Some police are advising people to just comply with a mugger/rapists demands in hopes of not getting hurt. The next time someone does that I’m going up to him and start taking down his pants. When he asks what I doing I’m going to tell him I’m raping him and he should follow his own advice and submit so he doesn’t get hurt.
Self Defense Instructor
February 6, 1999
Think of the handgun as a behavior modifier. If someone is threatening you, you can use the handgun to modify their behavior…
This is the universal hand signal for GO AWAY! (Holds handgun in firing position.)
Ninety times out of a hundred it will work. If not, then you may have to give them the universal hand signal for LIE DOWN! (Holds handgun in firing position and repeatedly pulls trigger.)
Self Defense Instructor
Nov. 19, 1995
It’s a pleasant fantasy but the people offering these sort of solutions either don’t understand the problem or don’t want to face reality. From one of our wonderful government laboratories:
Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are developing a new type of scanner that can distinguish liquids blaring out a warning for bad ones, like explosives, while letting through good ones, like water.
They will be able to scan bottles as big as a “magnum-sized champaign bottle,” Espy said.
“Apparently the whole duty-free thing is suffering, and people can’t carry their liquor on airplanes anymore,” Espy said. “It’s been disruptive to commerce. So, that’s one of the benefits of this.”
Software upgrades could add new liquids to the device’s detection list if any new threats arise, she said.
“The nice thing about this system is it’s not tuned to any specific threats,” Espy said. “As new materials of concern arise, it can be adapted to detect those.”
Even after the scanner is in place we still won’t be able to take liquor on airplanes–unless they are going to allow ethanol on board. In which case I need to demonstrate how to make an “explosive” out of ethanol. It would be tough to get a true detonation but in the enclosed space of an airplane cabin it just won’t matter whether the speed of propagation is greater than or less than the speed of sound.
And if they stop letting people take liquid hydrocarbons on board I’ll demonstrate the same sort of thing is possible with bread flour, powdered sugar, or coffee creamer. And when they ban those let them build a scanner that is sensitive to powdered human hair.
And those ideas are all taking the direct “brute force” approach. There are lots of other, much more subtle, ways to defeat airport “security”. TSA is backward for A Security Theater. It’s time we considered the alternatives.
My son, a freshman in high school, occasionally sends me e-mail from school, but due to a busy study schedule and extremely slow computers (it’s a public school) they are rare. Today’s letter was notable. Our complete exchange follows:
In the last period of the day, we had a study hall, and I had no homework. So, I decided to go on the boomershoot website and look at explosives. I also had the ultimak webpage open at the same time. I actually had a teacher come and tell me to find another subject!
To which I replied:
Sorry to hear that (actually, I read it but “sorry to read that” just doesn’t have the same effect) but I’m certainly not surprised. Our popular culture has been effectively trained, like Pavlov’s Dogs, to recoil (like the metaphor?) from anything that shows guns in a favorable light.
Racist bigots once behaved in exactly the same way toward blacks or other minorities– back then you might have been looking at Martin Luther King Jr.’s writings while in a study hall in Alabama, and been told to read something else! We don’t hear much from the racist bigots any more, because they tend to keep their mouths shut in polite company. Now we have anti-gun bigots instead, who feel no compunction and mouth off regularly.
On a side note; many have never learned (because this story doesn’t fit the popular, leftist anti-gun action line) that during the civil rights struggle, many black leaders and religious figures joined the NRA and encouraged their black neighbors to arm themselves. As one would expect, violence against blacks tended to fall precipitously in those areas where such advice was taken.
Many would also be shocked (shocked, I tell you!) to learn that the KKK not only supported gun control (see above paragraph) but their political party of choice was the Democratic Party. No self-respecting KKK thug would ever vote for a Republican.
Give that to your social studies classes, et al, and let them chew on it for a while. They may hate it, but unlike much of what they say, they can look this up and verify it. Then you can explain that you were looking at your father’s web site and the site for an event that you attend annually.
Now, keep up on your homework, be nice, and have fun! That’s an order.
I’ve always had the policy of not “talking down” to my kids. I use the same language I’d use in a conversation with an English professor. If they don’t understand something, they’ll either ask me or they’ll look it up.
Yes, my site was down for a while (as was Ry’s). Our webhosting provider had to do some unscheduled maintaince.
Civilian semiautomatic assault weapons incorporate all of the functional design features that make assault weapons so deadly. They are arguably more deadly than military versions, because most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire.
Violence Policy Center
[Who would have thought? They would rather we had fully automatic firearms rather than those deadly semi-auto ones. It would follow they would rather we owned cheap, inaccurate, handguns (aka "Saturday Night Specials"). But that would require they think logically about the issues. People with Mental Problems have difficulty doing that so don't expect it anytime soon.--Joe]
[M]ost of the time our security runs on intuition and not on explicit thought.
October 30, 2007
Security by Letterhead
[It's the same sort of thing with gun control. Intuitively it is appealing and "common sense" that if you can reduce the availability of the tools used by criminals you will reduce crime. We are at a disadvantage because to win the argument we need to get people to explicitly think about the issue. That's seldom easy.--Joe]
If you know what you are doing you can know so much more about people than they would like you to know. For example, it appears Snuffy may have come visiting me this evening. My QOTD by him shows up in the top 10 when doing a Google search for “rev michael pfleger”:
|Domain Name||comcast.net ? (Network)|
|IP Address||67.176.196.# (Comcast Cable)|
|Operating System||Microsoft WinXP|
|Browser||Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Comcast Install 1.0)
|Time of Visit||Oct 29 2007 9:37:55 pm|
|Last Page View||Oct 29 2007 9:39:24 pm|
|Visit Length||1 minute 29 seconds|
|Referring URL||http://www.google.co…ichael pfleger&hl=en|
|Search Words||rev michael pfleger|
|Visit Entry Page||http://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/10/28/quote-of-the-day-rev-michael-pfleger/|
|Visit Exit Page||http://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/10/28/quote-of-the-day-rev-michael-pfleger/|
|Out Click||With no permit, activists rally at gun shop again
|Visitor’s Time||Oct 30 2007 12:37:55 am|
Some weeks ago, I had mentioned to Joe that I would like to get my NRA Trainer’s certification. There were classes offered over in
The first exercise of the weekend involved demonstrating that we could show another person how to safely load and unload five different long-gun actions and three handgun actions (aced that–for me it was akin to asking a chef to demonstrate his ability to prepair scrambled eggs and dry toast, but enough bragging). We then had to score at least 90% on four separate written exams and shoot at least 50% on a pistol qualification course—shooting from a distance of 25 yards at a nine-inch target, from three specific standing positions including one-handed. Apparently, most pistol shooters don’t shoot much beyond 10 or 15 yards, but I was unaware of this, having tried my hand at 100 yards. 100 yards is a bit of a “hail Mary” exercise with a common handgun. At 25 yards you have to take your time and concentrate, but it is very much doable. I’d have scored higher than my 63% if I’d either used my own guns or if I’d known in advance that their pistols were regulated for a “bull’s-eye” zero at 25 (sights held on the bottom of the round bull’s-eye to hit in the center of the bull’s-eye– ask me if you want to know why that’s a great idea, which it is) because I was holding the sights on the center of the bull. Most of my misses therefore went high. Most of us in the class were “combat” shooters (they’d make fun of that by saying we were from the “Billy-Bob School of Running and Gunning”) and so we were a little bit unprepared for the slower, more relaxed, more skeletal-supported bull’s-eye style they use in the NRA basic pistol classes.
I passed everything with flying colors, except for the second written exam—I was completely unprepared to “study for the tests”. I hadn’t been in college for almost 30 years. I was listening intently to the instructor, and was confident of knowing everything he was talking about, plus I had already scored 96% (I think it was) on the first written exam. Trouble was, I didn’t have the precise verbiage they wanted as answers on the second test—the Three Principles of this, and the Eight Steps of that, etc.. One instructor was impressed enough that he let me take the test over, which I passed with 100%. The trouble with that, however, was it took time away from my studying the material for the other classes, so in spite of taking no time for anything but studying, eating and sleeping a little bit, I was behind the curve so to speak, for the whole weekend. I was a hair trigger from bugging out on more than one occasion, but I am very glad I stuck it through. As soon as I receive my official certification I’ll be qualified to teach NRA basic courses in Pistol and Home Firearm Safety.
Aside from being impressed by the quality of both the teachers and the students at Kenmore Range, there was a lot I never knew about the NRA, in spite of having been a member for years, and I gained a new respect for the organization. It turns out they started for very much the same reasons Joe started the Boomershoot– to increase the number of competent shooters for the times they may be required to defend life and Liberty. The whole political persona we all know, came much later, and to this day is only a very small part of the NRA. They are mostly a marksmanship advancement, training, and competitive shooting facilitator, having founded Camp Perry and a number of other excellent ranges, and developed a comprehensive and effective training program.
To you NRA phone solicitors and mailing program developers out there: You really should spend more time talking to your perspective members about all the things, in addition to the political wing, the NRA does to promote American marksmanship.
The weekend was rough, but I highly recommend NRA Trainer education to anyone interested in teaching gun handling or shooting skills. Thank you, Joe, for the use of the hardened bunker. I could not have done so well without it, and the broadband pipe you provided also.
As an aside, I left my wallet and checkbook, everything, at a rest stop near Dusty, WA on my way to the West Side. I didn’t know about it until Joe informed me as I was entering the Seattle area. It turns out that someone from the West Side was driving to Moscow, ID where I work, picked it up, called my place of work, and hand delivered it. Sort of renews one’s faith in Mankind, that does. That person could have easily relieved me of many thousands of dollars, to say nothing of depriving me of 100% of my ID and other creds.
…what we actually have before us is a confusion about the nature of rights. The NRA always couches its argument as a defense of our American rights as opposed to governmental control. But it is a reason why highways are engineered as well as they can be. The driver has the right to travel as safely as possible. Citizens of America should have as much of a right to safety from gun violence as possible. But they probably will not understand the issue until the talk takes up more space in our political life.
October 29, 2007
Here’s a bold proposal: Let’s talk about gun control
[It's possible his first sentence is correct. As for the rest I think the chances are about 75% he is mistaken. The other 25% chance is that he really understands what a right is and is trying to confusion everyone else. Rights are not something granted or created by the government. If something is granted or created by the government then they are more properly called privileges. A right is something that preexists government. The only thing governments can do in regard to rights is protect them or infringe them. I would have made that 95% and 5% but he makes reference to "safety from gun violence". That indicates to me he might actually understand that reducing the availability of firearms doesn't reduce the total violence even if it sometimes does reduce the amount of violence committed with firearms. Further suspicion falls on him because he doesn't distinguish between criminal violence and justified and/or praiseworthy violence. The bottom line is Crouch should successfully answer Just One Question before he writes opinions about restricting the right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]
You may have known UltiMak, CCI, and Speer made their home within a few miles of my Idaho home (UltiMak is nearly within slingshot range). Just a few miles from Boomershoot in Orofino you will find Nightforce. Nearly 300 miles on down the road you will find Gemtech but still in the state of Southern Idaho (it’s a north Idaho joke).
It turns out the state of Idaho is actively pursuing gun manufactures:
When it comes to guns, Idaho economic development officials are starting to see green.
The Gem State, eager to attract new jobs and industry, is positioning itself as the best possible home for the nation’s 200 small arms manufacturers – companies worth a collective $2 billion per year but unwelcome in many of the states that have long been their home.
It appears that the attraction is mutual.
“Like any smart business, gun manufacturers are looking for places that facilitate low operational costs, such as business taxes, utility costs and a good place for employees to live,” said Richard Schelowitz, an analyst for AFC, which monitors the firearms industry.
“But unlike some businesses, this industry is also growing weary of regulations and public perceptions that might make it more difficult – and therefore more costly – to do business.”
Almost by accident, Idaho has created a business environment that gives gun makers exactly the tax and regulatory climate they like.
During the past decade, several small gun manufacturers have relocated to Idaho. More may be on the way.
In recent weeks, at least one supplier of parts for internationally known gun manufacturer Armalite visited Southern Idaho to survey potential manufacturing sites.
Within the past year, a small company that makes silencers for law enforcement and some federal agencies relocated from Alabama to a nondescript building near Twin Falls. When contacted for this article, the owner of the firm asked that the location of the company – even its name – remain confidential because some of its contracts are classified secret.
Idaho was an attraction, the owner said, because of lower operating costs, favorable taxes and a culture that actively embraces firearm posession as one of the most important civil rights.
During the early 1990s, when almost half of the states were discussing bills that would tighten gun control laws. Idaho turned the other way. The state Constitution was amended to specifically protect gun owners and manufacturers from licensing and registration.
While other states tried to follow suit, Idaho went one step further by making itself the only state where firearm sales cannot be subject to any special tax – a hedge against efforts to use of prohibitive taxes to discourage gun ownership.
On the federal level, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, a director of the National Rifle Association, introduced the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gunmakers from lawsuits filed by people injured in shootings.
Idaho didn’t wait for the federal law – it became one of the first states to enact a comparable statute, in 2005.
Traditionally the nickname for Idaho has been the Gem State. I feel a great deal of pride that it may also becoming the Gun State. Let’s hope the State motto, Esto Perpetua, is accurate.
Based on our discussion at the GBR, I thought this would be of interest to you; an area detailing where NRA’s efforts, and the efforts of the bloggers, have produced some movement in the area of BATFE reform. Please cross post this to your lists so all are aware of our efforts on this front.
Glen Caroline, Director
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Based on concerns raised by NRA, the House Appropriations Committee report on the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill (H.R. 3093) includes the following language:
“The committee has heard reports that [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has pursued license revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations that consist largely of recordkeeping errors of various types that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime. The Committee encourages ATF to consider lesser gradation of sanctions for recordkeeping errors.”
This is a continuation of NRA’s longstanding efforts to reform the BATFE, and to ensure that any penalties administered by BATFE against FFLs appropriately fit the transgression and that BATFE does not abuse its authority. Last spring, NRA-ILA secured passage in the U.S. House of H.R. 5092 (http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=8224 <http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=8224> ), a bill that included many reforms to the process by which BATFE punishes violations of federal law and regulations (more information on bill here: http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=205 <http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=205> ). These reforms would have provided a fairer process for FFLs accused of violations. Passage of the bill followed on the heels of House hearings (also prompted by NRA’s efforts) on BATFE abuses with respect to FFL enforcement and gun show operations. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to consider the bill before adjourning for the year.
Others in the pro-gun grassroots community have reported on this issue, including Ryan Horsley of Red’s Trading Post, and numerous other bloggers. Working together, it is our hope that we can continue our mutual efforts to reform BATFE once and for all to reduce and eliminate unjust harassment of legitimate gun dealers.
Via Phil we discover there is a species that has recently been pushed to the edge of extinction in the U.S. and Europe. It has come as a bit of a surprise to officials on both continents. They are comparing it to the Giant Panda and the house sparrow:
“When the bamboo forests that the Giant Panda lives in were cut down, the bear became threatened with extinction.”
“We learned this lesson with the house sparrow. Twenty years ago we thought, ‘why bother to get one?’ since they’re so common,” he said.
“Next thing you know, the sparrow was on the threatened species list and they’re almost impossible to find in the Netherlands.”
Yet despite clear evidence it’s because of the reduction in their habitat I haven’t seen anything in the news or heard of any proposed legislation to protect this endangered species. I can’t imagine it would be difficult for the species to recover and save it for future generations. It would require some enforcement to make sure their habitat was restored but I’m sure millions of people would accept the job of habitat inspector even at minimum wage. I’ll bet some people would even pay to have a job like that.
I don’t know for certain but I have to wonder if the reason for avoidance of the issue is because it’s primarily women that are destroying the necessary old growth vital to the survival of the species. If so, I don’t want to hear how women are more caring and how the planet would be better if women were in charge. Of course women, as is typical, will probably blame it on men anyway:
Did the ‘Brazilian’ kill the pubic louse? [section P134]
The drop in pubic lice in women was around 2000 and coincided with the introduction of new trends in pubic hair removal.
Sharp as a Marble has a link to where a prosecutor talks about the D.C. ban on firearms being a good thing because:
The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason.
This sort of thing happens all the time. I know that a certain county sheriff in Idaho broke up a car theft ring and was unable to find anything on the person they thought was the leader of the group other than the unregistered machine gun they found in his home.*
It’s just another tool in their toolbox. The same thing with the income tax. The feds sent Al Capone to prison on income tax evasion rather than murder and bootlegging which were almost for certain the more appropriate charges.
I fully understand the temptation and desire for such tools. I’m sure there are many instances where law enforcement and prosecutors are completely and totally convinced the suspect is guilty but the witnesses are too scared to testify, someone messed up preserving the evidence, or some such thing. But having such tools available leads to their wrongful use. Whose perception that an individual is violent can be trusted? The potential for racism alone is reason enough to avoid giving these tools to prosecutors.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
And don’t forget Huffman’s rule of firearms law:
Firearms law are so complex, victimless, and nonsensical that almost every firearms owner breaks multiple laws without knowing it. A general rule to compute the earned prison time for crimes committed is to multiply the number of years of activity in the shooting sports by five.
A landlord of mine once had a girlfriend that was an interning law student at a Federal prosecutor’s office. I mentioned something about the changes in Federal law regarding explosives and how previously manufacture and use within the borders of a single state were outside the domain of the Feds but SEA claimed to change that. I thought that as a law student she would recognize the interstate commerce clause was the basis for the Feds being able to even talk about the regulation of explosives. Intrastate activity is supposedly beyond the reach of the Feds. But she was almost giddy about the changes because the new law would “invalidate tons of legal precedent”. As a future Federal prosecutor she had just been given a whole bunch of new tools and she was eager to use them. I dropped the subject.
I regard this abuse of power as one of the most obvious symptoms of a deficiency in our constitution. There is no explicit means for punishment of members of our government who pass or enforce laws that violate the constitution. There is a law that says they can’t legally do that in certain cases, 18 USC 242, but who enforces it? Federal prosecutors. But you can’t expect them to enforce it upon themselves. It just isn’t going to happen. There needs to be a much more general provision enforceable by some other means. The “Second Amendment reset” is just too drastic for the situation at hand.
* The Feds refused to prosecute. I suspect this decision may have been influenced by some previous “history” between Idaho and the Feds. This wasn’t too long after Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were found not-guilty of nearly all the charges against them and there were some instances where several Idaho counties were threatening and/or actually were (Lon Horichi is just one example) prosecuting some Federal employees of various types.
We are not paying money to gather in a peaceful assembly. If they don’t want us there, they should vote Riverdale gun-free.
Rev. Michael Pfleger
October 27, 2007
With no permit, activists rally at gun shop again
[How ironic. Invoking the First Amendment while trying to destroy the Second Amendment. As a side note--the articles states the criminal trespass charges against Pfleger and Jackson from last June were dropped this month.--Joe]
Well, if you must ask… most women probably find that very offensive.
I find it (yeah, I know, I’m weird) a little annoying. Guns and nearly naked women just don’t go together for me. These women don’t really know what they are doing with the guns. They get so few rounds on target and so many in the dirt that I find it irritating.
I could go for some of the groupies (there are some hints of this phenomena at times) at Boomershoot to show their appreciation after the show but not as a part of it. For some reason the simultaneous combination of sex and guns just leaves me a little bit cold.
That doesn’t mean I don’t realize there is a fairly large segment of the male (and some female) population that finds the combination very stimulating. I just don’t get it on the emotional level and I fear it hurts our cause with the majority of women.
I tried to post this as a comment to Kevin’s post but it was automatically rejected with the explanation of having too many links. No matter, I was going to make a post out of it anyway. I’ll provide a link to here from Kevin’s comment section. I won’t object to comments here but please consider whether the comment really should go on Kevin’s blog.
I ask you…what would you say of the manufacturers of crematoria, the producers of Zyklon-B, and the merchants of barbed wire who actively sought, and jealously protected, their government contracts with the 3rd Reich?
To a lesser degree businesses that sell to many government entities in the U.S. today are no different. But Barrett rifles and others have refused to do business with certain government organizations because of the laws that infringe on the civil rights of the people.
What I would say to those businesses is that I understand their reluctance to refuse to participate (in part, I was fired from my job because of this). I also read Hitler’s Willing Executioners and understand how an entire culture can go “sour” and make it difficult for people/business to stand up to the thugs in power. How many individuals/businesses refuse to sell products that aid in the war on some drugs? Or bite their tongue even though they know the war on people that smoke cigarettes is morally wrong but personally convenient? It’s very difficult to draw a line and say, “This is the limit, I will tolerate this, and beyond that I will cease to be a part of it or even actively fight it.” And it is very, very difficult to find and adhere to the line drawn beyond which you will disobey the law and endure the threat of government violence against you and/or your family. It is because of this that I wrote my essay on Civil Disobedience (see also this effort of mine).
I wrote my essay before I became a NRA certified firearms instructor in personal protection and was only a little surprised we were told to teach the importance of setting a limit and knowing what action you will take if that limit is crossed. This “drawing of the line in the sand” is very, very important. One instructor put it to me this way, “It’s far more important to know when to draw than how fast you can draw.” This lesson is applicable to far more things that most people know. Understanding this could eliminate all the “frog in the boiling water” scenarios. Governments grow out of control because people haven’t set a limit and said, “If these conditions are violated then the system has crashed and it’s time to press the reset button.” In a somewhat obscure way our Bill of Rights is such a line in the sand but the critical second portion of the rule wasn’t put in place. That second portion is what action you will take if that limit is crossed. If I could go back in time to the time of the writing of our constitution and influence it’s development I would insist provisions for this second portion was just as critical as enumerated powers and guarantees of rights.
This lesson is something I believe should be taught in our schools. And it’s not just because of the personal protection and “out of control government” issues. “Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them” is another way to say the same thing and perhaps enables people to see far more applications of this vital tool. The more widespread the application of this lesson the more likely it will be applied in the more difficult situations.
Draw your lines in the sand early when you have the time and a cool head. Your life or even the lives of millions may depend on it.
The odds of my politicians destroying me depend precisely on whether or not my cabinet is stuffed with guns. It is very hard to impose their will on me by force when I have the means to resist by the same means. Every single totalitarian government and dictator throughout history without exception has only managed to acquire and hold their power by first disarming their subjects. Every. Single. One.
The Armed Canadian
October 23, 2007
#6 – On “Assault Weapons” and Control
[Other than a reference to a U.S. gun control law a link to one of my posts was the only other reference. I am honored--this post, while long, is profound. This blog is so new that the link to my blog didn't show up on my radar. Ry sent me the link and I just now got around to reading the whole post. Thanks Ry and Armed Canadian.--Joe]
I don’t read as many blogs as a lot of other people do so I can’t say he is the best philosopher on guns and freedom. I can only say he is by far the best philosopher of the bloggers I have read. This post is what made that concept gel for me.
Kevin Baker at the 2007 Gun Blogger Rendezvous–probably thinking about his next post. Larry Weeks from Brownell’s is in the foreground.