2011SVT

There are refurb Dell 620s which are very popular/solid machines available < $300 all over the place (Meijer's, Walmart, Newegg, etc.) Was thinking of picking one up to use as a standalone base for my security system.

I can see a problem... Of course, absent some significant amount of entitlement reform - cuts to discretionary programs including defense alone won't get the job done.

A big issue is that if ANYTHING makes it to the floor, an amendment can slip in there and everyone goes "WTF?" after the fact but by then it's too late. I point you to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act in 1986. A current example is a bill which I believe would have wide support is giving a tax break to off duty LE who take second jobs as 'Resource Officers' in schools. (Pat Tiberi just introduced this otherwise very fine idea). Imagine some similar procedural douchebaggery like the Hughes Amendment where "and BTW no magazines > 7 rounds" gets slipped in, it gets voted out of the House, the Senate jumps on it with both feet and the Prez signs. Then try to get that fixed.... We have to be really, really careful here.

Nice. Especially like the in cab sound.

I am actually going to have two separate systems with adjacent handles for that very thing. Would rather just squirt the engine good if that's what it needs than ruin my nav unit in the process :fuuuu:

Will be upping the ante as it were - more power, more speed, more track time. This has changed my thinking about some of the personal safety minimums I am comfortable with. I had not heard that about Halon. I thought it's advantage was there was zero mess and that even electronics could be recovered without cleaning. I have seen arguments that some have made that it is corrosive but then others have said it is chemically inert in that regard. (?). However, everyone seems to agree that you can't breathe it so using it as a cockpit extinguisher could be problematic. Yeah, best thing to do is not have a fire

Working on a 'multi venue' racing platform for next season. In addition to an 8.5 cert roll cage, racing seat with halo, etc. etc., I am wanting to put in a fire suppression system for the cockpit and engine bay. Been doing a fair bit of reading and it looks like both Halon and FE-36 have some big drawbacks (e.g. you cant breathe, no 'reignition' protection, the gas can easily just blow away if you are still moving) vs. the aqueous foam (AFFF) type which have none of those problems but are a mess to clean up (maybe the least of your worries at the point the fire has reached your jimmies). Was wondering if you guys had any thoughts on the subject? Thanks! - Chuck

Cool. Thanks for sharing!

An AR wouldn't cause dat azz to jiggle nearly so much. :masturboy:

CR guild name?:fa:

Cliffs: Psychopath shoots up an elementary school using semi-automatic weapons. Second Amendment opponents see an opportunity to use the tragedy to advance their agenda. While pretending to be all for the 2A, Progressives introduce proposals, executive orders, and legislation attempting to ban the arms the 2A was meant to protect namely "militia arms and those in common use" (e.g. semi-automatic riles, pistols, and shotguns) In a preview of things to come nationally, the State of New York, already a bastion of peace through gun control, passes even more restrictive controls - limiting magazine capacity to 7 rounds (which impacts most semi auto rifles and handguns). In a 'hoisted by your own petard' moment, the hastily rammed through legislation also makes police subject to the same law. :lolguy: A number of people are taking exception with all this fuckery.

Dear Representative Beatty, This week, Senator Feinstein along with some half-dozen of her colleagues introduced a broad "assault weapons" ban in the U.S. Senate. Vice President Biden followed up with a presentation on the administration's latest proposals and asked us to contact our representatives. I would like you to know that I am in general support of proposals which improve our ability to perform effective background checks and support providing even private individuals a way to access the background check system. States need to do a better job of reporting 'prohibited individuals' into the system. I also support efforts to improve our response to mental health issues BUT on a state/local level vs. creation of new federal programs or mandates. Our focus should be on how we support the states in their efforts. The reality between the states may be very different and I think it's important that they are able to tailor their response vs. a 'one size fits all' approach. Beyond this, I do NOT support any attempt to further circumscribe the civil rights of the American people. Not only are 'bans' of any type completely ineffective and therefore bad policy, most importantly they are incompatible with the language and purposes of the Second Amendment. Contrary to what the President and Vice-President often state, the Second Amendment is not about hunting and target shooting but instead recognizes the individual right to protect self, family, and country from both internal and external threats. You cannot say you are a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms and then attempt to tear it down, hiding behind this deliberate misrepresentation. I urge you then to uphold your oath to support and defend the Constitution by voting 'no' on ANY legislation eclipsing the free and lawful exercise of EVERY civil right recognized and guaranteed by that document. Thank you. Best Regards,

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feinstein-gun-control-bill-exempt-government-officials_697732.html

It proves nothing of the sort. If anything, current direction especially in cases like Heller is leading us back to the "plain language with supporting contempory text" way of understanding what was meant. So you believe the the framers wrote the Constitution so it could mean... anything? Really? So you're cool with the new 'low information' majority or 5 members of SCOTUS restricting your rights as a citizen (human being, really) at their whim? You mean your judicial activism. The words "liberty" and "equal protection" have not changed. They are bedrock principles and easily understood and not meant to be "malleable". What has changed over time is who those terms apply to as society has changed. Amazingly enough, the founders put a mechanism in for that called AMENDMENTS. If you'll take a look, you'll notice how those have mostly changed the nature of rights and liberty in this country in an expansive way and for the better. Which is the LEGAL way to change the Constitution vs. the illegal way that you are advocating where you and your "pragmatists" try to change what the meaning of the word "is" is (or in this case "shall not be infringed").

^^^ This As we were discussing in another thread, there is no new information *and* it seems suspicious that there are ZERO video shots, even stills of Lanza from a school that had cameras everywhere. That would easily settle what weapons he was carrying. Think about Columbine where pictures of those two poltroons were on the news that evening. Why the difference?

Couldn't diasgree more. I believe the key elements of both of those cases affirmed an 'originalist' interpretation. Miller spoke to the types of arms the 2A covered - namely militia types arms and those in common use (the sawed off shotgun in question being neither so the conviction stood). Heller affirmed that the 2A was an individual right and that overly restrictive regulations which, in action, abrograted the 2A's purpose to provide an individual a means of self protection were null and void. These interpretations were consistent with both the language of the 2A and with the intent (history is replete with writings from the authors and signers of the Constitution that make their feelings and purposes for spelling out the natural right to self defense in our Bill of Rights.) I think positing the framers were ambiguous "exactly because they recognized the reality of modernization" isn't correct either. The Constitution is written in plain language and can be construed to mean exactly what it says and, as I pointed out previously, there is a wealth of contemporary writings to let you know what those guys were thinking when it was written. A clear process for amendment was provided to handle the future.

An interesting perspective:

The latest from Utah: http://washingtonexaminer.com/utah-sheriffs-warn-obama-of-deadly-war-over-guns/article/2519176 that's more like it. :fuckyeah:

Not the be all/end all they used to be. Were good vacuums but been eclipsed by better technology. We have a Kirby that sits in basement storage and two Dysons that get used every day. Kind of like my old wife who was a big girl but would get the job done with enough pushing or my new wife who is smaller, lighter, more powerful, and only requires fingertip control. :gabe:

Whenever the subject has come up I have drilled my youngest kids on the 'Eddie Eagle' rules (they get the same thing at summer safety camp too). I figured there was plenty of time for learning how to handle firearms later. For now, I want them to regard them as 'child dangerous' and not to touch, leave the area, and report. That said, my oldest of my younger set turned 9 this year and like Ralphie he got a Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas. Unlike Ralphie (and me when I was a kid) he did not get turned loose unsupervised in his PJs to go shoot his eye out. I worked with him on 4 simple rules of firearms handling until he could repeat and say why each was important: 1. Don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. 2. Keep your finger off/away from the trigger until ready to fire. 3. Treat every gun as loaded at all times. 4. Be aware of your target and what's beyond it. I know there are others that are important but I figure if I can get these 4 to be second nature, then the risk of accident goes way down. Then we sat down to work on the mechanics and he did really well for his first time

The only time you'll hear from the MSM is when there is something sensational to report and/or when there is something that fits the liberal/progressive narrative (e.g. advances The Agenda).

This is how it works. Britain's 'common sense' firearms laws through 2007 (courtesy of the BBC): The right to bear arms was guaranteed in the 1689 Bill of Rights, in which the new King William of Orange enshrined a series of rights for his subjects - Catholics were famously excluded. This was enshrined in common law during the early years of the US, and later informed the second amendment of the US constitution, which explains why the right to bear arms remains so strong a factor in America. 'Driving factor' Meanwhile back in Britain - where hostile natives and rogue bears - were less of an issue, few people took up the right to carry arms. But there remained no legal restrictions on gun ownership throughout the Victorian era. Victorian crime image Gun laws were almost non-existent in Victorian time In 1870 a licence was introduced for anyone who wanted to carry a gun outside their home. But there were no restrictions on keeping a firearm indoors. Mild restrictions came into force with the 1903 Pistols Act which denied ownership to anyone who was "drunken or insane". It also required a licence for firearms with a barrel shorter than nine inches - what we nowadays refer to as handguns. Prior to World War I there were a quarter of a million licensed firearms in private hands across the country. But after soldiers returned from the trenches the government became concerned about the number of weapons they had brought home with them. The establishment's fears were heightened by the rise of socialist and anarchist movements and the 1917 Russian revolution. The 1911 Sidney Street siege in east London - which ended with a bloody gunfight between police and a gang of Latvian anarchists - underlined the dangers. Further restricted The result was the 1920 Firearms Act, which introduced a registration system and allowed local police forces to deny a license to anyone who was "unfitted to be trusted with a firearm". Restrictions were tightened with the 1937 Firearms Act, which banned most fully automatic weapons. The 1967 Criminal Justice Act required licenses - but not registration - for shotguns. Hard on its heels, the 1968 Firearms Act consolidated existing laws and gave the Home Office the right to set fees for shotgun licenses. Two tragedies nine years apart were to see the law further restricted. Following the Hungerford massacre in August 1987 - when Michael Ryan killed 16 people and himself with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun - pressure was put on the government to tighten the law. Hungerford gunman Michael Ryan Fresh laws followed Michael Ryan's killing of 16 in Hungerford The result was the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles; weapons which fire explosive ammunition; short shotguns with magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles. Registration was also made mandatory for shotguns, which were required to be kept in secure storage. Even stricter controls were introduced after the 1996 killings in Dunblane, when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 primary school children and their teacher with four legally-held pistols. The Conservative government drew up legislation banning handguns above .22 calibre. But following their general election victory, Labour introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which outlawed .22s as well. More recently, in response to a series of high-profile shootings, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 was introduced. This made it an offence to manufacture, import or sell realistic imitation guns; doubled the maximum sentence for carrying an imitation gun to 12 months, and made it a crime to fire an air weapon beyond the boundary of any premises. It also increased the age limit for buying or possessing an air weapon from 17 to 18. And that's how you go from an absolute right of the people 1689 to zero rights in 2007. Since 1968 in Britain, self defense has not been recognized as a valid reason to request a gun license. Great Britain now has the highest violent crime rate in the EU and one of the highest in the industrialized world, and is effectively a "surveillance society" that Orwell would have easily recognized as his fiction come to life. All done one "common sense" restriction and one sensational opportunity after another until nothing is left. It seems harsh but there really are two choices here. Either our rights are God given and recognized in the bedrock of our governing documents and doctrine or they are not. The words "shall not be infringed" mean what they say or is everything is subject to a vote?

One of the most interesting points here is that the school was completely blanketed in video surveillance. Not one frame of that video has been made available where we had entire reams of video available through the media the day after Columbine. Makes you wonder....

Story today on Breitbart concerning Obama administration continued stonewalling on F&F: Holder Begs Court to Stop Document Release on Fast and Furious Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law. Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.” The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control. “It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” Fitton said in a statement. “Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.” The only justification Holder uses to ask the court to indefinitely delay Judicial Watch’s suit is that there’s another lawsuit ongoing for the same documents – one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Judicial Watch has filed a brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to stay. As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was voting Holder into contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigators by failing to turn over tens of thousands of pages of Fast and Furious documents, Obama asserted the executive privilege over them. The full House of Representatives soon after voted on a bipartisan basis to hold Holder in contempt. There were two parts of the contempt resolution. Holder was, and still is, in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress. The criminal resolution was forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen–who works for Holder–for prosecution. Despite being technically required by law to bring forth criminal charges against Holder, under orders from Holder’s Department of Justice Machen chose to ignore the resolution. The second part of the contempt resolution–civil contempt of Congress–allowed House Republicans to hire legal staff to challenge President Obama’s assertion of the executive privilege. That lawsuit remains ongoing despite Holder’s and the DOJ’s attempt to dismiss it and settle it. It’s unclear what’s in the documents Obama asserted privilege over, but the president’s use of the extraordinary power appears weak. There are two types of presidential executive privilege: the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Use of the presidential communications privilege would require that the president himself or his senior-most advisers were involved in the discussions. Since the president and his cabinet-level officials continually claim they had no knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious until early 2011 when the information became public–and Holder claims he didn’t read the briefing documents he was sent that outlined the scandal and how guns were walking while the operation was ongoing–Obama says he’s using the less powerful deliberative process privilege. The reason why Obama’s assertion of that deliberative process privilege over these documents is weak at best is because the Supreme Court has held that such a privilege assertion is invalidated by even the suspicion of government wrongdoing. Obama, Holder, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and virtually everyone else involved in this scandal have admitted that government wrongdoing actually took place in Operation Fast and Furious. In Fast and Furious, the ATF “walked” about 2,000 firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. That means through straw purchasers they allowed sales to happen and didn’t stop the guns from being trafficked even though they had the legal authority to do so and were fully capable of doing so. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens–estimates put it around at least 300–were killed with these firearms.

Executive orders count right?