How Specific Is Correct?
Dec 28, 201512:38AM
This came about over several PSAs that note fully automatic weapons are "effectively illegal" for Americans to own or "virtually banned" or similar phrasing, which was then challenged by pedants who wanted to argue for "highly restricted" or "complicated" to acquire.
Folks, no sound bite or PSA can ever be 100% accurate.
For example, the Earth is not a perfect sphere. There's both an oblation due to centrifugal force, and two other bulges that interrupt even that shape, to a ratio of .00005.
And of course, centrifugal force doesn't actually exist.
And no one cares. The Earth is a sphere, near enough not to matter to anyone.
As far as the fact that full auto are not totally illegal to everyone in every state:
I could cite NFA 34, GCA 68, NDA 1916, FOPA 86, define every term from pre-May to post-May to SOT, list the relevant state statutes, describe Form 1 and Form 4, explain the history behind the .00033% of firearms in this country it relates to, by which time I'd have written a fucking book, which would be outdated and in need of a second edition before it hit Kindle, and cause everyone's eyes to glaze over, and as you can see, even in THIS thread, people who want to know are confused and underinformed of the details. Then, as noted, I could mention the increasing price, which is a hindrance to probably 95% of the population off the bat.
Statistically, no one cares about details that fine. They don't fit in an infomercial, and full auto are effectively illegal for 99.99986% of the population.
They Complain About 1.1 Guns Per Person? That's Not Nearly Enough
Dec 27, 201501:13AM
Some figure came out of somewhere recently (eminently believable, but I don't know the source) that the US has passed 1.1 guns per capita. This is cause for rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth among a certain segment, which is fantastic.
The correct minimum number of guns for the US is 1.25 billion.
Let us assume 250 million adults.
EVERY adult should have a shotgun. They are cheap, reliable, the ammo is inexpensive, and with several different loads on hand it is versatile, able to hunt anything from quail and squirrel to deer and elk. With the right loads, they stop home invaders dead in a puddle of goo. There are custom mods you can make so it can take any of the Big Five game in Africa. https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197214
Next, one should acquire a sidearm of choice, for portability, use in close quarters, and personal defense. Along with this, you need a similar framed .22 for less expensive practice (and hopefully again soon, cheap practice, when idiots and greedy assholes stop hoarding).
A lot of urbanites likely don't need a rifle--the shotun will cover what they need. Still, it's worth having one just in case. And, to go with your primarly rifle, you need another .22 for additional practice.
That's five, per adult.
There should be two bricks of .22, about 200 shotgun shells, and at least a crate (500-1000 rounds) for the sidearm and rifle.
Given that shooting should be taught as early as a child can understand the basic safety rules (typically between 4 and 8 ), then there's room for more, and of course, different types of shooting require different types of weapons.
350 million is a start, but only a start. Americans should possess at least 1.25 billion firearms, likely closer to 2 billion, and at least 1200 rounds of ammo on hand in between range trips.
Only a coward with a small penis would argue for less.
Sounds Like They Live In Perfect Places
Dec 16, 201501:35PM
But I do wonder if we can find a comparative on immigrants from Poland to the US, vs emigrants from the US to Poland?
The Slippery Slope of Definitions
Dec 15, 201512:21AM
The gun haters are hysterical, and will make up any ridiculous claim possible. You probably recall Sarah Brady claiming "assault weapons" were designed to be "rapidly and accurately spray fired from the hip," which is like claiming a beer can is designed to be "rapidly and accurately consumed by shaking and popping." For some reason, the Army still insisted on sights on M16s, and taught me how to use them, rather than this amazing accurate spray fire from the hip technique.
But onto the present day. Someone has got their anti-intellectual moral corruption and cowardice into Amazon.
This is the note I received on an item I sell:
Hello from Amazon.
We are writing to let you know that the following detail pages have been removed from our catalog:
ASIN: B007FH65PA, SKU: 5F-B4TA-FPQS, Title: "factory original steyr m95 5 shot stripper clip"
This product has been identified as a speed loader designated for use on an assault weapon. Amazon policy prohibits the listing or sale of assault weapon parts and accessories. For more information, see the Seller Help Page related to weapons http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/
For more information on our policies, search on "Restricted Products" and "Listing Restrictions" in Seller Help.
**Action Required: Within 48 hours of this notice, please review your remaining listings and make any changes necessary to ensure compliance with our policies.
Failure to comply with this request may result in the removal of your selling privileges.
We appreciate your cooperation and thank you for selling on Amazon.com.
Please note: this e-mail was sent from a notification-only address that cannot accept incoming e-mail.Please do not reply to this message.
Additional/other information from Seller:
Other proofs attached:Hello from a firearms expert.
This en bloc clip is for a Steyr M95 straight pull bolt action rifle. It precedes "Assault weapons" by about 60 years. It is of historical interest and collectible, and I find no records of anyone using one in any kind of crime in the last 60 years--since WWII.
While I realize most Amazon employees are not versed in such matters, accepting complaints from every pants-wetting gun hater on the planet is ill advised.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Their response, within the hour:
I was not satisfied with the support, and responded so, with expanded documentation.
There was no reply.
One can contact Amazon directly at the CEO's office, which should then trickle down to the appropriate department. I sent this:
Customer service refused to reply to me.
Per the below message from Amazon, there are several problems.
1: The Steyr M95 is a 120 year old, 5 shot, bolt action rifle. Some models are so old that ATF doesn't even consider them firearms. https://en.
2: While "assault weapon" is a political term that varies by jurisdiction, there are no jurisdictions in the world that would identify the Steyr M95 as an "assault weapon." In fact it was out of service before the first assault rifle entered service.
3: An en bloc clip is a MAGAZINE LOADER, specifically allowed per Amazon rules. It is also essential to the function of this weapon. The en bloc with five rounds goes into the internal magazine, and the weapon doesn't function properly without it.
4: An en bloc clip is not a "Speedloader," which is a revolver accessory.
5: "Assault weapons" don't take "speedloaders." They take "Detachable box magazines."
6: Whoever "identified" this is completely ignorant of how firearms function. If they are having input on other products, they are costing you lost sales. If it's some random complaint by a respondent online, I would hope Amazon is wiser than to trust "the internet."
I would appreciate a thoughtful response, rather than a repeated bleat that "this has been identified as a speedloader for an assault weapon," which I've had twice, and is akin to identifying a gas can as a shell loader for a tank.
I have still received no response.
I have just sent this query:
Per the description and the above link, this is a MAGAZINE LOADER, which is within Amazon's listing rules. It is also an essential functional part of this historical rifle. It cannot be properly operated without one.
The rifle predates so-called "assault weapons" by a half century.
"assault weapons" don't take "speed loaders." Revolvers take speed loaders, which, are in fact, also a magazine loader.
Your previous response was snide, ignorant and unhelpful, and then there was no further response. Please escalate to someone who is capable of grasping the above, capable of discussing the matter without resorting to copy/paste, and has decision making authority.
For information purposes, I would like to know how this decision was reached. Clearly, no one with any credentials in firearms was involved. So who made this decision, using what ludicrously flawed information? That response will be used for a professional article.
I award Amazon a rating of "full retard and full diaper."
It is essential that we stop this sort of rampant assininity, and it proves the point that the neurotic gun haters will never be satisifed. Bans on full auto are not enough, bans on self-loading sporting rifles don't sate them, bans on 1930s military collectibles are only a waystop. We've reached the point where a 19TH CENTURY RELIC is an "assault weapon."
DC has already ruled that a lead muzzle loader projectile, with neither rifle nor powder, is a felonious weapon.
We must fight the war with reason, rhetoric and the law now, or we will most certainly have to fight it later in the streets.
A Nice Retort to Consent And Tea
Dec 10, 201511:17PM
Bill Dunbar makes this observation:
Something bothered me about Brits comparing sexual consent to serving tea. I finally got it down in words...
HOW CONSENT AND TEA REALLY WORKS
Great Britain: Hey China, I want some tea.
China: Ummm...okay, I'll fix it for you-
Great Britain: No, I want to buy your tea and sell it myself.
China: I don't think so.
Great Britain: I'm selling your daughter opium and whoring her out until you see it my way.
China: Son of a Bitch! Get out of my house!
Great Britian: My army says dibs on the guest room.
China: How much silver is it going to take to make you gwai lo lay off?
Great Britain: A lot. And the tea.
China: Well...as long as I grow the tea.
Great Britain: Hey India. I snagged some tea from China. Can I grow it in your yard?
India: I don't really use the stuff much, but I guess so...
Great Britain: I'm going to need your bedroom. And your daughter.
India: Son of a Bitch!
Great Britain: God, how I love tea and imperialism!
Great Britain: You colonies, you all love the mother country, yes? You love tea, yes? Well, since you can only trade with your mother, Mother has decided you will pay for the new curtains here at home. Mother is taxing your tea.
The Thirteen Colonies: What curtains? Shouldn't we get a say if you want us to help pay for things? We're family, for chrissakes, not some drunk you roll in an alley.
Great Britain: Lie still and think of England.
The Thirteen Colonies: No more tea. Buy your own damn curtains, Ma.
Great Britain: No tea?!? That's...unBritish!
The Thirteen Colonies: Bingo!
British and Hessian troops: Ma says you owe her some dough. Pay up before we have to get rough.
The Thirteen Colonies: Tell Ma this is my house. Coffee from now on. And I'm having French girls over, too.
This is the Best of All Possible Worlds
Dec 06, 201501:10AM
First world problem: Too much food. Both deep freezes and the fridge/freezer are stuffed, and 90% of it is meat, as it should be.
Complication: Great deals on meat locally.
Scene: Local yuppie "organic" store, with wild caught sockeye salmon for $6.99/lb.
I say, "We'll take ten pounds."
Meat cutter says, "Ten pounds of salmon?" He stares at me as if I couldn't possibly have said that.
"Yes. And then some bacon."
The sign specified it was "pork bacon," which is redundant, since only pork can be bacon.
He asks, "Do you just want a 15 lb box of that, then?"
"Sure, that will work."
He seems game, and tags our salmon and hands over a box of bacon.
Back at the house, there's not enough room. So, TIME TO COOK!
We now have 6 quarts of Morrocan chicken tajine, 8 quarts of tomato beef soup, 3 meatloafs, two beef and squash lasagna (since the other person can't eat grains), two more meatloafs, a whole smoked salmon and some bacon.
You know what separates us from the animals? The ability to damage entire ecosystems for dinner.
That's why we're awesome.
Proof That Gun Control Supporters Are Literally Insane and Retarded
Nov 28, 201511:15PM
It turns out Australia has had ongoing, increasing violence since they banned most non-sporting arms. Aha! THE FAULT IS THE BULLETS'!
And in comments:
Garavella Yk Bah, humbug • 18 days ago
if you read that article, more than half are not shootings: explosives, arson, unnamed slayings, gangland wars and so on
3 • Reply•Share ›
Oh, well that makes them perfectly okay, then. As long as no one was shot.
DID YOU SERIOUSLY FUCKING SAY THAT? Explosives and arson aren't as bad as shootings, and certainly no one cares about unnnamed slayings (Whatever those are), and of course, gangland slayings, as long as they don't involve guns are perfectly fine! That's how we're BETTER than the US!
What these people need is therapy, where they are put in a room with 57 loaded guns placed on every available surface, so they can get over their animistic fear of objects. Or else play with the guns and wind up dead. Either way, human intelligence wins.
False Comparisons Abound
Nov 26, 201507:35AM
Oh, those poor Syrian refugees, whom we must all take pity on and welcome into someone else's community.
Last week, a 15 year old boy died during an Ebola resurgence. Name him.
In the last decade, a million Rwandans and Angolans were butchered or killed with machetes. Do you know why? Name three.
Why do you suddenly care about this particular batch of refugees who somehow can't find anyone closer in location or similar in culture to take them?
I see naive leftists (which is half of all leftists, the other half being conniving and evil) trying to compare them to the Jews turned away from the US in the 1930s.
Here's the problem with your narrative:
A: The Jews had no Jewish nations to go to. There are plenty of Muslim and ethnic Arabic nations the Syrians can go to.
2) The Jews didn't have a history of extremists who blew up schools and shopping malls, decapitated journalists and Christians on camera, gang-raped schoolgirls and murdered or disfigured the ones who argued.
But if you really want, I'm sure we can arrange to deliver a 22-40 year old Syrian male to your house for your safe keeping. Thanks for your generosity.
Why Do We Care What Whiners Think?
Nov 03, 201511:41AM
TRIGGER WARNING: this post contains references to liberal intolerance, hypocritical butthurt and complete faggotry. Sensitive readers are warned.
For those of you who don't watch my Facebook wall (Probably a good thing), it's a war zone. In the last week there've been defenses of the A10, attacks on the A10, jokes about the A10, a Christ On The Cross dress up doll, jokes about Muslim suicide bombers, about feminists, about conservatives, about anarchists, vegetarians, cops and starving children.
Now, humor is both a coping mechanism and a means of maintaining attention on an issue. This is why Mel Brooks, for example, puts Hitler jokes into almost every movie. Joking about issues can reduce their emotional impact, help us cope, while keeping us aware of the issue.
This is something most people know instinctively. Some have to be taught.
But a handful of people, who can be of any political or cultural affiliation, completely lose their shit.
Thus it was with this picture:
This picture offended one Jim Long, who friended me about two days ago.
Just so we're clear which Jim Long it is, here's his FB ID: https://www.facebook.com/jimffl83
Jim came into the thread and posted this:
As a FDNY firefighter I will never forget the horrors I've seen that day and to have an scumbag like you make light of the tragic events show what kind of character you have. I am unfollowing you Michael Z. Williamson.
Now, assuming Jim actually served on Sep 11, (he's a bit pudgy for the firefighters I know, but I don't know the NYFD guidelines) he has my respect FOR THAT ACTION. I am not required to do so, but I do so, voluntarily. Doing so does not create an obligation on my part to respect any other action he may take in his life.
My response was, "Okay, bye." Then others of us had a subthread discussion about how all the other humor above was fine, but this particular joke itched his anus. I suppose I could not post anything that offended anyone, but that would be everything.
I could talk at this point at what Sep 11 meant to me, but the offended pussy will never get it, so we'll just note that I was serving military at the time, activated and deployed later in response, and had friends and family in close proximity to both the NY and Pentagon attacks, and move on.
Now, here's how a man would have handled this offendedness:
Had he actually wanted to talk about his feelings, he could have attempted, in public or message, to have a discussion about it. We all could have learned something more about the event or our society from this. It would have been productive. Jim did not do this, because Jim is a moral coward.
He could have just ignored the post and moved on to something equally offensive but not relevant to him personally. Hypocritical, but people can be. Jim is more than hypocritical and a moral coward.
He could have just unfriended or blocked me and moved on with his life. But in addition to being a moral coward, Jim insists everyone else live by his rules.
So, Jim chose the Past Full Retard All The Way To Turnip Limpwristed Faggot and Triggered Liberal Outrage response of publicly telling me what a horrible person I am (wrong) and that he knows exactly what kind of person I am (Wrong, and I'm a complex person, as we all are).
Now, I cannot prove that two minutes later he reported his butthurt and full diaper to Facebook mods, but shortly after that, I was banned from posting for 30 days, and the post was removed.
So let's look at it again: THIS WAS ON MY WALL. The man asked for my contact, came into my internet living room, publicly complained about the party, then left and called the cops.
Now, I get complaints from time to time, and complaints like this invariably come from some liberal pussy (as opposed to liberals who are not pussies, whom I enjoy talking to and learn from) who wants the world to be as they envision it, and no dissent is allowed. (This isn't actually liberal. It's passive-aggressive fascist.)(I'm also friends with real fascists to counter the real communists I'm friends with. I wouldn't want to live in their utopiae, nor they in mine, but we can learn from each other. But I digress.)
So I contacted him in private. I told him he was a pussy, as face to face as I was able to get.
He responded: Wrong on both accounts. Loser.
I guess your feeling a little guilty you need to private message me bullshit.
Guilty? No, retard, it was the only way I had of contacting you, after you shit your panties and whined to the overworked drones at Fecesbook that YOU WERE OFFENDED!!!
Nobody gives a shit if you're offended, pussy. Grow the fuck up. I get offended, usually by the existence of liberal pussies (who can't spell to boot) such as yourself, a dozen times a day. My response varies. If I think I can have a logical disagreement with someone, I do. Otherwise, the steps above outline how to deal with such things.
And I always love being called a loser. I have a loving family, have raised kids who impress people, enough disposable income to pursue my hobby of an arms race with Bermuda, and a following and readership that runs up to a half million people who pay money specifically to read my stuff (and others who get it second hand). I've got medals for helping save lives, and for helping take the war directly to the enemy. Interesting definition of a "loser," but since I don't know what his criteria are, I'm going to chalk it up to more passive aggressive "liberal" bullying intended to make me comply with his wishes.
But, since Jim finds my posting of a joke I find funny in my own forum to be so offensive it must be stopped, I am encouraging everyone with access to post it on my wall as often as possible for the duration of this ban. Or anything else offensive.
You may choose to be more direct and post it on his wall. I am not requesting you do so, but I note he felt free to dictate how my wall looks. It would be symmetrical for the same to happen in reverse.
Keep in mind your post will probably be reported by some "tolerant" "liberal," removed, and you may be banned from posting on Facebook for a duration between 12 hours and 30 days--it's entirely at the whim of the overworked drones at Fecesbook, who are forced to deal with butthurt little bitches all day long.
BTW, Jim, are you aware that reports by butthurt pussies take time to process, and have repeatedly caused the monitors to miss reports of actual crimes and suicide, where outside intervention might actually help someone? But hey, you were OFFENDED! That's what's important here, you narcissistic little pussy.
People like you make me wish Sep 11 actually happened. (That was sarcasm, btw)
UPDATE: It appears, after someone perused his info, that he may be a poser. Imagine that--stolen valor from NYFD. Rather low, I think:
Are These People Still Talking?
Oct 29, 201511:30AM
Posting here because I can't find the original thread, and got a "reply" notification.
Backstory: This is all part of the complete meltdown and retardery around the A10, almost always by people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about.
In the thread, someone once again did the "just convert them for carrier use and give them to the Marines. Simple," retardery someone in my previous thread claimed was a straw man. Funny, I hear that several times a week, obviously from retards. While we're at it, why don't we simply redesign it to be supersonic and convert into a giant battle robot? Seriously, go fuck yourself, shit for brains. You're retarded. (I'm repeating that word because retards are slow learners.)(If the use of the word "Retarded" offends you, go fuck yourself.)
Then another idiot chimed in, about how "we need the A-10 to avoid friendly fire." Except that, oh, wait---the A-10 has had friendly fire incidents, too. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/ In fact, it tops the list. Next time, have a fucking clue what you're talking about, or at least do some googling.
Then I got this response:
Brian Wheaton mentioned you in a comment.
October 29 at 10:33am
Michael Z. Williamson Weather itss called bule on blue, friendly fire, or fratricide doesn't mater to the recipient. The Army has required spotters to observe the fall of shot for inderect fire, yes it still happens. To address your retort more directly the Air Force does not nor has it ever required an observer on the ground, I will point and laugh if you mention ALOC, since you mentioned artillery which do you think accout for more dammage and loss of life since WWII stary artillery or air drop ordnance?
Okay, Brian, let me see if I can parse your comments:
Yes, targeting errors occur in war. It's war. We agree. Moving on:
Wait, so YOU want the support, YOU call for the support, but you expect SOMEONE ELSE to doublecheck your math? Hey, thanks for admitting Airmen are smarter than Soldiers!
BTW, you're wrong. There are at least two USAF AFSCs devoted to providing fire support to the Army--Tactical Air Control and Combat Control. And the Army can have them pretty much any time it asks. If they don't ask...so now you're demanding the USAF tell the Army how to do its mission? Well, seeing as you're trying to tell the USAF how to do theirs, at least you're consistent. And yet, when told the A10 won't be around much longer, you then get all smart and try to tell the USAF how much you know about CAS aircraft.
So, wait, after a steady diet of "The Infantry is the only part of the military that matters," we're now being told, "As long as a bunch of other people help us do the job"? Well, yes. EVERYTHING is a team effort, which, when you work with expensive aircraft or ships, you know instinctively. Fifty people can cause an aircraft to crash even before it leaves the ground, and I suspect hundreds of Sailors could each have the opportunity to fuck up a ship, because I suspect the Navy doesn't take anyone aboard they don't need, given the cramped quarters and resource consumption.
The difference being, ship drivers and pilots are typically respectful to their teams and appreciate their support.
But frequently, some grunt (ASVAB requirement: 31) comes along and tries to tell everyone smarter (almost everyone), and frequently stronger (better than half) than he is how they're complete shit and don't matter. It would be insulting if the speaker was smart enough to matter. As it is, it's just cute watching them go past full retard all the way to rutabaga. No, it's not ALL infantrymen, but 7 times out of 10, that behavior is an indicator. The other three, it's someone who either wanted to be a grunt and couldn't, or is trying to white knight for them.
As to your last comment, air power has caused more casualties and damage. That's what it's for. So, you're admitting the USAF is superior to the Army in that respect.
Now, we can very roughly divide war into two components--A: smashing the enemy. 2) causing them to accede in person. The first we do with lots of bombs, the second with boots on the ground.
That, added to your bleats, supports once again my theory that the Army should be incorporated into the USAF as a Ground Corps, much like the Navy has the Marine Corps. First, the USAF will smash the enemy, then it will send its ground corps in to secure things. And since they'll be in the USAF, they won't be able to bitch about how the USAF doesn't support them. But I'm sure they still will.
Basically, if the USAF provides support, you'll bitch, and if they don't, you'll bitch, and if they don't provide it exactly the way you think it should be done, even though you have no fucking clue how it's done, you'll bitch.
I guess my only advice is to stop being a little bitch.
And stop trying to tell people who are smarter than you how to do their jobs.
Not the answer you wanted? Well, too bad.
I expect now you'll threaten to never read my books, or never read them again.
I'm cool with that.