Month: November 2013

Holy Crap, the Chicago Tribune?!?

KevinLeave a comment

Did someone drop acid in my iced tea?  Just let me leave this here:

Stop digging. Start over.

The Americans manhandled by this exercise in government arrogance now find themselves divided into warring tribes: Those with chronic ailments who have found new plans on Obamacare exchanges and are pleased. Those who don’t want or can’t afford the replacement policies Obamacare offers them. Those whose new policies block them from using the health providers who have treated them for many years. The estimated 23 million to 41 million people whose employer-sponsored plans are the next to be imperiled. And on and on.

Most of these tribespeople only wish their big problem was a slipshod Obamacare website. On Thursday, their plight grew more frightful. With even Democratic members of Congress storming the White House over the cancellations, Obama declared — by what legal authority is unclear — that he would overrule the law he signed in 2010 and allow insurers to extend those canceled policies for a year.

—

We understand why the president and leaders of his party want to rescue whatever they can of Obamacare. On their watch, official Washington has blown the launch of a new entitlement program … under the schedule they alone set in early 2010.

What we don’t understand is their reluctance to give that failure more than lip service. Many of the Americans who heard their president say Thursday that “we fumbled the rollout of this health care law” would have been pleased to hear him add: So we’re admitting it. This law is a bust. We’re starting over.

(Bold emphasis mine.)  RTWT.

Wow.

Who knew the editors of the Trib were racists?

Quote of the Day – Og the Neanderpundit Edition

KevinLeave a comment

From a comment to Tam’s post If schadenfreude had calories, I’d weigh 300 pounds:

I would be inclined to believe you are correct, and that this whole debacle is purely incompetence, and had no reason or logic behind it, but that isn’t what concerns me. Have you seen what liberals can do with incompetence? Incompetence is their milieu; the left can build shining towers out of incompetence while the sane and competent are barely keeping a roof over their heads. However this breaks, it will break bad for us.

Quote of the Day – Angelo Codevilla Edition

KevinLeave a comment

Democracy has no cure for a corrupt demos. Politicians’ misdeeds taint them alone, so long as their supporters do not embrace them. But when substantial constituencies continue to support their leaders despite their having broken faith, they turn democracy’s process of mutual persuasion into partisan war. — Lies Corrupt Democracy

RTWT – most especially the comments.

And this is a good place to repeat one of the quotes up on the masthead:

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been “liberated” to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it’s because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it’s because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. — Sultan Knish

What About That Quaint Idea of “Separation of Powers”?

KevinLeave a comment

So the Democrats ram through – without a single Republican vote – the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” and Obama signs it into law on March 23, 2010.  Before passage, Nancy Pelosi laid this one on us:  “We have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it!”

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU?rel=0]
Well, now we know what’s in it:


About 11.5 million words of regulations from the 906 (PDF) page law (2700 pages as published for the consumption of Congress) that, again, apparently nobody read prior to voting for. (Thanks, Nancy!)

And, in direct contrast to Obama’s promise that the legislative negotiations behind this law would be aired on CSPAN…

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVkzm0YPAc?rel=0]
…the actual negotiations took place away from cameras, and with major influence from the lobbyists that Obama told us would not stain his presidency.  Even the Daily Kos objected. 

And then he told us that the “penalty” for non-compliance with the ACA requirements was NOT. A. TAX.

Then it survived a Supreme Court decision which said it was only constitutional if the “penalty” WAS. A. TAX.

And in July of this year when problems with implementation began to become apparent, Obama unilaterally gave businesses a one-year extension on their legal mandate to conform with the law.

Wait a minute. This is a LAW. Part II, Section 1511 specifies what “Employer Responsibilities” are, effective “calendar years beginning after 2013.”

Congress has not voted on this change.

And today, after his repeated promise that “If you like you plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” turned out to be as false as his CSPAN transparency promise and his “not a tax” declaration, he’s done it again with respect to the individual mandate.

Even Howard Dean wonders where he gets this amazing power:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPI7rABWI9c?rel=0]
It’s not like this is anything really new, though. The Justice Department certainly isn’t going to go prosecuting anyone that Obama doesn’t want prosecuted.

But this isn’t rule of law. This is Obama granting “special dispensation” – a power not given to the Office of President under the Constitution. The Legislative branch passes the laws, the Executive signs or vetoes them, and the Judicial branch tries and punishes violators of those laws.

But we’ve reached a point where the President can just say “never mind,” and nobody calls him on it.

What do you call that form of government again?  Because it’s certainly not a Constitutional Republic.

Quote of the Day – Joe Biden Edition

KevinLeave a comment

From Politico, Biden: Don’t let immigration die like gun control:

This kind of reminds me of the gun control kind of fights we had, and gun safety. You know, the people who don’t want anything changed to have a more rational position, they’re the ones who show up in large numbers.

(My emphasis.)  Thanks for noticing, Joe!  Oh, and we have the “more rational position.”  That’s why we show up in large numbers.

People Policing the City on Their Own

KevinLeave a comment

A few days ago, I blogged about a bystander attempting a citizen’s arrest on two armed robbers as they exited the convenience store they’d just stuck up.  The robbers pointed their guns at the citizen, and he killed both of them.

The families of the perpetrators were outraged.  “So how about if people start policing the city on their own?” one asked.

Well, you could get this:

Small Georgia Town Forms Posse, Corners Armed Robbery Suspect

Criminals take note; You’re taking a chance if you try to ply your trade in the Dodge County town of Rhine. Local law enforcement is praising townspeople for some de facto community policing, after tracking down and helping catch an armed robbery suspect.

For 60-year-old Ken Lowery the commotion began around 2:30 Thursday afternoon as he stepped inside Aden’s convenience store and encountered the store clerk in distress.

“The lady screamed at me and said ‘I’ve been robbed, he’s got a gun, and I gave him all the money,'” Lowery recalled.

Lowery says he saw the suspected gunman, identified as 24-year-old Damien Durham of Wilcox County, walking down the street making a nonchalant getaway. Witnesses say it was a bizarre sight, but what happened next was even more unbelievable.

“People just kept coming around and they were mad, people in Rhine were mad,” Lowery said. “Here we had an armed robbery in the middle of the day at Aden’s and they wanted to form a posse.”

Lowery says more than 20 people, many of them armed, spread out looking for the gunman, in trucks and on foot.

“We didn’t have no leader of it all, we just went all our separate ways and the people in Rhine they knew they were going to get that rascal,” Lowery said.

And they did. He’s in jail.

“Here Lies Lester Moore…

KevinLeave a comment

…four slugs from a .44.  No Les no more.”

(From a headstone at Boot Hill in Tombstone AZ.)

Until this time I have resisted purchasing anything chambered in any of the various .44 calibers.  I have .22’s, .223’s, 6.5mm, 7mm, .30, 8mm, 9mm, .40 and .45, but nothing in .44.

That just changed.  Or, well, it will on 11/22 when I can pick it up.

I dropped by to visit my favorite Merchant O’Death this morning just to see what they had on the shelves (the AR-15 drought is most definitely over, and ammo is beginning to turn up again – even some .22, though it’s limited to 100 rounds per customer).  “So, what’s on your ‘must have’ list these days?” he asked.  I responded “Nothing, really.  I’ve got all the ‘must haves’ and now I’m down to the ‘kinda wants.'”

“So what do you kinda want?”

“Well, I’ll eventually get something chambered in .44.”

We discussed the various Specials and Magnums (of which he had a pretty good selection of the latter in the case), then he said, “I’ve got something interesting!” and headed over to the display case where they keep the special stuff.

This is never a good thing to hear when it comes to my wallet.

What did he have?  This:

That’s a pre-2000 629-5. According to the Smith & Wesson forum it is:

a Lew Horton Model 629 S&W Hunter Competitor, 200 were made, only 90 in the US.

The cylinder is unfluted with a brushed finish, the frame and 6″ Mag-Na-Ported and weighted barrel slab sides are polished, barrel and frame top are bead-blasted, smooth trigger, no lock, floating firing pin. The serial number supports the “200 were made” claim.

 It’s freaking beautiful. I almost hurt myself whipping out the plastic. Can’t pick it up until the 22nd because it’s used and the shop has to hold it while the Tucson Police ensure it’s not stolen property.

I think I stole it.

UPDATE:  Smith & Wesson customer service says it shipped to Lew Horton in 2000, but that’s all they have on it.

UPDATE II:  Lew Horton says they’re sending me a letter about my gun.

Final update:

Lew Horton Distributing got back to me:

Thank you for your interest in Lew Horton Distributing. Your Smith & Wesson Performance Center Model 629 (S&W #170049), serial number MHR0XXX, is indeed a Lew Horton Special Edition. This model was unique in the market place at that time. It was fitted with a six inch slab sided barrel that had an integral variable weight system, and featured barrel cut outs. The barrel had an integral Weaver style scope mount, and was Mag-na-Ported. The cylinder was unfluted and the cylinder edges were beveled. It was fitted with the then new style Performance Center thumb latch. The action was hand tuned by the craftsmen in the Performance Center. This gun is one of several different variations of the PC 629 Hunter that we did over the years.

This gun is one of 457 units produced in that configuration. This run Model 629 was manufactured by Smith & Wesson and delivered to Lew Horton Distributing from 1999 to 2001.

This Lew Horton Special Edition is listed in the Bluebook of Gun Values under the “Lew Horton Distributing” section.

Best of luck!

So not one of 200, but one of 457 ain’t bad!

Bleg

KevinLeave a comment

OK, I want some help here.

Awhile back I linked to a post at Rick’s Notes that stated that:

The Brits count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial.

  This was based on a post at Extrano’s Alley which cited a report from Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood to the House of Commons in 2000. The inspector states:

Homicide statistics too vary widely. In some developing countries, the statistics are known to be far from complete. Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. The adjustment is made only in respect of figures shown in one part of the Annual Criminal Statistics. In another part relating to the use of firearms, no adjustment is made. A table of the number of homicides in which firearms were used in England and Wales will therefore differ according to which section of the annual statistics was used as its base. Similarly in statistics relating to the use of firearms, a homicide will be recorded where the firearm was used as a blunt instrument, but in the specific homicide statistics, that case will be shown under “blunt instrument”.

Many countries, including the United States, do not adjust their statistics down in that way and their figures include cases of self defence, killings by police and justifiable homicides. In Portugal, cases in which the cause of death is unknown are included in the homicide figures, inflating the apparent homicide rate very considerably.

(My emphasis.)

In 2001, Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen wrote a column which included this statement:

More recently, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain’s 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime – for example, by recording burglary as “vandalism.” The report lays much of the blame on the police’s desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.

Britain’s justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.

“American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition.” Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. “With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,” the report concludes.

This backs up what Inspector Greenwood asserts, but I can’t find that specific report.

What I have found is an document from the Home Office dated April 2013 on their official “counting rules” (PDF) that does not mention convictions or even prosecution.

That’s all.

I’d REALLY like to find something definitive on this question, but I’m coming up blank. Help?