Democrats, NRA make deal on new gun rules:

WASHINGTON — Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System, and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records.

The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a ... system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., who led the talks.

First: If someone is so dangerous they can't be trusted with a gun then I don't think they can be trusted with a can of gasoline and a book of matches either. Either they can be trusted in public or they should be locked up.

Second: Making the least agreeable portions of the infringement on our rights more palatable just means it will be more difficult to justify getting rid of it entirely later on.

Third: The longer this infringement stays in place the more accepting of it people are. The ban on new machine gun sales is so well accepted that most people believe they are banned entirely. Today it would be really tough to repeal the ban on machine guns and day by day it's getting more difficult for people to even consider repealing the Brady Act.

Fourth: The Brady/FBI database and reporting system is so close to a database of all gun owners and their guns that it is a hazard to the health of our freedom. Which has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peal anyway.

All that said, borrowing from a great book I just listened to recently, Survival of the Sickest, "Why would you take a pill that will kill you 40 years from now?" The answer is, "Because it will keep me from dying tomorrow." And so it is with this agreement.

They keep the truth from being taught in public schools, and they even write books laden with falsehoods in a dishonest attempt to rewrite history.

Seven years ago, Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles published a book purportedly proving there were few guns and gun owners in early America. The book garnered Columbia University's coveted Bancroft Prize. Two years later, primarily due to the efforts of a brilliant young research historian, Clayton Cramer, who had studied that period in history extensively, the book was revealed to be a total fraud, full of lies and fabrications. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory University and, for the first time in history, Columbia University rescinded the Bancroft Prize.

Every American who values his or her constitutional rights should know something about these frauds that gun control advocates perpetrate so we can be watchful and teach the truth to our young ones.

Sandy Froman

June 7, 2007
The history of gun control, part 1
Sandy Froman is immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America and a longtime member of the NRA board of directors.
A practicing attorney in Tucson, Ariz., Froman is an international speaker on the right to keep and bear arms and an advocate for federal judges who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning.

The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.

Aristotle
[We just returned with our daughter Xenia from her High School graduation ceremony.--Joe]

Damned good thing none of the victims had firearms, 'cause, you know, violence is never the answer and it only begets more violence:

The man then barged into a neighbor's house, where he stabbed and hacked to death a 37-year-old pregnant woman and her three daughters and two sons, aged 1 to 9.

All I want to know is; who sold him the machete, how much money did he make on the sale, and is he proud of it?  How is it that a madman can so easily get hold of such a deadly instrument?  Why are iron and carbon made so widely available when we know things like this are going to happen as a result?  What are the Filipino legislators going to do about this?  What do the Filipino cutlery manufacturers have to say for themselves and their irresponsible production of such deadly products?

There is one word missing in all the descriptions of the victims, which bears notice:  "Unarmed".  Add the correction and it makes more sense: 

"The man then barged into a neighbor's gun free house, where he stabbed and hacked to death the unarmed 37-year-old..."

Here's a news headline you'll never see:  "Machete-wielding madman kills eight concealed pistol carriers."

But some of our Great and Compassionate Leaders would prefer several dead innocent women and children to one dead criminal, shot by his intended victim.

Some "progressive" activist is complaining that the CDC has becoming politicized:

In 1995 there was a vibrant public health effort in the area of gun injuries. Then the newly elected Republican Congress applied the pressure of the gun lobby. Suddenly the half dozen or so states funded by CDC to do fire arm injury surveillance were defunded. Zeroed out. Shortly thereafter all CDC funded prevention and injury programs had to agree that there would be no activities, direct or indirect, related to gun control. Health department people we have spoken to reported that a profound chill settled over injury programs regarding gun injuries, like homicides from guns. Intense pressure was applied to the head of the CDC injury control program and he and some of his experts on the public health aspects of firearm injury were threatened with investigations over possible entanglement with gun control advocates. Now extreme care is taken in how data is reported or recommendations made in the area of gun injuries.

Never mind that those "studies" were some of the most egregious examples of sloppy science I have ever seen. The "studies" were implemented to generate political justification for infringing our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Those studies were just as repugnant as a "public health effort" in the area of gays/blacks/Jews with entanglements with the KKK. Taxpayer (my) money was being spent to justify taking my guns away from me. And this bigot gets bent out of shape because they have to be more careful in their science?

The CDC was engaged in highly political activities, they are told to stop, and this person whines, "...politics has become an increasingly important part of CDC world."

Where, in the Constitution, is the Federal Government granted the power to create the CDC to begin with? The CDC in it's entirety, is a political creation of the socialist scum of this country. For this "progressive" to be whining about the defunding of a small portion of the CDC engaged in an illegal conspiracy (see 18 USC 241 and 242) is beyond ironic. It's effrontery.

We must remember the First Amendment which protects any shrill jackass no matter how self-seeking.

F. G. Withington
[Applications of this admonition abound.--Joe]

An off-duty policeman observes a young woman with a gun shooting at people out the passenger window as her accomplice drives along M62. The officer reports it and soon the pair is pulled over with the help of other officers with four jeeps, two vans full of dogs, and helicopters. Being hopelessly outnumbered and out gunned the pair surrender without a fight. They spent several hours in a jail cell before the police let them go because they determined the pair only had the one gun which was a toy. Read the rest of the story here. A picture of the young women, and their guns, who had just been to a "Cowboys and Indians" party is below:

I wonder what the response would have been had they been in possession of a bow and arrow and dressed as North American Indians.

Had it been in Idaho had they been stopped they would have been asked to put the toy away. It's spring time and we don't want to scare away the dimwitted California tourists. In the fall you can bring out the real guns for hunting season and scare them all you want just by putting it in the rifle rack on the back window of your pickup.

I'm sure the UK residents feel safer now. It's good to know all that tax money is being put to good use.

Via Say Uncle who viewed it at The Bitch Girls.

Question: Handgun ownership; A right or a privilege? Answer: Privilege.

But he considers a college education, access to the internet, and health care as rights. How did he manage to get through law school?

I just got a call from the Bristol Herald Courier in Virginia. They wanted to verify that I had sent a letter to the editor. Apparently they are going to publish it. Watch for it here in the next day or two.

I haven't received word back from the bigoted opinion writer I briefly corresponded with. I wanted to post our email correspondence but bigots aren't too keen on being exposed like that so I doubt I will ever hear from him again.

Robert F. Williams, Jr., . . . . had become head of the NAACP chapter in Monroe, North Carolina, in 1957. When threatened by the local Ku Klux Klan he organized a rifle club of sixty members and got it chartered by the National Rifle Association. This was partly to get the free ammunition provided NRA members by a grateful government, partly also, no doubt, a tribute to both groups' joint faith in self-defense. When the Klan organized a motorcade against one NAACP member's house, the club drove them off with gunfire. . . He had deeply embarrassed the NAACP. It was bad enough that he rejected the nonviolent ethic, worse still that he did so with such success. His was the only armed NAACP chapter and, for its size, the most effective.

William L. O'Neill
Coming Apart: An Informal History of America in the 1960's
160-61 (1971)

I haven't seen the article yet but it's supposedly out:

Idaho Magazine--Outdoor Sports: It’s a Blast, by Barbara A. Scott.

In the spirit of full disclosure--the potential exists for some bias in the article. I've been sleeping with the author for over 30 years now. It was a long term investment and I'm hoping it paid off.

If you get killed in a fight either: your training sucked, you suck, or you got fucked. If you go to jail, either: your training sucked, you suck, or you got fucked.

IMO most of the time it's because you suck.

Greg Hamilton
19:57 PM, March 22, 2007
From the Yahoo group InSights Training Center List

Tamara K. posted:

Heisenberg used to house sit for Schroedinger, and would get annoyed when his buddy would call home from out of town and ask "Where is my cat? And how fast is it going?"

I thought this was quite funny. My son James responded with "*groan*" but my friend Sean wanted to know what the punch line was.

You must not assume Sean didn't "get it". That thought crossed my mind for only a few milliseconds before I dismissed it. So I told him that was it and explained that I thought it was funny just the way it is even if it is a bit obsure. Two minutes later he delivered his punch line for the story:

So Heisenberg put the cat the box with a gadget that released poison gas based on radioactive decay. Schroedinger called again, asking, "Where is my cat? And how fast is it going?"

Heisenberg replied, "Let me check. Oh! It's dead. You killed it." And hung up.

Yesterday I quoted Mr. Fox. Since Kevin is busy I also sent Mr. Fox an email. He responded and invited me to send a letter to the editor where he works and where his opinion piece appeared.

I believe we need to go on the offensive in our battle for public opinion. Constant defense can only slow, or at best stop, the advancement of the gun control. I advocate a particular state of mind when participating in gun control debates and I'm seeing a number of other people pick up on that theme. I continue in that vein here:

I’m writing in regard to the editorial by Mike Fox on gun control that appeared on your pages today.

Mr. Fox should look at the data rather than relying on his emotions when advocating public policy. Despite decades of law and crime data and research examining that data from countries all over the world no one has been able to answer just one question of mine, "Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"

One should look at the benefits of private firearm ownership and use as well as the hazards. Firearms are used far more often in the defense of innocent life than they are used to kill or injure innocent life. Mr. Fox does not appear to have taken that into account.

Crime rates do not decrease when the victims of crimes are prohibited access to the tools of their own defense. That should be "common-sense". Apparently Mr. Fox wasn't able to see things from that viewpoint.

I believe had he been advocating banning people of color from the restaurants he frequents, from using the same drinking fountains, or interracial marriage then his advocacy of public policy without exceedingly solid factual data he would not have been allowed to present his opinion on your pages. The same criteria should be used before you allow someone to advocate restricting the rights of millions of gun owners in this country. To do otherwise is for you to participate in their bigotry.

See also my blog posting: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/Just+One+Question.aspx

I have asked for, but not yet received, his permission to post the email exchange I had with Mr. Fox. If I receive that permission I'll post it as well.

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.

Friedrich Nietzsche
[This may explain why I despise most politicians and parties so much.--Joe]

Some conservatives mulled that if concealed weapons had been permitted on Tech’s campus, the gunman might’ve been stopped. Yet, that doesn’t mean anyone in Norris Hall would’ve had a concealed weapon or that they would’ve been able to use it to stop the gunman; after all, more than 50 people were killed or wounded in that building.

Mike Fox
After Tech, common-sense gun control laws cannot be ignored
June 4, 2007
[As near as I can tell, "common-sense gun control" is a code phrase that means, "we must ignore facts and rational thought and do what make me feel good". But beyond that it seems this guy isn't capable of rational thought. Read that last sentence and see if it makes any sense to you. Mr. Fox, I have Just One Question for you.--Joe]

The next Boomershoot will be April 27, 2008. This is the earliest I have ever opened it up for entry. I opened it up a few days ago for people that had participated in Boomershoot 2007. Despite having increased the number of positions available the event is already nearly 60% full.

If you want to participate I suggest you sign up within the next week or maybe two at the latest.

The Boomershoot 2008 on-line entry form is here.

Update: The event is now (June 2^nd 23:45) 61% full. Also, I just got word that "The Anvil Guy" will be back. He also had a request for comments on the anvil launches:

My name is Steve and I have had the enjoyment of firing my anvils at Boomershoot for 4 years.This year my brother Michael did the firing as I couldn't make it...I enjoy doing it and am always trying for more altitude. I would appreciate any and all comments, serious or smart ass from those who have witnessed the firing...

If you have a comment either send it directly to him, if you have his email address, or send it to joeh@boomershoot.org and I'll forward it on.

Henderson's second insight was that despite the right belonging to "the people" in the amendment, it actually belonged only to the militia as an organized military force. To believe this, you have to believe that the United States is the only nation on Earth that felt a need to guarantee its government, in writing, the right to have an army -- which is possible, I suppose, if Jefferson foresaw the attitude of the modern Democrat party towards the military.

Mac Johnson
March 15, 2007
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found