We discover with some gratification that a Swiss citizen, in order to maintain his rights of citizenship, must qualify annually with his rifle, even when he is on station overseas. We knew that the Swiss had to do this while in Switzerland, but we find that Swiss diplomats in Washington are experiencing some difficulty in finding a facility on which to maintain their Swiss citizenship. Riflemaster John Pepper has been helpful in this matter by encouraging these people to make use of the Fort Meade ranges where he conducts his training and competition operations.

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper's Commentaries
Vol. 4, No. 3
February 1996

I got an email from Eugene Econ, the clinic instructor, today.  Details are here.  The most important bit of information is that he only has two slots open.

This is amazing.  The clinic going to be sold out by the third week of January--nearly three and a half months prior to the event.  I've expanded the number of shooting positions for the main event so I still have lots of room there but if I hadn't it would be two thirds full now instead of one third.  In absolute numbers I'm signing people faster than ever before.

I updated the blogger list.  I attribute bloggers for the apparent increase in attendance.  Thanks everyone.

These are reasonable claims.  They will involve a lot of work, and there may be some initial skepticism from some judges and jurors. But that's just the kind of skepticism you saw initially with tobacco. As [the cities] work on it, I think they'll find paydirt.

Richard Daynard
Tobacco litigation expert
Referring to Boston's lawsuit against gun manufactures.
From Join Together Online 11/25/1998
He now heads a project to determine whether insights learned in tobacco litigation can be applied to the obesity epidemic.

This is another When Prophecy Fails example.

Joyce Lee Malcom is a history professor and has been beating up on the British about their weapons control laws for a long time now.  She wacked them pretty hard again yesterday about people getting prosecuted for defending themselves.  The following is just the start.

There is an old Navajo saying,

"If you find you are riding a dead horse, dismount".

But public outrage over the prosecution of householders who injure burglars and one of the highest levels of violent crime of any industrial country, don't seem to have convinced Tony Blair's "tough on crime" government to switch horses. They find dismounting unnecessary and risky; the horse is fine, the spectators are over-reacting. All that is needed is a slight shifting of the saddle bags, clearer signals to the horse, a check-up by its chief veterinarian, and the public will find they were mistaken. Unfortunately, this blinkered approach will not bring the horse back to life, or, more importantly, protect law-abiding people.

Actually, it's my state, Idaho, that got the F+.  The Brady bunch released the 2004 Report Card.  Someone else will probably beat me to it or I would do a correlation between the grades of states and their violent crime rate.  Correlation doesn't prove causation (gun control may not cause crime), but if the correlation doesn't exist you can be pretty sure there isn't a causation (lack of gun control does cause crime).

You would think that it would eventually sink in to these people that weapons restrictions don't make people safer.  But that's not the way it works.  This is just another When Prophecy Fails example.  If certain conditions exist when you are proven wrong you will become an even greater advocate for your failed ideas.  This model for human behavior is so powerful the book, or at least the model, should be required teaching material for all kids in about the 8th grade.

I'm keeping track of all the blogger posts on the status page for Boomershoot 2005.  So far it looks like nine different bloggers will be attending.  This includes Ry and I so it's not quite as big a deal as you might think.  But I'm still very pleased.  This might be the year that I make a little money and get to pay back the loans I made to cover the building of the explosives magazine.  Kim du Toit in particular has generated a ton of web traffic and numerous entries for both last year and this year.

Thanks everyone.

When sending children to a friend's home for a playdate, ask the parent or guardian if there is a handgun in the home. Do not send your child to a home where a handgun is present.

Cease Fire, Inc.
P.O. Box 33424
Washington, D.C. 20033-0424

From: http://www.ceasefire.org/html/hfp2risk.html (as of November 11, 1998)

I've had confrontations with the leftists that were so blinded by hate they couldn't even relate to rational thought.  Which was the reason for subtitling my blog “Ramblings of a red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal“.  If you call yourself a bad name they can't really use the same phrase against you in a way to hurt you.  I was hurt and confused by the attack in my hate mail but reading excerpts of Michelle Maulkin hate mail was so intense it caused me to cry.  I can't imagine what is going through these peoples minds.

Michelle, if you read this and if you feel you need the instruction I'll teach you handgun self-defense for free.  Tell me when you have a day available in Seattle or maybe it would work out when I go to D.C. on business a few times a year.  If you want the instruction sooner I can find instructors in your area.  And if it would be of any use to you I would like to offer some lessons on long range rifle shooting and explosives manufacturing as well (Boomershoot 2005 is coming up on May 1).  If nothing else you could write about it just to piss them off some more.

I just did a quick check on the hate mail for the most vicious left wing attacker I know of.  What he calls hate mail would seem like fan mail to Ms. Malkin. 

It's no wonder they don't want us to have guns.  If they believe we hate them as much as they hate us then the targets of that hate would be acquiring severe cases of lead poisoning on a regular basis.  They know they couldn't be trusted with firearms so they must believe we can't be trusted either.

Here is a sample from Ms. Malkin's inbox:

Hi Self hating flat nosed Filipino Bitch! As we used to refer to your kind - little brown Fucking Machines. Looks like this little LBFM learned to whore in a different way to make some pesos. How sweet.

***

Surely you are a big put-on. Did some minor Republican operative purchase a mail-order bride and train her to do this?

***

Proverbs 69:69 counsels: "Like a whore who infects those she sleeps with, so doth the ultra-republican faux columnist infect her readers with lies." While you are looking in the mirror, cursing the Left because you weren't born blond, think about the above. Amen.

***

Is is such a shame that you look like a Filipino- because your thinking, writing (if you can call that) is a disgrace to any member of the Asian community. Someday, when you are no longer motivated by greed, and when you are closer to your next life stage, you will realized what a horrible sellout you are.

***

You're a filthy whore.

***

I just hope that I am still around when the karma catches up to those of you that have spread the lies and attacked the innocent. I hope your fate is somewhat similar to the women of the Phillipines when the Japanese invaded. Then Michelle you can drop the "media" from "media whore" when someone asks your occupation.

***

You're just a Manilla whore shaking your ass and waiting for the Republican fleet to come in, aren't you? You've even got the lip gloss about right. Maybe if you love sailor long time, he bring you home to big American house? I don't think so. Just like in Manilla, Honey, they'll pass you around 'til they've all shot their load in you, and then they'll try to scrub off the stench so they can sail off in their crisp, white uniforms to the land of W.A.S.P.

***

Here's a tip. We know you are lyin' pond scum and a whore to your profession......and, not a very expensive whore at that. So............when we get rid of you neocons; how will you ever pay your rent? You're not good enough to make it as a real writer. fuck you; I hope you get cancer & die a horrible painful death all alone, with your collegues shunning you and the rest of us reading how wrong you are AND WHAT A CRUMMY WRITER YOU ARE.

***

Malkin, you're a dumb fucking whore. You're a philipino piece of shit who should be wiping my ass. Go back to the massage parlor. Sucky sucky long time. How dare you thing you have any right to express any opinions in this country. You're a joke. Go back to nursing school. Whore.

***

Young lady you should be ashamed of yourself. My husband is Filipino and is all I have met have had integrity. However, you have disgraced the Filipino Americans by spreading these awful lies and being a Bush whore. I was going to vote for Bush, but never after these dirty tricks and lies. Just like the old Marcos days' eh. Disgraceful, you family and your community are desparately ashamed of you. How much are they paying you to sell your soul. You have disgraced us all.

***

oh, mz. malkin, there are more profitable ways to whore yourself than to do it on television for the likes of the neocons. (they are even quicker to dump their whores when they are finished with them...) you would make a discreet fortune on aurora avenue here in seattle, and no one would be the wiser...

***

Say, how does it feel to be a paid prostitute for the republicans? Go get some more collagen injected in your lips, it makes you look more the part.

Hundreds of millions of Kalashnikovs, M-16s and other automatic rifles were stored during the Cold War and these stores are leaking all over the world with disastrous consequences. It's not tanks or big weapons that kill, it's small arms. We cannot ban small arms such as revolvers, pistols and other light weapons that the police, security guards and hunters legally carry all over the world... We want to build a global network of like-minded NGOs and governments with the aim to create new standards to control small arms transfers which will be as effective as the regulations covering big arms.

 Jan Egeland
 Head of the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers
 and former deputy foreign minister under Norway's former
 Labour government, interviewed by Reuters December 19, 1997.
 From: http://www.prepcom.org/low/pc7/index.html#5 as of 01/07/99

A few days ago I questioned whether aid to the tsunami victims would alter the anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.  Now we have reports of previous aid efforts to Muslim after natural disasters failing change the attitudes towards non-believers.

After Mt. Tambora erupted in 1815, killing 100,000, a Christian Science Monitor report notes that “imams on the northwest coast of Java preached that the eruption was a sign of Allah’s displeasure at infidel rule, and urged a violent jihad, according to Sartono Kartodirdjo, am Indonesian historian.”

 Likewise, after the eruption of Mt. Krakatoa in 1883, according to historian Simon Winchester, “the Dutch made this superhuman effort to bring relief to the area because they were aware of the significance of the event and that the Muslim clerics were quickly making political capital from the event.” But the relief changed no hearts, and Muslims mounted a violent assassination campaign against Dutch officials.

There are signs of similar thought processes in present day Muslims:

...the South African Mufti Ebrahim Desai, the imam of an “Ask the Imam” feature at a Muslim question and answer site, made a statement that, had Powell known of it, might have diminished his confidence in the effect of the aid. The questioner asked (spelling and grammar as in the original): “The west is often criticised by Muslims for many reasons, such as allowing women go to work. But shouldnt the west also recieve praise because its always them who intervene when muslims r being tortured, they stopped Milosovic kiling muslims and sent their own troops to the country, they r usually the first to send aid when theres a flood, they r also intervening in Isreal and condeming them killing Muslims, so should we appreciate their efforts or not?”

 Desai’s answer was brief: “In simple the Kuffaar [unbelievers] can never be trusted for any possible good they do. They have their own interest at heart.”

One might think this doesn't make any sense.  That surely they must realize that we have helped far more Muslims than we have harmed.  Sorry, but you would be wrong.  It is irrational to expect people to be rational or at least to use the same rational as you.  A far better model for human behavior is expressed by the out of print book When Prophecy Fails.  If certain conditions exist the believer (of any type, not just religious) will become even more fanatical about their beliefs and increase their proselyting and conversion efforts when predictions fail.  In this case their predictions are about Allah being good and non-believers being evil.  And the result is predictable with the When Prophecy Fails model:

“God is angry with Aceh people, because most of them do not do what is written in the Qur’an and the Hadith,” said the Indonesian imam Cut Bukhaini. “I hope this will lead all Muslims in Aceh to do what is in the Qur’an and its teachings. If we do so, God will be merciful and compassionate.”

...

...a recurring phenomenon of Islamic history: when disaster of any kind strikes, it is all too frequently interpreted as having been caused by a failure on the part of the people to be Islamic enough. So the result is a renewed fervor, and new miseries for non-Muslims inside and often also outside the Islamic state in question. It is beginning to look as if the tsunami may be another occasion of this. There is nothing wrong with focusing and reforming one’s actions in the face of the reality of death; the potential problem here is that when the Muslims “wake up,” as they are being called to do now in Indonesia, they will direct their attentions not only to matters of individual piety, but to that other Muslim obligation, jihad.

It is still my belief that we have to “attack” their youth.  We have to destroy their culture via a “corrupting” influence.  Osama bin Laden made it very clear--we have two choices:

 If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation.

My weapons acquisition doctrine is driven in part by what I'm likely to find when I am shopping at the Dead UN trooper/Gun Confiscation Police Sporting Goods store. That pretty much comes down to M14, M16, HK MP5 and what not.

Ward Dorrity
November 20, 1998 10:53 AM
Microsoft Gun Club Public Folder

A few weeks ago I speculated on how many Islamic extremists had a desire to kill us. Now Newt Gingrich gives us his numbers:

According to the former speaker, between 39 million and 52 million young men -- out of a total of 1.3 billion Muslims around the world -- could become available to Islamist recruiters as the war on terror grinds on.

My numbers were much larger but included not just “young men” but everyone that had a desire to kill us.  Still, assuming Gingrich is right, even accounting for the differences in who is being counted I was way off.  I would love to know the method by which he arrived at those numbers.  But regardless, 40 to 50 million warriors are a lot.  I'm not sure that even with the kill ratios we have that our country will tolerate the military losses and the money spent to defeat that large of force until the Muslims attack us on our own soil again.  Will we be attacked again on our own soil?  I don't know.  I suspect so.  The elections in Iraq have to be the first priority of the Muslims, then attacking us at home.  We could see an attack in this country by the end of this month.

But then I read some speculation that Osama bin Laden had been told we would nuke, literally use nuclear weapons on, Mecca if there was another attack of 9/11 proportions on U.S. soil.  Assuming that is true, would that be a deterrent?  Or would that be a price worth paying to recruit millions of Jihad warriors?

Distinguishing between political parties on a basis of their respect for rights is rather like distinguishing between motorcycle gangs on a basis of their taste in beer.

Doug Caprette

As some of you know one of my professional area's of expertise involves biometrics. I'm not at liberty to discuss some of the details but I can talk about things in general. The "Intelligence Reform Legislation" recently passed and signed into law by the Feds contains provisions regarding "Drivers Licenses and Personal Identification Cards." One of the requirements will be that states issue drivers licenses with biometric identifiers. They are required to come up with some standard for this within 18 months. Some states already have biometric requirements but my understanding is that they are all failures for even their original intention and are easily defeated by someone with half a brain. Our congress critters may not realize it but they may have just mandated something that isn't currently possible and potentially never practical. Sort of like legislating that PI equal three point zero or repealing the law of gravity.

About a year and a half ago at a biometric conference I heard someone tasked with the problem of solving this problem explain all the difficulties they were running into. My impression was they had insurmountable problems and were begging for help from the technical community. As I follow the field from the technical side pretty close I don't believe we have made any significant technical progress in the areas that matter to them. What I expect they will end up with is nothing much more than a signature and a photograph--which is what we currently have and are easily defeated by the sort of people the legislation is claimed to aimed at.

Let me explain the meaning of 'defeat' and 'success' in the context of biometrics. There are more than one reason for identification efforts. In general those reasons are:

• Identity validation. Is this the person who they claim they are? Your bank validates identities before withdrawals from your accounts.
• Watch lists. Is the person in front of me wanted for a crime or deserving of special attention?
• Uniqueness. Is the person in front of me "double dipping" into some sort of benefit or generating a duplicate ID to avoid a watch list?

These three different reasons for identification present drastically different technical problems. Identity validation is pretty easy. The PIN number for your ATM card does a pretty good job of accomplishing that task, but is worthless for watch lists. Signatures and photo generally work pretty good for validation too.

The watch list problem is a lot tougher and may be insolvable. Here you may have 100,000 people that you want to "watch" and who almost for certain are actively trying to defeat you. Another problem is that as you examine each unknown person, say at an airport check in line and compare each of them to "the list" you end up generating a lot of false positives. Particularly if you make the 'threshold' loose to catch people that might be trying to trying to not get caught. Those false positives end up being "unhappy customers" at the airport or at whatever "checkpoint" you are maintaining. There are only two technologies that have much hope of working here--fingerprints and irises (NOT retinal scans--no one does those anymore). Fingerprints are easily obscured by soaking them in bleach the night before and irises can be obscured by designer contacts or by the person faking being blind with no eyes. The rate of people having duplicate (close enough for the computer to confuse them) irises is about 1 in 200,000. The iris identification vendors have papers out there claiming duplicate error rates on the order of 1 in several billion but it's pretty easy to demonstrate they have some bad assumptions and as the empirical data comes in it appears to be closer to one in 200,000. Therefore if you have a watch list of 100,000 and you are only looking at irises you generate a false positive with about every other person at your check point. And the other problem is how to "enroll" the people on the "watch list".

The uniqueness problem is probably insolvable without DNA and even then you have identical twins to worry about. And contrary to what you see on TV and in the movies DNA takes a lot longer than a few seconds or even minutes to compare. And then think of the problem if you have say 300 million people in your database of valid drivers in north American and you need to compare the person in front of you to that entire list to see if they are trying to get a duplicate drivers license under another name. How many CPU cycles does it take to compare one fingerprint or iris scan to 300,000,000 others? Keep in mind you have retrieval time issues with those 300,000,000 existing identities as well. It's a LOT of CPU time to do that and you have a LOT of people applying for new drivers licenses each day.

Those are just some of the technical issues involved. Other issues involve maintenance of the databases. If the prevention of terrorism is the objective for more secure "driver's licenses" our congress critters are deluding themselves about the efficacy of this. Thousands of people will have "write access" to the database and are subject to "conversion", bribery, extortion, blackmail, and simple greed. A determined adversary will not have a problem getting a valid ID.

The bottom line is that the cost will be enormous the gains almost non-existent.

Here are more thoughts on the whole national ID idea and why it won't work and may actually make us less safe.

I prefer to have my name on only enough lists to stay off the list of people who don't appear on very many lists.

Anthony Q. Bachler
Newsgroups: alt.engr.explosives
Date: 2003-02-09 14:32:03 PST

The following was sent to me with the request that I post it.  I tend to agree with the substance so I agreed.  I don't think the topic is quite as clear cut as Fred makes it out to be.  I can see the other side of the coin too.  And just because you are “out of the closet“ as I like to say about being a gun owner doesn't mean that you have to be so open as to give the government all the serial numbers of your guns.  That's just plain “asking for it“.  After debating the issue with myself some I decided I could be more effective in the fight for our freedom by being in the open.  I have twice been a speaker at the Gun Rights Policy Conference.  I run the boomershoot.  I'm a firearms instructor.  I am the webmaster for numerous progun websites.  I have concealed carry licenses for several states.  I wear pro-gun clothing.  I am very, very, “out of the closet“ about being a gun owner and an advocate for freedom.  On the other hand I pay cash for all my guns, training, and a fair amount of my ammo.  I have never had a NICS check on any of my firearms purchases.  And I can see how some other people might be better able to serve the cause for freedom by staying in the closet.  I think that at this particular point on the “repression curve“ nearly all people will better serve freedom by being out of the closet.  You have to decide that for yourself.

I hope Fred gives you something more to think about as you engage in that decision making process.

Dear Fred:

Those of us who choose not to join the NRA using the "excuse" of not wishing to be on a list, do so because many of us believe the first ones to have their weaponry confiscated will be the ones who are members of the NRA and other organizations like it. I belong to no organization, I'm purposely off their "Radar Screen" so I can have the weapon(s) to help free people like you who will be the first to lose everything when the big day comes. We're not dolts who don't CARE, we're just CAREFUL.

Regards,
JM, email

JM, how many of those guys who showed up on April 19, 1775 were being careful?

"Careful" and "fighting" are, for most people, the opposite ends of the risk spectrum. Not for the Rifleman, though, because he fights carefully, generally staying 300 to 500 yards out, beyond the foreign invader's effective small arms fire.

Sometimes, you can get lost, if you don't keep certain basics in front of you.

First: your belief that fundamental to your life is not the location of the nearest Walmart or the latest music video, but your freedom, and the fact that it is under attack by the liberals and - sometimes - the law and order country-club Republicans.

Add to that the notion that freedom is something worth fighting for, even dying for.

If it's not, there's gonna be a lot of disappointed people amongst those who came before us. Like the guys of '75, the ones who showed up on Battle Day - the first WTSHTF Day.

In fighting, the only way defense leads to victory is by outlasting your opponent, maybe even outliving him. Hiding is strictly defensive - and it's not even fighting. So you'll never win.

The whole idea behind fighting is to make one side give up to the other. The idea that one side, fighting, will give up to the other side, hiding - not fighting - is illogical, and frankly, stupid.

Why should he give up? He may not even know you exist, which is your whole point in hiding, right?. If he knows you exist, he may not even care, as you are no threat to him with your strategy.

Think how silly the notion is by putting it into historical context. On April 19, 1775, when the alarm bells rang, did the Minutemen come pouring out of their houses, and go hide?

And I know you're going to say, "Fred, I'm only going to hide a while, then at the right time, I'm gonna come out fighting." Right?

But, my friend, when will that day ever come? What is the magic about that day - the day you come out fighting - that The Day The UN Convoys Roll doesn't have? If the UN convoys don't bring you out, whatever will? And how will your fellow hiders - of whom you know few, if any - know to pick that same magical day to emerge from their cocoons? And if they don't come out, what kind of impact will you - one person - make, all by yourself?

No, sir, if you're not going to fight now, when the fighting is easy, if you are already hiding, in the soft crisis, you're not going to fight later, when it's gonna be hard.

Who is going to pass on the tradition, the skills of marksmanship, the love of freedom, if you don't? How are we going to build our strength, if the smart thing is to hide? The most important thing right now is to get more people into shooting, to recruit more people to our side, to strengthen the tradition, to keep it alive, to pass it on so we can train our politicians and keep the UN convoys from rolling in the first place. So we can win the fight - before it starts.

And whatever happened to free America, where you live without fear, associate without fear, and are free, not a fearful loner afraid of contact with fellow humans? Sure, I know that our freedoms have and are being severely eroded, and that there not a liberal out there whose head wouldn't bob up and down like a yo-yo at the idea of confiscation of your firearms.

But I am not going to hide from that scrawny, stuttering, worthless, UN-worshipping, third-world-kissing idiot.

And neither should you.

Hiding only makes them stronger. Failure to resist only gives them victory.

You need to get out, you need to be ringing the alarm bell, winning hearts and minds to the cause of freedom, waking your fellow sleeping Americans to the threat and to the solution.

Where are your friends, your brothers and sisters, your neighbors on that list?

That "government list" is a roll of honor:

We, the undersigned, are free Americans...and we are not afraid.

Am I being too much of a jerk or paranoid?  Someone is looking for information on building a bomb to blow up a school.  Someone else wants to "bomb America".  Should I just ignore them?  Both IP addresses traced back to the UK so I sent the following email to Scotland yard.

I also put a webbug in the email so I could (most likely) tell if they read it or not.  Nothing yet, but it is the weekend.  And what if they don't read it or respond?  Just forget about it and think “I did my job“?  I'm just not sure how much effort, if any, I really should invest in these tidbits of information I have.

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 6:04 PM
To: Scotland Yard
Subject: People looking for bomb building information.

I am the webmaster for www.boomershoot.org.  I recently noticed these entries in the log file:

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [07/Jan/2005:14:46:33 +0000] "GET /general/BombHelp2001.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 13085 "http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=how+to+make+a+bomb+to+blow+up+a+school&meta=&btnG=Google+Search" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-GB; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041110 Firefox/1.0"

xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [07/Jan/2005:15:25:45 +0000] "GET /general/BombHelp2000.htm HTTP/1.0" 200 21631 "http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=I+want+to+bomb+America+can+somebody+help%3F&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)"

Both of these google searches came from the UK.  I don't know of they are serious threats or not, you are in a much better position to answer that question than I.

If I can be of any further help in this matter please let me know.

Joe Huffman
Moscow, Idaho, USA
Voice: 208-301-4254
----
http://blog.joehuffman.org
http://www.boomershoot.org

The HK, it's just so cute and happy.

Amanda Matlosz
May 7, 1998
Referring to the 9mm firearm made by HK.