Archive of entries posted on 24th June 2003

Links of the Day

Posted by on

Laurence Simon fisks riding a bus.
Damn you, Scrappleface! “No virgins for you.” Trying… not to.. laugh…
John Hawkins has a list of quotes of my favorite pundit, Jonah Goldberg. Apparently Jonah isn’t very pithy. I have a nice short quote of his that John Hawkins missed, though, and it’s particularly relevant to the recent Supreme Court decisions:

“Affirmative action is based upon the assumption that blacks cannot compete with whites. But if I say that blacks can’t compete with whites, I’m a racist.”

Frank Answers: Frank J. Movie Star, 9mm or .40, and Ninja Moats

Posted by on

Kelsey J. from Anytown, USA writes:
Frank, my mom and I were thinking of making a movie where all the liberals (and, if arrangements can be made, monkeys) die because they don’t support gun rights. Would you like to star?
Sure, but there has to be lots of gun fights and I keep to keep all the firearms I use in the film. Plus there has to be a gratuitous katana fight scene where I quickly kill twenty people with my sword in under a minute.
And, at the end, it can’t say, “No animals were harmed in the making of this movie.” Instead, is should say, “Numerous monkeys were killed in the making of this movie, and we’re happy with that.”
Oh, and my percentage I ask for will of the gross, not the net.
Justin R. (a.k.a. Red Mist) from Hell (Grand Forks), ND writes:
I just turned 21 recently and I am trying to decide what firearm to buy as a concealed carry gun. I’ve narrowed it down to a Glock 19 in 9mm or a Glock 23 in .40S+W. I was also considering the Springfield XD 4 inch service model in the same calibers, but I haven’t heard much about its reliability, so I think I’m going to stick with a proven gun. Can you help me with my dilemma? 9mm or .40?
I don’t know; considers whether you want to kill your attacker or tickle him.
Hey, I always say go with a .45, but a .40 has plenty of punch. 9mm is just some wussy metric bullet made by Nazis. Stay away from metric ammo, or, if you must get a 9mm, instead refer to it has a .380 long.
UPDATE: I like to give joke answers, but guns are a serious thing. Anyway, I have now just got this months issue of Gun Tests magazine, and they recommend the cheaper Springfield XD 9. I still think it’s better to have at least a .40 for the stopping power, though.
Also, if you are going to carry, you want to keep a round in the chamber, otherwise you can’t do a one-handed draw. I just don’t trust Glock’s with a round in the chamber. I need either a stiffer double action on the first shot or a manual safety.
Previously, I recommended this carry holster which allows one to carry a full size auto. Here is me wearing the holster with both my Colt 1991 and Walther PPK in it. Such a holster gives you more options in what you can carry.
Stephen from Hope, Arkansas asks:
I believe your logic is flawed: strategically-placed wide moats would do a much better job at repelling random ninja attacks than tall fences. (It’s common knowledge that ninjas dislike water.) Does that change your pro-random ninja attack stance?
First, don’t mischaracterize my statements; I am not “pro-random ninja attack”. I just think that measures such as walls and moats are wastes of time. Ninjas will climb the walls, and, remember, ninjas can jump very far. The amount of money it would take to make a moat wide enough to keep out ninjas would be too costly, plus there’s that extra long bridge or gate to take care of. I still think the only real solution is to teach the death-touch to the common man. When each man himself can take on a ninja, then random ninja attacks will cease to be a problem.
Not like it affects me anyway; I’m a samurai.

Please keep the questions coming, <a href=”mailto:THISISSPAMTHISISSPAMace you’re from, I’ll randomly select one.

Presidential War Lies

Posted by on

Some people are now accusing Bush of lying about WMD’s. I think he was telling the truth and they just haven’t found them yet (hint: try checking in the camel humps), but, even if it is a lie, it will probably be soon forgotten. Presidents have told lies about pretty much every single war, and no one remembers them now:
PRESIDENTIAL WAR LIES
* WWI: President Woodrow Wilson said there is nothing more fun than trench warfare.
* Vietnam War: Lyndon Johnson told American troops that they would win the Vietnam War, no matter how smelly, filthy, hairy, and moronic the war protestors were.
* Mexican American War: President Polk told the American people the Mexicans eat babies, but the only evidence he produced was a large tortilla waiting for an unknown filling. That wacky Polk; who knows what mischief he would have gotten us into if he ran for a second term.
* War of 1812: President Madison said calling it the “War of 1812” was only temporary and they’d eventually come up with a really cool name for it.
* First Gulf War: President Herbert Walker Bush said that their victory would be so complete that the war would never be known as the First Gulf War.
* Revolutionary War: George Washington helped rally colonists to fight against the British by saying that the British has nuclear weapons they were planning to use on the colonies. After the war, though, he was unable to show any evidence of nuclear weapons or even explain what one was.
* Korean War: President Truman said the Korean War would be forever remembered with reverence and would never be the subject for a sitcom.
* Civil War: President Lincoln said the South had an army of mutant, man-eating cotton plants they planned to unleash on the North, though only one was ever found.
* African Diamond War: Completely made up war so that Teddy Roosevelt could go on safari.
* WWII: FDR told Americans that once they liberated France, the French would be eternally grateful, when, according to intelligence he had, he knew the French would be grateful for three and a half hours at most.