# Monday, October 06, 2008

Via the Apex of the Triangle of Death:

Fairfax, VA-Today the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) expanded its advertising campaign with the release of additional commercials further detailing Sen. Barack Obama’s long anti-gun record in battleground states across the country. The NRA-PVF commercials began airing Monday in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Minnesota and Michigan.

These ads, which expose the truth about Obama's record opposing the rights of law-abiding gun owners, are currently running in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Colorado. The media spots feature a variety of people from all walks of life, including war veterans, hunters, families and former law enforcement officers criticizing the many anti-gun and anti-hunter votes cast by Obama as a state and as a U.S. Senator. NRA-PVF is also running Spanish-language commercials in several states.

In an attempt to suppress free speech rights protected under the First Amendment, Obama's campaign has threatened television stations to stop airing the NRA-PVF ads under threat of revocation their FCC licenses. NRA-PVF has provided documented evidence to support the statements about Obama's record in the ads.

Commercials may be viewed at www.gunbanobama.com.

Joe Huffman  Monday, October 06, 2008 8:23:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

We felt that, for a variety of reasons, the collective rights model was under represented in the debate, and wanted to give scholars an opportunity to enhance or further illuminate the collective rights position. Sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium. I did not, therefore, invite anyone who I knew subscribed to the individual rights model.

Carl Bogus
June 12, 2001
Email regarding a Chicago-Kent symposium on the Second Amendment which only invited, and allowed, anti-gun owner viewpoints to be presented. This was done under the "community leadership" of Barack No Guns Allowed Obama--see also Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment.
[And would Mr. Bogus would say a more balanced trial of a black man is best served by the judge, both lawyers, and all the people on the jury being members of the KKK?--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Monday, October 06, 2008 7:58:45 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback
# Sunday, October 05, 2008

Ask me how I know.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, October 05, 2008 7:50:49 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

I just had a cancelation of one of the positions for Boomershoot 2009.

Position 62, on the berm, is now open.

Sign up here soon if you want it.

Update: The position has been filled. It was open for two hours and 18 minutes.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, October 05, 2008 4:38:23 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback

You put on the most politically incorrect event on the planet.

Pat Kelley
October 5, 2008
Referring to Boomershoot.
[Pat was at the USPSA match I went to today. I think it has been 10 years since I have seen Pat. He remembered me and said a lot of flattering things. I was a little embarrassed because he is such a great shooter he is totally out of my league. But he wasn't talking about my shooting ability. See also these quotes from him in other posts:

He also tried shooting my Saiga 12 gauge. He had never shot one before. He was not able to out-shoot it even though he believes it probably is possible. I wish I had thought to put a timer on him and see what sort of splits he got. I just saw a blur of fire expel from the ejection port and the 10 round magazines were empty.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Sunday, October 05, 2008 3:34:56 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback
# Saturday, October 04, 2008

In the right column I have a list of the bloggers I have met. I just found out a friend from way back (nearly 25 years) just started a blog. I'm not sure the general population of readers here will find all that much to agree with her on politics but she does take pretty pictures and says she will be posting her pictures there.

I have referred to her in my posts here a few times as one of my lesbian friends and she is the one that wrote the email referenced here. I tend to avoid discussing politics with her. Chess, places we have worked together, and other geeky stuff can keep us happily chatting for a long time however. And then there was the time I took her and her friend to the nudist club...

Joe Huffman  Saturday, October 04, 2008 8:10:33 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]  |  Trackback

Howard Nemerov gives us some info on possible motiviation for Obama's support for gun control:

In politics, it is often difficult to determine why a person supports a policy. Fortunately, numbers speak louder than words: In this case, follow the money to understand Obama’s support of registration.

One of Obama’s biggest donors is the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Meagher and Flom, LLP, which contributed $340,264 to his presidential campaign as of September 2, 2008.[12] Skadden, Arps represents the inventors of a “firearm safety system,” patent number 6499243, which adds a biometric activator that links a gun to one owner. The “Summary of the Invention” section of the patent application notes:

The safety system further makes use of a person’s fingerprint data, which is a unique personal property that is highly suitable for tracking and control.[13] [Emphasis added]

Sidley Austin LLP has contributed $350,302 to Obama.[14] Sidley Austin represents the inventors of the “Gun identification kit,” patent number 7380706. This invention provides a way for every gun to have a spent cartidge case made available for entry into a ballistic “fingerprint” database. Of course, such a database is useful only if all firearms are entered into it:

Because the vast majority of publicly owned firearms have not been used in the commission of a crime, they will not show up in [such a] database. It would therefore be desirable to provide a means for increasing the number of firearms for which…information and data is available.

The inventors’ solution to this? Pass a law mandating that every gun is registered (serial number matched with shell casing and owner data, all permanently recorded):

One means of populating [such a] database would be to mandate that ballistic information be obtained and entered into the database for all firearms.[15]

$350,000 for supporting gun licensing? Sounds like motive to me. Why else would Obama be so cagey on guns? We know it's not about making people safer because no one has been able to answer Just One Question.

So, when Obama says he "won't take your guns" keep in mind he didn't say he wouldn't register them. See Nemorov's post for more about the wisdom of that. Obama says Chicago is different from Chyenne. See my post on community policy for a response to that.

Joe Huffman  Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:37:12 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

If all mankind were of one opinion, and one man held the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one man than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

John Stuart Mill
On Liberty
[This is sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson. I believe this to be an error. Regardless it is apparent that Obama does not subscribe to this philosophy and McCain is not much better. They are both scumbags so this year I will probably be voting for Sarah.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:22:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
# Friday, October 03, 2008

As promised:

Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Porn Star Interview.
Organization: Prototronics @ Sandpoint, Idaho
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1991 23:39:02 GMT
Keywords: Cherri Hill Porn Movies Star


About 3 weeks ago I posted saying a former porn star was going to be visiting
with a friend at my place.  Well... due to various problems they didn't
show up.   I still wanted to ask her some questions and finally last night
I was able to make contact with her via phone.  She lives several hundred
miles from here but we spent about 45 minutes on the phone.  She seemed
intelligent and articulate.  I was sort of expecting someone a bit 'simple'.
Perhaps a the sterotype of a 'dumb blonde'.  This was not the case as near
as I could tell.

Without further elaboration -- my interview with "Cherri Hill":

Questions I had:

Me: How did you get into the business? 

Cherri:  I grew up in Coeur d'Alene Idaho and got married at 18 (I'm 21
now).  We moved in with another couple that was older and had this big
house.  The other women and I worked at a massage parlor at Stateline
(nearby town).  The older guy asked if I was interested in X-rated movies
and I said sure.  He sent pictures to Jim South's World of Modeling then
we went down there and I started working.  My husband stayed behind and I
told him that I was just modeling and not doing any sex stuff.  He later
came down and I told him about it and he decided he didn't like it and he
moved in with his father that he hadn't seen since he was about 5.  We're
still married 'cause I haven't got around to getting a divorce.

Me: Was it hard work?  How long did you have to work each day?

Cherri:  It was work.  We would usually meet at a parking lot about 7:00 in
the morning and caravan to somebody's house.  It was illegal in Orange county
because we were getting paid for sex.  So people who were having trouble meet
a mortage payment or something would rent out their house for three or four
hundred dollars for the day.  We would start filming the scenes and work all
day until 11:00 or 12:00 that night.  We would get our money and go home.

The movie 'formula' is 6 scenes with 3 men and 3 wowen.  The scenes are made
with switching people around so you get some girl-girl scenes, threesomes
and straight boy-girl scenes.

Me: Did it pay well?  Are the men paid comparable to the women?

Cherri:  For a beginer $400->$500 scene, $250->$300 for man.  Each day would
involve about 3 scenes.  Towards the last I was getting 2 or 3 jobs a month.
The agents fee is a straight $50.00.

Me: You only worked 2 or 3 days each month?  That gave you lots free time!

Cherri:  Yeah!  A lot of people are going to school or something like that.

Me: Did you get to know your co-stars ahead of time? 

Cherri: No -- not really.  You might know who was going to be there and you
got to know a lot of the people involved.  But nothing like you were
introduced a week ahead of the filming or anything like that.

Me: What about disease prevention?

Cherri:  You had to have AIDS test results that had come back in the last
24 to 48 hours.  If you didn't have the papers you didn't do any filming.

Me: How would someone go about getting started in the business?

Cherri: Call down to Van Nuys California (area code is  818) ask information
for Jim South's World of Modeling.  They are very cautious about police and
stuff.  You have to send in pictures. 

[Note:  I called information this morning.  There was no Jim South's World of
Modeling.  There was a "World Modeling Agency" with the phone number 
818-986-4316.  I have not called it and probably won't.]

Me: Is there a demand for men or just women?

Cherri: They need men as well as women.  A lot of men get in front of the
camera and just can't do it.  That's the end of their career in that field.

----
Several other people sent in questions.  Some were sort of duplicated.  One
person didn't want their name mentioned so I stripped out all identifying
information from all the questions.  I read the following questions to her
and give credit to "Net".
----

Net: Yes.  I would like to ask if they ever fake stuff in order to meet some
kind of a deadline.  If she's tired and just doesn't feel like having sex,
can they just rest for a while, or are they supposed to be ready to have sex
no matter what?

Cherri: You are told when your scenes will be a day or so ahead of time. 
Then it's pretty just go in and shoot them.  A scene takes about an hour to
an hour and 15 minutes.  Later when I got better at it it sometimes got down
to as little ast 22 minutes.  Only one time was there any fake stuff that
I saw.  It was doing some still shots for some magazine and this guy couldn't
get it off and I had this bottle of lotion that I held it behind his cock and
squeezed it so that it looked like he was cumming.

Net: Also, I'd like to know if they get to specify what kind of sex they will and
won't do.

Cherri:  Yes when you go into the agents office.  They have you fill out
this form -- will you have sex with blacks, hispanics, etc.  What kind of
sex will you do -- DP (double penetration), anal, girl-girl, etc.

Net: Also, do they get to pick with whom they will have sex?  If so, is
this on a movie-by-movie basis or do they just say that they will not have
sex with someone of the same sex at all.

Cherri: You can always say no for whatever reason (privately you know he's
been shooting up or they aren't clean or whatever).  As far as sex with
another women -- the first time I was put on set and asked to do a girl-girl
scene I was so scared!  I figured someone I knew would see it and that
bothered me.  But I did it and it got easier.  One women brought these
'tools' for me to use on her and I did -- it was kinda fun and it made it
a little easier.  And then afterwards she told me that she REALLY liked what
I did to her.  That helped a lot too.

Net: And lastly, can she share some of her personal opinions about the porn
world in general? 

Cherri: I liked the people involved they were REAL people -- down to earth.
I promised myself I wouldn't change from the person I was back in
Couer d'Alene.  But then I got involved with drugs and this guy from
Argentina.  I was more carefree then at 18 than at 21 now.  I only worked
in the business for 8 months.

Net: Where might we see her or what movies or whatever has she been in?

Cherri: 25 movies were made.  Which eventually were then cut up into 34 ->
40.  Some of the better ones were: "Thrill on Cherri Hill" (which I helped
write), "Eye of the Tigris",  "Port Holes".  They will say on the box
"Features Cherri Hill". 

Net: My exposure to this material (magazines and movies) is limited, but I
have always felt somewhat of a dillema. Given the media's representation of
the porn industry, I get the impression that most of the women involved are
doing it because of desperate financial situations (including expensive drug
habits), or they are run-aways with no place else to go and are more or less
forced into it.  Is this a correct representation of the industry, or is the
media/politicians trying to control the industry.  By renting/purchasing this
type of material am I contributing to or promoting abuse? This bothers me.

Cherri: Absolutely not!  You are asked for ID and birth certificate.  The
last thing they want is another Traci Lords thing.  Many got rid of drug
habits before getting involved.  And if you wanted drugs there was no expense
involved.  When people found out that I made movies like that they would give
me all the drugs I could have ever used.  Everyone is absolutely straight
on the set.  This is no place to be messed up.  Many of the men and women
are 25 -> 35 (some men even in their late 40's) and have to work a bit
more to keep in shape -- they have to stay away from drugs.

Net: Bearing in mind that what's on the screen is a performance, when she
was doing these movies, did she find that she had to put herself into a
frame of mind that it was work, and not sex?

Cherri: It's work of course.  There were some people that I really liked.
There was one guy (Mark Wallace) that I had outside relationship with and
that made the work more enjoyable.

Net: Did her performances impede her ability to function normally in an
intimate relationship outside of work?

Cherri: Hmmm... No it made me more aware of what turns a guy on.

Net: Was the sex on the job too much (I mean did it turn her off from
seeking an emotional commitment in her life?

Cherri: No.

Net: Did men in relationships outside of work assume she was a slut?

Cherri: Some.  But they are rare.

Net: Were they abusive to her because of her job (i.e. did she have to lower
her standards for a man/mate because she had to find someone who would not
be jealous.

Cherri: One guy was sort of mentally abusive.  He's in prison now for doing
some other stuff.  He wasn't a very nice guy anyway.  Didn't have much
to do with what I had done.  He would have been bad for anybody.

Net: Was she able to reject sexual partners (hygene, questionable health,
etc..) or did the "producers" _require_ that she perform with any and
everyone that they told her to. Could she reject a scene because she didn't
like it?  The reason I ask these questions is because, while I find the
material arousing and it can really improve bedroom play, I don't like the
idea of making someone else miserable so I can enjoy erotica.

Cherri:  You could reject anything.  You are your own boss.  You can decide.

Net: The men in the movies are brought to orgasm (I assume they are when I
see them ejaculate).  Did she find that to be arousing? Did she enjoy the
sex?  I always wonder how much is over-acting (on the part of the women) and
how much is actually orgasm (perhaps that's what makes the movies
intriguing?).

Cherri: Different people are different.  I did a lot of acting.  I felt
there was too much "let's fuck" not enough "let's make love" in the movies.
A friend and I used to go in and do voice overs for movies because the women
on the set didn't make enough or the right kind of sounds.

Net: If she isn't either bi-sexual or gay, was she aroused in scenes where
she had to play with other women? Was she worried, turned off, or otherwise
disgusted if she knew that what she was doing was actually arousing/getting
a female co-star off (I guess that doesn't apply if she's bi or gay).

Cherri: Early in the business I was scared that someone would see me and I
was nervous but later I got over that when some of the women really liked it.

Net: I have seen one movie where the woman was literally dripping _very_
copiously, (despite all the posts in this newsgroup, I have never seen a
women _literally_ drip). I assumed they had put something inside her before
the scene.

Cherri:  Who was it?  I could probably tell you if was real or not.  There
was one woman who did do this naturally.

Net: Does effect outway precaution? Do the producers care if she is injured
in or gets an infection (I don't mean an STD, but more like a yeast
infection) from using some bizzare sexual prop (like a bannana or such)?

Cherri: There are laws against that.  Also these people are knowledgeable
they won't do that.  They don't even do things that straight couples do --
like use Vaseline.  Thats really bad for you these people know their stuff
and won't do risky stuff.  They watch out for others too.  These people just
don't do dangerous things.

Net: Are the sex scenes in the movies scripted out fully partially
or not at all. Do they have the freedom to improvise as the scene progresses.

Cherri: The scenes are nearly all the same and everyone pretty much knows
what to do.  Not much scripting because it's the same as last time.  So much
of this then change positions and do some of that, get the camera angles,
etc.

Net: In addition, I would like to know about the "type" of person who makes
films.  Are there wide variations in personalities?  What are some of her
comments on the "big-name" stars?

Cherri: Some are pretty stuck up.  Samatha Strong is one.  Tasha Ray would
come do her scene and leave with her $1500 and didn't associated with the
'low life'.  Others like Nina Hartley are neat people -- I liked watching
her.

Net:  If you do get to ask her this stuff ask her if the stars really read
their fan mail, or just throw it away. I've written a couple (being
tasteful, asking questions and not saying what I'd do to her or what not)
but have never got a reply.  Anyways I am VERY curious about the answers
to the questions you'll be asking, if you don't post to the net please
write me telling what her answers are.  Thanks much and good luck!

Cherri: I never got any.  Some people set up P.O. boxes and advertise in
the back of Hustler and other magazines.  "Send $5.00 or whatever".  Men get
letters and pictures back saying how horny they are and stuff.  These are
all fakes just photo copied stuff that was made up by some other guy. 
Trying to make some money.  The women got a modeling fee and are never
involved again.  If this is what he is talking about then he was kinda
ripped off.

Sex
Joe Huffman  Friday, October 03, 2008 3:51:28 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback

I would like to think this is the beginning of the realization that the ATF is not known for it's recognition of civil rights and there are lots of other opportunities for the ACLU to put some out of control government types in their place, but I'm not that hopeful:

The ACLU filed the case on April 18, 2006, on behalf of Karen J. Kilpatrick, who claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) violated her Free Speech rights.


Kilpatrick was driving her blue van in Pensacola on April 19, 2004, with the slogans “Remember the Children of Waco” and “Boo ATF” written on some of the windows when she was pulled over by police for questioning by the ATF.


The ACLU argues in the lawsuit that her First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when officers detained her for an hour, searched her car without consent, and ordered her to remove the writing on the side of her van.


“The ATF’s actions were unconstitutional and there was no legal justification to stop and question Ms. Kilpatrick.  We believe that the ATF was trying to silence Ms. Kilpatrick and the 911 call substantiates this position,” said Bert Oram, ACLU cooperating counsel.

Joe Huffman  Friday, October 03, 2008 10:23:43 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [7]  |  Trackback

I don't know if this will help or her chances of getting elected (vice) President but my guess is it will help:

US Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has caught the eye of Hollywood - as the subject of a movie definitely not for kids.

A major Los Angeles porn studio is on the hunt for a Palin look-alike to play the mother-of-five politician in an adult film.

The successful actress would earn $2535 to $3800 for the role, according to online advertisements posted on the Los Angeles webpage of sales and social networking site Craig's List.

"Looking for a Sarah Palin look-alike for an adult film to be shot in next 10 days," the advertisement said.

It's time for me to dig up the interview I did of a porn actress I posted on Usenet several years ago. I'll try to post that this weekend sometime.

H/T to my Aussie friend.

Update: Via Sebastian here is the Craig's Listing.

Joe Huffman  Friday, October 03, 2008 9:53:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

Excuse me, I've got some video to watch. . .

Kevin Baker
October 3, 2008
Hey! We're on Video!
[On the Gun Blogger Weekend videos that are now up on Down Range TV. See also the blog post from producer Marshal Halloway and the news release (pointed out to me by Sebastain). But it was an email from Say Uncle that first informed me.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Friday, October 03, 2008 6:02:25 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback
# Thursday, October 02, 2008

These pictures are via an email from Johnathan on an email list I'm on:

Some people on the left are complaining that Sarah Palin supporters are shallow and all enthused with her because she is good looking. I'm sure that has something to do with it. But her views on most topics are a big boost as well. Still it is hard to defend against the assertion if she were not so hot that she wouldn't have gotten picked.

But one has to wonder why the Democrats are so upset by it. Weren't they smart enough to know that sex sells? I can hardly believe that. After all wasn't that one of Bill Clinton's appeal to a lot of women voters? And if the democrats thought the male voter who thinks with the head between his legs was an important demographic they should have chosen a woman--after all they have lots of politically experienced women on their side to choose from. Here are some examples:





So what's is there for them to complain about?

Oh, now I see. They would still be stuck with the same problem--trying to sell an inferior product at a higher price.

Further evidence of the inferiority of the left will be supplied next weekend at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous in the form of pictures of Ashley Varner from the NRA who will be attending--another reason for gun bloggers and readers to attend. She knows her stuff and it's not just because the male brain turns to mush when in her presence.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:59:37 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

I got a call tonight from Barb's sister who lives in California. I had talked to her and her husband about guns in years past and while not really opposed to them they wouldn't want one in their house.

Barb had talked to her last weekend and I knew she were planning to join the NRA just to annoy her liberal friends and neighbors. I also knew their daughter who is in college in Missouri wants to get a gun so she can defend herself. I didn't know that Barb's sister and her husband are planning to take up shooting as a hobby. She asked me about ranges and do they rent? And she wanted a recommendation for a gun to start out with. I told her a .22 to lessen the chances of picking up bad habits and reduce the cost.

I also sent her a link to the NRA yard signs so they can tweak the neighbors without even flashing their membership cards.

I need to get them up here for Boomershoot next spring. That will give them some goals.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:38:42 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  |  Trackback

But Sebastian points out it's too inflationary and we should return to the Goldfish standard.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:25:47 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

I think this has been around sometime earlier but I still laughed when a co-worker send me a link today. It could just be the Alzheimer's has shortened my memory enough to make it funny again:

Joe Huffman  Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:20:09 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

As I reported in my previous post Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence, is now working from home to save money but that didn't stop him from talking about stuff he didn't know anything about to the D.C. City Council yesterday:

A gun-control advocate told the D.C. Council's public safety committee Wednesday that officials should consider adopting a complex method of ballistics tracking to help identify guns used in the city.

"In crime scenes, what we find are cartridges and no guns," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. "Microstamping can provide the link between the gun and cartridge."

Mr. Horwitz's comments came during a hearing before the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary regarding gun laws in the District.

Apparently he didn't realize one or more of the following facts:

  • There are no microstamped guns in production.
  • Requiring guns to be microstamped would indirectly be a ban on guns in D.C.
  • The Supreme Court said complete gun bans are unconstitutional.
  • There are over 200 million guns in the U.S. that are not microstamped and no criminal with room temperature I.Q. would use a microstamped gun. Those with sub room temperature I.Q. will get caught without having a microstamped gun.
  • Microstamping is easily defeated:

But we already knew these guys are clueless about guns and microstamping.


P.S. Some gun bloggers erroneously compared the suggested microstamping to Maryland and New York's "ballistic fingerprint" programs. These are very different things and cannot be directly compared. See my Microstamping research post for details on the differences.
Joe Huffman  Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:51:13 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

Joshua Horwitz spins it as a positive thing but they are cutting way back on their office space and people are working from home to save money.

Also notice their web site says there are no job opportunities but they are accepting interns at no pay.

It's a good first step. When they turn off the phones and the only public presence they have is an aging web site that whines about the "Gun Show Loophole" we can consider them politically dead.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:37:09 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

As Lyle pointed out the other day some interesting comparisons can be made between the way the left deals with abortion versus guns. Here is another example:

McCain and Obama on the issues

ABORTION

McCain: Opposes abortion rights...
Obama: Favors abortion rights.

GUN CONTROL

McCain: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. "I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved -- which means no gun control."

Obama: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

Notice that even the title puts a positive spin on the repression of gun owners. It's about "gun control", not "guns", not "gun rights", not "the Second Amendment", not "gun ownership". Who wouldn't be opposed to "uncontrolled guns"? Therefore the opposite of uncontrolled guns, or gun control, must be a good thing.

Compare the handling of guns versus abortion. Obama favors a right. McCain opposes a right.

What media bias?

Joe Huffman  Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:22:05 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

The revolution will not be televised. It will not be brought to you in three parts by any sponsor, and it will not feature guns taken from cold dead fingers.

Counterintuitive Man
August 4, 2008
Counterintuitive Man says: "You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead finger," is a total myth!
[I agree. I think the entire mindset has to be changed before the RKBA has any teeth against a tyrannical government. In essence the attitude must be, "You can have my gun when you reanimate your cold dead fingers." This changes the equation in two crucial ways: 1) It's the government thug that is presumed to be dying and 2) It's the individual that is presumed to be walking away from the engagement.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:52:10 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback

Walter E. Williams has an excellent piece entitled Destroying Liberty in which he accurately describes the process that leads ordinary Americans to support destructive legislation.

But if you were to ask, say, the average senior citizen whether Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug subsidies should be continued, he would probably answer yes. The same would be true if you asked a college professor whether higher education should continue to be subsidized, or a farmer or a dairyman whether their products should be subsidized, or a manufacturer whether there should be tariffs and quotas on foreign products that compete with his product. The problem with congressmen producing favors and privileges to all interest groups is that it creates what none of us wants: massive control, numerous dictates and micromanagement of our lives.

Read the whole thing.  Superb as it is, he missed the hate factor.  There are a significant number of Americans who have been taught to hate the very things that make this country a success.  They hate the very idea of corporations for example.  The term "free enterprise" makes their blood boil.  The sight of a nice home, on a nice lot, with the American flag flying makes them want to spit.  They have a hateful name for it; "McMansion".  They would tend to agree with Obama when he says with contempt that some Americans are clinging to guns and religion (the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights).  I suppose deriding Americans who "cling" to property rights, free speech, the right to a fair trial by jury, etc., will come next.  When FDR was pushing his Raw Deal back in the '30s and '40s, there was a famous (to me) quote, and I paraphrase; "For the first time, the rich are going to feel the same pain that the poor have felt."  Spread the misery.  If I'm suffering, angry, and unhappy, then by damn, if I can't do anything else, I will make you suffer, make you angry, and make you just as miserable as I.  That seems to be the mentality.  It's far easier to tear down someone else's house than to build one of your own.

Now we're faced with the possibility that one of these America haters is going to be elected president.

Lyle at UltiMAK  Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:05:33 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  |  Trackback
# Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Joe Huffman  Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:47:36 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

Any time I hear a politician cite common sense as a modifier in any sentence, I know he’s: 1) implied that I don’t have any; and 2) planning on stealing something from me. Since Pope Innocent II declared that the crossbow was an assault weapon in 1139 A.D., I’m not sure what definition these people are capable of. Vote wisely this November, and remember whose interest the name you select has in mind.

George S. Roof
September 30, 2008
Presidential election could shape future gun laws
[For sometime now "common sense" has been a phrase that immediately gets my fight (mostly) or flight response going but I never took the time to analyze it before. Thank you Mr. Roof.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:04:21 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [6]  |  Trackback
# Tuesday, September 30, 2008

He says he is sorry about bringing down Microsoft.com today. He didn't even have to use any Boomershoot technology.

As people say, his brain is a very powerful CPU but it's running a buggy operating system.

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:15:23 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback

Last night the cops visited to try to help resolve an incident when Boyfriend From Hell of the landlady at my underground bunker kicked in her bedroom door. I was at work at the time but Barb was there and called me to let me know what was happening. I left work immediately and told Barb to tell the cops I would be entering through the rear tunnel and that we would stay away from the action going on above ground.

Shortly after I arrived and greeted Barb the landlady knocked on our door and wanted to talk. A couple of cops showed up a minute or two later and stepped into my bunker to offer some advice to the landlady. I was packing with the only thing concealing my STI Eagle and a spare 18 round magazine was my Boomershoot coat. It was much too warm in there and I wanted to remove the coat without alarming the cops. Even wearing the coat probably seemed a little odd and the cops might have guessed I was packing just from that but there was no need to openly display the gun on my hip. In full view of the cops, but hidden underneath my coat, I untucked my Boomershoot golf shirt and used the tail of it to cover up the equipment on my belt and then took off the coat. I draped the coat over the target on the back of a chair from my testing the Gun Blog 45 a few days ago:

About five feet away from the cops, leaning up against a dresser was a rifle case. About eight feet behind the landlady they were talking to were two IPSC targets on the wall I use for dry fire exercises.

I wonder if the cops suspected there were guns nearby? If so, they didn't give even the slightest hint of noticing. I did find it a little odd that one of them gave me his card and told me his cell phone number was on there--but they didn't give the landlady a card or even their names.

I find it hard to believe they were so incompetent to not notice and would rather believe they were cool with it. Especially since they said they couldn't leave her there if she was afraid for her safety (which she said she was) with the boyfriend who can't currently be evicted. My offers to give her advance rent money on the spot to stay in a hotel or to stay on our couch went over well with the cops and they finally left.

Barb and I took the landlady to a restaurant for some food and she slept on the couch in our room last night. She left my underground bunker this morning without Barb or I talking to her and I can only presume she is working on getting him legally evicted today since she called work last night to take a day of vacation today.

I'd offer to loan her a gun but Boyfriend From Hell manages to keep stealing cell phones and keys from her purse so I don't know how she would manage to keep a handgun away from him.

More details will be posted as they become available.

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, September 30, 2008 11:39:29 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [7]  |  Trackback

There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.  Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and, in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who  do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day  totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors, and school teachers.

 ....[such propagandists] accomplish their greatest triumphs, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing.  Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.  By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.

Aldous Huxley
Brave New World, 1946 revised foreword
[In other words, far more important than what the media does say is what they don't say. For example, on gun control, they don't tell you no one has been able to answer Just One Question. For example when school funding, health care, or social security is being discussed they don't tell you 90% of what the Federal Government does is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:40:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback
# Monday, September 29, 2008

If you have been following my Twitter account you will know there were five cops here at my Seattle area bunker tonight and that Barb, my landlady, and I escaped to the local Chinese restaurant without any shots being fired. And that the landlady's boyfriend from hell can't be evicted yet.

This has been building for a couple years now. I and a lot of other people are hoping she finally manages to stick to her position and actually gets the guy out this time.

Joe Huffman  Monday, September 29, 2008 8:10:53 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback

Walking to bible study while listening to Disney music. I'm so badass.

Xenia Huffman-Scott
Via Twitter
[That's my girl.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Monday, September 29, 2008 8:05:37 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]  |  Trackback
# Sunday, September 28, 2008

What news organization would call the KKK and their ilk "public safety groups"? Don't these groups think of themselves as protecting their white women from being raped or "polluting the race"? They were bigots and most of the press treats them like bigots. Yet we get this crap from a major newspaper, the Washington Post, where the anti-gun organizations are referred to as "gun safety groups" six times in the article. These are organizations that have never taught a single person a gun safety class. Having probably taught millions of people gun safety and with it's 50,000 instructors it's the NRA that is the leading gun safety group in this country and probably the world.

And I "love" this comment to the article:

How to spot an NRA member:
-lives anywhere South of DC or West of Pennsylvania, but east of California.
-Especially between Virginia and Texas
-sports mullet
-drives an old beat up pick up truck with bumper sticker that says "keep honking im reloading"
-still lives with mom at age 30
-lives in a trailer
-thinks voting 4 Bush is a good idea because he will make guns easier to obtain
-trash can filled with Bud cans
-wears an old faded out cap with a nascar logo
-reeks of the smell of urine and booze

Joe Huffman  Sunday, September 28, 2008 2:01:33 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [10]  |  Trackback

What will Obama cling to when voters question his commitment to the Second Amendment?

Jacob Sullivan
September 23, 2008
Revenge of the Bitter Gun Owners
[Obama pissed off the wrong people with his "clinging" remark. Gun owners are probably more inclined than any other group to be one issue voters. And what is incredibly telling to me is that Obama could neutralize all the skepticism of his "support for the Second Amendment" by saying he as President would veto any anti-gun legislation that came to his desk. He could easily win the election by continuing his current plan and then repeatedly and convincingly saying that one sentence. But he hasn't. He wants to cling to the possibility of further restricting our civil rights.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:44:28 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |  Trackback