and tighter border security by the USA. Well, as I have said in other rants, I am convinced that if the USA adopts a policy of strict border security that actually stems the flow of illegal aliens into the USA from Mexico, change will come about in Mexico in rapid order. You see the USA is like a steam valve for a boiler whose fire is raging. The fire is the unrest of the Mexican citizen, poor, fairly uneducated, without good medical benefits, with little or no prospect of a good life. When they get to slip into the USA illegally to reap all that they can from our bounty, it eases the pressure in Mexico, but only somewhat because all the while the Mexican government is corrupt and continues to rape the bounty of its own country for the chosen few. This leaves most people in abject poverty. They have in the past gotten quite sick of this and the result was revolution. This is what Mexico fears today.
Now if you think a modern day Mexican revolution is far fetched, just read this article: Riot police battle protesters in Oaxaca at CNN.com. Revolution, if only on a local scale, has been going on since last May in Oaxaca (and yes I know how to pronounce it). Should the steam let off valve, the illegal path into the USA, be shut off, or even just tightened quite a bit, it is quite possible that such a protest would become nationwide in Mexico. This would in effect be a revolution, probably a major one.
While I know a lot of folks are afraid that Hugo Chavez, Fidel castor, and other nefarious scoundrels will have a big effect on the protesters or revolutionaries, and they fear that Mexico may become communist or akin to an enemy of the USA; I am not so fearful. Mexico has had revolutions before. Its base is rather conservative by today’s standards, heck even by the standards of 50 years ago. What the Mexican people, want is not a dictatorship to oppress them, but rather a way of life in which they have a chance to better themselves. Mexico has lots of resource in oil, tourism, land, and some exports. The country could easily support itself with some hard work, so long as honest leadership is in place; leadership that actually wants to improve the life of the average Mexican.
This is the direction I think the USA should take. Assuring that the government of Mexico actually look out for its own people and solve its own problems, with help if needed, but with the majority of the work done by Mexicans for Mexico under a republican form of government wherein all are represented fairly. I think building that fence, and enacting strict border security, will accelerate any such planning on our part to sway Mexico into the right direction. The sooner the fence goes up, the closer Mexico will be to revolution. The closer the Mexican government gets to believing that one is on the way, the more they will do to placate the people in order to prevent a full scale revolution, because if they do revolt, the Mexican government will not win by force. In fact chances are they will be to scared to use it in today’s world of instant global media accounting.
Best regards,
Glenn B
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Ebay amazes me...
...in that if you have something to sell, just about anything to sell with certain exceptions, it gives you easy access to a worldwide market. I don't want to get into an argument about what they allow and do not allow to be sold on their site. Leave it to say I would like them much better if they allowed folks to sell firearms through their service, but they choose not to allow that. Nor will they, I think, allow folks to sell things like their immortal souls, Nazi memorabilia, or kiddy pornography. Now on two of these three last, I cannot blame them, and I'll give you a hint - I agree with them about not selling kiddy porn. They are their own business and they allow and disallow what they choose.
Still though, despite a few such regulations, you can sell lots of different things, or buy them too. I have sold such silly things as: a shaving kit (red cross issued in WWI), military patches from WWII, some old books, a couple of limited edition hunting books, and old fishing reel in need of repair, and so on. I got almost everything I sold at local 'tag sales' which are basically open house sales of the contents of a home either due to divorce, moving, retirement, or death as in an estate sale. Two of the books I sold I sold for hundreds of dollars each; the thing is I bought them for $5 each. That is great, and the saying is true: "One man's trash is another man's treasure"; but just not all the time. Sometimes the trash you find or buy to sell on Ebay just does not get sold. In my case, I hold onto those things for a while if I have room, then I try to sell them again several months later. That often does the trick and again I have some treasure even if only a few bucks worth. If not, well then I trash the item literally.
I made my latest sale, I think of only a total of about 39 sales over a few years. I placed a camera lens up for sale yesterday afternoon. I got back on the computer, I think, less than 2 hours later, and had already received an email that the item had sold. It was a Nikon camera lens, and therein lies a lesson at least for me. I probably under priced it even, and even though it was never a very expensive lens, I probably could have sold it for more than I did. Ebay is of course famous for being an auction middleman, but they also offer a "buy it now" feature so the seller can set a price at which the item automatically sells. I did that yesterday and someone bought it almost immediately. I guess the fact that Nikon recently announced that they are no longer going to make film cameras may have had an effect, the collectors will be looking for Nikon film cameras and accessories. h well.
Today, I may just have to go out to a tag sale or two if there are any local to me. I sometimes go to these now and then as a sort of diversion, and as sort of a treasure seeking expedition. I have been lucky a few times. Those two books I mentioned above were a great buy/sale for me. So was the fishing reel I got for $12.50 and sold for $125.00. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure I got that shaving kit I mentioned for $1.00 or $2.00, I sold it for $75.00 on Ebay. I imagine someone with the get up an go could make a business out of going to tag sales and selling on Ebay; many probably have already, at least those with more get up and go than me.
Hmm, all of this talk of treasured trash has my blood going, I think I am off on a treasure hunt. Later for you guys. Bye.
All the best,
Glenn B
Still though, despite a few such regulations, you can sell lots of different things, or buy them too. I have sold such silly things as: a shaving kit (red cross issued in WWI), military patches from WWII, some old books, a couple of limited edition hunting books, and old fishing reel in need of repair, and so on. I got almost everything I sold at local 'tag sales' which are basically open house sales of the contents of a home either due to divorce, moving, retirement, or death as in an estate sale. Two of the books I sold I sold for hundreds of dollars each; the thing is I bought them for $5 each. That is great, and the saying is true: "One man's trash is another man's treasure"; but just not all the time. Sometimes the trash you find or buy to sell on Ebay just does not get sold. In my case, I hold onto those things for a while if I have room, then I try to sell them again several months later. That often does the trick and again I have some treasure even if only a few bucks worth. If not, well then I trash the item literally.
I made my latest sale, I think of only a total of about 39 sales over a few years. I placed a camera lens up for sale yesterday afternoon. I got back on the computer, I think, less than 2 hours later, and had already received an email that the item had sold. It was a Nikon camera lens, and therein lies a lesson at least for me. I probably under priced it even, and even though it was never a very expensive lens, I probably could have sold it for more than I did. Ebay is of course famous for being an auction middleman, but they also offer a "buy it now" feature so the seller can set a price at which the item automatically sells. I did that yesterday and someone bought it almost immediately. I guess the fact that Nikon recently announced that they are no longer going to make film cameras may have had an effect, the collectors will be looking for Nikon film cameras and accessories. h well.
Today, I may just have to go out to a tag sale or two if there are any local to me. I sometimes go to these now and then as a sort of diversion, and as sort of a treasure seeking expedition. I have been lucky a few times. Those two books I mentioned above were a great buy/sale for me. So was the fishing reel I got for $12.50 and sold for $125.00. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure I got that shaving kit I mentioned for $1.00 or $2.00, I sold it for $75.00 on Ebay. I imagine someone with the get up an go could make a business out of going to tag sales and selling on Ebay; many probably have already, at least those with more get up and go than me.
Hmm, all of this talk of treasured trash has my blood going, I think I am off on a treasure hunt. Later for you guys. Bye.
All the best,
Glenn B
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Ballseye's Boomers: Beretta 92SB
This pistol, the one in the pic, is the one that helped get me the moniker of Ballseye; yes the actual one indeed. The Beretta 92SB, was the precursor of the Beretta 92F series or the Beretta M9 (military speak for this gun).Beretta 92SBs were, to my knowledge, all made in Italy. Certainly mine was made there or at least that is what its markings indicate. It is a semi-automatic pistol, in 9MM Lugar. It has a steel slide, an alloy frame. The safety/decocker is located on either side of the rear of the slide. The magazine release is ambidextrous and is located on the grip where it is met by the bottom of the trigger guard. The magazine capacity is 15, and the pistol can also hold an additional round chambered for a full compliment of 16 rounds. It came with two extra magazines. Note the flat bottoms of the magazines. It has fixed sights. The grips that came with this pistol were hard plastic, wood was also available.
This pistol is an extremely reliable, and finely crafted and machined firearm. I have shot a lot of different pistols over the years, and seen many others. I have not seen any other brand that were built to the same high quality standards of Beretta.
My only regrets about this pistol are that the right side decocking lever broke off due to an accident, and I never had it replaced while factory original parts were still to be had for it. I imagine I could do with a 92F lever, but what the heck, the missing part gives the pistol character. It has taken a beating over the years, that is for sure. The finish has certainly seen better days. I may get it refinished someday, but right now it is rather a nostalgic piece for me being it is the only one with which I ever shot anyone. How can that be nostalgic, well I lived to tell the tale and the other guys went to jail. That is another stroy all on its own, to be seen at: http://ballseyesboomers.blogspot.com/2006/10/ballseye-what-is-in-name_04.html.
All the best,
Glenn B
Friday, October 27, 2006
Signed off, but still not funded...
...is the current status of the bill okaying the erection of 750 miles of additional fencing along the southern border of the USA. Yes President George W. Bush made a big deal about signing the fence bill into law yesterday, it was on all the news stations, but his signature on that piece of paper means little if the fence is not funded, since without the money it will never be built.
I suggest you make calls, send emails and letters to your elected officials in Washington. I have already contacted the president, vice president, my two senators, and my congresswoman (as useless as she is, it is still worth the effort). If enough folks speak out on this in favor of the funding, the money for the project will materialize like magic.
On another note related to the fence, I see that Mexico is up in arms over our wanting to build this fence. Now bear in mind, this fence is only a partial border barrier, it will not keep anyone out of our country who comes here legally, it will cut back on crime, it is not a device built to harm anyone, it is a fence - just that and nothing more. Yet Mexico, specifically President elect: Felipe Calderon, reportedly said, in this article Mexico Anger over U.S. Border Fence at BBC.com said that:
"...the fence was "a grave mistake" which would lead to more Mexican deaths on the border."
How this fence will lead to more Mexican deaths on the U.S. border was not made clear as far as I can tell. My guess though would be that Mr. Calderon means more Mexicans will wind up being stuck inside of Mexico when they find they cannot cross the border, and they will die there because Mexico offers them little to no relief for poverty stricken lives which they lead in Mexico. Hmm, who would be at fault for this. Is this a U.S. problem? No it is not. Sure we help out with relief and such, but the crappy conditions in Mexico are the fault of a notoriously corrupt government that has been in a state of corruption for beyond, well beyond, as long as I can remember. Maybe it is about time that Mexico takes hold of the problem and tries to solve it instead of dumping its problem in the form of illiterate, poverty stricken Mexicans into the USA.
He then went on to compare such a fence to the Berlin wall:
""Humanity committed a grave mistake in building the Berlin Wall," he said."
First of all, allow me to correct Mr. Calderon, humanity did not build the Berlin wall, so why is he trying to make it look as if we were all responsible for it. I imagine because he wants us all to feel responsible for any Mexican deaths that he will try to attribute to the U.S. border fence. That way we all can feel bad about it and put pressure on the U.S. government to stop it. Sorry it is such a poor attempt at perverting history in order to gain sympathy in the current situation as to make me laugh out loud while typing.
I will grant him though that the Berlin wall, the whole barrier between East and West Germany, was a mistake; but remember it was built to trap people, to keep them in their own country, not to keep out illegal aliens, terrorists, and other criminals. There is a big difference here, one he does not want to accept.
As far as acceptance goes, another thing that Mr. Calderon does not seem to want to accept is Mexico's responsibility for its own people. Mexico is an oil rich nation, yes I said oil rich. They also have a booming tourist trade. Yet where does that money go. Certainly not into government mandated programs to enrich the lives of Mexico's poor, certainly not into education for them, most decidely not into health care, certainly not into creating jobs for all those who need them, certainly not into crime prevention. Yet, that money must go somewhere, I just wonder into whose pockets?
When it comes right down to it folks, the truth about why Mexico does not want this fence is that if it gets built, then more may get erected. If the whole border winds up fenced off, then Mexico loses what amounts to a pressure release valve for its own internal problems - its poor people. When that pressure gets to great in Mexico, what do you think will happen? Yup, you guessed it, probably a revolution, something for which Mexico is famous. Of course a revolution is avoidable, so to are Mexico's other problems. The way to avoid them all is for the Mexican government to clean itself up, and to actually start to do for its people what it says the U.S. should do for them - make their lives better. One way or the other, if that fence goes up, things will change in Mexico.
Yes folks contact your elected officials, tell them we need funding for this fence and need it fast; it is about the only thing that will get something done for those poor souls south of the border.
All the best,
Glenn B
I suggest you make calls, send emails and letters to your elected officials in Washington. I have already contacted the president, vice president, my two senators, and my congresswoman (as useless as she is, it is still worth the effort). If enough folks speak out on this in favor of the funding, the money for the project will materialize like magic.
On another note related to the fence, I see that Mexico is up in arms over our wanting to build this fence. Now bear in mind, this fence is only a partial border barrier, it will not keep anyone out of our country who comes here legally, it will cut back on crime, it is not a device built to harm anyone, it is a fence - just that and nothing more. Yet Mexico, specifically President elect: Felipe Calderon, reportedly said, in this article Mexico Anger over U.S. Border Fence at BBC.com said that:
"...the fence was "a grave mistake" which would lead to more Mexican deaths on the border."
How this fence will lead to more Mexican deaths on the U.S. border was not made clear as far as I can tell. My guess though would be that Mr. Calderon means more Mexicans will wind up being stuck inside of Mexico when they find they cannot cross the border, and they will die there because Mexico offers them little to no relief for poverty stricken lives which they lead in Mexico. Hmm, who would be at fault for this. Is this a U.S. problem? No it is not. Sure we help out with relief and such, but the crappy conditions in Mexico are the fault of a notoriously corrupt government that has been in a state of corruption for beyond, well beyond, as long as I can remember. Maybe it is about time that Mexico takes hold of the problem and tries to solve it instead of dumping its problem in the form of illiterate, poverty stricken Mexicans into the USA.
He then went on to compare such a fence to the Berlin wall:
""Humanity committed a grave mistake in building the Berlin Wall," he said."
First of all, allow me to correct Mr. Calderon, humanity did not build the Berlin wall, so why is he trying to make it look as if we were all responsible for it. I imagine because he wants us all to feel responsible for any Mexican deaths that he will try to attribute to the U.S. border fence. That way we all can feel bad about it and put pressure on the U.S. government to stop it. Sorry it is such a poor attempt at perverting history in order to gain sympathy in the current situation as to make me laugh out loud while typing.
I will grant him though that the Berlin wall, the whole barrier between East and West Germany, was a mistake; but remember it was built to trap people, to keep them in their own country, not to keep out illegal aliens, terrorists, and other criminals. There is a big difference here, one he does not want to accept.
As far as acceptance goes, another thing that Mr. Calderon does not seem to want to accept is Mexico's responsibility for its own people. Mexico is an oil rich nation, yes I said oil rich. They also have a booming tourist trade. Yet where does that money go. Certainly not into government mandated programs to enrich the lives of Mexico's poor, certainly not into education for them, most decidely not into health care, certainly not into creating jobs for all those who need them, certainly not into crime prevention. Yet, that money must go somewhere, I just wonder into whose pockets?
When it comes right down to it folks, the truth about why Mexico does not want this fence is that if it gets built, then more may get erected. If the whole border winds up fenced off, then Mexico loses what amounts to a pressure release valve for its own internal problems - its poor people. When that pressure gets to great in Mexico, what do you think will happen? Yup, you guessed it, probably a revolution, something for which Mexico is famous. Of course a revolution is avoidable, so to are Mexico's other problems. The way to avoid them all is for the Mexican government to clean itself up, and to actually start to do for its people what it says the U.S. should do for them - make their lives better. One way or the other, if that fence goes up, things will change in Mexico.
Yes folks contact your elected officials, tell them we need funding for this fence and need it fast; it is about the only thing that will get something done for those poor souls south of the border.
All the best,
Glenn B
Thursday, October 26, 2006
With terrorists banging at our doors, do we need...
guys who are guilty of the things with whcih this one has been charged?" I am referring to the government official who allegedly handed out phony citizenships to people who paid him to do so. According to this article: Prosecutor: Boss Gave at Least 60 Phony Citizenships at 1010WINS.com. This guy apprently worked for the Immigration service, and sold citizenships. I don't know exactly how he did that since the Department of State confers citizenship onto people, but he did it, and it is claimed tyat he lived large on the proceeds.
If he is found guilty, and I believe he should have his day in court just like anyone else, but if he is found guilty, I believe he should receive the maximum penaly allowable by law, then maybe double if he did any of this that allowed one terrorist to enter this country. As a matter of fact, I believe that since we are at war, if he did such while we were at war, he should go to prison for life, but that is just my personal feeling. Of course maybe that is a bit biased because I work for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but what can I say it gets me pissed off that stuff like this happens. Selling out loyalty to your nation for a few bucks is despicable as I see it.
All the best,
Glenn B
If he is found guilty, and I believe he should have his day in court just like anyone else, but if he is found guilty, I believe he should receive the maximum penaly allowable by law, then maybe double if he did any of this that allowed one terrorist to enter this country. As a matter of fact, I believe that since we are at war, if he did such while we were at war, he should go to prison for life, but that is just my personal feeling. Of course maybe that is a bit biased because I work for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but what can I say it gets me pissed off that stuff like this happens. Selling out loyalty to your nation for a few bucks is despicable as I see it.
All the best,
Glenn B
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
13 Days and a wake up...
until election day. You and I need to get bsuy before then, here is an example of why:
I would like to see a political party out there that agrees with me on the issues of our day, heck even one that agrees with me as to what constitutes the issues. I can say without a doubt that said party is not the Democratic Party, not by a long shot. Then again, I can also say, with some regret that it is not the Republican Party either. I have looked at the so called third parties, but those at which I have looked over the year all seem to be full of bigger kooks than those in the two mainstream parties. I guess the only one that truly comes close to be a viable political party of any merit is the Libertarian party, but as I pointed, there is a kook alert as regards third parties.
I would like to find a candidate for whom to vote, one who pretty much agrees with the way I see things on the issues. Again this seems to be a rather difficult thing especially here in New York, just outside of New York City. While I may have some pretty liberal ideas about some issues, I am much more conservative on others, probably so much so as to be called one who leans heavily to the right on those other issues.
Looks like there are not many, though I would vote for Tancredo if he ran for the presidency in 2008; but we are talking the current elections here, and I do not get a great choice in NYS.
Although I may be considered somewhat liberal on some issues, and fairly conservative on a greater number of issues than those on which I may be considered to the left (and on those I am fairly moderate not a leftist screaming loony), and even again I may be considered fairly far right on a select number of issues, I do not consider myself to be a middle of the road moderate, nor an extremist in anyway.
What I do consider myself to be is one who can look at an issue without the haze of any party affiliation getting in my way (though I am registered Republican now, for the great majority of my voting years I was an Independent, and I probably will give up my party affiliation once I figure out how to do it, maybe this year at the polling place they can give me the info). Back to the points, one of which is pretty much voting sensibly, even across party lines if need be, the other of which is to affect the politicians (both left and right) who are in office, and who aspire to office, to try to get things done the way I, and you, believe they should be done.
In order to vote sensibly, which is how I try to vote, one has to look at the issues before the voters. There are usually lots of issues flying around at election time, and it can get confusing what with the political ads, the media slants, and all the talk you hear wherever you hear it. Besides all of that, there are the issues that the politicians, media, and others would prefer that you do not consider during an election, ones they hope you will forget.
Let me give you an example of this last point.
Recently the Congress approved a 750 mile, or so, stretch of fence to be erected along our southern border to help stave off the flow of illegal aliens who enter the USA from Mexico. For months, heck for well over a year, Immigration, and illegal aliens, have been big in the news. Besides the amazing amount of illegals here who are taking our jobs, our tax dollars, and our services away from us (this is not rhetoric either, this is now proven fact), border security was made so much more relevant to each and everyone of us because of the chances of terrorists being able to illegally enter the USA from Mexico. As illegal entry of aliens into the US worked its way up to a high priority problem in the eyes of the nation, certain politicians wanted us to see it as a crime that leads to more crimes, and to depletion of our resources. Other politicians wanted us to see it as the desperate but noble struggle of those less fortunate who would come here to better their lives. Others wanted us to see the illegals, virtually all 12 million of them as folks who should be allowed to become US citizens and enjoy all the benefits of those others who have immigrated here legally after years of having waited to do so. Others just wanted us to deport or remove (there is a vast difference legally) them all. Others wanted us to see them as they who would re-conquer California and the southwestern USA.
The important thing to notice, and I am sure you noticed this as all of this was going on, is that the politicians were just trying to deflect the actual will of the people of the USA in order to fulfill their own political agendas and contracts. While the House of Representatives consistently voted for a fairly strong Immigration reform bill, the Senate consistently voted it down. This went across party lines in many instances, it was amazing. Yet when you came right down to it, they who most opposed the stronger Immigration laws, they who opposed tighter border security, they who most vociferously opposed removing the illegals from the US, were those of the ultra left such as Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and others. Of course there were some on the right who also opposed this such as the president George W. Bush! As I said it went across party lines.
Remember though what I already pointed out as important, the politicians were deflecting, or maybe just ignoring, the will of the people. It was apparent in poll after poll, that the people of the United States of America, as in We The People, the U.S. Citizens, the legal resident aliens who immigrated here legally, were for the great majority of the same frame of mind. That frame of mind was that the illegals have got to go, and that border security has got to be tightened. Finally after months of being hammered by the press, AND BY REGULAR PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND I VIA EMAIL, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND REGULAR MAIL, the politicians who opposed tighter border security, at least many of them, changed their votes and voted for the border fence.
As soon as they did so, what happened? They got on the band wagon to tell you how wonderfully American they were by having voted for the fence. Why is that do you think? Sure I know that you know just as I do. It was to snag your votes in the upcoming elections this November 7. Now this is where I get to that part I talked about above about which you may have forgotten, or at least about which you may think I have forgotten, that whole thing about issues which the politicians hope you will not consider during an election, those things they hope you just don’t see, or that they hope you will forget.
I have to wonder, do they think we are stupid? I guess so. The reason I say this is because while the Senate turned its vote around and finally voted to erect the 750, or so, stretch of border fence on our southern border, they apparently forgot to do something. Maybe the House of Representatives, those guys who voted for the fence all along also forgot the same thing, though I tend to doubt it. The thing it seems that was forgotten regarding the building of this grand border fence was the funding for it! Isn’t that hilarious? No not really; in fact I think it is pretty shameful. I think it is shameful because I believe it to have been done purposefully. This way the senators who changed their votes wind up looking strong on border security. Since this was such a big issue, and since it apparently still will play big in the elections, they tried to put a slant on it to help themselves while really doing nothing on the issue. They help themselves by looking strong, when in fact they maintain their status quo among they who opposed the fence by having accomplished nothing toward actually building that fence. Why, because the fence is never going to be a reality unless it gets paid for!
This helps them because you, the legal voter, winds up thinking, ‘hey you know I was going to vote for the other guy’ but now I see my regular guy has turned around and seen the light on immigration reform. You think he is a flexible guy who can vote across party lines for the defense of our nation. You decide to vote for him, instead of the other guy who had been a diehard immigration reform guy all along. I lose, you lose, we all lose if the nasty sly foxes who tricked us like this win. They will only do it again and again and again, much as they have for years. Try to vote for guys who don’t do this underhanded type of thing. Yeah I know that will be very tough, but there is something easier to do about getting things done right even by the likes of them.
What you and I need to do, and do now, is to contact our elected representatives in the Congress, and then demand that they enact legislation to pay for the border fence before November 7. Now this they will never be able to do so, or so you may think. I think there is a good chance that funding for the fence could get approved if over the next week they received thousands of emails, phone calls and letters demanding such. It was amazing, how quickly the vote turned around in the Senate from massively opposing the fence, to massively supporting it, it happened overnight once the pressure got too tough. I guess the tough thing is not having them change their votes, the tough thing is getting the pressure to bear down on them enough. Don’t just contact them either, but be sure to contact those who are running and are not incumbents so they know what to expect if they are elected.
My little rant here will certainly not get that pressure percolating; but it may be a help. The few of you who read this can be a further help. Write to your senators and congressmen/women. Tell them you want the fence funded and you want the funding approved before the election. Heck, you don’t have to vote for them if they approve the funding, you don’t even have to make it sound as if you will; then again, you can always make it sound as if your vote for them depends on this one issue. You will see a change if enough of us do it. I will, just as I wrote time and time again before, and yes they do pay attention to email, they have joined the 20th century at least, if not the 21st.
Again though, as I said, my rant will do little except maybe in the case of my few readers. Here though is where you guys can really help. Once you read this, if you agree, then get the message out to others and get them to contact their elected representatives too. The more the merrier. Who knows, since every little bit helps, it may work if we do our part.
This works not only on issues like illegal aliens, border security, and immigration reform; but it will also work on the assuring we strengthen our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, tax reform (and I sure do not mean more taxes), stem cell research (and I sure do mean more of it, but only using cells they are not from aborted fetuses, though I am not necessarily anti-abortion in all cases), pulling out of the United Nations, supporting and strengthening the war against terrorism, ending NAFTA, strengthening our economy, and so on.
No, no one will ever agree with me on all the issues, and I will not agree with them on all the issues; but things like our Nation’s security have go to be at the forefront, and those recent polls show we almost all agree on that one. Now send the message to your politicians, get that fence funded. Take part in the process other than just by casting a vote.
I would like to see a political party out there that agrees with me on the issues of our day, heck even one that agrees with me as to what constitutes the issues. I can say without a doubt that said party is not the Democratic Party, not by a long shot. Then again, I can also say, with some regret that it is not the Republican Party either. I have looked at the so called third parties, but those at which I have looked over the year all seem to be full of bigger kooks than those in the two mainstream parties. I guess the only one that truly comes close to be a viable political party of any merit is the Libertarian party, but as I pointed, there is a kook alert as regards third parties.
I would like to find a candidate for whom to vote, one who pretty much agrees with the way I see things on the issues. Again this seems to be a rather difficult thing especially here in New York, just outside of New York City. While I may have some pretty liberal ideas about some issues, I am much more conservative on others, probably so much so as to be called one who leans heavily to the right on those other issues.
Looks like there are not many, though I would vote for Tancredo if he ran for the presidency in 2008; but we are talking the current elections here, and I do not get a great choice in NYS.
Although I may be considered somewhat liberal on some issues, and fairly conservative on a greater number of issues than those on which I may be considered to the left (and on those I am fairly moderate not a leftist screaming loony), and even again I may be considered fairly far right on a select number of issues, I do not consider myself to be a middle of the road moderate, nor an extremist in anyway.
What I do consider myself to be is one who can look at an issue without the haze of any party affiliation getting in my way (though I am registered Republican now, for the great majority of my voting years I was an Independent, and I probably will give up my party affiliation once I figure out how to do it, maybe this year at the polling place they can give me the info). Back to the points, one of which is pretty much voting sensibly, even across party lines if need be, the other of which is to affect the politicians (both left and right) who are in office, and who aspire to office, to try to get things done the way I, and you, believe they should be done.
In order to vote sensibly, which is how I try to vote, one has to look at the issues before the voters. There are usually lots of issues flying around at election time, and it can get confusing what with the political ads, the media slants, and all the talk you hear wherever you hear it. Besides all of that, there are the issues that the politicians, media, and others would prefer that you do not consider during an election, ones they hope you will forget.
Let me give you an example of this last point.
Recently the Congress approved a 750 mile, or so, stretch of fence to be erected along our southern border to help stave off the flow of illegal aliens who enter the USA from Mexico. For months, heck for well over a year, Immigration, and illegal aliens, have been big in the news. Besides the amazing amount of illegals here who are taking our jobs, our tax dollars, and our services away from us (this is not rhetoric either, this is now proven fact), border security was made so much more relevant to each and everyone of us because of the chances of terrorists being able to illegally enter the USA from Mexico. As illegal entry of aliens into the US worked its way up to a high priority problem in the eyes of the nation, certain politicians wanted us to see it as a crime that leads to more crimes, and to depletion of our resources. Other politicians wanted us to see it as the desperate but noble struggle of those less fortunate who would come here to better their lives. Others wanted us to see the illegals, virtually all 12 million of them as folks who should be allowed to become US citizens and enjoy all the benefits of those others who have immigrated here legally after years of having waited to do so. Others just wanted us to deport or remove (there is a vast difference legally) them all. Others wanted us to see them as they who would re-conquer California and the southwestern USA.
The important thing to notice, and I am sure you noticed this as all of this was going on, is that the politicians were just trying to deflect the actual will of the people of the USA in order to fulfill their own political agendas and contracts. While the House of Representatives consistently voted for a fairly strong Immigration reform bill, the Senate consistently voted it down. This went across party lines in many instances, it was amazing. Yet when you came right down to it, they who most opposed the stronger Immigration laws, they who opposed tighter border security, they who most vociferously opposed removing the illegals from the US, were those of the ultra left such as Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Charles Schumer, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and others. Of course there were some on the right who also opposed this such as the president George W. Bush! As I said it went across party lines.
Remember though what I already pointed out as important, the politicians were deflecting, or maybe just ignoring, the will of the people. It was apparent in poll after poll, that the people of the United States of America, as in We The People, the U.S. Citizens, the legal resident aliens who immigrated here legally, were for the great majority of the same frame of mind. That frame of mind was that the illegals have got to go, and that border security has got to be tightened. Finally after months of being hammered by the press, AND BY REGULAR PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND I VIA EMAIL, TELEPHONE CALLS, AND REGULAR MAIL, the politicians who opposed tighter border security, at least many of them, changed their votes and voted for the border fence.
As soon as they did so, what happened? They got on the band wagon to tell you how wonderfully American they were by having voted for the fence. Why is that do you think? Sure I know that you know just as I do. It was to snag your votes in the upcoming elections this November 7. Now this is where I get to that part I talked about above about which you may have forgotten, or at least about which you may think I have forgotten, that whole thing about issues which the politicians hope you will not consider during an election, those things they hope you just don’t see, or that they hope you will forget.
I have to wonder, do they think we are stupid? I guess so. The reason I say this is because while the Senate turned its vote around and finally voted to erect the 750, or so, stretch of border fence on our southern border, they apparently forgot to do something. Maybe the House of Representatives, those guys who voted for the fence all along also forgot the same thing, though I tend to doubt it. The thing it seems that was forgotten regarding the building of this grand border fence was the funding for it! Isn’t that hilarious? No not really; in fact I think it is pretty shameful. I think it is shameful because I believe it to have been done purposefully. This way the senators who changed their votes wind up looking strong on border security. Since this was such a big issue, and since it apparently still will play big in the elections, they tried to put a slant on it to help themselves while really doing nothing on the issue. They help themselves by looking strong, when in fact they maintain their status quo among they who opposed the fence by having accomplished nothing toward actually building that fence. Why, because the fence is never going to be a reality unless it gets paid for!
This helps them because you, the legal voter, winds up thinking, ‘hey you know I was going to vote for the other guy’ but now I see my regular guy has turned around and seen the light on immigration reform. You think he is a flexible guy who can vote across party lines for the defense of our nation. You decide to vote for him, instead of the other guy who had been a diehard immigration reform guy all along. I lose, you lose, we all lose if the nasty sly foxes who tricked us like this win. They will only do it again and again and again, much as they have for years. Try to vote for guys who don’t do this underhanded type of thing. Yeah I know that will be very tough, but there is something easier to do about getting things done right even by the likes of them.
What you and I need to do, and do now, is to contact our elected representatives in the Congress, and then demand that they enact legislation to pay for the border fence before November 7. Now this they will never be able to do so, or so you may think. I think there is a good chance that funding for the fence could get approved if over the next week they received thousands of emails, phone calls and letters demanding such. It was amazing, how quickly the vote turned around in the Senate from massively opposing the fence, to massively supporting it, it happened overnight once the pressure got too tough. I guess the tough thing is not having them change their votes, the tough thing is getting the pressure to bear down on them enough. Don’t just contact them either, but be sure to contact those who are running and are not incumbents so they know what to expect if they are elected.
My little rant here will certainly not get that pressure percolating; but it may be a help. The few of you who read this can be a further help. Write to your senators and congressmen/women. Tell them you want the fence funded and you want the funding approved before the election. Heck, you don’t have to vote for them if they approve the funding, you don’t even have to make it sound as if you will; then again, you can always make it sound as if your vote for them depends on this one issue. You will see a change if enough of us do it. I will, just as I wrote time and time again before, and yes they do pay attention to email, they have joined the 20th century at least, if not the 21st.
Again though, as I said, my rant will do little except maybe in the case of my few readers. Here though is where you guys can really help. Once you read this, if you agree, then get the message out to others and get them to contact their elected representatives too. The more the merrier. Who knows, since every little bit helps, it may work if we do our part.
This works not only on issues like illegal aliens, border security, and immigration reform; but it will also work on the assuring we strengthen our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, tax reform (and I sure do not mean more taxes), stem cell research (and I sure do mean more of it, but only using cells they are not from aborted fetuses, though I am not necessarily anti-abortion in all cases), pulling out of the United Nations, supporting and strengthening the war against terrorism, ending NAFTA, strengthening our economy, and so on.
No, no one will ever agree with me on all the issues, and I will not agree with them on all the issues; but things like our Nation’s security have go to be at the forefront, and those recent polls show we almost all agree on that one. Now send the message to your politicians, get that fence funded. Take part in the process other than just by casting a vote.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
No Right To Keep & Bear Arms - the results...
...may surprise you in the far reaching effects they can have. Not all that many years ago Australia decided to make it illegal for an Australian to own just about any firearm in that country. If you kept up with this at all, you would realize that the violent crime rates skyrocketed after the firearms ban. Why - well because the bad guys realized that the good guys were now helpless. Violent push in type robberies increased markedly. That though was not all that unexpected. It is something that gun rights advocates have stated, for years, would be a result of bann9ing virtually all private ownership of firearms.
What may be a little more surprising is the increase in such things as vermin. In Australia for instance, there are at least a score of non-native species that cause havoc with the Australian ecosystem. Rabbits are a big problem, they have been for years, so are mice, rats, Marine Toads and others. Hunting these pest species would be one way to help assure that they do not cause as much problems for the environment as they are doing, yet it was not an easy thing to do in Australia because of the gun ban. Without natural predators these pest species boom, so hunting them is a viable method to combating them.
As a matter of fact, the WWF (no not the World Wrestling federation but the World Wildlife federation) is suggesting that Australia allow hunting of rabbits, with an estimated population of 100,000 on one island alone, so as to protect the breeding grounds of Albatross and penguins, see : Rabbits 'destroy' seabird habitat . Even the Australian Greens Party has joined in for the call to cull the rabbits through hunting them. I wonder though, where will Australia get not the hunters, but the hunters who own guns to cull them. Of course, maybe that is why they are expecting the project to cost $7.5 million dollars. This of course is not just for rabbit eradication, but also for rats and mice.
Now I can think of a way to save them big bucks, and that would be to open up rabbit hunting on the island to the public. My guess is that folks would pay for hunting licenses, would buy rifles and shotguns to hunt, would purchase transportation to the remote island and so forth. It would be a boost to the Australian economy and it would help the environment. In addition if done correctly the hunted rabbits could be used in feed the poor programs, or better yet sold to restaurants. Of course the hunters should also be allowed to keep some of them. With 100,000 rabbits, this could be a long time event, at least a few years to eradicate them or cut back their population to the point where it is an easily manageable threat through yearly hunting programs. Yet I guess it cannot be done, if no Australian can own a gun.
If you think this plan foolish, well allow me to point you in this direction: Australia to cull outback camels which is an article wherein the Australian government's planned culling of camels is discussed. of course, when it comes to camels the animal rights groups doth protest, but as far as I can tell they are just as much a pest as are the rabbits. Well anyhow, that is not the point, the point is that culling of these beasts seems to be the answer. Without guns in the hands of each citizen, then culling will prove to be a very expensive proposition, but as I showed above, it need not be.
Heck such programs to have licensed hunters cull problem populations of animals have worked elsewhere with great success. In some places hunters are even offered bounties on those animals they cull. I don't think that would be necessary, but that is another method that works. For instance, this article: Island rabbits killed off for 20p describes how Scotland offers a bounty on problem rabbits. They offer a 20 pence reward or bounty for each rabbit killed. I wonder why do they have to pay folks to hunt rabbits, is it because so few people in Scotland have firearms? Probably!
Now if the government of Australia decided to go it that way, even if all 100,000 rabbits were killed off, they would only pay out about $20,000; a far cry from whatever plan the WWK and The Australian Greens came up with that is estimated will cost $7.5 million dollars! I don't understand why it is that once tree huggers and animal rights activist get involved the price for something that should be cheap, or maybe even benefit the government financially, all of a sudden costs in the millions. Then again, had the anti-gun crowd not taken away the firearms, maybe this problem would never have gotten as big as it did.
Yes, taking away people's guns can have long term effects that may not have been dreamed of before. Of course maybe the island in Australia is so remote, as not to attract hunters who did not know about it; but certainly it did not attract any hunters when no one had guns. Yet, I can assure you, if the Australian government did it right, and allowed its citizens to be armed as we do in the USA, once they publicized it all they would get more than enough hunters willing to travel to that island to help solve the problem; and the government would stand to make money not spend it while doing it all. Hasenpfeffer anyone? Mmmm good….
All the best,
Glenn B
What may be a little more surprising is the increase in such things as vermin. In Australia for instance, there are at least a score of non-native species that cause havoc with the Australian ecosystem. Rabbits are a big problem, they have been for years, so are mice, rats, Marine Toads and others. Hunting these pest species would be one way to help assure that they do not cause as much problems for the environment as they are doing, yet it was not an easy thing to do in Australia because of the gun ban. Without natural predators these pest species boom, so hunting them is a viable method to combating them.
As a matter of fact, the WWF (no not the World Wrestling federation but the World Wildlife federation) is suggesting that Australia allow hunting of rabbits, with an estimated population of 100,000 on one island alone, so as to protect the breeding grounds of Albatross and penguins, see : Rabbits 'destroy' seabird habitat . Even the Australian Greens Party has joined in for the call to cull the rabbits through hunting them. I wonder though, where will Australia get not the hunters, but the hunters who own guns to cull them. Of course, maybe that is why they are expecting the project to cost $7.5 million dollars. This of course is not just for rabbit eradication, but also for rats and mice.
Now I can think of a way to save them big bucks, and that would be to open up rabbit hunting on the island to the public. My guess is that folks would pay for hunting licenses, would buy rifles and shotguns to hunt, would purchase transportation to the remote island and so forth. It would be a boost to the Australian economy and it would help the environment. In addition if done correctly the hunted rabbits could be used in feed the poor programs, or better yet sold to restaurants. Of course the hunters should also be allowed to keep some of them. With 100,000 rabbits, this could be a long time event, at least a few years to eradicate them or cut back their population to the point where it is an easily manageable threat through yearly hunting programs. Yet I guess it cannot be done, if no Australian can own a gun.
If you think this plan foolish, well allow me to point you in this direction: Australia to cull outback camels which is an article wherein the Australian government's planned culling of camels is discussed. of course, when it comes to camels the animal rights groups doth protest, but as far as I can tell they are just as much a pest as are the rabbits. Well anyhow, that is not the point, the point is that culling of these beasts seems to be the answer. Without guns in the hands of each citizen, then culling will prove to be a very expensive proposition, but as I showed above, it need not be.
Heck such programs to have licensed hunters cull problem populations of animals have worked elsewhere with great success. In some places hunters are even offered bounties on those animals they cull. I don't think that would be necessary, but that is another method that works. For instance, this article: Island rabbits killed off for 20p describes how Scotland offers a bounty on problem rabbits. They offer a 20 pence reward or bounty for each rabbit killed. I wonder why do they have to pay folks to hunt rabbits, is it because so few people in Scotland have firearms? Probably!
Now if the government of Australia decided to go it that way, even if all 100,000 rabbits were killed off, they would only pay out about $20,000; a far cry from whatever plan the WWK and The Australian Greens came up with that is estimated will cost $7.5 million dollars! I don't understand why it is that once tree huggers and animal rights activist get involved the price for something that should be cheap, or maybe even benefit the government financially, all of a sudden costs in the millions. Then again, had the anti-gun crowd not taken away the firearms, maybe this problem would never have gotten as big as it did.
Yes, taking away people's guns can have long term effects that may not have been dreamed of before. Of course maybe the island in Australia is so remote, as not to attract hunters who did not know about it; but certainly it did not attract any hunters when no one had guns. Yet, I can assure you, if the Australian government did it right, and allowed its citizens to be armed as we do in the USA, once they publicized it all they would get more than enough hunters willing to travel to that island to help solve the problem; and the government would stand to make money not spend it while doing it all. Hasenpfeffer anyone? Mmmm good….
All the best,
Glenn B
Monday, October 23, 2006
Firearms Safety - the abreviated version or the comprehensive one:
The below, is a post I made over at the Firing Line (an apparently very good firearms related site). It is about the rules of gun safety; the so called 4 rules of gun safety versus the older more comprehensive rules of firerarms safety. It is a long read, but see what you think, and please comment on this one, I am fascinated by the discussion on this topic. of course you can always go to The Firing Line to comment in the forum.
*************************************************************************************
My apology beforehand, for this post beginning as it does, I felt I had to address one specific off shoot before I go on the the main subject, so it will take part of 2 replies to make it fit (here in my blog it will just be one long rant).
As for remarks like the above, I guess there always has to be one wise guy in the group who likes to try to offend someone who wanted to make a point in polite discussion. Yet, because of the point made in that one disrespectful sentence, I will tell you all my qualifications. Then you all can decide for yourselves whether or not you want to put any credence into what I am about to say on the original subject.
I started shooting at about age 8 or 9, at summer camp. I won quite a few NRA patches. That is not important. What was important and relevant to this thread is that before I could shoot, I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety, the ones that had been in use for many, many years before Jeff Cooper shortened them to sell a book, and to sell his brand of firearms training.
As I matured I used firearms a bit over the years. Then after college, I got my first job in law enforcement as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Again I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety, and I had to stick to them for the 4 years I was in the patrol.
I then transferred to the U.S. Customs Patrol. Again I went to an academy wherein I learned the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety.
While a Customs Patrol Officer, I attended an NRA Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor School. I was qualified, by successful completion of that training to become a firearms instructor. I began to have collateral firearms instructor duties at my job after that. Guess what, again I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety in order to do so; but there is a new twist, now I had to start teaching them too.
My stint with collateral duties as a firearms instructor while working for the U.S. Customs Service lasted 14 years, from my time as a Patrol Officer, through my time as a criminal investigator, through my time as a special agent and through part of my time as a senior special agent. In all that time I never once heard another firearms instructor teach that there were only 4 rules of firearms safety. I went through co-training with the New York Police Department (several times), I had firearms training with the U.S. Secret Service, I had training with the Federal Air Marshals, I had training with the NYS Police, I had co-training with the U.S. Army in Fort Benning, I had training in 2 Customs Service academies, and I was qualified to instruct revolver, pistol, shotgun and rifle; later I was qualified to instruct submachine gun. Lest I forget, I took the NYS, and CA, hunter safety courses; and I am also a life member of the NRA, and am a member of the NYS Rifle and Pistol Association. In addition I have used my firearms to save my own life more than once.
Am I as well versed in firearms as was Mr. Cooper, probably not. Yet I can say without a doubt that I have never heard anyone else teach his abbreviated form of firearms safety except for those in recent years, and for those who praise him on the Internet.
Am I a master as TimRB would sarcastically like to suggest. No I do not think I am a master. Yet, I sure as heck know a little bit about firearms safety after having been trained in their use, and having had used them, over a period of about 43 years; the last 27 plus of which I have done so on pretty much a daily basis. I am a stickler for safety when anyone else handles them in my presence too. Because I am not a so called master, does not mean that I cannot have a disagreement on this issue with someone like Jeff Cooper,; and because Jeff Cooper was who he was does not necessarily mean that someone else might have a better way. By the way, I am not claiming these rules as my own, far from it, they were written out long before I was born, some even before cooper was born. I simply suggest you may want to consider them (they follow below), and use them in your firearms uses.
With my qualifications out of the way, not only to appease the wise guy, but rather to allow the reader to get an idea if I may know something or not, allow me to continue. I am sorry that the lengthy introduction was, at least in my opinion, necessary. Since one wise guy with poison pen if often enough to ruin a good discussion, I felt the above was prudent.
I am about to quote some of the replies I received, nothing personal, nothing intended to insult, upset, or anything like that, but I will be blunt if only because this is such an important topic.
Those 4 rules of gun safety were not the original rules of gun safety. In fact they were a cut back, abridged version, of the original rules. Some really important ones were left out, and these were written to appeal to the macho he man, what with words like 'destroy' added to them.
I wear a firearm daily, in a strong side hip holster. It 'covers' everything at which it points during the day. Do I want to destroy those things, no I do not. I am not willing to destroy them either. I take it off the shelf, put it into the holster, and take it out of the holster, and put it back wherever I put it at least once a day. I am not willing to destroy anything at which it points, although I am more willing to have a bullet pass through whatever I point it at than I would be to injure or hurt someone. So this one is, in my opinion, kind of a ridiculous rule as it is written, and I think it appeals greatly to those who have a gunslinger mentality to some extent, a real macho image, and to those who like abbreviated rules to another extent, among others to whom it gives some appeal for other reasons. Some may even like it because they never learned the other rules.
As for these rules being the lowest common denominator, they are not; in fact they are lacking when it comes to safety. I have seen several people try to use ammunition of the wrong caliber in their firearms over the years. I have seen the results in some cases in which the round actually sort of fit, then went bang, and the barrel bulged, the barrel cracked, the barrel actually blew open quite a bit, somewhat like a gun that you would see in a cartoon when Bugs Bunny put his finger into Elmer J. Fudd's rifle. At other times I have seen just plain old malfunctions, malfunctions that would get you killed had you tried to use such an improperly loaded gun in a self defense situation.
One of the cardinal rules of gun safety used to be, and still should be: Only use the proper ammunition in your firearm. It is not common sense, as there have been too many screw-ups on this one over the years by people who just did not know better. They think it looks the same, so it must fit and function the same.
Right along with that is the one that says, or said in the olden days: Always use only a firearm in proper working condition. Again, one that is not necessarily common sense. I have seen people show up for quarterly qualifications with their primary firearms not functioning properly, and they knew it, yet they carried it like that anyway.
Another apparently bygone cardinal rule of firearms safety, lost in the translation offer by Mr. Cooper, is that: You should never combine booze and drugs with firearms. Maybe Mr. Cooper did not think drinking and guns a problem when together. He came from an era when the effects of booze were looked upon with contempt than today. I will admit, this one is a bit over the top even for me, and it has been changed in many venues to work better, but not because I think you should drink a few and shoot. I think it would be okay to take an aspirin because your shoulder hurts, or something like that. The newer version of this rule, the one that makes more sense, is along these lines: Never use anything that impairs your functioning, or could potentially impair your functioning, while handling a firearms - like prescription sedatives, alcohol, marijuana, other illicit drugs and so forth. This one would certainly seem like common sense, but I actually have had people tell me they routinely drink a few drinks while shooting, and I do not mean Kool Aide. They see no problem with it as long as they remain within their 'limit'. I guess that goes for when they drive home from the range too.
As far as the one about all guns always being loaded, many of you have addressed that one, but not how I would based upon my experience. You should always treat any gun that you pick up or handle as being loaded until you check and double check to see that it is not, each time you pick it up or handle it anew.
In other words, if you are dry firing a revolver in your home (no I do not advise it, but plenty of folks do it), one that you checked and double checked to make sure it was unloaded that is sort of fine. What do you do though when this happens. The telephone rings, you put the revolver down, go to answer the telephone, have a ten minute discussion with your girlfriend or boyfriend who tells you she/he is hot to trot. You get into that call, you cannot wait to get into - well I'll leave that to your imaginations. After the call ends, you go back to the revolver, you pick it up, you point it wherever while your mind is a bit preoccupied, and you continue to dry fire. The revolver goes click, click, click, bang and you just put a hole through your wall. I have seen it happen more than once. The guys who did it forgot they had started to reload as the telephone was ringing. You have to check each time you pick it up; but that does not mean each gun is always loaded or that you should tech such an impossible thing to anyone as a rule. Teach it the right way.
As to the one telling you to never place your finger on the trigger until you have your sights lined up, well I guess that rules out point shooting, push off shooting, and vertical tracking. It is, in my estimation a foolish thing to teach anyone who is learning about self defense shooting. It could get someone killed. The only guy I have ever shot was not in my sights when I shot him, yet I knew I would hit him. I fired virtually as soon as my pistol cleared leather. The rule was: "Keep your finger off of the trigger until ready to shoot.”
Of course, you should always be sure of your target, but here another thing was abbreviated! Whatever happened to know your target and what is beyond. This of course goes hand in hand with some of the other rules, but is a rule nonetheless. I have not fired a shot, on a few occasions, because it would have potentially jeopardized people in the background. Knowing your target is simply not enough, not by a long shot.
And another cardinal rule of firearms safety, excepting emergency situations is: Always know how to properly operate your firearm before using it. This is one of the most violated rules of firearms safety that I have ever seen, right up their with a finger on the trigger at the wrong time, or the gun pointed in a very unsafe direction .I guess Jeff Cooper, for some reason or other, decided that these other already long standing rules were not to his liking, or were not necessarily conducive to safe firearms handling. I respectfully beg to differ with him for safety reasons. I believe his 4 rules are sorely lacking.
Hopefully I did not forget any of the cardinal rules of firearms safety that others have taught to me, and that I have taught to shooters over the years. I am a bit under the weather today, and it is time for me to crawl back up to bed with a cup of hot tea and nurse myself back to feeling better.
Best regards,
Glenn B
*************************************************************************************
I hope you enjoyed it and found it somewhat informative. Thanks for reading it through all the way.
All the best,
Glenn B
*************************************************************************************
My apology beforehand, for this post beginning as it does, I felt I had to address one specific off shoot before I go on the the main subject, so it will take part of 2 replies to make it fit (here in my blog it will just be one long rant).
"So have we suffered enough? I am eager to learn from the Master what the true safety rules are."
As for remarks like the above, I guess there always has to be one wise guy in the group who likes to try to offend someone who wanted to make a point in polite discussion. Yet, because of the point made in that one disrespectful sentence, I will tell you all my qualifications. Then you all can decide for yourselves whether or not you want to put any credence into what I am about to say on the original subject.
I started shooting at about age 8 or 9, at summer camp. I won quite a few NRA patches. That is not important. What was important and relevant to this thread is that before I could shoot, I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety, the ones that had been in use for many, many years before Jeff Cooper shortened them to sell a book, and to sell his brand of firearms training.
As I matured I used firearms a bit over the years. Then after college, I got my first job in law enforcement as a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Again I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety, and I had to stick to them for the 4 years I was in the patrol.
I then transferred to the U.S. Customs Patrol. Again I went to an academy wherein I learned the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety.
While a Customs Patrol Officer, I attended an NRA Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor School. I was qualified, by successful completion of that training to become a firearms instructor. I began to have collateral firearms instructor duties at my job after that. Guess what, again I had to learn the unabbreviated rules of firearms safety in order to do so; but there is a new twist, now I had to start teaching them too.
My stint with collateral duties as a firearms instructor while working for the U.S. Customs Service lasted 14 years, from my time as a Patrol Officer, through my time as a criminal investigator, through my time as a special agent and through part of my time as a senior special agent. In all that time I never once heard another firearms instructor teach that there were only 4 rules of firearms safety. I went through co-training with the New York Police Department (several times), I had firearms training with the U.S. Secret Service, I had training with the Federal Air Marshals, I had training with the NYS Police, I had co-training with the U.S. Army in Fort Benning, I had training in 2 Customs Service academies, and I was qualified to instruct revolver, pistol, shotgun and rifle; later I was qualified to instruct submachine gun. Lest I forget, I took the NYS, and CA, hunter safety courses; and I am also a life member of the NRA, and am a member of the NYS Rifle and Pistol Association. In addition I have used my firearms to save my own life more than once.
Am I as well versed in firearms as was Mr. Cooper, probably not. Yet I can say without a doubt that I have never heard anyone else teach his abbreviated form of firearms safety except for those in recent years, and for those who praise him on the Internet.
Am I a master as TimRB would sarcastically like to suggest. No I do not think I am a master. Yet, I sure as heck know a little bit about firearms safety after having been trained in their use, and having had used them, over a period of about 43 years; the last 27 plus of which I have done so on pretty much a daily basis. I am a stickler for safety when anyone else handles them in my presence too. Because I am not a so called master, does not mean that I cannot have a disagreement on this issue with someone like Jeff Cooper,; and because Jeff Cooper was who he was does not necessarily mean that someone else might have a better way. By the way, I am not claiming these rules as my own, far from it, they were written out long before I was born, some even before cooper was born. I simply suggest you may want to consider them (they follow below), and use them in your firearms uses.
With my qualifications out of the way, not only to appease the wise guy, but rather to allow the reader to get an idea if I may know something or not, allow me to continue. I am sorry that the lengthy introduction was, at least in my opinion, necessary. Since one wise guy with poison pen if often enough to ruin a good discussion, I felt the above was prudent.
I am about to quote some of the replies I received, nothing personal, nothing intended to insult, upset, or anything like that, but I will be blunt if only because this is such an important topic.
"Furthermore, as has been pointed out, they are widely known and taught, and it would be counterproductive at this point to introduce competing rules of gun safety."Ah, there is an irony in what you say, though you may be to young to realize it, then again maybe not.
Those 4 rules of gun safety were not the original rules of gun safety. In fact they were a cut back, abridged version, of the original rules. Some really important ones were left out, and these were written to appeal to the macho he man, what with words like 'destroy' added to them.
I wear a firearm daily, in a strong side hip holster. It 'covers' everything at which it points during the day. Do I want to destroy those things, no I do not. I am not willing to destroy them either. I take it off the shelf, put it into the holster, and take it out of the holster, and put it back wherever I put it at least once a day. I am not willing to destroy anything at which it points, although I am more willing to have a bullet pass through whatever I point it at than I would be to injure or hurt someone. So this one is, in my opinion, kind of a ridiculous rule as it is written, and I think it appeals greatly to those who have a gunslinger mentality to some extent, a real macho image, and to those who like abbreviated rules to another extent, among others to whom it gives some appeal for other reasons. Some may even like it because they never learned the other rules.
As for these rules being the lowest common denominator, they are not; in fact they are lacking when it comes to safety. I have seen several people try to use ammunition of the wrong caliber in their firearms over the years. I have seen the results in some cases in which the round actually sort of fit, then went bang, and the barrel bulged, the barrel cracked, the barrel actually blew open quite a bit, somewhat like a gun that you would see in a cartoon when Bugs Bunny put his finger into Elmer J. Fudd's rifle. At other times I have seen just plain old malfunctions, malfunctions that would get you killed had you tried to use such an improperly loaded gun in a self defense situation.
One of the cardinal rules of gun safety used to be, and still should be: Only use the proper ammunition in your firearm. It is not common sense, as there have been too many screw-ups on this one over the years by people who just did not know better. They think it looks the same, so it must fit and function the same.
Right along with that is the one that says, or said in the olden days: Always use only a firearm in proper working condition. Again, one that is not necessarily common sense. I have seen people show up for quarterly qualifications with their primary firearms not functioning properly, and they knew it, yet they carried it like that anyway.
Another apparently bygone cardinal rule of firearms safety, lost in the translation offer by Mr. Cooper, is that: You should never combine booze and drugs with firearms. Maybe Mr. Cooper did not think drinking and guns a problem when together. He came from an era when the effects of booze were looked upon with contempt than today. I will admit, this one is a bit over the top even for me, and it has been changed in many venues to work better, but not because I think you should drink a few and shoot. I think it would be okay to take an aspirin because your shoulder hurts, or something like that. The newer version of this rule, the one that makes more sense, is along these lines: Never use anything that impairs your functioning, or could potentially impair your functioning, while handling a firearms - like prescription sedatives, alcohol, marijuana, other illicit drugs and so forth. This one would certainly seem like common sense, but I actually have had people tell me they routinely drink a few drinks while shooting, and I do not mean Kool Aide. They see no problem with it as long as they remain within their 'limit'. I guess that goes for when they drive home from the range too.
As far as the one about all guns always being loaded, many of you have addressed that one, but not how I would based upon my experience. You should always treat any gun that you pick up or handle as being loaded until you check and double check to see that it is not, each time you pick it up or handle it anew.
In other words, if you are dry firing a revolver in your home (no I do not advise it, but plenty of folks do it), one that you checked and double checked to make sure it was unloaded that is sort of fine. What do you do though when this happens. The telephone rings, you put the revolver down, go to answer the telephone, have a ten minute discussion with your girlfriend or boyfriend who tells you she/he is hot to trot. You get into that call, you cannot wait to get into - well I'll leave that to your imaginations. After the call ends, you go back to the revolver, you pick it up, you point it wherever while your mind is a bit preoccupied, and you continue to dry fire. The revolver goes click, click, click, bang and you just put a hole through your wall. I have seen it happen more than once. The guys who did it forgot they had started to reload as the telephone was ringing. You have to check each time you pick it up; but that does not mean each gun is always loaded or that you should tech such an impossible thing to anyone as a rule. Teach it the right way.
As to the one telling you to never place your finger on the trigger until you have your sights lined up, well I guess that rules out point shooting, push off shooting, and vertical tracking. It is, in my estimation a foolish thing to teach anyone who is learning about self defense shooting. It could get someone killed. The only guy I have ever shot was not in my sights when I shot him, yet I knew I would hit him. I fired virtually as soon as my pistol cleared leather. The rule was: "Keep your finger off of the trigger until ready to shoot.”
Of course, you should always be sure of your target, but here another thing was abbreviated! Whatever happened to know your target and what is beyond. This of course goes hand in hand with some of the other rules, but is a rule nonetheless. I have not fired a shot, on a few occasions, because it would have potentially jeopardized people in the background. Knowing your target is simply not enough, not by a long shot.
And another cardinal rule of firearms safety, excepting emergency situations is: Always know how to properly operate your firearm before using it. This is one of the most violated rules of firearms safety that I have ever seen, right up their with a finger on the trigger at the wrong time, or the gun pointed in a very unsafe direction .I guess Jeff Cooper, for some reason or other, decided that these other already long standing rules were not to his liking, or were not necessarily conducive to safe firearms handling. I respectfully beg to differ with him for safety reasons. I believe his 4 rules are sorely lacking.
"However, the gun world is full of literalists and authoritarians. That starts the hissy fits. Maybe that isn't the answer you want but to nit pick the exact words to of the rules is to fall into this trap"I can only hope my answer was less 'hissy fit', and more informative, than you some of you apparently had expected. I also hope you realize I was not so much 'nit picking' at the words, as I was trying to give you a feel for the rules that I have learned over the years, and that countless others (including mr. Cooper) had learned. In my estimation, the one who may have had trouble with those words, the one who may have nit picked them to fit his own purpose, is the one who shortened them in the first place. That is not meant to be irreverant to someone whom a lot of you look up to. The man knew a lot about his business, I just think there was no good reason to shorten the rules as he did, because it left a lot to be desired as far as someone knowledgeably and safely handling a firearm goes, in my opinion. If you are going to handle firearms, or teach others how to handle them, then comprehensive firearms safety must be the first sure shot, otherwise someone will always be at risk unnecessarily.
Hopefully I did not forget any of the cardinal rules of firearms safety that others have taught to me, and that I have taught to shooters over the years. I am a bit under the weather today, and it is time for me to crawl back up to bed with a cup of hot tea and nurse myself back to feeling better.
Best regards,
Glenn B
*************************************************************************************
I hope you enjoyed it and found it somewhat informative. Thanks for reading it through all the way.
All the best,
Glenn B
Sunday, October 22, 2006
I really do have hobbies other than firearms...
…related hobbies. Yes I do. For instance, I have quite the collection of animals. Note I did not say pets. Sure I have some pets, including a cat and three dogs among others; but I also have a collection of animals that are not pets in the sense that I play with them, or love them, or have joined PETA because of them (perish the thought, I just about puked just writing that).
What I have is an interest in herpetology and hepetoculture (a made up word maybe, but not made up by me). In other words I keep reptiles and amphibians. I have done so since I was about 4 or 5 I guess, when my uncle Ken (Unkie - back in the day) bought me a Red Eared Slider, a turtle, from a pet shop on Broadway in
It was earlier tonight - after I had gotten done cleaning animal enclosures, after I had gone to my local herpetological society's monthly meeting (LIHS), after I had stopped at the pet shop to buy some things like guppies and a couple of tadpoles, after I had stopped at Home Depot to buy bird seeds (and I do not have any birds) to feed my rodents (and to feed the local wild bird population), after I did some more cage cleaning, after I fed the menagerie, after I watched them all for a while - that I realized I have one heck of a collection of animals; and more so I realized that I have one heck on an interest in animals.
I have kept hundreds of different species/subspecies of reptiles and amphibians over the years. I have bred a fair number of them, nothing grand but quite a few. I have also collected them from the wild, observed them in the wild, and even made a meal or two of them while camping out. Did I mention that groups like PETA and I do not see eye to eye. Yes I hunt, fish, and have bred animals for food (both the type for human consumption and the type for consumption by my herp collection). I used to dream of becoming a veterinarian, or a game warden, or a biologist, but those dreams fell through and I wound up doing something else for a career. Yet I keep in touch with that side of me on a regular basis through, at least in part, the animals I keep, the animals I observe in nature, the animals for which I hunt and fish, and so on.
As for the animals I keep, right now I figure I have about:
1 frog
2 tadpoles
2 turtles
2 tortoises
2 lizards
20 snakes
Besides the slimy and scaly animals, I also have some furry ones. These include about:
50 Guppies
12 adult mice
25 baby mice
5 Dwarf hamsters
In addition to these I have the aforementioned 3 dogs and 1 cat.
I also have a number of plants that I keep in with my herps, I figured I would add these in since they too are a form of living thing I keep.
That first red eared slider surely led me to a life long interest in animals; a fun one and a practical one, as to the practical one I remind you of the hunting and fishing.
There is only one person in my life to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude for helping me to develop this interest - that is my uncle Ken. If he ever reads this I hope he realizes how much that little turtle, so many years ago, wound up meaning to me. Well, I guess there is one other person to whom I owe a debt of gratitude if only for allowing me to further my interests, thanks mom. Without her okay, I would not have kept many of the critters that crossed my path over the years. Uncle ken, is her brother, but she in no way shares his or my love of animals. She was usually terrified by most of them, but she let me keep them just the same.
So why am I bringing all of this up here in my rant. Certainly, it would have been enough just to share the these thoughts with my readers; but I guess there is another reason too, one that could make this read more worthwhile to you. You all know, if you have read my other blogs, that I am into guns and shooting. I am into hunting. I recently took my son on his first big game hunt, and he bagged a black bear. That is another animal we have at home right now, what is left of it anyway, and that is in the freezer. Well, while my son is into shooting, and hunting and fishing, he is also into animals.
For many years, Brendan accompanied me to meetings of the LIHS. Lately he has been working on Sundays, which are the meeting days. He works for a veterinary hospital. He is a kennel worker, the guy at the bottom of the totem pole. Yet, he has ambition. He thinks he might like to become a veterinarian; and who knows maybe he will be a bit luckier than me in keeping true to his dreams, or maybe he will just choose something else. The thing is, and this is important, he has this interest in animals, sort of the same as me. Heck, he is 16 years old, will be 17 before the year is out, and he still likes to do things with his dad. You may have read my earlier rant on this, or may have seen my writing on it in a forum somewhere or another; but here it is again in case you missed it, or it did not sink in the first time around!
What is it that to which I refer when I say I say 'here it is'? It is the fact that if you want to have good times with your children, if you want to establish and keep a lasting bond of camaraderie between you and them, if you want to be your kid's friend, if you truly want to enjoy yourself more than you can in any other pursuit, then you had best enjoy doing things together with your kids; and you had best start developing that mutual enjoyment when your child is young.
I have shared my hobbies with both of my children. I used to take my daughter Celina hiking, camping, fishing, and shooting. She went out with me to catch frogs and snakes. Then we also brought her brother along. Celina kind of drifted away from the enjoyment of those things once she discovered boys. Oh well. I keep trying to get her interested in something that I understand, but it is more difficult now that she is 21 so to be 22. Hopefully I will get her interested in shooting again. I may just have to invite her latest boyfriend for a day at the range; I would bet that would do it if he says yes, and he seems the type to go for it. Of course, my daughter still also has an interest in animals, but pretty much just the dogs, but that is okay by me. I figure when she is out on her own or married someday, one of her first acquisitions will be a puppy of some sort. That is good, better than drugs for sure because if you overdose on puppy all it means is you get licked to death.
I guess it is not only me who owes a debt of gratitude to my mom and to Unkie; it is my kids too, because they got that love of animals from him through me. Of course they also have to thank their mom Linda for her putting up with all the critters. She has little love for any pet except the dogs, and a past bird or three we had. Of course I had best thank her too, because she puts up with me and the whole menagerie. Thanks dear, love you all the more for it. (She will never read
this, but it is nice to hope she might.)
Oh well, you get the idea, its a family thing these animals, and a lot of fun, interesting, and educational too.
All the best,
Glenn B
A little bit of help from the readers...
...would be nice. No I do not mean financial help, I am not about to ask for money for me to buy a new gun, or a used pick up truck, or to by myself a new camera, or a new pet, or for an operation, or for a trip fund, or anything like that. Heck I work for a living and make decent money - although I will admit I may start begging if I ever get more than about 9 readers a day, and at least one of them is rich.
The help I am seeking is one of product recognition. Again nothing to benefit me financially, allow me to explain. I am trying to find out if anyone recognizes the product I am about to describe, because I sure would like to be able to find it again. Many years ago, I am guessing at least 15 or so, my brother who is not at all into firearms bought me some gun cleaning products. The product consisted of a boxed set of three bottles, all plastic. Each bottle was the same size, about 8 to 10 ounces would be my guess this many years, and far fewer little gray cells, later.
One bottle contained a gun cleaning solvent, it was crystal clear, like water. It had a nice lemony aroma to it. It cleaned a firearm better than any other product I have ever used. I would pout one wet patch through a barrel, and then one dry patch. Then second which usually came out either clean or almost clean. It hardly ever took more than three dry patches to come out clean, and I mean really clean.
The second bottle contained a gun oil. It was a run of the mill gun oil as far as I recall.
The third bottle contained an oil to clean and treat wood stocks. It did nice work, and when rubbed in with plenty of rubbing gave a lasting finish to oil finished or unfinished stocks.
The box, if I remember right was open fronted, at least partially so you could see the bottles. There was no cellophane. I think the box was a dark red, almost like a garnet; with black printing.
The product was manufactured in Vermont.
My guess is my brother got it from a catalogue sale. I do not know for sure, and he does not remember.
Hopefully those are enough clues, if the product is still around, to have someone point me in the right direction.
All help is appreciated; and by the way, if you want to send money because you have nothing better to do with it, I have a mortgage and a college bill that need paying. LOL
All the best,
Glenn B
The help I am seeking is one of product recognition. Again nothing to benefit me financially, allow me to explain. I am trying to find out if anyone recognizes the product I am about to describe, because I sure would like to be able to find it again. Many years ago, I am guessing at least 15 or so, my brother who is not at all into firearms bought me some gun cleaning products. The product consisted of a boxed set of three bottles, all plastic. Each bottle was the same size, about 8 to 10 ounces would be my guess this many years, and far fewer little gray cells, later.
One bottle contained a gun cleaning solvent, it was crystal clear, like water. It had a nice lemony aroma to it. It cleaned a firearm better than any other product I have ever used. I would pout one wet patch through a barrel, and then one dry patch. Then second which usually came out either clean or almost clean. It hardly ever took more than three dry patches to come out clean, and I mean really clean.
The second bottle contained a gun oil. It was a run of the mill gun oil as far as I recall.
The third bottle contained an oil to clean and treat wood stocks. It did nice work, and when rubbed in with plenty of rubbing gave a lasting finish to oil finished or unfinished stocks.
The box, if I remember right was open fronted, at least partially so you could see the bottles. There was no cellophane. I think the box was a dark red, almost like a garnet; with black printing.
The product was manufactured in Vermont.
My guess is my brother got it from a catalogue sale. I do not know for sure, and he does not remember.
Hopefully those are enough clues, if the product is still around, to have someone point me in the right direction.
All help is appreciated; and by the way, if you want to send money because you have nothing better to do with it, I have a mortgage and a college bill that need paying. LOL
All the best,
Glenn B
Yet Another Monster Among Us, but...
...this one may be the judge instead of the convicted child molester. See this article Convicted Sex Offender Chooses Canadian Exile Over Jail, found at FoxNews.com. You see, if the judge gets his way, and that would also be what the convicted man wants in this case, then the man who apparently was convicted of a sexual offense after having sex with a 15 year old will get out of jail Scott free if he agrees to stay in Canada for 3 years. This is to say the least, an unusual sentence.
I see some major problems with this agreement, and it is not just that it is unusual and therefore probably unconstitutional, not that I would make a stink about it on those grounds regarding a pedophile. The things that bother me about this decision are as follow:
1. This guy, who was a teacher by profession, is a apparently child molester who was arrested for having sex with a 15 year old child, a student. He seems to have broken one of the most sacred trusts. If he was convicted of any kind of sexual abuse in relation to this case, and he had to have been convicted of something in order to be sentenced by the court, then he deserves at the very least to be in jail for a long time. Instead he is not getting any jail time at all, not even the measly 2 weeks that ultra-liberal judge in Vermont sentenced a pedophile to last year. This is absolutely outrageous. The judge, in my opinion, should be removed from power, fired without chance of collecting a pension, and never be allowed to practice law anywhere. In fact he should not be allowed to work with children either.
2. Why on earth would Canada be expected to take this guy? He is quite possibly now a convicted felon, on sexual abuse charges. Why would canada want the chance of him now going after its children? I tend to doubt they would want him even though he was reportedly already living there with his wife and children.
3. How could a judge in the USA, say that this guy is fit to return to his own family in Canada, a family in which there are children? Of course his wife may not let him anywhere near the children again, but who knows.
4. The whole thing in the article about a judge having no authority to banish a U.S. Citizen is so much window dressing. The guy is not being banished, he is agreeing to stay in Canada otherwise he goes to jail. So I want to know, how does a town judge get off allowing a monster like this guy, yes that is how I see him - as monstrous, to make a choice between relative freedom to molest again and jail?
I think the pedophile is not the only monster here, I think the judge is worse than him. As I see it this judge is a disgrace, and I can only hope that Bill O'Reilly grabs hold of this story as he did the similar one in Vermont last year. In that one, mostly due to O'Reilly's hammering of that travesty of justice, the sentence on the Vermont pedophile went from 2 weeks to much more. Maybe this time around, he can get it boosted up to 20 years on the current offender.
I will be attempting to get in touch with Bill O'Reilly on this either by phone or email. If we all do likewise, maybe he will pick up the story and get this one fixed up a bit. I'll also be contacting some of my elected officials to have them put some pressure on this judge as well. This kind of thing has got to stop before we can even think of stopping the pedophiles; I mean how will we ever stop them if judges keep handing out sentences to them that in essence set them free to offend again!
All the best,
Glenn B
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Ballseye's Boomers: Smith & Wesson Model 66
The last S&W Model 66 I owned, the one pictured, was in stainless steel, and had a 2.5" barrel. I got it at a great price, then turned around and sold it at a profit fairly quickly. I don't know why, since I do not have any revolvers in a caliber higher than .22LR because of that sale.It was a nice gun too, a six shot, .357 caliber revolver, with rubber combat grips, smooth combat trigger, and adjustable rear sight, ramp front sight with red insert; and it shot like a charm - at least for the guy holding it. Certainly not a small revolver, and not a light weight either, more something that makes you realize you are holding a real gun when you heft it. I had had other Model 66 revolvers over the years, some made without as much quality control (back in the early 80's) and I got rid of them quickly without that pang of remorse later on. This one however seemed very well made indeed, and each time I think of it I miss it, the little bit of profit I made by sellng it was not worth all the regret later on that I let it go.
One heck of a good self defense gun, that shoots a pretty decent round at that. Carry a speedloader or two along with one, and you would be a well armed person indeed in a day to day regular life scenario here in the USA.
All the best,
Glenn B
Friday, October 20, 2006
N. Korea & Nukes, Another Look, Am I Too Cynical...
...or is Condoleezza Rice being a bit naive, or just to diplomatic? Here is what Condoleezza Rice said today, about China apparently influencing North Korea to cease nuclear testing and agree to come back to the table to talk:
"In this entire 30-year history of the North Korean nuclear program this is the first time that the international system has been able to actually impose a cost on North Korea for its nuclear behavior," Rice said. "It's able to impose that cost because China has been brought into the process in a way that China never was before." (FoxNews.com @ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222658,00.html)
That is all well and good, but only if North Korea actually comes back to the table to carry out realistic negotiations over its nuclear proliferation, its counterfeiting of U.S. currency, its trade violations, and the war with South Korea (please don't tell me you were not aware they are still technically at war with S. Korea, they have been only in a state of cease fire since, what was it, about 1953).
Of course, even if North Korea agrees to talks, either with just the USA or the 6 party talks, what will it all matter in the scope of things. They already have their nuclear weapons capabilities now, don't they! So what is it that the USA, and the rest of the world, will try to get them to agree. My guess is that North Korea will be ready to stop violating the DMZ, they will probably be ready to stop counterfeiting US currency, they probably will hold back on money laundering, they will likely tone down anti USA rhetoric, they will allow inspection of their ships at sea or in and out of ports, they will discontinue testing medium or long range missile for awhile (but probably not more than a year or two); in short they will make concessions to the USA. Just look at what Kim Jong il was quoted as saying (from the same linked article above):
""If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree, whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as saying by the Chosun Ilbo."
Wow, how conciliatory of him. Well, tell me, what is it he and the North Koreans are going to do next. My guess is not anything that actually amounts to much, that is except for one thing. The one thing they will keep doing that will amount to an awful lot is, by my guess, that they will keep whatever nukes they already have, and will probably produce more of them in secret. Sure they will make concessions on all those other things since none of them, not even all of them combined, amount to a hill of beans.
Regardless of that though, the US, and the rest of the world, will sit down expecting to have meaningful talks with Kim Jong Il and his government over all those silly subjects *silly when compared to a madman with his finger on a nuclear trigger), and what will they accomplish. Not a whole heck of a lot. The only ones who are accomplishing anything are the North Koreans, and they have almost no resources of which to speak. My hat goes off to them for that, then I would just as well nuke them preemptively.
Of course my cynicism may be misguided. Kim Jong il may have had a change of heart. The North Korean people may also suddenly and almost miraculously have begun to think that we are their friends instead of their bitter enemies - a fact which has been inundated into the essence of their being since the day each of them was born. In addition the world may stop rotating (or is it revolving) and starting bouncing its way through the cosmic debris - yeah right.
While we are having the so called talks with North Korea, I can only hope we do so with one major goal in place, that goal being having them un-nuke their military (sorry I lacked a better word but you get my drift). Of course if that means getting rid of Kim Jong il in some fashion that would be a plus because I believe he is a lunatic, and keeping him in power of more than a Newspaper Stand would be dangerous for the whole world.
Am I right to be concerned, well more than 50 years of very recent tell me yes I am quite justified. Am I right for sure, only time will tell, but I am willing to bet I'm right. We need to get rid of this guy, and fast, especially now that he has nukes.
All the best,
Glenn B
Thursday, October 19, 2006
As I recall there were no non-family witnesses...
...to this suicide, see the article Husband Indicted in Van Suicide. If that is the case, that there were no witnesses other than the father and the children; I think the police are being extremely creative in charging the father/husband in connection with his wife's suicide. Of course my estimation of this precludes the 5 year old child having given a credible and coherent recounting of what went on, and that recounting would of course have to implicate the father. Somehow I find it hard to imagine that a 5 year old child would have understood enough of what went on if what the plice are alleging is correct. I hope the prosecutors are not pressing charges on a statement like: 'Daddy yelled at mommy, daddy was mad at mommy,mommy said she would kill herself, daddy got out of the car and mommy went over the edge" because folks that should not be anywhere near enough even in light of what happened. People say stupid things in arguments all the time, but then again I do not even know that the police have even that much.
Maybe they have other evidence to suggest he did this, maybe it is just super creative police imaginations gone wild; I hope that the truth will come to light, the truth of reality and not some jury decision based upon conjecture because this one seems even more inventive than the rape charges against the Duke University students.
All the best,
Glenn B
Maybe they have other evidence to suggest he did this, maybe it is just super creative police imaginations gone wild; I hope that the truth will come to light, the truth of reality and not some jury decision based upon conjecture because this one seems even more inventive than the rape charges against the Duke University students.
All the best,
Glenn B
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Ballseye's Boomers: A Few Midweek Guns...
...will have to be shown today, since I was unable to show any last Saturday while I was out in Wyoming.
When I got to my friend Don's house out in WY last week, I was quickly ushered to my room so I could unpack and freshen up. While I was looking around the room two things immediately caught my eye, well three really. The first was the balcony, off of which I remembered hearing Don tell me he liked to shoot; the next were a rifle and a shotgun leaning on the wall. One of these was a Marlin semi-auto rifle in .22LR. The other was a NEF 12 gauge single shot shotgun. I knew that somewhere along the way I would be shooting both.
Of course I was right that I would shoot them both, but had I given it any thought, I would have figured on shooting the 12 gauge a bit more. One evening, while I was feeling bored to tears, or antsy, or just whatever, I told Don "excuse me, I have to do something" then I walked over too the sliding doors, opened the balcony doors, grabbed the shotgun. aimed in at the dirt below, and let off a blast. I needed that. What I did not need was having forgotten to put on a head set. Ouch, oh well - Don and I have heard our ears ring before - LOL. I did not bother with that toy again, if only because I did not readily see any rounds for it.
A few other times, I went to the balcony and fired off a number of .22LR from the Marlin. The rifle was scoped, as you can see, but it had not been sighted in for me. So, when I was shooting at some exploding targets I had picked up at a gun/pawn shop one day, I was missing badly. Well not badly, but certainly not making them go boom. When I finally got one, I came downstairs one afternoon to ask Don if he had heard it. He was on the phone and I think whomever he was speaking with had heard it too - whoops.
I guess by the third day I was there, Don and I went to Cabelas in Nebraska; the original store I think. A nice place but not as impressive as the one in Pennsylvania; still a good place to be for a couple of gun enthusiast buddies, even if we were there for about 4 hours. While I looked here and there at this and that, Don waited patiently for a friend who worked there to get some time for him. The friend had called Don about something’s Cabela's had gotten in stock that Don might like. So Don checked over a few revolvers, and it did not seem like he was interested enough to buy one. Then he checked out a Kimber in .45 Auto. I think Don began to salivate!
I mean you tell me. is that nice or what. I thought it was pretty decent to great looking, and that coming from a Beretta fan. I could tell Don liked it a whole heck of a lot more than I did, even though I was liking it more and more as each minute went by. He wound up buying it for about $850 used. It had nary a mark on it, almost looked brand new. A good buy indeed, which I was soon to learn was about to get better.
You see Don had also had his eye on a Colt official Police revolver. As it wound up, Cabela's gives points for what you buy with their store Visa card. Don already had a good number of points built up from past purchases. He earned enough points for $85.00 worth of them by buying the Kimber. He had a certificate for $100 off. He then asked the guy who worked there a magic question: "Are you having a grand opening sale?" (you had to buy at least $500 in merchandise I think on your Cabela's visa card for this to be a magic question); and the next thing you know he was handed a certificate good as $150 in cash on his next purchase. With his points that would be credited by his next billing cycle, with the $100 certificate he already had, with the newly acquired certificate for $150, well he just put that Colt Official Police on lay-a-way. That way, when the next billing cycle on his Cabela’s Visa card rolled into town, he would be getting a free Colt Official Police. Not a bad deal.
I had brought Don some .45 ACP rounds, 100 of them, as a gift. Then after he bought that Kimber, we went across the road, where I bought him a box of 100 more rounds of .45 ACP, these were Remington .45 ACP 230 grain JHP. I got them at Wal-mart and they were about 6 or 7 dollars less expensive than at Cabela's for the exact same thing. When you shop you need to know prices. I had bought some ammo in .35 Remington that I knew was about $5 cheaper by the box at Cabela's than at Wally World. I also bought a pumpkin, a fairly good sized one, that I figured would make a nice jack-O-Lantern, after all it was October.
As you guessed by now, sooner or later we shot the Kimber. Don shot up some round to make sure it worked and I decided to wait. A few nights later, Don went out in the wee hours of the AM, him not being able to sleep, and he fired off a bunch of them. Some he fired right from his front porch and did not even wake me up!
The next day, I carved that pumpkin face. later on I told Don, "let's go shoot from the balcony", and he loaded up some Kimber mags. We had gone to JAX's Sporting Goods Fort Collins somewhere in the in-between, and Don had picked up some extra mags for it, though I supposed he already had enough .45 ACP mags around, he wanted new ones for this baby. Don fired off a mag full at the great Pumpkin, and I think hit it all 9 times. Yes he had bought Wilson Combat mags, 8 rounders, and also bought some sort of extension kit for his original Kimber mag. Then he let me fire it and I slammed it too, maybe missing once. It was about 30 or 35 yards away. As Don loaded up more mags, I checked to see he had his ears on, and I pulled out my Glock 19. I pretty much tore up Mr. Pumpkin Head, it seemed the 9mm rounds were doing more damage than the .45ACP. Then Don took more shots with the .45, and if I remember right we soon had it finished off between us into a pile of Pumpkin Pie ingredients 9just a figure of speech because I sure would not eat it, and I think neither would Don or his Kats).
Surprisingly enough, those 4 guns mentioned above are the only 4 I fired in the whole week out there. I never did light up the night sky, as I had planned, with a Mosan Nagant in 7.62x59R. Next time I guess.
All the best,
Glenn B
When I got to my friend Don's house out in WY last week, I was quickly ushered to my room so I could unpack and freshen up. While I was looking around the room two things immediately caught my eye, well three really. The first was the balcony, off of which I remembered hearing Don tell me he liked to shoot; the next were a rifle and a shotgun leaning on the wall. One of these was a Marlin semi-auto rifle in .22LR. The other was a NEF 12 gauge single shot shotgun. I knew that somewhere along the way I would be shooting both.
Of course I was right that I would shoot them both, but had I given it any thought, I would have figured on shooting the 12 gauge a bit more. One evening, while I was feeling bored to tears, or antsy, or just whatever, I told Don "excuse me, I have to do something" then I walked over too the sliding doors, opened the balcony doors, grabbed the shotgun. aimed in at the dirt below, and let off a blast. I needed that. What I did not need was having forgotten to put on a head set. Ouch, oh well - Don and I have heard our ears ring before - LOL. I did not bother with that toy again, if only because I did not readily see any rounds for it.A few other times, I went to the balcony and fired off a number of .22LR from the Marlin. The rifle was scoped, as you can see, but it had not been sighted in for me. So, when I was shooting at some exploding targets I had picked up at a gun/pawn shop one day, I was missing badly. Well not badly, but certainly not making them go boom. When I finally got one, I came downstairs one afternoon to ask Don if he had heard it. He was on the phone and I think whomever he was speaking with had heard it too - whoops.
I guess by the third day I was there, Don and I went to Cabelas in Nebraska; the original store I think. A nice place but not as impressive as the one in Pennsylvania; still a good place to be for a couple of gun enthusiast buddies, even if we were there for about 4 hours. While I looked here and there at this and that, Don waited patiently for a friend who worked there to get some time for him. The friend had called Don about something’s Cabela's had gotten in stock that Don might like. So Don checked over a few revolvers, and it did not seem like he was interested enough to buy one. Then he checked out a Kimber in .45 Auto. I think Don began to salivate!
I mean you tell me. is that nice or what. I thought it was pretty decent to great looking, and that coming from a Beretta fan. I could tell Don liked it a whole heck of a lot more than I did, even though I was liking it more and more as each minute went by. He wound up buying it for about $850 used. It had nary a mark on it, almost looked brand new. A good buy indeed, which I was soon to learn was about to get better.You see Don had also had his eye on a Colt official Police revolver. As it wound up, Cabela's gives points for what you buy with their store Visa card. Don already had a good number of points built up from past purchases. He earned enough points for $85.00 worth of them by buying the Kimber. He had a certificate for $100 off. He then asked the guy who worked there a magic question: "Are you having a grand opening sale?" (you had to buy at least $500 in merchandise I think on your Cabela's visa card for this to be a magic question); and the next thing you know he was handed a certificate good as $150 in cash on his next purchase. With his points that would be credited by his next billing cycle, with the $100 certificate he already had, with the newly acquired certificate for $150, well he just put that Colt Official Police on lay-a-way. That way, when the next billing cycle on his Cabela’s Visa card rolled into town, he would be getting a free Colt Official Police. Not a bad deal.
I had brought Don some .45 ACP rounds, 100 of them, as a gift. Then after he bought that Kimber, we went across the road, where I bought him a box of 100 more rounds of .45 ACP, these were Remington .45 ACP 230 grain JHP. I got them at Wal-mart and they were about 6 or 7 dollars less expensive than at Cabela's for the exact same thing. When you shop you need to know prices. I had bought some ammo in .35 Remington that I knew was about $5 cheaper by the box at Cabela's than at Wally World. I also bought a pumpkin, a fairly good sized one, that I figured would make a nice jack-O-Lantern, after all it was October.
As you guessed by now, sooner or later we shot the Kimber. Don shot up some round to make sure it worked and I decided to wait. A few nights later, Don went out in the wee hours of the AM, him not being able to sleep, and he fired off a bunch of them. Some he fired right from his front porch and did not even wake me up!
The next day, I carved that pumpkin face. later on I told Don, "let's go shoot from the balcony", and he loaded up some Kimber mags. We had gone to JAX's Sporting Goods Fort Collins somewhere in the in-between, and Don had picked up some extra mags for it, though I supposed he already had enough .45 ACP mags around, he wanted new ones for this baby. Don fired off a mag full at the great Pumpkin, and I think hit it all 9 times. Yes he had bought Wilson Combat mags, 8 rounders, and also bought some sort of extension kit for his original Kimber mag. Then he let me fire it and I slammed it too, maybe missing once. It was about 30 or 35 yards away. As Don loaded up more mags, I checked to see he had his ears on, and I pulled out my Glock 19. I pretty much tore up Mr. Pumpkin Head, it seemed the 9mm rounds were doing more damage than the .45ACP. Then Don took more shots with the .45, and if I remember right we soon had it finished off between us into a pile of Pumpkin Pie ingredients 9just a figure of speech because I sure would not eat it, and I think neither would Don or his Kats).
Surprisingly enough, those 4 guns mentioned above are the only 4 I fired in the whole week out there. I never did light up the night sky, as I had planned, with a Mosan Nagant in 7.62x59R. Next time I guess.
All the best,
Glenn B
Friendship...
...is a treasure, or at least that is the way I see it. All true friends are good ones even though some friendships last and others do not. Friends come and go that is just part of the nature of friendships. The best thing about friendship is/are, I think, one's lasting friend(s).
Lasting friends are ones who create a bond of friendship with you that overcomes many obstacles to friendship. Such friends are the ones who despite their own personal feeling about things, despite how their feelings disagree with your own, despite how both of you disagree on issues such as politics, religion, the weather, gun control, sports, hobbies, how to raise a child, whether or not to have children, abortion, crime and punishment, abortion, who will win the girl, how to spend time together as friends, how to bake a cake, how to climb a mountain, how to kill some time, what type of booze to drink, always wind up there to accept you as their friend.
I certainly am not the best at making friends, so when I make one I have tried to be a friend like that to my friends. While I never give it any conscious thought in developing a friendship, I guess I always have always thought, in the back of my mind, that anyone to whom I give my friendship in that way would do likewise to me. So it is always a pretty hard blow to bear when one, or more than one, wind up breaking that friendship over something truly inconsequential in the greater scheme of things. It hurts a lot.
At times when you lose a friend, either because of some disagreement through which you can not bear your friendship any longer, or because of separation due to moving away, or possibly due to death, well at those times you hurt. You have lost a part of yourself when you lose a friend. Recently I lost a couple of friends. When I look at it now, I am pretty certain they never shared the feeling of friendship I had toward them with like feelings of friendship toward me; maybe they did, but now I doubt it. Nonetheless I had considered them my friends if only through ignorance that they did not return the amenity to me, no that is not right - even had they been simply neutral on the subject I still would have held them as friends. I guess it did not matter much to me at the time if I considered them my friends and they considered me likewise. I sort of thought they might not, but nonetheless I offered my friendship to them; I certainly never thought they despised me. Now that they have cut me off, over one of those truly silly inconsequential things, maybe it is for the best; time will tell, though right now it does hurt.
With that loss, I thought about other friends of mine. I guess I was trying to seek solace of a sort in thoughts of others who have befriended me, or whom I have befriended, over the years. Some of them, I have not seen in years; yet I know they are still my friends. One called me a few months ago, one who I have not seen in probably over 15 years. He called to tell me he had retired and moved to Florida, and that I should get my ass down to his place for a fun stay. I have not yet taken him up on it, but you can bet I will. You may wonder why I have not seen in him in such a long time. Well I guess it was because he cut himself off from contact with me. No it was not over anything silly or inconsequential, nor was it over any serious consequential disagreement between us. He had cut himself off, even before I had last seen him, mainly because he had a problem with which he needed to cope. He was advised that his problem could best be coped with by changing his lifestyle drastically, so he did just that and he saw very little of his old friends over the many years to follow. He succeeded in changing his lifestyle. He settled down, and he has a wonderful family. Heck he even made it to retirement. He did all this while having to break away from dear friends. I understand completely, and I was never sore at him about it. Had he ever come to me I would have been there for him, and I would hope he would have been there for me. I am sure he would have as evidenced by his recent offer to me. Our friendship never died, I cannot believe it ever will.
I have other friend like that; ones who for some reason or another got separated from me, or I from them, but we remain friends. I see them somewhat more often than the one I mentioned above. It is nice to see the welcoming look in there eyes when they greet me. I recently visited one of those friends, he lives in Wyoming.
Don, that is his name of choice, is one of those friends that you rarely make in a lifetime. I don't mean that you rarely make good friends in a lifetime, I think some folks have few and some have many, but just about anyone can make several. What I mean about Don being a rare friend is that while Don and I do often see eye to eye, we also often rub each other the wrong way. Rubbing each other the wrong way is usually more likely to cause friction, and maybe even a nasty fiery relationship between folks than it is to wind up being a longtime bond of good, or really good, friendship. On top of Don being a friend, despite our the friction that sometimes come up between us, Don is not just a friend, he is one of my best friends. Our friendship is truly a treasure that I hold dearly.
I had seen Don, only once, in many years, since he was transferred to El Paso, TX. We had both worked the same job, he was my supervisor; and somewhere along the way we developed a friendship. I guess I should note it was pretty soon after meeting one another. Despite the fact that I often did not see eye to eye with my supervisors, including Don at times, we got along well. I do not often make friends at work, but when I do they are usually good ones. Don wound up among the best of friends. I don't know exactly why it is that we are such good friends. Sure we have some of the same likes and dislikes, but we are still very different about many things. I guess one of the major reasons we get along as well as we do is because of acceptance, and note I did not say tolerance. We are sometimes quite intolerant of each other, that is in both of our natures; yet no matter how intolerant we are of one another, no matter how much we can disagree on something, no matter how much we rub each other the wrong way, no matter how really angry we can get with one another, we always wind up remaining good friends with one another.
In fact, we are such good friends, that when I recently thought of visiting Don for the Christmas Holidays, he was right up for it. Within a day though it seemed my plans were to fail. I had second thoughts thinking about leaving my family for the holidays, even though I was pretty sure my wife would say okay, and my kids would live with it. Then I started to check air fares anyhow. It wound up that if I was to travel within a week, I would save over $250, or there about, in air fare. I contacted Don again, and he said he would be pleased to have me see him within a week. I knew that was short notice but if okay by him, I would go for it. I spoke to my wife and she put the Kibosh on it. Then hours later she recanted and told me to go for it saying: "You only live once". Within about 8 days, I was on a plane to Denver to visit Don. I flew to Denver, CO where he picked me up, then drove me to his place in WY.
Don's closest neighbors are several miles away, and in different directions from him. He virtually lives in the middle of the high plains or foothills of the Rockies. He lives with two cats. Don is not the greatest people person I know, though he gets along with some and grandly at that. I know he also winds up in fiery disputes with others who he has called friend. After some of those explosions, I guess he loses some of those whom he had thought were his friends. We have had a few of those encounters ourselves; it isn't as easy to shake me off, and Don knows it. We know we are one another’s' good friend. I spent a nice week with him at his place, and visiting the better gun shops within about 125 miles of his place. We shared some good German Beer, and quite a few others he had in his coffers, as well as sharing some really decent Scotch Whiskey. We also shared some good bull shit sessions about nothing to something. When Don dropped me off at the airport back in Denver at the end of my stay, he said he hoped I had enjoyed myself. I think there was some doubt in his mind that I had done so.
Heck the only thing I could have thought of to have had a better time would have been to have hiked out to the nearest big hill from his house for a day. That was not done because of some guy driving around out on the hills near his place. Maybe a hunter, maybe a whacko, so we stayed at his place and enjoyed some beers and a movie, and maybe some Scotch. He really liked the movies I picked up for him: The Fifth Element, From Dusk Till Dawn, Pulp Fiction. So I missed a hike, that is okay by me, more of an excuse to visit Don again, I will do it next time.
But I digress, so let me get back to the point, Don is one of my best friends. It is a true treasure to have friends like him, and it hurts like hell when you lose a friend like the other ones I recently lost. If you ever lose a friend, or worse yet, if you ever are rudely awakened to find out that those to whom you freely gave your friendship really only believed you to be no more than a rude bastard, whom they would tolerate so long as it was to their benefit, then just remember the good friends you have. You can always find sojourn and solace in them, even without them being there in person. Even if there is only one, that friend is enough to get you through hard times.
I thank all of those good friends of mine whom I have thought of over the past day, who have made my loss a thing easier to live with.
Keep hold of your good friends as you can, they are a treasure indeed, a treasure beyond compare.
All the best,
Glenn B
Lasting friends are ones who create a bond of friendship with you that overcomes many obstacles to friendship. Such friends are the ones who despite their own personal feeling about things, despite how their feelings disagree with your own, despite how both of you disagree on issues such as politics, religion, the weather, gun control, sports, hobbies, how to raise a child, whether or not to have children, abortion, crime and punishment, abortion, who will win the girl, how to spend time together as friends, how to bake a cake, how to climb a mountain, how to kill some time, what type of booze to drink, always wind up there to accept you as their friend.
I certainly am not the best at making friends, so when I make one I have tried to be a friend like that to my friends. While I never give it any conscious thought in developing a friendship, I guess I always have always thought, in the back of my mind, that anyone to whom I give my friendship in that way would do likewise to me. So it is always a pretty hard blow to bear when one, or more than one, wind up breaking that friendship over something truly inconsequential in the greater scheme of things. It hurts a lot.
At times when you lose a friend, either because of some disagreement through which you can not bear your friendship any longer, or because of separation due to moving away, or possibly due to death, well at those times you hurt. You have lost a part of yourself when you lose a friend. Recently I lost a couple of friends. When I look at it now, I am pretty certain they never shared the feeling of friendship I had toward them with like feelings of friendship toward me; maybe they did, but now I doubt it. Nonetheless I had considered them my friends if only through ignorance that they did not return the amenity to me, no that is not right - even had they been simply neutral on the subject I still would have held them as friends. I guess it did not matter much to me at the time if I considered them my friends and they considered me likewise. I sort of thought they might not, but nonetheless I offered my friendship to them; I certainly never thought they despised me. Now that they have cut me off, over one of those truly silly inconsequential things, maybe it is for the best; time will tell, though right now it does hurt.
With that loss, I thought about other friends of mine. I guess I was trying to seek solace of a sort in thoughts of others who have befriended me, or whom I have befriended, over the years. Some of them, I have not seen in years; yet I know they are still my friends. One called me a few months ago, one who I have not seen in probably over 15 years. He called to tell me he had retired and moved to Florida, and that I should get my ass down to his place for a fun stay. I have not yet taken him up on it, but you can bet I will. You may wonder why I have not seen in him in such a long time. Well I guess it was because he cut himself off from contact with me. No it was not over anything silly or inconsequential, nor was it over any serious consequential disagreement between us. He had cut himself off, even before I had last seen him, mainly because he had a problem with which he needed to cope. He was advised that his problem could best be coped with by changing his lifestyle drastically, so he did just that and he saw very little of his old friends over the many years to follow. He succeeded in changing his lifestyle. He settled down, and he has a wonderful family. Heck he even made it to retirement. He did all this while having to break away from dear friends. I understand completely, and I was never sore at him about it. Had he ever come to me I would have been there for him, and I would hope he would have been there for me. I am sure he would have as evidenced by his recent offer to me. Our friendship never died, I cannot believe it ever will.
I have other friend like that; ones who for some reason or another got separated from me, or I from them, but we remain friends. I see them somewhat more often than the one I mentioned above. It is nice to see the welcoming look in there eyes when they greet me. I recently visited one of those friends, he lives in Wyoming.
Don, that is his name of choice, is one of those friends that you rarely make in a lifetime. I don't mean that you rarely make good friends in a lifetime, I think some folks have few and some have many, but just about anyone can make several. What I mean about Don being a rare friend is that while Don and I do often see eye to eye, we also often rub each other the wrong way. Rubbing each other the wrong way is usually more likely to cause friction, and maybe even a nasty fiery relationship between folks than it is to wind up being a longtime bond of good, or really good, friendship. On top of Don being a friend, despite our the friction that sometimes come up between us, Don is not just a friend, he is one of my best friends. Our friendship is truly a treasure that I hold dearly.
I had seen Don, only once, in many years, since he was transferred to El Paso, TX. We had both worked the same job, he was my supervisor; and somewhere along the way we developed a friendship. I guess I should note it was pretty soon after meeting one another. Despite the fact that I often did not see eye to eye with my supervisors, including Don at times, we got along well. I do not often make friends at work, but when I do they are usually good ones. Don wound up among the best of friends. I don't know exactly why it is that we are such good friends. Sure we have some of the same likes and dislikes, but we are still very different about many things. I guess one of the major reasons we get along as well as we do is because of acceptance, and note I did not say tolerance. We are sometimes quite intolerant of each other, that is in both of our natures; yet no matter how intolerant we are of one another, no matter how much we can disagree on something, no matter how much we rub each other the wrong way, no matter how really angry we can get with one another, we always wind up remaining good friends with one another.
In fact, we are such good friends, that when I recently thought of visiting Don for the Christmas Holidays, he was right up for it. Within a day though it seemed my plans were to fail. I had second thoughts thinking about leaving my family for the holidays, even though I was pretty sure my wife would say okay, and my kids would live with it. Then I started to check air fares anyhow. It wound up that if I was to travel within a week, I would save over $250, or there about, in air fare. I contacted Don again, and he said he would be pleased to have me see him within a week. I knew that was short notice but if okay by him, I would go for it. I spoke to my wife and she put the Kibosh on it. Then hours later she recanted and told me to go for it saying: "You only live once". Within about 8 days, I was on a plane to Denver to visit Don. I flew to Denver, CO where he picked me up, then drove me to his place in WY.
Don's closest neighbors are several miles away, and in different directions from him. He virtually lives in the middle of the high plains or foothills of the Rockies. He lives with two cats. Don is not the greatest people person I know, though he gets along with some and grandly at that. I know he also winds up in fiery disputes with others who he has called friend. After some of those explosions, I guess he loses some of those whom he had thought were his friends. We have had a few of those encounters ourselves; it isn't as easy to shake me off, and Don knows it. We know we are one another’s' good friend. I spent a nice week with him at his place, and visiting the better gun shops within about 125 miles of his place. We shared some good German Beer, and quite a few others he had in his coffers, as well as sharing some really decent Scotch Whiskey. We also shared some good bull shit sessions about nothing to something. When Don dropped me off at the airport back in Denver at the end of my stay, he said he hoped I had enjoyed myself. I think there was some doubt in his mind that I had done so.
Heck the only thing I could have thought of to have had a better time would have been to have hiked out to the nearest big hill from his house for a day. That was not done because of some guy driving around out on the hills near his place. Maybe a hunter, maybe a whacko, so we stayed at his place and enjoyed some beers and a movie, and maybe some Scotch. He really liked the movies I picked up for him: The Fifth Element, From Dusk Till Dawn, Pulp Fiction. So I missed a hike, that is okay by me, more of an excuse to visit Don again, I will do it next time.
But I digress, so let me get back to the point, Don is one of my best friends. It is a true treasure to have friends like him, and it hurts like hell when you lose a friend like the other ones I recently lost. If you ever lose a friend, or worse yet, if you ever are rudely awakened to find out that those to whom you freely gave your friendship really only believed you to be no more than a rude bastard, whom they would tolerate so long as it was to their benefit, then just remember the good friends you have. You can always find sojourn and solace in them, even without them being there in person. Even if there is only one, that friend is enough to get you through hard times.
I thank all of those good friends of mine whom I have thought of over the past day, who have made my loss a thing easier to live with.
Keep hold of your good friends as you can, they are a treasure indeed, a treasure beyond compare.
All the best,
Glenn B
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
A Raving Lunatic Among Us...
...is, in my opinion, even more dangerous than one in charge of another country. Yesterday I wrote about a person, whom I believe to be a true madman, in charge of nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il of North Korea. My thoughts about him come down to one thing, he needs to be removed from power because he is extremely dangerous regarding the rest of the world and life as we know it.
Today though, I have another crazy person in my sights, well I think he is quite irrational anyhow, maybe even enough to be seen as crazy. This one is not an enemy afar, this one is, I believe, an enemy within; and he is, in my opinion, so crazy as to be blinded by his own good intentions (oh those twisted intentions of the mentally ill) not to realize he is an enemy of the USA. I am speaking of the man who was once our president, probably the least qualified to be president in my 51 years of life - Jimmy Carter. According to FoxNews.com, Carter has been blasting the Bush administration over the whole nuclear thing with North Korea, trying to say that the North Koreans having nuclear capabilities is all because of Bush's attitude toward North Korea. Where does this guy get off of his rocking horse, please let me know, because I want to be there when they put the white coat on him, the one with the wrap around sleeves. Yes I believe he has gone off of the deep end with those remarks, whether or not he is our former president. I might have a little more respect for his interpretation of things if I believed it was rational, which I do not.
Here is why I think the way I do. Here is a blurb from FoxNews.com @ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221918,00.html
"Former President Jimmy Carter said that an agreement he brokered 12 years ago for North Korea to halt nuclear weapons development is "in the wastebasket" since the Bush administration turned its back on the deal and labeled the isolated nation part of an "axis of evil.""
Furthermore FoxNews.co attributes this to Carter: (from the same linked article)
"He said that after President George W. Bush took office, "there was a rapid change in the attitude toward North Korea."
"Within a year, the entire framework was destroyed, and North Korea was branded a member of the axis of evil," he said."
Okay, so let's look at what Carter said, and let's see if this whole situation is blamable on George W. Bush and his policies, or if there could possibly be another culprit; let's see if carter is just Bush bashing at every opportunity because of the upcoming elections. And folks, try to remember I am no great fan of George W. Bush, I think him very lacking as our president, but do support some of his policies.
Carter says that his brokering of a peace agreement in 1994 led to relatively stable and peaceful times between us and North Korea. In actuality what that 1994 peace deal brokered was little more than appeasement of North Korea by the Clinton Administration, which was in the Whitehouse then. Since the end of the Korean conflict back in the 1950s, North Korea has been an avowed enemy of the USA and that is self avowed. They have had a state policy of hating us and our allies. They are a communist regime. Like most other communist regimes they are an abject failure. About the only fairly successful communist regime is Red China (yes I still call them Red China because they are commies). North Korea, on the other hand, is a failure manufacturing wise, a failure agriculturally (their people are just about starving), a failure in the international trade market, a failure in the political market (they are one of the most brutal dictatorships to come along in years). North Korea constantly pours a great majority of their wealth into its armed forces, now to include nuclear capability. Ex-president Jimmy carter would blame this all on George W. Bush because Bush called the North Koreans part of the axis of evil. Ooooh, that gets me so pissed off I want to build nukes too.
Jimmy is missing something. Jimmy is missing the history of North Korea being our avowed enemy. he was blinded by his desire to go down in history as the Peacemaker President. Doubt that then just look at his record. Because of his attempts at pandering Islamist extremists, much of this stuff started in the first place. Try to bear in mind that he was in charge during the first Islamist terrorist attacks against us. He set the pace so to speak. Yet, he would prefer to throw a blind eye in that direction. Okay, let's go with him on that and just stick to North Korea, another screw-up by him.
Here is another blurb from the same article that is an attempt to support Carter's claim:
"Between October 1994 and December 2002, no plutonium was produced in North Korea, said Marion Creekmore, author of the new book "A Moment of Crisis," about his 1994 trip with Carter and his wife, Rosalynn to Pyongyang."
Well we are rolling right along now with support for Jimmy's stance. I agree, there probably was no plutonium produced by North Korea in those years; but ask yourself: WHY NOT? Well part of the answer is they did not have the technology to do so, at least not until around that time of the 1994 agreement brokered by Carter. In fact, the North Koreans did not have nuclear capabilities of any sort until that 1994 agreement. They wanted to go to nuclear capability, and they used their lack of it as a bargaining chip. We were as close to war with North Korea in 1994 as we have been since the original Korean conflict ended in the 1950s. Even Carter agrees to that. So in order to appease North Korea, in order to make sure North Korea did not attack our allies in South Korea or in Japan, what did Jimmy Carter the peace broker, and the Clinton administration do? They agreed to give North Korea nuclear technology. Yes folks, they gave the North Koreans, our self avowed enemies, the ability to create nuclear power.
So guess what it was that the North Koreans set out to accomplish once they had this technology. If you guessed that they set out to create nuclear weapons, you win a prize, one that Carter was unable to win because he got the wrong answer. Now for anyone to say, hey North Korea did not have nuclear weapons grade plutonium (a product needed to make the bomb) is all factual; but they are leaving something out of the equation. What they are leaving out, is that once North Korea had nuclear technology, it took time for them to implement it to build nuclear power plants. Once they had those power plants they were a step closer, but they had to build them and it took time to build ones in which plutonium could be made. Then they had to figure out how to gear those plants to make plutonium, I wonder where they got the know how to do that. If it took time, maybe it was because they figured it out themselves over several years. Then they had to make weapons grade plutonium, not an easy task. It took them years to make a bunch of it, that is if we have guessed right as to how much they have. My estimate would be very conservative if only because the bomb they tested was very small; showing they do not want to waste what they have on hand.
What Jimmy Carter is saying though, is that it was only Bush calling them an axis of evil and changing US policy toward them that had them try to create nukes. This is preposterous. I contend that they were probably at it all along. Sure they made a big stink about starting up nuclear power plants a few years back, but my bet is they had never stopped their research into plutonium creation. Once they had it they used whatever excuse to start up the production of it. The key to the whole thing is that they never would have had this technology unless we had given them most of it; and now Carter wants to blame Bush! Amazing.
The truth is that before Bush called them an axis of evil, they were already starting up their war propaganda, and anti USA propaganda again. They had never backed down as a threat to Japan or South Korea, for example several missile tests over the sea of Japan and over South Korea, those long before the most recent ones, long before Bush. In fact it has been documented that they regularly supply missile technology to Syria, and Syria to terrorists. They also supply Iran with much of the same. So even if Bush called them part of an Axis of evil, he was not off the mark.
The thing is we need to wake up folks like those who admire Carter to see the light. They need to realize that North Korea is a threat to us no matter who is in power over here (unless maybe Kim Jong Il figures out how to be elected our president). They also need to realize that we need to act fast on this one, and decisively too. If you don't know what I mean, and you want to, read my rant from yesterday.
Guys like former president Jimmy Carter will never see it, his head is buried to far down in the sand counting peanuts. He means well, but so too did they who ignored Nazi and Japanese aggression prior to WWII. Let’s not get caught sleeping again. This time the giant may just get hit hard enough that he does not wake up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)