Barbara Streisand, columnist Molly Ivins and Sen. Ted Kennedy are among those hinting - or saying outright - that President George Bush ought to be impeached. But the better idea is to round up these hysterical, "the sky is falling" lefties, put them in straitjackets (so that they don't hurt themselves or anyone else) and then lock them up in an insane asylum.
This suggestion of mine has at least one outstanding merit as opposed to theirs: I don't actually mean it. But my suggestion is no more outrageous or goofy, no more irresponsible or paranoid, and no more an assault on democratic principles than what they are mouthing (and I say as much even though I disagree with the administration's domestic spying).
It is this revelation - that the administration has eavesdropped without court review on conversations between overseas terrorists and legal U.S. residents - that has especially stirred up the anti-Bush zanies, many of whom were already hysterical and shrill to the point of comparing the president to Hitler (as if he were similarly killing millions in gas chambers).
But let's consider the following.
A nearly imperceptible percentage of Americans are likely to ever have their privacy violated by the spying and the policy, which mainly targets those who have buddies in al-Qaida, has quite possibly been one of the administration policies that has saved us from a repeat of Sept. 11.
As the president said in a press conference, he himself has continuously reviewed the execution of the policy. Congressional leaders were kept abreast of it. And while a 1970s law prohibits the domestic wiretapping, the president's defenders point out that every president since its passage has asserted that the Constitution grants him authority to ignore it and courts have, on more than one occasion, agreed. Many respected constitutional experts have argued that the 1970s law was itself an infringement on a president's right as commander in chief to safeguard America in a time of war.
There remains a strong case that, whatever the difficulties, the administration should have sought congressional legalization of the practice and found a way for judicial review (even if it had to come after the federal agents had done their eavesdropping). The Constitution says explicitly that the president should uphold the law (which seems explicit and clear, whatever the courts say), and I can find nothing that says the obligation evaporates in a time of war. Court review is necessary to make sure that the executive does not extend its domestic spying beyond the narrow scope of what we now know is taking place. The possibilities for abuse are obvious and could add up to serious civil rights infringements in the absence of this check.
But this is not the same as saying that the legal arguments against the president are impenetrable, that the White House acted in bad faith - without regard for the legislative branch - or that national security dividends could not have resulted.
What we have here is a debate, but not a revelation of malfeasance. Anyone who suggests that the solution to this argument is impeachment, rather than democratic give and take, walks dangerously close to melodramatic absolutism. Yet, we have a number of congressional Democrats (in addition to some liberal columnists and Hollywood's dubious analysts) talking about impeachment as if they finally had their opportunity to overturn the judgment of the electorate. While I don't seriously advocate straitjackets for them, nothing would delight me more than to see them feel democracy's sting in failed reelection efforts.
Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/10/2006 17:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Like this would really work? When is Congress going to learn, they can't legislate war? They can declare and that is about all.
# The terms: Democrats would support Bush for six months in return for a little honesty.
By Leon Fuerth, LEON FUERTH, former national security advisor to Vice President Al Gore, is a professor at George Washington University.
IT'S NO SECRET that Democrats in Congress are badly divided on the Iraq war. Some, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, agree with President Bush that we should stay the course. Others, such as Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, believe that U.S. forces have already done what they were sent to do and should be withdrawn.
That leaves many other Democrats searching for principled middle ground. They are inclined to keep U.S. troops in Iraq long enough to help the Iraqi people find a political path away from their nascent civil war. Yet they have no confidence in the administration's capacity to manage policy effectively or in its willingness to conduct political debate honestly.
That's why centrist Democrats in Congress should consider offering the administration a deal: For six months, they would give Bush continued support for funding and prosecuting the war, without demanding a specific date for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
In exchange, the administration would have to provide radical improvements in the flow of information to the Congress and the American people. At the end of six months, Democrats would have to decide whether to renew the deal or call for a troop-withdrawal date.
Would this require Democrats to suspend criticism of administration misadventures in Iraq? No, but it would give the president six months when the Democratic leadership would not attempt to legislate an end to the war.
While there is a chance for Iraqis to save themselves, Democrats who believe our presence could still make a difference would continue to support it. But they need something from the administration in return: real congressional oversight of national security policy.
Given that Congress is under Republican control, this means active cooperation from the White House in giving all lawmakers access to information about the state of the Iraq war. Committee rules would need to be altered so that Republican chairmen cannot abridge fact-finding by pounding their gavels. A special bipartisan commission on Iraq should be established to ensure that information is not just copious but balanced, as the Bush administration long ago forfeited its credibility as an honest messenger of bad news.
Assuming this bargain were made and kept, what standards could be used to measure progress? Certainly not the president's undefined standard of "victory," which gives him the role of sole interpreter of the facts. A much better set of standards was proposed by Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
Among the criteria: Have the Iraqis establish a broad-based government? Is there a measurable increase of public confidence in security institutions? Has economic opportunity increased? And have Washington and Baghdad been able to round up more political support from Arab states and from Turkey? These are fair tests politicians of both parties could use to judge the merits of continued U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Making sound judgments about whether to continue the U.S. involvement in Iraq requires subordinating partisanship to the search for truth. This is what made the Sept. 11 commission work so well. But even the commission had its problems getting information out of the White House.
If the administration were to stonewall, then Democrats would have a choice. They could give the president a vote of confidence on the basis of his recent series of carefully staged speeches, delivered belatedly and under duress. Or they could join Murtha in calling for a U.S. exit from Iraq. For the next six months, though, it would be better for the country if Democrats proposed, and the administration supported, a suspension of disbelief in return for a moratorium on spin.
#1
then Democrats would have a choice. They could give the president a vote of confidence on the basis of his recent series of carefully staged speeches, delivered belatedly and under duress. Or they could join Murtha in calling for a U.S. exit from Iraq.
Or they could do a lot of other things. But it won't really make any difference until they are the majority. And stupid thinking like this is not likely to bring them any closer to that state.
#2
Wouldn't those Democrats-searching-for-a-principled-middle-ground need to have a majority in both houses of Congress in order to be able to legislate anything? Trailing daughter#1 is going to Washington, DC in February with her confirmation class, perhaps they can hold a special tutorial on counting for the Congresscritters. (Seafarious, look for an e-mail)
#3
How about, "For the next six months it would be better if the Democrats stopped being traitorous criminals aiding and abetting those who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan." That sounds a bit more accurate to my ear.
Posted by: mac ||
01/10/2006 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sorry mister, no deal. You are not in a position to deal. People with a cut and run mentality don't get to negotiate for anything. This is cut and run with a new face. Putting a dress on a Pig doesn't change the fact it is still a Pig.
The Democratic plan is cut and run because it's based on BDS. The Dem leadership and congress critters have a BDS profound complex. Until they loose it our country is fighting this struggle with almost both hands tied behind our back. It going to be a long struggle so the Dems need to wake up and get with the program. This is about our personal and cultural survival and they refuse to understand it.
#5
I don't think there has been any lack of candor or info on our deployment to Iraq. To say different makes me and the President, a liar, and I really resent that. What I believe has actually occurred is th eDonk party has yet to find a winning strategy now that they have embraced the anti-American Kos kids/Move-On crowd and recognize they're fucked if someone calls them on it.
Soooo... IMNSHO we're dealing with opportunistic anti-American liars seeking any edge, including damage to nat'l security, to get back in power. The answer is No F*&KING WAY
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2006 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
The always-worth-reading Tom Maguire of Just One Minute explains why the NYT revelation of the NSA program has hurt national security. Until Old Spook can reveal more (and he won't, and we all know it), this is as good as any explanation I've seen. I'm snipping down to the key graf:
Let's take for granted that Al Qaeda planners have been worried for years about the possibility that their electronic communications might be intercepted. What, then is the harm in the original NY Times story?
Well, dare we presume that after four years The Proragm (of NSA warrantless eavesdropping) has show results? MS. Harman [ranking Democrat on the House Intel Committee] seems to think so. Consequently, three ideas spring to mind:
(1) Suppose, over the last few years, a few Al Qaeda plots have gone sour due to The Program. The after-action folks at Al Qaeda may wonder What Went Wrong - for example, did a defector rat them out, did a money trail get traced, were they videotaped while buying explosives, what?
A series of Times front pagers highlighting a successful program of communications intercepts may provide them a helpful clue and let them focus on their real weakness, rather than encouraging them to waste time and resources trying to plug fifteen possible non-leaks.
(2) The AQ communication strategy presumably balances flexibility, speed, and security, using, for example, some mix of couriers and electronics. A big Times front pager or ten might prompt them to re-think the mix. That could be a good thing, if their revised procedures are unduly cumbersome. But it might not be, if their more-secure new system lets them evade detection.
(3) Any communication sysytem is susceptible to (a) bad design; and (b) bad implementation. For example, once we broke the Enigma code in WWII, the most diligent radio operator in Germany could not secure their communications because the basic design was flawed.
However - AQ may have a well-designed system, but it is still liable to human error due to laziness, stupidity, nerves, or whatever. For example, some fool who just couldn't resist calling Mom once a week might have blown a plot a year ago (NO, I have no idea, nor do you).
Today, even with three weeks of reminders on the NY Times front page that THE NSA IS LISTENING, a similar AQ a-hole might be calling Mom right now. However, that sort of lucky break is currently just a bit less likely - presumably, the AQ people who worry about security have been screaming their heads off to remind the rest to button everything down.
If these NY Times stories have (1) provided useful after-action intel to AQ; (2) prompted a sensible re-design of the AQ comm system; or (3) prompted more diligent implementation of an already well-designed system, then we have been hurt.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/10/2006 00:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Now my feelings are hurt Steve because you don't remember that I too worked at the Agency (83-88). It remains to be seen what we lost by the patriot/traitor exposed when they gave up this story. I would like to think that Osama and Co. have very few options for communications so the affect will minimal. Whoever let out the secret needs to be prosecuted and sent to prison (praying that it was Pelosi).
#2
Isn't exposing state secrets a crime? Regardless of the motivation? So why hasn't this rat been cracked?
I can only presume it was done for political reasons, or money. Either way the guy should be imprisoned. What is the secret, magical force that protects these guys, and why don't we hear more about them being tracked down and prosecuted?
Anyone?
#3
The harm is really to the future. NSA was working with the telecom industry to route as much international traffic as possible through the US so that it would be easier to intercept. Now foreign nations will have to be more careful, at least publicly, to assure their citizens that their telecom is not compromised by being routed through the US. It will just make NSA's job harder in the future.
#7
Well Bird itâs just that the Senior Dhimmi leadership has thrown so many lies, distortions, and accusations that I would really like them to be caught with something that is truly un-defendable. Yes it may be unchristian to pray for it but I will go to confession and get that cleared up later. FYI I highly suspect (but have no proof) that one of the Dhimmi leadership is leaking secrets to undermine this country and when they are found out there will be hell to pay.
#8
Well CyberSarge, I'm sure the Democratic leadership would charge the same complaints you have against the Bush administration as it's really a matter of perception.
It's pretty obvious that you arent that enamored with the Democratic Party or its leaders. That's a pretty hateful thing to be "praying" for.
#9
"Well CyberSarge, I'm sure the Democratic leadership would charge the same complaints you have against the Bush administration as it's really a matter of perception."
The Dem leadership saying that Bush is weak on terror doesn't even pass the laugh test. I'm sure some believe it, though....
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/10/2006 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Well, Mark E., I find the constant boast by
Republicans that they are "stronger on national defense" equally hillarious.
There is nothing in U.S. history to support that myth. Democrats have the advantage most definitely on that score:
Truman: dropped the atom bomb on Japan
FDR: Defeated Hitler WWII
JFK: Stood down the Russians in the Cuban
Missle Crisis
Throwing money at the DOD (Ronald Raygun)
doesnt make one "stronger on defense".lol
#11
BirdDog, any president in WWII, Republican or Democrat, would have done what FDR and Truman did. Not to take away from either man, both were great presidents in WWII, but a) that war was forced on us b) no president would have gotten us ready sooner or later than FDR did c) the war would have been fought essentially the same -- Germany first, Japan second, and start in North Africa -- regardless of who was president.
You might also remember that it was two Democrats, Kennedy and Johnson, who got us all the way in Vietnam.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/10/2006 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#12
There is nothing in U.S. history to support that myth
That was a different Democratic party you're talking about, back then. Those presidents are one reason I was a Dem.
The current crop of party leaders and candidates is the main reason I'm not one any more.
Posted by: used to be a Dem ||
01/10/2006 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#13
BirdDog
President Reagan just didn't throw money at DOD (though they dearly needed thanks to Jimmuh) he reestablished our military as worlds finest, turned back Soviet expansion in Central / South America, foiled Soviet plans in Afghanistan, and basically crushed the remainder of the Soviet Union. Bush 41: Gulf War, Bush 43 Afghanistan, Iraq and the greater WoT. ...and Clinton did what?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
01/10/2006 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Bird Dog must be among the assigned "student scholars" paid for by the DNC to try and restore history more to their liking
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2006 20:46 Comments ||
Top||
After the newsweak article on Koran flushing, I got to thinking (as many others did too), how can you flush a book down a toilet? I have one of those, ahem, larger thrones myself and I couldn't fathom how any book could be flushed down unless it went through a paper shredder. I thought even a small bible could never be flushed, but I wasn't sure how physically large a Koran was and decided to find out. I got the Koran completely free of charge when I went to the CAIR website, accepted their offer to educate me and provided my home address. My-oh-my.
The book itself is absolutely first-class and large. Everything (paper, printing, cover, etc.) used in it is excellent quality. It is very well formatted and documented. CAIR obviously hired a expensive and professional publishing firm to create and print it. In the store, a book like this would be at least $100.
I thought everyone needs one of these and suggest anyone who is willing to provide their address to CAIR get one.
I have been looking it over, but specifically have been looking into one event: The "Night Journey". This is when Mo went to Heaven on a winged horse, supposedly from Jerusalem. When I read the chapter however, Jerusalem was in brackets [Jersalem] which would normally indicate a substitution. But for what?
Now, here is what I want to see if an RBer knows: I understand that this 'night journey actually happens at the furthest mosque. When Mo was alive, there were no mosques in Jerusalem and the 'furthest mosque' would have been in Madinah. Correct? Anyone have any comments on this?
#1
I got a free Qur'an from CAIR too (shortly before I moved far far away, that is). I was stunned at the weight and quality too -- $55 at Amazon.
Much depends on the translator -- Muhammad Asad's is the one CAIR sends out. I'd heard that it's an especially anti-Jewish version, so I did a little digging.
Very interesting. Asad was born Leopold Weiss in 1900 in the Austrian Empire. Son of a long line of rabbis, he studied in Vienna around the same time Hitler did. A fierce opponent of Zionism, he spent the rest of the 1920s in Jerusalem and the Middle East, where he fell in love with Mohammedans and converted.
As I understand it, Mo's magical journey was from Mecca to Jerusalem. He supposedly made the trip (of several hundred miles, obviously) in one night. Mo & Co. initially prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, since he was trying to build his own prophethood on the legitimacy of existing religions, i.e., Christianity and Judaism.
Anyway, at some point he said f*ck it and decided Mecca was the holiest place in Islam, and so now all butts point away from Mecca instead of Jerusalem. But I think the reason the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem is super-holy is because of Mo's trip there on a magic carpet or whatever.
My favorite part of the Asad version is the consistent use of "deniers of truth" to refer to Christians and Jews. ROPMA.
Posted by: ST ||
01/10/2006 20:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So essentially a converted Jew, a guy obviously weaned on the intricacies of the Talmud, was the guy who wrote the definitive translation of their bible.
Lucky for him he was a prisoner of the British during WWII.
Thanks ST for pointing out that article. It was very interesting.
#3
Not necessarily the definitive translation -- there's no consensus on that -- but clearly it's CAIR's favorite translation. Which makes sense, as CAIR is basically the US propaganda arm of Hamas.
Posted by: ST ||
01/10/2006 21:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So are the pages soft enough to use for.....??
That's about the only way I can think of to flush it.
Personally I wouldn't want CAIR to have my home address.
Editorial from the Times of India
New Delhi has rightly rejected General Musharraf's offer to ensure peace in the Valley if three towns there are demilitarised. The general's proposition is utterly cynical even while confirming the perception that violence in the Valley is the handiwork of Islamabad.
Musharraf may well have been compelled by domestic reasons to bring Kashmir back to centrestage. Besides the regrouping of Islamic fundamentalists, Islamabad is also facing the threat of secessionism in Baluchistan. New Delhi's caution against state repression there recently has ruffled Islamabad. There are sufficient reasons to assume that the general has floated his new 'peace' deal to influence political debate at home and to provoke New Delhi rather than to address the concerns of Kashmiris. Such showmanship is bad diplomacy. It will neither improve relations between India and Pakistan nor the situation in the Valley. The general has a penchant for posturing irrespective of whether it helps to further the cause of peace.
This was largely responsible for wrecking the Agra talks in 2001. The current statement could stiffen New Delhi and adversely affect the reduction of troops in the Valley. If the general is genuinely interested in peace, he should refrain from shooting from the lip and leave negotiations to diplomats. It is perfectly legitimate on the part of New Delhi to describe Musharraf's remarks as a challenge to India's sovereign rights. But the Centre should not shy away from phasing out troops in the Valley. Unlike Musharraf, who has sought demi-litarisation of Srinagar, Kupwara and Baramulla, New Delhi's concern has to be the whole of Jammu and Kashmir.
Political outfits, from the PDP to the Hurriyat Conference, have been vocal about demilitarisation and rightly so. However, they should be careful not to endorse the general's suggestion of peace at gunpoint. Groups like the Hurriyat should realise that their politics has to gain momentum and an agenda outside the ambit of Islamabad. Externally sponsored campaigns can hardly transform a society or achieve democratic rights.
It is also important to distinguish between diplomatic posturing and genuine support for rights. But the most important realisation must be that the road to peace can be walked without the gun.
Posted by: john ||
01/10/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
In which a Telegraph reporter notices there's something missing in post-occupation Gaza...(via LGF)
I have always been reluctant to accept the Israeli statesman Abba Eban's observation that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Arriving in Gaza yesterday, it had to be admitted that the man had a point. Four months ago, when I was last here, the place sparkled with optimism. With the hated Israelis gone, Gaza was going to show the world what Palestinians could do when left to their own devices.
The Strip's miles of golden sand were to become a sort of Islamic Miami Beach, minus the booze and bikinis. Maybe, a few diehard optimists dared to hope, Yasser Arafat's vision of Gaza as a Middle Eastern Singapore might at last start to be realised.
Yesterday, it felt more like the Wild West. The first sign of just how dodgy security has become came when Said Ghazali, The Daily Telegraph's local man in Jerusalem, and I arrived at the Palestinian side of the crossing to learn that our regular driver - stocky, dependable Ashraf - would not be there to meet us.
He had a reasonable excuse. He has the bad luck to belong to the Masri clan, who are currently engaged in a blood feud with their rivals, the Kafarnehs. The toll so far is five dead and 70-odd wounded. Yesterday a Kafarneh was injured in a shooting attack and Ashraf thought it prudent to leave his cab in the garage.
We found another driver and set off for Rafah, the scene of an extraordinary outbreak of anarchy last week. A mob killed two Egyptian border guards and bulldozed concrete walls in a successful attempt to force the authorities to release a man suspected of kidnapping the British aid worker Kate Burton and her parents. On the way, we passed through the town of Khan Younis. The main road was blocked by what I took at first to be an election rally.
Wrong. The Masri boys were at it again, this time wading into the Tahas, their sworn enemies in the southern end of the Strip. The action in the main street was confined to fists and boots, but, as we turned into a parallel street to detour round the mob, we ran into a gun battle, with the rivals trading Kalashnikov fire from opposing blocks of flats. The cars in front of us sped up a bit, but 50 yards from the shooting, life was going on as normal.
Most Gazans grew up with gunfire. Before, it was only the Israelis they had to worry about. Now they are shooting each other. The security forces are no help. Their rivalries are the cause of much of the bloodshed. Somehow, though, it is never all gloom in Gaza. Yesterday, pace Abba Eban, I saw one opportunity that the Palestinians have definitely not missed. On the site of what was once an Israeli army base, there now stands the Al Bashir Joy Land. Where once there were walls and watchtowers are slides, merry-go-rounds and swings.
At the end of a day like yesterday, I would normally retire to the UN Beach Club, a low-rise concrete joint whose seediness is more than compensated for by its views of the Mediterranean. And, of course, the fact that it is the only place in Gaza where you can get a drink. Over the years, thousands of Middle Eastern hands have had reason to remember it fondly. Yes, we often thought as the barman placed the first frosted glasses of Heineken before us on a scorching mid-summer evening, there is a point to the United Nations. Yesterday the Beach Club was still there. But the bar wasn't. Unknown saboteurs arrived at dawn a few days ago, tied up the guards and planted a bomb that reduced the interior to matchwood. The way things are going in Gaza, it seems unlikely that the dear old Beach Club will be re-opening its doors any time soon.
#5
Some people deserve what they get and this is a good example. Here are the paleos, with goverments lining up to help fund prosperty, pissing it all away so they can have clan wars. How long before they beg the Israelis to come back and restore order?
By George A. Pieler, through Tech Central Station
Carbon-based energy sources are whatâs âinâ for 2006. These classic fossil fuels, which many thought were on their way out courtesy of the Kyoto Protocol, have made a truly stunning comeback: indeed they dominate energy news at the dawn of the New Year.
* New Zealand has abandoned a planned carbon tax (tax on fossil fuels) on the ground that it was regressive, damaging to agriculture, and ineffective in cutting so-called greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealandâs Minister for Climate Change Issues notes âMany of our current policies were developed in the 1990s. Since then, New Zealandâs economy has boomed, petrol prices have risen and other factorsâŠhave changed our situation.â Nothing like a swift kick in the butt by the reality and clue bats to make one see the light. They like most of the rest of the signers jumped on the Kyoto bandwagon because it sounded and felt good. Then when the receipts came in, they said, "Holy Schitskis! We better rethink this one." Action, meet consequences, heh.
* Russia cut off Ukraineâs natural gas supply in the midst of stumbling negotiations aimed at raising Gazpromâs prices to market-clearing levels. At least thatâs the Russian version. Gas prices have shot up as the security of supply Europe-wide is put in question. Europe looks to natural gas for much of their clean energy, and that means Russia, for one. Dependency on Pooty Poot.
* In the US the Northeastâs Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has been thrown for a loop with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romneyâs decision to withdraw from this regional scheme for mandatory cuts in utility emissions of carbon (meaning higher energy costs or strict limits on energy use, however implemented). Any word on reactions from Teddy or Kerry? Just curious.
The civilized world was supposed to be weaning itself off fossil fuels and moving towards renewables, fuel cells, and off-the-grid self sufficiency, but instead relies on fossil fuels more than ever. The economic emergence of China contributed mightily to the run-up in energy costs in 2005, and future growth in the developing world will do the same. Further, the surge in gasoline prices in the U.S. demonstrated consumer demand is astonishingly inelastic, as drivers decided they wanted to keep driving after all.
One lesson is that artificial government support for carbon stretchers -- ethanol, mandatory fuel economy standards -- and carbon substitutes -- tax breaks and government purchase orders for synthetics, wind farms, and exotic fuels -- just reinforces our commitment to fossil fuels. Since the 70âs, nuclear aside, every energy policy initiative has keyed off fossil fuels in trying to reduce the geopolitical, environmental, and economic costs of their use.
Is that a bad thing? No, at least not in the short run. No one knows if the future lies with super-efficient adaptation of known energy sources or advances in much-hyped innovations such as nanotechnology, fusion power and fuel cells. Yet todayâs headlines remind us that political manipulation of fossil fuel supplies in touchy parts of the globe -- and donât forget Hugo Chavezâs Venezuela and the new Bolivia of Evo Morales -- is not good for the global economy. No Shiite, Sherlock.
Perhaps this year we will grasp the truth: true energy security comes from diversifying approaches, using objective research and sound science, not subsidies, rationing, and price manipulation. Some of these diversified options are being aired in Sydney, Australia this week as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate gathers to sort through a carefully-reasoned menu of energy options the embrace economic growth. Insert Master of the Obvious pic here. All kidding aside, it will be scientific advances and the market that will drive a more diverse energy supply. We need to create a market climate friendly to innovative designs. But remember, new energy sources, like new engines, take time. We are talking a ten year span. I'm waiting for the new diesel engine for my airplane.
The six nations of the Partnership -- the US, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia -- will discuss, inter alia, rapid transfer of clean energy technology to the fast-growing Asian economies, who are also the fastest-growing producers of greenhouse gases. The Partnership can succeed by focusing on cost-effective ways to improve energy efficiency, transferring proven energy-saving technologies, and maximizing economic efficiency. As well they should. Chicom products take significantly more energy to produce per unit than the US. We cannot compete on labor. However, the cost of improvements have to be borne across the board. The US shouldn't foot the bill by ourselves.
Another option before the Partnership will surely be nuclear power. Recently US Senator John McCain visited Australia and urged Environment Minister Ian Campbell to support the US in boosting use of nuclear power as the classic clean energy source. Yet McCainâs presence suggests a cautionary note: he has also embraced much of the neo-Kyoto agenda, specifically mandatory caps on CO2 emissions. In the Yukon last August the Senator noted melting frost and glaciers, and asked âhow much damage will be done before we start taking concrete action?â What the world doesnât need is for the post-Kyoto agenda recently agreed in Montreal to be joined by an Asia-Pacific agenda that starts drifting towards the Kyoto mentality. His and Billary's headline grabbing trip to the Yukon and Alaska, which raised greenhouse gasses in many ways, heh.
So the Partnership convening in Sydney must, first and foremost, heed the laws of economics and basic tenets of scientific inquiry. As should every endeavor, Jeeze Louise. It is not scientific to draw sweeping conclusions from near-term changes in temperatures and melting patterns, and it is not rational to ignore the costs of arbitrary cuts in CO2 emissions. Rational, well-calibrated steps to help the world adapt to possible risks of climate disruption are what the Partnership needs to formulate. And if this group can impliment that fundamental idea, and get something done, then energy security is increased, and the UN becomes more irrelivant, which is one WIN-WIN. Good luck t'all o'ye.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/10/2006 14:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...UN becomes more irrelivant...."
To become irrelivant you must first be relevant.
I was in Las Vegas last weekend. Did some world shattering event happen that I missed?
Posted by: kelly ||
01/10/2006 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
New Zealand makes an interesting Kyoto case study. They originally signed up believing they would get a net financial benefit from Kyoto, since then costs have steadily increased and are now well north of a billion dollars (for a very small economy). Energy costs to the consumer have increased sharply. And all kinds of distortions and adverse environmental consequences have resulted such as large scale clearing of forests.
#3
Right, phil_b. Saw this in NZ last year. They did not pencil it out first, but went with their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings. And now they regret it.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/10/2006 17:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I knew when I read "Holy Schitskis!" that it was your post AP...lol!
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2006 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
An agreement that actually means something. I means people are acting out of self interest not out of some loonie half science half religious Tranzi political agenda.
After seeing the chaos from Katrina and the failure of law enforcement to, well, enforce the law, I decided I needed a more powerful weapon than my 9mm HiPower or Mini-14. I knew I wasn't going to need a rifle for long-range, so a shotgun it was.
I read my 1997 Gun Digest looking for good models and then went on the internet. I quickly realized there were many choices and I needed to make a list of key features. The key feature list is below:
1. I decided to go with a pump versus automatic because a) it works well, and b) it makes that oh-so-threatening noise when a shell is jacked into the chamber. And you KNOW it if you have ever heard it.
2. I decided I wanted a short barrel to make it more manuverable.
3. I wanted maximum magazine capacity.
4. I wanted a black MP/Police style.
I looked and found the best were the Remington 870 and Winchester 1300. I have owned several Remington revolvers (Mod 29) and decided to stick with a Remington. In a local pawn shop, I found a model 5077. This was exactly what I wanted: a black, 18", 7-shot 3" pump shotgun . Sa-weet. I have added sling mounts and a 15-round sling, as well as a small light next to the barrel.
I am not looking at it, but I am smiling thinking about it. I wonder what kind of weapons Aris has?
#1
If he does, I doubt that they include petunias. :P (Read: Lighten up.)
I knew I wasn't going to need a rifle for long-range, so a shotgun it was. I've been interested in the PDW concept, but I like your understanding of "shorter barrel -> more maneuverability." Here's hoping you carry it on an empty chamber, so that the infamous "pump cock" actually chambers a shell instead of ejecting the loaded one. LOL
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
01/10/2006 0:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I live in Detroit and I've been a believer is shotguns for years. I bought a Mossburg 500, because it is cheap, and that "CLA-CLUNK" is even louder. My Mossburg is black, with a fiber pistol grip and forearm, and an 18" barrel. Install the heat shield because it makes the gun look meaner.
The only time I shoot is once every summer to burn up the box of shells.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
01/10/2006 1:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Although the jacking of a shell can be intimidating, it also announces to the world your location, a bad call. The short barrel scatters the shot and aint worth a damn for anything other than close quarters fighting. Other than looking cool, and jungle fighting, I pass on shotguns, a good Gloc with an extended clip will outrange, carry more ammo, shoot through walls in a house, and generally out perform a shotgun any day. Shotguns are good for Geese, but for hunting humans I would rather a good Sig or Gloc. Aris might be bold on the net, but I figure he would concider it better to avoid in person than confront.
BTW Brett, I printed your rant from yesterday and posted it at work. It was great!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/10/2006 7:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The short barrel scatters the shot and aint worth a damn for anything other than close quarters fighting.
Close quarters is pretty much the definition of home defense.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
01/10/2006 8:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Come on guys, you should know to load defensive shotguns Bird-buck-ball for max effect.
Birdshot to deflect wannabes, buckshot for serious fighting, and pumpkin ball (Deer Slugs and Sabots included here) to blast the faraway and auto driving assaulters, goes through kevlar nicely too.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/10/2006 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Congradulations Brett,
A man's first shotgun is a special time in his life.
You were wise to go with a pump, you have to spend a lot of money to get a reliable autoloader and even then you don't get the shell capacity. The Winchester 1300 with the 18" bbl. is also a fine gun for the money. Now if you need to, you can easily blow a hole in someone big enough to throw a cat through. Happy Shooting.
#8
Thanks to all of the commenters.
1. Edward, empty until a round is needed.
2. Dan, I agree.
3. Pan, I respectfully disagree which is why I bought a shotgun.
4. RC, my point exactly.
5. Jim, I thought about all of that, but decided on the simplicity of 00 buckshot.
6. Bigjim, spot on! My sentiments exactly.
7. Whatever, birddog.
I don't desire to own any weapons in my personal life, ever, nor do I expect to need to. This is no judgement on your own acquisition, since I understand that your needs may be different as you may be living in a much more dangerous area than I do. Wish you good use of your possession and may you never need to use it.
#10
An old miner's trick for short-range defense is to pour some paraffin wax over your shot. It makes the shot clump together, decreasing the dispersion and increasing the "tear" effect on the target.
If you really want to get ugly, though, use dimes. That's just plain nasty.
You're saying because of a lack of law enforcement during Katrina, you decided you need a more powerful weapon to protect yourself. So what youre saying is that you are more than willing to take the law into your own hands if need be.
Evidently something you saw during Katrina scared you from a lack of law enforcement viewpoint. So exactly WHO would be your targets? WHO would you be shooting at? WHO were the lawbreakers?
#14
MY situation, though likely worse in degree, is typical for the urban homeowner. I have large, protective, dogs,that ultimately will be defeated by a serious intruder. I figure if anyone gets past the dogs, they have proven that they didn't stumble in by accident. At that point, I think that I can shoot the intruder and not worry too much about legal issues. Even in Michigan.
In the event I ever need to use the shotgun on anybody, I expect that I will be upstairs, filling the stairwell with lead.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
01/10/2006 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#16
My interest in getting a shotgun lasted until I put a couple of rounds through my son's 870. Jeez. He's big and can handle it, but at my size and build it's a bit rough on the shoulder.
I'm looking for a good CC piece with some stopping power, though. Right now I'm thinking of the Kahr P45, but I'm open to suggestion.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#17
2b, I think keeping them away from humidity is the key; do that, and they should last years.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
#18
thanks DD. They are really old. So maybe a trip to WalMart is in order.
#19
How do they look? Any signs of corrosion? If not, it might be worth test-firing a couple of rounds and see how they do. I'm no expert, but that'd be my inclination...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#20
That's why I shoot the box of shells every year. Shotgun shells are cheap.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
01/10/2006 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#21
"I'm looking for a good CC piece with some stopping power, though. Right now I'm thinking of the Kahr P45, but I'm open to suggestion."
Dave...how much you looking to spend? What are you trying to do? How often will you carry it? I'm a city dweller, so CC means something different than it might in Arizona...
Maybe a custom 1911 officer's model? I prefer the gold cup national match Colt after some parts changes, but it is a bit big.
If you are after the ultimate in CC, I like the Walther TPH in .25 (or the Seacamp, but there is a waiting list), loaded with magsafe rounds. Even the Walther PPK from Germany is finished like jewelry, so it's nice to carry. Fits in the smallest of pockets, so you are more likely to have it on ya than a Colt or a Paraordinance, and the magsafe rounds make it "fairly effective." Won't stop someone on meth, but so what.... Remember: the weapon you have on ya when you need it is much better than the one on your nightstand, no matter the weapon. That being said, I'd go with something a bit bigger myself, like the 1911 officer's model, maybe from colt or springfield.
A few suggestions.... Interested in what you have looked at.
Posted by: Mark E. ||
01/10/2006 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I've never shot it - I bought it because I figured that I would never have to. Even Aris would recognize that sound.
check out the DVD of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid when it comes out this Spring. Peckinpah knew about diming. Shot them in slow motion
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2006 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Dave,
I have 3 home defense weapons. A glock 19 in 9mm, Browning BDM in 9mm and Sig Sauer .40 S&W. The Sig is my fav, big and heavy and nice for home defense. I have a lasermax laser in the Glock which may come in handy during times of stress when your vision goes a bit wacky. Caliber is not as important as shot placement. The bottom line is use what you are comfortable with and use good grade ammo like Federal Hydra-Shok in JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) Also practice,practice ,practice at the range and dry fire
#25
An old miner's trick for short-range defense is to pour some paraffin wax over your shot. It makes the shot clump together, decreasing the dispersion and increasing the "tear" effect on the target.
MOOSEY, hate to disabuse you of a nice ole mining story..BUT TRUST ME not even hi-tec wax will stay solid even 6" along the bore/barrel.
»;-)
it would MELT
Posted by: Red Dog ||
01/10/2006 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#26
CC has been around in KY for about 10 yrs now. PPK is a good model, but heavy for no bigger than it is, plus it's only a .380 cal. An officers model colt is heavy but has the power to put you in command of the situation, esp if you are shooting through car doors or drywall or other common self defense situations. It is also thinner and rides better in a pancake holster or shoulder holster.
Don't let people talk you into hi cap guns you arent going to be doing that much shooting (I hope) one or two shots, maybe just show it to most attackers and they split. Think about comfort, and what will happen if you do pull the trigger. Go small light and big cal is my advice. Also look at the new titanium revolvers in .41 mag or .357mag.
They are a lot lighter than they steel guns and they look like a million bucks.
Heh. In this neighborhood it's most likely to be meth and PCP.
I'm set up OK for home defense, that's not a problem. But Boss Lady here at work got mugged a couple years back, and we now have a pistol range in the basement of our back building as she says she's damn well not going to go through THAT again.
Right now I'm not sure what I want. I think I'd like something small enough to be pocketable, with substantial stopping power, yet not so savage on the wrist when it goes off that it deters me from getting plenty of range time. I tried one of these things once... sheesh. A 12 oz. handgun in .357 Magnum is definitely NOT practice-friendly!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Then try a .45 officers model, you can shoot that all day without discomfort, and it would blow a big hole through someone no matter what he was smoking.
#29
I am using a Beretta 9 shot .25 for CC loaded alternately with magsafe and ball rounds. My alternate CC is a S&W kit gun in .22 magnum.
The house weapon is a Ruger .357 Security Six with magsafe rounds. This combo will probably stop a irate water buffalo, or a person the size of Shaq on PCP, with one shot.
#30
The PPk is thin, ya a bit heavey for the size and a smaller cal. With that said it fits close, fits smaller hands and works well when you empty a clip into something. One round, unless well place and even the best have a hard time in an emergency will probably not stop s crack head. Thats why the PPk has a clip. Just keep shooting til the threat goes away or goes down.
Lastly, no matter what you get, go to a class and get a carry permit. They will define the laws, ROE, and teash you some very basic firing techniques.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/10/2006 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Dang... gotta bookmark this thread, lots of good ideas to check out!
I suspect what it's going to come down to is finding something in a substantial caliber that "feels right", fits comfortably in a pocket, and isn't so lively that I end up avoiding practicing with it on Sunday mornings when I go worship at the Church of the Sacred Backstop. It may take some doing to find the right balance of comfort, weight, and stopping power.
(Once I do, I'll definitely sign up for the courses.)
Thanks to all for the ideas!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Red Dog: give it a target fire. The clumping and reduced spread are noticeable.
N.B.: for a great target for any penetrating round, nothing impresses the heck out of other shooters like a plastic jerry can filled with cherry jello.
#34
Best CC gun in our house: Smith & Wesson 640 (.357MAG).
My regular gun: Sig P229 (9mm but I'm thinking of adding one in .40S&W as I like the feel and the frame of this model). Significant other's regular guns: in addition to the S&W, a Baretta 92 (9 mm) and a competition .45 revolver.
All of these except the .45 (under normal conditions) serve as house guns.
I used to have one of those Beretta 92FS's but gave it to my son; the grip always just felt "wrong" to me and I never enjoyed working out with it. He loves the darn thing (it's what he carried in Iraq) but I miss it about as much as I miss my ex-wife.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#36
For home defense, I typically stick with my H&K USP .45. It's big, it's heavy, and it's got 10 rounds. Since I don't live in apartment or with neighbors too close, I keep it loaded with 230g Remington Golden Saber rounds. It's very reliable and the mass helps with quick recovery. I practice often enough that I can hit out to 25 yards, either hand, one handed or two.
For long range, I have a choice to use my M-1 Garand or my match grade AR-15. Flamethrowers are legal in Tennessee, but I still can't find one to buy though.
SS: I did everything I could to keep my boys from learning about guns. I played them Baby Mozart tapes (PIANO) and I encouraged them with fingerpainting (SQUISHES) and I read them gentle books ----- Goodnight moon, goodnight old lady whispering hush (CHILD SNORING) ---- and I took them to museums (FOOTSTEPS. TR, MUFFLED, SLIGHTLY DISTORTED, ON BAD SLIDE-PROJECTION SYSTEM AUDIO: Italy was very important in the Renaissance, especially Florence and Venice, with the work of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci) and I sent them to take ballet (PIANO) and always I taught them to work out the differences through negotiation, but somehow they still got the idea of firearms (KID MAKING PISTOL SOUNDS. TR KID: You're dead. I got you.) and I'd come home and find my children tearing around the house like crazy people (KID SHOOTING) aiming pistols at each other. I brought my kids up to be Democrats and they turned into Republicans.
TR (BUSH): And that's because kids basically are Republicans. When they go off to college they maybe get messed up with a lot of book nonsense that turns them into Democrats, but when you're eleven years old, you are a Republican. Make no mistake about it. And there's nothing wrong with guns. Guns don't kill people: ammunition does.
GK: Your child's natural urge toward Republicanism should not be frustrated. Learn to accept it. It's simply the way things are.
TR (KID): We're never going to get the economy moving until we eliminate the tax on stock dividends, Mom.
GK: And maybe your child's turn toward the right reflects something you've considered too.
SS: But I'm a lifelong Democrat. I took part in the civil rights struggle, women's lib, the environmental movement ---- and yet----
GK: Admit it.
SS: I love driving a truck. I love it. I don't care if it gets 5 miles to the gallon. And if they ever try to take it away from me, they're going to have to take away my pistol too. (SHOTS)
TR: Deep down, don't you wish you were a Republican?
GK: We're all Republicans now,
We've all come around somehow
If you're unemployed
Don't be annoyed,
We're all Republicans now.
Our foreign policy's free.
We're working pre-emptively.
We need a tax-break to help out the Dow,
Forget about deficits they don't matter nohow.
When the sign lights up that says Applause,
Clap your hands and smile because
We're all Republicans
We're all Republicans
We're all Republicans now
#38
Brett--I strenuously recommend against modifying your ammo using wax, as someone mentioned, or the weapon itself to make it seemingly more lethal. It will potentially appear after the fact to a judge or jury that you were just itching for an excuse to use deadly force if you do so. God forbid you ever find yourself in such a situation, but if so you want to demonstrate you used deadly force as a last resort.
That's another reason a pump-action shotgun is a good idea for home defense. By cycling the action you can demonstrate you gave the intruder(s) extra incentive to leave before resorting to force.
BirdDog--I hope you never experience a mugging, armed robbery, or home invasion, or get caught in the lawless aftermath of a hurricane, major earthquake, tsunami, race riot a la the Rodney King trial aftermath, or other calamity. It'd just break my heart to see you have to swallow your pride and ask your better-prepared and more reality-minded neighbors for assistance after you mocked them here.
Posted by: Dar ||
01/10/2006 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#39
All I did was ask a question and you answered.
Yes, of course you did. Aren't you too old for such games, Brett?
Does the government even allow you to have a gun? Or even a knife?
And ofcourse that one isn't trollery either, it's again a "mere question". Yes, I'm moderately sure that my government hasn't abolished knives, I have several of them in my kitchen and I don't think I'm breaking the law.
#41
Dar, I have no intention of modifying ammo. I don't expect to ever use it, but want to be ready should I need it. Also, I live in Texas, so I'd probably be elected should I have to use my 870.
And to my new best Buddy Aris: asking a question isn't trolling. It is simply a question. Even Darrell noticed you avoided answering my question about owning a gun in Greece. It is my understanding that Europe, in general, doesn't allow law-abiding citizens to own guns.
Here in the USA, the citizenry is protected from the government taking our guns by our Constitution. And we guard that right strongly.
#42
Brett> And to my new best Buddy Aris: asking a question isn't trolling. It is simply a question.
Yes, kindergarten logic, like the kid flapping his hands in front of the adult and then going "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you". Your latest question about allowing knives was *sheer* trollery, and your first question "I wonder what kind of weapons Aris has" was again obvious trollery and you know it: You weren't wondering what kinds of weapons I have, you were wondering about whether I had (or was allowed) any weapons and you VERY WELL KNOW IT.
Even Darrell noticed you avoided answering my question about owning a gun in Greece.
My non-answer about the gun question was just punitive action against the trollery of your knife question. If you want my responses, start trolling less. Darrell's question I will respond to, however.
It is my understanding that Europe, in general, doesn't allow law-abiding citizens to own guns.
Really? Where have you ever heard that?
Darrell> "Can civilians own guns, Aris?"
Yes.
Certainly gun-ownership isn't part of the dominant culture here (and by that I mean Athenian culture specifically) but I do very well know that gun permits exist. I don't know the specifics of obtaining one, but they exist.
And certainly guns are a huge part of Crete's culture, possibly to an even greater extent than Texan culture. Crete's the kinda place where you hear a barrage gunshots fired at the sky in weddings.
#47
BD, you don't have to shout. We heard you the first time.
Yes, real men don't need guns. If none is available, a club will have to do.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2006 15:55 Comments ||
Top||
#48
Formerly Dan--I've got some problems with those rules when it comes to home defense, particularly #5. The more ammo you expend, the more ammo you give the prosecutor in persuading the jury you used excessive force.
If you expect to keep hold of the independent and free lifestyle you are currently living, you will shoot to stop, not shoot to kill.
Posted by: Dar ||
01/10/2006 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Brett and Aris, it takes two to hijack a thread. As a mod, I won't spend time trying to figure out which one of you is more responsible. Fred just gave us mods a new gun tool to handle trolling, and I'll probably just be even-handed.
So both of you: listen to Mom. That's always good advice.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/10/2006 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#51
It is my understanding that Europe, in general, doesn't allow law-abiding citizens to own guns.
Yeah, and? It is my understanding that whenever the shit hits the fan in Europe, the guns seem to come out of the woodwork. They're there, even if you don't see them. Permits are also not impossible to obtain.
it takes two to hijack a thread
No one has hijacked anything yet. You can be more even-handed (you should, actually), but don't be too heavy-handed! :-)
Posted by: Rafael ||
01/10/2006 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#52
long ago my dad gave me a 357 magnum. Nice little guy fitting snug in the palm of you hand. While driving to work rurally, some guys popped up a red light from their dash, immitating a cop and pulled me over. I quickly realized that it wasn't a cop and got out of there. So my dad insisted that I carry one with me for protection.
I haven't shot it in some time, I think I'll go to the shooting range this next week. Maybe try out a few others as well. Thanks for the ideas via this thread. ;)
Posted by: Jan ||
01/10/2006 16:50 Comments ||
Top||
#53
Jan--If you have a smaller .357 (like the Ruger SP101, which I own), you may want to look at 125gr ammo for it. It has less of a kick and makes the smaller framed .357's easier to control and less painful to shoot.
Also, please get your CCL if you don't already have one and your state permits it. Better to be safe (and legal) than sorry! I recommend www.packing.org for further info.
Posted by: Dar ||
01/10/2006 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Steve White, how can I 'hijack' a thread I started? And, my comments have all been on the topic.
Awww, Mom. I didn't poke him, nor did I flame him or screech at the little guy. I just wanted his feedback. And I got it. :-)
#55
I think a double action revolver is the way to go. The original point and click interface. The technology is almost flawless and there is no safety to fool with. I bought my wife a Lady Smith .357 Stainless, small enough for her hand size but plenty of stopping power. And its pretty. She used my Makarof to disuade two dudes from stealing the truck she was sitting in one sunny Sunday morning in the Home Depot parking lot. She pointed it at them, they fled. She could not have pulled the trigger because she did not know about the safety.
If you have one of those smaller .357's (I have a Ruger SP 101 snubby), it would be worth your while to buy a box of .38 Special and try them out. They'll work just fine in a .357 and the recoil lessens considerably. The .38 Special is a pretty good cartridge, too.
Plus, if you live someplace where there is some firearms use training to be had (close to Lethal Force Institute in NH, Thunder Ranch in Oregon, or Blackwater in NC; there are also others), your money would be well spent in taking a class in defensive handgun use. Clint Smith of TR was fond of saying that "In an emergency, people don't rise to the occasion; they default to the level of their prior training." I've found there's a lot of truth in that statement. You don't ever want to have to use a gun against another person but if you come to that point, you want to be well trained enough to win. Good luck!
Posted by: mac ||
01/10/2006 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
#57
FWIW - a "permit" required to own a gun may never be granted to Joe six-pack. IIUC NY City (and now San Francisco?) requires permits for handguns at least...if you aren't a celeb or engaged in diamond delivery, et al, you won't get one. I personally have a Winchester Defender 12 GA 18" barrel/pistol grip/sling carry. It would be useful and easy to load in case of intrusion. Your mileage may vary, but that's a good criteria...otherwise you'll probably end up with the weapon used against you.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2006 17:49 Comments ||
Top||
#58
The .38 Special is also a lot easier on the pocketbook than the .357 Magnum-- where I shop & shoot, about $9 for a box of 50 instead of $15. It makes a good "target range" round for the .357 Magnum; easier on the ears, and a LOT easier on the wrists.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
#59
even better than my .44 mags - $25 for jacketed hollow points = $.50 shot...
I love shooting it, but, damn! Started buying reloads from a buddy and collecting ALL my brass
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2006 18:19 Comments ||
Top||
#60
These rules were sent to me by a buddy who is a cop.
If you are carrying a concealed pistol everyday a revolver is kinda bulky.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
01/10/2006 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
#61
Remember - use #8 birdshot if you are doing home defense. Its effective to about 6 meters in terms of deadly force, and will not overpenetrate drywall and put your loved noes at risk.
I load mine 2 bird, then buck, then a deer slug. then alternating buck and deer slug. And I fire off the box of shells and get new ones every summer - its a Remmy 870 pump, very effective with the short barrel. Its all you need for defending hearth and home, an 870 with those loads, my trusty Glock 23 (.40 S&W w/high velocity Hyrdashoks), and God forbid I shoudl need it, a KBar.
All it takes is one burglary to get you to arm up. I had one of those a long time ago when my son was an infant. Never again. And the one time it has happened since, racking the 870 and yelling "get the f*** out of my house, I will KILL you" was enough to convince whoever it was they were in the wrong home. Cut themselves up pretty good on the window they went out of. Cops got a good laugh out of that one and the blood trail he left to the street (wife called 911 as went into defense-of-family mode).
Posted by: Old ||
01/10/2006 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#62
Significant other says I forgot to mention one of his favorites, which also sometimes serves as a house gun: his Ruger MP 161 (.357 MAG).
He also says I'd better have a damn good reason for hauling out his Kimber target match .45 ACP unless I either plan to get up to competition skill or really need to stop some SOB cold in his tracks.
In which case using it is quite fine by him .....
One useful thing about a shotgun for home defense is that it gives less-than-lethal options for stopping an intruder attack.
#63
I can't find the MP-161 on Ruger's website or by Googling; what is it? Revolver? Double-action? I assume from the model # the barrel is 6"?
Do tell...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
#64
Price of ammo for practice is one reason I like the 9mm - I don't get to the range as much as I'd like lately, but when I go I can shoot enough rounds to maintain reasonable proficiency with my personal handgun. I figure I'm better off being capable with a 9mm than ill-practiced with a bigger caliber.
#66
Dave, that's cause I mistyped. It's the GP-100, specifically the 161 member of that family: 6" barrel, double action revolver, adjustable rear sights. Second item on this page.
#67
Ah, OK; the KGP-161 is what I got my son for Christmas; sounds like we're talking the same model except for blued vs. stainless steel.
Nice gun. Needs trigger work though, because it gives PLENTY of warning thru the trigger before it goes off; when I used it, I started flinching like crazy-- something I never have a problem with, with the S&W 686. Trigger on that thing's as smooth as a baby's ass; no warning of when it's going to go off, ergo no flinching.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/10/2006 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
#68
Dar:
Gotta disagree with you. If you do shoot, shoot to kill. Period. Never draw your weapon unless you are prepared to kill.
#69
A lot of the big pistols y'all like really overpenetrate. I'll keep my cheap 12 guage, because I don't have to worry about shooting through my wall and killing my neighbor in his bed.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
01/10/2006 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
"the sky is falling" lefties, put them in straitjackets (so that they don't hurt themselves or anyone else) and then lock them up in an insane asylum.
The possibilities for abuse are obvious and could add up to serious civil rights infringements in the absence of this check.
