This is a really bad idea. It would run counter to our tradition and the principles on which we operate our community.

John Roush
Centre College President
Campus gun bill is likely to die--Various officials oppose proposal
January 22, 2008
[Roush was referring to a bill that would allow people to bring guns onto college campuses -- and use them if they were threatened. Yes, I suppose it would run counter to their principles. I suspect those principles are those espoused by Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Bunch, who in the same article said, "The colleges and universities are the ones who should be making the decision on how to keep people safe." I wonder what those principles are exactly.

One of the following I suspect:

• Sheep are supposed to obey their owners and only bleat whenever they are threatened with death or permanent injury.
• The individual is of no concern to their society. Only the collective is important.
• All people are considered of equal value. The predator has just as much right to not be harmed as the victim.
• You are not authorized to make decisions for yourself. The Central Committee will make your decisions for you.

Regardless of the principles Roush and Helmke subscribe to they are at extreme odds to the principles I subscribe to and are guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment.--Joe]

There are some aspects of security the government is and should be responsible for. But when you give the government too much "responsibility" (power) it becomes a source of insecurity. Guns are probably the example most of my readers will readily identify with. The government has a need for weapons but it must never have a monopoly on weapons. To do so would change the fundamental relationship between a free people and their government.

Information is a weapon as well. Giving the government too much information puts innocent people at risk. Read IBM and the Holocaust or for a hint read my Jews in the Attic Test and think about it a little bit.

Here we get still another glimpse of why governments collecting data on people is risky:

Here's an ugly prediction that you can take to the bank: as the amount of data that the feds collect on innocent civilians grows, so will the number of people who are victims of crimes that were made possible by unauthorized access to a government database. I'm not just talking about identity theft, though that is a huge danger with Real ID, but violent crimes as well. As I explained in the OneDOJ post linked above, this prediction is just Metcalfe's Law at work:

This is, of course, a fundamental problem inherent in the very nature of any massive, centralized government data-sharing plan that spans multiple agencies and connects untold numbers of state and federal law enforcement officers: the usefulness of such a system to any one individual (a white hat or a black hat) grows roughly with the square of the number of participants who are using it to share data (Metcalfe's law). So the more white hats that any of these programs manage to connect to each other, the more useful the network as a whole will be to the small handful of black hats who gain access to it at any point.

There is another ugly prediction you can take to the bank when these incidents happen: The politicians will always propose solutions that involve more money and more power being handed over to the government.

On this day set aside to honor the great warrior for the rights of Americans to be free of oppression by their government I like to reflect on the great struggle of the '60s and remember the sacrifices made in the name of Constitutional Rights.

Happy Robert E. Lee's birthday!

Mike Brown
January 21, 2008
Lewiston Pistol Club Email Discussion List
[If others can bring up John Moses Browning today then I figure Mike is within his rights to put even a little more twist into it.--Joe]

Via an email from Rob we have this collection of pictures. It includes replicas of Richard Reid's shoe and a letter bomb from Ted Kaczinski.

TSA cannot defend against everything. We need to consider alternatives.

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post and an article in the Seattle PI (via Uncle) about a brief filed in the Heller case the following argument is made; The Federal government should allow local control. The local know what is best for their society, and what is needed to reduce crime with the type of people they have in their cities and states. Apparently this argument generates considerable traction. I, on the other hand, am shocked that anyone could subscribe to such a concept.

What happens in my mind is that the word "ni**er" or a variation thereof is substituted for variations of the words gun, and gun-owner in all their arguments. And the 13^th Amendment is substituted for the 2^nd Amendment and the argument is reevaluated. The wording of both is absolute in both. If you are to argue that "reasonable restrictions of firearms" is acceptable then you must also argue that "reasonable involuntary servitude" is acceptable.

As an exercise do that on your own with the following paragraphs from the WaPo piece. Imagine the year is 1866 just after the 13^th amendment was ratified:

In Heller, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District's ban on handguns on the grounds that any law banning any single type of "arms" is, necessarily, a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. We believe this is wrong.

[...]

There are hundreds of state and local gun control laws. Each of those measures was enacted by local elected officials in response to local needs and desires. And each of those local governments is called on to balance people's desire to possess weapons for self-defense against the obligation to protect public safety.

In the District -- where handgun violence is particularly acute -- our elected mayor and council struck this balance by prohibiting handguns in the home but permitting rifles and shotguns. Congress could have overturned this decision, but it did not.

People in other parts of the country might have struck this balance differently. In fact, many jurisdictions have permitted handguns when the District's elected officials have not.

But the question is not what is the right policy for the District but who should make that policy. The standard the Supreme Court should apply in the pending gun case is whether the District's gun law is reasonable. And "reasonable" means that the law is a reasonable public safety response to the city's handgun violence and protects residents' right to possess other types of arms for self-defense.

The plaintiffs in Heller would prefer a gun control law different from the one enacted by the D.C. Council. But the Supreme Court should not defer to the plaintiffs and use the Second Amendment as a vehicle for federal courts to micromanage gun laws in this country.

Instead, as Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a case we quoted in our brief, local legislatures should be allowed to devise "various solutions" to local problems "where the best solution is far from clear." That is what our mayor and council did. The Supreme Court should uphold their decision.

These bigots would do well to remember this quote:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture.  They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

Alan Dershowitz
Quoted in Dan Gifford
The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason
62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

But then I can't help but sometimes think my comparison to the 13^th Amendment won't get that much traction with the socialists even when it is presented to them. The socialists do want to treat the 13^th Amendment as they do the 2^nd. The only difference between 1865 and now is that the socialist want government to own all the slaves instead of individuals. The elimination of the 2^nd Amendment is just a bump on the road to their true goal. As the slave owners of 150 years ago knew, you can't allow your slaves access to weapons or you would have a revolt on your hands.

Update: Similar exercises are available for the reader in the Solicitor General's brief in D.C. v. Heller. An example is this snippet:

As the court of appeals correctly held, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. But like other constitutional rights, that individual right is subject to reasonable restrictions, must be applied in light of context and history, and does not provide any protections to individuals who have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections.

Announced just a few days ago:

Inspiration from STI International’s proven race pistol design led to the creation of the STI SteelMaster; a shorter, lighter race pistol for faster target acquisition and reduced muzzle flip and dip. With patented 2011 technology, a 4.15" classic slide, Trubor compensated barrel system, and STI’s revolutionary Recoil Master, the STI SteelMaster delivers all the advantages of a full size race pistol in a smaller, lighter, faster reacting, and less violent package.

Built on the patented modular steel frame with polymer grip, the STI SteelMaster utilizes the innovative Trubor compensated barrel which is designed to eliminate misalignment of the barrel and compensator bore or movement of the compensator on the barrel. The shorter Trubor barrel system in the SteelMaster gives an even greater reduction in muzzle flip and the shorter slide decreases overall slide cycle time allowing the shooter to achieve faster follow up shots. The slide is flat topped with slide lightening cuts on the front and rear to reduce weight, and custom "Sabertooth" serrations. With an overall weight of 38.9 oz, the SteelMaster is significantly lighter in weight than full size race pistols. The SteelMaster is mounted with a C-More, 6 minute red dot scope with blast shield and thumb rest. Additional enhancements include aluminum magwell, stainless steel ambidextrous safeties, stainless steel high rise grip safety, STI’s "Spur" hammer, STI’s RecoilMaster guide rod system, & checkered front strap and mainspring housing.

The STI SteelMaster is available in 9mm.

In compettion I shoot a STI gun, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

I've talked about this concept before, basically the extremist Muslim culture must be destroyed if Western civilization is to survive. I believe that, long term, their restrictions on human sexuality is a flaw that can be exploited to bring about a more tolerant Muslim culture. Here is part of the reason I believe that.

1. From the book Infidel (see also The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam) by Ayaan Hirsi Ali we find that women, even those that have been subjected to severe genital mutilation, have strong sexual desires. Women, upon the pain of death, are required to be virgins on their wedding nights. Even if it was a brutal rape the woman can be severely punished for her failure to remain "pure".
2. Again from Infidel many Muslims believe that if a woman shows her skin, even a portion of their neckline or face, in public it will cause the breakdown of society. Men will be so overcome with lust that it will cause them to be unable to drive on the roads, work, or even restrain themselves from attacking the woman.
3. The age of marriage has been increasing. In some areas the average age is near 30 now. By contrast when those Islamic laws were created by the prophet Mohammad the norm was much younger. For example Mohammad married one of his wives when she was nine years old and most "women" were married in their early teens. This puts more stress on both men and women (see for example The right of young Muslimas to have sex--Virginity rule 'leads to hypocrisy').
4. Men are allowed to marry more than one woman leading to a shortage of marriage partners for many men.
5. Jihad "martyrs" are told they will receive "72 virgins in paradise".
6. The extremist Muslims are adhering to a very strict interpretation of the Koran. And the restrictions and mandates that we find so abhorrent such as the punishment of rape victims, death penalties for apostates, non Muslims must be subjugated or killed, etc. are all in there. And if they are to be "good Muslims" they will not fit in with our "society of tolerance".
7. In Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America Kenneth Timmerman (this has been brought up by other authors as well) points out that Muslims are taught they are the "chosen people" and are rightly superior to other religions and cultures. Increased contact with Western Civilizations via TV, books (Ali in Infidel credits Nancy Drew and Harlequin Romances among others), and the Internet has caused Muslims to question their teachings. The extremists acknowledge the discrepancy between the quality of life in Western society and Muslim society but believe the solution is to become "better" (more extreme) Muslims and to attack the non-believers.

8. It's not easy for people to change (see for example this--thanks to Kevin). And it is much more difficult for people in Muslim cultures to change than ours. We value individuality and in their society deviance from the family, clan, and religious leaders are almost unthinkable. And even the simplest of scientific method experiments may "go right over their heads". They think very differently than we do. One example from Preachers of Hate is when one Muslim was asked by Timmerman, if he had to make the choice, which he would choose, "To give up your land or give up your wife?" The response was immediate and unambiguous. "My wife of course. I can always get another wife." Another example made throughout the book it that they believe all their problems and inadequacies are the fault of the Jews (and to some extent Christians). Even where there are no Jews, such as in Saudi Arabia, every problem, even the tiniest most local issue, has it's origin in the continued existence of Jews someplace on the planet. This kind of "thinking" will be difficult to reform because it is not facts and logic that guide their thoughts and actions. Supplying them with facts and logic are almost pointless.

By exposing young Muslim men and women to Western society and showing them what is available we undermine the authority of the extremists in their culture. After water, food, and physical comfort, sex is one of the most powerful drives in humans. Muslim extremists have created a society where this desire is unfulfillable by many, severely restricted in most, then offer them death (and "72 virgins in paradise") as their outlet. By offering them a more acceptable (to us) outlet for this desire we can drive a wedge between the extremists in their culture and the young people.

We can exploit their obvious disconnect from reality via their obsession with sexual repression. For example Hirsi related in Infidel how in the Netherlands she experimented by going in public without her scarf and expecting men to drive off the road when they saw her face and neck. It didn't happen and she was forced to question her teachings. But because the scientific method is not something that comes natural to them we must augment it with the offering of sexual release. Another possibility is as Hirsi points out many of women understand the more blatant injustices and would welcome change in those areas. And the sex drive can do amazing things. Hirsi's own sexual desires pushed her into actions she knew were extremely risky. As for the young men remember that up to 70% of the files exchanged between Saudi teenagers phones contain pornography.

Western society communication technology and sexual freedom is causing extreme conflict in their society. We need to encourage this conflict and support those that reject the extremists. It is far better that they rid themselves of these zealots than for our military, with the best of intentions, to be a "bull in a china shop" in the process of neutralizing that threat to our safety.

Support open communication, fight censorship, and enable access of young Muslims to as much sexual content/contact as you can. Support Porn for Peace and Dr. Joe's Cure for Everything.

We will be in a struggle with the Islamic world for the next 100 years.

Sen. Richard Shelby
R-Alabama
January 19, 2008
Athens Alabama
[The Islamic world has been at war with Western Civilization for the last 700 years, so what is another 100 years? We do what we have to do.--Joe]

According to the ATF website if you have black tip 7.62 NATA or 7.62x39 steel core ammo it is considered illegal armor piercing ammo. But .223 green tip and 30.06 black tip are not considered illegal:

List of Armor Piercing Ammunition

KTW AMMUNITION, all calibers. (Identified by a green coating on the projectile)

ARCANE AMMUNITION, all calibers. (Identified by a pointed bronze or brass projectile)

THV AMMUNITION, all calibers. (Identified by a brass or bronze projectile and having a headstamp containing the letters SFM and THV)

CZECHOSLOVAKIAN manufactured 9mm Parabellum (Luger) ammunition having an iron or steel core. (Identified by a cupronickel jacket and headstamp containing a triangle, star and dates 49, 50, 51, or 52. The bullet is attracted to a magnet)

GERMAN manufactured 9mm Parabellum (Luger) having an iron or steel bullet core. (Original packaging is marked Pisolenpatronen 08 m.E. May have black colored bullet. This bullet is attracted to a magnet)

MSC AMMUNITION, Caliber .25. (Identified by a hollow point brass bullet. NOTE: MSC ammunition Caliber .25 identified by a hollow point copper bullet is not armor piercing)

BLACK STEEL ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION, All Calibers, as produced by National Cartridge, Atlanta, Georgia.

BLACK STEEL METAL PIERCING AMMUNITION, All Calibers, as produced by National Cartridge, Atlanta, Georgia.

7.62mm NATO AP (Identified by black coloring in the bullet tip. This ammunition is used by various NATO countries. The U.S. military designation is M61 AP)

7.62mm NATO SLAP (identified by projectile having a plastic sabot around a hard penetrator. The penetrator protrudes above the sabot and is similar in appearance to a Remington accelerator cartridge)

PMC ULTRAMAG .38 Special caliber, constructed entirely of a brass type material, and plastic pusher disc located at the base of the projectile. NOTE: PMC ULTRAMAG 38J late production made of copper with lead alloy projectile is not armor piercing.

OMNISHOCK, a .38 Special cartridge with a lead bullet containing a mild steel core with a flattened head resembling a wad cutter. (NOTE: OMNISHOCK cartridges having a bullet with an aluminum core are not armor piercing.)

7.62x39mm with steel core. (NOTE: these projectiles have a steel core. Projectiles having a lead core with steel jacket or steel case are not armor piercing)

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CARTRIDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION:

5.56MM (.223) SS109 and M855 Ammunition, Identified by a green coating on the projectile tip.

U.S. .30-06 M2 AP, Identified by a black coating on the projectile tip.

The distinction in the law is made on the basis of whether or not it is handgun ammo. Apparently because there are sufficient numbers of handguns that will fire the 7.62x39 (huh? I didn't know there were any!) and .308 cartridges they declared it handgun ammo.

I love the part about the .25 ACP ammo with a brass bullet is considered AP but with a copper bullet is just fine. Considering what most experts think of the .25 ACP round I find it incredibly amusing our Congress Critters consider it AP.

Just another one of the contributors to Huffman's rule of firearms law.

In the past there has been some criticism of the NRA's response to the current administration's brief in the Heller case. Some thought it was a bit tepid. The latest alerts from the Apex of the Triangle of Death will quiet most critics. Here are some of the points they make:

• Contrary to DOJ’s suggestion, this case is not about felons or machine guns. (Let's stay on topic, don't confuse the issue, there is only one question being asked.)
• NRA strongly disagrees with many of the arguments in DOJ’s brief. (Same link as above.)
• In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), the Court said the right preexisted the Constitution. (Same link as above. The right is not granted by the 2^nd Amendment and would still exist even if the 2^nd Amendment were repealed.)
• Anti-gun criminologists James Alan Fox and David McDowell make the remarkable claims... (Same link as above. Mocking the enemies of freedom should be a pastime of everyone.)
• Obviously blinded by their own anti-gun bigotry and ignorance... (The anti-gun ADL brief is called bigoted. I love that this meme being used. I've been pushing it for a long time. I believe this meme will have to be used if we ever hope to drive the anti-gun forces into political extinction.)

This post was brought to you by a wheelbarrow full of cash from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.

The U.S., fortunately, is still on a demographic expansion wave and will be till at least 2050. But if the Islamists achieve their dream of nuking “crusader” cities, they’ll make crusaders out of the U.S., too. And this time, a West with a chauvinized America at its head would smite the Saracen with weapons that would destroy entire populations and fuse Mecca into glass. The horror of our victory would echo for a thousand years.

I remain more optimistic than this. I think there is still an excellent chance that the West can recover from suicidalism without going through a fevered fascist episode and waging a genocidal war. But to do so, we have to do more than recognize Stalin’s memes; we have to reject them. We have to eject postmodern leftism from our universities, transnational progressivism from our politics, and volk-Marxism from our media.

Eric Steven Raymond
February 11th, 2006
Gramscian damage
[This quote is nearly two years old but with the current situation of having blantent communists having good chances of winning the White House this fall and Islamic extremists still wanting to nuke our cities Raymond's excellent post deserves more attention.--Joe]

As Schneier points out this is as stupid as locking the fire alarm boxes (as they were in Chicago prior to 1870--guess what happened in 1871). Bloomberg wants people to have a license before they "possess or deploy" biological, chemical, or radiological detectors. This would be to prevent false alarms, just like the locked fire alarms.

You already knew Bloomberg wants to get rid of guns and I'm thinking he is going about all this the wrong way. Rather than enumerating the objects you are not allowed to have he should make a list of the items his subjects are allowed to possess. I'm thinking that ultimately the second list would be shorter and easier to maintain than the first.

Update: Further confirmation my approach would be simpler arrives via Uncle with this story:

And in what appeared to be a direct shot at his predecessor, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, Bloomberg described the city government he inherited when he took office in 2002 as "insular and provincial and married to the conventional."

At first glance I thought he said, "married to the constitution". But of course that wouldn't make sense because he was talking about Guiliani.

He also announced that the city is challenging the private sector to create a portable device for police officers to carry that will analyze DNA right at a crime scene. A monetary prize will go to whoever comes up with the technology, he said.

Bloomberg also outlined two law enforcement initiatives that would need the state Legislature's approval: a proposal to collect DNA from suspects upon arrest and another to make it easier to trace bullets used in crimes.

Lots of people are having fun with this (video):

• Karma can be a bitch (I love the comment from Marko at 10:59)
• Why we shouldn’t ban rubber testicles
• Tam is betting

Of course nearly everyone is thinking this is a good thing. So maybe we should make this sort of thing more likely to happen. Urge your legislative critters to pass holster control instead of gun control laws. Only the good guys should have holsters.

Of course expect the anti-gun people to put this accidental shooting in the "bad thing" column.

In high school and college I played a LOT of chess. I still have the records of hundreds of games I played and dozens of books and magazines. I had thought maybe my children would be interested in chess but kids seem to develop interests in things other than what their parents are interested in.

In any case I was a big into chess before Bobby Fischer became the first American world chess champion. Fischer winning the championship made chess in the U.S. popular for a while. And I remember walking into the high school cafeteria on the first day of school in the fall of '72 shortly after he had won and my friend Lance Jones yelling across the room, "Yea Fischer!".

In later years after I was most of the way through college my electrical engineering classes started sucking up the desire for challenging intellectual stimulation and I mostly dropped out of the chess scene.

Fischer made the news again a few years ago and I wrote about him then. The news about him made me sad and now that he is dead at the age of 64 it's like another milestone in my life. A childhood hero is gone.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Ben Franklin
[I have heard many variations of this and so few give credit to Franklin that I'm not certain it is he that deserves it. For example see the following quote from a (now deceased--his gun inventory is available) friend of mine. In any case, this quote is a follow up to yesterdays QOTD.--Joe]

---

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Liberty is two wolves attempting to have a sheep for dinner and finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep.

Lance 07/SOT
Lance Haserot
gunrunnr@moscow.com
May not have been original from Lance.
He did use it as his signature in email on 10/31/97

---

Last week James and I finished watching Wonderfalls and then started Farscape this week (we found Season One in a far off, obscure video rental store and are shipping it in/out at great expense).

Wonderfalls was a pretty good show. I think James liked it better than I did. There were some good quotes:

Jaye: [spying on a little boy customer] He's eyeing the Slinky. You know, he has to steal, like, four of those for me to even get a dollar.
Wonderfalls Security Guard: Is this one of those stores that gives its employees a cash bonus when they apprehend a shoplifter?
Jaye: Ten percent of whatever they were gonna steal. One time, I "accidentally" left the watch case open and I got like 500 bucks!

Hale: The Blonde one's gay. Look at her. The fingernails are a dead giveaway.
Hale: Cut all nice and short. Clean cuticle beds. Lesbians always trim their nails like that. You know why?

Jaye: [talking about Bianca] She's nice. We should take her clubbing.
Mahandra: ...baby seals?

Or noticing the bartender's cell phone is ringing in his back pocket--- Jaye says, "Your ass is ringing." Bartender: "My ass rings a lot." Jaye: "Have you ever thought of setting it on vibrate? Bartender: "I'm not sure I'm secure enough with my manhood to do that." Jaye: "So, why do you have an ass if you don't answer it?"

James lamented that too many good shows are canceled after one season. In this case I thing I understand why it wouldn't have that big of audience. Even though had a rather flimsy premise it was well executed and witty but I think the delivery speed and the intelligence required to catch all the jokes as they came whizzing by would eliminate 80% of the population.

[heavy sigh]

Our demographic probably isn't the best investment of T.V. talent and airtime.

They are Blue citadels and bastions of power, pure and simple, and the ultimate effect of this proposal is that it exploits the "states making side deals" blind spot in our constitution to implement a bald power grab on the part of the cities.

Having studied history carefully, I've got to say that this is the sort of thing that future historians may well file under chapters with grim titles.

geekWithA.45
Converting a Republic to A Mere Majoritarian Exercise...
[There are far to many history chapters with grim titles. Majority rule without "checks and balances" is responsible for a lot of them.--Joe]

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.