Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, April 6. 2013

Target apologizes for "Manatee Grey"

Nightmares drove NJ man to admit 1990 killing (h/t neoneo)

Identifying the Right “Depreciation” Tax Policy: The Most Boring – but Important – Article You Will Read Today

Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge

Everybody knows that Big Oil pays Dyson to utter this nonsense

AGW: The End of an Illusion

Lowest Labor Force Participation Rate Since 1979

It keeps getting worse

Dying Monopolies – The Post Office

Catholic Gonzaga University won’t allow Catholic students to form Catholic group

Most Democrats now believe ObamaCare won’t help and may hurt them

MF Global Trustee's Report Blasts Obama Bundler Jon Corzine

Shouldn't Crozine be in jail by now?

From Corrupt Pols Running America’s Biggest Nanny State:

In New York, the government has its finger in every pie, and politics is full of hypocritical blue swill about helping the poor and the needy. New York has a government that wants to do what it shouldn’t do, that can’t do what it ought to do, and that has been hijacked by a criminal class of political hacks. This is what blue model decline looks like.

Why Is North Korea Our Problem?

The gussying up of (Hillary) Clinton’s standing is one of the silliest political exercises of our time.

Smartest woman in the world. Went to Wellesley, after all. Fancy chick college, studied Alinsky.

Good growth in the Mexican economy

But it's illegal for Americans to emigrate to Mexico. Mexico does not permit immigration, but they may change their mind if they have too many jobs that Mexicans won't do.

The US Navy's Rail Gun

Hinderaker on entitlement reform:

That’s what the Left has come to: a reactionary force, determined to uphold an unjust status quo against even the slightest reform. Champions of the wealthiest segment of American society, out to screw the young. But it is hard to see a successful endgame: the entitlements simply cannot be sustained in anything like their present form. That is a mathematical proposition, not a political one.

Stats via Ace:

All rifles (that includes the AR-15) were involved in fewer homicides in 2011 than blunt objects, fists and knives.
1.5X more homicides were committed with blunt objects.
2.2X more homicides were committed with fists.
5.2X more homicides were committed with knives.

It's definitely time for a national fist registry

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:00 | Comments (64) | Trackbacks (3)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.dailypundit.com
Tracked: Apr 06, 20:30

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Apr 07, 09:17

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Apr 07, 09:45

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Oh no, with all of these AGW links I expect a full on Zach attack today.

#1 phil g on 2013-04-06 07:19 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Anthony Watts: Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge ... When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson has filled it.

Good example. Einstein refused to accept quantum theory.

#2 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 08:11 (Reply)

Attack the messenger.

#2.1 BD on 2013-04-06 09:30 (Reply)

Um, we didn't make the comparison. That was Watts.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 09:59 (Reply)

except thats not true, you being a stickler for precision and all that.

#2.2 DrTorch on 2013-04-07 15:58 (Reply)

QUOTE:

via Ace: All rifles (that includes the AR-15) were involved in fewer homicides in 2011 than blunt objects, fists and knives.

"More people are killed in automobile accidents than in terrorists attacks, therefore, nothing should have been done about 9-11."

What's the flaw in that statement?

#3 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 08:13 (Reply)

"Airplanes were used in the 911 attacks, therefore, we should ban airplanes"

What's the flaw in that statement?

#3.1 NorthCountry on 2013-04-06 10:11 (Reply)

Notice you didn't answer our question.

NorthCountry: [i]"Airplanes were used in the 911 attacks, therefore, we should ban airplanes" What's the flaw in that statement?/i]

Because it isn't necessary to ban airplanes to prevent such attacks. All it requires is not allowing terrorists to gain control of the airplane, primarily, by not unlocking the cockpit door. (Planes were banned, by the way, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.)

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 10:21 (Reply)

So if the ability to to prevent the attack exists, the object used need not be banned? Excellent! I assume you are withdrawing any support for the AWB?

#3.1.1.1 NorthCountry on 2013-04-06 10:43 (Reply)

Were you proposing another solution? Are there any reasonable limitations on private arms?

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 10:48 (Reply)

this is why you gun grabbers are ultimately going to get buried.

you refuse, or simply cannot, debate honestly. either you don't know enough basic, high school level constitutional law to discuss existing second amendment restrictions or how to frame potentially useful further restrictions within constitutionally valid parameters, or you don't care to try.

I suspect its the latter, hence the your endless use of strawmen and false statements about the law itself.

you get brownie points on the internet for advocating taxing bullets or banning scary attachments, but in the real world, you lose.

you're using the same BS tactics you demoncraptics used back in the 1950s and 1960s to restrict Black voting rights: make the right so onerous that it is a de facto ban. you don't learn. you lost then. and you'll lose now.

scoreboard, kid. Heller is the law and its not going away, no matter what kind of asshatted fantasies you have about that.

deal with it.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-04-06 11:26 (Reply)

Zachriel: Were you proposing another solution? Are there any reasonable limitations on private arms?

wirraway: ... you refuse, or simply cannot, debate honestly... {and so on}

In other words, no.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 16:35 (Reply)

uh, no.

I've seen enough of your blatherings to know, absolutely, that you are clueless on how the second amendment works. so most of the crap dish out and get handed back on boards like this one is to feed your own ego.

cuz sure as shi'ite you offer nothing to the debate.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-04-06 17:02 (Reply)

I hear it's called trolling, Mr. Wirraway.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 BillH on 2013-04-06 17:06 (Reply)

We can talk about solutions and limitations.
I was answering you regards "...nothing should be done about 911."
My post was attempting to point out that "banning airplanes" (the object used in the attack) is exactly whats being offered as a solution with the AWB, and gun control in general.

When it involves airplanes, you point out that the object itself need not be banned, other solutions exist. You do not seem to carry this same logic over to firearms. ( I don't know your full position, so maybe I am mistaken?)

I appreciate that you have the courage of your convictions to enter "the lion's den" as it were, and I appreciate that you do so without resorting to personal attacks and insults. This is something of a rarity in today's society, even rarer on the internets. Thank you.

#3.1.1.1.1.2 NorthCountry on 2013-04-06 11:38 (Reply)

Not rare on Maggie's Farm.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1 BD on 2013-04-06 12:15 (Reply)

Indeed. The fact that the social compact is alive and well at Maggie's is one of the reasons I enjoy the site so much. Thanks BD and gang. I guess we can have nice things.

#3.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 NorthCountry on 2013-04-06 12:36 (Reply)

NorthCountry: I was answering you regards "...nothing should be done about 911."

Yes, and our response was with regards to the comment via Ace who implies that because other weapons are used for murder, that nothing should be done about assault weapons.

No one has deigned to answer our question about 9-11. The question wasn't strictly rhetorical. There's a reason why immediate action was taken in response to 9-11.

NorthCountry: When it involves airplanes, you point out that the object itself need not be banned, other solutions exist. You do not seem to carry this same logic over to firearms.

Actually, we directly asked you "Were you proposing another solution? Are there any reasonable limitations on private arms?"

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 16:40 (Reply)

"Are there any reasonable limitations on private arms?"

Are there any reasonable limitations on abortions? The right to "keep and bear arms" is explicit in the Bill of Rights. It is both a legal right and, in ultimate origin, an inalienable (natural) right (of self-protection against a tyrannical government). The strictly legal right to an abortion was granted by the Supreme Court, which in order to create it out of whole cloth, felt it necessary to resort to embarrassing language that cited Constitutional "penumbras" and "emanations." And yet which right does the Left consider sacrosanct against societal constraint these days?

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 Agent Cooper on 2013-04-06 20:15 (Reply)

Agent Cooper: Are there any reasonable limitations on abortions?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the state has an interest once the fetus becomes viable. There's also reasonable limitations on the right to free speech.

Agent Cooper: The right to "keep and bear arms" is explicit in the Bill of Rights.

The question was what is reasonably covered by the right to keep and bear arms. Muskets? Machine guns? Bazookas? Nukes?

#3.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 22:11 (Reply)

Flights were banned. Planes were grounded. :)

Had a buddy that got stranded in palookaville for a few days when that happened.

#3.1.1.2 T.K. Tortch on 2013-04-06 10:44 (Reply)

Touché.

#3.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 10:49 (Reply)

It isn't necessary to ban rifles that look a certain way to prevent mass shootings either (keeping in mind that "prevent" is a relative term - anybody who thinks that locking the cockpit door and instituting the DHS body fondling ensures that there will never be another plane hijacking is just as deluded as anyone who thinks that limiting the size of a magazine and outlawing pistol grips will ensure no future mass murders).

Of course, the original DHS security and the original AWB were just a beginning. There is more to come on both fronts.

#3.1.1.3 mudbug on 2013-04-06 13:29 (Reply)

I just watched Ken Burn's Prohibition which I enjoyed. I see a lot of parallels between Prohibition and the national discussion on guns.

#3.1.1.3.1 Karen on 2013-04-06 14:12 (Reply)

I haven't seen it, but it doesn't surprise me. When I first started getting interested in gun rights, it occurred to me that there was a connection with drugs. Even though they are illegal, they are everywhere. Drugs are something you use to get high, but guns can be something you use to get drugs (or food or more guns). To think you can ban guns - especially pistols and magazines - is folly in the first place. It just makes having a gun that much better for the bad guy.

#3.1.1.3.1.1 mudbug on 2013-04-06 16:14 (Reply)

One episode opened with this quote. Mark Twain: “Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky. It is the prohibition that makes anything precious.”

#3.1.1.3.1.1.1 Karen on 2013-04-06 17:40 (Reply)

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=revolver+statue+at+un&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=4FBE3C32FE9AD1A6CBE37CA41C27EE27C532803B&selectedIndex=16

That statue just kills me.

In my lifetime, the two big genocides have been Cambodia/Pol Pot's, and Rwanda's.

In neither case did the killers make much use of guns to do the killing. The reds took control of Cambodia with weapons of course, but then over the next couple years a quarter to a third of the population, amounting to three to four million citizens, were mainly bludgeoned to death with shovels, 'iron rods', hammers, clubs and so forth, in the fields where they were working as slave labor.

In Rwanda, the Hutu murdered almost a million Tutsi in about a hundred days, using machetes and stabbing weapons mainly.

Rwanda was an official UN protectorate at the time. Cambodia was certainly eligible to be likewise.

In both cases the victim populations had been disarmed by their governments prior to the genocides. In both cases, the UN was part of the reason the governments gave for the confiscations --that the UN would protect the people, and the UN was ridding the world of guns and war.

See, the statue! Proof!

Had all this not been the fact, the killers would've faced a daunting prospect: guns in the hands of fighters fighting for their lives.

So daunting a prospect that an armed populace would've most likely deterred the whole damn operation, and both genocides would've joined the unseen list of the never-happened.

So, there sits that statue, maybe serious to the uninformed, but to the informed, it is a huge mock, a big fat sneer, a slap in the face.

Why? Because clearly, the disabled gun belongs to an unseen murder victim --and the UN is having a little fun with the symbolism, using it as a way to state in plain sight that it sponsors the inability of people to defend themselves, and that it made sure that the Cambodians and Rawandans died in horric agony and fantastic numbers, and that really, no one much complained about it, there in the big domino on Turtle Bay.

#3.1.1.3.1.1.2 buddy larsen on 2013-04-06 19:17 (Reply)

In this quote Twain is calling out the prohibitionists as busy bodies and naive about human nature. Both sides were irreconcilable and the argument against alcohol was that it was evil - it killed people and destroyed families. The argument for alcohol was that most people could drink w/o doing bad things and culturally it was their heritage (for example taking wine with communion). Hard liquor was the first target. It really is fascinating. A good rent from netflix.

#3.1.1.3.1.1.2.1 Karen on 2013-04-06 20:17 (Reply)

buddy,

A transferred comment:

Just watched the video. "First they came for...." is the saying I reflect upon.

Don't Give Anybody More Power Than The People

An excellent read (re the UN being more useless than 'teats on a boar') is : "Shake Hands With The Devil The Failure Of Humanity In Rwanda by LGEN Romeo Dallaire. He, as a soldier, led the UN 'Peacekeeping' Force in Rwanda. He tells a sad tale of what he went through, handcuffed by the idiots at the UN. Sad...sad...shameful.

TC

#3.1.1.3.1.1.2.2 Garry on 2013-04-07 09:35 (Reply)

mudbug: It isn't necessary to ban rifles that look a certain way to prevent mass shootings either

Great! What's the answer?

mudbug: (keeping in mind that "prevent" is a relative term - anybody who thinks that locking the cockpit door ... )

Actually, that seems to have been highly effective, though obviously nothing is foolproof.

#3.1.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 16:44 (Reply)

There is no "answer" in the sense that something will be completely effective. So far airplane security does seem to be effective but as you say, it is not 100% either.

There was a time and place where guns could be purchased without background checks from hardware stores to department stores. Grade school kids brought guns to school for show and tell. Even in New York, high school and college rifle teams brought their guns on the subway. Mass shootings were pretty much unheard of and there was no thought of gun control.

Since then, we have let unstable people out of institutions and on to our streets in the name of civil rights. The harmless become bag ladies and panhandlers some of the others are dangerous. As bad as the state run hospitals were, they were almost certainly much better off there - and so were we.

Since then, we have fostered a culture where fathers are increasingly rare and single mothers are exalted. Many of the boys without fathers find their security and family in gangs that are violent.

Since then, we have instituted systems where people no longer have to be responsible for themselves. They have only to wait for their EBT card to be refilled, their rent paid, and their cell phone minutes refreshed.

Since then, we have decided that life is not that important if it inconveniences our having fun.

Since then, we have trained people to believe that they are owed something from people who have something because they are the reason they don't rather than encourage people to be responsible and lift themselves up.

Not all of those factors (and there are others) are straight lines to criminal and cruel behavior with guns or anything else, but they are all contributory.

#3.1.1.3.2.1 mudbug on 2013-04-06 20:02 (Reply)

mudbug: There was a time and place where guns could be purchased without background checks from hardware stores to department stores.

Sure, and most people had a shotgun for bird shooting or a rifle for varmints. Few had a gun capable of shooting 50 rounds in a minute without reloading.

mudbug: Since then, we have let unstable people out of institutions and on to our streets in the name of civil rights.

That was during the Reagan Administration, and it was to save money.

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-06 22:07 (Reply)

The mentally ill were let out because it was no longer legal to commit someone without their permission. It was at least in part brought on by the ACLU. The fact that it was during the Reagan administration was immaterial.

Many people had shotguns but many people had pistols and rifles. The reason that large magazines make a difference now is that there are gun-free zones. Something else we didn't have before. I purposely didn't mention them because things never went far enough for anyone to even wonder if somebody near by had a gun. It was beyond anybody's thought to try to kill large numbers of people.... except for the Democrats who were part of the KKK. The it was a mission of the NRA to provide guns to blacks so they could defend themselves.

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-04-06 22:34 (Reply)

mudbug: The mentally ill were let out because it was no longer legal to commit someone without their permission.

The Reagan Administration severely curtailed spending on the mentally ill, starting with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. Releasing people is one thing. Releasing them without providing proper services is another. Many became prey to others.

mudbug: Many people had shotguns but many people had pistols and rifles.

Sure, but few had rapid fire weapons with large magazines. Is there a limitation to what firepower a civilian should have access to?

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-07 09:21 (Reply)

Zach: The Reagan Administration severely curtailed spending on the mentally ill, starting with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. Releasing people is one thing. Releasing them without providing proper services is another. Many became prey to others.
Without arguing the contribution of the ACLU to halting involuntary commitment, where was Clinton who for eight years did nothing about it and where is Obummer who spends money like water, has borrowed $0.40 of every dollar of govt. spending? In stead, both are trying to ban weapons because of the way they look. In Obummer's case, his Justice Department was spreading them among Mexican drug dealers and lying that the kids at Sandy Hook were shot with fully automatic weapons.

Zach:Sure, but few had rapid fire weapons with large magazines. Is there a limitation to what firepower a civilian should have access to?
The size of a magazine is irrelevant - especially in a gun-free zone. A 30 round mag or three ten round mags makes no difference. Maybe you can tell me how things would have been different if the nut job at Sandy Hook had been carrying only ten round mags.

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-04-07 13:19 (Reply)

mudbug: Without arguing the contribution of the ACLU to halting involuntary commitment, where was Clinton who for eight years did nothing about it and where is Obummer who spends money like water, has borrowed $0.40 of every dollar of govt. spending?

Certainly, the problem was multi-faceted. See Thomas, Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill:
Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy, Electronic Journal of Sociology 1998.
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

mudbug: The size of a magazine is irrelevant - especially in a gun-free zone.

It can be, though not always.

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-08 07:42 (Reply)

It was Reagan's fault but for Clinton and Obummer the problem is multifaceted...

Explain to me when it is important, especially in a gun-free zone, how the size of a magazine is important.

While you're at it, explain to me how you would round them all up and keep people from making new ones in their garage.

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-04-08 08:32 (Reply)

A public example is the Giffords shooting, where the shooter was disarmed while trying to reload, specifically, a little old lady grabbed the bottom of the gun to prevent the insertion of a new magazine.
http://i.azcentral.com/i/sized/F/6/6/e298/j350/PHP4D2A522C4866F.jpg

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-08 08:50 (Reply)

Most mass shootings are not in a crowd. The size of the magazine would have made no difference in Columbine, VA Tech, the Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook, or almost any other example you can name. You want to legislate for the exception rather than the rule. Very smart... But you're not after an effective response, you're after our guns.

You didn't explain how you were going to keep people from making high capacity magazines in their garage or ban them.

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-04-08 09:41 (Reply)

mudbug: You want to legislate for the exception rather than the rule.

You said the size of a magazine is irrelevant. We noted that sometimes it does. You asked how. We gave a not atypical example. As we didn't say it would always make a difference, you are simply moving the goalposts.

mudbug: You didn't explain how you were going to keep people from making high capacity magazines in their garage or ban them.

Most people won't do that with current technology, just as most shooters don't modify their guns for automatic fire. However, new technology may render the problem worse.

Not sure if anyone answered. Is there a limitation to what firepower a civilian should have access to?

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-08 09:45 (Reply)

There are always exceptions to every consideration. The fact that you found one doesn't change the fact that it is largely irrelevant.

The fact that most people do not modify their guns for full auto is a testament that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens yet your legislation is aimed at them and not the people who perpetrate the crimes. Again, effectiveness is not an issue.

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-04-08 10:02 (Reply)

mudbug: There are always exceptions to every consideration. The fact that you found one doesn't change the fact that it is largely irrelevant.

It wasn't exactly hard to find.

mudbug: The fact that most people do not modify their guns for full auto is a testament that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens yet your legislation is aimed at them and not the people who perpetrate the crimes

We weren't referring to law-abiding citizens, but indiscriminate shooters.

Not sure if anyone answered. Is there a limitation to what firepower a civilian should have access to?

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-08 10:12 (Reply)

Zach: It wasn't exactly hard to find.

So what. It is only one - and it was not in a gun-free zone.

Zach: We weren't referring to law-abiding citizens, but indiscriminate shooters.

The laws that are passed will apply to law-abiding citizens and it assumes that any law-abiding citizen might become an indiscriminate shooter.

Zach: Is there a limitation to what firepower a civilian should have access to?

A civilian should not own a gun capable of firing faster than a mini gun. (it is legal to own a mini gun).

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-04-08 10:57 (Reply)

mudbug: A civilian should not own a gun capable of firing faster than a mini gun.

Thank you for answering the question.

"The M134 Minigun is a 7.62 mm, six-barreled machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute)... the term "minigun" has popularly come to refer to any externally powered Gatling gun of rifle caliber."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minigun

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-04-08 11:16 (Reply)

After a second to think about it, I realize this is the second time I've seen you lay blame on the president (a Republican) for situations that happened during their administrations (Bush with the subprime mortgage melt down -giving no credit for trying to reform Fannie and Freddy- and Reagan for the involuntary commitment fiasco). Let's say they had some culpability. Where was Clinton and now Obummer on this issue? Why didn't they fix the problem with mental patients left to fend for themselves? Neither of them did ANYTHING about it. Clinton's solution to mass shootings was the "safe schools" initiative and banning weapons that he considered "ugly". Obummer has done nothing and he is traveling down the same road as Clinton only more so. So are you willing to assign blame to them, too?

#3.1.1.3.2.1.1.2 mudbug on 2013-04-06 22:58 (Reply)

The "answer" is we have a perfectly good constitution lets live it and restore it. It has always been possible for one crazy individual to kill a number of people. It always will be possible no matter how many politicians knees jerk when it happens. What we are trying to save is the rights, the civil rights, of honest law abiding people. What we fear is that registering our guns, restricting our right to own and carry guns and confiscating our guns will lead to an increasingly powerful and over-reaching federal government doing what governments have historically done after they disarmed the citizens. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,

#3.1.1.3.2.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-04-06 21:44 (Reply)

This is an odd sort of comment: "But it's illegal for Americans to emigrate to Mexico. Mexico does not permit immigration, but they may change their mind if they have too many jobs that Mexicans won't do." Where do you get this from? I see claims like this all the time. It is completely wrong, of course. I emigrated to Mexico almost 15 years ago. I am a permanent resident, free to work anywhere at anything. Where I live there are thousands of Americans and Canadians, many of whom are either permanent residents or actual Mexican citizens. I ask again, where do you get this stuff?

#4 Bryan on 2013-04-06 09:05 (Reply)

OK. Are you a Mexican citizen, or a resident?

I'm interested in the topic.

#4.1 Bird Dog on 2013-04-06 09:13 (Reply)

And, most importantly, can you vote in Mexico?

#4.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-04-06 10:17 (Reply)

I am the equivalent of a "landed immigrant" in Canada, meaning that I have all the rights of a citizen except the right to vote. I could obtain citizenship if I wanted to.

#4.1.1.1 Bryan on 2013-04-07 18:54 (Reply)

As I said, I'm a permanent resident. I can work, do anything I want and it is permanent, I don't have to renew an annual visa.

#4.1.2 Bryan on 2013-04-07 13:07 (Reply)

I have relatives that have a longterm lease on property in Manzanillo (since 1970ish). They can't own it as it is on the water, but the lease has been stable. I think they have to come back to the U.S. from time to time to renew their visas, but that's about all the complication. I just got off the phone with them as they were on their way to the mercado. Ask me what you need to know, BD. I'll try find out when they call back tonight.

There is a huge American and Canadian population year around in that area. Patina, the tin king from South America, built Las Hadas featured in "Ten" which rather ruined what used to be a sleepy resort town for the elite from Guadalajara. Now they have a Walmart and huge highways. No longer my style of getting-away-from-it-all. I believe it is the navel base for the Pacific side of Mexico.

#4.2 jma on 2013-04-06 17:57 (Reply)

Re: The US Navy's Rail Gun

this is epic. given the range, accuracy, destructive value and magazine capacity of a ship mounting rail guns, and given a short window of time, a modern destroyer would have the equivalent firepower of a WW2 fleet carrier, maybe even a carrier task group.

the combat model for this kind of warfare veers into David Weber-style sci fi.

#5 wirraway on 2013-04-06 11:06 (Reply)

But a ship is highly vulnerable platform.

#5.1 BD on 2013-04-06 11:16 (Reply)

look at either the combat salvo model or the older lanchester formula ... what counts is hitting first, effectively. armor on a ship only buys time for the offense. these rail guns outrange cruise missiles, current artillery, and would have outranged the effective strike radius of a WW2 carrier.

depending on power needs, you might even mount rail guns on smaller vessels, gunboats, missile boats.

#5.1.1 wirraway on 2013-04-06 11:40 (Reply)

But a ship is highly vulnerable platform.

Yes and that is the problem with rail guns - the destructive power is incredible given the size of the payload, but they are point and shoot only - there is no defensive capability other than hitting what ever shoots at them. I can envision a whole task force centered around one or two rail gun equipped vessels - which seems unlikely given today's fiscal restrictions.

One of the more interesting things I've read about these weapons is what is called the "pre-charge" or "pre-injection" in which the rail gun round is given a "head start" with a compressed gas or chemical charge, then power is applied to the rail and we're off to the races so to speak. The advantage of the "pre-injection" is less power required to accelerate the round. The one the Navy tested in 2009 launched a 7 pound load to over 5,000 mph.

What make this even more interesting is how they are developing the huge currents needed to charge the rails. Newly developed technology with core less toroids using pulsed DC is coming into its own developing incredibly high amperage when wired in series and I've heard of some newer experiments in which the toroids are placed in series-parallel developing high amperage at reduced voltage.

The whole technology is fascinating and there may be some significant civilian applications if they can get everything worked out and debugged.

#5.1.2 Tom Francis on 2013-04-06 11:55 (Reply)

Re: Rifles Causing Mayhem. That statistic was pretty much the same at the time of the firs A.W. ban. IIRC, in some years there had been more or as many murders in the "other" category - defenestration, poisoning, etc. - as killings done with all kinds of rifles.

That kind of stat upset some of the Reps who were being pressured to vote for the A.W. ban - why burn the political capital and waste legislative time & energy on something that, in the scheme of things, wasn't even a noticeable problem? Especially when there were obvious Constitutional implications?

Anyway. It makes sense rifles don't get used much for crime. They're conspicuous. Hard to keep one in your pants. I did see a story a few years back where somebody held up a convenience store with a Lee-Enfield rifle. Bayonet affixed, I'm sure.

When I practiced a lot of criminal law around Atlanta you only ran across semi-auto Assault Rifles in one context: rival drug dealers, gangs, etc. They usually hadn't been used to commit a crime*, but were part of the evidence haul collected after searches. The cops would find them where the dealers kept drugs + money, and they were there as defense against other criminals who might try to steal the same. An ADA I knew called them "mission specific weapons"; their presence in evidence or the facts meant drugs were an angle.

*Not counting possession of a firearm by a felon, which usually the case.

#6 T.K. Tortch on 2013-04-06 11:18 (Reply)

Bummer for Target. Shoulda been Womanatee Grey. No, by golly, that woulda been worse.

Climate Change: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, it seems all we have are the claims and extraordinary data manipulation.

USPS: I ordered goods from NewEgg. They shipped FedEx to Washington for USPS delivery on Mon the 25th, arriving 27th. Called the PO on 29th at 12AM and it was out of there by 633PM. I got it on the 3rd.

Gonzaga doing a Bowdoin.

BenghaziBarryCare: Dems are slow, or have drunk the Kool-Aid.

Corzine is a FOB. Pretty much invulnerable, unless B sees an open space under the bus.

NY corruption: I read elsewhere this morning someone wondering why these pols sold themselves so cheaply.

Rail guns: Given no explosives, only direct hits will do real damage.

"Assault Weapons"-- Definition: Looks like a military rifle (AR or AK, but not an M-1 or M-14). So, a bayonet would be an "assault knife".

#7 Sam L. on 2013-04-06 12:18 (Reply)

Had two packages - both from California, both from the same company, both shipped on the same day. One was shipped Priority Mail, the other UPS Ground.

Guess which one arrived first?

#7.1 Tom Francis on 2013-04-06 13:41 (Reply)

TF,

...the egg ??

#7.1.1 Garry on 2013-04-07 18:59 (Reply)

Yesterday I spent 45 min. in line in a post office in our large city to mail one letter. There were only two windows open out of four at the counter. One was only taking debit/credit card transactions. The other was a normal window. Behind the counter, a plump supervisor kept stalking back and forth not appearing to actually do anything. The poor lady at the regular transaction window kept apologizing to every customer in line. The plump supervisor said once that they were short some people that day. Why didn't he move the lady at the debit/credit card window to a regular one? Why didn't the supervisor jump on the counter himself to alleviate the long line?

No wonder they're going out of business when they ignore the regular rules of business. I can't picture a single private business operating in such an idiotic manner.

#7.2 fiftyville on 2013-04-06 14:23 (Reply)

If a letter is only addressed with a 9 digit zip code, it should be deliverable, right?
Or does it have to have a named receiptiant to be allowed (hence the "or current resident")?
Anybody know the answer?

#8 Jerry on 2013-04-06 14:58 (Reply)

My neighbor and I have the same 9-digit Zip.

And it seems to be Congress that won't allow the USPS to change procedures. On the other hand, my mailman told me they have vacancies that they will not, or are not allowed to, fill. He often does 2 routes.

#9 Sam L. on 2013-04-06 20:02 (Reply)

re the homicide statistics -- maybe somebody else has already pointed this out, but I did not see it:
Those statistics include only homicide by rifle, and exclude all other firearms (handguns and shotguns, although shotgun murders probably are not very common).
This kind of cherry-picking is offensive, as it assumes that the reader isn't smart enough to notice that there's been some kind of switcheroo pulled, or grown-up enough to handle whatever the real facts are.
For shame.

#10 Jeannette on 2013-04-07 17:28 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, April 6. 2013

Saturday morning links