The View From North Central Idaho

From James Kelly on the gun control debate (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here):

The difference in this debate is that I have been arguing on the basis of what I believe to be true, and doing my best to explain why I believe it. Kevin, by way of contrast, claims to be able to literally ‘prove’ his case beyond any doubt whatsoever by recourse to detailed statistical data.

Kelly argues on the basis of his fantasy world. Kevin argues on the basis of real world data which of course cannot hope to have any effect upon Kelly's imaginary world. And he admits it. There is no point in engaging him. Only reality itself will be able to connect with him when it bites him in the ass.

"Freedom from fear" and "freedom from want", two of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, are insidious positive rights. They are provably incompatible with liberty.

Give the government the enough power to assuage James's fear and I will fear that government.

Give the government the economic power to sate the wants of the laziest among us, and I guarantee that someone else's wants will not be met. The economy will never reach the desired equilibrium and the thermodynamic losses of the effort will impoverish all.

Sean Flynn
April 13, 2009
In the comments to this post.
[There is something about the vocabulary and the way Sean puts words together that makes it nearly instantly recognizable to me. Any one of those paragraphs would have been enough for me to guess that it was Sean writing them. So succinct and yet not leaving out anything important. What is just as interesting to me is that he talks just like that too.--Joe]

The world is kinda messed up right now. Economic conditions are scary. We have a socialist government in D.C. that is apparently working toward the destruction of the capitalism and our freedom. It's hard to understand what is really going on. Barb and I have spent a lot of time on the issues and this weekend she got me a card, "Just because it is so appropriate."

The front.

The inside.

The good guys made progress on two bills in Idaho. First H194, the Idaho Sport Shooting Activities Immunity Act is going to the governor for signature. And second, H287 (employer immunity for allowing parking lot gun storage) passed the House 50-19.

Yeah Mike!

From their first blog posting since February 19th we find the anti-gun organization known as Washington Ceasefire crowing about the first progress they have made with the Washington State Legislature in decades:

Today the Washington State Senate passed the first piece of gun violence prevention legislation in over two decades by a vote of 39-1. The bill, HB 1498, which passed in the House unanimously last month, will bring WA state law into conformity with federal law by prohibiting firearm possession if an individual is involuntarily committed by a court for a period of up to 14 days. The new law will ensure that the approximately 4,000 Washington residents who are found by a court to be at risk of self-harm or to harm others will be unable to possess a firearm until they have successfully managed their condition.

Additionally, the legislation will reform the records reporting system to ensure that all individual records are flagged in the background check databases within three days of the commitment. Washington CeaseFire staff worked for the last two years to help bring the legislation to fruition. CeaseFire worked cooperatively with both sides of the aisle, the Seattle Mayor’s office and other groups to achieve the historic victory. The legislation was a led by a strong bi-partisan effort in the House spearheaded by Representative Ross Hunter (D-48).

The bill would not have succeeded without the support of our members – thank you for all of the contributions you make every day. Please thank your legislators – the ONLY legislator to vote against the bill is Senator Dale Brandland (R-42). This is truly an unprecedented victory for our fight to save lives.

Yes, I'm sure it was all their work for the last two years and the support of their members that made the difference. I can't image that the pro-gun group Gun Owners Action League of WA (email, no mention on the website) that also supported it made any difference.

Boomershoot 2009 shirts and mugs are available here.

The image is:

Two weeks out and there is still snow--via email from brother Doug this morning:

The snow is mostly gone. Still some on the north slopes, but a lot of that has melted in the last few days. It is supposed to get cold and snow again today and tomorrow, but be warm and sunny by the end of the week.

I'll be onsite next Saturday and/or Sunday and report back then. Only a week out the forecasts will be pretty accurate and I will be able to tell you what sort of conditions we will have. Expect mud. Especially for my staff placing targets at the tree line.

Seven million people have applied for criminal background checks since November in an effort to buy guns, according to the FBI. That figure doesn't include Virginia, whose gun shows don't require any background checks.

John Byrne
April 13, 2009
As firearms sales surge, Democrats drop assault weapons ban
[If you repeat a big enough lie often enough people will believe it. Mr. Byrne and Diane Feinstein are doing their parts such as with, "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress." And of course we have been hearing that we have a "gun problem" for decades. That sounds so much like "Jews control the media, the banks, and the politicians" and that there is "Jew problem". In his next post will he use take another suggestion from Hitler's playbook? Will he next tell everyone about a "Final Solution" to the gun problem?

Hint to those that don't know, there isn't any exemption for background checks at gun shows.--Joe]

Athough I harvested one deer with Barb's Jeep and another with my .300 Win Mag I don't really consider myself a hunter. But I do generally support hunters being able to continue their sport and harvesting food in this manner.

However--there are some hunters that give me pause. I may have to reevaulate my position on fox hunters.

Via email from Bruce L.:

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Please help ban fox hunting --- THIS MADNESS MUST STOP!!

Signed,
Peter Cottontail

From a long time Boomershooter who will be attending again:

Barrett M82A1, Pelican case, manual
Nightforce NXS 5.5-22 x 56mm scope, illuminated mil-dot reticle, quick detach bases, manual 3 magazines, cleaning kit
500 rounds linked API/APIT (4-1 mix, in 100-round cans)
500 rounds linked ball (4-1 ball / tracer, in 100 round cans)
240 rounds linked AP (4-1 AP/ AP tracer mix, old black-tip stuff, four belts in wooden crate)
70+ rounds HSM moly-coat
Assorted used mil-surp 50 BMG brass
Ammo only for sale if M82A1 sells, but available for sale separately if gun does sell.

$15k for rifle & scope, $13k for just the rifle (I really like the scope), slightly negotiable.

Ammo at $4 round mil-surp, $350/100, $320/100 for the AP, $5/round for the HSM, reasonable bulk discounts considered, especially for purchaser of rifle. It will be available for delivery at Boomershoot w/o further hassles (except maybe the chief financial officer of the household), or otherwise with appropriate negotiation.

All state and federal laws apply, but I’m not a FFL. Cash or precious metals only, paperwork optional.

If you won't be attending Boomershoot this year but are someplace in Washington or North Central Idaho I can probably arrange for the transportation to a suitable transfer location. Send me an email if interested: Joe AT JoeHuffman DOT Org.

"What did James say that pissed you off so much?"

That was what Kevin asked me in email after reading my comment on James Kelly's blog.

My response to Kevin, with some minor enhancements, follows.

Then James said, "...the right to own a gun as a relatively meaningless, one-dimensional freedom, and thus interpret the banning of handguns as merely a minor disappointment to the minority of people concerned..."

I wonder how many people with a Glasgow Smile or similar wounds

regard not having the means to defend themselves “a minor disappointment”.

The battles at Lexington and Concord which resulted in our revolutionary war were fought because the arms of the colonists were about to be taken away from them. Surely they did not consider it a “minor disappointment” they were about to lose their guns. And what of the colonies that refused to sign the constitution unless the right to keep and bear arms was a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the constitution? Would it have been a “minor disappointment” had it not been there?

How many of those people involved in 2 million instances per year when someone in the U.S. uses a firearm in a defensive situation would regard it as a “minor disappointment” had they been forced by their government to face their attacker unarmed?

How many of those millions of men, women and children standing naked at the top of the ditches they had just been forced to dig--just prior to having a bullet rip through their neck regarded not having a gun in hand “a minor disappointment”?

The above irritated me. But what really pissed me off was I realized his “personal philosophy”, even completely disregarding the gun issue, is justification for genocide. And he is hypocritical about it. He believes people have a right to life but not the right to have tools to defend their lives.

His “cornerstone of personal freedom” is freedom from fear. If he is afraid of the blacks/Jews/homosexuals/whoever who live next door he apparently believes it is completely justified to bring the full force of government down upon them in a preemptive strike. Prevention of crimes not yet committed by infringement of a basic right is justified if someone is afraid. And it doesn't have to be a fear based on immediate threat of severe injury or death. Just the mere existence of something, someone, sometime used in a criminal manner. It's the very epitome of a victimless crime which must be punished. A crime where the "perpetrator" is not even aware of the existence of the "victim". A crime where even the thought of injury to an innocent life need not be proved or hinted at. A crime where the true intent of the "perpetrator" is to protect innocent life and property is thought to be crazy because they want the tools available to protect innocent life should they ever need it. All because someone is afraid of something they have no experience with. And they call us paranoid.

The Germans didn’t begin implementation of the “Final Solution” until after the U.S. got into the war. They were afraid the Jews, who “controlled the U.S. as well as the banks, the U.S. media, etc.” would punish them for the mistreatment (but there were no mass killings yet) they had received up to that point. So they started killing them to eliminate the problem. They were just implementing James Kelly's "cornerstone of personal freedom"--freedom from fear.

What he doesn't understand is there cannot be a "right" which is given or implemented through the force of government. Rights are which those things which preexist government and can only be protected or infringed by government. He is an advocate for infringement and calls it freedom.

His “cornerstone of personal freedom” is the basis for the deaths of tens of millions of people and he doesn’t see the logical inconsistency or the impossibility of that being a functional basis for a civil society.

The QOTD is aimed at James Kelly.

False, dangerous, misguided . . . and justified. Liberalism in a nutshell.

Fitzroy
October 6, 2008
False But Justified
[Others, and rightly so, quoted this when it first came out. I've been saving it for "the proper occasion". Today is that day. My next post will explain.--Joe]

Yesterday Barb had lunch with me at one of the Microsoft cafeterias. As we were getting her a visitors badge I noticed the beer and snacks in the lobby that were stacked more than half way to the ceiling. "Oh", I said, "It's party time." The receptionist said, "Yes, but it's not until 4:30 and I don't know who it's for and I know people are going to ask." I told it was for our group. I had received the "meeting notice" a day or so before that. But I don't care for beer, am not a big socializer, and I had some unit tests and code I wanted to finish up before I take time off for Boomershoot so I didn't attend.

What is interesting to me is that nearly every other company I have worked for had strict policies against having alcoholic beverages at work. And at Microsoft they bring it to you--frequently. I think it averages about twice a month they bring in free beer and I could literally drink on company time at company expense. I usually grab a snack and chat with people a little bit but don't drink.

With this in mind I wasn't surprised with the opening of a new "food court" next to the west coasts largest parking garage being built just outside my office window they were going to have a pub. Sure, whatever. It doesn't make any difference to me.

Now (via Ry) I find out they are canceling the lease for the pub. Hmmm... I probably would have never used it but I don't care for the apparent change in culture.

I sometimes have had fantasies of Microsoft becoming more tolerant instead of less tolerant. In particular I would like to be able to carry concealed. And having an on campus shooting range would be really cool. They have lots of soccer fields, volleyball courts, and numerous other recreational areas available. Why not a shooting range? There is a large Gun Club at Microsoft. In fact I know just the place for such a range.

I visited the new parking garage recently. Here are some pictures:

As you can see there is lots of empty space in this underground garage. And with the aid of my trusty laser range finder I found places where it was 345 yards from wall to wall. It's not really practice for Boomershoot (minimum range is 375 yards) but it's close. And it's would be better than anything else within 20 miles or so.

I was discussing this with some Microsoft friends at lunch the other day and they had a concern about the ceiling height. As the range gets longer the midrange height of the bullet gets larger too. Would people start hitting the ceiling beams? In particular Jim was concerned about using a 45-70 which has a trajectory resembling artillery.

It's a valid concern. With a 340 yard zero a typical .45-70 cartridge is going to have a midrange height of over 50 inches. My AR-15 shooting it's favorite ammo is going to have only a 7.1 inch midrange height. And my .300 Win Mag would have only have a midrange height of 6.3 inches.

I checked out the clearance in the garage and found that with a bench 30 inches above the floor there would be some beams the 45-70 bullets would connect with on their way to a 340 yard target.

So, I have to conclude it's not going to happen in the new Microsoft parking garage.

At least with 45-70 toys.

I had another cancellation.

There are two positions now available. One in the Lowlands (#16) and one in the Main area (#29) next to a bunch of gun bloggers.

Sign up here.

Four shot, one dead. For all practical purposes private individuals aren't allowed to carry guns to protect themselves in California. The results are predictable and tragic:

TEMECULA, Calif. (AP) — A gunman opened fire at a Korean Christian retreat center, leaving one woman dead and four people injured, authorities said.

The gunman, described as an Asian man in his 70s, was among the wounded, Riverside County Sheriff's Sgt. Michael Lujan told KNBC-TV on Wednesday.

Authorities were first called to the rural area about 7 p.m. Tuesday after receiving reports about a man shooting his wife, California Highway Patrol spokesman Mario Lopez said.

And frequently when states allow their subjects to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms they want to make exception for churches. Do they have some believe in a supernatural force that will protect people when they are on church property? Or do they have some hostility toward people that believe in god(s) and secretly hope the will be killed in injured while at church? This example shows such a supernatural force does not provide any such protection. Until a better hypothesis is presented I can only conclude the advocates for restricting access to self-defense tools while on church property want theists to be helpless while they are being killed and injured.

Yesterday I reported on getting involved in a gun debate. The guy responded to me and to a few others. Then Kevin entered the fight with his usual overwhelming force. And here is my response:

"Why not champion the right of an individual to...I don't know, walk down a street naked if he wishes? Or to use hard drugs? There are probably any number of individual freedoms that are curtailed in both our countries because society has taken a collective stance on them for habitual, cultural or (sometimes extremely spurious) moral grounds - why place the semi-mystical significance on guns in particular?"

I do champion those rights. Just not as much as the right to keep and bear arms. My wife and I have been members of nudist clubs for years. And, as I told my employees (when I owned my own company) when asked about a dress code I told them that, yes, we do have a dress code here, "You need to dress such that you avoid getting arrested." I have never used illegal recreational drugs and in fact I'm reluctant to even use over the counter drugs such as aspirin. But I advocate making recreational drugs legal and letting Darwin deal with those that abuse them. I focus on guns in particular because they protect all other rights. The right to keep and bear arms in a specific enumerated right guaranteed by our constitution and is the most clear infringed upon.

"if it's a sub-population in a state where the majority population is supporting the regime (as in Nazi Germany) the position is fairly hopeless anyway."

Then you should be able to show where the victims had arms and were exterminated. Such examples don't exist. In every genocide the butchers constitute only about 1% of the population (see also On Killing for reasons why that might be a constant and nearly unchangeable). Given the natural advantages that the defenders have such as fighting from behind walls and having much higher stakes in the outcome the defenders have reasonably good odds if they have reasonable access to arms.

"The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising might have 'done better' - do you mean they might have improved their own survival prospects, or just killed more Germans in an ultimately heroic failure? The latter possibly, the former seems thoroughly improbable."

With only a handful of small arms they tied up thousands of the German army equipped with artillery and other heavy weapons for six weeks. Had they been better armed they probably would not have been in the ghetto to begin with, had they ended up in the ghetto they would have been much more likely to break out, and had they not been able to break out they could held off much longer and tied up more of the German army and perhaps held out until help arrived.

"And I must admit I do find it mildly galling to be chided about playing the 'game' of anecdotal evidence by someone who just a few paragraphs earlier had resorted to introducing a 'movie' into the discussion as some kind of evidence!"

The movie was based on a true story. I read the book several years ago before I saw the movie. The movie held fairly close to the book. I would have suggested you read the book but I thought there was a fair chance you had seen the movie and it would be fair less effort to see the movie than to read the book.

I've been studying genocide by one's own government for many years. I can't tell you how many books and papers I've read. The evidence is overwhelming. The victims were always disarmed first--often for generations. The mindset that "the government is our protector" contributes to the problem in a massive way. They do not have the mindset such that they are capable of fighting back. Some of the saddest cases I have read about were in Russia where people wrote to and desperately tried to contact Stalin "to tell him what was happening" so he could stop the killing. Often, the very people that wrote to him were explicitly put on the list of people to be killed by Stalin himself.

""Privately-owned guns are not a credible defence against nuclear or chemical weapons (and the Second Amendment most certainly isn't), therefore the American populace has to take it on trust that those weapons will never be deployed against them."

You don't understand the mindset of an armed people. In the U.S. if those weapons were used against the people the survivors and others on the targeted lists would make it impossible for the perpetrators and their leaders to survive by any other means than leaving the country with a new identity. The politicians of the U.S. are the public servants and when they attempt to establish a monopoly on the possession and use of arms they are attempting to change the relationship between those that granted them their power their position of public servant. Such servants will be dismissed, either by the ballot box, the jury box, or, as a last resort, the cartridge box.

"When real people are attacked by real guns held by real-life legal gun-owners, would you describe the very real fear engendered in society by such an occurrence as rational or irrational?"

Numbers please. It's about benefits versus hazards. See also Kevin's analysis of the numbers. Although he does unintentionally understates things a bit. I can't seem to find the reference right now but the murder numbers are computed differently in the U.S. and the U.K. In the U.K. it's only counted as a murder after there is a murder conviction. In the U.S. it's counted as a murder/accident/suicide based on the investigation of the situation. You appear to base your conclusions on the justification for banning weapons (not just guns but knives too it turns out) on the possibility that just one person might do wrong with such a tool. Do you use that same logic to all tools including computers, fire extinguishers, and automobiles? If not, then why not? I would posit it's because you see the benefits of computers, fire extinguishers, and automobiles. You apparently cannot accept or deliberately overlook the benefits of gun ownership. Even dismissing the prevention of the somewhat rare instances of genocides numerous studies put the instances of guns being used defensively in the U.S. approximately two million times per year.

"Oh dear. You do realise the overall murder rate in Britain is more than two-and-a-half times lower than in the US, don't you?"

See Kevin's response then get back to me with your sources for that claim. By then you should realize that you still haven't successfully answered Just One Question. And I hope there is a glimmer of realization that until you do successfully answer that question you have no basis for advocating the further restricting the access of weapons by individuals.

I guess Mixon also raped that 12-year-old girl in "self-defense." Clearly, the pimping industry has lost a good man. I wish I'd known him. I tip my green velvet fedora with the dollar signs all over it to him. Why do the good ones always die young? Pimps, I mean.

Ann Coulter
April 8, 2009
Let's all surrender our weapons – you first!
[Like I said. Amazing snark.--Joe]

For quality Tam does far better than I can even dream of. Robb Allen doesn't quite have the quality of Tam but seeing them side by side for a few days:

And it was obvious Robb has the edge on quantity.

But for truly amazing snark check out Ann Coulter. I'm so in awe that I can't even laugh. Here are some example from Let's all surrender our weapons – you first!

After being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, Lovelle Mixon did exactly what they teach in driver's ed by immediately shooting four cops. Mixon's supporters held a posthumous rally in his honor, claiming he shot the cops only in "self-defense," which I take includes the cop Mixon shot while the officer was lying on the ground. 

...

It's something in liberals' DNA: They think they can pass a law eliminating guns and nuclear weapons, but teenagers having sex is completely beyond our control. 

...

The demand for more gun control in response to any crime involving a gun is exactly like Obama's response to North Korea's openly belligerent act of launching a long-range missile this week: Obama leapt to action by calling for worldwide nuclear disarmament.

...

If the SAT test were used to determine how stupid a liberal is, one question would be: "The best defense against lawless rogues who possess _______ is for law-abiding individuals to surrender their own _______________."

Correct answer: Guns. We would also have accepted nuclear weapons.

...

Obama explained that "the United States has a moral responsibility" to lead disarmament efforts because America is "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon."

So don't go feeling all morally superior to a country whose business model consists of exporting heroin, nuclear bombs and counterfeit U.S. dollars, and of importing Swedish prostitutes, you yahoo Americans with your little flag lapel pins.

On the other hand, the Japanese haven't acted up much in the last, say, 64 years ...

Wow! I can write code which inflicts wounds like that but I can't even dream of writing words which impart that much damage.

Update: Alternate picture of Robb and Tam together. This is so I can better respond in the comments to Robb's post.

Following a link from Kevin's post I have been commenting on scot goes pop! post regarding his reasons for advocating gun bans. The poor guy is getting buried with comments and Kevin hasn't really contributed anything yet. Kevin plans to post a response tomorrow.

Here is my latest comment:

James, nukes and chemical weapons are only useful for geographical areas not subpopulations within an area which is almost always the case in genocide. And the use of nukes, and to a certain extent CW, tends to make the attacked area uninhabitable which is almost always undesirable for the attacking forces.

Except for Japan in 1945 it has always come down to "boots on the ground" to force the submission. And in genocidal environments the defenders typically outnumber the attackers 100:1 which are very good odds for the defenders even when inadequately trained and equipped. Check out the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or even watch the movie Defiance for typical results when vastly under armed. Had they been better armed they would have done much better.

You are going to have to explain what you mean by "the relationship between state and citizenry is in reality built more on crossed fingers and assumptions of good faith in the US than it is in many European countries (with or without strict gun laws)". I have no idea what you are talking about. Our entire system is built upon our public servants being given enumerated powers from the people. With all powers not specifically granted to the government being reserved by the people. And the Second Amendment guarantees it stays that way. See also the recent D.C. versus Heller decision by our Supreme Court which validates that viewpoint.

"I think as a rational man you must know that whether or not the number of deaths rose after the gun ban is irrelevant". Not irrelevant. Had you said "not conclusive" I would agree. It's a strong indicator. Since we can't start the experiment over again with identical conditions it's tough to arrive at conclusions with 100% certainty. The other way to test the hypothesis "do weapon restrictions make people safer" is to compare across political boundaries that share similar demographical and economic populations. Such an example would be in Washington D.C. with a complete ban on handguns and just across the river in Virginia where guns can be carried concealed by permit or openly by nearly any adult. The violence is much lower in Virginia. Similar comparisons can be made in Chicago and surrounding areas with the same result. Had you read my Just One Question blog post and followed up on the CDC review of "Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws" you would have known that. The conclusion was "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." Beyond that I have done correlation analysis between crime statistics and the "grades" the Brady Campaign (a US anti-gun group) gave the states. The results were that there was essentially no correlation. The same conclusion reached by the CDC.

I find it telling that you continue to refer "gun violence rates" rather than total violence or murder rates. If you honestly believe those numbers are useful then you are including justifiable defensive shootings by both police and private citizens in the "bad" category. I can only conclude that 1) you find it somehow preferable that someone be murdered with a club, knive, or feet than by a bullet; and/or 2) you wish to obfuscate the facts.

"Just chanting "numbers, numbers" at me will not remove your basic credibility problem." I have provide numbers and pointers to numbers which validate my case. What do you have? Just opinions as far as I can tell. I find your credibility as lacking as those that would demand people with dark skin tones be deported or banned from public after dark. It appears to me you have an irrational fear of people with guns. You cannot defend your position with anything other than your expression of fear. And from my personal experience of carrying a gun every day (including right now) and being in the presence of people with guns every day I know to be quite unjustified.

If you wish to debate this on the very poor basis of anecdotal evidence then I can play that game too. Check out my blog category Places Without Guns.

In answer to your "Just One Question", I am not keen to wish mass gun ownership on a country that simply doesn't want it. I wish to remove restrictions on a fundamental human right that is being infringed. Whether those people wish to exercise that right would then be up to them. It is unlikely that would result in "mass gun ownership" any more than it has in the U.S. where only about 40% of homes have guns in them. I seek the middle ground.

Update: This post is being hit hard by comment spam. I have turned off comments. If you have something you want to say about it send me an email and I'll post the comment exactly as you want it.

This case provides the Court an opportunity to advance the ability of women to free themselves from being subject to another’s ill will and to counter the commonly-held prejudice that women are "easier targets" simply because of their gender characteristics. Violence against women in the United States is endemic, often deadly, and most frequently committed by men superior in physical strength to their female victims.

M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
["God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal" comes to mind as more succinct but that probably wouldn't be as appropriate for a Supreme Court brief.--Joe]

Last Sunday I visited the Boomershoot site to check out the snow conditions and do a little bit of prep work. The pictures mostly speak for themselves. Compare to the pictures I took the week before. And the same time last year.

View from the entrance to the shooting area.

View from standing on the shooting berm at about position 50.

The north (shooters area) side of the shooting berm. The snow is 16 inches deep in places.

This is the culvert that was overflowing the week before. Yes, those are my snowshoe tracks.

Here is where we build the targets.

Just some of the mouse damage. I'm taking rodent poison with me the next time I go.

Mouse nest in the explosives magazine.

There were seven baby mice in the nest I threw out into the snow. Micecicles for the birds. The two adults got away.

Position #47 is filled.

Positions #29 and #30 are now both open.

There are some restrictions on position #29. Position #29 will be in use on Friday and Saturday. You will not be able to set up in that position until sometime on Saturday evening. On Sunday position #29 will be covered with a canopy provided by and shared with the people in positions #25 -> #28.

Sign up here.

Update: Position #30 was taken in about 90 minutes. Position #29 would probably be gone in seconds if I said who took position #30. But privacy matters so I won't.

Many governments recognise a connection between armed violence and the uncontrolled, or loosely controlled, trade in and possession of arms. There is also growing awareness that most of the problems posed by the availability of SALW and misuse are ‘civilian’ – meaning most firearms (both legal and illicit) are owned by civilians, and most perpetrators and victims of armed violence are civilians.

United Nations Development Programme
Chapter 3, page 21.
How to Guide
Small Arms and Light Weapons Legislation
[Yes, I'm sure that "many governments" do recognize most perpetrators of armed violence are civilians. Such governments as those in Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany come to mind. And people who are capable of simple arithmetic will realize "many governments" are wrong. I can only conclude that simple arithmetic is beyond the capability of the people who wrote the "How to Guide". H/T to /sennin/ in the comments here for pointed this document out to me.--Joe]

Via SAF:

Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

“These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretense about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.”

Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines.

“But that doesn’t really matter,” he observed. “History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation.”

In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”

“These comments belie administration promises and Democrat rhetoric that party leaders respect the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the firearm of their choice,” Gottlieb said. “They imposed registration of semi-autos in Pelosi’s California and it led to a ban, but it certainly didn’t disarm criminals, like the convicted felon who killed four Oakland police officers last month. We know from Holder that the Obama administration wants to renew the nationwide ban on such firearms, but that won’t prevent crime, either.

“The administration and Congressional anti-gunners have declared war on gun rights,” Gottlieb said. “The press seems deliberately blind to the statements from Pelosi and Holder, who blame our gun rights for their incompetence in dealing with crime. More than 90 million gun owners haven’t hurt anybody, and they are tired of being treated like criminals.”

I'll register my guns after the courts rule it's legal to require registration of blacks, Jews, and homosexuals. Oh, and I'm out of ammo.

Position 7 is filled but I had another cancellation due to a spouse with cancer having surgery the day after Boomershoot.

Position 47 is now open. Sign up here.

A different mindset in regards to a pedestrian that had an altercation with a car and then was nearly beaten to death by the car passengers:

Perecorp:

Lesson: Watch out for cars. Keep your mouth shut and keep walking.

masa:

Isn't it great that Washington is a shall-issue state where any law abiding citizen can, in 30 days, get a permit to carry a concealed firearm?

And we have places to practice close by- Wade's in Bellevue, Champion Arms in Tukwila- where you can rent guns to figure out what handgun is right for you.

It is your responsibility to protect yourself- the police are always a few minutes away, while the bad guys are right here, right now.

If you are outnumbered, or your attacker is stronger than you, a handgun is the only reasonable choice for self defense.

What if the man who was attacked had a woman with him? Would he try to hold off the 4 attackers while she ran away?

The cost of training and carrying a handgun is small compared to falling prey, or letting your friends and family fall prey, to the predators that roam our city.

Which mindset serves as a deterrent to thugs and which encourages them?

But watch out. If you were carrying and you antagonized the people in the car, encouraged them to fight you, then pulled the gun when they took up your offer you could likely (and rightly so) be charged with a crime. If you are involved in a shooting make sure you are the innocent victim.

Via a direct email from masa who also said:

Perhaps you could encourage your readers to leave comments more often, even on places like the Seattle Times that we may not normally read.

We had another cancellation.

Position 7 is now open. Sign up here:

http://entry.boomershoot.org/

Update: Gone in under two hours.

I know this will be decried by some as “an isolated incident, not worthy of attention” but believe me when I say that “a shiny silver CANNON” accompanied by the COMMAND “BACK OFF NOW!” makes a better deterrent than a chrome towel rail and BEGGING “Please don’t hurt me”.

Sendarius
April 7, 2009
Comment to Operators suggested they call a non-emergency number.
[This is closely related to John Fogh's advise about asking not to be raped.--Joe]

While at Hood Canal in WA State this weekend, my father in-law, who collects movies, treated me to the classic Marx Brothers film, A Night at the Opera from 1935.  It was supposed to be funny I guess, but I found it entirely unfunny yet instructive.

It's a story about two talented, young, attractive and altogether wonderful singers who aren't getting noticed because they're not "famous" enough for the big operators who book a famous (and less talented) singer.  The Marx brothers "correct" the situation by employing fraud, physical force including assault and battery, trespassing and property destruction.  In the end, the two wonderful yet undiscovered singers are given a chance to prove themselves in front of a large audience as the result of the aforementioned crimes, and all is well and good.

It's a perfect depiction of the mindset among today's political Left.

Altogether lacking in the film was any imagination, respect for the successful, or respect for human rights.  The movie goes along with the apparent beliefs of that other more infamous Marx, and of the current Left, assuming that if one person is rich it means that someone else must be made poor.  If someone acquires a dollar, someone else must lose a dollar.  For one person to acquire a job, another must lose a job, and those who are successful must necessarily have stepped on some toes, etc.

The movie was an ugly, hateful stinker in that regard, and as such it received high praise from the critics.

In a free society, the young and talented singers might have gotten together with a few admirers, booked a small venue, and started the sometimes long and always difficult process of proving themselves to willing listeners.  The Marx Brothers, being talented musicians themselves, might have given the two youngsters a few tips and helped them along, to their mutual benefit.  In fact, the more wealth and success in a society, the more the opportunity.

For a realistic depiction of what it takes to "make it" in a free society, check out Will Smith in the movie, "The Pursuit of Happyness".  Aside from the brilliant acting and the captivating story, it's based on the real experience of Chris Gardner, who happens to be a pretty interesting guy himself when you see him on live TV.  I often find reality far more interesting than fiction.

Update:  For another amazing true story, check out the movie, "Broken Trail".  Other than Robert Duvall, the actors are either fairly obscure or unknown.  I like that in a movie.  For example I can't get past that fact that Ferris Bueller commands a regiment in the Civil War.  It's too much for me, and I can't get into the story.  Broken Trail is great in that respect.  It includes everything you'd expect from a good western, and more-- Bravery, cowardice, strength and weakness, grit, determination, lust, true love, disappointment, and a fair amount of gun play.  As I recall I actually teared up (though I didn't let on, and you didn't read this.  Must have been something stuck in my eye) at the final stagecoach scene.  You know what I mean if you've seen it.

When we were out of power, we organized to win the next election. Conservatives, apparently, prefer to talk “revolution” and kill cops.

Markos Moulitsas
April 4, 2009
Twitter Badness: DailyKos Frontpager, Kos Joke About Pittsburgh Cop Shooting
[Typical leftest "thinking". He is cherry picking the data to arrive at the desired conclusion. He "forgets" about last month when it was someone on the left praising the shooting of cops.--Joe]

Ry's asshole dial goes to 11.

I think I'll let him try it.

I gave a friend of Barb and mine a ride to/from Idaho this weekend. She was visiting her boyfriend who was working on job site in Pullman, Washington for a few weeks. Pullman being about 10 miles from my home and on the way made it no big deal. There was a minor complication in that there was "some festival" in Pullman and all the hotels were full and his company had to put them up in a Clarkston for Friday and Saturday night. That added an hour to my trip Friday night but it wasn't that big of a deal to me. Friends do that for friends. On the way back he was going to be in a Pullman motel and it would take zero extra time.

Over the weekend we learned the "festival" was actually "Mothers Weekend" at both Washington State University in Pullman and the University of Idaho in Moscow. So it filled up all the motels in both towns.

Barb working in the hospital reported that emergency room staff say "Mothers Weekend" is always the busiest of the year. They come in drunk, disorderly, and disgusting (a new meaning for triple D as applied to women). It was also reported that condom sales go up 300%*.

After I picked up our friend yesterday and began our trip back to Seattle I reported my findings on the "festival". Our friend burst into laughter that seemed just a little more enthusiastic that was appropriate. She then told me that her boyfriend and co-workers had also found out it was "Mothers Weekend" but they called it "MILF Weekend".

Update: More confirmation of Mom's Gone Wild in Moscow.

Update2: Via an IM from Kris:

If they combined Mothers weekend and boomershoot (on the same weekend)... "ok sweetie, you have fun with the rest of the mothers... I'm going shootin' with the boys "

This was after Kris informed me he probably wouldn't be able to attend Boomershoot this year. It sounds like I need to "sweeten the pot" a little bit for him next year if I want him to come. I'm all for him having a good time, but I'm not going to go that far just to get him to come.

*I questioned the source of the condom sales numbers and Barb asked around at the hospital. "Everyone" had heard it and believed it to be true but no one knew where it came from. I suspect it is an urban myth but it makes a good story.

She hit it off with Nixon from the word go. Beneath her lovable grandmother veneer of course she was as tough, uncompromising, hard-headed, mean, selfish, and vicious as he was. He liked that.

Martin Sieff
Referring to Nixon's meeting with Golda Meir in the '60s.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East, page 127.
[I finished listening to this book on my recent trip to/from Idaho. Good book. He rips both presidents and advisers to both political parties for their naiveté and unrealistic view of the Middle East. It's kind of depression to think that he might be right, the things we value the most such as religious tolerance and electing political leaders cannot work in Arab nations. He claims we have to accept dictatorial rulers for those countries to have stability. The people are not currently capable of handling representative democracies. It just a question of whether it's going to be benevolent or murderous dictators.--Joe]