M*A*S*H is a bullshitter

Tuesday, 30 October, 12

I love MASH as much as the the next guy (or girl), but sometimes the condescending morality offends my grunt sensibilities. I was watching episode “Give and Take” for the hundredth time when I decided what finally bugged me about some of the episodes. Its the way they portray line combat soldiers as hateful bastards.

This episode (if you haven’t seen it, shame on you) portrays an American soldier being guilted for shooting an enemy soldier while trying to steal his boots.

This episode shows a soldier giving a blanket to the soldier he shot in the post operative ward. The episode appears to take place in during the winter and makes it appear as though the American soldier was morally wrong for shooting an enemy soldier attempting to take his boots after he was wounded. The enemy soldier is then placed next to the American soldier in the post operative ward giving him the chance to “redeem himself” by giving his blanket to the enemy soldier when he exhibits signs of frostbite. The episode shows the enemies humanity when he trades a chocolate bar back for the blanket making the soldier rethink his completely normal and rational action. The enemy soldier ends up dying of his wounds.

I disagree with this on two levels.

First, no combat soldier should be treated in the same area as soldiers who he (or she) was just in a life or death struggle with prior to receiving a wound sufficient to be evaced to a treatment area.

Second, no fighting man ( or woman) should ever be made to feel guilty about killing the enemy. Those who are unwilling to lay their lives on the line for their country or freedom should not be allowed to judge those who do.

Those soldiers who  lay their lives on the line should never be made to feel less because they hate the person who kills their friends in battle, that is the nature of battle and is best summed up here.
If you think it’s some sort of of hate crime for a soldier to want to show domination over his vanquished enemy then you should crawl back into your mothers basement and stay there.


Hang ’em High

Tuesday, 30 October, 12

Every lawman (or woman) should watch this movie when they start the academy and then again five years into their career.

Election Day Television Programming

Monday, 29 October, 12

There should be two things on TV on November 6th prior to the election results, Red Dawn interrupted every thirty minutes with video from the 9/11 attacks.

Why I’m sick of AR’s

Thursday, 25 October, 12

I was over at madogre the other day and read his post about AR’s (specifically in 5.56) being unsuitable for in home defense due to the loud report. I’m not going to get into what firearm causes the most hearing damage or which is best for home defense (rifle vs. shotgun, long gun vs. handgun). I decided instead to look and see what else I could find in the way of a suitable carbine in a different style and chambering.

What I found instead was (as already covered quite some time ago) that everyone except Apple and Betty Crocker is putting their eggs in the AR market (as if the same Army that just doubled down on 9mm oversafetied Berettas is going to forsake Colt).

iCarbine anyone? You can get it in white.

There are a few non AR options for semi auto carbines in pistol calibers. The Kel-Tec Sub 2000 in 9mm or .40, FN P90 in 5.7, and of course the Kriss in .45. The Kriss and FN are kind of cost prohibitive for home defense for most folks (or at least for me) and the FN is the only one that offers increased ammo capacity. I think ammo capacity should be a consideration, otherwise you might as well use a handgun.

If you want a little more oomph you can go with a Thereon Arms carbine in .357 Sig or 10mm, but it comes in an AR platform.

The question really seems to come down to something with a little more power and mag capacity than a handgun, but with minimum recoil for quick follow ups.

Marlin used to make the Camp Carbine in 9mm and .45, but it used standard mags and there was no increase in ammo capacity.

I found myself looking again at the M1 Carbine. I have been talking myself out of buying an M1 for years. There are two arguments I used for this. The first is that I can get more power and range from an AR in 5.56 or similar for about the same money. The second is that .30 Carbine ammo is not as readily available (or cheap) as other calibers and doesn’t really provide more power than a .357 Mag or .40S&W.

I thought about a shotgun, but those aren’t really ideal for smaller statured folks (such as wives, children, or the elderly) or for quick follow ups, which probably aren’t necessary if you get the first round on target (unless you have more than one target). Yes, you can be quick, especially with some of the auto’s and a little practice but that’s not the point. They are still loud and have low ammo capacity.

I keep coming back to a few determining factors.

First, most houses are not that large ( if you can afford a house where you have plenty of room to swing a full size rifle or shotgun you can probably afford someone to wield it for you) so even the minimum legal length rifles and shotguns can quickly cause problems while clearing a house.

If you hear a bump in the night and just plan to hold one room or area with a choke point no problem, but if you have kids or family spread through the house or just live more than a few minutes from law enforcement assistance you may need to clear the residence yourself which means tight corners and doorways, closets, and one hand free for a light depending on time of day and your weapon set up. It also means one hand free to manipulate door knobs.

One of the K9 guys at our department often laments the move away from HK MP5s in 9mm because they could be shot with one hand, leaving the other free to control the K9 or manipulate doorknobs.

Which I guess brings me around to Short barreled rifles or shotguns. A short-barreled rifle or shotgun, such as the magazine fed Saigas allow flexibility and are ideal for tight spaces, but recoil may prevent one hand manipulation. However, once again this brings up finances. Most folks aren’t prepared to pay the price tag that comes along with a good short-barreled weapon, then pay the ridiculous ATF tax, and then pay to replace it if God forbid they have to use it in self defense.

The same can be said for suppressors. You still have to pay for the suppressor and then the extra $200 tax stamp along with the average 6 month wait for approval. I have read where some people recommend using a suppressed weapon for self defense and then removing the suppressor to keep from having it taken as evidence along with the weapon. I don’t recommend this as it is considered felony tampering with evidence in Texas. You definitely don’t want to turn what I hope is another wise legal use of force into a felony over a suppressor, because I promise it is not worth it.

So I guess the conclusion I have reached (and what I recommend) is that unless you are Tony Mantegna, a good quality full size handgun, preferably with weapon light, is the best affordable choice for defense of the average home.

As with everything practice is necessary.

I know I said this post wasn’t going to discuss what the best weapon for home defense was, but sometimes my writing just gets away from me.

The original point I meant to make was that most firearms manufacturers are making no attempt to innovate with different calibers or weapon designs, but I guess that is going to have to be another post.

Happy Texas Independance Day

Tuesday, 2 March, 10

Don’t forget to vote, as long as you are a Republican or Democrat. Otherwise you are SOL (disenfranchised) under the Texas primary system.

Random Advertising Rocks

Thursday, 11 February, 10

Gotta love it when an advertisement for The Great American Grill is placed on the same page as a story about a bunch of kids getting their hogs burned to death in a building fire.

Double Standard

Wednesday, 10 February, 10

Seems Obama has done such a crappy job to date that he is actually having to attempt to keep his campaign promises. In this (one single isolated case) I have to agree with him. His (poor) state of (dis)union address brought up a subject I have been meaning to comment on for a while, Don’t ask don’t tell. This stupid policy is almost as unfair and unAmerican as “separate but equal”.

Back in the day when I was younger, dumber and ….. well you get the idea; I was fairly homophobic. When I was a young grunt in the Army I was totally against gays in the military. Now that I am a few (ha ha) years older and hopefully a little wiser I realize how stupid I was on this particular topic. There are a few gay folks around my PD and there is not one that I would not want backing me up on a dangerous call. Most of them are (ta da) veterans. I believe it is completely hypocritical of anyone to say they support America and the Constitution and then try to deny gays their rights. How can anyone not want to be on the side of someone who knows they are going to be discriminated against, but still wants to serve their country.

What really chaps my ass ( no pun intended) is the fact that the .gov is the only one allowed to discriminate. Let a private company try to fire someone for being gay and you are subject to all sorts of sanctions and lawsuits, but the .gov shows once again they are above the law. There is a police dept in my neck of the woods that is attempting to institute a mandatory, military type, physical fitness test. However, unlike the military, they are not allowed to take age into effect on the requirements to pass. The .gov says this is age discrimination. This is the same .gov that allows for a reduction in performance standards in military fitness test based on your increasing age.

Don’t ask don’t tell also seems to me to be a violation of the separation of church and state, as it is mostly religious types who oppose gay rights. I realize that your particular religion may oppose homosexuality, but the same Constitution that protects your freedom of religion protects gays from discrimination. The 14th Amendment is fairly clear.

I agree with Robb over at Sharp as a Marble that being homosexual is not for me, but that does not mean I won’t defend your right to love who you want.

I also agree with Jennifer’s Head on two points. The first is that the .gov needs to stay out of peoples bedrooms. SCOTUS has already ruled that laws against homosexuality are illegal, yet it allows the military to discriminate on that very basis. My own State of Texas still keeps homosexuality in the Penal Code as a class C misdemeanor in spite of the law being illegal. The second is that homosexuality is not a conservative issue, it is a personal issue and therefore not open to legislation.

%d bloggers like this: