10/14/2005
The ATF is Pissing Me Off
but then, that fact that the ATF is annoying is nothing new. For those who don't know, I have a Curio & Relics FFL. After I moved, I sent in the form to change my address. I sent it in almost two months ago. And I still haven't received my updated license. Meanwhile, bargains continue to pass me by, as I stand by and watch, unable to buy them at my current address. While this is much healthier for my bank account, it is nevertheless quite frustrating.
Permalink
|
Where'd All the Wolf Ammo Go?
Are the Iraqis buying all the Wolf ammo or something? I've scrounging all the internet ammo vendors I can think of, and none of them have any Wolf 7.62x39 FMJ available. The best that's out there is "Backorder available." The other current production Russian brands-the various Bear colors, Barnaul, plus the Golden Tiger stuff that Aim Surplus used to have for the great price of $80/1000, have pretty much dried uip as well. It's not just the 7.62x39, either. The Wolf 148 gr 7.62x54R seems to have disappeared as well. Anyone have any ideas why the supply seems to be drying up?
Permalink
|
Not Bad At All
H/T Cowboy Blob
George Washington
You scored 68 Wisdom, 81 Tactics, 58 Guts, and 38 Ruthlessness! |
Washington first served as a British officer during the French and Indian War, a war which he inadvertently helped to start. Afterwards, he resigned his post to marry Martha Dandridge Custis, a wealthy widow with two children. He was elected to the House of Burgesses and became a revolutionary leader at the outset of the American Revolution, attending both the first and second Continental Congresses. Washington was appointed Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War (1775–83), leading the Americans to victory over the British, although sometimes in not the most scrupulous of ways. After the war, he served as president of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Because of his central role in the founding of the United States and enduring legacy, Washington is sometimes called the "Father of his Country." |
 |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
You scored higher than 64% on Unorthodox |
|
You scored higher than 86% on Tactics |
|
You scored higher than 61% on Guts |
|
You scored higher than 20% on Ruthlessness |
|
Permalink
|
10/12/2005
Counterrevolutionaries
This may ramble a bit, so bear with me...
One of the first comments I heard on TV (CNN, I think, while flipping through channels at about 6:30 AM) about the nomination of Harriet Miers was that the nomination wouldn't make the "counterrevolutionaries" happy. I found it a very interesting term for the talking head to use, for a couple of reasons. In the old USSR, "counterrevolutionary activities" was the catch-all used to lock up enemies of the state. In that case, they were supposedly guilty of opposing the October revolution. Not, in my view, a bad thing to be opposed to. I have to wonder if the talking head really knew he was conjuring references to the KGB?
The second interesting part is that many on the Left brought up Janice Rodgers Brown's references to the 'Revolution of 1937' as proof of her 'extremism,' 1937, to the best of my recollection, being the year the Supreme Court did a 180 on almost 150 years of precendent and started upholding the socialist programes of FDR's New Deal.
Kind of spooky how opposition to the socialist dictatorship of the USSR comes together with opposition to the socialist policies that started with the New Deal, isn't it?
Now, President Bush, and many Republicans on Capitol Hill, say they want judges, and especially Justices, who are 'strict constructionists' and 'originalists.' But I'll bet you any gun in my collection that, with the probable exception of Rep Ron Paul of Texas, they don't really want that. They might think they do, but they don't. To them, 'strict constructionist,' originalist,' and 'won't legislate from the bench' means judges and Justices who won't produce rulings like Roe v. Wade (and in all probability, would overturn it) or the recent Texas sodomy case, and won't decide that the Bill of Rights protects gay marraige.
But a true 'originalist/strict constructionist' would make rulings, given the opportunity (the Court can't just create rulings-someone has to bring the cases to them) that many people in this country, including many people who consider themselves to be conservatives, would consider to be 'legislating from the bench.' That's because true 'strict constructionist/originalist' would find a whole host of politically popular federal programmes-things like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, farm subsidies, PBS/NPR, the Deptsof Education, etc., to have no basis in the Constitution. Killing such programmes would be unpopular to say the least. And politicians don't like to be unpopular, because it endangers their job security.
Me, I'd love to have a Supreme Court composed of 9 such individuals. Maybe then we could get this country back to what the Founders meant for it to be. If that makes me a 'counterrevolutionary,' I'll be proud of the title.
Permalink
|
|
|
