The second protest was at the traffic circle on Hay street. People holding all manner of signs and calling to drivers passing by. Many car drivers honked their horns in support. No counter protesters were visible at either location.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Fayetteville, NC Tea Party Protest
Fayetteville, NC held two tea party protests today approximately one block apart. The one at the corner of Hay and Person street involved speakers and a crowd of approximately 150 people. People were spilling over into the street and you could seen some TV trucks from the MSM, but it'll be interesting to see how much they report.
The second protest was at the traffic circle on Hay street. People holding all manner of signs and calling to drivers passing by. Many car drivers honked their horns in support. No counter protesters were visible at either location.
The second protest was at the traffic circle on Hay street. People holding all manner of signs and calling to drivers passing by. Many car drivers honked their horns in support. No counter protesters were visible at either location.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Red's Trading Post
As you can see, I haven't posted to this blog in a while. Not sure I have enough to say to attract folks here, but this is something I just had to post about, if for no other reason to increase the links to these problems.
You see, I 've been following the story of Red's Trading Post for some time now on their own site, and on the War on Guns site.
Here's the nutshell. Gun dealer has some minor paperwork problems, and the ATF brings it's full weight to bear on them, trying to shut them down. When Red's fights back, the ATF turns the screws some more. When people try to observe the ATF in action, they get all upset. It's a mess all around. Seems the "nice" folks at the ATF aren't used to us normal folk looking over their shoulder and questioning their motives and tactics. I hope they see much more of it in the future. It's a government "of" the people ATF, get used to it.
Head over to Red's Trading Post, their blog, or any of the other sites on the internet that are watching this closely. I read about it mostly on The War on Guns
You see, I 've been following the story of Red's Trading Post for some time now on their own site, and on the War on Guns site.
Here's the nutshell. Gun dealer has some minor paperwork problems, and the ATF brings it's full weight to bear on them, trying to shut them down. When Red's fights back, the ATF turns the screws some more. When people try to observe the ATF in action, they get all upset. It's a mess all around. Seems the "nice" folks at the ATF aren't used to us normal folk looking over their shoulder and questioning their motives and tactics. I hope they see much more of it in the future. It's a government "of" the people ATF, get used to it.
Head over to Red's Trading Post, their blog, or any of the other sites on the internet that are watching this closely. I read about it mostly on The War on Guns
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Person gets the vapors over ad in sports section
In the mental health field, when we have someone who gets emotionally upset just looking at a picture of an object, we usually call that irrational, a phobia, something that's just not "normal."
Apparently some poor soul in the Hartford, Connecticut area had this problem while reading the sports section:
What could possibly smack this person so hard? Why *gasp* a gun ad. Yes folks, an after Thanksgiving ad from a gun dealer bothered this poor soul so much, they even thought of ending their subscription.
Apparently some poor soul in the Hartford, Connecticut area had this problem while reading the sports section:
"Then I was smacked in the gut by the advertisement on the back page of the section in my hand."
What could possibly smack this person so hard? Why *gasp* a gun ad. Yes folks, an after Thanksgiving ad from a gun dealer bothered this poor soul so much, they even thought of ending their subscription.
Drivers get more selfish every day
Most people would probably agree that people seem to have gotten more selfish and self-centered in the passing years. I haven't actually seen the research to indicate how much of this is reality and how much is just our perception, but it sure is my perception that we've become a seriously "It's all about me." society. I guess I should point out the irony of talking about others "It's all about me" while at the same time posting to a blog hoping others will read it. I guess the difference is I don't expect the world to be beating a path to my door over this blog, well at least not yet *grin*.
Even with my ongoing knowledge that people are selfish, I have to ask "What is it with people when they get in the car?" You would think they might realize just a tiny bit that driving down the road is a shared experience. Yes, folks all those other hulks of metal moving around the roads are other people who also need to follow the rules and conventions of driving.
"What's he getting on about?" You ask. Drivers; that feel that won't be delayed any, and thus won't drive like a rational person. When I was taught to drive, I was taught to plan ahead as much as possible for turns, slow downs, etc, and that if for some reason you found yourself in the far left lane, and had 20 feet before you needed to turn right, you just took the time to go down the street in the left lane until you could either find a place to turn around, or found a way to go around the block. But no one seems to do that anymore. Finding themselves in the wrong lane, either at a stoplight or just driving, and suddenly they realize they need to "be over there," and away they go, either cutting people off, stopping in the middle of the road till it clears, or some combination there of. Whatever they're doing and wherever they're going is so vitally important, they can't bother with any driving courtesey by going down and turning around.
I also don't like the folks that get right up on your bumper so close you can't see their headlights because you aren't going fast enough for them. Now, it's one thing for them to come up behind you because they didn't realize how slow you were going, or heck, even for a moment to get up close to signal "I'm going faster than you, could you please move over." But, don't stay 10ft behind my car when the speed limit is 55, and i"m already going 62. How is staying 3 ft behind me going to make me suddenly say to myself "oh, since I couldn't move over before, and that guy's still there, I'll just have to speed up a lot so I can get of of his way because he's obviously more important than me." Not!. Now, before you jump on me about the "left lane vigilante," who drives in the left lane on the highway right at the speed limit to purposely slow "those speed demons down," that's not what I'm talking about. I try to get over if someone's going faster than me, but I won't make Herculean effort to do it when I'm already going close to 10mph over the speed limit, and I'm even less likely to speed up if you ride my bumper. Come up on me if you have to, but when you see I can't get over this instant, back off to a safe driving distance. This is just another form of selfishness on their part. How dare I get in the way of them going 25+ mph over the speed limit, and they're going to make sure I'm aware how much I'm slowing them down by staying close enough for me to identify the dead bugs on their hood. I'm for the rules of safe driving that make things run smoothly, move to the right if you can to let faster traffic pass you , and if you're a left lane cruiser (yes, I know it's smoother over there), keep an eye on your rearview mirror from time to time, and if you see someone coming up on you in the left lane, move over till they pass, then go back to the left lane all you want. But get off my bumper that you've been there for the last mile.
That brings up another thought. What do folks think about 4-6 lane streets with stoplights. Do you view them the same as you view a highway, with the "fast" lanes on the left, and slow lanes on the right? Or do you consider each lane equally ok to drive in due to more frequent turns and stoplights? Now, I'm not asking if you have found that the left lanes are faster; they tend to be, because of fewer left turns or using turn lanes. I mean, do you think slower traffic (normal speed traffic, not 20mph folks) should be moving to the right?
Even with my ongoing knowledge that people are selfish, I have to ask "What is it with people when they get in the car?" You would think they might realize just a tiny bit that driving down the road is a shared experience. Yes, folks all those other hulks of metal moving around the roads are other people who also need to follow the rules and conventions of driving.
"What's he getting on about?" You ask. Drivers; that feel that won't be delayed any, and thus won't drive like a rational person. When I was taught to drive, I was taught to plan ahead as much as possible for turns, slow downs, etc, and that if for some reason you found yourself in the far left lane, and had 20 feet before you needed to turn right, you just took the time to go down the street in the left lane until you could either find a place to turn around, or found a way to go around the block. But no one seems to do that anymore. Finding themselves in the wrong lane, either at a stoplight or just driving, and suddenly they realize they need to "be over there," and away they go, either cutting people off, stopping in the middle of the road till it clears, or some combination there of. Whatever they're doing and wherever they're going is so vitally important, they can't bother with any driving courtesey by going down and turning around.
I also don't like the folks that get right up on your bumper so close you can't see their headlights because you aren't going fast enough for them. Now, it's one thing for them to come up behind you because they didn't realize how slow you were going, or heck, even for a moment to get up close to signal "I'm going faster than you, could you please move over." But, don't stay 10ft behind my car when the speed limit is 55, and i"m already going 62. How is staying 3 ft behind me going to make me suddenly say to myself "oh, since I couldn't move over before, and that guy's still there, I'll just have to speed up a lot so I can get of of his way because he's obviously more important than me." Not!. Now, before you jump on me about the "left lane vigilante," who drives in the left lane on the highway right at the speed limit to purposely slow "those speed demons down," that's not what I'm talking about. I try to get over if someone's going faster than me, but I won't make Herculean effort to do it when I'm already going close to 10mph over the speed limit, and I'm even less likely to speed up if you ride my bumper. Come up on me if you have to, but when you see I can't get over this instant, back off to a safe driving distance. This is just another form of selfishness on their part. How dare I get in the way of them going 25+ mph over the speed limit, and they're going to make sure I'm aware how much I'm slowing them down by staying close enough for me to identify the dead bugs on their hood. I'm for the rules of safe driving that make things run smoothly, move to the right if you can to let faster traffic pass you , and if you're a left lane cruiser (yes, I know it's smoother over there), keep an eye on your rearview mirror from time to time, and if you see someone coming up on you in the left lane, move over till they pass, then go back to the left lane all you want. But get off my bumper that you've been there for the last mile.
That brings up another thought. What do folks think about 4-6 lane streets with stoplights. Do you view them the same as you view a highway, with the "fast" lanes on the left, and slow lanes on the right? Or do you consider each lane equally ok to drive in due to more frequent turns and stoplights? Now, I'm not asking if you have found that the left lanes are faster; they tend to be, because of fewer left turns or using turn lanes. I mean, do you think slower traffic (normal speed traffic, not 20mph folks) should be moving to the right?
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Anti-gun folks have been around from the beginning
This is a topic that's been rumbling around in my head for a while now. I'm not sure I can articulate it in as much detail as is often seen over at The Smallest Minority, but I'm going to give it a shot.
Many gun owners seem to think that the dawn of anti-gun folks and politicians seems to be around the 1920s 1930s with the passage of the NFA. Sadly, I've got news for them, we've been fighting anti-gun folks since this country began. Yea, yea, we all know about the British trying to take the guns of the colonists, but I'm not talking about them, although we could spend many days talking all the various governements when removed weapons from their "peasants." No swords for non samurari in Japan, etc. No, who I'm talking about are the anti-gun folk who helped found this country. What you say? You've read the Federalist papers and all the juicy pro gun quotes in all of them. Which is exactly my point. Why would all of these founders of our country feel the need to expound long and hard to various national and state conferences on their respective constitutions about guns? They did this precisely because they were seeking support and ammunition to use against those who would suggest we go the way of the other countries and bar citizens from guns. If all of the founding fathers for the nation and all of the states were so pro-gun, there wouldn't have been a need for the expounding upon of the virtue of guns.
Next, we look at the often glamourized "Old west" Sure, when you were truly out in the wild, it was probably fairly common for folks to carry guns, but it's also equally common to find any number of towns and cities from that era that had weapon bans in place that forced people coming into town to disarm, leave town, or face jail. Even the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral was partially instigated due to one group walking about town with guns when it was against the city ordinance.
What's the point of all of this? Honestly, I don't really have a big point other than to suggest that we've been fighting the good fight from the beginning, and while we've had some serious setbacks, we've also had some serious successes. But I also don't want folks to lose sight of the fact that some anti-gunning has just as long of a legacy as our pro-gun constitution, which means we can't become complacent in some of our more recent success.
Many gun owners seem to think that the dawn of anti-gun folks and politicians seems to be around the 1920s 1930s with the passage of the NFA. Sadly, I've got news for them, we've been fighting anti-gun folks since this country began. Yea, yea, we all know about the British trying to take the guns of the colonists, but I'm not talking about them, although we could spend many days talking all the various governements when removed weapons from their "peasants." No swords for non samurari in Japan, etc. No, who I'm talking about are the anti-gun folk who helped found this country. What you say? You've read the Federalist papers and all the juicy pro gun quotes in all of them. Which is exactly my point. Why would all of these founders of our country feel the need to expound long and hard to various national and state conferences on their respective constitutions about guns? They did this precisely because they were seeking support and ammunition to use against those who would suggest we go the way of the other countries and bar citizens from guns. If all of the founding fathers for the nation and all of the states were so pro-gun, there wouldn't have been a need for the expounding upon of the virtue of guns.
Next, we look at the often glamourized "Old west" Sure, when you were truly out in the wild, it was probably fairly common for folks to carry guns, but it's also equally common to find any number of towns and cities from that era that had weapon bans in place that forced people coming into town to disarm, leave town, or face jail. Even the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral was partially instigated due to one group walking about town with guns when it was against the city ordinance.
What's the point of all of this? Honestly, I don't really have a big point other than to suggest that we've been fighting the good fight from the beginning, and while we've had some serious setbacks, we've also had some serious successes. But I also don't want folks to lose sight of the fact that some anti-gunning has just as long of a legacy as our pro-gun constitution, which means we can't become complacent in some of our more recent success.
Quick, Hide the Pecans and Walnuts
A man was charged with carrying a concealed weapon after police found a nutcracker in his pocket and he said he used it to protect himself.
Yup, he's a major danger to you if he can get your pants and underwear down first, otherwise, just keep him away from the pecans.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=532822
Yup, he's a major danger to you if he can get your pants and underwear down first, otherwise, just keep him away from the pecans.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=532822
No more IPSC race guns or other such guns in Cook County IL anymore
Not that we're really suprised by the folks in the Chicago area, but I found this on Icarry.org.
It's a new county ordinance expanding the ban on various so-called "assualt weapons" and features of assualt weapons"
Here's the text with a few of them highlighted with my comments in red:
It's a new county ordinance expanding the ban on various so-called "assualt weapons" and features of assualt weapons"
Here's the text with a few of them highlighted with my comments in red:
Section 6-1 Definitions.
As used in Article VI of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meaning:
(a) "Assault weapon means:
(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:
- (A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
No more railed forearms and verticle grips. and, could the mag well and mag on an AR-15 fit this? Well, looks like they ban all ARs anyway at the bottom, regardless of features.
(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(D) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
Isn't this what the foreard grip on an AR-15 is?
(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
It's not just flash hiders anymore, any muzzle brake..it's out, even on your semi deer rifle
(2) A semiautomatic pistol or any semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
(3) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
- (A) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(B) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(C) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(D) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; or
There goes any of the compensated pistols from Glock, Sig, etc. Almost all Open guns from IPSC
(E) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
There goes all of those fancy target .22 pistols...yea, they're a meanace to society
- (A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
Does this mean the forward grip on all semi-auto shotguns? what qualifies as "protruding"
(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(D) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or
No more "home defense" shotguns for y'all with the longer tube, even without a pistol grip stock etc.
(E) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;
(6) Conversion kit, part or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;
(7) Shall include, but not be limited to, the assault weapons models identified as follows:
- (A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
(ii) AR-10;
(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
(iv) AR70;
(v) Calico Liberty;
(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
(xi) Saiga;
(xii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
(xiii) SKS with detachable magazine;
(xiv) SLG 95;
(xv) SLR 95 or 96;
(xvi) Steyr AUG;
(xvii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
Yes, now even the Mini-14 is banned. What was that about them not coming for your hunting rifle?
(xviii) Tavor;
(xix) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
(xx) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Calico M-110;
(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
(v) Uzi.
(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Armscor 30 BG;
(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
(iii) Striker 12; or
(iv) Streetsweeper.
Liberal doesn't trust self with a gun...
A self described "liberal with a temper" posted this blog post saying she is "Thanful for restrictive handgun laws." She goes on to say "I am in the foulest of moods."
So, she seems to fear she'd go on a rampage were she to have a gun. Guess that's why lots of liberals want to ban my guns...if they don't trust themselves, why would they trust me?
Sure, she may be just making a joke here, but I'm sure there are many liberals out there that actually believe that.
So, she seems to fear she'd go on a rampage were she to have a gun. Guess that's why lots of liberals want to ban my guns...if they don't trust themselves, why would they trust me?
Sure, she may be just making a joke here, but I'm sure there are many liberals out there that actually believe that.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Is Customer Relations Dead?
I've noticed several times in recent days that I've been in a store, gone to the check out, made my purchase and left without a store clerk saying a single word to me. You walk up to the checkout, they take the item, scan it, reach out for your money or credit card, then hand you the receipt back... no word spoken. What's the deal?
I had to take a DVD back to the store I rented it from because it wouldn't play. I walk in, and the guy turns to look at me. I guess this indicated that he was ready to listen, but he said nothing. I explained the situation. He reached out, took the DVD, then went looking for another one. Again, not one word of "I'm sorry that happened sir" or "let me find you another copy" nothing. He came back with the DVD and handed it to me and turned as if he was all done. Never a word. Sigh.
What has happened to people? Why don't they talk to customers anymore? I've seen it a lot at drive up windows as well. I'll have to keep my eyes out to see. I just want the middle ground. I don't like sales people that hound me, or tell me all kinds of life stories that I don't really want to hear either, but I'll take the person that's talkative over the person that just seems to ignore me.
I had to take a DVD back to the store I rented it from because it wouldn't play. I walk in, and the guy turns to look at me. I guess this indicated that he was ready to listen, but he said nothing. I explained the situation. He reached out, took the DVD, then went looking for another one. Again, not one word of "I'm sorry that happened sir" or "let me find you another copy" nothing. He came back with the DVD and handed it to me and turned as if he was all done. Never a word. Sigh.
What has happened to people? Why don't they talk to customers anymore? I've seen it a lot at drive up windows as well. I'll have to keep my eyes out to see. I just want the middle ground. I don't like sales people that hound me, or tell me all kinds of life stories that I don't really want to hear either, but I'll take the person that's talkative over the person that just seems to ignore me.
Welcome to my blather
I guess I should start by telling a little about myself. I'm in the mental health field. This would normally mean that I tend to lean to the left politically as most mental health people tend to be that way. Well, I'm not. I'm more libertarian than anything else. I'm a small government kind of guy. Generally I don't like talking about politics, as it just gets people upset, but there are things going on politically all the time that just seem so dumb that I'm sure that I'll have to post on them.
Over the years I've developed a number of outdoor hobbies, most of which I'm only moderately good at. I enjoy shooting, hunting, hiking, scuba diving, etc. I'm sure I'll post about these topics as well. I'm sure I'll have a number of posts about gun owner rights issues.
Most of the time I'm probably going to post about my observations of people in general, be in people I've met, stuff I see on TV, or read about. I've been accused of having some strange theories about the world, and I guess this is going to be my place to let them out. Normally I keep most of this stuff to myself, but as they say, everyone's got an opinion. And I guess a blog is as perfect of a place as any for each of us to spread these crazy ideas around :)
Anyway. If you read something you like, agree with, or disagree with, let me know what you think. I'm not the best of writers, so perhaps doing this blog will help me practice in that area. We'll see.
Over the years I've developed a number of outdoor hobbies, most of which I'm only moderately good at. I enjoy shooting, hunting, hiking, scuba diving, etc. I'm sure I'll post about these topics as well. I'm sure I'll have a number of posts about gun owner rights issues.
Most of the time I'm probably going to post about my observations of people in general, be in people I've met, stuff I see on TV, or read about. I've been accused of having some strange theories about the world, and I guess this is going to be my place to let them out. Normally I keep most of this stuff to myself, but as they say, everyone's got an opinion. And I guess a blog is as perfect of a place as any for each of us to spread these crazy ideas around :)
Anyway. If you read something you like, agree with, or disagree with, let me know what you think. I'm not the best of writers, so perhaps doing this blog will help me practice in that area. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
