Friday, September 7, 2012

Where Dream and Day Untie

So, I had a dream last night. It was like one of those self-defense daydreams, wherein a scenario is played out in your head, only you don't have the advantage of being in control of the variables. Lemme 'splain.

So, I was hanging out with a buddy in his driveway. I had been shooting recently, and maybe we were getting home from the range. For whatever reason, we were standing by his car. These two dudes walked up. Their descriptions would be nearly identical. They were both pretty tall, at probably around 6' 1" or so. Both darker-skinned with features that suggested Middle-Eastern decent; not quite Indian dark. Both with pants and button-down casual shirts. Nothing about their description set off any red flags, but the looks on their faces as they stopped walking a straight line on the sidewalk and turned towards us put them squarely in my OODA loop. I felt the adrenaline dump immediately, and my buddy and I started to casually separate from each other. Sure enough, one followed him, the other followed me.

I decided this was Not Good.

They tried to play hip, like they were asking about the car or something. It wasn't a clunker by any stretch, but it wasn't quite a hot-rod, either (think bone-stock 350Z or something; I'm not really sure other than it was dark green and low to the ground). I wasn't buying it. I especially wasn't buying it when my guy never stopped walking towards me, only changed his pace some. After I changed directions from crab-stepping left to right and he continued to follow, I dropped my bowling shirt and turned my right hip away from him. He did not see my holstered Beretta.

I finally quit backing up and stood my ground. He closed the distance and I put my arm forward. It was a good decision, because I did it so smoothly it must have been an instinctual reaction to his hand coming towards me. He wasn't violent (yet), but he was definitely grabbing for me. My hand intercepted his forearm and he gently tried to move to my right. It quickly became apparent that I was stronger than him, so I didn't need to worry about the arm I was holding becoming an issue, but I definitely saw his left arm drop and tense up. I did the strangest thing at that point. I actually asked him, "Are you about to hit me?" To which he gave the least-likely reply I could have imagined. He said, simply, "Yes." Everything went slow-mo.

I already had my hand on the grip of my still-undetected pistol at that point, so clearing leather happened in the fraction of a fraction of a second. I was far too close for any kind of extension, so I kept my elbow bent but strong, pointed the (now detected and attitude-changing) polymer Beretta squarely at his chest, and squeezed the trigger. I was calm, collected, and deliberate.

Even, surprisingly, after I heard a click instead of a bang. Fuck.

I used my weight (dude was tall, but skinny) to push him back as hard as I was willing to push without risking falling with him and hoped to cause him to fall backwards, but he was a bit too sure-footed and only stumbled. Still, it gave me all the time I figured I'd need to rack it and dump the shitty round that was inevitably blocking me from punting this asshole into the next life. I racked the slide, got a second hand up to stabilize a much-improved grip, and squeezed again. Click. FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK...

This was where things went seriously pear-shaped, because Sumdood went from being afraid of the imminent ballistic body-piercing to not really being worried about being shot by what he considered a clearly defective pistol. Advantage Sumdood, because he advanced as I ripped the magazine out (thank God for spare mags!) only to see the next round in the stack probably a full inch below the feed lips as it fell from the hand that was already moving to the mag pouch on the other side of my belt. In my vision, I saw the feet of Sumdood coming toward me...

...And like a movie trailer, that's where things ended: right at the climax of the action. I had just a moment to reflect on what I decided was the shitty ammo I for no reason has left in the mag causing the follower to stick at the bottom (total bullshit, I know, but that's the thought I had in the blackness). I don't know if I made it to the other 17 rounds of Federal Hydra-shok that I knew was waiting for me, or if Sumdood closed the gap and changed the game before I could. I just new that I was still very calm.

Until I woke up, terrified.


Monday, August 27, 2012

My Sad Clown Face: Let Me Show You It.

It is with no small amount of schadenfruede that I bring you my favorite line from the linked article:

Hate-mongering in any form, however, is not a permissible political strategy.

That is, when it's coming from Their Side. When Our Side does it, it's disguised as spotlighting an ugly truth in the best interests of the sheep that will believe anything people.

You know, I wonder if the media really can see the writing on the wall with this administration. Win or lose come November, the last four years of this administration have been an abject failure.


Thursday, August 23, 2012

Thursday, June 7, 2012

How a Libertarian is Born

It is inevitable:  find yourself in the pleasant company of libertarians, and you will, if engaged in conversation, hear the phrase "nanny state" be uttered.  It's as sure as the sunrise.  It is a derogatory term indicative of a practice that goes against the core principal of core principals of libertarianism - the one where you don't get to tell folks what to do.  It could be said, in fact, that the Nanny State is the polar opposite of that concept, wherein a group of authoritarian busybodies - elected though they may be - take in upon themselves to ban something must be banned For Your Own Good.

The concept is offensive on multiple fronts, but primarily two.  First, because the assumption must be made that the people subject to the ban are incapable of making the decision on their own, else they would decide correctly and the ban wouldn't be necessary.  The second reason is because in arguably each and every case, the ban is levied in a manner that lies far outside the legislative body's intended power by whatever constitution that created it in the first place.

Our nation of states was created to be the ultimate safe haven of freedom; a nation where one's rights were not granted by the government, but enumerated, under the assumption that whatever higher power created mankind created him free - the concept of "God-given" rights.

And so, when some pompous fucking mouth-breather decides you're too stupid to drink sodas in moderation, and subsequently presumes to ban not the soda itself, but the container in which the soda resides so long as said container is greater than 16 ounces, those of us who still value true individual liberty - having successfully survived the pressure-test of the blood vessels in our skulls - wonder how that dumb sonofabitch doesn't get run out of town on a rail.

And that, if we're lucky, is how a libertarian is born.  If you can look at that, and start to wonder just where else the Nanny State reaches, you're on the path.  And if you managed to land here, allow me to point you in the direction of those whom I admire most, and show you what a libertarian looks like when they grow up.  Go there and be educated, because they can follow the thought all the way through to conclusion:

When you pass a law, you are effectively saying "This thing is of such momentous import that, if you do it (or don't do it, whichever,) we will compel you with force, and will back that force with the guns of the state. This is something that is so important that compliance is worth, push come to shove, shooting people."

It's a sad state of affairs - not to mention scary as hell - but the reality is right there in black and white.  The Nanny State ends with a gun in your face, far too long after the time to ask if maybe we've gone too far.

Welcome to the club.  We have t-shirts.


Friday, March 23, 2012

George Zimmerman Shot Trayvon Martin

There you go. That's all we know for absolute sure. That's it.

If George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in any aggressive other than pure self-defense, he should be and will be sent to prison, and I'll be the first in line to be hard on his dumb ass for being a really shitty representative of citizens who carry weapons (concealed or otherwise).

The Grand Jury that was convened for this case will have evidence, and will decide if there's enough for a trial for whatever degree of homicide fits. If there is a trial, another unbiased jury of peers will review the evidence to see if it fits the charges filed by the District Attorney's office.

None of us know what happened in this case, but remember this: everything you know - and I mean really know - about the death of Trayvon Martin was delivered by the same media that tells you that we're not in a recesssion, or that there's plenty of jobs despite the number of folks you know without work, or any other biased gibberish they can spew up. The media is biased. The judge and jury won't be.

You wanna show solidarity? Show solidarity with those who have an interest in finding the truth. If you've already got Zimmerman pegged and convicted of murder, you're not part of the solution; you're part of the problem. Quit being part of the problem and wait to find out what the results of the jury/juries will be.

You don't get bonus points for guessing correctly prior to verdict.


Thursday, March 8, 2012

What Is This Nose Doing Up In My Business?

Well, that nose belongs to the .gov, so suck it up, buttercup. At least, that's the .gov take on it, anyway. They have the Department of Justice. You don't.

An article at caught my attention this morning, as much for the company involved as for the government intrusion. Seems the DOJ is threatening to go after Apple and a few publishers (anyone remember the name Macmillan on any of your school books?) citing antitrust issues. So I started reading. Looks like there's an easy spot for the DOJ to make their move:

In an interview with biographer Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs explained how Apple and the publishers implemented the agency model, and how the publishers expanded it to Amazon:

We told the publishers, “We’ll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway…” They went to Amazon and said, “You’re going to sign an agency contract or we’re not going to give you the books.”

It’s a fine point, but what any lawsuit would turn on whether the five publishers worked together to coordinate their negotiations with both Apple and Amazon. That’s the standard for collusion; that’s what raises genuine antitrust concerns.

So, let me get this straight. A private business gets with another private business (or two) and makes an agreement. Then those businesses go to another private business and make a sales pitch that is, shockingly, in favor of the pitcher.

The fed proceeds to lose its fucking marbles over it, and threatens to sue.

And you wonder why there's unemployment? In large part because businesses can't be left the fuck alone long enough to make a buck. New businesses are screaming Not No, But Hell No. No one's investing, and no new jobs are being created. Other jobs are being closed up. It's better to sit on the money you have when the alternative is having it taken from you at gunpoint.

I wouldn't open a business in this country right now if you gave me the money free of charge. My desire to keep it and make more of it might get me in trouble with the law, you see.


Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Is Why Traditional Media Is Failing

So, it looks like SCOTUS is gonna go round-and-round with some Affirmative Action again, and once again it will be at the collegiate level. In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, eight of the nine Supremes (Kagan recused herself) will decide if Affirmative Action was unfairly applied to a student who was denied admissions in favor academically lesser students simply because she is a cracka.

Of course, The Atlantic sees the stakes a bit differently:

The justices will hear a case on whether universities can encourage diversity at the classroom level, but court conservatives may use it as an opportunity to set a new precedent.

See, a liberal court is a good, honest, freedom and diversity loving court. A court who may give a shit about Equal Protection Under The Law (I swear, that's written down somewhere) is a bunch of conservative fucks who want to jeopardize educational diversity.



Monday, February 20, 2012

John Mellencamp Ain't Got Shit On Me

You know what I like? I like living in a small town. You wanna know why? Because the fact that the grocery store is opening its new parking lot is Big News, that's why.

If I want noise, I'll travel.

That is all.


Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Another View Into "Common Sense" Regulation

Certain logic implies that punishing a murderer by clamping a set of 140A Tricos to his scrotum, and hitting him up with some 120VAC until he finally confesses is Constitutionally A-OK. You know, as long as it's common-sense.

What's that? Oh, it would violate his 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination as well as smoke-starting his now-squished backup singers his 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Well, what if it's in Everybody's Best Interests? What are you, anti-safety or something? Dude could be one of them terrrrrists, and we...

Oh. The point. Allow me to make it.

The Washington Post asks if the 2nd Amendment means you can buy a Shitload Of Guns (re: more than one per month/year/age/dimension). Jim responds:

Why, yes, in fact it does. If it were otherwise it could easily be interpreted to to limit insipid editorials to one a month. Useful, perhaps, but unconstitutional and therefore out of the question.

Well, now that you put it like that...

Please, someone, tell me straight up: which Constitutional Amendments are subject to reasonable regulation and which ones are not?


Tuesday, January 31, 2012


Today's post comes with a shiny new link in the sidebar to a guy who's craft of the sacred F-Bomb pales mine by comparison. He's a helluva blogger, and even in the throes of weed-blogging manages to knock 'em dead with some deep, universal shit that could have come right from the likes of any of the internet superheroes we all read everyday. The blog is called Scumfuck Living in Babylon, and he murders your face right off with the following sage wisdom:

Pick your nits carefully when it comes to what you won't support; remember that the President cannot declare all the things that you hate to be law by kingly decree.

See that? Yup, that's your face. It just got murdered right off. I warned you, didn't I? This dude is the real fuckin deal, and he's got shit like this all over the place. So get thee hence to his blog, and read that shit. This is wookie-suiting at its most fierce. You go now.