More random stuff from my "quote" collection. This time for our daughter Xenia:

I have not yet begun to procrastinate.

It was a week ago yesterday that we picked up Xenia's laptop from Cactus Computer after spending some time in the shop for just this problem (well, almost):

Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will Whiz on your computer.

At dinner with Phil and his wife last night we talked about religion some and for a short while Baptists in specific. Hence this isn't entirely random:

A man was seated next to a stiff-looking Baptist minister on a flight to Wichita. After the plane was airborne, the flight attendant came around for drink orders.  The man asked for a whiskey and soda, which he got.

The attendant then asked the minister if he would also like a drink. The minister replied in disgust, "I'd rather be savagely raped by a brazen whore than let liquor touch these lips."

The man then handed his drink back to the attendant and said, "I didn't know there was a choice."

This is for their dog Elsie:

Q: What has four legs and an arm?
A: A happy Rottweiler.

The other day Lyle posted "We Can't Drill Ourself Out of This Problem".

Today I was poking around in my quote collection and ran across this:

Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?  You're crazy.

Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

Apparently the "progressives" still haven't caught up with the capitalists of 150 years ago.

Last week Michael Bane put up a post on competition versus real world shooting. This is pretty much "old territory". It's sort of like the classic debate between Glock owners and 1911 advocates. Or what is the best cartridge or bullet? I'm pulling some of my previously published data on this rather than contributing much in the way of new material.

In my collection of quotes I have one from Greg Hamilton which is essentially +1 on what Bane says:

As for the "I don't shoot that kind of game because I don't want to learn bad tactics" crowd, I think that is an over used excuse by people that can't win. Shooting IPSC or IDPA won't make you a bad tactician. Being a bad tactician will make you one! Most of the people that complain about tactics wouldn't know a tactic if it hit them in the ass.

Tactics are making the most out of the situation with the resources at hand. Every time you "game" a stage you are engaging in tactical thinking. They just might not be the right tactics for a gunfight.

Greg Hamilton
11/11/2001
Insights Training Email List

The following is only partially on target for the topic at hand but it is still worthy of bringing up:

From: Joseph K. Huffman
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 11:21 PM
To: ipsc mailing list
Subject: RE: New target...

[...stuff deleted...]

'Classic Target' makes me think of George Orwell's '1984' and 'Animal Farm' books. To me IPSC is about shooting 'bad guys'. It is about using a gun to defend self, family, and country. If someone were to ask me if IPSC was training people to shoot other people I would reply with an enthusiastic "YES!". There are some people that need to be shot. And if the time comes that they need to be shot and I'm the one that must do the shooting my speed, accuracy, and power will be some of the critical items in deciding who walks away from the encounter and who leaves on a stretcher. For some government, or some naive group of people with political clout, to claim a moral high ground and demand that I stop practicing shooting at people is ludicrous. Self defense is a right all species on this planet have claimed for all time. For someone to deny me the opportunity to practice it is as alien to me as anything I can imagine. It causes an internal reaction of outrage in me that I find difficult to express accurately. If the world IPSC organization wants to add another target to achieve political advantage in some country or to gain entrance to the Olympics, fine. If necessary, as a first step, shoot with single shot air guns. Do what you have to in those areas where shooting real guns at (somewhat) realistic targets is not viable. But don't take away the fundamental principles of this 'game' from everyone -- shooting 'bad guys', fast, accurately, and with 'stopping power'.

-joe-

The point I like to make is, "How many class B and above IPSC shooters have lost a real world gun fight?" As far as I know the answer is zero. IMHO any time you get someone to the range and they put in some "trigger time" shooting fast and accurately they are improving their "real world" gun skills. Show me the data that suggests otherwise and then we can talk more but until then we just have opinions.

I believe, and the N.R.A. believes, that in all human society there is a right for good people to defend themselves from bad people, and a firearm is an essential tool of self-defense.

Wayne LaPierre
July 19, 2008
U.S. Position Complicates Global Effort to Curb Illicit Arms
[Ultimately we need to start pushing on the rampant human rights violations in other countries. I'm just not sure where and how to start. I'm thinking Canada because the gun culture is still alive and trying to fight back. But how? Smuggling guns into the country probably isn't going to get guns into the proper hands and is subject to demonization if even one gun in a 1000 is used in a crime. An "underground railroad" for escaped political prisoners and then refuse to extradite them? Trade restrictions if they don't ease up on the repressive laws? Boycotting of Canadian firms like the boycotts of South Africa because of apartheid?--Joe]

Reader Rob sent me this link: FOXSexpert: Reach for the Pinnacle With Transcendent Sex.

I'm skeptical. Here is what this self proclaimed expert has to say on the topic:

Some people actually supersede the state of climax and reach a state of transcendent sex. Such lovemaking is said to involve a divine force, and is regarded as a path to a higher consciousness. It has been known to change one’s views on sex and spirituality. Yet this mystical, spiritual sexual experience is one of the best kept sex secrets around.

...

The closest I’ve ever come to such a spontaneous, divine experience involved my life-force energy shooting up from the base of my spine during an orgasm. It happened when I was with my ex-lover and I found myself blissfully lost in a purplish-turned-white light that went beyond my body.

...

People who have been swept into transcendent ecstasy, according to developmental psychologist Dr. Jenny Wade, have reported:

— Seeing visions;
— Feeling heat, light and energy waves throughout the body;
— Reliving past lives;
— Seeing the face of God;
— Paranormal powers;
— Being visited by gods;
— Feeling possessed by spirits;
— Working with natural forces;
— Nothingness, whiteness, pure bliss;
— One with everything – there is no “me” or time;
— A lack of sensory channels;
— Time travel;
— Enlightenment.

It sounds more like someone blew a few circuit breakers in the electrical system of their brain rather than they found violations of several physical laws.

Reynolds and Denning sum something up that has been difficult for me to communicate to others:

Subsequent courts went further, stating that Miller held that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right.  Reading those opinions closely, however, it is clear that many simply relied on what other courts had said about Miller, and some judicial characterizations of Miller’s facts are so inaccurate that it is difficult to believe that the judge writing the opinion could have actually read the Miller decision itself. Lower court discussions of Miller resembled a game of judicial Telephone, with the actual holding of Miller becoming less and less recognizable as the years progressed.

I always tried to say the courts have misread Miller which holds near zero weight because I'm not a lawyer. But also I probably was being too generous the courts. As pointed out by above paragraph they most likely didn't even read Miller. And even that may be too generous. It could be they actually read it then deliberately twisted it to arrive at the conclusion they wanted.

That said, this is all history now. We should concentrate on the future. I think the plan for the future is best summed up by Lyle with history being looked at for guidance on how we should treat our "prisoners of war".

The following chart is from Common Folk regarding Brady Campaign grading of state gun laws versus crime rates. The claim is, "It would seem that while the Brady Bunch consider a state safe if it has severe gun restrictions, crime is actually more rampant in those same states with severe gun restrictions making them, in reality, less safe."

From this data one could conclude there is an inverse relationship between the Brady score and safety.

Be careful! This data is a subset of the entire population of states. I did a similar analysis for the 2004 Brady Report Card using all state data and the correlation was near zero. In the comments to the Common Folk link other people arrive at similar conclusions to mine.

Of course you won't find the anti-gun people doing peer reviews such as this and pointing out the errors. Nope. They cherry pick their data and report just what they want people to hear.

Barb and I have a very social weekend ahead of us.

First off is lunch with son James.

Tonight Barb and I are having dinner with Phil (from SoftGreenGlow.com) and his wife. Despite the references to the canned salmon mouse I'm sure we will have a pleasant evening.

Tomorrow is the company picnic with probably 5 or 10 thousand other people.

The fight over original meaning has to come an end when the opinions analyze "the" right to keep and bear arms. The D.C. Circuit opinion pointed out that the phrasing indisputably shows that the right was a pre-existing one. That is, the right to keep and bear arms already existed before the Second Amendment was written. The Second Amendment merely imposed a legal requirement that the right not be infringed by the federal government. The 1875 Supreme Court decision in Cruikshank said the same thing, as both the majority and dissent agree.

David Kopel
July 18, 2008
The Right to Bear Arms and “Sensible” Gun Laws
[This is going to be a big stumbling block for the anti-rights crowd. Even if they try to repeal the 2^nd Amendment Cruikshank says, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." But we should not let them get so far as to publicly suggest repealing the 2^nd Amendment. They should get all the derision, outrage, and humiliation that would arise should they suggest the equally unacceptable repeal of the rights to free speech, to a trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.--Joe]

In response to Joe's recent post, Racking up the Victories, I offer this a little pep talk to the troops in the gun rights organizations.

We've taken the beach, as Joe put it, and established a tenuous foothold.  This is just the beginning of the fight.  Give no quarter and take no prisoners.

The anti gun movement has inconvenienced us, insulted us, and harassed us at every opportunity.  They've accused us of being responsible for other people's crimes, they've accused us of being dangerous, "bloodthirsty" and of being "vigilantes" just because we stood up for a guaranteed  human right.  They've ruined people's homes and property in bogus raids, justified with bogus "sting" operations.  They've charged innocent people with "crimes" because a piece of wood or a piece of steel was an eighth inch too short or a magazine held "too many" cartridges for their tastes.  They've put people out of business and bankrupted them for minor clerical errors.  They currently have innocent people in jail, they've left untold numbers of people defenseless against criminal and terrorist attacks, they've pitted American against America, and they've outright killed people who did no wrong to anyone.  All this and much more they have done under the color of law.

I could go on for another thousand words, but you get the point.  The anti gun movement has been disrespectful, mean, cruel, ruthless, dishonest, completely without morals or principles, in full, open, blatant contempt for the Founding Principles of this country.

In short, some of the very people charged with protecting our Liberty have been in the front lines fighting against it.  It's like a security guard turned burglar, a bodyguard turned rapist, or a policeman turned murderer.

They still have prisoners.  And they preach to us, telling us they have a "right to their beliefs" and that we're supposed to be the picture of "tolerance", restraint, and even politeness in return!

If this fight is going to have any success at all-- any meaning for future generations, there has to be a price paid by those who have fought so hard to destroy an important part of the U.S. Constitution, undermine the security of our neighborhoods, and spit on our American culture.  The price must be very high, so future generations can look back and see the consequences of attacking the American people's very lives and Liberty from within, under the color of law.

With the Heller decision we successfully landed on the beach and are now advancing.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death reports on the latest victory in Morton Grove Illinois where they surrendered without firing a shot.

Uncle points out that gun bloggers can change the perception of the world. By providing more links to the viewpoint we want presented we move the ranking of web pages up the chart on Google and other search engines.

Our next target is Carry Permit Holders.

The top ten gun bloggers (it was a rigged election--I know it must be because I won) are going to Blackwater USA next month for some training with Todd Jarrett all sponsored by Para.

We aren't being trained as mercs but I figure it's a good story to tell people and I love the shock value.

Para is supplying the guns and has asked each of us what caliber we want. I asked for .40 because that is the pistol caliber I most frequently reload. Sorry, that wasn't an option. My options were 9mm and .45. I have all the components and equipment for 9mm so I initially asked for that. Then a minute or so later I asked what the capacity on that gun was. It is 9 + 1. Arghh! 9mm and it's not even a reasonably high capacity? I carry 18 + 1 in my .40! Okay, so if I'm going to be stuck with a low capacity gun I might as well go with the larger caliber. So it's the .45. It's a 1911 style gun and I can use it in the Single Stack division (I currently shoot Limited) for USPSA competition.

Now I find out that this isn't exactly a 1911 style as I think of it. It's a "Light Double Action" trigger instead of a single action trigger! The 9mm they offered has a single action trigger. Hmmmm... It's looking like we're talking the lesser of two evils here.

Okay. I'll give them chance. I'll still go with the .45 but this might be putting me at a disadvantage with the bet I have with Caleb. He's going with the 9mm and he is spending a lot of time practicing.

Uncle is doing a survey to resolve his similar quandary.

Rob is going with the .45.

I knew the call was coming, he called right on time and we talked for nearly 50 minutes.

Brian Doherty is writing a book that is primarily on the Heller case. It's title is Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. I'm not sure how it came about but Stephanie, who has done a lot of PR work for Boomershoot, referred him to me. Mostly as a side note Doherty wanted information on the gun culture and how this great clash of ideas culminated in the Heller case.

After Doherty and I exchanged email and agreed on a time for the interview Stephanie called me and said I should send him a link to a blog post of mine from several years ago. She doesn't like to talk about certain things on the phone and did a lot of hinting without coming out and saying things. It went something like, "That blog post about Boomershoot, the one that might get you fired, the one that is sort of extreme, but is what guns are all about." I knew which one she meant--Why Boomershoot. I sent it and, as Stephanie suggested, it was a good conversation starter.

The interview went well. Where did I grow up and did I grow up with weapons as part of my daily life? Was the political viewpoint espoused in the post part of my growing up? Have things changed in the last decade or so? The sub-title to your blog is "Ramblings of a red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal." Do you think people, including those around where you live, actually think of you as that? How did you arrive at your political viewpoint on guns? How many people attend Boomershoot? Did you have a lot of regulatory hurdles to overcome for Boomershoot? Do the people that attend share your political views as expressed in the blog post? Do you talk about that sort of stuff a lot at Boomershoot? When the media shows up do you give them that side of event? "No", I told him, "That would scare the white people."

Once I answered all his questions I had a few questions for him.

Had he read Unintended Consequences by John Ross? Nope he hadn't. I gave him my two minute overview of it with a slant toward what I figured Doherty's interest would be in it--the gun culture and the revolution. I told him that I had talked to Ross, he was approachable, and that he probably would be a good person to interview as well.

What did he think of Boomershoot? He said he was planning to attend this year and something came up. He really wants to attend next year. I offered to put on a private party for him if he wanted to show up sometime before next April.

During the conversation I sent him several links that gave more thoughtful answers and background to our conversation:

• How gun control lost
• The explosives magazine
• Bigotry
• More bigotry
• History of Boomershoot

Published by Cato Institute he expects the book to be released in late October but Amazon says, "November 25, 2008".

I'll be buying a copy.

For many of us, the *only* position we agree with Barack Hussein Obama on even somewhat is LGBT civil rights, and even then, many of us have reservations about issues such as hate crimes legislation. For example, I truly don't care *why* someone is having the crud kicked out of them by a band of thugs, I merely desire that it stop immediately and that very bad and consistent things happen to the thugs regardless of the reason for the beating, excepting self-defense (and I have great difficulty imagining 5:1 as self-defense).

For us, it is the *act* that offends far more than the reason - at least partially because telepathy is not required to ascertain most criminal acts, where divining the reason for misbehavior is much more treacherous.

Blessed with lawful carry, we are in a position to choose defend ourselves and our loved ones against the bullies, bigots, and generally bad persons that would harass, assault, maim, or kill us.

Gay Cynic
June 15, 2008
The Endless Contest
[On why the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans-sexual (LGBT) crowd should hold their noses and vote for McCain this fall.--Joe]

The other day I provided a link to a blog post Sebastian had found. The post and particularily the comments were filled with some of the most vile bigotry toward gun owners, particularily women, I have ever seen. Tonight I stumbled across more bigotry examples. These were about some of the pictures in the book Armed America:

Krapulator
March 14th, 2008 - 11:40 am

HAHAHA What a bunch of nut jobs! No wonder there are so many shootings in America

Hillbillies
March 14th, 2008 - 12:48 pm

Freaks!!!!!!!! What a bunch of nut jobs!!!!!
Redneck Hillbillies!!!!!!!!!
Thats “the bible belt” in pictures!!!!

amigo
March 14th, 2008 - 1:30 pm

WOW … now i see true face of democracy. long live moronity!

Harl
March 14th, 2008 - 1:54 pm

A lot of small cocks. no?

I have a brain...
March 14th, 2008 - 2:08 pm

Poor America ! Why do you need all these toys ? Is it that difficult to defend yourself with words ? Is violence the only language you understand ?

I like the pictures of the kids holding the guns… Bowling for Columbine… remember ??? Are you, americans (lowercase) shocked when a riffle occurs ? Well… you now know how it is so easily possible !

Dear americans, don’t be sad when you’re shot… America provides you with the guns !!!

NRA can be proud, they have made a good brainwashing ! And they make a good money on your back…

A European with a brain !

AMAZING
March 14th, 2008 - 2:33 pm

Conservative Muslim Redneck hillbilly gun owner.
Different Regions. Different Cultures. Different Background.
!!!!But they look just the same!!!!!!!! It’s amazing!!!!!

Happy not being American
March 14th, 2008 - 3:01 pm

yet more American ego macho wank. No wonder you kill yourselves so frequently… fucking retards.

Nice pictures.

Spitz R. S. Wallows
March 14th, 2008 - 3:28 pm

Anyone that would pose their child with a gun needs their testicles cut out.

Is there any doubt why most of the world considers Americans freaks?

Some of the most disturbing pictures I have ever seen.

America is phucked.

They aren't all bad. But my friend Ry (14^th pic) is singled out in one of the nicer comments:

Ken
March 14th, 2008 - 3:33 pm

Most of the people in the photos are just collectors. You have to admit it beats the hell out of beanie babies. The guy in the 14th pic is a little scary though.

Americans were given the right to own guns as a way to keep the government from screwing them. (A fat lot of good it did!)

It makes me feel like I was back in grade school when I would explain something to the teacher or to the class and I got called names and was picked on by some of the other kids. The truth does not matter. All that matters is that the attackers find a way to feel superior to their victims. I had no way, no language, no words, no physical acts to rectify the situation. These people do not want to face reality and therefore they cannot be forced to face reality. Perhaps that is a major component to most bigotry.

We've all heard it.  That's the current mantra of the Left, and if there's anything we have for certain all heard a thousand times, it's a Leftist mantra.

There are two camps on this issue.  In one camp, the people suck it right up, fully accept it, and repeat it any time the discussion comes up.

The other camp is incredulous.  "How could anyone be so stupid.." they might ask, "..to believe we can't drill for more oil, increase the future supply, send a message to the market that lots more oil is on the way, and thereby bring down the price?"

That's a perfectly sensible question.  To say that we can't drill our way out of an impending oil shortage is of course exactly like saying you can't eat your way out of hunger, you can't warm your way out of hypothermia, and you can't drink your way out of thirst.

It's just plain incomprehensible that anyone would make such a claim, so why do the Leftists keep saying it?  They seem all to understand it, and they all seem to embrace it, so what's going on?

The problem, as always, is in the use of the language.  We are assuming that by "this problem" the Left means, "the combination of high demand and restricted supply that results in a high price".  We've been wrong about this the whole time, however.  What the Left means by "this problem" is actually, "human success" particularly "American success".  Translated properly into Left-Speak then, the phrase, "We can't drill our way out of this problem" make perfect sense.  It would read something like, "We can't drill our way out of American success" which is of course perfectly true and obvious.  We could drill and pump and drill and pump, and still we'd be a vibrant, successful, creative and productive nation.  For the Left, that outcome would of course be insufferable.

Now you understand.

Carry on.

Sebastian points us to this piece of extreme bigotry.

I think the good guys have a better response to the demand for one gun a month restrictions. The background details are here but the one line response we need to hit these guys with is:

How do you propose to enforce one gun a month?

Which do I have to check at the door, my Fourth Amendment rights, my First Amendment rights or my Second Amendment rights?

Mike Brown
Troy Idaho Attorney
July 16, 2008
Borne arms
[This was on the topic of guns being carried to city council meetings, inside the state capital, and other public meeting places. Mike is the founder of Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance. He is also a top notch handgun shooter.--Joe]

Don Gwinn of The Armed School Teacher has just announced he got the 11^th position at the Gun Blogger Summer Camp. Congratulations Don!

I'll see you in a few weeks.

H/T to Tam (who will also be attending) for the link to Gwinn's announcement post.

I had said before that even with the Heller win the gun bigots will scream and yell, and refuse to obey the law as long as they can. They are doing just that:

The proposal, which maintains some of the city's strict gun ownership rules and adds more regulations, was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates threatening more legal action.

Handguns will still be banned, except for self-defense in the home, city officials said at a noon news conference. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles are still prohibited.

Keep in mind that their definition of a "machine gun" is any gun that holds 12 or more rounds.

And the difference between what was declared unconstitutional and what they are proposing is minimal. Imagine if some Jim Crow law was declared unconstitutional and the bigot revised their laws in a similar manner:

Police will register one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law, city officials said. A six-month amnesty period will be set up during which residents can register guns already in their possession.

...

"We have crafted what I believe to be a model for the nation in terms of complying with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision and at the same time protecting our citizens," interim Attorney General Peter Nickles said.

...

The new legislation also modifies existing law to clarify that firearms must be stored unloaded and either disassembled or secured with a trigger lock, gun safe or similar device, officials said. There would be an exception for guns in the home that are being used against the "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

...

D.C. residents who want to register handguns must complete an application from MPD's firearms registration section, pass a written firearms test and provide photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision. They also will be fingerprinted

A model for the nation?

I think the Supreme Court should issue varmint licenses and put a bounty on these bigots heads. That should be the model for the nation.

I have had a tendency in my young life to occasionally run my mouth with abandon (my wife is shaking her head at that); however I have been fortunate in the majority of this situations to be able to back up my mouth with skill or plain old dumb luck.

The more I read Joe’s archives, the more I realize I’m going to need a lot of the latter to win our friendly wager.

Caleb of Call Me Ahab
July 15, 2008
Pride goeth...
[Caleb will be at Gun Blogger Summer Camp with me next month. In a long email thread among some of the bloggers with the subject "My dad can beat up your dad" Caleb ended up challenging me to a bet on our shooting abilities. I can only recall accepting two bets in the last 35 years (I won both). I just don't bet unless I'm pretty close to certain that I'm going to win. This was the most risky bet I have accepted in the last 35 years. Based on the cards face up on the table I've got a better hand but but one never knows until all the cards are turned over. That will occur on August 24^th.--Joe]

New Jersey is so repressive toward gun owners that the only way I would willingly go into that hell hole is if I could buy tags, or preferably a license for varmints, to harvest politicians:

The 20-year-old sales clerk at a shop at Menlo Park Mall and former Middlesex County College student had a pellet handgun in the car, according to an indictment filed last week in Superior Court, New Brunswick.

...

Under a new state law, Narciso's possession of the weapon qualifies as a Graves Act offense. Narciso could face what prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys call a "hard three," meaning three years with no prospect of parole.

This wasn't some cheesy Internet quiz of some sort. This was something that my company paid big dollars for and followed up with a nearly full day of "training" to explain the results to us. Everyone in our organization had to participate. Mandatory training they said. Okay, whatever.

I was surprised. They really nailed a bunch of things for me. View the results for yourself here.

During the training they gave us these four little soft plastic blocks that looked very much like Lego's. They were a training tool and as the training started people were sort of playing with them as the instructor talked. Then someone had the blocks fly apart and scatter across one of the tables. "A block explosion!", the instructor announced. Her assistant went to the white board and recorded the explosion. Someone asked, "What does it mean?" The instructor said they didn't know for certain but they keep track of them to see if we can figure something out. There were no more block explosions all day.

The one person to have a block explosion was also the only person in the room with a ATF license to manufacture high explosives. You should have heard the people in my group laugh when instructor called it a block explosion. No one else in the room understood the significance like they did.

England took a wrong turn. The evidence is so glaring obvious that I'm sure most of them, at some level, realize it as well:

In May this year, the Met launched Operation Blunt 2, another high-profile initiative to tackle knife crime – again using special stop and search powers in high-risk areas and airport-style metal detectors. The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, announced a £5m package to tackle violent crime. Since then, 27,000 people have been searched, 1,200 arrested and 500 knives seized. Of those arrested, 95% have since been charged with weapons offences, the Met said.

Uncle has more evidence.

The problem is, even with the overwhelming evidence, they have too much invested in the decision. It's too psychologically uncomfortable to admit they were wrong. It takes a great deal of character strength to admit you were wrong when you have invested 100's of millions (billions?) of pounds and who knows how many lives lost in a scheme that was counter productive to your stated goal. They don't have the strength of character to do that. Very few people would. It's particularly difficult when you have social support for your conviction. There will be more and more proselyting for this failed belief system until they hit a very firm and undeniable dead end. That will likely be a exceedingly repressive police state. Getting themselves out of that will not be easy or pretty.

I'm so glad we managed to avoid that path into the abyss.

Presumptuous paternalists argue that Americans should be deprived of guns because gun owners are their own worst enemies. A lot of Americans would reply: We can't trust ourselves, but we can trust you?

Steve Chapman
July 13, 2008
Is buying a gun a suicidal act?
[Nice! The other day Sebastian said we need to be ready to counter the suicide angle. I think this is excellent response.--Joe]

Don Kaul has written dozens of columns supporting gun restrictions. He now says he has given up:

I've given up on gun control. That battle is over. We've lost. I no longer think it's an achievable goal and if I were a politician I wouldn't lose an election over it.

It sounds as if he is still a bigot. He just isn't going to advocate for legislation to support his bigotry. That's good enough for now. Someone in his neighborhood should offer to take him to the range and offer him a chance to join the winning team.

As I mentioned the other day I expected something in todays Idaho Statesman about anvil launching (like we do at Boomershoot). The story is here.

One of the more serious problems with our modern society is that the evolution of man has changed directions. The lesser intelligent people multiply much faster than the more intelligent people.

Doug Huffman
[This is something my brother told me over 20 years ago and I put in my collection of quotes. Today he sent his kids and me this link on a related topic.--Joe]