My favorite toy
Hmmmm:
(To see your state’s relationship with other states, go here and click on your home state.)
Looks like I’m not going to be taking that drive trip up to the Pacific Northwest (or New England) after all. In the case of Portland, that’s probably for the best. I don’t need those kinds of headlines, and I think I’m about done with killing.
Last week I looked at offensive ads from days gone by — and by “offensive”, I mean things that would “offend” the Permanently Sensitive Set, bless their little snowflake hearts.
While doing the research, I also happened on some still-more offensive ads — guaranteed to get others’ feeeewings all tearful (except for those who frequent this website, that is. Actually, they are enough to make even me a little tearful, but not for the reasons one would expect). Here’s a sample:
There’s hunting:
Now it’s time for some cismale gendernormative patriarchal fascism (I think I got that right):
And guns for Christmas — nothing like a visit from ol’ Santy bearing the right kind of gift:
(Note the publication for the above ad…)
Now it’s time for a little “flowers” advertising (back the hearse up to the door, and let them smell the flowers):
And then there’s the simple choice:
And one last reminder:
I wonder what the number is for the AR15 and AK-47? Let’s look at some other options:
And speaking of which, note the prices:
Now that’s enough to make me weep.
Freedom of expression:
…and you know all about this freedom:
All the rest are just details, really.
Yesterday I mentioned seeing a lovely Browning A-Bolt rifle in .300 Win Mag for sale, and I think the reason I didn’t buy it on the spot was because I’m not really as knowledgeable about .300 WM rifles as I am, say, about WWII-era Mausers or WWI SMLEs. Having seen how effective the .300 WM cartridge is on small game, I’m thinking of getting myself a rifle thus chambered at some point in the future, but I confess to being somewhat clueless about the differences between the different brands when it comes to how they handle the powerful cartridge. I mean: is the A-Bolt as good as the X-Bolt, and how do they compare with the offerings from Ruger, Remington, Savage or Winchester, to name but some?
My budget will be modest (or else I’d just get a Mauser M12 for $$$$), and I can’t afford to buy twice, if you get my drift.
Hence this RFI. All experiences are welcome.
From Knuckledragger comes this admission of low self-control:
“My local gunshop here advertised a [S&W] Model 66-1 for $585 just recently. If I didn’t already have a Model 65, I’d have jumped all over it. As it is, I’m afraid to go in there until I know they’ve sold it because I know I’ll get stupid and put it on layaway anyways.”
I must have done that myself about half a dozen times over the years. That said, I’ve done the other — bought the damn gun instead — probably about a dozen times.
Actually, I’ve done worse. I once bought two guns on the same day purely on impulse, but from two different gun stores. Which guns? These two:
1) Swedish Mauser M96 (6.5x55mm)
(The Swede came with three battle-packs of the outstanding steel-core Hirtenberg mil-surp ammo, which pretty much sealed the deal.)
2) Inland M1 Carbine (.30 Carbine)
Yeah, like you wouldn’t have done it if you could…
It’s been a while since I did this. A letter from a Reader:
For about a year, I have really enjoyed reading the GGPs and firearm essays that you post on your blog (I have been shooting since I was seven).
However, I believe that many of your political essays are absolute crap. For example, you continuously refer to Bill Clinton as a liar, while you treat GW Bush as a saint. I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t a dirty scumbag, because that would be a lie, but there is no way you can ignore all of the B.S. the Bush administration has fed us over the past few years. He lied about WMDs in Iraq, he lied about Guantanamo Bay, he lied about wiretapping, and he continues to lie about our problems in Iraq without a second thought. If you can’t see this, you’re a complete idiot.
I challenge you to find instances where I have treated GWB as a saint. My greatest quibble with President Spineless / El Presidente Arbusto (to use just two of the pejorative names I’ve coined for him) is that he’s not conservative enough for my tastes. But more to the point, the old “Bush lied about WMDs” canard is so totally wrong, it’s laughable. Everyone—Republicans, Democrats, the United Nations, the European Union, Saddam’s neighbors—believed that Saddam’s Iraq was in possession of WMDs, for the simple reason that he didn’t allow neutral inspection teams into Iraq to verify that he didn’t. And to answer the oft-repeated but still fallacious charge that Bush & Co invented the WMD evidence, it should be noted that the bulk of the evidence came not from the CIA, but from Britain’s MI5 and other European spy outfits. There is also convincing evidence, once again not from the CIA, that Saddam hastily moved the bulk of his WMDs (gas shells and such) over the Syrian border just prior to Operation Kill Iraqi Bastards.
There have been no GWB lies about Guantanamo Bay. The only lies about Gitmo have been issued by the Left: cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners, flushing of Korans down toilets, and so on. The bald fact remains that Gitmo houses some of the most implacable enemies of this nation, captured in combat (and not wearing uniforms), and held there as prisoners of war to await charges brought by military tribunal. Considering how our soldiers are treated when captured by Islamist terrorists and insurgents, we have shown incredible restraint towards these murderous fucks when we incarcerate them at Gitmo.
As for lying about wiretapping: I would ask you to name one person who has been unjustly charged (never mind convicted) as a result of an illegal wiretap. Has the FBI abused their wiretap authority? Undoubtedly, yes. Are they going to have their pee-pees whacked? A lot harder than those people who, under the Clinton Administration, used (illegal) IRS audits to go after their enemies—and lest we forget, the Clinton Administration used the really horrible Carnivore system, which was far worse than the current one. Let’s be perfectly honest, here: compared to the venal and corrupt Clinton Administration, whose leader (as you so graciously conceded) was a convicted perjurer, the Bush Administration is a shining beacon of probity. Incompetent? Occasionally, yes, and I’ve excoriated them often for that very reason (unlike what you seem to think). Evil? No. Stop believing your own propaganda. And speaking of propaganda:
I can’t believe that you think Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. He used peaceful demonstrations to bring down Apartheid, not ruthless attacks on civilians. Things like that did happen all too often, but the perpetrators were radical revolutionaries, not Mandela supporters. Mandela was also a close correspondent with MLK before he was killed, and if you’re trying to tell me that King was a terrorist I will kick your ass. You probably think I have no idea what the hell I’m talking about, but my dad and I have both met Mr. Mandela, and he is no more of a terrorist than you are.
This passage is so full of falsehoods, I hardly know where to begin. Here’s an excerpt from his biography (from the Nobel Organization, hardly a hostile source:
After the banning of the ANC in 1960, Nelson Mandela argued for the setting up of a military wing within the ANC. In June 1961, the ANC executive considered his proposal on the use of violent tactics and agreed that those members who wished to involve themselves in Mandela’s campaign would not be stopped from doing so by the ANC. This led to the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe. Mandela was arrested in 1962 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with hard labour. In 1963, when many fellow leaders of the ANC and the Umkhonto we Sizwe were arrested, Mandela was brought to stand trial with them for plotting to overthrow the government by violence.
So much for your peaceful protester. Mandela was head of the military wing of the ANC. In fact, the ANC, using tactics designed by Mandela, embarked on a campaign of sabotage, terrorism and assassination. Railway stations, electrical pylons and post offices were blown up, landmines were sown on rural roads, and “Boer sympathizers” (ie. anyone who didn’t actively support the ANC) were murdered. Umkhonto we Sizwe was also responsible for the construction of terrorist training camps in Zambia, Angola and Kenya. While I have as little time for the apartheid system as anyone, it would also be a complete falsehood to suggest that the ANC was ever a peaceful organization under Mandela. Likewise, there is no credible evidence to suggest that Mandela ever communicated with Martin Luther King—for the simple fact that Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island before King ever rose to prominence. As a political prisoner, Mandela was not allowed to correspond with anyone. If he told you that when you met him, he’s still the same lying Communist bastard as he always was. After his release from prison—note, a voluntary action on the part of the same apartheid government which had imprisoned him—Mandela did indeed do good things, most notably, helping South Africa make the transition from a totalitarian minority government to a full democracy. But that was the older, wiser Mandela. The younger Mandela was a terrorist leader, and no rewriting of history can erase that fact—although you seem to be trying to.
Finally, you have a steadfast belief that all liberals are complete GFWs, but that is not the case at all. I live in Burlington, Vermont, and have a profound love for almost all guns. I currently own a High Power in 9mm, a Mauser 98K, and a brand new Vector Arms UZI Para. Both my parents used to live in San Francisco, but they support gun ownership just as much as I do. Their is not a single conservative in my class either, but almost every boy has shot some kind of gun. Just because someone is liberal, (And we are as liberal as a family can get) it doesn’t mean that they are silly unconstitutional pansies.
I likewise challenge you to find anything I have written which indicates that all liberals are GFWs. What we do know is that whenever gun control is mentioned, proposed or implemented, that action is mentioned, proposed or implemented by liberals. It’s called “profiling”: not all liberals are GFWs, but it certainly seems as though almost all GFWs are liberals. (In the United States—elsewhere, gun-control advocates are not just liberals, but totalitarians too.) The Second Amendment does not say that it’s the right of conservatives to keep and bear arms—it’s the People’s right to do so. That includes liberals, and I have never ever suggested otherwise.
So please, try to alter your biased beliefs as much as you can, because us GFW liberals ARE NOT the real problem with this country, people like you are.
My beliefs, such as they are, are based upon a set of rock-hard principles that have been tested and proven over time: that Big Government is a Bad Thing, whether in health care, welfare systems, business regulation and morality; that high taxes are an economic drag on the individual; that gun-controllers are either ignorant or evil, or both; that socialism and Communism are unworkable social systems; that our military deserves all the support they can get, both moral and financial; that a strong foreign policy (as practiced by, say Ronald Reagan) is more effective for our interests than a weak, accommodationist one (eg. as practiced by Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton), and that conservatives do a better job of running this country than liberals do.
If you expect me to change any of that, I’d advise you not to hold your breath.