The government official is supposed to be our servant. When you are sitting across the desk from a representative of the Internal Revenue Service who is auditing your tax return, which one of you is the master and which the servant?

Milton and Rose Friedman
Copyright 1979
Page 298, Free to Choose--A Personal Statement
[This is an excellent book. However, you might want to have your blood pressure medication available.--Joe]

This isn't the way counterterrorism is supposed to work, but it's happening everywhere. It's a result of our relentless campaign to convince ordinary citizens that they're the front line of terrorism defense. "If you see something, say something" is how the ads read in the New York City subways. "If you suspect something, report it" urges another ad campaign in Manchester, UK. The Michigan State Police have a seven-minute video. Administration officials from then-attorney general John Ashcroft to DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to President Bush have asked us all to report any suspicious activity.

The problem is that ordinary citizens don't know what a real terrorist threat looks like. They can't tell the difference between a bomb and a tape dispenser, electronic name badge, CD player, bat detector, or trash sculpture; or the difference between terrorist plotters and imams, musicians, or architects. All they know is that something makes them uneasy, usually based on fear, media hype, or just something being different.

Bruce Schneier
November 1, 2007
The War on the Unexpected
[This is the way real witch hunts happen. This is the way we lose our freedom and our rights are permanently infringed. And when you dig deep into what actually happened, with 20-20 hindsight, no one was really to blame. Everyone makes pretty reasonable decisions at every little step along the way. The problem is that most people don't have any hard and fast principles. They have no underlying philosophy they have confidence in. They take "one day at a time". And "today is a good day to ignore the Bill of Rights" because these are "special circumstances".

What I think people don't really get is that the Bill of Rights wasn't written for "a sunny day in the springtime". It was written, and expected to be honored, when emotions are running high and as a firm reminder of what the true limits to government must be. It was written with extraordinary deliberation by very smart people who knew the risks of a tyrant, a committee, a mob, a government under stress and running on high emotions. After due deliberation it can be changed but it should never be violated because tyranny often masquerades as doing good.--Joe]

If it hasn't been said that complexity is the tool of the corrupt politician, I'll say it here for the record.  This post is a rewrite of a comment I made here.  I thought it deserved its own post.

"...the ATF sent out it’s ATF State Laws and Published Ordinances. Ride Fast notes some numbers:

California, 67 pages, about 120,600 words of regulation.
Massachusetts, 18.5 pages, about 32,400 words.
Nevada, 6.5 pages, about 11,700 words.
Vermont, 1.05 pages, about 1890 words."

(To those who have so far never cared about the issue enough to look into it; Vermont has historically had a right-to-arms policy close the original intent of the Second Amendment. For example, one may legally carry a concealed pistol without getting government permission.  It is also worth noting that their violent crime rate is lower than those of surrounding states.)

Here are some contrasting numbers:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: One sentence, 27 words.

The Congressional Oath of Office: One paragraph, 73 words.

I assume you've all looked it up and saved it, being concerned citizens and all, but to save you the trouble of going to your desktop and clicking on it, here it is again:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Human rights, honesty and reason are relatively simple.  Obfuscation is complex.

This is really good news: 

The grade-school teacher who was jailed in Sudan for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad was met at London's Heathrow Airport this morning by her son John and daughter Jessica.

Also good news is who helped her gain her freedom and come home alive:

But she was released a week early thanks to an intense British diplomatic effort led by two Muslim members of Britain's House of Lords, who met with Sudanese President Omar al Bashir.

That there were Muslims helping to bring some sanity to the situation is very encouraging. I see also there were other Muslims working toward that same goal.

If you — my servant — are going to pass a law — and enforce that law using guns — and that law makes me and my fellow permit-holding constituents (who as I mentioned are more law abiding than the average person) so pissed off that we decide to shoot you dead over it — don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, you should rethink your position on that law?

That is the whole point of the Second Amendment, Duhrlene. When you are given the privilege of exercising the state’s privilege of force, you should do so with an armed populace at your back. It’s the American Way, and the more literal it is, the better.

The Everlasting Phelps
June 24, 2004
Shooting Up the Capital
[Regarding banning firearms from government meetings such as legislative sessions and city council meetings. See also the comment here. At numerous times I had thought about posting something along these lines but hadn't put it in words. Phelps articulated my thoughts quite well.--Joe]

I was browsing some of the bigot sites this evening and ran across this set of pictures (rel=nofollow set on the link so they don't get a bump in ranking from the search engines). I just can't see what they think they are accomplishing. I kept thinking of that old adage, "When in danger, when doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. They must actually subscribe to that sort of philosophy. Pictures of people laying on the ground helps in what way?

Their actions remind me that the dead students at Virginia Tech were disarmed by the people that claimed to be protecting them. The people laying on the ground symbolize the people that believe submitting to evil frequently end up dead. It makes me think of "proof by vigorous assertion". They can't prove their case with numbers and logic so they have to just insist that lawmakers do things their way. They don't even bother trying to prove what they want would benefit anyone but the criminals. Just do things their way or they will lay on the ground and have people take pictures.

It doesn't seem like they are getting their way yet. Maybe if they start screaming and kicking they would get better results. It works for some two-year olds.

By focusing on the non-issue of gun shops, Suffredin is conveniently ignoring the factor that has the greatest impact on violent crime rates. According to the Chicago Police Department, 88% of murderers and 76% of murder victims have previous criminal records. A reasonable person would likely ask why criminals are so likely to be either a perpetrator or a victim in a murder case. The answer is quite simple - the justice system is either unwilling or unable to rehabilitate these dangerous people. Federally-licensed gun shops are not the problem, the revolving door justice system is clearly at fault.

Suffredin's long standing hatred of guns and the people who own them has clouded his ability to address the issues important to the citizens of Cook County. Thus, he is unqualified to serve as the State's Attorney for Cook County.

Richard Pearson
December 3, 2007
Proposed Cook County Gun Control Ordinance a Case Study in Politically Motivated Deceit
[Clouded his ability? Yeah, so what else is new? Suffredin should be brought up on felony charges but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. We need to just keep working toward that goal. The bigots will get their just reward eventually. We are making great progress.--Joe]

I just got the new (blue) rule book. It says anyone shooting a classifier at below freezing temperatures in falling snow deserves the crummy score they get.

KW Hipps
Lewiston Pistol Club Discussion Group email list
December 1, 2007
[We have an IPSC match today. The current weather forecast is:

HOUR Sun 6AM Sun 7AM Sun 8AM Sun 9AM Sun 10AM Sun 11AM Sun 12PM Sun 1PM Sun 2PM SKY CHANCE OF PRECIPITATION Slight Slight Slight Slight Slight Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate TEMP (F) 31° 31° 31° 32° 32° 33° 34° 35° 35° WIND CHILL(F) 18° 18° 18° 19° 19° 21° 23° 25° 25° DEWPOINT (F) 25° 25° 25° 26° 26° 26° 27° 27° 27° HUMIDITY 78% 78% 78% 79% 79% 75% 76% 73% 73% WIND (MPH) SE 21 SE 21 SE 22 SE 23 SE 24 SE 22 E 20 E 18 E 18

We start shooting at 10:00 and probably won't be done until 12:00 (the wimps won't be there so it shouldn't take too long). 20 to 25 MPH winds and snowing. This is practical shooting. Caleb and I plan be there. Pictures later if I manage to make it over Snoqualime Pass this afternoon on my way back to the Seattle area. The current pass report:

Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.

Dan Cunningham
Strive For Balance In Gun Control
[This is just the beginning of his half-truths, incorrect assumptions, and outright falsehoods. He apparently does not realize it's possible, or even more likely, to have both freedom and safety then goes on to create the case for his bigoted beliefs.--Joe]

We hear it said of an ugly guy, "He has a face made for radio".

Woopie Goldberg has performed brilliantly as an actor in television and in movies.  Her personal commentary however, has been nothing you couldn't hear at the espresso and chi tea bar in any local natural foods store any day of the week.  Hence it is no surprise that her radio show is being axed.  I believe she still has a future in acting.  Therein she has talent.

There remains a significant part of society that can't seem to understand how radio is a business (the business of selling advertising) and that in business you must have something to offer that people, you know, want.

Malkin covers it too.

Hint:  If you have no respect for those who made it big in the business, you just might be on the wrong path.  "I'm gonna be just the opposite of that really, ultra successful guy" might not be the best business plan.  Success, one would think, is the best teacher.

And here's a hint just especially for those on the Left:  We've all heard your message every day for our whole lives, as long as we can remember.  You've gotten your message out, and that is your problem.  A lot of people are sick of hearing it because most of it has something to do with how wrong, greedy, stupid, evil, and endangered we are-- the air we breathe is killing us, the food we eat is killing us, oil is killing us, a shortage of oil is killing us, farming is killing us, starvation is killing us, fat is killing us, dieting is killing us, carbs are killing us, disease is killing us, antibiotics, vaccines, and the drug companies are killing us, freedom and prosperity are especially killing us, poverty is killing us, the good economy is killing us but really the economy sucks, terrorists are killing us (but it's our fault) and the war against terrorists is killing us, and everything, absolutely everything, is killing women and children, the elderly and the minorities the hardest-- and how some form of socialism (government-enforced coercion) is the answer to absolutely every problem, real or imagined.

Does that about sum it up?  Who needs to tune into a radio show to hear that when we hear it everywhere else every day?

More-of-the-same day in and day out nagging and finger pointing and blaming America and our Liberty for the world's problems isn't something a lot of people are going to pay money to have broadcast in their name.  But you don't, and won't, get it anyway.

The teacher who let her students name a Teddy Bear Muhammad was convicted and sentenced to 15 days in jail and will be deported. At least she doesn't have to endure the whipping that was on the list of possible punishments. I thought this was pretty extreme but figured it would be a good lesson for those that think we need to "reach common ground" or some such thing with the Muslim extremists. I couldn't have imagined what a lesson this would actually be.

But it turns out the sentence Gillian Gibbons received is considered much too light for the locals. They are demanding her execution:

Thousands of protesters, many brandishing clubs and swords, took to the streets of Sudan’s capital Friday, demanding the execution of a British teacher who let her students name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, was found guilty Thursday of insulting Islam and sentenced to 15 days in jail. She was spared the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

That angered many in Khartoum, who rallied in Martyrs Square outside the presidential palace. Protesters waved sticks, knives, axes and swords.

“Kill her, kill her by firing squad!” they chanted. “No tolerance, execution!”

Here is a picture of the evil heretic. I hope she gets out alive.

To be fair, there are some Muslims who are responding appropriately:

In Britan -- where Muhammad is now the second most popular name for baby boys -- the reaction had been shock and disbelief, from both non-Muslims and Muslims.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said Sudanese authorities had  “grossly overreacted.”

“Gillian should never have been arrested, let alone charged and convicted of committing a crime,” he said.

But the Sudanese behavior invokes an opposing extreme response in me and others.

Technically I am the domain owner but I have nothing to do with the content here:

Dr. Hall of Fame
Dr. Hall of Shame

I think a good candidate would the neurosurgeon a physical therapist I know worked with several years ago. The nurses and therapists had a nickname they used for this brain surgeon behind his back. They called him The Veg-O-Matic.

Just a little hint on finding a good doctor if you are new in town and don't know anyone. Go to the hospital and ask the nurses. But you have to be a little sneaky about the way you ask the question. If you ask, "Who is a good doctor?" you will get an answer similar to, "They are all good." But if you ask, "Who would you choose as a doctor for yourself/spouse/child/mother-in-law/whoever?" you will get a much more useable answer.

This is not a summit; it's a kangaroo court, and the outcome is as predictable as the verdicts in the Salem witch trials. Nickels and his gun control cronies merely want a showpiece to alarm the public into supporting their extremist agenda, which is not now, and never has been, in the public's best interest.

Alan Gottlieb and Mark Taff
Guest columnists at the Seattle PI
Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation.
Mark Taff is executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Nickels' gun summit is all for show
[Via an email from Uncle. See also the background material.

I was seriously considering showing up with my camera and a bunch of handouts of Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution with 18 USC 241 and 242 for attendees as they arrived. Unfortunately I have a appointment with my dentist to get some surgery done on an infected tooth at 8:00 AM that has been waiting a month because there weren't any earlier openings. Then I have a design review at work that I am going to be late for because of the dentist appointment. I just won't be able to attend at an appropriate time. And just after the oral surgery I'm likely to be a bit cranky and of course armed. That wouldn't be the best condition to face the press should they show up.

Does anyone else want to show up with the handouts if I do the printing?--Joe]

The Gun Guys are whining about all the "pandering to the gun extremists" in the CNN YouTube debate last night.

The only whining I would do over it would be that I don't trust Giuliani and Romneny when they say they support an individual RKBA.

But then it occurred to me that I don't know of a single presidental candidate that is even giving the bigots like the Gun Guys and the Brady Bunch a little bit of lip service. That has to be a extremely painful change from ten or twelve years ago.

Count the cats in this picture and win a free cat (check out the comments). Hurry while supplies last!

[But if you get there too late you can have mine.]

I often get frustrated wondering "What are they thinking? Do they actually think? Are they capable of thinking?"

For example, in my mind people are not consistent when they expanded the meaning of the 1^st Amendment to include things that did not exist (such as the Internet) at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights. Yet those same people intend to negate the 2^nd Amendment by excluding things that didn't exist at the time of it's creation. What's up with that? Are you insane?

This article helps with a certain aspects of those types of questions I have had.

In interpreting the Constitution, judges pay attention to social practices, and not only to judicial precedents. If federal and state governments have long regulated gun use, creating a tradition of such regulation, many judges would be reluctant to invoke the original understanding in order to upset that tradition. Tushnet finds that, since the Civil War, gun regulation has been common--and it has rarely been challenged on constitutional grounds. He concludes that the last century and a half shows a simple pattern: "A substantial body of laws regulating weapons possession and a small number of opinions addressing Second Amendment objections to such laws, with no opinions from appellate courts invalidating any modern regulations, and an apparent lack of interest by the Supreme Court in taking fundamental Second Amendment questions."

[...]

In Tushnet's view, there is an evident conflict between the original understanding and the legal arguments based on judicial precedents and social practices. He urges that in the face of such conflicts, the original understanding tends to yield. In the context of free speech, for example, we have gone far beyond the original understanding, protecting commercial advertising and even political dissent in ways that would have astonished the founding generation. Tushnet thinks that if we reject originalism, we will probably conclude, on the basis of social practices and judicial decisions, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right.

This gives me a model to conclude they aren't entirely insane. It does sort of make sense. I worry about the Supreme Court in the D.C. v. Heller case considering the impact on all the people that deserve to be locked up but prosecutors only charged them with gun violations because it was so much easier than proving they had committed some violent crime. If the Court comes strikes down the D.C. law there will be lots of people in jail appealing their convictions. The disruption to society could be significant. The historical aspect of the laws and our society have to be somewhere in the minds of the justices.

But translating the logic above to an analogous situation will make my take on this clear:

In the deep south during the last century there was a long history of social practices, judicial precedents, and traditions of regulation of people of color. Therefore it is entirely appropriate during the 1960's the courts should have rejected the original intent of the 13^th Amendment and allowed whatever law the states and cities thought were "common-sense" for their situation.

Not!

There is only one correct way to handle this. If a government entity wants to implement a law that violates some original intent of the Constitution there is a proper way to go about that. They can amend the constitution to allow non-original intent. Anything else is a rationalization, an extremely serious threat to our enumerated powers form of government, and death to freedom.

I had no idea such a thing would be possible from a blow that isn't hard enough to break bones:

Hunter Troxel was hunting with his father, Craig, on Monday in some woods near their home in Harpster in southern Wyandot County when the boy fired his shotgun at a deer and missed, said Wyandot County Sheriff Michael Hetzel.

[...]

The blow from the shotgun hit him at a certain time during the electrical sequence that causes the heart to beat, disrupting the nerve impulses and stopping his heart, Franklin County Coroner Brad Lewis said. His office examined the boy's body Tuesday.

The sheriff said it was possible the boy was not holding his gun properly and that's why it hit him where it did. "He was just a small young man, only 12 years old," Hetzel said.

This type of death is relatively rare, and it isn't completely clear why some blows to the chest stop the heart and others don't, Lewis said.

"It really was a tragic, freak accident," he said. "It's a terrible quirk of fate that you get hit at that particular moment in time."

That was a stupid thing to try. Still, it's sad when someone goes to jail for a victimless crime:

A Nevada man was charged with attempting to smuggle in parts of a World War II-era submachine gun by hiding them inside a Porsche he was importing from Germany to the Port of Long Beach, authorities said Wednesday.

Peter Scharf, 43, of Henderson, Nev. was arrested by federal agents in Los Angeles Tuesday after being charged with smuggling and importing a machine gun without a license, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice said.

There's some serious talk going on about increasing the oppression of gun owners in Europe:

Against the backdrop of deadly school shootings in Finland and Germany, European Union legislators Thursday overwhelmingly backed tough new gun control rules they said they hoped would prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States.

Under the new rules, hammered out in 18 months of negotiations between the European Parliament, national governments and gun advocates, individuals age 18 and over will be able to buy and own a firearm, provided they are not deemed a threat to public safety. Individuals under 18 will only be able to obtain a gun for hunting or target shooting under the supervision of a licensed adult.

To plug holes in the current system, in which the registration of guns is not consistent across the 27-member bloc, each member state will be obliged to set up a computerized database of firearms, including details about their model, caliber, serial number and the names and addresses of both the seller and the buyer. The data must be kept by authorities for at least 20 years.

European legislators of all political stripes said the new rules were essential to prevent Europe from embracing the gun culture of the United States, where the right to bear arms is written in the constitution.

"We in Europe have a different culture than in the United States and we do not consider the freedom to buys weapons a human right," said Gisela Kallenbach, a German member of the European Parliament from the Green group, who helped draft the proposed law. "All European cows are registered Europe-wide, so why not guns, if it can save lives? Civil liberties can be sacrificed if we can prevent people from being killed."

How appropriate. A German who wants to sacrifice civil liberties to prevent people from being killed. That was done once before by the Germans in 1938:

§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons.  Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

The only question is, which lives will they be saving? In 1938 it was the Nazi lives that would be saved by sacrificing the civil liberties of the Jews.

When someone takes a weapon from you it's an exceedingly rare circumstance that your safety will be increased. It's someone else's safety that might be increased.

What's the problem with registration? Registration is a problem because those records were used by the Nazis to find all the Jews with firearms and experience with firearms. Firearms registration fails my Jews in the Attic Test. Firearms registration enables scenes like this:

The European Union doesn't want to be a "gun-friendly culture", instead they want to be tyrant-friendly culture. How many tens of millions of people must be murdered before they learn their lesson?

My QOTD and commentary got some attention from Sebastian at Snow Flakes in Hell. Sebastian also posted a comment on Miller's blog with a link to my posting. That apparently got Miller to stop by for a visit:

[Update: I was wrong. It was someone else from New Jersey. Thanks to Sebastain for pointing out my error. I was able to verify Sebastian is correct. I didn't think there were any progun people left in that state.]

[Update2:  I have deleted part of the orginal message at the request of the real visitor.]

Also of possible interest is it's not the first time Miller came for a visit. Notice the referrals? He came to visit me from each of the following pro-gun blogs:

• http://www.progunprogressive.com/
• http://www.saysuncle.com/
• http://blog.robballen.com/
• http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/

Did you see where he visited boomershoot.org after reading about Ted Nugent's "threat against Hillary and Obama"? And he specifically searched for my comments about him: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Joe+Huffman%27s+comment%3A&btnG=Google+Search.

And that's just what I can determine from my little outpost in an obscure corner of the Internet. Imagine what the total extent of his efforts on the topic must be. I find it difficult to believe him when in response to the Supreme Court granting cert in D.C. v. Heller, "For me, the announcement was a Ho Hum moment."

Since he showed such an interest in my blog I paid him a little visit and left a comment in response to another pro-gun commenter, CavTrooper, who said we didn't have any legal recourse against people publishing anti-gun propaganda:

Posted by JoeHuffman on 11/29/07 at 8:53PM

Actually we do have legal recourse. Miller and his ilk are engaged in a conspiracy against civil rights. Check out 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242 for government employees acting under "the color of law".

No actual harm need to have occurred. Just that they conspired to oppress, threaten, or intimidate us with unconstitutional laws. It's no different than if they conspired to pass laws prohibiting people with dark colored skin from being outdoors during the night (Miller's idealogical cousins might claim it's a "reasonable restriction" because it's too easy for dark skinned people to commit crimes in the dark).

We are a long way from getting Federal Prosecutors from enforcing 18 USC 241/242 in these cases but it took a long time for the KKK to be prosecuted also. Getting the Supreme court to explicitly state it is an individual right is the first step to seeing these bigots brought up on the felony charges they deserve. One step at a time...

Thanks for stopping by Bryan. Come back anytime. And don't be shy about visiting in real life either. Boomershoot is a real blast.

But, first, a little background - for those of you who have more to do with your time than memorize old, obsolete and unused Constitutional dicta - the 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I said, Ho Hum. How seriously must I (or anyone, for that matter) take a sentence so overwhelmingly categorical, yet which has never been used to overturn any gun regulation, ordinance or law in the 200-plus years since it was adopted?

Bryan Miller
November 29, 2007
Supremes take on 2nd Amendment - Yawn
[It's overwhelmingly categorical and never been used to overturn a law since it was adopted, therefore we shouldn't take it seriously and can enact laws that violate it without concern to the constitutionality of the law. Interesting logic. So, Mr. Miller, do you advocate treating the 13^th amendment in the same way?

Section. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If so then I claim you, Bryan Miller, as my slave. Maybe then you will suddenly recognize the utility of the 2^nd Amendment. Or maybe since the 13^th amendment is only 142 years old it's too recent to discard. If it needs to be 200-plus years old before we can start ignoring it then I'll let my great-grandchildren know that your descendants gave up their 13^th Amendment rights on your say so. As my descendants, with guns, take possession I'm sure your descendants will "thank" you for giving up your 2^nd Amendment rights earlier. The point is that just because a law hasn't been overturned recently the constitutional provision against such laws is obsolete.

And, Mr. Miller, it's obvious you haven't read this book which demonstrates the Supreme Court has upheld the legal tradition and historical record of private gun ownership, self defense, and armed self defense, since the country began.

My take on Miller's "yawn" response is that is the best spin he can put on what he thinks is impending doom.--Joe]

Once again, Walter E. Williams finds a way to articulate an idea with roughly ten thousand times the clarity I or most anyone else could muster.  I'm sure most of you read Walter's column regularly (what red-blooded, thinking American doesn't?) but this one deserves special attention.

Government allocation of resources enhances the potential for human conflict, while market allocation reduces it.

True of course, but he explains the how and why of it.  It should be a primer course in every elementary school, but then, it's a piece favoring a free market in education:

For a public school system, teaching free market principles would be suicide, wouldn't it?

Uncle sent me a link to this story:

Preventing gun crimes will be the focus of a summit Monday that is expected to draw dozens of police officers and civic leaders from around the state to Seattle.

Mayor Greg Nickels, along with Harborview Medical Center's Injury and Research Prevention Center, is hosting the conference in an effort to draw up better strategies to reduce violent crime and stop criminals from obtaining firearms.

It's expected to draw about 150 people, including police, prosecutors, church leaders and school officials. During the one-day conference at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center, they'll hear from experts who will share how efforts elsewhere have worked.

The thought crossed my mind that it would be interesting to attend but there wasn't information on how to sign up. But after reading the next paragraph I realized it wouldn't be good for my blood pressure (links added by me): 

The Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based non-profit that advocates for more restrictive gun-control laws, provided grant money to pay for the conference.

Other speakers include: Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California-Davis; Police Chief Scott Knight of Chaska, Minn., who is chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police firearms committee; and Nina Vinik, legal director for the Legal Community Against Violence.

Still, it might be interesting to attend for a little while. But then I read the comments to the article and discovered all I needed to know:

Posted by Dave Workman at 11/28/07 7:33 a.m.

I was advised that my name came up early in this discussion, so it seems only right to clarify some things for TerryP (thank you for your kind remarks) and others.

Gun rights advocates were deliberately not invited to this event, which is "Invitation Only."

I certainly was not invited to participate. But there is more to this: I'm a member of the working press, senior editor of 'GUN WEEK' a national-circulation firearms newspaper and it is rather disappointing that Gun Week was not invited to cover this event for its readers.

Mark Taff, executive director of the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, had been extended an invitation by a local state senator, but that invitation was apparently nixed by someone in the Mayor's office.

They have no interest in hearing anything other than their predetermined agenda. This isn't a "conference", it's a conspiracy against rights and they should be arrested and be given a fair trial.

BulletFootage-5000.wmv (3.27 MB)

I wish I had a camera that would take video like that of my boomers.

That watermelon is pretty cool though.

[Thanks to Joe D.]

Where there are grazers there will be predators. They said that on Discovery last night in a documentary on undersea micro environments. I think it applies to human society as well.

Lyle Keeney
November 26, 2007
In the comments.
[Yup. There probably are some thresholds due to family and tribal type bonds but as soon as you get a large enough population of "not us" available as prey the predators materialize. I don't think the anti-gun bigots grasp that concept. It appears that they believe it's the availability of weapons not the availability of prey that "creates" the predators.--Joe]

Via Bruce.

All in the name of the War on a Noun:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Firefighters in major cities are being trained to take on a new role as lookouts for terrorism, raising concerns of eroding their standing as American icons and infringing on people's privacy.

Unlike police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel don't need warrants to access hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings each year, putting them in a position to spot behavior that could indicate terrorist activity or planning.

[...]

When going to private residences, for example, they are told to be alert for a person who is hostile, uncooperative or expressing hate or discontent with the United States; unusual chemicals or other materials that seem out of place; ammunition, firearms or weapons boxes; surveillance equipment; still and video cameras; night-vision goggles; maps, photos, blueprints; police manuals, training manuals, flight manuals; and little or no furniture other than a bed or mattress.

Still and video cameras? Photos? Maps? Discontent with the United States?

I would get so many "hits" it would peg their meters even before they got to the guns, ammunition, and explosives.

Moscow is reputed to be the most liberal city in the entire state of Idaho. Half the town population are students attending the University of Idaho. Add in the socialist professors who think they are the anointed and you end up with some very liberal politics. For the most part it isn't a problem because there isn't all that much damage the city government can do when the state politics are so conservative. However Mayor Nancy Chaney feels she needs to do something about all those guns:

MOSCOW (AP) - Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney wants all cities in Idaho to be able to restrict guns in city facilities.

She has asked Representative Shirley Ringo, a Democrat from Moscow, to introduce legislation that will give Idaho cities the ability to ban guns in their facilities.

Chaney has been looking at ways to restrict guns in Moscow facilities since a May shooting rampage in the city left four dead and three wounded. Among the dead was Moscow police officer Lee Newbill. He was the first Moscow police officer killed in the line of duty.

Chaney says some area residents and city employees are concerned about their safety during public meetings. She says she's not looking for a citywide gun ban, but for the city to be able to restrict weapons in such places as city hall.

The attorney general last September told Moscow officials that cities in Idaho don't have legal authority to enforce gun bans in their facilities.

We feel we need to do something too. What I have heard so far is tough to report on a family friendly blog but after you filter out all the obscenities you are left with the word "impeach".