Source: Accepted Recommendations of the United Nations by the Current Obama Administration
Accepted Recommendations of the United Nations by the Current Obama Administration
Posted: March 15, 2016 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedKasich is a douchenozzle-David Codrea is the only one who seems to recall that “mistake” made by the then Senator.
Too bad there’s enough people who like the douchenozzle well enough to allow him to win Ohio.
I seem to recall the NRA giving douchenozzle an “A” rating when he ran for governor…
Review of Class I of the Feeding Your Tribe Now and During a SHTF Event Series of Classes
Posted: March 14, 2016 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedFrom Jacob,who attended Saturday’s class… ( I just copied and pasted his e-mail,as I’m not going to give out Student’s contact info) Class I – The Basics, review We ended up…
Source: Review of Class I of the Feeding Your Tribe Now and During a SHTF Event Series of Classes
That was the question Woody had to ask himself in January, 2010, when a massive earthquake trashed the hotel where he and his USCG Mobile Training Team were staying in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
He quickly discovered that when you haven’t planned and rehearsed, you’re down to improvising, at best; and pulling it out of your fourth point of contact, at worst.
Read the rest @ Weapons Man here
New quote of the year-hell of the century.
***
…If you want to “reform” this government from within, get extra ammo, extra fuel for the wood-chipper, and pack a lunch…
***
Review of Class I of the Feeding Your Tribe Now and During a SHTF Event Series of Classes
Posted: March 13, 2016 by gamegetterII in UncategorizedFrom Jacob,who attended Saturday’s class…
( I just copied and pasted his e-mail,as I’m not going to give out Student’s contact info)
Class I – The Basics, review
We ended up having six people attend the class, as two had an emergency and had to cancel last minute. I drove 3 hours to attend – others came from much further away. One couple gave up a day of their vacation to attend the class. With such a small class, we had the opportunity to see more than just what was on the class schedule. We had a wide range of cooking experience amongst the class – some had little experience cooking, while others were accomplished home cooks or had catering jobs in the past. The purpose of the first class was to cover the basics – proper food safety and how to make soups/stews and simple recipes for large groups, using typical kitchen equipment. Next class is more about food prep in an austere environment.
I have a background in the food industry, so I expected most of this class to be a dry review for me before class 2 and 3. Larry provided us with study materials over email in the days leading up to the class, so we didn’t have to spend much time talking through the hand-washing/cleaning and sanitizing/cross-contamination topics of food safety and were able to spend more time cooking. We ate A LOT! Larry and his team already had the lunch meal started when we arrived, and he walked us through the prep work that had already been done and the finishing process for the meal. The class was on the hook for making dinner. Several points kept coming up throughout the class: you need good food and enough of it during a crisis (2 thousand calories doesn’t cut it – try 4 to 5 thousand for stressful situations), fat is good – it makes you feel full longer and is high-calorie, luke-warm food is NOT safe (even less so after several hours), don’t waste food and time making fancy/extravagant dishes – reuse the scraps/peelings/bones to flavor soups, plan meals ahead so leftover parts from today will be part of tomorrow’s meal, and all the cookbooks and videos in the world won’t do any good if you don’t get in the kitchen/in the woods and PRACTICE! If you don’t have simple dishes that all work together and make large portions, you’re wasting time and energy that you won’t have when things go bad.
I felt the class was worth the cost and the drive, and plan to attend the next two classes. I heard likewise from others in the class. While we all shared meals together and talked about different things, one phrase kept coming to mind: “Meatspace, baby!”.
Thanks to Larry for a great class and to all that attended with me. It was great to meet other like-minded folks who are making it a priority to get out and learn skills. See you at the next class!
Flawed Study from the Prestigious Lancet Exposes Broader Problems in Anti-gun Research
Posted: March 13, 2016 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery, UncategorizedTags: 2nd amendment, anti-gun asshattery, firearms, Gun Control, Gun Rights, second amendment
The anti-gun press couldn’t contain their excitement. A new study published in the UK’s prestigious The Lancet medical journal purported to show that certain gun control measures could lead to incredible reductions in the firearm mortality rate. CNN blared, “Study: 3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%,” the L.A. Times touted, “Aiming to drive down gun deaths? Put these three laws on the books, researchers say,” and the Christian Science Monitor proclaimed, “Federal gun control laws could reduce deaths up to 90 percent, study says.” What these outlets weren’t anticipating is that the study has proven so flawed that the most influential members of the anti-gun research community have been forced to denounce it; lest the public realize the larger problems attendant to the entire field of study.
The controversial study is titled, “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study,” and was authored by a team led by epidemiologist Bindu Kalesan of Boston University’s Department of Medicine and School of Public Health. The researchers attempted to determine the effects that more than two dozen different types of gun control measures – ranging from fingerprinting requirements to child access laws – had on homicide mortality, suicide mortality, and overall firearm mortality rates. As has been the focus of the laudatory news items, the researchers concluded that implementation of a federal “universal” background check law, in concert with federal ammunition background checks and “firearm identification requirements,” could reduce overall firearm mortality by more than 90 percent.
Unsurprisingly, most media outlets have given less attention to the research team’s findings pertaining to a host of other gun controls. The team found many gun control measures have little, no, or even a detrimental effect on firearm mortality rates.
According to the study, gun dealer licensing, dealer state record reporting requirements, dealer police inspections, gun owner fingerprinting, closing of the “gun show loophole,” ammunition purchaser recordkeeping, child handgun restrictions, child access laws, juvenile handgun purchases, magazine bans, and may-issue carry permits, have little to no effect on firearm-related deaths. Further, their results show, semi-auto bans, firearms locks, “bulk purchase limitations,” and mandatory theft reporting, increase firearm-related deaths.
Likely fearing the flawed study will result in a massive backlash that could further expose the shortcomings of their own work, the anti-gun research community has turned on Kalesan, her team, and The Lancet.
Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research, told the Washington Post, “Briefly, this is not a credible study and no cause and effect inferences should be made from it.” Webster is later quoted, stating, “What I find both puzzling and troubling is this very flawed piece of research is published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals around… Something went awry here, and it harms public trust.”
David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said of the findings, “That’s too big — I don’t believe that.” Pouring cold water on the schemes of politicians peddling gun controls as societal cure-alls, Hemenway went on to tell the Post, “These laws are not that strong. I would just be flabbergasted; I’d bet the house if you did [implement] these laws, if you had these three laws and enforced them really well and reduced gun deaths by 10 percent, you’d be ecstatic.” Offering a glimpse into the broader deficiencies of the field, Hemenway told U.S. News & World Report, “I could find serious problems with virtually any U.S. study about gun laws.”
This bout of public infighting and candid admissions as to the credibility of the entire field of gun violence research should give the public and policymakers pause when presented with studies supporting further gun restrictions. As Webster so eloquently alluded to, the peer-review process and stature of a journal offer little indication of the veracity of its contents when it comes to the politically-charged topic of gun control. Further, this episode provides important evidence as to why NRA works with federal lawmakers to ensure that this type of shoddy and politically motivated research is not federally funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is bad enough that such defective anti-gun research finds its way into distinguished publications, without forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill.
From NRA/ILA here