Free Shooting Introduction
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Predator Pumpkin
This guy's house would be very popular in my neighborhood. Check out the Predator pumpkin! These are works of art.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Cooper Arms Sell-Out
If you are a hunter, target shooter or individual with a fair amount of money to spend on a new bolt-action rifle in any caliber, may I recommend that you NOT purchase a Cooper Arms rifle (link not provided deliberately).
Why? Because Dan Cooper, CEO of the company, has decided to back Senator Obama as President. In this regard, I see him no different as a collaborator selling out his neighbors for a few dollars or privileges from the State.
Fellow shooters, do not give this man one solitary dime. Make sure anyone you know looking to spend a few bucks on a decent hunting rifle to give their business to someone else. I have sent him the following e-mail:
Why? Because Dan Cooper, CEO of the company, has decided to back Senator Obama as President. In this regard, I see him no different as a collaborator selling out his neighbors for a few dollars or privileges from the State.
Fellow shooters, do not give this man one solitary dime. Make sure anyone you know looking to spend a few bucks on a decent hunting rifle to give their business to someone else. I have sent him the following e-mail:
Dear Cooper Arms,
This letter is to inform you that as an avid target shooter, I intend to spend my shooting dollars with one of your competitors who respects the rights of their customers and the future of the shooting sports in general. I will likewise to ask my fellow shooting friends to do the same.
Your financial support of Barack Obama for President (Source: Snowflakes in Hell and USA Today) is an affront to shooters everywhere. The man you support is the most anti-gun candidate in the history of the United States. His running mate Joe Biden announces with pride his co-authoring of the 1994 crime control bill that banned certain classes of arms based solely on appearance.
Mr. Obama has indicated he would support numerous gun control measures if he had the votes to pass them. He has supported measures introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy that would ban ammunition, and by extension the guns that fire them, that would pierce body armor which would include virtually all of the calibers you offer your products in.
This is the man you support. I hope you take comfort in the fact that your products would be the last to be affected by gun control measures the man you support will enthusiastically embrace.
I will be in the market within the upcoming year for a custom rifle chambered in 6.5x55mm Swede, an option you offer. Given your support of Mr. Obama, I will not in good conscience provide my dollars to a company that would collaborate in the future denial of my rights.
I hope other shooters follow my lead and turn their backs on your company.
Sincerely,
[name omitted]
Monday, October 27, 2008
Prairie Dogs, Buffalo and Bear, Oh My!
I got to have some fun over the weekend and shot a silhouette black powder match at the Fairfax Rod and Gun Club. One of the members of the Blue rifles invited me out to shoot it with one of his muskets. Since the team decided not to shoot one of the end season skirmishes, he had ammo made up he "needed" to shoot off. So he enlisted my help and I was glad to oblige!
The match is very laid back. It is a 3 hour match and a 30 round of course-of-fire. The targets are steel silhouettes set on frames at 25, 50 and 100 meters. Yes, meters. Adds a bit of challenge to the match. You shoot 10 shots at each distance and record the results on your scorecard. The fun part is you get an unlimited number of practice shots. You can shoot at the big, bad orange animals at each distance and just start recording for record when you're ready. It's all done on the honor system.
All in all, I did well for a first time out with an unfamiliar musket. I considered it good practice and a chance to "try before you buy". Dave has several Colt muskets for sale and the Colt is on my short list for a skirmishing gun. So I figured getting some time in on a potential gun was a good thing.
There is something satisfying in hearing the "BOOM!...Clang!" as a shooter and seeing the scourge of humanity being knocked over into the dirt. It's probably a good thing that steel critters aren't endangered because they sure got thinned out by the muzzleloaders.
We shot prairie dogs at 25 meters. These were about 10 by 5 inches. Then buffalo at 50 meters and these were around 12 by 8 inches. Finally bears at 100 meters and these were roughly 18 by 7 inches. I did best on the buffalo. Not surprising given the muskets are zeroed at 50 yards. Hold center of mass and we were acting like we were clearing the great plains.
I did ok on the prairie dogs. Hold on the feet. The bears were what separate the men from the boys and the women from the girls. First rule of shooting unfamiliar guns is what the owner tells you his hold point is won't necessarily be yours. I only managed to hit two out of ten. After the match and shooting for fun, I was able to do three for four by holding on the neck. Breath control is crucial. So is follow-through.
Lots of shooters talk about follow-through. I've discovered in shooting black powder that I need to modify my follow-through. Follow-through is keeping sighted on the target as you take the shot. In modern guns, when you hear the "Boom!", you're usually seeing the target get hit an instant later. In long-distance work, follow-through matters because there is a delay between "Boom!" and the holes appearing in the target.
Follow-through is important because you want the sights on the same place on the target as you pull the trigger and when the bullet leaves the barrel. In black powder, this is really important because it actually takes time for powder to burn and for the big, heavy, slow bullet to travel down the barrel. It occurs in the time it normally takes for me to finish a shot in a modern gun.
So I'm relearning that skill. Became really important at 100 meters. That after-match practice was the process of me retuning my follow-through to adapt to the musket. Several team members noted I was lifting my head with the shot in progress. No excuse save for "I'm used to moderns!". Always nice to have new toys to help get rid of bad habits.
In the end, I shot 14 out of 30. 6 prarie dogs, 8 buffalo and 2 bears. Put me square in the middle. I'm irked by it but at the same time pleased. I outshot several skirmishers from other teams who were there including several that have been shooting muskets for years. Some of it is just luck since the Minie balls and powder are more variable than modern centerfire ammo. But all in all, I'd argue the accuracy of the muskets were on par with any decent modern gun I've fired. When everything was right, I had the sights steady and squeezed, the round went where I had the sights for the most part. 3 MOA was more than enough to hit the bears at 100 meters.
I'd call my performance a good starting point to improve from. It could've been worse. Still, I was hoping for 20 out of 30 or better. My goal is to be on the A-team of the Blues within a year.
I liked the prizes after the match. They had grocery prizes. Basically a bench full of goodies from the local supermarket ranging from steaks to Cheerios. Everyone grabs a bag and they read off the shooters names in order of score. When your name was called, you grabbed an item from the table. This process was repeated through the list until there were no items left. Dave wound up with enough ground beef, sauce and goodies to make chili for his evening dinner. Everyone walked away with something. A great way to hold a match in my opinion.
It's a monthly event at the gun club and open to anyone with any muzzleloader. Iron sights only. $15 covers the match fee. So I'll keep you posted for the next one as I suspect my friends and fellow local shooters might be interested. I think my friend Tom will definitely be interested in this.
Thanks to Dave for letting me use his Colt 2-Band musket and cracking off a ton of his ammunition and to the Fairfax Rod and Gun Club for hosting it and letting non-club members attend. It was a great day and fun shooting with you!
The match is very laid back. It is a 3 hour match and a 30 round of course-of-fire. The targets are steel silhouettes set on frames at 25, 50 and 100 meters. Yes, meters. Adds a bit of challenge to the match. You shoot 10 shots at each distance and record the results on your scorecard. The fun part is you get an unlimited number of practice shots. You can shoot at the big, bad orange animals at each distance and just start recording for record when you're ready. It's all done on the honor system.
All in all, I did well for a first time out with an unfamiliar musket. I considered it good practice and a chance to "try before you buy". Dave has several Colt muskets for sale and the Colt is on my short list for a skirmishing gun. So I figured getting some time in on a potential gun was a good thing.
There is something satisfying in hearing the "BOOM!...Clang!" as a shooter and seeing the scourge of humanity being knocked over into the dirt. It's probably a good thing that steel critters aren't endangered because they sure got thinned out by the muzzleloaders.
We shot prairie dogs at 25 meters. These were about 10 by 5 inches. Then buffalo at 50 meters and these were around 12 by 8 inches. Finally bears at 100 meters and these were roughly 18 by 7 inches. I did best on the buffalo. Not surprising given the muskets are zeroed at 50 yards. Hold center of mass and we were acting like we were clearing the great plains.
I did ok on the prairie dogs. Hold on the feet. The bears were what separate the men from the boys and the women from the girls. First rule of shooting unfamiliar guns is what the owner tells you his hold point is won't necessarily be yours. I only managed to hit two out of ten. After the match and shooting for fun, I was able to do three for four by holding on the neck. Breath control is crucial. So is follow-through.
Lots of shooters talk about follow-through. I've discovered in shooting black powder that I need to modify my follow-through. Follow-through is keeping sighted on the target as you take the shot. In modern guns, when you hear the "Boom!", you're usually seeing the target get hit an instant later. In long-distance work, follow-through matters because there is a delay between "Boom!" and the holes appearing in the target.
Follow-through is important because you want the sights on the same place on the target as you pull the trigger and when the bullet leaves the barrel. In black powder, this is really important because it actually takes time for powder to burn and for the big, heavy, slow bullet to travel down the barrel. It occurs in the time it normally takes for me to finish a shot in a modern gun.
So I'm relearning that skill. Became really important at 100 meters. That after-match practice was the process of me retuning my follow-through to adapt to the musket. Several team members noted I was lifting my head with the shot in progress. No excuse save for "I'm used to moderns!". Always nice to have new toys to help get rid of bad habits.
In the end, I shot 14 out of 30. 6 prarie dogs, 8 buffalo and 2 bears. Put me square in the middle. I'm irked by it but at the same time pleased. I outshot several skirmishers from other teams who were there including several that have been shooting muskets for years. Some of it is just luck since the Minie balls and powder are more variable than modern centerfire ammo. But all in all, I'd argue the accuracy of the muskets were on par with any decent modern gun I've fired. When everything was right, I had the sights steady and squeezed, the round went where I had the sights for the most part. 3 MOA was more than enough to hit the bears at 100 meters.
I'd call my performance a good starting point to improve from. It could've been worse. Still, I was hoping for 20 out of 30 or better. My goal is to be on the A-team of the Blues within a year.
I liked the prizes after the match. They had grocery prizes. Basically a bench full of goodies from the local supermarket ranging from steaks to Cheerios. Everyone grabs a bag and they read off the shooters names in order of score. When your name was called, you grabbed an item from the table. This process was repeated through the list until there were no items left. Dave wound up with enough ground beef, sauce and goodies to make chili for his evening dinner. Everyone walked away with something. A great way to hold a match in my opinion.
It's a monthly event at the gun club and open to anyone with any muzzleloader. Iron sights only. $15 covers the match fee. So I'll keep you posted for the next one as I suspect my friends and fellow local shooters might be interested. I think my friend Tom will definitely be interested in this.
Thanks to Dave for letting me use his Colt 2-Band musket and cracking off a ton of his ammunition and to the Fairfax Rod and Gun Club for hosting it and letting non-club members attend. It was a great day and fun shooting with you!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Right Judge Left Wrong on Heller
Dave Hardy points to an article in the New York Times about some right-leaning judges being upset over the Heller ruling as judicial activism.
I would like to make a comment on this because I think notions of left and right justice are dangerous to hold.
I think the difference between left and right judicial philosophies is the left wants to have maximum freedom with moral relativity and the right wants maximum morality with relative freedom. Both are wrong.
I can see why a right leaning judge would disagree with Heller. It goes against their notion that they should have the authority to dictate the meaning of something as important as a right rather than have that removed from their realm. But they suffer from the same intellectual dishonesty they accuse the left of with regard to abortion. In this case, they accuse the left of reading something that doesn't exist in the text of the Constitution to "create" a right to abortion. They then invert that logic and ignore the very text of the Constitution itself in order to minimize or neuter a right that is explicitly spelled out because it conflicts with what they feel to me right.
All in the interest of preserving their high-and-mighty control over the interpretation of the words themselves.
And these judges have the balls to say they aren't acting as activists?
I'm tired of the term judicial activism. If you want to find rights in "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution, go ahead. But these rights don't deserve the same level of protection or scrutiny as an enumerated right that is spelled right out in black and white and defended with red.
The fact that these judges are bitching about Heller seems to me that Heller was decided more right than wrong. Anything that removes their authority to decide what they think is most important for us is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
The left needs to learn that lesson too. For them, if it isn't spelled out, it doesn't mean it is a hidden right waiting for discovery given enough time and the right minds. There is no hidden right to healthcare, an education, a job, prosperity, owning only cute puppies or abortion. At best, they are state-sanctioned privileges, jealously guarded. To raise them to the level of a "right", you need to follow the process that already exists for such things. If abortion is truly a right that the majority of Americans believe in, then we should amend the Constitution to make it so. Doing an end-run by forcing your beliefs legislatively, enforced judicially and then getting it treated as a right that is more inviolate than the 1st or 2nd Amendment is wrong.
Both side can do terrible damage to our rights by applying their own personal views of their meaning. The right often accuses the left of trying to read rights out of the Constitution they don't like. The right is now doing the same thing for rights they want to retain control over.
In the end, both school of thought are providing the weapons to destroy each other. To me, this type of thing seems like a candle burning at both ends, only waiting to meet in the middle and melt into nothingness and chaos.
I would like to make a comment on this because I think notions of left and right justice are dangerous to hold.
I think the difference between left and right judicial philosophies is the left wants to have maximum freedom with moral relativity and the right wants maximum morality with relative freedom. Both are wrong.
I can see why a right leaning judge would disagree with Heller. It goes against their notion that they should have the authority to dictate the meaning of something as important as a right rather than have that removed from their realm. But they suffer from the same intellectual dishonesty they accuse the left of with regard to abortion. In this case, they accuse the left of reading something that doesn't exist in the text of the Constitution to "create" a right to abortion. They then invert that logic and ignore the very text of the Constitution itself in order to minimize or neuter a right that is explicitly spelled out because it conflicts with what they feel to me right.
All in the interest of preserving their high-and-mighty control over the interpretation of the words themselves.
And these judges have the balls to say they aren't acting as activists?
I'm tired of the term judicial activism. If you want to find rights in "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution, go ahead. But these rights don't deserve the same level of protection or scrutiny as an enumerated right that is spelled right out in black and white and defended with red.
The fact that these judges are bitching about Heller seems to me that Heller was decided more right than wrong. Anything that removes their authority to decide what they think is most important for us is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
The left needs to learn that lesson too. For them, if it isn't spelled out, it doesn't mean it is a hidden right waiting for discovery given enough time and the right minds. There is no hidden right to healthcare, an education, a job, prosperity, owning only cute puppies or abortion. At best, they are state-sanctioned privileges, jealously guarded. To raise them to the level of a "right", you need to follow the process that already exists for such things. If abortion is truly a right that the majority of Americans believe in, then we should amend the Constitution to make it so. Doing an end-run by forcing your beliefs legislatively, enforced judicially and then getting it treated as a right that is more inviolate than the 1st or 2nd Amendment is wrong.
Both side can do terrible damage to our rights by applying their own personal views of their meaning. The right often accuses the left of trying to read rights out of the Constitution they don't like. The right is now doing the same thing for rights they want to retain control over.
In the end, both school of thought are providing the weapons to destroy each other. To me, this type of thing seems like a candle burning at both ends, only waiting to meet in the middle and melt into nothingness and chaos.
Monday, October 20, 2008
On Arsenals
Tam has a post up talking about the often misused term of "arsenal" as applied to the media whenever someone is found with guns. To the media, anything more than two guns is an "arsenal". Anything more than 100 rounds is preparation for a shooting spree.
I've heard those loose definitions bandied about over the years and when I started collecting guns, my fondest wish was to achieve "arsenal" status.
You don't know just how easy that is to pull off. Even if you choose conservative definitions.
For example, Brady II defined an "arsenal" as 20 firearms or more than 1000 rounds of ammunition and would have required an "arsenal license" to possess. Other than the ridiculous "1000 rounds" limitation, which is easily passed by $25 and a trip to Dick's, 20 firearms would be considered the high side of what constitutes an arsenal by anyone random person asked.
Lower bounds have been as low as five guns with a lot of people on the "don't care" side of the issue probably considering 10-15 guns to be an "arsenal".
I realized I achieved arsenal status a long time ago. In fact, I'd go as far to say I'd be a Six O'Clock news lead story if something bad were to happen in my house.
Although I never discuss the exact number of firearms I own, it isn't hard to glean that the number is more than 10. In fact, I would meet the Brady II definition on both counts. I can just picture the news media with the contents of my arms lockers. How many talking points would they hit with this?
I've heard those loose definitions bandied about over the years and when I started collecting guns, my fondest wish was to achieve "arsenal" status.
You don't know just how easy that is to pull off. Even if you choose conservative definitions.
For example, Brady II defined an "arsenal" as 20 firearms or more than 1000 rounds of ammunition and would have required an "arsenal license" to possess. Other than the ridiculous "1000 rounds" limitation, which is easily passed by $25 and a trip to Dick's, 20 firearms would be considered the high side of what constitutes an arsenal by anyone random person asked.
Lower bounds have been as low as five guns with a lot of people on the "don't care" side of the issue probably considering 10-15 guns to be an "arsenal".
I realized I achieved arsenal status a long time ago. In fact, I'd go as far to say I'd be a Six O'Clock news lead story if something bad were to happen in my house.
Although I never discuss the exact number of firearms I own, it isn't hard to glean that the number is more than 10. In fact, I would meet the Brady II definition on both counts. I can just picture the news media with the contents of my arms lockers. How many talking points would they hit with this?
- Bed and/or sofa packed with a veritable arsenal of rifles.
- More than a dozen .50 caliber evil, green, military ammo cans packed to the brims with thousands of rounds of ammunition.
- Dozens of lethal, high-capacity magazines.
- Numerous military surplus items including full uniforms, load carrying equipment, gas masks and the like.
- Body armor (precisely one PAGST flak vest, two PAGST kevlar helmets and one Canadian Forces MICH pattern helmet).
- Military manuals on marksmanship, field survival, first aid and so on.
With the added bonus that I'm a foreigner (for the time being).
Hell, I'd argue you'd have soccer moms petitioning the State Legislature to do something about the likes of me! After the Six O'Clock news anchor finishes having an orgasm on air with bated breath as he reports the discovery of this arsenal, showing the pictures of same with pornographic overtones and having the MSP on camera saying how they've just averted a potential apocalypse by seizing this horrifying private property before harm could be done.
I've never understood how a large gun collection causes harm. After all, isn't the point of a gun collection to collect them? They sit locked up and used occasionally. Not my definition of harm.
But from the sounds of it and to the casual reader/viewer, I must sound like a nutjob. Seriously. I collect military equipment. The bulk of the uniforms I've actually used in playing paintball and airsoft. But the news will never report that and if they did, they'd spin it as "engaging in paramilitary activities". So I'm screwed either way in the public eye.
I'd argue a lot of people would probably convict me as being mentally unfit to own firearms. And that is frightening given that the gun control folks and public-at-large would consider personal interests to be a qualifier to own or possess a firearm even in the absence of harm as a "reasonable restriction".
How many of us out there would look screwy and "not all with it" to Susie Soccer Mom? Owning a pair of Mossy Oak camouflage for deer season tinged with the stench of deer urine would probably do it for a lot of them. Those of us serious about gun collecting, writing about it, gun politics or just plain passionate about issues would scare the crap out of most of them. I don't know many folks out there in my circles than own less than 4-5 guns each. They say the average gun owner has at least 3 guns and if demographics are to be believed with a figure of 80 million odd gun owners and minimum of 240 million guns in circulation, that would be a reasonable distribution.
Except that it isn't, in my opinion. I would argue you have a lot of households with just one or two guns, many with in excess of 5 and a small but significant number with north of 10. What's funny is even though I fall on the unusual end of the spectrum, I'm small fry compared to some people I've known or read. Multiple gun safes or dedicated rooms. Twenty plus is nothing compared to 100 or more.
How does one go from "arsenal" to "full on nutjob" in the absence of violence? Is mere possession of a sufficient number of firearms enough? Or is it more than that? And do you believe personal interests should be used to evaluate suitability to possess arms at all? Is someone's opinion of your mental stability based on their own biases and values enough?
Most importantly, what is the fate of our "arsenals" under an Obama administration? I can easily see something like Brady II gain quiet traction over several years especially with a Democratic Congress believing they have a "mandate" from the People.
I liked having achieved that forbidden status. It's heartwarming to know someone, somewhere might think I'm just a bit off. I think everyone is off in someway. Normal is relative. But I worry about the fascists who may decide to push and try to do something about us.
Sometimes it sucks to have an arsenal.
Hell, I'd argue you'd have soccer moms petitioning the State Legislature to do something about the likes of me! After the Six O'Clock news anchor finishes having an orgasm on air with bated breath as he reports the discovery of this arsenal, showing the pictures of same with pornographic overtones and having the MSP on camera saying how they've just averted a potential apocalypse by seizing this horrifying private property before harm could be done.
I've never understood how a large gun collection causes harm. After all, isn't the point of a gun collection to collect them? They sit locked up and used occasionally. Not my definition of harm.
But from the sounds of it and to the casual reader/viewer, I must sound like a nutjob. Seriously. I collect military equipment. The bulk of the uniforms I've actually used in playing paintball and airsoft. But the news will never report that and if they did, they'd spin it as "engaging in paramilitary activities". So I'm screwed either way in the public eye.
I'd argue a lot of people would probably convict me as being mentally unfit to own firearms. And that is frightening given that the gun control folks and public-at-large would consider personal interests to be a qualifier to own or possess a firearm even in the absence of harm as a "reasonable restriction".
How many of us out there would look screwy and "not all with it" to Susie Soccer Mom? Owning a pair of Mossy Oak camouflage for deer season tinged with the stench of deer urine would probably do it for a lot of them. Those of us serious about gun collecting, writing about it, gun politics or just plain passionate about issues would scare the crap out of most of them. I don't know many folks out there in my circles than own less than 4-5 guns each. They say the average gun owner has at least 3 guns and if demographics are to be believed with a figure of 80 million odd gun owners and minimum of 240 million guns in circulation, that would be a reasonable distribution.
Except that it isn't, in my opinion. I would argue you have a lot of households with just one or two guns, many with in excess of 5 and a small but significant number with north of 10. What's funny is even though I fall on the unusual end of the spectrum, I'm small fry compared to some people I've known or read. Multiple gun safes or dedicated rooms. Twenty plus is nothing compared to 100 or more.
How does one go from "arsenal" to "full on nutjob" in the absence of violence? Is mere possession of a sufficient number of firearms enough? Or is it more than that? And do you believe personal interests should be used to evaluate suitability to possess arms at all? Is someone's opinion of your mental stability based on their own biases and values enough?
Most importantly, what is the fate of our "arsenals" under an Obama administration? I can easily see something like Brady II gain quiet traction over several years especially with a Democratic Congress believing they have a "mandate" from the People.
I liked having achieved that forbidden status. It's heartwarming to know someone, somewhere might think I'm just a bit off. I think everyone is off in someway. Normal is relative. But I worry about the fascists who may decide to push and try to do something about us.
Sometimes it sucks to have an arsenal.
Friday, October 17, 2008
New Toys
No, not guns.
I bought a new laptop yesterday. I've been without since I sold my netbook and my old G3 iBook just doesn't cut it for what I want to do. I have three tasks I want to partake in with one being optional. They are:
I bought a new laptop yesterday. I've been without since I sold my netbook and my old G3 iBook just doesn't cut it for what I want to do. I have three tasks I want to partake in with one being optional. They are:
- Write software.
- Write.
- Play EVE Online.
The third is a "nice to have". But it did shape the choice. I wanted a basic machine that could do those things. Not a desktop replacement. A few hundred dollars since I already have two desktops with decent capabilities. A laptop is a supplement but something I'd like to do some of my desktop activities on.
One of the nice things with the current state of technology is the fact that even a low-end system is adequate for virtually any task. Most systems are dual-core, most sport a gigabyte or two of RAM, have DVD burners and decent storage, graphics-wise they have nice screens and can, barely, play most games if the graphics chip is just above bottom-end.
So I trolled around the ads for Micro Center and Best Buy and settled on the best bang for the buck I could find: an Acer Extensa EX5420. The reason is got selected was two-fold: 2GB RAM standard and ATI graphics. That means, theoretically, it can run EVE. And the 2GB RAM saved me having to buy a second stick since 2GB is my standard.
So I went to pick it up and where I make my observations about the whole process...
Since when did computer sales folks become the equivalent of the used car salesman minus the bad suit?
Folks, I am the best customer in the world. I will walk in, point to the computer and say "I want that.". I am a sure thing. You don't need to whisper sweet nothings in my ear to convince me to buy something. The store is getting my money. All you need to do is hand it to me and let me walk out the door happy. If there is a problem, I'll be back. But no, the name of the game is to sell.
It started with, "We're having a great sale on anti-virus software that will go well with this machine. Can I interest you in that?".
"No thanks. Windows isn't going to be on this machine long enough for it to matter.".
That, ladies and gentleman, is what I call a clue in my line of work. If you are in computer sales and you hear a mid-30s something man or woman utter a phrase like that, you are being given a hint. A big one. The salesman behind the one I was dealing with got it and piped with "Alternate OS? Guess you know what you are doing.".
When a customer starts talking about exterminating Windows like the plague spawn that it is, take that hint. You are dealing with someone who likely knows more about the computers you are selling than you do. Alas, this poor fellow didn't get the hint.
Tried to upsell me on extended warranty. That was something I might have wanted except for the fact I want the plan that covers me dropping the computer into a vat of acid and you hand me a new one with a smile. I don't buy those plans on desktops but I do on laptops because I've had a bad track record with laptop survivability. In fact, I've actually gotten new laptops under Best Buy's "three strikes" lemon policy. Did it to themselves; they should have never lied and said they replaced the hard drive that was having fatal write errors. They just reformatted it, said it was fixed and didn't think I would pull the cover and check the drive serial number. That lapse in judgment cost them $1600 but I digress.
Problem with the Micro Center extended warranty is that level of coverage comes at their "Platinum" level. You know how much the "Platinum" warranty costs for a $400-$600 laptop? $429. Right. My attitude is if the machine pooches in the next year plus a day, I'll just buy a new one. Sheesh. So no extended warranty. If it doesn't die in the next month, it likely will outlast my needs for it.
He tried to upsell me on a combo fax/scan/printer for $40. Got three printers in the house and finally have one that works on my main machine. No thanks.
Tried to upsell me on more RAM. Wanted to sell me two more gigabytes. Two issues. One, it comes with 2GB standard. Folks, that's plenty for any day-to-day and most gaming uses. I game routinely with 2GB. Second, and more importantly, 4GB is a waste of money in most systems. Why? Because of the nature of the operating system, most computers can't see all of it! Most systems can only use 3 of the 4GB in the system. As a result, more often than not, that last gigabyte of RAM is decoration on the POST process. A large number to make you feel happy.
Only later 64-bit versions of Windows and Linux can use all of the memory in the machine. And then only if the hardware supports it. As a result, 4GB or more in most consumer computers is a fool's errand. 3GB is the normal maximum. I have one machine that has 4GB and only 3.5GB is actually usable.
It took me two attempts to explain the uselessness of 4GB on Vista for him to get it.
Tried to upsell me on a monitor. He was stunned when I told him I already have three displays. Apparently that's not usual. Two computers, one 22 inch widescreen and a second machine running dual head. In developer circles, that setup doesn't even bat an eyelid. Dual head is fabulous for software development work.
After getting a tour of half the store, I finally got escorted to the cashier with the computer so I could pay for it and go home.
Out of the 40 minutes I spent in the store, better than half was spent beating off offers to upsell me.
We must be living in a time where they make money on the sales of accessories because I don't see a whole lot of difference between a $400 laptop and a $750 laptop except in appearance and name. Memory, hard disk, screen and graphics all are pretty much identical with only processor differences. And today, there is more to a computer than how fast the processor is.
Still, it is irritating. These salesmen can't recognize the college student they can whistle a few more dollars out of with the fiction the more expensive machine will let them surf the web and download porn faster versus someone like me who wants one specific machine and wants to leave.
You'll know if I have problems because I will come back with it under my arm along with a detailed explanation of what is wrong with it. Take my word on that.
Now I have the new beast home. Alas, it has Vista. First issue for me is generating the software recovery disks so I can blow away the OS, reinstall Vista on a much smaller partition and then install Linux for day-to-day use. Turns out that wasn't necessary. I still generated the disks anyway but it turns out Acer was smart in their drive setup. They installed Vista on a 60GB partition and set aside the other 60GB as a user data partition. How nice of them! Makes the Linux install real easy. Just overwrite that 60GB partition and the two operating systems will co-exist nicely.
Yes, I do keep Windows around for some things. I figure if I want to run games on the laptop, at least I can without major hassle.
Tonight I burn in the machine proper with the Linux install. Then I'll be happy as a clam and be able to play in living room as well as my room.
I like buying new toys. Maybe I can actually do some useful projects now. Any writing I do tends to be done on a laptop so these novel ideas of mine will be more likely to come to fruition. I know, it's a weird thing but when the muse starts squawking, it is generally easier to pen that stuff out on the readily available machine than an ideal one.
Such is the depths of my geekery.
One of the nice things with the current state of technology is the fact that even a low-end system is adequate for virtually any task. Most systems are dual-core, most sport a gigabyte or two of RAM, have DVD burners and decent storage, graphics-wise they have nice screens and can, barely, play most games if the graphics chip is just above bottom-end.
So I trolled around the ads for Micro Center and Best Buy and settled on the best bang for the buck I could find: an Acer Extensa EX5420. The reason is got selected was two-fold: 2GB RAM standard and ATI graphics. That means, theoretically, it can run EVE. And the 2GB RAM saved me having to buy a second stick since 2GB is my standard.
So I went to pick it up and where I make my observations about the whole process...
Since when did computer sales folks become the equivalent of the used car salesman minus the bad suit?
Folks, I am the best customer in the world. I will walk in, point to the computer and say "I want that.". I am a sure thing. You don't need to whisper sweet nothings in my ear to convince me to buy something. The store is getting my money. All you need to do is hand it to me and let me walk out the door happy. If there is a problem, I'll be back. But no, the name of the game is to sell.
It started with, "We're having a great sale on anti-virus software that will go well with this machine. Can I interest you in that?".
"No thanks. Windows isn't going to be on this machine long enough for it to matter.".
That, ladies and gentleman, is what I call a clue in my line of work. If you are in computer sales and you hear a mid-30s something man or woman utter a phrase like that, you are being given a hint. A big one. The salesman behind the one I was dealing with got it and piped with "Alternate OS? Guess you know what you are doing.".
When a customer starts talking about exterminating Windows like the plague spawn that it is, take that hint. You are dealing with someone who likely knows more about the computers you are selling than you do. Alas, this poor fellow didn't get the hint.
Tried to upsell me on extended warranty. That was something I might have wanted except for the fact I want the plan that covers me dropping the computer into a vat of acid and you hand me a new one with a smile. I don't buy those plans on desktops but I do on laptops because I've had a bad track record with laptop survivability. In fact, I've actually gotten new laptops under Best Buy's "three strikes" lemon policy. Did it to themselves; they should have never lied and said they replaced the hard drive that was having fatal write errors. They just reformatted it, said it was fixed and didn't think I would pull the cover and check the drive serial number. That lapse in judgment cost them $1600 but I digress.
Problem with the Micro Center extended warranty is that level of coverage comes at their "Platinum" level. You know how much the "Platinum" warranty costs for a $400-$600 laptop? $429. Right. My attitude is if the machine pooches in the next year plus a day, I'll just buy a new one. Sheesh. So no extended warranty. If it doesn't die in the next month, it likely will outlast my needs for it.
He tried to upsell me on a combo fax/scan/printer for $40. Got three printers in the house and finally have one that works on my main machine. No thanks.
Tried to upsell me on more RAM. Wanted to sell me two more gigabytes. Two issues. One, it comes with 2GB standard. Folks, that's plenty for any day-to-day and most gaming uses. I game routinely with 2GB. Second, and more importantly, 4GB is a waste of money in most systems. Why? Because of the nature of the operating system, most computers can't see all of it! Most systems can only use 3 of the 4GB in the system. As a result, more often than not, that last gigabyte of RAM is decoration on the POST process. A large number to make you feel happy.
Only later 64-bit versions of Windows and Linux can use all of the memory in the machine. And then only if the hardware supports it. As a result, 4GB or more in most consumer computers is a fool's errand. 3GB is the normal maximum. I have one machine that has 4GB and only 3.5GB is actually usable.
It took me two attempts to explain the uselessness of 4GB on Vista for him to get it.
Tried to upsell me on a monitor. He was stunned when I told him I already have three displays. Apparently that's not usual. Two computers, one 22 inch widescreen and a second machine running dual head. In developer circles, that setup doesn't even bat an eyelid. Dual head is fabulous for software development work.
After getting a tour of half the store, I finally got escorted to the cashier with the computer so I could pay for it and go home.
Out of the 40 minutes I spent in the store, better than half was spent beating off offers to upsell me.
We must be living in a time where they make money on the sales of accessories because I don't see a whole lot of difference between a $400 laptop and a $750 laptop except in appearance and name. Memory, hard disk, screen and graphics all are pretty much identical with only processor differences. And today, there is more to a computer than how fast the processor is.
Still, it is irritating. These salesmen can't recognize the college student they can whistle a few more dollars out of with the fiction the more expensive machine will let them surf the web and download porn faster versus someone like me who wants one specific machine and wants to leave.
You'll know if I have problems because I will come back with it under my arm along with a detailed explanation of what is wrong with it. Take my word on that.
Now I have the new beast home. Alas, it has Vista. First issue for me is generating the software recovery disks so I can blow away the OS, reinstall Vista on a much smaller partition and then install Linux for day-to-day use. Turns out that wasn't necessary. I still generated the disks anyway but it turns out Acer was smart in their drive setup. They installed Vista on a 60GB partition and set aside the other 60GB as a user data partition. How nice of them! Makes the Linux install real easy. Just overwrite that 60GB partition and the two operating systems will co-exist nicely.
Yes, I do keep Windows around for some things. I figure if I want to run games on the laptop, at least I can without major hassle.
Tonight I burn in the machine proper with the Linux install. Then I'll be happy as a clam and be able to play in living room as well as my room.
I like buying new toys. Maybe I can actually do some useful projects now. Any writing I do tends to be done on a laptop so these novel ideas of mine will be more likely to come to fruition. I know, it's a weird thing but when the muse starts squawking, it is generally easier to pen that stuff out on the readily available machine than an ideal one.
Such is the depths of my geekery.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Why Do I Shoot?
Robb and Roberta ask "Why do you shoot?". Hmm, something I can answer since my blog muse seems to be on vacation lately.
Why do I shoot?
The bare truth of the matter is because I can and to seek out the forbidden. My mother hates guns and discouraged their use when I was younger. My neighbor had an air rifle he would shoot in his backyard and let us use it too. My Mom let me borrow it but was always clear she didn't like it.
When the Air Cadets taught me basic rifle skills, she was pissed. She never thought they would let teenagers handle real guns. They did. Multiple times. I enjoyed it thoroughly. What 13 year old wouldn't?
I shoot because I was told I couldn't when I was younger. I do it now to compensate for that "forbidden fruit" aspect.
Why do I shoot?
Because I like firearms. I like their technical nature. They are simple yet amazingly precise machines. The physical forces involved in the act of firing a cartridge boggle the mind. The chamber pressures at the moment of firing are several times greater than the pressure found at the bottom of the deepest point in the ocean. And yet, firearms contain and channel these forces over and over by the rigid application of pure engineering.
I like the technical nature that comes with shooting. It isn't video games with crosshairs and perfect hits. There are all the factors that determine a hit. Some of the best fun I have is behind a scoped rifle. It lets me exercise math skills that have largely lain dormant. Ballistics is good for the brain.
I shoot because I like to experience the engineering and technical aspects of shooting.
Why do I shoot?
I shoot because I like the sense of power that shooting provides. It's base and it's low but it's there. You're balancing two forces you don't want together at the same time in shooting: calmness and adrenaline. It's a serious rush to pull the trigger and feel the forces involved. From the recoil of the gun, the noise and the smells. It can be intoxicating.
And with that adrenaline rush comes pleasure. That rush releases endorphins. Having control of that contained power makes you happy. You smile. I've never met a new shooter yet that doesn't grin after having been handed an AR-15 and told to fire away.
That power also serves as a focus. Once you get beyond the paper holes, the rush and the noise, you begin to make the subconcious connection that you have the power to take a life. Some people can't handle that knowledge. They recoil. They are repulsed and horrified that they've derived enjoyment from that potential. Other never grasp it conciously and it sits in their hindbrain as a form of nagging, petty doubt or annoyance. Others embrace that knowledge and find a form of peace with it.
It can strengthen you. The knowledge that you can take a life can also sharpen your humanity. It makes you appreciate the fragility of life itself and manifest in a desire to protect it. To avoid at all costs at having to exercise your new-found power.
I shoot because I like the rush, the power that a firearm can provide and being aware of that power makes me a better, more honest person.
Why do I shoot?
I shoot because it is the act of a free person. An armed person can never be a subject. The choice to arm oneself announces to the world many things about your character. That you are an individual and will not be subsumed into a collective that would destroy your individuality.
It says you are acting as a responsible person. You have accepted the things that comes with the possession of a firearm and have chosen to live with them. It annouces that you recognize that you and you alone are responsible for your safety and have made a choice to possess a tool that may make you a little safer should it ever been needed.
The firearm in the hands of a citizen is a signal that you are carrying on a tradition that has existed in this country for generations. It also sends the most powerful message of all: That I stand ready and able to use that firearm in the defense of myself and if necessary, to be called upon by country as well. An armed man or woman by choice will serve this nation better in that capacity than 10 conscripts.
I shoot because as an armed individual, I can never be subjugated. Cowed, steered, oppressed but never crushed or eliminated. I retains the means to say "Not one step further!" and mean it. I serve as one of countless lynchpins in the grand machine to keep it from going too far. Often ignored or denigrated, the free armed person is essential to liberty and the smooth operation of our country for now and future generations.
You may not like that I shoot but I shoot by choice.
I shoot because I am free.
Why do I shoot?
The bare truth of the matter is because I can and to seek out the forbidden. My mother hates guns and discouraged their use when I was younger. My neighbor had an air rifle he would shoot in his backyard and let us use it too. My Mom let me borrow it but was always clear she didn't like it.
When the Air Cadets taught me basic rifle skills, she was pissed. She never thought they would let teenagers handle real guns. They did. Multiple times. I enjoyed it thoroughly. What 13 year old wouldn't?
I shoot because I was told I couldn't when I was younger. I do it now to compensate for that "forbidden fruit" aspect.
Why do I shoot?
Because I like firearms. I like their technical nature. They are simple yet amazingly precise machines. The physical forces involved in the act of firing a cartridge boggle the mind. The chamber pressures at the moment of firing are several times greater than the pressure found at the bottom of the deepest point in the ocean. And yet, firearms contain and channel these forces over and over by the rigid application of pure engineering.
I like the technical nature that comes with shooting. It isn't video games with crosshairs and perfect hits. There are all the factors that determine a hit. Some of the best fun I have is behind a scoped rifle. It lets me exercise math skills that have largely lain dormant. Ballistics is good for the brain.
I shoot because I like to experience the engineering and technical aspects of shooting.
Why do I shoot?
I shoot because I like the sense of power that shooting provides. It's base and it's low but it's there. You're balancing two forces you don't want together at the same time in shooting: calmness and adrenaline. It's a serious rush to pull the trigger and feel the forces involved. From the recoil of the gun, the noise and the smells. It can be intoxicating.
And with that adrenaline rush comes pleasure. That rush releases endorphins. Having control of that contained power makes you happy. You smile. I've never met a new shooter yet that doesn't grin after having been handed an AR-15 and told to fire away.
That power also serves as a focus. Once you get beyond the paper holes, the rush and the noise, you begin to make the subconcious connection that you have the power to take a life. Some people can't handle that knowledge. They recoil. They are repulsed and horrified that they've derived enjoyment from that potential. Other never grasp it conciously and it sits in their hindbrain as a form of nagging, petty doubt or annoyance. Others embrace that knowledge and find a form of peace with it.
It can strengthen you. The knowledge that you can take a life can also sharpen your humanity. It makes you appreciate the fragility of life itself and manifest in a desire to protect it. To avoid at all costs at having to exercise your new-found power.
I shoot because I like the rush, the power that a firearm can provide and being aware of that power makes me a better, more honest person.
Why do I shoot?
I shoot because it is the act of a free person. An armed person can never be a subject. The choice to arm oneself announces to the world many things about your character. That you are an individual and will not be subsumed into a collective that would destroy your individuality.
It says you are acting as a responsible person. You have accepted the things that comes with the possession of a firearm and have chosen to live with them. It annouces that you recognize that you and you alone are responsible for your safety and have made a choice to possess a tool that may make you a little safer should it ever been needed.
The firearm in the hands of a citizen is a signal that you are carrying on a tradition that has existed in this country for generations. It also sends the most powerful message of all: That I stand ready and able to use that firearm in the defense of myself and if necessary, to be called upon by country as well. An armed man or woman by choice will serve this nation better in that capacity than 10 conscripts.
I shoot because as an armed individual, I can never be subjugated. Cowed, steered, oppressed but never crushed or eliminated. I retains the means to say "Not one step further!" and mean it. I serve as one of countless lynchpins in the grand machine to keep it from going too far. Often ignored or denigrated, the free armed person is essential to liberty and the smooth operation of our country for now and future generations.
You may not like that I shoot but I shoot by choice.
I shoot because I am free.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Antique Martini: Preliminary Walk-Around
Some people have weekend projects like to build cabinets, cut the lawn or put new plumbing in the bathroom. You know, typical handyman activities around the house. Normal things. Civilized things.
Me, I've found some time to start restoring a 100+ year old piece of history. Most folks think home work as removing scum from tile. I removed scum from a rifle.
I ordered an untouched "Gurkha" Martini-Henry rifle from IMA USA. These are from the Nepalese armory and are copies of the Mark II "short lever" version of the British Martini-Henry rifles that found their way to various colonial possessions.
I have two possible outcomes for this gun. The first, in managing realistic expectations, is as a wall-hanger. IMA grabs one off the pile and sends it to you. They only guarantee it will not be loaded on arrival. That's it. You're rolling the dice. Some folks based on reviews have gotten wall queens, others nice shooters. The second, more desirable outcome, is that of a shooter. I really want a nice black powder cartridge rifle that I can shoot at some point.
For some reason, the old Martini-Henry rifles just looked really nice. So decided to take a chance on one of these and get used to the weapon before looking to acquire others. I ordered one and it showed it up in a nice big box on the front step.
When I pulled it out, I found a very heavy rifle shaped object covered in hundred year old black grease scum. Preliminary inspection shows I got exactly what was promised. The action worked and it was unloaded. The rest is up to me.
I've let the rifle sit for a few weeks so I can figure out how I want to approach it. Ordered some steel wool to assist in the de-scumming process. This was based on recommendations from folks who have done antique restorations for the NRA. The only work I've done is with WD-40 and a cotton rag to see the condition of some of the metal. So far, the results are promising.
As promised, here are pictures of this acquisition...
These two pictures show different angles of the receiver. I've cleaned the scum off the metal here and it looks to be in pretty good shape. The second photo shows the feed ramp and you can see the metal of the barrel that I've cleaned up. Notice the interesting tiger-stripe bluing still intact forward of the action.
I apologize for the clutter in the background but this gives you a good sense of the condition of the rifle as received. The black mess on the wood and general dirt covering the metal. I've removed the cleaning rod for this picture.
This fourth picture is exciting to me. This is a patch I've test cleaned with the very fine steel wool. You can see the wood underneath the 100 year old grease and its beautiful color. If the rest of the wood looks like this with the grease scrubbed away, this rifle will look gorgeous on my wall if nothing else.
You also get a sense of the grease and crap packed inside the action by looking at the underside around the trigger. This stuff comes off in glops. The bore is packed with chunks of the stuff but the rifling appears sharp and no apparent pitting. For a black powder rifle, this is significant.
Overall, I'm not sure what I want my end result to be. I definitely want the wood cleaned up as I think that test patch is indicative of the wood on the rest of the gun. I haven't torn the rifle down yet to evaluate its overall condition but I think these photos indicate the gun has potential. Needs work though.
If nothing else, I think it will look nice hanging above my desk with an original sling on it.
I love holding history.
Me, I've found some time to start restoring a 100+ year old piece of history. Most folks think home work as removing scum from tile. I removed scum from a rifle.
I ordered an untouched "Gurkha" Martini-Henry rifle from IMA USA. These are from the Nepalese armory and are copies of the Mark II "short lever" version of the British Martini-Henry rifles that found their way to various colonial possessions.
I have two possible outcomes for this gun. The first, in managing realistic expectations, is as a wall-hanger. IMA grabs one off the pile and sends it to you. They only guarantee it will not be loaded on arrival. That's it. You're rolling the dice. Some folks based on reviews have gotten wall queens, others nice shooters. The second, more desirable outcome, is that of a shooter. I really want a nice black powder cartridge rifle that I can shoot at some point.
For some reason, the old Martini-Henry rifles just looked really nice. So decided to take a chance on one of these and get used to the weapon before looking to acquire others. I ordered one and it showed it up in a nice big box on the front step.
When I pulled it out, I found a very heavy rifle shaped object covered in hundred year old black grease scum. Preliminary inspection shows I got exactly what was promised. The action worked and it was unloaded. The rest is up to me.
I've let the rifle sit for a few weeks so I can figure out how I want to approach it. Ordered some steel wool to assist in the de-scumming process. This was based on recommendations from folks who have done antique restorations for the NRA. The only work I've done is with WD-40 and a cotton rag to see the condition of some of the metal. So far, the results are promising.
As promised, here are pictures of this acquisition...
These two pictures show different angles of the receiver. I've cleaned the scum off the metal here and it looks to be in pretty good shape. The second photo shows the feed ramp and you can see the metal of the barrel that I've cleaned up. Notice the interesting tiger-stripe bluing still intact forward of the action.
I apologize for the clutter in the background but this gives you a good sense of the condition of the rifle as received. The black mess on the wood and general dirt covering the metal. I've removed the cleaning rod for this picture.
This fourth picture is exciting to me. This is a patch I've test cleaned with the very fine steel wool. You can see the wood underneath the 100 year old grease and its beautiful color. If the rest of the wood looks like this with the grease scrubbed away, this rifle will look gorgeous on my wall if nothing else.You also get a sense of the grease and crap packed inside the action by looking at the underside around the trigger. This stuff comes off in glops. The bore is packed with chunks of the stuff but the rifling appears sharp and no apparent pitting. For a black powder rifle, this is significant.
Overall, I'm not sure what I want my end result to be. I definitely want the wood cleaned up as I think that test patch is indicative of the wood on the rest of the gun. I haven't torn the rifle down yet to evaluate its overall condition but I think these photos indicate the gun has potential. Needs work though.
If nothing else, I think it will look nice hanging above my desk with an original sling on it.
I love holding history.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Interesting Times
What a week!
First, I'm sick. I've gotten my bi-yearly cold and just getting over that.
I didn't take Sebastian's advice and I did look. Lost nearly 30% of my total 401(k) value in under a week.
Glad I don't work that portfolio right now. I take a positive view to the whole thing. So far, the losses haven't wiped out my employer contributions yet and touched the money that's actually come out of my paycheck. That and the fact I am an easy 20+ years away from retirement so I can watch the value plunge with a detached sense of amusement that eventually it will come back. I also take comfort in the fact I am going to get great value for the contributions I am taking now with the share prices so low on the funds I am invested in. Even the bond fund I have a small amount of my contributions into is down so there is nothing to do but laugh.
I could always stop contributions but why bother? It's a short term reaction. The money I throw in now will be the most effective down the road versus that in the last few years before my retirement. It's also my way of expressing confidence. Besides, it's not like I can yank this money out.
On this economic crisis, it is what the government is doing and is trying to do that scares me more the market is. In the end, those left holding over-leveraged paper money will pay, be absorbed or go bankrupt. I would argue the "value" of that paper will evaporate with them since it wasn't real to begin with. Fundamentally, what we are witnessing is a giant Pyramid scheme coming apart at the seams. Similar thing happened with the Savings and Loan debacle. Certainly not on this scale but it is clear all the signs were there as far back as 9 years ago that this bubble would eventually pop.
No, what frightens me is the government, not satisfied with bribing legislators with 150 billion of taxpayer money to pass the bailout, is now considering buying stakes in banks.
Folks, more government intervention is not what we need here. They've admitted that any relief in the financial markets will take up to two months to occur but they had to do something NOW to restore confidence. I watched how the markets reacted to the passage of the bailout and it wasn't pretty. How on earth will government using taxpayer money to buy shares in banks help further?
I can't vote in this election but I have a wish for those of you who can: Vote for the challenger in your Congressional race, whomever it is. Regardless of party. If you want change, lets totally shift the makeup of Congress. Especially if your representative voted for the bailout. If they didn't, you can consider keeping who you have since they seem to actually, you know, listen to what you have to say.
I sure hope the Democrats are wrong on their projections to increase their seats because from where I sit, all I see is a lot of seriously pissed off constituents and I pray that dissatisfaction will be expressed most harshly at the polls in a month.
They couldn't wait to handover 700 billion of your dollars that will have an as-yet unknown and likely dubious effect. I predict by the time that money starts flowing, the market will have sorted itself out one way or the other. They couldn't have waited and debated on how this money was to be used until it was actually needed, could they? Nope, had to do something now to show they had things under control.
Congress for the most part doesn't care about you anymore. All they care about is having your vote in their pocket. You're short term currency to them, nothing more. Once they've got you, they'll spend your vote and forget about you.
I think we do need change this election. Let's change the whole makeup of Congress on a whim. Invert everyone. Hell, it can't get any worse than it already has.
And folks, if you think voting Obama will magically make things whole again, you're delusional. He nor John McCain will have that power. And go ahead and blame this on Bush all you want. It doesn't change history and the fact the majority of the responsibility can be placed at the Democrats feet. But hey, why let truth get in the way of ideology?
Personally, I am scared shitless of what Obama driving policy will do. Not just on gun control but across the board. With a willing Congress we may never be able to undo the damage. Which is why I care more about Congress. Shake Congress up and they'll be too scared to go against their constituents.
If we maintain the status quo and Obama is elected, don't be shocked when our whole world comes tumbling down around our ears. I'd settle for McCain and a Congress flinging feces at each other, too busy to muck things up too badly and take the next year or two for everything to shake out and start bouncing back. With Obama signing anything handed to him by a Congress willing to legislate "financial equality" and punish the wrong people, we may never climb out.
The market has a funny way of sorting things out. When the dust settles from this credit derivatives stuff, I'd dare say most institutions will be happily restructuring and firing anyone who thought it was a good idea, consequences be damned. I would point out that any bank or financial institution that was run with a little conservatism is not suffering too badly. At least for now.
My employer is one of them, thank God.
The scary part is, if it all does go south, there's nowhere left to go. And given the alternatives, I'd rather weather the worst-case outcome here than anywhere else. Unless I was in a sailboat in the middle of the ocean. Then I wouldn't care.
Here's to interesting times!
First, I'm sick. I've gotten my bi-yearly cold and just getting over that.
I didn't take Sebastian's advice and I did look. Lost nearly 30% of my total 401(k) value in under a week.
Glad I don't work that portfolio right now. I take a positive view to the whole thing. So far, the losses haven't wiped out my employer contributions yet and touched the money that's actually come out of my paycheck. That and the fact I am an easy 20+ years away from retirement so I can watch the value plunge with a detached sense of amusement that eventually it will come back. I also take comfort in the fact I am going to get great value for the contributions I am taking now with the share prices so low on the funds I am invested in. Even the bond fund I have a small amount of my contributions into is down so there is nothing to do but laugh.
I could always stop contributions but why bother? It's a short term reaction. The money I throw in now will be the most effective down the road versus that in the last few years before my retirement. It's also my way of expressing confidence. Besides, it's not like I can yank this money out.
On this economic crisis, it is what the government is doing and is trying to do that scares me more the market is. In the end, those left holding over-leveraged paper money will pay, be absorbed or go bankrupt. I would argue the "value" of that paper will evaporate with them since it wasn't real to begin with. Fundamentally, what we are witnessing is a giant Pyramid scheme coming apart at the seams. Similar thing happened with the Savings and Loan debacle. Certainly not on this scale but it is clear all the signs were there as far back as 9 years ago that this bubble would eventually pop.
No, what frightens me is the government, not satisfied with bribing legislators with 150 billion of taxpayer money to pass the bailout, is now considering buying stakes in banks.
Folks, more government intervention is not what we need here. They've admitted that any relief in the financial markets will take up to two months to occur but they had to do something NOW to restore confidence. I watched how the markets reacted to the passage of the bailout and it wasn't pretty. How on earth will government using taxpayer money to buy shares in banks help further?
I can't vote in this election but I have a wish for those of you who can: Vote for the challenger in your Congressional race, whomever it is. Regardless of party. If you want change, lets totally shift the makeup of Congress. Especially if your representative voted for the bailout. If they didn't, you can consider keeping who you have since they seem to actually, you know, listen to what you have to say.
I sure hope the Democrats are wrong on their projections to increase their seats because from where I sit, all I see is a lot of seriously pissed off constituents and I pray that dissatisfaction will be expressed most harshly at the polls in a month.
They couldn't wait to handover 700 billion of your dollars that will have an as-yet unknown and likely dubious effect. I predict by the time that money starts flowing, the market will have sorted itself out one way or the other. They couldn't have waited and debated on how this money was to be used until it was actually needed, could they? Nope, had to do something now to show they had things under control.
Congress for the most part doesn't care about you anymore. All they care about is having your vote in their pocket. You're short term currency to them, nothing more. Once they've got you, they'll spend your vote and forget about you.
I think we do need change this election. Let's change the whole makeup of Congress on a whim. Invert everyone. Hell, it can't get any worse than it already has.
And folks, if you think voting Obama will magically make things whole again, you're delusional. He nor John McCain will have that power. And go ahead and blame this on Bush all you want. It doesn't change history and the fact the majority of the responsibility can be placed at the Democrats feet. But hey, why let truth get in the way of ideology?
Personally, I am scared shitless of what Obama driving policy will do. Not just on gun control but across the board. With a willing Congress we may never be able to undo the damage. Which is why I care more about Congress. Shake Congress up and they'll be too scared to go against their constituents.
If we maintain the status quo and Obama is elected, don't be shocked when our whole world comes tumbling down around our ears. I'd settle for McCain and a Congress flinging feces at each other, too busy to muck things up too badly and take the next year or two for everything to shake out and start bouncing back. With Obama signing anything handed to him by a Congress willing to legislate "financial equality" and punish the wrong people, we may never climb out.
The market has a funny way of sorting things out. When the dust settles from this credit derivatives stuff, I'd dare say most institutions will be happily restructuring and firing anyone who thought it was a good idea, consequences be damned. I would point out that any bank or financial institution that was run with a little conservatism is not suffering too badly. At least for now.
My employer is one of them, thank God.
The scary part is, if it all does go south, there's nowhere left to go. And given the alternatives, I'd rather weather the worst-case outcome here than anywhere else. Unless I was in a sailboat in the middle of the ocean. Then I wouldn't care.
Here's to interesting times!
Monday, October 6, 2008
A Day at the Ranges
Weekend was fun. Went to Fort Shenandoah on Friday for the N-SSA Nationals. Got my most of my uniform bits and ordered those they didn't have. Started to pick up my supplies. Now all I need to do is figure out my musket and get headed down the path of learning the secret art of black powder and casting lead bullets.
Saturday I went to Quantico.
I never thought I'd say this but having so many guns to choose from can be quite paralyzing. The reason is you start thinking of what it will take to pack them up, rummage around to get their magazines and accessories. Then play the can shuffle on the shelf to find their ammo, decide how many rounds to count out and figure out which bag to put it in. Then find padlocks for the bags, cable locks for the guns that don't have them and can take them and then get all that organized for the following morning along with eyes, ears, spotting scope, shooting mat, tools, target frame, targets and so on.
It can become quite a hassle.
That and the fact that you'll have to clean whatever you shoot when you get home factors in heavily too. "Damn it, I just don't want to sit and clean six guns for the next four hours!" does enter your mind.
So I stood there in front of the cabinets like a man staring at a fridge full of food and not being in the mood for anything there. Enfield? Never shot it but not in the mood for cleaning corrosive. ComBloc stuff? Forget it, ammo is still banned. ARs? Nah, it's an hour plus of cleaning for each gun and I'm only doing 100 yards. That's a waste of expensive ammo. Ditto for the Swedish 6.5mm. 100 yards is an insult to that gun.
.22? Nope. Too far.
8mm Mauser? Never shot it either but not really in the mood just yet.
M95 Carbine? Nope. No ammo.
.308s? Are you kidding me?1? That 7.62 NATO milsurp is as valuable as gold right now. Not going to waste that stuff on plinking!
In the end I made the logical choice and settled on two guns. My M1 Carbine, which needed inaugural firing, and my Savage .17HMR, always a sweetheart and a perfect gun for 100 yard fun.
And fun I did have.
A few observations. One, the .17HMR still remains one of the best guns I have ever purchased. Holes touching at 100 yards just like they do at 50. I just can't find fault in a gun that shoots that well. Is it any wonder it is the one gun in my collection that everyone who fires it wants to steal? It's also one of the few guns that is willed to a friend if something happens to me.
Two, I don't have the greatest M1 carbine in the world. Needed to crank in a lot of left adjustment to get the rounds on the target. In rapid fire, I'd be lucky to hit a man with it at 100 yards. Then again, I wasn't really trying and was just more interested in throwing lead downrange into the berm. I burned up 120 rounds and better than half of that was just to make dust clouds.
And folks are right about the sound a M1 Carbine makes. That "rattle-CHINK!" of the action cycling is really the only thing you hear. Even when my earplugs worked loose, the report of the little carbine isn't anything spectacular. It does have character. Several stovepipes though and I chalk that up to a dirty chamber. That gun is getting a good scrubbing.
Three, I destroyed my target frame. In fact, we both did. Turns out light steel doesn't hold up well to .30-06. Figures the Garand my friend Tom had brought would be the demise of our frames. Mine was doing fine right up until I fired one clip. Then the frame disappeared as the bullet hit one of the rubber supports that kept it together. So I started shooting at the target hanging limply from the remaining crossbar. A bad idea as it turned out since the rounds managed to find it too. Dumb luck. 3 hits out of 8 rounds, two on a piece of steel 1/8th of an inch in diameter.
Made some really nice bends and gouges. It'll take a hammer and vice to straighten that out. Kind of pointless since the rubber support was wrecked. I think I'll be able to salvage it though and use it to hang targets from. Definitely going to have to invest in a second frame of some sort.
Tom's frame is going to make a nice conversation piece. It's really cool how the metal is peeled back around the bullet holes. Big bullet holes.
But I had fun and felt a lot better afterwards. That's what weekends are for.
Saturday I went to Quantico.
I never thought I'd say this but having so many guns to choose from can be quite paralyzing. The reason is you start thinking of what it will take to pack them up, rummage around to get their magazines and accessories. Then play the can shuffle on the shelf to find their ammo, decide how many rounds to count out and figure out which bag to put it in. Then find padlocks for the bags, cable locks for the guns that don't have them and can take them and then get all that organized for the following morning along with eyes, ears, spotting scope, shooting mat, tools, target frame, targets and so on.
It can become quite a hassle.
That and the fact that you'll have to clean whatever you shoot when you get home factors in heavily too. "Damn it, I just don't want to sit and clean six guns for the next four hours!" does enter your mind.
So I stood there in front of the cabinets like a man staring at a fridge full of food and not being in the mood for anything there. Enfield? Never shot it but not in the mood for cleaning corrosive. ComBloc stuff? Forget it, ammo is still banned. ARs? Nah, it's an hour plus of cleaning for each gun and I'm only doing 100 yards. That's a waste of expensive ammo. Ditto for the Swedish 6.5mm. 100 yards is an insult to that gun.
.22? Nope. Too far.
8mm Mauser? Never shot it either but not really in the mood just yet.
M95 Carbine? Nope. No ammo.
.308s? Are you kidding me?1? That 7.62 NATO milsurp is as valuable as gold right now. Not going to waste that stuff on plinking!
In the end I made the logical choice and settled on two guns. My M1 Carbine, which needed inaugural firing, and my Savage .17HMR, always a sweetheart and a perfect gun for 100 yard fun.
And fun I did have.
A few observations. One, the .17HMR still remains one of the best guns I have ever purchased. Holes touching at 100 yards just like they do at 50. I just can't find fault in a gun that shoots that well. Is it any wonder it is the one gun in my collection that everyone who fires it wants to steal? It's also one of the few guns that is willed to a friend if something happens to me.
Two, I don't have the greatest M1 carbine in the world. Needed to crank in a lot of left adjustment to get the rounds on the target. In rapid fire, I'd be lucky to hit a man with it at 100 yards. Then again, I wasn't really trying and was just more interested in throwing lead downrange into the berm. I burned up 120 rounds and better than half of that was just to make dust clouds.
And folks are right about the sound a M1 Carbine makes. That "rattle-CHINK!" of the action cycling is really the only thing you hear. Even when my earplugs worked loose, the report of the little carbine isn't anything spectacular. It does have character. Several stovepipes though and I chalk that up to a dirty chamber. That gun is getting a good scrubbing.
Three, I destroyed my target frame. In fact, we both did. Turns out light steel doesn't hold up well to .30-06. Figures the Garand my friend Tom had brought would be the demise of our frames. Mine was doing fine right up until I fired one clip. Then the frame disappeared as the bullet hit one of the rubber supports that kept it together. So I started shooting at the target hanging limply from the remaining crossbar. A bad idea as it turned out since the rounds managed to find it too. Dumb luck. 3 hits out of 8 rounds, two on a piece of steel 1/8th of an inch in diameter.
Made some really nice bends and gouges. It'll take a hammer and vice to straighten that out. Kind of pointless since the rubber support was wrecked. I think I'll be able to salvage it though and use it to hang targets from. Definitely going to have to invest in a second frame of some sort.
Tom's frame is going to make a nice conversation piece. It's really cool how the metal is peeled back around the bullet holes. Big bullet holes.
But I had fun and felt a lot better afterwards. That's what weekends are for.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Off to Quantico
Going to Quantico tomorrow. 100 yards only in the morning and I'm trying to figure out what to bring. Leaning towards .17HMR and an AR-15 to do some sight in. Any local area readers interested in tagging along? I'm going to be there between 9am and 12pm (range is only open for four hours starting at 8am).
If interested in coming along, drop me a line. You'll need to bring your own target frames and targets.
Now off to Winchester today to get my Union uniform and leather goods and watch the mortar match!
Good weekend everyone!
If interested in coming along, drop me a line. You'll need to bring your own target frames and targets.
Now off to Winchester today to get my Union uniform and leather goods and watch the mortar match!
Good weekend everyone!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Real Citizenship Knowledge
Starting today, the USCIS (that's INS for you older folks) have introduced a new US citizenship test. This replaces the current citizenship test and actually, gasp, requires its takers to know stuff in abstract ways. In addition, it is no longer multiple choice! The questions will be asked to the prospective citizen in English and they must give the answer back in English.
This accomplishes two things in one fell swoop. One is test the prospective citizen's civics knowledge. The second is test their English language understanding and verbal proficiency. No more rote English memorization for you!
I'd hail this as a huge improvement. Alas, I have a few issues with it.
For reference, the test is located here.
First is the rules for the test itself. Here they are:
But then we have this:
As you scroll through the test, most of it is pretty straightforward. Some of you citizens should troll through it. You might learn some stuff. For example, we did a test here in the office and you'd be surprised at how many people don't realize the First Amendment isn't just about speech! It actually codifies five related rights together. Question 6 from the test, by the way.
There are some questions I take issue with. Question #9 reads "What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?". I have an issue with this because the Declaration of Independence is a document intended to appeal to the common man about why the revolution was necessary and provide the morale to fight it. It is a lofty and wonderful document and the parallels to the grievances listed in the Declaration match point-for-point for the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
But the Declaration of Independence has no authority. Any rights it lists are abstract. Only the Constitution defines and defends the rights of the People. So I take issue of the notion of the Declaration talking about rights. Our desired rights of life, libery and the pursuit of happiness are emphemeral. The Constitution only guarantees that we will have the ability to enjoy and pursue them. It in no way guarantees their achievement.
I take issue with the answers to Question 16: "Who makes federal laws?". Senate and House of Representatives is an acceptable answer. Technically, it is not. Even with the 17th Amendment, only Congress can pass laws. The Senate must ratify them but ultimately authority for them reaching the desk of the President lies solely with Congress. The Senate can propose laws to be passed but even they must be passed by the House.
Question 42 is one of my favorites: "Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?".
The answers listed are ok. I'd just argue it's a short list. I am quite gratified that the USCIS also used the proper terminology with the term "powers" rather than the bandied about "rights". Very good to see they are holding to proper usage in that states have powers, not rights.
Question 42, fittingly enough in homage to Douglas Adams, is the one where I plan to have fun. Because the first answer that I popped up with as one of the powers of states is "To raise and organize the militia". Not on the list. So if I am sitting in the exam and I've already gotten my mandatory 60%, I think I'll just have to give that answer to the examiner for the sheer fun of it.
I figure I've got a 50/50 chance of getting credit for it and I think demonstrating a little civic knowledge above and beyond is a good quality. That or I'll get the hairy eyeball and a delay in my citizenship processing for being a smart ass.
Question 48 I think is the one that will get a lot of people twisted into knots. "There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one of them.". No other area of the Constitution has had to be modified as much as those delineating the boundaries of who has franchise and its exercise. Try asking that question in your office and see how many people you can stop in their tracks thinking of the answers.
I cannot believe Question 51: "What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?". The first five answers are all from the First Amendment. What stunned me was the sixth acceptable answer: "the right to bear arms".
Check the thermometer in Hell quick!
Stunned, simply stunned. But in a good way. I am pleased that the 2nd Amendment actually made it into a Government document on citizenship as a right of everyone. Good going, USCIS! Plus, if you ask that one of me it will be a gift.
Question 83 "During the Cold War, what was the main concern of the United States?" should have more than one answer. "Communism" is the provided answer but I'd argue "Countering Soviet aggression" and "Nuclear war" should be considered acceptable as well.
If you can't answer Question 86, you ought to be thrown out of the country on your ass or the Government should find the rock you've been living under for your entire life.
Quesiton 87 is interesting in that it has quite the disclaimer on it: "USCIS Officers will be supplied with a list of federally recognized American Indian tribes.". No making up Indian sounding tribe names. No "Plain Beaver" tribe I guess. Memorize that list, future citizens. I suspect that one will be popular.
Question 92 is weak: "Name one state that borders Canada.". Come on, you should be forced to name them all! Idaho is the one that will throw most people. Likewise, you should be forced to answer them all for Question 93: "Name one state that borders Mexico.".
Question 94 should likewise result in summary ejection from the country if you can't answer it.
All in all, not too bad. A definite improvement. Only change I would make is it shouldn't be 10 questions. I'd argue 50 with 35 correct to be a more acceptable pass rate. Then again, I doubt a lot of citizens of this country could pass this test as-is without studying beforehand.
This accomplishes two things in one fell swoop. One is test the prospective citizen's civics knowledge. The second is test their English language understanding and verbal proficiency. No more rote English memorization for you!
I'd hail this as a huge improvement. Alas, I have a few issues with it.
For reference, the test is located here.
First is the rules for the test itself. Here they are:
The 100 civics (history and government) questions and answers for the redesigned (new) naturalization test are listed below. Applicants who filed the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400, on or after October 1, 2008, should study this list. The civics test is an oral test and the USCIS Officer will ask the applicant up to 10 of the 100 civics questions. An applicant must answer 6 out of 10 questions correctly to pass the civics portion of the naturalization test.Are you kidding me? They choose only 10 of these questions and ask you for the answers. So in theory, you need to know all 100 but once you do, you only need 6 right out of 10 to pass the test. 60% proficiency is pretty sad in a way.
But then we have this:
Although USCIS is aware that there may be additional correct answers to the 100 civics questions, applicants are encouraged to respond to the civics questions using the answers provided below.Grrrr. This is typical government bureaucracy at work. Heaven forbid we might actually make you work and know the stuff you're supposed to be regulating! Nope, much easier to gain conformance by forcing you to provide one of the answers on the test to ease the examiner's burden rather than have the prospective citizen demonstrate actual knowledge. After all, that might encourage pride and passion in citizenship and we can't have that!
As you scroll through the test, most of it is pretty straightforward. Some of you citizens should troll through it. You might learn some stuff. For example, we did a test here in the office and you'd be surprised at how many people don't realize the First Amendment isn't just about speech! It actually codifies five related rights together. Question 6 from the test, by the way.
There are some questions I take issue with. Question #9 reads "What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?". I have an issue with this because the Declaration of Independence is a document intended to appeal to the common man about why the revolution was necessary and provide the morale to fight it. It is a lofty and wonderful document and the parallels to the grievances listed in the Declaration match point-for-point for the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
But the Declaration of Independence has no authority. Any rights it lists are abstract. Only the Constitution defines and defends the rights of the People. So I take issue of the notion of the Declaration talking about rights. Our desired rights of life, libery and the pursuit of happiness are emphemeral. The Constitution only guarantees that we will have the ability to enjoy and pursue them. It in no way guarantees their achievement.
I take issue with the answers to Question 16: "Who makes federal laws?". Senate and House of Representatives is an acceptable answer. Technically, it is not. Even with the 17th Amendment, only Congress can pass laws. The Senate must ratify them but ultimately authority for them reaching the desk of the President lies solely with Congress. The Senate can propose laws to be passed but even they must be passed by the House.
Question 42 is one of my favorites: "Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the states. What is one power of the states?".
The answers listed are ok. I'd just argue it's a short list. I am quite gratified that the USCIS also used the proper terminology with the term "powers" rather than the bandied about "rights". Very good to see they are holding to proper usage in that states have powers, not rights.
Question 42, fittingly enough in homage to Douglas Adams, is the one where I plan to have fun. Because the first answer that I popped up with as one of the powers of states is "To raise and organize the militia". Not on the list. So if I am sitting in the exam and I've already gotten my mandatory 60%, I think I'll just have to give that answer to the examiner for the sheer fun of it.
I figure I've got a 50/50 chance of getting credit for it and I think demonstrating a little civic knowledge above and beyond is a good quality. That or I'll get the hairy eyeball and a delay in my citizenship processing for being a smart ass.
Question 48 I think is the one that will get a lot of people twisted into knots. "There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one of them.". No other area of the Constitution has had to be modified as much as those delineating the boundaries of who has franchise and its exercise. Try asking that question in your office and see how many people you can stop in their tracks thinking of the answers.
I cannot believe Question 51: "What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?". The first five answers are all from the First Amendment. What stunned me was the sixth acceptable answer: "the right to bear arms".
Check the thermometer in Hell quick!
Stunned, simply stunned. But in a good way. I am pleased that the 2nd Amendment actually made it into a Government document on citizenship as a right of everyone. Good going, USCIS! Plus, if you ask that one of me it will be a gift.
Question 83 "During the Cold War, what was the main concern of the United States?" should have more than one answer. "Communism" is the provided answer but I'd argue "Countering Soviet aggression" and "Nuclear war" should be considered acceptable as well.
If you can't answer Question 86, you ought to be thrown out of the country on your ass or the Government should find the rock you've been living under for your entire life.
Quesiton 87 is interesting in that it has quite the disclaimer on it: "USCIS Officers will be supplied with a list of federally recognized American Indian tribes.". No making up Indian sounding tribe names. No "Plain Beaver" tribe I guess. Memorize that list, future citizens. I suspect that one will be popular.
Question 92 is weak: "Name one state that borders Canada.". Come on, you should be forced to name them all! Idaho is the one that will throw most people. Likewise, you should be forced to answer them all for Question 93: "Name one state that borders Mexico.".
Question 94 should likewise result in summary ejection from the country if you can't answer it.
All in all, not too bad. A definite improvement. Only change I would make is it shouldn't be 10 questions. I'd argue 50 with 35 correct to be a more acceptable pass rate. Then again, I doubt a lot of citizens of this country could pass this test as-is without studying beforehand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
