Quote of the day—windowlickers

If our politicians had half a brain, combined, they’d STOP going after guns . . .

. . . and start going after munition. Regulating the amount and tracking of ammunition sold, across the country, would be a neat little step. Heck, perscritions get only so many pills. Why not cap Ammo? And if we force all shell casings to be stamped, even the home brew folks (which even the NRA said accounts for a small percentage) would be accountable. Get ranges and back yard nuts to police their brass and turn in casings to get new ones, voila, environmentally responsible AND a built in tracking.

June 27, 2016
Comment to Gun control a high priority for N.J. lawmakers today
[Simple solutions from simple minds. And total crap for brains or else a troll.

“…force all shell casings to be stamped…”? With what? And then what? And people ignore you? And then what? And what about the billions of “unstamped rounds” already in private possession?

This person has to be a troll, right?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dudley Gibson

Our Congress and the NRA contribute to the dangers of policing through their refusal to restrict assault-type weaponry to those that should have it — the police and our military. There is no legitimate purpose for every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess this type of armament. Most rednecks can kill Bambi with one shot!

Yes, I believe strongly in the Second Amendment, but in my opinion, it is entirely constitutional, and rational to restrict these weapons which are designed to only kill other human beings.

Dudley Gibson
June 26, 2016
READER’S OPINION: Assault weapons, the NRA and ‘cowardly’ Republican Congress caused massacre
[The most popular type of firearm in the U.S. apparently doesn’t qualify as being “in common use”, and therefore protected as per the Heller decision, in this “Constitutional Scholar’s” opinion.

“Designed to only kill other human beings”? That would be news to 100s of thousands of deer, rodents, coyotes, and other varmints. And besides I’ve fired thousands of rounds through many different ARs without killing anything. Does that mean those guns were all defective?

This guy may be a mental midget but he still wants to ban guns and is politically active in pursuing that goal. Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take you guns.—Joe]

Disarm Hillary’s bodyguards

From Stephanie:


There is some nuance needed here.

I don’t have a problem, in general, with Hillary having bodyguards. But as long as she is advocating the disarming people who can’t afford bodyguards or have bodyguards paid for by taxpayers then she needs to go without hers.

She apparently does not understand she is applying for a job as a public servant. By constitutional design there are no job openings for rulers in this country as she appears to think there are.

Steel match results

I participated in the Whidbey Island match at Holmes Harbor on Saturday.

The weather was good. The stages were good. The people were fun to hang out with. I had a really good time.




WP_20160625_11_41_56_ProDouble tap both white targets then hit the stop plate.


Here are the results:

Shooter Division Time
Brian Lawson RF-RI-O 41.74
Steve Mooney RF-RI-O 41.85
Brian Lawson. RF-O 47.68
Steve Mooney RF-O 47.79
Jeff Kanter RF-RI-O 48.40
Dan Lavaty RF-RI-O 60.81
Lance Bakken RF-RI-O 62.24
Ken Loucks RF-RI-O 70.12
Joe Huffman RF-I 72.03
Jim Dunlap RF-RI-O 72.14
Jeff Komatsu RF-I 72.33
Jim Dunlap RF-O 74.46
Thomas Alldredge CF-O 77.29
Joe Huffman CF-I 85.14
MAC RF-RV 91.42
Dan Lavaty CF-RV-O 92.51
Lance Bakken CF-LR 93.29
Jeff Kanter CF-I 98.25
Jeff Komatsu CF-O 100.42
Scott Bertino CF-RV-I 114.88
Rev Barchenger RF-O 122.47
MAC CF-RV-I 158.72
Ken Loucks CF-LR DNF

My average time per hit with rim fire iron sights was 0.7203 seconds. With centerfire iron sights it was 0.8514 seconds. At the state championship the week before the average times were 0.5758 and 0.8003 seconds. The stage design makes a big difference. These stages generally had much larger transition distances.

Jeff Kanter was at both matches and Saturday he commented on how well prepared I was for the rain in Ephrata at the championship. I gave Barb all the credit.

Quote of the day—Kanova‏ @kanova

@Duck_Hunter7 because you need guns to feel safe. Probably have a small penis too if you really want the truth.

Kanova‏ @kanova
Tweeted on January 1, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from @Duck_Hunter7.

It’s good to know they still don’t know the first thing about us.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tina Dupuy

I’m a free speech extremist. I believe the government has absolutely no business regulating or censoring speech. Of course, commercially popular speech doesn’t need protection. It’s only unpopular—racist, sexist and vulgar—speech that requires it.

Why is this basic freedom important? Because whomever decides what speech is hateful or distasteful, ultimately becomes the arbiter of our discourse. Then we’re all at the mercy of ever-morphing taboos, mores and, yes, political correctness.

And just for clarity’s sake: The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee immunity from the repercussions of speech. Your boss firing you for tweeting something off-color doesn’t make you a First Amendment martyr—it makes you unemployed. Also, my telling you to shut up isn’t infringing on your freedoms. My telling you to shut up is also my right. It’s the government telling you to shut up that’s infringing on your freedoms.

Tina Dupuy
July 29, 2015
Bobby Jindal’s Stand Against Religious Freedom
[I’m with her on this. And I extend this rational in regards to the 1st Amendment to the 2nd Amendment as well.

Only when the rights of others are infringed should the government step in. People inciting a riot, or falsely yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater are the classic examples of unprotected speech. There is no excuse for preventing the speech. This is called “a chilling effect” on speech and is unconstitutional. And so it is with preventing “gun violence”. Only when someone is actually put in danger of illegal injury (to their person or property) is it valid for the government to take action.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charlie Rangel

If it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.

I wouldn’t want them to have it. Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun.

[The reporter pointed out the armed U.S. Capitol Police inside the building, just a few feet away from the congressman, Rangel laughed and responded:]

Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve — I think we need to be protected down here.

Charlie Rangel
Congressman (D-N.Y.)
June 21, 2016
Congressman Says His Constituents ‘Shouldn’t Have to Carry a Gun’ — However, Congress ‘Deserves’ and ‘Needs’ to Be Protected by Them
[I’ve seen this referenced several places but I think it was Paul Koning who sent me the first email.

It’s just amazing to me the level of hypocrisy some people are capable of. The hypocritical people I know in real life are like toddlers compared to world class athletes in their prime like Congressman Rangel.—Joe]

Interesting question

Via Say Uncle: What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban?

In the states that have such bans what the gun controllers did when 85%+ of citizens ignored them was declare victory and ignore them back. I suspect this will only last for a while. Eventually the laws will have to be repealed or things will get more and more tense.

Our job is to continue changing the culture by taking non-gun owners to the range and being open about gun ownership in hopes of decreasing the tension.

How is this not a felony?

I often claim people are in violation of 18 USC 241 and/or 242 and know it will almost certainly not result in even a sideways glance from a prosecutor.

But via Alan Korwin we have something that has me baffled.

This is from HR2578 (“To authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists.”):

No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…

The writers of this have to know they are attempting to create a law that will be thrown out as unconstitutional. Otherwise they wouldn’t care if it were reviewed by the courts for constitutionality. Right?

If they are knowingly working together to infringe upon rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then tell me how a prosecutor can squint their eyes, twist the meaning of words, and claim what these people are doing is not a conspiracy to deny rights?

For your easy review 18 USC 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 USC 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

These people need to be prosecuted.

Quote of the day—Nicki Stallard

Most would agree — as do I — that violence is rarely the answer, and it’s never a first line of defense. But when my friends tell me they’d rather die than resort to violence, I tell them fine, I’ll light a candle at your vigil. It’s your choice. But those are the stakes. Don’t kid yourself otherwise.

Nicki Stallard
June 22, 2016
The L.G.B.T. Case for Guns
[Via email from Jaime.

Virtually identical, via email from Stephanie, is this:

Most would agree – as do I – that violence is rarely the answer, and it’s never a first line of defense. But when someone attacks you, they volunteer for you to hurt them. When my friends tell me they’d rather die than resort to violence, I tell them fine, I’ll light a candle at your vigil. It’s your choice. But those are the stakes. Don’t kid yourself otherwise.

Nicki Stallard
June 20, 2016
The Pink Pistols: We’re Here, We’re Geared, Get Used To It!

I have nothing to add to either quote.—Joe]

The mask drops

So, my Former Classmate I talked about the other day came back and posted a rant on Facebook:

Personally I don’t like guns and superbly do not agree that there is any NON military need for many types of guns available to just anyone.
But what I am absolutely sick to death of is the flaccid guns laws in place. And just as sick of the blockade the criminally financed fucking NRA puts up against any laws that would make harder to buy a gun.

If you are TRULY a responsible gun owner what is your big bitch with doing what CAN be done to mitigate murder by gun?

Your …crappy example of what happened in Paris ( sad as it was) is poor at best when you look at ALL the stats. Gun ownership and gun murders by country.

The USA has the highest gun ownership AND the highest death by gun.
IF IF IF you are a responsible gun owner then keep your bloody masterbatory toys but you MUST know the ease with which you bought them was just wrong. And you know you have gun owning friends that pushed just a tad would roll a full bubble out of plumb.

If if if you want to be a responsible gun owner then support laws that might make it a modicum harder for assholes like the Orlando murderer to get guns.

Oh……and my heartfelt condolences to the “responsible” gun shop owner that offered conceal and carry and gun handling classes. He was shot to death by one of his students because some “responsible” person loaded live vs rubber bullets into the students gun.

I found this very telling. The insults, the demands that gun owners “MUST know” things which she believes. She has an extremely low opinion of gun owners and demands control over them. The mask dropped. She wants to be a tyrant and she is dehumanizing gun owners to justify whatever “whatever it takes” to get her way.

I responded with:

Do you really want to have this conversation with me?

Her response:

No. I did not.


You have some options to consider because I won’t be quiet while you insult the nation’s oldest and (probably largest) civil rights organization, the NRA and their 5+ million members. And “bloody masturbatory toys”? Really? You think 100+ million men and women have exercised their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms for masturbation? I think it’s very telling you use insults instead of facts and logic.

As I see it you have the following options available to you.

1)    You can unfriend me. This, of course, would mean that you know your stated beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny.
2)    You do not bring up the topic again. This probably means you don’t have confidence in your position.
3)    You engage me in a civil discussion on the topic. As someone told me recently, “Rare on FB”.
4)    You ignore me as I dissect your hateful rants.
5)    You research the facts and admit you were wrong.

Your choice. What’s it going to be?

I waited a couple days and then yesterday she made another post, addressed to no one in particular, apologizing for being so hateful.

I responded to that post, thanking her for saying that. I also responded to her rant:

I’m tired of the gun laws in place as well. What part of “…shall not be infringed” don’t people understand?

But beyond the snark let’s think about this some.

Terilyn wants to make it more difficult to buy guns so there would be less “murder by gun”. This motive is either deliberately deceptive or naïve. The method of murder is irrelevant. What matters is the total murder rate and, more broadly, the violent crime rate.

Private ownership of guns makes self-defense against a younger and stronger attacker feasible. Guns are an equalizer. If criminals have difficulty acquiring guns they will substitute other weapons or chose easier victims. And let’s imagine making guns the most difficult to acquire as possible. Let’s imagine banning them completely. Would that prevent criminals from getting them?

We know the answer to this. How difficult was it for people to get alcohol during prohibition? Or how difficult is it for the average high school drop out to get recreational drugs? That’s right, they can probably score whatever they want within an hour 24x7x365.

Banning guns will be no different. And the harder you make it to obtain guns the less likely innocent people will go though the effort to purchase them and become skilled in their use. And that means they will be less likely to have a gun to defend themselves when they really need one.

So how can anti-gun people claim gun restriction are a good thing? It’s by being deceptive or naïve and only talking about “gun murders” or “gun crime”.

When comparing violent crime of ALL TYPES in other countries to the US we get a much different picture:


The violent crime rate per 100,000 in a few other countries (from the late 2000s) is as follows:

UK: 2,034
Austria: 1,677
South Africa: 1,609
Sweden: 1,124
Belgium: 1,006
Canada: 935
Finland: 738
Netherlands: 676
Luxembourg: 565
France: 504

So care to guess where the U.S. fits in there?


According to the article I linked to it’s 466. You can verify the US numbers with the FBI here: https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

We have still further means of verifying that private gun ownership in the U.S. is not a problem. Look at the rate of gun sales (millions per year) compared to homicide, violent crime, and accident gun deaths in the attached picture.


Correlation does not prove causation. But a negative correlation certainly proves that “easy access to guns” cannot be blamed for murder and violent crime.

We have still other means to test the claim that “flaccid gun laws” are a problem. I have been asking a question for over a decade now. And many others, including the CDC and the Department of Justice, have been asking it in slightly different forms without being able to find an answer that agrees with those who want more repressive gun laws. The background for the question can be found here: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/

The question is, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?” The answer turns out to be, “No.”

That question is so popular among gun rights activists that I was asked to put it on a t-shirt (available here: http://www.cafepress.com/theviewfromnorthcentralidaho ).

So the final question one has to ask is, “Since we know private gun ownership does not make violent crime more likely, what is the real reason so many people want to restrict gun ownership?” I’ve been working on the problem for over 20 years now and it’s clear the answer is complicated and not very pretty. I’ll leave that for everyone else to think on and we can discuss it another time and place if desired.

I checked Facebook this morning to see if there was any response. There was. I’m glad I kept a copy of almost everything because I no longer have access to her posts on gun control.

Terilyn Reber, Orofino Idaho High School, class of 1973, chose option 1). Reasoned Discourse.

Quote of the day—Scott Adams

We do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats.

Scott Adams
June 22, 2016
Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA
[I’ve seen various numbers but they range from 65% to 75% of prison inmates are Democrats. And, of course, my readers will know that nearly all mass murderers are Democrats/progressives/Socialist/Communists.

As I have said before:

One might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.

A modification to Adam’s claim is that Democrats want to control (and failing that, kill) those who oppose them. And removing the means of  defense against that is their true motive.

Regardless of the motivation, molṑn labé.—Joe]

Announcing Ghost Gunner 2

Via email yesterday from Cody R Wilson:

Today Defense Distributed announces the official launch of the second generation of its Ghost Gunner CNC mill, the GG2. Over the last two years, and with volumes of input from our customers, we’ve slowly revised and revised our specifications, electronics and tools to create a more ideal version of our machine– purpose-built for finishing AR and other firearm receivers.

Many more details and a video here.

I want a set of these

Prosounds via Indiegogo is funding the initial manufacturing and marketing of these:


This is hearing protection (30 db) and enhancement (they claim “6X” which I suspect means about 8 db) that fits in your ear. The difficulty of getting a good check weld on your rifle will just go away but you can still hear and have good sound protection. You can wear whatever hat you want with them and you can carry them in a small pocket wherever you go.

Their media release:

Media Contact: Greg Duncan
Blue Heron Communications
(800) 654-3766

ProSounds Launches H2P Hearing Protection and Enhancement Earpieces via Indiegogo
Supporters offered opportunity for steep discounts

DRAPER, Utah (June 22, 2016) – ProSounds® Powered by Axil continues its mission to bring the most advanced hearing protection and enhancement devices to the civilian, industrial, shooting and military/police sectors with the launch of the H2P Earpieces on Indiegogo. Consumers can receive the H2P earpieces at a discounted price.

Supporters who back the ProSounds Indiegogo campaign will enjoy discounted rates that increase along with the amount of product purchased. Consumers and businesses that take advantage of the larger packages will receive the greatest savings. The Indiegogo campaign begins June 22 and will run through July 22.

“The H2P earpieces will change how people protect their hearing,” said ProSounds President and Founder Weston Harris. “They deliver high-quality, high-tech hearing protection and enhancement without the inconvenience of bulky head muffs or uncomfortable behind-the-ear devices. Lightweight and low-profile, the H2P will benefit anyone who experiences loud sounds throughout their everyday life.”

Designed to provide 100 percent digital protection and enhancement in one simple device, the new ProSounds H2P earpieces represent the newest advancement in hearing protection. Engineered with Lynx™ Digital Sound Clarity for optimal performance, the H2P earpieces deliver amplification of up to six times higher than normal hearing while simultaneously blocking any potential damaging noises in excess of 85 decibels.

The H2P earpieces are small and discreet and feature adjustable volume control, which allow users to easily select their preferred hearing level for each ear. Three styles of tips with the universal SecurFit™ design allow for all-day comfort whether at the range, workplace or in the field. Perfect for hunting, shooting range sessions, sporting events, concerts and industrial workplaces, the H2P provides the best digital compression hearing protection technology available.

The H2P earpieces are a great option for anyone who needs quality hearing protection and enhancement. With damage to hearing beginning at 85 decibels, 140 million Americans put their hearing at risk while at work, shooting ranges, hunting trips, sporting events and more. Designed with a comfortable fit and featuring high-quality digital compression, anyone who experiences loud noises can benefit from the H2P earpieces.

Axil, parent company of ProSounds, is the industry leader of hearing enhancement and protection technology, and has been helping people around the world improve and protect their hearing for over 57 years. To learn more about the ProSounds H2P Indiegogo campaign, please visit Indiegogo.

Quote of the day—Jonah Goldberg

I started writing about such instances of “lying for justice” 20 years ago, and it has only gotten worse.

I don’t think people appreciate how pernicious and widespread this crowdsourced totalitarianism really is. Routine lies in the service of left-wing narratives are justified in the name of “larger truths,” while actual truth-telling in the other direction is denounced as hate speech or “triggering.”

Jonah Goldberg
June 10, 2016
Liberals go to extremes to start a dialogue.
[H/T Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots.

We need to stand up to these lying totalitarians. Confront them, shame them, and tell them they can either tell the truth or be publically disgraced.—Joe]