I'm getting a bunch of hits from people searching for liquid explosive recipes. You won't find them on any of my sites. They are too unstable for my use. The explosive that probably was planned for the most recent event in the U.K. is this one. Note what is said about it:

For its instability, it has been called the "Mother of Satan".

Even nitroglycerin is more stable.

But if you are planning a one way trip to meet your 72 virgins I suppose that doesn't much matter.

Who says you own Britain, anyway? Britain belongs to Allah. The whole world belongs to Allah. ... If I go to the jungle, I'm not going to live like the animals, I'm going to propagate a superior way of life. Islam is a superior way of life.

Anjem Choudary
A former leader of Al Mujahiroun
Via Diana West

Clayton asks, What, Exactly, Is The Purpose Of Blowing Up A Bunch of Airliners?

A couple years ago I was talking with a guy in the CIA. He was a manager over, among others, a bunch of psychologists. What he told me was that "these people" think differently than we do. "Perhaps more differently that we can think." Most important about this is that we understand what to do and/or say to get them to do the things we want them to do, next week, next month, and next year. And these means to these different goals may be in conflict with each other.

Now for my speculation. We probably think so differently that they have difficultly thinking like us as well. They probably are doing what they think should cause us to do what they want us to do, but as Clayton points out, it is going to make us more determined to capture and/or kill their extremists. It's sort of a messed up communication channel.

Another possibility is they just want to kill as many infidels as possible. They are just delivering on the "convert or die" offer from their leaders. If you look at the kill ratio when our military goes up against them it's probably 1:20 to even 1:100 in our favor. The numbers are against them in that situation.

Ry and I once did an informal study of kill ratios for various "occupations" such as military, mass killers, serial killers, terrorists, etc. This was a little different than your normal ratio of dead on one side to dead on the other side. In this case what is the ratio of people involved on one side to the number of people dead on the other. So if Ted Bundy acted alone, which I think is most likely true, and he killed 43 (or maybe 143--who knows?) then the kill ratio there is 1:43 (or 1:143). In the Oklahoma City bombing 168 were killed and there were probably two people involved for a ratio of 1:84. In 9-11 there were 19 (plus some organizers and support people) who killed something like 3500 people for a ratio of (on the high end) of 1:184. In the case of the military dropping a nuke you have to include all the people that helped make and store the nuke and it's delivery system, as well as the people in the chain of command who delivered the nuke.

It's not difficult to concluded that 1:200 is about the upper limit.

Therefore, if the goal is to kill as many infidels as possible losing one "martyr" per airplane full of infidels is pushing the limit of what is the "current state of the art" in dealing out death.

But who can know if that's right? My guess it's going to be difficult for us understand even if they were to explain it to us.

Oh, how many times we have heard the phrase, "It takes two to make a fight".  That statement appears to assign equal guilt to the defender and the perpetrator, which is the same as saying that you do not have any right to defend yourself, or to be defended by anyone else.  By the time I reached high school in 1972, two kids caught fighting were both punished equally ('cause fighting just isn't cool, man).  I see it as no mere coincidence that the arena wherein I've heard this phrase uttered the most, if not exclusively, is the public school system.

Its time to modify the phrase slightly, based on the application of intelligence guided by experience:

"It takes at least two to make a fight-- one perpetrator and one defender."

Col. Jeff Cooper was once asked whether violence merely begets more violence.  His answer went something like this (I'm going from memory, so I can only paraphrase): "It is my sincere endeavor to see to it that it does."  In explaining his answer, he said that if someone is going to perpetrate violence against innocents, that person should get more violence in return than he can handle.

How many times have you heard some version of "Don't judge me, man" or "You're being too judgmental"?  Similar to the "it takes two" quote, this seems to be designed to prevent us from doing that which makes us human-- it asks us to stop using our ability to reason.

If we really value "Peace And Love, Man" we should be ready to dish out both blame and praise appropriately.

Iran is fighting a proxy war, but smugly feels itself immune to consequence. Not only is this unfair to the Lebanese, but it is dangerous for Washington. The more overconfident Iran becomes in its ability to get away with murder, the more likely Americans will be targeted down the line.

Michael Rubin
Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington
Attributed in the article Iran mullah rush to resupply Lebanese agents, "Hezbollah"

I arrived at 8:00 this morning and didn't leave until 22:00 except for about 10 minutes to get a slice of pizza from the cafeteria. The brought supper to us which we ate in a conference room. It was a long tiring day but I got the last of my stuff checked in before Barb and I leave on vacation next week. This gives me two days to deal with whatever might blow up when my stuff starts getting executed in the daily build.

As I left work were still dozens of cars in the parking garage which reminded me of one time I had commented about how different it was at PNNL. I had made some causal remark about how my car would be nearly the only one in the parking lot when I left at 19:00 and how different this was than at Microsoft. I blogged about this once too. Some of my PNNL co-workers got indignant about that comment. My comment was accurate. It must have been there was some guilt on their conscience.

Will this be the triggering event for another change in airport security? Just like when the shoe bomber did his thing we had to start taking off our shoes before boarding the planes. Will now have to follow the British lead as described here?

BRITISH police have reportedly foiled a plot to smuggle explosive devices in airline hand luggage to blow up planes in mid-flight, according to Sky News in London.

The targets were said to have been flights between the Britain and the US.

Overnight police have arrested a number of people in London.

The BBC reports that the Department for Transport has set strict security measures at UK airports.

Passengers would not be allowed to take any hand luggage on to any flights in the UK, the department said.

Only the barest essentials - including passports and wallets - would be allowed on board in transparent plastic bags.

Sky said the Metropolitan Police arrests were the culmination of a big covert counter-terrorist operation lasting several months.

It followed a pre-planned intelligence led operation by the Met's anti-terrorist branch and security service.

Police said they believed the aim was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on board the aircraft in hand luggage.

"We would like to reassure the public that this operation was carried out with public safety uppermost in our minds," a police statement said.

"This is a major operation which inevitably will be lengthy and complex. We will provide further information as soon as possible."

Next will be strip and body cavity searches. But even that will fail. Defensive security is inherently very difficult and prone to failure. You must take the offense which, if reports are correct, it appears the British successfully done in this case. Good for them if true.

In the 1980s the Regan administration "deregulated" the telephone industry.  Since then, phone service has become vastly better, cheaper, with far more options, and the prospects for the future of personal communication are truly awesome.  Critics of deregulation said we simple Americans would be inconvenienced with too many choices, and too inept to shop for the best deals, etc., etc.  They were of course entirely wrong.  Stunningly wrong.  More wrong than anyone could have imagined 25 years ago.  Does anyone remember having to get your phone from the same company that provided your connection service, and then having to buy your long distance from that same company (there was, naturally, only one choice)?

Maybe its time for more deregulation.  I say start with education, energy, and transportation.

Is anyone going to seriously argue that the old, Soviet-style, big government monopolies are a proven path to excellence?

A good place to start, mentally, is to try thinking of just one part of our lives in which government has absolutely no business whatsoever.  For some people, this will be a formidable challenge.

From the U.K. via the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies comes this study, 'Knife Crime': Ineffective reactions to a distracting problem? A Review of Evidence and Policy.

The PDF document is protected such that I can't copy and paste but some hand typed excerpts are worth the effort:

Government and the police lack a coherent, evidence-based, reasoned strategy for dealing with knife carrying and knife-related offences. There is insufficient evidence that a knife amnesty or increased sentence length for carrying knives will decrease the level of knife use and carrying. Due to the easy availability of knives, there will always be opportunities to commit knife offences. Since it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to limit the availability of knives and knives are merely a tool used in violent crime, success in fighting knife usage will only come with success in dealing with the underlying causes of violence, fear and insecurity.

This is mostly correct and applies to firearms as well as knives. What I disagree with is the last few words. And it is these last few words that are critical to solving the problem. They have an incorrect problem statement. This shows, conclusively, they don't understand the problem. If they don't understand the problem then they can never solve it.

They believe they have a violence problem and they are attempting to make it more difficult to commit violence. This is totally wrong. They have a violent crime problem. The only solution (assuming we are talking about ordinary crime and not sometime like a rebellion that is labeled crime by the ruling class) to violent crime is violence, or the threat of violence, against the criminals. This is what the police do when they arrest someone. They use violence or the threat of violence to remove the criminal from the general population.

The "underlying causes of violence" are more numerous than "fear and insecurity" which also shows they don't understand the problem. I'm shocked the author didn't at least throw in "poverty". But even then he would be leaving out the really big issue, evil in the hearts of men. It is only with this last issue can you explain such things as rape and extortion.

So a better problem statement is that they (and we) have violent crime problem for the most part because some people are evil. I will grant that as poverty (the definition of which is tenuous at best) increases crime tends to increase as well, but that is a topic for another day.

The solution becomes much more obvious with an appropriate problem statement. The dominant root cause is "some people are evil". The problem can now be broken down into identification and "elimination" (either by incarceration or other more violent solutions) of the perpetrators or "persuading" the potential criminal to not act out their evil inclinations. And as Al Capone said when discussing persuasion methods, "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." And this basic truth is what the people in the U.K. have overlooked with their faulty problem statement. Further compounding their problems is that they have disabled the most effective identification and persuasion mechanism available by disarming the victims of violent crime.

It may be that they will eventually figure out the error of their ways. For example the study points out the folly of the "knife amnesty" program as follows with the stereotypical British understatement:

According to the Home Office, at total of 89,864 knives were handed in during the national amnesty. Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker stated that this means "fewer knives on our streets" and greater security for everyone. Assuming that there are approximately 22 million households in England and Wales, each possessing a single kitchen knife, the amnesty has been successful in removing 0.0041 of the knives that might be used in crimes. Of course, most households contain many more than a single knife and it is barely worth considering the tens of thousands sitting in shops waiting to be purchased. As such, it is, at best, questionable whether this will result in a reduction in knife carrying and knife-related offences.

Further evidence that they might be getting a clue is this part of the conclusion:

At the moment the government seems to be planning action to a problem without knowing the full and true nature and extent of it and whilst overlooking the causes.

The author has a clue, but just barely. But really, there is Just One Question that needs to be asked.

The Government is constructing responses without any credible evidence that they will be successful. Knife amnesties will have a negligible impact since knives will be available as long as there is unsliced bread.

Chris Eades
The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
'Knife Crime': Ineffective reactions to a distracting problem? A Review of Evidence and Policy
From The Independent: Big rise in knife crime despite tougher penalties
[First they came for the guns...--Joe]

On my website I mention the lax security at PNNL and how it can be used by people hostile to the U.S. No one seemed to care.

Here is another example of the type of information leakage that is happening.

I can't get away from it. It has to be mental problems. Do they even realize what they are saying?

...it’s also a symptom– a symptom of a culture that believes guns can be safe, a culture that believes teenagers can be trusted with firearms.

The truth is that no one can be trusted with firearms. They represent a threat, all the time, every time. This study makes it clear that things need to change– the only way to protect children from guns is to get the gun out of the houses they live in.

And here:

Guns are dangerous everywhere– why should we think a gun is any safer when it’s in a park rather than a church or a school? The guns don’t change. The people carrying them don’t change. Concealed weapons aren’t safe anywhere, because, as history shows time and time again, no matter how much training or discipline a gun owner has, a gun still represents a dire threat to everyone around it.

Evidence apparently doesn't matter. I have Just One Question.

He should volunteer to live in a place where the police don't have guns. Oh, that's right, there is no such place. I guess that means he yearns for a place that doesn't exist. Some imaginary world where everything is as he wants it to be rather than the way things are. I suppose it could exist for a while. Britain survived for a while without the police having guns on a regular basis. But look where they are now. They saw the folly of that and they have now have teams with guns available on short notice and one of the highest violent crime rates in the western world.

Yeah. There were problems with my blog for most of the day. My ISP was doing maintenance that took longer than it should have. My blog as well as Ry's had strange problems all day.

This book is dedicated to an anonymous member of Spain's Secret Police. On January 27, 1960, during a brief encounter on a quiet back street in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, I asked him for advice on how best to avoid any problems in the land of Generalissimo Francisco Franco. The advice he gave me has served me well for more than forty years. He said there was only one way to avoid troubles with the authorities:

"Make yourself invisible."

And so I did.

J.J. Luna
How To Be Invisible
2nd Edition

It's good for causal conversation I suppose. But I'm very suspicious of the accuracy. It's almost for certain self reported:

An international survey of 40,000 men has revealed 60 per cent of Australian men have never strayed, ranking just behind the Germans and Poles at 62 per cent.

...

South Korean men are having sex more times a week than anyone else in the world, while hot-blooded Brazilian men are at it with a wider range of women.

On average, South Koreans said they were having sex at least four times a week, while Filipinos were world-beaters at masturbation, doing it almost six times a week.

Brazilians topped two categories, with 19 per cent saying they had had a threesome, which might help account for them having clocked up the most lovers, the internationally published fitness magazine said.

British men spend or claim to spend an average of 17.44 minutes on foreplay per sex session, longer than Australians (17.2 mins), Germans (16.92 mins) and Mexicans (16.91 mins).

But British men last only 18.64 minutes from foreplay to climax, far behind the Mexicans (23.17 minutes) and the Dutch (22.42 minutes).

Women might want to keep an eye out for an Italian lover 60 per cent of Italian men said they made their partner climax every time.

Now if they wanted to do a real study they need to have unbiased scientific observers. Dr. Joe is available for the right price.

The biometric ID card has been one of my hot buttons for a long time. The U.K. is a little ahead of us on this and they are finding out it's a bad idea:

MPs attacked plans for identity cards as inconsistent and lacking clarity yesterday and called for a rethink of the technology to be used.

The Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report expressing incredulity that the Home Office claimed to be able to produce firm estimates of the costs of running ID cards when fundamental technical decisions were still unclear.

The Home Office has said that running costs would be £584 million a year, whereas the London School of Economics, in a controversial report, has put the total costs of setting up and running ID cards at between £10.6 billion and £19.2 billion.

The report called on the Government to disclose more information about how the scheme would operate, particularly the database on which personal details would eventually be held.

The criticism comes after the admission by the Home Office last month that the introduction of identity cards as a voluntary measure was likely to be delayed past the target date of 2008 because of practical difficulties in implementing a scheme of that size.

...

The MPs’ report, which focused on the use of science and risk management in the ID cards policy, was particularly critical of ministers for deciding at the outset to have a sophisticated identity card holding three forms of biometric data — ten fingerprints, two iris scans and a face scan.

They expressed surprise at the unscientific manner in which this was decided, without adequate evidence on their effectiveness, especially of iris scanning, and urged the Government to be ready to change this if necessary.

Subsequent trials of the biometric technology showed that iris scans had a higher recognition rate for white and Asian participants than those who were black, casting doubt on their effectiveness. The Government faced further embarrassment over ID cards yesterday when the Information Commissioner criticised the Treasury for refusing to release information about the programme’s budget and timetable.

So what does Blair say he is going to do about it?

Tony Blair brushed aside criticism of the Government’s plans for identity cards yesterday, saying that they would remain a central policy aim for Labour.

Addressing his monthly press conference at Downing Street, the Prime Minister said: “Don’t be in any doubt that this goes forward. Absolutely.”

He added: “Whatever the technical issues this is a major, major issue for us and will be a major plank of Labour’s manifesto at the next election.”

I just hope we can learn something from their mistakes--like don't go there!

It's not just the lack of guns and the high rate of violent crime over there. As I have commented before their sex lives have something to be desired too. Here is another story on that topic.

This weekend Barb attended a class in Spokane. We stayed in motel and I ran errands and worked on the computer while she attended class. Saturday while out walking around on my errands I noticed that just a block or so from our motel there were a large number of vagrants hanging out under the freeway and the neighboring parking lots (I-90 and Division street). One approached me and asked for a dime or a quarter. Greg Hamilton describes this as an "interview". I apparently failed the interview and did no further business with him.

Later that evening we walked to a restaurant for dinner past the same area. On the edge of the parking lot of a drive-in burger joint (Dicks) several vagrants nearly had the sidewalk blocked. We took a path through the middle of the parking lot to reach our restaurant (Frankie Doodles) that adjoined Dicks. Barb and I were talking but I was watching out of the corner of my eye. The largest of of the vagrants stood up and followed us about 20 feet behind and to our left which put him in a position to close the distance if we returned to the sidewalk. For thirty feet or more he matched our speed and direction. My gun was between Barb and I and not in danger of being blocked by him if he chose to attack. I could deploy and utilize it if needed. But at his range he could probably get a first strike in before I could get off a first shot. But why wait for an attack? I'm not a grass eater, he needs to know that. I snapped my head around and looked directly at him while continuing to walk. He immediately stopped and developed an intense interest in something on the ground.

Later returning to the motel they were still there and we gave them an even wider berth. They paid us no interest.

Thanks to this link from Clayton I read this sobering article. Here is a sample:

When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and it is even more baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Remember the old joke?

A republican is a democrat who has been mugged.

A democrat is a republican who has been arrested.

After my experience with PNNL I lost my faith in the system. Even with my current job being apparently secure I nearly constantly worry that someone may take a disliking to me because of my hobbies, skin color or some other non job issue and cause me harm. I couldn't have imagined being in this constant state of fear prior to my own experience. Now I can.

This came up because Benjamin is on the verge of his own conversion.

I have an ultra-secure wireless network that automatically reports all hacking attempts to unsavory men with bitey dogs.

Bruce Schneier
Schneier Asks to Be Hacked
June 28, 2006
[Cool! I'd stipulate that the unsavory men and dogs enjoy guns, explosives and rough sex but that's just me.--Joe]

I don't probably don't blame Reuters as much as a lot of others do. People have a very strong tendency to hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. Reuters got caught and is apparently taking the appropriate action.

Someone from the culture in a war zone is going to find it much easier to get pictures and stories that a less biased outsider would be. But then they are going to have their own biases, because of their culture, in that war. If the people at Reuters biases tend to align with the incoming pictures and stories it would be easy to look at pictures and stories less critically as those that did not.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should look the other way when it happens. Just don't try and arrange a lynching because of it. A light flogging should be sufficient.

Here's the story for those that haven't been reading the big name bloggers:

• little green footballs
• Reuters Pulls Phony Photo
• The Propaganda Portfolio of Adnan Hajj
• Worst Excuse of the Decade
• Green Helmet Guy Rides Again
• Doctored Beirut Photo: the First Draft
• The Reuters Clone Tool Scandal
• Counterterrorism Blog: Another Pro-Hizballah Reuters Reporter
• Another Fraudulent Adnan Hajj Photo
• The First Casualty
• Michelle Malkin
• Where there's smoke, there's Photoshop?
• Reutergate: "Picture kill"
• A smoke-clearing blogswarm
• DRINKING FROM HOME
• Extreme Makeover - Beirut Edition
• Yet more Hezbollywood
• The Jawa Report
• Reuters Doctoring Beirut Photos (Updated)
• Reuters Suspends Photog, 2nd Employee Suspended for Death Threat
• What Adnan Hajj Really Photographed
• Another Fake Reuters Photo from Lebanon
• Reuters Fires Photographer
• Ace of Spades HQ
• Another Hajj Photo That Should Be Retracted (Seriously)

Access taxes and proficiency tests for exercising your rights are very much alive for black Americans, and all Americans, if you wish to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.

Alan Korwin
August 04, 2006

From Michelle Malkin:

A disabled war hero and his wife were assaulted and robbed in Bethesda, Md., a few weeks ago.

The guy lost an arm and a leg in Iraq and five punks mugged him and his wife. If one or both had been armed things might have turned out differently. Maryland, however, doesn't trust it's citizens to carry firearms to defend themselves except under rare circumstances. Hence being outnumbered or out-sized is an invitation to the predators on the street.

From the Washington Blade:

"It’s a shame in this world that both in the area of gay rights and in the area of gun issues that these should be political issues,” Sarah Brady says. “These should be common sense, human decency, public safety issues, not political footballs.”

The bipartisan approval that the Brady Bill ultimately achieved is something that she would like to see occur in the realm of gay rights, Sarah Brady says.

“We were able, in the ‘80s and ‘90s, to bring the two parties together for public safety and that’s something which is beginning to happen in the gay community as well,” she says. “It should not be a hot-button issue. It should be common sense and the right thing.”

I fully agree neither issue should be political footballs. Common sense and scientific facts should bring us together for the elimination of the Brady Act and other unlawful, immoral, and hazardous restrictions on our inalienable rights to keep and bear arms.

The other day I posted about a friend not getting a job after being asked bigoted questions about his gun ownership. I bumped into him again on Thursday. He now has a job with another company. This company didn't ask any questions about his personal life during the interview.

He asked if I was interested in working there. For now I'm not. I'm happy with my job and my co-workers and no one has even hinted my interest in guns and explosives is a problem. I'll keep my eyes open for warning signs though.

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)
[In response to "The Gun Guys". Remember that rights are guaranteed or infringed. They are not granted. Only privileges and permissions are granted.--Joe]

There has been some interesting research on the correlation between lawyers and gun owner rights. Here is the conclusion:

Lawyers contribute primarily to candidates who vote against gun rights. Most of this money ends up in the pockets of Democrats, who exhibit a heavy bias against gun rights. Interestingly enough, the Democrat party is the one that claims to represent the little guy, while a special interest group comprised of economically-elite professionals encourages Democrats to pass more laws limiting the right of self-defense for people who cannot afford private security guards. It’s time for those who believe in traditional Democrat values to take a closer look at their party.

My own research on a closely related topic supports this conclusion. I'll post the details on my research at a later date.

The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men... it is easier to denature plutonium that to denature the evil spirit in man... Man's skills have outstripped his morals...

Albert Einstein
[As applicable today with regard to the threat from Muslim extremists (Iran for example) as it was when Einstein said it.--Joe]

Have you lost the combination to a Master Lock combination lock? Here's how you recover it.

Keith Tyler is teaching firearms classes now. I used to shoot with him when he was going to college at WSU in the '90s. We both went down to Lewiston to shoot the USPSA (IPSC) matches at the Lewiston Pistol Club. He was always a very fast shooter. His accuracy sometimes left a bit to be desired but since he is a Grand Master (Open Class), and Master (Limited and Limited 10) I suspect that weakness has been corrected.

There is talk of getting him to visit the Lewiston Pistol Club for a weekend class sometime this fall. If you are interested let me know and I'll forward your message to the appropriate person.

As I mentioned the other day Xenia and Sara talked to a newspaper reporter. Yesterday their picture was on the front page of the Daily News along with quotes from them and me. I haven't seen it yet but Barb and Xenia bought three copies and I should see it this weekend.

Update: I misunderstood. The picture was of Xenia and Jesse. Sara wasn't available when the photographer called so Xenia called Jesse. And the quotes from me weren't until page three.

I just had a long and very interesting chat with a man, retired from the Air Force, who served in Korea among other places, then spent several years as a government inspector for M-14 rifle production.  He could rattle quite a bit of fascinating information off the top of his head (I took notes) but one thing struck me as odd: He seemed to be completely unaware of both the NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT of 1934 and the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986.  A forgivable "offense" I suppose, but interesting from one who had had a career in handling "machineguns".  He was under the assumption, as are many citizens, that machineguns in the hands of peaceable Americans are illegal.  Anyone casually interested in such things can take a clue from the acronym, BATF.  A machinegun is much like a carton of cigaretts or a bottle of whiskey-- their possession is said to require an accompanying tax stamp.  Also take note of the fact that BATF is a branch of Treasury.  They are (ostensibly) a tax authority.

For anyone interested in Second Amendment politics, please take a look at this analysis of THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT.  You will get some insight into that hideous, chilling muddle with which we in the industry are faced and, I think it important to point out, what John Moses Browning, among others, was not.  FOPA was a simplification, mind you, of previous law.

For those of you at all levels in law enforcement; you need to know a little about what's been going on, from the coup of 1934 until now, so that collectively we can begin taking the steps to restore American's full civil liberties.

When I was getting fingerprinted at the local sheriff's office years ago for an NFA weapons transfer, the deputy taking the prints saw the "Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms" title on the forms and asked me if I was applying for a job.  I told him, "No.  This is an NFA weapons transfer."  Previously chatty, he clammed up and said no more, obviously knowing nothing about such things.  He probably thought I was a super-spook, paramilitary international arms dealer working on the sly for Ollie North or some such, and he wasn't going to ask any questions.  I didn't try educating him on decades of political and legislative history, either.