Saturday, March 29, 2008
Position: Kneeling, Unsupported
Target: Green Humanoid Silhouette (AKA Charlie)
Nightvision: Gen 1 Goggles
Firearms: SKS & SAR-1 w/ iron sights
Rounds Fired: 10/10
I need practice and a dedicated NV scoped rifle. However Charlie w/ never be able to father children. :)
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".
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, MyFOXOrlando.com 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 MyFOXOrlando.com.
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?
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.
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.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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
The 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"?