Saturday, March 29, 2008

Night Firing.

Weather: 3rd Quarter Moon clear night
Terrain: Woodland
Distance: 25m
Position: Kneeling, Unsupported
Target: Green Humanoid Silhouette (AKA Charlie)
Nightvision: Gen 1 Goggles
Firearms: SKS & SAR-1 w/ iron sights

Rounds Fired: 10/10

Hits: 1/2

I need practice and a dedicated NV scoped rifle. However Charlie w/ never be able to father children. :)

We're with the Gov't, we're here to help.

PSYCH!! Time to repay back that money we gave you to rebuild your lives because we screwed up.

Here's my favorite line:

Brann pointed out that 5,000 collections cases would represent a 4-percent error rate for the Road Home that is "quite good for large federal programs."

But a less than 1% error rate is enough for large federal programs to indict private citizens as being "willful".

She was obviously a threat...

So the "Only One" Tazed her. The issue? She was 11.

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. — A Florida elementary school student was tasered Thursday after punching a school security officer during a fight.

The incident began when teachers at the Moss Elemenary School in Orange County confronted an 11-year-old girl for allegedly attempting to push another student into ongoing traffic outside the campus, reported.

Authorities say the young female ignored the teacher and walked inside the homeroom, where she was again approached by teachers over her behavior. The student responded by thowing a desk and chair and attempting to spit on the instructor, according to

Donna Hudepohl, a school resource officer called to remove the troubled girl from the classroom, was allegedly pushed and punched in the face during a struggle to restrain her.

Hudepohl responded by tasering the girl.

The student was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, disrupting a school function as well as resisting with violence and is being held at the juvenile detention center.

Hudepohl was treated for a possible broken nose.

So an adult, highly trained in techniques to deal w/ physical confrontations, can't handle a hostile ELEVEN YEAR OLD!? Why am I reminded of the officer who called for backup when he tried to harass a group of Girl Scouts and the mom's started yelling at him?

Military Style Paramilitary Rifles..

being purchased by local police departments? No. Just AR-15's to counter the potential of WASR's and SAR's.

I know Herb so I wrote him a polite letter.

Here's the letter I sent to the editor covering both pieces:

With all good intentions I’m sure, Mr. Meeker fell into the same trap that has been plaguing the media for years. What they call AK-47’s are NOT being used by criminals in the US nor are they being purchased here to be smuggled into Mexico. An AK-47 is a weapon that will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed. That is known as “fully automatic”. To purchase a fully-automatic weapon, one has to go through a rigorous background check, obtain a special license, and pay a $200 tax. The general going price for any one is rarely less than $4000. What is generally available in the US are “SEMI-automatic” . One pull of the trigger fires one bullet. One. That’s it. To fire another you have to pull the trigger again. While they may look like real AK’s, they are not. They are no different from any semi-automatic rifle (just like many hunting rifles) except in appearance.

To call these firearms “AK-47’s” or “machineguns” is dishonest at worst and shows a lack of research at best. It does nothing but confuse the issue which, as self-admitted, is what organizations like the Violence Policy Center want in order to push for more laws restricting them. The AR-15’s purchased by the Mattoon Police are only “Military Style” in appearance nor are they “paramilitary” weapons unless the Police, target shooters, and many hunters nationwide are now regarded as paramilitary organizations. No military uses them. If AK-47’s are being used against the Mexican authorities, they need to look south of their own border or to their own corrupt agencies for the suppliers, not to the US.

The Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 also did not ban any firearms. What it did was restrict multiple cosmetic features such as bayonet mounts and pistol grips. A firearm without several of these features were still perfectly legal to purchase and own. They functioned no differently than “pre-ban” firearms. One pull of the trigger. One bullet. In fact, all the ones made previous to the law were still legal to own, sell, and purchase. They were just more expensive.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008


This just in, Matt Sedensky is an idiot. Perhaps he should spend more time actually researching instead of trying to grab headlines.

I'm not even going to bother fisking this piece of fishwrap. I wrote a letter. Will he respond? I doubt it.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Watch the head explode..

when the nose is tweaked..

Yes Alex, we see you too. Come back and play w/ us some more.

In Northern Elbonia.. more Anti-Communist Guerrillas. All the mud makes posting difficult. Things will be light for a few days.

"I don't need to present evidence.."

"because I'm rational and you're not"

This is an actual argument presented by a poster over on Tom King's blog when pressed to present evidence that a militia could not stand up to a modern military. I presented numerous examples from the last fifty years including Iraq and Afganistan. The response was avoidances, insults, and histrionics.

His closest defender presents examples from 150 years ago (The US Civil War) and two examples where the irregulars were helped w/ (guess what) primarily small arms.

One would think that an alleged Phd student of history would be able to defend his claims w/ actual history.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Peter Hamm wants mayhem from police..

As he encourages them to spray fire from the hip at multiple targets :

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said it understands the moves to assault weapons. "Police officers need to be able to defend themselves and the rest of us, and they need the weapons to do so," said spokesman Peter Hamm.

This is a change in their stance that have no use in a defensive situation and that the police are not wanting or needing weapons that would harm innocent bystanders.

How are the police able to use "assault rifles" "with bullets designed to break apart on impact " yet in civilian hands "In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them."

So is Peter saying that it's now OK for police to be more lethal and more dangerous to civilians or is he following the claim that "Assault Weapons" magically transform into less dangerous "Patrol Rifles" in the hands of "Only Ones"?