# Wednesday, February 28, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:36:23 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Guns destroy and kill and they are a threat to our democracy.

Judy Bassingthwaighte
Director of Gun Free South Africa
January 24, 2006
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=129&fArticleId=3079045
[I always find projection interesting. Guns are what protect the people from a government turning tyrannical and she gets it precisely backward. I remember having a conversation with one woman who totally agreed the press was extremely biased. But she believed it was biased against liberals. Projection is just one of many tools utilized by anti-gun bigots with mental problems.--Joe]

# Tuesday, February 27, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:53:07 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights | PNNL )

Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority and a couple of other guys put in a lot of time trying to talk sense into some bigots over the last couple of days. I just lurked until today. I finally posted my Just One Question--which of course went unanswered.

Then the bigots attacked a gun owner that reported an instance where he felt he was about to be attacked by a couple of young men. He put his hand on his gun and without drawing it faced the young men down. They went away without incident. Then the bigots claimed the incident never occurred or that if it did the young men were just probably "asking if you want to buy a ticket to a school's charity event." That pissed me off. My response:

I find it quite interesting that someone that was not a witness to the alleged event concludes the event did not occur without producing any facts of their own or pointing out any inconsistency in the reporting of the event. Apparently they believe they have some sort of ESP that allows them to remotely view the event in the past without knowing the exact location or time of the event. Very impressive...

Or perhaps it's just another bigoted statement against a gun owner. Dismissing their statements out of hand simply because they reported facts that are uncomfortable to the bigot.

Gun owners are the niggers/gays/Jews/pick-your-minority of the 21st century. What would your reaction be if the some politician demanded you be registered because of the color of your skin, your choice of sexual partners, or your religion? What if you were not allowed to freely associate with others of your kind without reporting it to the government (gun show laws present in some states)? What if you were subject to special investigation and discrimination in your employment if you spoke up about these infringements of your rights outside of work and on your own time? What if there were organizations that were openly advocating your extinction from society despite clear constitutional and statutory protection? What if the courts ignored the constitution and the laws supposedly protecting these minority? What if the bigoted politicians that, by law (check out 18 USC 242), should go to jail are instead regarded as “progressive” and “innovative” and are reelected again and again? What if people said you "are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity"?

That's what it's like to be a gun owner today. That is why we are so sensitive and why we are so dedicated. It's because our culture is being threatened with permanent extinction by bigots who don't care what the facts are. Bigots who can't answer Just One Question.

It's a waste of my time. It's jousting with windmills, so to speak, but it made me feel better.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:58:55 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Home Life )

Weekend before last I had the joy of spending a little more time with my wife and remaining child at home when they came over to the Seattle area on Thursday night and stayed until Monday. Xenia tells the story with pictures.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:52:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

Demonstrating that gun owners and gun owner rights activists are always helpful and informative Jeff Knox at the Firearms Coalition sent out this email requesting that we participate in a survey to help educate Sarah Brady and friends. It sounds entirely reasonable to me. I enjoy teaching others about firearms and the law. Here is the invite from Jeff:

-----Original Message-----
From: Firearms Coalition
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: [Fcalerts-list] Brady Survey

Please reply to feedback at FirearmsCoalition.org (using appropriate email format). 


Sarah Brady is sending supporters a link to an on-line survey asking
them (as a faithful friends) to answer the questions and help guide the
Brady Campaign in their dealings with Congress and state legislatures.

Being a democratic guy, I feel compelled to share this with others
concerned about the gun control issue so the Brady's get a very clear
picture of just what the public really thinks about their issues.

Just like the surveys often sent out by pro-gun groups this survey is
more about fundraising than actually seeking anyones opinion.  Please
answer the survey and consider following through on their fundraising
appeal by writing a check to your favorite gun rights group.  We at the
Firearms Coalition would be very proud to receive donations in honor of
Sarah Brady.

Follow this link and answer Sarah Brady's survey:

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SRV_2007GeneralLegislativePrioritiesSurvey

The "Name", "Address", and "Email" request at the top can be left blank.

If you enter an e-mail address, they might put you on their mailing list
so you can keep tabs on their activities.

Please pass this on and post it wherever you can.  I'm not sure Sarah's
servers can handle the traffic we can generate!

Yours for the Second Amendment

Jeff Knox
Director of Operations
The Firearms Coalition

On-line contributions to the Firearms Coalition can be made at
www.FirearmsCoalition.org or mailed to:

The Firearms Coalition
Box 3313
Manassas, VA  20108

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:40:06 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Sex | Technology )

Ms. Dewey has been reported on before but I decided to test out how she handled the topic of guns. I did repeated searches for "gun" and I was rather pleased in how she handled it. Plenty of snark without being anti-rights.

Similar satisfactory results came with searches for:

  • keep and bear arms
  • 2nd Amendment
  • gun control
  • Violence Policy Center
  • Million Mom March
  • Brady Campaign the Prevent Gun Violence
  • explosives

Of course I expect lonely geeks will spend lots of time asking her sexual questions. I'm happy to report I spent less than an hour doing that.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:43:53 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot )

After much discussion and thinking about it I have decided we can’t allow tracers. At previous events, even though the ground was very wet, there have been several occurrences where tracers started fires in the grass. If those tracers had landed in the woods just a couple hundred yards to the east and started a fire it would be the end of Boomershoot. Sorry about that.

Saturday I got wireless internet service (Wifi) implemented at the Boomershoot site. The signal isn’t all that strong but it is useable except for positions about 65 through 70. The parking area except for part of the .50 caliber area is fine too. I might be able to improve things some but I won’t know for a month or so. Because it is via satellite the ping times are rather long. The typical ping time from there to Boomershoot.org was about 1400 milliseconds. The specs on the service are:

Up to 512Kbps downstream
128Kbps upstream

Fair Access Policy threshold limits (monthly):
7,500MB Download
2,300MB Upload

What this means is that with a few dozen people using it things are going to be rather slow. Checking email and light blogging is going to be fine but uploading or downloading videos is out. We also need to be a little bit careful that we don’t exceed the monthly limits. The access point is unencrypted and has the SSID of “Boomershoot”.

I’ve been investigating the possibility of doing a night time Boomershoot on Friday night (something like 21:00 to midnight) the 27th. The answer is still up in the air. The blocking issue is the late night noise. I’ve been talking to some of the neighbors and I’m hoping to come up with a conclusion in a couple weeks.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:36:48 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Poor Lefties; they've been playing on astroturf so long that they don't know grassroots even when fed a mouthful of divot.

Tamara K.
February 27, 2007
Boomsticks: I hadn't seen this yet...
[Yup. Just like it is a "special interest group" when the NRA, with four million members, gets it's way on some legislative issue. But it's "the people" that are represented by the Brady Bunch, with only a couple hundred thousand member, gets their way.--Joe]

# Monday, February 26, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, February 26, 2007 11:53:25 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( PNNL )

Battelle (PNNL) has 40 days from the day we served them to respond to our interrogatories. If I did my day counting correctly that means we are due the materials this Saturday. I'm quite anxious to see what they are going to deliver.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, February 26, 2007 5:58:29 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Gravatar Kevin Baker.......Is the name of your blog "How to win friends(Converts) and influence people.com?" Nice attitude Dude! I got your ignorance hanging right here.

R.L.
February 26, 2007 2:32 pm
A comment in response to this comment by Kevin:

Well, it's nice to finally find out where all of you "moderate" gun owners congregate. Those of you who seem to believe that there are "good" guns and "bad" guns, and that somehow you can compromise with the side that thinks that the U.S. needs to be like Japan.

I invite each and every one of you to come to my blog. I'd love to discuss the topic with you, since you don't apparently grasp the intent of the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in specific.

Let me see if I can make you understand with the short version: The other side wants them all, and will do it in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process if that's what it takes. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or "sporting use" and it never was. And if the gun ban groups are successful here, America will make Britain's experience look like a day in Disney World.

If you don't believe this, if you aren't informed as to what's going on, if you think you can "compromise" and that it's OK to throw one group of legal gun owners under the bus so that you can keep your "bambi-zapper," or "daffy-blaster" you're wrong.

The sheer ignorance exhibited by most of you in this comment thread is staggering.

[Kevin is probably the least ignorant blogger I know. The irony that R.L. can claim to deduce Kevin is ignorant without having ever visited Kevin's blog leaves me once again unable to explain it any other way that blatant bigotry. And of course this crowd of bigots don't realize they are being bigots even as they say gun owners "are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity".--Joe]

# Sunday, February 25, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:14:44 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Home Life )

I did a little bit of roping with the cattle we had when I was growing up on the farm. And I've seen a lot of deer, some of which I have been close enough to rope, but it has never occurred to me to consider it. Perhaps I unconsciously knew that wasn't a good idea. Or perhaps it was my parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents that always gave a very simple, and what I always thought was cryptic rather than profound, answer to any suggestions of attempts to interact with non-domestic animals, "They're wild animals."

After reading this story and taking into accounts such as Deerslayer by Ray Stevens I'm thinking my most recent effort to reach out and touch a deer, with my .300 Winchester Magnum, is the most appropriate.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 25, 2007 10:36:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

The Dunblane massacre was the spark that ignited the inferno that resulted in the banning of all handguns in the U.K. Thousands of people told them it wouldn't do any good. Now some of the most vigorous proponents of the ban are saying, "You were right." From the Sunday Herald in Scotland:

I allowed myself two simple, possibly simplistic, strategies. First, I was not ever going to attempt to "explain" Hamilton: the bereaved deserved better. Secondly, in my small way, I was going to take on anyone who failed to support the banning of handguns.

There was a lot of American comment, predictably, and much of it abusive. The clichés appeared as if by return of post. "Guns don't kill people," they wrote. "People kill people." So why - this struck me almost as the definition of self-evident - did Thomas Hamilton feel a need for four of the damnable things?

Then the Duke of Edinburgh, and the field sports people, and the target shooters entered the fray. The royal consort, with his usual sensitivity, expressed the view that things were getting out of hand, and that a more considered response was required. I can clobber royals in my sleep.

The most troubling questions came, instead, from those who answered my simplicities with one of their own. They didn't oppose a ban, as such. They merely wanted to know why I was so sure that legislation would work.

That seemed obvious. It even seemed faintly stupid to think otherwise. No guns, no gun-killings. Remove the threat: wasn't that one of the jobs of government?

Sceptics were more subtle than I allowed. What they meant was that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don't take much interest in well-meaning legislation. If they chose to arm themselves while the rest of society was, in effect, disarming, outraged newspaper commentators and their quick fixes might merely make matters worse.

...

Let's concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn't mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?

The answer to the practical question is that, in the technical terms of security experts, the attack surface is too large. There are just too many different ways to get past the barriers. It only takes one hole in "the wall". And if there is sufficient demand for a product the market will find a way to meet that demand.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 25, 2007 10:00:40 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.

And I know I'm not going to make very many friend saying this. But it's about all rights. All of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.

Suzanne Hupp
Testifying before congress regarding the assault weapons ban.

[No wonder Schumer, briefly seen in the video, pushed for the ban. Ms. Hupp confirmed his worst fears.--Joe]

# Saturday, February 24, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 24, 2007 8:32:58 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Two years ago I didn’t even know what a charging handle was. Today I am a NRA and JPFO member and train on a regular basis. I got the message loud and clear that I am responsible for my own safety. The Katrina webcams and blogs that skipped CNN beat me over the head with it.

Thus, my AWB glass right now is half-full. Let’s just do a Zumbo Roasting on Congress and call it a day.

Tony Pacheco
Friday, February 23, 2007 12:48 PM
In email sent to insightstraining AT yahoogroups.com
[We, as gun owners, can help with these conversions. Enable others to talk about guns by you talking about guns or displaying a target from your latest trip to the range. Enable others to make the change of state by offering to take them to the range and let them use your firearms.--Joe]

# Friday, February 23, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 23, 2007 5:15:21 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Ballistics | Technology )

Earlier I wrote about the entertainment industry giving magical powers to firearms.  More recently, the Discovery channel, on their new program, Future Weapons, did a bit about an "actual" 1.5 mile, one shot hit from a cold bore using the new .416 Barrett.  The shooter was depicted as firing his first shot ever from that rifle and hitting his target (a circle of about 5 feet diameter) at 1.5 miles.  My skepticism lead me back to Joe's exterior ballistics program.  Since Barrett had just sent us a write-up and the specs on his new cartridge, all I had to do was plug in his numbers.  I allowed, again, for the most amazing velocity standard deviation of 5 feet per second, with a 1/2 MOA accurate rifle/cartridge combination.  I reduced the effects of the atmosphere by raising the elevation to 3000 feet.  I enlarged the target to a 12 x 20 inch ellipse (roughly the one-shot kill area of the human body) and still I came up with a probability of a one shot hit (any hit) of about 8 percent at 1.5 miles.  The hit probability at that range on a 5-foot circle is about 58%.  Time if flight: 4.05 sec.  Extremely good, but you have to push the accuracy of the system to the edge of believability to get it, and with a perfect marksman.  It's certainly not what we're being led to believe by the TV producers.

Barrett's specs for the .416:

 

      Muzzle velocity: 3250 fps

Ballistic Coefficient: 0.943

           Bullet Mass: 400 grains – solid copper

 

I want one!  I wonder if they're going to come out with some light varmint bullets for it, or some frangible defense loads.  Heh.

 

By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 23, 2007 9:49:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Michael Badnarik
Michael Badnarik on Gun Control
[If current trends continue in the race for nomination for 2008 presidential candidates I probably will vote Libertarian.--Joe]

# Thursday, February 22, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:20:47 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics | Sex )

Gay marriage may take some time to make it to all 50 states but just like the concealed carry of firearm reforms that swept the nation in the past decade we are now seeing gay marriage start a relentless march. New Jersey has now decided that the gay cooties (thanks to Say Uncle for turning me on to that phrase) aren't all that big of a concern. See also my other posts on this topic:

I'm reminded of a quote pointed out to me by Kevin Baker:

Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.

Teresa Neilson Hayden

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:58:03 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | PNNL )

Ry pointed this out to me. Absolutely applicable to my situation with PNNL. A ruling that appears to be exactly what we want. It covers what we regarded as the weakest point of our case:

A federal district court has just applied this principle to hold that Ohioans — even ones employed by private employers — are presumptively protected from being fired for off-employer-property (and presumably off-duty and lawful) possession of guns. The case is Plona v. UPS, 2007 WL 509747 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13)

Update: I posted a comment on the blog the above was posting on. I received this very interesting comment:

A. Zarkov (mail):

Joe Huffman:

Very interesting but not at all surprising. The national labs, including Los Alamos, Livermore, Oak Ridge, Berkeley, Brookhaven etc have been notorious for trampling on their employees. Don’t trust them on discovery. One of those labs got caught red-handed destroying documents they were supposed to turn over as part of discovery. While it hurt their court case, they got away with it.
They are felons. I expected such behavior from them. Of course I'm in a little better situation than some people in that I have sufficient evidence in my own log files to incriminate them. Not only do they need to destroy their evidence they will have to manufacture evidence to extract them from their predicament. And that doesn't even address the problem of all the witnesses.
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:02:23 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( PNNL )

When, in the mid 1990s, PNNL (operated by Battelle Memorial Institute) defrauded the government, fired the whistle blower, and then got caught they had to pay triple damages. Not just the original amount of fraud:

The Department of Justice announced today that Battelle Memorial Institute has agreed to pay the United States $330,000 to settle allegations it used government-owned equipment to service commercial customers in violation of a federal contract.

...

After the DOE Office of the Inspector General began an investigation in 1992, Battelle reimbursed the government $110,000 for unauthorized use of certain spectrometry equipment from 1988 through 1992.

...

The False Claims Act provides for the recovery of treble damages suffered by the government and penalties for each false claim submitted.

I had original believed they just paid back the amount of the false claims.

I'm hoping they soon become very tired of hearing the phrase "treble damages".

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:14:35 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken
[I've been reading about the proposed law regarding an "assault weapon" ban. I note with a certain amount of amusement Congress-critter McCarthy specifically calls out the Olympic Arms PCR as an "assault weapon" in the proposed legislation. I wonder if she knows "PCR" stands for Politically Correct Rifle.--Joe]

# Wednesday, February 21, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:51:22 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Technology )

Ice that burns:

Very cool.

Video here.

If we mine the ice off the polar caps, then burn it to power our cars, run our factories, and to heat our homes does that count as an "alternate energy source" to the tree huggers? What does it all mean for "global warming"? Shouldn't it be considered an "all natural" energy source?

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:51:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Home Life )

Microsoft is donating $1.00 to Seattle's Children's Hospital (worthy cause, one of our kids spent several days there and we were very happy with the care provided) every time you use their search engine at this link.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:40:24 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Blog stuff | Gun Rights )

I probably get more pleasure out of this than I should but having "The Gun Guy" stop by to read about his mental problems is pretty amusing to me. Also worthy of a chuckle is that for his search word "gunguys" my blog posting about him comes in at #10 on Ask.com and Lycos.com and #8 at Yahoo.com.

Domain Name   verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address   71.113.146.# (Verizon Internet Services)
ISP   Verizon Internet Services
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  Illinois
City  :  Bloomington
Lat/Long  :  40.4698, -88.9474 (Map)
Distance  :  1,459 miles
Language   English (United States)
en-us
Operating System   Linux UNIX
Browser   Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20070209 Fedora/1.5.0.9-3.fc6 Firefox/1.5.0.9 pango-text
Javascript   version 1.5
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  24 bits
Time of Visit   Feb 21 2007 8:37:23 am
Last Page View   Feb 21 2007 8:38:46 am
Visit Length   1 minute 23 seconds
Page Views   2
Referring URL http://www.ask.com/web?q=gunguys&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir
Search Engine ask.com
Search Words gunguys
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffman.org/PermaLink,guid,ab13b335-b9c8-47a1-8475-98c728115a46.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffman.org/2005/06/15/Mental+Problems+Of+Antigun+People.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-6:00
Visitor's Time   Feb 21 2007 10:37:23 am
Visit Number   135,485

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:56:49 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Politics | Quote of the Day | Sex )

Politics is my hobby. Smut is my vocation.

Larry Flynt
[In some ways I'm envious.--Joe]

# Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:43:58 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Home Life | Technology )

It appeals to my inner electrical engineer.

Decades ago my brother and I made some pretty "healthy" sparks for tormenting various farm animals. We probably got zapped ourselves more than any of the animals but it was a lot of fun. This is way beyond "healthy". This is like "holy mother of immortal gods" quality of sparks.

Thanks to Brutal Hugger at Say Uncle.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:06:20 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot )

I just receive an email from my hillbilly friend in Missouri. In addition to the exploding clays, the anvil launch, and the microwave demolition he plans to have machine guns for rent. Details will be available at a later time.

The next event will be May 19 and 20th. If you attend let me know what you thought.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:58:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

It's just putting more nails in a coffin that was glued, screwed shut, and then had rocks piled on it years ago but here is more evidence gun control has failed in the U.K.:

Although the Metropolitan Police seized 909 firearms and more than 16,000 rounds of ammunition last year, no one knows with certainty how many guns are on Britain's streets. Only last Friday a wealthy businessman who controlled an international gun-smuggling operation from eastern Europe to London was jailed for 10 and a half years. Officers caught Gerald Smith, 47, handing over 18 converted Baikal pistols, 18 silencers and 748 rounds in north London last May. But such successes are relatively few.

Cressida Dick, the commander of Scotland Yard's specialist crime directorate, pointed to the ease with which guns can be rented overnight as an issue. She warned that guns are being moved routinely around Britain: 'We are seeing firearms being used in several different crimes and there are examples of different offenders using the same firearm across the UK.'

Yet they still think there is some debate to be made:

The spate of killings that began in broad daylight when 21-year-old Javorie Chrighton was stabbed to death at a bus stop a few minutes walk from where the meeting was held would, within days, lead to the current debate over whether Britain has lost its fight against gun control.

Inside the meeting hall at Peckham's Learning and Business Centre last week, speaker after speaker painted a picture of a community's misery since the murder of 10-year-old Damilola Taylor six years ago. There are new buildings, but little else seems to have changed.

Give it up guys. You lost. I know it's tough to admit you were wrong, especially when we have been saying since day one that it wouldn't work. But dealing with the embarrassment is not nearly as bad as dealing with all the innocent victims.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:29:12 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Home Life )

Barb had an epiphany this weekend. She announced it was because of me that our kids always question authority. They don't automatically believe anything their teachers, parents, or other authority figures say. She says it's because I lie to them all the time.

I thought this was a little harsh. Sure, I tell them lots of things that aren't true. But when I do it's so outrageous they should know it's not true. If asked, "Where is Leo (the dog)?" I'm just as likely to tell them, "I think there is still some left in the refrigerator." as I am to say Barb took him on a walk. Or, real example, when picking up Xenia after school three teenage girls got in the van rather than just one. They shut the door and as I pulled away Xenia said girl number two is coming home to work on a project for a while and asks if girl number three can get a ride to her home because it's raining, she didn't bring a coat to school today, and her dad doesn't have a car. I tell the girls, "No. I think she should walk home in the rain. If she gets pneumonia and dies it will just be Darwinism in action." As I head toward girl number three's home I look in the mirror to see the open mouth and shocked look on her face. Xenia gave me "the look" and translated for the others, "That means yes." It wasn't too much later that they developed a code word for Xenia to use to signal "Dad isn't serious."

This epiphany of Barb's came about after Barb and I took Xenia to the Seattle wharf with a first destination of the Ye Old Curiosity Shop on Saturday. On our way there Xenia asked what was there. "Shrunken heads", I told her. Xenia gave me "the look" and said, "No, really." I told her, "Mummies and shrunken heads." She wasn't satisfied with my clarification and announced, "You're smiling. I don't believe you." Barb backed me up but Xenia just wouldn't buy it.

As soon as we arrived at the shop I led Xenia to the back of the store and introduced her to Sylvester and Sylvia. After she adjusted to them I showed her the shrunken heads. "Now do you believe me?" I demanded. She finally, grudgingly, gave me her agreement that I was telling her the truth. Of course this made my day and I lorded it over her several times later during the day. She defended herself saying she it's hard to know for certain when I'm serious and when I'm just making stuff up. It was during one of these times that Barb had her epiphany. "That's why our kids question authority! It's because you lie to them all the time!"

Sunday night when we had dinner at Outback with James we told the story to James and he said he too would have "called bullshit" if I had told him we were going to see shrunken heads and mummies. He Xenia elaborated, "Dad, you say things exactly the same whether they are true or not."

Okay. So maybe it's true. I'll have take credit for raising such great kids. And all this time I thought it was because they just had great genetic material.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:24:26 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Nothing is as debilitating and disorienting as blowing chunks of heart, spine, and brain out of your opponent. Any goal other than a pure physical stop is crap IMO. I don't rely on my opponent being a pussy.

Greg Hamilton
Chief self defense instructor at Insights Training Center
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:22 PM
From the email list "insightstraining" @ yahoogroups.com
[Regarding points of aim in a gun fight.--Joe]

# Monday, February 19, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, February 19, 2007 11:56:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

Jim Zumbo got roasted via multiple flame throwers then his bones were picked clean in a matter of hours. He said some incredibly naive (he's probably not stupid) things but the gun rights community could have handled it a little better. With his writings about hunting Zumbo contributed a lot to gun rights and, in the big picture, to destroy him was not productive.

Do you ever see such a feeding frenzy occur on the other side? They say some incredibly stupid/naive things too but the don't eat their own like just what happened to Zumbo. And because of that productive people continue to contribute to their cause.

I've seen some people make some public statements that I disagreed with. I've seen people make some public statement that I did agree with but thought were counter productive unless they were made to very small groups of people you completely trusted. I've made public statements that were counterproductive.

The way I handled them (and others handled them with me) was to approach the person in private and explain your position. In every case I have done this, even when the person didn't see things my way initially, they didn't engage in that particular counterproductive action again.

That is not to say that I haven't gone public with some pretty harsh words about people that were supposedly on our side but making a mess of things. But I don't think I have done anything that would take them out of the fight--our fight.

Destroying someone that is productive and, in the big picture, is contributing toward your goal is a luxury we don't have. We can use all the help we can get.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, February 19, 2007 11:24:52 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

Jeff point this out earlier today but it really can't be given too much coverage. Kennesaw sticks to its guns: Law requires firearms

Next month, Kennesaw marks the 25th anniversary of what a local historian called the ordinance "that rocked the world."

Every head of household, the 1982 law states, must own a firearm and appropriate ammunition. It was passed, at least in part, in response to the actions of Morton Grove, Ill., which had just adopted an anti-gun ordinance.

...

Police agree. "We look at it as part of our crime prevention program," Graydon said.

Police cite Kennesaw's crime statistics, which show a community largely untouched by the worst offenses like murder, rape, robbery and assault.

On a per capita basis, the city's serious crime rate has plunged since the law was passed. The actual number of the most serious crimes has barely increased, even as the city's population has exploded from about 5,000 in 1980 to more than 30,000 in 2005.

By: Joe Huffman Monday, February 19, 2007 11:10:14 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

If we can't control guns we should ban it.

Judy Bassingthwaighte
Director of Gun Free South Africa
February 19, 2007
If we can’t control guns we should ban it

[English is her second language so give her a break on the grammer. But still the concept is totally wacked. If you can't "control" them then you sure aren't going to be able to successfully ban them. She gets raked over the coals pretty good in the comments to her blog posting. It probably won't do any good in educating her, but at least it can enlighten others.--Joe]

# 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.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:36:47 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot | Freedom | Gun Rights | Home Life )

Last night Barb and I watched the movie the The Unbearable Lightness of Being. The DVD box quotes Roger Ebert, "The most erotic serious film since Last Tango in Paris." The IMDB plot summary is:

Tomas is a doctor and a lady-killer in 1960s Czechoslovakia, an apolitical man who is struck with love for the bookish country girl Tereza; his more sophisticated sometime lover Sabina eventually accepts their relationship and the two women form an electric friendship. The three are caught up in the events of the Prague Spring (1968), until the Soviet tanks crush the non-violent rebels; their illusions are shattered and their lives change forever.

Tomas is a surgeon, living in Prague. He has a physical relationship with Sabina - but not an emotional one. They are happy with the situation. Then, Tomas meets a waitress in a station, but leaves. Eventually, she comes to see him in Prague. Will he go against his 'values' and let himself get emotionally involved?

It was about that and it did have a lot of erotic content and pretty graphic sex for a film made in the 1980s (among other things full frontal nudity of women). But what I got out of the movie was a lot more than just the sex. My first clue was when one of the characters talks of "socialism with a human face" (a real life phrase). Then when the Soviet tanks rolled in I immediately saw the movie from a completely different viewpoint.

Where were the snipers picking off the exposed tank crew members? Why weren't there Molotov cocktails being thrown from the windows? Why didn't the communist officials fear a suppressed .22 bullet to the head every time they stepped out of their homes? But I knew the answer. The answer was in socialism and the culture it creates. There isn't the sense of individual responsibility. People aren't really expected to provide for themselves and they certainly aren't expected or even encouraged to protect themselves or their country. That's the job of the government. In real life the first secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Alexander Dubček, told the people not to resist. This was despite the fact that he had initiated the welcomed reforms to the Soviet view of "unshakable fidelity to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and declared an implacable struggle against 'bourgeois' ideology and all 'antisocialist' forces."

Late in the movie Tomas and Tereza move from the city to a farm. I grew up on a farm and own some land that my brothers still farm. Sometimes they let me help or I borrow some equipment to make some improvements for Boomershoot. The contrast between being on the farm driving a tractor, a truck, or a combine one day and then being 300 miles away in an office building writing software in the city the next is incredibly jarring to me. The contrast is so incredible that I don't think I can really explain it even if people were to express an interest--which they don't.

Boomershoot is that way too. My crew and I spend days making explosives and over a hundred people with rifles show up from all over the world to our little patch of land and we make the earth shake with hundreds of explosions and fireballs soar up above us heating our chilled skin in the cold morning air. From 700 yards away targets no bigger than a human head disappear in a cloud of water vapor, dirt, and a chest thumping boom. The day after Boomershoot I'm back in an office in the city writing software. It's so odd to me when I first sit down in front of my computer again and look across the hall at the other people in front of their computers. Do they know what I was doing yesterday? In a sense, yes, they do know. But in many ways I can't imagine they do. I don't think people realize what a difference in mindset living on a farm makes. I wish they had captured that in the movie. But probably nearly all the people involved in the movie didn't really realize it and how could they capture something they didn't know existed? And even knowing it exists, I'm not sure I can capture it and put it on display is such a way that non-farm people can really understand.

The "gun culture" is very closely related to life on the farm. Think about it. In both cases who is considered responsible? The individual. You are responsible for your safety and you are responsible not only for yourself and your family. But it goes much further with the farm culture. 

It is my memories of farm life that drive a lot of my hostility to socialism. We had a few cattle on the farm when I was growing up. I see the socialists as treating people as cattle (see also this post). I'm certain the cattle viewed us as benign. No different than socialists view government. The cattle-owner/government provides food, shelter, medical care, and protection from predators. What they don't readily see is being herded, fenced, branded, de-horned, and castrated. The images of Nazis (National Socialism, remember?) putting Jews in cattle cars to be taken away and slaughtered validates the metaphor.

I remember at some meals mom announcing all the food on the table at dinner except for the spices and sugar came from the farm. It included the milk, the homemade butter, cottage cheese, the jam or jelly, the meat, the vegetables, and the fruit. We cut wood from the small forest behind the house for heat in the winter time. Our water came from our own well. We had our own septic system. We burned and/or buried our own trash. We built and maintained our own buildings, machines, private roads, and even our own private telephone system among our buildings.

Just after Christmas 1968, the same year the Russian tanks rolled into Prague, it snowed about six feet on the farm. In places there were snow drifts twice that deep across our driveway. As soon as it stopped snowing and blowing the temperature dropped to -30 F, the electricity went out, our pipes froze, and the phone went out. But our family was fine. We kept the wood stove red hot at times, we melted snow for water and we cooked over what we called "the trash burner" in the kitchen--in essence a small wood cook stove. It was week before the electricity came back on but during that week we never once concerned ourselves about when or if "the government" would help us. We took care of our cattle and we eventually plowed the snow from the county road so we could check on the neighbors--who, of course, were doing the same. It was probably 10 days before we saw the first, and last, government assistence. That assistence was in the form of the county road crew plowing the snow (they had better equipment for it and did a much better job than we and our neighbors had done).

In the movie when the tanks came the people had mass demonstrations, yelled, and shook their fists at the invaders. If they were brave they took pictures of the Soviet tanks and they talked about the failure of their government. I saw perhaps two tanks that burned but they didn't really fight back. This is consistent with the real life reaction. Early in the movie the people talk about the Soviets in relation to some hostile political writings and conclude, "What can they do?" What they didn't realize is the Soviets concluded essentially the same thing when planning to send in the tanks, "What can the people of Czechoslovakia do?" And the answer was, essentially, nothing. They had accepted socialism. They did not have a gun or farm culture as I know it and if their government abandoned them to a predator there wasn't much more they could do than what cattle do when herded into a corral for branding and castration. The cattle make a lot of noise, snort, and give you hostile looks. I saw those crowds surrounding the tanks in Prague as just like those cattle.

I see now the disappearance of the farm culture is a major contributing factor to the loss of our freedom. As much as I love life on the farm I will not even suggest pushing our country in the direction of a farming society. It's not feasible or even desirable for so many reasons. But is it only our gun culture that can defend our culture of freedom and protect us from, among other things, what Tereza calls The Unbearable Lightness of Being? I don't know. But I do know this is a part of why I do Boomershoot.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:23:34 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Quote of the Day | Sex )

Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld Alabama's 1998 sex law. The court said states have a "legitimate rational basis" for making rules to preserve public morality.

That law bans nude dancing, limits where strip clubs and X-rated theaters can go, and bans the sale of any device whose main purpose is to stimulate human genitals.

Hmmm. Does that make Viagra a sex toy?

Lee Roop
February 18, 2007
I call a cease-fire in the war on sex toys
Huntsville Times
[I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Barb and Xenia yesterday. Xenia told us of one of the Moscow Idaho high school teachers commented to her about her older brother James and discussions in government class. Paraphrasing, "Sometimes he was ultra conservative. Sometimes he would take a completely liberal position. You just never knew." As I told Barb and Xenia, "Some people are very confused by freedom." And I could have added that most people don't want freedom. I wonder how well the folks in Alabama would get along with Xenia when she posts about celebrating Vagina Day. It's probably a good thing I didn't take her to Space Camp in Huntsville during the middle of February.--Joe]

# Saturday, February 17, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:46:37 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

We are adamantly opposed to that because there would be a break in the chain of evidence so it could not be used in court. If I were a gangbanger, I would go to a shooting range and pick up a bunch of casings and leave them at the scenes of crimes.

Sam Paredes
Executive director of Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group.
February 16, 2007
Bills target criminals' use of guns
[I find it interesting that of the five articles I found (Officials support tougher gun law, California gun control bills win endorsementBills target criminals' use of guns, Officials Endorse Gun Control Bills To Help Deter Gang Violence, Top cops, mayor want new gun laws) on this topic only one included a quote anywhere this negative about the proposals. Some didn't include anything from the pro-freedom side at all. And of course none of the article titles are the least bit negative.--Joe]

# Friday, February 16, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 16, 2007 9:29:39 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Gun control measures, from the slave gun bans of the 1700s South to the Brady Bill regulations of the 1990s have unfairly targeted black Americans and have worked to curtail a disproportionate number of their constitutional rights. Access to firearms was understood by our founders and many early American jurists as an essential aspect of full US citizenship, and it was for this reason that the Black Codes established after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment -- which constitutionally abolished slavery -- prevented black freemen from owning guns.

Ken Blackwell
Second Amendment Freedoms Aided the Civil Rights Movement

# Thursday, February 15, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:16:50 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Quote of the Day )

It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.

Lord Acton

# 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?

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:30:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

Amazing. Of all people you would think this guy would get it. Jewish, he fled Nazi Germany as a boy in 1939. Yet John H. Adler says this:

Nowhere in the civilized world are civilians permitted to carry arms unless they have specific reasons to do so. Thanks to the unbelievable political power of the NRA, almost anyone within the USA can obtain a license to purchase a gun.

Yet, the majority of the American public just doesn’t get it!

Is it so hard to understand that our entire nation suffers from the ready availability of arms?

Why, and for what purpose, are we arming ourselves?

...

Surely our forefathers did not intend to create a country filled with potential murderers. When the law to bear arms was enacted, this entire country was the “Wild West.” But we grew up and we like to think of our society as being “civilized”.

...

Is there still hope that the people of our country will come to their senses? Will they ever say,

“We finally got it!”

A little refresher course for Mr. Adler from the preface to Lethal Laws "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide:

A. Genocide: The Down-side of "Gun Control"

"Gun control" advocates cannot see any harm in "gun control".

But "gun control" has a down-side. A very nasty one. "Gun control" victims number in the tens of millions.

The down-side of "gun control" is genocide.

There have been at least seven major genocides in this century, involving 50-60 million victims, using conservative estimates.

In every case, a "gun control" law was in force before the genocide began. In five of these cases, the lethal law - the "gun control" law was in force when the "genocide regime" took control of the government.

B. Personal Safety: The False Promise of "Gun Control"

"Gun control" laws usually enacted in a crisis: before or after a civil war, invasion, economic collapse, upsurge in terrorism, etc. People then put personal safety above all. In the long-run (and sometimes in the short-run) this deal - disarming in exchange for government "protection" - amounts to committing suicide for fear of death.

...

Even if protection actually is given during the crisis, the laws remain after the crisis ends. These laws clear the way for the murder of millions, sometimes decades later. "Gun control" has a fatal flaw. It can promote personal safety. But if - and only if - it is ruthlessly enforced. Government with the power to ruthlessly to enforce "gun control" laws can easily commit genocide. They have done so repeatedly - and increasingly often - in this century.

This flaw - that getting "gun control" to "work" involves giving government the power to commit genocide - is the reason the realizing at most short-term gains in personal security via "gun control" increasingly involves payment of a very high price: genocide. Yet, the link between "gun control" and the mountains of corpses resulting from "gun control" has been overlooked.

And finally, from the German Weapons Control Act of 11 November 1938 (BTW this was the basis, after subtracting the restrictions on Jew's and Gypsies, for the United States Gun Control Act of 1968):

§ 1

Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§ 2

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§ 3

The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§ 4

Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§ 5

For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§ 6

This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938

Minister of the Interior

Frick

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:39:19 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Both sides can try to get some political pay out of it. We feel these types of situations actually make the point that a law-abiding citizen should have less controls or it would inhibit lawful self defense.

Clark Aposhian
February 14, 2007
Trolley Square slayings heats up gun-control debate
Chairman of the Utah Concealed Weapons Permit Review Board
Regarding the Trolley Square shooting in Utah.
[It was also Mr. Aposhian that I received my training for a Utah concealed carry permit.--Joe]

# Tuesday, February 13, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:23:19 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

The Second Amendment isn’t about guns or hunting anymore than the First Amendment is about typewriters, Mr. Mayor. It’s about concepts of liberty residing in the authority of the people since the inception of the nation and written to remain that way. The First Amendment is watchdog of government in various ways and is not absolute, and the Second Amendment backs our sovereignty by force and is absolute, which authority cannot legally be taken away.

Taking weapons is breaking the law because it challenges our sovereignty with abuse of process, itself backed by force. This is not leadership or governance: this is an illegal challenge to sovereign authority.

Candidates who oppose personal carrying of handguns lack the understanding to serve and have only the lust to rule. The first step is, of course, to outlaw the honest. It keeps the issue of violent crime alive while people die at the hands of it. Gun control never reduces crime, but endures as an immortal, evergreen issue.

Listening, 2008 Candidates?

They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters – with force, if necessary. It’s how 22,000 gun laws profoundly affect the non-gun owners in America: it challenges their sovereign authority, too.

Repeal gun laws and stop challenging the sovereign authority of the people: protect it and serve it.

John Longenecker
February 13, 2007
2008: Gun Control Candidates Need Not Apply

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.

# Monday, February 12, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, February 12, 2007 10:33:09 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Politics | Quote of the Day )

I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating.

Boss Tweed
[I keep thinking of this quote as I read about the possible nominees for the next President. Someone who doesn't like my politics must be doing the nominating for the nominations. It seems there will only be bad, worse, and worst options available.--Joe]

# Sunday, February 11, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:43:34 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Technology )

Lots of lessons to be learned here.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:06:28 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Sex )

I always regarded it as sort of personal quirk without need of a "fixing" but I found it very "deflating", shall we say, to have one of the kids knock on the door while my wife and I are engaged in certain intimate activities let along for them to actually be in the room. That personal quirk aside, I never understood why some people would regard it as child abuse or endangering of a child's welfare for them to see such activity. After all, animals engage in that sort of activity in front of their young without apparent harm. And what about very primitive human societies without doors that can be locked? Do those children, or animals, that see those sort of activities suffer some sort of harm? I think we can safely predict the results of those studies before someone spends X million dollars of government grant money on the topic.

However such a study might help out this couple who I believe should be convicted of committing an act of stupidity not neglect:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman's 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex "all the time" in front of the child and that "we don't believe in hiding anything."

He said the girl would often be on the bed watching as the couple had sex. Though they did not ask her to leave, they also did not force her to remain on the bed, Prata said.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:43:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

With a title for a book review like Fighting Gun Disease (the actual book is Enter the Babylon System: Unpacking Gun Culture from Samuel Colt to 50 Cent) you know the review and probably the book is going to have some serious problems. I wasn't disappointed:

There are 65 million handguns in the U.S. It's estimated up to 1.8 million of them are stolen every year in the States and as many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime.

The 65 million number might be close. It seems plausible at least. The 1.8 million stolen each year doesn't. I looked up the U.S. production records on the ATF website and found that after subtracting the exports manufactures entered 1,043,538 handguns into U.S. commerce in 2005. Imports added another 856,259 which adds up to 1,899,797 handguns entering into the U.S. in 2005. This includes those that went to the U.S. military and law enforcement. Some anti-gun bigot apparently figures that annual import and manufacture of handguns just barely covers the number of firearms stolen each year and it gets the number published in book.

As many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime? Then that would mean that just to keep up with the annual increase in handguns (~1.9 million in 2005) there would have to be at least 474,949 firearm crimes using different handguns.

From the FBI we find there were 139,994 aggravated assaults and 135,444 robberies with firearms in 2005 add that to the 7543 murders committed with handguns in 2005 and we end up with only 282981 crimes committed with handguns. Hence, even if every single crime involved a different gun we come up 191968 short of estimate.

Of course there mght be additional crimes committed with handguns which aren't listed but the vast majority will be covered in those three categories. And the above numbers make the very conservative assumption that each crime involves a different gun. Clearly someone was just making stuff up. It's not an "estimate" by anyone qualified to be making estimates on this topic.

This reminds me of an entry in my quote database:

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:15:35 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

Title 18 USC 242 says:

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, ... 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 kidnaping 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.

Furthermore the FBI says:

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.

...

During Fiscal Year 2005, the FBI investigated more than 1,100 color of law cases.

I think that since the FBI states they are the lead agency for investigating color of law abuses we should be reporting abuses to them. The FBI has a web page telling how to go about it (near the bottom of the page):

To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

• all identifying information for the victim(s);
• as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and
  agency employed;
• date and time of incident;
• location of incident;
• names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
• a complete chronology of events; and
• any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written
complaint to:

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530

FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.

Reporting Mayors Daley, Bloomberg, and others involved in the conspiracy to deprive others of their rights to keep and bear arms would seem to be a good starting point. There are those involved in the Katrina incident. That's just the beginning.  There are lots of politicians and law enforcement types all over the country that could benefit from some time in prison for violating our 2nd Amendment rights. Reporting Schumer, Feinstein, and others involved in the "assault weapon" ban would merit my approval as well.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:01:18 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Gun control:  Being able to hit a moving target at 500 yards with one shot, one kill, henceforth conserving your ammunition for further skirmishes and engagements.

Howard Hutchinson

# Saturday, February 10, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:47:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Basically, IPSC is, and rightly so, about shooting people.  Some people need to be shot.  Get over it.

Joe Huffman
January 15, 1999 12:52 PM
Unofficial IPSC email Discussion List

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:52:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Ballistics | Crap for brains | Politics | Technology )

One of the many murder mystery shows on TV these days recently did an episode wherein an assassin shot his victim through the heart at a mile and a half with a single shot from a super-scary sniper rifle, complete with portable weather station, laser range finder and computer, etc. (sounds a bit like my setup).  It reminds me of Henry (nostrilitis) Waxman’s attempt to scare children over the magical capabilities of the .50 BMG cartridge.

 

Knowing this claimed feat to be beyond ridiculous, and for fun I decided to test it using Joe’s exterior ballistics program.  Using all the most generous figures:  Caliber .50 BMG (loaded with the slipperiest small arm bullet, with a Ballistic Coefficient of 1.05) which I gave an impressive standard velocity deviation of only 5 feet per second, and an inherent accuracy of 0.5 minutes of angle (super, ultra special, custom ammo) with a wind estimation error of only 2 MPH over that whole mile and a half, and perfect assessment of temperature, humidity and barometric pressure.  It turns out that the probability of a hit (any hit) on a 15 inch circle at that distance (2,640 yards) is from 1% to 8% (depending on which 100-shot simulation you go with-- i.e. there were 100-shot strings in which only one bullet hit its target) assuming a perfect shooter with nerves of perfect steel, perfect optics and visual conditions that can resolve a 16-inch (a little over ½ MOA) wide target at 2,640 yards.

 

Using the more common, high powered, long-range 300 Winchester Magnum, with the same amazingly good velocity deviation and the same super 0.5 MOA accuracy, the hit probability went to about 0.6% on a 15-inch stationary circle.  Bullet's time of flight: 7.37 seconds.

 

On the TV show, the shooter did another amazing trick by timing his shot (from a mile and a half away) to exactly coincide with some blanks fired in a movie set dual.  The time of flight for his (assumed) .50 BMG bullet at 2,640 yards is nearly 5 seconds, so the shooter would have to anticipate his victim's actions with superb accuracy, five seconds in advance.  Furthermore, he took the shot from an urban area, where the intense muzzle report from a necessarily very powerful rifle would have gotten the attention of people in a wide radius.  The rifle was bolt action, and the ejected cartridge case was depicted as having melted into the outdoor carpet on the balcony that served as the shooting position-- also preposterous, as the case sits in the chamber too long to leave it so hot upon ejection (the relatively cool barrel acts as a tremendous heat sink for the thin brass case).  Only autoloaders spit out hot cases because they extract the case within milliseconds of firing.  Oh and the target, being a human in the process of acting out a mock duel, was moving, making the probability of a hit even less (my simulations were done on a stationary target).

 

Now some would say, "Hey, its just a TV show.  Its entertainment, Dude, lighten up."  I would agree if it were a science fiction series, or fantasy, but this stuff is put forth as serious, hard-hitting drama.  To me its like a serious W.W. II drama in which people fly like superman, battle tanks travel at 200 miles an hour, and animals talk.  It ceases being entertainment and becomes an insult.

# 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.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 09, 2007 12:09:33 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

...there's no doubt that the buyers broke the Gun Control Act, and that those who set them to it were liable as aiders and abettors, not to mention on a conspiracy theory. I'd assume that Bloomberg and company (1) figured it was worth it for the publicity and (2) figured that the laws don't apply to the rich and powerful. They may just have been right on both.

David Hardy
February 8, 2007
US Attorneys slap down Bloomberg
Of Arms in the Law

# Thursday, February 08, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:13:46 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot )

They just keep coming in. I got one last week and another came in yesterday. The one yesterday had an interesting comment.

Please elaborate extensively on any Boomershoot topic. What would you like changed? What was best about Boomershoot 2006? What was the worst about Boomershoot 2006?

A: women in bikinis is a must have.

You realize that women that attend Boomershoot also shoot guns, right? They shoot seven inch square targets at 700 yards. I don't tell them how they must dress and I suggest no one else does either. The extent of my sympathy for someone so stupid as to push the issue will be to nominate them for a Darwin Award if something were to "go horribly wrong".

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:35:25 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights )

This is what happens after you give up your right to keep and bear arms. You are reduced to begging to have even a small fraction of them restored:

Dear Home Secretary,

...

As I am sure your officials will tell you, there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that by banning legally-licensed cartridge pistols and closing legally-operating shooting clubs, we would all sleep safer in our beds. Yet today there are more hand guns on our streets than 10 years ago.

...

When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympics, the British Olympic Association and the governing bodies of shooting put forward a case to your department for legislative exemptions which would allow our pistol shooters and a large squad of sporting hopefuls to be granted dispensation under Section Five of the Act so that they could retain their sporting pistols at home without ammunition in order to do their daily 'dry training'. Registered regional shooting clubs would also be designated as a place for weapons to be used.

It looked like a way forward could be agreed. The sports minister, Richard Caborn, assured the BOA that he had written to the Home Office giving his support for exemptions. An Early Day Motion in the Commons attracted significant support from all sides of the house and the public have, I believe, realised that target pistol shooters were victims of rough justice in the 1997 legislation. An e-petition on the No 10 website for the restoration of target pistol shooting under suitable controls is gaining signatures every day.

However, somewhere in your department the paper trail has stopped and the silence is deafening. Time is running out.

...

Target shooters are reliable, trustworthy and an asset to their communities – the kind of people your department want to support. Don't you feel ashamed that most democracies have more faith in their citizens to participate in one of the oldest Olympic sports than we do?

Over to you Home Secretary – we need a decision urgently.

Yours sincerely, Kate Hoey
Labour MP for Vauxhall

Boomershoot 2007 is sold out with a waiting list of eight teams or I would again offer free entry to peasants from the U.K. They need get a glimpse of freedom even if it is just for a weekend.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:42:09 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot | Crap for brains )

[heavy sigh] Another one. I could not make this stuff up if I spent weeks on it:

From: Robbie [@ hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:28 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: MAKIN A BOMB!!! :D

Hey M8,
 
Sorry To Bother You Like This But Im Lookin For A Recipie To Blow A 5" Hole In A Concrete Wall. I Was Wondering If You Could Help Me Out? I Live In Great Britian (Scotland #1) And Live Next To A Builders Yard So Materials Wont Be A Great Issue. I Want The Bomb To Go Off While Im There But Back A Bit Obviously. Ive Got Around £20 ($40 or so). It Needs To Be Quiet So I Wont Be Scene And I Want It To Be In A Bottle Or Bag Etc.

Cheers M8 If You Can Help.
 
Rambo Emm 2oo7
 
"Where Ya From Niggah? West Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? East Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? North Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? South Side Niggah!"
 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:43 AM
To: Robbie
Subject: RE: MAKIN A BOMB!!! :D

Quiet bombs aren't something I have any experience with.
 

-joe-


From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:39 PM
To:
new.scotland.yard@met.police.uk
Subject: FW: MAKIN A BOMB!!! :D

I received an email from someone asking for help building a bomb in Scotland. It's probably nothing to worry about but that's your decision to make not mine.
 
I have attached an Excel spread sheet with information from my log files for http://www.boomershoot.org. It was this website where he got my email address.
 
I'm not sure but I suspect he came in via two different locations on two different dates. The IP address in his email is the same as that shown in lines 8 through 44 off the spread sheet which are today's visit. But there is something odd about that. He didn't click on a link on another web page to visit that web page (http://www.boomershoot.org/general/BombHelp.htm). He went directly to it as if he typed it in or clicked on it in an email. Hence it may be that the earlier visit, as shown in lines 2 through 7 of the spread sheet from the same ISP are related. Those lines show someone did a Google search for "making a bomb", found my web page, and then made it a "Favorite".
 
I know Microsoft will also be glad to help with the Hotmail account if that would be useful.
 
Below you will also find the header from the email which might be of potential use. Further below you will see his email and my response.
 
Don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further help.
 
 
Joe Huffman
Moscow, Idaho USA
Cell: 208-301-4254

Update: I received the following email from Scotland Yard:

From: Ann [ @met.police.uk ]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:54 PM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: RE: MAKIN A BOMB!!! :D

Thank you for your e-mail. It has been forwarded to the Anti-Terrorist Branch-Intelligence Unit.
 
E-Mail Office
New Scotland Yard
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:50:36 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Gun Rights )

From a letter written by the National Park Service:

"Right to carry" laws do not protect visitors from wildlife. Most weapons carried for protection from wildlife are not adequate for that purpose. Untrained individuals attempting to protect themselves from dangerous animals often exacerbate the situation.

So I guess when a mountain lion is chewing on your head they want you to use just your bare hands or improvise weapons on the spot like sticks and stones. And I presume struggling and screaming won't exacerbate the situation either. Maybe those National Park bureaucrats are of the type that think just because a proposed solution is "all natural" it's better.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:43:45 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Politics )

Tam says, "Making Atlas shrug".

For people that haven't read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged the following is probably mostly gibberish but explaining here would be a distraction.

As Tam points out Senator Clinton is one of those rare politicians that:

...has the sheer stones to come right out in front of a national audience and baldly, openly, and without euphemism say "I want to steal your shit."

If Senator Clinton becomes President Clinton then I can seriously believe it's time to looking for and/or creating Galt's Gulch. It might be time for the people that have never before gone on strike to finally do just that. It might be time to forcibly demonstrate to the socialists and communists of the world that theft and redistribute of that booty does not and cannot make "the people" better off. It might be time to demonstrate that you can, after a fashion, force labor but you can't force someone to think.

The only question I have is; Who is our John Galt?

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:13:02 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( PNNL | Quote of the Day )

Do you know why prisoners can escape? Because they have more time.

You have the time, the motivation, and the smarts to devote to this case. The other side is at a disadvantage.

Matthew J. Bean, P.S.
February 7, 2007
Regarding Joe Huffman versus Battelle (PNNL).
[This was after he expressed some surprise at my level of preparation in the case and I said I had been thinking about these things for over a year and a half and have been looking forward to the day when I could execute on them.--Joe]

# Wednesday, February 07, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:54:44 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Sex )

I have to admit I have a rather small sample compared to theirs but from my research this study is way off the mark:

On average, most women say they would have no problem abandoning sex for over a year if it meant they could get their hands on a new wardrobe. Two percent of the 1,000 women in 10 cities surveyed were ready to abstain from sex for three years in exchange for new duds.

When asked whether giving up sex for a month would be worse than losing a loved piece of clothing, 61 percent said they’d rather give up getting down and dirty. 48 percent, taking part in the survey by consumer products giant Unilever said their favorite article of clothing was more reliable than their man in giving them confidence and making them feel sexy.

"Some people say clothes make the man, but the right clothes can even replace him," fashion designer, stylist and TV personality Carson Kressley from the reality TV show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" said in a statement accompanying the poll.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:39:22 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( PNNL )

Battelle is the company that manages PNNL (technically, I'm suing Battelle, not PNNL) and several other DOE national laboratories. One of those labs is Oak Ridge. It doesn't sound like Battelle is in the middle of it, just on the edge, but there are some people being prosecuted for fraud in connection with contracts administered by Battelle.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:31:43 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | PNNL )

I got some interesting information from my lawyer today. I turned over the interrogatories I had been working on. Interesting quote from my lawyer, "Interrogatories are the punishment you get for filing a lawsuit." I didn't see it that way. I actually enjoyed it. Apparently it showed. My response was composed of 12 CDROMs (about 250,000 files) and over 300 pages of paper. He said he expects it will be one of the best responses the PNNL lawyers have ever seen. We reviewed some of the CD content and he got this big smile on his face. "Their lawyers would be able to retire on the billings they could charge for this." My lawyer said he will not be able to retire on his billings because I did all the work.

He saw the PayPal donation button on my PNNL.info site and with a big smile said, "I wonder if they (the PNNL lawyers) will donate to your case? Let's see, if we donate $10,000 that could result in $250,000 in additional billings..." I wonder if that would be considered unethical?

Yes, I know, it's taxpayer money that will be used to pay the lawyers and any settlement that might be reached. But I got a call from someone today that has been working on that issue and believes he may be able to turn off that spigot. I'm not convinced he can but I'm working with him on it.

I managed to find a letter I thought I had lost from a different lawyer that contained some information which shut off an escape route for the felons. I gave this lawyer a copy and explained the significance.  He laughed and said that it might be very useful.

We talked quite a bit about the lawyer they chose; Jerome R. Aiken of Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney. What's most interesting about this guy is that his claimed areas of practice are:

  • Agricultural Law
  • Appeals
  • Consumer Protection
  • Product Liability Law

My lawyer only does employment law and has been doing it for 13 years.

On the felony issue--the PNNL felons (not all on this list were involved and some that were are not on the list) could refuse to testify on points that could incriminate them. But that refusal to testify can be used against PNNL. My lawyer would love to have them "take the fifth". If they don't refuse to testify then that gives them two other options. They can tell the truth and risk the criminal charges from their confessions and still damage PNNL's case, or they can lie. Barb is betting they will lie. But they might be surprised what an experienced trial lawyer can do to a liar. And if we can prove perjury, in addition to the penalties imposed by the court, they could lose their security clearances.

A long time ago I read The Art of Cross Examination and loved it. I can't find my copy so I ordered another one tonight. I need to get through it before the depositions start in April. I also downloaded an audio version of Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail---Every Place, Every Time.

I wonder if Mr. Jerome R. Aiken will read Being underestimated by the enemy. It's a little unlikely, even though it is one of those 250,000 files on one of those 12 CDROMs he will be receiving in a day or two. But one thing he probably will read, because it was on one of the 300 pages of paper, is this:

One of Huffman's co-workers, who must remain anonymous (for fear of retribution from PNNL), knew Joe Huffman far better than McMillan and Hevland. In a meeting a few days after the firing, he told Huffman, "They haven't got a clue as to what they stepped into."

I'd love to see his face as he reads that.

Two last bits of sweetness... 1) my attorney's female receptionist has a Concealed Pistol Permit and 2) my lawyer wants me to teach him to shoot.

By: Joe Huffman Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:00:10 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

The Deacons forced the Klan to re-evaluate their actions and often change their undergarments.

Roy Innis
As related by Ken Blackwell
["The Deacons" refers to armed black men who used firearms to defend themselves against the KKK as told in the book: The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement.--Joe]

# Tuesday, February 06, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:41:52 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Blog stuff | Politics | Technology )

I can imagine situations where the search for a W.C. Fields quote was a valid use of the U.S. Department of Justice resources but the odds are a bit low. People need to realize the power of the internet flows in more than one direction:

Domain Name   usdoj.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address   149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP   US Dept of Justice
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  Maryland
City  :  Potomac
Lat/Long  :  39.023, -77.1993 (Map)
Distance  :  2,059 miles
Language   English (United States)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DI60SP1001; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1152 x 864
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Feb 6 2007 5:24:26 am
Last Page View   Feb 6 2007 5:24:26 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://search.yahoo....e=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
Search Engine search.yahoo.com
Search Words w c fields quote
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm...e DayW C Fields.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm...e DayW C Fields.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time   Feb 6 2007 8:24:26 am
Visit Number   132,224

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:52:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Politics | Sex )

Same-sex marriage supporters introduce measure requiring heterosexual couples to have children. If you are going to insist that the purpose of marriage is the rearing of children then to be consistent you should be opposed to marriage between heterosexual couples that are unable or have no plans to have children.

Some people had that one coming.

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:23:26 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Blog stuff | Gun Rights )

I could speculate but it would be as much wistful thinking as anything. Here is the target they found. Here is what I know about who did the viewing:

Domain Name   senate.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address   156.33.24.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP   U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  District of Columbia
City  :  Washington
Lat/Long  :  38.8933, -77.0146 (Map)
Distance  :  2,072 miles
Language   English (United States)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; InfoPath.1)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1280 x 1024
Color Depth  :  16 bits
Time of Visit   Feb 5 2007 11:43:54 am
Last Page View   Feb 5 2007 11:43:54 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...&hl=en&start=10&sa=N
Search Engine google.com
Search Words castle doctrine idaho
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm...Is What We Need.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm...Is What We Need.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time   Feb 5 2007 2:43:54 pm
Visit Number   132,033

By: Joe Huffman Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:21:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Larry Flynt
[I could have imagined myself quoting Larry Flynt--but never with this sort of subject matter. It's not the first time Mr. Flynt has surprised me either. It might not be the last.

Other people have slightly different versions of this, with a punch line something like "...finding a well-armed sheep". Individual rights are only guaranteed when the minorities have a means of defending them; i.e. the right to keep and bear arms guarantees the rest.--Joe]

# Monday, February 05, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Monday, February 05, 2007 11:56:26 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains )

Michelle Malkin says:

You ask the hard questions. No softball chit-chat drivel. Get down to brass tacks.

Literally, Diana Sawyer asks Syrian dictator Assad, "Do you have an iPod? What's on it?"

By: Joe Huffman Monday, February 05, 2007 12:53:49 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

I am not going to hide how much guns disgust me. I think they are one of the, if not THE, most vile contraptions on earth.

To give you an idea how much, I wrote three papers in college on guns and gun control in one semester. I cannot begin to tell you how many extremely heated discussions I’ve had with friends and family about guns.

While I strive to understand how anyone can think that any one person should hold that much power - the ability to intimidate and/or take someone’s life with a gun. I can’t deny an individuals constitutional right to bear arms, no matter how painful it may be for me to accept.

But as far as I am concerned, no one needs a gun at all. Not you, certainly not me. Not good people. Not bad people.

The general public has no reason to own firearms such as semi-automatic guns or assault rifles and should be completely banned and destroyed, along with all the other types of guns (as far as I am concerned).

There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.

Don’t try the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument with me. I really despise that saying. Power changes people and guns provide more power than any one individual was meant to have.

Woody Bass
February 4, 2007
Are guns too accessible?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[Interesting argument. I don't think I have heard that one before in relation to gun ownership, "power changes people and people weren't meant to have that much power". It's sort of a "it's not natural" type of argument. My favorite response to that is, "You're right, if people were meant to run around without clothes we would have been born that way." Other possible arguments in this case could made be against cars, knives, clubs, antibiotics, and computers. Even the Amish could be made out to be "too powerful" with the right argument.

It's also interesting that he "despises that saying" but doesn't refute it.

He's got mental problems.

I didn't get into it with him. I just left a comment with Just One Question for him and let it go at that.--Joe]

# Sunday, February 04, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 04, 2007 10:18:15 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Freedom | Gun Rights )

I could only read part of Kevin's post. After a couple paragraphs I couldn't think straight. My mind was running wild with rage. Here's a taste of what I read:

Witnesses to violent street crime should try to 'distract' attackers by honking their car horns or even 'jumping up and down'. That's according to Labour's Police Minister.

The extraordinary remarks by Tony McNulty prompted an immediate, angry response from law and order experts, who described him as 'irresponsible'.

The standard police advice to people who witness violent behaviour is that they should not get involved and immediately call 999.

But in an interview with the BBC's Jeremy Vine, Mr McNulty said concerned citizens should 'try some distractive activities' instead.

This is in the U.K. and it's unlikely I would be going there and even more unlikely now. But if someone was attacking someone in my family the only jumping up and down I would do would be on top of the attacker. If that wasn't "distracting" enough I'd disassemble them as rapidly and as violently as I possibly could. Then I would get myself and my loved ones out of the country as quickly as I could before I had to repeat the process on any of the police that tried to arrest me.

I think some people need to read A Nation of Cowards.

By: Joe Huffman Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:55:13 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Politics | Quote of the Day )

On the one hand, the guns were there to help capture the imagination of the people. But more important, since we knew that you couldn't observe the police without guns, we took our guns with us to let the police know that we have an equalizer.

Bobby Seale
Co-founder of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (later shorted to just The Black Panther Party)
Also important to note is that the organization was primarily socialist in nature.

# Saturday, February 03, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:53:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot )

First the bad news. I received an email today from the guy that keeps trying to put his anvil into orbit at Boomershoot. He signed up early and was planning to attend and just discovered he won't be able to make it.

The good news is that he is sending someone else in his place who is bringing the anvils.

One more bit of news is that I've ordered the portable toilets. I ordered three of them this time since the attendance is going to be the largest ever. And in keeping with the theme of the .50 caliber area being called "The Ghetto" I told Terry to put one of the toilets in the ghetto area. That's right, we will have segregated toilets this year--separate and unequal.

[People in The Ghetto will have a better people to toilet ratio than those in the main area and there will be no enforcement of the segregation.]

Update: I've been sent a picture from Boomershoot 2007 that shows we had three toilets last year.

There are three signs that you are getting old. The first one is you start losing your memory. I don't remember the other two.

Thanks Bruce, Da Squirrel Hunter. In addition to the late night pictures of outhouses you point out that I'm losing my memory.

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.

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:25:26 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Crap for brains | Freedom )

Sometimes people ask me if maybe I'm a little paranoid with all the guns and training and concern about the loss of our constitutional guaranteed freedoms. I point out that the guarantee isn't worth the paper it's written on without a means of enforcement. Which is what the guns and training is about--a last ditch enforcement mechanism. I can see where someone could make a case that I'm being paranoid but I think I can make a pretty good case that there are politicians that really are out to, and have, destroy our freedoms.

But no matter how good a case you make against me it doesn't compare to this type of stuff:

Huffman Aviation, a front for FBI Division 5 and British Intelligence, have hired two known assassins, Robert Cain and Joe Kelso to put together a team that will target outspoken American citizens.

Of course it gets worse. Huffman Aviation is a stooge company with financial links to Keathing 5 bank dick Senator John McCain and Hillary (noted Republican gay-in-the-closet) Clinton Rodenhurst. Cindy McCain has large financial interests in Huffman Aviation.

P.S. Current CIA operative Harvey Hemmett has testified to Congressional investigations that he was part of the government team along with Israeli Mossad who trained Mohamed Atta at the Venice, Florida flight school...

...

Zionist Benjamin Netanyahu, who is not even an official member of the Israeli government, is blackmailing Bushfraud vis a vis using Bush's homosexual sex and financial fraud, election fraud, criminal fraud, telling Bush either you do this in Iraq and Iran or else.

...

Sandy Berger not only took NATO nuclear codes but he was involved with a Mossad team in Thailand transferring nuclear triggers and other sensitive nuclear information on NATO with the help of Adnan Khashoggi disguising these uranium and nuclear materials as textiles sending through China to Israel. Treason of the highest proportion.

Financing Sandy Berger was Marc Rich, the Bush-Clinton Crime Syndicate fixer.

Attorney General Gonzales is covering all of this up for the Bush-Clinton Crime Syndicate.

It was then Vice President Al Gore, Jr. who tried to have Marc Rich arrested in 1993 and was prevented from doing so by the Israeli Mossad and the Bush-Clinton Crime Syndicate that then dumped Vince Foster in the park that was working with Ambassador Leo Wanta, former FBI Director William Sessions and General Vernon Walters.

Bush plans to use Azerbaijan air bases to attack Iran possibly as early as this Wednesday...

I think someone forgot to take their meds.

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 03, 2007 10:46:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

It's an excuse to party. Or at least that is what Robert Sandler suggests as he comments about the Mayor's conference on combating "illegal guns":

The mayor noted the additional "problems" more police would bring to the city. More police, for instance, would mean more arrests for an already grievously overcrowded prison system. This is already burdening the city with costs it can't afford in addition to more court costs for prosecuting the criminals.
Which means the mayor is not against crime or criminals. He does not want a safer city. He wants to save money. The easy way to do that is with another gun law-- which he will not enforce.
Or perhaps, it's something completely different. An Anti-gun Summit is a good excuse to get away from doing the jobs the 140 mayors were hired to do--and party!

It's sounds as plausible as anything else to me. It's certainly not about making people safer.

By: Joe Huffman Saturday, February 03, 2007 10:34:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion.

Robert Burton
[I have no idea what Burton was thinking of but it makes me think of socialists and gun control advocates.--Joe]

# Friday, February 02, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 02, 2007 9:49:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Home Life )

James and I finished up the last episode of Star Trek: Enterprise last night. James has been harping about the "space tourists" nearly throughout the entire series. On Monday when we watched In a Mirror Darkly: Part 1 and In a Mirror Darkly: Part 2 James changed his tune and gushed, "Best episodes of the series!" and "Hoshi rocks!" He even wanted to watch the opening credits and listen to the theme music a second time.

Going through the episodes a second time with the commentary it was kinda fun to watch Hoshi carefully and see the hints of her scheming, in addition to her bed hopping, throughout the two part story.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 02, 2007 7:54:43 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Boomershoot | Technology )

And then there's the satisfaction of getting rid of the rodents in the process. Via Say Uncle and Ninth Stage:

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.

By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 02, 2007 12:34:16 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights )

It's not something I would wear. But if either of my daughters (or "adopted daughter" Sara) or my wife would wear it I'd be glad to buy one or more for them.
By: Joe Huffman Friday, February 02, 2007 12:28:32 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Politics | Quote of the Day )

I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb. Having one, or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that’s not very dangerous.

Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?

It would not have gone 200 metres into the atmosphere before Teheran would be razed.

French President Jacques Chirac
In an interview on January 31, 2007 with Le Nouvel Observateur, The New York Times, and the International Herald Tribune.
[If the device could only be delivered by air and all the probable recipients of said device were 99+% sure it wouldn't arrive intact then I might actually welcome Iran launching such a device for the very reason that it would give Israel (and others) a immediate reason to get into the glass making business. But that's not how it would work out. If Iran builds or acquires one or more bombs they will make sure the odds of successful delivery are relatively good. It could arrive by land, air, or sea. And it will be Jews, Christians, and "The Great Satan" who will have to first deal with a great excess of glass. Therefore, logically, Iran must not be allowed to build such a device. Our country doesn't have the political will (until after the first one or two glass making exercises occur) to ensure that so I hope Israel does have the political will. My expectation however is that Iran will get to throw the first punch and we will then throw the next 20 or so. As usual, by failing to act early more lives will be lost on both sides.--Joe]

# Thursday, February 01, 2007
By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:49:52 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Freedom | Gun Rights )

You've heard that freedom isn't free in the context of our military defending our freedom but there are other instances where this is also true. Zendo Deb points this out in her post Deacons for Defense and Justice:

The Deacons for Defense and Justice did not plead to be given their rights. They did not beg to be taken seriously. They made sure they were taken seriously. They took action and fought for their rights, and they defended themselves, their families and their communities from oppression and violence.

This ties in well with the book I just finished reading, Negros with Guns which Ry (I borrowed the book from him) suggested be required reading in school. I agree.

The basics of the lesson to be learned is that thugs and tyrants don't give up power and thuggery just because you ask nicely or because the legislature or the United Nations says they should. They do it because of the threat, or in worst case the actual use, of force. I've said this before but it's worth saying again:

Inalienable rights are not asked or pleaded for.  They are demanded and taken, by force if necessary.

By: Joe Huffman Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:52:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( Gun Rights | Quote of the Day )

Washingtonians are not stupid. We are aware that gun laws have failed miserably wherever they have been tried. Anyone who knows how to visit the FBI Web site can tell you that the most dangerous places in the United States often are the places with the strictest gun laws. Gun laws overseas have been no more successful. Asking the Legislature to give us more is a colossal waste of time and an insult to our intelligence.

Michael S. Brown, O.D.
Brown, of Vancouver Washington is a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; www.dsgl.org.
February 1, 2007
Evidence says gun laws don't work
Seattle Post Intelligencer