Great news from the state of Ohio - here it is
The state has done two important things - legalized carrying in an alcohol-serving establishment, and changed/clarified vehicle carry to specifically allow full concealment.
In some ways the latter is more important to me, because although we owe the law our obedience (legitimate civil resistance not withstanding), the law owes us clear instruction so we can follow it to the letter.
I'm glad it's now permitted to have your gun in a bar. Most gun owners are very self-controlled about not drinking and packing or drinking while target shooting or hunting. The sort of person who would start trouble in a bar is usually the sort of person that would carry "illegally" anyway.
The person this law primarily protects is the sort of CCer who either walks into a bar to retrieve a buddy who is too lit up to drive safely, or a person whose concealed carry piece is so comfortably positioned that they've forgotten it's there. In neither case should this sort of person be found criminally liable, nor should they be forced to engage in unnecessary administrative handling of their weapon.
In addition, sometimes bar fights become "one against many" and if the person wasn't the aggressor
and can't flee, a firearm might be the only thing separating them from a severe beatdown or death.
Eight Shots and a Ping... The Suburban Redneck on politics, guns and current events.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Chicks with guns!
New Book from Lindsay McCrum - photos of women gun owners. Looks like it's going to be fantastic.
Amazon Link:http://www.amazon.com/Chicks-Guns-Lindsay-McCrum/dp/0865652759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317306359&sr=8-1
Interestingly, according to Amazon, customers who bought this book also bought "Israeli Battle Dressings" so some caution may be in order.
Put a little Captain in ya...
Sure, his accent fades in and out, but director James Clavell gives him some great dialogue to chew on, and a batch of excellent character actors to play off of.
Excellent music and outdoor photography finish it all off.
Don't miss this one, folks.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065969/
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
America: First Class Mail, Third World Performance
A client apparently needs a new DC-in socket for his Sony laptop.
I ordered one from an Ebay dealer. It wasn't until after I remitted payment
that I realized the source was in China.
"It will take too long to get here." I mused. So I immediately ordered another from a dealer
in Texas at a very similar price.
I opened up today's mail - both parts arrived at the same time. One from overseas,
and one from "only" about 2/3 of the way to the west coast of this formerly great nation.
Does anyone doubt we're heading in a very, very wrong direction?
I ordered one from an Ebay dealer. It wasn't until after I remitted payment
that I realized the source was in China.
"It will take too long to get here." I mused. So I immediately ordered another from a dealer
in Texas at a very similar price.
I opened up today's mail - both parts arrived at the same time. One from overseas,
and one from "only" about 2/3 of the way to the west coast of this formerly great nation.
Does anyone doubt we're heading in a very, very wrong direction?
Review of Paul M. Barrett's Glock: The Rise of America's Gun
Here is my commentary on Paul M. Barrett's book Glock: The Rise of America's Gun
In the early 1980sThe Austrian army needed a new sidearm. Concealed carry began a seismic shift from
forbidden to accepted, one US State at a time.The world, particuarly America, needed a modern,
high-capacity 9 milimeter pistol even though it didn't know it yet.
Gaston Glock stood at the confluence of these trends. Like many hyper-successful
businessmen, he had the right combination of lucky timing and ambition.
One such patch of luck occurred when he overheard a conversation between Austrian
army officers, discovering that their military was looking for a more modern sidearm.
Already a small-scale manufacturer, Glock brought together just the right tooling
and expertise. Never having made guns, or even fired that many before, as a designer
he was unencumbered by notions of "this is how it was always done, this is how it should be
done." Beginning with this tabula rasa, he received "wish list" input from military folk with
an interest in the results. After a fairly brief round of prototyping
Glock was ready to sell his creation: a simple, reliable firearm that quickly won
over the Austrian military and went on to dominate American law enforcement and civilian
sales.
It is a sterling example of function over form. To call a Glock "handsome"
would be quite the overstatement, lacking either either the pencil barreled
elegance of classic Smith and Wesson revolvers, or the slab-sided blue steeled
masculinity of the 1911.
But the damned thing works.
As a company Glock could hardly be in a better position. The polymer frame and minimal
parts content mean less precision machining to do and commensurate lower labor costs.
High margins *and* high volume give Gaston's firm amazing cash flow.
Spectacular cash flow hides a multitude of sins, and Barrett's book brings to light many
that can be tied to Glock's company and the manner in which it operates.
Volume sales deals closed with stip club outings; byzantine shell companies designed to
minimize taxes paid; internecine conflict within the company including a spectacularly
unsuccessful plot to murder Glock himself.
Not to mention some negligent discharge and weapon detonation incidents in which
the firm used its massive legal muscle to make sure the lawsuit payouts were parsimonious
and bad publicity minimal.
Tales of meteoric business success are often fun to read, and as someone who is definitely
a "gunnie" the book is doubly pleasurable.
I have mixed feelings about Barrett's book because even as it presents an intriguing
business story mixed with some adroitly told firearm history, it weaves in aspects
of the American gun culture, some not always positive.
When talking about the NRA's lobbying efforts during the Glock era, Barrett seems
to describe the organization as "no compromise." The NRA has often yielded ground
on firearm control legislation, earning itself the alternative moniker of "Negotiate
Rights Away."
Unlike a lot of members of the "mainstream media" Barrett's writing
bears out some real research. In his writing, he makes sure to use proper terminology.
Also absent is a tone of contempt for shooting sports enthusiasts in the aggregate.
At the end of the day I think he's mildly bemused by the strength of the American affinity
for guns, while also not exactly sure what to do about "gun violence." I detected some support
for magazine capacity limits and possibly for gun registration.
I also admire his pluck in writing both his Businessweek stories on the company and the book itself -
Gaston Glock is a fairly enigmatic man, who spawned an equally enigmatic corporation whose byzantine
layers must have been difficult to penetrate.
I have a bit of backstory with the book's author.
I enjoyed his dryly factual Businessweek story about Glock as a company back in 2010,
and was upset at what seemed to be an anti-Glock, anti-gun "slam" piece published shortly
after the horrific Tucson shooting of Janurary 2011.
Businessweek published the letter I wrote in response to his story, but little did I know that
I would get to meet him and converse with him at a Reno, Nevada gathering called the Gun Blogger
Rendezvous.
It was an affable and most civilized conversation. Mr. Barrett actually enjoys shooting
and upon looking into the process for acquiring a New York City pistol permit, got a taste of just
how onerous and unpleasant gun control can be.
Sadly, I think that a lot of my fellow "gunnies" will pigeonhole this book simply because the author
is a New Yorker that writes for Bloomberg Businessweek.
I think that's unfortunate and unfair, because at the end of the day, it's an informative and entertaining
look into a company whose products bear the stamp of "Perfection," which is achieved so unevenly
as both a company and a gun. And despite both its good points and flaws, the love for the Glock
continues unabated.
In the early 1980sThe Austrian army needed a new sidearm. Concealed carry began a seismic shift from
forbidden to accepted, one US State at a time.The world, particuarly America, needed a modern,
high-capacity 9 milimeter pistol even though it didn't know it yet.
Gaston Glock stood at the confluence of these trends. Like many hyper-successful
businessmen, he had the right combination of lucky timing and ambition.
One such patch of luck occurred when he overheard a conversation between Austrian
army officers, discovering that their military was looking for a more modern sidearm.
Already a small-scale manufacturer, Glock brought together just the right tooling
and expertise. Never having made guns, or even fired that many before, as a designer
he was unencumbered by notions of "this is how it was always done, this is how it should be
done." Beginning with this tabula rasa, he received "wish list" input from military folk with
an interest in the results. After a fairly brief round of prototyping
Glock was ready to sell his creation: a simple, reliable firearm that quickly won
over the Austrian military and went on to dominate American law enforcement and civilian
sales.
It is a sterling example of function over form. To call a Glock "handsome"
would be quite the overstatement, lacking either either the pencil barreled
elegance of classic Smith and Wesson revolvers, or the slab-sided blue steeled
masculinity of the 1911.
But the damned thing works.
As a company Glock could hardly be in a better position. The polymer frame and minimal
parts content mean less precision machining to do and commensurate lower labor costs.
High margins *and* high volume give Gaston's firm amazing cash flow.
Spectacular cash flow hides a multitude of sins, and Barrett's book brings to light many
that can be tied to Glock's company and the manner in which it operates.
Volume sales deals closed with stip club outings; byzantine shell companies designed to
minimize taxes paid; internecine conflict within the company including a spectacularly
unsuccessful plot to murder Glock himself.
Not to mention some negligent discharge and weapon detonation incidents in which
the firm used its massive legal muscle to make sure the lawsuit payouts were parsimonious
and bad publicity minimal.
Tales of meteoric business success are often fun to read, and as someone who is definitely
a "gunnie" the book is doubly pleasurable.
I have mixed feelings about Barrett's book because even as it presents an intriguing
business story mixed with some adroitly told firearm history, it weaves in aspects
of the American gun culture, some not always positive.
When talking about the NRA's lobbying efforts during the Glock era, Barrett seems
to describe the organization as "no compromise." The NRA has often yielded ground
on firearm control legislation, earning itself the alternative moniker of "Negotiate
Rights Away."
Unlike a lot of members of the "mainstream media" Barrett's writing
bears out some real research. In his writing, he makes sure to use proper terminology.
Also absent is a tone of contempt for shooting sports enthusiasts in the aggregate.
At the end of the day I think he's mildly bemused by the strength of the American affinity
for guns, while also not exactly sure what to do about "gun violence." I detected some support
for magazine capacity limits and possibly for gun registration.
I also admire his pluck in writing both his Businessweek stories on the company and the book itself -
Gaston Glock is a fairly enigmatic man, who spawned an equally enigmatic corporation whose byzantine
layers must have been difficult to penetrate.
I have a bit of backstory with the book's author.
I enjoyed his dryly factual Businessweek story about Glock as a company back in 2010,
and was upset at what seemed to be an anti-Glock, anti-gun "slam" piece published shortly
after the horrific Tucson shooting of Janurary 2011.
Businessweek published the letter I wrote in response to his story, but little did I know that
I would get to meet him and converse with him at a Reno, Nevada gathering called the Gun Blogger
Rendezvous.
It was an affable and most civilized conversation. Mr. Barrett actually enjoys shooting
and upon looking into the process for acquiring a New York City pistol permit, got a taste of just
how onerous and unpleasant gun control can be.
Sadly, I think that a lot of my fellow "gunnies" will pigeonhole this book simply because the author
is a New Yorker that writes for Bloomberg Businessweek.
I think that's unfortunate and unfair, because at the end of the day, it's an informative and entertaining
look into a company whose products bear the stamp of "Perfection," which is achieved so unevenly
as both a company and a gun. And despite both its good points and flaws, the love for the Glock
continues unabated.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Even The Mafia Will "Forgive" Your Debt if You Pay...
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/09/should-pardoned-felons-have-gun-rights.html
Interesting case about a fellow named David Scott Blackwell. Served a five-year sentence for selling unlicensed, unregulated, unbranded pharmaceuticals (drug dealing). After completing said sentence, he was fully pardoned in Georgia, which generally triggers a full restoration of one's rights.
Blackwell moved to Tennessee, and tried to get a concealed carry permit. He was denied despite the pardon. Right now the case it at the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
I'm quite the purist on the Second Amendment. I don't recall it making exceptions for any particular class of people, including those who have committed crimes.
If you've done the crime and paid the price - you should get your firearm back. (Except in the case of an execution. No sense in burying a perfectly good gun in a potter's field).
Continued denial of rights after serving one's sentence is a punishment in and of itself, and violates (in my opinion) the "cruel and unusual" provision, as well as any sense of rightness and proportionality.
In addition, with an array of ever-increasing laws, rules and regulations of which we're all supposed to be aware of ("ignorance of the law is no excuse!!!") it gets easier and easier to be dragged into the hungry maw of our "justice" system."
Prompt and full restoration of rights after completion of a sentence is only a small part of ameliorating this increasingly out of control situation, where in the quest for "law and order" we crush all notions of fairness and proportion.
Interesting case about a fellow named David Scott Blackwell. Served a five-year sentence for selling unlicensed, unregulated, unbranded pharmaceuticals (drug dealing). After completing said sentence, he was fully pardoned in Georgia, which generally triggers a full restoration of one's rights.
Blackwell moved to Tennessee, and tried to get a concealed carry permit. He was denied despite the pardon. Right now the case it at the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
I'm quite the purist on the Second Amendment. I don't recall it making exceptions for any particular class of people, including those who have committed crimes.
If you've done the crime and paid the price - you should get your firearm back. (Except in the case of an execution. No sense in burying a perfectly good gun in a potter's field).
Continued denial of rights after serving one's sentence is a punishment in and of itself, and violates (in my opinion) the "cruel and unusual" provision, as well as any sense of rightness and proportionality.
In addition, with an array of ever-increasing laws, rules and regulations of which we're all supposed to be aware of ("ignorance of the law is no excuse!!!") it gets easier and easier to be dragged into the hungry maw of our "justice" system."
Prompt and full restoration of rights after completion of a sentence is only a small part of ameliorating this increasingly out of control situation, where in the quest for "law and order" we crush all notions of fairness and proportion.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
New Jersey: Disarmed, Yet Still Dangerous...
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/130518533_Race_to_bottom_on_gun_control.html
The comments almost universally slam Mr. Lautenberg's guest editorial. HR 822 is needed, but wouldn't be necessary if all of our States actually followed the Constitution.
Violent crime will not increase ONE IOTA if national reciprocity comes to pass, as he ludicrously fears, but at least there won't be any "paperwork criminals" who are charged with CC violations because they crossed over into a state that doesn't accept their permit.
Mr. Lautenberg, do you really mean to tell me that the idea of my packing in your state on my New York CCW scares you? Despite a heap of paperwork, background checks that far exceed NICS in their thoroughness, an NRA safety course, and four notarized character references, that you think that I'd represent a threat of some sort??? Nonsense.
And I certainly don't think New Yorkers should be subjected to the overly rigorous process that exists just to *own* a handgun. See, there's this state right next door called Vermont that doesn't require any of that crap and I have yet to hear of Vermonters lamenting a decades-long scourge of "gun violence."
The comments almost universally slam Mr. Lautenberg's guest editorial. HR 822 is needed, but wouldn't be necessary if all of our States actually followed the Constitution.
Violent crime will not increase ONE IOTA if national reciprocity comes to pass, as he ludicrously fears, but at least there won't be any "paperwork criminals" who are charged with CC violations because they crossed over into a state that doesn't accept their permit.
Mr. Lautenberg, do you really mean to tell me that the idea of my packing in your state on my New York CCW scares you? Despite a heap of paperwork, background checks that far exceed NICS in their thoroughness, an NRA safety course, and four notarized character references, that you think that I'd represent a threat of some sort??? Nonsense.
And I certainly don't think New Yorkers should be subjected to the overly rigorous process that exists just to *own* a handgun. See, there's this state right next door called Vermont that doesn't require any of that crap and I have yet to hear of Vermonters lamenting a decades-long scourge of "gun violence."
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Blog Fodder and the Silver State
Why go to the newstand when you can simply get the papers dropped off right on your "welcome" mat every day?
Why go on an Internet snipe hunt for gun related news when it gets sent, clean and pristine right to your inbox, by NRA-ILA and Google Alerts (separately, not working hand in hand).
Indeed. I got a decent news nugget yesterday:
Apparently despite Nevada's gun friendly nature, you can't carry your self-defense weapon in one of their state parks.
Looks like that may change: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=7086
I hope it does. Having been shadowed in a supposedly "safe" suburban park by some wacky dude, I realized that basically anyone can close in and Tueller my butt PDQ. Nevada's state parks are huge (Valley of Fire and Red Rock come to mind). All an assailant needs to commit a crime against a person is for the victim to be out of line of sight and earshot of witnesses. If that's the case in a long, thin strip of woods 15 miles outside of NYC, then a predator's odds grow exponentially in their favor way out in the desert.
This is just common sense to allow people to defend themselves against aggressive beasts and malicious men.
I haven't heard of any abuses of the re-allowing of carry in national parks, so the same should be true for state parks, as well.
Bonus cheap shot at Obama - his signing off on National Park carry and Amtrak transport of firearms is not a signal that he is pro-gun. They were provisions tacked onto economic reform bills.
Why go on an Internet snipe hunt for gun related news when it gets sent, clean and pristine right to your inbox, by NRA-ILA and Google Alerts (separately, not working hand in hand).
Indeed. I got a decent news nugget yesterday:
Apparently despite Nevada's gun friendly nature, you can't carry your self-defense weapon in one of their state parks.
Looks like that may change: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=7086
I hope it does. Having been shadowed in a supposedly "safe" suburban park by some wacky dude, I realized that basically anyone can close in and Tueller my butt PDQ. Nevada's state parks are huge (Valley of Fire and Red Rock come to mind). All an assailant needs to commit a crime against a person is for the victim to be out of line of sight and earshot of witnesses. If that's the case in a long, thin strip of woods 15 miles outside of NYC, then a predator's odds grow exponentially in their favor way out in the desert.
This is just common sense to allow people to defend themselves against aggressive beasts and malicious men.
I haven't heard of any abuses of the re-allowing of carry in national parks, so the same should be true for state parks, as well.
Bonus cheap shot at Obama - his signing off on National Park carry and Amtrak transport of firearms is not a signal that he is pro-gun. They were provisions tacked onto economic reform bills.
Don't Talk to Cops... really... and here's why.
If you are a perfectly law abiding citizen (Almost impossible, these days), and are of the mindset that you'll cooperate completely with police and answer all of their questions during your interaction with them , and have no worries because "hey, I have nothing to fear, I've done nothing wrong" - think again!
Here's the first part of an outstanding presentation by a defense attorney who clearly lays out why you imperil yourself by speaking with police without benefit of counsel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Even if you're not into home decor, marginally interesting recipes and kitchy DIY craft projecs, remember that Martha Stewart didn't serve time for securities related violations, but lying to investigators.
Here's the first part of an outstanding presentation by a defense attorney who clearly lays out why you imperil yourself by speaking with police without benefit of counsel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Even if you're not into home decor, marginally interesting recipes and kitchy DIY craft projecs, remember that Martha Stewart didn't serve time for securities related violations, but lying to investigators.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Mass. Says: "One way or another, we'll get your money."
Rather depressing court decision:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3592.asp
Basically this Massachussetts motorist felt the speeding ticket was unfairly issued, and was charged court fees close to the cost of the ticket. He challenged the ticket (and won) and proceeded to contest the fees, took it to his states highest court, and was ruled against.
Incredibly, the Massachussetts Supreme Court reasoned that it was perfectly acceptable to charge people to challenge tickets. In fairness, it also said that it was *improper* to start making people accused of more serious law-breaking court fees to, but this could easily be the beginning of a slippery slope. After all, the courts are a "government service" to both society at large and the accused. Nothing wrong with charging user fees for the services they use... right? right??? (Sarcasm off)
It's an open secret that traffic law enforcement is about 80% revenue and 20% safety driven.
This ruling affirms this overwhelmingly.
So right now Massachussetts traffic law is a rigged casino. They win no matter what. I suspect ticket issuance will now skyrocket.
I thought our Constitution protected us against the arbitrary taking of anyone's life, liberty or property. This ruling basically tosses away the due process that we've been given, by renaming this unfair confiscation as mere "court fees."
Unfair civil forfeitures of boats, cars, homes and bank accounts has been happening for decades, and hardly arouses any outcry.
So I'm not too optimistic that we'll be seeing any mobs of torch and pitchfork wielders over this one, either.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3592.asp
Basically this Massachussetts motorist felt the speeding ticket was unfairly issued, and was charged court fees close to the cost of the ticket. He challenged the ticket (and won) and proceeded to contest the fees, took it to his states highest court, and was ruled against.
Incredibly, the Massachussetts Supreme Court reasoned that it was perfectly acceptable to charge people to challenge tickets. In fairness, it also said that it was *improper* to start making people accused of more serious law-breaking court fees to, but this could easily be the beginning of a slippery slope. After all, the courts are a "government service" to both society at large and the accused. Nothing wrong with charging user fees for the services they use... right? right??? (Sarcasm off)
It's an open secret that traffic law enforcement is about 80% revenue and 20% safety driven.
This ruling affirms this overwhelmingly.
So right now Massachussetts traffic law is a rigged casino. They win no matter what. I suspect ticket issuance will now skyrocket.
I thought our Constitution protected us against the arbitrary taking of anyone's life, liberty or property. This ruling basically tosses away the due process that we've been given, by renaming this unfair confiscation as mere "court fees."
Unfair civil forfeitures of boats, cars, homes and bank accounts has been happening for decades, and hardly arouses any outcry.
So I'm not too optimistic that we'll be seeing any mobs of torch and pitchfork wielders over this one, either.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Applause for John Lott...
Dr. John Lott spoke to students at the Commons, a facility located on the campus of Vanderbilt University last Monday.
Although his appearance was sponsored by a campus conservative group, the students attending this nominally liberal institution gave him points for the overall quality of his presentation and use of statistics to back up his arguments.
Story here:
http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/17860
Although his appearance was sponsored by a campus conservative group, the students attending this nominally liberal institution gave him points for the overall quality of his presentation and use of statistics to back up his arguments.
Story here:
http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/17860
Helping out your fellow man, woman or blogger
Very cool technology I came across at http://www.lifehacker.com/
It's called quickscreenshare
It's a tool for sharing what you're seeing on screen, or remotely managing someone else's PC to help them out.
It generates a one-use link that you must email to the person you're working with (or if you're insane, dictate the soup of characters that comprise the URL).
It also seems to be secure: either party can end the session, and reconnection requires generating a new link and an acceptance on both ends.
At the moment it's free, and seems to be a bit more responsive than the otherwise excellent
tool, Fog Creek Copilot http://www.copilot.com/
It's called quickscreenshare
It's a tool for sharing what you're seeing on screen, or remotely managing someone else's PC to help them out.
It generates a one-use link that you must email to the person you're working with (or if you're insane, dictate the soup of characters that comprise the URL).
It also seems to be secure: either party can end the session, and reconnection requires generating a new link and an acceptance on both ends.
At the moment it's free, and seems to be a bit more responsive than the otherwise excellent
tool, Fog Creek Copilot http://www.copilot.com/
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
True Blue Sam
Great job with your photo montage of GBR VI... !http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7TZybhF7J-I
On preppers, both cinematic and otherwise...
A quirky little comedy called the Survivors rolled into movie theaters back in 1983. It featured
Robin Williams, Walter Matthau and Jerry Reed.
As I recall, Williams and Matthau are recently jobless men who are thrown together by circumstances whenthey foil Jerry Reed's attempted bank robbery.
Reed finds Williams' house, attempting a little revenge and is thwarted again.
The film spins off in a really offbeat direction when Williams declares "I sure do miss that gun" -
referring to the 1911 he had taken off Reed while subduing him.
I first saw the film on cable probably around 1985 or so. I was only 13 then, and already quite interested in firearms. I had only fired airguns up to that point, yet I somehow understood that sentiment, and was impressed that the filmmakers would include that line.
It is, in fact, a typical reaction. People who are against guns and or even merely neutral on the topic, frequently enjoy a gentle introduction to shooting, leave with a smile on their face and a question on their lips: "when are we going back to the range?"
Pursuing that feeling, he takes a trip to Edelman's, a huge gun store in the lower New York area and does a bit of shopping.
In so doing, he hooks up with a group of survivalists, probably in upstate New York. They're presented
as a bunch of caricatures, but probably the first mass-distributed appearance of a "militia" as the media has come to classically depict them.
The film was probably made in late 1982. American-Soviet relations were frosty at best, and Volker's inflation-crushing interest rate hikes had helped spike up unemployment.
The modern survival movement probably had some seeds in the civil defense routines that America established during the Second World War, but really kicked into high gear during the Cold War, with a fair number of people building their own bomb shelters and stocking up on consumables that would hopefully allow them to live through immediate blast effects and the first few weeks of fallout.
Williams settles into the survival community, and the final act of the film is a standoff between him,
his family, Reed, and Matthau.
Matthau actually gives a rather moving speech, dressing down the survivalists as a bunch of phonies that are
"waiting... no... hoping" for the Bomb to drop so that all of their thinking, planning and preparation
can bear some sort of fruit.
If you asked someone why they're digging an extra-spacious basement or buying lots of food with an
extended shelf life 30 years ago, you'd hear that it was a hedge against a nuclear conflict.
While there are some signs that Russia and the US might be "frenemies" of a rather odd sort, "preppers" now have an interesting mix of reasons for doing what they do.
Perhaps the global economy will collapse due to untenable debt levels. Terrorists might detonate a series of dirty bombs in key areas of finance and energy production, rendering them uninhabitable. The Chinese could start getting aggressive and start grabbing resources with their ascending military might. Or a natural disaster of unprecedented scale could kill millions.
Good preparation isn't about hoping for any of this to happen. It's about realizing that the stability that we see in our everyday lives can be undermined far more easily than we think. There's nothing inherently bad about having a fortified home, with stocks of food, water, medical supplies and yes, weapons. In fact, it's inherently good, and a sign that you're thinking clearly. Being ready means increasing your chances of being alive when the other shoe drops. Being prepared means helping restore order or at least not getting in the way as stretched-thin rescuers (if any) try to sort it all out. Being prepared is a statement that you will not go gently into that good night, no matter how deep the darkness that descends upon our world.
Robin Williams, Walter Matthau and Jerry Reed.
As I recall, Williams and Matthau are recently jobless men who are thrown together by circumstances whenthey foil Jerry Reed's attempted bank robbery.
Reed finds Williams' house, attempting a little revenge and is thwarted again.
The film spins off in a really offbeat direction when Williams declares "I sure do miss that gun" -
referring to the 1911 he had taken off Reed while subduing him.
I first saw the film on cable probably around 1985 or so. I was only 13 then, and already quite interested in firearms. I had only fired airguns up to that point, yet I somehow understood that sentiment, and was impressed that the filmmakers would include that line.
It is, in fact, a typical reaction. People who are against guns and or even merely neutral on the topic, frequently enjoy a gentle introduction to shooting, leave with a smile on their face and a question on their lips: "when are we going back to the range?"
Pursuing that feeling, he takes a trip to Edelman's, a huge gun store in the lower New York area and does a bit of shopping.
In so doing, he hooks up with a group of survivalists, probably in upstate New York. They're presented
as a bunch of caricatures, but probably the first mass-distributed appearance of a "militia" as the media has come to classically depict them.
The film was probably made in late 1982. American-Soviet relations were frosty at best, and Volker's inflation-crushing interest rate hikes had helped spike up unemployment.
The modern survival movement probably had some seeds in the civil defense routines that America established during the Second World War, but really kicked into high gear during the Cold War, with a fair number of people building their own bomb shelters and stocking up on consumables that would hopefully allow them to live through immediate blast effects and the first few weeks of fallout.
Williams settles into the survival community, and the final act of the film is a standoff between him,
his family, Reed, and Matthau.
Matthau actually gives a rather moving speech, dressing down the survivalists as a bunch of phonies that are
"waiting... no... hoping" for the Bomb to drop so that all of their thinking, planning and preparation
can bear some sort of fruit.
If you asked someone why they're digging an extra-spacious basement or buying lots of food with an
extended shelf life 30 years ago, you'd hear that it was a hedge against a nuclear conflict.
While there are some signs that Russia and the US might be "frenemies" of a rather odd sort, "preppers" now have an interesting mix of reasons for doing what they do.
Perhaps the global economy will collapse due to untenable debt levels. Terrorists might detonate a series of dirty bombs in key areas of finance and energy production, rendering them uninhabitable. The Chinese could start getting aggressive and start grabbing resources with their ascending military might. Or a natural disaster of unprecedented scale could kill millions.
Good preparation isn't about hoping for any of this to happen. It's about realizing that the stability that we see in our everyday lives can be undermined far more easily than we think. There's nothing inherently bad about having a fortified home, with stocks of food, water, medical supplies and yes, weapons. In fact, it's inherently good, and a sign that you're thinking clearly. Being ready means increasing your chances of being alive when the other shoe drops. Being prepared means helping restore order or at least not getting in the way as stretched-thin rescuers (if any) try to sort it all out. Being prepared is a statement that you will not go gently into that good night, no matter how deep the darkness that descends upon our world.
OK, Oklahoma, OK!
Oklahoma is generally a pretty gun-friendly state. Unless you want to carry openly.
It's not lawful there at the moment, but there are some legislative efforts pending to change that.
Different options are apparently under consideration, such as licensed open carry,
unlicensed open carry, and simply removing criminal penalties for "flashing" or
"printing."
I'm a fan of constitutional carry, and to this day fail to understand why someone who
carries concealed should only be a wardrobe decision away from being criminally penalized.
Here is a link to a news story about this issue:
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-study-open-carry-of-handguns/article/3606062
It's not lawful there at the moment, but there are some legislative efforts pending to change that.
Different options are apparently under consideration, such as licensed open carry,
unlicensed open carry, and simply removing criminal penalties for "flashing" or
"printing."
I'm a fan of constitutional carry, and to this day fail to understand why someone who
carries concealed should only be a wardrobe decision away from being criminally penalized.
Here is a link to a news story about this issue:
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawmakers-study-open-carry-of-handguns/article/3606062
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Sometimes I just shake my head (but stop short of swapping brain hemispheres)
Summary as delivered to my inbox by Google Alerts:
"Why Doctors Have a Right to Know TIME But it did something more: it dealt a rare setback to a gun-rights lobby that is increasingly using its considerable political power to support policies that have little to do with the right to bear arms and needlessly put innocent people at risk. ..."
Uh, Time... FU! Putting innocent people at risk is the self-appointed job of the Brady campaign and their ilk. I'm not too crazy about anyone trying to restrict the conversations between a doctor and their patient, but *protecting* innocent people is the purpose of rolling back gun control laws.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Obama's Debt "reduction" plan
No one in Washington has been serious about reducing deficits and accumulated debt since about 11 years ago or so.
I have zero confidence in whatever silliness this administration is cooking up.
We're in a huge, huge fiscal hole that's still being dug. We're about to be treated to more wrangling over the size of the shovel.
I have zero confidence in whatever silliness this administration is cooking up.
We're in a huge, huge fiscal hole that's still being dug. We're about to be treated to more wrangling over the size of the shovel.
GBR VI Video
Finally found the right song for the video montage:
http://www.youtube.com/finalascent#p/a/u/0/mzyHWQZYzxk
http://www.youtube.com/finalascent#p/a/u/0/mzyHWQZYzxk
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Recruiting new allies
I think we "gunnies" should look for other groups, associations, etc that have an outlook similar to ours to help "muscle up" our numbers.
I don't mean to imply that the NRA, SAF and more locally-focused groups are ineffectual, simply that there is always strength in numbers.
I listen occasionally to general aviation podcasts in my car (there isn't enough gun stuff to fill up a week's worth of driving). It seems as if people in the GA community have some overlapping interests - they seek freedom (what could be more free than having your own plane?) of time, place and action. And they are beset by a slew of regulations - some sensible, many not. And their community is constantly in danger of infringement by politicians and bureaucrats who have no clue as to what the real impact their regulations will have.
A lot of GA pilots are also racking up flying hours to qualify for commercial passenger airlines. As far as I know, pilots still have the option to get the training to arm themselves in the cockpit. Why not take a pilot shooting so they can get a sense of the administrative and shooting skills that they will need to acquire? Once they see how much fun it is, and once it's explained to them how hard we've fought to keep our Second Amendment rights, they are more likely to add themselves to our ranks.
I don't mean to imply that the NRA, SAF and more locally-focused groups are ineffectual, simply that there is always strength in numbers.
I listen occasionally to general aviation podcasts in my car (there isn't enough gun stuff to fill up a week's worth of driving). It seems as if people in the GA community have some overlapping interests - they seek freedom (what could be more free than having your own plane?) of time, place and action. And they are beset by a slew of regulations - some sensible, many not. And their community is constantly in danger of infringement by politicians and bureaucrats who have no clue as to what the real impact their regulations will have.
A lot of GA pilots are also racking up flying hours to qualify for commercial passenger airlines. As far as I know, pilots still have the option to get the training to arm themselves in the cockpit. Why not take a pilot shooting so they can get a sense of the administrative and shooting skills that they will need to acquire? Once they see how much fun it is, and once it's explained to them how hard we've fought to keep our Second Amendment rights, they are more likely to add themselves to our ranks.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Very cool first-hand account of anti-piracy operations
No... not software piracy. Real pirates operating around the Horn of Africa.
Great explanation of the force continuum that anti-piracy operators employ
and why they employ it.
Hat Tip/Credit: deathvalleymag.com - very cool site that I just discovered today (but will be going back to).
http://www.deathvalleymag.com/2011/05/02/civilian-contractors-life-of-a-ship-anti-piracy-operator-eight-weeks-on-the-high-seas/#more-7231
Great explanation of the force continuum that anti-piracy operators employ
and why they employ it.
Hat Tip/Credit: deathvalleymag.com - very cool site that I just discovered today (but will be going back to).
http://www.deathvalleymag.com/2011/05/02/civilian-contractors-life-of-a-ship-anti-piracy-operator-eight-weeks-on-the-high-seas/#more-7231
Open Carry in California
A recent news summary describing Assembly Bill AB 144, a proposed ban on the open carry of unloaded handguns in California as a "gun rights activisits' tool."
Ummm... No. Both open and concealed carry are Constitutional rights that are routinely and arbitrarily messed with by various states and municipalities.
Sure...openly carried firearms can be the most visible expression of our Second Amendment rights, but there is practicality far beyond that.
Openly carried weapons are a visible deterrent to troublemakers. They are faster to access and bring to bear in the event that they are needed.
In certain states before CCW was "allowed," open carry was the only option, other than transported locked up in a box in the trunk.
And in hot weather states, concealing means adding layers of clothing to avoid criminal charges of "brandishing" or "printing." People packing heat shouldn't have to sweat any more than necessary, or sequester an underpowered gun just to exercise their right.
I don't even live in that state, and I hope Governor Brown refuses to sign AB144. Good luck and God bless, California.
Ummm... No. Both open and concealed carry are Constitutional rights that are routinely and arbitrarily messed with by various states and municipalities.
Sure...openly carried firearms can be the most visible expression of our Second Amendment rights, but there is practicality far beyond that.
Openly carried weapons are a visible deterrent to troublemakers. They are faster to access and bring to bear in the event that they are needed.
In certain states before CCW was "allowed," open carry was the only option, other than transported locked up in a box in the trunk.
And in hot weather states, concealing means adding layers of clothing to avoid criminal charges of "brandishing" or "printing." People packing heat shouldn't have to sweat any more than necessary, or sequester an underpowered gun just to exercise their right.
I don't even live in that state, and I hope Governor Brown refuses to sign AB144. Good luck and God bless, California.
Great News, Folks
Taking a quick laptop, coffee and voicemail answering "break" from being on the road.
Went to MSNBC.com, and found the following link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44559363/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
I'm thrilled to hear that crime keeps decreasing, even though the lousy economy and increasing urbanization in our great nation would make you think otherwise.
It bears mentioning that in general, gun control is loosening, and gun rights are increasing. Concealed carry is allowed (on paper at least) in 49 out of 50 States. Four states have Constitutional Carry. Municipal ordinances against carry in certain areas are being struck down like corn stalks during fall harvest, due to state pre-emption laws and citizens who take their government to court to make sure they are enforced.
The usual bromide that these changes will increase crime are pure nonsense and this is borne out again and again by the stats.
Went to MSNBC.com, and found the following link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44559363/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
I'm thrilled to hear that crime keeps decreasing, even though the lousy economy and increasing urbanization in our great nation would make you think otherwise.
It bears mentioning that in general, gun control is loosening, and gun rights are increasing. Concealed carry is allowed (on paper at least) in 49 out of 50 States. Four states have Constitutional Carry. Municipal ordinances against carry in certain areas are being struck down like corn stalks during fall harvest, due to state pre-emption laws and citizens who take their government to court to make sure they are enforced.
The usual bromide that these changes will increase crime are pure nonsense and this is borne out again and again by the stats.
Tragedy in Reno...
When I work on a computer, I occasionally multi-task: if there's a process that cooks on its own, like a backup, restore or virus scan, I'll take a quick peek at a news website.
Last night a particularly harrowing one caught my eye: a vintage plane crashed during the Reno Air Show, killing the pilot, and injuring or killing quite a few spectators.
I'm not an aviation enthusiast, but I really enjoyed the Balloon Race that took place during the GBR. As the sun came up and I watched balloons inflate and ascend, I caught two overflights of vintage propeller driven fighters with my video camera. In both instances they flew in perfect, tight "v" formation, although one group peeled off to honor the "missing man." It was a glorious sight.
What I hope comes out of this: a renewed appreciation for the dedication, time, money and effort it takes to keep vintage aircraft running, as well as the skill to fly them. And perhaps a slight re-jiggering of spectator positioning and participant flight corridors to further minimize the chances of casualties if another plane experiences such a massive mechanical failure in the air.
What I hope doesn't come out of this are hordes of brainless safety fascists, who will regulate events like this out of existence. The problem is that they usually aren't happy "solving" the "problem at hand." There's potential for them to expand their mandate to anything that burns petrol, makes lots of horsepower and noise, and goes really fast.
Regulations have their place, but there are limits. You can't engineer perfect safety into our world, but there are starry-eyed, brain-dead bureaucrats who will quench all legitimate risk-taking in an attempt to get us to that point.
Last night a particularly harrowing one caught my eye: a vintage plane crashed during the Reno Air Show, killing the pilot, and injuring or killing quite a few spectators.
I'm not an aviation enthusiast, but I really enjoyed the Balloon Race that took place during the GBR. As the sun came up and I watched balloons inflate and ascend, I caught two overflights of vintage propeller driven fighters with my video camera. In both instances they flew in perfect, tight "v" formation, although one group peeled off to honor the "missing man." It was a glorious sight.
What I hope comes out of this: a renewed appreciation for the dedication, time, money and effort it takes to keep vintage aircraft running, as well as the skill to fly them. And perhaps a slight re-jiggering of spectator positioning and participant flight corridors to further minimize the chances of casualties if another plane experiences such a massive mechanical failure in the air.
What I hope doesn't come out of this are hordes of brainless safety fascists, who will regulate events like this out of existence. The problem is that they usually aren't happy "solving" the "problem at hand." There's potential for them to expand their mandate to anything that burns petrol, makes lots of horsepower and noise, and goes really fast.
Regulations have their place, but there are limits. You can't engineer perfect safety into our world, but there are starry-eyed, brain-dead bureaucrats who will quench all legitimate risk-taking in an attempt to get us to that point.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Is today, "Marketing Message Opposite Day??"
Travel is almost as much a passion for me as owning and shooting firearms. One of my credit cards sent me a marketing email today with a rather odd subject heading:
"Get Away This Fall with Reduced Mileage Awards" I'm sure that what they meant to say was, "make your existing mileage points go further with our fall getaway specials," but it sure doesn't sound that way.
It's a bit like saying, "Shoot more with less ammo" or "Have more food at our restaurants... with our new small-portion plates."
I worry about the overall edumacation level in this country, and stuff like this doesn't make me feel any better.
"Get Away This Fall with Reduced Mileage Awards" I'm sure that what they meant to say was, "make your existing mileage points go further with our fall getaway specials," but it sure doesn't sound that way.
It's a bit like saying, "Shoot more with less ammo" or "Have more food at our restaurants... with our new small-portion plates."
I worry about the overall edumacation level in this country, and stuff like this doesn't make me feel any better.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Who's to blame for this one?
Empire is/was a "company town" in northwestern Nevada - now numbering about five souls, it once was a reasonably lively place, whose inhabitants were employees of US Gypsum. They worked at the local gypsum mine, now sporting a shiny perimeter fence around the white mounds of excavated product, ostensibly to keep out those enterprising gypsum thieves. The factory supplied wallboard to construction sites all over the US, but mostly to the booming Las Vegas area. When the housing crash arrived, it hit southern Nevada harder than most. Demand for USG's products dried up and blew away. The people working for the firm occupied company-owned homes leased to them cheaply, and of couse with no factory, their homes were taken away, along with their jobs. Several score jobs doesn't sound like that many, but it has a huge impact in a sparsely populated state like Nevada, and with an overall terrible scarcity of work in that state, people have had to uproot themselves and drift pretty far to find a steady paycheck.
Who can we blame for the demise of this town? People would love to point a finger at George W Bush or Barack Obama, but there were a lot of cooks brewing up this disaster. How about the banks that disastrously lowered their lending standards? Borrowers whose stomachs knotted even as they smiled
and signed on the dotted line, knowing they couldn't really sustain the payments? Or how about Alan Greenspan and his successors, who've likely kept interest rates lower than they should have? Or the various investment houses who bought and sold securitized mortgates, creating a byzantine chain of loan ownership and very little accountability? Or US Gypsum itself, which let a town die rather than find a way to save some of those jobs until demand for their product picks up?
It's human nature to find a figurehead to bury in the sand and hurl cabbages at, but in reality there are many, many contributors to our most difficult problems, and we certainly don't do ourselves any favors by singling out one guilty party while letting the rest go scot free.
HR 822
At first blush, HR 822 sounds great - forcing states to recognize each other's concealed carry permits. I'm a proud New Yorker, but I have no issue with CCW holders from other states packing heat in mine. And I don't think I should become an instant criminal if I visit another state without first having gotten their nonresident permit.
I'm not so sure that I like the idea of enacting a federal law that gives explicit permission for something already guaranteed in our Constitution.
And what of Vermonters, whose state doesn't even issue optional permits, as Alaska, Wyoming and Arizona do? They shouldn't be excluded from this regime (if enacted) simply for doing the right thing - following the Consitution - from the get-go.
I'm not so sure that I like the idea of enacting a federal law that gives explicit permission for something already guaranteed in our Constitution.
And what of Vermonters, whose state doesn't even issue optional permits, as Alaska, Wyoming and Arizona do? They shouldn't be excluded from this regime (if enacted) simply for doing the right thing - following the Consitution - from the get-go.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Back to reality after GBR VI...
Usually when I vacation, I try to display some sort of clothing or accessory that demonstrates my interest in the shooting sports – perhaps a souvenir shirt from the fabulous Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot, or a picture of John Moses Browning pasted onto the outer leaf of a manila folder. I call them recognition totems, so that if a fellow “gunnie” sees it, perhaps a conversation will ensue. Conversely, I’m always looking out for the same thing.
My Kalashnakitty shirt made it quite easy for Mr. Completely, Kee Wee, Kevin Baker (and one or two others I’m forgetting for the moment) to recognize me as a fellow GBR attendee. We quickly formed up and had a lively dinner.
I hadn’t gone to any previous GBRs. Always wanted to. Why NOT go to a gathering of quality writers collected together in a comfy hotel tucked into the Northwest corner of Nevada, one of the very best states to be in if you’re a shooter?
We had use of a hospitality room as a place to congregate, schmooze, discuss, argue and simply meet up before heading out for a field trip.
Our first was out to Cabela’s. There aren’t any places like it where I’m from. It’s basically a giant rustic cabin the size of a Wal-Mart but filled with an amazing selection of outdoor gear. We were given an informative guided tour of the place, and were able to inspect and even hold some of the specimens in their famous Gun Library.
The ranges we went to were unlike any I’ve visited. They aren’t just a collection of targets set against sand berms, they’re basically tall hills that are part of the dramatic Nevada
Kevin Baker said it best and I’m paraphrasing here, “As I drove up here from Tucson
I’ve had the same thought myself, while transiting through Nevada
Both cities are surrounded by plenty of rugged hills, mountains and scrub desert, but Reno Reno
I had a slightly surreal moment at the GBR: I met Paul M Barrett. He’s a business journalist for Bloomberg Businessweek. Paul wrote a story in January about Glocks that I felt at the time was very anti-Glock, anti-gun, and anti gun owner. I dashed off a response the moment I read it. As I recall I wrote it right from my Blackberry from the now-defunct Borders store where I read the piece.
Businessweek published the letter, which I found gratifying.
But I never expected to encounter the fellow in person, and we had a good dinnertime conversation. As I understand it, he spoke about gun issues with the other attendees and had quite the vigorous debate going.
I think Paul left the event with a better sense of who we are – heck he got a taste of gun-law frustration when he himself tried to obtain a permit to own a pistol – a process fraught with paperwork, fees and bureaucracy in NYC and New York State
His overarching stance wasn’t especially pro or anti-gun but contained a heartfelt plea for both sides to be able to sit down and discuss the issues in an intelligent and civil way.
It should be pointed out to any “non-gunnies” reading this post that well over 40 states don’t require anything even like this to merely have a handgun to keep at home and take to the range.
The gap (or similarity) between a blogger’s online persona and how they are in real life was one of the things I was curious about well ahead of my arrival at GBR.
They are the smart, articulate, passionate and polite people that I expected them to be.
Everyone I met was interesting to spend time with, and generous with their guns, ammunition and money (fundraising for Valor-IT).
I’m looking forward already to next year’s gathering.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Can't hold your liquor? Perhaps you haven't watched any news lately
Still working on a longish post about GBR VI, but I had to comment about someone ahead of me at the ticket counter here at the Reno airport (outbound).
She was holding onto a half-finished bottle of grape juice (not allowed on the plane) and clutching an unopened bottle of some amber-colored liquor in a much larger than sample size (definitely not allowed on the plane as a carry-on item).
When reminded politely by another passenger that she most likely wouldn't be permitted to carry any of it onboard, she remarked how she "always was able to do that when traveling back from the islands" and proceeded to tear Reno a new one, claiming to have received bad service at Harrah's and feeling like there was nothing to do and aside from that it was "too dry here."
Really? This woman, sounding like an experienced traveler, had absolutely no idea about the rules regarding liquids? And had no idea what the climate and activities in Reno were like? And didn't read any prior reviews of the property she stayed at? Part of me wanted to say, "STFU, you clearly have enough money to travel often... don't be so damned miserable."
Right before finding a helpful airline employee to try to marry up her high-proof would-be contraband to her checked luggage, she announced that she was going to open up the bottle and "have my own cocktail party."
Good for her. I'm sure her lack of preparation means that there's another rule she didn't know about: you can't fly drunk. Pilots need 12 hrs minimum "bottle to throttle" as I understand it, but tipsy passengers are identified in the terminal, too, and are just as strongly discouraged from getting onboard, and frequently are forced to wait around until they sober up.
Going back to her negative comments about Reno, she expressed a strong disliking of the place, and a desire to never come back.
"Good." I thought. "I'm sure Reno feels the same way about you." Bon Voyage...
She was holding onto a half-finished bottle of grape juice (not allowed on the plane) and clutching an unopened bottle of some amber-colored liquor in a much larger than sample size (definitely not allowed on the plane as a carry-on item).
When reminded politely by another passenger that she most likely wouldn't be permitted to carry any of it onboard, she remarked how she "always was able to do that when traveling back from the islands" and proceeded to tear Reno a new one, claiming to have received bad service at Harrah's and feeling like there was nothing to do and aside from that it was "too dry here."
Really? This woman, sounding like an experienced traveler, had absolutely no idea about the rules regarding liquids? And had no idea what the climate and activities in Reno were like? And didn't read any prior reviews of the property she stayed at? Part of me wanted to say, "STFU, you clearly have enough money to travel often... don't be so damned miserable."
Right before finding a helpful airline employee to try to marry up her high-proof would-be contraband to her checked luggage, she announced that she was going to open up the bottle and "have my own cocktail party."
Good for her. I'm sure her lack of preparation means that there's another rule she didn't know about: you can't fly drunk. Pilots need 12 hrs minimum "bottle to throttle" as I understand it, but tipsy passengers are identified in the terminal, too, and are just as strongly discouraged from getting onboard, and frequently are forced to wait around until they sober up.
Going back to her negative comments about Reno, she expressed a strong disliking of the place, and a desire to never come back.
"Good." I thought. "I'm sure Reno feels the same way about you." Bon Voyage...
Monday, September 12, 2011
A bit of insight...
I love travel, slightly offbeat music, firearms and shooting video footage.
And I enjoy combining these things.
This link will get you to my YouTube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/finalascent
This alphabet soup of a link takes you to my Flickr pictures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29654367@N08
And I enjoy combining these things.
This link will get you to my YouTube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/finalascent
This alphabet soup of a link takes you to my Flickr pictures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29654367@N08
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Coming Soon...
Finally ready to do some blogging. When time permits, I'll start posting real content.
Thanks for stopping by
Thanks for stopping by
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)