Monthly Archives: December 2007

This is an assault weapon!

Posted on by

James wanted his sister Kim to make him a costume for a gaming convention he goes to every year in August. This was the character (Siegfried):

Kim wanted to give him the sword for Christmas and wanted some help with it. What follow are some pictures of it’s construction–which isn’t complete yet.


Caleb, myself, and Dad are doing some tweaking of the design I had come up with.
Photo by Kim.


I’m implementing the grip Dad had suggested (it worked well).
Photo by Kim.


Caleb inspects part of the blade.
Photo by Kim.


The handle and the piece that attach to the blade.
Photo by Kim.


Cutting the handle to the proper length.
Photo by Kim.


Kim had never seen an arc welder in use before. Dad is welding the blade to the grip attachment.
Photo by Caleb.


Caleb, myself, and Dad work on the attachment. The new tractor tires I told you about are in the background.
Photo by Kim.


The main part of the blade is made of two pieces of 16 gauge steel. These had to be clamped down on the edges and then welded.
Photo by Kim.


Near the tip we used a wood spacer to make the blade thicker along the centerline.
Photo by Kim.


Here I’m using my cousin Allen’s MIG welder on the blade edges.
Photo by Kim.


Smoothing off the edges where the tip will attach.
Photo by Kim.


Caleb and Kim clamping the tip in place prior to welding.
Photo by Joe.


The tip is welded on one side. Kim is turning it over so I can weld the other side.
Photo by Joe.


Me welding.
Photo by Caleb.


All the metal assembly is done and it’s “usable”.
Photo by Kim.


Kim is pleased.
Photo by Joe.


Caleb thinks is it pretty cool too.
Photo by Joe.


James thinks it is awesome. Now if he can just figure out how he can get it back to the Seattle area.
Photo by Xenia.

Kim and Caleb still have some work to do on it. It needs to be buffed (it will take on a mirror like finish), coated, the grip wrapped in leather, and minor other tweaks.

It is surprisingly stiff. When smoothing out the welds with his grinder Caleb said he supported it on opposite ends and used it as a bench. And that it was strong enough to sit on.

If you have the muscle for it this would be quite the “assault weapon”. It never needs to be reloaded and if it had an sharp edge it would be as deadly as any ordinary firearm.

Quote of the day–Father Michael Pfleger

Posted on by

Slavery was legal, it wasn’t moral. Apartheid was legal, it wasn’t moral. We have to have the understanding that laws have to be changed if they are wrong.

Father Michael Pfleger
Pastor of the Faith Community of Saint Sabina Church
July 12, 2007
Anti-gun activists building momentum
[This is so ironic. He invokes memories of repressive racist laws while demanding repressive laws which had racist origins in the U.S. But what do you expect? Many anti-gun bigots have mental problems.–Joe]

Steel and snow

Posted on by

I shot in a steel match yesterday. Results are here. I’m improving. I’m only 10 seconds down from the winner. On “Smoke & Hope” I cut almost two seconds off of my September time. And the weather conditions were a little more challenging than in September. The pictures are below. Again I need to point out that a lot of the Seattle area ranges stop their outdoor matches in the winter. But this isn’t Seattle. This is Idaho. The Seattle area shooters are wimps.

 


Mike claimed he had a little trouble with the contrast between the white targets and the backstop.


Notice the snow build up on the bill of Rogers hat?


Mike brought tamales!


The scorekeeper stayed under cover when it was snowing.

Punishing them in the polls

Posted on by

USA Today has an online poll for the question: “Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?“. I’m annoyed with the question. The questions presumes facts not in evidence. The Bill of Rights does not give or grant any rights. It guarantees certain rights. In the case of the Second Amendment this has clearly been articulated in U.S. v. Cruikshank:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…

In any case, even with no really acceptable answer to such a misleading question the results are encouraging. The bigots are getting punished pretty badly.

[Thanks to Hal for the email.]

I Am Legend

Posted on by

James and I went to see the movie on Saturday night. This was apparently at about the same time as Kevin and his wife. James thought it was really good. I thought it was very well done but came away feeling not quite right about it. I couldn’t put it in words for James or Barb but if you take what Kevin said and multiply it by about 0.8 you get pretty close.

Quote of the day–Barack Obama

Posted on by

Our playgrounds have become battlegrounds. Our streets have become cemeteries. Our schools have become places to mourn the ones we’ve lost. I’m sick and tired of seeing our young people gunned down.

Think about that. At a time when we’re spending $275 million a day on a war overseas, we’re neglecting the war that’s being fought in our own streets.

We also have to recognize that part of the reason that guns are so deadly in our society and in our communities in particular is because we’ve got young men standing on the streets without anything else better to do than gangbang. We need to express our collective anger through collective action.

Barack Obama
Aug 5, 2007
Obama delivers message tough on guns
[I “like” the part about collective action. I think it’s very telling.–Joe]

Quote of the day–The Brady Campaign

Posted on by

An armed society is an at-risk society.

The Brady Campaign
CONCEALED WEAPONS, CONCEALED RISK
[And the numbers to back up this claim are where? And please include the number of people killed by their own government in the last 100 years because they were unarmed. My speculation is they came up with this sound bite to counter the famous Heinlein quote about an armed society.–Joe]

Thank You and Grow Up

Posted on by

I sent the following letter to our local (Moscow, Idaho and Pullman, Washington) newspaper, The Daily News and to the University of Idaho newspaper, The Idaho Argonaut.  Some background:  Our Moscow, ID mayor, Nancy Chaney, decided that people should not be allowed to carry pistols in public spaces, worried, as she put it, that people might “swoop in and create confusion” in the event of serious trouble.  She later found our about Idaho‘s preemption law, making it illegal for local governments to limit people’s rights any further than state law.  She couldn’t accept that, and tried to get state legislators to rewrite state law.  Running into a brick wall, Mayor Chaney and her conspirators have decided to table the issue “indefinitely”.  So far so good.  They were held back, but they now need to pay a price for their indiscretions, even if it’s only in the form of a letter from a concerned citizen:

Dear Editors,

“Thank You” to all the brave individuals in Moscow and around the state who fought to protect a human right (the right to self defense in public spaces).  As for Mayor Chaney and the others; you have some growing to do.  You could not be more wrong about self defense, concealed carry, or about the good and responsible citizens of the State of Idaho.

I submit that any holder of public office should be glad for our rights, comfortable with them, unafraid, and should always strive to protect those rights, confident in the knowledge that it is the proper thing to do.  Further, that anyone who is at all suspicious or fearful of the rights of the individual should stay out of public office.

As for the argument that since the feds place restrictions on carrying in certain places, it should be OK for local governments:  It’s not OK for the feds either.  Creating a patchwork of varying 2nd Amendment infringements can do nothing other than ensnare innocent Americans and make the criminals laugh at us.  Who’s going to consult their “rights infringements map” before moving from point A to point B (step in this square and you’re perfectly OK, but step in this other square and presto, you’re a felon)?  You call that law enforcement or public safety?  I call it insane.  It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathological.

Try as you might to conceal it, Mayor Chaney, your distrust for the people of Idaho is obvious and on display.  If you can work past that distrust and begin advocating more, rather than less individual freedom, you may find that you have more friends and more goodwill from Idaho citizens than you can imagine.

I just read another Daily News article, commending 44 people for their brave deeds during a shooting in Moscow last May, for things like “exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury.”  That’s a good thing– people who try to save others at their own personal risk are an inspiration to all of us.  One tiny little gripe here:  The one regular citizen (non cop, non firefighter, non EMT, etc.) who also exhibited “exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury” received no mention whatsoever, in spite of his having been shot and seriously injured in the process.  Blundering oversight or personal disdain on the part of the reporter or editor?  Could be either.  It certainly shows no respect.

 

Study of the TSA confirms their brain cells are lonely

Posted on by

I’ve been saying this for years, pointed out the TSA is engaged in illegal acts, they know they are illegal, they are stupid, even idiotic, security is a joke, and then I suggested some tests of better security concepts. Now the Harvard School of Public Health says:

Study: Airport Screening Process Pointless

Airport security lines can annoy passengers, but there is no evidence that they make flying any safer, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.

[…]

“Even without clear evidence of the accuracy of testing, the Transportation Security Administration defended its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year,” the researchers added. “Most of these illegal items were lighters.”

This is like the Brady Bunch crowing at how effective NICS is because millions of people have been denied the sale of a firearm. Never mind that some of those people were guilty of “crimes” like being in possession of a deck of cards having naked white women on them (the “criminal” was black) and that the Brady act has never been shown to have made the public safer (Just One Question).

“We’d like airport security screening to be of value. As passengers and members of the public we’d like to know the evidence and the reasoning behind these measures,” Linos said in a telephone interview.

With $5.6 billion spent globally on airport protection each year, the public should be encouraged to query some screening requirements — such as forcing passengers to remove their shoes, the researchers said.

“Can you hide anything in your shoes that you cannot hide in your underwear?” they asked.

A TSA spokesman was not immediately available to comment.

The British Medical Journal contributed:

There is no solid evidence that the huge amounts of money spent on airport security screening measures since September 11th are effective, argue researchers in the Christmas issue of the BMJ.

[…]

Despite worldwide airport protection costing an estimated $5.6 billion every year, they found no comprehensive studies evaluating the effectiveness of passenger or hand luggage x-ray screening, metal detectors or explosive detection devices. There was also no clear evidence of testing accuracy.

The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) defends its measures by reporting that more than 13 million prohibited items were intercepted in one year. But, argue the authors, there is no way of knowing what proportion of these items would have led to serious harm.

This raises several questions, they say, such as what is the sensitivity of the screening question: ‘Did you pack all your bags yourself?’ and has anyone ever said ‘no’? What are the ethical implications of pre-selecting high risk groups? Are new technologies that ‘see’ through clothes acceptable and what hazards should we screen for?

While there may be other benefits to rigorous airport screening, the absence of publicly available evidence to satisfy even the most basic criteria of a good screening programme concerns us, they write.

Put this another way. If you were selling a product advertised as curing some disease and it, in fact, did no better in scientific tests than a placebo you would be at least fined and probably go to jail. If you sold a product advertised to allow your car to use water as fuel you could be sued when it didn’t work. But the U.S. Government can get away with providing nothing more than comfort to those that want to feel more secure while actually decreasing the security of travelers at great expense.

Can you imagine a snake-oil salesman using the defense, “My customers wanted to feel they were doing something even if their disease was incurable. Therefore I did nothing wrong.” Prosecutors would break out the victory champagne before the defense drew their next breath. And so it should be with the TSA. Either they are incredibly stupid or they are snake-oil salesmen who should go to jail.

Quote of the day–Napoleon Bonaparte

Posted on by

There are only two forces that unite men – fear and interest.

Napoleon Bonaparte
[I was reminded of this when reading Kevin’s excellent post Why We Fight.

Bonaparte’s insight can also be applied to both sides of the gun issue. The anti-gun people use fear a little more than we do but our leaders use it too. We have a much stronger basis in the “interest” part of the equation which is why I think we are winning now. It gives us more staying power. The fear angle fades after a while when the blood doesn’t run in the streets like the anti-gun bigots predicted.–Joe]

Have they done that research in humans yet?

Posted on by

Reader Rob reported this to me:

Female monkeys may shout during sex to help their male partners climax, research now reveals.

Without these yells, male Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) almost never ejaculated, scientists found.

Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex. Their exact function, if any, has remained heavily debated.

Counting pelvic thrusts

To investigate the purpose behind these calls, scientists at the German Primate Center in Göttingen focused on Barbary macaques for two years in a nature reserve in Gibraltar.

The researchers found that females yelled during 86 percent of all sexual encounters. When females shouted, males ejaculated 59 percent of the time.

However, when females did not holler, males ejaculated less than 2 percent of the time.

To see if yelling resulted from how vigorous the sex was, the scientists counted the number of pelvic thrusts males gave and timed when they happened.

They found when shouting occurred, thrusting increased. In other words, hollering led to more vigorous sex.

Counting monkey pelvic thrusts is admittedly “quite weird, but it’s science,” researcher Dana Pfefferle, a behavioral scientist and primatologist at the German Primate Center, told LiveScience. “You get used to it.”

Quite promiscuous

Male and female Barbary macaques are promiscuous, often having sex with many partners. This means sperm levels can get quite drained.

The females shout when they are most fertile, so males can make the most use of their sperm.

Pfefferle noted her research suggests these calls might also make females more attractive to other males. She added these shouts might play different roles in other species.

Pfefferle and her colleagues detailed their findings online Dec. 18 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

It sounds as if they haven’t done the corresponding research in humans yet. I’d like to volunteer to do that research. Now if only I had a population I could observe without disturbing the experiment.

Posted in Sex

Details?

Posted on by

Uncle gives us the all the info available from the NRA-ILA on H.R. 4900 the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007.” I just wish Thomas had the actual bill so I could look to see if they reformed any of the explosives stuff that bug me.

Update: Uncle pointed me at a different source which at least is aware of the bills existence. There is still no text of the bill available but it’s a start.

Another person who should study more Friedman

Posted on by

What a jerk.

This comes straight out of my stock earnings and bonus:

The three companies have cut a deal with Catherine Hanaway, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, under which they’ll pay up but neither admit nor contest charges that they received advertising money from online-gambling operations.

Microsoft has the biggest bill to pay, with a total of $21 million. Of that, $4.5 million will go the government and $7.5 million to the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The software giant also will provide a $9 million online public-service advertising campaign aimed at college-level or younger people, pushing the idea that online-gambling enterprises are illegal.

Is Hanaway one of those that believe stores should be closed on Sunday too? Or does she just need to get a lesson in Constitutional law? Where in the powers enumerated by the U.S. Constitution does it say the Feds have power to enact and enforce restrictions on free trade like this? She must have run out of terrorists, child pornographers, recreational drug users, and gun owners (one of her stated priorities although not so bluntly put) to prosecute in the 20 months she has been in office.

Quote of the day–Milton Friedman

Posted on by

Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Milton Friedman
1962
[People that think the government should subsidize ethanol production and mandate what types of cars to build or light bulbs to manufacture should read more of Friedman’s work.–Joe]

Joe’s translation service

Posted on by

From the Guy Guys we have this slightly disguised spewing of bigotry. I’ll translate it into terms that will make the bigotry more obvious. You’ll recognize my contribution when you see it:

Due to an intimidating campaign by primarily white Ohio males who love their handguns – and they are a minority of white “Buyckeye” men – the state has passed not only a CCW law (the right to carry hidden handguns) in the past few years, but also a state pre-emption law when it comes to firearms.

Due to an intimidating campaign by primarily gun-nig**rs – and they are a minority – the state has passed not only a law that “recognizes” their “rights” in the past few years, but also a state pre-emption law when it comes to gun-nig**rs.

That means duly-elected government bodies such as the Cleveland City Council cannot enact gun policies that best protect its citizens. In short, they are disenfranchised by gun fanatics.

That means duly-elected government bodies such as the Cleveland City Council cannot enact policies to keep the gun-nig**rs in their place and protect our women folk. In short the gun-nig**rs are getting so uppity they thing they have just as much right to be on the streets as us white-folk and have managed push us out of positions of city power.

[…]

Why should citizens who feel the psychological need for firearms in Lima, Ohio – for example — keep the government of Cleveland from trying to stop young people from being shot on its city’s streets?

Why should citizens who feel the psychological need to pollute their racial heritage in Lima, Ohio – for example — keep the government of Cleveland from trying to stop young people from defiling themselves its city’s streets?

The answer is that local communities and police chiefs should be responsible for their public safety, not some gun toters who can’t break their firearms addiction.

The answer is that local communities and police chiefs should be responsible for their public safety, not some gun-nig**r lovers who can’t break their perversions.

It’s long past time that the majority of citizens of America are held hostage against their will by a well-financed, profitable, over-heated lobby that cares more about its own pastimes than the lives of our youth and citizens in so many areas of our great nation.

Cleveland is just one city that is handcuffed from doing what is right by its community members.

And as a further service I translate this post for you:

Well, this is not about Second Amendment “rights”; it’s about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some NRA nervous Nellie will mistake them for a bear and start shooting away during the night.

Well, this is not about gun-nig**r “rights”; it’s about families being able to camp in National Parks without the fear that some gun-nig**r will lose control and rape one of your children during the night.

If the “brave” men of the NRA are so fearful of crime and wildlife in National Parks, then they don’t need to go into them.

If the “brave” men of the NAACP are so fearful of being lynched in National Parks, then they don’t need to go into them.

 

That will leave the rest of us safe and sound.

This is about our rights, not their selfishness in bringing the potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation.

This is about our rights, not their selfishness in bringing their inherent potential for violence into the last vestiges of our tranquil natural heritage as a nation.

Considering Teddy Roosevelt set aside more land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined, one would think that if the National Parks were to be gun free that Roosevelt would share those inclinations. But this quote refutes that hypothesis.

Boomershoot 2008 slogan and picture

Posted on by

I’ve chosen the picture and slogan for Boomershoot 2008. This will go on the shirts, mugs, hats, magnets, thongs, etc. that are sold via Cafepress. I’ll probably get it online for sale sometime during the holiday. The photo was taken by Peter Biddle and he has other photos from Boomershoot 2007 here.

In the mean time:

The official Boomershoot logo will be on most items as well:

Quote of the day–Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

One tenet of the National Rifle Association’s faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America’s leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don’t buy guns in gun stores. That’s why they’re criminals. But it isn’t criminals who are killing most of the 20,000 to 22,000 people who die from handguns each year. We are.

Josh Sugarmann
June 1987
The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns
The Washington Monthly
[This is one of those quotes that is almost too good to be true. I obtained it from Wikipedia for whatever that is worth.–Joe]