The View From North Central Idaho

It's mildly interesting and somewhat amusing but I hope it wasn't funded by some government grant. As much as I'm interested in sex I don't see much point in this study. I also find it annoying that some of the reasons are duplicates; Example, #7 "I'm addicted to sex", and #9 "I am a sex addict". Probably the most interesting part of the survey was this paragraph:

Another perspective comes from the literature on sperm competition (Baker & Bellis, 1995; Shackelford, Pound, Goetz, & LaMunyon, 2005). From this perspective, a man whose partner might have been sexually unfaithful might seek sex, which functions to displace the sperm of the rival male. Or a woman might deplete the sperm of her partner, leaving few available for insemination of rival women. None of these hypothesized functions, of course, need operate through conscious psychological mechanisms.

This is the first meme I'm actually happy to receive. A Brain Like Mine gave me a Thinking Blogger Award.

She even made me #1 in her post about it but I may be reading too much into that. It was my Jews In the Attic Test that did it for her.

Here are the rules:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn't fit your blog).

I don't read that many blogs and most of them are not in search for food for thought. Hence there is only one blogger that I'm going to tag--Kevin.

My son, Alex and I went to the range last weekend.  He wanted to confirm zero on his rifle before the start of hunting season, and I wanted to do the same with a 50 caliber muzzleloading caplock rifle.

I don't know how explain this, but it wasn't until we were half way home that I again realized the fact that I had any problems or concerns in life at all-- they had completely gone away for the time we spent at the range.

I hadn't experienced anything like this in, I don't know how long. Talk about "Zen and the Art of the Rifle" which is the title of one of Oleg's recent posts.

Alex had some of his custom ammo left over from the Boomershoot, and since the bullet manufacturer says their VLD is also a decent hunting bullet, he decided to use that accurized load for hunting this year.  I won't tell you the size of his 200 yard group (he fired a total of four rounds that day-- three at 200 and one at 50, to get a first-hand feel for the difference in POI) partly because it would be bragging, but mostly because you wouldn't believe it anyway, coming as it did from a "mere" Ruger M77 MKII.  I had to explain to him that this was something remarkable, and yet maybe I shouldn't have bothered.

It was one of those few days in life wherein one can truly say one was "at peace".  But you don't realize its happening until its over.

The more guns you have, the greater the chance they will be used. But both common sense and the law of averages escape presidential candidates, especially Republicans looking to assert their conservative bona fides. When it comes to gun control, they not only have to be against it but they have to insist -- in raging opposition to common sense -- that the more guns around, the safer everyone is.

[...]

He is the True Republican -- a credit to his party, a threat to us all.

Richard Cohen
July 31, 2007
Thompson on Horseback
[Cohen is referring to Fred Thompson. What Cohen apparently believes is that any gun use is bad. This only demonstrates the mental problems of Cohen because in the same opinion piece he talks about the occasion when he wished he had a gun to protect himself. Cohen also neglects to take into account that during the 20^th Century more people were murdered by their own government than were murdered by their fellow citizens--but only in countries with strict gun control. So, indirectly, people like Cohen who advocate strict gun control are a greater threat than those that advocate recognition of our right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]

Update: Uncle and Jeff both commented on this same opinion piece.

Screening ideas are indeed thought up by the Office for Annoying Air Travelers and vetted through the Directorate for Confusion and Complexity, and then we review them to insure that there are sufficient unintended irritating consequences so that the blogosphere is constantly fueled.

Kip Hawley
Head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
April/May of 2007 via an email interview with Bruce Schneier
[Yes, he said that. It was sarcasm. Not that I don't think there was a certain amount of truth in it as well. Reading the rest of the interview (part of one of five is all that is out) was interesting. As you might expect Schneier is asking the right questions but, at least so far, Hawley is avoiding some of the questions and Schneier isn't following up as well as I think he should. For example, Hawley gives a feels good answer to claims of 90% failure on weapons detection. But I don't think there have been any changes that can defeat certain, extremely simple, scenarios.

You are requested to lay your carry-on luggage "flat" on the belt for a reason. That reason is the X-Ray image is produced in the vertical direction. Laying the luggage flat gives the screener the least clutter in the image. It also means that you can present the screener with the most favorable profile of your weapon. Imagine what the profile of a knife looks like on edge and what acceptable carry-on items might look similar or camouflage the knife on edge. It is my contention that short of hand searching or complete emptying of luggage at the check points it will be trivial to get knives past security in your carry-on luggage. Firearms are only slightly more difficult. There may be some things they can do to detect ammunition via nuclear methods but I suspect even that can be defeated if you know what you are doing. It is my contention we would all be much better off if we explored different methods of security.--Joe]

Hardly a pure science, history is closer to animal husbandry than it is to mathematics, in that it involves selective breeding.  The principal difference between the husbandryman and the historian is that the former breeds sheep or cows or such, and the latter breeds (assumed) facts.  The husbandryman uses his skills to enrich the future; the historian uses his to enrich the past.  Both are usually up to their ankles in bullshit.

Tom Robbins
[What reminded me of this is the Brady Bunch reading of the 2nd Amendment and related documents.--Joe]

Access to power must be confined to those who are not in love with it.

Plato
[This concept, more fully expressed in the U.S. Constitution, has been around for a very long time. It's sad this fundamental truth is ignored by the majority of people.--Joe]

Jews tend to think if terrible things happened to their ancestors in 15th century Spain and 19th century Russia and 20th century Nazi Germany, it can and will happen here. It’s a form of paranoia. But it’s a very strange form. For as we all know, this is a nation of 300 million. So, wouldn’t you think a minority numbering a mere five million, and in constant fear of pogroms, would spend as much time as possible on the firing range?

Burt Prelutsky
May 4, 2007
What is it with Jews and guns?

Popularity isn't the basis for war. The struggle for human freedom is. War is ugly by design, and instigated by tyrants, oppressors, fascists, religious fanatics bent on world domination, and other enemies of freedom.

Alan Korwin
April 2, 2007
Genocidal Peace Supporters

Now here are some people who know how to have fun.

Tired of the usual chicken dinners, the Manchester Republican Committee is planning to arm supporters next month with Uzis, M-16 rifles and other automatic weapons for a day of target practice at a Pelham firing range.

"The thought just struck me one day: a machine gun shoot. What the heck?" said Jerry Thibodeau, the committee chairman.

We can expect the usual hysterics from the anti-freedom crowd, which of course adds to the fun.  They're actually talking about firing sub guns and assault rifles at the fund raiser, but the term "machine gun" sounds more interesting I guess.  For myself, I'd like to fire a nice M2 at some old trucks and a few of Joe's boomers.  Ma Duce is big, well-made, heavy, powerful, and loud as hell.  What's not to like?

I find it encouraging that politicians on both sides of the turd feel the need to appeal to American gun owners.  We'll see whose appeals are honest (or should I say the least disingenuous).

I received a request for help making a bomb this morning:

-----Original Message-----
From: [someone] @hotmail.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 7:21 AM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: Bomb making

Hi I have recently saw your website regarding bomb making.
I was pretty confused by it to say the least lol, so i thought i would send
you an e-mail.

I would like to know how to make a bomb, where the chemicals are easy to
obtain.

I saw a section where the people where not specifying the force of the bomb.
One which would maybe break or even crack a brick wall would be good.

Thanks.

My response, which was also Bcc'd to Scotland yard (the originating IP address resolves to a cable customer in Cardiff, Wales) with the email header:

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:50 AM
Subject: RE: Bomb making

That you were confused indicates you don't have enough brain power for me to trust you with that sort of information.

The only people I would help build a bomb are the U.S. Military and our allies.


-joe-

Someone released a For Official Use Only (FOUO) document from the TSA and MSNBC posted it online. The basics are:

A surge in recent suspicious incidents at U.S. airports may indicate terrorists are conducting pre-attack security probes and "dry runs" similar to dress rehearsals. Past terrorist attacks and plots show that such testing generally indicates attacks will soon follow, according to a joint FBI and Homeland Security assessment.

It's mildly interesting in that it seems to confirm people are probing our airport security system. My view is that airport security as it's currently implemented is a lost cause (see also this posting from David Mackett, the president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance). Those resources would be far better spent on finding the bad guys before they ever arrive at the airport and implementing something else for on board security.

Update: Via Bruce--at least one of the reports was bogus:

The TSA bulletin said the ice packs were covered in duct tape and had clay inside of them.

Sanfilippo said they weren't covered in duct tape and didn't have clay inside of them. “It is a little bit off,” he said of the bulletin.

The chief said a Harbor Police officer found what appeared to be hardened old gel that had seeped out of the ice packs and dried, leaving a clay-like substance around the outside edge of the pack.

I wonder if it was incompetence or if the TSA was trying to justify their existence. Both are plausible.

The “nothing to hide” argument speaks to some problems, but not to others. It represents a singular and narrow way of conceiving of privacy, and it wins by excluding consideration of the other problems often raised in government surveillance and data mining programs. When engaged with directly, the “nothing to hide” argument can ensnare, for it forces the debate to focus on its narrow understanding of privacy. But when confronted with the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure, the “nothing to hide” argument, in the end, has nothing to say.

Daniel J. Solove
“I’VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE” AND OTHER MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF PRIVACY
George Washington University Law School
[A rather "dry" intellectual essay. Some of the better points are that government survelance changes the power balance between the individual and the politically powerful and data can be used for purposes beyond what it was orginally intended for. For example (my example, not the authors) 4473's are intended to enable finding the user of a gun associated with a crime but can also be used to confisicate firearms from everyone. But if you want a snappy answer for someone who claims they don't have anything to hide tell them to drop all their clothes, you want a picture. Then you want to know all their sex partners and from this point forward you want a live video feed of all their sexual encounters.--Joe]

Get your golf ball launcher here. Teaser material from the site:

Each launcher fits ANY NATO standard 22mm flash suppressor or grenade launcher.—M-16/AR-15, Yugo SKS, FAL, CETME/G-3, PTR-91, Galil, MAS 49/56, FR-7, FR-8 and many more.

Lot of other interesting stuff on the site too. You can find videos of "reactive target" shooting also and what a one or two pound charge of explosives will do to a car.

I sent an email to the reporter I had talked to a few times about my difficulties with PNNL with a link to my post saying I was dropping my lawsuit against the lab. He wrote a story which was published today.

Even with that post as a written reference the paper still managed to get a few things wrong.

• The paper says, "Rather than argue about excessive personal use of lab computers, he chose to back down." Apparently the reporter doesn't understand that if the lab did an investigation that concluded I had 13 gazillion terabytes of child porn on my work computer (they did not, but they did claim this picture was "adult content") and my computer was actually squeaky clean I would not have a case unless the motive for the false report was for something like me being of the wrong race, religion, etc. They could be as incompetent as a retarded monkey taking a calculus exam (pretty good analogy to what actually happened) and I would not have had a case. No law or court demands they be competent in their investigation.
• The paper says, "A former cyber security analyst...". My actual title was "Senior Research Scientist II".

Oh well. What do you expect?

The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition accelerated the Nazis' achievement of an iron grip on Germany:

• registration lists enabled the Nazis quickly to revoke firearms permits from anyone they deemed unreliable;
• Permitting procedures under this "gun control" law doubtless had deterred many "reliable" persons from making the application.

Moreover, as the Nazis' political clout grew - and as their violence grew - some of those who might have wanted to get a firearm may not have been able to do so. Those who felt threatened by the Nazis were the ones least likely to be deemed "reliable" by a police chief sensitive to the Nazis' growing power.

Lethal Laws--"Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide
Page 153
By: Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice

Ry turned in his notice today.

I received a call on my way to work this morning. It was Ry's new employer doing a reference check. By the time I checked with Ry about 15:00 he had received and accepted their offer.

Ry works just around the corner and down the hall from me. In two weeks he will be working in downtown Seattle instead of Redmond.

Heavy sigh.

PSR believes that the only way to reduce the number of women killed by guns, is to educate people on the true relationship between females and firearms. Physicians must work to educate people that guns do not offer protection, but actually put them at greater risk of injury or death.

Physicians for Social Responsibility
From: http://www.psr.org/women.htm (as of 02/19/99)
[PSR seems to have backed down some from this anti-gun position. At least they aren't quite as up front about it as they were. We are making progress.--Joe]

Washington, DC's ban on handguns in the home has long protected DC's residents as measured by the District of Columbia's firearm suicide and overall suicide rate. The District’s handgun ban provides compelling evidence of how strict gun laws save lives by keeping handguns out of homes. The District of Columbia ranks 51st (last) in the country for firearms suicide for 2004, the most recent year for which statistics are available. The District also ranks last for overall suicide. Maintaining the ban will ensure the health and safety of DC residents.

Violence Policy Center
July 16, 2007
Threat of Handgun Ban Repeal Puts Lives of DC Residents in Supreme Court Balance
[Apparently, according to the VPC, guns cause suicide. It's telling they don't compare the District violent crime, including murder, rate to states that honor our inalienable right to defend ourselves. See also this QOTD.--Joe]

In the fight between you and the world, back the world.

Franz Kafk

My sister-in-law got hers this spring. I had mine two months ago. Ry had his today. President Bush is having his on Saturday.

We must prepare for a long hard battle. So much of what we have worked for in the past and everything we're currently working on could be destroyed by the heinous decision of right-wing activist judges who chose to ignore more than 60 years of precedent in order to help the gun lobby accomplish in the courts what it has been unable to accomplish in Congress.

Sarah Brady
Email, July 20, 2007
Chair
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
[That is such music to my ears.--Joe]

I've been sending email around to people I knew wouldn't really wait to know what happened with PNNL yesterday.  Here's the basics of what happened. I'll do the complete time-line with documentation later...

They finally gave us enough evidence that we could reasonably conclude they were incompetent rather than bigoted. It took a motion to compel before they finally gave us some of the information and then doing depositions on some people. I don't understand why they didn't turn this information over when we asked for it in our first interrogatory. It would have saved everyone a lot of time and money.

Some of the most basic unchallenged facts I had believed were false. I was told by Gina, on two different occasions, that both she and no one she knew on our team knew anything at all about the investigation. If this was true then the truth or falsity of my claim that I had not posted sensitive information was irrelevant to the investigators and the decision makers. It turns out that Newton, Wayne, and she had actually started the investigation. That Gina and Wayne knew anything at all about it was news to me yesterday. I didn't know Newton had anything to do with it until my deposition in April of 2007. They should have told us all of this in their first response as we requested. I don’t know why they hid it and required us to go to the judge with a motion to compel to turn it over. Legally they had absolutely nothing to fear from releasing the information--it invalidated my theory of the case.

My lawyer said I could possibly still win the case--but for the wrong reason. Witnesses, Newton in particular, were extremely evasive (for example, refusing to agree, even in principle, to answer yes or no questions with a yes or no rather than a nod of the head and always quibbling about words such as “that depends on what your definition of ‘complain’ is”). Newton and others even gave testimony under oath that I had hard proof was false--all stuff that would look bad to the judge and jury. And Newton even had his own personal file he kept on me which sounds extremely suspicious. The court recorder thought we were joking we told her to pack up because we were done. She thought things were going very well for us. But the bottom line is that all the strange stuff, once we had the truthful critical information, didn’t matter in the big picture so I dropped it. Even if I would have pushed on, which my lawyer almost for certain would not have done had I be so inclined, and won simply because Newton appeared to be hiding information on nearly every response it would have been a hollow victory. Battelle/PNNL would have been screwed because Newton doesn't know how or perhaps is even unable to be candid and believable. I believed him on the parts that were most important to me because I knew Newton was paranoid even when there wasn't anything to be paranoid about. And the critical information he provided fit in with other information that that until that point didn't make any sense.

We are pretty sure this is what happened:

Newton thought maybe I had posted classified (national security type) information on my blog. He talked to Wayne about it--what do we say to Joe? How do we approach him about this? But if it was classified they couldn't just handle it in private--it would have to be reported. They asked Greg about it. He didn't know so they went to Chris. Chris, Wayne and Newton debated it and decided just to be safe they should report it and the investigation expanded. It turned out it was not classified, as I knew--but they never asked me. Newton and Wayne were essentially out of the picture now. The bigger investigation which, only initially required Gina's input, turned up things that looked suspicious and everyone assumed the worst and the process continued to snowball. Finally they fired me without ever asking me except in the most vague terms to which I responded in a somewhat defiant manner. They didn’t even ask people that would have known the truth about the suspicious things they found. They just assumed, perhaps willfully, if it looked bad it was bad. Just three examples:

1. I was accused of “excessive personal Internet use” because I averaged about 2600 firewall transactions a month to things they believed were not work related – no one bothered to compare it to what other people did. It turned out company average was about 8000 non-work related transactions per month.
2. They assumed anything gun or explosives related web browsing was not work—which was false. I was bringing my expertise from my hobbies to my work and the investigators didn’t know this.
3. They found a complete copy of my website, JoeHuffman.org, on the government laptop computer and assumed I was hosting the site from there. Wrong and it doesn't even make sense--the website would go down when I was traveling with the laptop if that were the case. What really happened was I hosted, at the request of Wayne, a bunch of PNNL project material on my own personal website, JoeHuffman.org for a few days when some material need to go on-line on such short notice that we didn't have time to go through the usual paperwork to get it on the corporate site. I integrated the PNNL material with my website on the government laptop computer to make sure the cascading style sheets didn't interfere with each other (I didn't really understand CSS very well and needed to make sure things were working right together). I had lots of free disk space on the laptop and didn't bother to delete it afterward.

These and lots of other cascading failures occurred during their investigation process and were completely out of my control and knowledge until the lawsuit and some the information only showed up yesterday. I was "walking on the fence" with my blogging and knew it. They couldn't quite figure out if I had crossed over or not and Bryan McMillan, my supervisor, "built a new fence" and told me not to cross over that one... so I started "walking on his new fence" with my blogging instead of being submissive. That almost for certain pissed him and others off. That doesn't really make sense to me with my world view. When I would tell one of our kids to clean their room and when they announced it was clean and I went to inspect found the room clean but the hallway three feet deep in their dirty clothes I couldn't hold back my smirk--and I would require they help me put their dirty clothes in the laundry room. Then the next time I told them to clean their room I would make sure the requirement included getting all the dirty clothes all the way to the laundry room. I would be pleased that I had such a clever child, but then I'm not normal...

McMillan, Hevland, and others may have in fact "walked on the fence" in terms of Battelle policy during the termination procedure but unless that was due to an actionable item such as a race, gender, age, etc. and possibly gun ownership issue of some sort it just doesn't matter in a legal sense. They could get away with it.

In regards to all the evidence from my web logs--such as indications they weren’t looking for information I blogged about work but instead about my political activism and that I was a firearms instructor--we explored that. All indications appear the investigation started for other reasons, invalid (some other day with the data to back it up--Newton was "walking a fence" in his testimony) but not legally actionable. The people that may have had a bias against my activism and gun activities apparently didn’t pass that bias on to the decision makers.

PNNL screwed up by not doing a good investigation and I got screwed, in part because I was in essence mocking them, but them being incompetent investigators isn’t actionable in a legal sense so I dropped the case.

Another way to look at it that is probably fair was this statement by someone familiar with nearly all the details but wishes to remain anonymous, "Joe, I see why they fired you now. You are so in control you are out of control. Until people get to know you scare them. They thought you were a loose cannon and were a risk."

It took me a lot of time to understand what "You are so in control you are out of control" really meant. It means I parsed the rules very carefully. It was all very clear to me--simplifying some, there were four types of information, Classified, Official Use Only, Business Sensitive, and everything else which was Open. The first three were carefully defined which made Open well defined. Open stuff is subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests--which means anyone can get access if they ask for it. I was very much in control of what I said and chose my words carefully. But I said things in ways that made them more "interesting" than Battelle/PNNL was comfortable with. I was in control but appeared out of control.

There was, in essence, an unstated policy that they did not wish to honor FOIA. FOIA was a problem for them because it was so much easier to work on things that were in the open that they, and their customers preferred that operating environment. But even though it was technically open they preferred it remain "in the dark". I honored the spirit of that but unless it were truly "not Open" I didn't keep it as in the dark as "not Open" material were required to be kept. I think this pissed them off too--I was "Walking the Fence" again by not keeping FOIA-able material as dark as OUO material.

As I said here when I first found out about the investigation, my Push the Envelope Policy has it's hazards.

As I talked to people about the results from yesterday I had one person tell me they couldn't be like me but they were glad there were people like me out there. Extremists are usually right because they care about the issue and understand it. The moderates don't care because they don't know the issue. And if you are going to push the envelope you have to accept the risk and know that sometimes you are going to have to pay a price. You paid a heavy price. I hope it was worth it for you. I wouldn't have been willing to pay that price."

I don't know the answer...I'm still thinking on it.

"[T]his radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder," the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day in the near future when the district might not be the safe gunfree enclave of sanity that it now is. One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens.

Mac Johnson
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found
March 15, 2007

So the quote about never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity is appropriate here.

James Huffman-Scott
July 18, 2007
[This was after I told him I had dropped the lawsuit against PNNL and why I had dropped it. I'll write up a report on it this weekend. I've been running on four and five hours sleep for the last week preparing for the depositions that were to be today, tomorrow and the next. We did three of the four depositions scheduled and we had enough answers we could put the rest of the puzzle together on our own. I need to sleep tonight and the rest of the week I need to get a bunch of things done I felt guilty leaving undone at work. The basics are that what James said above overstates things just a little bit but its close enough. I got screwed but it wasn't for any reason that is actionable. There are still unanswered questions but even if they were answered in the most favorable manner possible to me it just wouldn't matter from a legal standpoint.--Joe]

I own a gun because a disarmed populace is required for genocide and should it come around again, I'm not going to be that guy. I'm not going to be standing on the side.

Ry Jones
Armed America page 186
[Yeah, two in a row from Ry, but the timing for both was important. See also his blog posting on this new book.--Joe]

Try it yourself--I'm sick of the bitching.

Ry Jones
Marble Falls AR15 magazine backwards refutation
[From Ry's video on how a Police Officer can put a magazine in backwards an AR-15 long enough to get her picture in the paper. This refutes any claims it had to be a Photoshop job.--Joe]

War hath no fury like a non-combatant.

Charles Edward Montague
[Sounds like Cindy whats-her-name and most of the Democratic party doesn't it?--Joe]

Never do your enemy a minor injury.

Machiavelli
[At least it is attributed by some to be Machiavelli. I haven't been able to verify it. I like it regardless of who proper credit belongs to. Especially today since I am preparing for the depositions of my enemies, the felons, at PNNL. They did me a relatively minor injury over two years ago. My intentions for them are more than a minor injury. By this time next week they will be painfully aware of how much "injury" I am capable of delivering.--Joe]

The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home; and these are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence.

Elbert Hubbard
June 19, 1856 – May 7, 1915
[Add in "malice" and that statement is as true now as it was then. One only need look at what political left is currently trying to do in regards to the war.--Joe]

Legislation like the Brady Bill ignores the fact that violence unfortunately has been a fact of life long before firearms were invented. Outlawing guns does not prevent violence, but it does prevent smaller, older, disabled or less powerful persons from effectively defending themselves against larger and stronger attackers.

[...]

Once the anti-gun left has a cause or celebrity to rally around, rational thought goes out the window as they push their proposed legislation.

[...]

Sarah Brady is still a leading figure in the anti-gun movement. Jim Brady is still an advertisement for gun control.

Sandy Froman
July 12, 2007
The history of gun control, part 3
Froman is immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America and a longtime member of the NRA board of directors.
[There really should be three separate quotes but I couldn't decide which of them I wanted to post first.--Joe]

Xenia just posted this wonderful video of Kim's wedding.

These posts and pictures have been up for a while but I didn't link to them at the time they were posted because I knew there were more coming:

• Pre-wedding Preparations
• The Wedding

It's been said before:  We tend to live our lives as conservatives, regardless of our political affiliations.  I've heard R. Limbaugh say it several times.  We don't take our paycheck, decide we're living on "more than we need" and give half of it away each payday.  We don't confront our neighbors, telling them they must cut back on their consumption or we're going to do something really bad to them.  You don't believe that you, personally, have far too much freedom, then demand that someone take your freedom away from you.  Chances are you don't feel you have the right to steal from someone on the basis that he has more than you.

Not exactly.  But we do often advocate such coercion against our fellow countrymen on a regular basis, through government.

If we define an American "conservative" as one who embraces the principles upon which this country was founded (Liberty, property rights, minimum to non interference by government)(and I do) then it is a fact that most people live as conservatives in their personal lives.  Its just that some of us are screaming hypocrites, like this Texas politician who fought against self-defense rights and ended up shooting a thief (the thief was, after all, merely practicing his own form of "Economic Justice" as the term is used by the Left).

Thanks to M. Malkin and K. du Toit.

I'm pretty sure this has been known for a long time but I somehow missed the memo. Uncle shows us how to convert many semi-auto firearms into full auto for pennies.

That, however, isn't the main intent with his post. It's about mocking the ATF and gun laws. All worthy goals.

Thanks Uncle.

Robyn Ringler is probably close to my age. But despite having some very adult experiences she is like a child in some ways. She is so naive:

Let’s pass legislation that will have no effect on you but will stop irresponsible gun dealers.

You, in this case, refers to "legal gun owners". What she does not realize is that no such legislation is possible. Any restriction, let along something that would "stop irresponsible gun dealers", on gun dealers or owners will have a greater effect on "legal gun owners" than it will on the "illegal gun owners". People that would use a firearm to commit a crime will have no reservation about breaking a law intending to prevent them from possessing a gun. Not so on those that obey laws simply because they are the laws. They will honor the waiting periods, the registrations, and licensing processes all of which are barriers to gun ownership and use.

But she is coming around. She apparently recognizes people have legitimate uses for defensive firearms:

So, legal gun owners, go ahead and own your guns for defensive use.

In this further display of naiveté I suspect she doesn't realize is that she has stepped onto a slippery slope that the VPC, The Brady Campaign and many other anti-gun bigots avoid. Once you acknowledge firearms as legitimate self-defense tools you cannot help but admit restrictions on the purchase and carrying of these tools can cost lives.

But also like a child it appears she is learning. I have hope for her. It is very, very difficult to be an advocate for something then renounce that position even when all evidence for your position crumbles away into dust. If I am reading between the lines correctly she is reexamining some of her most dearly held beliefs in regards to firearms.

Via Tamara and Oleg we find out that iodine is now a controlled substance. Apparently it can be used in the production of meth. I just want it to make explosives.

I have some very fond, as well as scary, memories of my first home-made explosives which were made with iodine crystals.

This is what you get when people start believing you can prevent crime. There is no end of what they can and will justify once they buy into that repulsive concept. Legitimate crime control consists of punishment of those who injure others.

What greater reassurance can the weak have than that they are like anyone else?

Eric Hoffer
(1902-83), U.S. philosopher.
The Passionate State of Mind, (1955).
[Perhaps reassurance isn't what is in the best interest of weak, the strong, or those in between. But then those who reassure the weak are unlikely to have the best interests of anyone but themselves in mind anyway.--Joe]

I was watching "Fight Club" (again) last night and thinking how lucky we are that you were never fashion-seeking enough to have embraced nihilism.

Sean Flynn
17:34 July 9, 2007
[In an IM chat with me.--Joe]

This is how China does it:

China on Tuesday executed the former head of its food and drug watchdog who had become a symbol of the country's wide-ranging problems on product safety.

Zheng Xiaoyu's execution was confirmed by State Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Yan Jianyang at a news conference held to highlight efforts to improve China's track record on food and drug safety.

Such cases "have brought shame to our administration and revealed serious problems. We need to seriously reflect on what lessons we can draw from such cases," Yan said about Zheng and a separate case involving Cao Wenzhuang, the administration's former pharmaceutical registration department director.

Zheng was sentenced to death in May for taking bribes to approve an antibiotic blamed for at least 10 deaths and other substandard medicines. Cao was given a death sentence last month with a two-year reprieve for accepting bribes and dereliction of duty.

It is my opinion that government corruption should be treated more harshly that corruption of officials in private business but I wouldn't contest someone's claim that execution is perhaps a bit extreme in ordinary corruption cases. But if someone dies as a result then it should be considered.

Politicians that infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms should be encouraged to carefully weigh the potential harm of gun-control as well as the potential benefits.

Trivia/synchronicity about Kim and her wedding:

• When Kimberly Joe Huffman-Scott was born her mother, Barb, was the same age as Barb's mom was when Barb was born (31 years-old)
• When Kim was born her father, me, was the same as my mom was when I was born (30 years-old)
• Kim was 172 days younger than her mother when she married and only 40 days older than her father
• After the ceremony as Kim and I danced the boat sailed past the motel where Barb and I had our honeymoon and we celebrated our 25^th wedding anniversary

Kim and I practicing our dance earlier in the day
(Photo by Xenia Joy)

Xenia and I earlier on the day of the wedding
(Photo by Xenia Joy)

Kim's garter
(Photo by Xenia Joy)

The bride and her parents
(Photo by Xenia Joy)

Kim and Xenia prior to the ceremony

Barb and I dance in the foreground, Kim and Caleb in the center background
(photo by Xenia Joy)

Kim and I dancing for real
(photo by Xenia Joy)

More of Kim and I dancing for real (can you tell what, if anything, I'm "packing", how, and where?)
(photo by Xenia Joy)

Dillon Precision Range Bag containing a video camera and accessories, a SureFire 6P flashlight, and a 22-round magazine loaded with 180 grain SXT Winchester Ranger .40 S&W

More photos on Xenia's Live Journal here and here.

When Kim was in the Kindergarten we were living in Sandpoint, Idaho. She would take her backpack with ladybug marking on it to school to carry her books and stuff. There was this older boy, a Fourth grader, that made fun of her about the ladybug backpack. The next year we moved to Moscow and Kim didn't have to deal with him anymore.

Kim graduated from Moscow High School and a year or so later moved to Coeur d'Alene Idaho. Shortly after arriving she was introduced to Caleb by a friend of hers. They talked and talked and discovered they both went to grade school at the same time in Sandpoint. They figured out that it was Caleb who teased Kim about her ladybug backpack. Kim and Caleb were married on Saturday.

For one of our wedding presents we gave them a set of a ladybug suitcase, a ladybug backpack, and a small ladybug backpack. Before the boat upon which the wedding ceremony took place left the dock a ladybug landed near one of the bouquets. I got a picture of it before it flew away:

I'll be posting some more pictures from the wedding soon. Watch for more ladybug pictures.

The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would be at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 30, Number 2, Spring 2007.
[The answer to Just One Question is no.--Joe]

The AP's apparent love, and frequent use of the word "czar," is an affront to the entire American public.

A czar is a merciless dictator, not subject to the will of the people, operating ruthlessly in pre-Communist Russia.

The suggestion by the AP and their hopelessly anti-freedom unthinking lapdog followers in the lamestream media, that the U.S. has a drug "czar," and education "czar," a fiscal policy "czar," and numerous other czars has gotten the public and officials to accept the word, without realizing just how brainwashed they have become.

Even if some twisted politician somewhere was the first to apply the word in some unknown circumstance, a proper reporter would say, in effect, "Although politician X called the new bureaucrat a 'czar,' the salaried government worker is actually only a mere employee, subject to reprimand, dismissal and the rule of law."

Alan Korwin
May 18, 2007
Czars Overrunning America
[I recall a time when they were called "public servants". It perplexes me that somehow they became Czar's. Was there a servant rebellion that someone forgot to tell me about?--Joe]

Remember what Barb said yesterday?

She was right.

Oh, side note. Kim and Caleb made nearly all the explosives for Boomershoot 2007. It's nice to have him in the family.

The truth is melting my face!

I trust that most of you read Thomas Sowell regularly, but in case you haven't seen this one...

Too many Americans today are not only unconcerned about what it will take to preserve this country but are busy dismantling the things that make it America.

He brings several points together to make a very good, large one.

The challenge for us the readers is to trick some leftists into reading his column.  Be careful though; it could be regarded by some as cruel and unusual punishment.

The question. The answer is no. From the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

[sarcasm] I wonder if the main stream media will report on this? [/sarcasm]

Here is a sample:

There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it. One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world's other 35 wealthier nations. While this is literally true, it is irrelevant-except, perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern--but which the study fails to mention--is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent.

The guy that drove the Jeep into the airport then tried to blow it up wasn't a medical doctor as was originally reported:

THE terror suspect critically ill in a hospital burns unit is an engineer with the skills to make the explosives used in the Glasgow and London attacks.

It has emerged that Kafeel Ahmed, who allegedly drove the Jeep into a Glasgow Airport terminal last Saturday, is a doctor of engineering, not medicine.

Police believe he may have made the two bombs found in vehicles in London, as well as the one in the foiled Glasgow attack.

Ahmed, 28, who was previously thought to be called Khalid, has a masters degree in aeronautical engineering and a doctorate in computational fluid dynamics, a highly specialised subject in which computers are used to simulate the flow of fluids and gases.

The bombs from London and Glasgow consisted of gas cylinders, petrol and a detonating system using mobile phones.

Aeronautical engineering isn't normally about making explosives for bombs--although occasionally that is the inadvertent outcome. But still one would think a good engineer would be able to make something work and would also know enough to do some tests. But it could be he didn't have any practical experience. Schneier called it Terrorist Special Olympics in the UK.

As Ry and I discovered some things that you think would be incredibly easy are not. For example, we spent a couple years, off and on, before we came up with a exploding fireball target that worked. See Project Fireball for both our successes and our failures. And even with all our experiments we occasionally change "some little thing" and we get a failure. As Ry puts it, "We don't have enough columns on the spreadsheet." I recently purchased some ammonium nitrate from a new supplier. The old stuff was fertilizer grade material which took us a couple years of tweaking our recipe, containers, and procedures before we got reliable detonations at Boomershoot. The new stuff is explosive grade. We will do extensive tests and probably make some changes before trusting it for an actual event.

I think it's Hollywood that changes our expectations of both the ease and the effect of explosives. In the recent U.K. cases we can probably thank Hollywood as well as a stupid engineer for the failures of the terrorist bombs.

By this time tomorrow night your daughter will be a married woman.

Barbara Scott
July 6, 2007
[That would be our daughter; Kimberly Joe Huffman-Scott. In case you didn't know, my full name is Joseph Kim Huffman.--Joe]

I have been exchanging email with Omie and Geoff over the last few days related to the article in the Daily News they collaborated on. The focus of the article was fully automatic firearms as they related to the recent high profile shooting at the courthouse which resulted in the death of a Moscow police officer and two other innocents. It was the belief for several weeks that one of the firearms was illegally converted from a semi-automatic to a full automatic. About two days after Omie and Geoff's article came out a different paper, the Lewiston Morning Tribune, reported there were no fully automatic firearms involved in the shooting. I can't imagine why it took weeks for law enforcement to make that determination but that is a different story.

I sent email to both Omie and Geoff after reading the article in the other paper. They had not been aware of the recent development until I pointed it out to them. I requested their permission to post our email exchanges but they both declined. My latest response to Omie closely relates to some recent posts of Lyle's and mine and Lyle encouraged me to post my email here. I had been planning to do that but just hadn't gotten around to it. I'm doing that now in the hopes it will help others in dealing with the bias against gun owners in terms than can be expressed constructively to those with the bias.

The first sentence is in response to Omie's request not to post her email to me on this blog. The second paragraph can be understood a little better if you know that it was not her intent to have the article be hostile to gun owners of any type. I believe that is true.

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007
To: 'Omie Drawhorn'
Subject: RE: Hamilton's gun

 

I understand and will respect that.

 

My impression of the article was as you describe your intent. But things like "More restrictions or better enforcement could be key to questions about weapons" and even the assignment of "fully automatic" firearms allowed me to read additional things (rightly or wrongly) into the editorial mindset of the paper. As my friend Lyle pointed in a blog posting (http://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/07/05/Same+Template+Different+Story.aspx) yesterday the type of weapons is really the wrong focus for a follow-up article. Better would have been what went right, wrong, and what could be done differently in regards to the response and preparation for, what law enforcement calls, an "active shooter". For example, was Newbill wearing body armor? If so was it inadequate or irrelevant because of the shot placement? Should Hamilton have been in jail for previous crimes but was let out early for some reason? Did the responding officers follow their training for the information they had available to them at the time? If so could there have been better training that would have improved the outcome?

 

If the focus is on the gun then it seems to me someone has a solution in mind before they have a clear statement of the problem (see also this blog posting of mine from this morning: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/07/05/Understanding+The+Problem.aspx).

 

As an engineer I solve problems. One of the most common errors inexperienced engineers make is they jump to the solution before they have a good statement of the problem. The implied problem statement of the newspaper article was:

 

A criminal had a fully automatic firearm.

 

My statement of the problem would be something like:

 

A criminal with firearms attacked a building with people in it and responding law enforcement officers and private citizens were injured and killed.

 

The solutions problem solvers arrive at for the two different problem statements will be drastically different.

 

Is this making sense to you? I’m getting into “engineer talk” and worry non-engineers won’t see what I view as critical differences.

 

 

-joe-

In his article, Westen proudly displays his passport from Bizarroland, a place superficially similar to planet Earth, but where drooling idiots with hearts full of hate run amok absent guidance from their spiritual and intellectual betters in politics and academe.

...

I was waiting for the lizardoids to show up around paragraph seven or so and symbolically rape Gaia while carrying off Al Gore to be a slave on their homeworld, Karlrovia.

Tamara K.
July 5, 2007
*sniff* It's a thing of beauty.
[And so is Tam's snark a thing of beauty. I find myself quite pleased at all the attention given to The Gun Guy (Gonzo) email and the book and article by Drew Weston which was the basis of Gonzo's claim that emotion is what wins gun control arguments--not facts and logic. Here is a quick, perhaps partial, list of the chain of postings Gonzo's email triggered:

• Validation from the Left.
• *sniff* It's a thing of beauty.
• Call To Arms: Fight Fire With Fire
• Unforgiven
• Pants-shitting hysterics v. facts
• Facts are pesky things
• YGTBKM - Gun “Control” Edition
• Fisking More Self-Satisfied Crap

And from looking at my log files I see where Gonzo himself visited to see where I quoted him. The web is a wonderful thing.--Joe]

As a young engineer one of the most profound things every told to me was by my boss, Ken M.  Ken told me "You need to understand the problem before you can solve it." This is far more deep a statement than one might first realize. There is a strong tendency for people to advocate solutions rather solve problems. Examples my readers will immediately recognize include:

• Gun control: The anti-gun bigot push the solution then justify it by claiming will prevent crime. By doing this they "overlook" the possibility that guns in the hands of private citizens might reduce crime. The problem is criminals, not guns.
• National ID cards: The anti-freedom bigots push this solution claiming requiring ID for nearly every financial transaction, entry/exit from buildings, and checkpoints on streets and roads will make us safer. By doing this they overlook the fact that in the last century governments have killed far more of their own citizens than terrorists and criminals. ID cards and checkpoints have always been a tool of the tyrants. The problem is our safety is more at risk from tyrannical governments than it is from small groups and individuals.

 I don't believe most people really understand the problem of terrorist attacks. Here is a hint:

With doctors in custody over attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow, British police have now discovered a group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened an attack in the U.S. with car bombs and rocket grenades.

The threat was found in an Internet chat room run by Younis Tsouli, 23, of London, one of three members of a "cyber-terrorist" gang, according to the Daily Telegraph of London.

One message read: "We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.

"The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy."

The reference apparently is to the USS John F. Kennedy and its home port, the Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Fla., the Telegraph said.

The message discussed targets at the base, including gasoline tanks and "clubs for naked women." 

It also referred to using six Chevrolet GT vehicles and three fishing boats to carry out the attacks.

I'd like a response on this from those who say we just need to contain them or that Christian extremists are just as bad.

...is security just an excuse for any random thing these days?

Bruce Schneier
July 5, 2007
School Uniforms to Enhance Security?
[Yes. Look at gun control, unconstitutional and ineffective searches at our airports, national ID cards, etc.--Joe]

Reading Joe's recent post got me thinking.  Every time there's a shooting, we see reports on the type of firearm used, its features, where it may have been obtained, and what gun laws might "prevent this sort of thing" in the future.  Given that criminals by definition don't obey gun laws, and that this sort of thing isn't going to be prevented by more Prohibitions, what sort of reporting might actually benefit the consumers of news reports?  Newsies: I'm asking you to think outside the usual story templates.

News pieces on the firearm models and types used in a particular crime are unhelpful, mostly because they're useless unless you're pushing an anti-gun agenda (one exception might be the LA bank robbery, in which police responded to a rifle fight with nothing but pistols and shotguns. There the types of weapons involved were actually relevant to the response tactics) and also because the reporting is typically done by people who know next to nothing about firearms (believe me, Newsies, it shows.  It really, really shows).  I submit that the public could benefit more from reports on exactly what happened from minute to minute, once all the hysteria has died down and the evidence has been evaluated.  Interview police and citizen defense trainers on what responses would be most appropriate, how the police view the role of the armed citizen, and so on.  Then we may be better able to respond to an incident more appropriately, or to stay out of it entirely when needed.

For certain, I think its a bad idea to grab a gun and run head-on toward the sound of gunfire.  Stealth, People.  Also consider the fact that it may be impossible to know friend from foe when there are armed citizens in the same area as armed criminals.  Start a discussion on when to stay out of the way, or, if presented an easy shot on a hostile target, when to take it, where to get the training and equipment, what would the police chief or sheriff's department would want you to do?  You might let us know where to sign up for a local gun club, range development plan or self-defense course, and so on.  "Public Interest" in other words, could be served by some far more diverse reporting.

My previous post, Quote of the Day--The Gun Guys, about anti-gun bigots demanding people use emotion to win arguments and their agenda in legislatures, deserves more attention. His email was inspired by Despite Large Majorities, Democrats Are Chicken on Gun Control by Drew Westen.

Weston claims people are at their most basic and inescapable level not logical. I'll grant that he is not but nearly everything he says just does not compute with me. I associate him and his viewpoints with death and evil. I associate great emotion with the great evils of the world. Every genocide, the burning of "witches", the war against us by Islamic extremists, racism, domestic abuse--the list is almost endless. Strong emotions and the exclusion of facts and logic have played a huge role in the killings of millions of innocent people. To endorse emotion as a means of "finding your moral compass" as Weston apparently endorses is flat out wrong.

Reading this article was about as pleasant as shoveling fresh cow manure out of a unventilated barn on a hot day (I've actually done this--it's not for people with weak stomachs). Weston has the gall to claim facts are unimportant. Emotion is what is important and he claims this as a fact. There is no hypocrisy in his world view is there?

I was going to just ignore Weston's factual errors in regards to gun laws but I can't. Weston's tries to convince us with facts and logic that facts and logic aren't important. But he is so careless with facts that even if we were to overlook his hypocritical argument we just can't trust him. Each time he erroneously states a "fact" it's like he just broke out another window on his airplane. His argument is so drafty that no reasonable person could tolerate the ride even if his plane could get off the ground.

Here is a sample of the factual errors:

• The Brady Act restricted the sale of "assault weapons" -- Wrong. It was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act passed in 1994.
• The Brady Act caused 100,000 felons to loose their right to bear arms -- Wrong. Convicted felons had that right infringed in 1968 with GCA68.
• Hunters have a right to own firearms -- The right to own firearms has nothing to do with hunting.
• The National Rifle Association supports semiautomatics for felons -- Wrong.
• The National Rifle Association supports unrestricted access to automatic weapons -- Wrong.
• There exists some set of firearms "designed for no other purpose than to take another person's life" -- I suppose it's possible but I've never seen or heard of such a gun.

I will grant Weston has a point in that emotion is a "card" politicians can and do play with great effect regardless of the facts and logic of reality. But this is not the way it should be. Emotions should be used by politicians to gain support for that which is true and logical. The "dispassionate mind", which Weston apparently despises, should be the beginnings of any endeavor which has the luxury of at least a small amount of time devoted to planning. From the basis of what is true and good one can build up a web of logic and reach conclusions that will resonate and create passion. One should not start and end with conclusions and passion. To do that is to invite error into our thinking and that is why I see Weston and his ilk as enablers of death and evil.

Emotion is what wins arguments, and there is a tremendous amount of emotion among those fighting to reduce gun violence -- there always is when someone gets hurt or must go through the tragedies that we experience in this country as a result of gun violence.

...

That is important emotion, and it will do more for the argument for stronger gun laws than any facts or figures ever will.

...

We have to show legislators the human side of this issue, too, and force them to base their own decisions and policies off of that emotion...

The Gun Guys (actually the paid anti-gun, anti-freedom, activist Gonzo)
Email from June 26, 2007
[There you have it. Just what we have been saying for years. The facts don't really matter. What matters is emotion. They know the facts don't support their agenda. The number of innocents dead, wounded, raped, and robbed is irrelevant as long as someone feels good about removing the tools of self defense from those victims. And they need to force legislators to base their decisions off of that same sick mindset.--Joe]

From the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) we get this warning:

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.

As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

There is something you can do to stop this:

Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:

RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on "Significant Regulatory Action" as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.

I don't have the time to read it right now but I wonder if OSHA is proposing something to the effect that I will have to move my reloading bench out to the Taj Mahal or a similar facility. It would be a pain but I could do it. Expect people to set up storage businesses catering to reloaders if such a thing comes about. It's total BS of course so we need to do our best to stop this now rather than just mitigate the damage once they get such an oppressive regulation in place.

Last week I took a reporter (Omie) and photographer (Geoff) for the Daily News to the range. Full automatic firearms was the topic. I didn't have any but I showed them an AR-15 and taught them to shoot it. Omie told me one of the firearms used by Jason Hamilton a few weeks ago was converted from semi-auto to full-auto. I was skeptical but hadn't really stayed up on the topic. It's non-trivial to do the conversion and generally you don't expect losers like Hamilton to have the brain-power and/or strength of will to follow through on something like that.

At least from the editorial standpoint it was pretty clear to me the article was intended to be a hit-piece on owners of machine guns with undercurrents of hostility toward owners of semi-auto firearms. It now turns out both the firearms used by Hamilton were semi-auto. From the Lewiston Morning Tribune:

Gun in Moscow shooting was a semiautomatic

July 2, 2007, 11:04 am

MOSCOW -- The AK-47 Jason Hamilton used in his May 19-20 shooting spree is semiautomatic, not fully automatic as was earlier reported by officials investigating the case.

Sgt. Ed Westbrook with the Idaho State Police confirmed Monday that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has determined the gun is a semiauto, which fires one bullet with each trigger pull.

Westbrood said he didn't know how the AK-47 was initially thought to be fully automatic, which would keep firing as long as the trigger is depressed.

Hamilton used that gun and a semiautomatic Springfield M1A rifle to assault the Latah County Courthouse late in the evening on May 19, firing nearly 200 rounds. He killed Moscow police officer Lee Newbill and church caretaker Paul Bauer before killing himself early in the morning of May 20.

Hamilton had also killed his wife at their home east of Moscow before driving to town to start his shooting spree.

I'm wondering if the Daily News will now publish a correction on their article from Saturday. The entire premise of their article was based on a falsehood. I just wish I knew when the ATF released the info on the gun in question. Did the Daily News have access to that prior to publishing the hit-piece? Of course if they did know that it would probably have just changed the focus from a hit piece on full-auto to a hit-piece on semi-auto firearms. But it would have also completely changed my discussion and interaction with Omie and Geoff.

It looks like Ry and I have some more testing to do. We just make fireballs when we could make fuel-air explosives. We've known about F-A explosives for a long time but it's a much tougher problem than the fireballs. You need some very good timing on the second explosive charge.

Maybe someday--certainly not for this 4th of July.

If you want to try and impose the Fairness Doctrine, then just admit you’re not a big believer in capitalism and the free marketplace of ideas.

Cam Edwards
June 27, 2007
The Nanny Doctrine
[The advocates for the McCain-Feingold Act should admit the same thing.--Joe]

Airport "security" is all "security theater". It is all for show and doesn't really make us any safer. But it does make some people feel better. They really should investigate some alternatives but the sheeple would whimper and cry for mommy to protect them or something. And so as part of this show they made a big deal of requiring government issued photo ID before you could fly on a commerical flight. As if that made a difference somehow. Well... they've quietly backed off on that requirement:

Turns out there is no requirement that you produce a photo ID when you travel on a commercial airplane.

Originally, the TSA's Web site stated, "You must present a Boarding Pass and a Photo ID to get to the checkpoint and to your gate."

The latest TSA Web site language, however, states: "We encourage each adult traveler to keep his/her airline boarding pass and government-issued photo ID available until exiting the security checkpoint [children are not required to show identification]. The absence of proper identification will result in additional screening."

The TSA spokeswoman confirms: "If a passenger doesn't have one, like yourself, because it was lost, which does happen, then we do subject them to additional screening."

I got an email from Scotty who is the current head of the Palouse Pink Pistols (Moscow-Pullman area). He is looking for someone to take over the position. Duties are:

...basically, take over the PP E-mail addy. try and organize get together and so forth. keep an eye on whats happening. pretty low energy.

I have way too much on my plate as it is and can't take on anything new. If someone wants take over for him send me an email (p3@joehuffman.org) and I'll forward it on.

Phil has a post up about the recent Supreme Court ruling on using race as a criteria for determining which school a child is to attend. The commies in the Seattle media and schools are going nuts and Phil takes them to task:

Leave the social work to the social workers. Schools are a place where instruction is supposed to happen. The only real lessons that the Seattle School District seem to favor are those of “If you’re not white or Asian you will need the government’s help or you will never succeed” and “If you are white or Asian, you’re only succeeding because of privilege” being taught in all twelve grades.

Disgusting.

This reminds me of when my son James took an honors level sociology class as a freshman in college. The first assignment was to write an essay on how the luck of his birth (white, male, upper middle class) enabled him to get into this “special” class. He wrote that it wasn’t luck. He had worked hard and gotten A’s in every class since the fourth grade. He got a “D” on that assignment. We counseled him he had three options. 1) Drop the class; 2) Suck it up and take the grade even though he knew he was right; 3) Make a big stink about it with her, and if necessary, the administration; 4) Give her what she wanted even when he knew it was flat out wrong. It was his choice to make but we would support whichever route he choose. He choose 4) and got an “A” in the class and to this day we refer to that class as the "socialism class".

Choosing to give the instructor what she wanted was probably his mother’s influence. I had numerous similar things happen when I was in grade school but usually in science and math classes. I always went with 2) or 3). I always got very high scores on standardized tests and occasionally the results were literally "off the chart" but my grades were only a little above average. Sometimes you pay a price for being right.

I feel like a school boy anticipating his first piece of tail.

Rick Butte
June 29, 2007
[Referring to his anticipation of Boomershoot 2008.--Joe]

Xenia has her own collection of pictures from the vacation and family reunion last week. She has a little different viewpoint than I did. Plus, she has better pictures.

It's happening in the U.K. and it will be happening here before long:

‘Firebomb’ car rams terminal at 30mph

The first afternoon of the Scottish school holidays meant the terminal at Glasgow airport was packed with families queuing at check-in desks.

Outside the building’s glass doors travellers waiting to be collected saw an erratically driven dark green Jeep Cherokee approach at speed. The Asian driver began to rev the engine furiously before wrenching the wheel and smashing the tough four by four vehicle directly into the terminal building.

Security bollards blocked the path of the vehicle as the driver tried to ram the main doors. The air became heavy with the stench of petrol. Driver and passenger, described as burly Asian men, leapt from the vehicle and it burst into flames.

Airport staff described the men as screaming “Allah” as the driver doused the burning vehicle with more fuel soaking himself in the process. His passenger began to smash bottles of petrol and his own clothes now ablaze the driver fell to the floor as police, passengers and airport staff reacted.

I had a discussion with someone recently who agreed "we have a problem" with Muslim extremists but disagreed on the solution. He insisted we just need to "contain" them. He also worried about Christian extremists too. Really? How should have the people in the U.K. "contained" the extremist Muslims bombers? And could someone give me a list of the video taped civilian beheadings and suicide bombings committed by "Christian extremists" in the last year? I have a number of issues worthy of discussion with "Christian extremists" but killing large numbers of innocent people isn't one of them.

We need to destroy their culture. Porn for peace!

Yesterday the Daily News ran the article they were working on about fully automatic firearms. I posted about the trip to the range with the reporter and the photographer on Thursday. The article itself is very factual and I would say unbiased--given the assignment of writing about full autos in the context of a multiple homicide. The "More restrictions or better enforcement..." part was probably put in by the editor and illustrates how you can get screwed by just one bigot in the pipeline of people the information flows through. Most of the article requires a fee to access on-line but here is the part visible for free:

Geoff Crimmins/Daily News
Joe Huffman of Moscow fires his STI Eagle semi-automatic competition pistol at a shooting range on Lenville Road south of Troy on Thursday. Huffman is a gun-rights activist and NRA certified instructor.

Fully automatic; More restrictions or better enforcement could be key to questions about weapons

Jason Hamilton was armed with a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon when he went on a killing spree in Moscow in May.

When the shooting spree ended, four people were dead, three were injured and 185 bullet casings littered the parking lot of the Latah County Courthouse and the inside of the First Presbyterian Church across the street.

Despite that fact, some people say there are enough restrictions for automatic weapons to keep the firearms from being readily available and used in crimes.

Geoff Crimmins/Daily News
Joe Huffman loads ammunition into a clip for his AR-15 carbine at a shooting range south of Troy on Thursday.

Geoff Crimmins/Daily News
Joe Huffman explains how to line up the sights of a gun on a target at a shooting range south of Troy on Thursday.

It's not easy to see in the picture here, it's much more visible in the dead tree version, but there are three shell casings in the air in the first picture. One just above the chamber of my pistol, one that appears to be in front of my eyes, and one just off the point of my chin. I estimated I was firing about three rounds per second. All hit the target. Nearly all were in the A with a few in the C zone of the IPSC target. The picture shows me leaning backward a great deal and it seems the pistol has recoiled a great deal more than is actually the case. I'm certain the camera wasn't parallel to the ground and that I was actually leaning into the shots. The target was probably only about three and a half feet high at the "shoulder" instead of the typical five feet.

The loading the clip picture came about because I was fighting the battle against calling gun magazines clips. My son James says the battle is over and it is lost but I keep trying and explained the difference to Omie and Geoff. They got the caption to the picture right but I'm not sure it helped my cause any.

Some good has come about from the article already--I received an email from someone who saw the article and wondered where the range was and how to join. He will probably be showing up at the IPSC match later today with his application in hand.

Just a few short months ago, I was still caught between the walls of the positive-thought-is-all-we-need-to follow box; Now I am a gun owner, and I am positively far more capable of making sure no uninvited violence enters my home. Without the freedom to reach for a weapon of my choice, I play a less-than-active part against violence; with that freedom, I get to participate in my own life, and in those of those I love.

Colleen Lawson
June 24, 2007
Don't Call Me a Gun Lover
Via Kevin's post But I Will Call You My Ally.
[She has some things to say about Jesse Jackson too.--Joe]