The View From North Central Idaho

This is like Disneyland for guns.

Tamera K.
August 22, 2008
While touring Blackwater.
[A few hours later Caleb said, "This is like Disneyland for gun nuts." I asked if he had heard Tamara say something similar earlier. He had not. I think Sebastian also said something similar while on camera with Michael Bane. It's really can't be adequately described in less that 1000 words and/or several dozen pictures. Being less articulate I just say, "Awesome".--Joe]

Uncle and I talked and he sent the shuttle out to pick me up before I even picked up my luggage in Norfolk. I ran into Kevin Baker before I even checked in. I met up with Sebastian, Rob Allen, Caleb, JR, Uncle, and Kevin in the bar across the parking lot. We talked for an hour or so and Tam showed up. About 11:00 or so Rob was crashing and that broke up the bar party.

Read (almost) everyone's blog posting of people here on one web page.

Sebastian invited us back to his suite where Uncle, a local guy (a reader of Say Uncle) and I all talked until after 2:00 AM.

The bus leaves for Blackwater at 9:00 AM.

Xenia has a couple pictures and more to the story.

One of the more interesting things about working at Microsoft is the people I meet from all over the world. My officemate is from India, our PM is from Pakistan, my boss is from Sri Lanka, the new guy is from Australia, and a couple others are from Canada. We work with people in the bay area, China, India, and Dublin.

The guy from Pakistan is forbidden by his Entry Visa from touching weapons or explosives while in the U.S. and has to get "his fix" when he goes back to Pakistan once a year or so. A new member of the team in Dublin is here this week and I took him to the range last night. He had a little bit of experience with shotguns and clay pigeons but had never touched a handgun.

I started him out dry firing my STI then he shot a semi-auto .22LR pistol and then a .22 revolver. After he had gone through a couple hundred rounds I asked if he wanted to try the STI (chambered in .40 S&W). He did. I put just one round in it and he carefully aimed and fired. I could tell by the sounds he made and the expression on his face that it was a bit more than what he expected. I asked if he wanted to try another. There was some hesitation but he agreed. The second round didn't improve his attitude. He wanted to see me shoot it. I emptied a 16-round magazine in about half that many seconds with a group of about four inches at 15 feet. I did another five rounds at a much slower rate into a group about half that size.

If offered him the chance to shoot again and he chose the .22 semi-auto. We took turns shooting in the lane. I with the .40 and he with the .22. I finished up one box of .40 ammo and purchased another (I had accidentally left my handloads back at my bunker). The second box was a different brand and bullet weight and had a little less recoil. I offered him the .40 again and he fired about three or four rounds before saying he had enough. This is more tolerance for recoil than the previous guy from the U.K. I took to the range about 10 years ago.

I kept thinking there might be an application for the "9mm Europellet".

I'm waiting to board at SEATAC. You can follow my flight progress for the first leg to St. Louis here. The second leg to Norfolk is here.

Tomorrow I'll be at Blackwater enjoying the company of several other gun bloggers and the hospatilty of Para USA.

I'm really looking forward to settling the bet with Caleb.

Update: I forgot to mention I plan to update Twitter frequently during this trip.

Law enforcement?

TSA employee at SEATAC
August 21, 2008
After seeing my STI Eagle 5.1 with Kramer IWB holster, five full capacity magazines with leather mag pouches, electronic ear muffs, 200 rounds of handloads, and eye protection in a customized travel case.
[He must not know much about guns or he would have known that no police department would spend $2000+ on issue handguns for their officers. It irks me some that his inclination would be to believe that high end guns would most likely belong to "the special ones." Perhaps my telling him "No" will help correct that belief.--Joe]

The History Channel recently started running a program entitled, "The Works".  The host, Daniel Wilson, has a PHD in "Robotics".  I didn't know you could get a PHD in robotics, thus becoming what, a "roboticist" or a "robotologist"?  I'd have thought you'd need three degrees for that-- mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science, but I'm just a layman.  For all I know, there are degree programs for "Vending Machine Technology" too, you know, for those who don't quite feel up to the work load associated with a major in "Roboticism".

He did an episode on guns, which was pretty good.  It did however show an image of Superman flying "faster than a speeding bullet", and as per the cliché, Superman was shown flying right next to a fully assembled, metallic pistol cartridge.  I'm not sure how one is meant to propel an entire cartridge through the air at the velocity of a speeding pistol bullet (which the host correctly described as about a thousand feet per second) but I'm sure that where there's a will, there's a way, especially if you have a PHD in robotics.

Anyway, the program was interesting.  Though the host talked down to us a little more than required, IMO, I can forgive him-- he's young.  He obviously had a lot of fun with the various guns too, and wasn't afraid to show it.

Check out "The Works" on THC if you have the time.  I think you'll like it.  Oh and;

Congratulations, Dr. Wilson.  Keep up the good works.

This normally wouldn't be a story-- police departments need guns.  Can you say, "Duuuhhh"?  But it is a story over on WCBSTV (brought to our attention by Uncle).

Apparently, our police departments haven't gotten the loon's memo; "Violence never solves anything."
Or the other loon memo; "Having a gun is more likely to endanger you than to stop an attacker."
Or; "Arming yourselves will do nothing but 'provoke' the bad guys (sorry-- victims of American imperialism) and escalate the violence."

Then there's;
"It increases our range and our accuracy," Sgt. Brian Lyman said.

Uh...9 mm parabellum in a submachinegun = "range" and "accuracy"?  OK I'll play; compared to what?  I hope he's referring to an M-4 rather than the UMP mentioned in the article as an "assault rifle" (for those of you in Rio Linda; a submachinegun [or machine pistol] is not an assault rifle [the former was created decades before the latter] but given their level of education on controversial, hot-button political issues, we don't expect a single journalist in the U.S. to know the difference [UMP stands for Universal Machine Pistol, IIRC]).

"I think if they think they need [submachineguns], then it is good that they have them," one woman said.

OK, granted, so we can throw out all the silly arguments that say you must have criminal intent, or be paranoid and/or racist and/or a redneck drunken testosterone-poisoned yahoo, before you'd ever want a gun.  Glad we got that cleared up.

"When you have to wait, five, 10, 15 minutes... during that interim people could be dying..."

That one is the best.  I guess when a cop says it it's clear and sensible, but when we're talking about an armed citizen in the absence of any police, it's a totally different paradigm.  Five, 10, 15 minutes, or any amount of time for that matter, to wait for police to arrive after calling 911, is a perfectly acceptable amount of time for people to be dying.  Just ask any anti gun-rights organization.

"Many departments in Bergen County are using Homeland Security grants to purchase these weapons."

You mean more submachineguns are needed in the civilian population to secure the Homeland (police are in fact civilians, no)?  That makes no sense in light of the fact that, as we've been told, 9/11 was an inside job and there is no terrorist threat (I heard Mike Moore say the latter himself, so we know it has to be true-- he got an Academy Award didn't he) guns are more dangerous to their owners, violence never solves anything, and having weapons provokes your enemies.  Obviously then, the Homeland Security assertion is just cover for the "real reason" police are acquiring automatic weapons.

But I'm forgetting something-- the Left hate police almost as much as they hate liberty (remember; in the 1960s police were referred to collectively as "pigs") so I expect they'd go along with the above criminal-intent/paranoid/racist/yahoo theory to explain why police want guns, and let it go at that.

Rob and I had a nice chat with Caleb and Bonnie on Gun Nuts at Blog Talk Radio last night.

We mostly talked about the Para sponsored weekend at Blackwater. But we touched on Boomershoot just a little bit too.

We did talk about the bet between Caleb and I about who is the better shooter and how that bet came about. We didn't get the stakes of the bet nailed down but that may have been settled today in the comments of his post about our discussion last night. Rob and Bonnie have their own posts about last nights show too.

To answer the question that keeps coming up--the bet came about in the following email thread:

From: Say Uncle
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:40 AM
To: Sebastian; Ahab; Bitter Bitch; Deleted @progunprogressive.com; Joe Huffman
Subject: My dad can beat up your dad

 

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/07/09/chicks-and-guns-17/#comment-203007

 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:27 AM
To: Say Uncle; Sebastain; Aha'; Bitter Bitch; Deleted @progunprogressive.com
Subject: RE: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Almost for certain he can.

 

My dad is almost 85 years old and not thinking too clearly anymore.

 

How about between the two of us we see who shoots the best at summer camp? Aren’t you the betting type?

 

J

 

-joe-

From: Say Uncle
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:36 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Cc: Sebastian; Ahab; Bitter Bitch; Deleted @progunprogressive.com
Subject: Re: My dad can beat up your dad

 

I am but I only bet on things in which I have a positive expectation. In this case, I'm guessing I don't have such an expectation ;)

In fact, due to my recent lack of time at the range, I'll put me at dead last!

From: Ahab
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:54 AM
To: Say Uncle; Joe Huffman; Sebastian; Bitter Bitch; Deleted @progunprogressive.com
Subject: Re: My dad can beat up your dad

 

I'll take that bet, joe

 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:02 AM
To: 'Ahab'; 'Say Uncle'; Sebastian; 'Bitter Bitch'; Deleted @progunprogressive.com'
Subject: RE: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Name your terms and I'll think about it.

 

 

-joe-

 

From: Ahab
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:13 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Cc: Say Uncle; Sebastian; Bitter Bitch; Deleted @progunprogressive.com
Subject: Re: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Six pack of the winner's favorite beer?  Bottle of the winner's favorite booze, not to exceed, oh, I don't know...$30 bucks?

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:51 AM
To: 'Ahab'
Cc: 'Say Uncle'; Sebastian; 'Bitter Bitch'; Deleted @progunprogressive.com'
Subject: RE: My dad can beat up your dad

 

The number of beers I have had in my lifetime can be counted on my fingers (base ten, not base two). Beyond that the last drink of alcohol I had was the glass of wine at the NRA convention dinner. That said, because of my sweet tooth there is no such thing as something “too sweet” and I like ice wine.

 

But more important to me is how are we going to determine the winner? And what sort of handicap are you giving me? I’m probably at least 20 years older than you. I’ve had a couple surgeries on my left knee and my right leg and foot is still swollen from the ATV that landed on it at Boomershoot 2008. I’m overweight and my eyes take minutes to change focus from front sight distance to target distance.

 

And what caliber gun did you select? I’m going to shooting a .45. If we do the contest at the end of the weekend after shooting 1500 rounds in the heat and humidity my old muscles, ligaments, and bones will have taken a lot more damage than someone much younger shooting a 9mm.

 

-joe-

 

From: Ahab
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:54 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Cc: Say Uncle; Sebastian; Bitter Bitch; Deleted @progunprogressive.com
Subject: Re: My dad can beat up your dad

 

I reckon determining the winner would be kind of challenging, and we would have to handicap because I picked the 9mm.

I don't know, let's turn it over to the posse to see if they have any ideas.  Well, everyone except for Robb, because his idea will involve jokes about sausage.

 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:04 AM
To: 'Ahab'
Cc: 'Say Uncle'; Sebastian; 'Bitter Bitch'; Deleted @progunprogressive.com'
Subject: RE: My dad can beat up your dad

 

How about an El Presidente? Score it according to USPSA rules and that would take into account the 9mm versus .45. It would also test a number of different skills including the draw, the reload, accuracy and speed.

 

And you are forgetting the handicap I should get for my age and infirmities. J

 

-joe-

 

From: Ahab
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:07 AM
To: Joe Huffman; Say Uncle; Sebastian; Bitter Bitch; Deleted@progunprogressive.com
Subject: Re: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Yeah, but you've been shooting for a lot longer than me.

 

:)

 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:08 PM
To: 'Ahab'
Cc: 'Say Uncle'; Sebastian; 'Bitter Bitch'; Deleted@progunprogressive.com'
Subject: RE: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Ignoring a 100 rounds or so that I shot when I was living at home on the farm I have been shooting for about 15 years. Is that more than you?

 

Regardless, I might be willing to give up on getting that handicap if you agree to a shooting test that isn't too taxing on my aging body.

 

So, what are your thoughts on the El Presidente? Or do you just want to wimp out entirely on a contest?

 

 

-joe-

 

From: Ahab
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:10 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Cc: Say Uncle; Sebastian; Bitter Bitch; Deleted@progunprogressive.com
Subject: Re: My dad can beat up your dad

 

I would shoot an El Presidente, that sounds good.  I've been shooting seriously since I was about 19, so that would give me 7 years, giving you a bit more experience.  Plus it's been my personal observation that experience and treachery defeat youthful enthusiasm most of the time. 

 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:20 PM
To: 'Ahab'
Cc: 'Say Uncle'; Sebastian; 'Bitter Bitch'; Deleted@progunprogressive.com'
Subject: RE: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Have you ever shot an El Presidente before? There’s not much treachery possible there.

 

-joe-

 

From: Ahab 
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:26 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Cc: Say Uncle; Sebastian; Bitter Bitch; Deleted@progunprogressive.com
Subject: Re: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Fair enough, I've only shot one el presidente in my time, so if you've shot 10 or 12 that would count under the "treachery" category.  :)

But no, I am totally game for an El Pres as the deciding factor.

 

From: Sebastian
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:29 PM
To: Ahab
Cc: Joe Huffman; Say Uncle; Bitter Bitch; Deleted@progunprogressive.com
Subject: Re: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Sorry Caleb, but I'd put my money on Joe ;)

 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:49 PM
To: 'Ahab'
Cc: 'Say Uncle'; Sebastian; 'Bitter Bitch'; Deleted@progunprogressive.com'
Subject: RE: My dad can beat up your dad

 

Ø  I am totally game for an El Pres as the deciding factor.

 

With all applicable USPSA rules applying (http://www.uspsa.org/rules/2008HandgunRulesindexed.pdf)?

 

-joe-

I can't find any further email on it but I think it was in comments on some blog post we did agreed to the contest as being the USPSA El Presidente classifier with all USPSA rules applying. The stakes will probably end up being 250 rounds of 180 grain FMJ .40 S&W ammo. That's higher stakes that I would really think are appropriate but we arrived at that after I suggested a case (typically 1000 rounds) was too much. [shrug] I can handle the pain of losing my first bet in 30 years and if Caleb is okay with taking that risk then I guess that settles it.

Just a couple more items of potential interest:

1. You will notice Caleb (Ahab) said " experience and treachery defeat youthful enthusiasm". Which was a nice way of saying old age and treachery.
2. Last night on the show I said I accepted the bet mostly because of his attitude. I have never seen him shoot (I have seen Say Uncle shoot and I'm pretty sure I can "take" him). I met Caleb last May and he had a slight attitude that was completely lacking in every shooter that I personal know and I know can beat me. Just a little too cocksure of himself. I explained this last night and in an email after the show he said, "that was the nicest way in which I've ever been called an arrogant bastard". That's me. Always the diplomat*.

* Diplomat: One skilled in the art of saying "Nice doggy" until he can find the right sized stick.

Women are at a severe disadvantage when confronting a likely stronger male assailant. In general, women simply do not have the upper body strength and testosterone-driven speed to effectively defend themselves without help. A firearm, particularly an easily manipulable handgun, equalizes this strength differential and thereby provides women the best chance they have of thwarting an attacker. Even more statistically likely, a firearm in the hands of a threatened woman offers the deterrence empty hands and an often unavailing 911 call do not.

M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
[They are at a particular disadvantage if they are 85 years old and the assailant is 17 years old. But if the woman has even a .22 caliber single action revolver then she can make the assailant dial 911.--Joe]

Whether we make it, or not, the human race has got to keep up its well-earned reputation for ferocity. If the slugs taught us anything, it was that the price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time, and with utter recklessness. If we did not learn that, well--"Dinosaurs, mover over! We are ready to become extinct."

"Sam"
Page 338 "The Puppet Masters" by Robert A. Heinlein
[Excellent book. And I think the above quote applies to more than just invading aliens who wish to have us as slaves. There are lots of terrestrial predators than periodically need to be put in their place if we are to keep our freedom.--Joe]

I attend an invitation-only forum of a few dozen people, many of whom it turns out are educators.  Someone started a thread on how to improve education (Joe, you know where this is going).  The discussion was proceeding as you might expect-- this person with experience was discussing details of education with another experienced person.  Someone suggested that compulsory attendance was a bad idea-- that if a kid doesn't want to be there, he can be a disruption, etc.. So I took the bait and posted a response.  Here it is, with some minor edits;

You're on the right track. Make attendance optional. The next step would be to make funding optional too, as in; if I choose not to send my kid to a "public" school, I don't have to pay a cent for it-- I can instead pay some other school. If I choose the grocery store on the West side of town, I don't have to still give 120 dollars a week to the grocery store on the East side. If the East side store wants my 120 dollars per week, they'll have to do a better job of serving my wants and needs, so as to entice me back. Hence the store which better serves the wants and needs of the community gets the "funding".  Further, we don't have to fight with one another over how to best run "our grocery store".

I point out to all here that we are not discussing the details of how Microsoft, Linksys, Apple, or Maxtor should be forced by the legislature to operate, yet we are using computers that only a few years ago would have been the subject of science fiction. We're not debating the policies of Wal Mart to figure out how the state can get them to sell at low prices and still make enough money to be self-sustaining, or Addidas shoes, or Coca-Cola Bottling Company, etc.. It's not as if we need to have legislators deciding how these companies should be run at all-- if one of them starts to do a poor job, there will be ten others to take its place. Besides, how many legislators have successfully run a school, or a software company, or a microchip manufacturing plant, or a bottling plant?

Poorly-run government programs go on and on and on for generations, sucking up more and more resources. In the case of schools, whole generations are getting ill-educated and it just keeps perpetuating itself.  Poorly-run businesses, on the other hand, fail, and pretty quickly, and then they are gone. Then someone else buys their assets and starts something better, all with zero participation from idiots in Congress, zero participation from the county commissioners, zero involvement from the loons in city council, and at zero cost to the taxpayer and zero coercion.

This is what was once known as a "Free Market", which is a system that has proven itself superior in every measureable way for many generations, though in this enlightened age, no one believes a bit of it.

Today, we all know perfectly well that if the government didn't provide shoes for our children, no child would have shoes unless they were lucky enough to be born into a rich family. So anyone who opposes full, compulsory, free shoes, is anti-shoe, or a shoephobe, and obviously hates both kids and shoemakers! These people are known as "conservatives" or "neo-cons" etc., and are absolutely terrible, evil people, who want all poor kids to go barefoot so their rich buddies can make even more money and won't have to pay their fair share in taxes.

Therefore, we should be discussing what our state and federal legislators are going to do to provide shoes (and computers and software) to all kids. We all know that that is why this country was founded and our constitution written-- so everyone would have everything they need, provided by the state, so they can all be healthy and happy, and think the right thoughts, and feel warm and fuzzy, and never have to be upset or uncomfortable or have to work too hard.

The post, by design, is rather incongruous with the rest of the thread, yet, I thought, to the very heart of the matter (two toddlers are concentrating on their game of catch at the edge of a cliff and you want to change the whole subject by striking up a discussion on subjects as ethereal and unrelated as situational awareness and the law of gravity?  Dude!  We're playing catch here?).

It's all been said before of course, by others more eloquent than I, but they are elephants in other people's living rooms.  This is your living room.

I expected at least someone to respond, but nothing.  They went right on, discussing the details of how this or that tweak would make things better in education.  Hello; this is the elephant in your living room speaking.  Socialism doesn't work.  It leads to stagnation and decay every time its tried.  It may look great on paper but it starts with the ignorance of how people actually interact in real life, and everything it tries to accomplish is founded on that ignorance.

And then there is the pesky little issue of rights (the right to choose where your education dollars go, for instance) but how dare I bring that up.  We're discussing public education here, after all.

Co-worker Kris recently arrived here from Australia. Saturday he rode his bicycle from the Mount Rainer park entrance to the Paradise visitor center and then back down the mountain. The elevation of Paradise is 5400 feet and the temperature was 95 F. He estimates he burned 4288 calories and consumed 5.8 liters (1.5 gallons) of fluids. He also got hit by a car on the way up.

And he says eating Vegemite demonstrates Aussies are tough.

It is just me, or does MS spell checker not recognize typos that come purely from proximity on the keyboard ("fat-fingering")?  Example; the word "and" typed as "ans"-- I don't get "and" offered as a correction option.  I find this sort of thing often.

OK, so I'm a whiner.

Well, not really "on the air" in the traditional sense.

Tomorrow night Rob Allen and I will be guests on http://blogtalkradio.com/gunnuts hosted by Caleb and Squeaky. The topic will be the Para sponsored training with Todd Jarrett at Blackwater this weekend. Caleb, Robb, and I (along with a bunch of others) will be participating. Caleb also wants to talk about our bet.

Listeners are welcome to call in so in addition to listening you should consider calling to tell me how silly it was of me to accept a shooting bet with someone I have never seen shoot.

Gun control extremists despise this kind of common-sense approach to the potential of school violence. But the time has come to challenge their head-in-the-sand philosophy. How many lives have been lost on public school and college campuses because of these insane victim disarmament measures? How many students and teachers might be alive today if only lawmakers and school officials had acted as responsibly as the Harrold administration?

Allowing armed staff and teachers will provide a last line of defense if other security measures at the school fail. No doubt the school board and Mr. Thweatt will suffer some slings and arrows, but if this decision one day saves the life of even one child, it will have been worthwhile.

Alan Gottlieb
Chairmain, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
August 15, 2008
HARROLD, TX SCHOOL OFFICIALS RIGHT ON CHANGE IN CAMPUS GUN POLICY, SAYS CCRKBA
["If it only saves one life" and "for the children". Nice, very nice.--Joe]

Last night we took Xenia to the Seattle airport to greet her fiancée John when he got off the plane. He just recently got back in the states from Iraq and was going home to central Washington state for a couple weeks.

Our first indication of something unusual was another passenger exiting the secure area asking, "Are you waiting for the soldier?" He informed us John was in first class and would be there very soon. John barely cleared security and was giving Xenia a hug and a kiss when strangers came up to him and wanted to shake his hand and say thanks. We got constant interruptions from others as we tried to exit the airport and find his parents who were in orbit in the pickup area.

This is in sharp contrast to those that were spat upon and unjustly called killers as they returned from Vietnam.

Nice. Very nice.

Welcome home John. We are glad you made it back safely and thank you for your service.

The pictures I took are on Xenia's camera and probably will be available in a few days.

I know I'm late to the party. I've been very busy with preparing for Blackwater/Para/Todd and Caleb and then I had problems with my blog that took way too long to fix (and I'm still not totally where I want to be yet).

Here is some of what others have been saying about the Mary McFate (or Mary Lou Sapone) story as broken by Mother Jones. I haven't begun to read all 100+ blog posts--maybe only a tenth of that. But there are some things I'm not seeing that I think should be addressed.

First, the legality issue. I'm not a lawyer but my expectation is that unless she signed some sort of non-disclosure contract it's going to be hard to make anything stick on the legal front. Expect non-disclosures to be SOP for high level positions in the anti-gun groups in the near future.

Second, the ethical issue. I'm all for playing by the rules. Anyone who knows me well will know this in the extreme. When other people are walking across the street without a light they will find me standing on the corner. When everyone else is going 10 or 15 MPH over the speed limit I'll be going the speed limit or maybe up to 5 MPH over. That doesn't mean I won't push the envelope. I have a very strong tendency to follow the rules to the letter. But when that "letter" has a loophole there is also a very good chance I will try to exploit it. But I nearly always follow the rules and get very annoyed, even angry, when others don't. Barb says it's because I have a mild case of Asperbergers. I say it's because I'm rational, honest, and despise cheats.

In a battle such as the one over the specific, enumerated, right to keep and bear arms the anti-gun groups have a very long history of underhanded activities. I remember before I purchased my first gun (1994) I did a bunch of research on gun control, the Second Amendment, and related stuff. I got on the mailing list for Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign). One of their propaganda flyers said that in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875) it was spelled out explicitly, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution." I was shocked and had to look it up to make sure. Yup. It did say that. But there was a gotcha HCI didn't put in their propaganda. The very next sentence in that opinion said, "Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Hence it was not a simple oversight on the part of some incompetent HCI flunky. They could not have missed the very next sentence or the previous paragraphs where similar things are said about the First Amendment. This opinion is very clear that these are not rights granted by the Bill of Rights. They are preexisting rights that even the repeal of the 2^nd (or 1^st) Amendment could not nullify. The anti-gun people do this sort of thing constantly and sometimes every single point they make is a lie even when the facts are easily available. They do not fear being caught in a lie. It costs us far more in time, money, and precious words to fight their lies than it does for them to make the lie.

This isn't just some sort of nitpicky Asperbergers thing about something that happened nearly 15 years ago. It was just that is when I realized with absolute certainty which was the side of evil, who must be defeated, and the rules by which the game was played.

This is not to say that I think our side should be sloppy with the truth. We don't need to. They do. What it does mean is that I have zero, perhaps even negative, qualms about doing "underhanded" or sneaky things to defeat them. They chose the playing field when they set out to destroy a specifically guaranteed civil right. They not only chose to do evil they additionally chose to use underhanded tactics in their propaganda and on the battlefield. By their actions they have declared the rules they play this game by. If we play entirely by our set of rules we may still win but how many millions of people will be denied their civil rights and how many tens of thousands will killed and injured because they were unable to exercise that right or believed a gun would more likely harm an innocent than a predator? What price are you willing to pay for "playing fair"? In some exceedingly dark projections of the future we may actually be fighting for the fate of humanity with the George Orwell's vision given to us in 1984 as the downside of losing this fight. When the boots of a tyrannical government are smashing the face of humanity forever what satisfaction will you have for having played by your ethics rather than those that were very clear in their agenda and the rules they played by? That may not be the result of losing but that is what you are risking. Hence I agree with Sebastian when he said, "Given that, is there really any tactic that’s too sleazy and too underhanded to use in order to defeat them?"

The worst thing Mary did was getting caught. For that she, or whoever was responsible for outing her, should be quietly and behind the scenes, scolded.

Third, the benefits of having a spy. A lot of people have claimed there wasn't all that much we could have gotten from a spy so the benefits weren't worth risks of bad PR from possibly getting caught. Others have said advance knowledge of legislation agendas and allocation of resources for fighting initiatives could be very useful. I fully agree with this latter line of thinking but I don't think it goes far enough in explaining what the potential benefits are. I fully agree that getting caught is bad but the benefits might well have been fantasic.

Aside from getting a magazine once a month (which I seldom read) and a few carefully worded emails with the occasional wheelbarrows full of cash (thanks Ashley!) I don't have any deep source of from information inside the NRA. But from being "part of the U.S. intelligence community" for a while I do know a little about intelligence gathering and how it can be of benefit. The following is entirely speculation and is not in any way based on information the NRA actually received.

Example 1: Suppose the bad guys plan an initiative to ban "assault weapons". Going in cold with the dry words of the initiative they find they can only get about half of the signatures they need to get on the ballot. Their resources are limited and they want to conserve their money for the fight once they are actually on the ballot. They can't spend a lot of money for the signature gathers for months then fight in the media for the actual votes.

But they have done polls and found videos of unshaved men firing full auto while dressed in camouflage followed by scenes of Columbine and other school shootings yields 80% support for their initiative. They can get the required signatures in a remarkable short time if the propaganda is done correctly. They decide to coordinate the release of their video with their friends in the media with the announcement of the initiative in the two months before the deadline to turn in the signatures. The paid signatures gathers are contracted for and everything is in place for a political Blitzkrieg. If they keep things quiet the good guys won't have time to form a coherent defense before the signatures have been gathered. Hence the bad guys can save their resources for the battle of votes on Election Day.

If the good guys have advance knowledge they will be able do their own polls (which could take weeks) with lots of different sound bites and find a couple one liners that cut that 80% support down to 40%. They prepare their own set of videos that can be hit the mass media as paid ads in only a few days after the bad guys go public. They bad guys aren't prepared for a fight at this stage and don't get the signatures needed. The good guys had to pay some money up front but they stopped the bad guy at the signature stage rather than to fight it out at the ballot box and can spend their resources on the defeat of the politicians who showed their colors and came out in support of the ballot initiative.

Or the good guys could come out with their own offensive that upsets the plans of the bad guys. They may know they cannot win but if they start pushing for a youth shooting program in the schools subsidized by the state you can be sure the bad guys will devote resources to that and maybe put the "assault weapon" ban on the back burner.

Example 2: Suppose the initiative did make it on the ballot and the good guys have to win. They can draw upon reserves allocated for national issues if needed but that would weaken plans for actual gains at the higher level. It's getting down to election day and the good guys are currently ahead in the polls (private and/or public). Barring some last minute surprise from the bad guys they don't need to use those reserves. If they know a surprise is coming and what that surprise is they can not only have done the polls they can have the countering ads ready for release on the same day the "surprise" hits the street. If they know the bad guys don't have any money left and are running on empty they can send the reserves home and concentrate on making gains at the national level rather than winning a fight that was already won.

Example 3: Suppose the bad guys are having some internal problems. Maybe one of their key leaders has health problems and doesn't really want to step aside for someone else. Maybe their finances are in poor shape (only the 501(c)(3)/charities orgs and publically traded corps have to make public disclosure of their finances, not the private political organizations). Or maybe they lost their building lease and have to move. Not only are time and money spent in the finding a new building and the actually moving but their phone numbers will have to change in the process. Or maybe some key personal are moving on to higher paying jobs in a different field and replacements need to be hired and trained.

Having knowledge of these troubles may mean the good guys can time a critical amendment to some legislation when the opposition is least able to put up resistance.

The bottom line is that yes we know, in general terms, what the bad guys are going to do and we can figure things out very quickly once they do go public. We may have larger war chests and more committed voters but that may not amount to anything if those resources can't be deployed in the most effective manner. Having weeks or months advance knowledge can give us the opportunity to deploy after giving careful thought and parsimoniously allocating them thus yielding fantastic benefits. The benefit of having a spy is all in the timing. Time is a dimension that many people don't take into account when going into a fight. They look at numbers like dollars, votes, tanks, ships, bomb yields, weapon accuracy, magazine capacity, penetration depth in gelatin and the caliber of their carry gun. But it doesn't matter in the slightest that you carry a .45 with three spare magazines and can put ten rounds under a quarter at 25 yards if you opponent puts a .22LR bullet from his zip gun into your eyeball from three feet away before you get a chance to draw.

Knowledge gives us time and this can be more important than almost anything else.

Thank you Mary and whoever else might be out there, unknown and under appreciated; yielding results that surpass the benefits we get from highly compensated executives enjoying fame and wealth. I consider you a fallen hero.

Blowing shit up with rifles?  Come ON!  A MESS OF AWESOME AT YOUR FINGERTIPS.  LITERALLY.

Squeaky Wheel
August 17, 2008
I’m certified to build things that can blow other things up.
[It makes me happy to make others happy. Derek seems pretty happy for the same reason. There will be another batch of happy people later, it was just that I sent Squeaky and Derek's forms in at the same time as my Type 20 (license to manufacture high explosives) renewal. Forms from other people came in later.

I think Boomershoot 2009 is going to make me more happy than usual.--Joe]

The Pill makes women pick bad mates Ability to sniff out a compatible partner affected by taking contraceptives: 

While several factors can send a woman swooning, including big brains and brawn, body odor can be critical in the final decision, the researchers say. That's because beneath a woman's flowery fragrance or a guy's musk the body sends out aromatic molecules that indicate genetic compatibility.

...

Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are involved in immune response and other functions, and the best mates are those that have different MHC smells than you. The new study reveals, however, that when women are on the pill they prefer guys with matching MHC odors.

MHC genes churn out substances that tell the body whether a cell is a native or an invader. When individuals with different MHC genes mate, their offspring's immune systems can recognize a broader range of foreign cells, making them more fit.

Past studies have suggested couples with dissimilar MHC genes are more satisfied and more likely to be faithful to a mate. And the opposite is also true with matchng-MHC couples showing less satisfaction and more wandering eyes.

"Not only could MHC-similarity in couples lead to fertility problems," said lead researcher Stewart Craig Roberts, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Newcastle in England, "but it could ultimately lead to the breakdown of relationships when women stop using the contraceptive pill, as odor perception plays a significant role in maintaining attraction to partners."

So a woman is on the pill and is dating. She selects a mate, they marry, and then she goes off the pill so they can have kids. She then finds out her husband stinks and she is not only more interested in making babies with someone other than her husband but they would be better babies too.

Interesting...

Prostitution involves sex and free enterprise. Which of these are you opposed to?

Joseph A. Hauptman
Found at the beginning of Chapter 10 of Freehold.
[I'm not sure if this is a real person or a fictional character but it's a great question.--Joe]

Bonnie just got word the ATF trusts her to make explosives for me. Next April I will teach her--free of charge.

Doesn't that just give you the warm fuzzies? If we could only let them know I'll bet the Brady Bunch, the VPC, and numerous Cease Fire organizations would find their nightmares worsened.

Kris tells a little about working with me.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court has reminded city officials that the Constitution is more than a guidebook to be cast aside whenever it is inconvenient. If the city attempts to circumvent the Court’s opinion, then Congress, under Article I, section 8, of the Constitution can and should exercise its plenary power over all legislative matters in the nation’s capital. Home rule, arising out of authority delegated by Congress to the D.C. government, is not a license to violate the Constitution.

Robert Levy
July 14, 2008
District of Columbia v. Heller: What’s Next?
[And Congress is doing just that. I would rather the city officials responsible were to spend in some time in prison for violating 18 USC 242 as part of the "change" needed in Washington but we can't always get everything we want.--Joe]

Daughter Xenia has posted some of her pictures--Mostly Awesome Clouds.

Awesome indeed. I am using two of these on my computers at work for "desktops".

It reminds me what I am missing in Idaho while I am in an office with hundreds of other people and worrying about cross site scripting, power consumption on mobile devices, and how many round trips to a remote server are required for a particular web page download.

Handheld weapons have never been restricted. Thus, your initial premise fails.

JadeGold
Aug 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm
[In response to Just One Question. I'm thinking mental problems beyond the normal or as Mike W. suggests--a parallel reality.--Joe]

Watch the media - both the gun media and the LameStream media - and pound them every time they use the word "allow" or other language that turns your rights into privileges.  The word "allow" is the most obvious offence, but any language which requests permission rather than demanding that infringements be stopped, is part of the problem.

Jeff Knox
08-12-2008 12:41
"Allow" Me Not!
[If you have even the slightest doubt as to what Jeff is talking about then read the whole thing. See also State of mind for defending the RKBA and Just One Question. It boils down to when they say "allow" we need to turn it around and demand to know why we should allow them to infringe our rights. And this applies to all freedoms not just rights associated with firearms. We need a mindset of a personal sovereignty (H/T to Kevin for that link).--Joe]