Is Black Friday A Total Bust?
“Personally,
I consider the monster crowds we call black Friday to be little more
than a pick-pocket’s dream come true, but that’s just me.”
By Dell Hill
So
far, every report I’ve heard from black Friday shoppers has been
“blah”! And Glenn Reynolds - better known in the blogosphere as the
Instapundit - is asking this serious question:
“RETAIL SUPPORT BRIGADE SITREP:
So the InstaDaughter and a cousin braved Black Friday at 5 am this
morning. They reported lots of people at the mall, but said that not
many were buying anything. They also reported that this may have been
because the stores weren’t offering much in the way of good deals. They
decamped for breakfast at IHOP having not bought much of anything
themselves.
Has the Retail Support Brigade become a “hollow army?” We’ll see. Perhaps too much as been asked of the troops, for too long.”
So, what’s the story here boys and girls?
Are the “big sales” not so big?
I’ve
seen scads of advertising; all suggesting that if I don’t drop what I’m
doing and get right down to (insert store name here) I’ll miss out on
the lowest prices EVAH!
Personally,
I consider the monster crowds we call black Friday to be little more
than a pick-pocket’s dream come true, but that’s just me. And the
lowest prices of EVAH almost always happen the day AFTER Christmas, so
what’s up with that?
If you’ve been in the trenches, let us know what you think.
Dell's Original Uncoverage Logo by Antonio F. Branco, Comically Incorrect
Friday, November 25, 2011
Gun Toting, Bible Thumping Blogger Loses Reader!
Gun Toting, Bible Thumping Blogger Loses Reader!
“You can take your gun and shove it up your ass. (signed) A former reader”.
By Dell Hill
From The Mailbag:
“People like you scare me. I’ll never read this blog again, knowing that people like you live in this country. I don’t care what you say, guns kill people and the only way we’ll ever have a peaceful world is to take all of the guns and melt them down. You can take your gun and shove it up your ass. (signed) A former reader”.
Dear Former Reader,
I just happened to notice this news story today. Perhaps it will help you understand why people like me (militarily trained, law enforcement trained and an advocate for the Second Amendment to our Constitution) believe that my life, and the lives of my loved ones, is worth protecting - to the death, if necessary.
“Police in Northfield, Vermont want residents to be wary of a high risk sex offender who was just released from state custody.
He is 39-year-old David Pecor.
Pecor was convicted of sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child.
He did not complete sex offender treatment in prison and is listed by the corrections department as a high risk offender.
Pecor informed the state he'll be living in Northfield.”
Northfield is not too very far from my home. If this convicted sex offender - whom the Corrections Department considers a “high risk offender” - decides to re-offend at my house, he would be met with as much force as is necessary to prevent that from happening. In this particular case, a minimum of two very well placed, center-of-the-mass shots from a fully loaded, 9 mm semi-automatic pistol that is almost always within arms reach.
At your house, I’m sorry to say, he would be successful. You would be beaten, raped and possibly killed. At my house his life of heinous crime would end.
It’s your choice, really. I make my choice without hesitation because I know how terribly flawed our judicial system is in releasing violent criminals back into civilization. If such criminals are deemed mentally ill, they should be legally confined until such time as they are fully able to conform. Not released “early” or released because they have “maxed out” their sentence. Their sentence should never end until their “illness” has been treated and a panel of experts is willing to declare they’re no longer a threat to re-offend. It’s simple; if they choose not to be treated, they stay safely locked away until they have a change of heart.
I’m sure that’s not what you wanted to hear, but that’s how it is in real life. More importantly, that’s the way it is at my home, or wherever I go, for that matter.
This is the United States of America and I have the Right to protect myself and my loved ones at all costs. You have the exact same option. Ignore your Rights at your own peril.
“You can take your gun and shove it up your ass. (signed) A former reader”.
By Dell Hill
From The Mailbag:
“People like you scare me. I’ll never read this blog again, knowing that people like you live in this country. I don’t care what you say, guns kill people and the only way we’ll ever have a peaceful world is to take all of the guns and melt them down. You can take your gun and shove it up your ass. (signed) A former reader”.
Dear Former Reader,
I just happened to notice this news story today. Perhaps it will help you understand why people like me (militarily trained, law enforcement trained and an advocate for the Second Amendment to our Constitution) believe that my life, and the lives of my loved ones, is worth protecting - to the death, if necessary.
“Police in Northfield, Vermont want residents to be wary of a high risk sex offender who was just released from state custody.
He is 39-year-old David Pecor.
Pecor was convicted of sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child.
He did not complete sex offender treatment in prison and is listed by the corrections department as a high risk offender.
Pecor informed the state he'll be living in Northfield.”
Northfield is not too very far from my home. If this convicted sex offender - whom the Corrections Department considers a “high risk offender” - decides to re-offend at my house, he would be met with as much force as is necessary to prevent that from happening. In this particular case, a minimum of two very well placed, center-of-the-mass shots from a fully loaded, 9 mm semi-automatic pistol that is almost always within arms reach.
At your house, I’m sorry to say, he would be successful. You would be beaten, raped and possibly killed. At my house his life of heinous crime would end.
It’s your choice, really. I make my choice without hesitation because I know how terribly flawed our judicial system is in releasing violent criminals back into civilization. If such criminals are deemed mentally ill, they should be legally confined until such time as they are fully able to conform. Not released “early” or released because they have “maxed out” their sentence. Their sentence should never end until their “illness” has been treated and a panel of experts is willing to declare they’re no longer a threat to re-offend. It’s simple; if they choose not to be treated, they stay safely locked away until they have a change of heart.
I’m sure that’s not what you wanted to hear, but that’s how it is in real life. More importantly, that’s the way it is at my home, or wherever I go, for that matter.
This is the United States of America and I have the Right to protect myself and my loved ones at all costs. You have the exact same option. Ignore your Rights at your own peril.
Not Your Everyday, Garden Variety “MOP”
Not Your Everyday, Garden Variety “MOP”
By Dell Hill
Hat Tip - Doug Ross
Before Barney Frank takes his 25% out of the Defense Department budget, I thought you’d like to see the latest munition designed specifically to avoid using weapons of nuclear destruction.
From these lips to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's ear:
Rogue states with nascent nuclear weapon programs (cough, Iran, cough), consider yourselves on notice. The Air Force has started taking delivery of Massive Ordnance Penetrators. Yup, the 30,000-pound bunker busters, known as MOPs, designed to penetrate 30 stories of reinforced concrete (Oh, and the massive bomb’s name is almost as charged as the term, Pre-Dawn Vertical Insertion, if you get what I’m sayin.)
The service apparently got its first production MOP in September and has been stockpiling them ever since. That’s a decent turnaround since April when the Air Force gave Boeing a $28 million contract to deliver eight MOPs and their associated loading equipment. The service gave Boeing a follow-on $32 million contract for eight more MOPs in August. No word on why that deal cost an extra $4 million when it appears otherwise identical to the April contract.
The Air Force has modified several B-2 stealth bombers to carry two of the GPS-guided bombs, apiece. This pretty much tells you all you need to know about the type of mission the MOP will be used for; a super bunker-buster carried by our most survivable heavy bomber. It’s meant to threaten nations like Iran and North Korea with the prospect of an air strike that can take out their most hardened targets.
I’ve got to say, this is pretty timely, given the recent flood of publicity surrounding Iran’s alleged progress toward building a nuclear weapon. While the MOP is big and costly, the West may have more subtle ways of putting kinetic pressure on states like Iran.
And, Mr. SpiffyInMyDinnerJacket, bear in mind that my leetle friend here penetrates THIRTY stories of reinforced concrete BEFORE it explodes!
How you like dem apples?
By Dell Hill
Hat Tip - Doug Ross
Before Barney Frank takes his 25% out of the Defense Department budget, I thought you’d like to see the latest munition designed specifically to avoid using weapons of nuclear destruction.
From these lips to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's ear:
Rogue states with nascent nuclear weapon programs (cough, Iran, cough), consider yourselves on notice. The Air Force has started taking delivery of Massive Ordnance Penetrators. Yup, the 30,000-pound bunker busters, known as MOPs, designed to penetrate 30 stories of reinforced concrete (Oh, and the massive bomb’s name is almost as charged as the term, Pre-Dawn Vertical Insertion, if you get what I’m sayin.)
The service apparently got its first production MOP in September and has been stockpiling them ever since. That’s a decent turnaround since April when the Air Force gave Boeing a $28 million contract to deliver eight MOPs and their associated loading equipment. The service gave Boeing a follow-on $32 million contract for eight more MOPs in August. No word on why that deal cost an extra $4 million when it appears otherwise identical to the April contract.
The Air Force has modified several B-2 stealth bombers to carry two of the GPS-guided bombs, apiece. This pretty much tells you all you need to know about the type of mission the MOP will be used for; a super bunker-buster carried by our most survivable heavy bomber. It’s meant to threaten nations like Iran and North Korea with the prospect of an air strike that can take out their most hardened targets.
I’ve got to say, this is pretty timely, given the recent flood of publicity surrounding Iran’s alleged progress toward building a nuclear weapon. While the MOP is big and costly, the West may have more subtle ways of putting kinetic pressure on states like Iran.
And, Mr. SpiffyInMyDinnerJacket, bear in mind that my leetle friend here penetrates THIRTY stories of reinforced concrete BEFORE it explodes!
How you like dem apples?
Go For It, Mr. President!
Go For It, Mr. President!
“Obama's history in support of strict gun control measures prior to becoming president makes it difficult for him to claim he's a Second Amendment champion”
By Dell Hill
It has been proven time and time and again. If there’s any political attack that will bring out the voters on election day it’s “gun control”. And any politician in his or her right mind will know and understand that any attack on the Second Amendment will likely result in you getting to “spend a lot more time with your family” and advancing a new career.
At the moment, we have a president who would like to say what he’s thinking, but he doesn’t dare. He’d like to shred the Constitution some more by repealing the Second Amendment all together, but he knows that would be political suicide. He would alienate many members of his own party and only satisfy a small faction of gun control zealots in the process.
We, the people, would love to have the president tell us how he really feels and what he’s proposing for gun control during his time occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but his residence will hopefully be ending in just about 421 days - But who’s counting?
The Republican presidential candidates leave little doubt about where they stand on gun rights.
Rick Perry and Rick Santorum go pheasant hunting and give interviews before heading out. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain speak to the National Rifle Association convention. Michele Bachmann tells People magazine she wants to teach her daughters how to shoot because women need to be able to protect themselves. Mitt Romney, after backing some gun control measures in Massachusetts, now presents himself as a strong Second Amendment supporter.
President Barack Obama, on the other hand, is virtually silent on the issue.
He has hardly addressed it since a couple months after the January assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., when he promised to develop new steps on gun safety in response. He still has failed to do so, even as Tucson survivors came to Capitol Hill last week to push for action to close loopholes in the background check system.
Democrats have learned the hard way that embracing gun control can be terrible politics, and the 2012 presidential election is shaping up to underscore just how delicate the issue can be. With the election likely to be decided largely by states where hunting is a popular pastime, like Missouri, Ohio or Pennsylvania, candidates of both parties want to win over gun owners, not alienate them.
For Republicans, that means emphasizing their pro-gun credentials. But for Obama and the Democrats, the approach is trickier.
Obama's history in support of strict gun control measures prior to becoming president makes it difficult for him to claim he's a Second Amendment champion, even though he signed a bill allowing people to take loaded guns into national parks. At the same time, he's apparently decided that his record backing gun safety is nothing to boast of, either, perhaps because of the power of the gun lobby and their opposition to anything smacking of gun control.
The result is that while Republicans are more than happy to talk up their support for gun rights, Obama may barely be heard from on the issue at all.
"Gun control is a fight that the administration is not willing to pick. They're not likely to win it," said Harry Wilson, author of a book on gun politics and director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College in Virginia. "They certainly would not win it in Congress, and it's not likely to be a winner at the polls. ... It comes down to one pretty simple word: Politics."
Administration officials say they are working to develop the gun safety measures promised after the Giffords shooting, and they say have taken steps to improve the background check system. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich says the White House goal is to "protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them under existing law."
But when it comes to guns and politics, Democrats haven't forgotten what happened in 1994. That year, President Bill Clinton was pushing for passage of a landmark crime bill featuring a ban on assault weapons, and then-House Speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash., twisted Democrats' arms to get it through the House. Come November, Democrats suffered widespread election losses and lost control of the House and the Senate.
Foley was among those defeated, and Clinton and others credited the NRA's campaigning with a big role in the outcome. And when the assault weapons ban came up for congressional reauthorization in 2004, it failed.
Given that history, the NRA expects to see Obama treading carefully on guns through 2012.
"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment at election time," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
"They're trying to fog the issue through the 2012 election and deceive gun owners into thinking he's something he's not, which is pro-Second Amendment."
Rather than propose legislation to beef up the penalty phase for crimes committed using weapons (something that would gain overwhelming support from gun owners, themselves), the Obama administration will try to do what just about every Democrat president tries to do; make it virtually impossible for American citizens to own firearms. The glaring history of that fact is telling and the American people know it. And the American people will respond once again.
This blog supports the Second Amendment 100% and offers this reminder:
“When seconds count, the police are only 20 minutes away”.
“Obama's history in support of strict gun control measures prior to becoming president makes it difficult for him to claim he's a Second Amendment champion”
By Dell Hill
It has been proven time and time and again. If there’s any political attack that will bring out the voters on election day it’s “gun control”. And any politician in his or her right mind will know and understand that any attack on the Second Amendment will likely result in you getting to “spend a lot more time with your family” and advancing a new career.
At the moment, we have a president who would like to say what he’s thinking, but he doesn’t dare. He’d like to shred the Constitution some more by repealing the Second Amendment all together, but he knows that would be political suicide. He would alienate many members of his own party and only satisfy a small faction of gun control zealots in the process.
We, the people, would love to have the president tell us how he really feels and what he’s proposing for gun control during his time occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but his residence will hopefully be ending in just about 421 days - But who’s counting?
The Republican presidential candidates leave little doubt about where they stand on gun rights.
Rick Perry and Rick Santorum go pheasant hunting and give interviews before heading out. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain speak to the National Rifle Association convention. Michele Bachmann tells People magazine she wants to teach her daughters how to shoot because women need to be able to protect themselves. Mitt Romney, after backing some gun control measures in Massachusetts, now presents himself as a strong Second Amendment supporter.
President Barack Obama, on the other hand, is virtually silent on the issue.
He has hardly addressed it since a couple months after the January assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., when he promised to develop new steps on gun safety in response. He still has failed to do so, even as Tucson survivors came to Capitol Hill last week to push for action to close loopholes in the background check system.
Democrats have learned the hard way that embracing gun control can be terrible politics, and the 2012 presidential election is shaping up to underscore just how delicate the issue can be. With the election likely to be decided largely by states where hunting is a popular pastime, like Missouri, Ohio or Pennsylvania, candidates of both parties want to win over gun owners, not alienate them.
For Republicans, that means emphasizing their pro-gun credentials. But for Obama and the Democrats, the approach is trickier.
Obama's history in support of strict gun control measures prior to becoming president makes it difficult for him to claim he's a Second Amendment champion, even though he signed a bill allowing people to take loaded guns into national parks. At the same time, he's apparently decided that his record backing gun safety is nothing to boast of, either, perhaps because of the power of the gun lobby and their opposition to anything smacking of gun control.
The result is that while Republicans are more than happy to talk up their support for gun rights, Obama may barely be heard from on the issue at all.
"Gun control is a fight that the administration is not willing to pick. They're not likely to win it," said Harry Wilson, author of a book on gun politics and director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College in Virginia. "They certainly would not win it in Congress, and it's not likely to be a winner at the polls. ... It comes down to one pretty simple word: Politics."
Administration officials say they are working to develop the gun safety measures promised after the Giffords shooting, and they say have taken steps to improve the background check system. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich says the White House goal is to "protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them under existing law."
But when it comes to guns and politics, Democrats haven't forgotten what happened in 1994. That year, President Bill Clinton was pushing for passage of a landmark crime bill featuring a ban on assault weapons, and then-House Speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash., twisted Democrats' arms to get it through the House. Come November, Democrats suffered widespread election losses and lost control of the House and the Senate.
Foley was among those defeated, and Clinton and others credited the NRA's campaigning with a big role in the outcome. And when the assault weapons ban came up for congressional reauthorization in 2004, it failed.
Given that history, the NRA expects to see Obama treading carefully on guns through 2012.
"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment at election time," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
"They're trying to fog the issue through the 2012 election and deceive gun owners into thinking he's something he's not, which is pro-Second Amendment."
Rather than propose legislation to beef up the penalty phase for crimes committed using weapons (something that would gain overwhelming support from gun owners, themselves), the Obama administration will try to do what just about every Democrat president tries to do; make it virtually impossible for American citizens to own firearms. The glaring history of that fact is telling and the American people know it. And the American people will respond once again.
This blog supports the Second Amendment 100% and offers this reminder:
“When seconds count, the police are only 20 minutes away”.
Thank You, All...Very Much!
Thank You, All...Very Much!
We set a new, single day record for blog hits today and - to celebrate - all of my friends here at the "home" are doing a Happy Dance!
We set a new, single day record for blog hits today and - to celebrate - all of my friends here at the "home" are doing a Happy Dance!
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Hand Salute!
Hand Salute!
By Dell Hill
We also give pause to honor those men and women who won’t be enjoying this Thanksgiving day dinner by preparing a very special table.
By Dell Hill
We also give pause to honor those men and women who won’t be enjoying this Thanksgiving day dinner by preparing a very special table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)