Guard Dog

Watching Ichiro & the Marlins vs Padres. In other news there is some real out-of-the-box thinking going on here: http://www.preps.tampabay.com/news/tampa-bay-rays-want-smaller-year-round-stadium-8212-without-upper-deck/2280516

I am, admittedly, not a firearms expert (heck, it's been 20+ years since I've fired a gun), but what's the point of a bullpup configuration on a pistol? My understanding is that it gives you more control when hip-firing a shotgun or rifle (though it seems like it would make shoulder-firing uncomfortable), but with a pistol, it seems all it would do is make powder burns more likely. Bullpup designs are for managing and making efficient use of recoil as well as reducing barrel length. In this pistol it's more about space saving. Making it smaller. Unlike the H&K designs the barrel in this pistol moves and rotates with the action. That means a longer barrel without a longer slide. This pistol has the same number of lands and grooves as the Kimber mini 9 and the Ruger P-90 but weighs 4 oz less and has a 2.5" shorter profile. I like it because it's a Bond and because it's an engineering oddity.

Well my carry weapon is a Bond Arms Ranger II .45LC derringer. It's top effective range in 10-12 meters (15 yards) give or take. I can shoot a 4" group from there but after that it spreads out quite a bit. I've found you can mitigate that by going the a lower mass projectile. 185 gr has a flatter trajectory and less "tumble" as it loses velocity the way the traditional 250 gr LCs do when fired from a short barrel. I ordered this one because I don't have a bullpup action pistol in the collection. I was actually looking at the Kimber mini-9 when I saw the ad for that. I've had a mixed experience with Kimber but Bond Arms makes excellent products. It's $200 more than the Kimber but quality trumps price every day when it comes to firearms. For personal defense I like the Ranger. It's simple, has tremendous stopping power, and absolutely will not misfire. If you need it, it will fire. The short range ins't an issue really, in terms of self defense I'd rather rely on discretion than firepower. If a threat is more than 15 yards away it isn't a threat as long as I can get away from it. I know a derringer is limited to two shots but I'm not looking to get into a firefight. If one isn't enough a dozen probably wouldn't be.

In fiction there are two types of characters, static & dynamic. Static characters do not change and dynamic characters do. Jon, Sansa, Jamie, Cersei, Dany, Arya, the Hound are all dynamic characters. Ramsay, Mormont, all the Tyrells, Stannis, Thorne, Asha, etc are all static characters. The static characters drive the plot and the dynamic characters bend with it. The point of most story arcs is for the dynamic character to "become who they were meant to be" so to speak. Jon had to leave the wall to continue his story arc. Ramsay is what provides the motivation to do so. The murder was just the conveyance. That means Ramsay has now served his part of the story so I'm guessing he's f----d on Sunday. The best static character on the show and the book IMO is Petyr Baelish. The recurring theme of this whole plot is the characters are undone by their mistakes. Robb lost the war because he broke a vow. Ned Stark lost his head because her couldn't think strategically. The show did not play up this angle (which makes his murder more "out of the blue") but Jon was stabbed by his officers because he was going to lead the Nights Watch to war against the Boltons. Mormont lost everything because he lied (he's worse off in the books. The show Mormont is actually an amalgam of two book characters). But Baelish has been driving nearly the whole plot and ASFAIK has made no mistakes yet.

I seriously doubt there is anything on Trump they didn't already know. That guy has been in the public eye his entire adult life.

They were talking about this on the Micheal Smerconish show on the radio today. There is a definite link between the Orlando mosque of the Imam that said repeatedly that gays should be killed as a "mercy" that the shooter occasionaly attended and a network with terrorist ties centered in California. The FBI & DHS were investigating that network when the plug was pulled by the State Department (which Hillary Clinton was in charge of) for fear of an investigation that appeared to be "targeting" Muslims in the agents exact words. It is a tenuous link between Hillary Clinton and the Orlando mosque and an even more tenuous one between HC & the shooter. Too tenuous for a real correlation but it does make for interesting reading.

I ordered a present for myself today. Well, I really should say pre-ordered. It hasn't come out yet: http://bondbullpup.com/?utm_source=bondarms.com&utm_medium=hompage%20slider&utm_campaign=banner

You know Alum I'd even go along with that if I thought for a second that is where it would end. But it won't. The goal of the gun control crowd is no less than prohibition followed by confiscation. They are willing to do it incrementally but that is the end all things are leading towards. Each new "reasonable" restriction begets another "reasonable restriction" and another and another and another. The best way to ensure you never reach the bad end is don't start down the bad road. That is the heart of it right there. That is why you see people like me opposing even "reasonable" restrictions. Because we do not trust the government to be satisfied with that. We are not dealing with an honest partner.

We seem to be in agreement, then. There is something about American culture that births mass shootings. This is obviously a problem because human lives are valuable (duh). Treating the problem at the root cause (figuring out why mass shootings happen and how to prevent them) is obviously preferable to restrictions on the right to bear firearms, but unless someone can do that, gun control seems to be the next best thing. So let's focus on the outcomes: we have no gun control, people continue to die. What alternative outcomes are worse, and why? ...Don't live in the arse-end of nowhere if you want to partake in the benefits civilization has to offer? Ah, yet another freedom of choice you think someone shouldn't make. I guess the government could sieze my land and home and force me to move to a city. The SCOTUS said that was OK in Kelo v. New London. Boy you really are not big on the whole freedom thing. I think you're conflating "well that's a choice you made and you have to live with the downsides of that choice" with "that's a choice you shouldn't be allowed to make". I can't help but notice that this conflation also let you rather elegantly side-step the other part of my post as well. Well, it was really more meant to be a joke. But on a serious note a man who lives alone a good distance from any help has to be a little self reliant. Something you flippantly dismissed as a rugged individualist fantasy. But firearms are an important aspect of that. One I will not and should be deprived of.

We seem to be in agreement, then. There is something about American culture that births mass shootings. This is obviously a problem because human lives are valuable (duh). Treating the problem at the root cause (figuring out why mass shootings happen and how to prevent them) is obviously preferable to restrictions on the right to bear firearms, but unless someone can do that, gun control seems to be the next best thing. So let's focus on the outcomes: we have no gun control, people continue to die. What alternative outcomes are worse, and why? To be fair, the way American culture fetishizes guns is absolutely worth criticizing, and if I had a magic wand that could somehow either make that stupid, childish fantasy of "guns = freedom and rugged individualism" or the guns themselves disappear, I'd definitely choose the former. Spoke like a man who has never been confronted with hostile wildlife, or that lives a 45 minute drive from the nearest police station. ...Don't live in the arse-end of nowhere if you want to partake in the benefits civilization has to offer? Ah, yet another freedom of choice you think someone shouldn't make. I guess the government could sieze my land and home and force me to move to a city. The SCOTUS said that was OK in Kelo v. New London. Boy you really are not big on the whole freedom thing.

I hope that does not last long. You will burn out quick!

That is because the Federal Government has nothing to do with elections. They are entirely run by the respective states. I swear I will never understand your way of thinking. So government is teh evulz except in the specific case of the state level which is somehow immune to everything that makes the federal government the terrible tool of oppressive tyranny it is. Bwuh? We have a lot more input and control of local and state governments. I can pick up the phone and call my State Rep and she will speak with me. Don't even bother trying that with your Congressmen.

To be fair, the way American culture fetishizes guns is absolutely worth criticizing, and if I had a magic wand that could somehow either make that stupid, childish fantasy of "guns = freedom and rugged individualism" or the guns themselves disappear, I'd definitely choose the former. Spoke like a man who has never been confronted with hostile wildlife, or that lives a 45 minute drive from the nearest police station.

That would be nice. Much more likely it will lead to the polar opposite. Those with radical views will use this to further erode our already dwindling freedoms, meanwhile the terrorists will continue to hate and kill us just the same. Come on, lets not think this will lead to another " now the government will erode our freedoms " rant The USA has very effective information gathering and the endeavors of the likes of the NSA and FBI have helped prevent numerous attacks but IMO this will be considered a " lone wolf " which are very difficult to prevent. So I dont see any new " monitoring of citizens " laws being passed? I don'r know how much more monitoring Big Brother COULD do. But I'm figuring the Gun Control nuts will come back with new promises of gun bans and gun confiscations. Because clearly the way to punish this is to take the private property away from everyone who did no wrong today. GD I have a different view now on Gun Control, so let it not be said I dont reflect on my opinion on matters and change my opinion as it serves a greater common good I no longer think that Gun Control laws should be enforced, despite all the evidence that supports a reduction in violent crimes. I have come to the conclusion that the topic has become too divisive in the modern age of USA politics and is more political now than a valid societal change? So its now used to criticize all people who own guns and this is seen as a form of attack by many Americans on there culture and history. And even if I say " no this is not an attack on your personal liberty " this is not how you see it and your view does matter I just feel there are enough progressive social changes in the USA that you have accepted its best to leave the Gun Control laws alone And it was your criticism towards my view last time that helped shape my new opinion. You basically said " You dont like the way people are being condescending and telling you what guns they can keep or be allowed to own '' ...you are right in some ways. When Hilary says things like " we must reign these wayward gun owners " it can be seen in a patronizing manner, I understand that view But efforts to enforce Gun Control are not suppose to be about surreptitious control of the population or suggestions that the average American cant take care of guns...no its suppose to be about reducing deaths through gun control. But the point is the intention is misunderstood and that causes unnecessary consternation And finally I want someone like you to be happy overall with most of the social changes happening in the USA...its because you represent a very important demographic in the USA and your support is needed..do you know why you are so important? I am surprised to hear you have shifted your views on something. Even if only by degree. I told you participating in a forum where you will hear a diverse array of onions opinions was a healthy thing. (That typo was so funny I had to leave it in!) There is one huge difference between your philosophy of life, society, economics, and politics and mine, And this is not a criticism, merely an observation. You place great value on motivations. You first thought on any policy or subject is something to the tune of "is this good?" "Does this mean well"? I do not even consider motivation. It is not even a blip on my radar. I focus 100% on outcomes. What will something actually do? But this thread is about a specific thing and I don't want to be the one to derail it so reply if you wish, I won't retort.

Why would anybody want to punish this? Preventing similar cases, on the other hand, sounds like a reasonable goal. So you either punish everyone for something someone else did or you punish everyone for something no one did yet. Either way it amounts to the same thing. You are taking away the property of people who have done nothing wrong. That should even bother YOU. Not... particularly? I mean, you can't conceivably need an assault rifle for any civilian purpose. And if I weigh the collective freedom to keep what amounts to a glorified **** substitute at home against the lives of people who can - and will - be gunned down in an event like this, no offense, but the glorified **** substitute just ain't gonna come out of that comparison on top. Yay utilitarianism! Ah there is the old left wing arrogance. Setting themselves up as the arbiters of what people NEED. "I" don't think you need this therefore "I" don't think you should have it. The entire notion of freedom is completely lost on you isn't it? Well, I don't own an "assault rifle" but I would never presume to tell a law abiding citizen of the United States who had done no wrong to anyone what they can or can't have based on what I think they "need". Just my $.02.

This will piss you off: https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/06/12/orlando-night-club-attack-by-known-wolf-terrorist-previously-investigated-by-fbi/

Why would anybody want to punish this? Preventing similar cases, on the other hand, sounds like a reasonable goal. So you either punish everyone for something someone else did or you punish everyone for something no one did yet. Either way it amounts to the same thing. You are taking away the property of people who have done nothing wrong. That should even bother YOU.

I would love to get to the point where I produce almost all my own food right here on my own land either through farm or forage. That's a tall order for one man with a job and hobbies other than farming and forage. Plus nutritious dog food would be exceedingly difficult to make yourself. But I COULD easily produce my own booze if I wanted to. Not that I am but I could. I have corn, I have running water, I have an advanced education that included chemistry, I can buy yeast in bulk, and I have total privacy. But I'm also invested in a liquor company so... no point in competing with myself. Plus it's still against the law if you can believe that!

I don't know about Trump of Clinton but I would be sickened if I thought 50 innocent people being murdered was a good thing for me in any way.

That would be nice. Much more likely it will lead to the polar opposite. Those with radical views will use this to further erode our already dwindling freedoms, meanwhile the terrorists will continue to hate and kill us just the same. Come on, lets not think this will lead to another " now the government will erode our freedoms " rant The USA has very effective information gathering and the endeavors of the likes of the NSA and FBI have helped prevent numerous attacks but IMO this will be considered a " lone wolf " which are very difficult to prevent. So I dont see any new " monitoring of citizens " laws being passed? I don'r know how much more monitoring Big Brother COULD do. But I'm figuring the Gun Control nuts will come back with new promises of gun bans and gun confiscations. Because clearly the way to punish this is to take the private property away from everyone who did no wrong today.

It could have been worse. Apparently this jackass had a bomb vest that either malfunctioned or he didn't have a chance to set off.

The point here isn't the engineering of the project. It's a politician that opposed it after accepting gifts from foreign interests that opposed it.

Okay I hadn't read it and started now but I see it makes some serious accusations against Hilary, I need time to go through it properly but I will respond So... I'm curious to hear your opinion. Okay I read the article and yes its concerning...the guy seems to be banker so what possible reason should he on that intelligence board? So just to clarify somethings This intelligence committee he was on, what exactly is it called and what is its core purpose? This is very important How do people generally get asked to sit on these types of boards...in other words how would be selected and by who? I'll make this nice and simple. He bought a favor from her. Because that is how she is. Bill is not better. Their influence is for sale and he bought it. But GD that is hearsay, I try never to believe conjecture around politics That way I find myself far less critical and annoyed by certain political developments Well far be it from me to draw conclusions for you. Allow me to link a few credible news sources: From Townhall.com, the Clinton Foundation which is supposed to be a charity has been accepting millions in unreported "donations" from foreign interests who were receiving favorable treatment from the State Dept. while she was SecState: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/03/31/hillary-believe-me-weve-been-very-transparent-about-clinton-foundation-donations-n2141514 181 Donations to the Clinton Foundations were from lobbyists who also received preferential contracts from the State Dept http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/03/31/hillary-believe-me-weve-been-very-transparent-about-clinton-foundation-donations-n2141514 Russia (who you don't like) recently bought a Canadian mining company that has mining interests in the US. Uranium mining. Since Uranium is a "strategic" asset the purchase required approval from the US Government. That approval was based on a recommendation from the SecState, one Hillary Clinton. Prior to her granting her recommendation the Russian President of the new company, Uranium One, "donated" $2.35M to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation DID NOT report that donation to the IRS as required by law. After the "donation" Uranium One got it's approval and Russian owned interests control 20% of the worlds uranium production. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 & http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/understanding-the-influence-peddling-of-clinton-inc/ Liberal journalist Juan Williams even pointed out the hypocrisy and unethical behavior of Hillary Clinton for opposing the Keystone Pipeline while accepting "donations" from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc. Gee Bruce, do you know what those countries have in common with each other besides terrorism, brutal treatment of women and lot of camel dung? Could it be oil? What was the Keystone pipeline about again? Oh that's right, Canadian oil. http://www.weeklystandard.com/juan-williams-foreign-donations-to-clinton-foundation-unethical-rank-influence-peddling/article/858124. And of course one way to secure the support of superdelegates is to ask Clinton Foundation "donors" to help them in their own campaigns. That at least is legal but it sure don't smell good. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/nyregion/protege-of-hillary-and-bill-clintons-targets-us-congressional-seat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1 So, I'm curious Bruce, what do you think about this?

If you make that happen post some pics!