Markley’s Law Monday bonus

This isn’t quite an example of Markley’s Law because it doesn’t appear in the context of a debate about gun owner rights. But it’s close enough to be on topic:

VGKids Sticker Template

Via email from Jeff on Saturday who said:

Saw this on a car today in Kitsap county…

Kitsap county is just across Puget Sound west of Seattle.

That they think hunting has anything to do with male genitalia conclusively demonstrates they have crap for brains.

Quote of the day—Gretchen Gardner

I’m at the breaking point.

It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes. I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.

Gretchen Gardner
May 2014
Surge in property tax bills spurs push to reform tax appraisal process
[I’m not sure I’ve seen a better case for the “Crap For Brains” category.

As Margret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” But this bimbo can’t seem to comprehend this even when she is the one running out of money.

The big picture is that people this stupid shouldn’t be allowed to vote.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Scott Adams

You are wasting your time if you try to make someone see reason when reason is not influencing the decision. If you’ve ever had a frustrating political debate with your friend who refuses to see the logic in your argument you know what I mean. But keep in mind that the friend sees you exactly the same way.

When politicians tell lies they know the press will call them out. They also know it doesn’t matter. Politicians understand that reason will never have much of a role in voting decisions. A lie that makes a voter feel good is more effective than a hundred rational arguments. That’s even true when the voter knows the lie is a lie.

If you’re perplexed at how society can tolerate politicians who lie so blatantly you are thinking of people as rational beings. That world view is frustrating and limiting. People who study hypnosis start to view humans as moist machines that are simply responding to inputs with programed outputs. No reasoning is involved beyond eliminating the most absurd options. Your reasoning can prevent you from voting for a total imbecile but it won’t stop you from supporting a half-wit with a great haircut. If your view of the world is that people use reason for their important decisions you are setting yourself up for a life of frustration and confusing. You will find yourself continually debating people and never wining except in your own mind.

Few things are as destructive and limiting as a world view that assumes people are mostly rational.

Scott Adams
How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life
[Adams articulates this better than I have been able to.

I keep wanting to believe, and to a great extent behaving as if, people are rational. This is despite my frequent claim that it is irrational to expect people to be rational. I know it’s not true, I get frustrated that it is not true, and I sometimes just want to retreat from contact with the general population.

I’m extremely lucky that Barb and I share nearly identical irrational views of reality and rationality.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles Mackay

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds
[I look around me and, if I look closely enough, I see this nearly everywhere.

We have such a tenuous grasp on reality it is scary.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bennie G. Thompson

Taking action to prevent terrorists from having access to assault weapons would be a good start.  However, it seems that in the waning days of this Congress, there is more appetite for advancing un-American and counter-productive proposals such as closing the borders to Muslims or ethnically profiling whole communities.

To reiterate what Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has testified to Congress, that with the current threat picture, homeland security cannot be achieved without sensible gun control laws.

Bennie G. Thompson
House Homeland Security Committee ranking member (D-Miss)
September 21, 2016
Homeland security means keeping assault weapons off our streets
[Sometimes I’m just amazed that people can say and believe the things they do. Immigration from other countries is not a constitutionally protected right. There isn’t anything more American than our country’s founding document. The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right protected by that document. Is this guy’s mind that well partitioned that he can’t connected what he wrote in consecutive sentences?

The only way this makes sense to me is that people say things with the knowledge, at some level, people will hear what they want to hear. The anti-gun politician will say they “respect the Second Amendment and they don’t want to ban guns”. The next sentence will be that they “support the banning of assault weapons”. It could be that those sort of contradictory messages work on both the receiver and the sender. They say and hear what they want depending upon individual biases of the person at that particular moment. And those biases change from second to second. For example, one second they are of the opinion that the Bill of Rights is important and should be respected. The next second they believe nothing should stand in the way of preventing terrorists from murdering innocent people. They somehow cannot make the connection that these two beliefs are incompatible.

It could be this a built-in psychological mechanism common to almost all people.

I view it as some sort of mental illness.—Joe]

Those who need to know already know what the following means. If it’s not crystal clear to you then don’t worry about it. It’s not for you. It’s more fun and games for the NSA:



This is a breath of fresh air:

Instead of practicing running, jumping and stabbing in all directions, it might be a really good idea to work on perfecting the basics. It is only when you have truly perfected the basics that a person is ready to learn advanced skills. Nothing will end a criminal attack like a smooth draw and an accurate hit to the vital zone.

Nearly 40 years ago my first engineering mentor, Everett Nelson at Boeing, strongly advocated for the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.

This has served me well professionally in hardware, as well as software, design and development. I have found that one of the best indicators of a poor or novice engineer is the complexity of their designs. And if you knew enough of the history of Boomershoot targets you would recognize the evolution to better targets was in large part about making things more simple.

The self-defense, unarmed as well as armed, techniques taught at Insights also reflect this philosophy and is something I have always appreciated. Some other schools, as alluded to in the quoted article, show strong indications they are poor or novice designers of self-defense techniques.

Quote of the day—amiable

Clinton is probably one of the least crooked politicians currently running for office.  She came from a middle class family and married a poor boy who made good.

September 8, 2016
Comment to No matter how you spin it, crooked Hillary is still crooked
[Via Tam.

As Robert Heinlein’s character said in Time Enough For Love (page 241):

Delusions are often functional.  A mother’s opinions about her children’s beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.

Lazarus Long

Still, the depth of the delusion is amazing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Narayana Kocherlakota

Two government mechanisms prevent real interest rates from getting too negative. The first is cash: As long as people can hold currency, which loses its value only at the rate of inflation, they won’t buy safe assets that yield even less. The second is the central bank’s promise to keep the inflation rate low and stable — at about 2 percent in most developed nations. As a result, people have little reason to hold any asset that yields less than negative 2 percent (perhaps negative 3 percent, considering that cash is bulky and hard to store).

In other words, governments — by issuing cash and managing inflation — put a floor on how low interest rates can go and how high asset prices can rise. That’s hardly a free market.

What’s the fix for this problem? John Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, has offered some ideas, such as increasing inflation targets — but these are partial work-arounds at best.

The right answer is to abolish currency and move completely to electronic cash.

Narayana Kocherlakota
September 1, 2016
Want a Free Market? Abolish Cash
[Via Michael Krieger who says:

Possibly the most idiotic article I’ve ever read.

See also The Sinister Side of a Cashless Society (via email from Lynn Z.).

Electronic cash would allow government to be so much more efficient. Just imagine how much easier it would be to find people who were trying to cheat on their taxes by not reporting their tips. And bribes would be easy to catch. And armed robbery of banks would cease to exist. It would be wonderful, right? Isn’t that what everyone wants, a more efficient government? Who could possibly object?

Oh, yeah. Now I remember. It fails The Jews in the Attic Test.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Ryan

These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the Justice Department’s decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information.

Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House
September 2, 2016
Statement on Clinton Investigation Document Release
[See also FBI files show Clinton claimed ignorance on classification:

According to the files, Clinton claimed to have relied on the judgment of her aides and other officials to handle classified material appropriately. She even told investigators — when asked what the “C” marking meant before a paragraph in an email marked “Confidential” – that “she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”

The FBI document notes that the email was in fact marked “classified at the Confidential level.” And when asked about different classification types like “Top Secret,” Clinton went on to say she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information and took all classified information seriously.”

The documents also say Clinton claimed she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.” Further, Clinton “could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined.”

Such passages could help explain why FBI Director James Comey said during congressional testimony in July that there were questions over whether Clinton was “sophisticated enough” to know at the time what a particular classified marking signified.

The markings on a classified document look something like this (in red):

Top Secret

(S)     We now have all the required guns and ammo for the attack.

(TS)   We attack at dawn.

Each paragraph is marked at the highest level of classification in that paragraph.* The marking at the top is the highest level of classification of any paragraph in the document.

Hillary Clinton, as described by the FBI, is not “sophisticated enough” to understand these markings. This makes it exceptionally clear that she is not “sophisticated enough” to be a president of a community book club, let alone the President of the United States.—Joe]

* A game I used to play with the classifier of the documents I created was to write the paragraphs such that no single paragraph contained any classified information. Yet when the paragraphs were taken as a whole they did qualify as classified. It was a far more amusing game for me than my poor classifier who didn’t know what to do with them and never thought to ask me to rewrite them to make it easier for her.


There are so many details in the gun and ammo industry it might be easy to overlook some little decision and the side effects of it. Some mistakes are minor. Some are a little larger.

The ATF accidentally banned ammunition manufacturing.

Well, not exactly, but sort of. The changed the regs and reclassified nitrocellulose as a high explosive. You know, nitrocellulose. The stuff that is used to manufacture virtually ALL smokeless powder? All the facilities that made or handled powder would have to be totally redesigned, and frequently relocated, and shut down in the meantime. Yeah, just a minor change. So, the ATF, having been informed of the effect of this minor update, issued a “it’s still on the books, but never mind for the moment” notice.

Joe, I know you say you’ve had nothing but positive interactions with the ATF field agents and personnel, but you must live in a odd location in the time-space continuum.

Yeah…. Top. Men.

Quote of the day—Kyle Smith

As is often the case with virtue-signaling lifestyles, number-crunching doesn’t quite justify the supposed benefits of granola-crunching. “When applied to an entire global population, the vegan diet wastes available land that could otherwise feed more people,” concluded news site Quartz in a review of a scientific study published in the journal Elementa that compares the sustainability of various eating patterns.

Just as global-warming hysteria leads to draconian restrictions and taxes that devastate the poor in order to provide conscience relief to progressives, totalitarian eating habits aren’t as sustainable as more moderate ones. For instance, trying to grow crops on land best suited for use as grazing land for cattle means wasting resources.

Kyle Smith
August 4, 2016
Selfish vegans are ruining the environment
[“As is often the case with virtue-signaling…”. I think a good case could be made that it goes beyond problems with simple number-crunching. Data and logical thinking in general is not something they are really all that familiar with.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tatiana Schlossberg

Crime is one example where a rebound in carbon emissions could be an issue, according to this study. While there is an energy cost to operating prisons, the study notes, inmates generally consume less than an average citizen in the country, so fewer prisoners might mean higher overall energy consumption.

Additionally, the money saved from reducing crime would go into the government’s budget and people’s pockets. All that money could be spent in other ways — infrastructure, buildings or goods — that may require more energy to produce or operate, possibly adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Tatiana Schlossberg
August 3, 2016
How Lowering Crime Could Contribute to Global Warming
[H/T to Anonymous Conservative.

I found this very telling. The violation of the rights of people by criminals is secondary to the concern about carbon emissions. And, most importantly, they now have the idea that putting lots of people in prison is good for the environment. Think about what that might lead to.—Joe]


Can’t live with them, can’t live without them….

I just got a call from a rather hostile woman. She bought the property earlier this year just north of a piece of undeveloped rural property I own in eastern WA, and then had a roadway pushed thought on the boundary – it was part on her property, part on mine. I found out about it when another neighbor called and told me about it. My non-hostile neighbors and I met and looked at the situation. The road was clearly not all on her land. I talked to the bulldozer driver who’d pushed it through; he said he’d stopped part way along when he saw that the line they’d posted wasn’t lining up with his hand-held GPS. Continue reading

Quote of the day—Julie Moreau, Ph.D.

Advocacy on this issue has the potential to make the LGBTQ movement even more relevant to national politics and to win over allies outside the community. Achieving gun control legislation would constitute, for Preston, a “contribution to benefit our society as a whole and give us the recognition and respect we deserve.

Julie Moreau, Ph.D.
Commentary: Is Gun Control Next Step for LGBTQ Movement?

That’s a mind bogglingly stupid conclusion. And from so many different angles. Here are just a few:

  • They are going to alienate one of the most politically powerful, single, set of people in the entire country. Gun owners.
  • They are advocating against their own best interests.
  • Attacking a specific enumerated right is not on the list of things of things to do for people who want respect. Maybe they should attack religion, the First Amendment, as well and try to get twice the respect.

I know I have a biased sample, but nearly all the LGBTQ people I know are gun owners. I find it difficult to imagine they are going to get much unity in their community on a gun control effort.—Joe]

Quote of the day—justme‏ @beckychristens4

you’re a bunch of idiots too obcessed with your penis size to take time to realize American

justme‏ @beckychristens4
Tweeted on January 12, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

And it’s not even a complete sentence. But it is no surprise that when the best they can come up with is childish insults they have a problem with simple communication.

Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead ‏@Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]

Incoherent nonsense

Anti-gun people must live in some sort of incoherent alternate universe. The most recent example Clinton, Dems Put Gun Control at Center of Convention Stage:

Democrats were to hear Tuesday night from the “Mothers of the Movement,” a group of women who have traveled the country to promote gun control and reforms to make police officers more accountable.

The group includes the mothers of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, victims of high-profile police-involved killings. They have campaigned with Clinton, who often refers to them as members of “a club no one wants to be a part of.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said the shifting landscape is the result of several factors: Shootings such as the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012, renewed concerns over terrorism and high-profile killings of black men in several cities.

“For the first time, this is a winning issue in the general election,” Murphy said.

So… The police killed Eric Garner with a chokehold, Trayvon Martin was killed with the justified (perhaps even praiseworthy) use of a gun by a private citizen (not a police officer as reported here), and Michael Brown was killed with the certainly praiseworthy use of a gun by a police officer, and somehow this changes the “landscape” such that gun control for private citizens is a winning issue?

This is like someone holding their hands over both eyes and when you ask them why they answer, “The sky is blue and I don’t want to eat.”

These people should be in a psych ward instead of government employees. But then, given the current state of the government and the projected trajectory one could make a convincing case the Federal government is a psych ward with the inmates running the place.

I can’t wrap my mind around this stuff

I just finished this book over the weekend and while there are many aspects that I am skeptical about some things resonated well. One thing was that struck me was that the psychology of progressives (r selected populations in his terminology) is in a large part about “equality”. Gun control can be interpreted as government mandated equality of victimization. Everyone must be equally vulnerable. It is “unfair/unjust” that some people be able to protect themselves better than others. It is better than victims of violent crimes be selected at, essentially, random than for some people to be able to avoid and/or defend against criminals. If you are successful in defending your self you must be punished.

The case below via the author, Anonymous Conservative, could be a case in point:

A homeowner in Finland has been sentenced to four years in jail and a hefty fine after fighting off three intruders who attempted to rob his house. The thieves, meanwhile, got lesser prison terms and are to be paid damages by their victim.

In April, a 35-year-old man from Hyvinkää, a town just 50km north of the Finnish capital, Helsinki, heard a knock on the front door of his suburban house and rushed to open it. As soon as he unlocked it, three strangers rushed in and launched at him, toting baseball bats and a gun. The man retreated to the kitchen, where he found a knife and with it was able to overpower the intruders, two men and one woman.

The homeowner has been convicted of “excessive self-defense and attempted manslaughter,” Helsinki news reports. He will serve an unconditional sentence for four years and two months, which he has to spend in prison. The man also has to pay damages to his attackers, with the fine totaling €21,000 (US$23,000). The newspaper does not provide information on the severity of injuries sustained by the home-invaders, however, it is known that they survived the event.

All three received one-year-and-two-month conditional sentences, which is similar to probation or house arrest in Finland, depending on the case. The offender serves the sentence outside of jail, but has to follow strict jail-like rules.

The trio was also ordered to pay the homeowner damages, but their combined fine was ruled to be €3,000 (US$3,300).

A friend from the U.K. once explained to me that over there you were allowed to defend yourself as long as you used proportional force. If your attacker was using their fists you couldn’t use a knife. If they were using a knife you couldn’t use a gun, that sort of thing. I asked about a large man attacking a much smaller or weaker person. What then? Well, “It depends…”

I totally reject such thinking.

In the free areas of the U.S. if someone is using deadly force against an innocent person then you are allowed to use deadly force, of whatever type, against your attacker. The attacker could have both hands cuffed behind his back but if he has your kid on the ground and kicking them in the head and you would be justified in using a .50 BMG on full auto against him (take care not to hurt innocents yourself).

In my book the home intruders in the case above should have been made to pay for not only the damages done to the home or people, the lost time spent cutting up the bad guys and dealing with the police, and replaced the knife.

Maura Healey, dictator of Massachusetts

Maura Healey,attorney general of Massachusetts, wrote an editorial for the Boston Globe and said:

Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year…

Interesting. In just one year 10k a particular class of guns were sold in the state. Since that class of firearm has been around for well over 20 years there must be something on the order of 100K or more of them in the state. That must mean those type of guns are “in common use” and protected by the Heller Decision, right?

And how many crimes were committed with those firearms? She doesn’t tell us of any in the state of Massachusetts. She mentions just four in the entire country over the span of several years. Commenter Doverham (07/20/16 10:28 AM) tells us:

How many people a year are killed with “assault weapons” in MA – isn’t that a relevant number to know before deciding whether this is actually worthwhile or meaningful? I will give you a hint – that number was 2 in 2013, 1/17th the number killed with handguns, 1/30th the number killed by distracted drivers.

Yet she thinks this is justification for banning all of them. What other specific enumerated right, exercised by 100K+ people in your state, could someone justify the infringement of by four crimes committed in other states and two in your own? If that is all someone has to have for justification for infringement then who knows what she will demand be banned next? If that sort of rational passes logical and constitutional muster then she, or the next attorney general, can easily justify the banning of Islam, Democrats, or people with dark skin.

She also said:

On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.

The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

Ahhh… there we have it. She knows she can’t get the law changed through legislative channels so she just dictates her desires. And if a gun “has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon” it will be prohibited. That will be “fun” to determine and enforce. I would if she considers ammunition a “component”. And what about a scope, flashlight, rail, spring, peep sight, or bipod?

Also note that she thinks guns have “operating systems”. Dictators don’t have to know what they are talking about. They just have to have people with guns willing to follow orders.

Update: See also what Sebastian has to say about it.

Update 2: See also John Richardson and Say Uncle.

Update 3: See also Thirdpower.