Alison Aires, thanks for sharing


I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.

This is why we have a Bill of Rights. This is why I created Boomershoot.

Continue reading

Quote of the day—Nate McMurray @Nate_McMurray


You heard me. No apologies. The same reason you don’t need a lion to protect your home, is why you don’t need a rifle that shoots at 3X the speed of sound and splits concrete like ice. It’s an unreasonable risk.

Nate McMurray @Nate_McMurray
Tweeted on June 24, 2019
[McMurray is not some random troll bot. He is running for U.S. Congress.

It looks to me like he is confessing to the violation of 18 USC 241 and is trying for 18 USC 242 as well.—Joe]

Area One USPSA results

I had relatively modest goals for my Area One performance:

  1. Don’t get hurt or hurt anyone.
  2. Don’t get DQ’d.
  3. Don’t finish last.

I met my goals. In Limited I came in 81st out of 118 shooters. If you just look at Limited B class shooters then I came in 32nd out of 38. Or if you just look at Limited Seniors then I came in 9th out of 15. And finally, my favorite view, in Limited, Senior, B class shooters I came in 2nd out of four shooters.

I had a good time at the match. My squad was very pleasant to be with. The last time I went to Area One, over 20 years ago, it was sometimes very uncomfortable. Some shooters were very aggressive in asserting their bullets had touch scoring rings that the R.O. called as out. I didn’t like that atmosphere. These were nice people to be with.

One of the most unusual event I have heard of at a USPSA match is that one guy got DQ’d at the chronograph stage:



I have a lot more to say about the event. But that is going to wait until I have time to edit the video.

Addition to the family

For years I’ve wanted to be able to legally conceal carry in Oregon. It seems that there are several times a year when Barb and I go through there. Last weekend I shot in the USPSA Area One Championship (results here, I came in 81st out of 118 in Limited) outside of Bend Oregon. About a year ago we visited Crater Lake (where Barb proposed to me) and several other interesting parks with interesting geological attractions. We have gone to Portland to Powell’s City of Books and Voodoo Donuts. And while Lava Beds National Monument is actually in California, I would like to take her to visit that someday. It is just over the border from Oregon and we would probably drive from Washington. The problem is that Oregon doesn’t recognize concealed carry license from any other state.

Since I was going to be in central Oregon for several day for the match I looked up the requirements for getting an Oregon Concealed Handgun license.

Most of the counties will not accept no Oregon residents even though the law allows for it. The counties add further restrictions such Columbia County:

You must have a current Washington State Concealed Handgun License to qualify for your Oregon permit. This permit can be used as one piece of identification when applying for your Oregon CHL. You must write a letter to Sheriff Dickerson stating why you want an Oregon Concealed Handgun License.
Your reasons must be compelling in nature. There will be a $10.00 administrative fee. The fee is applied to the cost of regular monitoring of criminal histories of Washington residents
holding any type of Columbia County licenses or permits through the Sheriff’s Office.

Or Gillian County:

OUT OF STATE APPLICANTS: All out of state new applicants and renewals must
include a statement of compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated
need which exhibits a correlation to Gilliam County.

Oregon has 36 counties. I looked up the CHL requirement for 17 of them, working my way outward from my travel paths for the match, before finding one. The Grant County Sheriff’s office was very friendly to me. I made an appointment for 9:00 AM, showed up about 8:20 because I was concerned about finding the place. I offered to come back at the appointment time but the nice deputy, Anne Marie (I think), told me to come on in and she would take care of it.

About a half hour later I walked out with my Oregon CHL. It’s a nice addition to the family:


Quote of the day—Jen Gennai

Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.

Jen Gennai
Head of Responsible Innovation, Google
May 2019
Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam
[Via a comment by Chet.

Watch the video. Genai explicitly says they are implementing “fairness” and that their definition of fairness is completely different from the definition of fairness used by the people who voted for Donald Trump. She says everyone got screwed over with the election of Trump and they can’t let that happen again in 2020.

Read her response to the video here.

Click to enlarge the images of the internal documents and read them. They are incredibly damning.

One of my first thoughts was, “It’s a good thing I’m not allowed to own a few tactical nukes at an affordable price. Otherwise Google would own radioactive craters instead office buildings and data centers.” I have since decided there are other, legal and moral, remedies available.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Annoyed Man

I think we are ultimately headed for some kind of violent showdown between the left and everyone else. They no longer know when to back off, and they lack the moral filters necessary to coexistence. We’re going to end up in an existential fight for our most fundamental rights, and literal self-preservation.

The Annoyed Man
June 22, 2019
Comment to MN: Self defense shooting trial built on gun control bumper sticker
[Certainly a case can be made for that. But it seems to me that they back off when they get some serious push back. I think at least some of them are more in touch with reality than we sometimes give them credit for. They may be crazy but they may not be stupid. They can “sober up” for short periods of time if they really need to.

Think about it. For a while there were marches with vandalism and sometimes riots nearly every week all over the country. And now how often do you see that?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

Stephen P. Halbrook
December 2, 2013
How the Nazis Used Gun Control
[See also the Belgian Corporal.

Avoid gun registration as best you can. And never register your guns in such a way that you can’t plausibly deny still owning them a month or two later. “Tragic boating accident” is the classic out. But there are lots of other ways.

Trading guns with close relatives in another state is sometime a legal and viable option. Or a chain of legal trades/purchases across families linked by marriage might work too.

If you don’t need for the trail to go cold in the short term quietly buy a gun from an elderly relative. In a dozen years or so the trail dies with the relative.

Move to another state, even if for a month, and purchase or trade there.

Never put yourself in a position to have your guns confiscated.—Joe]

Quote of the day—PBinLostAngeles

In the United States a far more frightening pathology – again, that gun control zealots fail to acknowledge or choose to ignore – is the fact that the majority of the most heinously vicious murderers in the history of our great Nation, including Gary Ridgway – who savagely murdered more people by himself than were lost at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and San Bernardino combined – never use a firearm during the commission of their brutality! John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Edward Gein, Donald Harvey, Anthony Sowell, Lawrence Bittaker, Roy Norris and on and on. The list of murder-intent monsters – who never used a firearm – is a horrifically long one, and this list silently grows each and every day.

June 4, 2019
Comment to Why Gun Ownership Rates Tell Us Little About Homicide Trends in America
[If someone wants to reduce murder rates then enabling people to defend themselves and quickly and reliably punishing murders is going to be far more effective than placing restrictions upon the access to the most effective defensive tools ever created.

The truth of this can be readily seen by looking at the data for successful defensive uses of firearms compared to the offensive uses of firearms. Defensive uses are far more common than offensive uses. Unless there is someway to accurately predict which people are going to use a particular type of tool to commit a violent crime then any restriction on that tool is going to affect the defensive use rate far more than the offensive use rate. If you can accurately predict which people are going to commit a violent crime then why is that person not locked up where they are far less likely to harm someone?

Obviously, it is impossible to accurately predict which people are going to commit  violent crime. Hence, we are left with the conclusion that weapon control is counter productive if the goal is to reduce violent crime. But since the political left is insistent on weapon control, even when it is repeatedly shown to be, at best, of no benefit, we must conclude their goal is not the reduction of violent crime.—Joe]

Meet Washington state legislators

Via email from Boomershooter, and Venezuela refugee, Luis:

I’ll have as speakers Senator Phil Fortunato, representatives Matt Shea and representative Robert Sutherland.

They are strong legislators that have stand and defend the 2nd Amendment.

They will be speaking in my district about what happen in Olympia in the last legislative session.


I sometimes see Fortunato at pistol matches at Renton Fish & Game. I like to hang out near him and hear stories about legislative stupidity. It confirms my belief that government power should be limited as much as is practical.

Luis spoke for a few minutes this year at Boomershoot. He is very concerned about the path Washington State is going down. It reminds him of what happened in Venezuela and he is working hard to prevent that from happening here.

Gun cartoon of the day


As Dana Loesch frequently says:

Still waiting here for you to contact the authorities and have us all rounded up.

The NRA is a civil rights organization. That our political enemies regard the exercise and defense of a fundamental human right as terrorism tells you a lot about them. One thing is of particular note. If they think we are terrorists of greater significance than al-Qaida and ISIS then they want us imprisoned and/or dead.

Quote of the day—Joe Biden

If I get elected president of the United States of America with your help, if that happens, guns, we have the capacity now in a James Bond-style to make sure no one can pull a trigger unless their DNA and fingerprint is on it. We have that capacity to do it now. You know it.

Joe Biden
June 2019
Joe Biden: Build ‘James Bond-Style’ Guns That Don’t Fire Without DNA Match
[I suppose this technically true. It’s just that the DNA sample would have to taken to a lab, processed for a day or ten, then the results returned to the gun to give the gun the bang/no-bang decision. Unless, of course, Biden is mostly living in an alternate universe that has a different technology base than the universe the rest of are living in.

Even if the gun had technology for DNA matching built into the gun, at a reasonable price, and could process the result in a fraction of a second, the gun still wouldn’t protect against most of the scenarios the anti-gun people claim to want to protect against. We shed DNA all over the place. If some kid wants to shoot their parent’s gun a DNA sample is as available the parent’s hair brush. Some bad gun has grabbed a cop’s gun? If he whacks the cop along side the head with the butt of the gun and he has the grip dripping in cop DNA.

I’ve changed my mind. Biden doesn’t live in a alternate reality. He is just amazingly stupid. He has crap for brains and should be retired to an old folks home and encouraged to watch CSI reruns.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day


This is a based on what has to be a deliberate lie. Lyle said it best yesterday:

There’s that insidious “Arm Teachers” lie again. “Arm” is a verb. It’s something you’d be doing TO teachers; arming them. As though they don’t get a say in the matter. That’s the big lie in all of this. It evokes images of poor old Mrs. Jones being dragged, kicking and screaming, out of her Kindergarten class and hauled, by grim men in sunglasses, to a shooting range where she’d be forced, crying and shaking, and against everything she believes in, to learn to shoot a 44 Magnum.

In fact all anyone ever wanted was get the fuck out of the way of those teachers who already have training and carry permits, who are already carrying guns responsibly everywhere BUT the schools they work at, and allow them to also carry at school where they could then have a chance of defending innocents should the need arise.

allowing armed teachers to also be armed at school is not a government program. It is the elimination of existing government interference. It isn’t something government would DO. It is something government would STOP DOING.

I think part of the problem is that anti-freedom people find it difficult, or even impossible, to imagine a solution to a problem to involve less government.

Closely related, they are unlikely to ever admit that government caused a problem which is now in need of a solution. The “gun free zone” concept was sold as a government solution to a relatively rare problem. The unintended (I’m being generous with giving them the benefit of the doubt) consequences of this was mass shootings in these “gun free zones”. The last number I heard was something over 90% of all mass shootings occur in these victim disarmament areas. Mass shootings are a government created problem. The politicians who implemented these murder zones should be prosecuted.

The whole concept of “free markets and free minds” is alien to them. Alien, scary, and to be fought against with all power at their disposal. And when that power isn’t enough they must diminish the power of those who oppose them. Hence, disarming those who value liberty becomes a high priority.

Quote of the day—The Babylon Bee

Democrats have made vows to place extreme restrictions on guns, but they keep running into a problem: Many of their ideas can’t go into effect because of an early addendum to the Constitution. They’re now calling this the “Second Amendment loophole.”

“We just want to get guns off the streets,” Cory Booker, one of 583 presidential candidates, told the press, “but this Second Amendment loophole makes it so we can’t do that. We need to close that loophole.”

The way many gun control advocates would like things to work is, if they read in the New York Times about a particular gun model they think is scary–like an AR-15 or a semi-automatic or a glue gun–they could then just go ahead and ban it and start taking it from people. Normally things would work this way with anything else, but thanks to the Second Amendment loophole, they can’t just ban guns because they feel like it.

The Babylon Bee
Democrats Vow To Close Dangerous Gun-Buying Loophole Known As ‘The Second Amendment’
June 17, 2019
[Via a text message from daughter Jaime.

There is so much truth and enough non-truth, which could be a deliberate lie in real life, you have think about this some before concluding it is satire.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Julie Morrison

Maybe we’ll just have a confiscation and you won’t have to worry about paying a fine.

Julie Morrison
Illinois State Senator

June 11, 2019
[Maybe she will be arrested and prosecuted for violation of 18 USC 242 and she won’t have to worry about an mob of angry gun owners hunting her.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chet M.

So we are Russians now!


Chet M.
June 11, 2019
Via email. More context here.
[So, what is the cartoonist saying? Concern over infringement of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is imagined?

Uhh… no. That’s a lie. No surprise. It’s what they do.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day


First off, there is no “epidemic of firearm mass murder”. Murder rates are at something like a 50 year low. The mass murder rate in the U.S. is in the same general range as the rest of the world. Unless you want to compare the U.S. with Europe in the 20th century. In that case the rate is far, far, lower. And you know why? Because the so much blood was spilled by governments murdering their own citizens. Closest the U.S. has had that might be compared is some of the Indian wars. And guess what, the North American natives were banned from owning firearms.

Genocide and firearm restrictions are closely related:

Which leads is the main point to be made about this cartoon. The cartoonist leaves no doubt what they think of the NRA, gun owners, and those who insist the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms means what it says, “shall not be infringed”.

With such an attitude they are the same path to the murderous behavior of European governments in the 20th Century. If you give up your guns, or even register your guns, we are at a much higher than acceptable risk of a similar result here.