That’s Weird: DHS Wants 7,000 Scary Looking Rifles For Personal Defense

By William Teach January 27, 2013 – 8:13 am

In Liberal World, only The Government should be afforded guns. Because that worked well in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany

(The Blaze) The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Critics of such a ban on semi-automatic rifles are already arguing that the government is showing its hypocrisy by essentially saying they are good “personal defense” for them, but not for American citizens. When civilians own semi-automatic rifles, they somehow become “assault weapons.”

Like The Blaze writer Jason Howerton, I don’t have a problem with making sure DHS is properly armed to deal with whateverthehell it is they deal with nowadays. Probably people who fail to properly inflate their tires and look at Wooded Owls meanly. And lord knows that the government would never over-react and send in armed government employees. Let’s see, when terrorizing a small child. But, realistically, law enforcement at all levels does need proper weapons when they enter into a confined space.

Of course, this same government now wants to take the same right for personal protection away from citizens looking to protect themselves (along with hunting and shooting for fun) along with 30 round magazines. Were I to consider purchasing an “assault rifle” I would look for one that is very compact. I’d actually look at one like an MP5 or MP10 type, which are technically “submachine guns”, even when only semi-automatic, but there are also very compact rifles which fire the 5.56 round. Other people, with larger properties, might like a bigger weapon with more stopping power.

So, what have we learned? That The Government thinks that their employees should have protection, but the same Government is against law abiding citizens being similarly armed for their own protection.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: That’s Weird: DHS Wants 7,000 Scary Looking Rifles For Personal Defense »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Hooray, We’re Saved From Evil People Who Unlock Their Mobile Phones

By William Teach January 26, 2013 – 2:09 pm

Yes, you can now be fined big time and even do a stint in jail as a felony

(ABC News) You likely have a cellphone that you bought from a carrier, like AT&T, Verizon or Sprint, and that phone only works on that carrier’s cellular and data network — unless you “unlock” it.

That is a software process that allows the phone to work on other carriers if you put in a new SIM card or want to take the phone to another carrier for service.

If that sounds complicated to you and like something you wouldn’t bother with, then today’s news won’t matter to you. But if that’s something you’ve done before or have thought about doing, then you should know that starting today it is illegal to unlock a subsidized phone or tablet that’s bought through a U.S. carrier.

On one hand, I can agree and understand. The reason you sign a contract is because the carrier is selling you a phone that costs them anywhere from $100 to $400 more than what you pay for it. The contract allows them to recoup that money, which is marginal when it comes to talk plans (hence the reason they push data, text, and accessories for more revenue). Of course, once you have fulfilled the terms of your contract, you should be legally entitled to do whatever you want with the phone. Alas, no.

“Violations of the DMCA [unlocking your phone] may be punished with a civil suit or, if the violation was done for commercial gain, it may be prosecuted as a criminal act,” Brad Shear, a Washington, D.C.-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media and technology law, told ABC News. “A carrier may sue for actual damages or for statutory damages.”

The worst-case scenario for an individual or civil offense could be as much as a $2,500 fine. As for those planning to profit off of the act or a criminal offense — such as a cellphone reseller — the fine could be as high as $500,000 and include prison time.

Really, there’s not much going on in terms of switching. You can’t use an AT&T phone on Verizon or Sprint’s network, nor Verizon on Sprint, etc.. Different protocols. But, people may take an AT&T phone to T-Mobile. Or overseas. Or sell it to someone else. What this ruling is saying is that the phone you paid for can never be fully yours.

Read: Hooray, We’re Saved From Evil People Who Unlock Their Mobile Phones »

Posted in Web/Tech | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 26, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is a desert created because someone took an unnecessary fossil fueled flight, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Public Secrets, with a post on the EUSSR.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Hey, Ladies, You Can Now Share The Delight Of Childbirth With Your Husband

By William Teach January 26, 2013 – 11:29 am

Sounds like fun (via Caveman Circus)

Read: Hey, Ladies, You Can Now Share The Delight Of Childbirth With Your Husband »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Kathleen Parker: Women On The Front Lines Is A Bad Idea

By William Teach January 26, 2013 – 7:20 am

Surprisingly, Kathleen Parker makes some salient points

(Washington Post) It must be true what they say about women — that they are smarter, stronger, wiser and wilier than your average Joe.

How else could one explain the magical thinking that apparently has prompted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to abandon all reason and lift the ban on women in direct combat?

This is a terrible idea for reasons too numerous to list in this space, which forces me to recommend my 2008 book, “Save the Males,” in which I devote a chapter to the issue. The most salient point happens to be a feminist argument: Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival.

Kathleen points out that the arguments against women in front line combat roles has “nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism or dedication.”

We’re potentially talking about 18-year-old girls, notwithstanding their “adult” designation under the law. (Parents know better.) At least 18-year-old males have the advantage of being gassed up on testosterone, the hormone that fuels not just sexual libido but, more to the point, aggression. To those suffering a sudden onset of the vapors, ignore hormones at your peril.

Now, hold the image of your 18-year-old daughter, neighbor, sister or girlfriend as you follow these facts, which somehow have been ignored in the advancement of a fallacy. The fallacy is that because men and women are equal under the law, they are equal in all endeavors and should have all access to the same opportunities. This is true except when the opportunity requires certain characteristics. Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males — no small point in the field.

You’re also placing women and men in situations that could be very uncomfortable and cause issues with field unit cohesion. There is a difference in the biology of men and women (something that often has to be made clear to liberals). Of course, we do have to wait and see what the plan is for combat unit inclusion for women. We’ll surely see female inclusion in air units, particularly those flying over the field of combat (women typically can take more g forces than men, a benefit in a fighter jet) and in units such as artillery. But, what people like Parker and others are discussing is women in field combat units where they’re carrying a gun and assaulting the enemy directly. It can be simple things like being out on patrol and nature calling.

If the enemy is all around you — and you need every available person — that is one set of circumstances. To ask women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond understanding. This is not a movie or a game. Every objective study has argued against women in direct combat for reasons that haven’t changed.

And the military should not be a setting to test social programs for political expediency and points.

Read: Kathleen Parker: Women On The Front Lines Is A Bad Idea »

Posted in Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Court Blocks EPA Biofuels Mandate

By William Teach January 26, 2013 – 6:57 am

The big news on court decisions was about the Obama violating the Constitution when he made 3 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (which made Lawyers, Guns, and Money’s Scott Lemieux go barking moonbat with his headline). Yet, another was just as important but slid under the rada

(Daily Caller) A federal court delivered a serious blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s renewable fuel agenda, ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by mandating refiners use cellulosic biofuels, which isn’t commercially available.

The court sided with the country’s chief oil and gas lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, in striking down the 2012 EPA mandate that would have forced refineries to purchase more than $8 million in credits for 8.65 million of gallons of the cellulosic biofuel. However, none of the biofuel is commercially available.

“[W]e agree with API that EPA’s 2012 projection of cellulosic biofuel production was in excess of the agency’s statutory authority,” reads the court decision.

The problem here is that cellulosic biofuel doesn’t exist commercially

“We are glad the court has put a stop to EPA’s pattern of setting impossible mandates for a biofuel that does not even exist,” API Group Downstream Director Bob Greco said in a statement. “This absurd mandate acts as a stealth tax on gasoline with no environmental that could have ultimately burdened consumers.”

Instead of dealing with real environmental issues, the EPA has gone rogue (not something really new) and has over-involved itself in creating fuel mandates that provide no benefits for motorists (and can harm engine systems along with providing reduced power) and would increase the price of fuel, all in the name of “climate change”. And let’s not forget that all these biofuels tend to use massive amounts of water, increase the cost of food, and, in some cases, increase greenhouse gas output. In this particular case it was about mandating the purchase and use of a biofuel that didn’t exist.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Court Blocks EPA Biofuels Mandate »

Posted in Energy, Environment, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Woman Arrested For Refusing To Allow A Smart Meter To Be Installed

By William Teach January 25, 2013 – 3:56 pm

You know, like in her own home. Her domicile. Her property

(The Blaze) Jennifer Stahl has been a strong advocate against the smart meter program in Naperville, Ill., for the last two years. The issue came to a head Wednesday afternoon when she was arrested while refusing to let the utility workers install the controversial device.

“I was protecting my property,” Stahl said in an interview with TheBlaze Thursday afternoon. “I felt my emotion was like a momma bear protecting her babies.”

Stahl was at a friend’s house when she received the call from her husband that the utility workers had arrived. She was home within 15 minutes and saw they were at a neighbor’s house. Her neighbors were not home, but they had signs stating they did not permit the new meter to be installed.

Stahl said she waited on her porch for the workers to arrive at her house. When they did, she refused them access to her backyard through her locked gate. The police — including the police supervisor, a sergeant — were called. Stahl said the sergeant explained the workers had authorization to access the meter, but Stahl stood her ground saying she didn’t approve it. The sergeant continued to try and convince Stahl to comply and said if she didn’t, he’d arrest her.

And how did the city respond? They cut the lock to her fence. And when she wouldn’t move away, they arrested her. For refusing access to her own property. Which they had no warrant for. But, hey, who needs a warrant?

“The city has always had and maintains the right to access our equipment, and today we were simply exercising that right,” City Manager Doug Kreiger told the Chicago Tribune, which reported Wednesday’s events.

So, the city now has a right to come on to a homeowners property at any point, regardless of the wishes of the homeowner, without a warrant, to install something the property owner does not want?

BTW, a second person was arrested for the same thing Wednesday.

You might be saying “what’s the problem with smart meters?” You might want to read this. Though, I will say that the part about health issues might perhaps be a bit overblown, especially considering the post mentions cell phones causing brain tumors, which has not been medically confirmed.

Read: Woman Arrested For Refusing To Allow A Smart Meter To Be Installed »

Posted in Current Affairs, Energy | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 25, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…if all you see is snow that only occurs when it’s hot outside, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girl’s Blog, with a post on how Hillary disgraced the nation.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: Obama Supporting Warmists Want Someone Else To Pay For Fixing Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach January 25, 2013 – 11:01 am

These Warmists really, really, really want something done about hotcoldwetdry. But, having their own money pay for it? Not so much. Which fits right in with the narrative I’ve been expounding on here at Pirate’s Cove for years, namely, Warmists always want Someone Else to pay (via The Lonely Conservative)

Read: Surprise: Obama Supporting Warmists Want Someone Else To Pay For Fixing Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Feinstein’s “Gun Control” Law Goes For Broke, Treats Gun Owners As Criminals

By William Teach January 25, 2013 – 7:30 am

It is more than likely going nowhere. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, himself a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights (hey, one good mark for him), may not even bring it up for a vote, instead allowing it to languish in committee. And, if he does bring it up, he may not have the votes. And, if it somehow manages to pass, it’ll die in the House. That doesn’t matter to DiFi, who’s intent on adding massive restrictions to the guns law abiding citizens can own

(NRA) According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

The legislation would effectively ban any rifle and shotgun with a pistol grip.

It would ban any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

It would also ban any handgun that has a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Every magazine that holds more than 10 rounds must be stamped by the manufacturer. But, it also bans the manufacturing of any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. Because 10 is safe, and 11 isn’t.

Any scary looking weapon assault rifle must be turned in to The Government upon death of the owner.

And then there is this

Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

This treats people who legally purchased their scary looking weapons as criminals, regarding fingerprints and photos. And sure seems to retroactively levy a tax in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3, ex post facto laws.

No word on whether DiFi will do away with any armed security for herself and her office.

Read: Feinstein’s “Gun Control” Law Goes For Broke, Treats Gun Owners As Criminals »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 9 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove