Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Online joke I found...


Dress Code:
1) You are advised to come to work dressed according to your salary.
2) If we see you wearing Prada shoes and carrying a Gucci bag, we will assume you are doing well financially and therefore do not need a raise.
3) If you dress poorly, you need to learn to manage your money better, so that you may buy nicer clothes, and therefore you do not need a raise.
4) If you dress just right, you are right where you need to be and therefore you do not need a raise.

Sick Days:
We will no longer accept a doctor's statement as proof of sickness. If you are able to go to the doctor, you are able to come to work.

Personal Days:
Each employee will receive 104 personal days a year.
They are called Saturdays & Sundays.

Bereavement Leave:
This is no excuse for missing work. There is nothing you can do for dead friends, relatives or co-workers. Every effort should be made to have non-employees attend the funeral arrangements in your place. In rare cases where employee involvement is necessary, the funeral should be scheduled in the late afternoon. We will be glad to allow you to work through your lunch hour and subsequently leave one hour early.

Bathroom Breaks:
Entirely too much time is being spent in the toilet.
There is now a strict three-minute time limit in the stalls. At the end of three minutes, an alarm will sound, the toilet paper roll will retract, the stall door will open, and a picture will be taken. After your second offense, your picture will be posted on the company bulletin board under the 'Chronic Offenders' category. Anyone caught smiling in the picture will be sectioned under the company's mental health policy.

Lunch Break:
* Skinny people get 30 minutes for lunch, as they need to eat more, so that they can look healthy.
* Normal size people get 15 minutes for lunch to get a balanced meal to maintain their average figure.
* Chubby people get 5 minutes for lunch, because that's all the time needed to drink a Slim-Fast.

Thank you for your loyalty to our company. We are here to provide a positive employment experience. Therefore, all questions, comments, concerns, complaints, frustrations, irritations, aggravations, insinuations, allegations, accusations, contemplations, consternation and input should be directed elsewhere.

The Management

Friday, March 25, 2011

On taking on big gov... er... business

A link here to a story about local municipalities fighting back against large internet providers.

Even though I found this link from a Facebook friend (who is a fellow gun-owner), it is a small world. Mr. DePriest mentioned in the article was a co-worker of my Pops for over 30 years.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Really good advice.

Thanks to this blog for linking to this story.

Very good advice on teaching the ladies to shoot. Or anyone for that matter.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Red Light Camera Bill

Per State Senator Stacey Campfield's blog: the red light camera bill passed through the House transportation committee.

I just wish this bill had more teeth. These red light cameras are nothing but revenue generators, and that means they are a tax. As such, they are being used unconstitutionally.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

In Sports

Tennessee coach Bruce Pearl was fired yesterday.

While I will not defend what he did, the fact is that Tennessee will be another 5+ years before they can get a coach of comparable abilities. Then add in the time factor to get the program back up to snuff, and it becomes apparent that the Tennessee mens' basketball program will be in the toilet for 10 years or more.


I'll go on record as one of the first to go this way - Tennessee Athletic director Mike Hamilton has managed in the last few years to:
- Fire the best head football coach the program has seen since General Neyland.
- Hire Lane Kiffin (enough said?)
- Cover for Lane Kiffin when he broke NCAA rules.
- Not cover for Pearl when he broke NCAA rules (and let's face it, all the good teams bend the rules to great lengths).
- Fire the best basketball coach the mens' program has ever had.

I say we get rid of Athletic Director Mike Hamilton.

2A Quote of the Year

I hereby nominate this quote as the best 2A quote of the year:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Friday, March 18, 2011

Let's play a game.

I came across this questionnaire, put out there by a gun-grabber, thanks in part to this blog, and this one.

My answers:

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
Premise of the question is faulty. Criminals should be behind bars. This would be more than sufficient to prevent them from buying guns.

2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
Again, a leading question with a faulty premise. Since it is impossible to tell who might become a criminal, we clearly cannot preclude those without a criminal record from purchasing any legal object. Those who have committed a crime should be punished. Persons in prison are not capable of purchasing firearms… or much else for that matter.

3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?
Yes. And clearly so. Background checks do not prevent criminals from getting guns, but they do make it more difficult for the law-abiding to obtain a gun.

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
Yes. Maybe not personally, but certainly collectively.

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
Another leading question with a faulty premise. I doubt you’d be capable of physically taking anything away from me. However, I do believe you will push for more restrictions – restrictions that do not affect the ability of the criminal to get a gun, but would prevent me (a law abiding citizen) from getting one.

6.  What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
*I* do not speak for anyone else. This question is best posed to Sharron Angle directly.

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
Doing? Possibly, but I pray every day that those won’t happen. I dislike being assaulted, or robbed, or killed. Same for my family. However, I would not hesitate to use a “2nd Amendment Remedy” in such cases.
Saying? No. We have a freedom of speech (1st Amendment). Ironically, it is protected directly by the 2nd Amendment.

8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
Calling people liars? Only if the shoe fits. Names? No. I am civilized. But again, I must point out that this question is leading, and based on a faulty premise. The fact is that these tactics are more commonly employed by persons on your side of this debate.

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?
If I’ll say it, then I’ll say it online. I’ll say it to your face. I’ll go on record.

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
Yes. Unequivocally.  The 2nd states: “…shall not be infringed.”

11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
Current gun laws, beyond the 2nd, I do not believe in. The 2nd Amendment is the only one I believe in. The others are being enforced, without a doubt. Of course, this is a misleading question again, as it doesn’t talk about the fact that these laws are not preventing criminals form getting guns.

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
No blanket statement is ever true (see what I did there?).

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
Depends on what statistics you wish to accumulate.

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?
Again, depends on what statistics you want to accumulate. More importantly, what are you trying to prove with those statistics?

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
Of course. But again we have a misleading question with a faulty premise. How many people are killed because of careless driving? Or careless practice of medicine? (I could go on!)

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
Depends. The Christian side of me says even 1 death is too many. The scientific part of me points out that there are so many other things that cause more death in our society. And for those that are not Christian, how about the possibility of this being a very small part of evolution – survival of the fittest?

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?I do this with education. Someone who knows how to handle a gun is far less likely to have an accident. The more people I teach, the better. Again, this question is misleading - as the assumption is that all shootings are a bad thing. Some people (criminals in the commission of a crime) need to be shot.

18.  Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
Again, a leading question with a faulty premise. Do I think those things happened? Yes. Do I think your leaning on what “should be done” will help? No.

19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
Personally, the ATF could care less about *me.* Again, this is a faulty premise. As a collective, the ATF does not want guns in the hands of the general public, and works fervently to make that happen within the constraints of the laws on the books.

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
Again, a faulty premise. If by “reasonable discussion” you are wanting me to compromise… then the answer is a definite “NO.” Gun owners have compromised too much already.
If, by “reasonable discussion” you mean that you are willing to learn and accept the facts as they are, then by all means yes.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

When things don't work out as planned.

When the TN legislature passed the so-called "guns in bars" bill, the liberal media was all up in arms about it. One thing they claimed is that the law would sway people away from TN.

Evidently, that didn't happen. Here's another blog about it.

Also, they claimed that bar and restaurant revenues would be adversely affected. That didn't happen, either. In fact, my hometown of Mt. Juliet saw tax revenues raise across the board.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

An Offer You Can't Refuse

I will teach anybody - for free - how to shoot, and how to shoot 4 MOA. At present, I can do this with enough advanced notice, on a weekend. To be fair, tell me what you want, because the way I see it, you can get one of two things, or both:

1. How to shoot 4 MOA or better. 
I will teach you this in an afternoon or less. Shooting, like at Appleseed, will be done at 25 meters. If there will only be one or two of you, I'll bring the rifles. This will be at your pace... not in a rushed manner.

If you want, you can learn how to shoot from field positions. Or, you can shoot from a supported position. I'll teach you both, or either. Wanna learn how to use a sling? I'll show you. And I'll teach at your pace... not the pace of a group.

Basic "How to shoot"
I will teach you this, in my home, in an afternoon or less. Again, free of charge.

The Catch
You must bring the ammo. I'll teach for free, but your investment is the ammo.

Acceptable ammo:
- CCI mini mags
- Federal Bulk (red box, 550 rounds)
- Winchester 555
- Winchester 333 (same as 555, just fewer rounds.)
- Remington ammo will not be permitted as it is not capable, in my experience,  of maintaining 4 MOA.

.223 (for the AR15)
- Any newly manufactured brass ammo. Preferably 55 or 62 grain. Preferably loaded to NATO specs, or similar.
- Steel cased ammo: Monarch, Brown Bear, Silver Bear

.30-06 (for the M1)
- Any military surplus M2 ball ammo.
- Will do commercially loaded 150-grain ammo, with advanced warning (bring an extra box of ammo so I can fit my adjustable gas plug to the ammo).

If you want me to buy the ammo, and you reimburse me... just call me and say that's what you want to do.

Appleseed steps over the line... again.

I've been advised by several instructors in Appleseed that they are in the middle of a meltdown in IL. Fred has banned several instructors.

At the heart of it is the "firing" of "The Guy" last fall. Guy and Fred had it out. Guy had been doing a lot of Appleseeds, and Fred kept trying to stick his nose in. Guy kept hearing what needed to be done to improve things, and implemented it. Fred and his gang of Master Instructors kept trying to butt in and force the "traditional" Appleseed instruction.

The instructors in IL, some very high ranking, were all (or mostly) from the lineage of "The Guy."
In the words of Fred: "If you add clean water to dirty water, you end up with dirty water."

Some of Fred's cronies had suggested: "burning Illinois to the ground and starting fresh." They were also involved (many crony-instructors known to be untrustworthy) by way of forwarding communications marked as being confidential.

Fred has banned at least 10 folks from the forum for showing support to the accused. How many more will be cast out?

And, in casting these people out, Fred has been engaging in the same behavior that I've observed from Appleseeders: "attacking the person," and "pile on." As proof, here is an excerpt of a PM sent to over 50 Appleseed instructors:

"They (Fred & his cronies) are saying that XXX has been using Appleseed to grow his own private militia. Many here know that "militia" is the ultimate kryptonite, not unlike "check your ego at the door". It is used as a last ditch, desperate effort to discredit your opponent, shut him down, and cast him in a poor light."

I am writing this on 3/9/2011. I will save it for publication until after a meeting scheduled this coming Saturday. I've been contacted by more than one of the people involved (directly involved and indirectly) and advised of such. Their overwhelming response: "Usagi, you were right."

Monday, March 14, 2011

Movie Review: "Battle: LA"

As always: SPOILERS!

Friday night, the Mrs. and I saw "Battle: Los Angeles."

The film is set in the present. The plot centers around a platoon of Marines sent to help fight the threat of an alien attack.

The story starts with the premise that you know that aliens are attacking Earth. Let's face it, if you wanted to see this movie, you already knew that. There are several scenes that establish the basics, but not much more. It seems to be as if they wanted to give the viewer enough information, but not too much. The idea is that if you were there, that's about how much you would know.

Soon, we meet our heroes. The main character is a Marine Staff Sergeant who is about to retire from service. Naturally, as the attack happens, he is placed second-in-command of a platoon of Marines who are led by a very young, inexperienced Lieutenant. This is typical in the infantry - new 2nd Lieutenants are paired with seasoned Sergeants, as a sort of learning experience.

The Marines are given a task, which they will ultimately complete. Sadly, not many other Marines in the area are able to complete their tasks. The aliens take the city, and force the heroes to make alternate plans.

Along the way, they pick up some civilians, some soldiers, and an Air Force Sergeant. The Marines and the others are forced to fight the aliens in various urban settings.

The good news is that our weapons are effective against the invaders. The bad news is, predictably, since the aliens are capable of interstellar travel, their technology is more advanced. Nevertheless, the Marines learn how to most effectively fight the aliens.

5.56 mm rounds are effective against these aliens.
Grenades and other explosives are even more effective.
This film accurately depicts Marines using proper M16A4's, with correct optics (Trijicon ACOG's) and equipment.
Some characters use, where appropriate, the M4 - which is substantially similar to the M16.
Alien technology is advanced, but not so ridiculous as to make things hard to believe. They use projectile weapons - not sci-fi energy weapons.

The film was generally positive towards the US Military. This is rare in Hollywood.
The film did not have an overabundance of foul language. To the extent that sometimes I forgot these troops were Marines!
Guns were not demonized, as Hollywood often does. In fact, if anything, they were glorified.

I want an ACOG now.

Good action flick.
Easy on the plot - but it was never advertised as a plot-heavy movie.
Some eye-candy, but certainly nothing inappropriate. Everybody kept their clothes on.

Close, but not there, yet

Last year, I blogged about my thoughts on the NCAA basketball tournament.

It seems that after the tournament last year, the NCAA decided to add three more teams to the mix, and call the resulting games the "First Four."

This year, the Selection Committee did not completely select small conference champions for the four play-in games. That happened for two of the first round games. The other two games are to be played by four at-large bids.

According to this link, VCU and USC will play to see who earns the 11-seed and who will, therefore, play Georgetown in the newly-renamed "Second Round." Similarly, UAB and Clemson will face each other to determine the 12-seed spot that will play West Virginia in the Second Round.

In a demeaning move, Arkansas-Little Rock will be forced to play North Carolina-Asheville. The "winner" will get to be trounced against a powerful Pittsburgh team. In the same fashion, Texax-San Antonio and Alabama State will have the same situation, with the winner getting to test themselves against an equally deadly foe in Ohio State.

As I said last year, Conference Champions should be seeded no lower than 12-seeds. They won their respective championships - something that cannot be said for at-large bids. All "play-in" games of the first round, in the current format or any similar format, should be played by at-large bids who did not win their way into the tournament.

Now, if everybody was playing in the same round, there might be a bit more of an argument for placing smaller schools up against the 1-seeds. But not much, in my opinion.

At the end of the day, the best school would still win. But along the way, there would be more meaningful games.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

How the Left Fights

We are all familiar with how the leftists in WI fight - with pure cowardice by running away.

Well, the leftist cowardice extends to other states, as well. In Oregon, leftists are kicking a Republican Congressional candidate's children out of college - for no reason other than being his kin.

Freedom Wins out

WI Governor Scott Walker and the Republican led Senate have won the fight against the cowardly Democrats, who fled the state to try to prevent a vote on Unions. In a forced move, they stripped the budgetary constraints out of the bill, and passed it.

WI law mandates that a quorum be met on all bills with financial impact. As long as the bill had a financial impact, and no quorum could be reached due to the cowardice of the Democrats running out of state, there was no way to pass the measure. By stripping the financial impact out of the bill, no quorum was needed and the bill was easily and quickly passed.

Why I'm leaving Bank of America

This is why I am leaving Bank of America, and why I think you might want to do the same.

1. They cater to illegal immigrants. (Pretty bad when even Snopes says it's true).
2. Shady mortgage practices.
3. Shady credit card practices.
4. Shady bank account practices.

I have experienced each of these, and will detail them. I know, I should have left earlier, but I didn't - and I paid the price for that. Now I put these facts out to the public for all to see:


I receive my September Statement on my mortgage. It shows the mortgage payment for August was not received and I am past-due.

Problem is, I paid online in August and had proof.

BOA has done this to others. And sometimes worse.

Sad thing is, I took out the mortgage with Countrywide, and never had any problems from them.


My checking account is hit with $15 fees on several occasions for my balance dipping below $1000.
Problem is, this had happened before (see below) and I made sure it wouldn't happen again.

How did they do it?

I was to be paid Friday, May 1. I had written a check on Tuesday, April 28 for which I would not have funds to cover (and still stay over $1000 minimum balance) until May 1. This was not due until May 20, So I dropped it in the mail on May 1, to be sure.

BOA takes the money out of my account as of April 28 (even though the check couldn't have been cashed until May 3), just so they can collect the fees.


I used the BOA credit card for business expenses. I charged travel, food, and entertainment on the card, and paid it in full each month as I was reimbursed by my employer. Everyone knows that a card paid in full each month warrants no interest charge.

This card had been used in this manner for two full years without hiccup.

Enter BOA and their money-grabbing schemes.

They charge interest on my balance, even though it was paid in full each month (not monthly minimum - full balance).


More funny check posting causes fees for account balance under $1000.


More schemes to find ways to make my checking account balance drop below $1000 to get the fees.


Interest on the credit card, despite being paid in full each month.

This time, it was a small balance I'd paid off. Then they charged interest for the next three months, despite me twice writing checks for more than the balance (which was under $10 each time).


BOA starts their policy (at least on my account) of taking out the largest amount first on each day in 2002. They do not notify us. This is specifically designed to try to make more money from overdraft fees - by making a single overdraft turn into multiple overdrafts.

During a short period of unemployment / financial strain, we overdraft once. Over $200 in fees later, lesson learned. I should have ended this right then and there.

BOA recently decided to end it's $35 overdraft fee and just start declining check card transactions where there is not enough money - like almost every other bank does. They did this in response to overwhelming legal issues and consumer pressure to their backwards ways. 


Update. Even more this month!

Just got my credit card statement from BOA. I had accumulated a small debt during my recent unemployment. To maximize my financial standing, I moved this all to the BOA card to take advantage of a 0% interest, $0 fee balance transfer until February 2011.

WRONG: They tacked on a $1.50 "minimum interest rate fee" for this month's statement.


I signed up for a BancorpSouth account. Mrs. Usagi and I had an account with them back when we lived in Jackson, TN and Memphis. We were forced to switch in 2001, when we moved to Nashville - and there was no BancorpSouth in the area at the time.

I'll be moving my checking to them within the next couple of weeks, and will do the same with my credit card account.

My mortgage will be refinanced, and I'll make sure to ge ta document from the lender stating they will not sell it to BOA.

PS - this was written back at the end of last summer. Just wanted to post it. 

Excellent quote is excellent


Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Sad, sad story

A man who murdered a 5-year-old child, then ate the child, is set to get out of prison soon.

The father says he will kill the murderer if the man gets out of prison early:
"John Foreman said in an interview Monday with WPRO-AM radio that he will kill convicted murderer Michael Woodmansee "as aggressively and as painfully" as he killed his son if Woodmansee is released from prison early."

I'll hold the criminal down for ya, man. 

Oh, the irony

The owner of the "Heart Attack Grill" has passed away. He was 29 years old.

The Heart Attack Grill offers free food for people over 350 pounds.

I wonder if they give drunks a drink?

Part of the reason

Americans near the US - Mexico border have been forced to take up arms to protect themselves.

This is part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

The other part is for the possibility of a tyrannical government. Thankfully, we have ballots to use before it gets that bad.


A man broke into a home to rob the place.

The homeowner comes home, and the robber locks himself in the bathroom... then calls the police - afraid the homeowner has a gun.

Fortunately, the criminal was the one arrested.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Fight like you train, train like you fight

Recently declassified documents from the 1960's show a big part of the thought process as to why the M16 was adopted over the M1 and M14.

Among the major considerations, it was found that most engagements took place at ranges under 100 yards. Almost no engagements took place beyond 300 yards. It would be reasonable to presume that of the engagements beyond 300 yards, most of those were conducted via sniper fire, or similar.

Similarly, the following was observed:
"A study of the data led to the following conclusions: (1) Hit effectiveness with the M-1 rifle is satisfactory only up to 100 yds. and declines rapidly to low order at 300 yds., the general limit for battlefield rifle engagements; (2) a pattern-dispersion principle in the hand weapon would tend to compensate for human aiming errors and increase hits at ranges up to 300 yds.; and (3) missiles with smaller caliber than standard could be used without loss in wounding effects and with logistical advantage..."
 Let's explore these observations. 

1. Hit effectiveness with the M-1 rifle is satisfactory only up to 100 yds. and declines rapidly to low order at 300 yds.
There are several reasons this is true. The first, and primary reason is "pucker factor." Doing anything under duress will reduce the effectiveness and the precision of the task at hand.

Though old fashioned training taught the shooters to shoot out to 500 yards, the shooting itself was flawed on several levels.

A) The Marksmanship program used by the military for the 1903, M1 and M14 was designed by competitive shooters, and bears strong resemblance to competition shooting. Though the difference between shooting in combat and in competition is minute, it exists. Similar to martial arts practiced as sports - techniques will differ in application.

B) Military tactics differed from the training. Officers were taught to wait until the enemy was close before giving the fire command (most often, the enemy was within 100 yards). This was to maximize the likelihood of the soldiers hitting the enemy targets. This small fact led the whole program to practice one way, and actually fight another way.

C) Military rifles were not up to the task. While most M1's and M14's could be accurate up to 2 MOA (2 MOA = 10 inches at 500 yards), the fact was that most were only accurate to 4 MOA within normal combat use (less than perfect conditions, rifles, and ammo). This translates to a mechanical margin of error of 20 inches at 500 yards. Add in any margin of error on behalf of the shooter, and it becomes quickly apparent why so few soldiers and Marines could score "expert" on the qualifications of the day... much less shoot accurately beyond 300 yards in combat.

D) An overlooked part of the lack of accuracy, is in one of the fundamental facts - drawn from two others I've pointed out. First - we already know that officers were trained to wait until the enemy was close before ordering troops to fire. Second - we already know that the weapons platforms were accurate enough only under 300 yards. Weapons designers and military intelligence knew this, too.

So front sight posts were designed to be the same width as an average sized man at the limits of the ranges that soldiers might find themselves firing. An M1 front sight post is about the same width, in appearance, as a man at 275 yards. An M14 front sight post is about the same width, in appearance, as a man at 250 meters (approximately 275 yards).

To hit a target smaller than one's sighting device (the front sight post) is a skill that is rarely accomplished by a shooter with only a few weeks of training. Add to that difficulty, the pucker factor as mentioned above, and you see why hits beyond 300 yards in combat are so rare.

To be fair, the M16 has similar sights, too. However, it was designed to be a 300 yard and under weapon.

Match shooters will often use front sight posts that are slimmer than regular USGI issue. (I do!)

2. A pattern-dispersion principle in the hand weapon would tend to compensate for human aiming errors and increase hits at ranges up to 300 yds.
"Pattern-dispersion" as mentioned here, refers to fully automatic, or burst fire. It was already known that higher recoil rounds will pull the sights off target when fired in fully automatic fire. A more controllable round, with a burst option, would lend to the target being shot several times with a single trigger pull.

As taught now, three-shot burst fire is more effective against enemy targets than single shots - as there are so very few "one-shot-kills" in combat. This is true for the larger .30-caliber rounds, as well as the smaller .223-caliber rounds.

3. Missiles with smaller caliber than standard could be used without loss in wounding effects and with logistical advantage...
Here we see another advantage to a smaller round - the ability to carry more ammo for the same weight. With the 5.56 mm compared to the 7.62 mm, for the same weight, twice the amount  of 5.56 mm ammo can be carried.

I've never met a person who was in a gun fight that wished he had less ammo!

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

On the stuff in Wisconsin

A reader has asked for me to explain my thoughts on the goings-on in Wisconsin.To be fair, I've touched on the matter, but not in detail.

For those who have been living under a rock, there have been protests in Wisconsin. At the heart of the matter, Governor Scott Walker has proposed that state union employees be forced to pay about 5% toward their pensions, and about 14% toward their health care.

For the average state union worker, this would not be devastating. It would be normal. 5% towards retirement is analogous to 401k's at many private employers. And the 14% toward healthcare coverage works out to be about $120 per pay period for a family of four. I pay $140. Hardly getting their legs cut out from under them.

Then comes the damning evidence.

1. President Obama stuck his nose in. 
You know this guy can't get it right. Remember when he said the police "acted stupidly" (for arresting a man who had jimmied into a house!?!?). Obama has sent his cronies, the SEIU, into the mix in WI. Bad idea.

2. Many protesters are getting paid to protest.
This is a damning blow against the legitimacy of the "concerns" the unions in WI have voiced. If their own people won't show up, and they have to bus in and pay outsiders, it's pretty evident that the majority of the folks affected won't mind the minimal changes proposed.

3. Unions aren't a good fit for government
Unions came to be in an era when big business was colluding to keep wages and benefits low. Working conditions were terrible. The free market was not free for employers. Unions came, and broke through, and allowed legitimate and needed change in the workplace. Spawning from this was governmental anti-trust laws - to prevent big businesses from colluding to the detriment of the free market.

The government has no competition, and is, therefore a monopoly - just like what the unions originally worked to break down. Only now, with collective bargaining, the union becomes the monopoly on labor for the government... becoming the very thing they once vowed to destroy...

It is a travesty for unions to have collective bargaining power for government jobs. It is also against the spirit of anti-trust laws. It does not allow free trade to happen. Scott Walker is suggesting that a law be put in place that forces the government unions to obey anti-trust laws and be unable to collectively bargain. It's very much like the illegal immigration laws in AZ that are carbon-copies of Federal immigration laws. Redundant, but unfortunately, necessary.

Now, why all the fuss again?

Oh, yeah, the unions in WI have power, and are afraid to lose that power. That's Rule #1 of politics.

A milestone

Per "Legally Armed," TN Handgun Carry Permits are over 300,000.

That's one for every 20 residents.
Since nearly a quarter of our reported residents are under age 18, that means about 1 in 16 adults in the  population have a HCP.