Quote of the day–Judy Bassingthwaighte

Guns destroy and kill and they are a threat to our democracy.

Judy Bassingthwaighte
Director of Gun Free South Africa
January 24, 2006
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=3079045
[I always find projection interesting. Guns are what protect the people from a government turning tyrannical and she gets it precisely backward. I remember having a conversation with one woman who totally agreed the press was extremely biased. But she believed it was biased against liberals. Projection is just one of many tools utilized by anti-gun bigots with mental problems.--Joe]

Jousting with bigots

Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority and a couple of other guys put in a lot of time trying to talk sense into some bigots over the last couple of days. I just lurked until today. I finally posted my Just One Question–which of course went unanswered.

Then the bigots attacked a gun owner that reported an instance where he felt he was about to be attacked by a couple of young men. He put his hand on his gun and without drawing it faced the young men down. They went away without incident. Then the bigots claimed the incident never occurred or that if it did the young men were just probably “asking if you want to buy a ticket to a school’s charity event.” That pissed me off. My response:

I find it quite interesting that someone that was not a witness to the alleged event concludes the event did not occur without producing any facts of their own or pointing out any inconsistency in the reporting of the event. Apparently they believe they have some sort of ESP that allows them to remotely view the event in the past without knowing the exact location or time of the event. Very impressive…

Or perhaps it’s just another bigoted statement against a gun owner. Dismissing their statements out of hand simply because they reported facts that are uncomfortable to the bigot.

Gun owners are the niggers/gays/Jews/pick-your-minority of the 21st century. What would your reaction be if the some politician demanded you be registered because of the color of your skin, your choice of sexual partners, or your religion? What if you were not allowed to freely associate with others of your kind without reporting it to the government (gun show laws present in some states)? What if you were subject to special investigation and discrimination in your employment if you spoke up about these infringements of your rights outside of work and on your own time? What if there were organizations that were openly advocating your extinction from society despite clear constitutional and statutory protection? What if the courts ignored the constitution and the laws supposedly protecting these minority? What if the bigoted politicians that, by law (check out 18 USC 242), should go to jail are instead regarded as “progressive” and “innovative” and are reelected again and again? What if people said you “are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity”?

That’s what it’s like to be a gun owner today. That is why we are so sensitive and why we are so dedicated. It’s because our culture is being threatened with permanent extinction by bigots who don’t care what the facts are. Bigots who can’t answer Just One Question.

It’s a waste of my time. It’s jousting with windmills, so to speak, but it made me feel better.

Help educate Sarah

Demonstrating that gun owners and gun owner rights activists are always helpful and informative Jeff Knox at the Firearms Coalition sent out this email requesting that we participate in a survey to help educate Sarah Brady and friends. It sounds entirely reasonable to me. I enjoy teaching others about firearms and the law. Here is the invite from Jeff:

—–Original Message—–
From: Firearms Coalition
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: [Fcalerts-list] Brady Survey

Please reply to feedback at FirearmsCoalition.org (using appropriate email format). 

Sarah Brady is sending supporters a link to an on-line survey asking
them (as a faithful friends) to answer the questions and help guide the
Brady Campaign in their dealings with Congress and state legislatures.

Being a democratic guy, I feel compelled to share this with others
concerned about the gun control issue so the Brady’s get a very clear
picture of just what the public really thinks about their issues.

Just like the surveys often sent out by pro-gun groups this survey is
more about fundraising than actually seeking anyones opinion.  Please
answer the survey and consider following through on their fundraising
appeal by writing a check to your favorite gun rights group.  We at the
Firearms Coalition would be very proud to receive donations in honor of
Sarah Brady.

Follow this link and answer Sarah Brady’s survey:

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SRV_2007GeneralLegislativePrioritiesSurvey

The “Name”, “Address”, and “Email” request at the top can be left blank.

If you enter an e-mail address, they might put you on their mailing list
so you can keep tabs on their activities.

Please pass this on and post it wherever you can.  I’m not sure Sarah’s
servers can handle the traffic we can generate!

Yours for the Second Amendment

Jeff Knox
Director of Operations
The Firearms Coalition

On-line contributions to the Firearms Coalition can be made at
www.FirearmsCoalition.org or mailed to:

The Firearms Coalition
Box 3313
Manassas, VA  20108

Search engine for lonely geeks

Ms. Dewey has been reported on before but I decided to test out how she handled the topic of guns. I did repeated searches for “gun” and I was rather pleased in how she handled it. Plenty of snark without being anti-rights.

Similar satisfactory results came with searches for:

  • keep and bear arms
  • 2nd Amendment
  • gun control
  • Violence Policy Center
  • Million Mom March
  • Brady Campaign the Prevent Gun Violence
  • explosives

Of course I expect lonely geeks will spend lots of time asking her sexual questions. I’m happy to report I spent less than an hour doing that.

Boomershoot 2007 news

After much discussion and thinking about it I have decided we can’t allow tracers. At previous events, even though the ground was very wet, there have been several occurrences where tracers started fires in the grass. If those tracers had landed in the woods just a couple hundred yards to the east and started a fire it would be the end of Boomershoot. Sorry about that.

Saturday I got wireless internet service (Wifi) implemented at the Boomershoot site. The signal isn’t all that strong but it is useable except for positions about 65 through 70. The parking area except for part of the .50 caliber area is fine too. I might be able to improve things some but I won’t know for a month or so. Because it is via satellite the ping times are rather long. The typical ping time from there to Boomershoot.org was about 1400 milliseconds. The specs on the service are:

Up to 512Kbps downstream
128Kbps upstream

Fair Access Policy threshold limits (monthly):
7,500MB Download
2,300MB Upload

What this means is that with a few dozen people using it things are going to be rather slow. Checking email and light blogging is going to be fine but uploading or downloading videos is out. We also need to be a little bit careful that we don’t exceed the monthly limits. The access point is unencrypted and has the SSID of “Boomershoot”.

I’ve been investigating the possibility of doing a night time Boomershoot on Friday night (something like 21:00 to midnight) the 27th. The answer is still up in the air. The blocking issue is the late night noise. I’ve been talking to some of the neighbors and I’m hoping to come up with a conclusion in a couple weeks.

Quote of the day–Tamara K.

Poor Lefties; they’ve been playing on astroturf so long that they don’t know grassroots even when fed a mouthful of divot.

Tamara K.
February 27, 2007
Boomsticks: I hadn’t seen this yet…
[Yup. Just like it is a "special interest group" when the NRA, with four million members, gets it's way on some legislative issue. But it's "the people" that are represented by the Brady Bunch, with only a couple hundred thousand member, gets their way.--Joe]

Quote of day-R.L.

Gravatar Kevin Baker…….Is the name of your blog “How to win friends(Converts) and influence people.com?” Nice attitude Dude! I got your ignorance hanging right here.

R.L.
February 26, 2007 2:32 pm
A comment in response to this comment by Kevin:

Well, it’s nice to finally find out where all of you “moderate” gun owners congregate. Those of you who seem to believe that there are “good” guns and “bad” guns, and that somehow you can compromise with the side that thinks that the U.S. needs to be like Japan.

I invite each and every one of you to come to my blog. I’d love to discuss the topic with you, since you don’t apparently grasp the intent of the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in specific.

Let me see if I can make you understand with the short version: The other side wants them all, and will do it in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process if that’s what it takes. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or “sporting use” and it never was. And if the gun ban groups are successful here, America will make Britain’s experience look like a day in Disney World.

If you don’t believe this, if you aren’t informed as to what’s going on, if you think you can “compromise” and that it’s OK to throw one group of legal gun owners under the bus so that you can keep your “bambi-zapper,” or “daffy-blaster” you’re wrong.

The sheer ignorance exhibited by most of you in this comment thread is staggering.

[Kevin is probably the least ignorant blogger I know. The irony that R.L. can claim to deduce Kevin is ignorant without having ever visited Kevin's blog leaves me once again unable to explain it any other way that blatant bigotry. And of course this crowd of bigots don't realize they are being bigots even as they say gun owners "are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity".--Joe]

I would have never considered a rope

I did a little bit of roping with the cattle we had when I was growing up on the farm. And I’ve seen a lot of deer, some of which I have been close enough to rope, but it has never occurred to me to consider it. Perhaps I unconsciously knew that wasn’t a good idea. Or perhaps it was my parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents that always gave a very simple, and what I always thought was cryptic rather than profound, answer to any suggestions of attempts to interact with non-domestic animals, “They’re wild animals.”

After reading this story and taking into accounts such as Deerslayer by Ray Stevens I’m thinking my most recent effort to reach out and touch a deer, with my .300 Winchester Magnum, is the most appropriate.

They are learning

The Dunblane massacre was the spark that ignited the inferno that resulted in the banning of all handguns in the U.K. Thousands of people told them it wouldn’t do any good. Now some of the most vigorous proponents of the ban are saying, “You were right.” From the Sunday Herald in Scotland:

I allowed myself two simple, possibly simplistic, strategies. First, I was not ever going to attempt to “explain” Hamilton: the bereaved deserved better. Secondly, in my small way, I was going to take on anyone who failed to support the banning of handguns.

There was a lot of American comment, predictably, and much of it abusive. The clichés appeared as if by return of post. “Guns don’t kill people,” they wrote. “People kill people.” So why – this struck me almost as the definition of self-evident – did Thomas Hamilton feel a need for four of the damnable things?

Then the Duke of Edinburgh, and the field sports people, and the target shooters entered the fray. The royal consort, with his usual sensitivity, expressed the view that things were getting out of hand, and that a more considered response was required. I can clobber royals in my sleep.

The most troubling questions came, instead, from those who answered my simplicities with one of their own. They didn’t oppose a ban, as such. They merely wanted to know why I was so sure that legislation would work.

That seemed obvious. It even seemed faintly stupid to think otherwise. No guns, no gun-killings. Remove the threat: wasn’t that one of the jobs of government?

Sceptics were more subtle than I allowed. What they meant was that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don’t take much interest in well-meaning legislation. If they chose to arm themselves while the rest of society was, in effect, disarming, outraged newspaper commentators and their quick fixes might merely make matters worse.

Let’s concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn’t mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?

The answer to the practical question is that, in the technical terms of security experts, the attack surface is too large. There are just too many different ways to get past the barriers. It only takes one hole in “the wall”. And if there is sufficient demand for a product the market will find a way to meet that demand.

Quote of the day–Suzanne Hupp

The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.

And I know I’m not going to make very many friend saying this. But it’s about all rights. All of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.

Suzanne Hupp
Testifying before congress regarding the assault weapons ban.

[No wonder Schumer, briefly seen in the video, pushed for the ban. Ms. Hupp confirmed his worst fears.--Joe]

Quote of the day–Tony Pacheco

Two years ago I didn’t even know what a charging handle was. Today I am a NRA and JPFO member and train on a regular basis. I got the message loud and clear that I am responsible for my own safety. The Katrina webcams and blogs that skipped CNN beat me over the head with it.

Thus, my AWB glass right now is half-full. Let’s just do a Zumbo Roasting on Congress and call it a day.

Tony Pacheco
Friday, February 23, 2007 12:48 PM
In email sent to insightstraining AT yahoogroups.com
[We, as gun owners, can help with these conversions. Enable others to talk about guns by you talking about guns or displaying a target from your latest trip to the range. Enable others to make the change of state by offering to take them to the range and let them use your firearms.--Joe]

Guns are Magic Part II

Earlier I wrote about the entertainment industry giving magical powers to firearms.  More recently, the Discovery channel, on their new program, Future Weapons, did a bit about an “actual” 1.5 mile, one shot hit from a cold bore using the new .416 Barrett.  The shooter was depicted as firing his first shot ever from that rifle and hitting his target (a circle of about 5 feet diameter) at 1.5 miles.  My skepticism lead me back to Joe’s exterior ballistics program.  Since Barrett had just sent us a write-up and the specs on his new cartridge, all I had to do was plug in his numbers.  I allowed, again, for the most amazing velocity standard deviation of 5 feet per second, with a 1/2 MOA accurate rifle/cartridge combination.  I reduced the effects of the atmosphere by raising the elevation to 3000 feet.  I enlarged the target to a 12 x 20 inch ellipse (roughly the one-shot kill area of the human body) and still I came up with a probability of a one shot hit (any hit) of about 8 percent at 1.5 miles.  The hit probability at that range on a 5-foot circle is about 58%.  Time if flight: 4.05 sec.  Extremely good, but you have to push the accuracy of the system to the edge of believability to get it, and with a perfect marksman.  It’s certainly not what we’re being led to believe by the TV producers.

Barrett’s specs for the .416:

 

      Muzzle velocity: 3250 fps

Ballistic Coefficient: 0.943

           Bullet Mass: 400 grains – solid copper

 

I want one!  I wonder if they’re going to come out with some light varmint bullets for it, or some frangible defense loads.  Heh.

 

Quote of the day–Michael Badnarik

Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a ‘hot button’ issue, this is definitely it. Don’t even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Michael Badnarik
Michael Badnarik on Gun Control
[If current trends continue in the race for nomination for 2008 presidential candidates I probably will vote Libertarian.--Joe]

You might as well get used to it

Gay marriage may take some time to make it to all 50 states but just like the concealed carry of firearm reforms that swept the nation in the past decade we are now seeing gay marriage start a relentless march. New Jersey has now decided that the gay cooties (thanks to Say Uncle for turning me on to that phrase) aren’t all that big of a concern. See also my other posts on this topic:

I’m reminded of a quote pointed out to me by Kevin Baker:

Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.

Teresa Neilson Hayden

 

I’m not the trail blazer I thought I was

Ry pointed this out to me. Absolutely applicable to my situation with PNNL. A ruling that appears to be exactly what we want. It covers what we regarded as the weakest point of our case:

A federal district court has just applied this principle to hold that Ohioans — even ones employed by private employers — are presumptively protected from being fired for off-employer-property (and presumably off-duty and lawful) possession of guns. The case is Plona v. UPS, 2007 WL 509747 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13)

Update: I posted a comment on the blog the above was posting on. I received this very interesting comment:

A. Zarkov (mail):

Joe Huffman:

Very interesting but not at all surprising. The national labs, including Los Alamos, Livermore, Oak Ridge, Berkeley, Brookhaven etc have been notorious for trampling on their employees. Don’t trust them on discovery. One of those labs got caught red-handed destroying documents they were supposed to turn over as part of discovery. While it hurt their court case, they got away with it.

They are felons. I expected such behavior from them. Of course I’m in a little better situation than some people in that I have sufficient evidence in my own log files to incriminate them. Not only do they need to destroy their evidence they will have to manufacture evidence to extract them from their predicament. And that doesn’t even address the problem of all the witnesses.

I was wrong

When, in the mid 1990s, PNNL (operated by Battelle Memorial Institute) defrauded the government, fired the whistle blower, and then got caught they had to pay triple damages. Not just the original amount of fraud:

The Department of Justice announced today that Battelle Memorial Institute has agreed to pay the United States $330,000 to settle allegations it used government-owned equipment to service commercial customers in violation of a federal contract.

After the DOE Office of the Inspector General began an investigation in 1992, Battelle reimbursed the government $110,000 for unauthorized use of certain spectrometry equipment from 1988 through 1992.

The False Claims Act provides for the recovery of treble damages suffered by the government and penalties for each false claim submitted.

I had original believed they just paid back the amount of the false claims.

I’m hoping they soon become very tired of hearing the phrase “treble damages”.

Quote of the day–H. L. Mencken

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken
[I've been reading about the proposed law regarding an "assault weapon" ban. I note with a certain amount of amusement Congress-critter McCarthy specifically calls out the Olympic Arms PCR as an "assault weapon" in the proposed legislation. I wonder if she knows "PCR" stands for Politically Correct Rifle.--Joe]