The View From North Central Idaho

Never having experienced anything even remotely approximating the death of a loved one, I almost don’t feel I deserve to be able to critique the way Shields deals with his loss. I know what such traumatic grief does to people; who are we to judge how they cope? The trauma simply breaks some, transforming them into shadows of their former selves; others it unhinges, never to be the same again. Still more are infused with a zeal to ensure that no others are made to endure what they did. This is simultaneously the most noble and selfless way of coping, but also the most dangerous; after all, what has more potential for harm than a fanatic who’s wrong but can’t possibly see it?

And that is the man who Pete Shields is; honorable, kind, warm, eloquent, passionate, wounded, and very, very wrong.

Nathaniel of Tech Paladin
August 17, 2008
Book Review: Guns Don’t Die — People Do
[See also Confessions of a Former Gun Control Fanatic--it gave me a little thrill to see them describe themselves as a bigot. I think using that word in our battle to exterminate gun control is going to be exceedingly powerful.

I find it absolutely fascinating to hear the thought processes of people who are, and especially were, on the other side of the gun issue. It is easy for me to think of our opposition as evil because of the incredibly dangerous laws they want passed but, for the most part, they are not evil. They are bigoted but until they know you own a gun and many times even after they discover that they are nice people. I think that is important to remember--especially during the sentencing phase for their crimes.--Joe]

A reliable source recently told me that once the rule change stopping the punishment of people exercising their RKBA in national parks goes into effect there will be numerous lawsuits filed all over the country. The anti-gun bigots are hoping to get some judge, somewhere, to issue a restraining order to stop the implementation of the rule change. Then they will drag things out in court until a new administration is in the White House.

If those lawsuits are filed it is my hope* that on her second day in office (Vice) President Palin sends Federal Marshals to arrest those involved and directs the Attorney General to charge them with violation of 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242.

How does a Congressman from rural Indiana, or Alabama, or any outsider, have the gall to tell the residents of Washington D.C. that they can't pass reasonable restrictions on guns to lower crime and reduce violence in their own communities?

Gun zealots continually preach about government's abuse of power. But that is exactly what the NRA and their puppets in Congress are doing.

The Gun Guys
September 10, 2008
The Gun Lobby’s War On Democracy and Local Control In D.C.
[Replace "gun" with "ni**er" and "NRA" with "NAACP" to see this in the proper light. These bigots appear to be unable to grasp the concept of individual freedom. In their small minds only government entities can have power. Power to oppress individuals is taken away from the local government and they can only think of it in terms of a power grab by the Federal government. I don't believe these people can be reasoned with. They can only be politically defeated and destroyed.--Joe]

American gun owners, who are increasingly becoming gun rights activists, are not the fools Democrats think they are.

Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman
September 12, 2008
Democrats may as well tell gun owners the party is over
[I think it's time the Democrats were taught another lesson like the one they forgot from '94.--Joe]

However, they call their piston kit a "direct impingement gas piston system."  Anyone else see a problem here?  It may be nitpicking (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but "direct impingement" is exactly that one thing that a piston system is not.  When Stoner came up with his piston-less operation back in the day, he called it "direct impingement" to describe his system of channeling the gas back into the receiver where it "directly impinges" on the bolt carrier without an intervening piston rod or tappet.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death is cranking up the attack on Obama. The latest is this news release and brochure. There is also the website GunBanObama.com. Find lots of juicy tidbits like, "Just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right." I wonder how he would respond to someone that said something similar about the 13^th Amendment.

The odds makers have Obama winning. Former President Clinton says, "I predict that Senator Obama will win and win pretty handily." Of course Clinton is a pathological liar so we can dismiss whatever he says and perhaps even go with just the opposite of what he says. For this reason and others I'm betting on the NRA and predict University of Idaho (everyone in my family is either a graduate or working on a degree from there) graduate Sarah Palin is going to win.

No one should be surprised that Concealed Weapon Laws Make Security Practitioners Worried. I'll bet there were lots of "security practitioners" that were "worried" about blacks being released from slavery too. Reading the study they cite I found certain items particularly interesting.

The title of the study is "Preventing Gun Violence in the Workplace" (emphasis mine). It's not about preventing violence in general it's about preventing gun violence.

They claim "Research suggests that workplaces that prohibit weapons are significantly less likely to experience a worker homicide than workplaces that allow guns." But they apparently include the police--"the risk of becoming a victim of a violent crime on the job is highest for workers in law enforcement occupations, who experienced more than 125 violent incidents per 1,000 employed persons." One can only guess that the author, Dana Loomis, PhD, is of the opinion that the police would be safer if they were prohibited from having weapons. But then Loomis says, "Carrying a weapon is part of the function of some workers whose jobs involve the protection of people or property such as police officers, security guards, corrections officers, game wardens, and park rangers. Possession of weapons by such personnel is generally intended to prevent violence and is not regarded as a public health and safety concern."

The most disturbing item I found in the report was the suggestion that OSHA should get involved:

The general duty clause of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act (Section 5(a) (1)) requires employers to provide “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards.” An interpretation of the general duty clause written by OSHA’s solicitor in 1992 acknowledged that an employer could be found in violation of the Act for failing to take “feasible steps” to protect employees from violence and injury when the risks are “significant enough to be recognized hazards.

...

To date, OSHA, for example, has chosen not to regulate weapons in the workplace, but this position could change. It is conceivable that employers who fail to take feasible and effective action to protect workers from known risks of violent crime could be found in violation of the OSH Act, if OSHA were to take a more aggressive approach to workplace violence.

Can anyone guess who Loomis cites for data on concealed carry laws? That right, the Brady Center to Prevent Violence website. No mention of the NRA or other pro-gun organization as a source except for a brief mention which uses the type of language you might expect from such a bigot (emphasis added):

A critique posted on the National Rifle Association’s Web site alleges that the authors failed to consider whether workplaces at high risk of crime were also more likely to allow guns and that they ignored information about workplaces’ experience with crime (National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, 2005).

With an attitude like what I read here it's no wonder Doomis is worried. He's worried the good guys will win.

<heavy sigh> We have so much more work to do get rid of these bigots.

About 43,000 Transportation Security Administration officers are sporting new uniforms that make them look more like warriors in the battle against terrorism than baggage handlers.

 ...

The new look was rolled out today in Omaha and many other airports to mark the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The uniform shirts change from white to blue. Instead of an embroidered badge, the officers will wear a metal badge. Their belts will be wider to better fit with the uniform pants.

The 65/35 polyester/cotton blend shirts will stay cleaner and be more comfortable, according to the agency.

A new arm patch will feature an eagle and a portion of the American flag. The patch is intended as a visible reminder of the organization's roots in the 2001 attacks.

Joseph Morton
September 11, 2008
Airport security crews go blue, and you're paying for it
[I find it very appropriate that on this day, of all days, the TSA demonstrates what it is really all about.--Joe]

On this day, the anniversary of 9/11/01;

By our friend in Israel, this article in HA'ARETZ is brought to our attention.

What I bring away from the article is, well, I won't tell you.

Do steers sign treaties with meat packers?

"Sam"
Page 253 "The Puppet Masters" by Robert A. Heinlein
[Or should have the European Jews come to a "reasonable compromise" with Hitler in 1939? Or between a rapist or murderer and his victim? Similar questions could and should be asked before striking a deal with the gun grabbers. They want to destroy us and there is no compromise with their kind.--Joe]

For decades the Second Amendment might as well have been called the Second-Class Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court spent the late 20^th century expansively interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments, not to mention unenumerated rights ranging from travel to sexual privacy. But not until last month did the court hold that the Second Amendment means what it says: that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

James Taranto
July 19, 2008
Alan Gura--How a Young Lawyer Saved the Second Amendment
[In a lot of a ways I find it very odd. Of all the articles in the Bill of Rights the 2^nd Amendment is among the least, if not the least, ambiguous. Yet it was so despised by people of the last century they managed to twist it into meaningless. The Heller decision only rescued a fragment and I fear that only another small portion will ever be recovered.--Joe]

One of the problems with "compromise" (it's not really compromise) on the "assault weapon" issue is the definition of an "assault weapon". As we all know the Washington D.C. definition of machine gun includes essentially all semi-automatic handguns. The N.J. definition includes the Marlin Model 60 .22 LR with tubular magazine.

From Canada comes the lastest example where the Ruger Mini 14 is being attacked by one of my "favorite" bigots:

Gill's firearm "is neither a hunting rifle nor a target shooting gun. It is a military assault weapon," said Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control.

"One of the things (Ramsay) didn't highlight is there are many more like the CX4 Storm (not on the prohibited list). The Ruger Mini 14 used in the (1989 Polytechnique) massacre is still being sold as a hunting rifle."

Did you pick this guy or did your daughter?

Mike Brown
September 7, 2008
While at a USPSA pistol match after having a particularly well informed conversation with John, Xenia's fiancé, on carry options for people under 21 (John is 19) and on college campuses.
[My response was that it was Xenia's pick. I had nothing to do with either daughter's choice in spouses. I occasionally wonder if it is my "boy blood for daughter's tears" policy that causes them to suck up to me a little but I don't see enough evidence to justify validating that hypothesis.--Joe]

This isn't the usual range report on people going to the range to shoot. This is a report on improving a range.

Yesterday, after getting a late start due to an eye infection I went to the Boomershoot site and made some improvements. The primary goal was to expand the target capacity at the tree line. This is also known as the 375 yard line. I more than doubled the length of this berm. I had originally planned to extend it to the east but due to my limited time (the dirt would have to been moved much further) and concerns shooters in the .50 Caliber Ghetto and most of the Lowlands wouldn't be able to see those targets anyway I extended the berm to the west.

The ground was dry and hard. The dozer I use is on the small side and 65 years old. Frequently I would put the maximum weight I could on the blade in an effort to get it to cut into the ground. This would lift the front end of the cat up and put all the weight on the bit of the blade and the rear sprocket of the cat. Still the blade would barely cut into the ground. It was only after making another pass on the same piece of earth after the spinning tracks had tore up the ground previously that I would get a significant amount of dirt in front of the blade:

Weight on the rear sprocket and blade in an effort to cut into the hard earth.

Below is the result of several hours of dirt moving. The previous target area was from the tree about 50 feet behind the car extending left (east) to the end of the grass covered berm. As you can see from the fresh dirt the target area is over double the previous length. This will allow us to put out a lot more targets in this very popular area.

Taken from shooting bench height, just off of the west end of the shooters berm, at position 69. Click on the picture to see more detail.

I also extended and tweaked the berm for the shooters. The extension was not to increase the capacity but to get each of the shooters a little more room. In previous years shooters were allocated six feet per shooting position while on the berm compared to eight feet on the ground. This should allow berm shooters eight feet as well.  I also tried to make it a little more level. Certain areas on the berm weren't really usable and I think I have fixed that.

Extended portion of the shooters berm looking uprange (mostly north and a bit west).

Shooters berm looking to the west from the east end.

Boomershoot 2009 will have more targets and berm shooters will have a little more elbow room.

I also checked on the status of things at the Taj Mahal. Previously the batteries were not fully charged and the water supply was having issues as well. The batteries weren't fully charged but a couple hours of running the generator and I finally got them topped off. The water still seemed to be working fine.

I still need to go back in a couple weeks and plant grass in the freshly disturbed dirt and prepare the Taj for winter.

JR has created another slide show from pictures and music from Gun Blogger Summer Camp. For reasons explained in his post the music he used was my first choice. But after looking for a minute or two I didn't find it and gave up to use stuff I already owned.

Enjoy.

It is a myth, not a mandate, a fable not a logic, and symbol rather than a reason by which men are moved.

Irwin Edman
[This is something everyone who hopes to change the actions of others must keep in mind. And on the flip side those who are moved must be constantly on guard against least they be moved to inappropriate action, hope, and change. I regard Edman's observation as generally true and in most cases as a human weakness.--Joe]

What's the problem here?

A small fire broke out inside a building in the 3400 block of River Hills Drive in Newtown Friday night.

When firefighters opened the building they found hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Some had been fired, others had not.

"We have some concerns in the fact that we have some rather large quantities of explosive materials," said Chief Tom Driggers, of the Little Miami Joint Fire and Rescue District.

Edwin Wolfer III owns the property and the ammunition. Wolfer is licensed to own it and is a dealer.

Chief Driggers, however, said his fire department should have been made aware that it was there.

"Because of the uncertainty as to why it's in here, the quantities of it's being here – the fact that there was no permit process – we've notified the ATF," said Chief Driggers.

The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms along with the Hamilton County bomb squad responded to the scene.

A couple weeks ago Todd Jarrett told a bunch of gun bloggers he has about 250K (or was it 350K?) rounds of loaded ammo and the components for another 650K at his place. And the guy above is a dealer not just a consumer. Chief Driggers needs to realize that there are a lot of people that have 10s of thousands of rounds of ammo in their homes. It's easy to go through a 1000 rounds per month and someone that buys a years supply when the price is expected to go up isn't out of the ordinary and isn't a threat of some kind. U.S. consumers go through something like nine Billion rounds per year. The dealers aren't going to be buying and storing in quantities of a few hundred.

As mentioned before, there is going to be a gun/freedom blogger meet in Seattle next weekend. I received an email that the date has been changed. The new meeting info is:

10:00 AM
Sunday, September 14^th
Eggs Cetera's Blue Star Cafe
4512 Stone Way N
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone: (206) 548-0345

If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it. Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress.

Barack Obama
September 5, 2008
Obama: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away’
Wall Street Journal
[This was brought to my attention via an email from the Apex of the Triangle of Death. Ms. Apex of the Triangle of Death also pointed out this was almost a Diane Feinstein moment.--Joe]

It's been years since I read Ayn Rand's book, Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, but her essay, The Anatomy of Compromise was recently brought to my attention. (If you haven't read the book, it is highly recommended.  Trust me.  No really.)

In the essay, Rand defines three rules "...about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals."  Leaving out her extensive lead-in:

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

Does that remind anyone else of the Democrats and Republicans?  In my observation (feel free to correct me) the "basic principles" of the Democrats, if they can be determined by long-term observation, are founded in altruism, or at least feigned altruism, and "the common good" which can only come about though central planning.  If left to run our own lives, we would surely self-destruct.  If there's a principle in there, it is the conclusion that people are inherently destructive, and must therefore be directed in their daily lives by someone else or all hell will break loose.  Forget for a moment the issue of the left's success rate in achieving "the common good", or the means of coercing us into compliance.

The Republicans talk about smaller government, free enterprise, (and maybe once in a while they'll give us a passing mention of property rights) with the protection of "individual" rights (in fact there is no other kind) being the proper role of government (actually, they're seldom ever that clear in their rhetoric).  If there's a principle in there, it's the conclusion that people are basically rational in judging their self-interests, and people are capable-- that people running their own affairs and owning the fruits of their initiative is not only right, moral and just, it results in the best outcomes in terms of quality of life-- win, win.  You may have heard it somewhere.  Our country's founders talked about it a lot.  But how consistent have the Republicans been?  "Not at all" would by my immediate answer.  Are their stated goals really much different from the stated goals of Democrats?  Better schools, better health care, yadda, yadda.  Are their means to those stated goals all that different?  There are differences, but is the message clear and consistent?  How many times have we heard "Certainly, we all want the same things for our country.."

No, we don't.  Far from it.

What I want is the protection of rights and the dispensing of justice.  The better schools, better health care, and all the rest, naturally follow from that, and in most cases those things are not the business of government (it’s protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, ensuring our security in our persons, houses, papers and effects, not giving us happiness, and not giving us houses, papers and effects).

To a leftist, the mere exercising of one's rights (say, in hiring and firing for example, or allowing smoking in a restaurant for another, or in owning a gun in some cases) is a violation.

It seems to me that's a pretty clear-cut difference in principles, yet which Party has been the most consistent?  You guessed it-- The Dems.  Republicans are all over the map, talking about the virtues of free markets and the need for subsidies literally in the same sentence, espousing the benefits of small businesses and vowing to "crack down" on "Big Oil" at the same time, as if rights are inversely proportional to size or success.

Not that the Dems are consistent, and they’re certainly not rational, but the Dems are much more consistent than Republicans, in my observation.

In claiming to support individual rights while supporting gun laws and mandating certain lightbulbs, the Republicans showing hypocrisy.  When talking up the value and power of entrepreneurialism and trying to "save social security" at the same time, they're being inconsistent.  When G.W. Bush tells us the free market is the best engine of prosperity in history, then piles on a new federal education program, he's being ridiculous.  A joke.  When promoting his prescription drug give-away, Bush is trying, lamely, to "out Democrat" the Democrats.  Who's going to fall for that?  I hear Republicans talking and I think, "Yea!.  Boo!  Yea!  Boo! Hell, I give up!"  It's a mess.  They're not using principles to guide either their goals or their means.  Even if there are a few snippets of rationality in there at times, there are few signs that they actually believe them.  No consistent principles are visible, unless you consider the act of trying to please mutually exclusive interests a "principle".  It's this sort of behavior that caused Ayn Rand, over forty years ago, to say that the death of conservatism can be blamed more on the self-described conservatives than on anyone else-- they give conservatism a bad name.

Being more consistently pro-big government, pro-redistribution, and collectivist, and with neither side being rational, the pro-big government side seems to have been winning consistently for generations.  During Bush's eight years, we've seen the federal budget grow from about 2 trillion to about three trillion dollars, and there's no end in sight no matter who wins the next election.  The measurable "Change" seems to be primarily a matter of speed and not of direction.

"Oh, but we all want the same things for our country. Surely we can agree on that much."

No we don't, and we can't.  Realizing that is a first step toward getting our “…opposite basic principles clearly and openly defined”.  I submit that Reagan’s popularity was in his more consistent application of clear and open principles (specifically American principles) to his goals and to his means of achieving them.  Now what are the Republicans going to do about it?

Read The Anatomy of Compromise in the book, Capitalism, and get back to me.

As taught by the experts. I was taught this by Insights Training and then had it reinforced by Todd Jarrett a couple weeks ago.

I highly recommend it.

Registration for the 2009 Precision Rifle Clinic is now open. You don't have to attend the Boomershoot on Sunday to participate in the clinic on Friday or Satuday. They are in close proximity in space and time but are, essentially, independent.

The prices for this type of training is amazingly good. And it includes shooting at a few boomers as well.

High winds with ice pellet storms. For me, that was uncommon for the Boomershoot but not the worse I have experienced at the Clinic so take it as it was. The winds we had offered an excellent opportunity to practice our wind doping and we learned our lessons and gained some confidence that we could stay on top of such winds well enough to hold IPSC size steel targets as long as we could see them. Such conditions were extreme but I doubt anyone will forget the experience or more importantly, how the Clinic shooters dominated these conditions. I am sure firing in 25 – 30 MPH winds and ice pellet storms will be something the shooters won’t soon forget.

Eugene Econ
Boomershoot 2008 Precision Rifle Clinic After Action Review
[I remember seeing a young woman at the clinic who had arrived from Austin just the day before. She was bundled up in winter clothes and the only skin exposed was part of her face which was getting pelted with ice pellets. I asked her, "Are you having fun yet?" She said she was. At the time I thought she was probably a very good liar but she signed up for Boomershoot 2009.--Joe]

That's the TSA: Not doing the right things. Not even doing right the things it does.

Bruce Schneier
September 1, 2008
My LA Times Op Ed on Photo ID Checks at Airport
[What he says is accurate but he doesn't go far enough. If he were to say "That's the government..." it might be a little too far but not so much that that I would quibble about it.--Joe]