I picked up my vacation mail today. In there was a mailer from the Brady Campaign.
I don't know what it cost them to send that to me, between the cost of postage and paper and the envelope. Obviously they get junk mail rates, as if there is anything that would qualify as "junk mail", it would be anything from those folks.
But whatever it cost them, I took distinct pleasure in ripping it up and tossing it into the recycling bin.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Monday, July 26, 2010
9 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
Did it contain a postage paid return envelope? Not certain they still do that, but when they did I would shred the mailing, place it in the envelope and drop it in the mailbox.
ReplyDeleteI knew a guy who used to keep all the postage paid return envelopes, then would load them with as much junk mail from other companies as he could fit in and send them back.
ReplyDeleteI wish I had thought to look for a reply envelope.
ReplyDeleteNext time (if they send me another one).tusnol
Maybe you could tape the reply envelope to an old engine block...
ReplyDeleteI'm more inclined to shred something from the NRA or Gun Owners of America. Single issue lunatic groups that want to block reasonable gun control rules (the gun show issue comes to mind).
ReplyDeleteThe NRA used to be an organization for firearm aficionados and sportsmen. No longer. Your should see the headquarters they've pissed away your dues on up in Fairfax, VA.
Now it's all politics and money.
I used to be in favor of trying to compromise on gun control. Then I realized that the NRA was correct in their stance that the gun control side was really a gun-banning side, that first a little gun control now, then a little more later and a little more later.
ReplyDeleteSo now I'm in favor of repealing the National Firearms Act of 1934. I see no reason why I need to wear double-hearing protection on a range when I could use a suppressor. I see no reason why that, if I have to defend myself in my home, I have to give up part of my hearing.
Dear Ms. or Mr. Fit:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your gender, btw? I presume that you're ex-FAA... were you a center or tower/tracon person? Regardless, I enjoy your blog... and this despite the fact that I'm still not convinced that flying is here to stay. :o)
Like you, I think that suppressors should be legal... I understand that in many parts of Europe they are perfectly legal, but most of those countries don't allow just any Tom, Dick, or EBMisfit to buy a firearm. My thinking is that long guns should be generally free of regulation. Handguns should be regulated no less than automobiles. You've got to pass a test and get a license. Hell, I've seen customers in gunshops who couldn't load even a revolver and had to ask for help... not to mention "what sort of ammunition should I buy?"
You want a handgun, take a class.
And, btw, no one "needs" an automatic weapon or a grenade. Also covered by the NFA.
Well Sweetie, I'm not convinced that the "needs" argument should bear any weight on the control issue.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you're correct... that I have no need for an auto... but why should my lack of need grant my government (or my neighbors) the right to tell me that I cannot "have"?
I live in a region of the country where freezing temperatures are a rarity, and snow even more rare. I have no need for a snowmobile. Should the Texas Legislature therefore pass laws prohibiting snowmobiles?
The control issue should be focused on criminals, and if I have my weapons available I am much more likely to be able to exercise that control when the need arises and law enforcement is in the donut shop.
Big Sweetie, not FAA, past or present. Gender, well, there's a strong hint in the description under the main title.
ReplyDeleteI'll concede on grenades, maybe. I agree with Mule Breath; it's not the government's job to decide what I "need".
I'm against licensing and registration. For weapons, those have been used as tools for both political control ("can't let those people have guns") and confiscation.
What I want is to see those who use weapons to commit a crime hammered, hard. Criminals don't obey gun laws; if they did, Mexico would be a very peaceful place. And so would Chicago.