# Tuesday, February 13, 2007

I thought that banks were required by federal law to have the Socialist Security numbers of all account holders.  It turns out not be true, apparently, for illegals.  I'll choose to think of that as good news.  I'll assume I can now open accounts all over the country, including credit card accounts, without my Socialist Security number or any other documentation of my true identity.  Cool.

Lyle at UltiMAK  Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:29:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
# Monday, February 12, 2007

I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating.

Boss Tweed
[I keep thinking of this quote as I read about the possible nominees for the next President. Someone who doesn't like my politics must be doing the nominating for the nominations. It seems there will only be bad, worse, and worst options available.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Monday, February 12, 2007 10:33:09 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Sunday, February 11, 2007

Lots of lessons to be learned here.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:43:34 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I always regarded it as sort of personal quirk without need of a "fixing" but I found it very "deflating", shall we say, to have one of the kids knock on the door while my wife and I are engaged in certain intimate activities let along for them to actually be in the room. That personal quirk aside, I never understood why some people would regard it as child abuse or endangering of a child's welfare for them to see such activity. After all, animals engage in that sort of activity in front of their young without apparent harm. And what about very primitive human societies without doors that can be locked? Do those children, or animals, that see those sort of activities suffer some sort of harm? I think we can safely predict the results of those studies before someone spends X million dollars of government grant money on the topic.

However such a study might help out this couple who I believe should be convicted of committing an act of stupidity not neglect:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman's 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex "all the time" in front of the child and that "we don't believe in hiding anything."

He said the girl would often be on the bed watching as the couple had sex. Though they did not ask her to leave, they also did not force her to remain on the bed, Prata said.

Sex
Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:06:28 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

With a title for a book review like Fighting Gun Disease (the actual book is Enter the Babylon System: Unpacking Gun Culture from Samuel Colt to 50 Cent) you know the review and probably the book is going to have some serious problems. I wasn't disappointed:

There are 65 million handguns in the U.S. It's estimated up to 1.8 million of them are stolen every year in the States and as many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime.

The 65 million number might be close. It seems plausible at least. The 1.8 million stolen each year doesn't. I looked up the U.S. production records on the ATF website and found that after subtracting the exports manufactures entered 1,043,538 handguns into U.S. commerce in 2005. Imports added another 856,259 which adds up to 1,899,797 handguns entering into the U.S. in 2005. This includes those that went to the U.S. military and law enforcement. Some anti-gun bigot apparently figures that annual import and manufacture of handguns just barely covers the number of firearms stolen each year and it gets the number published in book.

As many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime? Then that would mean that just to keep up with the annual increase in handguns (~1.9 million in 2005) there would have to be at least 474,949 firearm crimes using different handguns.

From the FBI we find there were 139,994 aggravated assaults and 135,444 robberies with firearms in 2005 add that to the 7543 murders committed with handguns in 2005 and we end up with only 282981 crimes committed with handguns. Hence, even if every single crime involved a different gun we come up 191968 short of estimate.

Of course there mght be additional crimes committed with handguns which aren't listed but the vast majority will be covered in those three categories. And the above numbers make the very conservative assumption that each crime involves a different gun. Clearly someone was just making stuff up. It's not an "estimate" by anyone qualified to be making estimates on this topic.

This reminds me of an entry in my quote database:

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:43:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Title 18 USC 242 says:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Furthermore the FBI says:

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.

...

During Fiscal Year 2005, the FBI investigated more than 1,100 color of law cases.

I think that since the FBI states they are the lead agency for investigating color of law abuses we should be reporting abuses to them. The FBI has a web page telling how to go about it (near the bottom of the page):

To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

• all identifying information for the victim(s);
• as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and
  agency employed;
• date and time of incident;
• location of incident;
• names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
• a complete chronology of events; and
• any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written
complaint to:

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530

FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.

Reporting Mayors Daley, Bloomberg, and others involved in the conspiracy to deprive others of their rights to keep and bear arms would seem to be a good starting point. There are those involved in the Katrina incident. That's just the beginning.  There are lots of politicians and law enforcement types all over the country that could benefit from some time in prison for violating our 2nd Amendment rights. Reporting Schumer, Feinstein, and others involved in the "assault weapon" ban would merit my approval as well.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:15:35 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Gun control:  Being able to hit a moving target at 500 yards with one shot, one kill, henceforth conserving your ammunition for further skirmishes and engagements.

Howard Hutchinson

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:01:18 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Saturday, February 10, 2007

Basically, IPSC is, and rightly so, about shooting people.  Some people need to be shot.  Get over it.

Joe Huffman
January 15, 1999 12:52 PM
Unofficial IPSC email Discussion List

Joe Huffman  Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:47:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

One of the many murder mystery shows on TV these days recently did an episode wherein an assassin shot his victim through the heart at a mile and a half with a single shot from a super-scary sniper rifle, complete with portable weather station, laser range finder and computer, etc. (sounds a bit like my setup).  It reminds me of Henry (nostrilitis) Waxman’s attempt to scare children over the magical capabilities of the .50 BMG cartridge.

 

Knowing this claimed feat to be beyond ridiculous, and for fun I decided to test it using Joe’s exterior ballistics program.  Using all the most generous figures:  Caliber .50 BMG (loaded with the slipperiest small arm bullet, with a Ballistic Coefficient of 1.05) which I gave an impressive standard velocity deviation of only 5 feet per second, and an inherent accuracy of 0.5 minutes of angle (super, ultra special, custom ammo) with a wind estimation error of only 2 MPH over that whole mile and a half, and perfect assessment of temperature, humidity and barometric pressure.  It turns out that the probability of a hit (any hit) on a 15 inch circle at that distance (2,640 yards) is from 1% to 8% (depending on which 100-shot simulation you go with-- i.e. there were 100-shot strings in which only one bullet hit its target) assuming a perfect shooter with nerves of perfect steel, perfect optics and visual conditions that can resolve a 16-inch (a little over ½ MOA) wide target at 2,640 yards.

 

Using the more common, high powered, long-range 300 Winchester Magnum, with the same amazingly good velocity deviation and the same super 0.5 MOA accuracy, the hit probability went to about 0.6% on a 15-inch stationary circle.  Bullet's time of flight: 7.37 seconds.

 

On the TV show, the shooter did another amazing trick by timing his shot (from a mile and a half away) to exactly coincide with some blanks fired in a movie set dual.  The time of flight for his (assumed) .50 BMG bullet at 2,640 yards is nearly 5 seconds, so the shooter would have to anticipate his victim's actions with superb accuracy, five seconds in advance.  Furthermore, he took the shot from an urban area, where the intense muzzle report from a necessarily very powerful rifle would have gotten the attention of people in a wide radius.  The rifle was bolt action, and the ejected cartridge case was depicted as having melted into the outdoor carpet on the balcony that served as the shooting position-- also preposterous, as the case sits in the chamber too long to leave it so hot upon ejection (the relatively cool barrel acts as a tremendous heat sink for the thin brass case).  Only autoloaders spit out hot cases because they extract the case within milliseconds of firing.  Oh and the target, being a human in the process of acting out a mock duel, was moving, making the probability of a hit even less (my simulations were done on a stationary target).

 

Now some would say, "Hey, its just a TV show.  Its entertainment, Dude, lighten up."  I would agree if it were a science fiction series, or fantasy, but this stuff is put forth as serious, hard-hitting drama.  To me its like a serious W.W. II drama in which people fly like superman, battle tanks travel at 200 miles an hour, and animals talk.  It ceases being entertainment and becomes an insult.

Lyle at UltiMAK  Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:52:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
# Friday, February 09, 2007

Usually when some state or local political type ignores the law (18 USC 242 as well as the 2nd Amendment) and attacts people exercising their constitutionally protected rights the Feds just look the other way. The impression I get is that they figure it's just some uppity gun nut--so who cares? This time it's a little bit different:

In a stern rebuke to the city's high-profile crusade against illegal guns, the feds warned the Bloomberg administration that it could face "potential legal liabilities" if it continues to conduct sting operations that fall within the jurisdiction of federal agents.

...

According to a letter sent to City Hall, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and various U.S. attorneys' offices have determined the city's findings against the 15 dealers "do not rise to a level that would support a criminal prosecution."

The letter - sent Tuesday by Michael Battle, director of the executive office for United States Attorneys at the Department of Justice - also scolded City Hall for engaging in sting operations involving persons "without proper law enforcement authority," saying that could put the city in legal jeopardy. Battle added that City Hall could "unintentionally interrupt or jeopardize" criminal probes.

But of course, just like the classic deep south sherriff that is a member of the KKK, this politician doesn't get it either:

Asked if the Bloomberg administration plans to stop conducting the sting operations, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said, "Not necessarily."

"The city hasn't violated any laws," Skyler said defiantly, adding that the city will continue to pursue its civil lawsuits against the gun dealers.

Via Cam, Jeff, and Uncle.

Joe Huffman  Friday, February 09, 2007 12:14:02 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

...there's no doubt that the buyers broke the Gun Control Act, and that those who set them to it were liable as aiders and abettors, not to mention on a conspiracy theory. I'd assume that Bloomberg and company (1) figured it was worth it for the publicity and (2) figured that the laws don't apply to the rich and powerful. They may just have been right on both.

David Hardy
February 8, 2007
US Attorneys slap down Bloomberg
Of Arms in the Law

Joe Huffman  Friday, February 09, 2007 12:09:33 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Thursday, February 08, 2007

They just keep coming in. I got one last week and another came in yesterday. The one yesterday had an interesting comment.

Please elaborate extensively on any Boomershoot topic. What would you like changed? What was best about Boomershoot 2006? What was the worst about Boomershoot 2006?

A: women in bikinis is a must have.

You realize that women that attend Boomershoot also shoot guns, right? They shoot seven inch square targets at 700 yards. I don't tell them how they must dress and I suggest no one else does either. The extent of my sympathy for someone so stupid as to push the issue will be to nominate them for a Darwin Award if something were to "go horribly wrong".

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:13:46 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  | 

This is what happens after you give up your right to keep and bear arms. You are reduced to begging to have even a small fraction of them restored:

Dear Home Secretary,

...

As I am sure your officials will tell you, there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that by banning legally-licensed cartridge pistols and closing legally-operating shooting clubs, we would all sleep safer in our beds. Yet today there are more hand guns on our streets than 10 years ago.

...

When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympics, the British Olympic Association and the governing bodies of shooting put forward a case to your department for legislative exemptions which would allow our pistol shooters and a large squad of sporting hopefuls to be granted dispensation under Section Five of the Act so that they could retain their sporting pistols at home without ammunition in order to do their daily 'dry training'. Registered regional shooting clubs would also be designated as a place for weapons to be used.

It looked like a way forward could be agreed. The sports minister, Richard Caborn, assured the BOA that he had written to the Home Office giving his support for exemptions. An Early Day Motion in the Commons attracted significant support from all sides of the house and the public have, I believe, realised that target pistol shooters were victims of rough justice in the 1997 legislation. An e-petition on the No 10 website for the restoration of target pistol shooting under suitable controls is gaining signatures every day.

However, somewhere in your department the paper trail has stopped and the silence is deafening. Time is running out.

...

Target shooters are reliable, trustworthy and an asset to their communities – the kind of people your department want to support. Don't you feel ashamed that most democracies have more faith in their citizens to participate in one of the oldest Olympic sports than we do?

Over to you Home Secretary – we need a decision urgently.

Yours sincerely, Kate Hoey
Labour MP for Vauxhall

Boomershoot 2007 is sold out with a waiting list of eight teams or I would again offer free entry to peasants from the U.K. They need get a glimpse of freedom even if it is just for a weekend.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:35:25 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 

[heavy sigh] Another one. I could not make this stuff up if I spent weeks on it:

From: Robbie [@ hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:28 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: MAKIN A BOMB!!! :D

Hey M8,
 
Sorry To Bother You Like This But Im Lookin For A Recipie To Blow A 5" Hole In A Concrete Wall. I Was Wondering If You Could Help Me Out? I Live In Great Britian (Scotland #1) And Live Next To A Builders Yard So Materials Wont Be A Great Issue. I Want The Bomb To Go Off While Im There But Back A Bit Obviously. Ive Got Around £20 ($40 or so). It Needs To Be Quiet So I Wont Be Scene And I Want It To Be In A Bottle Or Bag Etc.

Cheers M8 If You Can Help.
 
Rambo Emm 2oo7
 
"Where Ya From Niggah? West Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? East Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? North Side Niggah!,
Where Ya From Niggah? South Side Niggah!"
 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:43 AM
To: Robbie
Subject: RE: MAKIN A BOMB!!! :D

Quiet bombs aren't something I have any experience with.
 

-joe-


From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:39 PM
To:
new.scotland.yard@met.police.uk
Subject: FW: MAKIN A BOMB!!! :D

I received an email from someone asking for help building a bomb in Scotland. It's probably nothing to worry about but that's your decision to make not mine.
 
I have attached an Excel spread sheet with information from my log files for http://www.boomershoot.org. It was this website where he got my email address.
 
I'm not sure but I suspect he came in via two different locations on two different dates. The IP address in his email is the same as that shown in lines 8 through 44 off the spread sheet which are today's visit. But there is something odd about that. He didn't click on a link on another web page to visit that web page (http://www.boomershoot.org/general/BombHelp.htm). He went directly to it as if he typed it in or clicked on it in an email. Hence it may be that the earlier visit, as shown in lines 2 through 7 of the spread sheet from the same ISP are related. Those lines show someone did a Google search for "making a bomb", found my web page, and then made it a "Favorite".
 
I know Microsoft will also be glad to help with the Hotmail account if that would be useful.
 
Below you will also find the header from the email which might be of potential use. Further below you will see his email and my response.
 
Don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further help.
 
 
Joe Huffman
Moscow, Idaho USA
Cell: 208-301-4254

Update: I received the following email from Scotland Yard:

From: Ann [ @met.police.uk ]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:54 PM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: RE: MAKIN A BOMB!!! :D

Thank you for your e-mail. It has been forwarded to the Anti-Terrorist Branch-Intelligence Unit.
 
E-Mail Office
New Scotland Yard
Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:42:09 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 

From a letter written by the National Park Service:

"Right to carry" laws do not protect visitors from wildlife. Most weapons carried for protection from wildlife are not adequate for that purpose. Untrained individuals attempting to protect themselves from dangerous animals often exacerbate the situation.

So I guess when a mountain lion is chewing on your head they want you to use just your bare hands or improvise weapons on the spot like sticks and stones. And I presume struggling and screaming won't exacerbate the situation either. Maybe those National Park bureaucrats are of the type that think just because a proposed solution is "all natural" it's better.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:50:36 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 

Tam says, "Making Atlas shrug".

For people that haven't read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged the following is probably mostly gibberish but explaining here would be a distraction.

As Tam points out Senator Clinton is one of those rare politicians that:

...has the sheer stones to come right out in front of a national audience and baldly, openly, and without euphemism say "I want to steal your shit."

If Senator Clinton becomes President Clinton then I can seriously believe it's time to looking for and/or creating Galt's Gulch. It might be time for the people that have never before gone on strike to finally do just that. It might be time to forcibly demonstrate to the socialists and communists of the world that theft and redistribute of that booty does not and cannot make "the people" better off. It might be time to demonstrate that you can, after a fashion, force labor but you can't force someone to think.

The only question I have is; Who is our John Galt?

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:43:45 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 

Do you know why prisoners can escape? Because they have more time.

You have the time, the motivation, and the smarts to devote to this case. The other side is at a disadvantage.

Matthew J. Bean, P.S.
February 7, 2007
Regarding Joe Huffman versus Battelle (PNNL).
[This was after he expressed some surprise at my level of preparation in the case and I said I had been thinking about these things for over a year and a half and have been looking forward to the day when I could execute on them.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:13:02 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Wednesday, February 07, 2007

I have to admit I have a rather small sample compared to theirs but from my research this study is way off the mark:

On average, most women say they would have no problem abandoning sex for over a year if it meant they could get their hands on a new wardrobe. Two percent of the 1,000 women in 10 cities surveyed were ready to abstain from sex for three years in exchange for new duds.

When asked whether giving up sex for a month would be worse than losing a loved piece of clothing, 61 percent said they’d rather give up getting down and dirty. 48 percent, taking part in the survey by consumer products giant Unilever said their favorite article of clothing was more reliable than their man in giving them confidence and making them feel sexy.

"Some people say clothes make the man, but the right clothes can even replace him," fashion designer, stylist and TV personality Carson Kressley from the reality TV show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" said in a statement accompanying the poll.

Sex
Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:54:44 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 

Battelle is the company that manages PNNL (technically, I'm suing Battelle, not PNNL) and several other DOE national laboratories. One of those labs is Oak Ridge. It doesn't sound like Battelle is in the middle of it, just on the edge, but there are some people being prosecuted for fraud in connection with contracts administered by Battelle.

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:39:22 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I got some interesting information from my lawyer today. I turned over the interrogatories I had been working on. Interesting quote from my lawyer, "Interrogatories are the punishment you get for filing a lawsuit." I didn't see it that way. I actually enjoyed it. Apparently it showed. My response was composed of 12 CDROMs (about 250,000 files) and over 300 pages of paper. He said he expects it will be one of the best responses the PNNL lawyers have ever seen. We reviewed some of the CD content and he got this big smile on his face. "Their lawyers would be able to retire on the billings they could charge for this." My lawyer said he will not be able to retire on his billings because I did all the work.

He saw the PayPal donation button on my PNNL.info site and with a big smile said, "I wonder if they (the PNNL lawyers) will donate to your case? Let's see, if we donate $10,000 that could result in $250,000 in additional billings..." I wonder if that would be considered unethical?

Yes, I know, it's taxpayer money that will be used to pay the lawyers and any settlement that might be reached. But I got a call from someone today that has been working on that issue and believes he may be able to turn off that spigot. I'm not convinced he can but I'm working with him on it.

I managed to find a letter I thought I had lost from a different lawyer that contained some information which shut off an escape route for the felons. I gave this lawyer a copy and explained the significance.  He laughed and said that it might be very useful.

We talked quite a bit about the lawyer they chose; Jerome R. Aiken of Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney. What's most interesting about this guy is that his claimed areas of practice are:

  • Agricultural Law
  • Appeals
  • Consumer Protection
  • Product Liability Law

My lawyer only does employment law and has been doing it for 13 years.

On the felony issue--the PNNL felons (not all on this list were involved and some that were are not on the list) could refuse to testify on points that could incriminate them. But that refusal to testify can be used against PNNL. My lawyer would love to have them "take the fifth". If they don't refuse to testify then that gives them two other options. They can tell the truth and risk the criminal charges from their confessions and still damage PNNL's case, or they can lie. Barb is betting they will lie. But they might be surprised what an experienced trial lawyer can do to a liar. And if we can prove perjury, in addition to the penalties imposed by the court, they could lose their security clearances.

A long time ago I read The Art of Cross Examination and loved it. I can't find my copy so I ordered another one tonight. I need to get through it before the depositions start in April. I also downloaded an audio version of Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail---Every Place, Every Time.

I wonder if Mr. Jerome R. Aiken will read Being underestimated by the enemy. It's a little unlikely, even though it is one of those 250,000 files on one of those 12 CDROMs he will be receiving in a day or two. But one thing he probably will read, because it was on one of the 300 pages of paper, is this:

One of Huffman's co-workers, who must remain anonymous (for fear of retribution from PNNL), knew Joe Huffman far better than McMillan and Hevland. In a meeting a few days after the firing, he told Huffman, "They haven't got a clue as to what they stepped into."

I'd love to see his face as he reads that.

Two last bits of sweetness... 1) my attorney's female receptionist has a Concealed Pistol Permit and 2) my lawyer wants me to teach him to shoot.

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:31:43 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 

The Deacons forced the Klan to re-evaluate their actions and often change their undergarments.

Roy Innis
As related by Ken Blackwell
["The Deacons" refers to armed black men who used firearms to defend themselves against the KKK as told in the book: The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:00:10 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Tuesday, February 06, 2007

I can imagine situations where the search for a W.C. Fields quote was a valid use of the U.S. Department of Justice resources but the odds are a bit low. People need to realize the power of the internet flows in more than one direction:

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; DI60SP1001; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1152 x 864
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Feb 6 2007 5:24:26 am
Last Page View   Feb 6 2007 5:24:26 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://search.yahoo....e=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
Search Engine search.yahoo.com
Search Words w c fields quote
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm...e DayW C Fields.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm...e DayW C Fields.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time   Feb 6 2007 8:24:26 am
Visit Number   132,224

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:41:52 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 

Same-sex marriage supporters introduce measure requiring heterosexual couples to have children. If you are going to insist that the purpose of marriage is the rearing of children then to be consistent you should be opposed to marriage between heterosexual couples that are unable or have no plans to have children.

Some people had that one coming.

Freedom | Politics | Sex
Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:52:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I could speculate but it would be as much wistful thinking as anything. Here is the target they found. Here is what I know about who did the viewing:

Domain Name   senate.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address   156.33.24.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP   U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  District of Columbia
City  :  Washington
Lat/Long  :  38.8933, -77.0146 (Map)
Distance  :  2,072 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; InfoPath.1)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1280 x 1024
Color Depth  :  16 bits
Time of Visit   Feb 5 2007 11:43:54 am
Last Page View   Feb 5 2007 11:43:54 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co...&hl=en&start=10&sa=N
Search Engine google.com
Search Words castle doctrine idaho
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm...Is What We Need.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm...Is What We Need.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time   Feb 5 2007 2:43:54 pm
Visit Number   132,033

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:23:26 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Larry Flynt
[I could have imagined myself quoting Larry Flynt--but never with this sort of subject matter. It's not the first time Mr. Flynt has surprised me either. It might not be the last.

Other people have slightly different versions of this, with a punch line something like "...finding a well-armed sheep". Individual rights are only guaranteed when the minorities have a means of defending them; i.e. the right to keep and bear arms guarantees the rest.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:21:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
# Monday, February 05, 2007

Michelle Malkin says:

You ask the hard questions. No softball chit-chat drivel. Get down to brass tacks.

Literally, Diana Sawyer asks Syrian dictator Assad, "Do you have an iPod? What's on it?"

Joe Huffman  Monday, February 05, 2007 11:56:26 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I am not going to hide how much guns disgust me. I think they are one of the, if not THE, most vile contraptions on earth.

To give you an idea how much, I wrote three papers in college on guns and gun control in one semester. I cannot begin to tell you how many extremely heated discussions I’ve had with friends and family about guns.

While I strive to understand how anyone can think that any one person should hold that much power - the ability to intimidate and/or take someone’s life with a gun. I can’t deny an individuals constitutional right to bear arms, no matter how painful it may be for me to accept.

But as far as I am concerned, no one needs a gun at all. Not you, certainly not me. Not good people. Not bad people.

The general public has no reason to own firearms such as semi-automatic guns or assault rifles and should be completely banned and destroyed, along with all the other types of guns (as far as I am concerned).

There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.

Don’t try the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument with me. I really despise that saying. Power changes people and guns provide more power than any one individual was meant to have.

Woody Bass
February 4, 2007
Are guns too accessible?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[Interesting argument. I don't think I have heard that one before in relation to gun ownership, "power changes people and people weren't meant to have that much power". It's sort of a "it's not natural" type of argument. My favorite response to that is, "You're right, if people were meant to run around without clothes we would have been born that way." Other possible arguments in this case could made be against cars, knives, clubs, antibiotics, and computers. Even the Amish could be made out to be "too powerful" with the right argument.

It's also interesting that he "despises that saying" but doesn't refute it.

He's got mental problems.

I didn't get into it with him. I just left a comment with Just One Question for him and let it go at that.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Monday, February 05, 2007 12:53:49 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  | 
# Sunday, February 04, 2007

I could only read part of Kevin's post. After a couple paragraphs I couldn't think straight. My mind was running wild with rage. Here's a taste of what I read:

Witnesses to violent street crime should try to 'distract' attackers by honking their car horns or even 'jumping up and down'. That's according to Labour's Police Minister.

The extraordinary remarks by Tony McNulty prompted an immediate, angry response from law and order experts, who described him as 'irresponsible'.

The standard police advice to people who witness violent behaviour is that they should not get involved and immediately call 999.

But in an interview with the BBC's Jeremy Vine, Mr McNulty said concerned citizens should 'try some distractive activities' instead.

This is in the U.K. and it's unlikely I would be going there and even more unlikely now. But if someone was attacking someone in my family the only jumping up and down I would do would be on top of the attacker. If that wasn't "distracting" enough I'd disassemble them as rapidly and as violently as I possibly could. Then I would get myself and my loved ones out of the country as quickly as I could before I had to repeat the process on any of the police that tried to arrest me.

I think some people need to read A Nation of Cowards.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 04, 2007 10:18:15 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 

On the one hand, the guns were there to help capture the imagination of the people. But more important, since we knew that you couldn't observe the police without guns, we took our guns with us to let the police know that we have an equalizer.

Bobby Seale
Co-founder of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (later shorted to just The Black Panther Party)
Also important to note is that the organization was primarily socialist in nature.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:55:13 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |