My wife asked me to make an appointment to get her car in for an oil change.  I replied;

You have an appointment for your car first thing Monday morning.  I can bring it in, or you can, as you wish.

Hmm—now there’s a "Change" for which we can "Hope".  Call the Obama campaign headquarters.  Better yet, call Jiffy Lube headquarters and tell them you have a great new ad slogan:

We "Hope" we can "Change"…your oil.

- or -

Do you "Hope" for a "Change"?  Well, get over to Jiffy Lube today!!  We can do "An Oil Change You Can Believe In".

I think they should do it and try to get sued by the Obama campaign.  It would make them extremely famous and get them another million customers overnight.

I should have added;

"Don't just "Hope" your car is OK--  "Change" your oil at (pick a company) today."

What media bias?

The Uninvited Ombudsman points out the media gave front page coverage to a handful of people participating in a tournament of the nation's number three sport. This was on the same weekend that 300 people participating in the nations number two sport competed for national titles.

In my mind there is no one who is as dangerous as one who truly believes that they know what's best for other people.

Sometimes I can hardly believe the stupidity of the people that get elected to national office. This guy is a prime example:

"It is my belief that federal law prohibits individuals from carrying firearms in all areas of an airport and that TSA has the authority to enforce these restrictions," Thompson wrote. "To do otherwise would hamper TSA's ability to keep our airports secure."

...

TSA's inability to protect the general public from individuals carrying concealed weapons into an airport would pose a serious and unnecessary security threat," Thompson wrote. "If TSA management believes that no current law exists to clearly designate areas of an airport within the control and authority of federal transportation officials, the committee may seek legislative action to correct this omission."

What does his "belief" have to do with reality? He can just look up the law and read it--unless he is unable to read. There are "secure" areas and there is everywhere else. Regardless of the reality of whether these "secure" area are really secure or not how can a firearm ban for the entire airport be enforced unless they moved the metal detectors and x-ray machines outward to include the ticket counters and baggage claim areas?

Did this bigot get his thinking skills from a dumpster behind the Violence Policy Center? How does he think all the hunters, people attending shooting matches, and training get their firearms to a remote location? They are transported as per the TSA rules on firearms.

This is a follow up story from the one I reported on this morning. As Lyle pointed out in the comments it used to be there were rifle teams at our schools and bringing a gun to school wasn't a big deal. Now they bring out dogs, helicopters (from two different jurisdictions), and police from nine jurisdictions based on a rumor of a one gun that might have been taken to school.

PINOLE: POLICE CLARIFY THAT GUN WAS SEEN ON SCHOOL CAMPUS BUT NOT FOUND

Two boys were arrested on suspicion of bringing an assault rifle onto the Pinole High School campus Friday, but, contrary to earlier reports, officers did not recover the alleged weapon, Pinole police Cmdr. Peter Janke said today.

However, police believe there was in fact a gun at the school Friday, Janke said.

"Our investigation shows that there was a gun brought on campus," Janke said.

Somebody reportedly saw an AK-47 assault rifle on school grounds, he said. He declined to say who had spotted the gun.

Police did not find the weapon, even after an extensive search of the school, the school grounds and the roughly 800 students on campus.

Police say the two boys, both summer school students, were arrested for possession of an illegal assault weapon, bringing a firearm onto school grounds, being a minor in possession of live ammunition, being a minor with a concealed weapon, transportation of marijuana, being a minor in possession of a firearm with certain prior convictions and a probation violation.

The incident began just before 8 a.m. Friday when a passenger on an Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District bus heading to the school reported seeing another passenger, possibly a student, with a gun. The witness told police that the person with the gun might have brought it onto school grounds, police said Friday.

Pinole police received help from the Hercules Police Department, the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office, the California Highway Patrol, the El Cerrito Police Department, the Richmond Police Department, the West Contra Costa County Unified School District, the Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, and the city's public works department.

Gun-sniffing dogs from San Francisco and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District were also brought in while the U.S. Coast Guard and the East Bay Regional Park District provided air support, Janke said.

It's all part of the demonization of gun ownership. If they spend $200K and thousands of man hours on just a rumor of one gun it makes it all the more easy to justify laws against gun ownership. After all that huge expense could have been prevented if there hadn't been a gun for the kid to have access to.

But what I want to know is where were the tanks, artillery, and flame throwers? Or did they decide flame throwers were out after what happened at Waco?

We have a target in our sights. Go pull the trigger.

Update: Never mind. Stand down.

I highly recommend Ayn Rand's collection of essays, Philosophy: Who Needs It?

I was reminded of her work by this discussion in the Washington Post:

I think both party's leaders would be wise to do away with platforms altogether.

It's the logical conclusion of a society that lacks an understanding of the need for philosophy. Political candidates of the same party can be on opposite sides of the same issue and they see nothing odd about it. There are no principles to guide them. They believe whatever they want to believe regardless of it's validity. People support and even celebrate "diversity of opinion" for views that are obviously false.

Do you think I exaggerate? Remember this quote?

No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence.

Ann Landers

Something needs to change in order for there to be hope for our future. And Obama is not the solution. It's him and those like him that are the problem.

In the Peoples Republic of California they have been ignoring the 2^nd Amendment so long it just seems normal that they would ignore the 4^th Amendment as well:

"In our investigation, we believe an AK-47 was brought on school grounds," Janke said. "We're still investigating what happened to the weapon."

...

All of the approximately 800 students were searched.

There is not even a hint of outrage in the article.

Update: I can't find the original article and the link I used is broken. I can only find a significantly stripped down version here.

I do have a copy of the original and have put it here.

Amazing:

According to Peters--the head of the organization which the U.N. says represents "civil society" on gun issues, all handguns should be banned, as should all rifles capable of firing 100 meters, as should the defensive ownership of any gun.

The only "rifles" which aren't capable of firing 100 meters are those that fire plastic suction cups or Nerf "bullets".

SAF and S&W announce a commemorative revolver.

Second Amendment Foundation and Smith & Wesson Partner on Commemorative Revolver

Engraved Model 442 Will Recognize District of Columbia vs. Heller Decision

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (July, 21, 2008) – The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Smith & Wesson have partnered to create a commemorative revolver designed to recognize the historical significance of the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision and to acknowledge the six original plaintiffs that united to challenge the gun ban in Washington, D.C.

As part of the project, an engraved Smith & Wesson Model 442 revolver will be presented to each of the six plaintiffs – Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller – for their key roles in working to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Smith & Wesson will make the commemorative revolver available for consumer purchase in Fall 2008 and will direct a portion of the proceeds to the Second Amendment Foundation to acknowledge the organization’s pivotal role in the Heller case and its ongoing efforts to preserve the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

“We are proud to work with Smith & Wesson on this project,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “June 26 saw a landmark victory for the Second Amendment, and for all Americans. This is a fitting way to commemorate a significant moment in history, and support future efforts that will continue to strengthen our constitutional rights.”

The Smith & Wesson Model 442 will be laser engraved with an insignia to commemorate the ruling by the Supreme Court. On the right side plate of the revolver, the scale of justice is depicted with the wording “D.C. vs. Heller” across the scale. The balance is in favor of the “Heller” name with the court date of “June 26, 2008” positioned across the top. Underneath the scale, the side plate reads “Second Amendment” and “The right to keep and bear arms” in white lettering.

“We at Smith & Wesson are pleased to honor the six original plaintiffs in the case while at the same time offer to consumers a firearm that will help in the preservation and protection of the Second Amendment,” said Tom Taylor, Vice President of Marketing for Smith & Wesson. “The Second Amendment Foundation has worked diligently on the Heller case along with several other cases in the last two decades by promoting legal scholarship. Their contributions have helped to dramatically change the legal landscape and we are honored to partner with them on this project.”

Jeff has more including this link to the Boston Herald where gun bigot John Rosenthal is quoted in an article. So I left the following comment with the article:

Would the Boston Herald quote the KKK if there were some similar celebratory event occurring because of a civil rights Supreme Court victory for blacks? If not, then why quote John Rosenthal in this article?

The only conclusion I can come up with is that the Boston Herald has sympathy for the position of those that would deny people a specific enumerated civil right.

It is a sad commentary on the U.S. Justice Department that they allowed this flagrantly racist and elitist law to stand for so long.  But, when one understands the history of gun control laws it isn’t surprising that this racist, elitist law was ignored.

John Bender
July 21, 2008
Civil rights organization fights elitists and racists
[H/T to David Hardy. It's really good article. It is well documented and openly calls people that created and continue to support the denying of a specific enumerated right to the poor and minorities racist and elitist.--Joe]

Post Heller there has been some people floating ideas about potential ways to get (or simply giving up on) machine guns back into general circulation. Yesterday I received an email which, in essence, is an idea for achieving this. Basically it shows the "in common use" argument leads to an absurdity:

From: Tom Locker
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:21 PM
Subject: A thought

Let’s see if I can make this point in a sensible, understandable manner – in many people’s minds the SC seems to give a tacit OK to the machine gun ban as they are not “in common use,” Scalia also used the term "unusual and dangerous."

But, as many have noted, in the US, machine guns were pretty effectively banned (by using tax powers) fairly early in their developmental history. I think the Thompson was one of the first truly portable machine guns when it came out in 1921. The ban was instituted in 1934.

This gives the government a trump card over all future improvements in self-defense technology. As soon as a new, more effective method of self-defense is developed, it can be banned, as it is not “in common use.”

As a thought experiment, imagine that Heller was decided around 1500, just as firearms were coming into military use in Europe. In this scenario the decision would give citizens the right to use swords, knives and archery equipment for self defense, but not the “uncommon, unusual and dangerous” firearms.

Where would self-defense be then? And where are we now? Should the government have exclusive access to all future improvements in self-defense technology?

Sebastian has suggested that we might be able to demonstrate that anything the police uses is "in common use" and hence is protected by the 2^nd Amendment. One might hope to stretch this line of reasoning to anything the military uses (Hey! It's common in the military!) but that is a big stretch goal.

My line of thought is that "uncommon, unusual and dangerous" shouldn't be a difficult hurdle to get full autos over. After all there are tens of thousand of machine guns in circulation and they aren't inherently more dangerous than any other gun of similar caliber in the hands of the same person. The "uncommon, unusual and dangerous" is more appropriately applied to biological, chemical, nuclear, and perhaps explosives based weapons. Perhaps the justices had machine guns in mind when they agreed to that criteria but that doesn't really matter because that wasn't the question before the court. If it had then briefs would have been submitted showing machine guns are not uncommon, unusual and dangerous. It could just be my optimistic nature but I would like to believe what I read in Scalia's opinion is very careful wording that let the anti-gun people hear what they want to hear and gathered the required votes for a victory but are actually open gates for us to drive trucks through.

Other possibilities surely exist. What are your ideas?

From Lyle @ Ultimak. Left-Speak-- A Glossary of Terms

Some examples:

Arsenal: Plural of "Firearm". An arsenal is found in a Compound

Compound: The home of a firearm owner.

Fairness: Socialism.

Fifty Caliber Rifle: The most powerful and terrifying weapon ever devised by the sick mind of man, possessing magical powers of self-will, with wanton mass destruction as its goal, able to take down a jumbo jet, for example, from several miles away with a single shot. No human other than a sadistic murder ever used, wanted, or was even slightly interested in, a "Fifty Caliber Rifle". Due to tragic and inexcusable inaction on the part of legislators, and due to inordinate influence of the merchants of death (the NRA and their henchmen in the gun industry) billions of hardened criminals now legally buy, sell, trade and stockpile "Fifty Caliber Rifles" and are at this very moment poised, looking through the sights of their "Fifty Caliber Rifles", ready to annihilate with a single trigger squeeze, anything that annoys them, or anyone who disagrees with them who is unfortunate enough to hazard to within a ten mile radius of one of these monster killers. Trillions of people, mostly children in kindergartens, are killed every day by "Fifty Caliber Rifles" sold to criminals by illegal gun dealers at gun shows. The NRA celebrates each of these deaths by passing out cigars, brandy, 100-dollar bills and cheap handguns to pre-schoolers.

Bitter and Sebastian have posts up about some anti-gun billboards that just went up. Oh, and the anti-gun group gets the space for free.

I offered my (failed) billboard project as a starting point for an alternative billboard but if anyone else has ideas send them to Bitter.

Tonight I'll probably spend some time composing a letter to try and shame the bigots at the billboard company into reconsidering their support of this anti-rights group. Sebastian has the contact information if you want to do the same.

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

Arkansas Supreme Court
1878
[Somewhere along the way people believed the state had the authority to prevent crime. This should be a hot button for freedom loving people. Even the classic restriction on the 1^st Amendment, "You can't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater" is a punishment for doing something wrong. The Washington D.C. gun law mindset equivalent would be to have your jaw wired shut with duct over your mouth when you go into a theater.--Joe]

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.

The court says, for instance, that the Heller decision does not mean to cast doubt on longstanding bans on felons having possession of firearms, or bans on the mentally incompetent having possession of weapons, bans on weapons in sensitive places and restrictions on the sale and purchase of weapons. But to say you're not casting into doubt those things is not the same thing as to say that those laws are all constitutionally permissible. And indeed, if the court was saying those are all constitutionally permissible laws, there's certainly no argument in the opinion or justification for why those laws are constitutional and the D.C. handgun ban is not constitutional.

Adam Winkler
July 17, 2008
Heller's Fallout The Court's Decision Raises More Legal Questions Than It Answers
[Excellent point! I had been annoyed that the Brady Bunch and other have been saying all these various restrictions were constitutional and I couldn't find it in the Heller decision. All I could find was that the Heller decision didn't apply to those restriction. I presumed that was because those weren't at issue in the Heller case. I'm glad someone with more legal expertise agrees with my reading of this. Hence my reading of Heller is that the court is inviting challenges to those restrictions.--Joe]

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?