The View From North Central Idaho

Reading the blogs today I'm reminded of a Heinlein quote:

If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.

-Robert Heinlein-

Apparently certain "fact checkers" didn't get the memo. There is a big buzz in the gun blogger world today:

• FactCheck.org’s Bad Facts Go Mainstream
• Fact Checking Fact Check
• More on FactCheck.org’s Bad Fact Checking
• Unmitigated Garbage from FactCheck.org on Obama’s Second Amendment Record
• Liar With “Facts”
• Two Simple Questions
• Square peg round holes

Our friendly Apex of the Triangle of Death has probably the best information with On Obama's Gun Record, Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers? I found this to be the most illuminating:

There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005.

I see three simple questions, inspired by the Heinlein quote above, to get to the bottom of the controversy. Everyone can answer them for themselves with only a small amount of work using the above links. Those questions are:

1. How many laws which restrict gun ownership and use has Obama supported?
2. How many laws which encourage gun ownership and use has Obama supported?
3. In the last few years how much money has FactChecker given to pro-gun organizations and how much to anti-gun organizations?

There no need for opinions on this topic. There is a need for facts. If "FactCheck" is to honor it's name then it should emphasis numbers and not words.

Something I don't see much of in Idaho is how the NRA spends it's advertising money during elections. Spending the money in my area of the country would be a waste of time. Any money spend getting an election victory greater than 50% of the vote is wasted. Seeing how my money is spend is nice.

Here, for your education and enjoyment, is the latest propaganda from the Apex of the Triangle of Death:

• Video Ads
• Radio Ads
• Print Ads

Philip Elmer-Dewitt
March 14, 1994
Who Should Keep the Keys?
[Those that criticize Republicans for "spying on U.S. citizens" forget how hard the Clinton administration worked to do the same thing.--Joe]

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.
[Equality of women can only be achieved if they have a physical equalizer. Until then they are dependent on a protector. Could that be why Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are so opposed to people owning guns and Diane Feinstein carries a gun?--Joe]

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

Ayn Rand
[I'm thinking of certain Democrats and their tax plans.--Joe]

Dave Hardy does a good job.

Obama is trying to woe gun owners telling us how he "supports the Second Amendment". As if this should even be an issue, have you ever heard politicians say they oppose the Bill of Rights?? Of course he is a like a teenage boy thinking he is going to get laid for the first time if he says, "I love you" enough times--no matter how insincere he is.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death has a little quiz to help cut through the fog of raging hormones and see the truth about what Obama is really about:

Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.

Edward Abbey
[I was reminded of this by reading Roberta's and Robb's posts.--Joe]

From "The Gun Guys":

Gun Pusher: noun. 1. Someone who pushes guns on others whether they need, want or should have them. 2. A person who cares more about profit generated from the sale of firearms and their own power than they do about their fellow-citizens. 3. A person who can pretend that 30,000 deaths from guns in the United States is simply the price we pay for "freedom".

Like a drug dealer, a gun pusher will seduce you into believing that you want and need a gun. After all they say, "guns will keep you safe." What they fail to tell you are about the terrible side effects of guns in America.

...

The NRA is little more than a two-bit gun pusher. Like a drug-dealer they peddle their wares regardless of consequence or conscience.

Beware of the gun pusher, they will leave no stone unturned in their relentless pursuit of profit and power. Schools, churches, malls, playgrounds, national parks and airports are all fair game to them. And, believe us when we say, the last thing they are concerned about is the safety of you, your family or your loved ones.

Apparently he is unaware that of those 30,000 deaths by gunfire half were suicides that nearly all would have occurred even if there were no guns on the planet.

Apparently he is unaware that of the remaining 15,000 deaths thousands of them were from legitimate self-defense by both the police and private citizens.

Apparently he is unaware that at least 74 Million people lost their lives in the last century because of gun control. Do the math on that when you estimate your price for freedom.

He apparently is unaware the NRA teaches thousand of people in personal protection and safety with and without guns each year.

Apparently he believes firearms in the hands of the police are not about the security and safety of innocent lives.

And finally, does this guy really think he is psychic and knows what we are and are not concerned with? He is actually closer to a psychotic disconnect from reality. But then we already knew he has mental problems. This isn't really news.

However, gun owners are not so foolish to believe that House Democrats embraced this legislation just because it was the right thing to do. Many voted for H.R. 6691 to give themselves some pro-gun-rights cover for the upcoming election, and they know it.

Those Democrats are fully aware that chances of this bill getting through the Senate during this session of Congress are virtually nil, but this issue gave them a chance to cast a pro-gun vote they can brag about on the campaign trail over the next seven weeks.You can bet your gun collection that Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will block a vote on this measure.

Alan Gottlieb
Founder of Second Amendment Foundation
September 17, 2008
HOUSE RIGHT TO VOTE ON D.C. GUN REGS, MAKE COUNCIL BEHAVE, SAYS SAF
[It about symbolism over progress on the civil rights front. But at least they using symbols that appeal to us rather than to the Brady Campaign. I'm annoyed D.C. is defying the Supreme Court chastisement for their 30 year repression of civil rights with the attendant hundreds, if not thousands, of lives lost. But at least they are headed in the right direction even if they have their feet dug in and are being dragged into compliance. I'm annoyed at the situation, can you imagine what the anti-gun bigots are feeling? I think I can--at least partly. I remember the passage of the Brady Act and then a few months later the "assault weapon" ban. I felt anger that lasted for months. But I had an outlet. I purchased guns, ammo, reloading equipment, training, and then in 1996 started working on explosives. The Brady supporters don't have nearly as good an outlet. They can only whine, complain, and scream. That isn't nearly as satisfying as putting a bullet through a pop can filled with explosives from 500 yards away. But then they have been whining, complaining, and screaming for years now and are good at it--it what they do. We have better things to do and it is part of the reason why we are winning. We have positive activities with tangible social and self improvement results. They are a hate group and have zero positive results to show for all their decades and even lifetimes of hate. To have even their minimal accomplishments in a few square miles of swamp wasteland near Virginia and Maryland be taken away from them as got to be extremely discouraging. Pity them as individuals but drive them as a group into political extinction.--Joe]

Last evening as I was leaving work I saw this. Sorry for the low picture quality. It was taken with my cell phone.

Today, all day, was the company meeting. In a lot of ways, especially when Steve Ballmer is on stage (or running through the crowd), it's like a prep rally from high school. The following are my Twitter comments while watching the meeting. If you view them on the web they don't have the proper time stamp because the cell phone connectivity (and my Internet connection on my Pocket PC) at Safeco Field was very intermittent (overloaded with all the geeks with mobile devices). Most of the Twitter updates had to be sent several times before they finally made it out.

At the company meeting. Live Mesh is awesome. Office 14 is gettting lots of applause too.

Watching cool demos of Live Search.

XBox has good stuff coming.

Just saw world premier of more MS ads. Will show up on TV tonight. Much better than the first one.

Windows 7 demo is cool!

Raiin Wison led us in making a new world record of simultaneous paper airplanes in the air--22K.

One of the best ways to predict the future is to invent the future.--Craig Mundie

The robotics demo was impresssive. Receptionist assistant will go to beta in a few months.

Fireworks for Steve Baller's entrance.

60B in sales. 22B in gross income. No other company (if they aren't an oil company) can say that.

Apple: GAME ON!

Google has never been challenged. I want see what happens when they are.--Steve B.

There are times when I'm certain I can tell who is going to be in favor of gun control just by looking at them. They look scared all the time. Sort of like they are about to run home and tell mommy because you looked at them wrong. I have commented on this before (see also the picture in that post). Now we have some research to indicate there is a correlation but it is different from what I expected:

Alford and his colleagues studied a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs. Those individuals with "measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War," the authors wrote.

...

The researchers noted a correlation between those who reacted strongly to the stimuli and those who expressed support for "socially protective policies," which tend to be held by people "particularly concerned with protecting the interests of the participants' group, defined as the United States in mid-2007, from threats." These positions include support for military spending, warrantless searches, the death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and Biblical truth, and opposition to pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights and pornography.

There are some profound implications if these results are true:

The paper concluded, "Political attitudes vary with physiological traits linked to divergent manners of experiencing and processing environmental threats." This may help to explain "both the lack of malleability in the beliefs of individuals with strong political convictions and the associated ubiquity of political conflict," the authors said.

While at the Gun Blogger Summer Camp last month I won a set of Crimson Trace laser grips--whatever set I wanted. I finally got around to asking for a set to fit a Ruger Mark II. I received them but haven't installed them. I went to range tonight thinking I would put them on and try them out but wasn't thinking ahead. I forgot to bring tools.

They look very cool but a full report will have to wait for a few days.

The good news is that 90 to 95% of the people from New Orleans have reached the evacuation areas, and have voluntarily taken wrist bracelets with bar codes on them so they could be safely evacuated, according to FOX news, 8/30/08.

Just think about that.
Bar codes for people.

Alan Korwin
September 15, 2008
Bar Coding People
[Those that understand the point won't need any further comment from me. Those that don't understand probably won't ever get it--until it is too late.--Joe]

This NRA-backed bill repealing DC's gun laws serves only the political interests of the gun lobby and the profit motives of the gun industry. Make no mistake, such a radical reversal of DC's gun policy will cost lives.

Kristen Rand
VPC Legislative Director
September 17, 2008
House of Representatives Votes to Repeal District of Columbia's Gun Laws
[I think there are a few things Ms. Rand erred in when she make this statement:

1. Repealing DC's gun laws was done by the U.S. Supreme Court last June, not the House of Representatives or "the gun lobby".
2. She says "profit" like it were a bad thing. It is not. Profits indicate willing customers finding willing suppliers of goods and services. But her apparent dislike of this is to be expected--there is a very high correlation between socialists/communists and those that wish to remove guns from individuals. For her to do that puts her at odds with the entire basis of our country and in alignment with the most brutal, murderous tyrants in history. This alone should be reason enough to be suspicious of anything she advocates.
3. The "profit" from sales into DC will be such a tiny blip on the balance sheet of "gun industry" they won't even notice and cannot be considered a motive.
4. The lives it will cost will be almost exclusively those of violent criminals. And even then one should expect the overall death rate to decrease to levels approaching that of nearby Virginia with firearm laws much closer to being in alignment with the specific enumerated right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Hence, either she regards all lives as equally important or she is unaware the repressive gun laws in DC did not enhance safety.

In those two simple two sentences there were four errors. Let's enumerate the things she got correct:

1. The bill is backed by the NRA.
2. It is a radical reversal of the DC's gun policy.

Final score 2-4. With the two valid points being irrelevant to what is really should be an answer to Just One Question. If I were grading her essay as if it were a test I would give it 0.5 out of 10. The spelling and grammar were adequate.--Joe]

I think Kevin Baker has his problems with the TSA mostly fixed now. I'm pretty sure he is now able to avoid getting special treatment when he flies. But had the normal channels not worked he could have just changed his name. Apparently it works quite well.

My contempt for the TSA Security Theater is at an all time high. But there is a certain amount of truth to the claim that a great deal of security is about feeling secure rather than actually being secure. However this doesn't lower my contempt of the TSA, it just raises my contempt for sheeple and all government (redendency alert) idiots.

Does the presence of guns in a society increase or decrease freedom?

The NRA says, "Vote Freedom First". But is it really true?

The answer is obvious to you and I. But it's also "obvious" to the people of the Brady Campaign. David Kopel, Carlisle Moody, & Howard Nemerov did the research, crunched the numbers and concluded:

There are many causal mechanisms by which guns and freedom can advance or inhibit
each other. The mechanisms which are most influential at a given point in time can vary widely
from nation to nation. Historically and today, we can find ways in which freedom has increased
guns, guns have increased freedom, freedom has reduced guns, and guns have reduced freedom.
International firearms scholars, except those based in North America, have tended to focus their
research only on the latter two relationships, while ignoring the first two. Some of the more
enthusiastic proponents of gun prohibition have asserted that the relationship between freedom
and guns is always negative.

The data in this Article reveal a more complex picture. As general (but not invariable
rule), countries with more guns have more economic freedom, less corruption, and more
economic success. The broad international data do not support theory that more guns means less
freedom, for any of the measures of freedom.

The data provide reason for caution about embracing global agenda of reducing civilian
gun ownership. There may be particular countries where reductions might enhance freedom, but
the data raise serious doubts about whether the gun-reducing agenda makes sense as a categorical
imperative, at least if freedom ranks highly in one‘s hierarchy of values.

When we acknowledge that guns can have a positive and a negative relationship with
freedom, then we can begin to look for more sophisticated, carefully tailored approaches to gun
policy, which attempt to address the negative effects, and which are careful not to reduce the
apparently significant positive effects. Such an approach offers a better possibility of enhancing
freedom than does a simplistic program that only considers negative effects.

I'll be reading the whole thing tonight after work.

Heller was a five-to-four split decision with the majority (prevailing) opinion written by Justice Anthony Scalia. Some call this a "razor thin" majority for the decision. Not exactly. The opinion was written as strongly as could be done and still keep the SC swing vote, Justice Kennedy, on-board. A more dilute opinion might have garnered a 6-3 decision, and a weaker opinion yet might have gotten a 7-2 vote.

Gary Marbut
D.C. v. Heller What does it mean?
Page 16, Front Sight, September/October 2008
[This is the way I read the decision as well. It may not be the best way to present the decision for propaganda purposes but I'm fairly certain this describes what happened.--Joe]

I'm about fed up with this blatant PDS (public display of stupidity).  The leftists keep telling us that we, the mean old meanies in other states, are "forcing our will" on the poor, besieged Washington DC residents, telling them they can't make their very own gun laws.  Oh, the humanity-- a local government isn't being allowed to violate the constitution!  Woe be to us all-- the very concept of democracy is being tortured to death by those eeevil and dastardly NRA-puppet, gun-clinging, pig Neocons!  Boo Hoo Hoo Hoooooo!  And, oh yeah-- Boo Hoo Hoooooo!

Just for fun (and because it will raise the ire of just about everyone) lets look at the fake indignation over "states' rights" and the phony demand for "local democratic control" among the left when it comes to abortion.  States' rights on abortion laws anyone?  Nope.  No way.  None exist.  No local control rights exist for abortion because abortion is a constitutional right, damn it.  Five justices said so, and you can't mess with a constitutional right!  Not even a little bit, because if we allow a little bit, who knows how far things would go toward limiting the right to an abortion?  Why, some people even want to ban abortion, don't you know!

We can now see that even the most anti-American, gun-hating, bigoted Marxist, anti-constitution leftists, including those in the Supreme Court, do in fact understand how rights are supposed to work.  They've told us.  There should be no option, for any state or locale, for voting away that which is a right, or for encroaching on it in any way whatsoever.  To do so would violate the right of the individual to an abortion, and that would be wrong no matter how many people want to do it, no matter where they are, and no matter how good their intentions.  Some have even gone so far as to insist that, as a right, abortion should be paid for by the taxpayers, on demand, to minors, with no parental notification, and in so demanding, they have been taken very, very seriously by the left.

I as a parent can't send my kid to school with a couple of asprin because drugs are "bad" and many schools have zero tolerance for drugs, but when it comes to abortion-- a "right" that isn't addressed in the constitution, wasn't written into the constitution by the prescribed amendment process but was instead created out of thin air by five people in black robes, it's a right which is so absolute that my under-age kid should get an abortion on demand, anywhere in the fifty states and the district of Columbia, without parental notification, and have it paid for by the state.  Got it.

Leftists assert some new-found rights and behave one way, while they disagree with other, well-established and clearly enumerated rights and behave in the opposite manner.  Imagine if we were to take the hard-core "abortion rights" advocates' position regarding our second amendment rights:

Anyone who wants a gun gets the gun of their choice, on demand, with plenty of ammunition, at any time, anywhere in the Union, with no parental notification, paid for with taxpayer money, and no state or locale should be allowed to make any laws regarding guns or other weapons because it's a constitutional right and you can't mess with a constitutional right, ever, ever, no matter what, period.  (hey, they're going to do it anyway, right?  may as well give them quality guns and show them how to use them properly in a controlled environment)

Which way do you want it, lefties?  Tell you what; I'm confident enough as a parent that I believe I can convince my daughter to do the right thing when it comes to controlling her sex life.  You can have your way with abortion if we can have our way regarding the real Bill of Rights, including the second amendment (except we'll throw out the tax-payer funding bit, because that's just stupid as hell).  Deal?  And I don't want to ever hear, "If it saves the life of just one child..."  We're on to you lefties.  Knock it off.

How about we take the assertion, "my body, my choice" and apply it to the second amendment? "My body, my choice, including the means of protecting it."

A bolt action rifle can be the basis for a formidable fighting force, as could the venerable 30-30 lever rifle. Give me men willing to discipline themselves to train as a concerted team with nothing more than common hunting arms and I (and most any other military leader from the US Army or Marine Corps) can give you a formidable guerrilla force.

Which is why the estimated 80 to 100 million gun owners in the US give me a warm fuzzy feeling. That is the largest untapped militia force in the world. US shooters consume over 9 billion rounds of ammunition annually.

Why would any politician want to disarm the US people? Oh yeah, an armed population can only be subjugated by consent.

American Mercenary
September 7, 2008
Reloading thoughts
[I sometimes get comments from people who say they are glad I am on their side. Well... I'm glad American Mercenary is on our side.--Joe]

Maybe it's his military training. I'm not sure. But Xenia's fiancée John deals with one annoying situation appropriately.

Inspired by Roberta's post I looked up something I had seen a while back--How To Make a Cremora Fireball. Here are some pictures of the results:

40-50 Foot Tall Cremora Fireball
(Photo and fireball by Noel Emge)

70 Foot Mushroom Cloud by Bluegrass Pyrotechnic Guild

And in case you hadn't connected all the dots the TSA does not (and cannot) sniff your luggage for coffee creamer or powered milk. Hence a component of my contempt for the entire concept of TSA.

Six of us made it to the event (click on the pictures to see higher resolution versions):

Left to right, Phil, American Mercenary, Misty (wife of American Mercenary), Barb (my wife), and Gay_Cynic.

Barb insisted I should post a picture of myself as well, so here it is:

Joe Huffman and Gay_Cynic.

We had a nice time. No concrete plans to take over the world or anything. A report on Gun Blogger Summer Camp was requested. Gay_Cynic wanted to know if Tamara was as delightful in person as she is to read. I said she was but she seemed a little bit shy which I didn't expect.

Phil and I talked about our plans for guns to take to Reno next month.

We talked about Seattle Mayor Nickels attempts to break the law and ban gun owners from carrying on City property. Phil reports Nickels will release his plans after getting an opinion from the state Attorney General. If I recall correctly Phil said that was due out on October 20^th which will be in time for the election.

In response to something American Mercenary said about Democrats and socialism I said those people have a different set of basic assumptions about reality than I do and Phil says he will have blog post about that on Monday. I'm looking forward to it.

American Mercenary informed us about the use and misuse of full auto in the army. He explained a use I hadn't really thought of before. He said a machine gun set up in a street can prevent anyone from crossing for many hundreds of yards but that same gun on a roof is of limited use.

Barb and Misty talked extensively about being the wife of a military man. Xenia will soon be in that position and Misty has been living that life for quite a while now. Barb arranged for Xenia to take some pictures, "When Misty has her baby." Of course this was ambiguous to me. My first inclination was this probably meant during delivery--which seemed a little odd. But the shock on Barb's and Misty's faces when I wanted clarification on this point got me on the right track.