to "appendix carry" as well as "ass crack carry" (small of back if you insist...)
01 April 2010
Ok Jimmy, I accept. Since you chose the time and method of the duel I believe I still get to choose the location.
How about 200 miles out to sea?
For the first time in my life I don't feel guilty about getting money back.
Before someone gets offended and says I have an overdeveloped sense of guilt brought on by my public school indoctrination, I would like to refer to the parable of the "Widow's mites". When people give to the treasury from their abundunce because they believe that the treasury should be filled, that is good. When someone gives to the treasury from their poverty because the treasury should be filled God gives note.
I've always been blessed with an abundance. Maybe not by some standards, but I've always had a vehicle to drive, someone willing to let me crash on their couch (and for the last few years a house of my own), and access to books, media, and the internet. When you think about what that really means in the grand scheme of things means that I am a truly wealthy individual.
So when I got my tax return back, I felt that even though I was "doing my part" according to the law, that there was still a need to fill the treasury. That like ancient believers who filled the treasury of the temple I was bound to support this nation that I love dearly, for the freedoms and opportunity that exist nowhere else.
Now, with the massive intrusion into our civil liberties that is HCR, I feel that it would be better for the treasury to be empty.