Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The Only Good Communist...

... is a dead one.

Everyone's heard about Melita Norwood, the notorious old commie bag who just died. Kim du Toit linked to an article about her, filled with infuriating details about the treacherous snake. But this was the standout:
Far more outrageous [than MI5's screw-ups], in the view of the press, was the fact that Norwood treated public indignation about her treachery as a huge joke. She steadfastly refused to accept that she had anything to be ashamed of: Soviet Communism was "a good experiment, and I agreed with it… I would do it again," she told reporters.
Communism is a religion with these people. How else to explain why someone would support an experiment whose results were the death and oppression of hundreds of millions of people.
She hated all reforms of the Soviet Union's genocidal dictatorship. Norwood remained convinced that Communism could work and that capitalism was ultimately doomed to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
The irony is unbearable. This is what happens when you love an idea more than you do human life. Sickening.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Tom Cruise and Psychiatry

I am slightly ashamed to admit it, but it is the truth: I enjoy Tom Cruise's acting.

** We interrupt this post to bring you AR-15 shooting and pig-bung eating **

My wife, bless her heart, just called me away to watch Fear Factor. The "stunt" was this: contestants had to hit a target with two shots from an AR-15. Where the two shots landed determined how many pig bungs they had to eat. The first guy, who used to hunt, stepped up and calmly put two rounds dead center. Everyone else was eating a lot of pig bung. It was great.

** And now back to our regular programming **

Where was I? Oh yeah, Tom. Anyway, I thought he was good in Collateral, Minority Report and a few others. I know he's into Scientology, and from what I've seen of Scientology it looks like a bunch of man-made B.S., but that's not the point of this post. But then Cruise comes on a TV interview and slams the world of psychiatry. And I 100% agree with him, with every word he said on the subject. I never thought the day would come.

You see, I don't know where he gets his point of view, but it sounds like it's right from THE SOURCE. Which is, of course, The Key to the Sciences of Man by D.G. Garan. The "objectively true and important" fact of the matter is that the psychiatrists, although possibly well-meaning, are totally blind to the causal laws of organic existence and human behavior. Don't take my word for it, go get the book. The only problem is that you will read 2-1/2 pages and think I'm crazy. Nobody I've recommended this book to has read more than that, and they all think I'm nuts.

But not only is this guy right, he nails the humanist nitwits with irresistible force. If in fact you do read this book, always keep the actions of the moonbat left in mind, and it will make perfect sense. I promise. In fact, I guarantee that if you buy this book, read the preface, the first chapter, and then either the chapter on psychology or the one on sociology, and you don't agree with me, I'll buy the book from you for what you paid for it (up to $10 max) plus shipping.

And then watch some poor nitwit miss a reasonable target with an AR at 25 feet. Twice. And have to down 4 pig-bungs. I think they get honorary Canadian citizenship for such a feat. I'd watch Ted Kennedy eat pig-bungs. Heck, given the chance, I'd force him to eat pig-bungs at AR-point. No doubt about it. OK, that's it, I'm done.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

BuyBlue.Dumb is kind of a dumb website. Apparently it was set up to help those "progressives" among us enhance the prosperity of likeminded companies, etc. However, since the website makes it clear which companies are "Red" and which are "Blue," it is a good reference for us less "progressive" types who want to steer clear of dippy companies that funnel our hard-earned cash to clueless liberal causes and politicians.

Thanks to, I shop at Sam's Club and won't go within 100 miles of a Costco if I can help it. I also boycott "Progressive" Insurance and Footlocker. Really, it's a great resource, and since America seems to be more red than blue, this is even better. all the way!

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Multicultural Range Trip

Yesterday, I loaded up some labmates and headed for the range. With me was a Brit and an Iranian. Good times were had by all. These guys can shoot! See the evidence for yourself. Here's your trusty author loading the .357 mag Ruger GP-100.

Image hosted by

hmmm... I've got a little bit of a wussy grip on that thing. Meh.

Now onto our fearless Brit sending lead downstream

Image hosted by

followed by our cool handed Iranian dealing a torrent from the black bullet hose

Image hosted by

Will the racism and cultural intollerance never cease?!? God only knows... now back to your author posing with the big honkin' hunk a metal, the S&W 500 Magnum

Image hosted by

I had a chance to shoot with that thing's baby brother (the 4" barell or whatever)... nearly ripped my arm off, sheesh.

Monday, June 20, 2005

My First Fisk, Revisited

Way back, when this blog was new, I posted my first fisking. I thought it was kinda dumb then, but on re-reading it, I see it's not so bad. Now that I have readers, all three of you, here it is again for your enjoyment (I wrote this back when the LaPierre/Peters Great Gun Debate was raging). It was brought to my attention because someone arrived at my blog by searching "Rebecca Peters". So without further interruption:

Statement by Rebecca Peters, Soros Senior Justice Fellow / International Alliance forWomen, United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice

Apparently, Rebecca Peters is a leading international gun-control advocate. From what I read, she was influential on the Aussie gun ban, and is a Soros cronie. Wayne Lapier will be debating her on Pay Per View on October 12. I thought I'd check her out, and this is one of the things I came up with.

After reading this dismal tripe I see that the focus of Ms. Peters, hhhaaaak! spit!, work, is in line with typical "social justice" types. That is, the focus is on the lowest rung of the social behavior groups of society. And yet she treats this as paramount significance to the state of the world. This group of people, in each society, should, apparently, dictate policy of wide and influential scope. I'm so agitated that I'm adding commas to every other word, forgive me...
The Resolution on illicit trafficking that is now before delegates is another laudable outcome of the Commission's firearms project. The Resolution focuses on illicit trafficking in firearms between countries. However, the international and domestic spheres are not independent of each other. The harm done by guns is felt within countries, within communities and within households. Also, every gun begins its life within a country, usually as a legal product. A gun can have a long and varied career before it crosses the border into the realm of 'illicit international trafficking'. To prevent harm from guns internationally, the most critical point for intervention is within the domestic policies and practices of individual countries. To re-state a point mentioned by the distinguished delegate of Canada and others: nations that allow guns to be freely manufactured, transferred and possessed within their borders are undermining the international community's efforts to prevent transnational gun crime.
What they're saying is what the commies used to say, that their bullshit is failing because they can't lock down the entire world. This becomes the justification for the UN as world police officer and delegation of power to the UN to dictate laws on national levels. Skip some drivel...
I am here as a representative of the International Alliance of Women, which works for de facto equality between women and men, and for the ratification and implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. For more than 20 years, IAW has been active in combatting violence against women and children in all its forms. We urge Member States to comply with the International Declaration on Violence Against Women, and to work closely with the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women. Distinguished delegates will recall last month's Resolution of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, to join international efforts against illicit traffic, trade and transfer of weapons and to control excessive production.
blah blah BS about women's equality (not before the law mind you, but in terms of the usual income, employment and the rest). Now about that "excessive production," who gets to define that? I bet I know who Rebecca Peters thinks should decide.
There are many reasons why the regulation of firearms is a women's issue. One is that women and their children make up the majority of victims in civil wars and regional conflicts fuelled by the global flood of guns. Another is that women and their children are the main users of the social and health services which suffer when resources must be diverted into policing crime and arming military and security forces. However, the topic I am addressing today is gun violence in the home.
Yeah, I guess you're happy that the flood of guns didn't reach the black population of Darfur. This way, they didn't have to divert their resources away from their social and health services, lucky them.
In Canada, the national survey of violence against women found that 25% of all women had experienced domestic violence. 16% of these women had been threatened or injured with a gun or knife, compared with 4% among women victimized by men who were not their spouses.
Still shows that the lowest denominator in society is the troubling one, and that they tend to keep it among themselves, thankfully.

Domestic violence is a way of gaining and maintaining control over the perpetrator's partner and children. Here are a few examples, reported by domestic violence services, of how guns are used to do this:

* direct threats at gunpoint;

* shooting the family dog as a warning;

* sleeping with the gun nearby and threatening to shoot the wife if she 'tries to sneak away';

* wielding the gun during discussions about custody of the children;

* mock executions - holding the gun to the victim's head and pulling the trigger;

* getting the gun out and cleaning it during or after arguments.

When a woman has left an unhappy relationship, brandishing a gun may be a means of forcing her back into it, or of obtaining access to the children. When she is still in the relationship, a gun can prevent her leaving.
So we're talking about the scum of the earth, no? So why does this justify her desire to disarm the law-abiding? Put the rest of us at the mercy of the asswads focused on in her study.
It may be that by recounting these grim facts I have made some delegates feel depressed. I do not apologize for voicing a perspective which is often overlooked in discussions about crime and guns. It is an uncomfortable reality that societies must face: whether at the level of the nation or the household, guns serve as implements of injury and coercion. Women have long pointed out that where violence is concerned, the distinction between the public and private sphere leaves us unprotected where we are most at risk. A strong parallel can be drawn with the distinction between international and national policies on gun control. The international effort to restrict the flow of guns across borders must be accompanied by efforts to restrict the build-up of arsenals in private homes.
This was all summarized by DiFi a while back when she said "people have the RIGHT to FEEL safe." Except she gets to decide what it is that makes you feel safe. I FEEL safe (and a lot of other nice things) when I'm in the process of building up the arsenal in my home, but that doesn't count.

Senators ought to get tarred, feathered, and kicked out of office at the first mention of RIGHTS to FEELINGS. I thought this fisk would be more interesting, but it's kinda blah. Oh well, first try. I'll do better next time.

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Stickwick's New Toy

Went to an Eeeeevil Loophole™ Gun Show today and picked up this baby along with 1000 rounds of ammo (for starters). Brand new Rock River Arms M4A3 entry tactical. Built on a RRA forged lower, forged flat top upper with match grade barrel. Features 16" barrel w/ removable A2 hider, bayonet lug, RRA tactical carry handle, and 4 position stock. It's so eeeevil looking, I can't stand it. Mr. Stapers and I are gonna hit the range with this tomorrow -- I'll post a report soon.

Image hosted by

Eeeeevil Loophole™ Gun Kitty likes the box it came in.

Image hosted by

Update! Carnaby says: Me like! Me also jealous. That kitty seems to come with the pre-ban / post-ban protruding tail and ear-hole hiders.

Stickwick sez: Heh! Don't forget the multiple claw lugs and tactical scruff. She'll kill you deader than Grandpa's old deer-hunting kitty. She's a lot meaner looking, that's for sure.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Carnaby's First Hunt

Well, I've made up my mind to go rustle up a deer this fall. Should be fun. I'll take the Winchester .30-30 out in the woods and see what there is to see. I've never been hunting before, least nothing bigger than small birds and squirrels, so this ought to be interesting. I'm hoping Mr. Stapers will be able to make it up for the hunt. I also have to figure out just where exactly I can go and legally hunt the furry critters. There's a fancy map utility available online for Washington state hunting that shows you where you can go, but it's kinda complicated and with me being such a noob, I'm not too confident I'm reading it right.

I also have to make sure I know how to properly field dress the deer after I blast it. I got a nice new hunting knife to help with that process. I also need to find a butcher I can bring the dead deer too immediately after blasting it to have it chopped up into nice pieces for the grill.

The deer tag includes a single deer or elk, so I hope I'm not tempted by a big elk, that would be not so good for a first time out. Apparently there's very few elk in my region of Washington State anyway, so it's not a big deal.

If anyone out there wants to give me some hunting advice, I'm glad to take it.

Friday, June 10, 2005

This Just In: French Men Are Pansies

They needed a study to confirm this? Good grief.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Best Compliment Ever

Mr. Stapers told me today that I am "Margaret Thatcher with a heart*." That's probably the best compliment I've ever gotten. :-)

[* Not to be confused with compassionate conservatism -- he's referring to my affectionate nature.]

Friday, June 03, 2005

Hollywood Angel

Read this little bit of happy news via Kim du Toit at the Nation of Riflemen. Excerpt:
While Denzel Washington was visiting [Brooks Army Medical Center], they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one of them would cost to build. He took his check book out and wrote a check for the full amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it.
It warmed my heart, too. I think we're going to make it a Blockbuster night tonight, and watch something starring the good Mr. Washington. God bless him!

Update: D'oh! This story turns out to be an urban legend. Still, it seems Mr. Washington did make a very substantial donation to the Fisher House foundation and thank soldiers personally, which was awfully swell of him.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Brady Campaign Dishonest, Stupid or Both...

The always-at-it Brady Campaign is at-it once more. Their latest screeching and lying is in order to prevent the government from blocking their legal agenda and to prevent residents of Washington D.C. from being able to defend themselves. Fortunately they are kind enough to send me email alerts whenever they feel like plying their wares. With regard to the latter they write
In an attempt to curry favor and win NRA support for her planned run for Governor of Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison unveiled S. 1082, a bill to repeal Washington D.C. gun crime laws.

This makes absolutely no sense. Dallas, the Senator's hometown, has the highest crime rate among the nation's largest cities for the seventh consecutive year and some of the most liberal gun laws. If she wants to do something about crime she should look in her own state and support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Let's have a look at those crime stats, shall we? FBI data on crime in major metropolitan areas can be found here. Crime rates for major cities are found by picking their respective states and soforth. From the data, I compiled these results per 100,000 population:

*denotes gun-control utopia

Boston*Chicago*DallasNew York*Wash. DC*Seattle
Agv. Assault665.7856.6677.1429.2850.1403.1
So in absence of the Brady Campaign providing me with another source of data, I don't see how Dallas has the highest crime rate among the major cities of the U.S. Dallas is easily beat in each category above by at least one gun-control utopia. Dallas has significantly lower rates of murder and aggravated assault than both Chicago and Washington, D.C., cities which essentially ban handguns.

My current home of Seattle kicks all their butts in every crime category and we have even more liberal gun laws than Dallas. Note how Seattle also crushes Boston, a city of the same population and with much more restrictive gun laws. And yet I won't claim that it's the gun laws that lead to the discrepancy, although it could be, but I can't prove it.

Sarah Brady, your so-called "common sense" does not trump cause and effect. Cause and effect, Sarah, your bogus inference that liberal gun laws lead to more crime fails any remedial test of causality.

In Case you Didn't Read it...

I just read the EU constitution's version of our Bill of Rights. It is entirely pathetic, and reinforces the fondess I have for the founders of our great country. Here's my favorite Article:
ARTICLE II-83 Equality between women and men Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay.
Which of course includes the usual "equal pay for equal work!" B.S. that we suffer from feminists here. But the clincher is the next sentence in the Article:
The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.
No, I'm not kidding. Some principle of equality. Click the link above and see for yourself. Good grief.