Via Bruce we find, once again, that if you look and act like you belong you can belong:

The skit had been approved by ABC lawyers, but it had been assumed they would be stopped at the first checkpoint, hundreds of metres from the President's hotel.

Instead, they were waved through the first checkpoint, then a second that had sniffer dogs. They eventually stopped in sight of the hotel.

The ABC later released a statement saying the team had no intention of entering a restricted zone and had been wearing mock "insecurity passes" that stated the convoy was a joke.

"It was a piece testing APEC security and the motorcade looked pretty authentic," the Chaser source said.

"They approached the green zone, and they just waved them through – much to their amazement, because the sketch was meant to stop there with them being rejected.

"They were then waved through into the red zone, but rather than go all the way through they made the call to turn around."

"Apparently that was the first time the police realised it was not authentic and they swooped in and arrested everybody."

This is the funnest part to me:

"The police only detained the Chaser motorcade when it was turning around and after Chas Licciardello emerged from a car dressed as Osama bin Laden."

Good security is extremely difficult. It only takes one weak link to break the chain. But had APEC security been part of a Hollywood movie it would have been in the series The Keystone Cops. Again, from real life:

LAST week, a butter knife was a handy dining implement. This week, it seems, APEC security staff have declared knives and forks as potential terrorist weapons.

On the same day police won a court battle to stop protesters marching down George Street through the APEC security zone, it emerged yesterday that at least one cafe near George Bush's hotel has been ordered by police not to set outdoor tables with silverware, lest it fall into the wrong hands.

And office workers in Bridge Street's AMP tower have been told to stay away from the windows, draw the blinds and not to look at helicopters.

[...]

"On Monday an APEC security officer asked us to limit our outdoor furniture. He said if you are setting a table, don't set it with knives and forks because they can be used as a potential weapon by terrorists."

[...]

On Tuesday night, about an hour before Mr Bush arrived at his hotel, a police officer approached a Herald reporter and demanded to see what he had written in his notebook.

He told the reporter other police in the area might make similar demands. Two minutes later another officer made the same request.

Security Theater at it's finest.

I fear we are partying like it is 1984.

Ray Ozzie
Microsoft Chief Software Architect
September 6, 2007
Company Meeting 2007--Changing the world
[Ozzie talked about growing up in the 60's and being in fear of "the man" and how the personal computer was believed to help restore power to the individual. He asked us to make sure private things could be kept private even when we are putting more and more information into "the cloud". It was good stuff. I had planned to write up a big post on the meeting last night but got wrapped up in expressing my "sympathy" to Robyn.--Joe]

Both Kim and Xenia appear to have inherited something besides their good looks from their mother. For several years Barb has had headaches that didn't quite qualify as migraines but were stubborn and painful. Kim had some mild migraines, if there is such a thing, in High School. Last night Xenia had one. A scary event because it involved her loosing her vision in one eye for a while. She posted about it on her Live Journal. I wouldn't have normally linked to that post but the video she made brought a smile to my face.

There has been quite a bit of talk about Ms. Ringler, the anti-rights activist, recently:

• An Open Letter to Robyn Ringler.
• Quote of the day
• Why Reasoned Discourse^tm matters
• they are spawning
• Put your fingers in your ears
• Go read!
• Robyn Ringler Stays True To Form
• Robyn Ringler Wrapup Redux.
• The Brady Campaign...the Criminal's Best Friend
• Because it deserves an icon of its own
• More Reasoned Discourse^tm
• Robyn Ringler Takes Her Marbles and Goes Home
• Couldn’t Handle the Reasoned Discourse^TM

Mostly because of the Enough is Enough post by Ringler. If it is really true as she reports, "I’ve been told I should be dead and how my death should take place." then I have some sympathy for her on that one point. If not directly, then almost for certain indirectly, I contributed to her feelings being hurt after being called a bigot.

I debated with myself how to write this post which is part of why I am so behind the curve on the topic. I considered doing an Alex St. John type "apology" (read the book) which resulted in his immediate termination of employment at Microsoft (he knew it would and IIRC cleaned out his desk before pushing the "Send" button on the apology email). I finally decided that there was a better approach.

First a taste of the Alex St. John approach--Ms. Ringler, I'm sorry. I forgot to mention you are a felon as well as a bigot.

In one sense I really don't like hurting other people's feelings--especially children and women. I feel empathy for them and I'm certain others that we might like to have on our side will feel empathy toward them as well. But how much sympathy should one have for those that don't want "colored people" eating in the same restaurant as "white folk" or drinking from the same drinking fountain, or are not allowed access to the public swimming pool because "they would have to drain and clean the pool after the blacks had used it"?

How much sympathy do you feel for a KKK or Aryan Nation type person that gets ostracized in their community for their bigotry and leaves town? Or the bully at school that finally gets caught in the act and is disciplined? Ms. Ringler, of course, does not think of herself as a bigot. I'm certain she thinks of herself as just looking out for what is best for everyone. But the KKK think the same things about themselves. Ringler hasn't said she wants us dead or living our lives as slaves. And I'm certain she hasn't put a pillow case over her head and burned crosses in the yards of anyone's home. She is much more refined than that. She just wants the government to put us in jail for exercising a right constitutionally guaranteed to not be infringed (refer to numerous state constitutions if she whines that the Federal Constitution doesn't really say that--many state constitutions are not in the least bit ambiguous). She wouldn't want to get her own hands dirty dealing with scum like us.

This last point may be why she is turning off the comments. As one person commented maybe she doesn't want to be associated with people like me in any way.

What we have here, in the case of Ringler, is her experiencing what I call the proper state of mind for defending the RKBA. We are just "gun niggers" in her mind and she has just realized we are going to stand up to her and Ringler is feeling the same pain as the old man in the book Negros with Guns who said (page 10):

God damn, God damn, what is this God damn country coming to that the niggers have got guns, the niggers are armed and the police can't even arrest them!

To Ms. Ringler I say, again, I'm sorry if you received death threats or people said you should be dead. That was entirely inappropriate. The law provides for the death penalty for your type of crime only if it results in the death, kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. I don't believe you made it that far in your conspiracy against the rights of others and hence I believe the worst punishment that should be dealt to you is a fine and perhaps a few years in prison. But you don't have any of my sympathy for having your feelings hurt. As Xavier said, "..........Oh good grief. Grow up."

Looking up Alan's web page for my previous post I took a look at his blog for the first time in quite a while. Not because it rarely deserves my attention but because his stuff is frequently long and I postpone reading it "until I have more time" and then that just never happens. But this post thrills me. A sample:

Gun Owners Without Borders is a proposal for a new international human rights organization.

Gun Owners Without Borders recognizes a bond between individual human beings whose right to live is challenged by their governments or other forces.

Gun Owners Without Borders supports an inalienable right of people to resist any attempts to exterminate them, regardless of the source or justification for the attempted extermination.

Current United Nations policies do not prevent genocide and democide, because a nation's sovereignty logically comes first. Internal policies are a nation's own business. This holds true whether the rulers are elected, appointed, inherited or in charge through force of arms.

Gun Owners Without Borders recognizes that this is perfectly understandable and a normal state of affairs under the nation-state system.

Communist China, for example, could shoot its citizens who are drug addicts, or for political reasons, or to harvest organs or to turn babies over for adoption (and they do). The U.N. and others might object, or not, but it's not within their realm to stop such abuse. Nor could they, as a practical matter, if they were of a mind to.

Gun Owners Without Borders therefore understands it falls only to individual persons to defend their own right to their own lives if they can, even if such defense would be viewed as illegal or criminal acts by the ruling parties. Under the doctrine of state sovereignty, anyone who shoots back at an agent of the government is by definition typically an "outlaw."

If you ever think we have the gun-rights situation in the U.S. under control and you are looking for a more challenging political environment I'm sure there will be enough work available on this planet for a generation or ten of gun-rights activists.

Uncle reports they can't help it. It's just a condition. Jed read the report and took away that people "become deaf to arguments of reason".

I think it's a fascinating insight into the human mind. And my take is different from both Uncle and Jed. My take is that we need to carefully word things to avoid reinforcing the very lies the anti-gun bigots are trying to convince people of. This is very closely related to something Alan Korwin shared via email over seven years ago. Here is just a sample of Alan's brilliant, ahead of his time, insight:

Certain words hurt you when you're talking about your rights.  People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you're probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.

To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you need effective word choices.

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
PRO GUN
It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
PRO RIGHTS

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
GUN CONTROL

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
CRIME CONTROL

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN MOVEMENT

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
SIDEARM

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
CONCEALED CARRY

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPON

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
RACIST GUN LAWS

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
JUNK GUNS

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SECOND AMENDMENT

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
BILL OF RIGHTS

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE

---

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI RIGHTS

Nephew Jason Scott lost his arm to an IED in Iraq nearly two years ago. He's back in the news as the first recipient of a scholarship here:

Amputees from the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, patients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., for the past year have been watching the progress of a new structure as it emerged from what used to be the hospital’s deeply sloped backyard. They are excited, anticipating the opening of the 31,000-sq-ft Military Advanced Training Center, which will help them resume productive lives.

Among my daily browsing fare are articles on sex research. I love the tension between the passionate subject and the dispassionate terminology and phraseology. Example:

In addition, male preference for salivary exchange could function to introduce substances such as hormones or proteins into women's mouths that may influence their mating psychology, and even make them more sexually receptive.

I hope it wasn't taxpayer money dispensed as research grants to "discover" that a French kiss might make a woman "hot"--even if does provide me with considerable reading enjoyment.

The whole conference has spent a lot of time talking about ways to control uses of information and to protect peoples' privacy after the information was collected.  But that only works if you assume a good government.  If we get one seriously bad government, they'll have all the information they need to make an efficient police state and make it the last government.  It's more than convenient for them - in fact, it's a temptation for people who want to do that, to try to get into power and do it.  Because we are giving them the means.

John Gilmore
A transcript of remarks given at the First Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, March 28,1991
[See also my Jews In The Attic Test.--Joe]

I finally stopped procrastinating and made our travel and hotel reservations for the Rendezvous. I'll get our registration in to Mr. Completely later today.

We are flying in so that means even if the range would allow "Joe's special recipe" for reactive targets I'd be block by the TSA from bringing my chemistry set.

Barb and I will arrive in Reno on Thursday morning and leave Sunday evening. I'm hoping to see the same participants as last year as well a bunch of new ones. Will you be there?

For years Ry and I tested new reactive target recipes for Boomershoot. When our hypothesis for making an explosive which could be easily detonated with long distance rifle fire were proven false Ry would lament that we didn't have enough columns on our spreadsheet. There was some variable, which we didn't know existed, that was critical to our understanding of explosive detonation. Literally it was true that I had (have) a spreadsheet with lots of different variables that we thought might be critical to make our explosives better. Some of those included:

• Flammability limits (acceptable ratios of fuel to oxygen where ignition can occur)
• Heat of vaporization
• Specific heats (including those for phase changes)
• Flash point
• Auto ignition temperature
• Heat of combustion per unit mass
• Heat of combustion per unit of oxygen
• Heat of combustion relative to specific heat of the materials
• Temperature of decomposition of the oxidizer

Our experiments yielded no obvious corelation between any of our hypothesises and the real world--until the last couple of days.

The title for the column on the spreadsheet we apparently were looking for is Ω. In explosive engineering terms (rather than electrical engineering terms which is what first comes to mind with that symbol) this is the weight ratio, expressed as a precentage, of the oxygen remaining or required (expressed as a negative number) for complete combustion of all the fuel in the explosives. For example, TNT, C₇H₅N₃O₆ has end products of CO, H₂O, and N₂. That carbon monoxide (CO) could have been converted into carbon dioxide (CO₂) and more heat if there had been enough oxygen around. It turns out that Ω for TNT is -74%. For RDX (the active ingredient in C-4), C₃H₆N₆O₆, Ω is -21.6%. From my earliest attempts at reactive target explosives I started out with stoichiometric ratios. This would give me the most bang for a given mass of components. That is, no excess fuel and no excess oxygen left over after the reaction was complete. It was ultimately discovered via both experimental results and hints found on the Internet that maximum sensitivity was not achieved with stoichiometric ratios. It was more sensitivity when the explosive was oxygen rich. From some of my "new" books on explosives I found that "Ω" is a measure of that "richness" or "poverty". I modified my spreadsheet to calculate Ω for various recipes.

Here is a partial (I have three times this number of recorded experiments) table of various Boomerite recipes and my best approximation of Ω:

There were other variables that changed as well such as packaging materials, fuel used, ratios of oxidizers, catalysts, size of the particles, and packing density which also affected the sensitivity. But the correlation with Ω is very strong. Each year the sensitivity increased and Ω, a measure of the excess oxygen, was a significant component of that increase in sensitivity. It also can be too high--obviously if there is no fuel at all and only oxiderizer it's going to be a minor explosion at best. But this gives me a reason to revisit old fuels and try something a little bit different this time.

Side note: The most recent recipe on the web is not what we actually use. What I publish is always at least one "generation" behind our "latest and greatest". Ω for the web recipe is 20.1%.

But the deeper reason behind the hysteria over the decision is that for decades the left has been able to make the Constitution into whatever it wanted. The actual words did not matter. When words -- even just 27 words -- mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a "living" Constitution disappears and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right -- a daunting task. When a court can decide that the 2^nd Amendment must be respected, the left is on a slippery slope indeed. Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10^th. Regardless, if the trend is allowed to continue, it will be a disaster for the dictatorial left. Thus, I predict the decision will be appealed.

Mac Johnson
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other 'Rights' May Soon be Found
March 15, 2007
[And, as was recently reported and commented on in various places, Johnson was correct in his prediction--it was appealed.--Joe]

Mother/wife and daughters via Xenia:

The Brady Bunch has a link to this video about "microstamping" on their website. They ignore obvious and important points of their critics such as:

• Shell casings found at a gun range can be deliberately scattered at a crime scene
• Revolvers don't leave shell casings at the crime scene unless the shooter reloads
• Replacement firing pins and breech faces would have to be registered and tracked as well as the firearm itself
• Gun parts are easily modified or manufactured
  • Firing pins can be manufactured from scrap metal with simple hand tools--they may not last more than a few dozen shots but they should be more than adequate for most crimes
  • Breech faces markings can be ground off and/or filled in with metal filled epoxy
• There are many millions of guns already in circulation
• Stolen guns aren't going to be associated/registered with the criminal who used it in a crime
• A black market will likely develop in unmarked gun components or components that have phony numbers (such as fake SSN cards that have valid numbers but belong to someone else)

One must assume they believe in some sort of supernatural capabilities for this technology that defies the laws of physics and human nature as we know it. But regardless of all the reasons why this scheme could never work the big thing that I noticed while watching this video was the background music--the theme from The X-Files.

If your organization was concerned with reducing violence you would assume you claim victory when violence was reduced after expending your energy to accomplish some task. But that's not the way it works with the Violence Policy Center. They claim victory when the number of gun dealers is reduced:

The sharp drop in gun dealers is one of the most important—and little noticed—victories in the effort to reduce firearms violence in America. Fewer gun dealers reduces the potential number of sources for high-volume illegal gun trafficking.

I'm pleased to note they report Idaho still has more gun dealers than gas stations however:

America Once Had More Gun Dealers Than Gas Stations, Now Only Five States Do: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming.

As a reminder, it was their buddy former President Bill Clinton and fellow criminals in the legislative bodies obtained an dramatic increase in the price of a Type 1 Federal Firearms License (FFL). This drove hundreds of thousands of dealers out of business and gave the VPC their "victory".

If the VPC is going to claim victory when the number of gun dealers is reduced instead of when the rate of violence crime is reduced they really should be called the "Victimization Proliferation Conspiracy".

On Hillary and Guns:

If a majority of the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the District's handgun ban, the NRA and the entire gun community will explode.

Oh, not literally--at least not necessarily.

Hillary needs to cross her fingers and hope that Breyer and Ginsburg can somehow read the 2nd amendment to the constitution as it is actually written and not how the liberals would like it to be written.

Interesting conundrum. According to this analysis if the court comes down on our side regarding the meaning of the 2^nd amendment Hillary could be our next president. If we don't end up with Hillary it will because the court ruled against us.

Via Bruce.

I'm surprised this works as well as it does. I would have thought you would need a telescope (or cheap rifle scope) to focus the light on the photocell. I'm certain you would get better range if you did so. Also using an infrared laser would make it less likely your eavesdropping will be detected.

Laser Espionage Microphone (how-to)

Sadly enough, overthrowing the government is exactly what this country needs.

[...]

As George Orwell put it in 1984 - "If there was hope, it must lie in the proles..."

dragonwolf
September 1, 2007
The New Revolution
[This is at least part of why we are winning the war against gun control. The left hates Bush to such an extreme they are thinking of an armed rebellion. They then realized bans on guns are an impediment.--Joe]

When people believe a tale that conflicts with self-checkable evidence it tells me that people undervalue the role of evidence in forming an internal belief system. Why this is so is not clear but it enables many people to hold fast to ideas and notions based purely on supposition.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries
[This is a good book. It's especially entertaining when he lets lose with a rant. But, back on point, I believe the reason is very clear. People believe what they want to believe. It's rare that people will believe the evidence when it is contrary to a position they have invested in. That investment can be of any type including political and emotional, as well as financial. Belief in god(s), gun control, communism, and (redundancy alert) the Democrat party are prime examples. Chris Phillips encapsulated the appropriate conclusion and cure with much wider application than he originally suggested. Although he never discussed it with me I believe that conclusion was based on the basic truth of investing in your beliefs tends to close your thinking. See also When Prophecy Fails and Cognitive dissonance.--Joe]

Now I don't suppose you'd be ready and willing to honor all the creative people, the inventors, those who put their dreams into action, and the venture capitalists who have put their capital at risk so you could have a chance at a job in the first place, by going to work on a weekend at no charge to your employer.  What; turnabout isn't fair play?  Its all one way with you?

Guns and puberty are a dangerous mix. Targeting juniors increases the likelihood of gun addiction.

John Crook
Gun Control Australia's president (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia)

Shooters turn recruiters to keep young guns firing
[Does he also have a problem with juniors getting "addicted" to books, stamp collecting, chess, tennis, golf, baseball, football, or basketball? Or is maybe he just has a problem with freedom. One could make a wise ass remark about the guy's last name, but I won't.--Joe]

Being a "double stack guy" I don't have a use for them. But they are pretty and, I'm certain, of very high quality.

ETM_Press_Release_83007.doc (313 KB)

It's amazing what people will say about you and how messed up they get the facts. And it's amazing what you can discover if you just look through your log files.

A case in point:

A commenter to one of my posts said something that piqued my interest so I went looking for their IP address in my log files. What I found shocked me. The log files lead me to the comments here. The article itself is very factually based as near I could tell. It was the comments that went off the deep end and got libelous:

By Ralph Wiggan, 8-11-07

Any word on if they are going to close down the training facilities Jason Hamilton received instruction at or the sporting store he bought his firearms at. I hope they don't close down that long ranger sniper explosive shooting course that takes place near Orofino. Jason Hamilton is said to have attended that regularly with his friends.

I don't keep a list of previous attendees but I think I would recognize a name of someone that attended more than once or twice. I don't recall Jason Hamilton ever attending Boomershoot. I also just looked and don't see any email addresses with an obvious connection to his name on the Boomershoot announcement list.

By Steve, 8-11-07

Ralph I think that shooting event you are referring to is called boomershoot. Its run by a guy I think is fairly well know around sandpoint, Idaho and might also have connections to Aryan nations. I heard he runs in Anti circles to throw the ATF off. He has a CD on how to make explosives, encrypt and hide messages and hit targets at long range. I believe it can be downloaded from a couple of P2P sites, but I can't remember which. He likes to post about hitting the second amendment reset button a lot and shooting Jack Booted thugs. That whole group is being watched pretty close by several watchdogs groups like the southern poverty law center.

By Mike G, 8-12-07

Just because Joe Huffman went to a few of their meetings doesn't make him a member.

 

By Ralph Wiggan, 8-12-07

You say Joe Huffman puts on that event and he brags about training people to shoot jack booted thugs! WOW. Sounds like this Jason Hamilton took that advocacy to heart. Given what happened in Moscow I'm surprised there hasn't been more media attention on that.

By Steve, 8-13-07

See for yourself:

"If it ever becomes necessary to start shooting tyrants and “jack booted thugs“ in our country I want as many people on my side as possible. And I want them to have the equipment and the skills to be able to hit head and chest sized objects many hundreds of yards away."

One small step at a time then a half step backward--Iowa Permits Same-Sex Marriage, for 4 Hours, Anyway.

I'm happy about this for three reasons:

1. I believe same sex marriage has more benefits to the individuals and society than making it illegal. Hence it's "the right thing to do".
2. It causes Democrats heartburn in the coming election.
3. It forces the issue of full faith and credit between the states with regards to licenses of all types--including concealed carry licenses.

I do agree it really should be handled in the legislative arena rather than the judicial arena but court action such as this forces the legislature to address it.

Just so you know what they think of you.

According to the Brady bunch if you are part of the NRA you are part of the "Triangle of Death":

They ignore the fact that firearms are used to save far more innocent lives than to take them, and that thousands of NRA instructors across the country teach self-defense and the protection of innocent life. They ignore the fact that the NRA is not a lobbying group for dealers or manufactures but is primarily an educational, range development, and sporting organization. Even if you focus entirely on NRA-ILA, the actual lobbying arm of the NRA, it's primarily funded by individual donations not dealer and/or manufacture donations. But the truth isn't nearly as useful to the Brady Bunch.

And of course even if you were to take their claims about the NRA as true it still doesn't make sense. If the guns are already "illegal" and/or the dealers are "corrupt" then it's an enforcement, not legislative, problem. But then, people with mental problems frequently don't make sense.

A politician has to wear a mask that hides who he is really is--to be different people to different interest groups--in order to get elected. For a lot of homosexuals, unless they choose to be open about it, they also have to wear a mask that hides who they really are. Perhaps all these gay politicians are the consequence of people who get used to wearing a mask about their sexuality--and find it very easy to then leapfrog into politics, a career that does not require, but certainly encourages equivocation, shading the truth, and flat-out lies.

None of this would matter if Craig had either been discreet, or intelligent. But he managed to fail on both counts with this stunt in Minneapolis, and made all of this relevant.

Clayton Cramer
August 29, 2007
I Just Noticed That Larry Craig's Three Kids Are All Adopted
[I disagree with a lot of Cramer opinions about gays, but I think he has it right this time.--Joe]

Kevin sent me an email today asking if I had seen this:

TAMPA - Two Egyptian students at the University of South Florida were indicted Friday on federal explosives charges, but prosecutors would not say whether the men planned to carry out an attack or hurt anyone.

Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, 24, an engineering graduate student and teaching assistant at the Tampa-based university, and engineering student Youssef Samir Megahed, 21, have been held in South Carolina since Aug. 4 when they were stopped for speeding and authorities found explosives in the trunk of their car.

They were indicted by a grand jury in Tampa on charges of carrying explosive materials across state lines. Mohammed also faces terrorism-related charges for teaching and demonstrating how to use the explosives.

Referring to the "teaching and demonstrating" aspects Kevin then asked, "So running the Boomershoot makes you a criminal, or are you safe because you're licensed?"

The answer to the first question, "Have I seen this?" is no. The other two questions are not so easily answered.

I'm almost certain running Boomershoot doesn't make me a criminal. But as we know from experience with the Second Amendment and the lack of politicians and law enforcement being prosecuted under 18 USC 242 for enforcing illegal laws infringing the 2nd Amendment our government doesn't follow the letter or even some vague shadow of the law. They will do basically whatever they want and then find a law, or loophole in the law, that gives them plausible authority and justification for their actions. Numerous example abound:

• The early restrictions on firearms were aimed at, and only enforced, when the suspect was black.
• Literacy tests for voting required that the prospective voter could read the newspaper--and blacks were given a Chinese newspaper to read for their test.
• In New Jersey--"the legislative branch may as a matter of sound public policy and without impairing any constitutional guarantees, declare the act itself unlawful without any further requirement of mens rea or its equivalent... When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril."

So with that caveat, no, Boomershoot does not make me a criminal.

As to the final question, "Are you safe because you're licensed?" I'm probably safer but as long as I'm alive I will never safe from harm. My license gives me visibility with the ATF and they can comfortably call me up and ask what is going on or ask if I know something about some event should the need arise. They can come out and visit the Taj Mahal where I make and store my explosives and can inventory it (my inventory is zero 99+% of the time). It is my belief they will be less likely to send the SWAT team on an early morning visit when they can sit down over a meal at the local restaurant and chat about things (as they have done on more than one occasion).

So what's the story with "teaching and demonstrating how to use explosive" being a crime. It's typical MSM getting details wrong. What is misleading about the newspaper report is what the law actually says versus what they reported. Here is the actual law:

(p) Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.—

(1) Definitions.— In this subsection—

(A) the term “destructive device” has the same meaning as in section 921 (a)(4);
(B) the term “explosive” has the same meaning as in section 844 (j); and
(C) the term “weapon of mass destruction” has the same meaning as in section 2332a (c)(2).

(2) Prohibition.— It shall be unlawful for any person—

(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.

So, unless I know that someone I am teaching, demonstrating, or providing information to about explosives intends to use it in an illegal manner, technically, I am fine. But, numerous times in the past people have claimed to know what I was thinking even though they were clueless. I don't think like other people and when people are certain I must know or think something they are frequently wrong. Therefore I can't be certain that some zealous prosecutor won't decide I must be thinking something bad and decide to prosecute me.

There is a short side story to this law and Boomershoot. It was Dianne Feinstein that introduced the above law in 1995. It was this law, by Ms. Feinstein, specifically aimed at the Internet and the growing "militia movement", that helped motivate me to create what is now known as Boomershoot and put information on how to make reactive targets on the net. I was, and am, deliberately thumbing my nose at her with Boomershoot by treading as close as I can but still staying within the law.

Hot off the AP press:

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men's room, Republican officials said Friday.

Craig will announce at a news conference in Boise Saturday morning that he will resign effective Sept. 30, four state GOP officials told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.

It's a significant blow to the gun rights movement at the Federal level. He is one of our strongest allies. Even if he is replaced with someone as rock solid on the issue they won't have the seniority and hence the power Craig had.

As Sean and I were discussing at lunch today--I don't care what he does with consenting adults in private. Hooking up in public restrooms (assuming he was doing that) is just plain stupid.

Twice now I have tried to add a comment to Robyn Ringler's post. In this post she hypothesizes an advertising campaign where the appearance of a gun shot victim is used to discourage gun ownership. She credits this idea to an anti-smoking campaign aimed at women:

Previous attempts on the smoking campaign, wrote the author, had not worked. Women weren’t moved by portraits of people dying of lung cancer or by campaigns about health or social problems like the fact that smoking causes bad breath and smelly hair. But the one thing women did respond to was a campaign about their looks. The fact that smoking causes wrinkles, discolors and dries skin, and ruins your appearance made a difference.

A couple days ago I made a comment and after clicking on the submitting button was given the message that the comment would have to be moderated. As of this afternoon the comment still had not appeared so I tried again. This time I kept a copy of the message to show that it wasn't something rude or obnoxious. This time after pressing submit I didn't even get a "moderated" message. It appears that comments from me go straight into "the bit bucket". My comment was this:

It might backfire too. The thought process could be, "That is what will happen to the other guy if I carry a gun and someone messes with me." The effects of smoking obviously happen to the smoker so it's a different situation.

The comment I made a couple days ago was a sentence or two longer but otherwise was essentially the same.

I could maybe understand it if I had been leaving comments in the past which were crude, rude, or hostile, but I think these were the first attempts I have made to leave a comment on her blog. I have been rather blunt about her on my blog but on her blog I have done nothing even remotely offensive.

I guess it's all part of Reasoned Discourse^TM.

Few influential people involved with the Internet claim that it is a good in and of itself. It is a powerful tool for solving social problems, just as it is a tool for making money, finding lost relatives, receiving medical advice, or, come to that, trading instructions for making bombs.

Esther Dyson
[The gist of this can be said of virtually all technology (including firearms and explosives) and many other things such as free speech. Technology can used for both good and evil. It's the user not the technology that is important. As with most bigots the anti-gun people are very narrow minded and can't or refuse to see the big picture. Even pointing out analogies such as this fail on most of them. The most typical response I get when trying to make this point is, "But we are talking about guns!" as if they were the equivalent of letting cobras roam around in your home. Guns do not have minds and actions of their own. They are tools of the individuals in possession of them. Among other things firearms are used for recreation, to protect innocent life, and the much more rare, taking of innocent life.--Joe]

We've heard the story (via Kim).  We're now told (by people who apparently have nothing productive to do, unless they happen to be working in market research for a gun company) that we in the U.S. have about 90 guns per 100 people, making this the most heavily armed nation in the world.

Not so fast.  They didn't say 90 out of 100 people in the U.S. own guns.

In fact, something like half, or less than half, of American households are armed.  The 90:100 figure looks only at guns per capita.  Those who own guns tend to own several, and one person can only operate one gun (or in some cases, two, but mostly as a gimmick) at a time.  Are you more heavily armed if you own 10 guns than if you own one or two?  Not really.

I have a pile of guns, but if I really needed to use a gun for protection, I'd be able to use only one of them, leaving the others stowed in their cases and out of action.  At best I'd have a long-arm in my hands and a side arm on my hip.  At the worst I might be overcome by my assailant while trying to decide which gun to use (Let's see; do I want the Italian auto-loader, the 870, the AK, or the...)

In Switzerland, most households contain at least one assault rifle, or such is the word on the street (I'm using the term "assault rifle" correctly here, which is an anomaly most in the media would not understand, but just so you know).   If you count the percentage of armed households (a dwelling containing at least one serviceable firearm) rather than the total number of guns per capita, which makes far more sense if we're considering the armed, quick-response potential of a given population, the Swiss have a more heavily armed society than we Americans.  Only in the case of a sustained need (wherein you might find I would skillfully load all my guns and copious ammo supply into my full-sized, American, V-8 powered, four-wheel-drive pickup, transport them to a predetermined and communicated distribution point, and start handing them out to my neighbors) would the number of guns this individual owns ever be an issue, so long as its more than one or two.  So you can take about 20 guns out of Reuters' figures, just for me alone.  In my home town though, I would estimate that there are more guns than people (its a very polite, peaceful town) so the number of skilled and determined marksmen, plus the ammo supply, would be the important figure.

But what are we talking about?  Maybe we're talking about confiscation and don't know it.  Reuters?

If we're discussing issues of security related to the fighting readiness of a population as can be learned from history (the actual point of the Reuters article is not stated, but why else talk about how many guns the Joneses have?  Jealous?) we could count the number of legally disarmed Jews in Germany in the 1930s for example, compared to the number of armed Nazis.  Closer to home; we could count the number of unarmed students, combined with the number of unarmed faculty and unarmed staff (disarmed by campus rules) at Virginia Tech compared to the total number of armed assailants on campus that day, and by so doing we might come to a heightened level of actual shared wisdom (Reuters: take note).

Cases of mass death among unarmed populations abound, as is currently being demonstrated in parts of Africa and will yet again be demonstrated in another "gun free zone" in America no doubt, we having failed to learn from reality.  Hence it would seem that China, with only three "estimated" guns per 100 civilians, is ripe for yet another purge.  In Nigeria its 1:100.

This last I found bizarre:

Only about 12 percent of civilian weapons [worldwide] are thought to be registered with authorities.

"Thought to be registered"? Thought by whom?  We don't know what's registered?

Exactly why would it matter which guns are registered?  Is a registered gun more useful for self defense, or less so?  Is it more accurate, more powerful or less likely to malfunction?  Is a registered gun more likely to be confiscated by tyrants or less likely to be confiscated by tyrants?

Do criminals and tyrants register their guns, or are their victims' guns the only guns being registered?  No one at Reuters seems to have a clue.

Just between you and me, I think I hit it up above:  Some people are screaming inside with jealousy and envy toward citizen gun owners, and its tearing them apart.

I'd like to see Reuters do a story on how much freedom people have around the world.  Maybe we'd find some wisdom there.