The View From North Central Idaho

This post inspired by Say Uncle's post about bedtime stories.

Dr. Seuss was clearly a socialist, and the Sneetches story is but a minor example of it.  The Lorax is worse.  Maybe I'll do a post about that later.

I've always wondered why the plain-bellied sneetches didn't just host their own beach parties instead of being all butt hurt and envious over being excluded from the star bellies' parties.  Ayn Rand would tell us that the star bellies were attempting a monopoly, which in a free market (that is to say, a market without some means of enforcing the monopoly through legislation or outright brute force) is merely enticing capital into start-up competition.  If the plain bellies' started throwing really good parties of their own, some of the star bellies would eventually want to attend.  If the plain bellies let them attend, the plain belly organized parties would begin to dominate, or take over altogether unless the star bellies changed their discriminative ways.

A free market is self correcting in so many ways, and correcting against arbitrary discrimination is but one example.  We see this in real life just looking at music or sports pre civil rights era, where excluding black players meant missing out on some of the best.  By the time I was in middle school (late 1960s) Motown was well-represented, if not dominating, the top 40 on AM radio.

That's what I tell my kids.  If their public school teachers can't handle it, well, it's their own problem that they choose to make fools of themselves.

Dennis Henigan apparently thinks of President Obama as the Neville Chamberlain of the gun issue:

Appeasement." What word better describes the current attitude of the Obama administration, and many in the Democratic Party, toward the gun lobby?

The word recently was invoked by syndicated columnist Marie Cocco referring to the approach of the White House to the gun issue. "Obama and the Democrats haven't stared down the gun lobby," she wrote. "They've enabled it."

Is it a stretch to envision President Obama as the Neville Chamberlain of the gun issue?

There is a major problem with this mindset--It's total projection.

The people of this country had a "treaty" with the government. On the issue of guns that "treaty" says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It was people like Henigan in the early part of the last century that began violating that treaty in a manner similar to the way Hitler did the Treaty of Versailles. It was the pro-gun people that did the appeasing and playing the role of Chamberlain for the last 70 years. Obama? He's neither Chamberlain or Churchill. Even though he is politically aligned with Hitler on this issue he isn't even playing in the game. Perhaps he wishes to avoid Hitler's fate or that he is more astute than Hitler and realizes the risk of fighting a multi-front war.

Henigan realizes his hoped for "Final Solution" isn't visible in the political future and is concerned. He goes on to say:

The real problem, of course, is that there is no end to the gun lobby's demands. The more you feed the beast, the more it will want.

Henigan is also wrong on this point. All we want is for the "treaty" to be honored. "Shall not be infringed" should be clear enough and probably is even to Henigan. But, of course, the plain wording of the "treaty" is unacceptable to Henigan and his ilk just as it was to Hitler.

Let's just hope President Obama continues to avoid getting draw into war against gun owners. If war breaks out it could get very ugly and we gun owners, as did the Allies in WW II, might not settle for a negoiated peace and demand an unconditional surrender. And if we have to drop a couple "nukes" to win the war the fallout will be unheathy for everyone.

Sebastian and David Hardy have a few thoughts on Henigan's whine as well.

Microsoft matches charity donations dollar for dollar for full-time (a "blue-badge" in the local vocabulary) employees. The Second Amendment Foundation has been receiving my automatic payroll deductions since I started full time with MS.

Kevin reports my donations, matched by Microsoft, have been put to good use:

I'll post about this again, but last night SayUncle asked a question about donating toward the legal fight for our rights, mentioning that he'd received emails from people saying they'd tried to donate during the Parker/Heller litigation and had been refused. Alan said that there had been a deliberate decision to take that case all the way without outside aid of any kind, which is why offers of assistance had been politely but firmly declined. However, all the current litigation, such as the Chicago incorporation suit and many others, are being paid for by the Second Amendment Foundation and CalGuns. If you want to help now, that's where your money needs to go. I've been receiving solicitations from SAF for a while, but I did not know that they were the financiers of these efforts. They'll be receiving donations from me in the future, and I hope from you as well.

The payroll deductions are open for change starting October 1^st and I'll be increasing the amount they get.

Making the Brady Campaign people cry just a little bit longer tonight niece Lisa picked up her concealed carry permit yesterday.

Via email from Kris:

Combining two of the things that make young men happiest in one place.

http://www.explosionsandboobs.com/

If women in bras and swimsuits are safe for work then so is this site. Refresh the page for another set.

No. I didn't have anything to do with the site or any of the content. If I had both types of pictures would have been more extreme.

The final topic we got into was what he thought the biggest threats to the Second Amendment were, and what we, as bloggers, could do about it.  His response was that he did not feel that the biggest threat to the Second Amendment came from groups like the Brady Campaign, VPC, or the now defunct Second Amendment Research Center run by Saul Cornell.  He believes the biggest threat to the Second Amendment comes from our own extremists and lunatics, and that the biggest way we could contribute as bloggers is in confronting that cancer within our community.

Sebastian
September 15, 2009
Mr. Gura Goes to Reno
[I think it is extremely telling that the Brady Campaign and VPC are not considered a significant threat. They are headed for the dustbins of history.--Joe]

I like listening to Michael Medved's radio program whenever I get the chance.  For one thing, he's good at getting leftists to call in, and then toying with them like a cat playing with a captured mouse.  Once in a while though, I have a major beef.  Discussing Obama's address to Congress last week, Medved commended Obama for saying all the right things (the speech could have been delivered by Ronald Reagan).  Medved was being critical of conservatives who were in turn being critical of Obama's speech.

Sure; Obama said all the right things, in much the same way that Ted Bundy said the right things as he was coaxing his victims into his van.  I'm not going to commend him for it though.

Even with all the relaxed gun laws and the big gun buying spree that began in late 2008 it didn't translate into increased crime rates. In fact it was just the opposite:

Murder and manslaughter dropped almost 4 percent last year, as reported crime overall fell around the country, according to new data released Monday by the FBI.

The 3.9 percent decline in killings reported to police was part of a nationwide drop in violent crime of 1.9 percent from 2007 to 2008. Rapes declined 1.6 percent, to the lowest national number in 20 years — about 89,000.

The statistics are based on crimes reported to police, who then forward the information to the FBI. There were 14,180 murder victims in the United States last year.

"What has been impressive has been how flat all the violent crime rates have been since 2000. To a large degree that's still the case, but the striking change this year has been murder," said Alfred Blumstein, a professor of criminal justice at Carnegie-Mellon University.

The figures show that crime has come way down since its peak in the early 1990's.

This was in the presence of a huge economic downturn which usually is an indicator for increased crime rates. So either gun ownership isn't positively correlated with crime (and in fact is negative associated with crime rates) or there is some other driving factor which observers don't know about or want to talk about.

I think my line in the sand got washed away by the incoming tide.

But I will know where it is when nobody else remembers.

Michael Gale
September 14, 2009
Comment to Jeepers Threepers
[Yeah, it often feels that way.--Joe]

Last Saturday (the 5^th) I borrowed Dad's bulldozer and went playing in the dirt at the Boomershoot range. The main objectives were to make the berm the shooters use a little bit wider and deeper.

We have 22 shooting positions on the berm and prior to 2009 I only allocated six feet per position. This was a little too crowded and since everyone else had at least eight feet I wanted to expand it enough to accommodate eight feet for everyone. I tried to do that last fall for Boomershoot 2009 but didn't quite add enough space. There was only room for 7' 6" for everyone. I really should have taken my laser range finder with me. So this year I brought the laser range finder and added enough that I could give everyone an honest eight feet.

I extended the east end of the berm by about 20 feet:

I think I squared up the end a little bit after taking this picture so it didn't slope quite so much at the very end.

The other problem was that some areas of the berm were not deep enough and people had problems sliding down off the back side of the berm. Here is a before picture:

Here is during my modifications:

For reference purposes the width of the tracks is about 6' 8".

The following is after I smoothed off the top of the berm. I smoothed out the area in front of the berm a little later.

Everyone should have about eight feet of depth as well as width on the top of the berm.

The secondary objectives were to fill in the hole I had made near the Taj Mahal checking for a leak in the water barrel. Here is what it looked like after I got done with it on Saturday:

I extended the parking area into the trees some to give some more shaded area.

I dug out and pushed some big rocks out of the grain field about 1/2 mile to the west on my way back to the house.

I got very dirty. The hat, eye and ear protection left some almost clean spots.

My Gun Blog 45 also got very dirty. No. I didn't test it in this condition.

I didn't think of it at the time but I really should have made a level spot for tents instead of the parking area near the Taj Mahal. If I have time I might go back and do that this fall some time.

Yesterday Barb and I went on a hike on Mount Hood. Some of the details are on my Twitter feed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. A few of the pictures:

Impressive mountain but not as pretty as Mount Rainer where we spent our anniversary a few years ago.

Yes, I was open carrying the entire way. No one said anything but Barb said some people were looking.

We got as high as 7000 feet. I could have gone further but Barb had some tight muscles and was tired.

Some people were carrying skis and snow boards. We didn't actually see anyone come down the mountain on them though.

 Mount Jefferson in the background is almost 50 miles away.
Even without Barb in the picture it was a nice view.

 Lots of interesting plant life at the higher altitudes.
It appeared there had been larger trees here at one time.

I do ask for laws that would restrict sales of M-16s, AK 47s, or Uzi's. I don't care what anyone says, hunting with machine guns makes no sense. The only use for them, the use for which they were intended, is to kill people. Lots of people, real fast.

It's no secret that automatic weapons are so easy to buy that American gun dealers supply the Mexican cartels with 90 percent of the weapons they use to terrorize people on both sides of the border.

Dave Stancliff
September 13, 2009
Let's face it, no one will take the high road to gun control
[Actually, I think it is a secret--since only the anti-gun people believe it. The pro-gun people know they have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars on an automatic weapons of any type if they can find one for sale.

He also implies hunting is the reason people want to own machine guns. None of people that I know who own machine guns claim that is the reason for ownership of them.

Also in the article is the suspicious claim that "About two billion bullets were made in America last year, bringing in about $7.5 billion". This implies an average cost of about $3.25 per round. This is more than a little bit high.

This is all more evidence that the MSM (this guy is a "former newspaper editor and publisher") does not care or is too lazy to know the facts.

Comments can be sent to richstan1@suddenlink.net or www.davesblogcentral.com--Joe.]

I keep hearing what I think are their voices:

Before they make that mistake, politicians who have spent years ignoring their consciences and taking the N.R.A.’s orders should listen closely to Tennessee’s citizens. As one demanded at a local hearing this summer: “Are you going to hear the voices of the unarmed?”

They sound like sheep to me. Sheep that don't realize there are wolves among them.

The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

Thomas Paine
The Rights of Man
[I recently finished "reading" (listening to it) this book. I was familiar with most of the material in it but what struck me was the debate between him and Edward Burke. Burke was defending a monarchical type of government and Paine argued people had "natural rights" that no government had authority to infringe. It was then that I realized just how revolutionary Paine's ideas were and how important to Western society many of them are.

As the product description on Amazon says:

The Rights of Man written by legendary author Thomas Paine is widely considered to be one of the top 100 greatest books of all time. This great classic will surely attract a whole new generation of readers. For many, The Rights of Man is required reading for various courses and curriculums. And for others who simply enjoy reading timeless pieces of classic literature, this gem by Thomas Paine is highly recommended. Published by Classic House Books and beautifully produced, The Rights of Man would make an ideal gift and it should be a part of everyone's personal library.

It's not a particularly long book but it is a very important book.--Joe]

Hanging with Alan Gura. I’ll tell him you said ‘hi’.

Say Uncle
September 11, 2009
Cool
[If I were there (the Gun Blogger Rendezvous) I would say "Thank you!" After that I'd probably be tongue tied. What meaningful thing can you say to someone like that?--Joe]

We don't have anti-gun bigots being prosecuted for violations of 18 USC 241 and 242 but this is another step closer:

Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that 

"[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."

I think its actually a big step closer to where we want to be.

H/T to Ride Fast.

I'd taken my nephew Ben out shooting several times, including the Boomershoot last Spring, and he'd liked it well enough he decided to tell his cousin Matt about it.  Matt decided he wanted to learn about rifles and marksmanship, so they called me and we set up a date.

This Winchester AK-47 is in recoil as a cloud of dirt erupts from behind the 100 yard target.  Ben is behind the controls (or is that terror rifle controlling him?  OMG!!);

Below is Matt firing a Colt AK-47 HBAR from the bench.  After starting out on a Marlin .22 rimfire AK-47 and graduating to the 1894 Winchester AK-47 chambered for the old .30-30 Copkiller cartridge, both off-hand with open sights, this Colt AK-47 shown below with its 4x Trijicon ACOG telescope was as easy for him as, well, something super easy;

And Matt again below, with a Springfield AK-47 HBAR chambered in .308 Massmurder, and a Billybob 3-9 x 40 scope on an ARMS #18 mount.  The deep space telescope on the T&E mount at left is for spotting bullet holes;

The ARMS 18 mount sits nice and low over the receiver, but that nice lowness creates a problem.  Several shots from each magazine result in a failure to eject due to cases hitting the mount.  During Boomershoot I was told that standard M80 ball works fine and dandy with this config.  We were using some super accurate, deadly at 37.25 miles, sniper rounds in this AK-47, but I had tried the far-less-dangerous-to-the-climate-and-all-things-holy, M80 earlier, and the claims made by some military shooters at Boomershoot seem to be correct.  For some reason, I'll guess op-rod velocity, the .mil stuff seems to run without being stopped by the ARMS mount.  My preferred load for this AK-47 though is the Black Hills 168 grain Match/Terrorist/AngryRacistMob round.

By the way; if you're contemplating installing ANY receiver scope mount on an M1A (sorry-- AK-47) you must plan on hand-fitting it, or having it fit by someone who's aware of this issue.  Your chances of a drop-in fit are quite low, from my experience, and from talking with many other users.  That includes a Springfield mount on a Springfield rifle too.  It took me hours of file-and-try, file-and-try, to get this ARMS mount to sit on there correctly.  The catch is; it SEEMS to go on OK with the first try, but if you tighten the receiver bolt, you're potentially distorting your receiver, mount, and bolt threads, as the mount is being forced into a position it can't fit.  You then notice, either before you've spent hours at the range in frustration, or after, that the mount's rail isn't near well enough aligned with the barrel to get a zero.  That's if you're lucky.  If you're unlucky like I was when I installed my first Springfield mount, the rail will be close enough in alignment that you can actually get a zero, and then things go all to hell afterwards as your mount and receiver slowly peen together, and the zero never stays in one place for long.  If the mount is fit properly, the design and function is quite successful, other than the aforementioned ejection issue.  This Springfield AK-47 has never had a single stoppage otherwise, either.  'Course, if you have the standard barrel version, you solve all this time and heartache by using the UltiMAK M8 forward mount.  One problem THERE is; a lot of owners don't really know which barrel weight they have, and SA was making it worse for a couple years by naming one of their medium weight barrel models the "Loaded Standard".  Yeesh.  But they fixed that since.

Recently there has been a lot of talk of government rationing of health care. In the U.K. they have been rationing health care for a long time now and now there is talk of expanding their influence to other things:

Air travel is expected to at least double by the middle of the century as new airlines spring up in developing countries like China and rich countries like Britain expand airports such as Heathrow.

However the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) fears unlimited growth of air travel will cause greenhouse gas emissions to increase and therefore cause global warming.

...

The CCC report comes as a think tank suggested that the unless the UK manages to meet tough targets on cutting greenhouse gases within the next three years, everyone in the UK will have to be rationed on the amount of energy, car use and flights they take.

The Institute for Public Policy Research suggested people have a certain amount of carbon credits that limits the amount they can spend on luxuries like air travel.

I realize my sample size is small and my methodology is subject to considerable bias but I wouldn't have thought my conclusions would differ this much from this study:

From relieving boredom, to keeping the peace or curing a headache, women have sex for many reasons but romance and passion come rather low on the list, a new book has revealed.

One woman even admitted to having sex just so her husband would put the rubbish out.

"Research has shown most men find most women at least somewhat sexually attractive, whereas most women do not find most men sexually attractive at all," Why Women Have Sex authors Cindy Meston and David Buss said.

Having apparently discounted physical attraction, the 1000 women interviewed by the Texas University professors gave a huge range of reasons for sleeping with a man.

One said she did it for a spiritual experience, proclaiming: "It's the closest thing to God."

But mostly the explanations were far more mundane, with 84 per cent admitting to having sex just to ensure a quiet life or to bargain for household chores. One woman said: "I have sex to relieve the boredom because it's easier than fighting. Plus it gives me something to do."

The book is here. It's not currently available on Audible but Amazon says an MP3 version will be available October 26^th so I might be able to pick it up for my Zune next month and review their research.

In the mean time maybe I should do further research on my own. Barb just looked over my shoulder and says she has sex for revenge. I wonder if that means I shouldn't increase my sample size...

A a good joke is based on at least a little bit of truth. Examples are here and the variation here.

Life imitated art just down the road from me (even closer to home is that Ry, son James, and I used to work in the building next door):

Kirkland police, contacted today for more details, said a passerby on their way to the local farmer's market called 911 saying that they thought they saw someone walking down the street with an AK-47 about 4:20 p.m.

Here is the AK-47:

The UK has really gone down the slippery slope and is exploring the deep end.

PC
August 27, 2009
Comment to Glass Control
[PC was referring to plans for beer glass restrictions but the same comment applies to British Scouts not being allowed to carry pocket knives.--Joe]

I've mostly ignored the "Prags" v. "Threepers" divide in the gun rights activists community. But then after making this post the comments lead to one thing, another, then another. Sebastian got more than a little sarcastic. So now I think it is time for me to say something.

It maybe true that I don't have much chance of breaking new ground but I'm going to try.

First let me attempt to define the position staked out by the "combatants". Because I have been mostly ignoring the "battle" I may not have this quite right so please feel free to correct me if I misrepresent someone.

The position of the "Threepers" is that the line has been drawn in the sand here and now. Not one further inch (or millimeter) of infringement will be allowed. If further restrictions are made then it will be resisted. That resistance may be passive such as refusing to comply with registration or licensing. That resistance may be subversive as in smuggling or participation in a black market. Or in the face of forced compliance they will actively resist using armed force if necessary. Quoting the primary advocate for this position:

We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

You can try to kill us, if you think you can.

But remember, we'll shoot back.

And we are not going away.

Your move.

The origin of the name "Threeper" is also of potential interest and comes from the same site as linked to above:

During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

The pragmatists or "Prags" are those that take essentially the default position of political activists for defenders of the 2^nd Amendment and liberty in general. The term "Prag" is used primarily as a derogatory term by the "Threepers" and hence are mostly defined and identified by them rather than the "Prags" self-identifying as such.

The position of the "Prags" is now is not the time to take up arms to regain or defend our lost rights. Even publically discussing such action is "scaring the white people" and as such is counter productive. "Threepers" might claim the "Prags" will never take up arms and will be do nothing more than grumble no matter how oppressive government becomes. Some defenders of the "Prag" position might claim that the threshold for using force exists but we just aren't there yet. If nothing else when they are "loading up the box cars headed for the camps" or they start going door to door to collect arms they will start shooting.

I am of the opinion that both sides have valid claims advantages for their positions and both have valid criticisms of the other side. I am also of the opinion the effort spent squabbling with each other would be better spent on other endeavors and perhaps the best of both sides can be synthesized into something better than either.

Neither psychology nor politics are my specialty but I am of the opinion the "Threepers" are overlooking something in the psyche of the U.S. population and are making a tactical error.

They have some things right, such as a lot of anger and resentment which exists at the excessive government and the massive infringement of liberty. The thing I think they are overlooking, or at least excessively discounting, is that people in the U.S. have by history and principle, perhaps unarticulated and even subconsciously, have near zero tolerance for bullies and hypocrits. I know they believe of themselves and advocate from a position of standing up to government bullies but I fear it will be far too easy for the media and the government to spin the "Threepers" position as the bullies and hypocrites. They can be spun as bullies because they are willing to use force to get their way.

They can be spun as hypocrites because they insist the government adhere to the constitutional restriction on government powers but reject legal restrictions on them even though those restrictions have passed through legislative debate and vote, executive signing, and judicial review.

The bully aspect brings up another concern. The people in power will take exceptional offense because they self selected to acquire those positions of power and are very jealous of it--they have at least a little and in many cases a lot of bully in them. To challenge them, to make them look impotent will cause them to expend far more resources than if it were some ordinary person that was injured or had their property damaged. Think of the laws that punish those that injury or kill law enforcement and government officials compared to those that punish people that don't draw a government paycheck. The resourced devoted to "bring the perpetrators to justice" will be far, far, more than those devoted to catching and punishing someone that committed the same injury against a private citizen. There may be claims of "equal protection under the law" but there are different laws that apply and a much different attitude is there to back it up. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

The tactical error I think they are making is publically identifying themselves. Even if they use aliases and handles unless they take some rather extreme OPSEC precautions they can be easily tracked down. If there is an "incident" in a particular geographical area that has anything close to a flavor resembling something from a "Threeper" website or email there is going to be a relatively short list of "people of interest". With the disproportionate resources devoted to "the problem" the chances of getting away with it are much lower and will discourage others from attempting something similar. This last claim may be a bit weak because depending on the circumstances and type of coverage the "incident" gets it is possible martyrs will gain sympathy for the movement. But I think it is extremely risky to count on this. Law enforcement and politicians in particular will be able to sense the risk of sympathetic martyrs and do their best to avoid that scenario. Drug dealers get near zero public sympathy even though a case could be made that they are exercising an infringed upon liberty. I claim "gun dealers" are a very short distance from "drug dealers" in the hands of skilled propagandists manipulating public opinion.

The "Prags" are correct that progress is being made via political and judicial processes. D.C. v. Heller over throwing the D.C. ban on handgun possession is the crown jewel of this. It was a political process that watered down the '94 "assault weapon" ban to have an expiration date and the requirement that effectiveness studies be done. It was political processes that prevented the AWB from being renewed. It was political processes that restored our right to carry self-defense tools in National Parks.

As successful as the "Prags" have been in the last decade that could all be wiped out in another decade or two. Think of the widespread drug use in the 1960s which was essentially ignored by police and politicians. By 1980 we had much harsher laws and SWAT teams were breaking down doors with no-knock warrants (at least at the Federal level created because of the risk of drug evidence being destroyed see also here). Do you think it couldn't happen? How many drug users were there in the 1960s compared to gun owners today? With the wrong people on the Supreme Court and/or the wrong poster children challenging the laws the "reasonable regulation" language of the Heller decision could result in Federal laws that mirror the gun laws of New Jersey where "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril."

The questions that have to be asked of the "Prags" are, 1) "What is your threshold at which you will tolerate no more infringements and take up arms to defend them?" And 2) "If you are fully committed to only the defined political and judicial processes then how can you say you are not condemning our children, grandchildren, or great grandchildren to a life of perpetual servitude?" Remember the words of Winston Churchill.

Reader Rob recently asked me in email, "Has there been any time in history where a government once having usurped human rights, has returned them without blood shed to regain them?" He proposed this as a "cousin" to my Just One Question. I managed to poke some minor holes in his implied assertion but I think the point is mostly valid. Infringed rights extinguished for a generation are probably going to go extinct. Think of machine guns in this country and handguns in the U.K. the odds are very slim that those will be regained via political and/or judicial processes. If the "Prags" say they will take up arms "if the conditions are right" then there really isn't that much difference between the "Prags" and the "Threepers". It's only a matter of where they each draw the line and how publically they do it.

As a self-defense firearms instructor one of the most important lessons I try to teach my students is to draw a line in advance of actually needing to use deadly force. As John Clifford once convinced me of in a private conversation is that "When you draw your gun is far more important than how fast you draw it." If you don't know when to draw it the "game" will be over without you drawing. You must "draw a line in the sand" and stick to it or you might as well not have a gun at all. I think this probably applies on the larger scale of government tyranny. What went through the minds of the Jews in Germany during the 1930s or the gun owners in the U.K. as they suffered one infringement after another? Wasn't their surrender without a fight a failure to "draw a line in the sand" and stick to it?

Assuming these observations and conjectures are true what conclusions can be reached? I claim the following:

• As long as the "Prags" are making progress there is little or nothing to be gained by a pure "Threeper" philosophy
• The "Threeper" mindset of preparation and training if expressed in terms of firearms sports (USPSA, IPDA, Steel Challenge, and even Boomershoot) and disaster preparedness can be almost as useful in preparing for an armed conflict
• Firearm sports as training exercises will give plausible deniability and enable the recruitment of far more people than an open declaration of hostility to government infringements backed up with threats of violence
• The mindset of a gun enthusiast is nearly incompatible with that of statist determined to infringe the rights of others--the more gun enthusiasts we can recruit the more liberty lovers we will have recruited
• All people should "draw their line in the sand" but such lines should be kept, for the most part, private
• If people take action after their line has been crossed it should be in such a way that it maximizes the chances of getting away with it

But the most important claim I make is probably not obvious and is the opposite tactic of that by all other groups that I know of in this country that have used violence to further their aims. If illegal action is taken it should be in such a manner that the political goals are hidden to the greatest extent practical. Earth First taking credit for property destruction does not further their cause. People in the U.S. do not respond well to threats. I believe the same applies to "Threepers".

If you decide it is time to take action it will be better for the action to appear as an accident, motivated by personal (is that judge who is hostile to gun rights sleeping with someone's wife?) rather than political reasons or even the action of your enemy. Even if the action were to be the destruction of multiple parking lots filled with ATF vehicles it is better to let the motivation for the action to be ambiguous (was it politically motived by the laws restricting alcohol, or tobacco, or firearms, or explosives, or rocketry, or one of any other number of special interest groups?) than for credit to be taken. Politically it will be much easier for both friends and enemies in government to change government behavior to comply with your wishes if they can believe it wasn't because of the illegal activities of activists they are conforming with. How will they know what needs to be done to stop the pain? They'll know. They aren't stupid. They can connect the dots and form reasonable hypothesizes to act on from just two and certainly three hostile events (two points define a line, three confirm it). But the mindset of the U.S. people will not allow them to act on those hypothesizes if they are fully confirmed by someone taking credit or getting caught and their affiliation revealed. And even if they don't move the government in a friendly direction if the action reduces the resources available for infringement of liberties it is still a net win.

I found out a few minute ago that daughter Kim has Swine flu. She was at PAX last weekend and they are reporting others got sick there too.

Son James was also there and got sick as well but hasn't been tested. He is feeling better but Kim is very sick with low blood pressure and the doctor wanting to give her an IV.

Barb spent quite a bit of time around Kim while she was sick before coming over to Seattle to see me yesterday. Tomorrow we leave to celebrate our anniversay (33 years last month) near Mount Hood and planned to do a lot of hiking. If we get sick those plans will change.

Gun bloggers are probably now very happy we are not going to be attending the Rendezvous.

Update: Kim is feeling much better this (Thursday September 10^th) morning.

I didn't do as much blogging this weekend and yesterday as I normally would have. I had extra things to do at work the last few days. Plus I went out to the Boomershoot range and played in the dirt (pictures to follow) all day on Saturday.

At work yesterday afternoon I gave a short presentation and demo (actually I had Gang do the demo since his demo was completed and mine wasn't) despite mangling a few sentences got laughs and applause at all the right spots and I should be able to give blogging a little more time tonight.

I really want to say something about "Prags" v. "threepers". It appears I accidently lit a match near a powder keg with this post (see here and here). Maybe late tonight I'll have something...

SO; rights protection, freedom, and liberty on one hand, and socialist theories and fantasies of utopia and power on the other, cannot co exist. One concept, as Ayn Rand put it, destroys the other. The problem we face is that the pro force crowd isn't going to just sit idly while the pro rights movement takes hold. The problem is that there is a pro force movement. Which will it be then? Who wins? Or rather, does the pro rights philosophy win or do we all lose? To put it more succinctly; will the pro force movement lose, or will we all lose?

This is the real bitch of it all. The socialist movement is one that, at its core, wants to fuck things up that other people have built. That doesn't take much to succeed. Hatred and chaos spread more easily than respect and order. Our ideal of liberty, with government as the protector of rights, is much more fragile. You can spend a lifetime building an estate, meticulously, piece by piece, lovingly assembled, ready to pass it on to your children, and one angry, jealous, socialist fuckwit, or some jihadist, or one of Obama's communist revolutionary friends, can wipe it all out in a heartbeat. We will tend to lose by default.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
September 8, 2009
In the comments.
[Lyle has been hitting quite a few home runs in the comments recently. I wish he would make more blog posts.--Joe]

It's just as a matter of logic that private party sales are more likely to result in criminal use of firearms, but it's an inference at this point.

Dr. Garen Wintemute
September 2, 2009
Gun Show Report Critical of Sales
[The article goes on to say, "But Wintemute defended his report saying it was not meant to be a scientific study. Instead, he said he wanted people to see what happens at gun shows to encourage a closer examination of gun policy."

What the frak? It wasn't a scientific study? Is that the way it was received in the other press coverage? I don't think so. They latched onto it with all the glee of Crack addict deprived of their fix for a week given free access to the police evidence room.

Let's translate his "logic" into something more recognizable for what it is:

It's just as a matter of logic that ni**ers being allowed in public after dark is more likely to result in criminal activity, but it's an inference at this point.

Even if the activity in question did result in a measurable increase in criminal activity the exercise of a specific enumerated right unencumbered by the chilling effect of constant government monitoring is the price that must be paid.

H/T to Dave Workman for finding the article and giving us his own take on it.--Joe]

This goes beyond ironic to absurdist. The question is, what are they going to offer next? Tax holidays on coffins?

Josh Sugarmann
September 5, 2009
Louisiana holds a sales tax holiday for guns
[The state is not allowed to tax churches because the power to tax is the power to destroy and the free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right. Why is the state allowed to tax guns and ammo to begin with?

What if there were 15% tax (there is a 11% Federal excise tax on guns and ammo plus the state sales tax) on the Torah and other religious books and the state dropped the sales tax on the books for a few days? What would the response be if Sugarmann then asked if there was going to be a week where it was legal for humans to be sacrificed for the blood to be used in 'Purim' pastries? The same sort of bigotry would be involved. It would only be a little more obvious.--Joe]

Michael Moore has a new movie out. Capitalism: A Love Story. The LA Times says this about it:

"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes. "You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."

What sort of economic system is he proposing? "Democracy"? That isn't an economic system. And democracies (we are supposed to have a Republic) seldom last more than a few decades.

And the irony is that Moore's wealth and ability to make whatever movie he wants comes from the opportunities afforded him by capitalism. If it weren't for capitalism Moore would be making probably be required by the state to be making exercise videos (if such a thing as videos and fat people even existed) which no one would take seriously. Instead he is making "documentaries" which demonstrate he is totally clueless about any topic he cares about but yet enough people want to believe him that he is able to be a wealthy man. In that sense I suppose capitalism has allowed an evil to exist and prosper but that is hardly sufficient reason abandon an economic system that has improved the status of people more than any in the history of man--even though it has never really been fully implemented.

A few days ago I posted about the need to get off the line of attack when someone is charging at you. I didn't elaborate on what that really means and how to do it. I "knew" the answer because I had seen it done in training at Insights but I could really put it into words as well as I could demonstrate it with real people and fake guns (or fake pepper spray--the same principles apply).

I would be difficult for me to over-emphasis the importance of knowing how to do this. If you know what you are doing and have the right tools you can easily avoid blood loss from a knife attacker starting at less than the normal 21 feet.

John, being the expert trainer and having taught this technique, drew us a picture and put it into words. Words to live by.

One of my more popular posts was Where does the bullet go?. I am somewhat of an expert on small arms exterior ballistics (I wrote Modern Ballistics) but while better than most people on terminal ballistics I usually refrain from saying much on the topic. Greg Hamilton and his colleagues at Insights Training are much higher on that food chain than I am. Although John Fogh doesn't mention it I know a little bit about the research Insights has done on the topic over the years.

John gives us some of the research results on Terminal Rifle Ballistics.

Much like what I was arguing in the post below about violent criminals not being ordinary people who just snap. But I think perhaps we can come together with the Brady Campaign and agree that there ought to be no baring of teeth at political demonstrations. Lest someone be too intimidated to speak out.

Sebastian
September 5, 2009
California Still Has Good Self-Defense Laws
This is referring to a President Obama supporter who bit off the finger of a protester and the Brady Campaign representatives who insist gun owners should leave their guns behind when they go to political events. Even though none of those gun owners have used their guns in an illegal manner.
[Of course the Brady Campaign isn't going to "come together" on this. They want to single out gun owners for "special treatment". Just as KKK members think blacks are deserving of special laws and treatment.--Joe]

I see the proper mindset for defending the right to keep and bear arms is doing well over here.

Read the comments too.

Joe Huffman, I don't want to play that game. I didn't want to on Kevin's blog and I don't want to here either.

Does that give you a major victory over me, that you can say I don't know the difference between truth and falsity? Fine, go ahead.

You and all your friends can say that over and over again. It's a perfect way of avoiding what I am saying, of pointing out what I am saying is wrong, of discussing the issues.

Go ahead, be my guest.

Or if you'd like you can educate all of us about the proper way of determining truth from falsity. It might be interesting to know what you and all your pro-gun friends know that the rest of us, poor liberals that we are, don't.

Mikeb302000
September 5, 2009
Comment to Tamara K. on Dr. Wintemute
In response to "Again, Mikeb30200, how do you determine truth from falsity?" The reference to Kevin's blog about the comments here.
[Being able to determine truth from falsity is a game? Wow! And all this time I thought it was the basis for rational thought and a requirement for membership in the human race.

The issue is that Mikeb302000 believes what he wants to believe regardless of the facts. He is unable or unwilling determine truth from falsity. That makes his assertions based on faith, defined as "Belief without or in spite of evidence to the contrary." That makes his belief system a religion rather than anything approaching science. I don't have a problem with faith based belief systems as long as they leave me alone. But once they attempt to use force (and government is certainly a form of force) to make me conform I have a big problem with it.

That he is obstinately devoted to his own opinions and prejudices makes him a bigot.

Of course, I can't help but have this nagging doubt that since he puts up such incredibly weak arguments that he is really on our side tossing out strawmen for us like clay pigeons in front of Tim Bradley.--Joe]