Archive for July, 2007
The Caselman Air Machine Gun
A correspondent sent me the links to the following videos. An air powered machine gun that fires 32 caliber bullets at a decent rate and velocity. Sounds intriguing, to say the least. And the videos look interesting too. The “Home Gun Smith” has the plans for sale on their site.
Here’s more info from the e-mail I received:
The CASELMAN works under 3.000 psi air; muzzle velocity is 790-800 fps (in .308/7.65mm, .355/9mm, and .451 calibers); rate of fire 600 rpm; with a single air charge it´ll shot 100-105 times within this range of power; in .451 caliber, using 225 grains bullets (NOT round balls) it´s muzzle energy is 311 foot pounds. We can be sure it is as accurate as the best closed-bolt submachineguns of the same caliber, using similar (pistol) bullets, something like 100-120 meters. It is a closed-bolt weapon, and since airguns are ever more accurate than any firearm, it is not hard to imagine that. Of course if we pick the best bullet (weight, profile, hardness) to our rifling path and barrell lenght, and we build with the utmost care the gun, magazines, and load with care each magazine, we´ll get even better accuracy with the Caselman AMG.
Posted in 
Don’t blame me!
Thanks to Sarge Sargent for his article on Integral Locks in firearms. I don’t care for the hideous, worthless, useless abominations myself, but perhaps I understate my position. However, as I read his article I was struck by the similarity of his views on the subject of internal locks and my own position on political issues. I’ve gotten into hot water over my views on the Republican Party and the vast majority of the presidential candidates that are being offered up by various parts of the GOP for our approval in 2008.
Now, how can one get from internal locks to presidential politics and find a connection? My brain works differently from most I suppose. 
So, here’s a few excerpts from Sarge’s article and how they reflect my own views on political issues.
Sarge writes:
Note to manufacturers supplying the US firearms market-I will NOT buy ANY firearm with an Integral Locking System.
I could very well write: “Note to politicians supplying presidential candidates for the US of A – I will NOT vote for any candidate who supports the homosexual/lesbian agenda, abortion, violations of the second amendment of the US constitution or higher taxes for any tax bracket.
Sarge also states:
The Emperor never likes to be told that he’s parading around bare-ass naked. You’ll catch some flak from folks who contend that we should be grateful, and buy whatever the gunmakers produce.
Yep, the same holds true with the political emperors as well. When one points out that a certain party’s current crop of money grubbing politicians leaves a lot to be desired the typical reaction is “Well, if THE OTHER party were in control you’d REALLY be sorry!” As if it matters which party is violating the US constitution. The US Constitution was written to give direction to our nation – not to be circumvented and ignored by self serving politicians.
Sarge continues:
You’ll also hear the excuse that the poor manufacturers are just installing IL’s because of, or in anticipation of, legislation requiring them on guns ‘approved’ for sale to the public.
People also seek excuses for the sorry crop of politicians currently infesting our nation’s capitol. They say things like “They are only reflecting their voter base.” – Yeah, right. Like when folks are OPPOSED to higher taxes -and they pass them anyway. Or when folks are calling for an end to our open door “secured” borders – and they try to pass guarantees of citizenship to those who have violated our nation’s laws as illegal aliens residing within our borders contrary to our nation’s laws. Time after time the US Congress ignores and tramples on the Constitution – and folks still say “That’s OK, they’re not as bad as THE OTHER PARTY.” Giuliani, Romney, etc openly support(ed) abortion and homosexuality and we’re told “That’s OK. They’re still not THE OTHER PARTY” as if it matters what side of the aisle one sits while supporting issues which make our founding fathers spin in their graves – not to mention the opinion of He Who made us a nation.
Sarge warns:
Stand By For Guilt Trip #12,788…
I can hear the howling already- “What? You’re actually proposing that we withhold our business from already-embattled gun-makers who are still suffering under under Clinton-era lawsuits, etc.?
The same holds true for the “Vote Republican even though they’re liberals in RINO clothing” crowd. I’ve heard it, time after time: “What? Vote third party? You’re proposing we not reward the GOP for betraying our trust by voting for them?” Uh, yeah. That’s what I’m suggesting. Just like Sarge mentions, we’ve got to hit them where it hurts. By voting for left leaning candidates we are saying “Serve us what filth you want and we’ll swallow it – no problem!”.
So, what if we DO decide to vote “third party” or simply annul our votes – thus stating “None of the above”? We’re saying “Treat us with respect. You are OUR servants, OUR representatives – you MUST do as we ask or you will not be sent back to Washington.” By demanding that the GOP give us a solid, conservative candidate we are saying “No more RINOs, we want TRUE conservative candidates!”
What if this means that “THE OTHER PARTY” gets into power? It’s NOT MY FAULT! My vote does NOT support homosexuality, abortion, abridgment of the right to self defense nor higher taxes. After all, one’s vote should be for that person who represents one’s values. And Giulianni, Romney, etc do NOT represent my values. It’s a matter of the GOP needing to re-examine its values and deciding to either REALLY become the conservative party again or to join forces with “The Other Party” and quit the pretense.
The last time I checked the US Constitution, the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. And I do NOT consent to the policies that most of the front runners in the GOP are in favor of. If that means that THE OTHER PARTY gets power then that means that the GOP should have thought about offering us something different.
Here I’ve seen folks set up one more arepa stand or one more corner hot dog stand rather than seeking something different, a niche of their own. And I’ve seen the GOP become so much like THE OTHER PARTY that it’s hard to distinguish between them. Homosexuality, abortion, higher taxes, bigger government and unconscionable infringements on the second amendment are part of both parties today. The only “difference” I see is in the rate of attrition.
So, blame me if you want – but as long as the GOP offers candidates that are merely mild versions of THE OTHER PARTY I’ll abstain, thank you very much. I refuse to eat manure and proclaim it to be pudding. Nor will I vote for those who represent that which I oppose – no matter WHAT side of the aisle they sit on or “represent”.
Folks continually say “But you MUST vote for the lesser of two evils!” Uh, no. No you don’t. There’s no reason to encourage EITHER party to keep giving us substandard candidates. Those who vote “for the lesser of two evils” are still voting for evil and are guilty of encouraging those who serve up unprincipled candidates for our consideration. Those who vote “for the lesser of two evils”, of course point their fingers at those of us who refuse to do so and blame us for THE OTHER PARTY winning. It’s kind of like the US automobile companies blaming the consumers for their problems when the US consumers started purchasing higher quality, more fuel efficient foreign made vehicles. Don’t blame those of us who will NOT vote for a liberal in conservative “clothing”. Blame those who allowed such scum to pose as a conservative in the first place!
An expert, on why we need to disarm everyone…
Well, here you have it – the reason why everyone should be disarmed. After all, weapons are dangerous to people like this guy. It’s logical that they should be banned, prohibited, forbidden. Thanks, Hobie, for bringing this to my attention. I’m VERY convinced now!
Gun Free Zones – the answer to “Gun Violence”
Thanks to Hobie for bringing this video to my attention on his own blog. Really, why hasn’t anyone thought of this before? It’s so simple, ANYONE can use this method to put a stop to crimes committed with firearms!
Airport “security”
For some time (2001) I’ve been fed up with supposed “security measures” that do little except inconvenience honest, law abiding travelers. The steadfast refusal to recognize where the attacks on US airplanes originate is inconceivable. Feeling up white, christian grandmothers while allowing muslim men to walk through “security” unmolested is asinine – at best. I’ve often observed that there are many ways around the “security checkpoints” if a group is serious about doing us harm. It turns out that folks from inside the industry believe as I do – that the wrong things are being done and that a new look should be taken at the issue. Thanks to Hot Air for posting the article on airline security.
Recipe for a long, happy life
There’s an article on the three known British survivors of World War I (“The Great War” or “The War To End Wars”). One of the three, Bill Stone, gives his “recipe for a long, happy life”…
ex-Royal Navy stoker Bill Stone, 106, the last known ex-serviceman, living in Britain, to have served in both world wars.
He revealed his recipe for a long, happy life. “There are three reasons I’m still living – clean living, a contented mind and faith in the Lord. I’m a lucky man.”
Looks like he’s got it pretty well figured out!
The Phenomenon of Praise
The following quote is taken from today’s Brief from The Patriot Post.
“Bulls don’t praise cows, let alone their Creator. Explaining the phenomenon of praise is a real challenge for the Darwinian; it doesn’t appear to confer any particular advantage in that ruthless struggle for survival we’re always hearing about. I can understand why atheists think religion does a lot of evil, because sometimes it surely does. But they never explain why man wastes so much time and energy in activities they insist are pointless and have no biological utility. If we found all the cattle in the pasture dancing and mooing in unison, wouldn’t we be curious about why they were behaving in this extraordinary fashion? I suppose killing your own children makes some sort of sense from an atheistic and Darwinian point of view. If survival is a ruthless competition, your kids are your competitors, right? No wonder Darwin’s legions are in favor of this ‘choice’.” —Joseph Sobran
Googling the Bible
Well, Google-earthing the Bible? Anyway, today I came across a nifty web page, “Bible Geocoding” It’s over on the Open Bible
website. Our internet connection’s a bit flaky today, neither Yahoo! nor MSN Messenger programs are logging on and Google Earth’s not making a connection either so I’ll have to wait ’til later to truly surf around. Weird. Anyway, the page referenced above has a number of .kmz files (Google Earth’s pushpin locater links) linked on it. You can download the .kmz links to the whole Bible’s identifiable places or you can scroll down the page and select according to individual books or chapters. We’ve found Google Earth to be fun. It allows you to zoom in on various parts of the world. We used it to get a feel for an area we were going to hunt last year (2006) and we’ve also used it to locate our house from the air and to see where places are in relation to each other. It’s a nifty, free for the download, tool. And now, with the links to Bible places, it promises to be even more useful!
A look at intra-islam terrorism
While the western press pays a lot of attention to the islamic attacks on foreign/western troops, not much attention is given to the widespread intra-muslim fighting. Some mention may be made about the Sunni or the Shi’ite factions, but little is published as to WHY they are at each other’s throats. Well, today I listened to an interesting interview by Erick Stakelbeck of a former jihadi, Dr. Tawfik Hamid. Towards the end of the interview published on Hotair this week, Dr. Hamid mentions why there are so few (if any) suicide bombers of Shi’ite persuasion. It turns out that the Shía branch of Islam allows for a “temporary marriage for enjoyment” (lasting one hour) to the members of this belief system. In other words, the young Shi’ites do not have to blow themselves up in order to obtain sexual gratification. And that also explains why the Sunni branch is looking to destroy them – they have corrupted themselves by adhering to such liberal interpretations and practices. The Sunni apparently see them much the same way that Fundamentalists in the US look upon certain “mainline denominations” which not only condone but even encourage a wide array of immoral activity amongst their adherents. Some have even gone along similar paths as the Sunni by bombing abortion clinics and killing people they consider to be abominations.
Now, I do not condone nor approve the liberal tendencies found in the US, Europe and many other parts of the world. I believe strongly in the sanctity of marriage and the holiness of the sexual union within the bonds of marriage. Nor do I accept the sexual union of members of the same sex to be “marriage”. But if one wants to cleanse the world of such things, little good can be done by way of violence. The Bible teaches us to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice” (emphasis added to distinguish from the suicide bombing mentality of Islam) and to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind”. (Romans 12:1-2) There must be a change of “heart” – a different way of thinking – in order to bring about lasting change. That is where we must focus – on helping folks to think through the consequences of their actions and to choose a different way of living because they want to, not because we’ll kill them if they think or act differently from us.
And they say that believing in a Creator makes no sense …
Lately I’ve been “listening” to what atheists and evolutionists have to say. Atheists are pretty much stuck with evolution but not all evolutionists are atheists. Some are agnostic, some are “theistic evolutionists”. It’s a weird world out there, to say the least. Anyway, I was reading on Michelle Malkin’s site Hot Air yesterday. They posted a couple of videos about people who had converted from “Christianity” to “Islam”. The fun part was reading the comments. A lot of agnostics and atheists hang out there and their comments can be quite revealing as to their attitude towards those who have a strong belief in a Creator. It can be amusing to read their condescending comments about stereotypical ideas they have towards belief in a deity.
JayHaw Phrenzie wrote:
I do not see how these people can believe that Mohammed rode to Heaven on a winged horse when clearly a burning bush wrote the ten commandments and a virgin woman gave birth to gods son who dies for sins that you were responsible for (even though you weren’t even conceived) but later came back to life and apparantly disappeared again right after that so that he could come back just in time for the armageddon that is coming after all good christians rise through the air to join god on Mars or Venus or wherever they rise up to.
It takes an Atheist to truly appreciate how deluded both sides are on this one.
atadOFF added:
my invisible man can beat up your invisible man!
While RushBaby chimed in with
My Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) can beat your invisible man!
Stephen M wrote:
It takes an agnostic to get a snapshot of the entire melee.
JayHaw Phrenzie returned with:
It takes an agnostic to get a snapshot of the entire melee.
I look at agnostics the same way as I do moderates. LAZY!!!Pick a damn side!!!
This knee-jerk reaction of insulting Christianity on a thread is really simplistic, juvenile and completely irrelevant to a topic about why a person’s conversion is considered network-worthy news.
Esthier on July 5, 2007 at 2:27 PM
You can insult my favorite fictional chracter all you want and I won’t get mad.
If I really and truly believe that all religous people are deluded fools that rely on fantasy to gget through their lives (and I do, BTW), then why do I have to show deference for your fantasy?
If you see a deluded person walking down the street talking to his invisible friend, are you required to respect his belief?
I have no respect for any religion and I will not pretend like they deserve any respect.
All religions are shams. Some are more blatant than others (Scientology), some are more toxic (Islam) than others, some have had a few beneficial effects (Christianity), but they all have one thing in common.
They were all invented by mankind as a way controlling people. And they are all bullshit.
Someone converting from Islam to Christianity or vice versa means no more to me than someone deciding to watch Harry Potter instead of the Lord of the Rings.
Personally, I find such reading to be educational. A look at how people think, or don’t, can help one to understand them and the world around us all. The all too typical atheistic snobbery shown by folks who “have reason on their side” actually shows how deluded they themselves can be. While looking down their noses at folks “who believe in an invisible man”, they themselves believe in a reasoning, thinking, planning nothingness. If indeed there is no creator (as atheists allege) then all we are left with is a non-personal, irrational process of evolution by sheer chance. And yet, the evolutionists refer to the Darwinian alleged process as though it were actually a person with the capability of choosing rationally from a variety of choices to bring about the desired outcome. In other words, they make the evolutionary process into a form of deity with the ability of rationalization and creation through purposely chosen means.
For example, Psychology Today published a little blurb that says:
It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.
Note the use “it is no coincidence” and “alternative means”. So the process wasn’t by chance (like evolution supposedly teaches) and since the women were covered from neck to toe then the “no coincidence process” purposely chose an “alternative means for women to advertise their youth”. And they say that belief in a creator is delusional? Belief in such a reasoning process of a non-personal evolutionary sequence is much more so!
And this is not the only such example. A prime example of this type of anthropomorphizing the “evolutionary process” (actually, making the supposedly non-personal process into a thinking, reasoning ‘being’) is found in an article from the New York Times, written by Dr. Patricia Brennan. Here are some excerpts taken from this article.
Part of the answer, she has discovered, has gone overlooked for decades. Male ducks may have such extreme genitals because the females do too. The birds are locked in an evolutionary struggle for reproductive success.
Somehow, generations of biologists had never noticed this anatomy before. Pondering it, Dr. Brennan came to doubt the conventional explanation for how duck phalluses evolved.
In some species of ducks, a female bonds for a season with a male. But she is also harassed by other males that force her to mate. “It’s nasty business. Females are often killed or injured,” Dr. Brennan said.
Species with more forced mating tend to have longer phalluses. That link led some scientists to argue that the duck phallus was the result of males’ competing with one another to fertilize eggs.
Dr. Brennan realized that scientists had made this argument without looking at the female birds. Perhaps, she wondered, the two sexes were coevolving, with elaborate lower oviducts driving the evolution of long phalluses.
If a male bird had a long phallus, the female tended to have a more elaborate lower oviduct. And if the male had a small phallus, the female tended to have a simple oviduct. “The correlation was incredibly tight,” Dr. Brennan said. “When you dissected one of the birds, it was really easy to predict what the other sex was going to look like.”
Dr. Brennan argues that elaborate female duck anatomy evolves as a countermeasure against aggressive males. “Once they choose a male, they’re making the best possible choice, and that’s the male they want siring their offspring,” she said. “They don’t want the guy flying in from who knows where. It makes sense that they would develop a defense.”
Dr. Brennan suspects that when the females of a species evolved better defenses, they drove the evolution of male phalluses. “The males have to step up to produce a longer or more flexible phallus,” she said.
Other scientists have documented a similar coevolution of genitals in flies and other invertebrates. But Dr. Brennan’s study is the clearest example of this arms race in vertebrates.
Interesting how she refers to an “evolutionary struggle”. As though the process were fighting against itself. As though the ducks could choose what characteristics, what set of genes they wanted to be hatched with. Perhaps she believes in re-incarnation with a twist – you choose what improvements you want “for my next time around”! At any rate, the alternative to a Creator of the world makes no more sense, in fact it’s full of conjecture and supposition and is not based on fact. The logical alternative to the Dr.’s reasoning about “co-evolution” is that both the male and the female ducks were created by the same designer. That is why both the lower oviduct and the phallus are similar in length and design. Why did the Creator design them this way? That is a good question, and perhaps some of their ideas are similar to the reasoning behind the design – or maybe not. But to believe in a reasoning non-reason or chance is at least as hilarious as “believing in an invisible man”.