Archive for July, 2010

My cold, dead hands

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on July 30, 2010 by easilyangered

I like guns. I think they’re neat. I think everyone should be able to own whatever kind they want. I think gun control means keeping positive control of your weapon, and making sure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands or get misused. I believe every person should be free to carry a gun if they choose to, wherever they go. I also believe that person should be %100 liable for any mishaps or troubles caused by said carrying.

People are free to use a lot of tools that will cause grievous bodily harm, why should a gun be treated any different? After all, if you murder someone with a hammer, are they less dead than if shot? Are you less of a criminal?

Philosophy aside, look at the practical reasons for concealed carry: A gun is the most effective wat to multiply force in an escalating situation. Most times a gun is used in a confrontation, it is not even fired, just the sight of it is often times enough to cause the aggressor to back down. A gun will allow even the weak to effectively defend against the strong. An armed population is safer, criminals are less likely to attack “hard targets”, this is a basis of every anti-terrorism training ever shown, why would it be different for regular crime? The training states that by being a hard target, you will discourage attacks, well, if criminals are unaware of exactly WHO is armed, they are less likely to prey upon the citizenry. Look at the stories you see in the news, old ladies, women, homes thought to be empty, weak people living at home alone, these are the targets picked by criminals, they never seem to attack gun shops or anywhere they might meet armed resistance. In this way, a person who is carrying concealed makes it safer for the one who chooses not to, just by making the criminal unable to tell if he will meet armed resistance.

A favorite argument of the gun control crowd is that you can always take a self-defense course. My rebuttal of that is this: How long does it take to become proficient in fighting? I know people who take years of martial arts, do you want to tell the woman living in a dangerous neighborhood that in just a few short years she’ll be safe? I can teach her how to safely and effectively use a firearm in an afternoon. Here’s another interesting point to consider, why do boxers and practically all fighting sports have weight classes? It’s because a 125 pound martial artist is no match for a 225 pound one. Just consider how hard your average 9-year-old can punch, do you think you can’t beat up a 9-year-old? A firearm is an effective way for the weak to equalize the playing field whan faced by the strong. Here’s an interesting link. Now, these same panty waist douches will say something like “well the thug will just take the gun away from her and use it against her”. Really? you honestly think it takes more time to pull the trigger than a thug can close with you, grab your arm and wrest the gun out of your hand? A trigger pull takes a couple of pounds of force, it is less than it takes to carry a bag of groceries, you think that wresting a gun from someone’s control is less effort than that? You must be retarded. The most infuriating part of this argument is that it usually made by the same crowd that will go on for hours about women’s empowerment and how a woman can do the same work as a man, yada yada yada. So which is it? Strong independent women, or delicate flowers incapable of defending themselves? My vote goes for strong women.

Another favorite cry of the ever-present liberal ass, is that “We’ll be like the wild west with gun fights in the street!!! BOOOHOOO”. Well, let me share a little insight about the “wild” west: The most famous shootout in the wild west was the OK Corral, it left 3 people dead. Do you know how many murders the average old west town saw in a year? a hundred? a thousand? Try five, the most murders any town saw in a single year .

No one is going to force you to carry if you are afraid of guns, but those around you that will be carrying are the same people you meet on the street, on the bus, your neighbors, or the guy at the deli, none of whom have killed you before, so why would they do so with a gun strapped to their side? They might even intervene when you are in danger.

The most important argument for gun ownership is this (from wikipedia):

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that “all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.” Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, “Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law.”

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

Do you see where I am going with this? If not, educate yourself here and here and here.

Here’s an interesting site for more info. http://a-human-right.com/

Advertisements

You don’t have a disease, you’re just an asshole…

Posted in Irritating on July 29, 2010 by easilyangered

dis·ease   /[dih-zeez]; noun, verb,-eased, -eas·ing.
–noun
1.a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
2.any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
3.any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.
4.decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.

Alcoholism is a behavior, a choice, a lack of willpower. It is not a disease, you will not contract it, nor will you transmit it. Labeling it a disease simply enables weak-willed losers to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

Unlike a real disease, alcoholism goes away simply by deciding not to drink. You can’t just decide to not have herpes anymore. You know who the most ardent defenders of this phony disease theory are? The people who provide “treatment” for it. I have an idea, you want a treatment program for your disease? I’ll kick you in the crotch every time you reach for a drink for 6 months, I’ll guarantee a minimum success rate of 3 – 5%, or the exact same success rate of AA.

People need to get off this “I’m not responsible for my actions” mindset, it lowers you as a person and makes you seem a weak and insignificant piece of garbage. Time to cowboy up, throw down the glass and take control of your life. I’m not going to make excuses for you, nor am I going to feel sorry for your lack of direction in life. Alcoholics are often times unable to take responsibility for many of the other aspects of life as well, are we going to invent diseases like “don’tpayrentism”, “Can’tshowupontimeism”, or “I’manassholetomyfamilyism”? Well this is a fantastic development! I’m going to just claim stupid fucking diseases every time I get into an awkward social situation and claim protected status as the handicapped!

I’m sick and tired of society not making people take responsibility for their actions, it’s time people are forced to face the music. Do you know what a drunk driver that kills someone, a serial killer who was molested as a child, a thief who had a hard childhood, and Bernie Madoff all have in common? They’re fucking criminals, let’s treat them as such.

– but then what do I know, I suffer from assholism.

We reserve the right…

Posted in Infuriating on July 29, 2010 by easilyangered

Smokers irritate me. They smell bad, always have to take breaks from work, have to have their “special” brand, toss their buts everywhere, and are generally a pain in the ass. That being said, I regularly answer “I prefer the ‘No Children’ section” to the question “Smoking or non?” when going to a restaurant.

I really find it infuriating when local municipalities and cities decide to pass a smoking ban in bars, restaurants, stores, etc… I’m pretty sure that a business is a private property. The permissiveness of smoking should be up to the proprietor of the business, and in the case of a leased property, the property owner. After all, the Government isn’t liable for a business’ profitability, why should they be able to dictate the atmosphere of the business. Would people like them to set a law about when the AC or heat can be turned on in their favorite bar? How about a county ordinance about what channel has to be played on the TV over the bar? If a business’ customer base is composed of a majority of smokers, isn’t it up to the business owner whether he wants smoking permitted on site? If smokers decide they’ll go to a bar out of the county, do the lawmakers now have to help make up the business owner’s lost income? then how the hell do they get off that they have the right to allow or restrict behaviors in his or her business?

Yes, you have the right to not be affected by second-hand smoke, that is, if you are one of the fucking morons who buys the cooked data used by the EPA and WHO when they published their “findings”. You can exercise your right by not frequenting the establishments that permit smoking. After all, you wouldn’t go to a country dance hall if you hate country music, are your listening rights being oppressed by allowing them to exist? If instead you want to learn something and not be a clueless sheep, read this: http://knol.google.com/k/second-hand-smoke#.

I don’t like smelling smoke, but I also don’t like smelling farts, so do I demand that complete strangers be humiliated and forced to stand in a special farting zone when they have to break wind? Do I make a big fuss about it and cry like a child? No, I just stand somewhere else. Why not try that you whiny douches?

I believe you own your body and have a right to destroy it if you want to. I also believe a business owner has the right to serve and attract the type of customers he wants, and if he chooses the wrong kind, he fails, tough shit, that’s life. I’m tired of people pushing their views on everyone else through force of law.

VRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!!!!!! – not really

Posted in Interesting, Uncategorized on July 28, 2010 by easilyangered

So in 2008, when campaigning for the presidency, then senator Barack Obama said he would put 1 million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. Now, let’s ignore the part about people making promises that won’t be provable until after the term they are running for is over, and focus on something else here.

So the two new exciting plug-in vehicles are the Chevy Volt, and the Nissan Leaf. The cost of these 2 finely engineered (I’m sure, especially the GM) machines are $41k for the Volt, and $32,780 for the Nissan. The Mazda 3 4-door starts at $15,345 and gets 33 MPG. The Volt gets (they claim) 230 MPG on its gasoline generator. Now, at $3 a gallon you can get 8667 gallons of gas for the $26k price difference. That works out to 286,011 Miles. The Volt has a 100,000 Mile Warranty on the battery. So, let’s say you drive your 186,011 extra miles on the volt without needing to replace the batteries, you’ve spent 1300 dollars on gas at this point, but I’ll give you that as worth the cost of smug nods you can give us plebs in our SUVs. The fact is, you’d have to own this car for 15 years with no major repairs needed to BREAK EVEN on the cost of a similar gas-powered vehicle.

Now, let’s get back to Obama’s promise. I forsee that a certain number of liberal hippy douches who are bad at basic math will jump on this vehicle like it’s free tickets to a Grateful Dead concert, but how are you going to get people to pay 2.5x for a car than it’s worth? How is Obama able to promise he will have these cars on the road? He may have them sitting in the lot, getting laughed at while people buy new trucks and Cobalts, but they certainly won’t be being driven.

That’s so F’ing GAY

Posted in Interesting, Uncategorized on July 27, 2010 by easilyangered

I’ve been watching a lot of the HBO show Big Love lately. It’s a show about a family of Mormon polygamists and how they juggle the multiple wives and hordes of children that result from the lifestyle in a world that looks down on their beliefs. The show really has me thinking: Why is Polygamy illegal? Why does the Government care whether a guy wants to marry multiple women in a consensual relationship where he takes care of all his families? The Government certainly doesn’t care if a guy wants to be a cheating scumbag and screw around behind his wife’s back, unless of course there is a child support issue, so why do they care if a guy has multiple families and WANTS to acknowledge and care for the children that result? Why is the Government in the business of marriage anyway? If a guy wants to marry 10 women, a woman wants to marry six guys, two men and two women want to be one big family, two men OR two women want to marry each other, what business is it of the Government?

Now, I understand that there is no actual mention of “Seperation of Church and State” in the US Constitution. The amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Which oddly enough is the polar opposite of what those trying to ban mention of God in commencement speeches and such think. Those people who ban mention of God are actually violating the second part about prohibiting the free excercise thereof, however, that is the subject of a future post I think. Anyway, people want to separate Church and State whenever possible, then why are they letting Government intrude into what is regularly referred to as “Holy Matrimony”? Shouldn’t a Church be free to decide who to marry? If your church wont’ marry you for being a polygamist, or (the actual point of my whole rant) GAY!, why not just choose a church that will? Why doesnt the Government have to be involved at all? Well, I have a theory:

Presently, the tax code allows for a single man, single woman union. Should we start to redefine marriage, all the sudden, people will be able to claim all kinds of new exemptions, and the Government might lose out on some tax money!!!!!!! OH NOES!!!! People might be able to find new ways to skirt the income, capital gains, or estate taxes, and we can’t have that!!!! after all, the way the current system works, it’s only people’s civil rights that get violated, so no big loss right? Instead, let’s resort to typical Government obfuscation techniques of riling up people’s base religious beliefs, prejudices, and bigotry to divide the nation over an issue that is fundamentally about personal freedom. After all Mr. Religious, how does it really hurt you if two guys want to pound each other officially or on the “down low”? Either way, you’re going to dismiss them as people regardless of their accomplishments, feelings, influence, etc, so why not just let them be free?

By deflecting the issue of personal freedom and trying to make it about “decency,” religion, bigotry, or “abuse of the system,” the Government can continue to avoid being held responsible yet again.

Quit being sheep, people; you are being led by wolves.

The environment

Posted in Interesting, Irritating on July 22, 2010 by easilyangered

I don’t buy the environmentalist movement. I don’t believe humans are causing global warming, or even that climate change if it is happening is that big of a deal. I do however have some thoughts.

First, don’t try to convince me you can predict that climate change is going to result in more hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters if I can’t get an accurate 5 day forecast on the news. Scientists can’t even predict whether it’s going to rain tomorrow with any more accuracy than a magic 8 ball; so sorry, I don’t believe you can predict increased disasters for the next 100s of years.

Second, I’ll assume for this point that you are correct about man-made climate change: If it is true, you are going after the wrong people. If I drive an SUV, the amount of energy I am wasting and pollution I am causing is insignificant compared to what the Government wastes. I’m in the Navy, I can’t even count the number of times a ship I’m on has dumped hundreds or thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean, or improperly thrown garbage overboard. Here’s an issue that is a problem with the way the Navy conducts business altogether: A ship has to get fuel in certain amounts, which is in the thousands of gallons, they can’t just pull into the gas station to top off. So, what this means is the Captain will end up running the ship at full speed in circles in the ocean, just to burn enough fuel that he can go to the tanker. Yeah, you read that right, they purposely waste tens of thousands of gallons of fuel just so they can load more fuel on. The reason for this: it’s faster and less of a hassle to fuel at sea than in port.
Another problem is the amount of unnecessary deployments we do. Why does the Navy need to sail all over the world all the time? Is it for some outdated show of force? The Cold War is over, who are we showing force to? Why do we need 11 carrier battle groups when the rest of the world has one? How about the amount of ordinance and ammo that is wasted in training? that releases gasses and CO2 into the atmosphere, why do we do that so much? I would think a smaller military that doesn’t deploy in times of peace, and isn’t occupying foreign land would be a better use of legislation than restricting the types of cars free citizens can buy.
Another way the government wastes energy is by never shutting off their computers at the end of the day. How many hundreds of thousands of computers are on, wasting electricity, when there is no one there to use them? They claim this needs to be done in order to push out updates overnight as to not interrupt daily use, but how hard would it be to schedule the updates on one day every week, and only leave the computers on that evening? Or, how about just pushing the updates out at lunch time, allowing users to delay them if they are in the middle of a project?

Third, Biofuels. Let’s get serious about them. A diesel engine can run on used cooking oil, did you know that? Know why more people don’t do it? Because diesel fuel has a color additive in it to determine what taxes have been applied to it. If you are inspected and found to be running blue (home heating) fuel in your vehicle, you get fined for not paying vehicle fuel (which is red) taxes. How much used cooking oil do you think the restaurant industry gets rid of every year? It’s a waste product, it has to be disposed of a special way due to its being hazardous. Why aren’t we trying to refine it into fuel?
Another thing on biofuels, we need to lift the embargo on Cuba. Why? They produce a LOT of sugar. Sugar is used in the making of biofuels, also it is better for you than the High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) that is used in almost everything the US eats. We use HFCS because of our surplus of corn. We subsidize farmers to not produce too much corn, and a lot of what we do produce we send overseas in foreign aid. Here’s my thought: Let’s make biofuels from all of our corn, we allow our farmers to produce their full potential, thus providing a better market for them, and freeing up the subsidy money for other things. Also, we can cut our foreign aid and become the largest biofuel producer in the world.

My point is this: It is harder to convince people to give up things they like or to change their lifestyle, than it is to get them behind changing government. Why not turn your efforts to the Government, and allow private citizens to live their own lives as they see fit and can afford? After all, if the Government refuses to make changes to support your cause, how much of their support are you really getting?

Unemployment

Posted in Irksome on July 20, 2010 by easilyangered

So, The big argument in the government today is the extension of unemployment benefits. Looks like Obama wants to borrow more money from overseas to pay for the extension of unemployment to 99 weeks. 99 weeks! That’s 2 fucking years! Get off your ass and start looking at different jobs outside your field, possibly lower paying ones, maybe *GASP* even a job that is “beneath” you! Obama, if you want to extend unemployment coverage, how about if you pay it out of the unspent billions of “stimulus” money you are sitting on?

It’s time someone runs for president on the platform that “I will veto every bill out of congress until they submit to me a balanced budget and line item veto amendment” We need to get this country under control. People need to wake up and stop being such sheep, it’s time you saw you are being led by wolves.