I found this very interesting tidbit from my sitemeter:

Domain Name		usdoj.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address		149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP		US Dept of Justice
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  Maryland City  :  Potomac Lat/Long  :  39.023, -77.1993 (Map) Distance  :  2,059 miles
Language		English (United States) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DOJ3jx7bf; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Dec 1 2006 5:11:13 am
Last Page View		Dec 1 2006 5:11:13 am
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.topix.net/us/atf
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/30/Dont+Drop+Your+Guard.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/30/Dont+Drop+Your+Guard.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Dec 1 2006 8:11:13 am
Visit Number		116,927

http://www.topix.net/forum/us/atf gathers news and blog mentions of ATF and people at the US Department of Justice (hi!) visit those websites. I wonder what they thought of me saying "The ATF has no constitutional authorization to even exist let alone enforce illegal laws."

Of particular interest to me is that the "User Agent" string of the browser included the unusual item "DOJ3jx7bf". This item looks like it might be a unique identifier for a particular Department of Justice computer. If so then one can find out what that particular computer/user has been viewing on all websites that you have access to the logs file for.

Hence, with the proper tools and a bit of smarts, one can watch the watchers. To that effect here is a sample which includes the search terms "harvey milk gay activist", "guns & jenny price", "john+pepper+ipsc", "dirty+gun+barrel+picture", "tannerite", and the always popular "how to make a bomb". We can also see some of the other sites our "friend" has been visiting. Examples include http://nfttu.blogspot.com/, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229822, and http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/001891.html.

One must not get too paranoid about being watched. This applies to both webmasters as well as our "friend" at the DOJ. As I was reminded by a fellow blogger at the Gun Bloggers Rendezvous a couple months ago, there are known friendlies in the government. I don't have any particular hostility toward any of the government workers I have met (certain politicians are different story--I would like to invited Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, and some others to permanently leave the country with nothing more than the clothes on their backs). But no matter how friendly they are most Federal workers are doing jobs that have no constitutional authority.

Note to my guests from the USDOJ and/or the ATF: You are quite welcome to leave a comment, send me an email, or get a legitimate job.

It’s like dealing with a pack of five-year-olds who are so developmentally stunted that they will never be able to learn anything every day it’s a repeat of the same old simple lessons: wipe your bottom before you pull your underpants up, not after!

Andrea Harris
Uncomfortably numb
November 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Regarding dealing with advocates of "global warming".
[It could just as well have been said about people in the anti-self-defense movement. Sometimes every single thing they say is wrong and/or can't possible work. Such as in this case.--Joe]

I was listening to the audio book version of Surely Your Joking, Mr. Feynman! the other day and Feynman told of trying to teach his artist friend about science in return for the artist to teach him about art. It turned out that Feynman was a much better artist than the artist was a scientist. In fact the artist couldn't get anywhere with science. And Feynman observed that it wasn't just artists. It was pervasive in our society and perhaps in the human species. I've run into it myself some even with people that appear at first glance to be above average in intelligence. The concept that Feynman expressed was that people think engineers and scientists can do anything. You just have to tell them what you want and they could build it if they wanted to. People think of us as magicians.

One of the examples Feynman mentioned was that he was asked to be an adviser to the military and after some reluctance agreed to attend a meeting or two to see if he could contribute. One of the problems the military wanted help solving was the refueling of tanks. As they advanced on the battlefield they would run out of fuel and needed to be refueled. Why didn't the scientists just create an engine that used sand for fuel? Then the tank could just have a little scoop on the bottom and refuel itself as it moved along.

We are not magicians. There are physical laws that we not only don't know how to break but can't be broken. We may find a loophole someday but that is a very risky bet. Politicians make laws that everyone knows how to break but I'm not sure people in general understand the difference.

To make things worse our politicians write laws as if we actually are magicians. The universal biometric identification card, fingerprints, airplane security searches, and "ballistic fingerprints" are just a few of the examples that are applicable to my domain of blogging. And what happens when science doesn't come through like the advocates want us to? They bury their head in the sand and insist it's working even when it's not and cannot possibly work. People will want to believe something so bad that they will believe it despite evidence to the contrary.

In the cases above there is a fundamental problem that many people don't realize exists. It's a MUCH different problem that many other hard problems scientists and engineers have been able to solve. You used to hear things like, "If we can put a man on the moon why can't we [fill in the blank]?" At one level I understand the feeling. Putting a man on the moon is so outside of our everyday experience that it would seem to be impossible. So why not solve something that would seem to be simple like identifying people? The fundamental difference is in one case you are "fighting" a nearly static "enemy", "Mother Nature", and in the other cases you are "fighting" an active thinking opponent.

I'm reminded of a quote that relates to this topic:

Campaigns to bearproof all garbage containers in wild areas have been difficult because, as one biologist put it, "There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence levels of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." 

Richard Wabrek

The opponent you are defending against in the case of the identification, airplane security and garbage container problems is constantly getting smarter. The earth, it's atmosphere, the moon, gravity, and the dumbest tourists are not getting smarter.

Because of this fundamental difference in the nature of the problems any solution you find against an active opponent is likely to be short lived. In the case of a bear or a virus it may be possible to find a permanent solution. In the case of human opponents I think that in all cases it will be an unwinnable arms race. Solutions will come and with time and some smarts the opponents will defeat them with perhaps as little as one billionth as much money and effort as the solution builders put into it. The only question will be is, "Did we spend our money wisely on that solution?" Did we buy enough time before the solution was defeated to make the expenditure worthwhile? Or could we have spent that money on something else that would have been a better return on the dollar?

This concept can be extended even further. Think of the war on certain drugs and firearm bans. There is an active human opponent the solution provider is fighting. Those are battles that cannot be won.

The lawyer in Oregon that was arrested by the FBI because they "identified" his fingerprints on materials related to the bombing of the train station in Spain is going to be getting $2M from the U.S. taxpayers:

Two years ago the FBI branded Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield a terror suspect, secretly searched his house and eavesdropped on his conversations with his family and co-workers.

On Wednesday, Justice Department officials agreed to pay Mayfield $2 million to settle one part of his lawsuit for his wrongful arrest in connection with the 2004 Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people.

Mayfield, a former Army officer, also got a formal apology. And the settlement allows him to continue his legal challenge to the USA Patriot Act, which Mayfield charges violates the Fourth Amendment by permitting government searches without demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed.

"The United States acknowledges that the investigation and arrest were deeply upsetting to Mr. Mayfield, to Mrs. Mayfield and to their three young children," said Tasia Scolinos, a Justice Department spokeswoman, in a prepared statement. "And the United States regrets that it mistakenly linked Mr. Mayfield to this terrorist attack."

Mayfield believed he was singled out because of his Muslim faith. FBI agents, however, insisted that his arrest was based on a faulty fingerprint identification that linked him to the attack.

Either way, Mayfield's arrest is one of the FBI's most embarrassing episodes in its five-year campaign to detect terrorist cells inside the United States.

The case also cast doubt on the accuracy of the FBI's troubled fingerprint-identification program and raised questions about sweeping anti-terror measures passed by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Mayfield, 40, was detained for two weeks after agents matched the print of his left index finger with one found on a bag of detonators connected to the Madrid attack.

What most people don't know is that fingerprint identification is often as much an art as a science. Sure if you have excellent quality prints from the nice man carefully rolling your inked finger back and forth on the fingerprint card even a computer can match that to another fingerprint card carefully made some other time. But if they have a smeared fingerprint left from you gripping a textured hand railing, or just the tips of your fingers from typing on the keyboard, or if you soaked your fingers in bleach the night before it's not clear whether you can get a match at all. And if you are elderly and do a lot of hand labor then the nice man may not even have usable fingerprints from your carefully inked and rolled fingers on the card.

But the U.S. legal system has a tremendous amount of case law built up that says a fingerprint match is positive identification. The problem is there aren't good standards for what constitutes a "match". How many little arches and swirls much be in agreement before it's considered good enough that no one else could have left those fingerprints at the crime scene? Or how may discrepancies can exist before the defense can argue that it definitely wasn't the suspect that left them? The courts have left it up to "experts" to decide. And the experts don't agree. The "science" of fingerprints isn't science. You can get two "experts" to look at identical data and reach opposite conclusions. And what of the ability to spoof fingerprints? It's not that difficult. And you leave some pretty high quality fingerprints on those soda cans you recycle, the water glass at the restaurant, and restroom door at work.

Until the case above the FBI experts had a much lower threshold for an "identical match" than did the forensic experts in other countries. And I don't think this issue has been settled yet. I expect there will be other cases where the "experts" want to "help" or have pressure put on them to claim matches when there shouldn't be. Innocent people will be arrested, imprisoned, and perhaps sometimes even executed because of shaky fingerprint evidence.

A good part of the problem is that many people think of science as some sort of magic that can give black and white solutions to almost anything. In some cases it can but in others it's simply not possible. But that's beyond the scope of this post. So I'll save that for later.

Paul Helmke is President of the Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Gun Violence (better known in civil rights circles as "The Brady Bunch"). Here are some things to watch out for--straight from the horse's ass mouth:

The new Congress could send the public a positive message of its concern for safer communities by taking common sense steps like eliminating current restrictions on publicizing data about the source of guns used in crimes, strengthening the enforcement powers of law enforcement agencies including the ATF, making it harder for criminals and terrorists to buy guns by requiring background checks for all gun sales, and restricting sales of military style weapons and the ammunition that's used in those weapons. Steps like this help make us safer and will score political points for those who support them.

Emphasis is mine. Even casual users of guns should go immediately on alert about the ammunition even if they don't about the "military style weapons". The most popular American guns use ammunition that was first used by the military. .45 ACP, 30.06, .308, .223, 9mm, 12 gauge shotgun. That doesn't even include the less popular but still "interesting" calibers like .50 BMG.

And of course this point ignores all the other great points that could be made about their anti-freedom wish list. Examples include:

• Just One Question.
• All semi-automatic firearms are "military style".
• All bolt action rifles are "military style".
• All revolvers are "military style".
• All muzzle loader firearms are "military style".
• The "requiring of background checks for all gun sales" is a back-door gun registration scheme.
• Publicizing ATF gun trace data endangers criminal investigations.
• "Common sense" is the code phrase they use for things they don't want you to think about. Also known as "dangerous Utopian ideas".
• The ATF has no constitutional authorization to even exist let alone enforce illegal laws (what part of "...shall not be infringed" don't you understand?).
• Scoring points with anti civil rights advocates is politically hazardous.
  • The civil rights organizations in support of gun owners is over four million strong.
  • The anti-rights organizations like the Brady Bunch aren't even 1/10 that size.
  • Pissing off ten people for every one you make happy is not politically smart.

Via Arms and the Law.

I wouldn't normally mention this sort of thing on my blog. I'm not into bathroom humor, like some people I know. And this video is nearly ten minutes long which is way too long for most blog readers. But the police marksman and the total breakdown of civil society make it good enough to warrant my mention. Via Samantha.

The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.

Lord Acton

Phil points out that about half of last year's 10th graders in Washington State failed the math test they are currently required to pass in order to graduate. (Barely) Governor Gregiore wants to fix that--by lowering the standard.

This reminds me of a quote from a Heinlein book:

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.  At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

The character Lazarus Long in the Robert Heinlein book Time Enough for Love

I'm with Heinlein on this.

Of course I'm going to get the evil stare of death from Xenia the next time I see her. She uses this cartoon as wallpaper on her computer:

Xenia's mother and I, her father, met each other in algebra class and both frequently got perfect scores on the tests. We took four year of math in high school and both did very well. How can she claim to our child and not like math? [heavy sigh]

Howard nails Rebecca Peters:

Ms. Peters’ career in gun control got its start in Australia, where she was an important contributor to that country’s current gun ban. By 2005, the rate of sexual assault in Australia increased 36% from its pre-ban 1995 rate, while the U.S. rate decreased 14.6%. Women are now raped over three times as often in Australia as they are in the United States.

The rate of sexual crimes against women in the UK increased 63.0% since pre-ban 1995. Women are raped and sexually assaulted nearly twice as often in the UK as the U.S. Meanwhile, British police ignore Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “civil,” as in: “orderly; well-governed.” The detection rate for sexual offenses dropped from 39% in 2003-2004 to 34% in 2004-2005, indicating poor governance: a 13% lower efficiency by police in bringing perpetrators to justice. Yet according to Peters’ interpretation, Australia and Britain promote women’s rights better than the U.S.

Is a society that accepts a drastic increase in the violent victimization of females more civil, or less?

This is a relevant question, because it appears that Peters believes such societies are more civil, as her IANSA is a major player in the U.N. effort to ban civilian firearms.

That's just a sample.

Peters is a very big player in the international anti-civil rights movement. Pointing out the terrible consequences of her successes should be high on the list of civil rights activists. To get more familar with Ms. Peters you might also want to get a DVD of her October 2004 debate with Wayne LaPierre (hint to people wishing to buy me a Christmas gift--it's only $5.95).

One of our employees found this gem a few years ago at the local food co-op-- a place where they charge high prices for food that's "non-corporate" and where they promote anti-capitalist politics and ideals.

It reveals much of the driving force behind the institution of Socialism-- pure, unadulterated, white-hot hatred for Mankind, marketed to us as “compassion”.  This rare glimpse into the mind of a Leftist is what I call the "Hate Dollar".

I believe I can speak with some authority in this area, having been one of "them" myself, growing up as I did among people of similar attitudes and beliefs.  Let me know if you want any part of this work explained:

Check out the high resolution version and you'll see the exquisite detail and the care with which the artist spills out hatred for America, for Liberty, and for most anything that smacks of human achievement and advancement.  Note also that President Clinton was far too Right Wing for them, having been something of an open-trade president.

Incidentally, I can find nothing in the hate dollar that would be at odds with what the current crop of jihadis has been saying-- The overlap of the two ideologies is worthy of note.

I got mixed up searching for the proper email address (the domain names differed by only one letter) and first sent emails to the Boys High School school. But eventually I got it straighted out sent an email to the address I found here. I sent a correction email to the police department as well. Here is what I sent the student:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Bonnie
Subject: RE: site....

I haven't personally built either of those types of devices so I really can't help with what you want to do.

 

I'm sure you will be able to get the help you need soon.

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

-joe-

---

From: Bonnie
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:08 PM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: site....

Hey I need help. I want to build a bomb out of simple ingredients. I need the recipe. a timer, maybe a detonater. I was thinking along the lines of a pipe or fire bomb? can you help?

Update: I received a reply from the school:

From: Melissa
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:09 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: Student wants help building a bomb.

Thank you for forwarding this email and we will ensure that this is followed up.

Kind regards.

Principal's PA

Update II: On December 4, 2006 4:45 PM I received an email from "NZ Police Web Site : Central" saying, "thanks I will forward it to the Intel office in New Pplymouth (sic)".

The right to revolt has sources deep in our history.

William O. Douglas
US Supreme Court Justice

Why am I not surprised? I'm betting these are people that want us to return to our "natural state"--to be "one with nature". If they really succeeded, if they actually achieved what they are pushing for billions of people would die. We would return to the technology, and probably the sociology, of the dark ages:

Fringe environmental campaigners have contributed to the metal market boom by hindering and delaying new mine development, Mr Munk said.

...

Barrick’s chairman said that the leading NGOs had played a responsible role alerting the world to problems. The new breed are not accountable, he said. “They haven’t got an address. They incite people, mobilise volunteers and make outrageous statements.”

Barrick recently came under fire over plans to develop an Andean gold deposit on the Chile-Argentina border. NGOs accused the company of seeking to destroy glaciers.

Barrick said that the mine would not touch the icefields and it had received 50,000 job applications from locals supporting the project.

Nuclear fusion is a wonderful idea. Clean, no risk of people making bombs from it, and nearly limitless energy. And we have people working on it. The problem is it's not just some government program--which would almost for certain doom it. There are numerous governments working on it. Think of a committee of bureaucrats that don't speak the same language. Now give them billions of dollars and tell them they aren't expected to deliver a working prototype for years or even decades. Oh, and they aren't ever expected to turn a profit.

When General Electric, Chevron, or even Toyota tells me they are building a nuclear fusion plant I'll willingly buy their stock. But the government is going to have to get my money for this boondoggle they way they always do--at the point of a gun.

Xenia has posted some more portraits. Kim and Caleb and Martin. I like these best:

Say Uncle reminded me of something and I had to go look it up. If you ever get a chance to hear Alan Korwin speak he's just as brilliant in person. Here is his take on the words we use. A sample:

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):	It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
pro gun	pro rights
gun control	crime control
anti-gun movement	anti-self-defense movement
semiautomatic handgun	sidearm
concealed carry	carry or right to carry
assault or lethal weapon	household firearms
saturday night specials	racist gun laws
junk guns	the affordability issue
high capacity magazines	full capacity magazines
Second Amendment	Bill of Rights
the powerful gun lobby	civil rights organizations

Just a little over a week ago I brought you this story on how you get what you pay for with government health care. It's "free", right? Here's a follow up story on it:

Patients spoke yesterday of their grim experiences in mixed hospital wards and claimed the Government fiddles the figures to suggest that most are now segregated.

Readers of The Daily Telegraph, from Truro to Manchester, said there were often naked and semi-naked patients of the opposite sex in full view and intimate medical discussions were easily overheard.

They said that flimsy partitions were used to indicate that the sexes were separated and that wards were classed as emergency or temporary in order to get around the rules.

The Department of Health says that 99 per cent of NHS trusts comply with the requirement to provide single-sex accommodation but on Thursday Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, admitted there were problems.

...

Single-sex lavatories were achieved by changing the designation on the doors to either male or female depending on the sex of the occupant. "In effect this made the facility unisex," she said. "I had to endure all the mess left by ill and confused male users of the lavatory."

A reader from Weston-super-Mare said that last March, at Weston General Hospital, she was on a ward with a partition half way through the room.

"I was taken to a bed on the male side. They said they would move me when a female bed was available.

"When I asked for the curtains to be drawn I was told it was not possible as the nurse needed to see me. I was on the male side when I came round from my operation and found this extremely stressful.

"When I needed to use a commode the curtains were at least 2ft from the floor — very distressing and undignified."

A woman admitted to the Princess Royal Hospital, Telford, wrote: "I was amazed and embarrassed to find myself staring at a row of men.

"The man opposite had a skin complaint and lay on top of his bed with his pyjamas open and a small paper towel balanced on his private parts.

"Every time he moved the towel fell off."

A Department of Health spokesman said: "We are aware of these issues and know there is a disparity between our figures and the public view. That is why the Secretary of State has asked strategic health authorities to look into this and to report back to us."

Government officials love to make reports. It's one of the few things they are actually pretty good about doing. Too bad they can't actually accomplish something useful.

This is one of the dangers we face. People are getting used to having their freedoms violated. Some people get it. But others don't:

Stop griping about airport security

As the daughter of airline employees, I was practically raised on an airplane. I’ve been swabbed for drugs, had my shoes examined for explosives, had my bag torn apart and been patted down in plain view.

Yes, it’s an inconvenience, but it’s really not the end of the world.

I’m personally willing to sacrifice an hour of my life to not lose my life in an hour.

Whenever some nutcase tries to sneak a knife on board to prove a point, there is an immediate reaction of, “Oh look! Security is insufficient! Another 9/11 could happen now!”

Until you stop complaining about having to take off your shoes, you cannot complain about a lack of security.

"An inconvenience but not the end of the world." I'm sure similar words were used by a lot of the homosexuals when they had to wear the pink triangles in Germany in the late thirties. Or maybe by the Jews when their shop windows were broken on the Night of Broken Glass. It's only in hindsight everyone can see things clearly.

What this woman doesn't realize is that she is completely missing the point or perhaps even willfully avoiding the point. She thinks the point to be learned from the "nutcase" is that existing "security" is inadequate. It's not. The point to be learned is that we are spending billions of dollars each year and getting nothing good in return for it. That money could have been better spent on something else. What we do get from it is a desensitized population. It's just a pink triangle or a Star of David you have to wear. What does it matter? Just go along with it and don't make such a fuss. Right?

It's the creeping of the searching that is the problem. You are searched before you can enter a Federal Courthouse, tour Grand Coulee dam, or visit the top of the St. Louis Arch. You can be stopped on the road for no reason and your car can be searched if a dog takes an interest in it.

People are getting used to being searched for almost any reason. It's "an inconvenience but not the end of the world". Those people are wrong. It fails my Jews in the Attic Test. End of story.

Phil has better stories than I do about getting home after work last night. I had to take numerous detours from my planned route because of all the backups. Even though it was 00:45 after watching another four episodes of Enterprise with James' at his apartment there were cars backed up for miles in some locations. I managed to look far enough ahead to detour around them and didn't actually have to stop for the traffic.

It was 01:15 when I arrived in my neighborhood and there were people on the street directing traffic down a little hill. I have the best snow and ice tires Les Schwab sells without getting studs and didn't really have any problems. There were places where I expect my 10 MPH stopping distances would have been 50 yards (downhill on a glaze of ice) but I could stop, I could go forward, and I could steer.

There were lots of cars abandoned along the streets and there were "interesting" vehicle tracks in places vehicles had no business going. I'm in the middle of a conference call from work right now (my input isn't needed right now) but soon I'm going to grab some food and cooking utensils (the cafeterias at work are closed) and head off to work. I'm hoping to get some good pictures.

...the Second Amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle.  It is for hunting politicians, like [in] Grozny, [or back in] 1776, when they take your independence away!

Bob Dornan
Congressional Record, 25 January, 1995

This "male pill" works by preventing ejaculation without inhibiting orgasm. For some people that would eliminate a lot of the fun but for others it would be most welcome.

Also "useful" is that it can be taken as a "one of" a short time before its effects are needed and normal function returns a few hours later:

A male contraceptive pill, which can be taken as a one-off dose just before a date without any side effects, is being developed by British scientists.

The tablet would prevent a man from being able to impregnate a woman by creating a “dry orgasm”. But the user’s fertility would return to normal within a few hours of taking the drug.

The pill, which was derived from drugs used to treat schizophrenia, prevents ejaculation but does not affect the intensity of the orgasm.

Very interesting.

As a scientist I can't think of a better way to bias your research and end up with bogus results:

The record is clear, and once we are able to get hearings on this, everyone will see what they already know, and that is that those who have the least opportunities at this age find themselves in the military, as I did when I was 18 years old.

Not only is Charles Rangel looking to find what he wants to find in these proposed hearings but he is announcing to the world what data he will find and what his conclusions are. Even if he managed to find data completely contradictory to what he believed he would have a difficult time admitting he was wrong and changing his conclusions. For a politician this is even more difficult than for a scientist. But then again he is a politician, not a scientist. For them it's not about finding the truth or doing the right thing--those things are irrelevant in politics.

That reminds me of a couple jokes:

POLITICIAN: From the Greek `poly' ("many") and the French `tete' ("head" or "face," as in `tete-a-tete': head to head or face to face). Hence `polytetien', a person of two or more faces.

Martin Pitt

And my favorite along this line:

The word 'politics' comes from the Greek root 'poly', meaning many, and 'tics', meaning blood-sucking parasites.

I don’t care about crime,  I just want to get the guns.  No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals  . . .  we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns. Until we can ban all of the firearms,  then we might as well ban none.

Senator Howard Metzenbaum
[Just so you know what most in the gun-rights movement have discovered after only a modest amount of research. It's not crime control that drives the people that want to ban guns.--Joe]

Update: Due to interest in an accurate citation of this quote I went looking some more. I looked yesterday but wasn't able to find anything satisfactory. Here are some hints:

• From HK Weapons Systems: it is suggested it was in 1993 or maybe 1994.
• From a personal profile on Free Republic: it is suggested it was during a debate on the Brady Bill in 1993.
• It is not on the list of Second Amendment Foundation or the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms bogus quotes.
• It is not on the list of bogus quotes at GunCite.
• Searches for "I don't care about crime" and Metzenbaum (Google, Live Search, Yahoo) get a lots of hits.

If I were to spend more time on this I would look for transcripts of the debate on the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. But I don't really have the time.

One battle at a time. We have a lot of work to do with things like property rights, ending the war on some recreational drugs, and Federal regulation of almost everything but we are still winning (or at least not losing) the battle to regain our right to keep and bear arms. Here is more proof from Eugene Oregon:

Other than alienating virtually every rural Democrat, there is no practical reason to ban handguns. We cannot take handguns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens when criminals would still buy them illegally or steal them.

...

Most importantly, gun ownership, including handguns, is the biggest deterrent to a totalitarian government or military coup. If the neoconservatives use the next terrorist attack to set aside more of our rights, we'll eventually run out of them. I'll be thankful that our "well regulated [neighborhood citizen] militia" has a "right to bear arms" that is not "infringed." Those are quotes from the Constitution. I wish gun banners and neocons would read it and love it.

Several years ago when I successfully moved to strike the gun control plank from the Democratic Party of Lane County's platform, no rural Democrats vocalized support. That wasn't surprising, because no rural Democrats were present. We certainly have been rectifying that, as our recent gains have illustrated.

This is not to say I agree with the Lane County Democrats on anything else. Here some info off of their website:

On every civil rights issue, Democrats lead the fight. Democrats support expanding opportunities in jobs, health care benefits, and education. We support vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws.

[Heavy sigh] They don't really understand what a "right" is. Health care is not and cannot be a right. Same with education and jobs. We still have lots of work to do--one battle at a time.

I was reloading some ammo yesterday and noticed this on the shelf:

This is left over from one of the tests I did in September of 1998 when I was first trying to come up with a mix that would go boom from rifle fire. It was a mix of potassium chlorate, ammonium nitrate, and diesel. I had gotten a couple successful detonations but then wanted to try adding a lot more diesel. There were three reasons for this:

1. A slurry would be easier to put in the pop cans
2. Excess fuel should produce a fireball (HAH! It was over three years later before Ry and I had our first success with fireballs)
3. Fewer measurements means less time spent making the targets

It didn't work. Even though I nailed the pop can from only 100 yards away with my 30.06 all that happened was the back of the can blew out. To this day excess liquid of any type we have tried is bad news to the sensitivity of the mix.

No surprise here.

Palestinian Attacks Go on Despite Truce

JERUSALEM Nov 26, 2006 (AP)— Israeli troops withdrew from the Gaza Strip as a last-minute cease-fire deal took hold Sunday morning, but two major Palestinian militant groups, saying they had no intention of stopping their attacks, fired volleys of homemade rockets into Israel.

The ongoing rocket attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad tempered hopes for a lasting truce, which was meant to end five months of deadly clashes.

I believe the problem is the mindset of the Muslim civilization. As told by Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order they have a different viewpoint on group loyalties than we do in the West. I've made a crude chart that attempt to get the concept across:

Huntington describes it as a "U" and an inverted "U". I have it as more like 'V's because I didn't want to enter in all the data points to get a smooth U. But the point is that when our nations leaders say, "We are going to make peace, stop fighting while we talk" our civilization will obey even if the local groups think the fighting should continue. Muslim civilization doesn't have that much loyalty to their nation. The local tribe and community has more influence. And on the other end of the scale they have more loyalty to other Muslims than their nation as well.

This also explains why Saddam Hussein picked people from his hometown as his guards and elite army units. He trusted them far more than people from other areas of the country.

Where does that leave us? How can we, or the Israels, negotiate peace? Or even have peace with Muslims? Good questions. I'm not sure it can be done unless we destroy their culture.

Of course I do not regret the Bond days, I regret that sadly heroes in general are depicted with guns in their hands, and to tell the truth I have always hated guns and what they represent.

Roger Moore
[Daniel Craig isn't the only actor to play Bond and dislike guns.--Joe]

Xenia wants to be a photographer. She is doing some of her first "real" work now with senior portraits. Here is a set of pictures of Jessa. I really like this one:

Today she took pictures of Martin but I haven't seen them yet.

We went to my brother's place for Thanksgiving Day. They had a record number of people there--33. We brought seven of them in our van. In addition to Barb, me, and our three kids, James, Kim, and Xenia there was Xenia's friend Sara and Kim's fiancee Caleb. Here are some pictures. If I am in the picture Xenia took the picture (even the one with both of us in it). Otherwise I took the picture:

Kim and Caleb

Barb and me.

Xenia and me.

Amy. My brother's daughter who is the same age as Kim.

Lisa. My brother's daughter who is the same age as Xenia.

My Aunt Betty and one of her grandkids.

I'm thinking of giving (selling actually) the opportunity for people with night vision equipment the chance to exercise their equipment and skills on the night of Friday April 27^th 2007. This is two days before Boomershoot 2007. This would involve about 50 targets some of which would be "enhanced" for greater night time enjoyment. Other things that would be a little different from Boomershoot are the following:

• Targets would range from about 150 yards to 350 yards away
• Targets would be painted dark colors instead of being light colored
• Targets will all be 7x7 inches
• The price will be in addition to any entry fee you have paid already for Boomershoot 2007
• The price will be from $200 to $500 per person depending on how many people sign up
• The price will be finalized by April 15 2007 or when it is full whichever comes first
• Spotters are welcome but probably won't be useful and will not need to pay
• It will be limited to a maximum of 10 people
• The sun will be down
  • Sunset will be 19:50
  • End civil twilight will be 20:23
  • Moonrise will be 15:23
  • Moonset will be 04:06 the following day
  • The phase of the moon will be waxing gibbous with 82% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated
• Shooting will start at 20:30 and last for three hours or until the targets are gone
• A different location would be used. It is about two miles to the west of the usual site
• If it is too wet the site will be unusable and you would not have to pay even though you said you would participate
• All shooters will have a minimum of 10 feet horizontally and can set up starting at 19:00

This is a picture of the potential site as of November 23^rd 2006:

This location is facing north. The trees will shade the area from the setting sun but not from the moon. Of course if there is a heavy cloud cover it won't make much difference.

If you are interested send an email to JoeH@boomershoot.org with the subject of "Night Boomers".

Courage and conviction are powerful weapons against an enemy who depends only on fists or guns. Animals know when you are afraid; a coward knows when you are not.

David Seabury
[Good advice when you in a situation where you fear for your personal safety. We teach this concept in NRA Personal Protection classes.--Joe]

Citizens have the natural right and the common sense duty to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and their property...guns are the equalizing tools of self-protection, utopian lamentations notwithstanding.

Edgar A. Suter