My only comment is, “Really?”
A lifetime Democrat Continuum drone and wild-eyed liberal doesn’t like Republicans? Senator Reid doesn’t approve of conservatives – either social, fiscal or moral? How shocking!
For some reason, that’s news to Yahoo.
My only comment is, “Really?”
A lifetime Democrat Continuum drone and wild-eyed liberal doesn’t like Republicans? Senator Reid doesn’t approve of conservatives – either social, fiscal or moral? How shocking!
For some reason, that’s news to Yahoo.
Time for another installment of theology.
One of the time-honored arguments of theologians and all philosophers is that of “Do humans have free will?” I’m not going to rehearse the whole of the arguments or the enormity of the situation. However, I suggest one must live one’s life as if one does have free will. How else can one live?
On a practical level, when faced with a choice, one must choose something. Turn left or right. Stop or go. Paper or plastic. Vote progressive or make sense. Relieve one’s self or ship small stores. To wait for a ‘sign’ or consult the gods, or stars or let karma take its course are all ways of procrastinating.
On a Biblical, spiritual level, one notes the Book of Ezekiel (the one in the Bible, not one of the Pseudepigrapha attempts) has a number of statements revolving around “The soul that sins is the one that shall die”. One notes the essential message is also repeated throughout the Mosaic code sections and repeated in the teachings of Jesus. The question “what is meant by death” is side-stepped; the message is clear God holds each person responsible for choices.
Any questions? Good.
Paul the Apostle says in 1st Corinthians 10:23, “Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up.” The statement “Everything is lawful” was a slogan in Corinth; Paul is not quoting Old Testament scripture, by the way. Still, it is in some regards correct.
Consider smacking yourself on the head with an eight ounce ball peen hammer. Repeatedly. Is that ‘lawful’? Are you free to do so? To the best of my knowledge, it is, and you are. Is it a good idea? All in favor raise their hands. (I see two hands. Both are known to me; one is a compulsive smart mouth and the other – we won’t discuss the other one.)
Jumping once again and promising this all ties together; one observes certain laws of nature and does one’s best to observe them. Gravity is one such law. Most of us respect the laws of gravity and choose to use stairs, elevators or escelators rather than jumping from upper floor windows. Most of us respect laws of volume and inelasticity of fluids by NOT intentionally overfilling carafes or water jugs or gasoline tanks. Nearly all of us observe whatever laws governing the collision between hammers and skulls. (Even without medical training.)
Keep this in mind. As the designer, builder, creator and sustainer of the Universe, the Lord God designed and instituted all these laws. And more, by the way.
So what about choices of natural laws NOT of obvious and immediate consequence? Smoking comes to mind. I know of no cases where any person developed lung cancer from their first cigarette. (Some never do; some develop lung cancer without smoking.) However, there seems to be a noted correlation between long term smoking and lung cancer. Or several other lung problems. So it seems that while lung cancer is NOT an unavoidable punishment for smoking, it does have a connection.
Sexually transmitted diseases are another. If one continues having unprotected sex with random partners, sooner or later one will contract some form of sexually transmitted disease. (Okay, pregnancy is NOT a disease, but can be contracted inadvertently.) The occurrence is NOT a punishment from God for fooling around, it’s just a natural consequence of the action.
Ask anyone – professional or amateur – if, while using a hammer they have hit their fingers inadvertantly. (Some without much consequence, some with serious injuries.) However, God does NOT punish use of hammers in such fashion. It is just a consequence of using a hammer – and typically overconfidence.
Having read the above, think about the question: “With all this in mind, why does anyone ‘choose’ to ignore the laws of the Universe?”
God, in making the laws of the Universe, has instituted certain manners of conduct. One ignores those ‘manners of conduct’ at one’s own peril. Therefore, one is careful in negotiating stairs, mountain paths, automobile traffic (both as driver and pedestrian), contact with potential sexual partners, gambling, drinking and so forth.
No. I don’t think Evel Knievel was sinful in his motorcycle stunts. I am fairly certain had he chosen accounting as his life’s work, he would have broken fewer bones.
So why does one make choices intentionally to flaunt God’s laws? Those moral laws God has given us in the Bible?
I will point out this thinking is supported and encouraged by modern societal thinking. It is phrased somewhat differently of course. Doing what which is punishable by natural consequence is described in various ways. “Adventurous” comes to mind. This is probably one aspect which makes rock climbing attractive. I’m not claiming, or even suggesting, rock climbing is sinful or rebellious against God. However, depending on the level of preparation, rock climbing is silly and dangerous to some degree. (From a purely logical standpoint; there are more convenient and safer ways to get atop any specific rock face.)
The danger of the ‘adventurous’ excuse is that it leads to other dangers. Illicit drug use and abuse has been described as ‘adventurous’. Driving in a dangerous (usually including excessive speed for conditions and/or posted traffic ordinances) manner is ‘adventurous’. One’s sex life can be ‘adventurous’.
I think the underlying reason is this. One wishes to make “one’s own choice”. Since God says ‘option A’, one is under the somewhat clouded view the only “own choice” is ‘not option A’. In other words, if one is to ‘decide on one’s own’, then one must do other than God already decided.
Nearly all people go through a period of rebelling against authority. Usually in the person of one’s parents. Normally this fades out with some degree of maturity. (To be honest, I’m still lacking when it comes to cleaning up my room. House, these days.) However, rebelling just to be rebelling isn’t a choice; the practice is a rather limiting, knee-jerk reaction.
Make your choice.
I have a friend who shall remain nameless. He’s a quiet, studious retiring sort. He doesn’t enjoy the limelight and public recognition. Which probably means he’s really in charge of a super-secret agency dealing with national security or aliens or something. Or not.
He collects Glock pistols. I’m not sure he has Glock knives, bayonets or entrenching tools, but he enjoys Glock pistols.
Just for the record, do NOT hold this against him. He’s really a good guy in spite of the Glock thing.
A couple weeks ago – I’ve been rather lax in this – we went out to the range and shot several of his Glocks using commercial loaded ammunition. What was interesting about this was he has an assortment of pistols and components, which allow for comparison of different barrel configurations, using the same frame and ammunition.
To be precise, we set up a chronograph and testing the following.
Essentially one Glock pistol, model 17 frame. This one frame employed the standard barrel of – according to the Glock website – 4.48 inches (or 114mm, if one prefers). A second barrel identical to the first, but with compensation ports. A third barrel with a threaded extention for a suppressor. (No. No suppressor available.) The third barrel is a bit longer than the standard barrel length. I seem to have lost the length of the threaded barrel, but it is longer than standard by about 5/8s of an inch. (Perhaps 3/4″ at the most.) (If not already noted, all these variations are chambered for the 9×19 cartridge, sometimes known as 9mm Luger or 9mm Parabellum.)
So. How do these barrel lengths affect velocity?
Not so much, really. We noted a discrete velocity difference, but rather minor in the grand scale of things.
Glock 17 using Standard Barrel, Ported Barrel and Slide (Standard Length) and Threaded Barrel.
Using Winchester ammunition identified as “Win USA9MM” (a 125 grain FMJ bullet as I recall), the Standard Barrel (Sta) gave an average of 1141 feet per second (fps). The Ported Barrel and Slide (Por) showed an average of 1126 fps. The Threaded Barrel (Thr) averaged 1157 fps.
So one sees a distinct difference in average velocities. But it isn’t much. The ported barrel is about 1.3 % slower than the standard barrel. The threaded barrel is about 1.4 % faster than the standard barrel. So the total variance between the slowest and fastest velocities is just over 3 %. The difference is actually less than the variation of any single barrel used in the testing.
To be specific, the standard barrel showed an extreme spread (which is jargon for the difference between the highest and lowest velocities recorded in the series) of 19 fps. Which by percentage of the average velocity is 1.7 %. So in reality, all these velocity readings overlap to some degree. The highest velocity recorded in the ‘slow’ barrel is faster than the lowest velocity recorded in the ‘fast’ barrel.
So perhaps all the arguing about ‘which’ barrel may or may not be ‘faster’ is probably not all that meaningful. Being afraid to use a slightly shorter barrel may not mean anything.
Here’s another ‘result’ from the same day’s chronograph testing. My friend who follows the discipline of St. Gaston also had a Glock 19. The Glock 19 has an official barrel length of 102mm or 4.01 inches. So it is about half an inch shorter. We tested it as well with the same ammunition.
The Glock 19 showed an average velocity of 1130 fps. Wow! That’s an 11 fps difference! Gangbusters! That’s less velocity difference than between the standard and ported barrels in the ‘full size’ pistol.
If anyone is worried about velocity loss due (only) to barrel length, quit. You now have one less issue about which to worry.
If one must worry, different pistols and revolvers do in fact differ. Not due only to barrel length, but due to variations in chamber size, actual bore diameter, cylinder gap and recoil spring strength. For reloader, burn rate of gunpowder may have some effect. But that’s another story. Or blog entry. Stay tuned.
Recently I did a comparison testing of a couple .22 long rifle offerings. As it happened, this is what I had on hand. Also the testing is limited to the firearms I own. Still, I think the combinations are not all that far removed from most shooter’s experience.
I used the CED Millennium 2 chronograph; chosen as it is the one I have.
The two ammunition types I fired most were:
1. CCI Standard Velocity ammunition. It is a 40 grain lead bullet at an advertised 1070 feet per second (fps) velocity.
2. Winchester High Velocity “555” ammunition. A 36 grain plated bullet, advertised at 1280 feet per second (fps) velocity.
Here are the chronograph readings.
Smith & Wesson m18 (revolver) with four inch barrel delivered: CCI Standard Velocity – 889.5 fps; Winchester 555 – 1046.6 fps.
Smith & Wesson m41 (semi automatic pistol) with five and one-half inch barrel: CCI Standard Velocity – 912.9 fps; Winchester 555 was not tested.
Ruger Lite (semi automatic pistol) with four and one-quarter inch barrel: CCI Standard Velocity – 871.7 fps; Winchester 555 – 1044.2 fps.
Marlin 39 (lever rifle) with twenty-four inch barrel delivered: CCI Standard Velocity – 937.3 fps; Winchester 555 – 1171.6 fps.
Marlin 25 (bolt action rifle) with twenty-two inch barrel: CCI Standard Velocity – 1036.1 fps; Winchester 555 – 1246.8 fps.
Stevens Automatic (rifle) with twenty-four inch barrel: CCI Standard Velocity – 1025.7 fps; Winchester 555 – 1225 fps.
I looked up the advertised velocity of both types of ammunition. The Winchester 555 is advertised as 1280 fps; the CCI Standard Velocity is 1070 fps. However, no information is provided regarding the type of firearm used to establish the advertised velocities. One can assume several bits of information from this. One is that – more than likely – different arms were used. Second, the firearms used were more than likely rifles rather than handguns. Last, the advertised velocities are probably derived under the best of circumstances. I’m sure the respective manufacturers can defend the truthfulness of the information, but I am equally sure it is the most optimistic figure available.
As has been mentioned, all firearms are a law unto themselves in terms of exact results. This applies to all firearms and all ammunition. Rimfire, central fire, factory or reloaded.
Today (Friday, 27th March, in the year of our Lord 2015) I did something rather out of character. I bought a new pistol. Not just new in the sense of “in the box, unfired” as opposed to used, but a rather new configuration and model.
I bought a Ruger model 3906. In dog years, it is a Ruger .22 long rifle caliber pistol. The design is a variant of their rather tried and true standard semi-automatic pistol; this being the newer but well-established “22/45″ variation. It is further variated in that the frame is what seems to be a polymer plastic and what appears to be a bull (of greater diameter and non-tapered) barrel is actually a small – thin – actual barrel with an aluminum shroud covering the barrel. This shroud is of one piece with the receiver. A very neat arrangement. And the barrel is threaded in the event I should desire a suppressor at some future point.
The nominal (holster maker) barrel length is four inches from breach face to muzzle, actual ballistic length (from base of bullet to be fired to muzzle) is about three and five-eighths (3.625) inches. On my genuine but not-for-trade kitchen scale, the pistol with both magazines provided weigh just shy of 1.5 pounds, unloaded. In other terms, that’s 23.5 ounces. This is a light pistol. I have a suspicion this pistol was configured with hikers or back-packers in mind. Overall length is eight and three-eights (8.375) inches; overall height is five and five-eighths (5.625) inches.
I can imagine the question: “Being that light, how does it recoil?” Since this pistol is chambered for .22 long rifle, recoil shouldn’t be excessive. Also considering the pistol has a full sized grip, one can have a decent controlling grip on the pistol and I doubt recoil will be much of a factor.
With all that in mind, I haven’t shot it yet. I plan on doing so shortly. I will report when I do.
The pistol comes with adjustable, high visibility sights. They are pretty much the standard adjustable sights Ruger has been using on their line of .22 pistols for many years. The front post is square and plain matte black. The rear sight ‘blade’ (mounted athwart and the part with the rear sight notch) is also plain matte black, as sights should be.
The pistol has the familiar Ruger ‘button’ thumb operated safety; mounted on the rear right side of the receiver (works best for right handers). Also featured is a hold-open device activated by the empty magazine, a loaded chamber indicator (identified by cast-in lettering) and a Government Model style magazine retainer or release as you are pleased to think of it. The magazine is NOT a bottom, ‘heel’ release anymore. I think Ruger changed that some time ago, but I really don’t keep track of ‘new’ guns all that much. I note Ruger has equipped these pistols with a ‘magazine safety’. Sigh.
I find magazine safeties offensive. The idea behind a magazine safety is the operator is too stupid to remember to remove the round in the chamber. Perhaps with the change of U. S. society to the position that no one should be responsible for their own stupidity. Enough. I’ll get off on a full rant shortly.
Markings on the pistol are nicely roll-stamped and attractive. They’re big enough to read but don’t monopolize the view. The serial number is very obvious and easy to identify and read. I think it is acid etched; it doesn’t seem to be engraved or roll stamped. Definitely not hand stamped. The ‘read manual’ warning is politely placed on the bottom of the barrel shroud – which is part of the receiver. It is easy to read, meaningful and happily easy to ignore.
Since this pistol is a ‘sporting – recreational’ type pistol, I personally do not foresee the need for speed reloads.
I mentioned this is the “22/45″ configuration. The grip panels look much like Government Model grips. The right side panel is somewhat trimmed at the top, forward corner to allow the slide lock to operate freely. They are made of what strikes me as rubber – a bit soft and clingy and are black to match the frame. They have the Ruger phoenix or dragon (I’ve never figured it out; I think I’ve read what it is, but don’t remember) logo cast into the grips.
Looking into the packing box (which I shall keep; I learn slowly, but pretty well), I find Ruger includes a soft, zippered pistol case – with Ruger logo, of course. Also included is a Weaver type mounting rail. The receiver is already drilled and tapped for mounting and the three tapped holes are currently filled by headless screws to prevent debris from filling them up. There’s a padlock on behalf of the psychotically intrusive. I suppose it could be used by an owner with children and no safe (he said, trying to be positive). One more thing – as Columbo would say – is a ‘key’ which can be used to activate or deactivate the internal ‘lock’ which keeps the manually operated safety from being moved from ‘safe’. This device also mandated by the psychotically intrusive. Presumably will not lock by itself; I don’t have any use for it. I can live with it as this is not a defensive pistol.
All in all, this is a classic looking pistol. It is businesslike in black and aluminum. Also, the grip fits my hand properly. I can hold this pistol one handed and feel like I am not going to drop it.
Update from Wednesday, 01 April 2015. I finally shot this pistol and sighted it in. After a couple of tries where I took everything to the range EXCEPT this pistol (did take several other .22 pistols and a couple different kinds of .22 long rifle ammo), I did get to shoot this one. It shoots fairly well.
Since this is a ‘field’ pistol, I thought some high speed ammunition was in order. I have the remains of a box of Winchester High Speed “555” ammunition. It is a plated bullet, in more or less SWC HP configuration. According to the printing on the box the bullets are 36 grains. According to the Winchester website, the velocity is given as 1280 feet per second; however, the website does not detail from which firearm or under what conditions the velocity was determined. I also tried a few rounds of CCI Standard Velocity at 1070 feet per second. The CCI has proved to work best in other pistols for accuracy and reliability.
At twenty-five yards – timed and rapid fire distance for NRA bullseye shooting – the factory sight setting was close enough to be on target. (This using the Winchester “555” ammunition.) All the shots were low and to the right of center. I read the instructions regarding the adjustable sights and corrected: Two clicks up and two clicks left. (Odd for me, usually I throw shots low and left. Perhaps I’m overcoming my tendency to ‘milk’ the grip?) After adjustment, the second set of five rounds were tighter, but almost exactly in the same place. Arrgh! So, I moved the sights another five clicks up and five clicks left. This put four rounds (not counting one thrown rather high and right) in a nice tight group just to the left of center but still about as low as the preceding shots. Humpf! I moved another five clicks up and one click back to right.
I think that will do it. Good news and bad news. The five shot group is now centered on the target. The bad news is the shots are strung from the (barely) 6 ring at about 2 o’clock to the 5 ring at almost 9 o’clock. Three shots in the 8 and 9 ring. Also on that same diagonal line. (Which indicates my old problem of ‘milking’ or squeezing all my fingers when I operate the trigger is showing up again. More on this later.)
I fired another five rounds with the same sight setting. They seemed to settle into the center of the target. Now I just have to practice.
Which brings me to the trigger. The trigger is a hard trigger. No doubt provoked by lawsuits of people who should not have guns, knives, pointy sticks, ladders, automobiles, power tools or microwave ovens, Ruger seems to follow the ‘idiot-proof’ theory of design. The only trigger I can recall that is as difficult to manipulate correctly is from a Hungarian FEG pistol.
At home, I dug out my trigger pull device and found the trigger broke at 5.5 pounds. Really? I would have guessed nine or thirteen, perhaps. I did check it more than once. 5.5 pounds. I am amazed.
The trigger is so hard that the pistol shook when operating the trigger. I was frankly amazed to have the shots hit the paper as well as they did.
Perhaps some shooting will ‘ease’ the trigger a bit. A bit of normal wear tends to do so. Also, I need to fire the pistol some more (so far, a total of thirty-five shots) and ‘learn’ this trigger. Thoughts of gunsmith adjustment also play through my head. Still, four pounds is probably as low as needed. But I still have to figure out why it seems so heavy.
Earlier in this exposition I mentioned the question of recoil. As I anticipated, recoil is just enough to disturb the sight picture but in no manner abusive. It doesn’t seem to recoil any more than most other .22 pistols. Perhaps it might bother someone with severe arthritis, but it should not bother anyone with normal physical abilities.
Back to shooting. I switched over to CCI Standard velocity ammunition and moved up to the 50 foot mark. (My hand was getting tired. Probably my eyes as well.) The groups were centered and I scored roughly 70% score. Not bad, but not impressive for a bullseye shooter, either.
After shooting, I dismounted the pistol and cleaned it. Thirty-five rounds didn’t dirty the pistol much. I bristle brushed the bore – not much to clean – and wiped off the parts. At first, the mainspring housing and bolt retainer was hard to remove. Perhaps I did something wrong, as the second attempt worked relatively easily.
Chronograph testing happened later, 03 April 2015. The wind had been a fitful lately and I wanted to regulate the sights and check accuracy. I shot on the indoor range. The fluorescent lights on the indoor range confuse the chronograph and it doesn’t work correctly. Hopefully next time.
The Winchester 555 ammunition – claimed to have a velocity of 1280 fps – delivered an average of 1046 fps. This ammunition was really quite consistent with an extreme spread of 32 fps. CCI Standard Velocity – advertised at 1070 fps – presented an average of 860.6 fps and extreme spread of 97.8 fps. Just remember, the advertised velocity is more than likely fired from either a long barreled rifle or a test device (with long barrel). The websites giving the advertising claims do not specify the arm used.
I remember the satirical comment of “If they print it on the internet, it must be true.” What is probably true about advertising is all claims ARE true, but only under specific conditions that may or may not be announced. Like which firearm was used, length of barrel, phase of the Moon…
I need a holster for it. I’m torn between a full flap, protective holster and a desire to keep the holster light – in harmony with the pistol itself. As usual, I’m thinking too hard. Probably a strong side or perhaps cross draw mount in lighter leather than the typical 10-12 ounce thickness. Still, not made from clothing leather; soft, pliable and without firm shape.
In all, I like this pistol and recommend it for those who desire such a device. It is ‘big’ enough to control and shoot properly. It is light enough to carry when hiking, backpacking, hunting or camping (if such is allowed in one’s venue, of course.) The high speed ammunition I used fed, chambered, shot, extracted and ejected well. (The first round from the first magazine did hang up on the feed ramp. I adjusted the round in the magazine and all was well. No other stoppages occurred.
The trigger is probably better than many alternatives, but is poorer than a target prepared piece. For two handed, field shooting, it will more than likely serve for most. (Perhaps removing the idiot magazine safety?)
The magazine safety and internal ‘lock’ are both mandated by the politically correct faction. They could both be discarded without undue danger. No doubt less clockwork would lower the costs of producing the item. Sigh. (I’ve owned several Ruger ‘Standard Pistols’ through the years. I’ve never shot any of them when I didn’t mean to so do. I’ve never shot myself or anyone or anything without intent. I’m surely NOT more specially equipped more than anyone else.)
Price? Out the door at retail, the device was under $500.00. AND the retailer even threw in a fifty round box of .22 long rifle ammunition!
In the website version of Fox News for Wednesday, 01 April 2015, there were two articles that caught my eye and I decided to comment on them. They are both ‘curious’.
One is the report about Senator Robert (Bob) Menendez (Democrat Collective drone – New Jersey [the state, not the battleship]) indicted on corruption charges. This itself is nothing amazing, corruption being a way of life for the liberal left. What I found ‘suggestive’ (as Sherlock Holmes would say) is the included bit of trivia Senator opposed President Obama’s foreign policies on both Cuba and Iran. In essence, he doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear capabilities or the materials to build nuclear devices. This is a direct affront to the President.
So I’m wondering how this Senator the only crooked leftist to be indicted? Is it possible the other crooked leftists all support the President?
Curious item the second. It is titled, Obama administration’s new spending website rolls back transparency.
I’m curious about when there was any ‘transparency’ in this administration.
It is mentioned in the news. Look it up.
The residents – those with functioning minds at least – have my sympathy. However, the citizens of PDSR California have (by majority vote) done it to themselves.
I recall shortly after I started with Customs (this would have been in the late 1980s or early 1990s), I heard then Lord Mayor Tom Bradley (the best mayor money could buy) talking about Los Angeles having a water crisis. My reaction was that of rage and frustration.
A bit of background. Los Angeles is located upon what is essentially a desert. As early as the 1920s, Los Angeles had to import water (recall the Owens Valley water swindle). However, that never stopped the ‘progressive’ mayors and city counsels of Los Angeles from advertising for ‘immigrants’ – people from other parts of the United States – to move to Los Angeles city and County. This was to work in existing industries, buy houses and pay taxes to finance an ever growing geo-political area. It was a desert. It is still a desert. It will for the foreseeable future remain a desert. This was true when Los Angeles perpetrated the swindle to obtain Owens Valley water; it was true when Tom Bradley was Lord Mayor of Los Angeles; it is still true currently.
If anyone has any questions, re-read the previous paragraph. Read it until the underlying reality soaks in.
So now, PDSR Cal is facing a water shortage, or destitution, and Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is without a contingency plan. Other than possibly beg or badger the federal government to steal water from some other state. (I recall in the late 1960s PDSR Cal wanted to ‘obtain’ water from the Columbia River separating Oregon from Washington state to use.) Just for the record, the Colorado River no longer empties into the Sea of Cortez in Mexico. It is ALL diverted into PDSR Cal territory for agriculture and human use.
I read PDSR Cal has no alternate ideas of what to do when the water – which is rapidly running out – runs out. According to the articles, they have a couple years left, IF everyone restricts themselves. If this is based on PDSR Cal governmental estimates, the citizens are already sunk.
The same pack of nitwits, liberals and Marxists – but I repeat myself – who have controlled the legislature for decades and the Governor’s Mansion (used or not) for much of the same time period don’t have a clue. They have been busy empowering the Marxist Utopia of regulating industry out of the state, bullying taxpayers, fostering welfare recipients, coddling left-wing unions and discouraging morality.
To be fair, they’ve had help. I cannot find a reference, but in the decade of 2001 – 2010 the Federal Government (under the leadership of our Beloved President, may he live ten thousand years) stepped in and decreed water from the Sacramento Delta (primarily Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers) was too important to waste on agriculture and drinking. So such use was curtailed. This resulted in the failure of numerous farming activities in the Central Valley of PDSR California. But it was for a progressive cause, so it was the right thing to do. The Marxist dream is much more important than feeding mere humans.
Water? It’s magic: It just appears all by itself.
For all those who can, sell your house to someone you don’t like and move out of the distressed state. Take a loss if you have to. Go NOW!
What about the wonderful climate? It will probably still be there in another fifteen to twenty years, after the lack of water has killed off all the helpless welfare culture. It will probably still be there after the tax base either leaves, dies or is taxed out of existence. Once the welfare voters – those who vote for handouts – and the liberal politicians who derive votes from them are gone, the area might be a decent place to live again.
Once the excess parasite population has died off, the water problem will not be nearly as bad. It will be ugly, but the majority voters who have no thought other than government benefits (free money in the common tongue) have done to themselves. Sadly, they’ve done it to everyone else as well.