Friday Linkzookery – 01 May 2009

Fort Dix Terror Plotters Sentenced
When this first went down we had a few commenters here on MO carrying on about how these guys were basically harmless.

F-5s Forever!
Mike Burleson on the little guy.

The Peanut Farmer on Assault Weapons
Well, it’s more like “the peanut farmer on crack cocain,” but you know what Murdoc means…

F-20A Tigershark Home Page
The F-20 was the largest commercial military project ever attempted. Speaking of “commerical,” do you remember those television ads with Chuck Yeager and the F-20? What were those for? Batteries or something? Or was he actually advertising the plane in the TV spot?

Workers find message hidden in Auschwitz wall
Hand-written in pencil, the note bears the names and camp ID numbers of seven camp prisoners including four Poles and one Frenchman from Lyon

Pick 5 and Only 5
If you could only own 5 guns what would they be? (Also discussed at GunPundit)

Game Over: Konami cancels plan for ‘Six Days in Fallujah’
They were getting a lot of pressure.

Army tells Sikh officers to change appearance
It’s easy to say “get with the program” on this, but they claim they were assured it wouldn’t be a problem.

Comments

  1. My 5 and only 5:

    Glock 9mm. Ammo availability, concealable, good house gun, etc. I struggled a long time on this one. I really, really like to have a small frame .357 with me at all times, for reliability, abilty to shoot from inside a pocket, and range of ammo. But if I can only have one handgun, I’ve gotta give the edge to a high capacity nine…

    Ruger 10/22, folding stock, scoped, silenced, with laser. Everyday (and night) varmint control, food gatherer, and various and sundry low key operations.

    .308 rifle, bolt, variable scope, any decent brand. For when you need to reach out and touch some one, big game, etc. Again, ammo availability factors in on the caliber choice.

    AK-47. My “When Shiites hit the fan” gun. And yes, I would rather have a 7.62X54 over a .223. Ammo is cheaper and more available, and its accuracy is good enough in close, and that’s what this gun is for. And it’s not finicky. Now, I seriously considered giving up the .308 and the AK and combining them into one M-16 (since, IMO, that’s what the M-16 is: A decent compromise of close-in auto fire and longer range riflery), and using my freed up choice on another handgun. But in the end, I decided 2 handguns would be a luxury. And sometimes, the extra oomph and accuracy of a bolt .308 is a very good thing to have.

    12 gauge pump, short barrel, folding stock, laser, any decent brand. House gun, birds, rabbits, dudes in body armor, cars, whatever. I almost went with a semi-auto, but sometimes you just need a gun that makes that unmistakable “shhhhick-shick” sound…

  2. Re Sikh officers: This comes down to our immigration policy. Either you support an assimilation policy such as our tried and true “melting pot”, or a non-assimilation policy like multiculturalism. One led to the creation of the most successful republic in history. The other will lead to the balkanization of said republic.

  3. I should also add that I actually own all of those guns I mentioned.

    My AK isn’t full auto and my 10/22 isn’t silenced, but I also have a milling machine and a nice library.

  4. The US Army should look into how the British and later the Indians dealt with the Sikh issue. I wonder what they (or transport security, come to that) will make of another of their “five Ks” religious requirements, to carry a concealed blade…

    On guns, the FEMA has long struck me as a very good choice, though I would prefer it with a higher calibre. So maybe the H & K G3? And the Calico range is appealing, particularly for pistols, but I regret to say I’m not too sure about their reliability in field conditions.

  5. I was looking forward to six days in fallujah dammit

    my 5 would be
    M1911 LTC Para
    a classic redone in acceptable style, and it doesn’t destroy my hands
    SOCCOM MK23
    supposedly it handles better than the average USP
    S&W N frame Model 29
    do i have to explain?
    Walther P99 or S&W SW99
    It just feels weird, in a good way, like it wants to make love to my hand while it shoots (no pun intended)
    Remington 700BDL
    the action on this thing just feels smooth, solid and consistent, whether or not the barrel is cold and empty, or warm and full of lead build-up

  6. “Army tells Sikh officers to change appearance

    Torn between their Sikh faith and their military duty, two soldiers are fighting Army policy that requires them to shave their beards, cut their hair and remove their turbans.

    “I don’t think it’s fair for anybody to ask me to choose between my religion and my country,” Capt. Kamaljeet Kalsi said. “Shaving my beard and taking off my turban — these are part of my body. It’s part of my being.”

    Tough, sikh-heads.

    When I “enlisted” in the Marine Corp one of the first utterances (albeit a trite phrase) I heard from my D.I. as ALL my hair fell to the floor was:

    Your soul may belong to God, but your ASS belongs to the Corps!)

  7. No, Toejam, utterly wrong. Sikhs only ever offer to sign up to armed forces on a “take me as I am” basis (the ones that are willing to change are called “mechanical Sikhs”, and don’t count as real Sikhs to the others – and aren’t of their calibre). Lying to them about wahat they are in for in sets up far more trouble later, as Indira Gandhi found. If the US military doesn’t want to deal on that basis, fair enough, but it shouldn’t try to make them what they aren’t, it should back off trying to get them. Because there will be more trouble than it’s worth otherwise. Even if it is a US tradition to lie to potential recruits, this is a case where it doesn’t pay off. You might as well insist on shaving military dogs for all the good it would do.

  8. “We’re at the forefront of freedom throughout the world, and yet we have an army that doesn’t accurately reflect the diversity of its people.”

    I’m curious WHY an army would “accurately reflect the diversity of its people.” An army is a machine with a job, and that machine runs however damn well the folks in charge want to run it, and carefully aligning the racial or religous makup to match US census data is just stupid. The goal is strong defense, not strong multiculturalism. I’m surprised to hear a comment like that from someone who is apparentl third or fourth generation military.

    That being said, if the army told them they it wasn’t going to be a problem BEFORE they signed up, then the army needs to stand by that and accomodate them one way or another. Just make sure you don’t tell any MORE incoming folks that kind of lie. The army made its bed in THIS case when it lied up front.

  9. ‘I’m curious WHY an army would “accurately reflect the diversity of its people.”’

    That’s an idea derived from a deeper one about making constitutional machinery work. That underlying idea is to have armed forces of a country, not over it. If they are “the people”, the “nation in arms”, the thinking goes, they can’t be used against the people.

    It’s sound if you take it deep enough and really think things through, but you can still have military coups even in countries that have mass conscription in an attempt to head that off. The problem is that the NCO structure can keep the conscripts in order, maybe in barracks, while the coup goes ahead. The constitutional shared interests don’t work as a simple aggregate.

    There was a very similar justification for having purchased commissions, in an era where there was a ruling class, to make the armed forces share interests with the ruling class (and so with the country). With experience of the French Revolution, where efficiency reforms had previously got rid of a Garde de Corps loyal to the king, even fine soldiers like the Duke of Wellington thought that Britain would be better served by a loyal officer corps than by an efficient one.

  10. If you are worried about an army and whether it will be used against the country, then you probably don’t support having a large standing army in the first place which is what our founders believed.

    Of course if you want to have an army involved in locations throughout the world, then you probably support a large, diverse force, not because it represents the diversity of the nation, but because it represents the diversity of the areas in which it will operate.

Comments are closed