If these statistics are correct (and it seems telling that the federal government doesn't even try to track illegal alien crime) then they are shocking- I guess all those Democrats and others who object to the loss of life in Iraq will now begin campaigning to have illegal immigrants expelled from America and the borders secured?
While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
Yet again- when is Bush or Congress going to do something about securing their borders?
And think on about how these figures might suddenly spike upwards if terrorists are amongst the thousands sneaking illegally into the USA.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
The Only Ones Get More Privileges
Just what on earth is going on?
SB 647, introduced by Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond Township, could prevent the public from ever finding out about acts of abuse by police officers.
The so-called Garrity legislation would restrict the use and disclosure of "involuntary statements" made by law enforcement officers in response to questions by their agencies if the officer were ordered to answer under threat of dismissal or other penalty.
The only way such statements could be disclosed by the agency for which the officer worked is if the officer gave permission in writing.
Even if an officer committed an illegal act or abuse of power and were terminated, the police department he or she worked for could never reveal to the public the cause for dismissal without the officer's written permission.
Big hat tip to War On Guns.
SB 647, introduced by Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond Township, could prevent the public from ever finding out about acts of abuse by police officers.
The bill would apply not only to officers for municipal police departments and county sheriff's departments, but also to law enforcers for airport authorities, and community colleges and public universities.
The so-called Garrity legislation would restrict the use and disclosure of "involuntary statements" made by law enforcement officers in response to questions by their agencies if the officer were ordered to answer under threat of dismissal or other penalty.
The only way such statements could be disclosed by the agency for which the officer worked is if the officer gave permission in writing.
The statement could be released to a prosecuting attorney or attorney general, but only in response to a search warrant, subpoena or court order.
However, those attorneys would be forbidden from disclosing the statement to the public.
Illegal acts by officers, under this legislation, might never be made public.
Even if an officer committed an illegal act or abuse of power and were terminated, the police department he or she worked for could never reveal to the public the cause for dismissal without the officer's written permission.
A victim of alleged police abuse would never be allowed to view the implicated officer's statement about the incident.
The bill would allow a "bad apple" to resign and be hired by another police agency without that agency ever knowing that the officer was implicated in abuse or an illegal act.
Essentially, the bill would allow an employee paid by the public to hide potential illegal acts from the public, and make his or her agency - including police departments - comply in such cover-ups.
The "Only Ones"- cementing their privileged status over the common folk of America.Big hat tip to War On Guns.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
A Moderate Speaks
It seems that a sighting has been made of that exceeding common, majority figure- the moderate Muslim. Just such a man wrote a letter for a local newspaper. What was the reaction do you suppose? A massive yawn maybe? Moderate Muslims are supposed to be the vast majority of a religion which again and again we are told is peaceful- despite all the evidence to the contrary (terrorist acts, terrorist explanations of their acts, and the very texts of the religion which exhort followers to war and violence against unbelievers).
Anyway, a moderate Muslim writes a letter- hardly newsworthy you might think. Well, it wouldn't have been only he has since been kicked out of his mosque and threatened by violence by other members of the Muslim community. I guess the religion of peace memo is being directed at the wrong people- all those Islamophobes need to stop being targeted and the memo sent to Muslims instead it would seem.
Unfortunately, the text of his article is no longer available at Tulsa World- the page has apparently expired, but he apparently condemned Al Qaeda and also called on Muslims to reject terrorism. If you watch the video link at LGF you'll hear the man in question say that he was told "You can't say bad things about Muslims in front of unbelievers". Is that why we're not seeing a mass movement of this majority of moderates to denounce terrorism- because they think it'll look bad to all us infidels? If so, it's a pretty lousy excuse- and it's very telling of their attitude to non-believers. Note too at the end of the report that he will be allowed to go back to the mosque if he apologises. For what? Denouncing Al Qaeda or asking Muslims not to commit terrorist acts?
If this is the way moderates are treated then it's little wonder that we don't hear them. Expect CAIR to launch into action any moment now to defend this man and to promote his message.
Any second now.
Anyway, a moderate Muslim writes a letter- hardly newsworthy you might think. Well, it wouldn't have been only he has since been kicked out of his mosque and threatened by violence by other members of the Muslim community. I guess the religion of peace memo is being directed at the wrong people- all those Islamophobes need to stop being targeted and the memo sent to Muslims instead it would seem.
Unfortunately, the text of his article is no longer available at Tulsa World- the page has apparently expired, but he apparently condemned Al Qaeda and also called on Muslims to reject terrorism. If you watch the video link at LGF you'll hear the man in question say that he was told "You can't say bad things about Muslims in front of unbelievers". Is that why we're not seeing a mass movement of this majority of moderates to denounce terrorism- because they think it'll look bad to all us infidels? If so, it's a pretty lousy excuse- and it's very telling of their attitude to non-believers. Note too at the end of the report that he will be allowed to go back to the mosque if he apologises. For what? Denouncing Al Qaeda or asking Muslims not to commit terrorist acts?
If this is the way moderates are treated then it's little wonder that we don't hear them. Expect CAIR to launch into action any moment now to defend this man and to promote his message.
Any second now.
Self-Destruction
Israel's leader Olmert seems to have completely lost the plot- from failing to recover the kidnapped soldiers, failing to respond to a broken ceasefire to this-
Israel is prepared to release many jailed Palestinians, including long-serving prisoners, in return for a soldier militants seized in June, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.
I can't understand it- time and again it's been proven that succumbing to terrorist bullying and intimidation will do nothing more than cause even more bullying and intimidation. If these prisoners are released then the terrorists know that the next time they want to spring someone from prison all they need to do is snatch another hostage. LGF ponders whether or not Olmert has some sort of masterplan at work- if he does, he's taking his time revealing it. The Lebanon incursion failed to accomplish anything other than the installation of a UN bodyguard force for Hezbollah- is Olmert really the sort of man to deal with terrorists over a massive prisoner release? Does he understand that his willingness to negotiate is seen as nothing more than weakness by people intent on completely destroying Israel?
As Iran strengthens its hand in the region and the enemies of Israel are offered a respite to rearm and regroup by the UN force in Lebanon and the ceasefire in Gaza, Israel is seemingly becoming weaker and weaker. Perhaps it's the decades long grind of "world opinion" about their attempts to stop their hostile neighbours from annihilating them, perhaps it's ennui at the constant war for survival. Whatever the reason, the leaders of that nation need to keep in mind that their good will and desire for a peaceful life is not reciprocated.
Israel is prepared to release many jailed Palestinians, including long-serving prisoners, in return for a soldier militants seized in June, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.
I can't understand it- time and again it's been proven that succumbing to terrorist bullying and intimidation will do nothing more than cause even more bullying and intimidation. If these prisoners are released then the terrorists know that the next time they want to spring someone from prison all they need to do is snatch another hostage. LGF ponders whether or not Olmert has some sort of masterplan at work- if he does, he's taking his time revealing it. The Lebanon incursion failed to accomplish anything other than the installation of a UN bodyguard force for Hezbollah- is Olmert really the sort of man to deal with terrorists over a massive prisoner release? Does he understand that his willingness to negotiate is seen as nothing more than weakness by people intent on completely destroying Israel?
As Iran strengthens its hand in the region and the enemies of Israel are offered a respite to rearm and regroup by the UN force in Lebanon and the ceasefire in Gaza, Israel is seemingly becoming weaker and weaker. Perhaps it's the decades long grind of "world opinion" about their attempts to stop their hostile neighbours from annihilating them, perhaps it's ennui at the constant war for survival. Whatever the reason, the leaders of that nation need to keep in mind that their good will and desire for a peaceful life is not reciprocated.
Police Shooting
Remember the police raid that ended with the shooting of an elderly women when she fired on what she presumably thought were intruders? After the incident the cops denied that they'd hit the wrong house and that instead insisted they had evidence of drug sales taking place there. Well, War on Guns is keeping abreast of the story. Here's the latest-
Now, Chief Pennington confirmed there are questions as to whether there was ever a drug buy at Kathryn Johnston’s home – the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit he was told to lie.
Stay tuned.
Now, Chief Pennington confirmed there are questions as to whether there was ever a drug buy at Kathryn Johnston’s home – the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit he was told to lie.
Stay tuned.
Sexual Discrimination
It seems that a certain police test- specifically the assault course part of it- has been deemed to be too difficult for female recruits to pass. The action taken? Well, you might think that they would overhaul the training program. Most of the women either couldn't get over the wall at all, or were so exhausted after scaling it that they couldn't complete the course. It sounds to me that fitter and stronger cadets were what was required. Police work after all can be physically demanding and surely requires some strength and stamina.
This being the PC 21st century it seems that such a change to training wasn't even considered- when female recruits complained about the wall a process was immediately set into action to change the test. It baffles me- it really does; can the decision makers not see that by lowering the requirements they might be putting women officers at risk when they are out on the street and faced by dangerous criminals?
The state review of the test led to a recent change in the wall. It now has two braces providing for foot leverage, making it easier to scale. A spokesman for the state administration said the wall is now a more realistic reflection of actual police work, because it is made more like a fence, something officers are more likely to encounter in their work settings.
Walls being so rare and all. I really am stumped- a wall is considered so difficult to climb by women only that it must be changed so that they can do it- instead of a real obstacle now, the women recruits are faced by the demanding challenge of traversing what's essentially a small ladder.
Boston police even endorsed the test after seeing 68 percent of their female recruits in a recent class pass.
I'm amazed- you make a test so easy that virtually anyone can pass and then pronounce it a success? Are these female police officers up to the same standard as the male ones- evidently not, if they don't possess the same strength that a fairly simple test required.
But, I hear you cry, scaling a wall in an obstacle course isn't easy- what was it, six, eight feet high? No, the wall that was exhausting women on the course so much that they couldn't continue was a mere five feet high; less I'm sure than the recruits themselves. If they aren't fit enough to run, jump, heave and roll over that, then I'm not really confident of their ability to perform their duties. But I guess something like that isn't as important as glossing over the inadequacies of a training program that doesn't prepare cadets to traverse an obstacle that's smaller than they are.
This being the PC 21st century it seems that such a change to training wasn't even considered- when female recruits complained about the wall a process was immediately set into action to change the test. It baffles me- it really does; can the decision makers not see that by lowering the requirements they might be putting women officers at risk when they are out on the street and faced by dangerous criminals?
The state review of the test led to a recent change in the wall. It now has two braces providing for foot leverage, making it easier to scale. A spokesman for the state administration said the wall is now a more realistic reflection of actual police work, because it is made more like a fence, something officers are more likely to encounter in their work settings.
Walls being so rare and all. I really am stumped- a wall is considered so difficult to climb by women only that it must be changed so that they can do it- instead of a real obstacle now, the women recruits are faced by the demanding challenge of traversing what's essentially a small ladder.
Boston police even endorsed the test after seeing 68 percent of their female recruits in a recent class pass.
I'm amazed- you make a test so easy that virtually anyone can pass and then pronounce it a success? Are these female police officers up to the same standard as the male ones- evidently not, if they don't possess the same strength that a fairly simple test required.
But, I hear you cry, scaling a wall in an obstacle course isn't easy- what was it, six, eight feet high? No, the wall that was exhausting women on the course so much that they couldn't continue was a mere five feet high; less I'm sure than the recruits themselves. If they aren't fit enough to run, jump, heave and roll over that, then I'm not really confident of their ability to perform their duties. But I guess something like that isn't as important as glossing over the inadequacies of a training program that doesn't prepare cadets to traverse an obstacle that's smaller than they are.
Best Song of the Past Two Decades
Another list. Well, this one is actually not too bad- my main complaint is the inclusion of songs from 2006. They might seem good and catchy now but is that going to hold in a year or even five? And to be perfectly honest, I've never even heard the Arctic Monkey's I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor (update- I checked it out on YouTube and I'm completely underwhelmed- not a good selection). I can't even begin to think of individual tracks from the past two decades so there's not a whole lot to argue with right now. Good to see Unfinished Sympathy up there though. Of the whole lost there are only a few songs I don't like at all- Oasis and Eminem. And Bittersweet Symphony isn't even close to Verve's best work- they did that before being forced to add "The" to their name in my opinion. And Brimful of Asha is an odd one- catchy, yes, but only because of Norman Cook's remix- and it's not close to his best work either. I'd swap that one for Praise You, Weapon of Choice or I See You Baby.
And where's Radiohead? They routinely pop up on best album lists- and yet not a single track is listed here. Creep or No Surprises could easily slot into, say, the number six slot.
Here it is-
And where's Radiohead? They routinely pop up on best album lists- and yet not a single track is listed here. Creep or No Surprises could easily slot into, say, the number six slot.
Here it is-
1. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" Nirvana, 1991
2. "Hey Ya!" OutKast, 2003
3. "Sweet Child O' Mine" Guns N' Roses, 1987
4. "Unfinished Symphony" Massive Attack, 1991
5. "One" U2, 1991
6. "Live Forever" Oasis, 1994
7. "Bitter Sweet Symphony" The Verve, 1997
8. "Common People" Pulp, 1995
9. "There She Goes" The LA's, 1990
10. "7 Nation Army" The White Stripes, 2003
11. "Song 2" Blur, 1997
12. "Crazy" Gnarls Barkley, 2006
13. "Angels" Robbie Williams, 1997
14. " … Baby One More Time" Britney Spears, 1999
15. "Personal Jesus" Depeche Mode, 1990
16. "Like A Prayer" Madonna, 1989
17. "Firestarter" The Prodigy, 1997
18. "Brimful of Asha" Cornershop, 1997
19. "Stan" Eminem, 2000
20. "I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor" Arctic Monkeys, 2006
What's That Noise?
I always wondered as I got older what it would be like to lose touch with what's happening in the music scene. I was prepared to not be a John Peel, who promoted some cutting edge music until his untimely death; frankly, even when I listened to his show as a teenager I could tell that I was several steps back from truly cutting edge. To my young ears Napalm Death was just noise, although now and then I could see the appeal. Anyway, over the past couple of years, since I hit thirty I think, I've noticed myself going back to the music I liked in my early twenties and late teens- a lot of material from the Ninja Tune label for example or ambient music by the likes of Biosphere. I still get a big kick out of discovering a band or artist I've never heard before. I guess the most recent example of that would be Smog.
Anyway, I was browsing late last night and it hit me square in the face like a punch from Ivan Drago- I'm old and new music fads are beyond me. Way, far beyond me. So far gone that they've got red shift. And, surprisingly, it doesn't bother me. I'm quite happy to live in a world where 15-stone lesbian activists who shout punk rock are not considered to be "rock goddesses" or the "coolest person in rock".
Have times really changed so much?
Anyway, in honour of my getting to the "what's that terrible noise?" stage here's a soothing little tune by Smog, I Feel Like The Mother Of The World.
Anyway, I was browsing late last night and it hit me square in the face like a punch from Ivan Drago- I'm old and new music fads are beyond me. Way, far beyond me. So far gone that they've got red shift. And, surprisingly, it doesn't bother me. I'm quite happy to live in a world where 15-stone lesbian activists who shout punk rock are not considered to be "rock goddesses" or the "coolest person in rock".
Have times really changed so much?
Anyway, in honour of my getting to the "what's that terrible noise?" stage here's a soothing little tune by Smog, I Feel Like The Mother Of The World.
Female Death Squads
This is interesting- and somewhat disturbing- news sent out by a Jordanian counter-terror expert.
Recent chatter on jihadi forums points to a new organized death squad in Iraq. The new group is allegedly composed of Shiite female assassination units that will target Sunnis. Sunni jihadi websites have warned their followers about this new threat, saying that these female units, called al-Zahra groups after Fatima al-Zahra, the daughter of the Prophet and the wife of the Muslim caliph Ali, are trained to kill Sunnis with bayonets and handguns equipped with silencers.
The women are apparently on their way to Baghdad and the fear is that they will target women and children.
The purpose of the posting was to insinuate that Iranians had trained the al-Zahra units. In the same context, another Sunni user, Khaled al-Rawi, said that the Shiites' current attack potential is a repeat of the Shiite attacks that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s against Sunnis. At the time, Shiite party al-Dawa al-Safawia organized and trained prostitutes to blow up cars and to assassinate Sunni figures and civilians in Iraq (http://www.iraqirabita.org, November 2). The website also contained pictures of Shiite females covered completely in black similar to the Iranian female police training video.
I'd say that it will be worth paying attention to developments in Iraq in the coming weeks to see if there are any reports of these women-only death squads.
Recent chatter on jihadi forums points to a new organized death squad in Iraq. The new group is allegedly composed of Shiite female assassination units that will target Sunnis. Sunni jihadi websites have warned their followers about this new threat, saying that these female units, called al-Zahra groups after Fatima al-Zahra, the daughter of the Prophet and the wife of the Muslim caliph Ali, are trained to kill Sunnis with bayonets and handguns equipped with silencers.
The women are apparently on their way to Baghdad and the fear is that they will target women and children.
The purpose of the posting was to insinuate that Iranians had trained the al-Zahra units. In the same context, another Sunni user, Khaled al-Rawi, said that the Shiites' current attack potential is a repeat of the Shiite attacks that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s against Sunnis. At the time, Shiite party al-Dawa al-Safawia organized and trained prostitutes to blow up cars and to assassinate Sunni figures and civilians in Iraq (http://www.iraqirabita.org, November 2). The website also contained pictures of Shiite females covered completely in black similar to the Iranian female police training video.
I'd say that it will be worth paying attention to developments in Iraq in the coming weeks to see if there are any reports of these women-only death squads.
Monday, November 27, 2006
World's Smallest Machine Gun
This is quite cool- a miniature .17 Mach 2 Browning MG. Is it the world's smallest? Probably- regardless it sure looks like it would be a lot of fun to shoot.
Found this over at TechBlog- where the "world's smallest" claim was made. I had a quick glance at the comments- seems the weapon is a Tippmann- and found this statement:
"I hope this “gadget” doesn’t fall into the hands of terrorists."
Good grief- are hoplophobes so terrified that they just can't understand anything about firearms at all?
Found this over at TechBlog- where the "world's smallest" claim was made. I had a quick glance at the comments- seems the weapon is a Tippmann- and found this statement:
"I hope this “gadget” doesn’t fall into the hands of terrorists."
Good grief- are hoplophobes so terrified that they just can't understand anything about firearms at all?
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Anti-Semitism In Print
I'm a little confused. The story on CNN involves a rocket attack on Israel only moments after another ceasefire was announced. Can you guess what the headline is- "Ceasefire Broken" or some clever wordplay along those lines? Well, no, in fact it's almost the exact opposite-
13,000 Palestinian Security Forces Maintain Ceasefire
Come again? You see, the 11 rockets launched after the ceasefire was brokered were claimed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You know, the kinder, gentler, more "moderate" Hamas everyone has come to know since they were elected into government. So, Hamas can fire rockets and still claim to be holding a ceasefire? Unbelievably Olmert has announced that Israel will take no action- hey, ceasefires need time to "take".
Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad insisted that all Palestinian factions are "100 percent" behind the cease-fire.
Hamas' militant wing and the Islamic Jihad militant group claimed responsibility for firing several rockets into Israel after the cease-fire took effect at 6 a.m.
So, which is it? CNN doesn't seem to care that either they got their facts wrong or Hamas are lying through their teeth- and the fact that the elected leaders of Hamas are involved in firing rockets randomly at towns in Israel is no big deal either. I guess, depending on how you want to view it, you could either define this as state-sponsored terrorism or an act of war.
And yet, the Western media doesn't seem to be too perturbed. I suppose they save that for when Israel retaliates to these acts of aggression aimed at civilian targets. Funny, isn't it, that the press which got so worked up about innocent civilians being targeted by Israeli forces during the Lebanon conflict, should be so unconcerned about other civilians being targeted now. As far as I can tell there are only two differences- Hamas and their ilk are using crude, unguided rockets aimed at towns instead of military targets (positioned in the middle of civilian areas on purpose), and the targets now are Jewish.
Could it possibly be that there's some anti-Semitism at work here? Because I can't think of any other explanation for why a story like this would be reported in this manner.
13,000 Palestinian Security Forces Maintain Ceasefire
Come again? You see, the 11 rockets launched after the ceasefire was brokered were claimed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You know, the kinder, gentler, more "moderate" Hamas everyone has come to know since they were elected into government. So, Hamas can fire rockets and still claim to be holding a ceasefire? Unbelievably Olmert has announced that Israel will take no action- hey, ceasefires need time to "take".
Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad insisted that all Palestinian factions are "100 percent" behind the cease-fire.
"All of them now, without exception, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Fatah and other factions, they decided to respect the agreement and also to be committed 100 percent to this agreement," Hamad told CNN.
And those rockets, well, apparently they were fired just before the ceasefire took effect so, in the eyes of Hamas nothing untoward happened. Which is odd, and apparently fine with CNN, despite the fact that a few paragraphs before this we learned-Hamas' militant wing and the Islamic Jihad militant group claimed responsibility for firing several rockets into Israel after the cease-fire took effect at 6 a.m.
So, which is it? CNN doesn't seem to care that either they got their facts wrong or Hamas are lying through their teeth- and the fact that the elected leaders of Hamas are involved in firing rockets randomly at towns in Israel is no big deal either. I guess, depending on how you want to view it, you could either define this as state-sponsored terrorism or an act of war.
And yet, the Western media doesn't seem to be too perturbed. I suppose they save that for when Israel retaliates to these acts of aggression aimed at civilian targets. Funny, isn't it, that the press which got so worked up about innocent civilians being targeted by Israeli forces during the Lebanon conflict, should be so unconcerned about other civilians being targeted now. As far as I can tell there are only two differences- Hamas and their ilk are using crude, unguided rockets aimed at towns instead of military targets (positioned in the middle of civilian areas on purpose), and the targets now are Jewish.
Could it possibly be that there's some anti-Semitism at work here? Because I can't think of any other explanation for why a story like this would be reported in this manner.
Mini-14 Fix?
For years people have known of the Ruger Mini-14's main problem- a barrel that is too thin, one that overheats when more than a few shots are put through it thus ruining the weapon's accuracy. It's a shame because the Mini-14 has the potential to be one of the finest firearms around. Based on a scaled down version of the Garand's action it is tough and reliable.
Despite this, Ruger seems to have no interest in fixing the problem. If they had, then I suspect that an awful lot of people would be interested in the Mini-14. As this month's Guns and Ammo says, "If you want a gun that will never quit on you, go with the Ruger." And speaking of G&A this month they review Ruger's "fix" to this problem; rather than release a Mini-14 with a better barrel they've decided to add an Allen-screw adjustable barrel weight. It seems to me to be a stop gap measure, a glossing over of the problem rather than a real solution. The barrel weight comes with the latest incarnation of the Mini, a thumbhole stock "Target" model. Frankly I think the new stock design is repugnant. You can read G&A's review here. As the author says on more than one occasion, he had very little time with the rifle. It kind of dents my confidence when a reviewer says that- perhaps if he'd had another few days with it, he might have developed a different impression of the weapon.
Anyway, your choices with the Mini-14 seem to be this- take the weapon as is and hope that you never have to put one or two shots down the barrel at a time; buy a custom barrel that's probably worth more than the gun itself; go for the all-new revolting Ruger "cheapest way around the problem we can think of" gun; or you can buy or build an "Accu-strut".
The idea behind this latter solution is simple- the strut adds stiffness to the barrel and the clamps can help draw heat away from it. The advantage of this over the Ruger "solution" is that the latter seems to need to be adjusted depending on the ammo used in the rifle- it can be slid up and down the barrel to maximise accuracy of whichever load is used. The G&A article reveals that one of the screws was already stripped when he got the gun for testing- so I'm not particularly impressed by the design. If a bunch of gun testers can do that to it in presumably a short space of time, how is it going to last on a gun you buy?
Anyway, the Accu-strut concept fits in place under the barrel (and gives it something of a M14 look to boot) and that's it. I even heard of a guy on a gun forum who swapped out the strut itself for a flashlight.
What annoys me about this is that the Mini-14 could be a truly great gun. The action is one of the best around and with a little work it could be world-class; much tougher and more reliable than the AR, and with that work, it could rival or even best it for accuracy. It deserves more than the work Ruger is doing to it. Perhaps Springfield Armoury need to scale down their superlative M1 rifles to 5.56mm size and get into the market. Imagine a slender M14-style weapon (with all of the reliability and accuracy that entails) in a 5.56mm package? Personally, I like to pretend that they could go another step and offer it in 6.5mm Grendel. Mmmm, good. And if you like to attach gizmos and gadgets to it, I'm sure Troy Industries or the like could offer a stock option.
We can dream I suppose.
Despite this, Ruger seems to have no interest in fixing the problem. If they had, then I suspect that an awful lot of people would be interested in the Mini-14. As this month's Guns and Ammo says, "If you want a gun that will never quit on you, go with the Ruger." And speaking of G&A this month they review Ruger's "fix" to this problem; rather than release a Mini-14 with a better barrel they've decided to add an Allen-screw adjustable barrel weight. It seems to me to be a stop gap measure, a glossing over of the problem rather than a real solution. The barrel weight comes with the latest incarnation of the Mini, a thumbhole stock "Target" model. Frankly I think the new stock design is repugnant. You can read G&A's review here. As the author says on more than one occasion, he had very little time with the rifle. It kind of dents my confidence when a reviewer says that- perhaps if he'd had another few days with it, he might have developed a different impression of the weapon.
Anyway, your choices with the Mini-14 seem to be this- take the weapon as is and hope that you never have to put one or two shots down the barrel at a time; buy a custom barrel that's probably worth more than the gun itself; go for the all-new revolting Ruger "cheapest way around the problem we can think of" gun; or you can buy or build an "Accu-strut".
The idea behind this latter solution is simple- the strut adds stiffness to the barrel and the clamps can help draw heat away from it. The advantage of this over the Ruger "solution" is that the latter seems to need to be adjusted depending on the ammo used in the rifle- it can be slid up and down the barrel to maximise accuracy of whichever load is used. The G&A article reveals that one of the screws was already stripped when he got the gun for testing- so I'm not particularly impressed by the design. If a bunch of gun testers can do that to it in presumably a short space of time, how is it going to last on a gun you buy?
Anyway, the Accu-strut concept fits in place under the barrel (and gives it something of a M14 look to boot) and that's it. I even heard of a guy on a gun forum who swapped out the strut itself for a flashlight.
What annoys me about this is that the Mini-14 could be a truly great gun. The action is one of the best around and with a little work it could be world-class; much tougher and more reliable than the AR, and with that work, it could rival or even best it for accuracy. It deserves more than the work Ruger is doing to it. Perhaps Springfield Armoury need to scale down their superlative M1 rifles to 5.56mm size and get into the market. Imagine a slender M14-style weapon (with all of the reliability and accuracy that entails) in a 5.56mm package? Personally, I like to pretend that they could go another step and offer it in 6.5mm Grendel. Mmmm, good. And if you like to attach gizmos and gadgets to it, I'm sure Troy Industries or the like could offer a stock option.
We can dream I suppose.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Shoot Em Up
I just heard about this film today- Shoot 'Em Up. Here's what IMDB says about the plot-
A man named Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) delivers a woman's baby during a shootout, and is then called upon to protect the newborn from the army of gunmen.
Paul Giamatti plays the bad guy and the lovely Monica Bellucci also features. It looks like it will be a fun action movie.
A man named Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) delivers a woman's baby during a shootout, and is then called upon to protect the newborn from the army of gunmen.
Paul Giamatti plays the bad guy and the lovely Monica Bellucci also features. It looks like it will be a fun action movie.
Bigoted
I just caught a bit of the TV show Tonight With Jonathon Ross, a chat show. Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear was on to promote an upcoming DVD and spewed his usual "I hate America" line. I believe MadOgre has commented on this before. What real struck me about it though was one part where he was describing hiring some full auto weapons to shoot up an electric car. He said that when they hired them the proprietors told him they would rent them on condition that the film he was making was not anti-Bush or anti-war. "Land of the free," he snarled- obviously failing to recognise that businessmen are free to pick and choose who they want to do business with or that he was free to shoot those guns in America- a right denied here in the United Kingdom.
Land of the free?
Yes, which is precisely why Clarkson travelled there to film.
Land of the free?
Yes, which is precisely why Clarkson travelled there to film.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Banana Oil
I posted a link to Banana Oil, who originally posted the Le Tigre Decepticon video (I'm assuming it's an actual video and not fan's effort). For some reason I didn't stop by to have a look around as is my want when posting a link- but I've since rectified that. It's worth popping over there. I'm so glad that I found this post for example-
I was walking west on Nanjing Road, passing Plaza 66, when I chanced to look up. She was blond. Wore a hat and wore it well. Had glasses. With nice, thick, boxy frames — the kind I really, really like on women. She was giving a small, warm smile. To me. (?)
I was walking west on Nanjing Road, passing Plaza 66, when I chanced to look up. She was blond. Wore a hat and wore it well. Had glasses. With nice, thick, boxy frames — the kind I really, really like on women. She was giving a small, warm smile. To me. (?)
My contacts might have been a little fuzzy, so I checked. Nope, nobody immediately behind me. She was looking at me. (?)
When I turned back, she was still looking at me, (?) but the smile was no longer small. It was broad and bright as the sun. She was most amused.
She waved. At me. (?)
Now, at the best of times, I am a klutz around lovely women. Yesterday was not, alas, the best of times. I had been brooding, and now here was a blond throwing sunshine my way. It took me until the wave to remember how to work my face.
That knowledge recalled, I employed it to give her a small, questioning-but-receptive smile in return.
Or possibly I just looked confused.
It just gets better- and so well written too.WW2 Kit List
I asked recently for some information on the equipment carried by US troops in World War 2; the specifics of the kit, how much food, how much ammo, etc. Well, I was sent this link- and it provides information on the equipment carried by Airborne troops during the invasion of Europe.
Here's some info on the ammunition carried-
M1 Garand-
Rounds per weapon: 136, jumped on individual. (128 in Air Corps pockets, 4 clips per pocket), 1-8 rnd. clip in rifle, hand, or jumpsuit pocket (55% ball, 40% AP, 5% tracer. Rifle belt and one bandolier may be used in lieu of the above. 60 Riflemen per company will jump with 1 belt of LMG ammunition (250 rounds); this may be used in M-1 rifles if the situation warrants.
M1 Carbine-
Rounds per weapon: 175, jumped on individual. 160 in 2 Air Corps pockets (2 clips and one box per pocket), 15 in hand (1 clip) or jumpsuit pocket (100% ball)
Thompson SMG-
Rounds per weapon:300, Jumped on individual. 14 (20 rnd) clips in jump suit pockets or M6 carrying bag, 1 clip in gun, hand, or jumpsuit pocket.
Springfield '03-
Rounds per weapon: 145, jumped on individual. 140 in four Air Corps pockets (7 clips per pocket), 1 5 rnd. clip in rifle, hand, or jumpsuit pocket. The '03 rifle may not be used if launcher for M-1 rifle is issued. It is now a superimposed weapon and if jumped will have to supplant the primary weapon of the man jumping it.
There's also info on the exact kit they took.
Here's some info on the ammunition carried-
M1 Garand-
Rounds per weapon: 136, jumped on individual. (128 in Air Corps pockets, 4 clips per pocket), 1-8 rnd. clip in rifle, hand, or jumpsuit pocket (55% ball, 40% AP, 5% tracer. Rifle belt and one bandolier may be used in lieu of the above. 60 Riflemen per company will jump with 1 belt of LMG ammunition (250 rounds); this may be used in M-1 rifles if the situation warrants.
M1 Carbine-
Rounds per weapon: 175, jumped on individual. 160 in 2 Air Corps pockets (2 clips and one box per pocket), 15 in hand (1 clip) or jumpsuit pocket (100% ball)
Thompson SMG-
Rounds per weapon:300, Jumped on individual. 14 (20 rnd) clips in jump suit pockets or M6 carrying bag, 1 clip in gun, hand, or jumpsuit pocket.
Springfield '03-
Rounds per weapon: 145, jumped on individual. 140 in four Air Corps pockets (7 clips per pocket), 1 5 rnd. clip in rifle, hand, or jumpsuit pocket. The '03 rifle may not be used if launcher for M-1 rifle is issued. It is now a superimposed weapon and if jumped will have to supplant the primary weapon of the man jumping it.
There's also info on the exact kit they took.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
The Only Ones
The headline on FARK read "Only one cop had to die for a judge to suggest that maybe mental patients should be required to get treatment even if they don't want it."
That just about sums it up.
During the inquiry, Ayotte also heard what he called alarming statistics about drug use, suicide and the difficulty in treating people with the current number of psychiatrists who practise in Edmonton.
That just about sums it up.
During the inquiry, Ayotte also heard what he called alarming statistics about drug use, suicide and the difficulty in treating people with the current number of psychiatrists who practise in Edmonton.
The report recommends that the provincial government spend the necessary amount of money to recruit, train and keep psychiatrists in Alberta.
The judge also suggests the Mental Health Act be amended to allow patients to be kept in treatment, regardless of their personal wishes.
Ayotte said if such legislation had been in place in the years leading up to this incident, the tragedy might have been avoided.
I wonder how many who didn't belong to the exclusive "Only Ones" club have died without any such investigations and recommendations?Standards Are Changing
For the past few weeks my wife and I have noticed a distinct change in what's acceptable to show on British TV. We don't watch much TV so perhaps it's just a trend we're only beginning to become aware of- but it seems that standards are definitely changing.
A few weeks ago we had just finished watching a DVD and when the player switched off the TV channel which had been on earlier (channel Five) popped back onto the screen. We were confronted by the sight of a man and woman having full penetrative sex filmed from an internal camera. I was pretty shocked- I was under the impression that this was the sort of thing that TV couldn't show, regardless of the time (it was quite late). I guess that by masquerading as a "documentary" they were able to get around some of the restrictions. At the time I opined that TV makers would try to get more and more explicit material shown earlier and earlier. If this is being shown now at (around) midnight when only a few years ago you couldn't have got away with showing it at all, I will not be surprised to see the same thing shown earlier in the evening in years to come.
The following week my wife sat down to watch some daytime TV- an award-winning and long running show by the name of This Morning. She was somewhat taken aback to find a discussion about sex taking place. In fact, the show had dedicated a whole week's worth of programming to the topic. A day or so later I found an article online about people simulating sex on the show. Again I commented on the change in standards- just a couple of years ago I'm sure they would never even have considered showing such a segment.
Today I learn that Britain is about to broadcast its first advertisement for a sex toy on TV. Now I don't have a problem with that per se. The ad doesn't appear to be explicit in any way and the plans are to show it after the 11pm watershed. But Durex aren't pleased with that decision at all- they want to be able to show the ad after the 9pm watershed. Part of their reasoning for this is that scenes of a sexual nature can be seen regularly after that time already- so why can't they advertise their sex toy then too?
I don't want to seem to be a prude- I have no problem with TV showing late night films that are a bit racy, but I fail to see why we should have to have hard core images broadcast at any time. My concern is not that this material exists but that broadcasters seem to be intent on showing more and more explicit scenes and inappropriate language and behaviour earlier and earlier. Is there really a need for simulated sex on daytime TV? If they can show actual sex late at night now, what are they going to be trying to show a couple of hours earlier in the evening two or three years from now? And if that kind of material is being broadcast then, what's going to be shown earlier in the evening or during the daytime?
A few weeks ago we had just finished watching a DVD and when the player switched off the TV channel which had been on earlier (channel Five) popped back onto the screen. We were confronted by the sight of a man and woman having full penetrative sex filmed from an internal camera. I was pretty shocked- I was under the impression that this was the sort of thing that TV couldn't show, regardless of the time (it was quite late). I guess that by masquerading as a "documentary" they were able to get around some of the restrictions. At the time I opined that TV makers would try to get more and more explicit material shown earlier and earlier. If this is being shown now at (around) midnight when only a few years ago you couldn't have got away with showing it at all, I will not be surprised to see the same thing shown earlier in the evening in years to come.
The following week my wife sat down to watch some daytime TV- an award-winning and long running show by the name of This Morning. She was somewhat taken aback to find a discussion about sex taking place. In fact, the show had dedicated a whole week's worth of programming to the topic. A day or so later I found an article online about people simulating sex on the show. Again I commented on the change in standards- just a couple of years ago I'm sure they would never even have considered showing such a segment.
Today I learn that Britain is about to broadcast its first advertisement for a sex toy on TV. Now I don't have a problem with that per se. The ad doesn't appear to be explicit in any way and the plans are to show it after the 11pm watershed. But Durex aren't pleased with that decision at all- they want to be able to show the ad after the 9pm watershed. Part of their reasoning for this is that scenes of a sexual nature can be seen regularly after that time already- so why can't they advertise their sex toy then too?
I don't want to seem to be a prude- I have no problem with TV showing late night films that are a bit racy, but I fail to see why we should have to have hard core images broadcast at any time. My concern is not that this material exists but that broadcasters seem to be intent on showing more and more explicit scenes and inappropriate language and behaviour earlier and earlier. Is there really a need for simulated sex on daytime TV? If they can show actual sex late at night now, what are they going to be trying to show a couple of hours earlier in the evening two or three years from now? And if that kind of material is being broadcast then, what's going to be shown earlier in the evening or during the daytime?
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Iran's Nukes
Thanks to IBA for the head's up on this one-
A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.
So they've had this information for at least a year and still no action has been taken to prevent Iran from enriching uranium. We're only now talking about the possibility of sanctions?
Doesn't the UN do a wonderful job?
A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.
The finding was made in a report prepared for presentation to the 35-nation IAEA board when it meets, starting Thursday, on whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The report was made available in full to The Associated Press.
First mention of the documents was made late last year in a longer IAEA report. At that time, the agency said only that the papers showed how to cast "enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms."
The agency refused to make a judgment on what possible uses such casts would have.
But diplomats familiar with the probe into Iran's nuclear program said then that the papers apparently were instructions on how to mold highly enriched grade uranium into the core of warheads.So they've had this information for at least a year and still no action has been taken to prevent Iran from enriching uranium. We're only now talking about the possibility of sanctions?
Doesn't the UN do a wonderful job?
Nanotech Weaponry
Now I know what I want for Christmas- super gloves to give me the strength of a bionic man!
Israel changes its R&D program to focus in on the difficulties posed by asymmetric warfare -
Israel is using nanotechnology to try to create a robot no bigger than a hornet that would be able to chase, photograph and kill its targets, an Israeli newspaper reported on Friday.
Israel changes its R&D program to focus in on the difficulties posed by asymmetric warfare -
Israel is using nanotechnology to try to create a robot no bigger than a hornet that would be able to chase, photograph and kill its targets, an Israeli newspaper reported on Friday.
The flying robot, nicknamed the "bionic hornet", would be able to navigate its way down narrow alleyways to target otherwise unreachable enemies such as rocket launchers, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth said.
It is one of several weapons being developed by scientists to combat militants, it said. Others include super gloves that would give the user the strength of a "bionic man" and miniature sensors to detect suicide bombers.
The research integrates nanotechnology into Israel's security department and will find creative solutions to problems the army has been unable to address, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Yedioth Ahronoth.
"The war in Lebanon proved that we need smaller weaponry. It's illogical to send a plane worth $100 million against a suicidal terrorist. So we are building futuristic weapons," Peres said.
When I hear of this science fiction-type stuff it always seems to be coming from the powerhouse that is America- reading this makes me wonder what other developments are being carried out by the military arms of other nations.
Hat tip to LGF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)