This is not a challenge

From Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, Forget Fingerprints, Officials Can Track You All Kinds of Ways:

Another important step in the future of biometric identification is storing information in one portal wherein multiple government agencies will trust the credentials, said John Boyd, director, defense biometrics and forensics, U.S. Defense Department. The challenge remains to carry out the many efforts to identify people effectively but still protect privacy.

That’s quite a challenge. In my book as soon as the government has that type of information the worst of all possible offenders has the information you least want them to have.

It’s a lot like the “challenge” of finding a way such that the person that wants you and your family dead and as well as you and your family both get what you want.

This is not a challenge. This is a time to tell them to leave you alone and then back it up with force if needed.

Quote of the day—Bill Whittle

And of all the promises broken by this man, surely none is more heartbreaking than the one promise that got him elected in the first place: the promise of a post-racial future. He and his progressive cohorts can never surrender the weapon that has gotten them everything, not the least of which is personal political power and trillions of dollars of redistributed wealth. And this latest outrage in Ferguson is yet another example – as if another was needed among the economic wreckage, creeping totalitarianism, and foreign-policy disasters — that he and his leftist cohorts would rather rule over ruins than disappear into the dustbin of history of a healthy and racially healed nation.

Bill Whittle
August 20, 2014
[H/T to Kevin.

I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Gun control supporters would like nothing more than for gun owners to think that resistance to the anti-gunners bottomless pocketbooks is futile. But, we know that no matter how much money the anti-gunners spend, they can’t buy our freedom, because it’s not for sale. Let the anti-gun billionaires know that by Voting Freedom First on November 4.

NRA-ILA
September 12, 2014
Harvard: Millions of Dollars More For Gun Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Organized thought of the day*

Regarding the “packing” of courts (with judges sympathetic to one’s cause), which has been in the news recently; our U.S. constitution, very specifically and strenuously, demands “court packing”. It demands that ALL judges, justices, politicians and law enforcement be committed to the American Founding Principles. It is designed specifically to be as“Unfair” as possible.

When we’re talking about “court packing” then, we must be very specific. Are we talking about packing the courts with people unwaveringly dedicated to liberty, or are we talking about packing courts with people who are open to the idea of coercion?

Historically, this country was already “done in” in that regard by the end of the Woodrow Wilson administration. By 1945 the destruction of America was generally embraced. By 1970 there was so little America left that hardly anyone remembered the difference. So this has been a long time coming, which is what Progressivism is all about.

*Poking fun at Joe’s recurring “Random thought of the day” post title (if one may have random thoughts, surely one might, potentially, on occasion, have organized ones).

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Western civilization is at war with the IslamoNazi world.

The problem is that Barack Obama, allegedly, the leader of the free world, does not recognize this simple truth. And that’s because he is a radical leftist who is incapable of recognizing, much less confronting, true evil.

Imperial Japans was defeated by killing lots and lots of Japanese, and incinerating their cities.

Same for the Nazis.

And that’s how we are going to defeat IslamoNazism. By eradicating these human monsters and their sanctuaries. There is no talking to them. There is nothing to negotiate.

They must be hunted down and killed.

Robert J. Avrech
September 3, 2014
How to Defeat IslamoNazism in One Easy Lesson
[Negotiating with them would be like negotiating with someone who wants to murder you. There is no compromise available.

The sooner and more vigorously we get started on this unpleasant task the lower the death toll for everyone.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

An Israeli sniper once confided to me an IDF counter-terrorist doctrine called: “Shoot the women first.” Because the female terrorist will rarely surrender, preferring an apocalyptic ending.

Robert J. Avrech
August 28, 2014
Three Essential Films About Terrorism
[In Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume Three) he talked about something related. During a slave camp rebellion the rebels positioned women rebels on the front lines with the men. This, he said, was because not only were the women just as willing to fight but also the men were braver and fought harder when a woman was present.

I wonder about U.S. law enforcement sniper doctrine. There is the Ruby Ridge incident to consider. Vicki Weaver was known to be the leader of the family. Even though she was holding a baby in her arms and not an immediate threat to anyone she was shot in the head by the FBI sniper.

This may have implications in future confrontations.—Joe]

Just a little bit creepy

The QOTD yesterday was by Vladimir Lenin. And, as you might already know, every post made gets automatically Tweeted to my Twitter feed. By the end of the day I had two new followers on Twitter:

wp_ss_20140827_0002Cropped

Yes, Lenin. The father of the USSR. The nation that murdered tens of millions of their own people and had tens of millions more in slave labor camps that persisted for many decades.

It’s possible these may be spam accounts but they are not mocking or disparaging him.

I find it just a little bit creepy.

A bad free speech decision

Another court case over at Volokh. Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014). Some true believer bible thumpers went a-preaching at a huge Michigan Arab festival. They got balls, even if they might be shy a few common sense points.

Any-hoo, they carried their signs, wore their shirts, did their preaching. The Muslims assembled took offense, and a lot of their kids (naturally) started getting actively hostile (always use kids, so if the cops crack heads it makes for good propaganda videos). The cops told the Bible Believers to shut up or leave. The Bible believers said they had first amendment rights. The cops said “leave or we’ll arrest you for disorderly.” The court agreed. Reading the decision excerpts, the court has an argument, but I think the defense / dissent (the Bible Believers) has a much stronger argument.

Be a good case to appeal, especially if they win. If they don’t, then the incentive is for the hostile Muslims to get REALLY hostile to shut down opposition.

Incentives are important.

Quote of the day—Vladimir Lenin

An oppressed class which did not aspire to possess arms and learn how to handle them deserve only to be treated as slaves.

Vladimir Lenin
Via Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume Three)
[The natural extension of this is, “Those who do not possess arms and know how to handle them are at risk of becoming slaves.”

That is how many oppressors view those they oppress. If they cannot overthrow or defend against their oppressors then they deserve to be oppressed. It’s the natural order of things.

These people have different principles than I. In their world view there are no natural rights. There is only power. And as Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

These are the same people who say the Bill of Rights grants us rights. It does not. It guarantees them. This concept is apparently too subtle or too alien for some people. If you attempt to have a discussion with such a person you will end up talking past each other. It is better to get this point settled before moving on to other issues. If they cannot accept this fundamental principle then simply move on. There is nothing more for you to discuss with them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Roberta X

But fond though I am of order and quiet, it’s costly and difficult to keep when purchased by the blood of brutes and fools — a well-run police state is quiet and orderly but it’s not free.

Roberta X
August 20, 2014
Frikkin’ Ferguson
[I’m probably in the 90th percentile of the people who have a fondness for order and quiet. But you’ll find me in about the 99th percentile of the people with a fondness for freedom. Hence people attempting to implement a police state are at high risk of me generating disorder and non-quiet as I oppose them.—Joe]

Refusing to enforce gun laws

Nullification, as it should be. It isn’t generally discussed (such discussion would ruin the anti-rights, i.e. Progressive, narrative) but taking that oath not only allows an individual in law enforcement to judge the constitutionality or legality of an order or a law, it requires it.

That is its whole and only purpose. They don’t take an oath to blindly follow orders, or to obey the Dear Leader or any such nonsense as happens in more backward societies. They take an oath to uphold the constitution. That is not a trivial distinction. Those are functionally opposite concepts, so long as the constitution in question supports human rights. I’d rather they take an oath to uphold human rights (and prove that they understand the meaning of same) being as the constitution is valid only to the extent that it recognizes and protects human rights.

Know which side your sheriff serves!

Quote of the day—Joseph Stalin

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?

Joseph Stalin
[It seems obvious (because “common sense”!) that our anti-gun political opponents must have an even greater distrust of people with “the wrong ideas” than people with guns. And with a little bit of conjecture one might even say the ultimate goal is the destruction of the First Amendment.

Most of us celebrated this SCOTUS decision which contains this paragraph:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

If ideas really are far more powerful than guns then wouldn’t it be just “common sense” to have a SCOTUS decision which said:

Like most rights, the First Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and read any book or religion or engage in any speech whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, child pornography and religions with human sacrifice, or riot inciting speech  prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of books or practice of religion by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the advocating of religion in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of books. Previous holding that the sorts of books and religion protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the practicing of dangerous and unusual religions and owning or reading dangerous and unusual or speech which is dangerous or unusual books.

The political campaign donation “reforms” they are so fond of advocating are just the tip of the iceberg.

Because they want to ban your guns you are reasonable to suspect they want to ban your speech as well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Femitheist Divine (Krista)

It is a proposed global initiative for population reduction which will, in a few decades, lead to a worldwide male population of roughly one to ten percent… This population reduction is the only logical long term solution.

Our plan is one of pacification and submission and many of these short term solutions are already underway in the western world so we are confident in our ambitions.

You can’t stop us, and you will not define us, so don’t even waste your time.

Femitheist Divine (Krista)
October 7, 2012
[H/T to Glenn Reynolds.

It has to be a joke, right? Maybe it started out that way. But I don’t think she is joking anymore.

Evil does not come in the packages presented to you by Hollywood. Evil isn’t required to have a long black mustache to be twirled by the villain. Evil doesn’t have to wear jackboots and use a swastika as their symbol. Evil doesn’t always wear a mask and have Jack Nicolson’s animated eyebrows.

Although it is frequently implemented from the muzzle of a gun evil doesn’t arise from it. Evil arises from the ideas of people. Freedom of speech and thought are far more risky to society than the right to keep and bear arms.

“Pacification and submission”? I think that is what ISIS say they are doing in Iraq right now.

This is the risk you take when you cede power to a central authority. Their master plan is one that benefits the masters. It may not be packaged and sold that way but that is the way to bet it will turn out.

What if someone proposed a similar plan to reduce the worldwide Jew/black/female/whatever population by a factor of 5 to 50 of the present values? Why is there no outrage similar to what would happen in those cases? Would anyone even hire someone like that for anything more than manual labor?

And some people think there is a war on women.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Considering the downside of the The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and various religious based genocides it is extremely clear the risks associated with the First Amendment far outweigh the risks of the Second Amendment.

If anyone wants repeal the Second Amendment because we are “more civilized than that” or some such utopian fantasy point them at the genocide and beheadings going in Iraq right now and suggest we need to repeal the First Amendment as well because freedom of religion obviously leads to barbarism.

If they then wanted to repeal both the First and the Second Amendment and you gave them a swirly in response I would vote not guilty if it made it to trial and I was one of the jurors.

I-594 questions

Text of I-594 here.

Video of testimony here.

I’ve been going over it a bit. I’ve got a few questions that might be good to ask its supporters.

A person wants to take an adult friend to do some casual training and firearms familiarization, planning on loaning her a variety of guns and ammo during the afternoon. They want to go to a nearby parcel of public land that has been legally and safely used for recreational shooting for decades. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt them from having to run a background check every time they handed a gun back and forth? Considering a vast amount of training is done this way, it seem important.

A friend discovers her violent ex-husband just got released from jail, and she calls you at 10 PM Saturday night, fearing he might show up at her door any time. She’s a decent shooter, but due to finances she doesn’t already own a gun. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt you from having to run a background check to loan her a gun for a month until she can get the money together to buy one?

Sec 3(4)(f) states that [requiring background checks] shall not apply to a list of specific activities, such as”: The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;
Why are no other family members included?

(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
Why is there no section listing such shooting ranges, or providing for how an existing range can become authorized?

(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
Why isn’t training for self defense, hunting, or recreation included?

(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms;
Why only minor children, not other family members or adult children?

or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
Can you clarify exactly when it would, or would not, be legal to borrow a gun to hunt with?

More generally, what section allows for temporary transfers for training for recreation, self defense, or hunting with privately owned guns without requiring a background check every time a gun changes hands?

Quote of the day—Doug Huffman

We were horrified, and rightly so, at Adolf Hitler’s solution to the problem. But we haven’t got a solution to the problem either.

Doug Huffman
August 16, 2014
[No. No any sort of mythical “Jewish problem.” The problem Doug was talking about was what to do with those people that are “unfit” to support themselves because they are too stupid, crazy, or lazy. In our society we are on track for an Idiocracy type “solution”.

Doug and I talked late into the night on this and other somewhat related topics.

The problem as I see it is that our ethics are appropriate for a tribe but they don’t scale to a population of a million people let along a population of 300+ million. When we see someone, children in particular, hungry or in need of care we help them even if they will never be able (or choose) to support themselves.

In a tribe of a 100 to 200 people everyone know everyone else and the peer pressure significantly reduces the freeloader problem. As soon as there is anonymity freeloaders become an essentially unsolvable problem. And with large numbers of people combined with a society in possession of advanced technology in the essentials of life it now becomes possible to support those that cannot support themselves as well as those who chose not support themselves.

And with that support of those who cannot and choose not to support themselves we end up, literally, breeding more of them. We are scared, perhaps even justifiably horrified, of the risks of the government assuming the power to mandate some people not be allowed to reproduce or to raise their children the way they see fit.

I see horrific outcomes in either of the two “solutions”.

There is at least one other potential solution. It is, as I see it, the least unpleasant of the available alternatives and as you might expect, the least likely path for our society to take.

That potential solution is for our Federal government to stay within it Constitutional bounds. If the individual states or counties or cities wanted to experiment with government welfare or “free healthcare” then those experiments could have run their course over the last 200+ years.

What I expect would have happened is with enough of these type of experiments being run that people would realize there are some people that we just have to let “nature take its course” with. We would have a lot fewer freeloaders. We would have a constant, but small, set of tragic cases of people that could not support themselves and could not convince family and/or friends to support them.

There would be heart wrenching cases and people would organize charities (Shriners, Elks Club, Eagles Club, Salvation Army, etc.). to help those for whom help was appropriate. The decision to help or “let nature take its course” would be done in more of a “tribe environment” for which our ethics were “designed” for.

I don’t see how our society can get from where we are now to the “least bad of the available options” without a lot of pain, suffering, and death. It’s like trying to solve a global optimization problem when the slopes of the sides of current local optimum are steep and high.

Nature is “going to take it’s course” with us. All of us. I’m certain many, perhaps even a large percentage of, people will survive the big “challenges” ahead. But I cannot predict if those challenges will send our descendants to the stone ages  or to a Star Trek universe. But one way or another this ethical problem will “resolve” itself if we don’t resolve it.

Nature is testing it’s own “solutions” right now. Ebola, economic instability, and even the immigration issue are in beta test now. They may not be released soon or even ever if people do the right thing. But if we don’t then full production of something awful is coming soon.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

Media Matters and their leftist allies view this trend towards gun ownership in demographics that they once “owned” as a “gateway drug” towards classical liberalism, libertarian beliefs, or conservatism. They are fearful that if young liberals start following their peers into social shooting events at the new “guntry clubs” popping up around the nation, then the political shift towards anti-gun Marxism and socialism will not only be arrested, but reversed.

They know that firearm ownership is a gateway towards thinking as an individual and thinking more about individual rights, and this terrifies the anti-gun, collectivist left.

For them, fighting against the “new NRA” is more than fighting against gun ownership. It’s a fight for the very survival of a belief system that is starting to collapse under its own ponderous weight.

Bob Owens
August 6, 2014
Why the “New NRA” Terrifies the Political Left
[H/T to Sebastian.

While I believe it is true that gun ownership is a “gateway drug” toward classical liberalism I’m not sure the collectivist left is able to articulate their hatred that succinctly. I think it is more like, “Must hate because GUNS!”—Joe]