Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Say what???

A career in a customer-facing environment (sales) has given me many things in life.

One of those things is a vast assortment of hilarious stories.

This one comes from my days in car rental, more than a decade ago.

A renter returns a rental car, slaps a piece of paper on the counter, and announces:
"Ya'll's rental car got a speeding ticket."

Yes, that's right - he blamed the ticket on the car, and wanted the company to pay for it!


Happy Ending

This is the type of story that will never get national news.

A gun-toting man stopped a stabbing spree.

Why liberals won't let you know this:
1. An attempted killing spree with something other than a gun.
2. The assailant was stopped by a citizen.
3. The citizen was legally carrying a handgun for self defense purposes.
4. The citizen did not even need to shoot.
5. This makes people less dependent on police or the government, and more self-reliant.


Monday, July 30, 2012

What a putz!

Bill O'Reilly lies on air. Only way he gets away with it is because it is his own show.
Link to a clip of his lies, and setting the record straight.

PS - It took me three days and several attempts to write this - mainly because O'Reilly is so far off base it is hilarious!

Lies O'Reilly told, and truth afterwards (based on Fox's own transcripts):

1.  Sale of "heavy weapons" (Howitzers, machine guns, and mortars) need to be reported to FBI. 
Fact: Machine guns, explosives, and destructive devices are HEAVILY regulated, and all sales are reported and registered through the BATFE.
Fact 2: The CO shooter did not use a machine gun, howitzer, or anything like that.

2. You can buy any weapon you want there (gun shows). 
Fact: You can buy any weapon that is up for legal sale at a gun show. However, restricted weapons (see #1) would take more hoops to jump through.
Fact 2: The idiot in CO did not use machine guns, or the like. No explosives. No "heavy weapons."

3. "You can buy an AK-47 in this country and no federal agency will know you [bought] it." 
Fact: Every transfer of a firearm currently requires a form 4473 to be filled out by the purchaser, and a background check must be passed. The only exception is face-to-face transactions between private parties in some states (like TN).
Fact 2: A real AK47 is banned from import thanks to Bill Clinton. Also, real AK47's have a switch enabling fully automatic fire, and are, therefore, heavily regulated (see Lie #1).
Fact 3: AK47 clones are perfectly legal, and can be bought by an individual who fills out a 4473 and passes a background check in most states (there are a few states that "ban" them).

4. "The kid bought 60,000 rounds and no federal agency knew about it."
Fact: Most news outlets are sticking with the story that the shooter had approximately 6000 rounds of ammo. I have that much in the trunk of my car at most times. 

5. "That's not heavy armor? An AK?"
(Implication that an AK47 is heavy armor)
Fact: An AK47, and its clones, are not armor. They are firearms. They are not even heavy armament (if that is really what O'Reilly meant). They are mid-powered carbines. 

6. "This guy in Colorado got all this stuff and nobody knew about it."
Fact: The news broke these facts within hours of the shooting. Who exactly was the "nobody" to whom O'Reilly referred?

Now that you know these facts, what do you think about these segments from O'Reilly's show:

They already have to, Bill!

 Nope. Not possible with the 9-month wait on average, plus the extensive background checks.

 What part don't they know about, Bill? The part that is registered to them, or the tax stamp that is purchased directly from them???

First law is already on the books.
Second law is moot - crime is crime. Plus, this would be a state-level law at best.



Type 1 of the three types of Calvinist - the Indoctrinated. 

I was speaking to a cousin the other day. He will be ordained by the Presbyterian church this August. The topic of Calvinism came up. As a note, for those who do not know, the Presbyterian church was founded on the tenets of Calvinism. It is the only denomination today that fully adheres to the heresy that Calvin laid out. Some Baptist churches do adhere to Calvinism, but they are in the minority by a wide margin.

A summary of what Presbyterians believe, as sent to me by my cousin (no, my cousin is not the author, he just sent me the link).

My cousin did his undergrad work and his seminary work at Moody Bible Institute. I asked questions about how Calvinism was taught, and it was a real eye-opener. From his answers (direct, indirect, implied, and between the lines), one thing became clear: while the coursework acknowledged both predestination and free will, the underlying core belief taught is a subversive form of predestination.

Similarly, my brother-in-law holds the same doctrine, and he did his undergrad work (Bachelors in Bible) from Boyce in Louisville, KY.  My Brother-in-law indicated some time back similar thought processes and teachings from college.

It would appear that the teachings of Bible colleges such as Moody, Boyce, and others, is clearly to teach impressionable young minds the following thought process:
- Man is not capable of doing any good.
- God, therefore, must do all the work.
- Man is even incapable of choosing God.
- Man, therefore, is predestined.

So one distinct type of Calvinist is the indoctrinated Calvinist. 

Side note 1: Calvin on Calvinism
Interestingly, what my cousin stated is officially taught at Moody is that Calvin himself was a 3.5-point Calvinist. I am not sure if this idea holds any truth, as both sides of the debate are easily reachable online via Google searches. Since Calvin gave written answers that would indicate both sides of the coin, but he is no longer living, it is impossible to determine his true stance on the issue.

Side note 2: Free Will
To make possible the assumption that man is incapable of choosing God is to state that there never was a choice. If there is no choice, then why is our action sin? Why are we judged for doing the only thing we are capable of doing? Why does the Bible say differently?

Side note 3: Choice is a works-based salvation
Most Calvinists will argue that if we have choice, then that means salvation is "works-based" (which salvation is clearly not). They will say that the "work" is the choosing. How much of a stretch is this? Look at how much they have to twist words and play verbal gymnastics to accomplish their goal.

Side note 4: other Indoctrinated Calvinists
Included in the "Indoctrinated Calvinist" subset all those church members who were raised this way and never took the time to think it through. Include some of my cousins-in-law (wife's side), my step-mother, and a friend I have here and there. No, the majority of people I know are not Calvinist. I know maybe 20-25 Calvinists, total.

Side note 5: Liberal and Conservative
One of the things my cousin referenced several times was how free will doctrine was "liberal" and how predestination doctrine was "conservative" in churches today. However, the facts do not add up to this. We will expand more in the next article, but simply put:

Liberals deny accountability.
Calvinists say that we cannot help but choose sin, and those saved are done so regardless of their will (no accountability).

Liberals want free hand outs without merit.
While no person deserves salvation, only Calvinists believe in salvation happening without the person even doing something as simple as making a choice.

Liberals want big government to dictate every part of their lives
Calvinists want God to dictate every part of their lives - denying that He gave us free will to choose to do His will. 

It would seem that Calvinists are the liberals of the church.

Next up: the Rebel Calvinist


Friday, July 27, 2012

Really? Really???

The simple fact that the sign was posted means they have had problems with this.

I'm from TN. We do not have toll roads, yet even I was more intelligent than to try this.

Cool Find

I have long been aware of the Kel Tec PMR-30. This pistol is chambered in .22 WMR - also known as ".22 Magnum." It holds 30 rounds of ammo in each magazine.

30 rounds!

Got to see one in action at the range when I took my wife a few weeks ago. The lady who owned it was kind enough to chat with us for a while. She carried the PMR-30, because, in her words; it gave her enough ammo (30-rounds!)  and was more powerful than a .380.

Many ask if that is enough gun. Of course, a lot of those same folks carry a .380 from some manufacturer or another (maybe even one from Kel Tec). So lets compare, as a lot of people think the .380 is the "minimum" gun they would carry.

Ballistics information calculated on Handloads.com's free calculator. 

.22 WMR

Muzzle Velocity Caveat
Box states that muzzle velocity (MV) is 1900 fps. Other sources state that from a pistol, the MV is closer to 1400 fps - but those sources use snub nose pistols (1" or 1.5" barrels). The PMR-30 has a 4.25" barrel, so there will be more MV than the pistols used in the sources I found. Still, this is guesswork, so I have included both MVs into the scenario:

@ 1400 fps
40-grain projectile
Muzzle Energy = 174 foot-pounds.

@1600 fps (my estimate)
40-grain projectile
Muzzle Energy = 227 foot-pounds.

.380 ACP

@ 950 fps
95-grain projectile
Muzzle Energy = 171 foot-pounds.

Summary / Notes

1. Carry a rifle if you know you will need a gun.
2. If only a pistol will do, you are not undergunned with 30 rounds of .22 WMR.
3. .380 is not only less powerful, but they usually only hold 6-8 rounds.
4. I saw one of these at the range a few weeks ago. The PMR-30 is LIGHTWEIGHT!
5. No, really: the thing weighs next to nothing! 13 ounces, according to Kel Tec. Having held one, I believe it!


Thursday, July 26, 2012

BB Thoughts

Attention Restaurants: When all of your employees must wear the "I love my job" t-shirt, the message sort of loses its effect.

Funny Google Question

The other day, someone came to this blog after a Google search. The question?
"Do religious cults believe in predestination?"

To answer simply: "Yes, they do."
Some religious cults do believe in predestination.

And all of those that believe in predestination are religious cultists.


CO Shooting "facts" don't add up

Things you won't see in the mainstream media about the shooting in Colorado:

Of course, the liberal media immediately came out and said the shooter was part of the Tea Party. And this was in error.

Truth is, the shooter is more correctly linked with the "Occupy" crowd.

Predictably, the left immediately moves to exploit the shooting:
Blame the Second Amendment

But the fact is that the shooter was part of the left - registered Democrat.

Not at all surprising, the shooting just does not add up.


Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Another star on gun control

Rapper Ice-T is interviewed and gives his thoughts on gun control:

Predictable idiocy

It was a sad day last week. Moviegoers in a theater in Colorado were gunned down by a lunatic while watching the premier of The Dark Knight Rises.

Of course, within 24 hours, the idiot Bloomberg (I think the man must be a Calvinist, in addition to being a Marxist) came out "challenging" Obama and Romney to get tough on guns.

Yeah, because the guns committed the crimes, and not the person. (yes, this is my "sarcasm font")

I read on an anti-gun blog (no links, they deserve no traffic because they are stupid and just plain wrong) that calls itself "common sense" (ironically ridiculous, huh?)  a bunch of drivel geared around the idea that if the assault weapons ban was in place, then this "would have been prevented."

How about this: if the theater hadn't been a "gun-free" zone, then citizens would have had sidearms and might well have stopped the tragedy much earlier on. 

The anti-gunners will exploit any tragedy such as this to drive home their message. They know that calm, rational people do not wish to be disarmed. And the only way to get public opinion to shift is to take advantage of strong emotion, and make people think they are looking to ban other people from having guns; not themselves.

Fact is, every time, this is what happens:
1. Some criminal commits a crime
2. They want to take guns away from the people who did not commit the crime.

Proof they have an agenda.

Also, it's like putting my son in time out if it was my daughter that misbehaved. Makes no sense!

Archie Bunker asked it best: "Would it make you feel better if they (persons murdered by criminals) were pushed out of windows?"

Nope - then they could not push their anti-gun agenda.

Also of note in all this: even the liberal anti-gunners know full well that Romney enacted gun bans. That's why they are OK with him winning if Obama loses. That is why we cannot vote for Romney. 


Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Real Temptation

Different people are tempted by different things.

Some folks are tempted by food. Like a half dozen doughnuts.

Some people can be tempted by members of the opposite sex. Some just wish they could be.

Some people are tempted by power. Sociopaths always are.


I am tempted by guns.
A short time back, I was in a gun store, picking up some AR15 parts. The store had a used AR15 for sale. It came with an A2 carry handle and a government profile barrel. It wasn't a big name brand. But it was set up to look like an M16A2 clone.


Make Counter Accusations

Are these the actions of a serial sociopath?
Well, yes. They are. But, they are also used by others, as well.

Remember, the objective of liberals, Calvinists, and others that rely on you not knowing the truth, is to steer the argument away from facts, and try to shine it in their own light. They have no leg to stand on in reality.



Monday, July 23, 2012

I told you so

I do not make it a habit to say the words "I told you so." It is, however, acceptable to use the phrase in certain circumstances.

When you have warned a "leader" of the intents of another, and he refuses to see it due to stupidity, ineptitude, or just plain lack of experience, but later the individual sends a single email showing the hate and the intent. That's a good time to say "I told you so."

I recently got just such a chance, and just couldn't pass it up. If course, the "full retard" individual couldn't help himself. Half the time, he knows not why he does what he does. Easy to predict. And it often happens around the full moon.

Storm moves in

I took these photos in the Knoxville area a few weeks ago. Storms were moving in.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Friday, July 20, 2012

Oxymoron... or just moron?

So a wannabe-preacher says to you at one point that he was never saved.
Then later he says that you are wrong in your doctrine.
Then later he uses dozens of swears at you in a hate-email.
He accuses you falsely of multiple things.
And at the same time, he posts things online about God.

Are you inclined to believe anything he says - even if some of what he says about God is true?



I saw this as an advertisement above a urinal in a restaurant in the Jackson, TN area:

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Really cool

Sunny day - just north of Jackson, TN. Clouds were minimal. It was hot, but not too hot. About 92 or so. It was very humid. It got so humid that it started raining.You can see the sky, and the raindrops on my windshield.

Yes, I stopped the car to take the picture.

Do Weathermen lie?

I think they do. I have some stuff to back it up. And I think that the unintended consequence has been fuel for those who believe in the global warming myth (man-made or otherwise).

What this is not
This is not an attack on any single weatherman or meteorologist - whether I know that person or not.

What this is
This is an attack on a habit, a system, a way of doing things that cannot be easily corrected now in the information age.

How it started:
As a boy, I noticed patterns easily and more clearly than others. My son today has the same gift, and it amazes my wife constantly. As I watched the news, I'd notice that the weatherman would say the daytime high was far cooler than what our thermometer outside said.

So I learned, and put the thermometer in a shady place. Same result, though not quite as drastic. So I bought more thermometers, and noticed that they roughly all said the same thing. But what the weatherman would claim as the daytime high never matched up. Sometimes it was close, if not right on the money - but other times it was not as close.

Early Evidence:
I started logging what the weatherman gave as stats: daytime highs and lows, quoted averages for this time of year on both. I did this virtually every day for three years. What I found was amazing.

Daytime highs in the winter were always skewed up. In the summer, they were skewed down. In the temperate times (spring and fall) they were right on the money. The skewing started in mid June, or any day the temperature went over 92 degrees. The skewing of summer highs was usually dropped by the end of September.

Daytime lows were always skewed up in the winter. Usually mid December through February. Any time the temperature got below 40 degrees, there was a skewing effect between what was reported, and what recorded on my thermometers.

Why I claim it was misinformation:
Many might say: "Your thermometers were not official, therefore, we cannot trust your results."
Possibly. Except that they all got measurements within 3 degrees of one another. They were different brands, and of different makes (some mercury, some dial-type).

Continued evidence:
These days, weathermen might try the same, except everybody and their grandmother has apps on phones and puts a picture of it on Facebook. So major weather outlets like Weatherbug and Weather Channel and others would be foreced to admit that either their readings were not correct or that their reported high was not correct. Even still, I have seen Weather Channel (the app on my phone) differ by a degree or two.

One time recently, we had highs near 110 degrees every day for several straight days. One day, the official high was 109. My phone registered 111 at the peak. The next day, my phone went to 109. Later, Weather Channel (on my phone) reported the official high was 107. In both instances, the reported official high was 2 degrees lower than actual at the time.

So what am I suggesting:
There is less skewing now. But it still exists. Watch your phone app, and the affiliated source. Hot days especially. Screen capture the highest you see, then compare it to their later-reported "official high." You will see the difference.

Why would they do this?
Easy. To make the area seem nicer to live than another area.
Remember, I was raised in Chattanooga - a city with a chip on its shoulder if I've ever seen one.  I have not seen as much skewing since I moved to the Nashville area.


Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Ding Dongs

The man with the world's largest penis, Jonah Falcon, was frisked at the San Francisco airport by the TSA.
They claim they thought his penis bulge was a suspicious object.
I think it is not ironic: San Francisco - largest penis - frisking

Who deserves the title "ding dong" here???


Words of Wisdom

Christians ought to be willing to give more slaps on the backs and less slaps on the wrists.

- M. Lander


Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Is it real life, or just fantasy?

Or should I say: is this irony, or just plain sad?

Team USA's uniforms were made in China.
I wish there was a punch line for this sad joke. 


Words of Wisdom

Why would you take Biblical advice from someone who willingly twists the words of the Bible? The advice will be twisted, and the person obviously does not believe the Bible in his heart.


Monday, July 16, 2012

Improvised sitting position

A month ago or so, I saw a post on one of my favorite blogs, Art of the Rifle, dealing with a modified or improvised kneeling position. Rifleslinger called it "unorthodox" kneeling position. Master Sergeant Torres, the man doing the demo, stated it was more stable.

So I tried it:

 It was more stable. Unfortunately for me, it was also more painful!
See, I have always struggled with pain in the kneeling position. Multiple sprains of each knee and ankle in my youth has lead to the kneeling position being impossible for me to hold for more than about 60 seconds. During the 60 seconds, I am in immense pain - worse pain than when I broke my ankle or when I broke my finger.

Here I am in a traditional kneeling position:

Those with sharp eyes might say: "Usagi, if you would actually rest on your ankle, the position would be even more stable!"
To which I'd respond: "You paying for the ambulance ride?"
I literally cannot sit all of the way down on my ankle. Knee pain and ankle pain do not permit.

Back to the improvised kneeling position - it was more stable. It was also more painful for me. I think a big part of it is that the position requires one to basically sit on their trailing ankle. As a comparison, I can shoot offhand (standing), sitting, or prone for hours without the slightest bit of discomfort. Kneeling is not possible for more than 60 seconds at a time, and no more than 3-4 reps, maximum.

In a desperate effort to create something resembling more comfort (OK, who are we kidding, something slightly less painful), I tried extending my left leg a bit. This did add a bit more balance for the rifle, but less for my body:

As I sat there, I could not take the pain any more, and literally fell backwards onto my backside. Three things hit me at once:
1. My ankle no longer hurt.
2. My knee no longer hurt.
3. My rifle was even more steady than before!

Here's what it looked like:

I call it "improvised sitting" position. It is extremely stable. It is extremely comfortable. And because the magazine is propping the rifle up on my leg slightly, it is illegal in NRA Highpower competition. That means it is also more effective than a "traditional field position."

Here it is from another angle:

As you can see, these pics were taken without me using a sling. Since it is my belief that sling use is primarily for sportive competition, and since this position is likely illegal in the same competitions, there would be no reason to practice the modified sitting position whilst using a sling.

I can get into and out of this position faster than I can from an orthodox sitting position. It is more stable than an orthodox sitting position when I use my main battle rifles (M16A4 clone pictured above or M1 Garand - not pictured). Interestingly, the .22 training rifles are more stable from an orthodox sitting position for me - and I think that is due to the fact that they are lighter in weight and recoil is not a concern with a .22. The modified sitting position gives direct support for my rifle (propping on my leg).

Because of these factors, I have added this position into my training array. In fact, since I came across this variation (quite literally by painful accident), I have not practiced any other sitting or kneeling position. It is my feeling that this position for me is effective to 400 yards. I have shot a few AQTs as my test for that thesis. Scores in the mid 230's for those that are counting.

Given the speed of transition into and out of the position, I'd say it would be good for me in any circumstance I'd otherwise use kneeling. In fact, because of the pain factor, it is quicker for me than kneeling. I'd use this as close as 30-40 yards out, depending on circumstance.

One thing that Master Sergeant Torres also suggested as an advantage for his improvised kneeling position is that it presents a smaller target for an enemy. I would say this is true for my improvised sitting position as well.

Special thanks to my son, Cael, for taking these pictures of daddy.


Socialist in chief

Obama thinks if you have a business, then you didn't actually create it.

That's right - somebody else teaches my martial arts classes. Somebody else brought students to me. Somebody else should have what little money I get from that business.


Stupid HR People

This sent in by a reader who took my challenge to post stupid HR people stories. I have seen the documents, and this is legit. My reader worked for a major home improvement warehouse chain store.

In the initial training phase, the HR department and managers teach that the policy at this store is not to load merchandise for a customer unless the customer has a visible disability, or unless the customer claims a disability.

My reader is asked by a customer where the decorative stone for gardens are located. Reader takes customer to the correct aisle. Customer gives reader a funny sly look while saying: "I need five boxes." The look is as if to say 'load it up, boy!'

Reader points out the merchandise, then heads off to perform other tasks as issued by management.

An hour later, reader is in manager's office, explaining why he did not load the stone tiles into the customer's buggy. The manager and HR person write my reader up for failing to load up the customer's buggy. The customer never made mention of any disability to my reader, or to store management.


Sunday, July 15, 2012

Calvinist Corner - July 2012

I am going to pen (OK, keystroke) a series of short infomercial type blog posts for those that want proof that Calvinist is false. Each post will deal with a specific topic briefly. The collection will be geared toward dispelling the myth that is Calvinism, and the further myth that Christians are either Calvinists, or Arminians.

First up: Let's tackle the concept that the scripture in any way denotes that we are predestined. Of course, this is absolutely false. Calvinists will try to use verses such as Romans 8:29 or even Ephesians 1:11. But these verses talk about what He has predestined for people, not whom will be saved. But is there a verse that directly states this? Yes, there is:

II Timothy 1:9

For God saved us and called us to live a holy life. He did this, not because we deserved it, but because that was his plan from before the beginning of time—to show us his grace through Christ Jesus.

There is it in black & white: God's plan from the beginning of time was to show us His grace through Christ Jesus. Not whom, but what

And, we all know the scripture does not contradict itself.


Friday, July 13, 2012

Words of wisdom

I was texting back and forth with a good friend recently. Someone we both knew went full retard.

Usagi: "If we were drinking men, this would be a night for beer."

Friend: "No. This would be a night for an entire case."

True story.


Thursday, July 12, 2012

We're playin basketball...

Kobe Bryant said this year's Team USA would beat the 1992 Dream Team.

Pass me a hit, Kobe. That's gotta be some powerful stuff you're smoking!


Movie Review - Prometheus

A few weeks ago, I saw the movie Prometheus. Being a fan of the Alien franchise, it seemed a good fit.

Before I saw it, I read many reviews, some spoilers, and other information on the movie. Generally speaking, the folks that didn't like it or were confused by it were the same people that couldn't take the plot points at face value.

Overall, I really enjoyed it. It had plenty of action, was not at all about the alien Xenomorphs, save a small clip at the end, and it also filled in with enough back-story to keep interesting.

For those out there that disliked the Alien vs Predator line of movies, all I can say is: keep dreaming. This did not at all cap that idea off. Instead, I'd like to know if the Predators actually hunt the Engineers? Makes sense, as the Engineers would be larger, very intelligent, and on par with Predators as far as technology is concerned.

The movie had a few cons to it, a all do. I could have done without the blatant anti-Christian undertones at times. But even some of those were very relevant in the plot. And if people really did get created by these Engineers (I know, it is fiction, but follow with me), then who is to say God didn't first create the Engineers?

I did think it was really cool to see the worms get mutated by the goo, then evolve into a pre-alien reptile, which impregnated a man in a similar fashion to a Xenomorph, then the result was some strange creature. All the while, a man got directly infected with the goo, and then impregnated his wife (literally), and the "baby" was a pre-Xenomorph creature that wound up impregnating an Engineer, from which the Xenomorph came forth.

Seems like that bio-weapon goo was designed to produce Xenomorphs in the end. And stuff that kills things in similar ways along the way.

Pretty cool idea.


Wednesday, July 11, 2012

What I do it all for

Besides my family, these are the most special people in the world to me:

Left to Right
Front: Me, Sarah, Zack, Michael
Back: Alex, Rich, Lee

Left to Right
Front: Cali (my daughter), Sophia
Middle: Alyssa, Baylee, Katie, Cayce, JJ, Michael C.
Back: Me, Sarah, Zack, Michael M.

Critique on slings

Shooting with a sling is a method used by some to help steady the rifle. Common usages include loop sling and hasty sling. Sling use is seen mostly in shooting competitions and the like. Some organizations even claim that shooting with the sling is part of fundamental marksmanship.

While I will not denigrate the practice of shooting with a sling, I will also not be participating in much of it, either. Although sling shooting is mostly for sport shooting application, there are some who try to make the sling into an everyday shooting tool. It is just not suited for that.

Getting into the sling takes time and practice. While there is certainly nothing wrong with practice, the fact is that one could practice easily shooting without the sling for more practical results - regardless of what results the shooter seeks (provided the shooter is not looking to increase sport shooting skill). Shooters can look to other means of steadying the rifle, and that's what they should do.

Bracing the rifle on something is an elementary method of steadying a rifle. Of all practices, it is the easiest to get good results from with minimal training.

Learning steady hold factors from major positions is also a great way to steady the rifle. This requires more training, but is also more universally practical.

Shooting with a sling is NOT a part of basic marksmanship. Basic marksmanship skill revolves around the three S's:
Sight Picture
Steady Hold
Trigger Squeeze

The big lie out there is that anything else matters.

Now, can using a sling help with "Steady Hold?" Of course. So can resting the rifle. So can proper form. A sling is not mandatory. It is a crutch for those who stick with it. Using it as a discipline is outdated and only relevant in a few circles.

There are some out there, in their quest for a "field expedient" sling that can be looped up on a moment's notice, that have turned to the ching sling. While this practice is noble, understand that the platform is equally limited. It still is not as fast, nor as stable, as using a nearby object as a brace. It is simply the pinnacle of the attempt to turn the sling into something it is not.

I know this will strike up some controversy among some. Before you go off half-cocked about whether I can actually shoot (particularly with a sling): check the "Appleseed" tab over there -->
Yep. Been to one. Shot the "Rifleman" score.
Have actually shot a 250 with an AR15.

Oh, and they ain't saving the country. Never was about that, either. Twas about lining the pockets of a few (or one?).

Will I still shoot using a sling?
Yes, occasionally. It is a skill I do not wish to forget.
And I may wish to take up HP sport shooting again sometime.


Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Just a thought

God does not predestine some for Hell.

If you say He predestines some for Heaven, then you are saying by default that He predestines the rest for Hell. There is not one without the other.


Range fun

At the range recently with the wife unit. Went to Guns n Leather in Hendersonville. Great place! Guy who rang up the register for our range time was the same man who taught each of our respective handgun carry permit classes.

Pretty handguards - courtesy of Mr. Smith at Spirit Martial Arts

Close up of the hand guards

The wife unit shooting at "Zombie Todd"

Clearing a malfunction

Pink ear muffs. Pink eye protection

Zombie Todd - before

See - his name really is Zombie Todd

The wife unit can shoot straight

This is the picture down range. 

This is her shooting Zombie Todd

Note the groups in relation to the specified targets.
Also note the group aimed at the mouth area.

Great day at the range. Cost was $25 - $10 each for lanes, and $1.50 each for Zombie Todds. I had the ammo and guns already - but if you read this blog, you already knew that!


Ever Clever

I walk into Pops' living room. He is napping on his recliner. I accidentally wake him.

Pops: "I wasn't asleep... I was just checking my eyelids for holes."


Monday, July 9, 2012

Words of wisdom

This was communicated to me by a wise man, who probably doesn't even realize how wise:

Calvinism = pride = legalism = idolatry = hades

Wow. True Story.


Breaking down

It is common practice to break something down into smaller pieces to understand it. When dealing with the written word, this method is most helpful in understanding intent. However, great care must be taken to ensure that the small sub section's interpreted meaning does not conflict with the passage as a whole.

In a similar manner, lets break down the Second Amendment into its parts for complete and accurate translation. Lets see what it means:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"A well regulated..."
"Well regulated" from 18th Century parlance means that the members of the Militia would be understanding of and capable of the following commands:
- Make ready!
- Take aim!
- Fire!
To "make ready" was to bring the rifle to one's shoulder, and cock the hammer. "Take aim" and "fire" are pretty self-explanatory in modern parlance.

Any able-bodied person of fighting age. In the 18th Century, it was not uncommon to see people fighting as young as 15 or 16, or as old as age 70+. Generally men fought, but there are numerous recorded instances of women picking up arms, too.
The militia was this group of people.

"...being necessary to the security of a free state,"
The founding fathers did not want a standing Army, as it could be ordered to attack its own citizens. The Militia would more than suffice, as it was basically everybody.

"...the right of the people..."
Clear indication of the intent to recognize individual rights - not a "collective" right, and certainly not a mention of a militia in the sense of the perversion of the word we have today.
Note: as with all other rights - this is not granted by the Constitution, but is recognized by the Constitution as being granted by God and worthy of recognition in an official capacity.

"...to keep..."
To have. To own. To purchase. To sell. To repair. To otherwise engage in normal commerce with.

"...and bear..."
To wear. To carry with one. To have at the ready in the event of need. To otherwise not lock away, but to have at the ready.

Firearms. Weapons of any sort. This includes ammunition, and other essential elements that allow the arm to function as intended.

This amendment was included because King George III was confiscating munitions (ammo), trying to restrict modern guns of the day, and otherwise similar stuff to the legislation we see being attempted to this day. So the argument that modern guns were not what the founding fathers had in mind is utter and complete bunk - the King wanted to take away the "modern assault weapons" of the late 18th Century!

"...shall not be infringed."
Not prohibited. Not legislated against in any way. This includes permits, background checks, restrictions of any sort. Any legislation that would restrict free commerce or possession of arms is clearly prohibited.

Friday, July 6, 2012

Big Surprise

Yesterday I had the day off... which I used to go to the DMV and renew my Handgun Carry Permit.


When asked to do something against your conscience

Some time ago, I was asked to make an apology to a man whom I had not wronged. I've blogged before about not making an apology when one is not in the wrong.

I'd made a public comment that I'd observed a man had been displaying arrogance. He felt I should have confronted him directly. Since I was neither the man's father, nor in any position of authority over him, there was no need nor justification for me to confront him.

The man took it before a minister, who advised me to apologize. The very nature of what he wanted me to apologize for kept changing, so based on my previous blog post, I could not make an apology based on that.

The minister gave several passages of scripture as his basis for me to make an apology, and confront the man directly the next time he demonstrated pride.

The purpose of this post is to systematically dismantle that minister's usage - or should I say, misuse - of scripture, as one of my main pet peeves is the use of scripture to prove a point that the verses in question do not, in fact, address.

Matthew 5:23-24

"Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift at the altar and go. First make things right with your brother or sister and then come back and offer your gift. "
Again, this verse was used to indicate that I should have confronted the individual. However,  once again, one must read the passage, and not just the verses. Verse 22 is talking about being angry with your brother (or whomever), so clearly, verses 23 and 24 are speaking about if that anger is coming between you and God. More particularly, it discusses not harboring anger.

I held no anger toward the prideful man, so this verse simply did not apply.

Galatians 6:1
"Brothers and sisters, if a person is caught doing something wrong, you who are spiritual should restore someone like this with a spirit of gentleness."
This verse was used to indicate that I should have confronted the individual. However, read the whole passage. It is not about the confronting, but about when confronting, to do so with a spirit of gentleness so that one is not tempted to sin himself.  

Again, since there was no need to confront on my end, this verse was completely irrelevant to the situation.  

Luke 17:3-4
"Watch yourselves! If your brother or sister sins, warn them to stop. If they change their hearts and lives, forgive them. Even if someone sins against you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times and says, ‘I am changing my ways,’ you must forgive that person.”
 Again, this verse was used to display why I should have confronted the prideful individual. However, the minister was mistaken in meaning of the verses. In these verses, Jesus advises us to be forgiving - we should forgive continually.

Because the verse was about forgiving, and not confronting, this verse simply did not apply.

Matthew 18: 21-35
Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, how many times should I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Should I forgive as many as seven times?”

Jesus said, “Not just seven times, but rather as many as seventy-seven times. Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle accounts, they brought to him a servant who owed him ten thousand bags of gold. Because the servant didn’t have enough to pay it back, the master ordered that he should be sold, along with his wife and children and everything he had, and that the proceeds should be used as payment. But the servant fell down, kneeled before him, and said, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I’ll pay you back.' The master had compassion on that servant, released him, and forgave the loan.

“When that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him one hundred coins. He grabbed him around the throat and said, ‘Pay me back what you owe me.’

“Then his fellow servant fell down and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I’ll pay you back.’ But he refused. Instead, he threw him into prison until he paid back his debt.

“When his fellow servants saw what happened, they were deeply offended. They came and told their master all that happened. His master called the first servant and said, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you appealed to me. Shouldn’t you also have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ His master was furious and handed him over to the guard responsible for punishing prisoners, until he had paid the whole debt.

“My heavenly Father will also do the same to you if you don’t forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
 Again, this verse was quoted with reference to confronting the prideful individual. Just like Luke 17, this verse is all about forgiveness, not confronting.

Again, this verse simply did not apply to the situation.

I really dislike when people twist scripture to try to make their own point. This was a classic example of it.