Original Principles

You cannot claim to defend the second amendment while supporting or openly accepting the NFA of ’34 and GCA ’68. Or background checks. It makes absolutely no sense.

Progressive president FDR knew exactly what he was doing. Before 1934 you could buy a Thompson sub machinegun by mail order with no paperwork. Or a BAR. Or an M2, et al. The second amendment said so. It was understood. The convenient ruse was Prohibition. Never let a crisis go to waste. Prohibition naturally led to gang warfare, widespread corruption and a general degradation of society, just as the “War on Drugs” does today. Then, as now, the violence and degradation guaranteed by a profitable, government-enforced monopoly for criminals is used as a tool to intimidate you into accepting infringements on your rights. It isn’t so much a conspiricy as a natural progression for those in power.

You don’t HATE children, do you? Of course not, and so you must give up more of your rights, and your children’s rights. Remember that, Grasshopper; this “for the children’ or “for the good of society” crap demands giving up not just yours but your neighbors’ and your children’s rights – so now who hates children? Who hates your grandchildren? Since you gave up THAT little bit (NFA, GCA, NICCS, et al) you have ceded the enemy’s point. You’ve agreed that restrictions on gun ownership are a legitimate and sensible way of addressing crime. You’ve proven to everyone that, under the right pressures, you’re willing to give up more, and more and more, until you’ve forgotten what the right was in the first place. Which is where we are now. You’re dancing someone else’s dance and you don’t even know it. It works so well that many of us are afraid to articulate the true meaning of the second amendment in public, for fear of being branded as extremists. That cheap, transparent game is as old as the hills, but it’s so effective, over and over again, that many of you reading this are still falling for it. Cowards. Don’t think that your clever rationalizations make you less of a coward. You’re clever cowards.

If we allow ourselves to be suckered by proposals for “mental health” screening for gun purchases, for example, just watch how quickly the number of people being determined to have “mental health” issues starts to climb, and climb, and climb exponentially. Don’t ask later, in bewilderment, (NRA) how it could have come to such a state of affairs. It will. And you will have helped it along (which means you’re crazy, which means you can’t have guns ; )

No, Young Grasshopper; the only way to fix this is to rediscover Original Principles, then articulate them clearly, then stand our ground, and then win it all back. The enemy wins through subtle lies, mind tricks, degradation, intimidation, smear, and outright lies. We are better than this. We win with the truth, and with the courage to stand up for it.

VPC admission on “assault weapon” ban

I haven’t said much on the Feinstein “assault weapon” ban because at the Federal level I don’t think it has that great of chance at passage. That isn’t the case with “universal background checks”. I therefore have put some effort into addressing the stupidity of background checks.

I am, however, going to give a token effort to the “assault weapon” ban.

Surprisingly the Violence Policy Center is our friend here. This was from September 13, 2004 in response to the expiration of the previous AWB:

…renewal would have done little to stop this flood of assault weapons. Conversely, the end of the ban only makes official what was already known: assault weapons are readily available in America. The only difference is that the arbitrary distinction between pre- and post-ban assault weapons is now gone.

They are admitting that the 1994 AWB made no difference and that the renewal of it would make no difference either. Since then there have been millions of “assault weapons” sold to the general public and tens of millions of magazines for them. So just exactly what do they think the benefit would be to an AWB today? Either they must advocate for something like confiscation or they must concede such a ban will have near zero effect in “stopping the flood”.

Quote of the day—CSGV

@sebastiansnbq @antvq16 @tedcruz They certainly enhance a firearm’s lethality and accuracy, and allows shooters to fire from the hip.

CSGV (@CSGV)
Tweeted on January 30, 2013 in regard to the function of a pistol grip on a rifle.
[Spoken like a complete ignoramus. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence once again proves they don't know what they are talking about.

  1. The pistol grip does not affect the speed, size, material, construction, or shape of the bullet or the rate of fire of the gun. Those are the only variables that affect the lethality of any firearm.
  2. If they were interested in the truth CSGV should buy a copy of Rifle Accuracy Facts. But they have given us far too much evidence to the contrary to believe they will ever change their ways. It's too bad it is out of print and the cheapest used paperback copy is nearly $80. If I could do it for $10 I would send them a copy just so I could point out they should know better the next time they say something demonstrating their ignorance again. It's an awesome book. You won't find any mention of a pistol grip enhancing a firearms accuracy. The primary factors affecting a firearms accuracy are the bullet construction, the barrel construction, and the sights. The stock matters some but mostly that has to do with whether the barrel touches the stock or not.
  3. If someone is going to be shooting at me then them shooting from the hip would be an advantage for me since it would not involve using the sights. Please keep advocating this CSGV. Of course since the majority of their audience are pro-gun people who know better it really doesn't matter.

—Joe]

Gun geek writing exercise

Yesterday I received an email from a book author wanting to know what a homemade bomb used to assassinate someone would look like. She didn’t want to know the details of how to build it. She just wanted to know what it would look like so she could describe it well. She more than adequately distinguished herself from the usual bomb help losers so I agreed to help her.

Then as almost an aside she asked, since Boomershoot was about guns as well as explosives, if I could read over her long range shot scene and comment on it. After I read it, and finished laughing, I agreed to help with that too.

I totally rewrote it for her. Apparently she liked it because she responded with, “I really like the scene, have you ever thought of doing some story writing yourself?”

I included Barb L. on the Bcc line and she gushed (I suspect a bias), “Wow. Yours is really good. Ok, yet another thing you should do professionally, technical and writing consultant for ballistics and guns.”

So, here is the result of my writing exercise from last night. I did this instead of something productive like unpack some boxes, finish the cleanup from the mess of the blog conversion, or organize the contents of my multiple hard drives:

She rolled up a corner of the blanket to get a steady rest for her range finder at eye level when she laid down. As she prepared she let her mind ease into the “bubble” where everything else outside of her task at hand disappeared. It became just another very careful shot like a thousand others she had made into paper targets. The importance of this one being a live target was pushed from her mind. Her beating heart had to be calmed so that even the pulse present in her hands was diminished. At this range each pulse of blood in her limbs moved the gun enough to change the point of impact by several inches.

She moved slowly and calmly as she went through the almost ritual of making her first shot through the cold clean bore a direct hit. As she laid down she automatically pointed her feet with the toes to the sides so that both heels and toes would lie flat to the ground. Any wiggle would be transmitted to the gun and reduce the accuracy. She pointed the laser range finder at her target and she could see the jiggle from her pulse in reticle of the magnified optic of the instrument. She put a rock under the rolled up blanket and made the base steady enough to get a good reading. At this range bouncing the laser off of something just 10 yards further away could cause her to overcompensate for the drop and make the shot high by nearly 10 inches. Just an error of 5 yards would move the shot out of the vitals–the triangle formed by his nipples and the top of his sternum. After getting three readings in a row that agreed with each other she entered the data into her exterior ballistics app on her smart phone. It already had the altitude from the GPS and the weather conditions from the weather service. It still needed the incline, her rifle had an incline meter on it but with her new rangefinder she found herself using that instead. She punch in that number too. Her rifle was zeroed for 200 yards at standard sea level conditions. She had to adjust her point of aim to shoot 24.25 minutes of angle (MOA) higher. There were four clicks per MOA on her Leupold  scope. That meant 97 clicks. She was glad she didn’t have to count them off individually. The target turrets were numbered with 15 minutes per complete revolution. She did the math in her head and cranked on the elevation she needed.

The windage was a tougher problem. The anemometer gave her the wind here but it did told her nothing about the 993 yards between her and her target. Being on a hill meant the majority of the bullet’s path would be high above the tall grass, bushes, and trees she would normally use for judging the wind speed. The trees at the far end of the bullet path would help some but that wind would only cause a slight deflection compared to the wind in the first half of its 1.4 second journey. What she needed was the wind 100 feet in the air 200 to 500 yards ahead of her. For that she needed to look through her scope. She put the gun in position with its short bipod extended. A small bean bag was put under the butt of the rifle.

She moved into position behind her rifle. Again she lay her entire body flat on the ground. She scooted the rifle forward an back to get the bipod on firm ground. She then shifted and squeezed the bean bag until the crosshairs found their place. “Find your natural point of aim!”, she heard her instructor of a decade ago bark at her. No muscle could be straining to make the shot. Everything had to be relaxed so the tremors would not be transmitted to the rifle. She adjusted her body position until she could close her eyes, relax, and open them again and the cross hairs would still be resting on the target the same as before she closed her eyes. She adjusted the focus back from infinity and watched the shimmering of the air against the out of focus straight vertical edge of the bench the target was sitting on. It was called mirage. You can see it with the naked eye on a hot summer day just above the surface of a road or other hot objects. If you know what to look for and you have the right optics you can see it in cold open air as well. The angle at which the mirage moved and wiggled was a good clue as to the wind at the range the scope was focused at. It was a little bit of science and a lot of art as she adjusted for the 2 MPH left to right wind here on top of the hill, 5 MPH out at 500 yards and judging from the bushes near the target and the ripples on the lake, a 3 MPH right to left wind at the target. She dialed in a correction of 1.75 MOA left.

She confirmed she still had her natural point of aim and the wind hadn’t changed. As she adjusted the focus on her scope back to the target she felt her awareness “bubble” tighten into a universe composed only of her scope reticle and the target. Her awareness of even her trigger finger faded away. She would find that perfect Zen moment when the two pound trigger on her Remington “just went off” without her consciously thinking about it. It was all about the focusing of the jiggling cross hair on the distant target. The bubble settled in tight and her sense of hearing disappeared as did her sense of touch and pressure from the rocks under her blanket. The smell of the crushed plants faded to nothing and even her vision narrowed within the tiny window of vision granted her from the 14 power scope. The cross hairs did their random dance of six inches or so about the chest of the target. He tossed a piece of bread to a duck so she waited as he leaned back and put his elbows on the back of the bench on either side of him. It was like he was making himself a wider and more stable target for her. The cross hairs hung in the exact center of the triangle for just a moment and the gun recoiled. She had no recollection of pulling the trigger and only a dim sense of the muzzle blast through her hearing protection. It was a very clean trigger break. A half second later the gun came back down almost into the same position as before it fired. She quickly squeezed the bean bag to get her line of sight a little bit lower and “waited” for the remaining quarter second for the bullet to arrive. She could see the trace, the distortion in the air from the supersonic shock wave, as it arced down into her target and hit it at 1600 feet per second. That delivered more than half again the momentum of a .45 fired from 10 feet away and the target showed the effects. It was a good shot, maybe three inches to the right of her point of aim. Not quite enough adjustment for wind but the elevation was right on.

Nobody is going to take your guns

I couldn’t begin to count the number of times I’ve been told either directly or indirectly by anti-gun activists and politicians that nobody is going to take guns away from U.S. citizens. Frequently if you listen to them for another 30 seconds they will tell you the guns they plan to ban next. When confronted with this discrepancy they will tell you what they really meant was nobody was going to take all the guns away. And there is no slippery slope.

Yeah. That really puts me at ease.

I guess I should ignore little things like this police chief saying Americans can be completely disarmed within a generation.

Or political pundits outlining How to Ban Guns:

  1. The very first thing we need is a national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them… I think about 6 months should be enough time.
  2. Make private sales illegal.
  3. Remember those ATF form 4473s? … So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry.
  4. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations.
  5. An immediate, national ban on concealed carry.
  6. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer.
  7. I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don’t want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member.

If you read the fine print you will find he has zero regard for the Fourth Amendment as well as the Second. Neither are even identified as a speed bump in his grand plan.

The guy is clearly delusional as he apparently expects gun owners will willingly cooperate with the gun registration if they “make it super easy to do.”

And if his grand plan, with him given credit for it, were to be accepted and implementation began it’s unlikely his kids would be shot. I’m pretty certain all his worries would be very short lived. They would be very intense, but short lived.

Perceptions

Joe and I, and several other bloggers, have referred to this photo as an example of how different people can look at the same thing and see something completely different;
woman
You see either a beautiful young woman or an old hag, or maybe both in rapid succession. It depends on your “wiring”. My theory is that most men will key in on the young woman because our brains are wired to notice them, but I have no evidence whatsoever to back it up other than watching other men in their cars or out and about, looking at young women. If the military could devise a system that efficient at locating enemy combatants, we’d never lose a battle. (Yeah; I see you guys zeroing in on all the women – it’s like a magnet drawing in all those iron filings you never knew could possibly be on your floor, or something)

A search for that image brought me to this site, which is great. I now do not remember what exactly it was I wanted to say using the above image as an example, but that first link also links to this site, where I found a great gift. The person who does most or all of the posts demonstrated the concept, and did so with regard to gun rights! This is a VERY beautiful juxtaposition (or something) on the subject, on a site that SPECIALIZES in perception and illusion art. How great is that?

First I found this, posted on January 12, 2013;

“We should all stop being petty about each other, learn to be tolerant, and stop aggressively intruding our ways on others. I think if we all learned to do this, we would find our place under the sun, and these differences wouldn’t even be brought as important.” (emphasis mine)

Excellent (the author sees the beautiful young woman). I couldn’t agree more.

And then I found, written by the same person (Vurdlak) on December 16, 2012 (on page three as of the day this is written)

“I have to say I’m still under shock after reading what happened in Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut (USA). My heart is broken, and I can’t seem to understand how such horrible things are even possible. What is happening with our species?! I also read how pro-firearms lobby suggests that every teacher should be allowed to keep firearms in their class (for protections)?! Are those lunatics for real? What makes you think this wouldn’t cause another incident??! I for one wouldn’t feel safe sending my kids to school where teacher keeps a gun in his desk. All this literally makes my stomach hurt. Owning a gun should be heavily regulated, like rest of the world does it – period.” (emphasis mine, for various reasons I’m sure you understand)

And there’s the old hag, and the author is just about ready to beat the shit out of you if you insist it looks like a young woman if you look at it differently. It don’t think it can get any better than that.

I could go on and on with a thousand or more words, fisking that last quote, but I think this audience already understands it completely.

Anyway, to change the subject entirely; check out those links. WOW! I got lost in there for about an hour before I knew it. Now my eyes hurt a little bit. I love that stuff (you probably should avoid it of you’re epileptic – some of that stuff wanted to make me dizzy).

I now remember noticing sometime in junior high school that, looking at a shadow alone, you have zero information to tell you whether the shadow figure is “facing you” or “facing away from you”, hence the moving silhouette of the woman that can be seen to rotate in either direction. Did I tell you I love that stuff? Speaking of shadows; a few weeks ago my wife had a football game on the tele, and you know they use computers to “paint” the scrimmage line and the first down marker line on the ground for the TV audience, while showing the players above it. Pretty sophisticated programming, I figure. Anyway, the thought hit me at that time that it would be really stinking cool if there was a program that could delete the players’ images entirely, and only show their shadows, so you see a game played by teams of two-dimensional silhouettes painted on the turf, fighting over a two-dimensional “ball”. Yikes! Joe?

Background checks

The anti-gun people insist “improved background checks” and even “universal background checks” should not be controversial. Let me try to explain why they are both pointless and completely unacceptable to thinking people.

Pointless demonstration number 1:

The claimed purpose of background checks is to prevent “people who shouldn’t have guns” from acquiring them. That is a noble objective. It sounds so reasonable and “common sense” that I  want to agree without giving it even a seconds thought. It’s an excellent idea! It’s such a great idea we should apply that to some other dangerous things. Let’s have background checks before people can purchase recreational drugs. Far too many people abuse them and destroy their lives and frequently the lives of others. Keeping recreational drugs out of the hands of people that would likely abuse them is just “common sense”. Right?

Oh! That’s right. We have something way beyond background checks in place for most recreational drugs. We have banned them not just from “people that might abuse them” but from everyone. How’s that working out? How long does it take the average high school dropout to find a way around the ban? Yeah, that’s right, Einstein. The average high school dropout can get all the recreational drugs they want within an hour anytime of the day, any day of the week. So just how effective you think a background check would be in reducing the abuse of recreational drugs?

Now apply what you know about the recreational drug issue to firearms. A background check is totally pointless.

Pointless demonstration number 2:

Universal background checks can only claim effectiveness if they can be enforced. Prostitution is illegal in most states but if a beautiful woman leaves a $100 bill on my nightstand when she leaves in the morning (yes, stretch your imagination a bit, or a lot, for purposes of illustration) how does  the government enforce the “no sex for money” prohibition in this case? It was a “private transaction” between willing parties. Do you think either party has an interest in disclosing the transaction to the police? And even if they do there is a significant obstacle in that it becomes a “he said, she said” problem.

In the absence of gun and/or gun owner registration the case of the “private transaction” between gun owners boils down to the same thing. The government, and perhaps one party to the transaction, can claim no background check was done. As long as the person being prosecuted keeps their mouth shut and the transaction wasn’t recorded it is going to be impossible to prove that a background check wasn’t performed. Remember, in order to get the Brady Act (“instant” background checks for gun transactions) passed the law states that all record of passing background checks must be destroyed. Searching the records of all those authorized to perform background checks would be a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

Pointless demonstration number 3:

Even if a background check is performed it only requires a stolen or fake ID to defeat it. The fake ID doesn’t even have to be for a real person! The check is not against a “white list” of people that are “allowed” to have guns. The check is against a “black list” of people that are disallowed from possessing guns.

Conclusion:

If you still advocate for background checks for firearms I can only think of two possibilities:

  1. You have a motive other than reducing the misuse of firearms.
  2. You also get confused when your caretaker is reading Dr. Seuss books to you.

Now that we have it settled that background checks are completely pointless let’s proceed on to the “unacceptable” demonstrations.

Unacceptable demonstration number 1:

Background checks cost money and time. The FBI portion of them is “free” to the people doing the transaction. But really that just means the government is wasting scarce law  enforcement resources using money they obtained through taxes (obtained at gunpoint–oh, the irony!). The only people authorized to do background checks are people with Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). Because it is time consuming they always charge a fee and you must do a face-to-face transaction. This adds more wasted time and money to the transaction. A transaction which is a specific enumerate right.

This pointless waste of time and money is unacceptable at any time but when the government is deeply in debt and the economy is doing poorly wasting precious government and private resources it is even more so.

Unacceptable demonstration number 2:

If law requiring universal background checks is passed it will only be a short time before the politicians will “discover” the “loopholes” that prevents the law from working as intended. These include the lack of gun registration and the lack of defense against fake IDs. Any attempt at gun registration in the U.S. will result in massive non-compliance on a scale that will make alcohol prohibition look like first graders failing to stay in a straight line while waiting to go on recess. Look at the non-compliance experienced in the failed long gun registration in Canada. Multiply that by three (the difference in per capita gun ownership rate), multiply that by two (U.S. citizens trust the government less than Canadian citizens), then add ten billion rounds of ammunition (annual consumption by private citizens). Or look at New York state,  multiple by fifty (the citizens of other states included in the non-compliance) and multiply that by ten (the citizens of New York state have the option of moving to a freer state, with no place to escape the resistance will be more fierce), then add ten billion rounds of ammunition.

The “ID loophole” was identified years ago by the Feds and they passed a law requiring “Real ID” by the states. How’s that working out?

For the government to force this sort of situation upon the people is unacceptable.

Unacceptable demonstration number 3:

Since demonstrating that background checks are pointless the continued insistence upon forcing them upon the people this must mean that those continuing to advocate for them are either evil (option 1 above) or have the comprehension skills no better than that of an above average German Shepard (option 2 above). Despite the existence of blue dog democrats we have never elected someone so stupid as a real dog to a Federal office (Senator Patty Murray is not a counter example, she is capable of reading and comprehending most Dr. Seuss books). One can only conclude those advocating for background checks are evil or are doing so under duress.

Good people don’t knowingly and willingly cooperate with evil. It is unacceptable.

Conclusion:

Background checks are pointless and unacceptable. We are better than this.

Even compromising with those that advocate for them is the moral equivalent of compromising with people that want “common sense” limits on the 13th Amendment or someone intending to rape your 10 year-old child. The response must be an exceedingly firm no.

Update: I almost forgot, as pointed out by Tim S. in email a few days ago, there is a form of background check almost all gun owners would accept. That is if there were an “endorsement” on your state ID card (such as drivers license) like the restriction for corrective lenses or endorsement for motorcycle or commercial drivers license. It wouldn’t be much, if any, more effective than that currently proposed by the anti-freedom people. But it would eliminate the concerns over registration and most of the expense and wasted time. If such a thing is offered as a compromise to the anti-gunners expect it to be vigorously rejected. They know it doesn’t meet their “needs” and as such will refuse to give in.

Quote of the day—Holden_McGroin

The only thing a gun is good for is killing. That is it’s only purpose, and nobody needs a gun for anything other than killing.The NRA seems to be full of a bunch of morons who just want to kill things, instead of doing something constructive.

Holden_McGroin
January 19, 2013
[Their ignorance is astounding.

  • I've fired about 100,000 rounds through my guns and only killed two deer (one shot for one and two for the other) and a rattlesnake (two shots). Does that mean that my guns have only worked 0.005% of the time?
  • The police carry guns so they can kill people?
  • The police, and others who carry guns for self-defense do so to protect innocent life. They shoot to stop the attack. Not with the express intent to kill someone or something.
  • It's a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.
  • Nearly all the NRA members, staff, and people on the Board of Directors that I know have college degrees. They are not morons.
  • The NRA teaches gun safety, self protection, hunting, sport shooting, and protects civil rights. Those aren't constructive?

—Joe]

Seattle’s gun "buyback"

As I mentioned Saturday morning on Twitter I went to the Seattle gun “buyback” (how can you buy back something you didn’t own to begin with?

I went with a fair amount of cash to buy things that were of historical value or something I might be interested in owning. I had fantasies of buying an AR-15 for $250. No such luck. The sidewalk in front of the site was packed with other private buyers:

IMG_3878

The sidewalks approaching the site from every direction had people on them too:

IMG_3880
IMG_3881
IMG_3882
IMG_3883
IMG_3885
IMG_3888

I did get a chance to look a few guns being brought in. I was only interested in one, a semi-auto 30-06 with a Leupold scope on it. Someone else quickly made an offer and got it for $125.

One of the guns, an old shotgun, literally fell apart as the owner tried to hand it to someone to evaluate. Another gun I saw was an old .22 revolver with the muzzle all covered in rust. The guy I was sort of hanging out with told the owner, “You couldn’t get $5.00 at a pawn shop for it.” The owner agreed and said that is why he brought it. A $100 gift card for something that probably wasn’t safe to shoot was a good deal.

I talked to another guy that said he got rid of a junker for $100 as well. It was literally, a “Saturday Night Special” an old Bryco of some sort. He had a great big smile on his face about getting a $100 for that.

I talked to quite a few of the guys there. You could tell who the gun guys were. They were all happy, talking, and smiling. I didn’t take any pictures of them but there were people turning in guns who looked like timid “grass eaters”. Many of them wouldn’t sell to the private sellers. One told the guy I was with, “I won’t sell to anyone without a background check.” The would-be buyer told him that he had a concealed pistol permit (background check required) but that didn’t faze the seller. So apparently it wasn’t about background checks.

I asked several buyers if the police gave them any problems. Only one guy had some problems. He was told he was parked on private property and had his table on private property. Even after he was told he had permission of the property owner the cop continued to harass him and told him he didn’t have a business license and that he was going to give him a “Ticket that will cost you $1000″. The buyer held his ground (before showing up he had asked the Seattle police, the ATF, and a lawyer if it was okay and got the go ahead from all of them) and the cop eventually went away without writing a ticket.

One guy I talked to categorized the sellers into two groups. 1) People getting rid of junk and 2) People who want to save the world. I didn’t have a good sample but it sure looked to me like there were a lot more in the first category than in the second.

There were a few guns of value that made it to through to the police so the politicians, and news media declared success when they ran out of money about 11:45. I have to wonder how many more guns were purchased by private buyers after the police closed up shop. I really need to make a bunch of very cheap single shot guns out of tubing, a piece of wood, a nail, and rubber band or make the rounds at the pawnshops before the next “buyback”.

I hung around for probably 45 minutes before leaving. With all the competition I figured I wouldn’t get my hands on anything of interest and I had other things I wanted to do.

Just as I was leaving the guy I was hanging out with jokingly asked if I had anything I wanted to sell before I left. I told him the only gun I had was the $2000 STI on my hip. He “offered” me $10.00 for it. I told him, “Screw you!” He told me, “I appreciated the offer but prostitution is illegal in Seattle.” We both laughed and I left.

Word of the day—compersion

Barb L. and I were chatting with some friends last night and a woman who sometimes teaches classes on various sex techniques used the word compersion in a conversation. I had not heard of it before. The definition is sometimes given as the opposite of jealousy. Or even “a fiery core of passion” at seeing your “significant other” with a lover.

I suppose it is significant that jealousy is a far better known word than its opposite.

Quote of the day—The Root ’83

Shall Not Be Infringed. Period. End of discussion.

Look, every Politician KNOWS this.
Leon Panetta KNOWS this.
So does Obama, Bloomberg, Cumo and everyone in the NY State Legislature as well as every Supreme Court Justice living and dead.

Ginsburg, Stomayor, all of them.
They KNOW this is what the Second Amendment MEANS, what its intended to DO…
And they DESPISE IT WITH A PASSION because it gets in their WAY.

These people are EVIL, not stupid.
And its long past time we just said it, and moved on.
Let THEM do the “catching up” for a change.

ALL of the guns are OURS.
None of the guns are YOURS, capice’

You want them?
Come and GET THEM.
Cause we’re DONE talking about it.

The Root ’83
January 18, 2013
Comment to Does ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Actually Result in Gun Crime?–Statistics do not point to criminals using this tactic.
[Clayton E. Cramer responds with, "You are giving the left credit for intelligence that just isn’t deserved."—Joe]

Kelvin-Helmholtz Waves

Or KH waves, or a KH instability. It’s a result of two distinct layers in a fluid traveling at different velocities. You’ll see it in rivers and streams, between bands in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn, in your coffee cup, etc. In this case it’s made visible by the bottom layer being cloud, interacting with a clear layer above. The wave pattern extends from one side of the photo to the other. I had to darken the image a lot to bring out the detail. Through my polarizing glasses the waves could be seen curling in on themselves more dramatically. For really good detail in sky photos you need a polarizer, and probably a UV filter too, but my little point-and-shoot isn’t set up for such things. These KH waves are over the Clearwater River canyon above Lewiston, Idaho, seen from the south end of Moscow on my way to work the other day.

Kelvin-HelmholtzWaves

It isn’t complicated

We occasionally get someone who wants to submit an idea for a new product. They’ll want us to evaluate it in hopes that we will help manufacture and market it for them.

Here’s the deal. If it happens to be something we’re already thinking about, I most certainly do NOT want to even know what you have. You can figure out why.

Somehow there has come to be this strange attitude, or belief, that if you’re a “little guy” with scant resources, that you must tug on someone else’s coat tails and convince them to “give you a chance” otherwise you have no chance.

It doesn’t work that way, or rather it certainly doesn’t need to work that way. If you have a little gizmo you want to turn into money, start searching for companies that do machining, or injection mold building, or casting, or whatever type of manufacturing you need, contact them, get some quotes for a few hundred or a thousand units. There are small shops that do these things in practically every town larger than a mere whistle stop. Many of them will not want to talk to you about such small numbers, but some will. Keep at it. Register yourself a domain name, take some nice photos, build a simple web site and get a web host for it, place a cheap ad in Shotgun News or what have you, and BAM! You’re in business. Just like that. What’s stopping you?

It probably will not cost more than the annual or twice annual beer and cigarette expense for the average, unemployed trailer park dweller. The rest is leg-work– finding people who can provide the specific services you need, and so I think that if you’re not willing to give yourself a chance, why should someone else give you that chance? Hmm? You won’t go out on a limb for your idea, but you want me to go out on a limb for your idea?

Quote of the day—Senator Dianne Feinstein

It will not effect hunting or sporting firearms, instead the bill will protect hunters and sportsman.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
January 24, 2013
Feinstein: Goal is to Dry Up the Supply Of Weapons Over Time
[Ignore the "effect" instead of "affect" error. That could have been the reporter not Feinstein. Instead concentrate on "the bill will protect hunters and sportsman".

Thank you Senator Feinstein, that line should go down in history with other memorably phrases such as the following:

I am of the opinion that Senator Feinstein has fully mastered doublethink. What she did here demonstrates her contempt for the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

This quote should be used as evidence at her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adrian Bogdan

In the old country we used to celebrate holidays with a day of rest, a picnic, going to the pool, etc.  Until they came up with the idea of celebrating “through work”…  kinda like this:

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama–national-day-of-service-offers-a-chance-to–change-lives–110548447.html

Adrian Bogdan
January 18, 2013
[I find it interesting in a very scary sort of way when I talk to people that lived under communism.

See also other comments from Bogdan.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

As I listened to Barack Obama’s inaugural speech yesterday, the memory of Sing-Sing and that particular prisoner floated into my memory.

Obama’s vision of America is Sing-Sing.

The government will provide just about everything you need to survive.

In return, you will surrender your freedom.

But don’t worry—and this is the most insidious part of post modern liberalism—slavery will be redefined as freedom.

Robert J. Avrech
January 22, 2013
Welcome to Obama’s Sing-Sing
[Roosevelt's four "freedoms" can be met in a prison. Avrech merely expresses it in more direct language than some Obama and Roosevelt defenders would be comfortable with.

From talking to a fair number of people I'm shocked at the number who see it as a reasonable trade. I can see now why tyrants often come to power from the ashes of a collapsed economy. And because of this one might also postulate that those that drive an economy into collapse frequently want to be tyrants.

Avrech status with me is close to reaching the point where I put him in the same category as Tam. Tam is no longer eligible for QOTD because she would dominate nearly every day.—Joe]