From Steve Kruiser:
“Trump is also aware that there is no guarantee that the GOP will continue his work when this term is done, so he knows that he has to assume that making America great again is all on him. It would be nice to believe that he’s getting things moving in the right direction for years to come, but we have all met the Republican Party.”
I probably need to explain the title of this post to my Murkin Readers, because in the non-Murkin Anglosphere, the word “nous” is not pronounced like the French “noo”, nor does it mean “we”.
In the English sense, “nous” is pronounced like “house”, and it means common sense, or knowledge of the way things are — as in “show some nous” when someone is acting inappropriately, or “a little bit of nous would have gone a long way in preventing that unpleasantness”.
So having condescended, let me now explain what “range nous” means.
There are some gun ranges where you are pretty much allowed to spend all the time you want in your lane — most notably in outdoor ranges run by good ol’ boys, or ranges dedicated to time-swallowing activities such as sighting in a new scope, testing various kinds of ammo, or breaking in a new rifle. These ranges are to be treasured for what they are: a rare and vanishing resource for us gun-lovers.
Most ranges — and I speak specifically of urban or suburban indoor ranges — have set time limits for a range session, such as 30 or 45 minutes. If you are going to shoot off a reasonable number of rounds or shoot a couple-three different guns, therefore, time is at a premium.
Which is why I get mildly irritated — and it happens often — when some young guy — it’s always a young guy — arrives at his lane, puts up his target, and then sets about filling the twenty or so 17-round mags for his Glock — it’s almost always a Glock or similar — and then gets surprised when his range time expires before he’s had a chance to shoot off all those mags. It also happens, although less frequently, with guys clutching their AR-15 poodleshooters and thirty-round magazines.
FFS, guys: load up your mags at home before you get to the range and aren’t in essence paying for time that should be spent shooting instead of maintenance.
Me, I put up my target, pop the safety and start shooting, mere seconds after the target has stopped shaking. If I’m going to be paying someone for me to shoot my guns, I’m damn well going to be shooting. Before I even walk out the door, the spare mags / speedloaders are full and ready for action.
It’s called “nous”, and while it is regrettably missing in so many parts of my life, at the range I haz it (as the kids say nowadays.
I’m thinking of replacing the barrel on my Springfield 1911 — or at least getting a backup — because it has occurred to me that after 30,000 or so rounds fired through it, it may be a prudent move.
My problem is that I don’t have the foggiest clue which barrel would be the best. (And yes, I know that I might need a gunsmith’s services to “tweak” it into a proper fit, that’s no big deal.)
What I do know is that the more expensive barrels are often not worth the extra money, in that they’re not necessarily that much better than a plain-Jane model. And for obvious reasons, cost is important because I’m not going to be participating in IPSC or IDPA competitions anyway. I do insist on reliability, however, for obvious reasons.
Or should I just contact Springfield for a replacement?
All experiences in this endeavor will be welcome.
Update: just about everyone has recommended an OEM barrel (i.e. Springfield, in this case), so it’s thither I shall be going.
Thankee, everyone.
Well, it seems as though our cousins in the Great White Place have decided that a dozen-odd (very odd) years of Justin Castreaux’s “leadership” were not enough, and have elected his replacement Mark Carney as their next Chief Wokist.
Carney, it should be recalled, was the former head of the Bank of England who will be forever remembered as the man who nearly destroyed Britain’s economy during that messy Brexit business. Prior to that, he was governor of the Bank of Canuckistan, and is widely seen as the reason housing prices rocketed and ordinary Canuckis ended up with higher debt — the highest ever, as it turned out. (In fairness, his policies enabled Canuckistan to weather the 2008 global recession in terms of its GDP, but at the expense of said Canuckis, who are still trying to deal with high housing costs. I report, you decide.)
I have told the tale of back when I was still consulting, we independent consultants had a rule never to work with a startup whose principal officers (CEO, CFO or COO) had a Harvard MBA. Carney doesn’t have one of those, but his degree in Economics comes from the same institution. Draw your own conclusions.
There’s more, much more, including his assistance in getting South Africa (!) to participate in international bond markets while he was employed by the infamous Goldman Sachs, of the 2008 global crisis fame, although it should be noted that he left GS five years before that.
By the way, his family is a poster-child for ultra-wokery — not that this should be a disqualifier, of course, but it does point to what he comes home to every night.
Anyway, this economics whiz* is the man Canuckis have elected to be their Prime Minister for the foreseeable future, and his first public statement as PM was a strong anti-Trump message, which means that it’s unlikely that Canuckistan will ever become our 51st state.
So in that, at any rate, we Murkins can breathe a sigh of relief.
*Just FYI, the word whiz is also a euphemism for a stream of piss.
Now if we’re going to have a White House Correspondent, allow me to suggest War Room‘s Natalie Winters as a sterling choice:
And amidst all those qualifications, she’s also got the cojones for the job, as witnessed by this epic takedown.
And by the way: she’s not the only one.
…which explains all the Democrat screaming about deportations:
REMINDER: The reason Democrat judges are fighting so hard to keep illegals – even the criminal aliens – is all about control of the House. If illegals were removed or not counted for apportionment Democrats would lose 10 seats in the house giving the GOP a 27 seat advantage.
I forget who said it (Bierce and Mencken are the two major candidates), but it’s only half-true:
“When politicians talk, no matter the topic, it’s always about money.”
I’d modify that only slightly, to make it true:
“When Democrat politicians talk, no matter the topic, it’s always about power.”