I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Thomas Jefferson
[And I predict future unhappiness if we continue down this superhighway to socialism.--Joe]

It's probably because I'm "different" but Sebastian's statement here just strikes me as odd:

The gun vote was a primary driver for making sure Bush won the White House in 2000 and 2004, and the NRA endorsements he received played a big role on that. The Heller case is arguably the most important struggle gun owners have ever faced, and I don’t think its unreasonable to demand something greater than lukewarm support from The Administration on this matter.

The first thought that crosses my mind is, "Did someone think we got a receipt when we gave Bush our votes?" In other words, are people irritated because Bush was "paid off" and didn't stay paid off? But that is probably just because I think differently than most.

Bush said, essentially from day one, that he would sign the AWB if it came to his desk. Yet gun owners voted for him because he was better (much better) than the viable alternatives. So what should we expect? He didn't say he was our lover, he just said he wasn't our enemy.

I'm not happy with the DOJ brief, but I can't say that I'm at all that surprised or even particularly unhappy with it. It's better than the alternative had Gore or Kerry been elected.

And via local (Troy, Idaho) IPSC/Steel shooter Mike Brown is a lawyer and offered these thoughts on the DOJ brief:

The Solicitor General here is defending the interests of his client (the US Government). While the brief explicitly reaffirms that the Justice Department's position is that the 2^nd amendment guarantees an individual right they are apparently concerned that the DC circuit opinion establishes a two pronged "categorical" test for whether a weapon is protected:

1. if it bears a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and
2. is "of the kind in common use at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted.

Their fear is that if the Supreme Court adopts this test then ALL federal gun control could be struck down especially where it concerns weapons that are especially suitable for militia service (i.e. full auto M4 carbine). The Solicitor General is arguing for a more wisy washy standard to be applied so that "reasonable" regulation of firearms are allowed.

As a sidebar on this topic: the Oregon Supreme Court adopted the same kind of standard for determining which weapons are protected under their state constitution- that is why switchblades are legal in OR: they are the "modern analogue" of swords which were in common use at the time of the adoption of the state constitution.

Don't let it happen here. It will kill people. Not just U.S. citizens but Canadians as well. It also violates my Jews in the Attic Test.

Via an email from Larry.

The ATF has released the latest version of their book on explosives law known as the "orange book". I haven't received my copy yet but it can be downloaded here.

I keep my copy in my laptop computer case for easy reference. Sometimes I know the rules and the law better than the ATF inspectors they send out. If you are going to play with Tannerite or Target-Master targets you should know both local and Federal law. Then don't do stupid stuff.

Via Uncle.

As I said the other day, I get requests from people wanting to blow stuff up but they aren't interested in cleaning up the mess. Some messes can't be cleaned up. This guy's mess may affect all gun owners:

It may have started as a goofy stunt, but tonight a 30 year old Red Wing area man is in hot water with authorities, after detonating a powerful bomb in back of his home yesterday afternoon. "When you can take a steel box, a dump truck box, turn it into scrap metal and send it 1/4 mile away... that's a bomb," reasoned Goodhue County Sheriff Dean Albers, whose detectives are investigating the case.

The suspect admits buying 100 pounds of an explosive material advertised as 'Tannerite' from an internet website. The compound is most commonly used by long range target shooters, who aim at 8 ounce cans and know they've hit their mark when they explode. The suspect's device was the equivalent of 200 of those cans. "He had placed it inside of a barell inside the bed of an old dump truck, and shot it it with a 50 caliber rifle from 300 yards away," explained Albers.

Via Dr. Laura Berman from Newsweek:

Sex is good for adults. Indulging on a regular basis—at least once a week—is even better. Research links sex (with all safer-sex precautions taken) to an astonishing array of physiological benefits, from longevity to pain relief. Many studies don't address whether the health bonus comes from the act itself or from the corresponding emotional intimacy, but the bottom line is that getting physical has some great side effects—especially for women. Here are six ways that sex boosts your health:

1. It Fights Colds and Flu. Sexual intercourse once or twice a week raises the body's level of the immune-boosting antibody immunoglobin A by a third, according to research at Wilkes University in Pennsylvania.

2. It's a Beauty Treatment. In a study at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital in Scotland, a panel of judges viewed participants through a one-way mirror and guessed their ages. Those who looked seven to 12 years younger than their age (labeled "superyoung") were also enjoying lots of sex—four times a week, on average. OK, maybe they were having so much fun because they looked young. But it's likely the sex was helping, researchers say. One reason is that it raises a woman's estrogen level, which helps make hair shiny and skin supple.

3. It Burns Calories. A little over four calories a minute, or the equivalent of four Hershey's kisses in a half hour of love. Think of it as part of your weekly exercise regime, and burn, baby, burn.

4. Yes, Honey, I Have a Headache. For a woman a migraine might actually be a reason for making love rather than avoiding intercourse: the increase in endorphins and corticosteroids during arousal and orgasm is analgesic.

5. It Promotes Regular Menstrual Cycles. A series of studies by behavioral endocrinologist Winnifred Cutler and colleagues at Columbia and Stanford universities found that women who have intercourse at least weekly (except during their period) cycle more regularly than abstainers or the sporadically active. (Related research found that lesbian lovemaking also smoothes out menstrual cycles.) Cutler argues that intimacy is essential, not orgasms: "Regular exposure to a loving partner has extraordinary effects on health and well-being."

6. It Can Prevent Accidents. Women use the muscles of the pelvic floor to stem the flow of urine. As they age, they need to keep these strong to avoid peeing accidentally. The same muscles are exercised during intercourse, and as with all muscle-building programs, the benefits require consistency.

Take note women, Dr. Joe makes house calls. Contact my wife Barb to make an appointment.

We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.

William F. Buckley
[Sadly the majority doesn't want freedom for themselves let alone the minority.--Joe]

We just received an RFQ (Request For Quotation) from a jobber here in the U.S. who supplies products to the military, along with the original U.S. Army RFQ that was sent to them.  It is for one item.  One, very well-known, standard item that has been in manufacture by one company and sold by the thousands to the general public for many years.  We all know what it is, we all know how it works, we all know that it has a model number, and it is not terribly expensive

The Army RFQ is 38 pages long-- that's 38 full, 8.5" x 11" pages.

There's more.  The 38 page RFQ comes with side notes added on (and just so we're clear; if you were to print it out it would take more than 38 pages).  The RFQ does not give the manufacturer or the model number of the desired product-- just a small photo, a vague description and the overall length (which, by the way, does NOT match the length of the model in the supplied product photo).  They just couldn't pull that off with only 38 pages plus notes, but I (as anyone in the business would) know exactly what they want.

In the side notes, we learn that "Quotes shall be limited to 40 pages".  I'll keep that in mind and try to really restrain myself.

Just in case you're wondering; I am not kidding.

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Alexis de Tocqueville
[Kevin's post reminded me of this. And how ironic that Kevin's inspiration for this post, Markadelphia, claims corporations oppress people. Governments have a near monopoly on force while corporations have can only use force, via the court system, to enforce contracts and monopolies (such as patents) granted to them by the government. The more power that is granted the government the more oppression that is possible and inevitably occurs. People that advocate more government control are, by their very nature, advocating oppression.--Joe]

The last line of Donald Munro's article brings up a good question, but the previous paragraphs have the answer. From Airport security is a theater:

But the effectiveness of the security isn't the only factor at work here. One of the reasons we're so willing to endure the elaborate rituals we enact at the airport is because it makes us feel as if we're doing something.

You might debate whether that something has a real impact, but the important thing is that when we act this way, it makes us feel safer.

That's what theater is all about: creating a different world and transporting the audience there, if only for a moment.

The question is why we've so passively agreed as a culture to the roles we play without questioning the need for rewriting the script.

As Munro already knows, we as a culture aren't rewriting the script because it makes some people feel safer. It's irrational to expect people to behave rationally.

In closely related news Kevin is now apparently a suspected terrorist.

Via Phil and Craig C.

 I enjoy playing miniature golf, but when playing indoor golf "miniature" is going to be frowned upon. Here are the rules for Indoor Golf:

The Rules of Indoor Golf:

1. Each player shall furnish his own equipment for play, normally one club and two balls.
2. Play on course must be approved by the owner of the hole.
3. Unlike outdoor golf, the object is to get the club in the hole and keep the balls out.
4. For most effective play, the club should have a firm shaft. Course owners are permitted to check shaft stiffness before play begins.
5. Course owners reserve the right to restrict club length to avoid damage to the hole.
6. Object of the game is to take as many strokes as necessary until the owner is satisfied play is complete. Failure to do so may result in being denied permission to play again.
7. It is considered bad form to begin playing the hole immediately upon arrival. Experienced players will normally take time to admire the entire course, paying special attention to well formed mounds and bunkers.
8. Players are cautioned not to mention other courses they have played or are currently playing to the owner of the course being played. Upset owners have been known to damage a players equipment for this reason.
9. Players are encouraged to have proper rain gear, just in case.
10. Players should not assume that the course is in shape to play at all times. Players may be embarrassed if they find the course temporarily under repair. Players are advised to be extremely tactful in this situation. More advanced players will find alternate means of play when this is the case.
11. Players should assume their match has been properly scheduled particularly when playing a new course for the 1st time. Previous players have been known to become irate if they discover someone else is playing what they considered a private course.
12. The owner of the course is responsible for the pruning of any bushes, which may reduce the visibility of the hole.
13. Players are strongly advised to get the owners permission before attempting to play the back nine.
14. Slow play is encouraged, however, players should be prepared to proceed at a quicker pace at the owners request.
15. It is considered an outstanding performance, time permitting, to play the same hole several times in one match.

Anytime someone says a government employee was, "Just doing their job" my head nearly explodes with instant anger. It doesn't apply in all cases but the first thought that comes to my mind is, "That defense wasn't allowed at the Nuremberg Trials." If their job is violation of constitutionally protected rights then they are criminals. One doesn't defend criminals with a defense of "They were just following orders." Or "They were just doing the job they were hired to do." There are very few crimes that I would be allowed to defend myself with the claim of "I didn't know it was a crime" or "I was just doing what my boss told me to do." The standard should be no different for government employees.

All this was brought up by reading some posts and watching a set of videos I came across via Sebastian. A Canadian publisher is being questioned by "The Human Rights Commission" over the publications of some cartoons (yes, those cartoons) that offended some Muslims. The relevant links are:

• My visit to a kangaroo court
• Kangaroo court
• Some press coverage
• Opening statement
• What was your intent?
• Violence in Alberta
• I don't answer to the state
• "You're entitled to your opinions"

Some might only see some middle-aged lady doing her job. What I see is that she is backed up by men with guns--as many as it takes to enforce her decisions. She may be a very nice person but when someone works for the government to enforce laws and regulations they are exercising force. Dozens or even hundreds of "rough men with guns" will enforce their will upon the violators of those laws and regulations. That a "Human Rights Commission" would give more than a few milliseconds of thought to an expression of speech that did not advocate illegal violence tells you all you need to know to conclude this isn't about human rights. It's about the repression of human rights.

If she were doing this in the U.S. I would be advocating for her prosecution under 18 USC 242.

Liberty is always unfinished business.

American Civil Liberties Union
[I have some "issues" with the ACLU, but not with this quote. This quote selection was to augment my next post.--Joe]

As I reported yesterday The American Jewish Committee says the government need to take our guns from us so it can protect us.

Here is an example of the government protecting us from a five year old child. I especially like the part about the mother not being allowed to hug him while he is being detained.

TSA -- A Security Theater.

Via Sebastian and Laurel (also from North Idaho).

Required viewing for those that think the police can protect you. Many minutes into the 911 call the police still haven't arrived. This is why I'm a NRA Personal Protection instructor.

Be sure and read the newspaper story too.

It is also significant that the Second Amendment refers, not to “a right of the people,” but to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The Framers’ use of the definite article indicates that the Amendment was intended to secure a pre-existing right rather than to create a new one.

[...]

The Court should affirm that the Second Amendment, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights, secures an individual right, and should clarify that the right is subject to the more flexible standard of review described above. If the Court takes those foundational steps, the better course would be to remand.

Stephen R. Rubenstein
January 2008
Chief Counsel Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20226-0001
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae
[This is from a brief filed in favor of D.C. in the Heller case. If I read it correctly they are concerned that the ATF could be put out of a job because they might no longer be able to regulated the manufacture and sale of firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. Hence, they want to be left with some power to regulate firearms. I'm not a friend of the ATF (individuals at the ATF is something different) but D.C. surely cannot consider them much of a friend either.--Joe

I've read so many books and articles on the Holocaust that I'd have difficulty enumerating them. The thing that always amazed me was that the Jews didn't fight back. Sure, the German Jews had registered their guns years before the Weapons Control Act of 1938 and would have had difficulty holding on to many of them when the thugs had a list of the guns in that home. But theft and ambushes on the police or isolated soldiers with the goal of capturing firearms and ammunition could have helped put weapons back in the hands of the victims. But except for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and a relatively small band in Russia there was virtually no resistance. With hindsight is seems so obvious that retention of firearms could have saved a lot of innocents lives. Israeli Jews seem to have the seen the light in regards to firearms in the hands of civilians so why don't most (yes, I know of JPFO) American Jews get it?

From the American Jewish Committee:

January 11, 2008 – New York – The American Jewish Committee filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court today, asserting that the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws do not offend the Constitution. The case, D.C. v. Heller, will be the first gun control case before the Supreme Court in sixty eight years.

“Gun control laws safeguard liberty, rather then restrict it,” said AJC General Counsel Jeffrey Sinensky. “Democracy can only flourish when the government is permitted to protect its citizens from harm.”

The amicus brief argues that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess firearms for personal use, but rather “was designed to enhance state and local authority to protect life and liberty through the maintenance of militias composed of the local populace.”

AJC filed the brief with a coalition that includes the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, National Council of Jewish Women, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

AJC has a long history of supporting gun control laws, including the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the federal Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989, and the Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993.

Just a little refresher from a previous post about how governments "protect their citizens from harm":

§ 1

Jews 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.

§ 2

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§ 3

The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§ 4

Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§ 5

For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§ 6

This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938

Minister of the Interior

Frick

One of the Burning Man organizers wrote me last week saying he wanted to participate in Boomershoot 2007. We got to chatting and he sent me at link to this video of the fireworks show they put on for Burning Man 2007. He also gave some technical details:

The fireball was about 600 feet high and probably 500 in diameter or more as it expanded. I think it had somewhere around 1200 gallons of fuel shot into the air from the four tanks. Then several thousand gallons of liquid propane were shot up the middle of the 99 foot tall derrick.

Boomershoot's biggest fireballs have used four gallons of gasoline. Of course most of our viewers were within 20 yards, but still...

It was quite a while back that I invited Lyle to blog here. Via many long conversations and numerous lengthy emails it was clear he had penetrating, even brutal, insight that others would benefit from. He told me (IIRC) for me to offer him this forum was like the P.J. O'Rourke line about giving power and money to the government. But that he would think about it. Within a day or two the temptation overcame him and he made his first post.

Lyle hasn't posted that often and I always thought he was holding back some. But then he would get links to his posts from certain bloggers I had never gotten links from and that made me a little bit envious. Still, the razor sharp penetration, straight to the bone, wasn't on display as much as I expected.

His most recent post--now that's what I'm talking about.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

P. J. O'Rourke
U.S. journalist. Parliament of Whores
Preface, "Why God is a Republican and Santa Claus Is a Democrat" (1991).

If you parse their sentences, the speech of the Left can be at times befuddling.  That is, unless you understand their unique usage of terms.  So that you may better understand Left-speak in the future, I offer the following glossary.  This is by no means an exhaustive list.  Here are some of the more common and/or more recent examples.  You might want to print this and keep it on-hand for those times when you are unable to avoid Left-speak:

Border Security:  Racism

Change:  Socialism.  Example:  "I am the candidate of 'Change'."

Children:  Government.  (Variations are, "The Children" and "Our Children")  Example:  "In our 'Compassion' 'We' are creating this new entitlement program for 'Our Children'." (see "Compassion" and "We" below)

Climate Change:  See "Global Warming" below.  Climate change is slightly more flexible in that no matter what happens, it is bad, Liberty is to blame, and socialism, as for all things, is the solution.

Common Good:  Socialism

Compassion:  Desire for government intervention.  Example:  "'We' must approach all issues with great 'Compassion'." (see "We" below)

Compromise:  Letting go of your silly, ignorant and outdated American ideals of Liberty, and moving always in the direction of pure socialism as a way of showing those who want to destroy you that you are not closed-minded, stubborn, silly, ignorant or outdated.  You are then closed-minded, stubborn, silly, ignorant and outdated again when the Left wants you to cave-in the next time they want something, which starts approximately three seconds after you last caved.

Criminal:  Victim-- especially a victim of the exploitative middle and upper classes.  (No one would ever do anything to hurt anyone else, except when goaded into it by the horrible conditions created by the adherents of capitalism)

Dissent:  Dissent is a good thing-- it is one of the things that makes America great (so long as we are talking about a leftist dissenting with anyone who favors Liberty.  In all other cases, see "Divisiveness" below).

Divisiveness:  Speaking ill of or disagreeing with socialists and socialism.  Divisiveness is one of the worst things in our society today and is largely perpetrated in talk radio, blogs, private conversations, etc., by members of the pig Bourgeoisie.  This can be cause for legal action, since it could in theory cause other people to question socialists and socialism, thereby "harming" them.  (You have no right to harm another person unless that person is being 'Divisive', in which case it is encouraged).

Economic Justice:  Socialism (see "Social Justice" below)

Education:  Socialist education.  Example:  "'We' must support 'Education' for the sake of 'Our Children's' future.

Fairness:  Socialism

Global Community:  Most of the population of the world lives under some form of socialist tyranny, often very brutal socialist tyranny.  Americans have historically lived much better lives due to our relatively higher levels of freedom and Liberty.  For this we are to hate America (if anyone is poor or unhappy, it can only be the willful doing of the more prosperous) and we are to strive to make America more like the rest of the world (poor and oppressed) as a show of solidarity, thus achieving the "Global Community". (See "Peace" below)

Global Warming:  (See "Global Community" above)

Illegal Immigration:  A thoroughly meaningless term invented by racists, purely as an epithet.  Attempting to use "Reason" to explain it will reinforce your status as a racist.

Judgmentalism:  Thinking for one’s self in one’s self-interest, i.e. making decisions or value judgments based on principles, evidence, and rational thought.  In the eyes of the Left, this is one of worst crimes that could be committed, especially if it results in your becoming a successful American pig.  (see "Reason" below)

Liberal: Socialist.  This is an impossible term to use correctly without adding qualifiers.  Most liberals hate being called liberals.  "Liberal" has become an epithet in the eyes of the socialist, either because it implies that one is an advocate of Liberty, which socialists aren't, or because it correctly describes them as socialists. No one knows for sure which.  (Archaic: One who advocates Liberty.  Thomas Jefferson would have considered himself a liberal.  Today's liberals would consider Thomas Jefferson a "Judgmental" and "Divisive" pig.  If he were president, they would engage in "Dissent" with a vengeance.

Need:  This wonderfully flexible term can mean anything the socialist wants it to mean and can change from one instant to another.  Example:  "You have far more than you 'Need' so 'We' are going to take it from you and use it for the 'Education' and 'Safety' of 'Our Children'."  (see "We" and "Safety" below)

Open Mind:  One that unquestioningly embraces socialism as the answer to all things.

Peace:  The lack of meaningful opposition to socialist, Marxist, Fascist, communist or jihadist military expansionism, as in, "It's time to stand up and fight for 'Peace'".

Progressive:  Socialist.  We once spoke of "progress" as that which improved our productivity, opportunity and standard of living.  Like many of the terms they use, the Left has turned this one around exactly 180 degrees.

Reason:  This word is not used by the Left except when describing it as a "weapon" used against the oppressed classes.  Instead they use the word "reasonable" as in "reasonable restrictions" (any restrictions) on your Liberties (see "Compromise" above and learn to be "Reasonable").

Safety:  Existence under strict government oversight.  Some examples are "Airline Safety", "School Safety", "Home Safety", "Gun Safety", "Workplace Safety", etc..  Example: "It is the job of our elected officials to ensure our continued 'Safety'".

Scientist:  Increasingly, this term is used to silence all discussion or debate.  In this sense, a "Scientist" is one who is enlisted by government interests to place a stamp of approval, under the guise of irrefutability, on socialist programs or laws.  Example:  "Any decent 'Scientist' will tell you that man-made 'Global Warming' is a real and present danger, and that our 'Safety' must be ensured through swift action."   Previously, the term "Clergyman" or "God" served a similar purpose, and does so to this day in certain Muslim circles.  (Archaic:  A person engaged in the scientific process, with full disclosure and peer review, as a means of testing theories and discovering knowledge)

Social Justice:  Socialism (see "Economic Justice" above)

Sustainabe:  Under never-ending, complete government control.  Example: "A market-based economy is not 'Sustainable'."

Tolerance:  Tolerance [of socialists and socialism].  Failure to tolerate socialists and socialism is something that should not, and will not, be tolerated.

Unity:  Similar to "Peace", unity describes a situation in which all opposition to socialists and socialism has been effectively silenced.

Universal Health Care:  Socialized medicine, i.e. socialism—specifically, a means by which you would be obliged to support or tolerate a certain political party or doctrine in order to save your very life.

We:  We socialists.  We the collective.  This is a subtle term, but it has a powerful meaning.  Saying "We" this and "We" that reinforces the collective thinking of the "Progressive" a bit like a mantra.  Example:  "'We' must ensure the 'Safety' of all through 'Education' for 'Our Children' and with 'Progressive' programs such as 'Universal Health Care', 'Social Justice', 'Tolerance', 'Peace', and by fostering the 'Unity' of the 'Global Community', through the advocacy of 'Change' while working with the 'Scientists'."

I'll be compiling more as I come up with them.  Reader submissions are welcome.

Sebastian tells us about a Random Conversation About Fingerprinting. A woman (who happens to be very anti-gun) doesn't want to get her fingerprints taken just so she can be a crossing guard near a school. Sebastian compares it to gun owners exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights having to submit fingerprints first. Which leads to his observation:

What goes around, comes around. You can’t expect to empower the state to take away liberty from people you find undesirable, and then expect the state to respect your liberty when you end up in the cross hairs. When you find yourself in that situation, the people who’s liberties have already been trampled on may not be sympathetic enough to help you.

Of course this reminded me of the famous Niemoller quote and I mentioned it in the comments and figured that will be the end of it. But then commenter ParatrooperJJ says the FBI just checks the fingerprints and discards them after they come back clean. That set off my alarms because just a few days ago this came out:

FBI effort will build biggest biometric database

The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad.

Digital images of faces, fingerprints and palm patterns are flowing into FBI systems in a climate-controlled, secure basement here.

Next month, the FBI intends to award a 10-year contract that would significantly expand the amount and kinds of biometric information it receives.

And in the coming years, law enforcement authorities around the world will be able to rely on iris patterns, face-shape data, scars and perhaps even the unique ways people walk and talk to solve crimes and identify criminals and terrorists.

The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law.

If the technology exists it will be used, data obtained will be kept, used, and abused. The features will creep into areas that were promised would never happen. Remember that NICS records were supposed to be destroyed and then Janet Reno kept them for "audit purposes". Then they used those "audit records" to see if suspected terrorists had purchased firearms. My SS card says "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES--NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION". None of my childrens SS cards have any such markings. It used to be something like a $10K fine if anyone tried to use your SSN for anything other than tax purposes. No so anymore.

We are creating all the mechanisms necessary for an effective police state. Remember what Milton Friedman said.

This is in regard to the old blow up the dead whale on the beach video.

Phil asks some questions. My answer:

Pound for pound Boomerite is not much different from what they used. So about 1000 pounds (which is less than what we typically use at Boomershoot). A single rifle bullet would detonate it just fine. If you are using a high BC bullet in a .300 Win Mag (or "better") 1000 yards distant would be possible.

I get requests to blow up all kinds of things. I usually agree to help on one condition--they have to clean up the mess. I almost never hear from them again.

This would be no different. The common perception appears to be that when something is "blown up" it just disappears. Of course this isn't true. Explosives can rip things into very tiny pieces and scatter them but chemical explosives do not destroy matter.

I have an alibi and I have much better places to play with my chemistry set than next to a freeway and bicycle trail:

Authorities are searching for the person or people responsible for setting off an improvised explosive device (IED) on a bicycle path that runs parallel to I-205 last night.

The Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office said the device was ignited on a bike path that runs along the highway near Strawberry Lane on the west side of the highway. A sheriff’s deputy was driving southbound on the highway around 9:30 p.m. when he witness a flash and a plume of light that stretched across the highway.

It's crap like this that will get Tannerite and Target Master banned.

One would think that eventually they would figure it out when something isn't working they would stop doing it. Nope. This is the U.K. and guns. All rational thought must be resisted.

Banning real guns didn't solve their problem so now they are banning deactivated guns. What is a deactivated gun? From the BBC News:

Typically, a deactivated gun has its barrel sawn down the middle and a metal rod is then welded inside to make it incapable of discharging a bullet.

The breech block - which contains the mechanism to actually fire the bullet - is ground down so there is no firing pin.

Hmm... so these must be used in crime a lot in order to justify banning them. Wrong:

However, the most recent Home Office firearms figures from 2005/6 show that reactivated or deactivated firearms were used in just eight offences, out of a total of 11,084.

Reactivated handguns were used twice; deactivated firearms were used four times; and other reactivated firearms were used twice.

So what is going on here? As near as I can tell it's mass insanity. Other links:

• Deactivated firearms 'to be banned this year' (The Independent)
• Deactivated guns to be banned by end of 2008 (AFP)
• New gun control plans 'paper over cracks' (Guardian Unlimited)

And of course the anti-gun bigots are pleased:

Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network said: "We are delighted. This has been on our agenda for a long time. It is a big loophole in our firearms legislation."

When you hear the bigots in this country call the lack of a repressive gun law a "loophole" keep in mind there will always be a "loophole" for these people.

There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.

Alexis de Tocqueville
[Tocqueville died in 1859. Some things never change.--Joe]

And a party it should be!

The anti-gun bigots in San Francisco got their asses handed to them with Proposition H. Sebastian and Uncle have already posted on it. The NRA has their news release here and SAF has their's here.

The Brady Bunch, the VPC, and the "Gun Guys" are all strangely quiet. Maybe someone forgot to invite them to the celebration.

What I wonder is who it is that thinks they are the innocent party here:

WARSAW, Poland - A Polish man got the shock of his life when he visited a brothel and spotted his wife among the establishment's employees.

Polish tabloid Super Express said the woman had been making some extra money on the side while telling her husband she worked at a store in a nearby town.

"I was dumbfounded. I thought I was dreaming," the husband told the newspaper on Wednesday.

The couple, married for 14 years, are now divorcing, the newspaper reported.

[Mostly this is a rant because I'm pissed. I don't particularly blame the NRA-ILA or any other pro-gun group. Political reality is significantly different from gut response. The following is 95% emotion and its to just get it out of my system.]

The instant Bush signed the NICS Improvement Bill into law we get this crap:

President George W. Bush signed the nation's first new gun-control legislation in 14 years Tuesday to help keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy immediately announced she would take her crusade to the next step.

This time, she and others want to close the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows some dealers to sell firearms without background checks.

[...]

Schumer agreed that the next item on the gun-control agenda would be to require background checks in every gun sale, but predicted that would be harder to get passed because of opposition by the National Rifle Association. The law signed Tuesday, in contrast, had NRA support.

And this from Paul Helmke:

Many of us in the gun violence prevention movement are excited about the year ahead.

America is turning a corner on the gun issue, because the people are finally being heard.

Today, President Bush signed into law the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 – what some have called “the first major new gun control bill in more than a decade.”

[...]

Brady background checks have stopped an estimated 1.4 million people from legally buying guns since 1994, but background checks are only as good as the records in the system.

[...]

Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from common-sense gun laws that will reduce the toll of 30,000 gun deaths every year in this country.

• Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from preventing suspected terrorists from walking out of a gun store or a gun show fully armed.

• Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from getting a background check for every single gun purchase they make, including at gun shows (this is closing the gun show loophole).

• Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from strengthening Brady background checks to make sure that “prohibited purchasers” like felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and domestic abusers are denied guns at the point of sale.

• Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from reporting lost or stolen guns to the police in a timely manner.

• Law-abiding Americans (who aren’t in the legal gun business) have nothing to fear from being prevented from buying guns in bulk purchases.

• Law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from keeping military-style assault weapons out of most civilian hands, reserving them for military and law enforcement use only.

If you "compromise" with the Devil don't be surprised if you get burned.

Sean's words need to be repeated here:

What typically gets lost, and lost deliberately, is the meaning of the word 'compromise'. In a compromise, both sides gain or lose bargaining points in a mutually acceptable, if not optimal fashion.  In the gun control debate, the meaning of compromise is twisted to, "Okay, we'll only take half your guns, this time." The pro-RKBA folks are never even offered anything in return. This is a variation of the slippery slope that I call "Zeno's Paradox of Lost Rights". As with the paradox of motion, the remaining scope of the Second Amendment is progressively halved, and halved again. The illusion is that we never lose the right, because there is always the remaining half. The Theory of Limits suggests otherwise.

Sean Flynn
6/15/98

If McCarthy, Schumer, and their ilk were asking me to compromise my initial position would be that they get the death penalty under 18 USC 242. The only people that aren't allowed to own weapons are those that are locked up or are unable feed themselves. If they are safe enough to be allowed on the streets with a 2000 pound car, a full tank of gasoline and a book of matches then they are safe enough to be allowed a M60, a M60 Patton, or, with suitable storage facilities, TNWs. And finally the 2^nd Amendment guarantees the RKBA and since a right someone can't afford to exercise, just like a right to an attorney, isn't really worth anything the Federal Government should subsidize arms for those that want them but cannot afford them.

We start our negotiations there.

And now that I'm got that out of the way let's talk about those words from Helmke:

So, 1.4 million people were stopped from legally purchasing firearms. Since there are about 200 million adults in the country and only about 40% own firearms that must mean that about one out of every 60 people that tried to by a firearm were legally prohibited. And that's not good enough for him. When will it be good enough? One out of 20? One out of 10? No. We know what the real number he is looking for, one out one.

Those "30,000 gun deaths" include justified, even praiseworthy, shootings by police and private citizens. Either Helmke is deliberately misleading or he thinks the life of a thug who put an innocent life in immediate jeopardy of death or permanent injury is just as valuable as the innocent life. In either case he is not to be trusted.

If suspected terrorists are to be prevented from owning guns, the list of suspected terrorists is created without due process as currently is the case, then President Hillary could declare all NRA members, or all even private citizens, suspected terrorists and we all are screwed. Helmke is an enemy of the U.S. Constitution if he supports the disemboweling of both the 2^nd and the 4^th Amendments.

As for the other bullet items, except for the last item, those can only be implemented if you have a gun registration in place. And we all know that registration always leads to confiscation within at most a few decades.

As for the last bullet item, Helmke has demonstrated he can't be trusted, so Μολὼν λαβέ.

And because this is what I was listening to while writing this and I think it fits Schumer, McCarthy, and Helmke well; Runnin' With the Devil by Van Halen:

I live my life like there's no tomorrow
And all I've got I had to steal
Least I don't need to beg or borrow
Yes I'm living at a pace that kills
Runnin' with the devil
Runnin' with the devil
I found the simple life ain't so simple
When I jumped out on that road
I got no love, no love you'd call real
Ain't got nobody waiting at home
Runnin' with the devil
Runnin' with the devil

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin
[Yeah, I know. Everyone has heard this one before. That is most of the reason I have never used it directly before. Today is special however. Check out my next post, Runnin' With the Devil, people compromised with the Devil to gain temporary "safety" and the ink hasn't dried before they are pushing for the "next step".--Joe]

I was reminded of this by today's QOTD.

Banning light bulbs isn't enough, of course.  I heard mention of this today by Jason Lewis on the radio, and via crypton.  There is now talk of requiring remotely (web) controlled thermostats in private homes.  The idea is that a utility company be able to remotely alter your thermostat setting, overriding your selected setting, to save energy, you know, for your comrades.

It will happen.  Also get ready for total use restrictions-- a family of four, for example, will not be allowed to exceed a certain KW/h, or therms, etc., monthly usage without paying large fines.  When that fails to make us all happy, safe and comfortable, as it surely will, we can expect something more severe.

We asked for this the second we decided it was OK for government to involve itself in the energy (or any other) industry.  Anyone warning of this very thing would of course have been put down as an alarmist, and so here we are.

Once the principle (of private property in this case) has been violated, the only debate possible is over the degree of the violation.  There is no principled stand to be taken in favor of any particular degree of violation of a human right.  But this has all been said before.