Friday, September 27, 2019
Beto ignorant of history
Today, Beto O'rourke made a speech at Kent state, where he made the claim that the only people who could be trusted to own guns is the government.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Impeachment
Angus McThag asks if the President is, once impeached, allowed to run for office again. The answer to this question is found in Article I, Section 3:
There is your answer.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
There is your answer.
Tools deleted
I went to Amazon to order a new Master Bench Block for an AR-15. It is a tool. It is not a firearm, a firearm part, or an accessory. Apparently, anything that is related to the AR-15 has been removed from Amazon. Brownell's and Midway USA both have them.
The reason that I began shopping with Amazon is that they were convenient and had whatever I needed at a good price, all on one website. Since that is becoming less true every week, I will resume shopping on other sites. My guess is that Amazon is making some companies very happy.
The reason that I began shopping with Amazon is that they were convenient and had whatever I needed at a good price, all on one website. Since that is becoming less true every week, I will resume shopping on other sites. My guess is that Amazon is making some companies very happy.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Coup
What Pelosi is doing is a masterful job at exercising a coup. Using a whistleblower report that no one has yet seen, and relying on a newspaper report that itself relied on third hand information to begin impeachment proceedings has me wondering of she hasn't planned this all along.
As Trumps approval numbers remain high at 53%, there is no Democrat challenger that is likely to win the Presidential election next year. With that in mind, the Democrat party cannot survive another 4 years of Trump placing judges in the Federal court system. Especially since Ginsberg is unlikely to survive until 2025. A 6-3 majority of Republican SCOTUS justices just can't be allowed to happen, if you are part of the Democrat leadership.
If the Democrats can put enough pressure on RINOs and on Republicans in Senate seats that are from tossup states like Maine, this impeachment may just be successful in the Senate. From there, I see one of two courses of action to follow:
1 Impeach Trump, and immediately impeach Pence, which would place Pelosi in the Whitehouse. This, I think, is the least likely.
2 Impeach Trump some time in January or February and watch as Pence takes over the Presidency for the last few months of the term. Since he doesn't have the name recognition, his chances of beating any of the Democratic contenders is fairly low.
Once the Democrats are in charge of both houses of Congress as well as the Whitehouse, they are free to enact full amnesty and register some 30 million former illegals as new Democrat voters within 30 days of inauguration. A gun ban will follow, as will every Socialist policy they can cram through in the first 100 days.
It's almost like it was planned and orchestrated for years.
As Trumps approval numbers remain high at 53%, there is no Democrat challenger that is likely to win the Presidential election next year. With that in mind, the Democrat party cannot survive another 4 years of Trump placing judges in the Federal court system. Especially since Ginsberg is unlikely to survive until 2025. A 6-3 majority of Republican SCOTUS justices just can't be allowed to happen, if you are part of the Democrat leadership.
If the Democrats can put enough pressure on RINOs and on Republicans in Senate seats that are from tossup states like Maine, this impeachment may just be successful in the Senate. From there, I see one of two courses of action to follow:
1 Impeach Trump, and immediately impeach Pence, which would place Pelosi in the Whitehouse. This, I think, is the least likely.
2 Impeach Trump some time in January or February and watch as Pence takes over the Presidency for the last few months of the term. Since he doesn't have the name recognition, his chances of beating any of the Democratic contenders is fairly low.
Once the Democrats are in charge of both houses of Congress as well as the Whitehouse, they are free to enact full amnesty and register some 30 million former illegals as new Democrat voters within 30 days of inauguration. A gun ban will follow, as will every Socialist policy they can cram through in the first 100 days.
It's almost like it was planned and orchestrated for years.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Great court dissent
Judge Alex Kozinski Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F. 3d 567 (2003)
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or ... the press" also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.
The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 586-587; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller's Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller's weapon — a sawed-off shotgun — was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller's claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller's test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.
The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion — the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text — refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it — and is just as likely to succeed.
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that "speech, or ... the press" also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases — or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.
The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 586-587; see also Brannon P. Denning & Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller's Tale: A Reply to David Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller's weapon — a sawed-off shotgun — was reasonably susceptible to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. 816. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller's claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller's test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.
The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion — the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text — refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it — and is just as likely to succeed.
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Rip off saga continues
When last we spoke about my in laws and their auto purchasing woes, they were in possession of a car with a VIN that doesn't match the car they were driving. The dealer overnighted paperwork to them with the correct VIN, but this set of papers misspelled my FIL's name. So now they are trying to get that fixed.
To make things worse, my BIL is in town, and he is from NY. He is a typical loud mouthed, obnoxious NY resident. His advice to my inlaws is to go to the dealer and loudly curse and scream until they agree to give them new paperwork and a $2000 refund for their refuse to pay for the car. I pointed out that, should they do that, the dealer will likely have them trespassed.
Then the BIL went on and on about how the contract isn't valid because the name is spelled wrong, and how if FIL refuses to sign a new contract, the dealer has to return their trade and their money. So here is the big plan:
The BIL said that after being trespassed, they should refuse to pay for the car. Since the VIN doesn't match, the dealer can't do anything. I said that they would just repo the car. The New Yorkers in the room tried telling me that they can't do that, because the BIL sells used cars in NY, and you can't repo a car without a court order.. I told them that this isn't NY- the way to repo a car here is that they simply take the car wherever they can, and the law only requires that they notify the police within 24 hours.
Sigh.
All I got were arguments about how they would sue and would call the local press, arbitration be damned. "We have a registration and insurance on the car, they can't repo shit." Sigh. This is why people in the south don't like to deal with know it all New Yorkers. I love my wife, and sometimes I wonder how she turned out so level headed and reasonable.
Don't scare the Soccermoms
The open carriers are scaring the soccermoms and this is hurting the rest of our guns rights. Antigun mothers usually don't care enough about guns to make it an election issue, which is a good thing, because women are generally not in favor of gun ownership, but they are usually ambivalent to it. However, when women see this as a threat to themselves or their kids, they start to care. Seeing people open carrying guns right after a bunch of high profile mass shootings is doing just that. As an example: here is a recent exchange online that was about the MSNBC poll on guns:
Soccermom
Divemedic:
Divemedic
Divemedic
Soccermom
See, I'm not actually anti-2a, even though it seems a lot of people assume so (not you). Do I like guns? No. Do I realize that there are way too many guns to ever make plausible restrictions or controls on them? Yup. Do I have to explain my my tendency to feel anxious or threatened when I see someone I don't know with a gun? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I have that right too. It's pretty much a moot point though, there will never be sensible gun laws in this country because we're well beyond putting a cap on anything. I realize that. But where are my rights and protections? Everyone can wave around a gun in public, but I shouldn't feel a certain way about it because it's an amendment? 🤣🤣🤣 Yeah. Once again, not directed at you. I don't want my kids around people open carrying either. And no, I'm not a liberal who's like, "Confiscate all the guns!" From who? The people that are way better armed than the liberals?
Divemedic:
Flow So you aren't opposed to people being armed, you are opposed to people doing things that make you nervous? Doesn't that make it your problem, not theirs? After all, your position isn't about what the open carrier is doing or not doing, but is about the way you feel.Soccermom
No, I'm opposed to seeing guns. It's not just that they make me anxious; I don't want my children around them either. And it is about what the open carrier is doing. Why does an open carry person's rights supersede my own?
Divemedic
So if a person said that "I'm opposed to seeing women's legs and collar bones. It's not just that they make me anxious; I don't want my children seeing that either. And it is about what the woman is doing. Why does an woman's rights supersede my own?" Does that mean that you would be willing to cover up? If not, why does your opinion change when it is YOUR ox being gored?Soccermom
On that same token, I don't really want to see people walking around with open knives or bottles of acid or anything like that. People are basically stupid and I don't trust people I don't know to not do stupid things like accidentally shooting someone.Attorneyguy
"Doesn't it make it your problem, not theirs?" Well, yeah, that's why I said that it was a moot point. I literally just wanted to say why I don't exactly relish the idea of seeing a bunch of idiots in Target waving their guns around.
And you're basically saying that I don't have a right to be opposed to something. I'm not changing laws, not marching on Washington DC, I will literally never do anything about gun control laws. Ever. But I am absolutely fucking protected by the Constitution to say that I feel uncomfortable around guns.
Why does open carry bother you more than concealed? The number of guns isn't affected by whether they are inside or outside the clothing.Soccermom
Why do I have to have a reason? Obviously, if I don't see them, I'm not aware of them. It doesn't make me feel better to be near someone armed or safer, quite the opposite actually.Divemedic
I am not saying that you don't have a right. After all, people have a right to not vaccinate their children. If you get enough people who share an opinion, their votes can effect policy, no matter how misguided that policy may be. That is how we got slavery, prohibition, and segregation.Soccermom#2
Therefore, it behooves us to show people when their position is based upon emotion instead of logic. That means that people will hopefully vote from a logical position instead of an emotional one.
The Constitution protects arms the same as your speech.
I get what Soccermom is saying. I don't want to see people brandishing weapons in public. I prefer the illusion of Disneyland to the street wars of Chicago.
However, to me, people with cars are a bigger threat and probably kill more people than guns. I also don't like to walk past large dogs barking crazy behind short fences.
Divemedic
I don't like tattoos. There are people who don't like sitting at the same lunch counter with African Americans. That doesn't mean that tattoos should be outlawed, nor does it mean that we should return to "whites only" lunch counters.Soccermom
The way that one feels about other people and their actions doesn't supersede the rights of those other people.
I truthfully give not one iota of fuck about the second amendment. It doesn't apply to me. I mean, cops get killed when someone wrestles their gun away from them and they're trained to not let that happen. So what if some idiot doesn't have their gun fully secured on their person and someone snatches it and opens up on a Walmart?
Poll
MSNBC has a poll: "Do you think that people should be allowed to carry guns in public?"
As of the time I write this (September 21 at 11:10 am) the vote shows more than 93% (783k) saying "Yes! The Second Amendment guarantees it."
That flies in the face of this story.
As of the time I write this (September 21 at 11:10 am) the vote shows more than 93% (783k) saying "Yes! The Second Amendment guarantees it."
That flies in the face of this story.
Deal Alert
RK Guns has a stripped lower available for $49.99. They offer it with no transfer fee when you order online and have it sent to your local Rural King store. Since there are 115 locations nationwide, perhaps you can easily find one near you.
Add a $39 lower parts kit, a complete upper for $185, a stock and buffer kit for $24, and you can have an AR-15 for less than $300.
Add a $39 lower parts kit, a complete upper for $185, a stock and buffer kit for $24, and you can have an AR-15 for less than $300.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Trump gun control proposal
Here is the gun laws that were supposedly being suggested by the Trump administration, but now the White House is denying that it is genuine.
Note that it says all advertised commercial sales would require a BGC. If you read the part that says "Many commercial sales are conducted outside of FFLs" It appears that this is an attempt to shut down private transfers at all gun shows (which are advertised, after all).
It seems that this would shut down all face to face sales on Gunbroker. Remember that the antigun team is all into incrementalism in the name of so called compromise.
Note that it says all advertised commercial sales would require a BGC. If you read the part that says "Many commercial sales are conducted outside of FFLs" It appears that this is an attempt to shut down private transfers at all gun shows (which are advertised, after all).
It seems that this would shut down all face to face sales on Gunbroker. Remember that the antigun team is all into incrementalism in the name of so called compromise.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
most racist thing you will read today
Here is an entire article about how Kamala Harris supposedly ashamed a Second Amendment supporter on the Jimmy Fallon show. The quote I want to point you to is this one:
If I typed an article about blacks and said something about a racial stereotype, like a reference to watermelon or passed a comment about Mexicans and beans, I would rightly be roasted for making racist comments. So why does Mediaite get a free pass to be racist assholes?
As for Kamala Harris, please show me the part of the Constitution that grants the President power to ban anything by executive order. We elect a President, not a King. Go fuck yourself. Just for that, I will go out and buy a couple more stripped lowers and a case or two of ammo.
But for sheer joy, it’s tough to beat Andrew’s reaction, as he sits there looking like someone has just stolen the latest issue of Mayonnaise Aficionado out of his mailbox.
If I typed an article about blacks and said something about a racial stereotype, like a reference to watermelon or passed a comment about Mexicans and beans, I would rightly be roasted for making racist comments. So why does Mediaite get a free pass to be racist assholes?
As for Kamala Harris, please show me the part of the Constitution that grants the President power to ban anything by executive order. We elect a President, not a King. Go fuck yourself. Just for that, I will go out and buy a couple more stripped lowers and a case or two of ammo.
Rip off update
I blogged recently about my in-laws being sold a vehicle while the dealer deliberately hid the fact that it was a demo. In an attempt to resolve the issue, my in-laws returned to the dealer the following morning and were offered a different, comparable vehicle at a slight (less than $500) reduction in price.
They took the deal and drove the vehicle home. After arriving home, they discovered that the paperwork has the wrong VIN on it. I pointed out that they need to get this fixed ASAP, because if they get pulled over, the VIN not matching the registration could cause them issues, especially if the dealer notices that the vehicle they have is still showing as being in inventory but is no longer on the lot and decides to report it stolen. At the very least, they are in possession of an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. My mother in law told me that this was "far-fetched" and I was being ridiculous. She said that they had the paperwork to show they recently bought the car, and just because the VIN was incorrect made it a simple paperwork issue and this was not a big deal.
At this point, I am backing out of helping them.
They took the deal and drove the vehicle home. After arriving home, they discovered that the paperwork has the wrong VIN on it. I pointed out that they need to get this fixed ASAP, because if they get pulled over, the VIN not matching the registration could cause them issues, especially if the dealer notices that the vehicle they have is still showing as being in inventory but is no longer on the lot and decides to report it stolen. At the very least, they are in possession of an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. My mother in law told me that this was "far-fetched" and I was being ridiculous. She said that they had the paperwork to show they recently bought the car, and just because the VIN was incorrect made it a simple paperwork issue and this was not a big deal.
At this point, I am backing out of helping them.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Amazon looks better
With all of the stores telling me that they don't want my business if I am armed, while at the same time doing nothing REAL to prevent shootings or crime, I appreciate Amazon more and more. I can buy almost anything without having to be near the proverbial watering hole.
Yet another reason why online retailers like Amazon are putting traditional retail out of business.
Yet another reason why online retailers like Amazon are putting traditional retail out of business.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Editorial oversight, part 227
Layers of the stuff. Remember this when the press is attacking a Republican for some sort of verbal gaffe:
Rip off
My in-laws asked me to find them a good price on a 2019 Nissan Pathfinder. I used True Car, which usually gives us great prices. I found them the car they wanted for about $8K less than MSRP at a dealer about 40 miles from here. This was about the same discount that True Car has gotten us before.
The in-laws asked us if we could go with them to purchase the car that afternoon, but we were not able to go that day, because of prior commitments. We told them that we would be able to go the next day if they would wait, but they were not willing to. They insisted that we were not needed because they had bought many cars before.
They went to get the car and still had to argue in order to get the True Car price. That seemed very unusual to me, because one of the great advantages to True Car is that the dealer agrees to abide by the True Car price so there is no haggling.
Then they told us that the car had damage to the hood, and the dealer had offered to repaint it, so they would have to take the car back to the dealer this week for that to happen. That was a red flag, so we went over to their house and noticed that the car had over 5,000 miles already on the odometer. The paperwork stated that the car had 28 miles at delivery. The dealer hid it from my in-laws by leaving the odometer set on the "trip" odometer in order to hide the true mileage of the car.
I called the dealer and they said to bring the car in, and they would fix it by simply correcting the paperwork. I told them that this was unacceptable, and I wanted them to reverse the sale, or I would be contacting an attorney. They said that since I mentioned attorney, they would no longer speak to me. He also pointed out that the contract has an arbitration clause and I can't sue them anyway.
We called the cops, and they told us that it was a civil matter and stated that cops don't get involved in civil matters. Like most cops, he is lazy. It is a felony in the state of Florida to misrepresent the mileage of a car on the odometer disclosure at sale.
The dealer called us an hour later and apologized. They said that they would contact the finance manager to see if the sale can be reversed. We will see.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Friday, September 13, 2019
Typical
I have posted about poor writing skills before. A good number of my students were using cell phones instead of paying attention, so I gave the class a writing assignment. The topic was "Why cell phones are a distraction in class."
This is what I got from one 11th grade student. I cropped the name off for student privacy reasons.
The rest of the paper is continued on the back: "are a teacher. you give respet you earn respect." (sic)
This is what I got from one 11th grade student. I cropped the name off for student privacy reasons.
The rest of the paper is continued on the back: "are a teacher. you give respet you earn respect." (sic)
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
18 years ago
It was a Tuesday and I was on shift. That day, I was assigned to Engine 12. The day began like most other shifts: we had checked trucks and equipment and then headed out to test hydrants. We were behind the Winn Dixie about 2 miles from the station when the Battalion Chief called us, directed us to return to quarters and turn on the television. We got there just in time to see the second plane hit the towers. Shortly after, the reports came in that the Pentagon had been hit. That was when I knew that we were at war.
When the first tower came down, I remember one of the guys saying something like "There are thousands who work there, I bet 2 thousand people just died." I remember how large of a number that was, and how impossible that seemed. It was then that I said "There were hundreds of firefighters in there."
The next few weeks were unreal. Everywhere we went, firefighters got love and cheers. People paid for our meals. Still, there was this overwhelming sense that we as Americans had a target on our backs. As a firefighter, I wondered what it felt like to enter that second tower knowing that it would eventually come down, and wondered if I would have had the same guts that they did. Still, every fire I went to, I still went in.
Things were different for me after that.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Matt Bracken on the breakdown of society
I don't like Alex Jones, but Matt Bracken does a good job in this video while describing the disaster that is happening in the Bahamas. The footage is unbelievable. There have to be hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths.
Much ado about nothing
So the press is in an uproar about a Trump tweet, and the left will not let it go. The President sent out a tweet claiming that Alabama was one of the states that would be affected by Hurricane Dorian. The press is roasting him for being wrong. But was he?
Here is a link to the NHC forecast from 0300 UTC on August 28. This forecast is a list of the odds of selected cities seeing Tropical Storm force winds withing the following 5 days. Note the line which says:
Meaning that Montgomery Alabama had a 4 percent chance of seeing 34 knot winds. Now you might say that 4 percent is not very high, but note that Myrtle Beach was seen in the same forecast as only a 5 percent chance of seeing tropical storm force winds.
I don't think that it is unreasonable for anyone to think that Alabama is in danger here. CNN, who is leading the charge on this ridiculousness, has no room to talk. CNN doesn't even know where Alabama is:
Here is a link to the NHC forecast from 0300 UTC on August 28. This forecast is a list of the odds of selected cities seeing Tropical Storm force winds withing the following 5 days. Note the line which says:
MONTGOMERY AL 34 X X( X) X( X) X( X) X( X) X( X) 4( 4)
Meaning that Montgomery Alabama had a 4 percent chance of seeing 34 knot winds. Now you might say that 4 percent is not very high, but note that Myrtle Beach was seen in the same forecast as only a 5 percent chance of seeing tropical storm force winds.
MYRTLE BEACH 34 X X( X) X( X) X( X) X( X) 1( 1) 5( 6)From the same advisory, the graphic of projected windfield looked like this:
I don't think that it is unreasonable for anyone to think that Alabama is in danger here. CNN, who is leading the charge on this ridiculousness, has no room to talk. CNN doesn't even know where Alabama is:
How does he get $750K?
When Florida passed shall issue concealed carry, the left predicted that there would be shootouts over parking spots. It seems like we have finally had a couple. One resulted in the shooter being convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison for life. The second was a shooting between a knife carrying convicted felon, and his gun wielding felon next door neighbor.
What strikes me as odd is that the shooter posted a $750,000 bond. How does a short term renter in a drug addled neighborhood come up with $75,000 in cash, plus another $675,000 in collateral to qualify for a bail bond?
My initial thought is drug dealer.
The winning quote?
What strikes me as odd is that the shooter posted a $750,000 bond. How does a short term renter in a drug addled neighborhood come up with $75,000 in cash, plus another $675,000 in collateral to qualify for a bail bond?
My initial thought is drug dealer.
The winning quote?
“That man should have just minded his business. Once we told him that was not our car he should’ve just minded his business, go find the owner of the car and go yell at them,” said Powers’ girlfriend, Mersades Katz.
Friday, September 6, 2019
NYT: The US owes Bahamas reparations for hurricane
An editorial in the New York Times claims that the hurricane hitting the Bahamas is the fault of the United States for failing to pass AOC's "Green New Deal."
As bad as that is, the quote I hated most was found in the comments:
The word "reparations" has come up in the USA when addressing crimes of the past, and we have hardly reached consensus on that hot topic.
Dr. E. M. James's island nation, which, as the author accurately puts, "has a tiny carbon footprint but carries the burden of being ground zero for our climate crisis."
Time for present day reparations paid in full for these islanders from the CO2 giants with carbon footprints without boundaries.
Antisemitism increasing
A man is arrested for threatening to kill Jews. The report is found on Orlando's CBS affiliate. What I found odd what that the story is found on other news sites, and the CBS version leaves out many details.
From the CBS story:
The comments included anti-Semitic remarks and threats to "murder as many people as I can," according to the Sheriff's Office.Also note that the only picture in the article is of white hands over a laptop computer. This is important because many in Central Florida accuse WKMG, the CBS affiliate. of media bias.
Arong also appeared to identify as an incel, which refers to a misogynist group of men who identify themselves as "involuntarily celibate."
Note the differences in the article, as found at news-journal.
“I hate jews because I am an inbred LOSER."While not factually incorrect, the details change the story. Here also is a picture of the suspect:
“I don’t want Red Flag laws passed because the FBI might raid my residence and confiscate the weapons I will use to kill other Americans. Thank you”
“I hate myself. I am uglier than the El Paso shooter, and girls don’t like me, so I will murder as many people as I can. Thank you”
Bias? You decide.
Attempted terror attack?
Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, a mechanic for American Airlines, was arrested for trying to sabotage an American airlines jet shortly before it was set to take off from Miami International Airport for the Bahamas.
Underestimating the danger
The left is trying to pick a fight where they have underestimated their foe.
According to the US census, Florida has a population of 20.6 million. 20 percent of that population is under the age of 18, meaning that there are 16.45 million adults living in Florida. There are 7.4 million households in the state of Florida, equaling an average of 2.1 adults in each household.
According to the Department of Agriculture (the state agency that issues CWPs), there are over 2.1 million non-law enforcement citizens in Florida who can legally carry a firearm. (pdf warning) That means that, on average, 27 percent of Florida households contain at least one permitted firearm carrier.
Just in the past 20 years, over 42 million rifles have been manufactured. Between 20 and 50% of all rifles manufactured in the USA are AR-15 pattern rifles, including all of the variants like the AR-10, and all of the miscellaneous caliber variations. This means that there are somewhere around 20 million or more weapons that would be subject to any sort of so-called "assault weapons" ban.
There have been more than 320 million NICS checks done since the system was set up 20 years ago. This means that there are more than 650 million firearms in this country. Each year, Americans are busy buying 27 million firearms and 10-12 BILLION rounds of ammunition a year. To put that in perspective, that is more ammunition than was used by the entire US military during each year of World War 2, when the average was just over 10 billion rounds a year.
What all of this means is that, outside of the major antigun metroplexes of NYC, Boston, Baltimore, San Francisco, and LA, more than half of households have at least one firearm, and more than a quarter of them own at least one "assault weapon."
If even one percent of the gun owning public decides to respond in kind to being called an enemy of the people, there will be somewhere around 1.5 million people who are armed, pissed off, and know how to shoot. They will not be lined up in neat ranks out in a field somewhere, just waiting for you to nuke them.
The US police cannot even begin to control the gang problem in our inner cities, and the membership of those gangs is only around 800,000 or so. This is a fight that cannot be won, but they don't care, because liberals are not the ones who will be getting killed. Or so they think. That is dangerous thinking indeed. The people of each who are the least stable will be the ones who decide when the violence begins and how far it goes.
According to the US census, Florida has a population of 20.6 million. 20 percent of that population is under the age of 18, meaning that there are 16.45 million adults living in Florida. There are 7.4 million households in the state of Florida, equaling an average of 2.1 adults in each household.
According to the Department of Agriculture (the state agency that issues CWPs), there are over 2.1 million non-law enforcement citizens in Florida who can legally carry a firearm. (pdf warning) That means that, on average, 27 percent of Florida households contain at least one permitted firearm carrier.
Just in the past 20 years, over 42 million rifles have been manufactured. Between 20 and 50% of all rifles manufactured in the USA are AR-15 pattern rifles, including all of the variants like the AR-10, and all of the miscellaneous caliber variations. This means that there are somewhere around 20 million or more weapons that would be subject to any sort of so-called "assault weapons" ban.
There have been more than 320 million NICS checks done since the system was set up 20 years ago. This means that there are more than 650 million firearms in this country. Each year, Americans are busy buying 27 million firearms and 10-12 BILLION rounds of ammunition a year. To put that in perspective, that is more ammunition than was used by the entire US military during each year of World War 2, when the average was just over 10 billion rounds a year.
What all of this means is that, outside of the major antigun metroplexes of NYC, Boston, Baltimore, San Francisco, and LA, more than half of households have at least one firearm, and more than a quarter of them own at least one "assault weapon."
If even one percent of the gun owning public decides to respond in kind to being called an enemy of the people, there will be somewhere around 1.5 million people who are armed, pissed off, and know how to shoot. They will not be lined up in neat ranks out in a field somewhere, just waiting for you to nuke them.
The US police cannot even begin to control the gang problem in our inner cities, and the membership of those gangs is only around 800,000 or so. This is a fight that cannot be won, but they don't care, because liberals are not the ones who will be getting killed. Or so they think. That is dangerous thinking indeed. The people of each who are the least stable will be the ones who decide when the violence begins and how far it goes.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Secure your supplies
Reports from the Bahamas that people are willing to kill each other to survive. In this situation, possessing supplies makes you a target.
This is why I always increase my security posture during a disaster.
Profits are evil
Social media has been abuzz with the following meme:
I have been seeing this more and more. One person wrote in to CBS affiliate WPLG and had this to say:
Let me tell you why this is misguided and wrong:
The cruise lines aren't profiting from the Bahamas. The Bahamas and the cruise lines are profiting from cruise ship passengers. The islanders have been richly rewarded for this partnership: cruise ships and their passengers bring $250 million a year to the Bahamas, a figure that represents nearly 5 percent of the Bahamas GNP. Yet even that number pales in comparison to the airlines, whose passengers bring another $1.1 billion to the island nation. In all, tourism represents 40% of the GNP of the Bahamas. The cruise lines don't owe the islands anything. The entire economy of the Bahamas is built on tourism.
I think it will turn out that the loss of tourism that will follow this storm will be the worst part of the disaster. The funding that will be needed for the people to rebuild and resume their lives just isn't going to be there. If you truly want the cruise lines to help, instead of free food and lodging, book a cruise to (largely untouched) Nassau, and then spend gobs of money there.
I have been seeing this more and more. One person wrote in to CBS affiliate WPLG and had this to say:
"Can't someone order the cruise lines that make billions of dollars on cruises to the Bahamas?"First, the cruise ships are not registered in the USA. So who exactly is going to issue these orders? Yes, many of them are registered in the Bahamas, but do you have any idea what nationalizing cruise ships would do to the Bahamian tourism industry?
Let me tell you why this is misguided and wrong:
The cruise lines aren't profiting from the Bahamas. The Bahamas and the cruise lines are profiting from cruise ship passengers. The islanders have been richly rewarded for this partnership: cruise ships and their passengers bring $250 million a year to the Bahamas, a figure that represents nearly 5 percent of the Bahamas GNP. Yet even that number pales in comparison to the airlines, whose passengers bring another $1.1 billion to the island nation. In all, tourism represents 40% of the GNP of the Bahamas. The cruise lines don't owe the islands anything. The entire economy of the Bahamas is built on tourism.
I think it will turn out that the loss of tourism that will follow this storm will be the worst part of the disaster. The funding that will be needed for the people to rebuild and resume their lives just isn't going to be there. If you truly want the cruise lines to help, instead of free food and lodging, book a cruise to (largely untouched) Nassau, and then spend gobs of money there.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Hey Walmart
Just so you know, I celebration of your recent decision to stop selling anything gun related unless it is for hunting:
I just bought several hundred dollars of defense ammo from my local gun store.
Then I went to the range and got rid of some target ammo.
I just bought several hundred dollars of defense ammo from my local gun store.
Then I went to the range and got rid of some target ammo.
We are all terrorists now
San Francisco has declared that the NRA is a terrorist organization, and is urging the Federal Government to do the same. As a life member, I guess I am now a terrorist. Does this mean that I will be added to the "no buy" list? Even if I am not, such a declaration violates my First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Even while declaring gun owners to be an enemy of the state, they are demanding that we give up the only means of preventing our being loaded into boxcars. If the Democrats win the 2020 election, I fear that all of us who have been law abiding for years by joining the NRA, registering our NFA items, and getting CWPs will have to go into hiding.
Even while declaring gun owners to be an enemy of the state, they are demanding that we give up the only means of preventing our being loaded into boxcars. If the Democrats win the 2020 election, I fear that all of us who have been law abiding for years by joining the NRA, registering our NFA items, and getting CWPs will have to go into hiding.
Crime and families
Walter Williams recently penned an article titled "Criminologists Mislead Us." In the article, he points to a study showing that criminologists mislead us because liberal criminologists outnumber their conservative counterparts 30 to 1. Of course they do. Anyone who looks at the facts and attempts to have a conversation about the actual causes of crime is labelled as a racist and pushed out of a job.
The facts are obvious to anyone who chooses to look at them without bias:
- Black males are the victim of homicide 10 to 20 times more often than any other demographic
- Black males commit homicides 15 to 35 times more often than any other demographic
- Black males commit armed robbery 10 to 15 times more often whites
- Most crime is committed by perpetrators who are the same race as their victims
- More than 90% of homicides where the victim is black, so is their killer
The study goes on to say:
It would be easy to take a racist slant, but I don't think that blacks are inherently more violent or prone to crime. Instead, I believe that the root cause lies in the disintegration of the black family. In black communities, we now have more than two out of every three black children growing up in single parent households. Compare that to white children, where three out of four grow up having two parents in the family. In 1960, that was where black families were: 22% of black children were in single parent homes.
In other words, children growing up raising themselves are growing up without the guidance and direction that having a parent around provides. Children model the behavior of their role models. This is how we learn to comply with societal norms. When they are young, those role models are their parents. As they approach the teenage years, those role models become their peers. When there are no parents around, the young children model the behavior of the only others that they see: older kids.
So the black community has as its role model the leaders of street gangs. Criminals. This has been the case for nearly four generations. Solve the increasing problems of dads leaving as soon as a woman gets pregnant, and you solve the problems of our society. Of course this will never happen, because the people who could solve it are instead selling away the American nuclear family in exchange for votes. As long as we continue to subsidize single mothers, we will get more of them, and this in turn will erode our society even more.
The wheels are slowly coming off.
The facts are obvious to anyone who chooses to look at them without bias:
- Black males are the victim of homicide 10 to 20 times more often than any other demographic
- Black males commit homicides 15 to 35 times more often than any other demographic
- Black males commit armed robbery 10 to 15 times more often whites
- Most crime is committed by perpetrators who are the same race as their victims
- More than 90% of homicides where the victim is black, so is their killer
The study goes on to say:
Despite the evidence that higher incarceration reduces crime rates, many criminologists argue that “mass incarceration” actually “took minority men out of their neighborhoods, stripped them of voting rights, destabilized families, and sapped already-paltry economic resources from struggling communities.”After reading this, I can only conclude that the problem lies in the black neighborhoods. Something that many people already know, even if they won't admit it, for fear of being labeled as a racist. This is why housing values are lower in black neighborhoods.
Such claims could seem plausible only if one believes—contrary to evidence and common sense—that career criminals contribute positively to their neighborhoods, enjoy stable and functional families, vote, and work. What they did, in reality, was to prey on their neighbors.
It would be easy to take a racist slant, but I don't think that blacks are inherently more violent or prone to crime. Instead, I believe that the root cause lies in the disintegration of the black family. In black communities, we now have more than two out of every three black children growing up in single parent households. Compare that to white children, where three out of four grow up having two parents in the family. In 1960, that was where black families were: 22% of black children were in single parent homes.
In other words, children growing up raising themselves are growing up without the guidance and direction that having a parent around provides. Children model the behavior of their role models. This is how we learn to comply with societal norms. When they are young, those role models are their parents. As they approach the teenage years, those role models become their peers. When there are no parents around, the young children model the behavior of the only others that they see: older kids.
So the black community has as its role model the leaders of street gangs. Criminals. This has been the case for nearly four generations. Solve the increasing problems of dads leaving as soon as a woman gets pregnant, and you solve the problems of our society. Of course this will never happen, because the people who could solve it are instead selling away the American nuclear family in exchange for votes. As long as we continue to subsidize single mothers, we will get more of them, and this in turn will erode our society even more.
The wheels are slowly coming off.
Resume
The eye of Hurricane Dorian passed to our east at about 3:30 this morning. The barometric pressure bottomed out at 1003 millibars, and the highest wind we got was 22 mph. The total rain so far was about an inch and a half. We get worse from afternoon thunderstorms.
I never did finish the 24 checklist. Tomorrow, I will put all of the hurricane supplies away. Until next time.
I never did finish the 24 checklist. Tomorrow, I will put all of the hurricane supplies away. Until next time.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Movie night
With nothing to do during the hurricane but watch movies, I watched a movie called "The Big Short."
This movie confirms everything that I thought was going on during the housing bubble. It was both entertaining and educational. I HIGHLY recommend it.
This movie confirms everything that I thought was going on during the housing bubble. It was both entertaining and educational. I HIGHLY recommend it.
Post event damage assessment: Grand Bahama
Here is what Grand Bahama island looked like before Hurricane Dorian:
Here is what it looks like now:
Here is what it looks like now:
Monday, September 2, 2019
Cost of education
I am sitting here bored while waiting for the arrival of Hurricane Dorian. I still have the 12 hour checklist portion of my preparations to do, but they are on hold because the nearest tropical storm level winds are 135 miles from here and the storm is still stationary.
With that in mind, I am sitting here reading the proposed budget for my school district. The budget calls for $548 million in expenditures. There are a total of 43,000 students in the district. This works out to a cost of $12,700 for each student. Seems pretty high to me.
With that in mind, I am sitting here reading the proposed budget for my school district. The budget calls for $548 million in expenditures. There are a total of 43,000 students in the district. This works out to a cost of $12,700 for each student. Seems pretty high to me.
Sunday, September 1, 2019
24 hour checklist complete
Dorian has been a huge ball of suck and fail for the National Hurricane service. This storm has been incorrectly handled for the past week. Tuesday the forecast was that Dorian would be a strong tropical storm landfalling near Fort Lauderdale. By Friday, it was to have max winds of 130 mph. Saturday morning they were forecasting winds of 150, and then 155. The actual winds are over 185 mph.
The forecast was for it to hit the Dominican Republic. It missed by over 200 miles and actually hit the US Virgin Islands.
Even the NHC admits that they have an average error of 40 miles at 24 hours, and 60 miles 48 hours out. They are currently forecasting the Dorian to be less than 60 miles offshore with 140 mile per hour winds just 48 hours from now.
The forecast they were making 48 hours ago had the center of the storm being 45 miles more to the east than it actually is. A similar error in today's forecast would put the storm ashore in Florida 48 hours from now.
Similarly, the forecast 48 hours ago predicted the storm would have winds of 130 miles per hour at 1100 EDT this morning. Winds were actually 180 mph.
With that in mind, I decided to move on and complete the checklist as if the storm were only 24 hours away.
Power:
Portable 10kw generator and 20 gallons of fuel
Batteries charged
Propane and propane stove
Communications checked:
Cell phones
Hardwire Internet
Radios checked and programmed with local authorities frequencies:
HF and VHF HAM radio in house
VHF/UHF System Fusion Mobile in BOV
VHF/UHF portables
Food:
We have a week's worth in the pantry before we even have to get into freeze dried food.
Water:
20 gals potable
Full bathtub for toilet flushing
Security:
check. 'Nuf said.
We also have cards and board games to keep us busy when power goes out.
The 12 hour checklist is next, but I won't do that until probably Monday night, if at all.
1 Shut down the NAS that I am using as the household file server, take out the mirrored hard drives, and place one in the gun safe, the other in the BOV.
2 Place BOB in BOV.
3 Ensure safe room has flashlights, chem lights, and other items.
4 Take pictures of the inside and outside of the house, to use as "before" pictures, in the event an insurance claim needs to be made.
5. All vehicles in garage
The forecast was for it to hit the Dominican Republic. It missed by over 200 miles and actually hit the US Virgin Islands.
Even the NHC admits that they have an average error of 40 miles at 24 hours, and 60 miles 48 hours out. They are currently forecasting the Dorian to be less than 60 miles offshore with 140 mile per hour winds just 48 hours from now.
The forecast they were making 48 hours ago had the center of the storm being 45 miles more to the east than it actually is. A similar error in today's forecast would put the storm ashore in Florida 48 hours from now.
Similarly, the forecast 48 hours ago predicted the storm would have winds of 130 miles per hour at 1100 EDT this morning. Winds were actually 180 mph.
With that in mind, I decided to move on and complete the checklist as if the storm were only 24 hours away.
Power:
Portable 10kw generator and 20 gallons of fuel
Batteries charged
Propane and propane stove
Communications checked:
Cell phones
Hardwire Internet
Radios checked and programmed with local authorities frequencies:
HF and VHF HAM radio in house
VHF/UHF System Fusion Mobile in BOV
VHF/UHF portables
Food:
We have a week's worth in the pantry before we even have to get into freeze dried food.
Water:
20 gals potable
Full bathtub for toilet flushing
Security:
check. 'Nuf said.
We also have cards and board games to keep us busy when power goes out.
The 12 hour checklist is next, but I won't do that until probably Monday night, if at all.
1 Shut down the NAS that I am using as the household file server, take out the mirrored hard drives, and place one in the gun safe, the other in the BOV.
2 Place BOB in BOV.
3 Ensure safe room has flashlights, chem lights, and other items.
4 Take pictures of the inside and outside of the house, to use as "before" pictures, in the event an insurance claim needs to be made.
5. All vehicles in garage