Ry reports on bigots at Travelers Insurance canceling policies because someone possesses a EBR.

Both dissents are not merely mistaken, but (if I may be blunt) shoddy. Prior decisions and statutes seem to have been skimmed rather than researched. Historical theories that were clearly disproven are invoked as fact. The logical conclusion is that the dissenters cared not so much about constitutional law as about policy, and what they find good policy simply had to be constitutional.

David T. Hardy
July 15, 2008
D.C. v. Heller: The Court's Liberal Wing Shoots Itself In The Foot
[One has to wonder what can be done about this. I find it very, very disturbing but don't have the slightest idea what the solution is.--Joe]

With his usual thoroughness John Lott said:

Possibly one of the more remarkable changes has been his position on guns.
But despite Obama's recent concession on "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" that there has been a "shift in emphasis" on various issues, on guns he held firm: "You mentioned the gun position. I've been talking about the Second Amendment being an individual right for the last year and a half. So there wasn't a shift there."
...
No matter Obama's current position, no major party presidential nominee has probably ever had as strong and consistent an anti-gun record. Here is a politician who supported a ban on handguns in 1996, backed a ban on the sale of all semiautomatic guns in 1998 (a ban that would encompass the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S.), advocated in 2004 banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park (essentially a ban on virtually all gun stores), as well as served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, probably the largest private funder of anti-gun and pro-ban research in the country.

In a post Heller world Obama is the equivalent of someone who owned slaves two years ago now claiming he always believed slavery was wrong. If he really believed what he claims then he should have acted on his beliefs instead of what was most advantageous to him at the moment.

Jeff Knox gives us some perspective and advice:

As I have said before; sometimes it takes a Pearl Harbor or an Alamo to wake the giant and win the war.  Sometimes it takes a Jimmy Carter to wake voters up and give a Ronald Reagan a chance to lead.  And sometimes it takes an Assault Weapons ban to get our guys off their butts and into the voting booth.

I'd rather by-pass the devastation of a lost battle and skip right to the victory, but we can't always get what we want.  The important thing is that we don't concede, and compromise, and settle for a little more restriction for fear of a lot more restriction.  That is the great danger.  When they come and take something from us, we have a righteous, moral imperative to rise up and take it back.  When we compromise and give something away, we surrender that righteous moral imperative and have only whining as our rallying cry.  That is why there is no such thing as a "reasonable" gun control law.  No such thing as "reasonable" restrictions on our fundamental right to arms.  No such thing as "reasonable" compromise to avoid "something worse shoved down our throats."  If they want to shove something down our throats, we must stand firm and not give an inch.  If we succeed in beating them back, we are battle hardened and better prepared for the next fight.  If we lose, we are energized and reinforced by our brothers, finally awakened from their complacent slumber.

Here are six reasons I'm wary of gun buybacks, such as the one scheduled for Saturday in Chicago in which those who turn in firearms at any of 25 locations get a $100 prepaid credit card per gun, no questions asked:

1. I can't imagine criminals disarming themselves for a lousy $100.
2. I don't see the economic sense of offering law-abiding people a flat fee for their guns.
3. I worry about buyback programs subsidizing crime and weapons traffic.
4. I can't find much evidence that buybacks are effective.
5. I'm not convinced that buybacks get "problem" guns off the streets.
6. I hear in Mayor Richard Daley's arm-flapping jibber-jabber on this point an admission that the buyback is simply a feel-good program to make citizens believe the city is actually doing something to reduce gun violence.

Eric Zorn
July 23, 2008
Hard to find good reason to buy back guns
[There is much more in the original article, including support for each of his reasons and this Webliography of gun buy-back programs. He left out one of my favorites though. The bigots have to twist the language in order for this to even begin to make sense. This isn't a "buyback". The government is not buying back guns it previously sold. It is offering token compensation for the surrender of a specific constitutionally enumerated right that only a sucker would accept.--Joe]

This was originally posted as a comment to Sebastain's post The Myth of the Clean Revolution several minutes ago but the comment didn't show up--at least not immediately. It probably tripped some spam filter and needs to pass moderation. And besides it stands fairly well as it's own post. Plus I have corrected a few minor typos, grammer errors and my sloppiness of formating and writing in the original.

Sebastian, This is not intended to dispute your main point. Just to point out that perhaps not all of your justification for it is valid. You said:

Remember that your revolution will not change the people of the United States, who elected the government that you so despise.

There may be solutions to the problem of continuous government growth and power without restricting the voting rights of the people that don't know better.

Go read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and their search for a new form of government. Possibilities discussed included all laws requiring a 2/3 majority in one house of government to be put into effect. And second house of legislation has as it's sole purpose the repealing of laws. And it could do so by getting only 1/3 of the votes. Other interesting options were considered. I think we have learned a lot about the failures of our current system of government to protect freedom and perhaps we could better if we started with a clean slate.

Often the biggest barrier to a solution is properly defining the problem. My son James and just finished the book Future of Freedom. We both were highly annoyed about the author being able to describe the process by which freedom was/is destroyed in democracies but never pointed out the, what to us seemed, obvious solutions. But perhaps we were too harsh. Successfully defining the problem is a major accomplishment in its own right.

Anyone considering "shooting the bastards" needs to realize that even if taking that step is fully justified (justification basis deliberately omitted as being beyond the scope of this post but this could be a starting point) one needs to look at the long term direct and unintended consequences of such an act. They need to have a reasonably good idea what the position of society will be a day, a week, a year, and a decade after they "pulled the trigger". And after evaluation they conclude the world will be a better place by most measures. They need to be a grand master chess player with only a small fraction of the pieces visible on the board and see ten moves ahead against opponents who are known and unknown. Or they need to know, with near certainty, things can't get any worse if they do take the shot.

I contend no such grand master "chess player" exists. Hence before "taking the shot" the existing or reasonably projected conditions need to be so bad as to replicate something like a Nazi concentration camp or Soviet Gulag. We aren't there yet.

Okay, the example is for "rational management" but I figure that is an attempt to dodge the bullet (figuratively) coming his way with the name "reasonable restrictions" on it:

The high-muckety-media histrionics have been comical. One howler was a clueless-as-usual Washington Post editorial harrumphing that Washington DC may still “devis[e] regulations that can provide for rational management of gun ownership.”

“Rational management?” Snrk …

For the sake of argument, isn’t “rational management” of printing-press ownership a terrific idea, limiting it to those who scrupulously adhere to known facts? Oh, the high dudgeon! Why, people would rise up in ARMS, for heaven's sake!
Imagine this: Two talking heads, brows furrowed, power ties immaculately knotted, pompously declaiming how to “rationally” destroy (excuse me, MANAGE) the right they disfavor:

Second: “Guns can be dangerous.”

First: “Editorials can be dangerous.”

Second: “Gun owners need a government permit.”

First: “Journalists need government permits.”

Second: “People should be made to wait ten days before buying a gun.”

First: “Reporters and editors should cool off ten days before writing.”

Second: “We must ban guns that fire more than one shot in rapid succession.”

First: “We must ban printing presses that print more than one page in rapid succession. And those Web servers! Millions of hits per hour? Dangerous!”

Second: “Oh, but that’s different! Guns can bring down a government!”

First: “And free speech can’t?”

The question here is, how should Americans respond to those seeking “rational management” of any of our civil liberties?

I would also like to suggest that perhaps even better success could be had by discussing the "rational management" or "reasonable restrictions" of blacks freed by the 13^th Amendment.

I vow to keep attacking the stupidity of unfettered gun ownership until I have vanquished the gun sellers' lobby and broken the back of the NRA.

...

So enjoy yourselves, gun-persons. Your end is coming. And when the black helicopters land on your lawn and AFT [sic] agents shoot you for resisting arrest, I'll be proud to show up and pry your weapon from your cold, dead hand.

Donald Kaul
July 24, 2008
Attacking the stupidity of unfettered gun ownership
[Okay, so it was mostly a poor attempt at humor. But still there are people see nothing wrong with using violence to achieve their goal of depriving us of our right to keep and bear arms. And this was the guy that said he had given up just nine days ago.--Joe]

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.