# Thursday, March 04, 2010
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:47:47 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( A Security Theater | Crap for brains | Current News | Economics | Freedom | Politics )

In response to the QOTD;

Ah, but Mr. Coolidge, and the Republican Party leadership, apparently never understood the game.  The assertion that building up the weak is the Left's goal is one thing.  Taking that assertion at face value is another.  It's the Big Mistake of the 20th century, and has resulted in perpetual confusion (to say nothing of the stagnation, decay and destruction around the world).  The preponderance of the evidence regarding the Left’s goals points elsewhere.  Their objective is statism for its own sake, and the tactic, stated openly in some circles time after time, is to bring down "The System" so it can be remade-- "Redistributive Change" in Obama's own words, and it's been said in other ways throughout the generations.

Republicans, as they occupy themselves trying to understand and argue the details, the costs and so on, of the "healthcare" bills, are demonstrating their utter cluelessness (or is it their complicity?).  "Why, this could end up funding abortions with taxpayer dollars, and that would be bad, and I'm not so sure we can afford this other bit over here..."

That's not the point, Skippy.  The point is, the whole thing is a massive power grab.  What more do you need to know, for crying out loud?

Weigh down the economy with debt, entitlements and restrictions, then blame what remains of the private sector.  Take advantage of the chaos and the public demands for an altogether new approach that they hope will ensue.  They're telling us every day; "Never let a crisis go to waste" is only part of it.  The other part is their understanding that they can manufacture the crises.  Chip, chip, chip, chip, and sooner or later even the hardest stone will crumble, after which (they believe) they can swoop in and take it all.

So far as I can tell, the Republicans have been playing along for decades.  "Oh, but you're crazy, Lyle.  Look at the differences between Republicans and Democrats!  Are you willfully blind, or what?  Surely you must be mad!  Look!  Just look!  LOOOOOOOOOK, MAN!"

Uh huh, and there's a world of difference between that "good cop" and that "bad cop" too.  The bad cop is a real, dangerously scary, out-of-control sonofabitch, but that good cop-- why, he's a sweetheart!  Look at him!  Just look!  He brings you coffee and food and he talks nice.  He doesn't like that bad ol', meany mean bad cop at all, either.  No Sir, not at all.  Such a nice fellow, and he really cares.  He listens.  He understands.  He's my advocate in this time of uncertainty.  I want to work with him, by golly gosh oh gee.  Yessiree.  No doubt about it.  Without him, that bad cop would have beat the living shit out of me by now, for sure.  Man, am I lucky to have Good Cop!  Wow!  Thank God!  This must be an angel sent from Heaven to deliver me from despair!

Right.  Both cops are working to take you to the same place after they're finished with your sorry, dumb ass.

OK; got that out of the system.  Now I'm all ears.

# Wednesday, March 03, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, March 03, 2010 3:36:08 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Peter Hamm is here. It's cold out. Maybe I should be a nice guy and get the Brady folks some @starbucks.


Sebastian
March 2, 2010
A post on Twitter.
[That is very funny but just a little bit on the rude side given the current context of Starbucks. And to the best of my knowledge Sebastian did not follow through on this thought.

I know I'm very harsh with them on this blog but that would not extend to my personal interactions with them. My fight with them is over their advocation of anti-gun policies. Not with them personally. This is not to say I would invite them into my house (unless there were some sort of emergency that my failure to do so put them at risk of personal injury or extreme discomfort).--Joe]

# Tuesday, March 02, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:55:04 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Work )

Via Ry.

Gene Porter, the inventor of "The Man" hot sauce used at Dixie's BBQ, died Sunday.

The Seattle Times article tells a lot of the back story but it only vaguely hints at the Microsoft aspect with:

The restaurant crowd is often standing-room-only, and people have come from all over the world — CEOs from big companies on visits to the Eastside.

"The Eastside" refers to the east side of Lake Washington. The biggest company there is Microsoft. Dixie's BBQ is so popular with Microsoft people that it is served in some of the cafeterias. The Gun Club at Microsoft put up signs along the order line at the restaurant indicating how much longer you had to wait before you would be able to order and receive your food.

It was nearly a rite of passage for new employees eat at Dixie's. This morning I received an email from Kris, who I took to Dixie's shortly after he arrived here from Australia, telling me of Mr. Porter's death. I took my officemate Chandrika, from India, there. And I took son James there shortly after he went to work at MS.

Ry used to pick up fresh vegetables in Royal City (central Washington) on his way back from Idaho and give them to Mr. Porter.

And there is a story about Mr. Porter, a shotgun, and a ham that Ry or I could tell you sometime too.

He will be missed.

# Monday, March 01, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Monday, March 01, 2010 5:36:11 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )
By: Joe Huffman Monday, March 01, 2010 4:52:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

County counsel will realize he's going to lose if we're forced to file. Let's imagine County Counsel is a moron or San Francisco. We file for a TRO and Permanent Injunction, cite Sykes and get on the calendar in Federal court in the next 3-7 days. The TRO will be granted and off the PI will often be granted as well. Both command the Sheriff to issue you your permit or US Marshalls will come and arrest the Sheriff and take him to a Federal jail on contempt (or in the alternative, fine him personally - Federal judges are not to be messed with.) At that point, the County pays for all legal fees expended by CGF (or you.) Once you have on point controlling case law, these things get done fast and on the County's dime.

County Counsel understands these things, hence they never go there. Today, there is no on point binding Federal Court precedent... Give us a few more months.

Gene Hoffman
February 28, 2010
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
[This assumes a win in McDonald v. Chicago (almost a sure thing) and in Sykes/Palmer (California case on hold pending McDonald v. Chicago resolution). Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald are tomorrow. We will get a pretty good hint of how that will go then. I don't have any tea leaves for Sykes/Palmer but I suspect David does and might share his reading of them with us.

It's a little early to start buying care packages of K-Y jelly for the bigoted sheriffs that denied you the CCW license in California who you envision spending quality time with their new boyfriend in a Federal prison. So send a few dollars to Calguns Foundation now to make that dream come true.--Joe]

# Sunday, February 28, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:10:43 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Politics )

Alan Korwin was smart enough and fast enough to turn the tables on "an authorized journalist" during a recent encounter with a group of them:

The AP writer told of an assignment she got from the New York office, formerly the core of AP, and now restructured as one of four regional hubs. It seems the nation was bursting with hope and optimism right after Mr. Obama's inauguration, and now, one year later, everyone was disappointed and dejected.

"But wait," pointed out The Uninvited Ombudsman, the emcee for the evening event, "for half the nation's people, there was hopeless disappointment and dejection right after the election, and now, a year later, there is finally a ray of hope and light at the end of the tunnel. Doesn't your story neglect that half of the picture?"

All four AP staffers, who had nodded approvingly during the anecdote, stared like deer caught in headlights.

Nice.

# Friday, February 26, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 26, 2010 3:54:23 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Politics | Quote of the Day )

The warning message we sent the Russians was a calculated ambiguity that would be clearly understood.

Alexander Haig
December 2, 1924 – February 20, 2010
[I should have posted this a few days ago but I forgot that I had it in my collection.--Joe]

# Thursday, February 18, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:09:37 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Quote of the Day )

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

Joseph Stack
February 18, 2010
Man Angry at IRS Crashes Plane into Office
[I also consider it a bit insane to deliberately kill yourself in the process of getting a different outcome. I can empathize with the desire to take out an IRS building (or 10) but I don't think this was that great a plan.--Joe]

# Wednesday, February 17, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:41:44 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

This, at its simplest, is political hate speech towards the community to which Detective Tuason is duty-bound to protect. It is an abhorrent and vile insight into the mindset of one East Palo Alto's own detectives regarding on-duty activities. It is chilling to contemplate what could happen if Detective Tuason encountered citizens exercising their fundamental civil rights to openly carry in a lawful manner within the City of East Palo Alto, as one Redwood City man did on January 28th. Like the allegations of comrption that left the East Palo Alto Police Department with a tarnished reputation just a few months ago, this vivid and graphic imagery of police misconduct will be hard to dispel.

Jason Davis
The Law Offices of DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
February 12, 2010
Letter to Ronald L. Davis Chief of Police City of East Palo Alto on behalf of The Calguns Foundation, Inc. This was in response to a detective saying "Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night! Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them made a furtive movement...2 weeks off!!"
[Ahhhh ... yes. Reminds me of the kind of stuff we used to hear about happening to blacks in the deep south 50 to 100 years ago.

Gun owners are the ni**ers of the 21st Century.

H/T to Rob for the email pointer. I had seen the original quote but not the response of CGF.--Joe]

# Sunday, February 14, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 14, 2010 8:13:23 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Bloggers | Current News | Gun Rights )

As I forwarded from Mike yesterday we need to have a Starbucks Appreciation day. In some back channel communication with other gun bloggers and friends in the gun rights community (Ashley V. suggested some wording for me to use) no one had any objection to Mike's suggestion. Therefore I would like to announce that one week from today on Sunday February 21 gun owners should have a Starbucks Appreciation Day.

I would like to suggest we do this without an overt display of firearms. Our message of Starbucks Appreciation will be overshadowed by the known presence of firearms if we make having a firearm on our person the point of the message. Let's keep it simple and let the barista and manager know why we're making a purchase that day.

You can get the message across just as well by saying something like:

Please know I'm here because firearm owners across the country want to show Starbucks our appreciation for your decision not to ostracize customers who own and carry guns.

I'm going to be consuming Starbucks products on a regular basis now and would like for other gun rights supporters to do the same. But next Sunday we should make a point of telling them why and explicitly telling them thank you.

Update: One supporter (Lorena) says, "Have a cup of joe with Joe!"

# Wednesday, February 10, 2010
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:19:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom | Politics )

In case anyone has forgotten;

 

That in response to this story.

# Thursday, January 28, 2010
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:26:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

Writing to one's state or U.S. representatives is quite easy, thanks in part to Algore's internets/tubes, and it is often an important thing to do.  They need to know what we're thinking, whether or not they agree.  More importantly, they need to be reminded of their duties in upholding the state and/or U.S. constitution, as they are so prone to (eh-hem) forget.  Soon after writing my WA state senators, cc-ing the house, thusly;

-----Original Message-----
From: Lyle
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Schoesler, Sen. Mark
Cc: Fagan, Rep. Susan; Schmick, Rep. Joe
Subject: Stop This Nonsense

HOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE
SENATE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE

TO:  Senator Mark Schoesler

CC:  Representative Susan Fagan
     Representative Joe Schmick

FROM: Lyle

BILL:  6396 (Against)

SUBJECT:  Stop This Nonsense

MESSAGE:

Senate Bill 6396, the "assault weapon" bill is not only an affront to the Washington state and federal constitutions, it cannot possibly do anything to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals".  Criminals by definition don't obey such laws, and if certain guns are outlawed, criminals will be the only ones using them.

Further, it is well known that the federal "assault weapon ban" of 1994 (expired in 2004) did nothing to reduce or prevent crimes.

This new state bill can only be described as gun owner harassment, and an attack on the very concepts of liberty and self defense.

I point out that the AR-15 style rifle has recently become the most popular rifle platform in the U.S., and it would be outlawed by SB6396.  Millions of handguns carried for defense would become illegal under this bill also.  Is this how we are to fight crime-- by disarming or harassing the potential victims?

I urge you and your colleagues to stop this in its tracks, by any means necessary.  Further, I expect you to take decisive action within both the House and Senate against any law-maker who so brazenly attacks our personal liberties.  We will be watching.

Thank You.

I received the following response;

From: Schmick, Rep. Joe [mailto:Schmick.Joe@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Lyle

Subject: RE: Stop This Nonsense

Thank you for your comments.  I have heard an overwhelming objection to this bill from others in the 9th legislative district.

I oppose any gun regulation.  I fully support your second amendment rights to bear and keep arms and rest assured, I will vote accordingly.

Sincerely,

Joe Schmick
State Representative

Good for Joe Schmick.  Just one little bone to pick; he makes no mention of going after law makers "who so brazenly attack our personal liberties".  No big surprise there.  This is a new concept.  Even pro-liberty politicians (or is that an oxymoron?) are accustomed to playing defensive holding actions 99 to 100% of the time.  We'll let that one go for now, though at some point this will have to change.  Your team will never make it to the SuperBowl with the greatest defense and no offense.  I replied;

Thank you very much for your response.  If it helps to convince others who may be on the fence, I invite you to recall that state initiative 676 back in the 1990s, which was a sweeping weapon restriction scheme, failed overall by a margin of about 69 to 31.  Washington citizens may be evenly split on some issues, but [this] is certainly not one of them.

Best Regards,

Lyle

No one else responded for about a week.  Then came this bit from state rep Susan Fagan (oh boy);

Lyle,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns and comments.  I appreciate your taking the time and effort to share your views with me.

I am humbled and honored to represent our constituents in the 9th District.  As legislators, we have hundreds of issues to consider.  We need to be fiscally responsible and work towards stimulating the economy.  We also need to help protect our most vulnerable citizens and maintain individual rights and freedoms.

Please know that I am working hard to make the best decisions possible towards responsive and efficient state government.  Your input alerts me to issues of major concern and helps me to effectively serve our district.

Best regards,

Susan Fagan
State Representative
9th Legislative District

439 John L. O'Brien Building
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA  98504-0600
(360) 786-7942
Fagan.susan@leg.wa.gov

It's a form letter, designed as a blanket response, no matter the issue, no matter the position.  The only clue in there as to any sort of a position is that the term "individual rights and freedoms" appears.  A hard-core communist revolutionary probably wouldn't say that, but then again a hard-core communist revolutionary is also a chameleon, or a liar, by definition.  Not much to go on as part of a universal "I don't have the time to respond to you directly so here's some crap for you to chew on.  Now go away and don't bother me" letter.  A bit insulting.  She could have at least hired a junior high school delinquent to send a form letter addressing this particular issue as part of his public service requirement.  Such is life.  Very few politicians have the courage to actually say things.  No one else responded, but they did get my letter and that must count for something (so I tell myself).  If nothing else, the sheer volume can tell them a lot, and volume they have been getting.

# Sunday, January 24, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, January 24, 2010 12:12:24 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

People are still saying the proposed AWB will be stillborn at best:

After 2009 ended in a hail of high-profile gun violence, Washington state's gun-control advocates are frustrated by an apparent lack of political support for an assault weapons ban, warning that the state will likely face more deadly shootings without it.

The bill comes just weeks after a spate of deadly police shootings, and proponents of the ban say those killings should force politicians to confront gun violence.

"There's more guns, a repressed economy and a lot of angry people," said Ralph Fascitelli, board chairman for state gun control group Washington Ceasefire. "You can't sweep this problem under a rug. Apparently the shooting of eight police isn't enough to confront gun violence in the state."

The bill was named in honor of 18-year-old Aaron Sullivan, who was shot and killed by a SKS 7.62-caliber rifle in Seattle in July. The legislation focuses on "military-style" assault weapons, which can fire rapidly and carry large magazines of ammunition.

Similar bans have not fared well in the state Legislature in the past, and in an election year, supporters face a battle to even get the bill out of committee.

They did manage to avoid Fascitelli embarrassing himself with more talk of "animal assassins".

See also my posts here, here, and here on the topic.

# Thursday, January 14, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:11:56 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

I posted a little something on it yesterday and last month I told you why it is DOA. But I've been getting email (thanks Carl and Barron) and I decided to dig into it a little bit more.

From the bill itself (emphasis mine):

(20) "Assault weapon" means:

8 (a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle

9 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a

10 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also

11 possesses any of the following:

12 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located

13 rear of the trigger;

14 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any

15 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a

16 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the

17 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of

18 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below

19 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;

20 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or

21 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a

22 telescoping stock;

23 (iv) A barrel shroud;

24 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

25 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that

26 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;

27 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine

28 at any location outside of the pistol grip;

29 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,

30 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept

31 more than ten rounds of ammunition;

32 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;

33 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;

34 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an

35 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or

36 under the control of any person.

37 (21) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which

is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing

2 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any

3 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

4 (22) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is

5 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel

6 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the

7 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without

8 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension

9 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially

10 or completely encircle the barrel.

11 (23) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a

12 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.

13 (24) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of

14 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.

15 (25) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts

16 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault

17 weapon.

Notice that some pump action guns are considered "assault weapons" by these bigots.

Notice that the firearm has to have a detachable magazine and any of the evil characteristics. In the 1994 Federal AWB it had to have two of the additional characterisitics.

Notice that muzzle breaks and compensators are considered evil enough to make a firearm an AW. That would appear to make all Glock "C" models outlawed under this proposal.

And people like Dennis Henigan (Lethal Logic chapter 3) claim there is no slippery slope.

The line about "any tool, including a bullet or cartridge" appears to be in severe need of rewriting. I can't make sense of it as it stands. I'm sure the Seattle bigots heard the California bigots whining about the manufactures making "California legal" firearms with a receiver that allows the magazine can be removed with a cartrige used as tool and hence complies with the law. I guess they didn't hear about the ring worn on your finger than does the same thing.

Also of note is that the grandfathering of existing ownership is more than little harsh:

16 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was

17 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person

18 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

19 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of

20 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to

21 ensure compliance with this subsection;

22 (b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or

23 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use

24 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while

25 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of

26 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the

27 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container

28 during transport.

So in order to exercise your specific enumerate right to keep bear firearms in common use (most of my firearms would be illegal by this definition) you have to allow the sheriff to annually inspect your firearm storage--with no guidance on what is considered "safely and securely".

A person would not be allowed to transport the firearm under any number of important situations such as to the gunsmith, a hunting trip, out of state for sale or as a gift. Let alone carry one on a daily basis as I do.

And what is it with "duly licensed firing range"? A search of the Washington State Department of Licensing website turned up nothing.

Also note that a couple of the bigots who proposed the law wrote an error filled opinion piece in the Everett Herald.

As other have said--we win because the other side is stupid. They are apparently nearly completely blinded by their own bigotry. But isn't that nearly always the case with bigots?

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:30:28 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Technology )

I've been seeing ads for the new NRA on-line national firearms museum, and I've also been working on building a period rifle.  I therefore thought it would be great to go and see if I could find some original examples of said period rifle at this new-fangled on-line museum, rather than having to, say, drive to Wyoming and visit the Cody Museum or pay 5 to 10 thousand dollars for an original rifle.  I tried it from home using my Mac G4 to no avail.  OK, I can forgive that.  The old G4 still has an old version of OS-X and Safari, and I sometimes have problems using other web sites.  Here at work I use XP Pro, IE 8, and a 700+ KBps ADSL connection.  I patiently try nationalfirearmsmuseum.org a few times from work and I'm redirected to nramuseum.org which displays a black screen, this tiny little sentence in the middle, and a heap big helping of nothing else;

The full NRA experience requires a broadband connection.  Click here to go directly to the standard NRA.org website.

From the standard NRA.org website you can eventually find a link to the museum, which then gives you said black screen.  Repeat as needed to become convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you're not going to see any museum, no matter what, in spite of the fact that said non-viewable museum is currently being advertized all over the NRA publications.  Denied.  I then tried "compatibility view" in IE 8, which made quite a difference-- it put that sentence at the bottom of the black screen instead of the middle.  Double denied.

If my setup can't work, who's does?  I thought DSL was about as broad as broadband gets, while the only clue to the denial is a note telling me my connection speed is too low, with no indication of what they consider to be "broadband".  Have I missed some new and wonderful breakthrough in IT that everyone else knows about and uses already?  Do I need a cable ISP?  Do I need to get Win 7 or what?  In any case I think that if your web site doesn't work with the vast majority of existing computer setups, you're doing something wrong.  That is, if you want the majority of people to see it, and you're not just interested in being cutting-edge for the sake of it, being satisfied with catering to an exclusive audience.

Then again, maybe I'm doing something wrong that makes it impossible to see this web site, though all the others I visit seem to work OK.

Dear NRA; I'd write you directly about this, but a black screen with nothing on it includes, as an accompanying feature, the non existence of a "if you can't view this page, please notify our web designer by clicking here" or anything like that.

Update Jan. 10; Without my having contected them directly, NRA Tech Support wrote me this morning and fixed my problem.  Wow.  That's service.  More in comments.

# Saturday, January 02, 2010
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, January 02, 2010 7:24:57 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News )

From the WA-CCW email list:

Coffee shop was owned by a retired Tacoma pd officer. It was considered a "safe" hangout for cops waiting to go on duty, or to stop by for a break.

Lakewood Pd (officers that were killed) was a new department recently formed.  Almost all of the deputies were hired from Peirce co Sheriffs office.  The deputies were hired from the jail. Most were sworn deputies, but had primarily worked the jail. Sounds like they had little time on road.

The four deputies were drinking coffee before shift and working on laptops with heads down. Table was approximately 15 feet from counter/check out register.

Shooter came in and smiles and acknowledges the two deputies facing the door way/entrance. They return greeting. Shooter goes up to counter like he is going to order. After stepping up to counter, he pulls semi-automatic pistol from under his coat. Shooter takes a couple of steps toward table, where the deputies are seated. Distance is now approximately 12 feet.

Shooter shoots first deputy, who is facing him across table. He is shot in head. He is killed instantly. Shooter then shoots nearest deputy, that is seated away from him, in the back of the head. He is killed instantly.  Shooter then shoots across table at third deputy, who is facing him, and misses. Fourth shot is fired and strikes third deputy in face, killing him instantly.

Last deputy is a Sgt. He stands, while drawing weapon, and charges shooter.  Table knocked over in attempt to stand. Sgt grabs shooter by coat and engages shooter. First round strikes shooter in mid-section and goes through and through. Second round is fired and strikes shooter in front pocket. Round hits keys, but penetrates about 1.5 inches into shooters thigh. Deputies carry 180 grain gold dot ammunition (unknown at this time what kind of pistol).

Shooter raises gun and shoots Sgt in face. Sgt falls to ground. Shooter kneels/bends over Sgt and does a CONTACT shot to the right eye.  Shooter then shoots Sgt in the other eye, once again a CONTACT shot.

Shooter takes Sgt's wallet and steals credit cards and Sgt's duty weapon.
Shooter does not rob the store or hurt or threaten anyone else.

The shooting lasted approximately 3-5 seconds for the first three deputies.
The Sgt's encounter lasted another 5-7 seconds.

Accomplice waiting outside and gets into car. They leave the area.  Accomplice is a former cell mate he did time with in Arkansas prison.

Federal agents track shooter by cellphone "pinging" to locate phone/area.  Five more additional accomplices help shooter with medical issues, food, money ect. Feds find driver and get the name of shooter.  All accomplices are arrested and general area where shooter is headed is found out.

Tuesday approximately 3:00 a.m. shooter turns off phone and takes battery out, so that Feds can no longer track phone.

Short time later, Peirce county deputy checks 10-46 abandoned car. Car running with lights on and drivers door open.

As Deputy was walking back to squad he sees movement from behind squad.  Once he clears his headlights, which were blinding him, he sees shooter recognizes him. Shooter is crouching behind squad now. Deputy orders him to ground and other commands. Shooter attempts to draw weapon and to run.  Deputy fires five rounds. Three strike the shooter. Shooter falls to ground.  Deputy covers shooter until back up arrives. Unknown how long this took.  Once back up on scene, shooter is cuffed. He is dead at this point.

Deputies find slain Sgt's duty weapon on shooter. The round recovered from the shooters body is traced to the Sgt's weapon, confirming the Sgt shot the shooter.

Some lessons to learn from our fallen brothers.

1. Just because you are "off duty" or in a "safe" restaurant, keep your head up and your eyes and ears open.
2. Do not sit close to the register or other focal point (entrance doors, bathrooms, hallways ect). Try to sit where you can scan the area.

3. Leave devices that distract you, like laptops,ect in the car. Do your reports and other things that take your mind off your safety, at post or far away from the public.
4. Even at lunch or break, don't let your guard down. You should always be in condition yellow.
5. Keep your distance. Take those lateral steps or diagonal steps and move. It is a lot harder for the bad guy to shoot a moving target, let alone alot of distance.
6. Each time you train, train as if your life depends on it.

When the time comes, you will not arise to the occasion and be a hero, you will fall to you level of your training effort and perform at that level.  I do not think they could have done anything different after the contact, do your best at whatever training you attend. Lose the mentality of "It will never happen to me" and train as you wish to fight, fight like you train.

There also is speculation that the "abandoned car" was a trap enable another police killing.

People get all wound up about the guy using a gun to kill. I think fewer lives were taken and he was caught because he did use a gun. In this situation walking in with a lite road flare in your hip pocket and a five gallon bucket of gasoline to soak them down with would have been just as effective and probably less risky for the murderer.

Even with all the shooting I have done and being able to put aimed shots in a stationary man sized target 10 feet away at the rate of about five per second I wouldn't take on four people, all armed, in a situation like that. It's just too risky. Had they been in the middle of an empty parking lot and I was concealed 500 yards away with a scoped rifle then maybe the risk would be acceptable to use a gun.

# Thursday, December 31, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, December 31, 2009 8:07:17 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

Of course the entire concept of the bill is unconstitutional. But it's going to be tough to find someone with standing and get any serious court attention that could scrap the entire thing. But the attorney generals of 13 states might slow things down some:

Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care overhaul bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision," they wrote.

Those signing on are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. I'm proud to say both of my states of Idaho and Washington are attempting to stop this abomination.

I just "love" how they point out they are all Republicans. Other sources make an even bigger deal out of that point:

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said the letter was a political ploy.

"This threat stinks of partisan politics," he said in a statement. "If Henry McMaster wants to write federal law he should run for Congress not governor."

Meanwhile, Nelson is taking his message on health care reform directly to his constituents. In a television ad beginning during Wednesday night's Nebraska-Arizona Holiday Bowl football game, the Democrat says he stuck by his principles throughout the debate and doesn't want Nebraskans to be confused on his position.

While it's not uncommon for states to challenge federal laws in court, one legal expert said political bluster was likely behind the letter.

"I do think that it is some combination of the losers just complaining about the officiating, or complaining about how the game was played, in combination with trying to make the bill look as seedy and inappropriate as possible, for political purposes," says Andy Siegel, a former University of South Carolina School of Law professor now teaching at Seattle University School of Law.

"It is smart politics to try to tarnish it and make it look less like an achievement and more like some sort of corrupted bargain," he said.

Principles? Democrats have principles? I didn't know Democrats had principles. Can anyone tell me any principles the Democrats will admit to? The Republicans claim some principles but treat them as guidelines or just half-hearted suggestions.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, December 31, 2009 6:12:19 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Finland had a mass shooting this morning:

Four people were killed when a gunman opened fire at a Finnish shopping mall on Thursday, police said, in the country's third multiple shooting incident in as many years.

My sympathy is for the victims, their friends, and their families.

I have no sympathy for the politicians and their supporters who did precisely the wrong thing when they got a couple hints they had problems:

Finland was rocked by two school shootings in 2007 and 2008, after which it tightened gun control regulations.

This is despite what they apparently know is the proper solution to someone shooting up innocent people:

That's right, men and women who have the will, training, and tools to stop the perpetrator. In the mall shootings that I am familar with in this country the shooter was stopped by a private citizen in the mall with a gun. How many more people have to die before the rest of the world learns that lesson?

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, December 31, 2009 5:28:52 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Quote of the Day )

Only one carry on? No electronics for the first hour of flight? I wish that, just once, some terrorist would try something that you can only foil by upgrading the passengers to first class and giving them free drinks.

Bruce Schneier
December 26, 2009
Separating Explosives from the Detonator
[I think the problem is that people don't feel an increased level of security unless restrictions are increased. Sort of like a child's blanket or a parents arms. When the child is wrapped up and held tightly they feel the most secure. The problem is that people don't seem to realize government is not a parent. It is force, like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.--Joe]

# Tuesday, December 29, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, December 29, 2009 4:57:13 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

As I said a couple weeks ago they were going to lose on this one. It appears they are admitting defeat already:

You would think that if ever there was a political climate favorable for gun control legislation, it would be here. With the state reeling from the third police killing in two months, legislators surely feel the need to do something. A proposed assault weapons ban, to be introduced in the coming legislative session, would seem like a place to start.

Yet only one week after Washington CeaseFire held a press conference to announce the planned bill, its prospects look dim. "Frustrating, that would be the word," CeaseFire president Ralph Fascitelli says, speaking of the reaction he's getting from key politicians as he lobbies for the proposal.

"We don't have the votes," he recalls House Speaker Frank Chopp telling him recently. Fascitelli says the powerful Seattle Democrat alluded to a bloc of approximately 20 representatives in his party who are opposed to gun control legislation. In any case, Chopp told Fascitelli, he was preoccupied by the budget and upcoming elections.

...

Contrary to a report last week in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Police Department has not officially come out in favor of an assault weapons ban although it is "supportive of the work CeaseFire is doing," according to spokesperson Mark Jamieson. "We understand that discussion of gun rights legislation is polarizing," he says.

While the bill has yet to be introduced and debated, Fascitelli already sounds bitter. When it comes to gun control, he says, "there is no leadership in this state."

A frustrated, bitter bigot. Sounds like we are doing something right in this state.

# Monday, December 28, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, December 28, 2009 11:15:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Blog stuff | Current News )

I wonder what made them think to ask this question?

Domain Name   totbb.net ? (Network)
IP Address   125.25.190.# (TOT ADSL IP Address Pool)
ISP   TOT public company limited
Location  
Continent  :  Asia
Country  :  Thailand  (Facts)
State/Region  :  Krung Thep
City  :  Bangkok
Lat/Long  :  13.75, 100.5167 (Map)
Distance  :  7,651 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinNT
Browser   Internet Explorer 8.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; InfoPath.2; OfficeLiveConnector.1.3; OfficeLivePatch.0.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; yie8)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1120 x 700
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Dec 28 2009 11:09:04 pm
Last Page View   Dec 28 2009 11:09:04 pm
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.ask.com/w...onated with a bullet
Search Engine ask.com
Search Words can petn be detonated with a bullet
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm...ee-087128014bb5.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm...ee-087128014bb5.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC+7:00
Visitor's Time   Dec 29 2009 2:09:04 pm
Visit Number   673,261
 

Oh, in case you didn't know--it was PETN that the guy tried to take down the plane in Detroit a couple days ago.

# Friday, December 11, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, December 11, 2009 8:42:04 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( A Security Theater | Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

The TSA document I mentioned yesterday has raised quite a stir (via an IM from son James). They want to make it illegal to post the document.

This reminds me of a story about a psychology professor who asked his students to write down on a slip of paper and put in an box short phrases marketers had used that made the students one to buy a product. He then drew them out of the box to discuss them. The first one out of the box was "Under 17 not admitted without parent or guardian."

They don't want people to post it and they don't want you to have it. What do you think that is going to accomplish?

Yeah, I thought so too.

Get it here if you don't already have a copy.

# Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:37:12 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

I just finished a quick reading of the Brady brief in McDonald v. Chicago. The short answer as to the question, "What are they up to?" is:

This Court should conclude that regulations of firearms are not subject to strict scrutiny, but instead are subject to a deferential, reasonableness standard of review.

They have apparently concluded McDonald et. al. will win and are trying to minimize the damage to their goals.

What I find most interesting is this:

The policy implications of such a ruling could be devastating, given the demonstrated success of reasonable state and federal gun laws in reducing the use of guns in crime and saving lives. Reasonable gun laws such as licensing for gun dealers and owners, registration, background checks, and safe storage laws have been associated with reduced risk of gun deaths and criminal access to guns.

Contrast that with this:

I am not arguing here that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime, violent crime, or homicide. Such causation is difficult to show because so many other factors bear on the incidence of crime. For instance, simple cross-national comparisons of gun availability and crime do not control for the degree to which various countries impose legal restrictions on firearms. It also is difficult to sort out whether high levels of gun ownership lead to high crime rates or whether high crime rates lead to high levels of gun ownership.

Dennis A. Henigan
Vice President for Law and Policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Founder of its Legal Action Project.
Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy, page 107.

On one hand the Brady Campaign claims the thousands of restrictions on gun ownership have "demonstrated success" but they also claim they don't, or perhaps can't, know if high gun ownership rates cause crime. And of course their "demonstrated success" stories are highly contested. Even the CDC says, "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws."

As usual, it's half truths that give them traction.

Update: Sebastian points out more half-truths that are far more substantive than my find.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:49:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

As Sebastian reported yesterday it appears we may have another major attack on our gun rights coming up. I'm of the opinion our allies in D.C. should suggest amendments to the bill to include terrorist list checks before people are allowed to become members of a religion, or maybe in a different political climate before being allowed to not have a religion. And of course, since ideas are more powerful than guns they should take the advice of Joseph Stalin and check their lists before allowing people to express their ideas as well. 

Given that Stalin and the former Soviet Union are now drawn into this I can point out that Dr. Strangelove is apparently alive and is now contributing to the war on the other side. The enemies of freedom are now claiming the U.S. government needs to Close the Terror Gap.

I think Strangelove's "mine shaft gap" made more sense.

# Tuesday, November 17, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:22:37 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

I think I detect a hint of bigotry in this headline, "Second Amendment Brief Filed by Bellevue Gun Nuts".

What if the headline had been, "Bus Boycott started by Montgomery ni**ers"?

# Monday, November 16, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, November 16, 2009 2:28:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Brief is here. News release is here. Via blog post at Chicago Gun Case.

We are on a train to victory here.

# Tuesday, October 27, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:47:05 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

Montana and Tennessee passed it. Ohio is now considering it:

Reps. Seth Morgan, R-Huber Heights, and Jarrod Martin, R-Beavercreek, have introduced legislation that would allow for firearms made and sold within Ohio to be exempt from federal firearms regulations.

Morgan said that House Bill 315 is mainly a preemptive effort to protect the state in the event President Barack Obama’s administration tries to push any new federal regulations.

My opinion is here.

# Monday, October 26, 2009
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, October 26, 2009 7:27:36 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Economics | Gun Rights | Politics )

It's time to restate this.  I posted it last year, and I wonder if anyone really "got it".  It cannot be overstated.  Reading Joe's recent post about the open carry debate among the pro gun rights camp reminded me of it, once again.  That debate can be said to be between people with the same basic principles.  We'll see how Rand's "rules of engagement" as I call them, apply.  Last year I noted;

In the essay, Rand defines three rules "...about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals." 

Wait.  What?  "the working of principles in practice"?  What's that?  "The relationship of principles to goals"?  Sounds pretty juicy if there's anything to it.  Well, there is.

 Leaving out her extensive lead-in:

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

Open carry verses keeping it hidden so as not to scare or offend anyone.  Which position is more consistent with the basic principles of RKBA?

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

It applies to any situation, but the idea of government "taking care of" the American people, shared by Republicans and Democrats, comes to mind.  Democrats win here.  Every time.  Republicans will never understand this.  It's not in their DNA to understand this rule.  It's in their DNA to deny it.  The NRA had a similar problem about 15 years ago, but they seem to be getting over it, like getting over a very long-lasting flu.  You cannot collaborate with someone who holds different basic principles and expect a nice outcome.  It's better to do your own thing, unless you want to be the more evil and irrational one.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side;

Gun control debate.  Practicing rule 3, without fully understanding it, is the one and only source of our recent successes.  Understand it, Little Grasshopper, and you will go far.  Some of us think that we've been trying to appear rational as a selling point, or trying to get the opposition to think that we aren't bad people after all, but it is by simply being rational, and by being rational in a public way, and sometimes in an in-your-face way, that we win.  There's a fine distinction here, but a very important one.  Selling ourselves as people is what Republicans do.  That argument says, "I'm a nice, decent person, so you should agree with me."  Blech.  Selling our ideas, on their own merits, and damn the torpedoes because we know we're right and we can prove it, we know our opposition is wrong, disastrously wrong, and we can prove that, is what rational people do.

when they (principles) are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

Taking RKBA in light of that last bit; hiding your (our) position (that guns in public are a good thing) or evading it, tends to work in favor of the irrational side (gun restrictions).  We're trying to coddle those who are wrong, trying to sell ourselves in a way tailored so as to appeal to their stupidity and bad behavior.  In so doing we lend them an appearance of credibility or legitimacy that they do not deserve.  Like it or not, that's how it works.  We have to understand that there are some people who have no credibility, have no legitimacy and deserve no accommodation (anti gunners in this case, or people who are offended or "scared" by visible guns [I think most or all of the "fear" is a cheap act perpetrated for maximum drama]) and we have to be ready to point out why.

I believe there are enough examples in most people's day-to-day lives that these basic axioms, Rand's rules of engagement, will be seen as not only valid but very useful once you look at things with them in mind.  Working with institutions installing and troublshooting PA systems (I have an appointment tomorrow) I've run into all these situations.  They're political events as much as anything else.

# Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:51:03 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Back in the 1990's the NRA couldn't pay to get ads in many major publications. The ads would not be accepted even when offering to pay above the existing ad rates (and most ads are discounted from the published rates). Just like a black person trying to eat a meal at a whites only restaurant in the deep south fifty years ago--their money wasn't any good with the bigots in control.

New York, with it's extremely repressive gun laws, is the home of much of the U.S. print media and hence management had an inherent bias against gun ownership. But it appears times are changing:

I wonder how much of it is because the print media is a lot hungrier now or if it is because of the Heller decision and the fact that guns are more accepted now.

# Tuesday, October 20, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, October 20, 2009 4:48:22 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Via a Tweet from Sebastian I discovered Knife Rights just announced an important victory:

WE STOPPED CUSTOMS Pocket Knife Grab! The Senate has passed the conference report for the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill with our amendment to the Federal Switchblade Act intact. The bill will now be sent to the President for signature. There is no indication that he would veto the bill.

This is the culmination of an incredible effort on the part of Knife Rights, American Knife and Tool Institute, NRA, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and many other organizations who contributed. Each organization made key contributions to the effort, without which the end result might not have turned out so well. Not many folks gave us much hope of succeeding when Customs first proposed revoking their rulings and redefining what is a switchblade back in May. At a time when bipartisanship is rare as hen's teeth in Washington, we garnered support from both sides of the aisle.

We succeeded because the coalition of groups that came together to fight Customs represented a broad swath of American industry and grassroots. We succeeded in large part because of YOUR contributions, letters and calls in support of our efforts. You can give yourself a pat on the back for your effort and a job well done against all odds. It is time to pop the cork on that bottle of champagne and celebrate a victory for your knife rights and for all America.

To help you celebrate and commemorate this incredible victory, please purchase one of our collectible "WE STOPPED Customs Pocket Knife Grab" coffee mugs, t-shirts or sweatshirts, available for a limited time only: www.cafepress.com/KnifeRights Proceeds will help pay off the incredibly high cost of accomplishing this victory.

Knife Rights has quickly grown to become America's largest grassroots knife owners organization. This latest fight against Customs Pocket Knife Grab has validated the power and importance of a dedicated grass roots organization in defending your knife rights. Now we have to finish paying pay for this effort. It took a great deal of money to accomplish all this. Carrying a fight like this to Washington cannot be done without lots of cash. The victory isn't complete until we pay the bills. PLEASE CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO SUPPORT THIS SUCCESSFUL FIGHT FOR YOUR KNIFE RIGHTS!

Also of interest on that same page:

Knife Rights News Slice Vol. 2 Number 19 - October 13, 2009

Knife Rights Changing Perceptions

Ritter (left), Gottleib (right)The weekend before last I was invited to speak at the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference put on by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. While I was there, I took the opportunity at their annual awards luncheon to make a special presentation to CCRKBA President, Alan Gottleib.

When this issue with Customs first reared its ugly head, Alan and the Citizens Committee were the first to step up in support of our efforts to achieve a legislative solution when it became clear that nothing else would work. CCRKBA helped to the tune of $30,000. Lest you think that covered all the expenses, let me assure you that it DID NOT, but it was a HUGE help. Alan also offered his wise counsel at critical junctures. In recognition of this major commitment, I was very pleased to present Alan with a custom Mini Eros Gentleman's Tactical Folder generously donated by renowned knifemaker, and Knife Rights Cornerstone member, Ken Onion.

My remarks later in the day, which focused on the fact that the Second Amendment doesn't say "firearms," it says "arms," apparently struck a chord with the nearly 700 participants. When it came time for resolutions, which guide the two organizations in terms of policy, my points were reflected in a historic change to one recurring resolution and the introduction and acceptance of a second.

The "Farmer" resolution was originally passed at the first GRPC twenty four years ago. This year it was amended to say that "an attack on any class of arms is an attack on all classes of arms," in recognition that knives, as well as other arms, are due equal protection. This represents something of a watershed event for Second Amendment policy which heretofore has focused almost exclusively on firearms.

Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition was inspired to introduce a new resolution, which was adopted, that reads, "Whereas: The banning of any personal tool or weapon has never resulted in increased public safety,...We support the repeal of the Federal Switchblade Act and any other federal, state or local laws and regulations banning tools and weapons rather than addressing behavior." Jeff's heart is in the right place, we all know the Federal Switchblade Act was simply political theater and a sham, but the reality is that after 50 years as law of the land a legislative solution eliminating it is unlikely. However, it's the thought that counts and it once again is indicative of a historic change in attitude. Jeff's resolution is a strong statement of support for the concept that tools and weapons should not be blamed for social ills or criminal behavior and neither should they be regulated or banned for those reasons.

You can read the complete text of the two resolutions at: www.KnifeRights.org/grpc2009resolutions.pdf

Notice that The Second Amendment Foundation donated $30K as well as advice? I'm doubling my twice monthly paycheck deduction (matched by Microsoft) to SAF.

Also notice that Jeff Knox introduced a resolution similar to Just One Question? Although Jeff is aware of Just One Question his dad had something similar before I came up with it.

# Friday, October 16, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, October 16, 2009 8:00:35 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

So even though I don't pay much attention to them it was hard to avoid hearing about "the criminals in the White house" and all the "criminal acts" and the charges of treason against the Bush administration. But what I don't get is why I don't hear anything about Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels when he does stuff like this:

A new city of Seattle gun ban takes effect this week - prohibiting firearms in places like city parks and community centers.

But the law is already generating controversy with many asking is this new rule truly enforceable? Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna and some community gun advocates say, no.

"What this does is put Seattle on a collision course with state law," says Dan Sytman, the Attorney General's office spokesperson.

The questionable deeds that Bush administration did at least had prior approval from the U.S. Attorney General's office. Nickels is doing something that all legal advisers, except the city lawyer who found a contorted rational, say is illegal.

So where is the outcry from the left?

Apparently they don't really care about politicians engaged in illegal acts. They just wanted to remove their political opponents by whatever means possible. Having their own politicians commit illegal acts on their behalf is just fine.

See also what Ry has to say on the topic.

# Wednesday, October 14, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:17:55 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Quote of the Day )

Note that L.A. gangs are notorious for rejecting diversity and multiculturalism, according to LAPD estimates. The most numerous gangs are Latino, with 22,309 non-diverse members, and blacks (Crips and Bloods), with 14,515 non-diverse members. Rumors that white, oriental and other gangs will be filing Title VII discrimination charges could not be confirmed at press time.

Alan Korwin
October 13, 2009
1,400 arrest 46
[If such a lawsuit were actually filed it would probably cause me to spontaneously break out into giggle fits for a month.--Joe]

# Wednesday, October 07, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, October 07, 2009 2:34:58 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Boomershoot | Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

In just six months we have gained still more public support for regaining our civil rights:

According to Rasmussen, only 39 percent of Americans believe the country needs stricter gun laws. That’s down from 43 percent only six months ago.
Democrats still emerge as the party of gun control, with 65 percent of respondents claiming Democrat affiliation supporting tighter gun laws while 69 percent of identified Republicans and 62 percent of independents do not support more gun laws.

“It’s ironic that the Chicago case just went to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb noted, “while Rasmussen tells us that only 20 percent of adults believe city governments have a right to prevent citizens from owning handguns.”


Sixty-nine percent say city governments do not have that authority, and 11 percent were undecided, the poll disclosed.

“This suggests that those who support a handgun ban in Chicago are way out of the mainstream,” Gottlieb said. “Gun control is a losing proposition, for the public that wants to fight back against criminals, and especially for anti-gun politicians who cling to that failed philosophy as the nation leaves them behind.”

We cannot ease off. We must make these bigots as much outcasts as the KKK is today. Have the proper state of mind and keep up the fight.

This week I'll be doing my share by taking two people to the range tonight then some people from work are going to Idaho with me this weekend for a private Boomershoot party.

# Tuesday, October 06, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:37:00 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News )

From Time magazine:

National Rifle Association v. Chicago / McDonald v. Chicago
At issue
: Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

A pair of cases challenge Chicago's 27-year-old ban on handgun sales within the city limits. Originally designed to curb violence in the city, the ban has long irked Second Amendment advocates, who take an expansive view of the amendment's wording that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the Supreme Court had long held that the Second Amendment pertained only to federal laws, until a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a ban on handguns and automatic weapons in Washington, D.C. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged an individual right to bear arms, and it opened the door for these challenges to the Chicago regulation.

Do you notice anything wrong with that?

Bad question. It would be easier to answer, "Do you notice anything right with that?" But I'll answer the harder question:

  • It's not just or even primarily about a ban on handgun sales within the city limits. It a ban on possession within the city limits.
  • D.C. v. Heller had nothing to do with automatic weapons -- unless you want to abide by D.C. definition of automatic weapon which included semi-autos.
  • This was not the first time the SC acknowledged an individual right to bear arms. Check out U S v. Cruikshank which said "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; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Or even U S v. Miller which allowed Miller had standing. See also An individual right.

It is very, very rare that when I read an article in the MSM where I know a fair amount about the topic that I don't see substantial errors in the presentation of the material. I can only conclude the articles where I don't know all that much about the material are also filled with errors. Hence, I cannot trust the MSM to provide me facts. Facts are apparently irrelevant to them.

Kevin made a post about this in the last year or so with, IIRC, a fancy name. I only had about three hours of sleep last night and am much too tired and cranky to go looking for it. And I still have more work work to do tonight...

# Friday, October 02, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, October 02, 2009 8:57:07 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Because He’s Openly Carrying a Handgun.

Eugene Volokh
October 1, 2009
[Wow! There's going to be a lot more open carrying. We just won another major battle.

The Brady Campaign is going to be needing to hire extra janitors to mop up the river of tears as they sob themselves into a stupor today.--Joe]

# Thursday, October 01, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, October 01, 2009 6:30:34 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

In an email alert today the Second Amendment Foundation announced:

GUN GROUPS FILE LAWSUIT TO VALIDATE MONTANA FIREARMS FREEDOM ACT

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today joined with the Montana Shooting Sports Association in a federal lawsuit filed in Missoula to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), which takes effect today, Oct. 1, 2009.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ litigation team is Quentin Rhoades of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The MFFA litigation team also includes other attorneys located in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

“We’re happy to join this lawsuit,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.”

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” added MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the U.S. Constitution to regulate “commerce … among the several states.” It relies on the Tenth Amendment and other principles to exempt Montana-made and retained firearms, accessories and ammunition from federal regulation. Marbut’s group advises Montana citizens not to manufacture an MFFA-covered item until MSSA is upheld in court.

Earlier this year, Tennessee passed similar legislation and lawmakers in 20 other states have indicated that they will introduce MSSA clone legislation, Marbut said. Information about the Firearms Freedom Act movement is being accumulated and made publicly available at firearmsfreedomact.com.

MSSA is the primary political advocate for Montana gun owners. It can be found at mtssa.org.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

See also the article in the Missoulian.

I wish them well and figure it will be at least worth buying some popcorn and cold drinks for watching the comedy.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:28:07 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

We live in an information age now. A incredibly vast amount of information is available so quickly and cheaply that I am amazed they still think they can get away with this crap. But I suppose it's just what they have always done and it's how they have won in the past. It's what they know how to do.

Even though she was not harmed, Colleen Dawson said she wishes she had a handgun when some men tried to break into her Northwest Side home last year.

Dawson, 51, said the court’s action should be a message to Mayor Daley and other gun-control advocates to “begin looking at a handgun as a tool given to us as a birthright by the constitution to defend ourselves.”

Growing up in Englewood, Dawson said her grandmother always kept a handgun in her apron pocket. She’d like the same right.

Chicago Police scoff at the notion that more handguns will lower the city’s crime rate.

“The logic they are using, that homeowners’ homes will not get burglarized, is ridiculous. You usually do not burglarize a home that is occupied,” said Mark Donohue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Interesting. I know one woman living in Chicago who acquired a gun (illegally of course) after waking up to a burglar going through her bedroom. The bugler told her to not worry, she wouldn't get hurt if she just stayed still. The burglar then went about his "business". Yes, I know, a single data point does not make a study.

Look at the burglary rates of occupied homes in the U.K. versus the U.S. Read Guns and Violence: the English Experience. The data is overwhelming. Either Donohue is lying or his head is buried very deep in the sand or some other place where the sun doesn't shine.

Next up is the Brady Campaign representative:

A 1988 Emory University study, Heimke said, showed “if you keep a gun in your home, it’s 21 times more likely to injure you or your family than a bad guy. It gets used by a depressed teen to commit suicide, or you think it’s a burglar but it turns out to be a neighbor or a brother-in-law.”

1988? A 21-year old study? At least it's not the fully discredited Kellerman study from 1986 which concluded it was "43 times more likely...". But I find it telling that Helmke overlooked the 1993 revised "study" by Kellerman in which he changed his number to 2.7. Even then he had to "bake" the numbers to get something that looked bad for gun ownership. And the only 1988 Emory study I can find reference to is also from Kellerman (see also here). And Emory is where Kellerman works so I have to conclude that Helmke is attempting to quote Kellerman and perhaps getting the number wrong. Was this carelessness or was it to avoid triggering a flag with the 43 number that we know is false?

Kellerman's work was so shoddy that in 1995 congress pulled CDC funding for his work. At the hearings he didn't even bother to show up to defend it.

And also of note is that this Chicago paper misspelled both Helmke's and Colleen Lawson's names. I'm glad we have "professional journalists" and their armies of fact checkers to "inform" the public.

I know it's Lawson instead of Dawson because of the court filing and I because met and talked to her at the 2008 NRA convention:

Update: Some edits were made for legal reasons.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:53:44 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

One of the ways skilled attackers can get through security is to probe the defenses and see what the response is. Once they know the response they can plan an attack with a high probability of success. I wonder if that is what happened here:

A suspicious package found outside an eastern Minnesota high school Wednesday contained an incendiary device, the school district's superintendent said.

Princeton schools Superintendent Rick Lahn said he learned that in a meeting with Police Chief Brian Payne on Wednesday afternoon.

"He said it was some kind of incendiary device, but it's being investigated now and they're taking a look at it," Lahn told The Associated Press. "And he couldn't give me details. He just said it was very suspicious and it contained some explosive material. I don't think it was a large device, but I really don't know what kind of damage it could have done."

The package, which Lahn said was discovered by a custodian outside the school, was one of three found in Princeton on Wednesday morning.

...

Officials gave the all-clear late Wednesday morning after law enforcement officers and explosive-sniffing dogs combed the town of about 4,500 people about 50 miles north of Minneapolis.

"The entire town was searched for suspicious devices with negative results," Schmidt said.

Along with the Princeton Police Department and ATF, agencies joining the investigation included the FBI, the St. Paul and Crow Wing County bomb squads, the Sherburne and Mille Lacs County sheriff's departments, and postal inspectors, Schmidt said.

Interesting. They searched the entire town. This pulled police from multiple jurisdictions into the response. This probably left weak spots in other areas with increased response times and feeble responses had an attack occurred in these other locations.

I hope it was just some kid wanting to another day to study for a test rather than someone with serious intent in harming people.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:30:50 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government. State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.

Alan Gura
September 30, 2009
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO CHICAGO GUN BAN
[The arrival of the Second Amendment needs to be followed up with arrests and prosecutions under 18 USC 242. If not it will drag on for decades like it appears to be in D.C. and it actually did with the Jim Crow laws in the deep south despite the fact that the 13th and 14th Amendments "came to town".--Joe]

# Wednesday, September 30, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:57:38 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

These are bad days for Paul Hemeke and supporters. Just as people with a terminal illness go through the five stages of grief they see their world view dying and are experiencing a similar process. Here we have denial:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Chicago case is "unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the Court rules."

"Even if the Court were to hold the Second Amendment applicable to states and localities," he said, "such a ruling is unlikely to change the crucial holding by the Supreme Court in Heller that a wide range of reasonable gun laws are presumptively constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right is narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense."

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:34:39 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Odds are it will lose. Last year's ruling was limited to the District of Columbia, which is unique in being a federal enclave. The only question in this case is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to states and municipalities, as most other freedoms in the Bill of Rights now do.

It's hard to think of a compelling reason that the court would say states don't have to respect the right to keep and bear arms. Law professor Ronald Rotunda of Chapman University told me that he gives the Chicago law only a one in five chance of surviving.

Steve Chapman
September 30, 2009
The end of the Chicago handgun ban
[This was based on the news that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case that will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies to states and other political jurisdictions or just the Federal government.

Amazing. Ten years ago I was talking to leaders in the gun rights movement who said that we would completely lose the right to keep and bear arms within ten years with Chicago-like discrimination against gun owners the norm. Now we are poised on the edge of slapping them aside into the dustbin of history along with segregated schools, restrooms, and water fountains.--Joe]

# Friday, September 25, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, September 25, 2009 5:11:35 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News )

While I approve of law enforcement finding and disrupting criminals before they can carry out their criminal acts I find it a little bit disconcerting that in this case the criminals/terrorists had to be led by the hand to actually commit (what they thought were) criminal acts:

Two men who professed devotion to Al Qaeda -- one a convert to Islam, the other a Jordanian native -- were charged Thursday with plotting to blow up buildings in Illinois and Texas.

In both cases, the men thought they were working with Al Qaeda operatives when they were really working with undercover federal agents.

One man, according to authorities, planted what he thought was an explosive outside a Dallas skyscraper, while the other parked a van, supposedly armed with a bomb, outside a federal courthouse in Springfield, Ill. The devices were fakes.

...

The FBI had a drug informant become friendly with Finton, according to the complaint. The informant told agents that Finton had talked about wanting to get terrorist training and to fight in Gaza against Israelis. Agents then worked to set up an "opportunity for action that we controlled," began recording encounters with him and put him in touch with an undercover agent who told Finton he was an Al Qaeda operative.

In a July conversation, Finton allegedly told the agent he was considering attacks on "government buildings, banks and police stations." His hope was that an attack would cause the U.S. military to withdraw from conflicts overseas.

"Finton said attacking the FBI office would be great, because he had no love for the police, so that would not bother him a bit," according to the affidavit. He allegedly proposed bombing the federal building in Springfield in July with a backpack bomb or an explosive in a vehicle.

In August, the agent told Finton that the plan had been approved by his supervisors in Al Qaeda and had Finton make a videotaped message that supposedly was to be shown to organization leaders, including Osama bin Laden.

They apparently weren't capable of building their own bombs so the FBI did it (fake ones of course) for them. And encouraged them with fake approval from the highest level within the terrorist organization. It sounds to me like the FBI was walking a fine line very close to entrapment.

This sounds like what the radicals of the 1960s said about how easy it was to identify the FBI infiltrators--they were the ones encouraging people to commit crimes.

# Thursday, September 24, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:38:39 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Reports are coming in that it went well in California this morning.

David Hardy has some news but the good stuff is here (I cherry picked the mini-posts):

Why can’t we assume without deciding that the second amendment is incorporated? What would change? Alameda still floundering.

Why isn’t this a summary judgement case? Apparently since guns aren’t posessed at a gun show for self defense then Heller doesn’t apply… Weird.

Alameda has serious foot in mouth. Just agreed that only dimwitted judges would not accept incorporation arguments.

Alameda says Heller does not guarantee guns! Judge is dragging her through the mud.

What if fairground isn’t a sensitive place? Then we would have to declare ordinance null (judge question and statement) What is sensitive about a fairgrounds? Is every government property a sensitive place? Schools and govt buildings. Invitees who don’t know eachother, thus it is a sensitive place. Gun shows cause liability problems, look at fairground shooting that caused 11 liability lawsuits.

Oh no, we had one shooting at the fairgrounds! 11 people, 4 of them children! What about shootings in office buildings? Gun show was not in place when the shooting happened. Gun shows in conjunction with other events did not cause problems. Open carry us allowed! Metal detectors to detect illegal concealed firearms. County has no problem with firearms carried for self defense. Alameda is screwed!

Alameda GETTING HAMMERED! Legislature can ban guns tomorrow based on her antiquated case law.

Update: Via Dave Hardy I find we now have audio of the proceedings.

Update2: Also via Dave Hardy we have a decision (sort of).

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:06:08 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Fun | Gun Rights )

I'm trying to do my part to stimulate the economy by upping the number of rounds I'm putting down range each month and getting new shooters to the range. I figure we just about have to do it. The ammo factories hired new people and if we don't keep buying the ammo they will get laid off, right?

Here's the background story:

Bullet-makers are working around the clock, seven days a week, and still can't keep up with the nation's demand for ammunition.

...

"We are working overtime and still can't keep up with the demand," said Al Russo, spokesman for North Carolina-based Remington Arms Company, which makes bullets for rifles, handguns and shotguns. "We've had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It's a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business."

Americans usually buy about 7 billion rounds of ammunition a year, according to the National Rifle Association. In the past year, that figure has jumped to about 9 billion rounds, said NRA spokeswoman Vickie Cieplak.

Nine billion rounds in one year with about 80 million gun owners in the U.S. works out to about only about 112 rounds per gun owner. I went through that many rounds both last night and the night before. I'll go through probably another 200 rounds tonight and then another 150 on Sunday. What the heck is going on here? I'm figure I'm just doing my civic duty here and it turns out I'm doing the job of about 100 other people as well.

If every gun owner were going through just 100 rounds a month that would be nearly 100 billion rounds a year. That is a way to stimulate the economy and have something to show for it afterward--an armed and well practiced citizenry and respectful politicians.

# Monday, September 21, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, September 21, 2009 11:49:38 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Economics | Gun Fun )

Via email from Chet.

What? Do they only have enough money for food or something? I thought they could always find money to fund their hate of capitalism and buy more Kalashnikov rifles. But perhaps not:

Russia's largest small arms manufacturer, the Izhevsk Mechanical Works [Izhmash], could be declared bankrupt. It became know today that a corresponding petition has been received by the arbitration court of [the Republic of] Udmurtia from the enterprise.

...

This largest Kalashnikov assault rifle manufacturer now stands idle. No state order means no money to pay employees, nor to repay debts to creditors.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, September 21, 2009 10:58:28 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

On the evening of September 9, President Barack Obama was at the U.S. Capitol preparing to address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health care reform. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Virginia, attempted to drive his Honda Civic into a secure area near the Capitol. U.S. Capitol Police stopped him and, searching his car, found a rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition. Bowman was arrested on the spot and charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. An Associated Press article noted that “Bowman’s intentions were unclear.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has stated that they have decided against prosecuting Bowman on more serious charges. It is difficult to imagine, however, what legitimate reason there might have been for bringing that kind of firepower to the Capitol when so many important elected officials were gathered in one place.

...

How many other individuals carrying guns at political events (either openly or concealed) have disturbing criminal histories? And why is the media already losing interest in what should be headline news?

Michael Beard
September 12, 2009
Gunning for the President
[First of all there wasn't anyone "gunning for the President". The guy accidentally drove across a political boundary which made his firearm possession a crime. Law enforcement investigated and decided not to prosecute. It's no different than if a black person had stepped into a "whites only" restaurant in the deep south 60 years ago and quickly apologized and tried to leave. Prosecutors gave him a pass because he was trying to play by the rules and got tripped up by a law that shouldn't have existed to begin with and through no intentional fault of his own.

"Disturbing criminal histories"? If the legislature had wanted to make drunk driving, disorderly conduct, or urination in public grounds to loose your right to keep and bear arms they should have gotten the votes to pass such a law and defend it in court. Until they do Mr. Beard can be as "disturbed" as he wants to be and I don't care. We are a supposedly a nation of laws not beholding to how "disturbed" he is.

I suspect the thing that disturbs Mr. Beard the most is the media is losing interest in making headlines of someone obeying the law. That's not "news". And I have to say, it's about fricking time.--Joe]

# Saturday, September 19, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, September 19, 2009 10:56:03 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

This must be Greg Nickels' desperate parting shot at gun owners who worked hard to make sure that he not survive the primary election last month. The proposal is blatantly illegal.

Alan Gottlieb
September 18, 2009
Mayor proposes gun ban at city-park facilities
[I would like to remind, soon to be, ex-mayor Greg Nickels of this post. I wish that Federal prosecutors would file charges for violation of 18 USC 242 the day after the signs go up.

See also Ry's post and the Second Amendment Foundation news release.

I'm doubling the amount of money I donate to SAF each month through payroll deductions. That money is matched by Microsoft.--Joe]

# Friday, September 18, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, September 18, 2009 7:49:56 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets, in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if we're the generation that is going to see it come about.

Ronald Reagan
[I'm reminded of this by the articled titled Iran reportedly able to make nuclear bomb and the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants Israel wiped off the map.--Joe]

# Monday, September 14, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, September 14, 2009 11:14:58 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Even with all the relaxed gun laws and the big gun buying spree that began in late 2008 it didn't translate into increased crime rates. In fact it was just the opposite:

Murder and manslaughter dropped almost 4 percent last year, as reported crime overall fell around the country, according to new data released Monday by the FBI.

The 3.9 percent decline in killings reported to police was part of a nationwide drop in violent crime of 1.9 percent from 2007 to 2008. Rapes declined 1.6 percent, to the lowest national number in 20 years — about 89,000.

The statistics are based on crimes reported to police, who then forward the information to the FBI. There were 14,180 murder victims in the United States last year.

"What has been impressive has been how flat all the violent crime rates have been since 2000. To a large degree that's still the case, but the striking change this year has been murder," said Alfred Blumstein, a professor of criminal justice at Carnegie-Mellon University.

The figures show that crime has come way down since its peak in the early 1990's.

This was in the presence of a huge economic downturn which usually is an indicator for increased crime rates. So either gun ownership isn't positively correlated with crime (and in fact is negative associated with crime rates) or there is some other driving factor which observers don't know about or want to talk about.

# Thursday, September 10, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:07:31 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

We don't have anti-gun bigots being prosecuted for violations of 18 USC 241 and 242 but this is another step closer:

Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that 

"[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."

I think its actually a big step closer to where we want to be.

H/T to Ride Fast.

# Friday, August 28, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 28, 2009 7:31:08 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

I guess that the Democrats will try to pass the healthcare bill in Kennedy's name. Of course, if you want an accurate descriptor, they would call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial health service, and patients would spend their lives getting taken for a ride by an elected official who will try their best to screw them, and then die while they wait for someone in the government to do the right thing.

'Doc' Russia
August 26, 2009
More gallows humor
[Via an email from Scott K.

I cannot think of a single thing to add to this.--Joe]

# Thursday, August 27, 2009
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:22:28 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News )

Sometimes when I read the news I think I'm back in jr. High school.  This time it feels like fourth grade elementary.  When I was in fourth grade, I observed a girl enjoying some canned cherries during lunch.  Unable, for whatever reason, to leave her in peace to enjoy her cherries, I walked close to her and said in a low voice; "You're eating cow guts".

Apparently this caused her to lose her appetite, and she was distressed enough to tell the teacher, who later called me on it.

Fast-forward to adulthood.  Today if you're enjoying a hamburger, you hear from the food Nazis; "That'll clog your arteries, contribute to deforestation in South America and pollute the atmosphere with methane (cow farts)."  You're enjoying a smoke; "That'll give you cancer and cause kids to have health problems, and you're supporting Big Corporations that are trying to keep you addicted and kill you for profit."  You're having a soda; "All that sugar will detonate your pancreas and make you fat."  You're having a diet soda; "Those artificial sweeteners will give you cancer."

"That car of yours is going to destroy the planet, you filthy planet killer you."

"Unsafe at any speed" etc., etc., "That salad you're eating is full of pesticides and that stuff was grown on corporate, industrial farms that have no regard for the planet..." etc., etc., etc.  It never ends, and if you're resistant to this crap, congratulations, if you can avoid getting the "Swine Flu" which happens to be just like any normal, run-of-the-mill flu, but ZOMG we're all gonna dieeee!

Today's reason not to enjoy yourself is that your candlelit dinner is going to give you cancer.  So quit enjoying yourself (you selfish twit) be afraid, and call your Congressman to demand something be done about "Big Candle" before the children all die and the puppies all get cancer just so someone can enjoy a nice candlelit dinner while people in (insert country) are starving.

And you leftists think you're all about rights and freedom and privacy and stuff.  I'm gonna tell the teacher on you.

I found a reference to this candle scare on Rush Limbaugh's site  (and there are some great comments at the Washington Times article on the subject) while looking for the fantastic quotes he found regarding Death Panels.  More on that later.

Someone is actually spending money and time to research candle pollution.  Wow.  Like no one knew that burning things releases combustion products into the air.  I find that the phrase, "too much free time" tends to spring to mind.

# Monday, August 24, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 24, 2009 8:08:14 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

They used to say that the difference between conservatives and liberals were that conservatives thought liberals were stupid, and liberals thought conservatives were evil. Now it would seem they think conservatives are terrorists.

Sebastian
August 24, 2009
The Media’s Shallow Understanding
[I suspect it isn't really "shallow understanding". It's about attempting to demonize in any way possible those who oppose their agenda. People believe what they want to believe and anything that supports their belief system will be latched onto with far less fact checking than if it contradicted their belief system. I've been guilty of this too. But there have also been times when I thought (borrowing a literary tool from Say Uncle), "Self, this is too good to be true. You better check this out." And nearly every time it was too good to be true.

In the case of the present day "militia movement" I can't help but remember in the mid-90s I knew the names of several different militias both in the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country. I read about them, by name, in the paper and heard about them in the social circles I communicated with. I saw their displays at gun shows. I occasionally even talked to member of militias. This time? The only "militia movement" I have heard about all traces back to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I think it's too good to be true for the left and they latched onto it without checking into it. Someone should check it out and, if my hunch is correct, slap them down. With appropriate timing and proper location it could be a good political tool.--Joe]

# Monday, August 10, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 10, 2009 10:52:39 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Politics | Quote of the Day )

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary
[I was reminded of this by what our Speaker of the House recently said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned the health care debate up a notch Monday, penning a column along with her top deputy that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints. 

--Joe]

# Thursday, August 06, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, August 06, 2009 7:21:25 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Alan Gura with the help of the Second Amendment Foundation just filed suit against Washington D.C. again:

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit on behalf of three residents of the District of Columbia and a New Hampshire resident, seeking to compel the city to issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident. SAF and the individual plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 that overturned the District’s handgun ban on the grounds that it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“Once again,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we’re heading back to court because the anti-gun city administration refuses to abide by the law. It is beginning to appear like residents of the District are up against a rogue city government that simply does not want to ease its stranglehold on the most important civil right of all, the right of self-preservation.”

“In most major American cities,” said attorney Gura, “where the right to bear arms is respected, licensed permit holders have proven themselves safe and effective. Washington, D.C. already requires handgun registrants to complete the background checks and training classes required of carry permit holders throughout the country. It is pointless to deny these individuals the right to bear arms.”

SAF previously sued the District over its restrictive handgun registration policies, leading the city to amend those policies. This time, SAF is alleging that the District previously had a city code under which the police chief could issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including citizens not residing in the District, though the city did not issue such licenses as a matter of policy for several years. That authority was revoked last December by the Mayor and City Council.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the continued ban on carrying handguns by law-abiding citizens for personal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Update: More stories are coming out:

It's good to know the money Microsoft (matching my gifts dollar for dollar) and I are donating to SAF are being put to work for a good cause--making Sad Pandas in the gun control community.

Graphic by Robb Allen.

# Tuesday, August 04, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:41:57 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Via email from Bill Waites:

I usually avoid the Health Care discussions, mostly because it takes so long to explain the answers because it takes so long to explain the causes. I realize that I don't have the entire answer, and that some of the causes are more complex than I delineate, but I can give a good basis for the problems. This is long, so stop now if you get bored easily!

First, a little background. I began my professional life as a Special Agent for Nationwide Insurance. Most of us in the West see Nationwide advertisements and say, "who are they?" Nationwide is one of largest property casualty insurers in the world, at one point I think they were the largest fire insurance company provider in the world. When I worked for them, there were only about 12 other employees with my position, while Nationwide had 18-20,000 employees, a large percentage of them in Columbus, Ohio. We sold to a very targeted audience, farmers and very small business, where the owner and his family were the only employees. We had a joint marketing agreement with Cenex, and with most of the wheat, potato, and apple Co-Ops in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.

I basically sold health insurance for them, as a company employee. When I left, I started my own agency, continuing to sell health insurance, but also selling “special risk” insurance, (an industry category for things like adult football games, sports camps, and activities like Boomershoot, that didn’t fit into the “normal” categories). I continued to sell Nationwide, but also Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, and others.

When I left the business, I went into health care, first running the insurance computer system for a small hospital, then returned to school. After graduating, I initially worked as an RN, working med-surg units, ER's, public health clinics, and nursing homes. Finally, I returned to school once again, became a Physician Assistant, and after 12 years in a busy Internal Medicine office, I now run a small rural clinic, where I am the only provider 4 1/2 days a week. We accept all insurance plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

The short version of the health insurance crisis starts here. The first modern plans began in the 1920's, with Blue Cross covering hospital visits and Blue Shield covering Physician costs. Eventually, most large employers offered insurance, but Bell Telephone is often used as a prototype of how those plans developed. Their initial plan had a $200 deductible, when the average lineman made about $200/month. Over the years, that $200 deductible became locked in stone, and it really is only in the last couple years that deductibles have changed much at all. I think someone told me the current wages for an AT&T lineman are in the $4-5000/month range to start.

Anyone see any problems with that?

As the years passed, more and more people had coverage, and fewer and fewer were willing to take any responsibility for their own care, but they still used those health insurance benefits. Unfortunately, now that the costs were such a small percentage of their income, they used them more and more.

When I was growing up, I, just like all my friends, went to the doctor when something was broken, or when I needed vaccinations. I honestly don't remember a visit because I was sick. My sister had a few visits because of fainting spells, and my brother had chronic ear infections and ended up having multiple ear surgeries, but for colds, coughs, nausea, and vomiting, my parents, and the parents of all my friends, believed in the "3 day rule". In other words, wait 3 days, and if you aren't getting better, then we'll talk about going to the doctor. I never could manage to stay sick that long!

About half the patients I see now have been sick for less than 24 hours, and most of those have nothing that 3 days won't fix.

Of the remaining 50%, most have self induced illnesses, like lung disease from smoking, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

AT LEAST 50% of all primary care doctors visits are just like my office, where education, and patient compliance, would solve most problems.

Unfortunately, there is no incentive for education, and there is no way to fund it under the current policies.

In the early 1980’s, in an effort to curb the ever increasing costs of Medicare, the Federal government created  DRG’s, (Diagnostic Related Groups). These new laws forced medical providers, (initially only hospitals were affected), to accept flat fees for services that were all part of any particular group. If you refused to do so, you couldn’t be a Medicare provider, and few, if any, hospitals could see themselves surviving without those Medicare patients. Since that time, at least 7 different DRG programs have evolved to cover all the different problems faced by anyone having to bill for medical services.

Anyone see any problems with that?

Insurance companies didn’t waste much time adopting the DRG model, and soon hospitals and doctors were faced with new contracts demanding discounts on virtually every procedure.

Doctors and hospitals soon realized that they had problems, but no way to resolve it. If you refused the discounts, they simply decertified you as a provider. Watching 50% of your patients walk away because you are not accepted as a provider by their insurance company has a sobering effect upon even the most independent of doctors.

During this entire time, though, medical technology was growing at a pace unheard of previously. As computer power became cheaper, all kinds of digital image devices became more and more common, but they were all incredibly expensive. First ultrasound, then CT, then MRI, then MRA, then PET scans became the rage. It wasn’t just patients or doctors that demanded them, it was the insurance companies, trying to avoid the expensive hospital stay. Where before a surgeon might do an exploratory surgery to take out an appendix that was acting up, now a CT showed if it was actually inflamed before surgery was considered. Where virtually any orthopedic surgeon could correctly diagnose a torn ACL, now an MRI was required before surgery to make sure that was the cause.

More and more expensive tests were available, and if they are available, why not use them? Doctors rapidly grew tired of being sued, and if one of those new tests might lower that risk, you can be sure they would order it!

So we had 3 huge contributing factors contributing to the rising cost:

1) Poor education and compliance, leading people to seek medical care when it wasn’t necessary.
2) Increasingly stringent billing requirements which required larger and larger staffs to ensure compliance.
3) Increasingly sophisticated (and expensive) testing.

Factor 1 is exacerbated by those who have no idea what health care costs actually are. As an example, along with my regular job, I occasionally work in an Urgent Care owned and operated by a community hospital.  I recently saw a carpenter injured on the job. He had a fairly complex laceration that needed to be repaired, as well as a severe contusion and muscle strain. He liked his job and his employer (a small businessman), and he initially refused to complete an accident form to be filed with Labor and Industries. When I and the nurse both tried to get him to understand that if his injury caused him to lose work time his only income would come from the L&I claim, he still refused. His injury was significant, but wouldn’t probably cause long term disability. However, he said, “I’ll just pay it myself, the basic visit is only about $30 or so, right?” Both the nurse and I burst out laughing. This was a hard working guy, who probably hasn’t seen a doctor in 20 years. He had no idea that the cost of the visit would probably be closer to $400 than $40.

Another group who has no idea about costs are those insured by the government on Medicaid. They never see a bill, so why should they? I honestly believe that most of them are good people caught in tough situations, like young married students, or single moms whose spouses have disappeared, but I recognize that some of them are permanent scammers. They are the ones with Medicaid and the Cadillac Escalade in the parking lot! 

I have deliberately left out Malpractice Insurance as a contributing factor, but it does play a part also. I have also left out the impact of an aging population, because we can’t change that, (unless we decide it is patriotic to actually encourage early end of life options, a morally repugnant idea to me!)

All of these problems were exacerbated by increasingly large groups of people receiving health care from State and Federal funded programming. Why does that make it worse? Because those agencies only pay 20-60% of the actual charges. If they didn’t cover it, who did?

Well, that happened courtesy of a little ploy called “cost shifting”.

Cost shifting occurs when one or more of your insured groups doesn’t pay the entire amount due. At that point, you raise the cost of that particular issue to everyone else paying for it. So if my appendix removal cost $1000, and my State coverage paid $200, the hospital would raise the cost of my neighbors appendectomy to $1800 to cover the difference. But since my neighbors insurance only paid $1500, (because of his insurance companies demanded discount, remember?) then that $300 was tacked onto the $1800 the next guy paid. Since he didn’t have the discounted insurance plan, his entire bill of $2100 was due. He either paid it, or hoped that his insurance company would. So that initial $1000 procedure costs someone else $2100 for the same procedure!

Now, some of you are statisticians and actuaries, and I’ll readily admit that this was a gross simplification, but it is what happened and continues to happen.

Those same 3 factors continue to cause today’s problems.

The system is undoubtedly broken, and it is broken because we don’t have the guts to fix it.

So I’ve made all these simplifications and pointed out the problems, what are the solutions?

Well, there isn’t one, but there may be several things that will help to allow necessary changes that will allow access to more people, and especially to allow critical access. The fact is that each of the problems is on its face simple, but the solutions are incredibly complex, because we as country refuse to acknowledge that there will always be some rationing of care. Too many of us seem to think that if there were enough money we could fix the problem. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough money in the world to provide the very best care to everyone in the United States. Currently the care is rationed by the simple expedient of cost. If you are wealthy enough, or if you have employer provided health insurance, you have access to the most advanced medical system in the world. (Ignore ANYONE who says otherwise. Americas system is the best, bar none. Why does anyone who examines the system think otherwise? If it wasn’t the best in the world, all those wealthy Saudis, Indonesians, Kuwaitis, etc. would be going elsewhere. They aren’t!)

At this juncture someone will point out that if we have the best care, we should have the best infant mortality rates, and we should live longer than anyone else. The problem is that ACCESS does not equal results. Americans are, by nature, individualists. We don’t always want to be told what to do. Thus, our vaccination rates aren’t as high as some Third World countries because some of us CHOOSE to not vaccinate our kids. We COULD, but we don’t! The same is true for all kinds of other issues regarding health care. We COULD improve, be we are too busy, or something else has a higher priority, or there is some other problem that we deem more important, and we don’t get the care that is available.

Now back to access for a minute. You also have access to the system if you qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Yep, that’s right, the poorest of the poor, and virtually every child has access to the system because of Medicaid. The only children that fall through the cracks are the ones with lazy, drunk, or drug addicted parents. They fall through not because coverage isn’t available, but because the adults they should be able to depend on are irresponsible. The most vulnerable of our society, it’s children and its very old, are invariably covered by some type of plan.

Let’s look at the 3 problems and see what we CAN do for them.

1) Education is critical. However, education is not covered to any extent by any plan. Getting education for diabetes, congestive heart failure, Emphysema, or any other medical condition is almost impossible on any plan. There is a reason for that. It is impossible to actually get statistical data that verifies that it improves outcomes! The system isn’t currently designed to follow up with people who receive education and see if their outcomes are better than those of people who don’t receive the counseling and education. (Dirty secret number one: Contrary to what they say, no insurance company really cares what the outcomes are! The reason is simple. You aren’t going to statistically affect their bottom line! You are going to have your greatest expenses in the last couple years of your life, and that won’t happen on their plan. It will happen on Medicare’s dime! This is how insurance companies work, they analyze the risk, determine the actuarial costs, and then charge the premiums required to cover the costs. They are VERY good at it! They got burned in the 80’s and early 90’s because the rapid advance and cost of technology screwed the tables, but they have it figured out now.) Here is an example of how good they are: I prescribed a once daily medicine for a patient. It was less expensive than most similar medicines, and in a rare twist, it was actually cheaper than the twice daily version of the same medicine. From my view that is a win/win/win. It has been proven that patients are more compliant with once daily medicines, so I win. The patient wins because he feels better and has only one pill and the insurance company wins because it is cheaper, right? Wrong! The insurance company approved only the twice daily version. I finally got an honest answer from a pharmacist I had known for years at the company. The company had examined their refill data. On the once daily medicine, refills happened every 33 days on average. On the twice daily medicine, refills happened every 46 days. The insurance company benefitted because people forgot to take their medicine! So, any plan that actually will improve long term outcomes must provide for education AND a way to track outcomes after that education.

2) In the last 30 years the number of claims people, analysts, customer service reps, management for those people, and management for the managers at insurance companies have skyrocketed. All those people have to justify their jobs. How do they do it? Just like all good bureaucrats! They request more and more paperwork. Most offices have a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of employees to Doctor or provider. One of those is the nurse, all the rest are paper pushers. If there are two or more providers in an office, you can bet that there will be at least one nurse whose job is making sure that all the requested tests, Xrays, referrals and other paperwork is completed so that all the insurance companies are happy. On average, every insurance company has twice the number of staff that the office has. All those people provide absolutely NOTHING to the care of the patient, but they all have to be paid! If we are to have any hope of improving the system, we have to cut out all the middlemen and women who just handle paper.

3) This one is tough! All those tests do have their place, but they must be used wisely. Unfortunately, they aren’t. They are used as “shark repellant”. Medical providers no longer order them because they will actually help us, (though sometimes they do), they are ordered because it keeps the lawyers at bay. “See, I ordered all the appropriate tests and they were all negative. I had nothing to go on that might have indicated that Mr. Smith had appendicitis.” Unfortunately, what Mr. Smith had was a gall bladder attack, and none of the tests actually showed that! Of course a good exam might have triggered that as the cause for his complaint, but since insurance companies demand tests, sometimes the exam is underappreciated. Doctors, PA’s, and NP’s, are trained to do good exams and to ask questions, but that information doesn’t always fit into what insurance companies want. Providers are paid for their judgment, why not actually listen to it? We don’t treat tests, we treat patients!! In all my time in practice, I have yet to run across an appendicitis that I didn’t diagnose BEFORE the CT was done, but we added that $1000 cost just to be sure, for the insurance company. In all my time in practice, I’ve never found an ACL tear on MRI that I wasn’t sure was an ACL tear before the MRI, but we added $1500 to the bill to prove it. IF a PA like myself can do it, it is a certainty that surgeons and orthopedics specialists will be even better!

So my solutions:

1) Make education a requirement for patients, and then pay for it. No education, no medicine, no treatment. Make patients responsible for their care.
2) Make paperwork less burdensome. The vast majority of paper pushing employees can be done away with.
3) Make all these high tech tests less important and rely on judgment more. That’s why we spent all those years in school. Those tests help a lot when we are unsure, but doing them for everyone isn’t the best way to solve the problem, trained judgment is!

The final answer is this: Patients MUST be made accountable for their own care. Financial responsibility is the first leg of that table. Quit allowing people to get care with no out of pocket cost. EVERY adult should have to pay something for every visit. Children are more vulnerable, so that rule can’t apply to them. NO adult should be insulated from the costs of healthcare. Not knowing the costs leads to abuse. People that abuse the system should be punished in some way. The biggest fraud being perpetrated is by people with government benefits who use the system inappropriately. As I stated earlier, most of them need the care. However, far too many simply abuse the access given to them by the government.

Ok, this got much longer than intended, I told you it was tough to summarize!!

It appears we are in a bad situation because we have a very strong tendency to apply small tweaks to the system rather than do a complete rewrite.

I keep thinking, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and we are on the fraking Freeway of the Reich to hell with the pedal to the metal, no speed limit, and the exits require you slow down to 10 MPH in order to even see them.

# Sunday, August 02, 2009
By: Barbara Sunday, August 02, 2009 7:21:28 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

There are multiple reasons that I fear the thought of government controlled health care.

  1. Your choices will be taken away from you. The government programs does not take into consideration individual needs, they make decisions only as a general rules that apply to each person despite what is best for the specific person--except for themselves. I am sure they will always be able to get around the rules they make for other people. They are already making decisions for you, not the health care person who knows what the situation is.
  2. I have worked with nurses and doctors from Canada. Each nurse at our hospital takes care of 4-5 people at a time plus they have aides. Nurses are your first line of defense in the hospital, they are the ones that are there to make important decisions for you--call the MD, send you to the critical care unit, etc. The Canadian nurses said that they may have more than 10 patients and not enough aides. One nurse said that she is sure that people died because they didn't have time to assess the situation for the patients in critical need. Plus the ER was flooded with patients with sore throats and ear aches so that the ER Staff didn't have time to assess who had the critical needs. After all, health care is free so why not just go to ER and not wait until the next day?
  3. It appears to me that people who have free health care take advantage of it. The big example is welfare/Medicaid patients. They have poor health habits, little carry through on instructions. In home health we disliked getting Medicaid patients, not because they were poor, but because of their "give me attitude". Give me the best of care because "I" am just as good as you and I want everything but I don't want to take care of myself. These patients are often "frequent fliers" who come in to get their COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), diabetes or drug and alcohol dependencies under control. We clean them up, "save" them, send them home, and they are back in a few months. These people burn up so much money for health care but, hey, its "free" so no problem for them. In contrast, people on Medicare, they earned it by working all their lives--no it's not a great system either but people did earn it--just want to get better and get out of the hospital or out of home health because they have a life they want to go back to. They generally follow instructions better and don't return to the hospital over and over again. In general they are a pleasure to care for because they appreciate their health care.
  4. The government screws up so many things. They hire more and more layers of administration and they still can't get it right. Plus there will always be people who learn how take advantage of the system so they will have to hire more and more non-medical people to police the system but they usually only hurt the people who are trying to follow the rules. You can't imagine how much paperwork we have to fill out to see Medicare and Medicaid patients plus the charting that is required on all patients.
  5. Good MDs and health care workers are the frogs that are starting to boil. You don't know the early and late hours these rural MDs are working or the piles of paperwork sitting on their desks. They are not making big money but they work the "big" hours. Government will not run this system efficiently. There will not be incentives for the really bright people to go into medicine--nope they are not that stupid. Seriously I think that will we will have an even greater shortage of MDs and other medical staff. But don't worry they are accepting people--minorities--into medical programs who actually need remedial help passing tests. Now that makes me feel better about our health care.

When the government takes over we can look forward to poor health care for everyone.

# Saturday, August 01, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, August 01, 2009 3:18:35 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics | Technology )

I occasionally post about the adverse results of socialized medicine but probably haven't said much about what I think about it. A friend asked the following via email:

I have been meaning to ask you for a more detailed explaination of your stance on universal government run health care as it is being proposed right now. I understand you oppose it, but as someone who is poor and hasn't had healthcare for 11 years and has used the emergency room for most of my healthcare needs, why it is bad.

I know there is no free lunch.
I know that someone is paying for it.
I want to know why YOU are opposed to it and why.

My response (except for a few personal things that were deleted to protect privacy):

Health care... Big, big topic.

I understand the no insurance situation. [details deleted]

I have tried to express this in a "Just One Question" format but haven't quite been able to do it. Here's my best attempt:

If it were possible to keep someone alive and robust essentially forever (baring catastrophic injury) but it cost $1M/year per person should the "government" supply it for everyone?

Of course the answer is "we can't afford that".

The thing is we are rapidly approaching the point where immortality may be achievable for some people. I suspect age-wise I am just above the cutoff line where it will be technically feasible. My kids (and probably you) have a good chance at that.

All government health care plans equalize (for the most part--people in power typically are more equal than others even if the law says otherwise) the care. There simply isn't budget for everyone to get "the best". Care will be rationed or it will be substandard. Look into what happened in the UK. The waiting lists cause people to die. Too old, too fat, or smoke? You don't get the knee replacement or other care because that money would be "better spent" on someone younger or healthier.

Government bureaucrats will make the rules and/or review cases deciding who gets care and who dies. It WILL be abused. It might be on racial or religious lines or it might be on the basis of who you know. Whatever the case it won't be on the basis of what you and/or friends and family think you are worth or can afford. When someone pulls the plug on me I want it to be because I and/or my family decided it was time or couldn't afford the cost rather than some government official that decided they didn't like my skin color or I had been just a little too uppity with some of my blog postings.

If Bill Gates and other extremely wealthy people are allowed to pay for whatever the free market can come up with immortality will probably be achieved soon. It will be extremely expensive and only a few will be able to afford it. But the price will come down and someday it will be affordable by the middle class. If equality of care is enforced we may never have that available to us.

See also what Alan Korwin has to say about it:

http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2009/07/dangerous-health-care-insanity-spreads.html

# Thursday, July 23, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:49:17 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of selfdefense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Given the importance of this issue, the vote on Judge Sotomayor's confirmation will be considered in NRA's future candidate evaluations.

Wayne LaPierre
Chris Cox
July 23, 2009
Letter to the Senate on the Sotomayor confirmation vote.
[It's no different than a judge who does not agree the 13th amendment guarantees a fundamental right. It's repugnant and a sign of a great sickness in our society that we even have to debate this.--Joe]

# Friday, June 19, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, June 19, 2009 6:16:15 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Fun )

Ry (and here) and Say Uncle reported on the U.S. Army ordering 38.4 million rounds of .300 Winchester magnum ammo for their newly modified M-24 sniper rifles.

I think quite highly of the .300 Win Mag as a long range precision rifle cartridge. That is what my Spud Gun is chambered in. I have been very, very pleased with the results I get with it. I also find it interesting the link Ry supplied to the development history reports the Federal Match primers are used in the new ammo--which is what I use when reloading for my Spud Gun. They are using a 220 grain Sierra Match King bullet however. They considered and rejected the 210 grain VLD bullet which is what I use for reloading. The moly coated 190 grain Sierra Match King is used in the Black Hills match ammo I sometimes buy which also works very well for me. I prefer the 210 VLD over the 190 SMK because I get a little less wind drift and I should be good for 1500 yard shots versus 1300 yards for the 190 SMK (at sea level, 59F).

I'm glad I have enough ammo to last me until (I hope) the Army contracts are fulfilled.

# Monday, June 01, 2009
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, June 01, 2009 2:49:38 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

I never though I'd see the day. I recall listening to Radio Moscow, pre Gorbachev, on HF (that's "shortwave radio" to most) as they blasted the U.S. and her evil capitalist ways. They did it in English, using an announcer who sounded like your favorite uncle from Texas. Now our own government officials sound much like Radio Moscow's English service did in those days, but more strident.

Via the Rush Limbaugh radio show, I heard Pravda is criticizing us for our "descent" into socialism.

Things are bad when Pravda says we've gone too far to the left.

Pravda's web server seems to have melted. It worked just minute ago, but when Rush mentions a web site it usually spells "meltdown". Keep trying. You have to see it.

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, June 01, 2009 1:49:28 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( A Security Theater | Crap for brains | Current News )

From our friend Howard;

Friends:

Good morning (in your time zone) from Jerusalem. The biggest ever Civil Defense preparedness drill has begun.

Please note the item below in Ha’aretz about the PA (Fatah) Hamas clash in Kalkilaya (West Bank) yesterday. Our American taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted.

The American trained and equipped PA/Fatah Security Services operation was a textbook example of how not to conduct a raid. The first three killed were Fatah officers. So much for the element of surprise and a rapid strike. The Presidential Guard (aka Force 17 from the days of Arafart) were called. These are the crème-de-la-crème of the PA Special Operations command forces. It took them over 6 six hour to end the firefight. They managed to kill two Hamas and the innocent, poor shmo landlord of the building the PA forces attacked.

These are the same kind of dedicated fighters who shed their uniforms, abandoned all the American supplied arms, munitions, communications gear, secret documents and files and fled rather than stand and fight Hamas in Gaza. Now the Obama Administration is rushing to train in Jordan and equip 3 more brigades (?) of PA police/infantry and Spec-Ops counter-terrorists.

Words elude me.

Have a good week.

Howard

HEADLINES FROM THE HEBREW PRESS

HA’ARETZ

1. SENIOR MOSSAD OFFICIAL APPOINTED MEDIATOR IN CONTACTS FOR SHALIT'S RELEASE: "IT WON'T BE HOCUS POCUS"

Hagai Hadas appointment attests that his functions will not be limited to negotiations, but also operational aspects of release. "We must be prepared for extended and exhaustive negotiations," he commented after his appointment. (…).

2. SECRET INTELLIGENCE UNIT 8200 MAJOR COMMITED SUICIDE BY SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE HEAD IN HIS OFFICE.

3. SIX KILLED IN CLASH BETWEEN PA POLICE AND HAMAS CELL

Following clash Hamas called on its members: Confront PA as if you're confronting the occupation.

Words fail me too. Just thought you should know. It sounds all too much like the sort of thinking (or lack thereof) that's going on here.

# Tuesday, May 19, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, May 19, 2009 8:32:40 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Politics )

In the U.K. the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament has several duties. Some of these have been hazardous to their health:

The Speaker sets the agenda for debate in parliament, calls on members of parliament to speak, can limit question time and decide whether amendments should be voted on.

They also traditionally serve as a liaison with the monarch, acting as a buffer between the Commons and the sovereign.

In the past, when relations between the two were not always so good, Speakers had a deadly job. In fact, nine Speakers, all prior to 1560, died a violent death, one murdered, one killed in battle and seven beheaded, two on the same day.

I'm all for our Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi resigning because of her scandal (as the U.K. speaker is) but being beheaded seems a little over the top (as well was being a little off the top).

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:54:02 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

The NRA just filed suit in San Francisco:

The City is being sued by gun owners and gun-advocacy groups because of a local law that says firearms have to be locked up or kept disabled.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court Friday afternoon, challenges a local restriction that forces handgun owners to either store their guns in a locked container or disable them with trigger locks. Mayor Gavin Newsom signed the law into effect in August 2007.

National Rifle Association attorney Chuck Michel, who filed the case, said the locking restriction interferes with citizens’ rights to immediately defend their families.

Plaintiffs include a group of San Francisco gun owners, retired police officers and the NRA.

“These are all people who recognize the right to self-defense is a fundamental civil right that needs to be protected as well,” Michel said.

The suit also tackles The City’s ban on the sale of fragmenting bullets, which break apart upon impact, and names Newsom and police Chief Heather Fong.

Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said locking up one’s guns is a matter of common sense.

“If even one life can be saved by this sensible law, it’s worth it,” he said.

Good! Keep attacking. Let's see how many fronts the Brady Campaign can fight on compared to the good guys. The NRA alone is acquiring 100K new members a month. That doesn't include CCRKBA, SAF, JPFO, GOA, Calguns, etc.

Mr. Ballard, as Jeff points out, needs to consider the lives lost because of the law as well as the lives saved.

# Thursday, May 14, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:18:01 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Can you name one time where the press has published a NRA letter or media release as if it were there own? I can't think of one. In fact it's hard to find instances where the media has published more than a few sentences of what NRA has to say on a topic.

Yet here is what appears to be a complete story written by the Brady Campaign and published if it were a story from the newspaper. Notice that the bottom line of the story says:

# # #

SENT AS A COURTESY OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

What media bias?

# Monday, May 04, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, May 04, 2009 9:03:55 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

Senator Crapo via Joe Durnbaugh on the Lewiston Pistol Club email list. Emphasis in the letter body is mine:

From: senator_crapo@crapo.senate.gov
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 2:37 PM
Subject: Correspondence from Senator Crapo

April 27, 2009


Mr. Joe Durnbaugh
Lewiston, Idaho 83501

Dear Joe:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (referred to by its Spanish acronym CIFTA). I agree with you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

On November 14, 1997, the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted the CIFTA treaty, which among other things, aimed to curtail the small arms trading of deadly weapons often used during the traffic of illegal drugs. Although President Clinton signed the CIFTA treaty, it received less than the requisite two-thirds majority vote in the U.S. Senate. As a result, it was never ratified.

As you may know, President Barack Obama is now urging its ratification in order to combat the Mexican drug cartel. The CIFTA treaty would ban any firearm that falls under a misleading classification of "illicit" manufacturing. For example, the treaty would make illegal the assimilation of a lawful firearm from a kit. Further, it would criminalize any modifications made to a firearm. Additionally, this treaty would prohibit pro-gun organizations. Most alarming is that a broad interpretation of this treaty would call for the extradition of U.S. gun dealers.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I firmly believe this provision prohibits the federal government from denying citizens this right.
Let me reassure you that I do not support gun control. We must protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms. I will not support any legislation that requires a waiting period for the purchase of a firearm, bans the ownership of firearms, promotes or requires the rationing or taxation of firearms, or the taxation of ammunition.

As you may know, gun control advocates continue to seek creative methods of advancing their agenda, both through legislation and litigation. You may be assured that I will continue to oppose all efforts to weaken Second Amendment rights.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.

Sincerely,     
   
Mike Crapo
United States Senator

MDC:js

If U.S. Senators are saying this does that mean I'm not really paranoid after all?

By: Joe Huffman Monday, May 04, 2009 8:57:17 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Fun )

Just a hint of the current situation on primers from Powder Valley, Inc.:

At this time we are not taking any new backorders for primers that are not listed here. We currently have over 50 million primers on backorder. If you currently have a backorder in place your order will be processed as primers become available. Once we begin receiving more primers from the manufacturers and are able to begin filling current backorders we will update the website.

Via Kevin on the Lewiston Pistol Club email list.

# Wednesday, April 22, 2009
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:54:06 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( A Security Theater | Bloggers | Boomershoot | Crap for brains | Current News | Economics | Freedom | Gun Fun | Gun Rights | Home Life | Places Without Guns | Politics | Technology | When Prophecy Fails | Work )

This is an open letter to all the talk show hosts, pundits, party hacks, cheaters, scumbags, sick twisted freaks (you know who you are) and pro-freedom bloggers.  We could spend the rest of our lives cataloging the outrageous behavior of nasty, America-hating, ignorant, self-loathing, cultist, freedom-hating, anti-human, leftist politicians including Progressive Republicans.  We know they're bad, OK?  If there are three or four people who still don't get it, that's all right.

I'd rather try to figure out how we're going to get some principled Americans nominated so we're not always forced to choose between bad and worse-- between more socialism slower, and more socialism faster.  This last national election was a real puker.  The Republican Party is, at the moment, just as lost, dumbfounded, selfish and clueless as ever.  They're a herd of does, staring blankly into the headlights of an on-coming truck, and the worst part of it is; they don't even suspect that they're clueless.  They in the Republican leadership think they have some really clever answers, which amount to more of what got us into this mess.  I recently heard it described as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  That fits very well.  The Republicans have some really super great, super ultra smart ideas for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  No really, listen...  (all the while we have this simple, proven model for success, and it's being ignored.)

We need to change that.  You need to change it.  I need to change it.  There isn't anyone else.  I suppose, since it's up to us, it will have to be on the local level for most of us, being as we're not billionaires.  That's OK.  We can still do what we can do.  A lot of people are jazzed up right now.  They just need somewhere to start.  Well, pick a place, a local issue or a local politician that needs a hand (or a very public spanking) and get to it!

That there are clueless people is not the issue.  There will always be the clueless.  They'll sit on the sidelines, worrying about who likes them and who doesn't, trying to figure out where the "center" is so they can position themselves in it and claim superiority for having done so, while someone else does the lifting.  Are you a sitter or a lifter?

I have a bad feeling that things could come to blows before this government is brought under control, and I really don't want that to happen.  Do you?  This country is far too important in the grand scheme of things.

And with that; I don't have much more to say on here, other than to repeat myself or talk about the weather and what I did last weekend, unless it's to tell you what I'm doing on the local level to influence politics.  Now I think I have some calls to make.

(Note that I placed this in nearly every one of Joe's categories. It's relevant to everything we do and every opportunity we want for our kids in the future)

# Friday, March 27, 2009
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, March 27, 2009 5:26:08 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

The story from Missouri has been out for some time.  I want to say I'm glad the report was distributed, because it shows us the bigoted, upside-down views a lot of people have, and that they're eager to act on them.  We knew it already, but we now have a better idea of what to expect.

The people you need to look out for are the several Left-wing groups.  It's been a long-standing MO of theirs to accuse their opposition of doing what they themselves are already doing, or what they're planning.

# Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:34:44 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News )

"Fine" can be a relative word. A prime example is this case:

"For being hit in the face with a shotgun, he's doing fine," said Tennant.

I reported on this incident yesterday but the latest news report has a lot more details.

I"m glad the injuries aren't serious and that the perps were arrested quickly and without incident.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:47:08 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Yesterday afternoon, DoD additionally confirmed the lifting of the suspension to pro-Second Amendment United States Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who sent the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) a joint letter vigorously opposing the suspension, on the grounds that it had "an impact on small businesses who sell reloaded ammunition utilizing these fired casings, and upon individual gun owners who purchase spent military brass at considerable cost savings for their personal use."

...

DLA also put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet, concerning the reason for the suspension. As DLA explained to Senators Baucus and Tester, and to NRA-ILA, DoD officials responsible for the demilitarization of military property temporarily halted the release of the cartridge cases last week, pending review of a policy change issued last year by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which, in the interest of national security, halted the sale of items within a broad category of government property including, but not limited to, surplus small arms cartridge cases.

Chris Cox
March 18, 2009
Military Surplus Cartridge Case Issue Resolved
[I was working on a post comparing the destruction of the brass to destroying used books that were being sold to underfunded schools in black neighborhoods. But I procrastinated long enough to avoid the appearance of jumping on the Obama conspiracy train.

Appearances are not always what they seem.--Joe]

# Tuesday, March 17, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:09:29 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Home Life )

When in Moscow I buy my gas there:

Pullman police arrested a 20-year-old man overnight for allegedly shooting another man in the face.

...

Pullman Police and the Moscow Police Department worked together to find Lawrence, who was arrested at a Tesoro gas station in Moscow a half hour after the shooting.

Just because they are across the state line from each other doesn't mean they don't have excellent cooperation. My understanding is the Washington State University Police (in Pullman), Whitman County (Washington), and Latah County (Idaho) police also work closely with the Pullman and Moscow city police. I've met a few of them, shoot with some of them and occasionally some of the sniper teams attend Boomershoot. All of seem to be good guys. Perhaps a little grumpy when one of their fellow officers gets shot (pictures here) however.

# Monday, March 16, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, March 16, 2009 6:38:27 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Quote of the Day )

Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge.

Erwin Knoll
[Although I have observed this for myself on many occasions it was Kevin's post from yesterday which most recently reminded me of this.--Joe]

# Sunday, March 15, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:07:58 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News )

I posted about this guy once before. This probably will be the last time. This is just down the road from where I work. I have driven by there many times. Apparently a lot of the items were stolen:

A 65-year-old Spokane man pleaded guilty Thursday to having an arsenal of illegal military weapons and explosives in a Bellevue storage unit.

Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives arrested Ronald Struve in January after his cache of weapons -- which included dozens of machine guns and blocks of C-4 plastic explosives -- was discovered by a man who bought at auction the contents of the storage unit at 12863 Northup Way after the unit's rent went unpaid, according to a criminal complaint.

...

Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Woods declined to say what motive Struve had for collecting the weapons other than to note that Struve had said "he might have to use it some day."

Under terms of a plea agreement, Struve faces a sentence of 63 to 78 months in a federal prison.

# Thursday, March 12, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:21:13 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The District and its supporters also err in extolling the supposed virtues of a world without guns, and condemning the vices of a world without gun regulations. In doing so, they set up a false set of choices. A world without guns is not an option, because hundreds of millions of guns are already in private hands and readily available across either the Virginia or Maryland borders; and even if all handguns in America magically vanished, criminals could still illegally saw off shotguns and rifles to produce concealable weapons that would be more lethal than most handguns. Thus, the District can only hope to dry up the supply of handguns for the law abiding, while criminal access to handguns remains virtually unlimited. It is against this real-world backdrop, and not against that of a utopian gun-free world, that the District’s position must be assessed.

Richard K. Willard
D.C. versus Heller
Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Heartland Institute in support of respondent
[In light of the renewed calls for more gun control after the shootings in Alabama and Germany I thought this was appropriate.--Joe]

# Tuesday, March 10, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:37:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Sex )

Maritime experts were given a rare glimpse of the underlying capabilities of the Chinese navy on Sunday, when crewmen involved in a stand-off with a US surveillance ship in the South China Sea revealed the fleet's previously hidden firepower.

The exposure came as the American vessel USNS Impeccable was attempting to defend itself against what the Pentagon claimed was co-ordinated harassment and aggression from five Chinese ships. Being unarmed, the Impeccable turned its fire water hoses against two of the Chinese vessels that had come within 50 feet in a threatening posture.

Then, the Pentagon records in the admirably restrained language of international diplomacy, "the Chinese crew members disrobed to their underwear and continued closing to within 25 feet."

In the annals of great naval battles, the contretemps may not rank alongside Trafalgar or Jutland. But it must be a contender for this year's award for naked aggression.

Ed Pilkington
March 10, 2009
In New York, The Guardian
Stand-off shows Chinese navy's secret tactics
[I just hope the sailors on the Impeccable got lots of pictures of all that "previously hidden firepower". I'm sure there is a market for that somewhere outside of the Pentagon. Maybe some magazines would be interested.--Joe]

# Monday, March 09, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Monday, March 09, 2009 12:44:02 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Do we really need a gun-fashion police? I just want to be able to exercise my Second Amendment rights without interference from the District government.

Tracy Ambeau Hanson
March 9, 2009
SAF CHALLENGES D.C. HANDGUN BAN SCHEME


[The above picture is from David. See also more on the lawsuit story from David. I find it incredible amusing SAF found a woman of color as the plaintiff in a case about discrimination against a gun that is the wrong color. How much more blatant can the discrimination be before people start realizing the people attempting to infringe our right to keep and bear arms are bigots?

Thank you Ms. Hanson, SAF, and Calguns Foundation.

SAF is getting monthly, tax deductible, donations from my paycheck with matching donations from Microsoft. What are you doing to help?-Joe]

# Thursday, March 05, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:54:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot | Current News )

Although Boomershoot has an ATF approved explosive handler in Memphis she didn't blow up this car with someone in it today.

# Sunday, March 01, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:04:08 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Economics | Freedom | Politics )

"That was uplifting." That was what Barb said after I read this to her:

President Barack Obama has set his course for battle with America's powerful interest groups over his ambitious, some say radical, spending blueprint that aims to remodel American society.

Even as he has rammed through emergency economic spending that easily could top $1 trillion, Obama has asked Congress to adopt a budget that is ripe with programs to improve the lot of lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the wealthy and the farming and industrial complexes under their control.

...

On the budget plan Obama presented on Thursday, the president said it would help millions of people but only if Congress overcomes stiff resistance from well-financed lobbies.

"I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and video address. "My message to them is this: So am I."

Under the president's proposal, America's wealthiest 5 percent would pay a whopping $1 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade, while most others would get tax cuts. Industries would buy and trade permits to emit heat-trapping gases. Higher-income older people would pay more for government health insurance benefits. Drug companies would receive smaller profits from the government. Banks would play a much smaller role in student loans.

We are living in interesting times.

Sleep well and have a nice day.

# Thursday, February 26, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:44:58 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

How would you deal with someone that got everything exactly backward? When they want the car to stop they step on the accelerator and when they want to go they step on the brake. Instead of washing their hands before meals they soil them in the most foul manner possible. They put water on the campfire that is keeping them warm and they put gasoline on the Christmas tree fire in their living room.

I would have to conclude they are insane. And unless there are some sort of drugs or therapy available for their condition they should be locked up for the protection of themselves and others.

But that's doesn't appear to be an option in this case where the political leaders of D.C. are demanding Congress commit an unconstitutional law and object to the a law that brings them in line with the constitution on another matter:

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and D.C. Council members disagree with that conclusion. They furiously protested the firearms amendment.

"The District of Columbia leadership is fully united in its opposition to unwarranted amendments that would dramatically damage the District's carefully revised gun law and expose the District to great harm through the undoing of its laws," D.C. Council President Vincent C. Gray and Council Member Phil Mendelson, chairman of the council's public-safety commission, said in a letter to Congress released yesterday.

In a statement after the Senate's vote, Ilir Zherka, executive director of D.C. Vote, a lobbying group, said the city has passed a "significant hurdle in our fight for full democracy for DC residents."

But he added of the gun amendment: "If anything, this amendment has strengthened our resolve to continue to fight for the rights of Washingtonians. Congress repeatedly treats the District as a testing ground for flawed, dangerous legislation. This has to stop - and we'll keep fighting to ensure that the bill signed into law is not tainted by this amendment."

# Tuesday, February 24, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:07:19 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Economics | Freedom | Politics )

As you all know the downturn we are operating in is more severe and global than anything we have seen before.

We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered. Many people will be under extreme pressure and many companies mortally wounded.

Rupert Murdoch
February 24, 2009
Peter Chernin's little shocker
[Risk and opportunity abound. Keep your eyes open for both. I'm listening to The Black Swan which appears to be applicable to the times as well.--Joe]

# Tuesday, February 17, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:46:05 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Economics | Freedom | Politics )

For the economy in general, doing nothing is vastly preferable to doing the stimulus package, but doing nothing is not a political option; indeed, it would be political suicide. Given the dominant ideology and the political institutions that now exist, economically rational public policy is incompatible with political viability.... Having hit bottom, the politicians can only do one thing: keep digging. If Hell is down there, they’ll reach it, sooner or later.

Robert Higgs
Senior Fellow at Independent Institute
The Lighthouse Volume 11, Issue 7: February 16, 2009
[I was tempted to just use "rational public policy is incompatible with political viability" as the QOTD, but the mention of politicians attempting reach Hell was just too appealing.--Joe]

# Wednesday, February 11, 2009
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:36:58 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Politics )

Via Limbaugh's web site, we have a transcript of a PBS broadcast in which Obama is being compared to Fidel Castro.  It's a favorable piece.  If you're a 24/7 subscriber you can get the PBS audio.  I heard it this morning on the radio.

And that is, one, this notion of feeling that now we have a guy named Obama in the White House, we have President Obama now, there are many young people who are as ecstatic and as excited and as enthused about President Obama as you were about your new president, Fidel Castro.

They're "ecstatic and excited".  Now they have what they believe is the American version of the Cuban revolution, poised and ready to roll.  I would have thought they'd have been a little less overt about it, but I guess they think they can take off the masks now.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:03:22 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Economics | Freedom | Quote of the Day )

Let me tell you story. I know a guy. He’s a financial planner/investment banker type who from time to time helps me out. In November I had lunch with him after the first initial crash and wanted his opinion on the gather storm clouds I saw just over the horizon. He told me a few interesting things one of which kinda scared your Hero Halo a bit. He said, ‘Halo, I am advising my clients who have enough liquid assets to secure remote, sustainable property. I’m advising this because for very little capital outlay, they can have a lot of security.’

Ted, I looked right into this guys eyes and saw a certain fear that I have never seen before. This is a man who manages literally billions of dollars worth of assets and he looked as though his entire concept of reality had been shaken to the core. I wasn’t really sure what to do. In all the years I had been dealing with him I had never seen this and wondered why now? What’s different this time? Well, there are many things, but when a guy with these kinds of resources at his disposal says stuff like this, it might be time to start listening.

Titanium Halo
February 5, 2009
Sheep Say, “Baaaaaa”
[I've been putting a lot of time into economics recently and hope to have a post on the results of my research sometime this weekend. As a teaser let me just say:

  • The "stimulus plan" violates my Jews In The Attic Test.
  • Daughter Kim's economics class is reading books that talk of the U.S. government and the CIA "forcing free trade", and how "capitalism destroys community ties".
  • My research has involved talking to people from China, India, Ireland, Romania, and Sri Lanka. People speak in hushed tones with a very somber demeanor. It's bad everywhere.
  • While discussing the politics of our new socialist nation, even without explicit mention that my Jews In The Attic Test was being violated, a friend recently told me that an AK has an expected life of about 50K rounds and even though they have several such rifles it wasn't enough to solve the problem even if they had enough rounds and didn't encounter resistance.

We have very, very big problems ahead of us. And the worst part is that the people that caused the problems will likely get more support as the situation gets worse. They will demand more and more "help" from those that put everyone in jeopardy. And the unless very aggressive action is taken by people, who have shown very little backbone in the past, the last people to go down are likely going to be the people that created and aggravated the problems.

I know who John Galt is, but where is his gulch?--Joe]

# Friday, February 06, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 06, 2009 9:49:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Via the Apex of the Triangle Of Death we get to read about San Francisco Paying NRA $380,000 for Successful Proposition H Lawsuits.

While it makes me happy the bigots had to pay up for conspiring to deprive people of their rights they should have been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to time in jail as well. This sort of nonsense is going to continue until the laws against this sort of outrageous behavior are enforced.

Other bloggers have their view on the issue as well:

# Monday, February 02, 2009
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, February 02, 2009 7:42:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom | Politics )

From our friend in Israel;

Friends:
 
Considering the number of Kassam and Grad rockets and the increasing number of mortar rounds being fired into Israel by Hamas in Gaza, I'll keep the "Gaza War" group designation for a while longer.  As a practical matter Israel gained nothing but the world's condemnation for its recent attempt to stop the terrorist fire.
 
The election rhetoric here is twilight-zone material.  The folks in power speechify as if they were the party in opposition.  They cry about how much change there needs to be.  Hell you are the government.  You should have done long ago what you attack (who?) for not having done.  How dumb do you think the voters are?  Obviously you think they are even dumber than I think they are. 
 
GO STEELERS!
 
Israel and the U.S. do have a lot in common.
 
And being as Israel isn't doing anything about it right now, it isn't "news".
 
How hard is it to understand that since you're going to be condemned either way, you may as well do the right thing?  The Republican Party leadership, for instance, continues to fail in that regard, though we can hope.
 
The War against the German national socialists and Imperial Japanese wasn't won through decades of "ceasefires" for example.  It was won and they became allies after they were defeated.  Republicans; are you listening?
# Thursday, January 29, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:42:18 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Politics )

Economics has been on a lot of people's minds recently. Microsoft had a lay-off last week--the first ever that was motivated by external economics. I know two other gun bloggers that also dodged "the axe" in the last couple of months. I've had people approach me wanting information on buying guns and bulk food in a similar manner as I did just before Y2K. Federal interest rates are effectively zero. That has never happened before in my lifetime. Another economic indicator that we are in unusual circumstances is the money supply, or as Kevin put it, It's Official: You May Now Panic. When you look at that graph note that the doubling of the money supply in the last year (yes that difficult to see spike is real, not just an artifact of the graphic) is unprecedented in the last 100 years. I attended a speech (if you want to call it that) by economist Paul Krugman yesterday--the auditorium was packed. The first hundred people or so received a free copy of his new book -- The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. It's so new it is copyright 2009 and had to come directly from the printer. I have a copy in my hands now.

This blog post is mostly to capture my notes from listening to Krugman yesterday. I'm formulating a big blog post in my mind and hope to post it this weekend.

If in italics below it means it was a direct quotes (as best as I could capture).

  • Not as bad as the 30s--yet.
  • It is as bad as the early 80s.
  • This isn't your fathers recession. This is your grandfathers recession.
  • All of the 1st world is falling at approximately the same rate.
  • The problem with the stimulus bill is that it isn't big enough.
  • A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. A twist on Dirksen's quote which got a laugh.
  • I'm not feeling panicky but uneasy.
  • I thought I was intellectually prepared.
  • It's a whole lot harder to head off a second great depression than we thought.
  • The trouble with a big tax cut is that they aren't spent. Tax cuts are a very bad tool for this type of problem. See also this blog post by Krugman.
  • Tax cuts made permanent won't work because we can't afford them.
  • We should seize troubled assets, clean them up, and then sell them. Just take the hit. "We" meaning the U.S. government.
  • There are no safe options. He was responding to a comment from someone about the risks of massive government spending--which Krugman is advocating. He is of the opinion that the stimulus package should be twice the size as the one proposed and passed yesterday.
  • The thing I'm most worried about is Kindelberg's law: When given two options we will pursue both half-heartedly. I must have the spelling wrong on "Kindelberg". I can't find any such "law" on the net.

I've read the introduction and the first chapter of his new book. He says socialism is dead and it's obvious to everyone except a few extremists who have their heads in the sand. But in his talk yesterday he said that "universal health care" would be a good thing to spend some of the two trillion in government spending he is proposing. His attitude was that "universal health care" was obviously a good thing. You could tell from his tone and the words he used that it wasn't even open to debate with him. I have to wonder if maybe he is one of the extremists he was talking about in his book. See also Phil's post from day before yesterday.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:14:10 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Politics | Quote of the Day )

This isn't your father's recession. This is your grandfather's recession.

Paul Krugman
January 29, 2009
Speaking to the Microsoft Political Action Committee in Redmond, Washington.
[I attended this presentation and I'll have more on his talk later. He is also an active blogger -- The Conscience of a Liberal.--Joe]

# Saturday, January 24, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, January 24, 2009 6:45:37 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Politics )

I'm not an editor but I play one on the Internet.

From the Washington Post:

Officials said the report reflected Obama's desire for greater transparency in the bill-writing process, as he sought to fully map out what he plans to do with the $825 trillion package.

# Friday, January 23, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, January 23, 2009 6:25:05 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

Leave it up to New Yorkers to defeat those who support the constitution and elect those who seek to destroy it.

Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008
[As pointed out by Clayton, Jeff, SayUncle, and Sebastian, this is not always true so -1 point for Gaddy. He still gets a 99% on his essay.--Joe]

# Thursday, January 22, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:00:05 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Politics )

First I would like to draw your attention to SayUncles post that we have an extraordinary number of news stories about Obama's inauguration. I would like to further point out the following:

There were one or more songs written just for this inauguration. There were "Inauguration Cupcakes" in my company cafeteria!

It was a "religious experience" for a lot of people. Of course they overlook that "Barack Hussein Obama" can be rewritten as "Barack Hussei Nobama" which is obviously a synonym for "666".

I think I need to buy more ammo and explosives.

# Wednesday, January 21, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:47:45 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Sex )

Some might ask if I know this guy who is sort of a neighbor of mine:

A 65-year-old Spokane man has been ordered held in custody on federal charges of illegally possessing automatic weapons and illegally storing explosives in a Bellevue commercial storage shed while agents investigate how he came to possess a huge military-grade arsenal that included grenade launchers, machine guns and plastic explosives.

Ronald Struve, heavyset and bearded, appeared in Seattle before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler on Tuesday after being extradited from Spokane, where he was arrested Jan. 7 during a raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

In four searches in Bellevue and Spokane, agents seized 37 machine guns, 12 silencers, two grenade launchers, more than 60 high-explosive grenades, several pounds of military-grade C-4 plastic explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

...

One box contained 54 M406 high-explosive grenade rounds — 40-millimeter shells that can be launched from a shoulder-fired weapon to distances of 300 yards or more, according to military specification.

Its explosion creates a "kill radius" of up to 16 feet from the point of impact and injuries dozens of yards beyond that.

Agents also found several other anti-personnel grenades, including a Korean War-era "Chicom" stick grenade.

In another box, agents found six blocks of C-4 plastic explosives.

Agents counted 32 apparent machine guns, including M-14s, M-16s, and several "Sten guns," a mass-produced submachine gun known for its high rate of fire — upward of 500 rounds per minute.

They also found nine silencers and the parts for several others, as well as thousands of rounds of ammunition and various other military hardware.

"All of the military explosive items seized are considered contraband and cannot be possessed by anyone other than the military," Wallace wrote in a search warrant. "The majority of the items seized appeared to be stolen military explosive materials."

Spokane isn't that far away from my home in Moscow and I think I could literally throw a rock from the front door of my office in Redmond and have it land in Bellevue. But this guy has never appeared on my radar of "people of the gun" in the circles I run in.

He shouldn't have been storing the stuff in an ordinary storage unit or be in possession of stolen property. That's just wrong and he should "pay the price" for that. But other than that he's being charged with a victimless crime. Had he purchased those items on the open market (as they should be) and had he stored them in a proper manner all would have been fine.

So, for the most part, all this effort and money being spent on investigation and prosecution is because the government has repressive laws on the books. Sort of like laws against sex toys. Except sex toys aren't constitutionally protected like "arms" are. [Updated with the following sentence.] Except while protected in general by the constitution, sex toys aren't a specifically enumerated constitution right like "arms" are.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, January 21, 2009 5:49:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Politics )

The "prosperous" divested after hearing:

"this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."

Speed | 01.20.09 - 4:47 pm |
Speed is quoting President Obama's inauguration speech after noting the stock market crash yesterday.
[I may have this slightly wrong but as Ry told me the other day, "Difficult times are never dull."--Joe]

# Friday, January 16, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Friday, January 16, 2009 2:58:09 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

David has the details on what he declares a Win For Our Side!

# Sunday, January 04, 2009
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, January 04, 2009 1:44:47 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News )

If I recall correctly predictions are that if this blows with the same sort of destruction as in previous eruptions all life within about 300 miles is likely to be killed. Areas as far away as Kansas, depending on the wind direction and duration, will get up to 10 feet of ash falling from the sky.

# Wednesday, December 31, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, December 31, 2008 3:11:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News )

I've posted some of Howard's letters in the past.  He's a journalist living in Israel, a lawyer, an IDF sniper trainer and counterterrorism specialist.  Here's a list of his communications from the last several days.  I'll preface them by pointing out that the Kassam rockets, mortars and etc., have been fired into Israel from the Gaza strip ever since it was ceded to the Palestinians, "ceasefire" or no "ceasefire".  This makes the news only when the Israelis get around to shooting back.

Dec. 17, 2008

Friends:
 
What isn't reported are the Kassams that continue to rain on my daughter's college down south despite the fake cease-fire about to end (sorry, very sorry not a joke) in 48 hours.
 
Howard

===========================

Dec. 21, 2008

Friends:
 
We are in the Christmas and New Year's home stretch.  Hanukah starts tonight.
 
My friends in local ERT units have been ordered to turn there IDF issued M16s back to the IDF.  They were given something like 72 hour notice.  The Israeli government only arms Fatah and allows Hamas and Hezbollah to arm themselves unhindered.
 
Have a good week.
 
Howard

===========================

Dec. 22, 2008

Friends:
 
Here is the latest.  So far still no significant effort to stop the rain of rockets!
 
\\\\\\\Howard

===========================

Dec. 24, 2008

Friends:
 
Traffic around the Old City and in the direction of Bethlehem was already clogged at 13:30 despite the cold, raw weather.
 
Down south the Gaza terrorists are setting a new record for the number of Kassam, Grad and mortar bombs being fired into Israel.  The reach of the rockets get farther and farther.  Only heaven knows if the Israeli government will act to stop the attacks.
 
Have a Merry Holiday.
 
Howard

===========================

Dec. 25, 2008

Season's Greetings

=========================

Dec. 27, 2008

It has started.
 
Howard
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 12:23 PM

Subject: CORRECTION: IDF SPOX ANN: IDF Targets Hamas Government Terroris Infrastructure In The Gaza Strip 

Dec 26th, 2008

IDF SPOKESPERSON ANNOUNCEMENT

Israeli Air Force aircraft, attacked a short while ago, a series of Hamas targets and infrastructure facilities, in the Gaza Strip. All Israeli pilots returned safely to their bases. The IDF will continue its operations against terror in accordance with constant state assessments held be the IDF Chief of General Staff. This operation will be continued, expanded and intensified as much as will be required.

The Air Force activity came as a result of the continuation of terror activity by Hamas terror organization from the Gaza Strip, and the duration of rocket launching and targeting Israeli civilians.

The targets that were attacked were located by intelligence gathered during the last months and include Hamas terror operatives that operated from the organization's headquarters, training camps and weaponry storage warehouses.

The Hamas government leaders and operatives, which activate terror from within civilian population centers, are the sole bearers of responsibility for Israel's military response. This response is crucial for preserving Israel's security interests.

The IDF Spokesperson wishes to emphasize that anyone sponsoring terror, hosting terror in his house, housing terror in his basement and sending his wives and children to serve as human shields- is considered a terrorist.

The IDF will continue its activity against terror activities according to operational assessments held by the Chief of the General Staff.

The IDF is ready to widen and deepen its activity against all terror organizations in the Gaza Strip, as long as it is necessary.

In addition, the Homefront Command and emergency authorities, took all necessary measures for preparing the civilian population.

=========================

Dec. 29, 2008

Friends:
 
Israel only hit the terrorists after they fired 60 rockets into Israel proper in one day.  No one, the UN included said a word. 
 
Thousands of calls are placed to the cellular telephone of the civilians in the area of an impending strike before it takes place telling then to get out of harm's way!!!
 
So far today (16:10) approximately 35 rockets have been fired into Israel.
 
Howard

==========================

Dec. 30, 2008

Friends:
 
Israel already has its back to the wall being attacked in the media worldwide.  Hamas is never mentioned.
The phone calls I told you about, being placed to civilians to get out of harm's way, was reported on Israel radio network "B" at 06:00 today as having reached 90,000.  I called the IDF Spokesman's Office and asked for confirmation of the report.  Rather than answering my question I was challenged as to who I was and for who I reported.  Send an Email I was told.  That was 6 hours ago.  So far no response.  And they can't figure out how  winning the fighting on the ground doesn't result in winning the war.
 
Howard

==========================

Dec. 31, 2008

Friends:
 
Not reported is today's Israeli Supreme Court decision in favor of the Foreign Press Association permitting reporters access to Gaza.  It was forbidden since Nov. 24th. 
 
"What are you hiding," was on the lips of those whose written and broadcast words and images[.  They] lose Israel its war despite victory on the battlefield.  How to make friends and influence people. 
 
Howard

==========================

I find the whole thing surreal.  I recently heard U.S. reporters haranguing one of Bush's people in Crawford, demanding to know when Israel was going to stop the violence.  No matter how many times he told them that it depended on Hamas stopping their rocket and mortar attacks, they kept asking the same questions, over and over, merely rephrasing them.

# Tuesday, December 30, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:06:14 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

As predicted here the Brady Campaign is suing to stop the implementation of the new rule on carrying in National Parks. Unfortunately we won't have (vice) President Palin in office next month to direct the Justice Department to arrest and prosecute the offenders.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sued the Bush administration Tuesday in hopes of stopping a new policy that would allow people to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.

...

The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."

If they were consistent they would stay out of states (and even countries) where concealed carry were allowed. I'd would be much happier if they did.

But if they were consistent that might mean they had the capacity to use logic and data for the basis of their actions. And we all know that would be the end of their organization and they would have to get real jobs rather than being professional bigots.

# Tuesday, December 16, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:14:47 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

From the Second Amendment Foundation yesterday:

For Immediate Release:   12/15/2008

BELLEVUE, WA – Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is asserting that he has the authority to skirt Washington State’s long-standing firearms preemption statute, but in a 2006 letter to House Speaker Frank Chopp, he admitted that state law prevents him from taking any such action.

The letter is being made public at tonight’s special hearing at City Hall by Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation.

In his letter to Speaker Chopp, dated May 4, 2006, Mayor Nickels acknowledged that “State law preempts any and all local regulations related to firearms. Our hands are tied at the local level and we are unable to adopt any local laws to protect our residents from gun crime.”

“This is what Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office told Mayor Nickels in October,” Gottlieb noted. “Despite all of his bluster over the past six months, it is evident now that Mayor Nickels has known all along he cannot ban legally-carried firearms, by executive order, by ordinance or by wishing upon a star. He knew this in 2006 and he was reminded of it two months ago by McKenna’s office.

“Mayor Nickels has tried to capitalize on a single unfortunate incident at the Seattle Center,” he continued, “in order to push his long-standing anti-rights agenda. More than 20 years ago, the state legislature wisely enacted our common-sense preemption law that is now preventing the mayor from acting like a monarch, answerable to nobody. Essentially, he wants to use executive authority as though it were a royal decree, to not only defy state statute, but also to violate our state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provision.

“The May 2006 letter to Speaker Chopp clearly proves that the mayor knows he cannot legally do this,” Gottlieb said. “If Mayor Nickels goes forward with this ban, he will leave the Second Amendment Foundation no alternative than to take immediate legal action to stop him.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

And today:

For Immediate Release:   12/16/2008

BELLEVUE, WA – When a cross-section of firearms owners gathered at Seattle City Hall Monday night to oppose Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’ gun ban scheme, the mayor was nowhere in sight to defend his plan, and the Second Amendment Foundation wonders why.

“If ever an audience reflected the kind of diversity that elitists like Greg Nickels normally rave about, Monday night’s turnout of gun owners certainly measured up,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “There were gays, straights, men and women, including one self-described feminist Democrat party activist. I was proud of the broad spectrum represented by the firearms community.

“Under any other circumstances,” he continued, “Mayor Nickels and other Seattle establishment insiders would be drawn to such a group like moths to a flame. But these were law-abiding gun owners, outraged over the mayor’s arrogant plan to ignore state statute and advice from the state attorney general. In short, it was an audience of citizens that Nickels and his ilk claim to represent, saying that he doesn’t. The mayor wanted no part of such a public embarrassment.

“Mayor Nickels started this controversy by proposing the gun ban,” Gottlieb observed, “yet he lacked the intestinal fortitude to defend his scheme before the very people who would suffer. Elitists like Nickels are always quick to sneer about ‘cowardly gun owners,’ but when he had the chance to face them, he vanished.

“Many department heads were there to take the heat,” Gottlieb added, “except for Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. It is not clear whether he skipped the meeting because he doesn’t care for armed citizens, or because he was still out looking for his stolen pistol, which is more of a threat to public safety than anybody who testified at Monday night’s hearing.

“This proposed gun ban is nonsense,” he concluded. “It will not prevent a single crime. It will only leave citizens more vulnerable. As usual, Mayor Nickels chooses symbolism over safety, and he is clearly afraid to face the people whose rights he plans to abrogate.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

# Tuesday, December 09, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:08:47 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics | Sex )

In another gift to gun owners before leaving office the adminstration arrested Illinios Governor Rod (Pocket Rocket) Blagojevich today.

Now instead of restricting access to guns which he mixed up with a popular sex toy there is a chance he might well become a sex toy himself while visiting Club Fed. After working so hard for so many years to screw gun owners we can only hope he discovers what it's like to be on the receiving end for a few years.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4:41:46 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

The company that owns the anti-gun Chicago Tribune, the anti-gun LA Times, 10 other newspapers, and 23 television stations is filing for bankruptcy. They have 13 billion in debt.

They will continue to operate but the future isn't bright and I'm hoping they will at least fade away into obscurity.

There still remains the anti-gun New York Times and Washington Post but it's a pretty good start.

# Sunday, November 30, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:44:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Home Life )

James and Kim just had lunch there this weekend. Barb and I go there fairly frequently but it's going to be a while before we go back. I took these pictures this morning about 0800 at the University Mall in Moscow Idaho:

And before someone asks, I haven't been within 30 miles of my chemistry set since Thursday evening.

# Saturday, November 22, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, November 22, 2008 5:17:20 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The mayor is beating his chest trying to make a statement that he's anti-gun. The mayor and violent criminals in this case have something in common this time -- neither of them have any respect for the law.

Alan Gottlieb
November 21, 2008
Nickels expects December start to city gun ban
[Seattle Mayor Nickels says he is going to defy state law and prohibit guns by executive order on city property. The Washington State Attorney General says state law prohibits him from doing that. A public hearing is scheduled for 6:30 PM, December 15, at City Hall.

You can read the proposed rules and comment on them here. See also the Citizen's Committee to Keep and Bear Arms news release. Be polite, run your comments through spelling and grammar checkers, and ask someone else to read them before submission. You might also consider get yourself into the proper State of Mind, and/or thinking about Just One Question before writing your comments.--Joe]

# Thursday, November 20, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:46:04 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

Death by a thousand, self-inflicted cuts.  This from our friend Howard;

Friends:
 
Today we really have a poporie of news. 
 
I'm on duty patrolling downtown this evening.  20:30 I get the patrol officers briefing.  21:00 we get our volunteers briefing.  Hope the rain holds-off.  Then again if it starts raining for real I guess we just go home.
 
Soon we may be all the protection the public gets.
 
The public transportation unit is gone.  More cops are leaving than replacements can be found.  The Ministry of Interior is disarming the public who have licensed guns...after passing [a] process determining need for a gun and background, physical and mental record checks.

Who ever said registration and licensing were the path to confiscation?  Once again we see Jews being disarmed, only this time Jews are doing it to each other.

Now the Finance Ministry is not going to fund the minimum wage school guards receive.  So the schools will be totally unprotected.

This is what is known as the "Peace" process-- The lack of meaningful opposition to socialist, Marxist, Fascist, communist or jihadist military expansionism.

# Friday, November 14, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, November 14, 2008 6:58:08 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

I sometimes do a back-and-fourth with a self described centrist, or moderate (which is another name for a leftist in denial, something like a "moderate drinker" who can't get through a day without alcohol) over at Say Uncle in the comments, but I thought it should be posted here too.  Today we're talking about the proposed (yet another) GM "bailout".  I explained how propping up failure is inviting more failure, while at the same time negatively influencing the way we make decisions, while at the same time freezing out some of the small, hungry, innovative businesses and potential businesses, to say nothing of unfairly punishing taxpayers for the bad decisions of others.  He offered some of the regular arguments against pure capitalism;

"…the party with leverage will take advantage of that leverage, often to the level of exploitation.."

To which I replied;

I know that is the age-old argument, but what you describe has a simpler name. It’s called crime [or corruption]. That's what government is for– to protect basic rights by punishing (retaliating against) crime.

And the reason why centrism is the superior stance;

"…pure capitalism and pure socialism are both bad…"

How so? Do you have any proof of that? Any evidence? Have we ever seen pure capitalism? If so, I’d like to know. Give me an example. I’ll bet you a case of beer that any example you attempt to give will in fact be an example of what happens when government get its nose into the market, creating some form of monopoly [either that or government has simply failed to do its job as protector of basic rights].

I've been all through this many times before. Please read the book, Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal or I'll be forced to re-write the whole damned thing right here. Trouble is; that would take months and I'd go broke wasting my time writing. As I said, you haven't seen this stuff [these ideas] before, and so you're falling into all the old traps. You need some genuine de-programming. I know that sounds really insulting and condescending, but the same is true anytime you try to tell an alcoholic he's an alcoholic. This is damned tough stuff. I'm saying here that you're addicted to a belief in government-sponsored coercion. You're convinced that it has a proper place in a free society. I'm saying that that is a contradiction in terms.

The coercion pushers have gotten to you and got you hooked. You've grown up with pushers and you've known nothing else. The same happened to me and it was a tough, slow, painful withdrawal. Even still it's one day at a time. I have to go to regular meetings with other people struggling with the destructive effects of believing in socialist theories. Oh sure, I thought a little bit here and a little bit there would be fine. A lot of people do it just to get along in social situations. Lots of people think like that, but a little bit is never enough, is it? You always end up needing another fix, and there's always another pusher ready and willing to sell it to you…

"Hello. My name is Lyle and I'm a recovering socialist…"

You have to first admit you have a problem before you can take the steps to solve it. Your original post is a good start– you're asking questions. That's good, but you're fighting the answers because they go against everything you've ever known. If you really want the answers, it's going to take a lot of effort on your part. It will be time-consuming and it will be painful. Some of the people you thought were your friends are going to chastise you [even disown you]. Stay strong. Only you can help you, but we can help point you in the right direction. You will have friends.

What the centrist doesn't realize is that, though some people are bad and as a result sometimes people will get burned, when government shifts away from being the protector of rights and becomes the main perpetrator of coercion, we're all screwed.  This has been referred to as the equal distribution of misery.

# Wednesday, November 05, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:01:10 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

...almost daily;

Friends:
 
Obama may not get the 6 months Biden said the new president would have before he was "tested."   President Bush may be the one.
 
While everyone was looking elsewhere, Syria has enveloped Lebanon and moved the Syrian 3rd Army to Israel's border.  In the meantime the cease-fire farce with Hamas is a shooting war.  In the last 36 hours we had rockets fired into Israel.  Last evening we raided into the Strip, Hamas responded with 20 Mortar bombs. What followed this morning the Jerusalem Post calls "Massive" Kassam rocket fire into Israel.
 
This is all being fueled by the Israeli and American elections.
 
I mourn the Republic.
 
Howard

Surely this sort of thing will be nothing but an uncomfortable memory after the world is "united" by Obama.  The oceans will recede, the clouds of suspicion between cultures will part, earthquakes, storms, pain and hunger will be a thing of the past, the Angels of Peace, Love and Tranquility will sing forever more above all the skies of the world.  Yea, and there will be much rejoicing, amen.

# Friday, October 31, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, October 31, 2008 9:11:56 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

I call myself a loser if I lose when everyone plays by the rules. Obama supporters lie and cheat. It's what socialists do. It's in their rule book (written by Marx).

Update: The link above is broken. Here is the original content I was linking to:

NRA-ILA Alert Members of Deceptive Tactics By Obama Supporters

Friday, October 31, 2008
Fairfax, VA--The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today sent the following email alert to members following reports of deceptive phone calls in support of Barack Obama. The callers falsely claim to be from NRA and attribute Senator John McCain's pro-gun voting record to that of Obama.

Dear NRA Member,
It has come to our attention that with Halloween upon us, the Barack Obama campaign and its allies are up to dirty political tricks.

NRA members in key presidential battleground states have informed us they have received deliberately misleading phone calls from someone professing to represent the NRA, asking voters to support Barack Obama. This is an absolute and intentional lie.

NRA has long been on record as opposing Barack Obama, as Barack Obama has long been on record as opposing the rights of law-abiding gun owners. For example, Barack Obama:

    • Voted to allow the prosecution of citizens who use a firearm for self-defense in the home (Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165. 3/25/04);
    • Voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to put America’s firearms industry out of business (S.397, vote 219, 7/29/05);
    • Voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting (United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05);
    • Supported a 500% increase in federal taxes on guns and ammunition (Chicago Defender, 12/13/99);
    • Voted to ban hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting, including single-shot, over-under and side-by-side shotguns (Illinois Senate SB 1195, 3/13/03); and,
    • Proposed restrictions that would close 90% or more of all gun stores in the U.S. (Chicago Defender, 12/13/99).

For more information on the TRUTH about Barack Obama's hostility toward the Second Amendment, please visit http://www.gunbanobama.com/.

If you receive a call to this effect, please know that it is a deliberate attempt by Barack Obama supporters to mislead gun owners. Our opponents know that you can make the difference in this election, and they’ll stop at nothing to try and deceive you!

Thank you for your support, and remember to "Vote Freedom First"! on November 4th.
Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox
Executive Director, NRA-ILA

# Thursday, October 30, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:08:40 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

Via Sebastian, who is called a wacko, I found the USA Today article about Cooper getting fired. It says "he [Obama] has said he respects the Second Amendment.". Numerous commenter's say similar things. I left a couple comments:

Obama says he supports the Second Amendment. He also says he wants to ban guns.

He can't have it both ways. His record of the past is clear. His words of the future are clear and consistent with his record. The only reasonable conclusion is that he is attempting to deceive voters here and now by saying "he supports the Second Amendment".

And:

If this were about someone donating money to the KKK, the company then found it was facing a boycott, and the company fired the idiot that donated money to the KKK then almost everyone would agree it was the right thing to do.

Well guess what--gun ownership is a specific, enumerated right, in the Bill of Rights (read the D.C. v. Heller decision).

Who would vote for someone that said, "I support the 13th Amendment but I also believe we can have reasonable regulation of blacks to keep them in their proper place."?

Senators Obama and Biden and the people that vote for them are to the gun owners what the KKK was to blacks.

Maybe I'm competing for a more extreme title than the "wacko" title given to Sebastian but these guys really got me annoyed.

Update: It's time to put them on the defensive. I left another comment:

Melo_D wrote: Are you comparing Obama to the KKK?

The nonviolent aspects of the KKK--yes. He has publicly stated on his website he wants regulated and ban guns. This is infringing on a specific enumerated right just as if someone wanted to regulated and ban blacks (or other oppressed minority) from certain aspects of society.

Melo_D wrote: Less guns= less violence.

I have Just One Question (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx) for you:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

# Monday, October 27, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Monday, October 27, 2008 1:26:51 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News )

From the Crap for Brains file:

The court records say Cowart and Schlesselman also bought nylon rope and ski masks to use in a robbery or home invasion to fund their spree, during which they allegedly planned to go from state to state and kill people.

For the Obama plot, the legal documents show, Cowart and Schlesselman “planned to drive their vehicle as fast as they could toward Obama shooting at him from the windows.”

“Both individuals stated they would dress in all white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt,” the court complaint states. “Both individuals further stated they knew they would and were willing to die during this attempt.”

It sounds to me like they weren't getting enough oxygenated blood into their drug circulation system.

# Saturday, October 25, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:53:30 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Places Without Guns )

Several years ago while debating gun control with someone I claimed the crime numbers from the U.K. were known to be erroneously low. I had read that somewhere but when confronted for proof I looked all over the net for several hours without being able to find my source.

Kevin reports on the story that "just broke".

# Thursday, October 23, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:45:11 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

When I heard BO talking to Joe The Plumber, saying that when we spread the wealth around, everyone benefits, I agreed with his words.  Any time you help to produce or deliver products or services, you are "spreading the wealth around".  Anytime you trade products or service with another person, both parties in the transaction are "spreading the wealth around".  Any time you buy stock in a company, you help finance that company and you're spreading the wealth around.  Any time you put money in a savings plan, you're helping to finance others, and you're spreading the wealth around.  If you hire someone, you're spreading the wealth around. If you go to work for someone else, you're spreading the wealth around.  Even if you're a miser and you buy gold to bury in your back yard, you're supporting the gold mining and processing industry and all the people they employ throughout the supply chain, and you're spreading the wealth around.

But we all know that Obama wasn't talking about peaceable, voluntary exchange of goods and services between free citizens.  He was talking about spreading the wealth around using force and the threat of force.  To put it another way, Obama, and all who think similarly, does not trust you to produce they way HE thinks you should produce, so he wants to tell you how to do it.  He doesn't trust you to make your own purchasing and financing decisions, so he's going to do more of that for you.

Obama and socialists everywhere are jealous of your abilities to produce and they're jealous of the freedom you've had in spreading your wealth around.  Make no mistake about it-- that jealousy leads to anger and hatred.

We can look at the political struggle in this country in this way; Either you favor spreading the wealth around through peaceable, voluntary exchange, or you favor spreading the wealth around through the use of force and the threat of force.

Lest you be tempted to demand a look at history to find which method of spreading the wealth has a better record of success, I would warn you that the two sides (socialists and capitalists) have incompatible measures of "success".  You may think that success means more people living at higher standards, with more choices in life, more mobility, a better life span and so on.  You'd be wrong if you think socialists will see that as a desirable outcome.

Update; Of course there is a whole lot more to participation in a free market beside "spreading" wealth.  In fact you are creating wealth-- something the socialists have never been able to comprehend.  In the mind of a socialist, to become rich is to deprive someone else.  In fact, and as with virtually all socialist beliefs, the opposite is true.  In the process of building your own wealth in a capitalist market, and in the process of using it in a capitalist market, you are invariably benefiting others.

# Tuesday, October 14, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Tuesday, October 14, 2008 1:52:14 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Politics )

... on the Glen Beck radio show.  If you know Glen Beck at all, you know he's a capitalist.  He gets it.  In discussing the "Bail out" scam, he asked McCain why he voted for it the second time, after having opposed it earlier and after decrying earmarks and pork.  Now, I'd say it was a dumb question, because there is no possible decent answer other than, "I'm a sucker and I have no principles.  What can I say?"  Taking probably his best way out, McCain answered, and I paraphrase;

"Everyone was telling me it was the right thing to do."

Now that's leadership, baby!  Wow, what balls!  Everyone told him to do it.  And just who is this Everyone person?  I'd like to meet him.  We've known McCain for a long time, so this is nothing unexpected.  Apparently this Everyone person is a lot smarter and a more forceful decision-maker, 'cause he turned McCain around on a dime.

We are so screwed.

And for those who think it untimely of me to bring this up right before the election; I see it as a matter of how quickly we're gonna get screwed, so it's hard to keep a dog in this fight.  Frog-in-the-pot model and all.  It's McCain's to lose.  Hopefully this Everyone person, whom he trusts more than himself, will give him some better advice in the coming weeks. 

# Tuesday, October 07, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:05:25 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Ballistics | Current News | Gun Fun | Technology )

Earlier today Say Uncle sent me an email asking if I could help out a reporter looking for "someone of authority" to address the body armor versus deer hunting ammo issue. I know a lot more about exterior ballistics (I wrote Modern Ballistics) than terminal ballistics but I'm not totally ignorant of it either. So I agreed to "look up a few references" for the guy.

My email, with very minor edits, to the reporter follows. His email response indicated he was happy with my answers.


Say Uncle asked that I address your “deer ammo going through body armor” story. I’ll address it as best I can but strictly speaking I’m not an expert. I’m a very well informed hobbyist.

Although there is occasional some controversy over the National Institute of Justice testing procedures and standards they are still “the standard”. You can read their standard here.

Their main page on Body Armor is here.

Probably the part that is most relevant to your issue is the body armor classification. This can be found in section 2 starting on page 17. The basics are that body armor is classified according to the level of protection it provides. Those classes are, in order of increasing protection level:

  • Type IIA (9 mm; .40 S&W)
  • Type II (9 mm; .357 Magnum)
  • Type IIIA (.357 SIG; .44 Magnum)
  • Type III (Rifles)
  • Type IV (Armor Piercing Rifle)

Most law enforcement officers wear type II or IIIA. Higher levels of protection require metal or ceramic inserts which increase the weight, bulk, and the body heat retention. See also Section 6, Selecting the Appropriate Level of Protection in this document. At some point in the tradeoff between comfort and protection the police officer will stop wearing the armor on an everyday patrol. In a high risk entry/arrest situation they are more likely to upgrade to type III armor if it is available.

The problem certain well intentioned politicians get into is that they don’t realize the body armor problem is as much a velocity problem as it is a bullet construction problem. Certainly sharp pointed Teflon coated tungsten carbide (a very hard metal used for metal working tools) bullets will penetrate a higher level of armor than a blunt nosed soft lead bullet. But that only goes so far. Increasing the velocity of the bullet by a few hundred feet per second will overcome the inferior construction in most applications. Rifle bullets are much faster than common pistol bullets. The typical handgun bullet is on the order of 1000 fps. A typical modern center fire rifle bullet leaves the muzzle at a velocity on the order of 2500 fps or greater.

I’ve done some informal testing with the 30-06 rifle on an engine block. The Speer Reloading Manual says of this rifle cartridge, “It is safe to say that the 30-06 Springfield is the best-known and most successful centerfire cartridge ever developed.” In a typical hunting load (see http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=260) at 100 yards from the muzzle the bullet is still traveling at over 2600 fps. The tests I did were with a target cartridge and bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=148). At the muzzle this bullet is traveling at about 2700 fps and is still going at over 2500 fps at 100 yards. I was shooting into the side of a six cylinder car engine from the early fifties from about 50 yards away. This was a very heavy engine block compared to today’s cars yet the target bullet would penetrate half way through the block penetrating the water jacket, one side of a cylinder and frequently one side of a piston. A very high velocity (1350 fps at the muzzle) 9mm bullet shot at the same engine block only knocked the rust off of the metal. It did not dent or crack the side of the engine.

It is a very different problem to stop a rifle bullet than to stop a handgun bullet. Although it isn’t quite this simple you can think of it as an energy problem. The energy of the projectile is proportional to the mass of the bullet times the velocity of the bullet squared. That is E = m V2. The mass of a common hunting bullet is on the order of 150 to 180 grains. The mass of a pistol bullet is on the order of 125 to 200 grains with the heaver bullets moving much slower than the lighter ones. The rifle bullets typically are moving about 2.5 times as fast as the pistol bullets. Hence they will typically have about 2.52 or about 6 times as much energy as the pistol bullet.

Even the ancient 30-30 Winchester cartridge has a muzzle velocity of nearly 2400 fps with a 150 grain bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=28) which will cut through the typical concealable body armor worn by law enforcement on a daily basis. Higher end rifles for larger game such as, the still very common, .300 Winchester Magnum with a 165 grain bullet (http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=592) have muzzle velocities of over 3000 fps. Run the numbers on that and see the sort of problem the body armor is facing.

Hence, the NRA claim that outlawing ammunition on the basis of its ability to penetrate typical body armor would result in the banning nearly all common rifle hunting is true. It is possible the politician did not have that intention but that would be the result.

That is probably more information than you really wanted but I hope it answers your questions. If not or if you have any further questions please let me know.

# Tuesday, September 23, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Tuesday, September 23, 2008 7:39:04 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

At this time-- this very day when Congress is plotting the final stroke in yet another, years-in-the-making, offensive against capitalism, Bill whittle has brought our attention to his doctorate level thesis on American exceptionalism.  It's called, Trinity (part 1).

If you believe, as I do, that wealth can be manufactured out of thin air, then there is no limit to the amount of wealth you can amass. And since you are creating it out of thin air, there is no moral onus on making money - you work hard to create it and have stolen from no one. There is an expression for this: you earned it.

Indeed, since charity depends on excess wealth, excess capacity, the more you make for yourself the better off everyone else is. You can even throw charity out the window if you are so hard-hearted; the fact remains that you will spend that money to get the things you want, and the more you have the more you can spend. That money goes to other people. This interchange is called "the economy", and rich societies are rich because they understand in their bones the centerpiece of Capitalist thinking: Wealth can be created from thin air by human ingenuity and hard work.

Now people on the left have, in their guts, a revulsion towards the rich and the wealthy, because whenever they see wealth they naturally assume that it was stolen...

So true, Doctor Whittle.

If any of you haven't read Bill's piece, you've missed out.  We know at least 99% of politicians have never read anything like it.  Either that or they were unable to understand it and wandered off to catch happy hour down at the watering hole.  Certainly nothing like this is being presented within our public schools.  Ever.

Well, now's your chance.  It'll take some time, but you'll thank Bill for it, I guarantee.

For you lefties out there; don't bother.  Something like a curse in a foreign language, you won't understand it but it will upset the hell out of you all the same.  Like when certain people ask me how to do something and I say, with total sincerity, "I'm sure you can figure it out."  Curse in a foreign language.

# Tuesday, September 16, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Tuesday, September 16, 2008 8:07:02 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

...than Thomas Sowell did in his recent piece, "Idols of Crowds";

[Iran] is a country whose president has already threatened to wipe a neighboring country off the map. Does anyone need to draw pictures?

When terrorists get nuclear weapons, there will be no way to deter suicide bombers. We and our children will be permanently at the mercy of the merciless.

Reading Sowell's post, I can't help seeing the faces of those women on the verge of fainting with ecstasy at that big rally in Germany in the 1930s.  Those were the enraptured, delighted, happy, adoring faces of mass death.

# Monday, September 15, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, September 15, 2008 8:15:27 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights )

I'm about fed up with this blatant PDS (public display of stupidity).  The leftists keep telling us that we, the mean old meanies in other states, are "forcing our will" on the poor, besieged Washington DC residents, telling them they can't make their very own gun laws.  Oh, the humanity-- a local government isn't being allowed to violate the constitution!  Woe be to us all-- the very concept of democracy is being tortured to death by those eeevil and dastardly NRA-puppet, gun-clinging, pig Neocons!  Boo Hoo Hoo Hoooooo!  And, oh yeah-- Boo Hoo Hoooooo!

Just for fun (and because it will raise the ire of just about everyone) lets look at the fake indignation over "states' rights" and the phony demand for "local democratic control" among the left when it comes to abortion.  States' rights on abortion laws anyone?  Nope.  No way.  None exist.  No local control rights exist for abortion because abortion is a constitutional right, damn it.  Five justices said so, and you can't mess with a constitutional right!  Not even a little bit, because if we allow a little bit, who knows how far things would go toward limiting the right to an abortion?  Why, some people even want to ban abortion, don't you know!

We can now see that even the most anti-American, gun-hating, bigoted Marxist, anti-constitution leftists, including those in the Supreme Court, do in fact understand how rights are supposed to work.  They've told us.  There should be no option, for any state or locale, for voting away that which is a right, or for encroaching on it in any way whatsoever.  To do so would violate the right of the individual to an abortion, and that would be wrong no matter how many people want to do it, no matter where they are, and no matter how good their intentions.  Some have even gone so far as to insist that, as a right, abortion should be paid for by the taxpayers, on demand, to minors, with no parental notification, and in so demanding, they have been taken very, very seriously by the left.

I as a parent can't send my kid to school with a couple of asprin because drugs are "bad" and many schools have zero tolerance for drugs, but when it comes to abortion-- a "right" that isn't addressed in the constitution, wasn't written into the constitution by the prescribed amendment process but was instead created out of thin air by five people in black robes, it's a right which is so absolute that my under-age kid should get an abortion on demand, anywhere in the fifty states and the district of Columbia, without parental notification, and have it paid for by the state.  Got it.

Leftists assert some new-found rights and behave one way, while they disagree with other, well-established and clearly enumerated rights and behave in the opposite manner.  Imagine if we were to take the hard-core "abortion rights" advocates' position regarding our second amendment rights:

Anyone who wants a gun gets the gun of their choice, on demand, with plenty of ammunition, at any time, anywhere in the Union, with no parental notification, paid for with taxpayer money, and no state or locale should be allowed to make any laws regarding guns or other weapons because it's a constitutional right and you can't mess with a constitutional right, ever, ever, no matter what, period.  (hey, they're going to do it anyway, right?  may as well give them quality guns and show them how to use them properly in a controlled environment)

Which way do you want it, lefties?  Tell you what; I'm confident enough as a parent that I believe I can convince my daughter to do the right thing when it comes to controlling her sex life.  You can have your way with abortion if we can have our way regarding the real Bill of Rights, including the second amendment (except we'll throw out the tax-payer funding bit, because that's just stupid as hell).  Deal?  And I don't want to ever hear, "If it saves the life of just one child..."  We're on to you lefties.  Knock it off.

How about we take the assertion, "my body, my choice" and apply it to the second amendment? "My body, my choice, including the means of protecting it."

# Thursday, September 11, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:37:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

On this day, the anniversary of 9/11/01;

By our friend in Israel, this article in HA'ARETZ is brought to our attention.

What I bring away from the article is, well, I won't tell you.

# Wednesday, August 20, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:12:05 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

This normally wouldn't be a story-- police departments need guns.  Can you say, "Duuuhhh"?  But it is a story over on WCBSTV (brought to our attention by Uncle).

Apparently, our police departments haven't gotten the loon's memo; "Violence never solves anything."
Or the other loon memo; "Having a gun is more likely to endanger you than to stop an attacker."
Or; "Arming yourselves will do nothing but 'provoke' the bad guys (sorry-- victims of American imperialism) and escalate the violence."

Then there's;
"It increases our range and our accuracy," Sgt. Brian Lyman said.

Uh...9 mm parabellum in a submachinegun = "range" and "accuracy"?  OK I'll play; compared to what?  I hope he's referring to an M-4 rather than the UMP mentioned in the article as an "assault rifle" (for those of you in Rio Linda; a submachinegun [or machine pistol] is not an assault rifle [the former was created decades before the latter] but given their level of education on controversial, hot-button political issues, we don't expect a single journalist in the U.S. to know the difference [UMP stands for Universal Machine Pistol, IIRC]).

"I think if they think they need [submachineguns], then it is good that they have them," one woman said.

OK, granted, so we can throw out all the silly arguments that say you must have criminal intent, or be paranoid and/or racist and/or a redneck drunken testosterone-poisoned yahoo, before you'd ever want a gun.  Glad we got that cleared up.

"When you have to wait, five, 10, 15 minutes... during that interim people could be dying..."

That one is the best.  I guess when a cop says it it's clear and sensible, but when we're talking about an armed citizen in the absence of any police, it's a totally different paradigm.  Five, 10, 15 minutes, or any amount of time for that matter, to wait for police to arrive after calling 911, is a perfectly acceptable amount of time for people to be dying.  Just ask any anti gun-rights organization.

"Many departments in Bergen County are using Homeland Security grants to purchase these weapons."

You mean more submachineguns are needed in the civilian population to secure the Homeland (police are in fact civilians, no)?  That makes no sense in light of the fact that, as we've been told, 9/11 was an inside job and there is no terrorist threat (I heard Mike Moore say the latter himself, so we know it has to be true-- he got an Academy Award didn't he) guns are more dangerous to their owners, violence never solves anything, and having weapons provokes your enemies.  Obviously then, the Homeland Security assertion is just cover for the "real reason" police are acquiring automatic weapons.

But I'm forgetting something-- the Left hate police almost as much as they hate liberty (remember; in the 1960s police were referred to collectively as "pigs") so I expect they'd go along with the above criminal-intent/paranoid/racist/yahoo theory to explain why police want guns, and let it go at that.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:18:11 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Women are at a severe disadvantage when confronting a likely stronger male assailant. In general, women simply do not have the upper body strength and testosterone-driven speed to effectively defend themselves without help. A firearm, particularly an easily manipulable handgun, equalizes this strength differential and thereby provides women the best chance they have of thwarting an attacker. Even more statistically likely, a firearm in the hands of a threatened woman offers the deterrence empty hands and an often unavailing 911 call do not.

M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
[They are at a particular disadvantage if they are 85 years old and the assailant is 17 years old. But if the woman has even a .22 caliber single action revolver then she can make the assailant dial 911.--Joe]

# Sunday, August 17, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:13:26 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

I know I'm late to the party. I've been very busy with preparing for Blackwater/Para/Todd and Caleb and then I had problems with my blog that took way too long to fix (and I'm still not totally where I want to be yet).

Here is some of what others have been saying about the Mary McFate (or Mary Lou Sapone) story as broken by Mother Jones. I haven't begun to read all 100+ blog posts--maybe only a tenth of that. But there are some things I'm not seeing that I think should be addressed.

First, the legality issue. I'm not a lawyer but my expectation is that unless she signed some sort of non-disclosure contract it's going to be hard to make anything stick on the legal front. Expect non-disclosures to be SOP for high level positions in the anti-gun groups in the near future.

Second, the ethical issue. I'm all for playing by the rules. Anyone who knows me well will know this in the extreme. When other people are walking across the street without a light they will find me standing on the corner. When everyone else is going 10 or 15 MPH over the speed limit I'll be going the speed limit or maybe up to 5 MPH over. That doesn't mean I won't push the envelope. I have a very strong tendency to follow the rules to the letter. But when that "letter" has a loophole there is also a very good chance I will try to exploit it. But I nearly always follow the rules and get very annoyed, even angry, when others don't. Barb says it's because I have a mild case of Asperbergers. I say it's because I'm rational, honest, and despise cheats.

In a battle such as the one over the specific, enumerated, right to keep and bear arms the anti-gun groups have a very long history of underhanded activities. I remember before I purchased my first gun (1994) I did a bunch of research on gun control, the Second Amendment, and related stuff. I got on the mailing list for Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign). One of their propaganda flyers said that in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875) it was spelled out explicitly, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution." I was shocked and had to look it up to make sure. Yup. It did say that. But there was a gotcha HCI didn't put in their propaganda. The very next sentence in that opinion said, "Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Hence it was not a simple oversight on the part of some incompetent HCI flunky. They could not have missed the very next sentence or the previous paragraphs where similar things are said about the First Amendment. This opinion is very clear that these are not rights granted by the Bill of Rights. They are preexisting rights that even the repeal of the 2nd (or 1st) Amendment could not nullify. The anti-gun people do this sort of thing constantly and sometimes every single point they make is a lie even when the facts are easily available. They do not fear being caught in a lie. It costs us far more in time, money, and precious words to fight their lies than it does for them to make the lie.

This isn't just some sort of nitpicky Asperbergers thing about something that happened nearly 15 years ago. It was just that is when I realized with absolute certainty which was the side of evil, who must be defeated, and the rules by which the game was played.

This is not to say that I think our side should be sloppy with the truth. We don't need to. They do. What it does mean is that I have zero, perhaps even negative, qualms about doing "underhanded" or sneaky things to defeat them. They chose the playing field when they set out to destroy a specifically guaranteed civil right. They not only chose to do evil they additionally chose to use underhanded tactics in their propaganda and on the battlefield. By their actions they have declared the rules they play this game by. If we play entirely by our set of rules we may still win but how many millions of people will be denied their civil rights and how many tens of thousands will killed and injured because they were unable to exercise that right or believed a gun would more likely harm an innocent than a predator? What price are you willing to pay for "playing fair"? In some exceedingly dark projections of the future we may actually be fighting for the fate of humanity with the George Orwell's vision given to us in 1984 as the downside of losing this fight. When the boots of a tyrannical government are smashing the face of humanity forever what satisfaction will you have for having played by your ethics rather than those that were very clear in their agenda and the rules they played by? That may not be the result of losing but that is what you are risking. Hence I agree with Sebastian when he said, "Given that, is there really any tactic that’s too sleazy and too underhanded to use in order to defeat them?"

The worst thing Mary did was getting caught. For that she, or whoever was responsible for outing her, should be quietly and behind the scenes, scolded.

Third, the benefits of having a spy. A lot of people have claimed there wasn't all that much we could have gotten from a spy so the benefits weren't worth risks of bad PR from possibly getting caught. Others have said advance knowledge of legislation agendas and allocation of resources for fighting initiatives could be very useful. I fully agree with this latter line of thinking but I don't think it goes far enough in explaining what the potential benefits are. I fully agree that getting caught is bad but the benefits might well have been fantasic.

Aside from getting a magazine once a month (which I seldom read) and a few carefully worded emails with the occasional wheelbarrows full of cash (thanks Ashley!) I don't have any deep source of from information inside the NRA. But from being "part of the U.S. intelligence community" for a while I do know a little about intelligence gathering and how it can be of benefit. The following is entirely speculation and is not in any way based on information the NRA actually received.

Example 1: Suppose the bad guys plan an initiative to ban "assault weapons". Going in cold with the dry words of the initiative they find they can only get about half of the signatures they need to get on the ballot. Their resources are limited and they want to conserve their money for the fight once they are actually on the ballot. They can't spend a lot of money for the signature gathers for months then fight in the media for the actual votes.

But they have done polls and found videos of unshaved men firing full auto while dressed in camouflage followed by scenes of Columbine and other school shootings yields 80% support for their initiative. They can get the required signatures in a remarkable short time if the propaganda is done correctly. They decide to coordinate the release of their video with their friends in the media with the announcement of the initiative in the two months before the deadline to turn in the signatures. The paid signatures gathers are contracted for and everything is in place for a political Blitzkrieg. If they keep things quiet the good guys won't have time to form a coherent defense before the signatures have been gathered. Hence the bad guys can save their resources for the battle of votes on Election Day.

If the good guys have advance knowledge they will be able do their own polls (which could take weeks) with lots of different sound bites and find a couple one liners that cut that 80% support down to 40%. They prepare their own set of videos that can be hit the mass media as paid ads in only a few days after the bad guys go public. They bad guys aren't prepared for a fight at this stage and don't get the signatures needed. The good guys had to pay some money up front but they stopped the bad guy at the signature stage rather than to fight it out at the ballot box and can spend their resources on the defeat of the politicians who showed their colors and came out in support of the ballot initiative.

Or the good guys could come out with their own offensive that upsets the plans of the bad guys. They may know they cannot win but if they start pushing for a youth shooting program in the schools subsidized by the state you can be sure the bad guys will devote resources to that and maybe put the "assault weapon" ban on the back burner.

Example 2: Suppose the initiative did make it on the ballot and the good guys have to win. They can draw upon reserves allocated for national issues if needed but that would weaken plans for actual gains at the higher level. It's getting down to election day and the good guys are currently ahead in the polls (private and/or public). Barring some last minute surprise from the bad guys they don't need to use those reserves. If they know a surprise is coming and what that surprise is they can not only have done the polls they can have the countering ads ready for release on the same day the "surprise" hits the street. If they know the bad guys don't have any money left and are running on empty they can send the reserves home and concentrate on making gains at the national level rather than winning a fight that was already won.

Example 3: Suppose the bad guys are having some internal problems. Maybe one of their key leaders has health problems and doesn't really want to step aside for someone else. Maybe their finances are in poor shape (only the 501(c)(3)/charities orgs and publically traded corps have to make public disclosure of their finances, not the private political organizations). Or maybe they lost their building lease and have to move. Not only are time and money spent in the finding a new building and the actually moving but their phone numbers will have to change in the process. Or maybe some key personal are moving on to higher paying jobs in a different field and replacements need to be hired and trained.

Having knowledge of these troubles may mean the good guys can time a critical amendment to some legislation when the opposition is least able to put up resistance.

The bottom line is that yes we know, in general terms, what the bad guys are going to do and we can figure things out very quickly once they do go public. We may have larger war chests and more committed voters but that may not amount to anything if those resources can't be deployed in the most effective manner. Having weeks or months advance knowledge can give us the opportunity to deploy after giving careful thought and parsimoniously allocating them thus yielding fantastic benefits. The benefit of having a spy is all in the timing. Time is a dimension that many people don't take into account when going into a fight. They look at numbers like dollars, votes, tanks, ships, bomb yields, weapon accuracy, magazine capacity, penetration depth in gelatin and the caliber of their carry gun. But it doesn't matter in the slightest that you carry a .45 with three spare magazines and can put ten rounds under a quarter at 25 yards if you opponent puts a .22LR bullet from his zip gun into your eyeball from three feet away before you get a chance to draw.

Knowledge gives us time and this can be more important than almost anything else.

Thank you Mary and whoever else might be out there, unknown and under appreciated; yielding results that surpass the benefits we get from highly compensated executives enjoying fame and wealth. I consider you a fallen hero.

# Tuesday, July 22, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:14:59 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

SAF and S&W announce a commemorative revolver.

Second Amendment Foundation and Smith & Wesson Partner on Commemorative Revolver

Engraved Model 442 Will Recognize District of Columbia vs. Heller Decision

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (July, 21, 2008) – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Smith & Wesson have partnered to create a commemorative revolver designed to recognize the historical significance of the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision and to acknowledge the six original plaintiffs that united to challenge the gun ban in Washington, D.C.

As part of the project, an engraved Smith & Wesson Model 442 revolver will be presented to each of the six plaintiffs – Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller – for their key roles in working to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Smith & Wesson will make the commemorative revolver available for consumer purchase in Fall 2008 and will direct a portion of the proceeds to the Second Amendment Foundation to acknowledge the organization’s pivotal role in the Heller case and its ongoing efforts to preserve the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

“We are proud to work with Smith & Wesson on this project,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “June 26 saw a landmark victory for the Second Amendment, and for all Americans. This is a fitting way to commemorate a significant moment in history, and support future efforts that will continue to strengthen our constitutional rights.”

The Smith & Wesson Model 442 will be laser engraved with an insignia to commemorate the ruling by the Supreme Court. On the right side plate of the revolver, the scale of justice is depicted with the wording “D.C. vs. Heller” across the scale. The balance is in favor of the “Heller” name with the court date of “June 26, 2008” positioned across the top. Underneath the scale, the side plate reads “Second Amendment” and “The right to keep and bear arms” in white lettering.

“We at Smith & Wesson are pleased to honor the six original plaintiffs in the case while at the same time offer to consumers a firearm that will help in the preservation and protection of the Second Amendment,” said Tom Taylor, Vice President of Marketing for Smith & Wesson. “The Second Amendment Foundation has worked diligently on the Heller case along with several other cases in the last two decades by promoting legal scholarship. Their contributions have helped to dramatically change the legal landscape and we are honored to partner with them on this project.”

Jeff has more including this link to the Boston Herald where gun bigot John Rosenthal is quoted in an article. So I left the following comment with the article:

Would the Boston Herald quote the KKK if there were some similar celebratory event occurring because of a civil rights Supreme Court victory for blacks? If not, then why quote John Rosenthal in this article?

The only conclusion I can come up with is that the Boston Herald has sympathy for the position of those that would deny people a specific enumerated civil right.

# Friday, July 18, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, July 18, 2008 2:26:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Fun | Politics )

With the Heller decision we successfully landed on the beach and are now advancing.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death reports on the latest victory in Morton Grove Illinois where they surrendered without firing a shot.

# Tuesday, July 15, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:33:54 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

I had said before that even with the Heller win the gun bigots will scream and yell, and refuse to obey the law as long as they can. They are doing just that:

The proposal, which maintains some of the city's strict gun ownership rules and adds more regulations, was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates threatening more legal action.

Handguns will still be banned, except for self-defense in the home, city officials said at a noon news conference. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles are still prohibited.

Keep in mind that their definition of a "machine gun" is any gun that holds 12 or more rounds.

And the difference between what was declared unconstitutional and what they are proposing is minimal. Imagine if some Jim Crow law was declared unconstitutional and the bigot revised their laws in a similar manner:

Police will register one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law, city officials said. A six-month amnesty period will be set up during which residents can register guns already in their possession.

...

"We have crafted what I believe to be a model for the nation in terms of complying with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision and at the same time protecting our citizens," interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said.

...

The new legislation also modifies existing law to clarify that firearms must be stored unloaded and either disassembled or secured with a trigger lock, gun safe or similar device, officials said. There would be an exception for guns in the home that are being used against the "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

...

D.C. residents who want to register handguns must complete an application from MPD's firearms registration section, pass a written firearms test and provide photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision. They also will be fingerprinted

A model for the nation?

I think the Supreme Court should issue varmint licenses and put a bounty on these bigots heads. That should be the model for the nation.

# Tuesday, July 01, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:58:48 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Via Sebastian we find out the deprivation of civil rights under the color of law angle is being used in the San Fransisco lawsuit.

I would rather the Federal Marshals showed up and arrested a bunch of them but I’m still smiling. It’s a step in the right direction.

# Friday, June 27, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, June 27, 2008 1:25:11 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Some are calling the Heller ruling a slippery slope. And the lawsuits being filed (and here) might be used as evidence for that claim.

I don't see it quite that way. It's more as I told Sean last night in IM:

It's like we have landed on Normandy, held, and advanced a couple miles with materials, men, and supplies pouring in behind us.

It's going to be a very long and difficult fight. Every challenge to their bigoted beliefs will be a rallying cry for them. They will scream and yell, and refuse to obey the law of the land as long as they can. It will be little different than when blacks were declared equal citizens and they were still stopped for driving while black, jailed, beaten, and even convicted in kangaroo courts on phony charges. It won't be until we start convicting the bigots on 18 USC 241 and 242 (the rough equivalent of the Nuremberg trials in my Normandy analogy) will they start to back off.

BTW: A little birdie told me there will be more lawsuits announced on Monday. This is going to be very broad front war. We outnumber them and can out supply them. We can exhaust their resources, diminish their ability to put up effective resistance, and sap their will to fight. Some will even surrender without putting up a fight.

I'm reminded of the words of Charles Schumer:

We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!

U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer
November 30, 1993
NBC Nightly News

Eat them Chucky!

By: Joe Huffman Friday, June 27, 2008 8:52:28 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.
[It sounds to me like D.C. just became a shall issue politicial entity. That's overstating things just a little but not by much.--Joe]

# Thursday, June 26, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:00:08 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

The ink isn't dry on the Heller decision and we have already attacked the bigots in Chicago.

I was worried when I first heard of it. I was worried it was someone that didn't know what they were doing and they would mess it up. The Second Amendment Foundation is involved which helped ease my worry some. Reading the entire complaint I broke out into a big smile. I can hear Alan Gottlieb's mischievous voice and carefully calculated plan coming through. Then at the very end I saw the attorney--Alan Gura.

As Sean just told me in IM, "Yeah, baby! Sleep well, Mayor Daley".

But that's not all! The NRA is on the attack in California as well and perhaps New York. There should not be any rest for the wicked.

This is going to be great for the election in November too. It will have a very strong component of the gun rights issues. And I think we can get out the votes better than the other side can. Plus with the Heller decision on our side with Obama flip-flopping it's going to look bad for him.

# Saturday, May 24, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, May 24, 2008 1:16:29 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

I would prefer the Feds ended up in jail and reimbursing Red's for all expenses but I can't complain a whole lot if this goes down as described:

An Idaho gun shop that went to federal court to keep the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from stripping it of its gun license has reached a tentative settlement with the government.

Attorneys on both sides told U.S. District Court Judge Mikel H. Williams on Wednesday that they had likely agreed on how to end the case.

Mark Geston, an attorney representing Terry and Ryan Horsley of Red's Trading Post, said he could not yet release details, but said the proposal would allow the Twin Falls gun shop to continue operating.

"I think everybody's reached a cooperative and constructive agreement," Geston said Thursday. "The judge said to have it finalized in 10 days and we'll just do our best to do that. The agreement allows Red's Trading Post to continue as a gun shop in Twin Falls."

I tried to check out Ryan's blog but Blogger reports:

Sorry, the blog at redstradingpost.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

This is entirely speculation on my part but my guess is pulling the blog down is part of the settlement. Stepping even further into baseless speculation one could say it's a sad day when you have to give up your 1st Amendment rights to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

# Friday, May 02, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, May 02, 2008 8:56:13 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Legal theatrics that deflect attention from the failure of Bloomberg’s administration to prevent crime while pursuing an agenda of victim disarmament are all flash and no substance and the people know it. Judging from today’s appeals court ruling, so do the courts.

Alan Gottlieb
April 30, 2008
SAF CHEERS FEDERAL COURT REJECTION OF BLOOMBERG LAWSUIT
[I'm frequently told it is because of a personality "defect" that I expect people to obey the law instead of openly disobey. Even though the 2nd and 10th Amendment are so blatantly violated that you would think I would get a clue and not have those expectations of our public servants. Still occasionally those servants who believe themselves to be masters get their wrists slapped and that is a good thing. Not as good as being sent to prison for violation of 18 USC 242 as they should be but it is better than letting them get away with it entirely as is usually the case.--Joe]

# Thursday, May 01, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:16:16 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Sex )

Via Scott K. we have this research confirming Dr. Joe's cure for everything:

Researchers from the Cancer Council of Victoria found that men who masturbated more than five times each week were one-third less likely to develop the cancer.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:58:12 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

Ignoring the fact that no where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow for the Federal government to do this it's just plain stupid even if it was allowed:

President Bush called on Congress Thursday to approve $770 million to help alleviate dramatically escalating food prices that threaten widespread hunger and increasing social unrest around the world.

In a surprise mid-afternoon appearance at the White House, Bush announced he is asking lawmakers to approve the additional funds for global food aid and development programs. The money is being included in a broader $70 billion Iraq war funding measure for 2009 that the White House sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday.

If it were the case that it was some sort of rare natural disaster at a personal or business, not governmental, level I could see accepting promissory notes in exchange for food or even making gifts of food. The goodwill generated might prove worthwhile. But to feed those that can no longer afford to feed themselves and have no realistic hope of improving their economic situation will only increase the suffering.

A short story will illustrate. The essence is true but I forget the details.

A few years ago a group (I think it was a state wildlife department) decided to feed a small herd of hungry deer searching for food in the snow. There were only a few of them--perhaps 20 or 30. Nearly all the deer made it through the winter when perhaps a five or ten of them would have died had they not been given assistance.

The next winter, at the same location they again fed the deer but this time there were 40 or 50. The wintering area could only support perhaps 15 or 20 deer. If they didn't feed them again then perhaps 20 or 30 would die. If they could not allow for five or ten to die last year then certainly the could not allow 20 or 30 to die this year! A few years later the herd was in the hundreds and not only was it prohibitively expensive to feed them the deer were destroying the plant life of both their winter and summer feeding grounds. That many hooves and mouths became, in essence, a swarm of locusts that stripped the countryside clean.

What should be done now that they realized the folly they had engaged in that first winter? They had reached the point where they would have to feed them even in the summer to avoid the deaths of hundreds and still they would destroy the plant life and endanger other animal species wherever they went. I believe some were trapped and moved to other areas but increasing the bag limits on hunting season thinned the herd down to levels where the environment could support them. Most of those deer they feared would die were killed.

So what do we do about people in some distant land that cannot afford to feed themselves? I don't know exactly but the free market, if it were allowed to work, will find solutions such that most of them will not starve. Someone who is hungry and whose family is hungry will work hard and for long hours. Cheap labor attracts the capitalists. The smart ones in those areas of food shortages, if allowed to do so, will find products and/or services they can export in exchange for food and/or money. And yes, some will die of starvation. The media will show us high resolution color pictures of dying children and say it is the fault of the greedy capitalists. But giving them food without anything in exchange will only mean death is delayed and the magnitude of the tragedy increased.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:12:34 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Quote of the Day | Sex )

When I sell liquor, it's called bootlegging; when my patrons serve it on Lake Shore Drive, its called hospitality.

Al Capone
[I'm reminded of this by the apparent suicide of the "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey. How sad that a provider of a desired service is convicted of a victimless crime and ends up dead. The real criminals are those that created and enforced such a law.--Joe]

# Tuesday, April 29, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:52:24 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Food shortages and riots are occurring around the world and even toppled Haiti's government. In the U.S. wheat flour prices are double what they were a few months ago.

This is good news for farmers in a free market but the implications are profound. Food shortages are probably more destructive to the fabric of civil society than any other single factor. When people get hungry enough they will do almost anything.

A few years ago my brother told me the world reserve of wheat would last nearly a year even if all production were stopped immediately. Things have changed (from the previous link):

...there is now less wheat in grain bins than at any time since World War II -- only about enough to supply the world for four days.

Record oil prices, collapsing housing market, and now world wide food prices and shortages. These are interesting times we live in. Will it result in increased government involvement to "solve" the problems? Or will people realize that government interference in the free market causes the problems? Remember that for decades the Soviet Union tried to increase food production under their communistic form of government and failed. And during those same decades the U.S. with a mostly capitalistic economy was trying to reduce food production so prices would increase and they too failed.

I'm reminded of Milton Friedman quote:

Governments never learn. Only people learn.

Have people learned? When they are hungry will the remember the lessons? Or will they insist the lessons be repeated at the cost of millions or perhaps even billions of lives?

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:18:26 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

I received another wheelbarrow full of cash and notification from the Apex of the Triangle of Death that our National Parks may soon turn red with blood as shoot outs between visitors...

Sorry. I think I was channeling the VPC for a moment there. Here is the real story:

The U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), through the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, today issued a proposed rule to amend regulations prohibiting firearms in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The National Rifle Association (NRA) led the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms on these federal lands.

“Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction, and we applaud efforts to amend the out-of-date regulations.”

# Friday, April 25, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, April 25, 2008 2:03:35 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

So says the Newtster, pretty well verifying what I've suspected for a long time-- that Gingrich either never really got it, or he’s just tired of the fight and wants the DC culture to be nice to him once in a while.

Others have tried to get this across, so it's old news, but I'll give it another go:  As one who upholds the founding principles of the U.S., I could not give a rat's behind if someone running for office is a black, white, Asian, Hispanic, one-armed female homosexual midget named Butch Hussein Ahmadinejad.  If that person has a track record of strenuously upholding and defending the founding principles of this country, she has my vote.  I do not care about personality (except she has to be a confident fighter or nothing's going to improve).  I do not care about looks, I don't care about slick marketing or any of that BS.  She's got my vote.  This is why Reagan won two landslides- he tried to uphold the founding principles of this country.  He understood and embraced those principles and (and this is key) he was therefore capable of articulating them.  He was far from perfect, but he did it better than any president in my lifetime, even with a solid Democrat majority in both Houses, and that's why he was popular.  It's also why he was, and is, so hated and maligned by the Left (clue: You cannot embrace America’s founding principles and expect to get along with the Left.  They will never, ever tolerate you, so if you're going to do it, expect to be attacked ruthlessly.  Ruthless attacks, however, can go both ways).

If you think it is a matter of hero worship, or cult of personality, etc., you are not capable of understanding Reagan's success.

Therefore, to say that the era of Reagan is over is to say that the era of upholding America's founding principles is over-- that we are to abandon our principles in favor of "getting along" with those who would further undermine them.  No, Little Grasshopper-- let them feel they must strive to "get along" with us in order to stay in the game.  It's a choice.

Now we have three conservative-hating, anti-Constitution leftists remaining in the presidential race-- two calling themselves Democrats and one calling himself a Republican, so this election no longer interests me.

To anyone else who wants my vote; it's really easy-- Just show the track record stated above.   For now, I will vote on state and local issues. (Yeah, I know-- I could vote for Paul, but...)

# Wednesday, April 23, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:49:36 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Places Without Guns )

9 people killed in 36 shootings over the weekend in Chicago:

Nine people were killed in 36 shootings over the weekend in Chicago, reflecting what some community leaders say is a deadly breakdown in discipline among gang members after a crackdown over the past few years put many of their leaders behind bars.

[...]

The shootings included drive-by attacks, and one case in which someone shot up a plumbing supply store with an AK-47. At least 14 of the shootings were gang-related, according to police. As for the rest, the only thing they can say for sure is that three had nothing to do with gangs.

[...]

Around the country, a number of cities, including Boston, New York, Los Angeles and Dallas, are not reporting surges in gang violence.

So, Mayor Daley, how is that handgun ban working out for you?

You would think the lessons of alcohol prohibition would not have to be retaught for recreation drug and gun prohibition. But for some reason that isn't the case and Chicago appears to be the natural epicenter of demonstrating this lesson. What seems so odd to me is that it is taking so much longer to learn the lesson this time. I guess people in Chicago are just slow learners.

# Tuesday, April 22, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:00:06 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Blog stuff | Boomershoot | Crap for brains | Current News )

Wrong search terms, wrong location, on the wrong website, with a webmaster that watches his log files. I'm filling out the police report now.

Greensboro is just 90 miles from Chesterfield (have you sees the news lately?):

Domain Name   (Unknown) 
IP Address   216.79.193.# (BellSouth.net)
ISP   BellSouth.net
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  North Carolina
City  :  Greensboro
Lat/Long  :  36.0844, -79.8209 (Map)
Distance  :  2,038 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  16 bits
Time of Visit   Apr 22 2008 10:34:38 am
Last Page View   Apr 22 2008 10:34:53 am
Visit Length   15 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...w to bomb a building
Search Engine google.com
Search Words how to bomb a building
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm...ombBuildingHelp.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm...ombBuildingHelp.aspx
Out Click   http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=how to make a small bomb
http://www.google.co...to make a small bomb
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time   Apr 22 2008 1:34:38 pm
Visit Number   288,609

# Tuesday, April 15, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:46:11 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

It's a start. Now she should get the Feds to arrest the city council and mayor on charges of violating 18 USC 241 and/or 242:

Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham says the city's newly enacted gun control laws are unconstitutional.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:15:29 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights )

Chris Cox of the NRA has this to say:

“Today’s announcement by New York City (NYC) Mayor Mike Bloomberg comes as no surprise to National Rifle Association (NRA) members across the country. None of these joint Wal-Mart/Mayor Bloomberg initiatives will lower crime, because they ignore the real cause of crime -- criminals.

Mayor Bloomberg has long confused his NYC mayoral podium for a national bully pulpit from which he feels entitled to push his personal gun control agenda outside NYC. Now, instead of trying to impose his philosophy on other cities and states, Mike Bloomberg has set his sights on our country’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Bloomberg proves his disdain for individual firearm ownership, and his assertion that only the privileged should own a firearm and should have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones.

NRA will continue to oppose any scheme that puts burdens on law-abiding Americans and not on criminals.”

Sebastian is pretty pissed but counsels restraint when writing your letters to corporate headquarters.

Here is what really got to me:

Creating a record and alert system to record when a gun sold at Wal-Mart is later used in a crime. If the purchaser of that gun later tries to buy another gun at Wal-Mart, the system would alert the sales clerk of the prior buy and could refuse to make the sale.

Retaining the recorded images of gun sales in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation.

Have they ever heard of "due process"? The RKBA is about to be declared, by the highest court in the land, as an individual right guaranteed to not be infringed. And yet if I bought a gun at Wal-Mart and someone stole that gun from me and used it in a crime Wal-Mart would hold that against me if I tried to buy another gun. Why stop there? Why not do the same for knives and baseball bats?

How about flashlights? I'm sure burglars need flashlights when they are sneaking around someone's house in the middle of the night. What if Bloomberg put pressure on Wal-Mart to keep flashlights out of the wrong hands? Would Wal-Mart cave to him about that? Or would they offer to insert their finest four D-cell flashlight someplace where it would help him find his way out of his cranial rectum inversion problem?

What would happen if some KKK member in political power put pressure on Wal-Mart to "retain the recorded images" of blacks/Jews/Gays that made purchases "in case law enforcement wants to view them later as part of an investigation"? This is no different. Guns are just as legal to sell and own as claw hammers, baseball bats, and kitchen knives. For Wal-Mart to single out gun buyers as a special class of people worthy of extra scrutiny and suspicion is deplorable. They are supporting the oppressors of essential freedoms and should be treated the same as those that would collaborate with the KKK.

Wal-Mart management would do well to remember K-MART.

# Saturday, April 12, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:59:42 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The city is earning the nickname ‘Killadelphia’ not because of state preemption but because the mayor and city council think punishing law-abiding gun owners will somehow cause criminals to stop killing one another. Does he seriously think limiting legal handgun sales to one a month will prevent drive-by shootings by recidivist gang bangers? Can he honestly believe that penalizing someone for not immediately reporting a stolen firearm will prevent the thief from selling that gun to someone else who uses it in a crime? Where does he get the notion that restricting the rights of honest citizens is going to fix the broken court system that repeatedly returns these thugs to the streets?

None of these measures has worked anywhere else they've been tried. So what makes Nutter think he can perform a miracle now, especially in defiance of state law? Nutter is nuts, and so are the council members who copied these ideas out of the extremist gun control playbook for his rubber stamp signature.

Alan Gottlieb
Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.
April 11, 2008
SAF BLASTS ‘KILLADELPHIA’ MAYOR, COUNCIL OVER MEASURES DEFYING STATE LAW
[IMHO this should be immediately settled in the court system. Federal Prosecutors should have the mayor and all the city council members who voted for this arrested and charged with violation of 18 USC 242.--Joe]

# Sunday, April 06, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:09:17 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

It is evil, and we must defeat it.

Charlton Heston
1997
This quote was used in the "No on I-676" campaign. Initiative 676 was a gun registration and mandated training scheme.
[Heston died yesterday.

Yes, he was an actor but I don't pay much attention to actors. What I remember him for was his contribution to the rights of gun owners.

During the "No on I-676" campaign Heston and others from the NRA showed up and gave speeches all around the state. The Citizen Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms invested a lot of time and money into as well. And of course I and thousands of other gun owners in Washington state spent a lot of time and money working on this. We ended up sending it down in flames (71%-29%) and Heston probably did as much or more than almost anyone else to make that happen. It was such an overwhelming defeat the anti-gun bigots in Washington state (Washington Ceasefire) has not tried an initiative since then and even the legislature has been somewhat timid on guns since then.

I didn't meet Heston. I did meet and talked to Tanya Metaksa for quite a while on election night. I was probably in Idaho the weekend when Heston did his thing in the Seattle area. But I did buy the t-shirt (see below).--Joe]

# Friday, March 28, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, March 28, 2008 1:16:35 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot | Crap for brains | Current News | Politics )

Seattle and surrounding areas in the Puget Sound are now getting heavy snow. Visibility is only a few blocks as I look out the window of our building here in Redmond.

I'm fairly certain Al Gore would agree with me, and I know Phil does. It's all because of man caused global warming climate change.

Update: The storm forecast for the Boomershoot site:

OROFINO/GRANGEVILLE REGION-LOWER HELLS CANYON/SALMON RIVER REGION-

132 PM PDT FRI MAR 28 2008

...SNOW ADVISORY IN EFFECT FROM 5 PM THIS AFTERNOON TO 5 AM PDT SATURDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MISSOULA HAS ISSUED A SNOW ADVISORY...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 5 PM THIS AFTERNOON TO 5 AM PDT SATURDAY.

2 TO 5 INCHES OF SNOW ARE EXPECTED FROM LATE THIS AFTERNOON THROUGH SATURDAY MORNING AS A COLD FRONT PASSES THROUGH THE AREA TONIGHT. QUICK BURSTS OF MODERATE TO HEAVY SNOWFALL WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE FRONTAL PASSAGE.

# Friday, March 21, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, March 21, 2008 9:47:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

I met Alan Korwin at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in 1999 and 2000. I was very impressed both times.

Read what more on what he has to say about the Heller case.

# Thursday, March 20, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:40:12 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

Throughout the Heller case I think most hard core gun rights activists have been thinking "Will this help or hurt machine guns? Even if the Supreme Court slaps D.C. down on handguns, rifles, and shotguns will they create a rule or test that slams the door on machine guns becoming commonly available?"

I've been, behind the scenes, asking people not to even talk about machine guns in the context of Heller. My thought was that if machine guns are ignored in the Heller decision, then if we do things right after a Heller win we can get some machine gun relief eventually. Obviously it came up in a big way during the oral arguments. Some people have been critical of Gura for "throwing machine guns under the bus" during the oral arguments. I am not one of them. I viewed it as unfortunate collateral damage. We needed to bomb the crap out of D.C. and they were holding machine guns as hostages. It was more important to destroy D.C. now than to try and figure out a way to get the machine guns to safety. We might still be able to resurrect machine guns, they aren't really dead, just on life support.

Now, via Uncle, I find Gura responds. I agree with him.

# Wednesday, March 19, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:09:40 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

What if DC citizens get to exercise their right to keep a functional, loaded firearm in the home for self defense, and the crime rate drops?  What if at some point DC gets legal concealed carry, and crime rates drop even more?

Won't the antis just hate that?

Yes, I think it is reasonable to assume they would see that as a defeat and absolutely hate it (it's exactly how they viewed all other defeats, where crime has dropped after a new concealed carry shall-issue law) which points to the utter depravity of these people, and the lie they've been telling us when they claim that what they're doing is about "safety".

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:22:19 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

I like the one from SAF. A short excerpt:

“An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.”

The NRA-ILA release looks like it was written the day before. They can do better.

Nothing from GOA.

Update: The NRA did get in the news with some strong statements.

# Tuesday, March 18, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:48:31 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

I have lots to say but a bunch of Boomershoot stuff to get done has a higher priority for me.

In the meantime; Alan is reassuring:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end

DATELINE: Washington, D.C. 3/18/08

Recovering from the Whirlwind of the Day

Heller Case Goes Better Than Expected

by Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases


The bottom line is, I think we’re going to be OK.

When Justice Kennedy flat out said he believes in an individual right  under the Second Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the High  Court, but you could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights  experts ever assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh of  relief -- we had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to arms.
 
The transcript will be a key for analysis going forward until June,  when the decision is expected, and I’m working without the benefit of that  at the moment. Digesting the fleeting and immensely complex speech  that took place for one hour and thirty-eight minutes a few hours ago,  it’s hard to see how any line of thought could be strung together to  support the idea that the D.C. total ban on operable firearms at home can be  seen as reasonable regulation, even though Mr. Dellinger, the city’s  attorney, tried to suggest it was. He was shot down on this repeatedly, found no quarter from any of the Justices, though several found room to move on what amounts to reasonable restrictions.

And it is easy to see, from the non-stop rapid-fire comments and questions of eight of the Justices (Thomas asked nothing, extending his legendary running silence), how even the most permissive standard of review imaginable for gun-ban laws, could tolerate the District’s level of  intolerance toward some sort of right to keep and bear arms.

That would give the pro-rights side what it so sorely wants – an admission that the Second Amendment protects something for “the people,” and the rest of that pie can be baked later.

Dellinger tried to suggest that rifles, shotguns and handguns had different usefulness, actually implying rifles are better for self defense in an urban home, because handguns were so inherently bad or dangerous that cities had a legitimate interest in banning them, but the Court  wasn’t buying it, and noting that D.C.’s ban banned everything.

Packed into that short rabidly intense section, the Justices examined:

* Original intent, and actions and writings of the colonies at the time of adoption;

* The meanings of the words, though not to the extent some people had anticipated;

* Separability of the terms keep and bear, whether they represented one right or two, how one could exist without the other, if they had civilian meanings or military ones, if you are “bearing” arms to go hunting  and more;

* The scope of the right covered, and whether personal or military  protections stood alone, dependent or had preference over each other;

* The “operative” and and preamble clause, and their relationship,  meaningfulness, and interactivity with each other;

* The types of weapons that might be covered by the term “arms,”
 accepting the idea that some weapons fall outside a sense of militia arms,  like “plastic guns” (that’s what they were called) that could escape  airport metal detection, or “rocket launchers” (actually a commonly used  modern militia arm in some countries experiencing insurgencies, a point  that did not come up), and especially machine guns, a repeated point  which the Justices did not resolve, especially since it has become the  standard issue firearm for our modern armed forces and confused the Miller  doctrine of commonly used arms;

* The rise and meaning of strict scrutiny, a doctrine that evolved  around the First Amendment and had no actual root in the Constitution, and  whose actual definition was fluid and with little consensus.

 

Scalia asked if permissible limits could restrict you to one gun, or  only a few guns, or if a collector couldn’t complete a set like a stamp  collector because of a quantity restriction, and then launched into a  demonstration of his familiarity with firearms by suggesting a need to  have a turkey gun, and a duck gun, and a thirty-ought-six, and a .270,  which sent Thomas into a fit of off-mic laughter that other observers  missed because they were focused on Scalia;

Noting that Massachusetts in colonial times regulated the storage of  gunpowder (it had to be kept upstairs as a fire precaution), Breyer asked  if there isn’t a lineage to permissible restrictions, and the Court  generally agreed. The point of contention, and it would not go away, was  where that line was drawn, and again and again the D.C. absolute ban  was found violative in its absoluteness. The decision to test the  protection of 2A against this law in particular was a brilliant stratagem.

Dellinger either deliberately misled the Court, or didn’t understand  the D.C. ban law (as hard to believe as that is, and it could come back  to bite him), because, in trying to make it appear less odious than it  was, he:

* Suggested D.C. would carve out an exception for an operable gun if it  were used in self defense -- which the law flatly does not abide (and  a point thoroughly undercut by Heller’s attorney Alan Gura, who pointed  out the District had such an opportunity twice and did not do so, and  in fact did the opposite);

* For use in self defense, a gun could be easily and quickly unlocked  and brought to bear, a point undercut by Chief Justice Roberts who had  to fight to get an admission that the gun had to be reloaded as well,  since the D.C. law banned loaded and unlocked arms;

* That lead to a wonderful exchange in which Dellinger said a gun can  be simply unlocked quickly -– he actually said he could do it in three  seconds, after demonstrating a poor understanding of how a lock  (available at a “hardware store” nearby) fits on a gun with or without  “bullets” in it;

* That lead to Scalia asking about turning a dial to find “3” and then  turning it the other way to find the next number;

* To which Roberts noted that, don’t you first have to turn on the  light having heard the sound of breaking glass, and then find your reading  glasses -- which got the biggest audience laugh of the day (there were  only a few other soft chuckles during the proceedings);…


OK, I recognize that this is a bit disjointed, and I’m working on an  unfamiliar machine, at the end of a grueling endurance test that involved  outrageous hours, little sleep, lousy diet, dire cold, miles of up and  downhill walking, and I’m getting pretty hungry. I’ll do a better job  over time, but I wanted to share some inside scoop you might not  otherwise get. Let me, before pausing for some chow (which we’ll have to go  out and find), convey some ambience.

Guests of the Court were ushered into the ground floor early on,  milling around (line waiters including my friend Bob were prepped on the  white marble steps outside). It was a who’s who inside and non-stop  on-your-toes meet and greet. John Snyder, lobbyist for CCRKBA/SAF, had read my  blog entry from last night, and introduced me to the companion on his  lobby bench… Dick Heller, of the Heller case.

A nice mild mannered guy, “I just want to be able to keep my guns.” He  said when they started this in 1994, they had no idea what they were  getting into, and in 1997 they began entertaining the idea that it could  go all the way and started raising funds. Now it had taken on a life of  its own and barely involved him. At 9:30 last night, he walked the  wait-to-get-in line and passed out cough drops. No one knew who he was. He  sat just behind me in the Courtroom. I lucked into the second row.

Directly in front of me was… Mayor Fenty, and I sat in the bright  reflected light of his pate. He turned, and in typical smiling politician  fashion extended his hand, shook mine, and said warmly, “It’s nice to see  you” as if we knew each other. Well at least, I knew him. One seat to  my right was Ann Dellinger, the city’s lawyer’s wife, who turned out to  be fascinating and a wealth of information. In a few moments, the  mayor relinquished his eat to the D.C. Chief of Police, but she didn’t turn  and say hi. Heady stuff. Everybody was a somebody.

Familiar faces were strewn about – there’s David Hardy on the other  side of the aisle, and Bob Dowlut had a front row seat. Stephen Halbrook,  one of my co-authors on Supreme Court Gun Cases had an early spot on  the Supreme Court bar-members line, and my other co-author, Dave Kopel, who  previously told me he would not be attending, turned out to be a  last-minute addition to the Respondant’s table at the head of the Courtroom.
 People who I think were on a better “tier” than I, like Joe Olson,  Clayton Cramer and others, didn’t luck into a seat and listened to  disembodied voices from the lawyers lounge outside the Courtroom.

Three calls for “sshhh” from a clerk at the front instantly dropped the  growing anticipatory cacophony to silence which then ramped up gently  until the next hiss for quiet. Three minutes to go and a call for  silence left everyone with their own thoughts until a tone sounded, the  aides signaled us to rise, God Bless This Court was spoken, and we were  underway.

By a stroke of luck, Justice Thomas was assigned the reading of a decision of a prior case, and we got to hear his baritone voice, which often remains mute throughout. New members of the Supreme Court bar were sworn in, and Justice Roberts asked Mr. Dellinger to begin, which he did promptly.

More later.

Alan.


Alan Korwin, Co-Author
Supreme Court Gun Cases
Bloomfield Press
Scottsdale, Arizona
602-996-4020
alan@gunlaws.com
http://www.gunlaws.com

Go to my site for this and all future postings, use the email signup on the home page to get direct posts, or get RSS  feeds from the blog site, http://www.PageNine.org

 


alan@gunlaws.com
Bloomfield Press, Phoenix
602-996-4020
http://www.gunlaws.com

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:21:02 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Sebastian tells us there will be live blogging from the SCOTUS Blog.

Expect the NRA to update their Heller page.

Expect Countertop to give us an early report also.

Bitter is outside the Supreme Court and feeding info to Sebastian.

Update: The SCOTUS Blog appears to be one of the best places. Here is a picture from outside:

# Monday, March 17, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Monday, March 17, 2008 10:30:04 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News )

Not that #9. Keep your mind out of the cat house (or the governors office).

Uncle says his state is #6. And in the comments Kevin says his state is number #5. So where is Idaho? We are in the top 10 at #9. But wait, Uncle and Kevin were counting from the opposite end of the scale.

Idaho, as a state, is the 9th safest state in the U.S. That is up from number 12 in 2007.

# Friday, March 14, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, March 14, 2008 10:04:15 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Sometimes there are no compromises possible. This is one of those times:

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

# Thursday, March 13, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:17:20 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Home Life )

Here is the picture the New York Times has of Spitzer's playmate:

Here is the picture found elsewhere:

I wonder why the cropping of the picture. Was it just for space or was there some other reason?


As a side note the above pictures reminds me some of Barb and I can't help but think she would have made a lot more money had she not married me when she was 21. Here is a picture of her at about age 18:

# Monday, March 10, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Monday, March 10, 2008 10:27:26 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Sex )

I keep wondering if disgraced New York Governer and anti-gun bigot Spitzer was aware of the book Mayflower Madam when he booked a room at this particular hotel:

As recently as this past Valentine's Day, Feb. 13, Spitzer, who officials say is identified in a federal complaint as "Client 9," arranged for a prostitute "Kristen" to meet him in Washington, D.C.

The woman met Client 9 at the Mayflower Hotel, room 871, "for her tryst," according to the complaint.

The book was a true story and a very good one. If he hasn't read it already maybe he'll have time while he is in prison.

# Sunday, March 02, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:33:40 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Showing questionable restraint Israel fired a few missiles recently:

Israeli aircraft fired missiles at the office of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza City, escalating an offensive aimed at halting Palestinian rocket attacks.

Israel says the attack is a message that it is now targeting the political leaders of Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza. Hamas refuses to renounce violence or recognize Israel.

Had Cuba been firing multiple rockets into Florida every day for months do you think we would have just fired a few missiles back? I can't imagine people expecting anything less than encouraging non government leaders in Cuba to find refuge with friends and relatives elsewhere while our military exterminated all the vermin and started rebuilding with the only communists allowed back on the island being members of the MSM.

Instead Israel tried to get in a rational discussion with those that are irrational:

"Nothing will prevent us from striking at the terrorist organizations responsible for rocket attacks," Mr. Olmert said. "He said that no one has the moral right to preach to Israel for exercising its legitimate right of self-defense."

Responding to the bloodshed, the internationally-backed Palestinian government in the West Bank suspended peace talks with Israel.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas described the Israeli actions in Gaza as a "holocaust." Mr. Abbas has suspended Mideast peace talks in protest at Israel's military offensive against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

No, it's not a holocaust. But if they do not get the message (see the first quote above) they are inviting a demonstration of the difference between their current situation and a true holocaust.

# Friday, February 29, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 29, 2008 6:50:43 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

As you should already know:

The ATF Special Agent doing the talking in this video about Cavalry Arms is no stranger:

I've blogged about him before.

His cell phone number and email, as of last month, are 602-859-6317 and Thomas.mangan@atf.gov.

Here are some other times he has appeared in the news and what he said:

''These are, quite frankly, weapons of war,'' ATF special agent Tom Mangan said as he picked up an assault rifle and examined it. "These are military-type weapons. This is firepower you would expect to see on the battlegrounds of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Agents said Thursday they found the 42 weapons in a storage locker about 10 days ago. The guns were worth $250,000 in all: Belgian-made ''FN'' handguns, semiautomatic AK-47 rifles and other pistols. They also found four olive boxes loaded with .50-caliber bullets - ammunition that's big enough to take out an airplane.

''The type of firepower you're seeing here is on the increase,'' he said. ''You're seeing sophisticated weapons, military weapons, assault-type weapons, assault pistols, very expensive pistols. This level of fire power gives criminals options they haven't had before.''

Put him on your list of people to be charged with violation of 18 USC 242.

# Thursday, February 28, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 28, 2008 7:15:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

ATF Seizes Weapons At Gun Warehouse and the talking head says:

It's still not clear if the nature of the investigation is as serious as the evidence implies.

Except the only evidence is that the licensed gun dealer, Cavalry Arms Corporation, had guns in a warehouse which the ATF put out on tables to show the media.

The serious part of the evidence is the ATF and the media cooperated to demonize gun possession.

# Wednesday, February 27, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:37:04 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Technology )

First, my opinions are not those of my employer.

Second, I point you to the article titled EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn.

Third, I bring your attention to a comment about the fine following the article:

Microsoft MUST be brought to account for its' practice of dominating by exclusion. If the company, Microsoft, continues to practice in a manner which refuses to be competitive, then it should be excluded from the EU. Nicholas Carton, USA
Nicholas Carton, Saint Louis, Missouri USA

Fourth, my opinion:

If people only knew how much time and effort MS spends groveling and trying to please these socialist jerks...

I am sometimes (and this is one of those times) of the opinion MS should tell the EU, "Then do without any of our products. Not only will your languages not be supported but all future versions of our software will not run without having at least intermittent Internet access and will not run if said Internet path traverses any part of an EU country."

But that's an emotional response without looking at the cost/benefit numbers. Rational analysis will require looking out for the stockholders best interests on a number of fronts. I know such a response would allow competitors access to a cash cow as well as cutting off MS income from this source. I just can't help wondering at what point the EU will push MS too far and the numbers no longer add up to continue trying to please the greedy socialists.

I wish MS were in a position to demonstrate to the EU they need MS more than MS needs them and had the courage to follow through on a very forceful demonstration of that.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:39:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Headline: Court to address: Do you have a legal right to own a gun?

As far as media coverage goes it's excellent. They got the Miller decision mostly wrong but otherwise they did very well with it. This is very good to see. Most MSM coverage of guns is more opinion than news coverage.

# Friday, February 22, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 22, 2008 10:14:34 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Home Life )

This restriction has directly impacted me for years. Barb and I love visiting National Parks. If we get this through then our visits will be far less stressful:

Bush Administration to Propose New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks

Reading the fine print what this really means is that a major offensive has been opened in our battle against the anti-gun bigots on one front. We probably will win but we still have work to do. This is just a commitment to go through the process, including public input, to change the policy. Barb and I have a rule regarding good news. We'll believe it when "the check clears the bank".

Thanks go to former Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne (currently Secretary of Interior), Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), and NRA-ILA.

# Thursday, February 14, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:58:58 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Places Without Guns )

When will they ever learn that gun free zones weren't, aren't, and can't be? How many people must die before they let the victims fight back? It happened again:

A gunman killed five students and wounded 16 others in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall on Thursday afternoon in DeKalb before killing himself, according to university and police officials.

# Sunday, February 10, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:53:21 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot | Current News | Freedom )

I've long ranted about the futility of restricting explosive materials. Most of the time I'm a little circumspect on the details but after this massive explosion some news sources aren't so circumspect:

Sugar dust is just one of a variety of forms of dust that can, under the right circumstances, combust and cause an explosion.

Explosions are not uncommon in places like grain silos, but have been known to happen in sugar factories in the U.S. and abroad, much like the one in Georgia Thursday.

The dust itself can be created in a variety of ways during the refining process.

Anything from sparks from machinery to a lit cigarette could have ignited the blaze.

The dust also has to have a certain concentration to support combustion fast enough to maintain the explosion.

Those are 100 foot high silos in the picture below.

Lets see them restrict access to sugar! It's for the children...

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:44:13 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Jeff Cooper is gone and now so is Chapman.

[Heavy sigh]

# Friday, February 08, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 08, 2008 12:03:31 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Quote of the Day )

The only way that I can put into context that you might understand is that my brother went to war tonight with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life. He has spoke on it as best he could in the courts, and they denied all rights to the access of protection and he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue.

Gerald Thornton
Six Dead In Missouri City Council Shooting
[Also of interest is this from the NYT:

In an interview with a local television station, Mr. Thornton’s mother said that Kirkwood officials had kept after her son, “giving him tickets for everything they could.”

I'm not sure of the source and validity but one commenter said the shooter had $18,000 in parking tickets in the previous three years. My previous post may be applicable here.--Joe]

# Tuesday, January 29, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:04:27 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Technology )

We've all head the news about the satellite that's going to make reentry some day soon.  They say it's a spy satellite and that it contains hazardous materials.  I don't know what that tells most people, but to me, even the term "spy satellite" says, "nuclear power on board".  So, is that uranium or plutonium?  I guess it would have been too much trouble to go and either refuel the bird's rockets, or at least remove the fissionable material?

 

# Saturday, January 19, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:54:19 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

In the past there has been some criticism of the NRA's response to the current administration's brief in the Heller case. Some thought it was a bit tepid. The latest alerts from the Apex of the Triangle of Death will quiet most critics. Here are some of the points they make:

This post was brought to you by a wheelbarrow full of cash from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.

# Friday, January 18, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Friday, January 18, 2008 9:06:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Lots of people are having fun with this (video):

Of course nearly everyone is thinking this is a good thing. So maybe we should make this sort of thing more likely to happen. Urge your legislative critters to pass holster control instead of gun control laws. Only the good guys should have holsters.

Of course expect the anti-gun people to put this accidental shooting in the "bad thing" column.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, January 18, 2008 8:13:56 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Home Life )

In high school and college I played a LOT of chess. I still have the records of hundreds of games I played and dozens of books and magazines. I had thought maybe my children would be interested in chess but kids seem to develop interests in things other than what their parents are interested in.

In any case I was a big into chess before Bobby Fischer became the first American world chess champion. Fischer winning the championship made chess in the U.S. popular for a while. And I remember walking into the high school cafeteria on the first day of school in the fall of '72 shortly after he had won and my friend Lance Jones yelling across the room, "Yea Fischer!".

In later years after I was most of the way through college my electrical engineering classes started sucking up the desire for challenging intellectual stimulation and I mostly dropped out of the chess scene.

Fischer made the news again a few years ago and I wrote about him then. The news about him made me sad and now that he is dead at the age of 64 it's like another milestone in my life. A childhood hero is gone.

# Tuesday, January 15, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:11:12 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

It's probably because I'm "different" but Sebastian's statement here just strikes me as odd:

The gun vote was a primary driver for making sure Bush won the White House in 2000 and 2004, and the NRA endorsements he received played a big role on that. The Heller case is arguably the most important struggle gun owners have ever faced, and I don’t think its unreasonable to demand something greater than lukewarm support from The Administration on this matter.

The first thought that crosses my mind is, "Did someone think we got a receipt when we gave Bush our votes?" In other words, are people irritated because Bush was "paid off" and didn't stay paid off? But that is probably just because I think differently than most.

Bush said, essentially from day one, that he would sign the AWB if it came to his desk. Yet gun owners voted for him because he was better (much better) than the viable alternatives. So what should we expect? He didn't say he was our lover, he just said he wasn't our enemy.

I'm not happy with the DOJ brief, but I can't say that I'm at all that surprised or even particularly unhappy with it. It's better than the alternative had Gore or Kerry been elected.

And via local (Troy, Idaho) IPSC/Steel shooter Mike Brown is a lawyer and offered these thoughts on the DOJ brief:

The Solicitor General here is defending the interests of his client (the US Government). While the brief explicitly reaffirms that the Justice Department's position is that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right they are apparently concerned that the DC circuit opinion establishes a two pronged "categorical" test for whether a weapon is protected:

  1. if it bears a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and
  2. is "of the kind in common use at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted.

Their fear is that if the Supreme Court adopts this test then ALL federal gun control could be struck down especially where it concerns weapons that are especially suitable for militia service (i.e. full auto M4 carbine). The Solicitor General is arguing for a more wisy washy standard to be applied so that "reasonable" regulation of firearms are allowed.

As a sidebar on this topic: the Oregon Supreme Court adopted the same kind of standard for determining which weapons are protected under their state constitution- that is why switchblades are legal in OR: they are the "modern analogue" of swords which were in common use at the time of the adoption of the state constitution.

# Saturday, January 12, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, January 12, 2008 11:15:34 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

It is also significant that the Second Amendment refers, not to “a right of the people,” but to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The Framers’ use of the definite article indicates that the Amendment was intended to secure a pre-existing right rather than to create a new one.

[...]

The Court should affirm that the Second Amendment, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights, secures an individual right, and should clarify that the right is subject to the more flexible standard of review described above. If the Court takes those foundational steps, the better course would be to remand.

Stephen R. Rubenstein
January 2008
Chief Counsel Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20226-0001
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae
[This is from a brief filed in favor of D.C. in the Heller case. If I read it correctly they are concerned that the ATF could be put out of a job because they might no longer be able to regulated the manufacture and sale of firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. Hence, they want to be left with some power to regulate firearms. I'm not a friend of the ATF (individuals at the ATF is something different) but D.C. surely cannot consider them much of a friend either.--Joe

# Wednesday, January 09, 2008
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:30:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

And a party it should be!

The anti-gun bigots in San Francisco got their asses handed to them with Proposition H. Sebastian and Uncle have already posted on it. The NRA has their news release here and SAF has their's here.

The Brady Bunch, the VPC, and the "Gun Guys" are all strangely quiet. Maybe someone forgot to invite them to the celebration.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:50:07 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

[Mostly this is a rant because I'm pissed. I don't particularly blame the NRA-ILA or any other pro-gun group. Political reality is significantly different from gut response. The following is 95% emotion and its to just get it out of my system.]

The instant Bush signed the NICS Improvement Bill into law we get this crap:

President George W. Bush signed the nation's first new gun-control legislation in 14 years Tuesday to help keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy immediately announced she would take her crusade to the next step.

This time, she and others want to close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows some dealers to sell firearms without background checks.

[...]

Schumer agreed that the next item on the gun-control agenda would be to require background checks in every gun sale, but predicted that would be harder to get passed because of opposition by the National Rifle Association. The law signed Tuesday, in contrast, had NRA support.

And this from Paul Helmke:

Many of us in the gun violence prevention movement are excited about the year ahead.

America is turning a corner on the gun issue, because the people are finally being heard.

Today, President Bush signed into law the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 – what some have called “the first major new gun control bill in more than a decade.”

[...]

Brady background checks have stopped an estimated 1.4 million people from legally buying guns since 1994, but background checks are only as good as the records in the system.

[...]

Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from common-sense gun laws that will reduce the toll of 30,000 gun deaths every year in this country.

  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from preventing suspected terrorists from walking out of a gun store or a gun show fully armed.
  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from getting a background check for every single gun purchase they make, including at gun shows (this is closing the gun show loophole).
  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from strengthening Brady background checks to make sure that “prohibited purchasers” like felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and domestic abusers are denied guns at the point of sale.
  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from reporting lost or stolen guns to the police in a timely manner.
  • Law-abiding Americans (who aren’t in the legal gun business) have nothing to fear from being prevented from buying guns in bulk purchases.
  • Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from keeping military-style assault weapons out of most civilian hands, reserving them for military and law enforcement use only.

If you "compromise" with the Devil don't be surprised if you get burned.

Sean's words need to be repeated here:

What typically gets lost, and lost deliberately, is the meaning of the word 'compromise'. In a compromise, both sides gain or lose bargaining points in a mutually acceptable, if not optimal fashion.  In the gun control debate, the meaning of compromise is twisted to, "Okay, we'll only take half your guns, this time." The pro-RKBA folks are never even offered anything in return. This is a variation of the slippery slope that I call "Zeno's Paradox of Lost Rights". As with the paradox of motion, the remaining scope of the Second Amendment is progressively halved, and halved again. The illusion is that we never lose the right, because there is always the remaining half. The Theory of Limits suggests otherwise.

Sean Flynn
6/15/98

If McCarthy, Schumer, and their ilk were asking me to compromise my initial position would be that they get the death penalty under 18 USC 242. The only people that aren't allowed to own weapons are those that are locked up or are unable feed themselves. If they are safe enough to be allowed on the streets with a 2000 pound car, a full tank of gasoline and a book of matches then they are safe enough to be allowed a M60, a M60 Patton, or, with suitable storage facilities, TNWs. And finally the 2nd Amendment guarantees the RKBA and since a right someone can't afford to exercise, just like a right to an attorney, isn't really worth anything the Federal Government should subsidize arms for those that want them but cannot afford them.

We start our negotiations there.

And now that I'm got that out of the way let's talk about those words from Helmke:

So, 1.4 million people were stopped from legally purchasing firearms. Since there are about 200 million adults in the country and only about 40% own firearms that must mean that about one out of every 60 people that tried to by a firearm were legally prohibited. And that's not good enough for him. When will it be good enough? One out of 20? One out of 10? No. We know what the real number he is looking for, one out one.

Those "30,000 gun deaths" include justified, even praiseworthy, shootings by police and private citizens. Either Helmke is deliberately misleading or he thinks the life of a thug who put an innocent life in immediate jeopardy of death or permanent injury is just as valuable as the innocent life. In either case he is not to be trusted.

If suspected terrorists are to be prevented from owning guns, the list of suspected terrorists is created without due process as currently is the case, then President Hillary could declare all NRA members, or all even private citizens, suspected terrorists and we all are screwed. Helmke is an enemy of the U.S. Constitution if he supports the disemboweling of both the 2nd and the 4th Amendments.

As for the other bullet items, except for the last item, those can only be implemented if you have a gun registration in place. And we all know that registration always leads to confiscation within at most a few decades.

As for the last bullet item, Helmke has demonstrated he can't be trusted, so Μολὼν λαβέ.

And because this is what I was listening to while writing this and I think it fits Schumer, McCarthy, and Helmke well; Runnin' With the Devil by Van Halen:

I live my life like there's no tomorrow
And all I've got I had to steal
Least I don't need to beg or borrow
Yes I'm living at a pace that kills
Runnin' with the devil
Runnin' with the devil
I found the simple life ain't so simple
When I jumped out on that road
I got no love, no love you'd call real
Ain't got nobody waiting at home
Runnin' with the devil
Runnin' with the devil

# Tuesday, January 08, 2008
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:15:49 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

I was reminded of this by today's QOTD.

Banning light bulbs isn't enough, of course.  I heard mention of this today by Jason Lewis on the radio, and via crypton.  There is now talk of requiring remotely (web) controlled thermostats in private homes.  The idea is that a utility company be able to remotely alter your thermostat setting, overriding your selected setting, to save energy, you know, for your comrades.

It will happen.  Also get ready for total use restrictions-- a family of four, for example, will not be allowed to exceed a certain KW/h, or therms, etc., monthly usage without paying large fines.  When that fails to make us all happy, safe and comfortable, as it surely will, we can expect something more severe.

We asked for this the second we decided it was OK for government to involve itself in the energy (or any other) industry.  Anyone warning of this very thing would of course have been put down as an alarmist, and so here we are.

Once the principle (of private property in this case) has been violated, the only debate possible is over the degree of the violation.  There is no principled stand to be taken in favor of any particular degree of violation of a human right.  But this has all been said before.

# Monday, December 31, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, December 31, 2007 5:50:45 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Politics )

For some reason reading this made me think of present day Bush Derangement Syndrome:

Sara Jane Moore, who took a shot at President Ford in a bizarre assassination attempt just 17 days after a disciple of Charles Manson tried to kill Ford, was paroled Monday after 32 years behind bars.

Moore, 77, was released from the federal prison in Dublin, east of San Francisco, where she had been serving a life sentence, the Bureau of Prisons said.

[...]

In recent interviews, Moore said she regretted her actions, saying she was blinded by her radical political views and convinced that the government had declared war on the left.

"I was functioning, I think, purely on adrenaline and not thinking clearly. I have often said that I had put blinders on and I was only listening to what I wanted to hear," she said a year ago in an interview with KGO-TV.

[...]

Moore was born Sara Jane Kahn in Charleston, W.Va. She acted in high school plays and dreamed of being a film actress.

In the 1970s, Moore began working for People in Need, a free food program established by millionaire Randolph Hearst in exchange for the return for his daughter Patty, who was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974.

Moore soon became involved with radical leftists, ex-convicts and other members of San Francisco's counterculture.

[...]

"I was going to go down anyway," she said in a 1982 interview with the San Jose Mercury News. "If the government was going to kill me, I was going to make some kind of statement."

# Friday, December 21, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, December 21, 2007 4:14:40 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

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.

 

By: Joe Huffman Friday, December 21, 2007 9:55:20 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( A Security Theater | Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

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.

# Tuesday, December 18, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:21:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News )

Okay, so they aren't really trying to legislate the laws of physics but the stupid/sloppy/careless/whatever reporter(s) and editor(s) make it sound like they are:

Congress by a wide margin approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years Tuesday, and President Bush plans to quickly sign the legislation, accepting the mandates on the auto industry.

The energy bill, boosting mileage by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon, passed the House 314-100 and now goes to the White House, following the Senate’s approval last week.

Do you see that? All it takes to increase the fuel economy is to pass a law. It's as if they can't distinguish between a law of physics and a law of man. They would get my "crap for brains" tag just for that alone. But they continue on, apparently thinking they can somehow change the laws of economics in the same bill:

In a dramatic shift to spur increased demand for nonfossil fuels, the bill also requires a six-fold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers. And it requires new energy efficiency standards for an array of appliances, lighting and commercial and government buildings.

“This is a choice between yesterday and tomorrow” on energy policy, declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who was closely involved in crafting the legislation. “It’s groundbreaking in what it will do.”

If it changes the laws of physics and economics then Pelosi is correct. If not then she is another fascist. My bet is on a fascism outcome. And, people know it will fail and aren't being entirely quiet about it:

“What we have here is a mandatory conservation bill,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. He argued that the auto fuel efficiency requirements and the huge increase in ethanol use may not prove to be technologically or economically possible.

Although I'm opposed to our lawmakers doing this personally it's great economic news for our family. The big push and subsidies for ethanol over the last few years has pushed the price of wheat to over $10/bushel in the last few weeks (via Idaho Wheat Commission).

Even this graph doesn't give the "big picture". The price of wheat has been in the $3 to $5 range for over 30 years. That's unadjusted for inflation. A lot of the equipment my family uses on the farm is over 30 years old. The bulldozer I use for making modifications to the Boomershoot site is over 60 years old. I visited the farm last weekend and they were putting new tires on tractor which still had the original rubber on it until a week or so ago--rubber that was over 30 years old. They have been hurting for decades and now they are finally making a profit and are attempting to upgrade their equipment.

You might ask, "Why is the price of wheat, delivered to Portland Oregon doubling and tripling in price (the price for delivery in March of 2008 is over $13/bushel) when all the ethanol is made from corn in the Midwest?" It's because wheat is a substitute grain for corn in some situations. And because a lot of the Northwest farmers are planting more wheat to take advantage of the higher profits to be made the supply of lentils and peas (also grown on our farm) is going down and the prices are going up on those as well.

So when the bozos in congress attempt to challenge the laws of economics the best they can do is obscure the costs of their meddling. The costs of their actions are spread out in strange places via obscure mechanisms but eventually the consumers will pay the price, one way or another.

# Thursday, December 13, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:50:26 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Politics )

This is from a friend who lives there.  He's been a long-time marksmanship and sniper instructor for the IDF, and he does seminars in Israel and the U.S. on counterterrorism.

You just can't make up this stuff:

Friends:

 

Over 20 Kassam rockets rained down on the northern Negev.  We get only partial information.  If we received all the facts and figures, like Kassams landing around Askelon almost every single day, the government would be forced to defend the country or resign.

 

Have a good weekend.

The response from the U.S. has been to supply arms, ammunition, and training to the Palestinian government in Gaza, which ostensibly are for keeping the terrorists in check, but in fact are being promptly used against Israelis.

 

In summary; the situation in Israel is normal.

# Sunday, December 09, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:43:39 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Honestly, and as God as my witness, when I saw him shooting and as watched for a few seconds trying to figure out what he was going to do and what I should do, the thought that when through my mind was, “If I had a gun, I have a perfect shot.”

Yes, a perfect shot. I had a full side profile, I was close, and no one was visible behind him execept a wall. I had a clear shot during the second round of fire. I told this to every cop I came in contact with. The interviewer agreed.

When I realized that I had no gun, fear instantly struck me, along with anger, and severe panic.

[...]

I am very angry at the city of Omaha and the mall for their stupid laws that nearly cost me my life. The laws protected no one, and in my opinion, caused people to die.

"NW"
A witness to the Omaha Mall mass shooting
Via Joe's Crabby Shack, thanks to an email from Rob.
[People died because some anti-gun bigots didn't even try to answer Just One Question before they passed criminal rules prohibiting firearms in the mall.--Joe]

# Friday, December 07, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, December 07, 2007 11:11:45 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.

Mark Twain
[Reading all the editorials about the Omaha mall shooting reminded me of this. They never bother to consider Just One Question.--Joe]

# Tuesday, December 04, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:15:09 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

This is really good news: 

The grade-school teacher who was jailed in Sudan for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad was met at London's Heathrow Airport this morning by her son John and daughter Jessica.

Also good news is who helped her gain her freedom and come home alive:

But she was released a week early thanks to an intense British diplomatic effort led by two Muslim members of Britain's House of Lords, who met with Sudanese President Omar al Bashir.

That there were Muslims helping to bring some sanity to the situation is very encouraging. I see also there were other Muslims working toward that same goal.

# Friday, November 30, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, November 30, 2007 7:21:58 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom | Politics )

We hear it said of an ugly guy, "He has a face made for radio".

Woopie Goldberg has performed brilliantly as an actor in television and in movies.  Her personal commentary however, has been nothing you couldn't hear at the espresso and chi tea bar in any local natural foods store any day of the week.  Hence it is no surprise that her radio show is being axed.  I believe she still has a future in acting.  Therein she has talent.

There remains a significant part of society that can't seem to understand how radio is a business (the business of selling advertising) and that in business you must have something to offer that people, you know, want.

Malkin covers it too.

Hint:  If you have no respect for those who made it big in the business, you just might be on the wrong path.  "I'm gonna be just the opposite of that really, ultra successful guy" might not be the best business plan.  Success, one would think, is the best teacher.

And here's a hint just especially for those on the Left:  We've all heard your message every day for our whole lives, as long as we can remember.  You've gotten your message out, and that is your problem.  A lot of people are sick of hearing it because most of it has something to do with how wrong, greedy, stupid, evil, and endangered we are-- the air we breathe is killing us, the food we eat is killing us, oil is killing us, a shortage of oil is killing us, farming is killing us, starvation is killing us, fat is killing us, dieting is killing us, carbs are killing us, disease is killing us, antibiotics, vaccines, and the drug companies are killing us, freedom and prosperity are especially killing us, poverty is killing us, the good economy is killing us but really the economy sucks, terrorists are killing us (but it's our fault) and the war against terrorists is killing us, and everything, absolutely everything, is killing women and children, the elderly and the minorities the hardest-- and how some form of socialism (government-enforced coercion) is the answer to absolutely every problem, real or imagined.

Does that about sum it up?  Who needs to tune into a radio show to hear that when we hear it everywhere else every day?

More-of-the-same day in and day out nagging and finger pointing and blaming America and our Liberty for the world's problems isn't something a lot of people are going to pay money to have broadcast in their name.  But you don't, and won't, get it anyway.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, November 30, 2007 9:13:16 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

The teacher who let her students name a Teddy Bear Muhammad was convicted and sentenced to 15 days in jail and will be deported. At least she doesn't have to endure the whipping that was on the list of possible punishments. I thought this was pretty extreme but figured it would be a good lesson for those that think we need to "reach common ground" or some such thing with the Muslim extremists. I couldn't have imagined what a lesson this would actually be.

But it turns out the sentence Gillian Gibbons received is considered much too light for the locals. They are demanding her execution:

Thousands of protesters, many brandishing clubs and swords, took to the streets of Sudan’s capital Friday, demanding the execution of a British teacher who let her students name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, was found guilty Thursday of insulting Islam and sentenced to 15 days in jail. She was spared the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

That angered many in Khartoum, who rallied in Martyrs Square outside the presidential palace. Protesters waved sticks, knives, axes and swords.

“Kill her, kill her by firing squad!” they chanted. “No tolerance, execution!”

Here is a picture of the evil heretic. I hope she gets out alive.

To be fair, there are some Muslims who are responding appropriately:

In Britan -- where Muhammad is now the second most popular name for baby boys -- the reaction had been shock and disbelief, from both non-Muslims and Muslims.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said Sudanese authorities had  “grossly overreacted.”

“Gillian should never have been arrested, let alone charged and convicted of committing a crime,” he said.

But the Sudanese behavior invokes an opposing extreme response in me and others.

# Monday, November 26, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, November 26, 2007 10:27:23 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

We must win or else life under such a regime will not be worth living:

KHARTOUM, Sudan - A British primary school teacher has been arrested in Sudan, accused of insulting Islam's Prophet by letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad, her school said on Monday.

Colleagues of Gillian Gibbons told Reuters they feared for her safety after receiving reports that young men had already started gathering outside the Khartoum police station where the Liverpool woman was being held.

Teachers at Unity High School in central Khartoum said Gibbons, 54, made an innocent mistake and simply let her pupils choose their favorite name for the toy as part of a school project.

Police arrested Gibbons on Sunday at her home inside the school premises, said Unity director Robert Boulos, after a number of parents made a complaint to Sudan's Ministry of Education.

Boulos said she had since been charged with "blasphemy," an offense he said was punishable with up to three months in prison and a fine.

[...]

Gibbons, who joined Unity in August, asked a girl to bring in her teddy bear to help the second grade class focus, said Boulos.

The teacher then asked the class to name the toy. "They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Mohammed. Then she explained what it meant to vote and asked them to choose the name." Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad.

By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, November 26, 2007 3:35:39 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

Since things are "stable" (no change in the situation) this is not news (but the second year of on-going coverage of the Aruba rape case got tons of play last night and this morning, and the History Channel has been busy talking about Sasquatch and the Bermuda Triangle).  Why report that Muslims are burning and looting in response to an accident?

Malkin has some details.

Le Parisien reports that they burned down a Peugeot dealership, sacked a train station and shops, tore up a McDonald’s, stole the day’s receipts and attacked customers, smashed and burned cars, and are still going strong.

Don't they have a protection of gun rights in France? (I'm trying to imagine something like this happening in Idaho, going on for over a year, and I just can't do it)

Yup.  Things are normal in France, so we can concentrate on important stuff like space-alien abductions, haunted houses, Princess Diana, and the Loch Ness monster.

# Tuesday, November 20, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:25:18 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear D.C. v. Heller The Brady Bunch said:

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will be extremely significant - the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment.

On that point I think they are right. If we win we will be on the offense in a much bigger way than ever before. If we lose we will be on the defense with a handicap we have never before experienced.

The Gun Guys said:

Clearly, if laser guns that could kill someone from a thousand yards away were to come on the market (and they will), it would not be in the interest of protecting our law enforcement officials and citizens to allow such firearms to be sold to civilians. So, there is no absolute right to manufacture, sell and own any type of gun that the NRA and the gun industry claims to be a firearm protected under the Second Amendment. That is a dangerous and legally unsound notion, given that the courts have allowed gun control in the United States for as long as the laws have been in existence.

Perhaps he isn't aware of my Spud Gun which "could kill someone from a thousand yards away" and that it is nothing more than a finely tuned hunting rifle (Remington 700).

He goes on to say:

It should be noted that within the gun control movement there was vigorous debate about whether or not to appeal the D.C. ruling. This is because, as it stands now, the striking down of the D.C. law is only applicable within the D.C. circuit.

The decision that the Supreme Court will render will affect the entire country – and it may be that there is a desire to stir up a political hornet’s nest on the issue during an election year, hoping that it will favor the Republicans.

I said back in March that if they were smart they would not appeal. But the roller coaster has just left the loading area and we are all going on an exciting ride with a good probability that someone is going to get thrown out before it stops next spring. The election year angle just adds more twists and turns (opportunities and risks).

Then the VPC says the D.C. ban is saving lives because D.C. has fewer suicides. It could be the numbers are bogus. For example if someone wanted to commit suicide they might just find a drug dealer and try to take his product from him. It would be ruled a murder and not a suicide. Still, I find this amusing. The VPC wants to protect us from ourselves but we are not allowed to protect ourselves from others. The first thing that comes to mind is--I wonder if they practice what they preach. If someone were in the middle of trying to commit suicide would they insist they stop then offer to do it for them because that would be more consistent with their philosophy?

And second, does this relate in some way to the apparent celebration of victim-hood by many liberals? They would rather have victims who have no control over their lives than people that take (the ultimate) control over their lives?

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:36:24 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Find it here. The email I received from Ashley Varner (NRA public affairs) seemed to be shouting (yes, this was the font size in the original email):

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First

Second Amendment Case Since 1939

I interpret this to mean she was happy about it. :-)

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:30:31 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

The U.S. Supreme Court just announced their decision to take the D.C. v. Heller case. The question they will be answering is:

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

This is the most fundamental difference we have over the Second Amendment with the anti-gun bigots. They claim the Second Amendment guarantees state governments the "right" (governments don't have rights, they have enumerated powers) to possess arms. Assuming any significant attention is given to original intent (this may be a big assumption) then it is difficult for me to imagine this will go against us.

This is good, this is very good. Now to answer Uncle and Pro-Gun Progress's question. If we get the answer we want we start attacking the next most egregious laws such as those in Chicago, New York City, and New Jersey. We must be careful to attack them in the proper order to make sure we have a solid foundation to build upon as we get to questions like, "Does the individual have a right to carry a weapon on school grounds?" If we attack the "grey area" questions first they might be decided against us and the foundation gets built on the wrong side of freedom. Ultimately I want to see the DOJ prosecuting anti-gun politicians and organizations under 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. But that, if it ever happens, will be a long time from now. But still, it should be our goal.

# Monday, November 19, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, November 19, 2007 8:47:16 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Today is the day (happy birthday to Kim du Toit) to buy some ammo and I just heard it on the radio news because the Seattle PI mentioned it:

Seattle resident Chris Pierce had left Butch's Gun Shop on Sunday and was heading for the countryside in North Bend to fire rounds when he heard about National Ammo Day.

"I think it's a great idea. It sends the message that firearms aren't going away," he said. "You can't take out one part of the Constitution without ruining all of it."

The thought of Monday as National Ammo Day, a period dedicated to buying bullets to support the Second Amendment, might send shivers down the backs of some Seattle residents.

But they are careful to get other opinions on the topic:

While many gun owners are preparing to part with their cash, a Washington CeaseFire spokeswoman said the day should have a different emphasis.

"As we approach Thanksgiving, we would better benefit from responsible firearms owners reminding the public of the importance of safe firearm storage," group executive director Kristen Comer said.

"The safest place for firearms ... is locked and out of reach of children and others who might otherwise place themselves in danger."

She said she believes responsible gun owners are not in jeopardy of losing access to firearms and bullets.

A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Seattle said his agency has no position on National Ammo Day.

And you just know what question was asked and the mindset behind it that prompted this response:

To mark it, Taff plans to buy 100 rounds and fire them at a Bellevue range.

While Monday marks the sixth annual National Ammo Day, Taff heard about it only recently.

He was not concerned that criminals would use the day to clear ammunition shelves and then commit robberies.

# Friday, November 16, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, November 16, 2007 12:35:32 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( A Security Theater | Current News | Freedom | Technology )

Nice. The TSA is a joke. Kip Hawley is the head of the TSA. He says airport security is good. Investigators do what I have been saying could be done. Hawley tries to put a spin on it in front of congress and gets slapped down:

Investigators used public information to make a liquid bomb consisting of a detonator and a liquid explosive. They made a firebomb using two common products.

To absolute silence in the hearing room, the investigators screened video footage showing tests of their homemade bombs. One clip showed the device exploding inside a car -- metal flying, glass shattering, car doors buckling open and a voice, off camera, saying, "Oh!"

The investigators then designed ways to sneak the components past screeners.

The airports tested were kept classified.

The GAO recommended improvements in personnel, processes and technology; more aggressive pat-downs; and possible restrictions on carry-on luggage.

"Current policies allowing substantial carry-on luggage and related items through TSA checkpoints" increase the risk of a terrorist bringing an improvised explosive device or improvised incendiary device onto a plane, the report said.

Hawley downplayed the tests, arguing first that the components did not get on the plane. "It did get on the plane," countered Gregory Kutz of the GAO.

Hawley then contended that the components the GAO smuggled were not the ones used in the video footage. The GAO's Cooney corrected him.

Hawley also noted that GAO investigators did not smuggle a complete bomb past the checkpoint. Cooney, seated beside him, said: "We could simply have gone into the lavatory and constructed it there."

They don't arrive at the proper conclusion but they are getting the proper data--which is a start.

# Wednesday, November 14, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:39:17 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

While we truly feel badly for the law abiding citizens of California, we feel it is necessary to take a stand against irresponsible legislation designed solely to inhibit the American citizen’s right to keep arms. We are fierce proponents of the Second Amendment, and it is our hope that other manufacturers will follow our lead. It is time for the gun industry as a whole to take a stand against the insanity of the antigunners. We simply believe that some things are more important than profit.

STI International
Cessation of California Firearm Sales
[Via Uncle, Bitter, Sebastian, and Ninth Stage. It makes me proud that I own an STI gun. It's on my hip, as is normal when I'm allowed to carry, as I write this. It is my carry gun and it is my competition gun. Thank you STI.--Joe]

# Tuesday, November 13, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:32:55 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Technology )

Uncle points us to this article:

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

[...]

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every call, e-mail, and Internet site access on AT&T lines.

Side note: I heard of such a device from a friend in 2000.

I've gotten into debates with people that insisted we just needed "appropriate regulations with regards to the collection and use of personal information". I expect Kerr, at best, would claim regulation should be in place and would protect us from the harm that might come from government abuse. That people can believe such outrageous fantasies is so mind boggling to me that I have difficulty articulating my case through my anger.

Let me put this as simply and calmly as I can. If the government has access to information that can be abused, no matter what "regulations" are in place, it will be abused. Just two quick examples; 1) Census data, supposedly "sealed" for 72 years was used by the FBI to track down "enemy aliens and foreign nationals who might be dangerous". People of Japanese, Italian, and German descent were put in internment camps based on "sealed" information. 2) Brady records were required to be destroyed if the gun buyer passed the NCIS check. They weren't. They were kept for at least a year "for audit purposes". I told one gun rights leader that I thought the gun rights community should make it an issue to make sure these records were destroyed. He told me that it wasn't that important because even if they existed they couldn't be used in a court of law because they were "legally destroyed" even if they weren't physically destroyed. After 9-11 those records were used to find "terrorist suspects" that might own guns. People who bought guns were found and their homes searched because those records existed. Gun owners screamed bloody-murder and the gun grabbers insisted it was entirely appropriate that the law be ignored.

A few days ago I finished listening to the book IBM and the Holocaust. Read that book and you'll give strong consideration to being on a back-packing trip deep in the woods when the next census is done. Information is power, tremendous power. When the German "Police Battalions" moved in behind the army to "maintain order" they had lists of every Jew in the area. You couldn't say you didn't have any children because they knew from the census a few months or years before that you did have them. They had birth and death records, they knew who lived in which house in which town. And they were able to murder "vermin" by the millions because they had those lists.

For Kerr to say we should "redefine privacy" is an even more inflammatory statement to me than some gun grabbing politician saying they want all the guns turned in. Even if I don't have my guns I have a chance of hiding my "Jews in the Attic". But if I can't buy them food or obtain medical care for them anonymously they are toast (sick pun intended).

I have yet to hear someone give me, despite my insistence they "put something on the table" to discuss, concrete examples of regulations they think would protect people from government abuse of such data. No one has ever done so. It's always been, "those are details that need to be worked out". I suspect Mr. Kerr is no different. In practical terms there are no regulations that will ever exist that would be adequate.

From a purely hypothetical view point I would be willing to compromise on a set of regulations that probably would be adequate but would violate several articles of the Bill of Rights and probably inspire new rights to be articulated in further amendments to our constitution. I'd explain here but you really don't want to know how creative I am in defending this essential piece of liberty.

Hence, since there will be no practical regulations that will protect such data collections we must not allow such data to be gathered in the first place. And the data that is gathered must be of suspect quality. You and I, as liberty and freedom loving people, have a duty to withhold and corrupt as much of this data as we can. And Mr. Kerr should get a one-way ticket on a fence rail, naked, tarred, and feathered, to North Korea, Cuba, or some other police state. [See my follow up post.]

Update: I forgot to mention another important (because I was there and heard it with my own ears) example. While working for the government laboratory PNNL I had fellow "scientist" (he had a degree in computer science and was working in "cyber security" but was unable to write a computer program) Newton Brown tell another co-worker and I, "See this badge?  This means the law doesn't apply to us." That is the mindset of some of those in government. And for all practical purposes Newton is correct.

# Sunday, November 11, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:44:48 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

The Seattle Times has an almost unbiased article on the Heller case and the U.S. Supreme Court. What's really interesting to me is they didn't get any comment from the local anti-gun organization Washington Ceasefire. I haven't paid that much attention to local politics for several years but I remember several years ago when Washington Ceasefire had the local media eating out of their hand. It seemed like it was several times a month when the media would, essentially, print their news releases. And now with big news happening on the gun rights issue the local bigots are not to be heard. Their website shows no real activity since April of this year.

I looked at Ceasefire Foundation of Washington (non-profit branch of Washington Ceasefire) finances and updated my spreadsheet of anti-gun finances but didn't learn a whole lot. Their pattern correlates closely with that of other anti-gun owner organizations. But it hasn't, as of late 2005, gotten into what would appear to be a desperate situation.

# Friday, November 09, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, November 09, 2007 12:35:49 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

In spite of a lifetime of indoctrination to the contrary at public schools, some students are figuring out that being in a "gun free zone" can put you at risk.  Here in Moscow, pro rights students at the University of Idaho are making themselves heard.  This comes shortly after our socialist mayor, Nancy Cheney, tried to ban guns in "public places" and was told by the state attorney general to back off.  "Preemption" laws state that a local government may not enact gun laws that are more strict than state law.  Yet hear we have a state-funded institution with a gun free zone policy.  Go figure.

Virginia Tech is also a “no firearms” campus, but that didn’t stop Seung-Hui Cho from killing 32 people there April 16. Baker [one of the student protestors] said he doesn’t believe being able to carry concealed weapons would have prevented the tragedy, but that it would have minimized the number of innocent people killed. He said Cho didn’t obey the “no firearms” signs, and that can happen anywhere when lawful citizens are denied their right to self-defense.

How do you spell, "Duh!"?

“We’re not saying we need a mass arming of students,” ... People are not going through these [permit approval] procedures so they can go out and commit robberies and rape.”

Does anyone else understand that a criminal isn't going to bother getting a carry permit?

Lt. Paul Kwiatkowski, campus division commander for the Moscow Police Department, said while concealed weapons are legal with a permit, the university’s code of conduct is very clear about carrying them on campus and that this policy, if changed, would complicate issues of violence.

Yeah, it would complicate things very much indeed - for the criminal.  Nothing will spoil your day of fun, murdering people, worse than having someone shoot back at you.

“If an individual is carrying a concealed weapon, you shouldn’t see it,” he said. “They like to flash their guns and show everyone they’re carrying a gun.”

Really?  Carry permit holders like to "flash" their guns and "show everyone"?  Got any proof of that, Lieutenant?  I know a bunch of permit holders, and I've never once seen it happen that way.  If I'm not mistaken, Lieutenant, "flashing" you gun around, can even get your permit revoked.  One thing left out of this article is the fact that Idaho requires three hours of training before a carry permit is issued.  My experience is that most people get a lot more training than that, all on their own.  Anyone who cares enough to have done even rudimentary study of this issue will already know that concealed carry permit holders are THE most law-abiding segment of society - more so than police.  Furthermore, (and are you listening, Nancy Cheney?) the rates of innocent bystander injuries, and of improper shootings, are far lower when a concealed permit holder is involved in a confrontation, compared to when a policeman is involved.  Look it up.

If concealed weapons were allowed, Kwiatkowski said, and a shooter came on campus, while concealed weapons carriers could fire back, when police arrived they wouldn’t know who the shooter was.

This is one point that has some shred of legitimacy.  However, we were trained in my "pre-permit" classes to be very aware of this potential problem.  If you're the citizen defender, and you're the one calling the cops, make sure they have your description and that of the perp.  When police arrive, put your gun down if possible, and identify yourself, etc..  Cops:  You people need to have thought of these things, and know what to do ahead of time to protect the innocent.  Our right to protect ourselves does not depend on what you consider to be convenient.  For that matter, should we automatically assume that anyone in a cop uniform is actually a cop?  Mr. murderer can get a cop outfit at the local rental store.  Now he's Deputy Freakin' Dog.  Unfortunately for all of us, criminals don't wear bright orange arm bands or some such, identifying themselves as criminals, either.

# Thursday, October 18, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:31:38 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( A Security Theater | Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

If some terrorist gets a bomb through security TSA (A Security Theater) is apparently going to tell them try again because they missed it the first time or three. But since it's coming from that liberal haven (read "logic impaired") of San Francisco it all sort of makes sense:

USA Today revealed that a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) report found screeners at SFO failed to find small bomb parts 20 percent of the time during a recent 12-month test.

SFO spokesperson, Mike McCarron, said the failure rate is unacceptable.

But McCarron said the TSA may have simply made the test too hard.

See also these news items on airport security:

This last item is of particular interest because the TSA is telling everyone, "Hide your stuff here, we won't look there."

I've been harping on this for a long time and I don't see any evidence to invalidate my conclusions. It's time to consider alternatives to TSA because what we have now is just Security Theater.

# Tuesday, October 16, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:16:36 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.

Dr William Gray
October 12, 2007
Gore gets a cold shoulder
[Man is not causing global warming. Policitial correctness, desire for political power, and a hatred of capitialism are the driving forces behind the global warming scare.--Joe]

# Monday, October 08, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, October 08, 2007 1:53:46 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

There is something very different about this one. It was a police office that went nuts:

A sheriff's deputy shot and killed six young people in the northern Wisconsin town of Crandon before being killed himself after a manhunt, according to media reports on Sunday, quoting police and witnesses.

The Forest County Sheriff's Department said seven people were dead, including the shooter, Tyler Peterson, 20, according to media reports.

Five of the victims ranged in age from 14 to 20, and the age was not available on a sixth, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on its Web site.

Another victim was in critical condition, the newspaper reported.

Peterson, who was accused of storming into his ex-girlfriend's house, was shot by the Crandon SWAT team, the newspaper said. Peterson's former long-time girlfriend was among the dead, it said.

If we are not allowed to have guns then how are we to protect ourselves from the cops with guns that go nuts?

That's mostly snark on my part.

It's a terrible tragedy and it makes me sad to hear of it. It's a small town of about 2000 people. Everyone in that town will know at least one of the victims. Barb and I went to high school in a town of about 3000 (Orofino Idaho). The degree of separation between any two people in a town that small is at most one or two. That whole town will morn.

# Sunday, October 07, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, October 07, 2007 12:04:46 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Technology )

Uncle says see-through frogs are creepy. I say you better get used to it. People are now creating completely new species. Future Shock is here and now.

I read Future Shock in about '75 and my opinion hasn't changed with 30+ years of evidence--Toffler just likes to blather about things no one can or has any need to measure.

Do you think we can gain any traction with the environmentalists who whine about the loss of species if we started creating new species faster than we made old ones extinct? No? I didn't think so either. There's just no making some people happy.

# Tuesday, October 02, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:21:26 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Quote of the Day | Technology )

Syria is shamed and silent.  Iran is freaking out in panic.  Defenseless enemies are fun.

Dr. Jack Wheeler
Silence in Syria, Panic in Iran
September 25, 2007
[Via David.--Joe]

# Sunday, September 23, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:32:45 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Every time I hear or read something about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad coming to the U.S. to address Columbia University I keep thinking this is going to go down in history the same as if Adolf Hitler had come to the U.S. to address some university in September of 1937.

# Friday, September 21, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, September 21, 2007 1:46:02 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

Of course it was in Boston where the cops all went bonkers because someone was carrying around some wires and LEDs (via Bruce):

Star Simpson was charged with possessing a hoax device today at Logan International Airport for wearing a sweatshirt that had a circuit board affixed to the front with green LED lights and wires running to a 9-volt battery.

This is not a bomb:

And furthermore, being the nit-picky engineer that I am, it's a breadboard, not a circuit board.

If someone wanted to carry a bomb around at the airport they would almost for certain put it in a suitcase instead of wearing it in the open on their sweatshirt. And since it was in the open you can easily see there is no detonator and no explosives attached. But this is Boston. And so:

Outside the terminal, Simpson was surrounded by police holding machine guns.

"She was immediately told to stop, to raise her hands, and not make any movement so we could observe all her movements to see if she was trying to trip any type of device," Pare said at a press conference at Logan. "There was obviously a concern that had she not followed the protocol ... we may have used deadly force."

Simpson was arrested...

Bruce says Refuse to be Terrorized. I say Boston was just exercising their authority as a police state. And the police probably hadn't gotten to play with the sub-guns in weeks. They had to justify having their toys by actually pointing them as someone occasionally.

I do agree with Bruce that the true terrorists are probably laughing at us.

# Wednesday, September 19, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:58:36 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News )

Old "fake but accurate" Dan Rather is suing CBS:

The lawsuit, first reported by The New York Times, alleges that CBS violated Rather's contract by giving him insufficient airtime on 60 Minutes after he was ousted from the anchor seat at the CBS Evening News in March of 2005. It also claims that the company commissioned a biased investigation into the Texas National Guard controversy, resulting in a flawed report that "seriously damaged his reputation."

[...]

The suit says the public apology Rather offered to viewers and to Bush on his newscast on Sept. 20, 2004 was written by a CBS corporate publicist, and that he delivered it "despite his own personal feelings that no public apology from him was warranted."

It's amazing isn't it? It was conclusively proven the memo he reported on was a fake but no apology was warranted. Had he been getting away with that sort of crap for so long that he thought it was acceptable? If so then how much damage did he do before he finally got caught? His betrayal of the public trust should have required of him something much more substantial than a public apology. It should have been an exceedingly stiff fine and perhaps some jail time.

# Tuesday, September 18, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:04:28 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The Founding Fathers systematically democratized the powers of society through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They democratized the power of law through the right to vote. They democratized the power of wealth through the right to private property (since repealed by environmentalists and courts). They democratized the power of ideas through the right to free speech (since repealed by McCain/Feingold). And they democratized the power of violence (or the capability to commit it) through the right to bear arms (since repealed by "gun control").

The four great powers of man: law, money, thought and violence were thus divided among the people and not reserved exclusively to the connected, the rich, the approved, and the enlisted. That's the basis of our Republic. That's America. And that is, apparently, a total surprise to liberals. 

Mac Johnson
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found
March 15, 2007
[Liberals just got pwn'd in this very case. The D.C. lawyers messed up and the lawyers for the good guys just nailed their scrotums to the wall.--Joe]

# Sunday, September 16, 2007
# Friday, September 07, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, September 07, 2007 9:18:38 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

Via Bruce we find, once again, that if you look and act like you belong you can belong:

The skit had been approved by ABC lawyers, but it had been assumed they would be stopped at the first checkpoint, hundreds of metres from the President's hotel.

Instead, they were waved through the first checkpoint, then a second that had sniffer dogs. They eventually stopped in sight of the hotel.

The ABC later released a statement saying the team had no intention of entering a restricted zone and had been wearing mock "insecurity passes" that stated the convoy was a joke.

"It was a piece testing APEC security and the motorcade looked pretty authentic," the Chaser source said.

"They approached the green zone, and they just waved them through – much to their amazement, because the sketch was meant to stop there with them being rejected.

"They were then waved through into the red zone, but rather than go all the way through they made the call to turn around."

"Apparently that was the first time the police realised it was not authentic and they swooped in and arrested everybody."

This is the funnest part to me:

"The police only detained the Chaser motorcade when it was turning around and after Chas Licciardello emerged from a car dressed as Osama bin Laden."

Good security is extremely difficult. It only takes one weak link to break the chain. But had APEC security been part of a Hollywood movie it would have been in the series The Keystone Cops. Again, from real life:

LAST week, a butter knife was a handy dining implement. This week, it seems, APEC security staff have declared knives and forks as potential terrorist weapons.

On the same day police won a court battle to stop protesters marching down George Street through the APEC security zone, it emerged yesterday that at least one cafe near George Bush's hotel has been ordered by police not to set outdoor tables with silverware, lest it fall into the wrong hands.

And office workers in Bridge Street's AMP tower have been told to stay away from the windows, draw the blinds and not to look at helicopters.

[...]

"On Monday an APEC security officer asked us to limit our outdoor furniture. He said if you are setting a table, don't set it with knives and forks because they can be used as a potential weapon by terrorists."

[...]

On Tuesday night, about an hour before Mr Bush arrived at his hotel, a police officer approached a Herald reporter and demanded to see what he had written in his notebook.

He told the reporter other police in the area might make similar demands. Two minutes later another officer made the same request.

Security Theater at it's finest.

# Wednesday, September 05, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, September 05, 2007 1:05:08 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

But the deeper reason behind the hysteria over the decision is that for decades the left has been able to make the Constitution into whatever it wanted. The actual words did not matter. When words -- even just 27 words -- mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a "living" Constitution disappears and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right -- a daunting task. When a court can decide that the 2nd Amendment must be respected, the left is on a slippery slope indeed. Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10th. Regardless, if the trend is allowed to continue, it will be a disaster for the dictatorial left. Thus, I predict the decision will be appealed.

Mac Johnson
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found
March 15, 2007
[And, as was recently reported and commented on in various places, Johnson was correct in his prediction--it was appealed.--Joe]

# Saturday, September 01, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, September 01, 2007 7:01:01 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights | Politics )

One small step at a time then a half step backward--Iowa Permits Same-Sex Marriage, for 4 Hours, Anyway.

I'm happy about this for three reasons:

  1. I believe same sex marriage has more benefits to the individuals and society than making it illegal. Hence it's "the right thing to do".
  2. It causes Democrats heartburn in the coming election.
  3. It forces the issue of full faith and credit between the states with regards to licenses of all types--including concealed carry licenses.

I do agree it really should be handled in the legislative arena rather than the judicial arena but court action such as this forces the legislature to address it.

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:51:43 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Politics | Quote of the Day | Sex )

A politician has to wear a mask that hides who he is really is--to be different people to different interest groups--in order to get elected. For a lot of homosexuals, unless they choose to be open about it, they also have to wear a mask that hides who they really are. Perhaps all these gay politicians are the consequence of people who get used to wearing a mask about their sexuality--and find it very easy to then leapfrog into politics, a career that does not require, but certainly encourages equivocation, shading the truth, and flat-out lies.

None of this would matter if Craig had either been discreet, or intelligent. But he managed to fail on both counts with this stunt in Minneapolis, and made all of this relevant.

Clayton Cramer
August 29, 2007
I Just Noticed That Larry Craig's Three Kids Are All Adopted
[I disagree with a lot of Cramer opinions about gays, but I think he has it right this time.--Joe]

# Friday, August 31, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, August 31, 2007 5:20:28 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

Hot off the AP press:

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men's room, Republican officials said Friday.

Craig will announce at a news conference in Boise Saturday morning that he will resign effective Sept. 30, four state GOP officials told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.

It's a significant blow to the gun rights movement at the Federal level. He is one of our strongest allies. Even if he is replaced with someone as rock solid on the issue they won't have the seniority and hence the power Craig had.

As Sean and I were discussing at lunch today--I don't care what he does with consenting adults in private. Hooking up in public restrooms (assuming he was doing that) is just plain stupid.

# Wednesday, August 29, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:04:56 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

We are in the middle of a culture war. The anti-gun bigots against gun owners. Yesterday they gave it their best shot and, here in Seattle, only two showed up:

The demonstration didn't take long at all. In fact, it might have been the shortest in recent local history.

It might have been the smallest, too.

Two activists showed up. They stretched out on the ground for 32 seconds. Then they rolled up their banner -- www.protesteasyguns.com -- and headed for the parking lot.

To a certain extent it has been that way for years. The press just didn't report it. I've attended protests where the pro-gun people outnumbered the anti-gun people 10 to 1 but the TV crew drove away without getting out of their van and the newspaper gave the bigots some polite words and failed to mention all the pro gun people present with signs.

The war isn't over though. It's not over until politicians and law enforcement who enforce unconstitutional gun laws are arrested and sent to prison without a moments hesitation.

# Monday, August 27, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, August 27, 2007 5:59:48 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

Via Sebastian I discovered our NRA Board Member, and Idaho Senator, Larry Craig was arrested and plead guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Here are the articles I've read so far:

From the second article:

According to the police reports, a man, later identified as Craig, kept watching the undercover police officer through a crack in the stall, Roll Call reported. Craig then entered the next-door stall and placed his luggage against the opening under the stall door.

"My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall," said the officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, in the report cited by Roll Call.

The report continued: "At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area."

The report said Craig swiped his hand beneath the stall divider several times, and Karsnia showed his police identification under the stall.

It doesn't appear anything happened beyond a creepy game of footsies, but it's conduct unbecoming a Senator. Especially so for one that is one of gun rights strongest supporters.

On a local email list the subject line of the thread discussing this is "Is Larry a Fairy?".

Update: The police report can be found here.

# Tuesday, August 21, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:13:42 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Politics )

Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, among others, is telling us that we might "honor" our troops.  This "honor" is not to come in the form of allowing them to win, and not through convincing the enemy that they will be utterly defeated no matter what it takes, but by bringing our troops home.

Lets apply that same logic to our firemen:  Lets "honor" our firemen by keeping them out of fire trucks and away from fires.  While we're at it, we can "honor" our public school teachers in similar fashion, by sending them home, sparing them the difficult and often unpleasant task of dealing with the ins and outs of teaching kids: Planning course syllabi, meeting on-going certification requirements, writing and grading assignments, dealing with administration and parents, etc..  We can further "honor" our poor, suffering teachers by accusing them of torturing kids.  We can then "honor" them by launching false prosecutions and endless investigations against them.

As long as we're "honoring" whole cross sections of society, we might consider "honoring" our senators by reducing legislative sessions (and adjusting pay, of course) to one day per year.  Would could at least "honor" Hillary by "redeploying" her out of Washington, possibly to the Philippines, where she could be called in on two or three-days' notice in the event we desperately need her inside an hour.

As is typical with other words misused by leftists, it seems the words "honor" and "support" have taken on new and diametrically opposite meanings.

I would therefore like to; "Honor Hillary.  Send her home!"  She can't win anyway.  Her war against America is a lost cause, based on a lie.

# Monday, August 06, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, August 06, 2007 7:52:49 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )


We’re hearing rumors that the Moscow, Idaho Mayor, Nancy Chaney, is plotting to ban guns in “Public Places”.

One’s right to self defense is under attack right here in Idaho.  Do I need to look up the political affiliations of the Mayor?  Does anyone wonder?

AP has it now, so the story is repeated verbatim on several sites.  As anyone could predict, it starts out describing a multiple murder committed using firearms.  The conclusion is always the same:  We must "prevent" further incidents of people breaking the law by passing more laws.  That way, when criminals obey this new law, they won't be able to break the old ones.

"I think there is probably some nervousness about that, of course."

Chaney said the shooting at the courthouse made her concerned about how vulnerable people might be at public meetings. She said she was also concerned about armed citizens who might be inclined to "swoop in to protect people" in situations that police should deal with.

"We don't want to tread on anyone's Second Amendment rights," Chaney told the Lewiston Tribune. "We want to find out what is within our legal prerogative."

She doesn't want to tread on anyone's rights, she just wants to ban guns.  Its hard to find anything on this locally, so apparently its being kept pretty hush.

Chaney, Girl, you be trippin'!  People may be "nervous" about a lot of things.  Some people at one time were very nervous about black people wanderin' all over free and what not, too.  It doesn't mean they had any right to keep black people out of public places, any more than you have the right to ban self defense.  If you're too nervous to do your job properly while respecting and appreciating the rights of your neighbors, I'm sure we can find a more level-headed replacement for you.

# Wednesday, July 25, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:40:12 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( A Security Theater | Current News | Freedom )

Someone released a For Official Use Only (FOUO) document from the TSA and MSNBC posted it online. The basics are:

A surge in recent suspicious incidents at U.S. airports may indicate terrorists are conducting pre-attack security probes and "dry runs" similar to dress rehearsals. Past terrorist attacks and plots show that such testing generally indicates attacks will soon follow, according to a joint FBI and Homeland Security assessment.

It's mildly interesting in that it seems to confirm people are probing our airport security system. My view is that airport security as it's currently implemented is a lost cause (see also this posting from David Mackett, the president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance). Those resources would be far better spent on finding the bad guys before they ever arrive at the airport and implementing something else for on board security.

Update: Via Bruce--at least one of the reports was bogus:

The TSA bulletin said the ice packs were covered in duct tape and had clay inside of them.

Sanfilippo said they weren't covered in duct tape and didn't have clay inside of them. “It is a little bit off,” he said of the bulletin.

The chief said a Harbor Police officer found what appeared to be hardened old gel that had seeped out of the ice packs and dried, leaving a clay-like substance around the outside edge of the pack.

I wonder if it was incompetence or if the TSA was trying to justify their existence. Both are plausible.

# Friday, July 20, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, July 20, 2007 7:57:22 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Home Life )

My sister-in-law got hers this spring. I had mine two months ago. Ry had his today. President Bush is having his on Saturday.

# Wednesday, July 04, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:46:17 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Reading Joe's recent post got me thinking.  Every time there's a shooting, we see reports on the type of firearm used, its features, where it may have been obtained, and what gun laws might "prevent this sort of thing" in the future.  Given that criminals by definition don't obey gun laws, and that this sort of thing isn't going to be prevented by more Prohibitions, what sort of reporting might actually benefit the consumers of news reports?  Newsies: I'm asking you to think outside the usual story templates.

News pieces on the firearm models and types used in a particular crime are unhelpful, mostly because they're useless unless you're pushing an anti-gun agenda (one exception might be the LA bank robbery, in which police responded to a rifle fight with nothing but pistols and shotguns. There the types of weapons involved were actually relevant to the response tactics) and also because the reporting is typically done by people who know next to nothing about firearms (believe me, Newsies, it shows.  It really, really shows).  I submit that the public could benefit more from reports on exactly what happened from minute to minute, once all the hysteria has died down and the evidence has been evaluated.  Interview police and citizen defense trainers on what responses would be most appropriate, how the police view the role of the armed citizen, and so on.  Then we may be better able to respond to an incident more appropriately, or to stay out of it entirely when needed.

For certain, I think its a bad idea to grab a gun and run head-on toward the sound of gunfire.  Stealth, People.  Also consider the fact that it may be impossible to know friend from foe when there are armed citizens in the same area as armed criminals.  Start a discussion on when to stay out of the way, or, if presented an easy shot on a hostile target, when to take it, where to get the training and equipment, what would the police chief or sheriff's department would want you to do?  You might let us know where to sign up for a local gun club, range development plan or self-defense course, and so on.  "Public Interest" in other words, could be served by some far more diverse reporting.

# Tuesday, July 03, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:10:31 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

Last week I took a reporter (Omie) and photographer (Geoff) for the Daily News to the range. Full automatic firearms was the topic. I didn't have any but I showed them an AR-15 and taught them to shoot it. Omie told me one of the firearms used by Jason Hamilton a few weeks ago was converted from semi-auto to full-auto. I was skeptical but hadn't really stayed up on the topic. It's non-trivial to do the conversion and generally you don't expect losers like Hamilton to have the brain-power and/or strength of will to follow through on something like that.

At least from the editorial standpoint it was pretty clear to me the article was intended to be a hit-piece on owners of machine guns with undercurrents of hostility toward owners of semi-auto firearms. It now turns out both the firearms used by Hamilton were semi-auto. From the Lewiston Morning Tribune:

Gun in Moscow shooting was a semiautomatic

July 2, 2007, 11:04 am

MOSCOW -- The AK-47 Jason Hamilton used in his May 19-20 shooting spree is semiautomatic, not fully automatic as was earlier reported by officials investigating the case.

Sgt. Ed Westbrook with the Idaho State Police confirmed Monday that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has determined the gun is a semiauto, which fires one bullet with each trigger pull.

Westbrood said he didn't know how the AK-47 was initially thought to be fully automatic, which would keep firing as long as the trigger is depressed.

Hamilton used that gun and a semiautomatic Springfield M1A rifle to assault the Latah County Courthouse late in the evening on May 19, firing nearly 200 rounds. He killed Moscow police officer Lee Newbill and church caretaker Paul Bauer before killing himself early in the morning of May 20.

Hamilton had also killed his wife at their home east of Moscow before driving to town to start his shooting spree.

I'm wondering if the Daily News will now publish a correction on their article from Saturday. The entire premise of their article was based on a falsehood. I just wish I knew when the ATF released the info on the gun in question. Did the Daily News have access to that prior to publishing the hit-piece? Of course if they did know that it would probably have just changed the focus from a hit piece on full-auto to a hit-piece on semi-auto firearms. But it would have also completely changed my discussion and interaction with Omie and Geoff.

# Sunday, July 01, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, July 01, 2007 6:00:00 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

It's happening in the U.K. and it will be happening here before long:

‘Firebomb’ car rams terminal at 30mph

The first afternoon of the Scottish school holidays meant the terminal at Glasgow airport was packed with families queuing at check-in desks.

Outside the building’s glass doors travellers waiting to be collected saw an erratically driven dark green Jeep Cherokee approach at speed. The Asian driver began to rev the engine furiously before wrenching the wheel and smashing the tough four by four vehicle directly into the terminal building.

Security bollards blocked the path of the vehicle as the driver tried to ram the main doors. The air became heavy with the stench of petrol. Driver and passenger, described as burly Asian men, leapt from the vehicle and it burst into flames.

Airport staff described the men as screaming “Allah” as the driver doused the burning vehicle with more fuel soaking himself in the process. His passenger began to smash bottles of petrol and his own clothes now ablaze the driver fell to the floor as police, passengers and airport staff reacted.

I had a discussion with someone recently who agreed "we have a problem" with Muslim extremists but disagreed on the solution. He insisted we just need to "contain" them. He also worried about Christian extremists too. Really? How should have the people in the U.K. "contained" the extremist Muslims bombers? And could someone give me a list of the video taped civilian beheadings and suicide bombings committed by "Christian extremists" in the last year? I have a number of issues worthy of discussion with "Christian extremists" but killing large numbers of innocent people isn't one of them.

We need to destroy their culture. Porn for peace!

# Wednesday, June 13, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:10:30 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

We now have a memorial to the millions of victims of communism:

President Bush, attending Tuesday's dedication of a memorial to an estimated 100 million victims of communist regimes, compared the fight against radical Islam to the Cold War battle against totalitarian communism.

...

The ceremony was held on the 20th anniversary of President Reagan's speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, in which he implored Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Two years later, the wall fell.

The Victims of Communism Memorial is a bronze Goddess of Democracy statue. It is a replica of a replica - a reproduction of the papier-mache statue that Chinese students modeled on the Statue of Liberty and carried into Tiananmen Square during pro-democracy protests in 1989.

What amazes me is that there are still people in this country who are advocates for such a murderous and failed economic/political system. A survivor of Russian communism when asked what he thought of "trying to do it right this time" said something to the effect of, "There are 100 million corpses from the previous efforts. Do you want to donate your body to the next attempt?" That was a pretty good verbal response. Numerous non-verbal responses come to mind as well but such hand signals can cause you to be talked about.

# Friday, June 08, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, June 08, 2007 2:40:24 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News | Gun Rights )

 

Damned good thing none of the victims had firearms, 'cause, you know, violence is never the answer and it only begets more violence:

The man then barged into a neighbor's house, where he stabbed and hacked to death a 37-year-old pregnant woman and her three daughters and two sons, aged 1 to 9.

All I want to know is; who sold him the machete, how much money did he make on the sale, and is he proud of it?  How is it that a madman can so easily get hold of such a deadly instrument?  Why are iron and carbon made so widely available when we know things like this are going to happen as a result?  What are the Filipino legislators going to do about this?  What do the Filipino cutlery manufacturers have to say for themselves and their irresponsible production of such deadly products?

 

There is one word missing in all the descriptions of the victims, which bears notice:  "Unarmed".  Add the correction and it makes more sense: 

"The man then barged into a neighbor's gun free house, where he stabbed and hacked to death the unarmed 37-year-old..."

 

Here's a news headline you'll never see:  "Machete-wielding madman kills eight concealed pistol carriers."

 

But some of our Great and Compassionate Leaders would prefer several dead innocent women and children to one dead criminal, shot by his intended victim.

# Monday, May 28, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, May 28, 2007 12:34:58 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Quote of the Day )

This has exposed the abusive, arbitrary and autocratic nature of Chavez's Government, a government that fears free thought, that fears opinion and fears criticism.

Marcel Granier
Chief of RCTV, the country's oldest broadcaster
May 28, 2007
Venezuelan TV channel shut down
[Chavez is just being true to his socialist ideals. Socialism, The Road to Serfdom.--Joe]

# Saturday, May 26, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, May 26, 2007 4:18:22 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News )

All the early reports on the nut case known as Jason Hamilton that killed a bunch of people in Moscow last weekend said he shot his wife Crystal first. An email from Mike informs me that Crystal was his ex-wife:

The couple filed for divorce on Aug. 3, 2004, citing irreconcilable differences. Hamilton and Jones said in court documents they had no children. The couple had been separated since March 2004 and listed separate home addresses in Moscow.

There was no dispute over the division of assets or debts. The divorce was granted the same day it was filed, records show.

It looks to me as if she should have read How to be Invisible and then disappeared after the divorce.

# Thursday, May 24, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:42:02 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News )

Mike has researched the genealogy of Jason Hamilton. Hamilton is the guy that shot up Moscow Idaho last weekend before terminating his branch of the family tree with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

# Tuesday, May 22, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:32:29 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Crap for brains | Current News )

Via Ry we find the Spokemans Review tells us all we need to know about the Moscow shooter. The following is just a sample:

Jason Kenneth Hamilton, the man responsible for the deadly shooting spree in Moscow, Idaho, was a card-carrying Aryan Nations member...

...

Hamilton had an extensive criminal history in Idaho, Arizona, California and Oklahoma, including arrests for violent crimes, domestic battery and drugs, according to court records obtained Tuesday by The Spokesman-Review.

...

He was arrested in September 2005 for attempted strangulation of his on-again, off-again girlfriend. A jury convicted Hamilton of a reduced charge of misdemeanor domestic battery in June 2006.

As he was awaiting trial, he was arrested for allegedly grabbing another woman by the hands and throwing her to the floor, injuring her. The case was dismissed.

Prior to moving to Latah County, Hamilton was charged with felony aggravated assault in 1992 in Lake Havasu, Ariz., and placed on probation. He was charged a few months later with possession of marijuana and driving with a suspended license; both charges were dismissed.

Hamilton was arrested in 1995 by the Tulsa, Okla., city police on a cruelty to animals charge that was reduced to malicious injury. He was sentenced to a year in jail, but the sentence was suspended.

He needed to be locked up a long time ago. But you never know for certain until it's too late.

See also Ry's report on the conversation we had today at lunch about the police response.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:05:30 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

It is not a help. In fact, it's a hindrance and it greatly places people in danger. The police are liable to shoot someone with a gun.

Dan Weaver
Moscow Police Chief
May 21, 2007
UI senior tried to help but became victim
Referring to Peter Husmann who grabbed his pistol and went to help stop the person shooting up the Latah County Courthouse.
[I'm in total agreement with Weaver. In addition the evacuation and care of Husmann consumed resources that could perhaps have been better allocated to other tasks had Husmann not been collecting bullet wounds. If you are there when the shooting breaks out and can stop the shooter then by all means do so. But you don't leave a safe area and seek out the shooter. There may be some exceptions such as when the police will not be arriving for many minutes or perhaps hours and your loved ones are in danger but Husmann's actions were clearly wrong. This event took place just outside the Sheriff's office and maybe three blocks from the Moscow Police Station. In this case the police response time could be expected to be within one or two minutes and perhaps even in seconds. A person out of uniform with a gun in hand in these circumstances when the police arrive have special names--they are call a "Target" or "Bullet Magnet". I understand Husmann's motivation. I am glad there are people willing to put themselves in danger to help others. But this wasn't the time or the place.--Joe]

# Monday, May 21, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Monday, May 21, 2007 12:36:16 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News )

It turns out that the Moscow shooter had multiple issues.  According to the police chief, the guy had been convicted of domestic violence, had tried suicide earlier and failed, had been involuntarily committed to a mental facility.  In the past he had told people he was going to off himself and take others with him.

Saturday night he went to a local bar and had some drinks, then went and killed his ex, then attacked the courthouse complex.

Side note:  Though several major news sources said there was an SKS "assault rifle" involved, spoke of ten-round clips, etc., and repeatedly showed a photo of an SKS, there was in fact no SKS.  There was an AK and an M1A used-- a big difference to people who know guns, but of no real significance otherwise.  The lesson here is that rumors can spread like wildfire and be totally wrong.

There is the issue of urban response and combat tactics, which leave me curious.  The guy apparently was shooting at anything that moved.  He was on a hilltop surrounded by mostly residential streets and a high school, but also surrounded on two sides by solid buildings.  What do you do?  That's my question, and I don't have a good answer, mainly because I have no exact details and maybe never will have them.  IF (if) there is guy in a parking lot firing shots at everything around him (was he maneuvering? was he behind cover?  we don't know) he might be a fairly easy target for someone intent on stopping him.  Certainly a SWAT team arriving hours later was in this case of no use.

These are my thoughts and questions.  It is a given that the occasional, random douche-bag will go off like this.  What are the best ways to handle it?

 

By: Joe Huffman Monday, May 21, 2007 9:34:54 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Home Life )

Via Dale and the Lewiston Morning Tribune we have more information about the suspect in the shooting over the weekend:

Crime scene investigators began searching the suspect's brown, single-story house at 1020 Juliene Way. Neighbors gawked at the FBI suburbans and a Kootenai County crime scene trailer parked out front. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives assisted with the search.

Juliene Way is in a rather poor, isolated, and unkempt part of town. While in high school our daughter Kim had a friend just a block or so further east she frequently spent the night with. The friends father was in jail and her mother, in her late 30's, was living with a 19 or 20 year old boyfriend. Then the boyfriend committed suicide and things got so messed up that Kim didn't visit much anymore. What I'm trying to say is that some of the people in this area of town have more than their share of problems.

I find it very interesting that the FBI and ATF are involved. Some Federal law(s) must have been broken. The first thing that comes to mind is that perhaps the SKS rifle had been converted to full auto. That would explain the reports of "automatic rifle" in some of the early news reports and what the assistant Police Chief said at the news conference yesterday. It's a little odd that Kootenai County would be involved too. Kootenai County is 90 miles north of Moscow.

Something that bugged me on the drive back to the Seattle area and as I was trying to go to sleep last night was that part of the Federal Building and Post Office were taped off by the police:

The picture above is looking north at the Post Office. The one below is looking south at the taped off area with the Post Office just out of the picture to the right. 5th and Jefferson is the intersection where the barricade is in the middle of the street. Use the two police cars parked there on 5th street for reference between the two pictures.

The Post Office/Federal Building is two blocks west of the dispatch center that was shot up. It's out of sight, down a hill, and on the opposite side of the building from the window and door that were shot up. But looking at maps and where the police officer was killed it looks like bullets intended for him could have continued down the hill and street and connected with the Federal Building. I suppose this could also be reason enough for the Feds to get involved.

The next news conference is in 90 minutes. We'll all learn more then.

# Sunday, May 20, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:57:34 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Home Life )

From the air we have these pictures. At the center bottom is the Latah County court house, sheriff's office and dispatch center. The at the junction of the white roofed north-south building with the darked roofed east-west building is the dispatch center where the first shots occurred. If we could stand in the parking lot you could see through the glass in the door through a glass window into the dispatch center itself. There were three people in the dispatch center when the bullets came through the glass. Two women, one a trainee, and a man. They called for help and were escorted to the basement where the jail is.

At the press conference they reported the dispatch center was messed up pretty good. There is broken glass everywhere, bullet holes in the wall, and some equipment was broken, etc. They have an alternate dispatch center at the drivers license office at a shopping mall at the east end of town. They opened it up and are "back in business".

It was at this Sheriff's office that I got my Idaho concealed carry permit. I taught a NRA Personal Protection firearms class in a room at the north east end of the courthouse, just across the street from the high school.

The Moscow police officer that was killed came to investigate and was shot some place outside. The second officer shot was a Latah County Sheriff's officer who was attempting to come to first police officer's aid.

Just north of the court house is another white roofed building. This is the high school Xenia attends. The shooter entered the building just to the east of the high school which is the First Presbyterian Church and killed the caretaker.

Police attempted to negotiate with the shooter but to the best of my knowledge never got a response from him. The last shot heard was about 1:00 AM this morning. This was probably a self inflicted gunshot to the head.

When I arrived about 7:30 this morning the police were still taping off the area:

I walked their perimeter as did numerous news people:

There were lots and lots of police present. Officers from Lewiston, Whitman County (just to the west from Washington State), and Washington State University Police officers came. Idaho State Patrol from Coeur d'Alene to Twin Falls (by airplane from hundreds of miles away) were there as well. The ISP will be doing the investigation since both city and county police officers were victims.

The Sheriff's deputies below were well armed. AR-15's or maybe M-16's. I did not see any unloaded guns or unsafe gun handling. All appeared to have iron sights.

The picture above and the one below were taken facing north at the intersection of sixth and Adams at the south west corner of the Latah County Courthouse, Sheriff's office, and jail. In the picture below you can see the radio tower for the dispatch center. One block further north is the Moscow High School.

The 9:00 AM press conference was at the Moscow City Court House at 3rd and Washington. It was well populated with news crews:


(Photo by Xenia)

Xenia and I took lunch to Barb at the hospital. While waiting for her to meet us across the street at Therapy Central I took a picture of someone lowering the flag outside the hospital to half-mast:

IMG_4197Web.jpg

Update: Complete video of the press conference Xenia and I attended is here. It includes my question about the SKS rifle being an automatic.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, May 20, 2007 10:34:29 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Home Life )

Some of the main stream media coverage is here:

Xenia and I got back from the press conference a few minutes ago.

Two police officers were shot. The first one shot took multiple hits at about 11:31 PM last night. He wasn't able to be evacuated until 12:05. He was dead on arrival. The second officer was shot a few minutes later and was taken to Gritman hospital (where Barb works) his condition is "serious". A private citizen was shot in the same time frame as he came out of his house and approached the area to "try and help". He has been in surgery for hours and his condition is satisfactory.

The police did not fire any shots. None of the police officers could determine the exact source of the gunfire. The shooter is believed to have started shooting while on the street then moved to the church nearby where additional shots were fired. At about 1:00 AM this morning the last shot was fired. About 5:45 AM three police entry teams went into the church while a diversion was taking place at the opposite end of the building. They found two people dead inside. One of them had a rifle next to him and is believed to be the shooter.

David Duke, assistant Police Chief, reported that a "SKS type rifle" was found. Earlier he had said the rifle was an "automatic" so I asked, "You said the rifle was an SKS but the SKS is not normally fully automatic. Are you sure it was a fully automatic rifle?" He only clarified to say, "It was an SKS type rifle. The exact rifle has not been determined." He also said that four empty magazines were found. He did not know the capacity of the magazines or the type of ammo used.

Barb came home a few minutes ago to change her clothes after a patient vomited on her (unrelated to the shooting). She reports police officers are outside a patient room at the hospital.

Xenia wanted to go to the press conference. One of her best friends, Jessa, is the daughter of the Paster of the Church where final shots were fired. Jessa wasn't answering her cell phone and calls to the house went unanswered. Xenia reports on her Live Journal here. At the press conference we learned, indirectly, that Jessa's father is OK.

More later after I take a shower and get some breakfast.

Update: The best coverage I have seen so far is from the Daily News (you need an account to read the article but Dale has a copy up) and KXLY. KXLY has officer Newbill's time of death wrong. He was probably dead at the scene and certainly was dead on arrival at the hospital.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:55:25 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Home Life | Quote of the Day )

You're alive!

Ry Jones
7:16 AM May 20, 2007
[I was in bed. A call came in from Ry and those were the first words he said. He then told me what he knew about the shooting in Moscow were I live. I went to investigate. I took lots of pictures and had a minor confrontation with the police. Xenia and I just now got back from the Press Conference. More blog posts and pictures to follow.--Joe]

# Friday, May 18, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, May 18, 2007 6:16:13 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

One of the marvels of the United States has always been Her "Melting Pot" status, wherein people from all walks of life, from all around the world have come together to produce the most successful society in human history.

That's why it bugs me when I hear people who should know better discussing the political situation in Iraq, for example.  We hear about the various and disparate groups in that country having trouble coming to an acceptable "power sharing" agreement.  What does that mean-- power sharing?  That's something that might be arranged between one king or one dictator and another, or between rival gangsters, but in a free society?

No, Grasshopper!  In a free society all individuals have the same rights, so the term "power sharing" has no meaning.  That one race, religion or other demographic might outnumber another in a certain region is, rightly, of no consequence for the simple fact that they haven't the political power to trample on the rights of the minority.  If that ideal is not the foundation of their Constitution, then the Constitution needs a serious rewrite.

I am reminded of a quote from Ayn Rand (thanks to "The Smallest Minority" web site):  "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

Its time more of the freedom-hungry people in Iraq understand and embrace this simple concept if they are to have any hope of realizing their dream.  It would be nice if more Americans understood it too.

# Tuesday, May 15, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:12:02 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

The guy's as popular in France's Muslim ghettos as a bag of pork rinds, which rates another thumbs up in my book. If non-assimilating misogynist welfare leeches hate him, he can't be all bad.

Tamara K.
May 9, 2007
My reaction to the Frog reaction to the Sarkozy win...
[Sarkozy has a big job ahead of him. But his election gives me hope for a world where the Islamic extremist demands for world domination are thwarted.--Joe]

# Tuesday, April 17, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:09:18 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights )

From The Roanoke Times January 31, 2006:

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

...

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

As the evidence from today illustrates it was not actual safety. Just feeling safe. Feeling safe yielded the largest mass shooting in US history. A bunch of people lost their lives today because some politicians deprived the people of their right to keep and bear arms. Those politicians should be tried for accessory to murder.

[Thanks to Jerry. I did little more than copy and paste his email to make this post.]

# Saturday, March 31, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, March 31, 2007 7:58:15 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Quote of the Day )

Can you imagine what would have happened if some wide spot in the road had kidnapped a boat full of 'Er Majesty's tars back in the days of Pax Britannia?

HMS Thunderer would have dropped anchor in the harbor of whatever pathetic hamlet they were being held captive. Royal Marines would have been disembarked. Crowds of Wogs would have been mowed down by Gatlings and run through with Martini bayonets. The local rajah would have forked over his prisoners, or he would have found his house burned to the ground and Tommy Atkins pissing on the ashes.

Tamara K.
March 30, 2007
England, ma'am. It's where Great Britain used to be.

# Tuesday, March 13, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:24:03 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

This is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. A sample:

"Nowhere does Mr Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet," Dr Carter wrote. "Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."

...

Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore's claim that "our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this". Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century".

This is mild stuff compared to what I heard when I listened to the audio book version of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism). Gore isn't so stupid that he doesn't know he is trying to sell "snake oil". My guess is that he wants to use this issue to gain power for him and for the socialists of the world. Don't let him or his followers get away with it.

# Sunday, February 18, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:16:14 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

Via Phil at Random Nuclear Strikes comes this story from the U.K. about another small step toward a police state:

Thousands of council staff are being trained to police the smoking ban in bars, restaurants and shops in England.

Ministers have given councils £29.5m to pay for staff, who will be able to give on-the-spot £50 fines to individuals and take court action against premises.

They will have the power to enter premises undercover, allowing them to sit among drinkers, and will even be able to photograph and film people.

...

But the council is also exploring the possibility of getting street wardens, who currently aid the local police force, to help ensure the ban is effectively enforced.

Steve Dowling, director of environment and public protection at Nottingham City Council, said: "We have about 100 wardens and they could keep an eye on whether people are smoking in pubs as they go about their other duties."

"But it is not just about pubs and restaurants. We will also be looking at the likes of car garages and shops are complying as well."

Does anyone remember what happened with all the "Revenue Agents" after the end of prohibition? Faced with unemployment congress passed a jobs creation bill to keep them employed. That piece of legislation is now known as the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34, or just NFA). Something that most people don't think about is that people believed that in order for the Federal government to have the authority to ban the recreational use of alcohol they needed to amend the constitution. And the thinking after the repeal of the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment was that without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment congress couldn't prohibit gun ownership either. But what they could do was put a huge tax on certain guns. $200, the standard transfer tax specified in NFA was about six months salary in 1934. All those "Revenue Agents" now had a job to do. They had to collect those $200 transfer taxes on guns that sold for, maybe, $10.00.

Even if these street wardens and council staff, trained to "keep an eye on people", don't have their job functions removed by legislation more enlightened about the rights of property owners there is still a serious danger lurking. Since they are already watching, taking pictures, and reporting on "anti-social" behavior they will be utilized for other things. What will it be next? Will people that complain about the smoking ban get called in to answer some questions about their loyalty to The Crown? Or perhaps ten years from now it will gay lovers who hold hands or steal a kiss in the dark corner of bar that will be charged with a "crime against nature". East Germany had approximately one out of every 50 people as informers in the late 1980's just before their collapse. The U.K. has better technology and is now recognized as having the most surveillance of western democracies. 

Adding informers to assist their technological surveillance will come in quite useful when the next tyrant comes to power. You don't think they will get a tyrant in the U.K.? Maybe not anytime soon. But one never knows for certain what can happen in just a few years time. But what you can be certain is that the more power given to the state the more people that love power will be attracted to that centralized power. People that love power (why do I have these images of a certain Senator from New York flashing in my mind now?) use it to gain more power. They then exercise it to the detriment of a free society. Currently the U.K. is further down The Road to Serfdom than we are and just took another step ahead with the training of these informers.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:58:56 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

It's not just Israel, Europe (H/T to Kim), or the United States that Muslim have problems with. Here is the latest from Thailand:

BANGKOK, Thailand — At least 23 bombs exploded Sunday in apparently coordinated attacks in parts of southern Thailand plagued by a Muslim insurgency, killing three people and wounding more than 50, the military said.

The bombings targeted electricity transmitters, hotels, karaoke bars and markets in the country's southernmost provinces, the only parts of predominantly Buddhist Thailand with Muslim majorities. Two schools were torched.

Violence in the south has been escalating in recent months despite a major policy shift by the military-imposed government, which is trying to replace an earlier, iron-fisted approach in dealing with the rebels with a "hearts and minds" campaign.

More than 2,000 people have died in the provinces bordering Malaysia since the insurgency erupted in 2004, fueled by accusations of decades of misrule by the central government. The insurgents have not announced their goals, but they are believed to be fighting for a separate state imbued with radical Islamic ideology.

Add things like the above to my listening material (audio books) in recent weeks:

And with the recent developments in congress I have become more and more convinced we, the non-Muslims, are going to be pushed into essentially unthinkable actions in the near future. By retreating from, or failing to accomplish, the least distasteful of the options available (what President Bush is trying to accomplish in Iraq) we will allow them to develop and use nuclear weapons against us. This war is different than any other war I have heard about. This is a war where there is no one leader, country, or countries to negotiate "terms of surrender" (the surrender of either side) with. You could take out the top three layers of leadership and still the war would not end.

I believe the "religion of peace" will either permanently succeed or permanently fail in the next few decades at the cost of 100's of millions, if not billions, of lives.

# Wednesday, February 14, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:55:08 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Gun Rights )

The prerequisite, of course, to getting the correct answers is to ask the right questions.  Doing so, of course, will often be extremely difficult, and for a wide variety of reasons.

Regarding the Trolley Square shooting incident: We understand that the perpetrator was stopped by an "off duty policeman".  Said off-duty policeman was also outside of the jurisdiction in which he worked as a policeman and was presumably carrying his own, privately-owned handgun (unless I'm wrong and it is in fact the policy of the Ogden Police Department that officers are allowed to carry their city-owned, issue weapons while off-duty and outside the jurisdiction).

So the questions you wont hear are:

Wouldn't that make him just another, regular, armed citizen?

Wouldn't he in fact have been a concealed carry permit holder, like you and me?

If so, how many concealed carry permit holders have you heard of being recommended for honors by city officials after using their guns to save lives, as has been done in this case by Ogden city officials?

Wouldn't the normal response have been "No charges have been filed as of yet" if the defender had NOT been a policeman?

What might have happened if the perpetrator had done this in NYC, DC, San Francisco, or Chicago, where citizens cannot legally defend themselves with concealed firearms?  In that case, wouldn't we be treated to days or weeks of demands in the media for even more gun restrictions, even though the gun restrictions themselves had resulted in a higher death toll?

How should we, as concerned citizens, treat our public servants when they attempt to undermine our ability to defend ourselves and our families against aggression?

# Tuesday, February 13, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:29:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

I thought that banks were required by federal law to have the Socialist Security numbers of all account holders.  It turns out not be true, apparently, for illegals.  I'll choose to think of that as good news.  I'll assume I can now open accounts all over the country, including credit card accounts, without my Socialist Security number or any other documentation of my true identity.  Cool.

# Friday, February 09, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 09, 2007 12:14:02 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Gun Rights | Politics )

Usually when some state or local political type ignores the law (18 USC 242 as well as the 2nd Amendment) and attacts people exercising their constitutionally protected rights the Feds just look the other way. The impression I get is that they figure it's just some uppity gun nut--so who cares? This time it's a little bit different:

In a stern rebuke to the city's high-profile crusade against illegal guns, the feds warned the Bloomberg administration that it could face "potential legal liabilities" if it continues to conduct sting operations that fall within the jurisdiction of federal agents.

...

According to a letter sent to City Hall, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and various U.S. attorneys' offices have determined the city's findings against the 15 dealers "do not rise to a level that would support a criminal prosecution."

The letter - sent Tuesday by Michael Battle, director of the executive office for United States Attorneys at the Department of Justice - also scolded City Hall for engaging in sting operations involving persons "without proper law enforcement authority," saying that could put the city in legal jeopardy. Battle added that City Hall could "unintentionally interrupt or jeopardize" criminal probes.

But of course, just like the classic deep south sherriff that is a member of the KKK, this politician doesn't get it either:

Asked if the Bloomberg administration plans to stop conducting the sting operations, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said, "Not necessarily."

"The city hasn't violated any laws," Skyler said defiantly, adding that the city will continue to pursue its civil lawsuits against the gun dealers.

Via Cam, Jeff, and Uncle.

# Saturday, February 03, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:36:33 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot | Crap for brains | Current News | Freedom )

Even though I have never built a bomb (ignore all the people that keep asking me for help building one) I know a little about them. Tam gets the sarcasm right and now I'm going to fill in a few technical details for you clueless types:

  • Hollywood does not do reality. Putting the time remaining until detonation in large numbers on a bomb is a Hollywood gimmick to increase tension in the story.
  • Lights do not serve any purpose on a bomb other than to draw attention to it.
  • If someone's intent is to hurt people or property drawing attention to the bomb is probably counter productive.
  • Conventional explosives can only directly injury and kill via three different mechanism:
    • High speed projectiles, usually metal, that have been accelerated by the explosion
    • Overpressure which ruptures the lungs of the victims. You must be very close and sheltered from the high speed projectiles for this to matter
    • Acceleration of the victim. The various body parts are accelerated at different rates and the victim is torn apart or the victim can be thrown into an object that hasn't been accelerated; i.e. they are thrown against a concrete wall
  • Bombs can cause indirect injuries such as the structural failure of a bridge, building, dam, dangerous chemical container, or starting fires (non-trivial but possible). Falling glass from the building above you is a big one to be concerned about.
  • Surprisingly small amounts, fractions of a pound, of properly placed explosives can do amazing things to structures without the explosion hurting people just a few feet, even inches, away.
  • Surprisingly large amounts (hundreds of pounds) of improperly placed explosives can do virtually nothing to structures and people who are relatively close by.
  • Hollywood does not do reality. There are no safe ways to disarm bombs in general. Anything you can come up with I (or any other competent electrical engineer) can defeat such that either my bomb will detonate when I want it to or you make a bigger explosion than mine in order to destroy my bomb.
  • Hollywood does not do reality. Fireballs are not an inherent part of explosives. It takes additional effort to create a fireball.  I've spent a lot of time figuring out how to make them (see also this page). It takes a lot of fuel to get something very interesting. The picture below used two pounds of explosives and four gallons of gasoline and I was clearly safe less than 50 feet away.

If you see something suspicious there are two things that are important; 1) How large is it? 2) What is it's placement?

Here are the evacuation distances based on the size of a bomb. Those are worst case distances based in part over the concern of broken glass from the windows between you and the bomb and on the buildings above the sidewalks. A few licorice string sized objects properly placed would be more effective in taking out a bridge than a car fully loaded with explosives driving across the top.

If the placement is very near some important structure such as a bridge or fuel tank one should be more suspicious than if it is in the middle of the Safeway parking lot.

Blinking lights on a flat panel attached to non-interesting structures are either not a bomb or evidence of a very stupid bomber. In either case it's not something to shut down a city's transportation about. Stupid bombers, with the exception of suicide bombers which aren't bombers but bomb delivery vehicles, are very rare because Darwin is very severe in his thinning of that herd. I just wish Darwin would thin the herd of stupid politicians as severely.

# Friday, February 02, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 02, 2007 12:50:03 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Technology )

Initial reports are a little ambiguous but if the Wikipedia entry is to be believed I don't have reason to faint as I was initially inclined (violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a very big deal in my world view).

Still, it is perhaps as big a deal as electronics. And since Maxwell's Demon is very much like the very first electronic device, the diode, the analogy works pretty well. If the analogy holds, as things scale, then the analog of the integrated circuit will be mind boggling let alone the analog of the multi-core, multi-CPU, desktop computer.

# Tuesday, January 30, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:41:10 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom )

Vi Ry and Reason. A 80 year old man was shot and killed by undercover police after he told them to leave his property. He brandished a gun and they shot and killed him. Witnesses say the officers never told him they were undercover. What would the law do if it had been real drug dealers that had shot and killed him? Would they be prosecuted? Almost for certain. Assuming the witnesses are correct, what law says the police are held to a different and lower standard? Will they be held to the same standard as any other person that did the same thing?

Don't count on it. The police are out of control and a good portion of the reason is because of the war on some recreational drugs. It's time the legislature declared victory and gave it up.

Update: More info on the case (thanks to Steph for the link):

Police are now conceding that Singletary was completely innocent. The Jacksonville sheriff describes him in this article as an "honest citizen trying to do good."

Which means that two undercover officers trespassed onto Singletary's property. They then invited criminals onto his property to engage in criminal activity with them. Mr. Singletary, recognizing the trespassers as drug dealers, then properly demanded they leave. He brought a gun along to defend himself, not an unreasonable action, given the circumstances. For this, he was shot to death.

These police officers should be treated exactly the same as any other private citizen who shot to death a private citizen under similar circumstances. I.e. trespassing while engaging in a transaction involving illegal drugs. "The kings men" do not have special, unwritten privileges that places them above the law--both legal and moral law.

# Friday, January 05, 2007
By: Lyle at UltiMAK Friday, January 05, 2007 12:13:02 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

From our friend in Israel:

Friends:
The terrorists have begun killing each other.  The U.S. is racing to infuse millions of dollars into the Fatah terrorist group.  So whats new?
 
Have a good weekend.
Howard

The U.S. has been supporting Jihadist organizations in the name of "Middle East Peace" for decades, as has Israel, by the way.  Can there be any doubt as to why this problem goes on and on, with no end in sight?  What would have been the result if the Allies had adopted this same policy toward the Nazis, or the Imperial Japs?  Does anyone doubt what needs to be done to secure peace over there, or are we still trying as hard as we can to convince ourselves that the Jihadists just want to get along?

# Sunday, December 31, 2006
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, December 31, 2006 4:26:03 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Current News | Freedom | Politics )

Of all the people to be given the death penalty there probably aren't more than a few dozen in the last hundred years that were more clearly deserving than Saddam Hussein. Not only as punishment for his crimes but to prevent him from ever coming to power again. As long as he was alive their was the risk that he would be free and restored to power and take an incredibly bloody revenge.

Yet according to this report our European "allies" condemned the execution:

The United Nations, the Vatican and Washington's European allies all condemned Saddam's execution on moral grounds.

In my view the United Nations has no moral ground to stand on and should just shut their mouth and hide in the corner like they usually do. Or shall we talk about the sex scandals and/or allowing the genocides in Rwanda and the Darfur region of Sudan?

I'll give the Vatican a pass--partly because it's the Christmas season.

The Europeans are going to be learning their own lessons soon enough. The Islamic extremists who are taking over their don't have any qualms about executions and the "moral objections" of the Europeans to them being given the option to convert or die will probably result in some of their positions on morality being revised.

# Saturday, December 30, 2006