Sunday, February 25, 2007

I did a little bit of roping with the cattle we had when I was growing up on the farm. And I've seen a lot of deer, some of which I have been close enough to rope, but it has never occurred to me to consider it. Perhaps I unconsciously knew that wasn't a good idea. Or perhaps it was my parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents that always gave a very simple, and what I always thought was cryptic rather than profound, answer to any suggestions of attempts to interact with non-domestic animals, "They're wild animals."

After reading this story and taking into accounts such as Deerslayer by Ray Stevens I'm thinking my most recent effort to reach out and touch a deer, with my .300 Winchester Magnum, is the most appropriate.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:14:44 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback

The Dunblane massacre was the spark that ignited the inferno that resulted in the banning of all handguns in the U.K. Thousands of people told them it wouldn't do any good. Now some of the most vigorous proponents of the ban are saying, "You were right." From the Sunday Herald in Scotland:

I allowed myself two simple, possibly simplistic, strategies. First, I was not ever going to attempt to "explain" Hamilton: the bereaved deserved better. Secondly, in my small way, I was going to take on anyone who failed to support the banning of handguns.

There was a lot of American comment, predictably, and much of it abusive. The clichés appeared as if by return of post. "Guns don't kill people," they wrote. "People kill people." So why - this struck me almost as the definition of self-evident - did Thomas Hamilton feel a need for four of the damnable things?

Then the Duke of Edinburgh, and the field sports people, and the target shooters entered the fray. The royal consort, with his usual sensitivity, expressed the view that things were getting out of hand, and that a more considered response was required. I can clobber royals in my sleep.

The most troubling questions came, instead, from those who answered my simplicities with one of their own. They didn't oppose a ban, as such. They merely wanted to know why I was so sure that legislation would work.

That seemed obvious. It even seemed faintly stupid to think otherwise. No guns, no gun-killings. Remove the threat: wasn't that one of the jobs of government?

Sceptics were more subtle than I allowed. What they meant was that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don't take much interest in well-meaning legislation. If they chose to arm themselves while the rest of society was, in effect, disarming, outraged newspaper commentators and their quick fixes might merely make matters worse.

...

Let's concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn't mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?

The answer to the practical question is that, in the technical terms of security experts, the attack surface is too large. There are just too many different ways to get past the barriers. It only takes one hole in "the wall". And if there is sufficient demand for a product the market will find a way to meet that demand.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 25, 2007 10:36:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.

And I know I'm not going to make very many friend saying this. But it's about all rights. All of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.

Suzanne Hupp
Testifying before congress regarding the assault weapons ban.

[No wonder Schumer, briefly seen in the video, pushed for the ban. Ms. Hupp confirmed his worst fears.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 25, 2007 10:00:40 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback
 Saturday, February 24, 2007

Two years ago I didn’t even know what a charging handle was. Today I am a NRA and JPFO member and train on a regular basis. I got the message loud and clear that I am responsible for my own safety. The Katrina webcams and blogs that skipped CNN beat me over the head with it.

Thus, my AWB glass right now is half-full. Let’s just do a Zumbo Roasting on Congress and call it a day.

Tony Pacheco
Friday, February 23, 2007 12:48 PM
In email sent to insightstraining AT yahoogroups.com
[We, as gun owners, can help with these conversions. Enable others to talk about guns by you talking about guns or displaying a target from your latest trip to the range. Enable others to make the change of state by offering to take them to the range and let them use your firearms.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Saturday, February 24, 2007 8:32:58 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback
 Friday, February 23, 2007

Earlier I wrote about the entertainment industry giving magical powers to firearms.  More recently, the Discovery channel, on their new program, Future Weapons, did a bit about an "actual" 1.5 mile, one shot hit from a cold bore using the new .416 Barrett.  The shooter was depicted as firing his first shot ever from that rifle and hitting his target (a circle of about 5 feet diameter) at 1.5 miles.  My skepticism lead me back to Joe's exterior ballistics program.  Since Barrett had just sent us a write-up and the specs on his new cartridge, all I had to do was plug in his numbers.  I allowed, again, for the most amazing velocity standard deviation of 5 feet per second, with a 1/2 MOA accurate rifle/cartridge combination.  I reduced the effects of the atmosphere by raising the elevation to 3000 feet.  I enlarged the target to a 12 x 20 inch ellipse (roughly the one-shot kill area of the human body) and still I came up with a probability of a one shot hit (any hit) of about 8 percent at 1.5 miles.  The hit probability at that range on a 5-foot circle is about 58%.  Time if flight: 4.05 sec.  Extremely good, but you have to push the accuracy of the system to the edge of believability to get it, and with a perfect marksman.  It's certainly not what we're being led to believe by the TV producers.

Barrett's specs for the .416:

 

      Muzzle velocity: 3250 fps

Ballistic Coefficient: 0.943

           Bullet Mass: 400 grains – solid copper

 

I want one!  I wonder if they're going to come out with some light varmint bullets for it, or some frangible defense loads.  Heh.

 

Lyle at UltiMAK  Friday, February 23, 2007 5:15:21 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback

Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a 'hot button' issue, this is definitely it. Don't even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Michael Badnarik
Michael Badnarik on Gun Control
[If current trends continue in the race for nomination for 2008 presidential candidates I probably will vote Libertarian.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Friday, February 23, 2007 9:49:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback
 Thursday, February 22, 2007

Gay marriage may take some time to make it to all 50 states but just like the concealed carry of firearm reforms that swept the nation in the past decade we are now seeing gay marriage start a relentless march. New Jersey has now decided that the gay cooties (thanks to Say Uncle for turning me on to that phrase) aren't all that big of a concern. See also my other posts on this topic:

I'm reminded of a quote pointed out to me by Kevin Baker:

Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.

Teresa Neilson Hayden

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:20:47 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

Ry pointed this out to me. Absolutely applicable to my situation with PNNL. A ruling that appears to be exactly what we want. It covers what we regarded as the weakest point of our case:

A federal district court has just applied this principle to hold that Ohioans — even ones employed by private employers — are presumptively protected from being fired for off-employer-property (and presumably off-duty and lawful) possession of guns. The case is Plona v. UPS, 2007 WL 509747 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13)

Update: I posted a comment on the blog the above was posting on. I received this very interesting comment:

A. Zarkov (mail):

Joe Huffman:

Very interesting but not at all surprising. The national labs, including Los Alamos, Livermore, Oak Ridge, Berkeley, Brookhaven etc have been notorious for trampling on their employees. Don’t trust them on discovery. One of those labs got caught red-handed destroying documents they were supposed to turn over as part of discovery. While it hurt their court case, they got away with it.
They are felons. I expected such behavior from them. Of course I'm in a little better situation than some people in that I have sufficient evidence in my own log files to incriminate them. Not only do they need to destroy their evidence they will have to manufacture evidence to extract them from their predicament. And that doesn't even address the problem of all the witnesses.
Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 22, 2007 10:58:03 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

When, in the mid 1990s, PNNL (operated by Battelle Memorial Institute) defrauded the government, fired the whistle blower, and then got caught they had to pay triple damages. Not just the original amount of fraud:

The Department of Justice announced today that Battelle Memorial Institute has agreed to pay the United States $330,000 to settle allegations it used government-owned equipment to service commercial customers in violation of a federal contract.

...

After the DOE Office of the Inspector General began an investigation in 1992, Battelle reimbursed the government $110,000 for unauthorized use of certain spectrometry equipment from 1988 through 1992.

...

The False Claims Act provides for the recovery of treble damages suffered by the government and penalties for each false claim submitted.

I had original believed they just paid back the amount of the false claims.

I'm hoping they soon become very tired of hearing the phrase "treble damages".

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:02:23 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken
[I've been reading about the proposed law regarding an "assault weapon" ban. I note with a certain amount of amusement Congress-critter McCarthy specifically calls out the Olympic Arms PCR as an "assault weapon" in the proposed legislation. I wonder if she knows "PCR" stands for Politically Correct Rifle.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:14:35 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Ice that burns:

Very cool.

Video here.

If we mine the ice off the polar caps, then burn it to power our cars, run our factories, and to heat our homes does that count as an "alternate energy source" to the tree huggers? What does it all mean for "global warming"? Shouldn't it be considered an "all natural" energy source?

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:51:22 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

Microsoft is donating $1.00 to Seattle's Children's Hospital (worthy cause, one of our kids spent several days there and we were very happy with the care provided) every time you use their search engine at this link.

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:51:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

I probably get more pleasure out of this than I should but having "The Gun Guy" stop by to read about his mental problems is pretty amusing to me. Also worthy of a chuckle is that for his search word "gunguys" my blog posting about him comes in at #10 on Ask.com and Lycos.com and #8 at Yahoo.com.

Domain Name   verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address   71.113.146.# (Verizon Internet Services)
ISP   Verizon Internet Services
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  Illinois
City  :  Bloomington
Lat/Long  :  40.4698, -88.9474 (Map)
Distance  :  1,459 miles
Language   English (United States)
en-us
Operating System   Linux UNIX
Browser   Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20070209 Fedora/1.5.0.9-3.fc6 Firefox/1.5.0.9 pango-text
Javascript   version 1.5
Monitor  
Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  24 bits
Time of Visit   Feb 21 2007 8:37:23 am
Last Page View   Feb 21 2007 8:38:46 am
Visit Length   1 minute 23 seconds
Page Views   2
Referring URL http://www.ask.com/web?q=gunguys&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir
Search Engine ask.com
Search Words gunguys
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffman.org/PermaLink,guid,ab13b335-b9c8-47a1-8475-98c728115a46.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffman.org/2005/06/15/Mental+Problems+Of+Antigun+People.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-6:00
Visitor's Time   Feb 21 2007 10:37:23 am
Visit Number   135,485

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:40:24 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

Politics is my hobby. Smut is my vocation.

Larry Flynt
[In some ways I'm envious.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:56:49 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, February 20, 2007

It appeals to my inner electrical engineer.

Decades ago my brother and I made some pretty "healthy" sparks for tormenting various farm animals. We probably got zapped ourselves more than any of the animals but it was a lot of fun. This is way beyond "healthy". This is like "holy mother of immortal gods" quality of sparks.

Thanks to Brutal Hugger at Say Uncle.

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:43:58 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

I just receive an email from my hillbilly friend in Missouri. In addition to the exploding clays, the anvil launch, and the microwave demolition he plans to have machine guns for rent. Details will be available at a later time.

The next event will be May 19 and 20th. If you attend let me know what you thought.

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:06:20 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

It's just putting more nails in a coffin that was glued, screwed shut, and then had rocks piled on it years ago but here is more evidence gun control has failed in the U.K.:

Although the Metropolitan Police seized 909 firearms and more than 16,000 rounds of ammunition last year, no one knows with certainty how many guns are on Britain's streets. Only last Friday a wealthy businessman who controlled an international gun-smuggling operation from eastern Europe to London was jailed for 10 and a half years. Officers caught Gerald Smith, 47, handing over 18 converted Baikal pistols, 18 silencers and 748 rounds in north London last May. But such successes are relatively few.

Cressida Dick, the commander of Scotland Yard's specialist crime directorate, pointed to the ease with which guns can be rented overnight as an issue. She warned that guns are being moved routinely around Britain: 'We are seeing firearms being used in several different crimes and there are examples of different offenders using the same firearm across the UK.'

Yet they still think there is some debate to be made:

The spate of killings that began in broad daylight when 21-year-old Javorie Chrighton was stabbed to death at a bus stop a few minutes walk from where the meeting was held would, within days, lead to the current debate over whether Britain has lost its fight against gun control.

Inside the meeting hall at Peckham's Learning and Business Centre last week, speaker after speaker painted a picture of a community's misery since the murder of 10-year-old Damilola Taylor six years ago. There are new buildings, but little else seems to have changed.

Give it up guys. You lost. I know it's tough to admit you were wrong, especially when we have been saying since day one that it wouldn't work. But dealing with the embarrassment is not nearly as bad as dealing with all the innocent victims.

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:58:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

Barb had an epiphany this weekend. She announced it was because of me that our kids always question authority. They don't automatically believe anything their teachers, parents, or other authority figures say. She says it's because I lie to them all the time.

I thought this was a little harsh. Sure, I tell them lots of things that aren't true. But when I do it's so outrageous they should know it's not true. If asked, "Where is Leo (the dog)?" I'm just as likely to tell them, "I think there is still some left in the refrigerator." as I am to say Barb took him on a walk. Or, real example, when picking up Xenia after school three teenage girls got in the van rather than just one. They shut the door and as I pulled away Xenia said girl number two is coming home to work on a project for a while and asks if girl number three can get a ride to her home because it's raining, she didn't bring a coat to school today, and her dad doesn't have a car. I tell the girls, "No. I think she should walk home in the rain. If she gets pneumonia and dies it will just be Darwinism in action." As I head toward girl number three's home I look in the mirror to see the open mouth and shocked look on her face. Xenia gave me "the look" and translated for the others, "That means yes." It wasn't too much later that they developed a code word for Xenia to use to signal "Dad isn't serious."

This epiphany of Barb's came about after Barb and I took Xenia to the Seattle wharf with a first destination of the Ye Old Curiosity Shop on Saturday. On our way there Xenia asked what was there. "Shrunken heads", I told her. Xenia gave me "the look" and said, "No, really." I told her, "Mummies and shrunken heads." She wasn't satisfied with my clarification and announced, "You're smiling. I don't believe you." Barb backed me up but Xenia just wouldn't buy it.

As soon as we arrived at the shop I led Xenia to the back of the store and introduced her to Sylvester and Sylvia. After she adjusted to them I showed her the shrunken heads. "Now do you believe me?" I demanded. She finally, grudgingly, gave me her agreement that I was telling her the truth. Of course this made my day and I lorded it over her several times later during the day. She defended herself saying she it's hard to know for certain when I'm serious and when I'm just making stuff up. It was during one of these times that Barb had her epiphany. "That's why our kids question authority! It's because you lie to them all the time!"

Sunday night when we had dinner at Outback with James we told the story to James and he said he too would have "called bullshit" if I had told him we were going to see shrunken heads and mummies. He Xenia elaborated, "Dad, you say things exactly the same whether they are true or not."

Okay. So maybe it's true. I'll have take credit for raising such great kids. And all this time I thought it was because they just had great genetic material.

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:29:12 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  |  Trackback

Nothing is as debilitating and disorienting as blowing chunks of heart, spine, and brain out of your opponent. Any goal other than a pure physical stop is crap IMO. I don't rely on my opponent being a pussy.

Greg Hamilton
Chief self defense instructor at Insights Training Center
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:22 PM
From the email list "insightstraining" @ yahoogroups.com
[Regarding points of aim in a gun fight.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:24:26 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback
 Monday, February 19, 2007

Jim Zumbo got roasted via multiple flame throwers then his bones were picked clean in a matter of hours. He said some incredibly naive (he's probably not stupid) things but the gun rights community could have handled it a little better. With his writings about hunting Zumbo contributed a lot to gun rights and, in the big picture, to destroy him was not productive.

Do you ever see such a feeding frenzy occur on the other side? They say some incredibly stupid/naive things too but the don't eat their own like just what happened to Zumbo. And because of that productive people continue to contribute to their cause.

I've seen some people make some public statements that I disagreed with. I've seen people make some public statement that I did agree with but thought were counter productive unless they were made to very small groups of people you completely trusted. I've made public statements that were counterproductive.

The way I handled them (and others handled them with me) was to approach the person in private and explain your position. In every case I have done this, even when the person didn't see things my way initially, they didn't engage in that particular counterproductive action again.

That is not to say that I haven't gone public with some pretty harsh words about people that were supposedly on our side but making a mess of things. But I don't think I have done anything that would take them out of the fight--our fight.

Destroying someone that is productive and, in the big picture, is contributing toward your goal is a luxury we don't have. We can use all the help we can get.

Joe Huffman  Monday, February 19, 2007 11:56:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [6]  |  Trackback

Jeff point this out earlier today but it really can't be given too much coverage. Kennesaw sticks to its guns: Law requires firearms

Next month, Kennesaw marks the 25th anniversary of what a local historian called the ordinance "that rocked the world."

Every head of household, the 1982 law states, must own a firearm and appropriate ammunition. It was passed, at least in part, in response to the actions of Morton Grove, Ill., which had just adopted an anti-gun ordinance.

...

Police agree. "We look at it as part of our crime prevention program," Graydon said.

Police cite Kennesaw's crime statistics, which show a community largely untouched by the worst offenses like murder, rape, robbery and assault.

On a per capita basis, the city's serious crime rate has plunged since the law was passed. The actual number of the most serious crimes has barely increased, even as the city's population has exploded from about 5,000 in 1980 to more than 30,000 in 2005.

Joe Huffman  Monday, February 19, 2007 11:24:52 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

If we can't control guns we should ban it.

Judy Bassingthwaighte
Director of Gun Free South Africa
February 19, 2007
If we can’t control guns we should ban it

[English is her second language so give her a break on the grammer. But still the concept is totally wacked. If you can't "control" them then you sure aren't going to be able to successfully ban them. She gets raked over the coals pretty good in the comments to her blog posting. It probably won't do any good in educating her, but at least it can enlighten others.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Monday, February 19, 2007 11:10:14 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Sunday, February 18, 2007

Via Phil at Random Nuclear Strikes comes this story from the U.K. about another small step toward a police state:

Thousands of council staff are being trained to police the smoking ban in bars, restaurants and shops in England.

Ministers have given councils £29.5m to pay for staff, who will be able to give on-the-spot £50 fines to individuals and take court action against premises.

They will have the power to enter premises undercover, allowing them to sit among drinkers, and will even be able to photograph and film people.

...

But the council is also exploring the possibility of getting street wardens, who currently aid the local police force, to help ensure the ban is effectively enforced.

Steve Dowling, director of environment and public protection at Nottingham City Council, said: "We have about 100 wardens and they could keep an eye on whether people are smoking in pubs as they go about their other duties."

"But it is not just about pubs and restaurants. We will also be looking at the likes of car garages and shops are complying as well."

Does anyone remember what happened with all the "Revenue Agents" after the end of prohibition? Faced with unemployment congress passed a jobs creation bill to keep them employed. That piece of legislation is now known as the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34, or just NFA). Something that most people don't think about is that people believed that in order for the Federal government to have the authority to ban the recreational use of alcohol they needed to amend the constitution. And the thinking after the repeal of the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment was that without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment congress couldn't prohibit gun ownership either. But what they could do was put a huge tax on certain guns. $200, the standard transfer tax specified in NFA was about six months salary in 1934. All those "Revenue Agents" now had a job to do. They had to collect those $200 transfer taxes on guns that sold for, maybe, $10.00.

Even if these street wardens and council staff, trained to "keep an eye on people", don't have their job functions removed by legislation more enlightened about the rights of property owners there is still a serious danger lurking. Since they are already watching, taking pictures, and reporting on "anti-social" behavior they will be utilized for other things. What will it be next? Will people that complain about the smoking ban get called in to answer some questions about their loyalty to The Crown? Or perhaps ten years from now it will gay lovers who hold hands or steal a kiss in the dark corner of bar that will be charged with a "crime against nature". East Germany had approximately one out of every 50 people as informers in the late 1980's just before their collapse. The U.K. has better technology and is now recognized as having the most surveillance of western democracies. 

Adding informers to assist their technological surveillance will come in quite useful when the next tyrant comes to power. You don't think they will get a tyrant in the U.K.? Maybe not anytime soon. But one never knows for certain what can happen in just a few years time. But what you can be certain is that the more power given to the state the more people that love power will be attracted to that centralized power. People that love power (why do I have these images of a certain Senator from New York flashing in my mind now?) use it to gain more power. They then exercise it to the detriment of a free society. Currently the U.K. is further down The Road to Serfdom than we are and just took another step ahead with the training of these informers.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:16:14 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

It's not just Israel, Europe (H/T to Kim), or the United States that Muslim have problems with. Here is the latest from Thailand:

BANGKOK, Thailand — At least 23 bombs exploded Sunday in apparently coordinated attacks in parts of southern Thailand plagued by a Muslim insurgency, killing three people and wounding more than 50, the military said.

The bombings targeted electricity transmitters, hotels, karaoke bars and markets in the country's southernmost provinces, the only parts of predominantly Buddhist Thailand with Muslim majorities. Two schools were torched.

Violence in the south has been escalating in recent months despite a major policy shift by the military-imposed government, which is trying to replace an earlier, iron-fisted approach in dealing with the rebels with a "hearts and minds" campaign.

More than 2,000 people have died in the provinces bordering Malaysia since the insurgency erupted in 2004, fueled by accusations of decades of misrule by the central government. The insurgents have not announced their goals, but they are believed to be fighting for a separate state imbued with radical Islamic ideology.

Add things like the above to my listening material (audio books) in recent weeks:

And with the recent developments in congress I have become more and more convinced we, the non-Muslims, are going to be pushed into essentially unthinkable actions in the near future. By retreating from, or failing to accomplish, the least distasteful of the options available (what President Bush is trying to accomplish in Iraq) we will allow them to develop and use nuclear weapons against us. This war is different than any other war I have heard about. This is a war where there is no one leader, country, or countries to negotiate "terms of surrender" (the surrender of either side) with. You could take out the top three layers of leadership and still the war would not end.

I believe the "religion of peace" will either permanently succeed or permanently fail in the next few decades at the cost of 100's of millions, if not billions, of lives.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:58:56 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

Last night Barb and I watched the movie the The Unbearable Lightness of Being. The DVD box quotes Roger Ebert, "The most erotic serious film since Last Tango in Paris." The IMDB plot summary is:

Tomas is a doctor and a lady-killer in 1960s Czechoslovakia, an apolitical man who is struck with love for the bookish country girl Tereza; his more sophisticated sometime lover Sabina eventually accepts their relationship and the two women form an electric friendship. The three are caught up in the events of the Prague Spring (1968), until the Soviet tanks crush the non-violent rebels; their illusions are shattered and their lives change forever.

Tomas is a surgeon, living in Prague. He has a physical relationship with Sabina - but not an emotional one. They are happy with the situation. Then, Tomas meets a waitress in a station, but leaves. Eventually, she comes to see him in Prague. Will he go against his 'values' and let himself get emotionally involved?

It was about that and it did have a lot of erotic content and pretty graphic sex for a film made in the 1980s (among other things full frontal nudity of women). But what I got out of the movie was a lot more than just the sex. My first clue was when one of the characters talks of "socialism with a human face" (a real life phrase). Then when the Soviet tanks rolled in I immediately saw the movie from a completely different viewpoint.

Where were the snipers picking off the exposed tank crew members? Why weren't there Molotov cocktails being thrown from the windows? Why didn't the communist officials fear a suppressed .22 bullet to the head every time they stepped out of their homes? But I knew the answer. The answer was in socialism and the culture it creates. There isn't the sense of individual responsibility. People aren't really expected to provide for themselves and they certainly aren't expected or even encouraged to protect themselves or their country. That's the job of the government. In real life the first secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Alexander Dubček, told the people not to resist. This was despite the fact that he had initiated the welcomed reforms to the Soviet view of "unshakable fidelity to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and declared an implacable struggle against 'bourgeois' ideology and all 'antisocialist' forces."

Late in the movie Tomas and Tereza move from the city to a farm. I grew up on a farm and own some land that my brothers still farm. Sometimes they let me help or I borrow some equipment to make some improvements for Boomershoot. The contrast between being on the farm driving a tractor, a truck, or a combine one day and then being 300 miles away in an office building writing software in the city the next is incredibly jarring to me. The contrast is so incredible that I don't think I can really explain it even if people were to express an interest--which they don't.

Boomershoot is that way too. My crew and I spend days making explosives and over a hundred people with rifles show up from all over the world to our little patch of land and we make the earth shake with hundreds of explosions and fireballs soar up above us heating our chilled skin in the cold morning air. From 700 yards away targets no bigger than a human head disappear in a cloud of water vapor, dirt, and a chest thumping boom. The day after Boomershoot I'm back in an office in the city writing software. It's so odd to me when I first sit down in front of my computer again and look across the hall at the other people in front of their computers. Do they know what I was doing yesterday? In a sense, yes, they do know. But in many ways I can't imagine they do. I don't think people realize what a difference in mindset living on a farm makes. I wish they had captured that in the movie. But probably nearly all the people involved in the movie didn't really realize it and how could they capture something they didn't know existed? And even knowing it exists, I'm not sure I can capture it and put it on display is such a way that non-farm people can really understand.

The "gun culture" is very closely related to life on the farm. Think about it. In both cases who is considered responsible? The individual. You are responsible for your safety and you are responsible not only for yourself and your family. But it goes much further with the farm culture. 

It is my memories of farm life that drive a lot of my hostility to socialism. We had a few cattle on the farm when I was growing up. I see the socialists as treating people as cattle (see also this post). I'm certain the cattle viewed us as benign. No different than socialists view government. The cattle-owner/government provides food, shelter, medical care, and protection from predators. What they don't readily see is being herded, fenced, branded, de-horned, and castrated. The images of Nazis (National Socialism, remember?) putting Jews in cattle cars to be taken away and slaughtered validates the metaphor.

I remember at some meals mom announcing all the food on the table at dinner except for the spices and sugar came from the farm. It included the milk, the homemade butter, cottage cheese, the jam or jelly, the meat, the vegetables, and the fruit. We cut wood from the small forest behind the house for heat in the winter time. Our water came from our own well. We had our own septic system. We burned and/or buried our own trash. We built and maintained our own buildings, machines, private roads, and even our own private telephone system among our buildings.

Just after Christmas 1968, the same year the Russian tanks rolled into Prague, it snowed about six feet on the farm. In places there were snow drifts twice that deep across our driveway. As soon as it stopped snowing and blowing the temperature dropped to -30 F, the electricity went out, our pipes froze, and the phone went out. But our family was fine. We kept the wood stove red hot at times, we melted snow for water and we cooked over what we called "the trash burner" in the kitchen--in essence a small wood cook stove. It was week before the electricity came back on but during that week we never once concerned ourselves about when or if "the government" would help us. We took care of our cattle and we eventually plowed the snow from the county road so we could check on the neighbors--who, of course, were doing the same. It was probably 10 days before we saw the first, and last, government assistence. That assistence was in the form of the county road crew plowing the snow (they had better equipment for it and did a much better job than we and our neighbors had done).

In the movie when the tanks came the people had mass demonstrations, yelled, and shook their fists at the invaders. If they were brave they took pictures of the Soviet tanks and they talked about the failure of their government. I saw perhaps two tanks that burned but they didn't really fight back. This is consistent with the real life reaction. Early in the movie the people talk about the Soviets in relation to some hostile political writings and conclude, "What can they do?" What they didn't realize is the Soviets concluded essentially the same thing when planning to send in the tanks, "What can the people of Czechoslovakia do?" And the answer was, essentially, nothing. They had accepted socialism. They did not have a gun or farm culture as I know it and if their government abandoned them to a predator there wasn't much more they could do than what cattle do when herded into a corral for branding and castration. The cattle make a lot of noise, snort, and give you hostile looks. I saw those crowds surrounding the tanks in Prague as just like those cattle.

I see now the disappearance of the farm culture is a major contributing factor to the loss of our freedom. As much as I love life on the farm I will not even suggest pushing our country in the direction of a farming society. It's not feasible or even desirable for so many reasons. But is it only our gun culture that can defend our culture of freedom and protect us from, among other things, what Tereza calls The Unbearable Lightness of Being? I don't know. But I do know this is a part of why I do Boomershoot.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:36:47 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback

Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld Alabama's 1998 sex law. The court said states have a "legitimate rational basis" for making rules to preserve public morality.

That law bans nude dancing, limits where strip clubs and X-rated theaters can go, and bans the sale of any device whose main purpose is to stimulate human genitals.

Hmmm. Does that make Viagra a sex toy?

Lee Roop
February 18, 2007
I call a cease-fire in the war on sex toys
Huntsville Times
[I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Barb and Xenia yesterday. Xenia told us of one of the Moscow Idaho high school teachers commented to her about her older brother James and discussions in government class. Paraphrasing, "Sometimes he was ultra conservative. Sometimes he would take a completely liberal position. You just never knew." As I told Barb and Xenia, "Some people are very confused by freedom." And I could have added that most people don't want freedom. I wonder how well the folks in Alabama would get along with Xenia when she posts about celebrating Vagina Day. It's probably a good thing I didn't take her to Space Camp in Huntsville during the middle of February.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:23:34 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Saturday, February 17, 2007

We are adamantly opposed to that because there would be a break in the chain of evidence so it could not be used in court. If I were a gangbanger, I would go to a shooting range and pick up a bunch of casings and leave them at the scenes of crimes.

Sam Paredes
Executive director of Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group.
February 16, 2007
Bills target criminals' use of guns
[I find it interesting that of the five articles I found (Officials support tougher gun law, California gun control bills win endorsementBills target criminals' use of guns, Officials Endorse Gun Control Bills To Help Deter Gang Violence, Top cops, mayor want new gun laws) on this topic only one included a quote anywhere this negative about the proposals. Some didn't include anything from the pro-freedom side at all. And of course none of the article titles are the least bit negative.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:46:37 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback